A brief philosophical paper...

[Reflectionist]

Okay.... maybe it's not 'brief,' but I think it's philosophical. I'm putting it here because it deals with highly philosophical topics. It is about the search for knowledge, though. In addition, it deals with the obvious subjects such as God and Christianity, but it also looks at philosophical concepts such as perception of truth, experiences, motives, and practicality while using examples from the Matrix, early Socratic / Platonic philosophy, and other examples from my life and other's lives that I've noticed.

I think it's far too long to post directly, here. I'll certainly link to it, below.

I don't really have anything 'specific' to 'debate' on, I just want to bounce some thoughts back and forth between you guys and none of the discussion sub-forums seemed to be able to facilitate this sort of thing very well. Feel free to move if necessary, though. Thanks.

Of dogma, dichotomies, dilemmas and paradigms.

There's the writing itself. You're welcome to look at and question / criticize / reference my previous writings as well. Thanks. This is an ongoing process, as well. The next writing is in the works, but is currently in the free-write brainstorming stage.

--Jake--

EDIT -- Upon closer inspection, I do have a couple of questions up for debate.

Firstly, do you believe that religion is a matter of personal belief and is justifiable more in terms personal practicality, than correct / incorrect?

Secondly, are concepts such as science, reason, logic, and most importantly empirical proof even relevant to the search for spirituality, acceptance of, and communion with God?

[QED]

Hello Reflectionist. I'm glad you put up some questions for debate. This post might as well stay put if no other moderators feel inclined to move it.

Firstly, do you believe that religion is a matter of personal belief and is justifiable more in terms personal practicality, than correct / incorrect?

Well, with so many different religions saying so many different things it's a mathematical certainty that most are wrong about a wide range of matters. Religion looks more and more to me to be geared around notions of disgust as defined by local cultural preferences. I have to thank psychologist Jonathan Haidt for that particular insight.

Secondly, are concepts such as science, reason, logic, and most importantly empirical proof even relevant to the search for spirituality, acceptance of, and communion with God?

Spirituality, in the context I mentioned above, becomes another human dimension that runs from the lowest, most disgusting, towards the most sacred and pure. While being entirely artificial this man-made dimension is deeply embedded into virtually all of us thanks to the powerful selective advantage of having an innate sense of right and wrong (both natured and nurtured) about a wide range of practical issues. On this basis, I would say that science (particularly evolutionary neuroscience) is certainly relevant to communing with God.

[Nick_A]

Hi Reflectionist

Firstly, do you believe that religion is a matter of personal belief and is justifiable more in terms personal practicality, than correct / incorrect?

The essential purpose of religion, before being degenerated into tools for secular political purposes, is to satisfy our inner need to experience human meaning and purpose impossible to be satisfied through the normal values of secular life. In this way it is deeply personal. It is practical as it relates to the essence need, but not so in terms of secularism.

Secularism for example requires learning how to lie to be successful. It requires the ability to create an image In contrast the essence of religion, the purpose of which is to reveal our nature, requires learning how to experience the truth of ourselves.

Secondly, are concepts such as science, reason, logic, and most importantly empirical proof even relevant to the search for spirituality, acceptance of, and communion with God?

Yes and no. Spirituality is experienced in the emotions. The genuine spiritual experience is emotional but a quality of emotion that does not arise from the earth normal for animal emotions. Animal love is a quality of love that is normal for higher mammals. Spiritual love is of a higher quality and expression of the Holy spirit. Animal love including our normal emotions are fueled by emotional energy. Spiritual love is fueled by the energy of the Spirit which is of a higher quality and unnecessary for the earth.

Our problem is that we easily fall into imagination so the majority of what are called spiritual emotions are pure fantasy. It is only through consciousness that we can begin to discriminate emotionally. If a person sincerely reads what John means by "Test the spirits" there is a lot there that explains this quality of consciousness.

The relevance of the intellect is not only to participate in the struggle against imagination but to become a Man" in the higher meaning of the word.

For example the Lord's prayer asserts the aim that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Connecting these levels of reality for the benefit of the world requires selfless abilities normally impossible for us. Doing this requires the conscious balance of mind body and spirit so as not to be in opposition to ourselves.

A real man IMO is he who understands his relationship to higher consciousness from where he receives spiritual nourishment as well as his relationship to reactive life to which he gives the substance of what he has received.

[QED]

Spirituality is experienced in the emotions. The genuine spiritual experience is emotional but a quality of emotion that does not arise from the earth normal for animal emotions. Animal love is a quality of love that is normal for higher mammals. Spiritual love is of a higher quality and expression of the Holy spirit. Animal love including our normal emotions are fueled by emotional energy. Spiritual love is fueled by the energy of the Spirit which is of a higher quality and unnecessary for the earth.

According to Jonathan Haidt, Psychologists have conducted clever experiments to determine the kind of love that spiritual love is. It turns out not to be as exclusive as you make it out to be. The spiritual qualities you claim to be "unnecessary for the Earth" are readily understood to be right down to Earth when seen as a vertical dimension defined by both genetically and culturally evolved feelings on the spectrum of practical reverence and disgust. Haidt's insight was a true revelation to me yet I can't seem to get you to comment on it.

I appreciate that it's a secular explanation for a core religious experience and as such is bound to be ill-received by the religiously minded but here we have an explanation which sits comfortably within the framework of known knowns instead of known unknowns like "spiritual energies". Sure we could turn to such things if we're left stumped for answers (as we inevitably will be if we reach too far for some explanations) but we're not struggling in the slightest here.

Maybe you misread my intentions. I have a deep respect for a handful of difficult philosophical questions which remain unanswered. One example would be why I am not a zombie -- why I am not a mere machine that behaves in every way like me yet has no self-awareness or other contemplative abilities. In such cases my respect draws-up close to those who would suggest the only solution is a metaphysical one -- however I would withhold my acceptance of a default answer that depends on ignorance rather than affirmed knowledge.

[bernee51]

The essential purpose of religion, before being degenerated into tools for secular political purposes, is to satisfy our inner need to experience human meaning and purpose impossible to be satisfied through the normal values of secular life. In this way it is deeply personal. It is practical as it relates to the essence need, but not so in terms of secularism.

One of the functions of religious belief, or for that matter any belief system, is, as you state, translative. It translates the obvious slings and arrows of outrageous fortune into something that gives meaning and legitamacy to the believer. This does not negate secular beliefs - for example humanism.

Secularism for example requires learning how to lie to be successful.

Because you say so?

Spirituality is experienced in the emotions.

How do you define spirituality?

Spiritual love is of a higher quality and expression of the Holy spirit.

After you define spirituality I will assess the validity of this claim.

For example the Lord's prayer asserts the aim that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

The same prayer also says "lead us not into temptation" - why would this god have to be beseached to not lead us into tempation? Why would god want to lead us into temptation?

[Nick_A]

QED

For some reason people write about things they've never experienced. How is one to measure the energy of the Spirit?

Spiritual love allows for the love of life itself. It has to be learned. We are not born with this. As animals, we express selective love which is a rudimentary form of spiritual love. There is no benefit for normal fallen man in Plato's cave to exhibit anything in our normal interactions with external life, more than selective animal love. We love this as opposed to that. Our lives are lived this way.

Maybe you misread my intentions. I have a deep respect for a handful of difficult philosophical questions which remain unanswered. One example would be why I am not a zombie -- why I am not a mere machine that behaves in every way like me yet has no self-awareness or other contemplative abilities. In such cases my respect draws-up close to those who would suggest the only solution is a metaphysical one -- however I would withhold my acceptance of a default answer that depends on ignorance rather than affirmed knowledge.

To affirm knowledge you have to be willing to "Know Thyself." If not you'll be like the rest of these people BSing about what they've never experienced. If you want to learn about consciousness, you must try to experience it and retain it.

You ask why you are not a zombie but are self aware. Are you really? How much of your reactive life includes self awareness? Were you self aware when you sat at the computer or did it just happen much like everything happens in nature. Because of our occasional experiences of self awareness we believe we are self aware. A dangerous mistake but it requires you to verify it if these things matter to you.

Say to yourself that "it" is reading this. Don't say I but refer to the body reading this as it. Allow the i's of self awareness to experience this "it". "Know thyself." Observe how quickly you forget and there is no longer a distinction between I and it.. This is why we are not self aware.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Because you say so?

Try telling the truth for a week and see how far you get.

How do you define spirituality?

The need of our normal emotions to experience higher emotions we are capable of.

After you define spirituality I will assess the validity of this claim.

Thank you oh enlightened one.

The same prayer also says "lead us not into temptation" - why would this god have to be beseached to not lead us into tempation? Why would god want to lead us into temptation?

First of all you don't understand the purpose of prayer which is a help in becoming vulnerable allowing us to get out of our own way in the process of awakening. Universal laws that are the structure of ID can be attractive and the temptation is to become attached to them so forgetting our purpose.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Because you say so?

Try telling the truth for a week and see how far you get.

Striving for truthfulness has got me a long way so far...perhaps we are at last getting to the nub of the issue...

A hint: start with your self. A week, however, may not be long enough.

Remember - it is not truth that sets you free - but truthfulness.

How do you define spirituality?

The need of our normal emotions to experience higher emotions we are capable of.

Which means absolutely zip. What are 'normal' emotions? What are higher 'emotions'?

Surely one who is so advanced along the path to 'inner empiricism' can do better than that. I do appreciate, however,that at least you are trying for your self.

Or perhaps you'd be better of doing what you believe has worked for you in the past - defer to one of your demi-gods. I'm sure Simone or Needleman could come up with something less twee.

After you define spirituality I will assess the validity of this claim.

Thank you oh enlightened one.

As you can see I don't think you can do better. I'd expand on that but I am a little busy in the moment. You know what they say...before enlightenment, the laundry - after enlightenment, the laundry.

The same prayer also says "lead us not into temptation" - why would this god have to be beseeched to not lead us into temptation? Why would god want to lead us into temptation?

First of all you don't understand the purpose of prayer which is a help in becoming vulnerable allowing us to get out of our own way in the process of awakening. Universal laws that are the structure of ID can be attractive and the temptation is to become attached to them so forgetting our purpose.

Doesn't answer the question - why would god, who is love permeating the universe, WANT to lead us into temptation in the first place? I though he would have left that up to the Great Beast.

[QED]

QED

For some reason people write about things they've never experienced. How is one to measure the energy of the Spirit?

I actually wonder if it's even possible for "normal" people not to experience every experience that can be experienced. Qualitatively speaking, the range of feelings and emotions is probably more restricted than we might first imagine. Just as a handful of different molecular receptors in our nose gives us a wide spectrum of taste and smell, so it seems are there mostly only quantitative differences among common experiences. Psychologists are able to conduct clever tests that tease out these primitives of experience. I was trying to find the details of one such test I read about a little while ago. It related particular kinds of love to different situations using fMRI. The findings were interesting and wholly relevant to your notion of Spiritual love but I'll defer this argument until I can be more specific.

Spiritual love allows for the love of life itself. It has to be learned. We are not born with this. As animals, we express selective love which is a rudimentary form of spiritual love. There is no benefit for normal fallen man in Plato's cave to exhibit anything in our normal interactions with external life, more than selective animal love. We love this as opposed to that. Our lives are lived this way.

Maybe you misread my intentions. I have a deep respect for a handful of difficult philosophical questions which remain unanswered. One example would be why I am not a zombie -- why I am not a mere machine that behaves in every way like me yet has no self-awareness or other contemplative abilities. In such cases my respect draws-up close to those who would suggest the only solution is a metaphysical one -- however I would withhold my acceptance of a default answer that depends on ignorance rather than affirmed knowledge.

To affirm knowledge you have to be willing to "Know Thyself." If not you'll be like the rest of these people BSing about what they've never experienced. If you want to learn about consciousness, you must try to experience it and retain it.

You ask why you are not a zombie but are self aware. Are you really? How much of your reactive life includes self awareness? Were you self aware when you sat at the computer or did it just happen much like everything happens in nature. Because of our occasional experiences of self awareness we believe we are self aware. A dangerous mistake but it requires you to verify it if these things matter to you.

Say to yourself that "it" is reading this. Don't say I but refer to the body reading this as it. Allow the i's of self awareness to experience this "it". "Know thyself." Observe how quickly you forget and there is no longer a distinction between I and it.. This is why we are not self aware.

I think I understand the point you're making here. There is certainly a type of person you can meet in the street who has a more restricted perspective on things than you do and vica-versa. The question is just how much overlap there is. To some people now is just a "Monday" and if it was not for the odd glimpse of a sky full of stars, the planet Earth could easily be the entire universe.

What intrigued me recently was making a connection between the honeycomb structure in a Beehive and a tall office building divided into glass cells. While it's quite clear that no Bee architect had sat down to devise such a structure, I wondered if it's really so clear that a human architect had done something qualitatively different. If this can be unravelled I wonder if it might also solve the question of self awareness.

[Nick_A]

QED

I think I understand the point you're making here. There is certainly a type of person you can meet in the street who has a more restricted perspective on things than you do and vica-versa. The question is just how much overlap there is. To some people now is just a "Monday" and if it was not for the odd glimpse of a sky full of stars, the planet Earth could easily be the entire universe.

I agree. This is the question of relative vertical human perspective. A dog has only a horizontal perspective and lives through continuing reactions on the horizontal plane of,life.

A lot of humanity is like this and Plato referred to this existence as living in a cave. Yet there is humanity that has acquired vertical perspective in differing degrees. Jesus referred to this as being not of the world but rather having the ability to witness it from a higher perspective.

What intrigued me recently was making a connection between the honeycomb structure in a Beehive and a tall office building divided into glass cells. While it's quite clear that no Bee architect had sat down to devise such a structure, I wondered if it's really so clear that a human architect had done something qualitatively different. If this can be unravelled I wonder if it might also solve the question of self awareness.

I feel I should warn you about suggesting such things. People could take this for being in sympathy with Intelligent Design and in this day and age, you could be strung up for it.

However, since you said it, I believe science can reveal ID, and if so, it is not surprising that some of what it reveals can be obviously beneficial for us such as geometrical relationships.

You mentioned David Chalmers and since you've now given at least the impression that there could be a logic to all this, I've seen some of his articles on the integrascience site that explores this unmentionable of relating science and religion.

http://www.integralscience.org/

Scroll down a bit and you will find the name David Chalmers.

This business of conscious perspective seems obvious to me since I've come to believe that man is dual natured. He has the results of normal mechanical evolution normal for organic life and the purpose it serves. At the same time he has within him the seed of consciousness that involuted into him. It is this seed when beginning to awaken and develop that allows for the conscious experience of self awareness. In Christianity, its development is referred to as the "New man."

"The seed of God is in us. Pear seeds grow pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God seeds into God. " Meister Eckhart