romansh

Are you certain about this? OK? Is it your final conclusion that we can have no final conclusion? As an agnostic, I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but it does not mean I am oblivious to its flaws. Dogen would be rolling over in his grave, I think.

No, that quote is not Nietzsche. The "one with the all" is a form of Buddhism and Easter traditions as far as I can tell. The entire universe is the true human body. This is Dogen ... new age rubbish? Come on tariki ... not drawing conclusions ... by all means fool me, but not yourself. Take your line: We all draw conclusions. Might not couch them as such, but that is OK.

I wondered what Dogen thinks about the "self" as this is one of the central "illusions" Buddhism is often on about. Found this quote: The entire universe is the true human body. The entire universe is the gate of liberation. […] The entire universe is the dharma body of the self. The interpretation goes on to suggest: Now personally I don't feel that I am the whole universe, I also feel I don't have to. To me it seems a logical position and that for me is OK "I'm not trying to head anywhere. " Then wherever is fine. A wise person once said: When I look deep inside of myself I see the universe quietly staring back at me.

I understand that differently from you.

In that case tariki - I have no idea what Dogen was trying to say or Hee Jin Kim's interpretation.

Acceptance and understanding are one, anybody? Not that different from what I am trying to say.

In Joseph's word - "acceptance" and here I think he means accepting things as they are, illusory or otherwise. For me it is understanding, and this may lead to acceptance. In an unfolding universe no. Acceptance and understanding. Ending? you got to be kidding. And yet (I would argue) justness is illusory. How do we apply justice to illusory good and evil?

We seem to be agreeing For me, once we understand reality and perception do not match is neither negative nor positive. In the case of red fire trucks close to 100 % of the time, it's irrelevant. For things like justness, a little bit of understanding of the underlying reality would be in order, I think. I get what you are saying, I feel the concept of justness too. Sometimes I feel retribution is justified too. And this comes from the feeling someone could have done otherwise. But that is for a different thread It's tough to let go. I'm not there yet, and probably never will be and that too is OK.

You know this how Paul? Here I assume you mean the colour of the fire truck. I agree with you here. Paul, my question is what do we call it when perception does not match reality? I call my perception an illusion, what do you call it? I don't see it as a negative thing.

Paul ... you said I would agree if you said fire engines have a perceived colour. The point I am trying to drive home is: are they the colour they absorb? are they the colour they reflect? are they the colour of our photochemical reactions in our cones are they the colour of our brain processing the signals from our optic nerves? Here's a story from snowy Canada. One evening coming out of work it had snowed the day before. A workman had placed a dirty great big yellow bull rail behind my truck. With the sodium vapour lights on in the evening, all I could see was white that blended in with the snow. Reversing out I gave it a good clunk. Basically, any colour I "perceive" is produced in my brain. In philosophical circles this debate is summarized as: naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. from wiki. Understanding the science behind colour vision tells me we don't experience things as they are. When you say, "Our perception or sensory experience of the colour we call red, is very real." I said earlier: Does not mean illusions can't be used or not be useful. Just that we might be cautious of thinking illusory "just" and "unjust". When we go to a magic show and the illusionist makes a woman disappear and woman disappear in a cage, does not mean the tiger and woman are somehow unreal.

Definitely not! We experience them through chemical reactions, and our experience is brain-made. Our brains are experiencing a different set of photochemical reactions in our cones, yes! But we should not fall into the semantic trap of thinking our experience is the thing. We have different names for different experiences that we label as colour. What is the difference between delusion and illusion? Both of them exist. I use illusion in the sense of something is not as it seems. Delusion would be believing something is as it seems, when it is not. For example, some species of butterfly have transparent wings (no pigmentation) and yet appear brightly coloured and patterned. Do the wings have colour? At best the concept of colour is a process: light absorbing, light reflecting, photochemical reactions, chemical reactions and somehow it ends up as consciousness of colour. Saying an object is coloured is a semantic shortcut. Saying a fire engine is red, I know what you mean. You are describing a fairly consistent experience that I can relate to. Similarly thinking of something as just or unjust (desert so to speak) I understand the experience, but it does not make sense in a deterministic, indeterministic or mixed world.

I must admit, I fundamentally and strongly disagree. A majority vote does not decide reality, presidents perhaps. I am sure your high school education described colour sufficiently accurately. For example, does an object have the colour of the light it absorbs or reflects? Is the colour the photochemical reactions in your trichromat cones, or is it a product of processing in the prefrontal cortex and the other bits of the brain? We can go through a similar process, though not as well studied for justness.

One of the tricks I use when evaluating ideas, take a look at adjectives and adverbs in the sentence people use. Usually, I put in the opposite or sometimes remove them and see how the sentence changes. Can "being just" come to us unnaturally? And what's the difference between coming to us and naturally coming to us? I am not saying it should be dismissed as being outside of reality. Illusions are real, but we can treat something more appropriately by realizing something is an illusion. Justness is not apart from reality. It is a rule of thumb ... We perceive fire engines as red. It does not mean they are red.

The concept of "justness" is a human "construct". I remember watching a nature documentary and an ant colony decimated a termite mound. My sympathies lay with the termites, but I understand the two communities are competing for the same resources. When a cheetah chases down a buck, who are we rooting for? Or when we get a fungal infection, we understand that this is the order of things. We don't think it is unfair or just that the cheetah does or does not get the buck. Yet when it comes to humans, we might place our actions in binaries, continuums, or whatever. We hold ourselves apart from existence. This is a product of Christian/Abrahamic thinking. We are chosen people. Remember "Interbeing"? While it is understandable that we divvy up the world into binaries or continuums, it does not necessarily make sense. Then are you content with where you are?

I think principles are just fine ... in the sense of rules of thumb. I would argue evolution has imbued us with the capability of having a sense of fairness, morality etc. Society, I suspect, fills in what to be moral about and gives guidelines to what is fair. Just because we have concepts of justness does not mean justness exists. Similar to a rose being red. The concept of red and even its perception exists. Does not mean objects are actually red. Similarly, for "just" actions. What I am trying to say is modern interpretations of Christianity have got it wrong. Genesis counsels us not to think in terms of right and wrong (being unjust would be wrong). Today's Christianity is full of right and wrong. I am afraid the secular world is following in Christianity's footsteps. @Tariki ... I am not sure where you are heading with your reply?

I think the question is flawed at some fundamental level. Is anything just? Does "justness" exist? And then we can move on to: is any part of existence "just"?

An animated poem from an atheistic point of view. Warning may contain Australians and language. Storm

Have you read Joseph Campell at all? His four purposes of religion assp awe - to give us a sense of awe with respect to existence. science - to provide a scientific explanation of existence. society - to give us guidelines on how to meander our way through existence. psyche - to give us an insight into how existence shapes our inner workings. Of course, there are other aspects of our lives that have passed religion by. Telescopes and microscopes definitely give me a sense of awe. Science itself has left religion in the dust as explanations of existence go. Our societal structures like the judicial system and government certainly provide comprehensive and adaptable guidelines. I would argue the young science of psychology has a way to go to catch up to give us reliable insights into our psyche.

Thanks ... I think I understand. This origins in some reality is it natural in that there is no so called Godly intervention?

Thanks Rob, Can I ask a direct question? Do you believe about two thousand years ago an angel came to someone called Mary or Maryam or whatever it is in Aramaic and foretold of some kind of a divine birth where a literal son of God would be born? And then this actually happened? Just trying to clarify what you really believe.

I always have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. Assuming it is our objective to bring Qataris into our tent, then what is the best method? Boycott? I ask the same question for Russians. Here I really struggle.

Welcome Rob I like Herefordshire. My summer holidays in my childhood were often spent in/near Almeley and the wife's sister now lives near Lyons Hall.

Since then, May, Boris and Truss. May was dealt an impossible hand, Johnson ... what can I say. And Truss.

I wonder if and when the electorate and population at large will recognize their role.

Many countries are beginning to look more populist. Looking out for number one so to speak. A milestone was Cameron agreeing to a referendum to shut up the Brexiters. And yet the people as a whole voted for something that made no sense and was likely to be against their own interest. It was UK's Trump moment. I suppose it is simply this bit of the universe unfolding.