PaulS

7 hours ago, romansh said:

I would agree if you said fire engines have a perceived colour.

Perception is one side of the coin, but what is actually happening to/with the firetruck is reality, not illusion.  Regardless of how we perceive light/refraction/reflection/whatever, the fire truck is the fire truck.  The colour that we label it, or how we come to see it as a colour, exists whether we perceive it or not.  That's what I meant when I said it was a different colour to a tree.  Both are what they are and the way light deals with them is what it is.  More precisely, if I close my eyes nothing changes to the fire truck or tree itself does it?  So for me, whatever happens to the fire truck to make it perceived by us as a colour, is a reality and not an illusion.

But I think we are probably talking about the same thing, just slightly differently explaining it.

7 hours ago, romansh said:

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.

Again, yes it is produced in our brain, but brains don't typically have the ability to produce it in unlimited number of fashions.  Typically our brains produce it in the same, uniform way, with some deviations (e.g. colour blindness, and maybe degrees of that).  

7 hours ago, romansh said:

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:

But we are experiencing it as it is, we have no other choice, it's just that we need to recognise that our experience could be a different experience to that of how another experiences the very same thing.  But again, I think we are agreeing here. 

7 hours ago, romansh said:

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.

So like the fact that the fire engine and the tree do exist and are physically perceived as a certain colour, as described by us but subject to different experiences of the very same thing, I wonder too if something being just or unjust can also similarly exist, its just that like colour our perception of how that actually looks can indeed be different.  Unlike physical objects though, here we are talking more about concepts and judgements which don't have a physical presence and so are subject to even broader perceptions.

On 11/16/2022 at 1:08 AM, romansh said:

Definitely not! We experience them through chemical reactions, and our experience is brain-made.

But our brains are responding to existing external stimuli - stimuli that are different for a firetruck we perceive as red than they are for a tree that we perceive as green.  I get that what we call red is simply our perception and response to the external stimuli, so to that end I agree we could call it 'illusion', but I still maintain that they process/stimuli/occurrence is very real and so in other ways it is NOT an illusion.

On 11/16/2022 at 1:08 AM, romansh said:

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.

Agreed - but the 'thing' is that it actually does exist, irrespective of what we want to call it.  Unless one is colour blind, the majority of the human species will only recognise the fire engine by what we recognise as the colour red.  And scientifically we know that 'colourblind' people will perceive red as a different shade.  The colour, or rather the cognitive processing of colour/light/reflection/refraction, is not an illusion.

On 11/16/2022 at 1:08 AM, romansh said:

We have different names for different experiences that we label as colour.

Yes

On 11/16/2022 at 1:08 AM, romansh said:

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.

I consider 'illusion' to be an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.  Our perception or sensory experience of the colour we call red, is very real.  It exists.  We don't make it up physically, but we do label it different names.

On 11/16/2022 at 1:08 AM, romansh said:

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 just don't know if that is always the case.  I think we can claim some things as just or unjust, and yes we will disagree, and yes when times change something that was considered just may now be unjust and vice versa.  But I don't think that takes away the 'justness' of something in the present because it is the present that we use to measure justness. 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

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.

Without a doubt, fire engines are a color!  Can we agree on that?  What that color actually is, how it is received by the brain, differentiates it from other 'colours'.  Irrespective of whether your trichromat cones are reacting, or your brain is processing, clearly you are reacting/processing differently when you see the color 'blue' for instance.  That's why we have different names for different colours - they exist (in some way) and our brain can differentiate them to a large degree, and then matches to what our language has developed to 'represent' that perception.  It is no illusion - it exists.  

35 minutes ago, romansh said:

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.

Fire engines are red because that is the descriptor we use for the color that the majority of the population physically observe.  The illusion isn't the fire truck, nor is it an illusion that the fire truck is a different colour to say a tree. The only 'illusion' per say is the accuracy of the descriptor.  

So like most of us can differentiate a color and call it red, so too I think most of us can differentiate from what is just and what is unjust, with plenty of room for error and individual assessment.  No?

On 11/13/2022 at 2:38 AM, romansh said:

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.

Justness is a human construct, but it also does come naturally to us - so I am not sure it can be dismissed as outside of reality.  Consciousness and justness have developed as part of our evolution.  I'm not convinced these are 'apart from existence' - It is part of our reality.

5 hours ago, romansh said:

 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.

Absolutely.  Evolution has given us judgement, which we extend to matters of morality, which is really just societal concepts of what society generally thinks is best for itself.  What that morality looks like is clearly in the eye of the beholder, even though there are some less moral things we can easily judge as harmful to our society, so these are generally agreed as values to uphold (e.g. don't murder another without a very good reason).  I agree & disagree that 'justness' does not exist.  Our reality is that we do assess the just or unjustness of various situations.  So in that frame justness does exist.  Yet what is considered 'just' today, may be considered an injustice tomorrow, when societal opinions change.  So to that extent I understand you to mean that 'true' justice, a universal, unquestionable justice, does not exist.

5 hours ago, romansh said:

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?

Rather than right or wrong, black or white, I think justness exists on a linear scale of degrees, and takes into account mitigation.  I was thinking of 'just' and unjust' being more about the 'sentencing' than rather whether an action is right or wrong.  In the case in point, irrespective of whether one thinks a lack of Christian belief is right or wrong, I think the sentence per se, i.e. eternal torment and separation from God, strikes me as ludicrously evil, and it's that type of injustice that many Christians don't seem to be able to move past, but rather are stuck in the doctrinal belief system and too afraid to question or challenge it.

12 hours ago, romansh said:

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"?

As human beings, the principal of justice exists in our societies.  'Justice' forms part of our core behavior.  Obviously what actually is or is not just, and/or to what degree, is subjective.

My original post is referring to a penalty for an offence - a situation our society applies this consideration to - and whether that penalty makes any sense from what we otherwise consider 'just' and fair.

A key plank for me initially questioning and then losing my traditional Christianity, was seeing God's 'justice', as taught to me through my fundamental & evangelical religion, as actually unfair and not just at all.  Eventually I understood it to be a man-made rule set, but initially I came to think that God was simply hideous & cruel. 

I was indoctrinated from birth to believe that all humans are born evil, that all require forgiveness from God via accepting that Jesus died for their sins (i.e. inherited simply by being born), and that failure to believe that Jesus was a human sacrifice to God, who was physically resuscitated 3 days later, meant that non-believers were rightfully sentenced to eternal pain and suffering in a existence separated from God and their loved ones and friends, forever and ever.  No extinguishment of life per se, just pain and suffering and separation for billions and billions and billions of years.

Looking back on it all now, I just can't imagine how an adult who has spent some time in this world, who has taken the time to know other human beings, can actually still view this theology as reasonable.  I used to think the core of Christianity was compassion, but it seems to me that religious belief in the theology expressed above, has the power to forgo true compassion in the name of religious doctrine. I even asked my mother once, who is a strong believer in traditional Christianity, how she thought she could live happily in an eternal heaven knowing her son was suffering in an eternal Hell.  Clearly she can't imagine it, which is why she just reassured me that I too was going to Heaven (as I had 'accepted' Jesus when I was an ignorant 14 year old).

I don't have the psychological know-how to describe how this works, but to me it seems the 'security' a believer gets from this theology is what keeps them in the belief, irrespective of who else it harms and hurts.  Proper compassion gives way to 'being right', and all because somebody told them that's how it is.  To me it is no surprise the world continues in the state that it is with all its fighting, pain and suffering, hunger and calamity - it is largely because we still adhere to a mindset that compartmentalizes compassion.

I'm sharing this for anybody who wears contact lenses, although it is also a potential risk for others too.

A couple of months ago I had a friend lose sight in one eye from an infection - Bacterial keratitis.  He incurred a scratch in his eye (most likely a grain of sand whilst gardening) and within a day his eye had become itchy and red.  He just put it down to the scratch.  The next day it was worse with some eyeball pain, but his doctor said don't worry - give it a couple of days.  The next day it was really painful and unbelievably, when he went to Emergency they just brushed him off and said wait a day or two to see if the scratch comes good.  The next day his pain was so great he went to a different Emergency, and was admitted to hospital for 4 days and now has lost his vision in his eye due to this infection damaging his cornea.

I had never heard of this specific problem before, even though I wear contacts myself, and was always just told to be 'cautious' as bacteria can sometimes breed behind the contacts.

Anyway, I got a scratch to my eye on Wednesday night from a new contact lenses that didn't sit well.  Thursday morning my eye was red and sore, so I just changed contact lenses which gave me a little relief, so I thought I was all good.  That night in bed, my eyeball was hurting, so remembering my friend's recent experience I headed straight to Emergency, where the Doctor identified bacterial keratitis, provided me antibiotics and arranged for an emergency presentation to an eye specialist the next day, who prescribed further antibiotics. The specialist advised that this was an aggressive infection and that if I had left it another 24-48hrs, I'd be in the same boat as my friend!

So, just a word of warning, to anybody in general, but specifically to those who wear contact lenses - do not muck about with sore/scratchy/painful eyes and immediately see a doctor - just perhaps not the first two that my friend saw!

44 minutes ago, tariki said:

All things can be learnt from but a lot of learning is painful.

Yes, it was horrible at the time, but it was a learning experience, that's for sure!  And it taught me a lot about empathy and suicide itself.  As a police officer I had been to countless numbers of suicides (car gassings, hangings, jumping in front of trains, shotguns to the head, etc), and I always wondered if the person was brave or gutless to commit that act.  I now realize that they were just in a very dark place that they couldn't get out of, and suicide was their only solution.  Such a waste really.  After I got well I volunteered for the next several years with The Samaritans.

On 10/29/2022 at 7:42 PM, spiritseeker said:

Hi everyone!

I would love to study the Bible with progressive Christians who are open minded, have doubts and happy to question things. Does anyone know of any online groups that may do this? 

Thanks,

Brad

I can't speak from experience Brad, but I see that you're from Victoria and there is a Progressive Christina Network of Victoria online -  https://www.pcnvictoria.org.au/about-progressive-christian-network/about/.  Maybe they might know of something?

Cheers

Paul

On 10/31/2022 at 2:10 AM, romansh said:

An animated poem from an atheistic point of view.

Warning may contain Australians and language. Storm

 

I love Tim Minchin....and not just because he's a fellow Aussie! (Even raised in my home city) 

Thanks for sharing, Derek. I can totally relate.

Have been in that dark hole myself - spent about a year suffering pretty extreme anxiety and depression to the point that I was thinking I was going to need to kill myself to make it go away.  Obviously I didn't, and with the help of an excellent psychologist, medication, and this Forum - I found my way out of that hole, and after a few years I was more on track.  I'm not plugging any of that as everybody's solution - just what worked for me, at that time, luckily.  Anxiety and depression revisits me a little from time to time, but nothing like that acute period I had starting back in about 2009.

I must admit I know very little about the players in UK politics.  Do you have any hope for Rishi Sunak leading the country?

Concerning cults, I've often wondered what differentiates Christianity as a whole from being considered the ultimate cult - a 'Jesus Cult'.  It seems though, because it's generally 'popular' around the western world, it doesn't get called a cult per se.

Maybe it is some consolation Tariki, that this event will in many ways open Qatar up to the world - to safety standards, to scrutiny of laws concerning homosexuality, 'modesty' standards, women rights, etc.  I know the construction deaths are a far cry from why we accept in the western world, and the substandard & inhumane conditions that much of their labor live in is disgusting.  But there will be a huge influx of westerners, and TV coverage, and journalists etc, that hopefully may help in moving the country forward just a little, in some of these areas.

Hi Robert,

Welcome to 'outing' yourself here  .  If you don't mind me asking, just out of curiosity, roughly how long have you hovering around the TCPC Forum for?  I hope you don't mind answering - it's just that I see we have a lot of 'visiting' traffic but quite a limited number of visitors usual progress to introducing themselves and actively participating in the Forum.  I'm very pleased that many people utilize the Forum, and even more pleased when people want to actually participate discussions.

Thanks for introducing yourself and I hope you enjoy participating here.

Cheers

Paul

At least records are being made in politics there, Tariki!

Maybe take some comfort in the US's experience over the last few years, Tariki!
 

1 hour ago, tariki said:

A slight tangent, but I think of Dogen once more, and of his time in China when he was seeking for the answers to his very own questions. His then teacher taught "the power of the present moment as the only moment". Yet also that this doesn’t mean that there is no future result from practice.

The circle of the way, yet a "movement toward Buddha".

Yeah, trying to stay in the present is a real hard one for me - I'm often looking forward, either worrying a little or trying to plan out what's to come.  I'm a work in progress!

On 10/16/2022 at 4:34 AM, tariki said:

 

Just had a nice day visiting relations in a little village about 22 miles distant. Travelling there with our daughter and grandchildren. A good day.

Nice.

On 10/16/2022 at 4:34 AM, tariki said:

Just to say, regarding "significance", I'm not so sure that "significance" would actually imply a destination, an end product. At least not one that we could ever imagine. The heartwood of the Dharma according to Theravada Buddhism, is "unshakeable deliverance of mind" (Majjhima Nikaya). The Bible speaks of being set free by "truth". So it is freedom, beyond any "answers", "conclusions" or an ultimate terminus. Poetically, the "journey itself is home.

Agreed - I don't think it would imply a destination.  More it just implies an acceptance of a particular understanding if anything.  In my mind, it would seem to provide an answer of sorts to those who feel there is something 'more' but cannot identify what that more is, whilst simultaneously giving everyone an opportunity just to be at peace with knowing there is significance, even if 'what' that significance actually is is not agreed upon.

On 10/16/2022 at 4:34 AM, tariki said:

For me this all relates to the way of unknowing. Reality is mystery, but not a mystery that is hidden or unknown in darkness or which will be revealed or made known in the future. Rather, it is more a present intimacy, transparency, and vividness, this of thusness/suchness, for “nothing throughout the entire universe is concealed” ( Dogen) Nevertheless, this mystery of emptiness and thusness has to go beyond this: intimacy must be ever penetrated. Or as another has said, "the only extension to the present is intensity."

A longer way of saying "life is what it is", perhaps?

On 10/16/2022 at 4:34 AM, tariki said:

All this may well be why Buddhism is sometimes dismissed, even condemned, as nihilistic. Related phrases such as "casting off the body-mind" are simply not understood. Dogen, the 13th century Japanese zen master, began to understand when he was himself a novice in a Chinese monastery and the pupil next to him slumped forward and the Master struck the man with the keisaku (awakening stick) and shouted:- "How dare you fall asleep when you seek to drop body and mind!" Such was a moment of illumination to Dogen!

I've been thinking about 'nihilism' a bit lately.  I probably need to read up on it a bit more, but I'm thinking I hold a fairly nihilistic view of life (in that I don't think life has any particular 'purpose' or 'meaning' and that there are no timeless morals or values), but I don't see this as a negative.  It just is what it is.  Enjoy it while you can, or don't.

15 hours ago, tariki said:

It is that "need to know" that causes all the misery.

Indeed.

16 hours ago, tariki said:

This is why I think it best to simply ask if Reality has significance rather than asking ourselves if we "believe in God". For me the simply FACT that there is indisputably something rather than nothing implies "significance"; rather than Reality simply being mindless matter in motion, a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Love it.

16 hours ago, tariki said:

Hi Paul, good to hear from you again. 

Not actually my signature, which is further down, and the full words are:-

May true Dharma continue. No blame. Be kind. Love everything. 

I just thought that the Inquisition would be after me if I quoted it in full. 

😀

Tagline then, perhaps.  Whatever - I think it is a perfect sentiment for us all to work towards.

On 10/12/2022 at 5:51 AM, romansh said:

Don't know what's up with Paul ... he seems to be not around much.

I am well.

Still here, Rom!   Occasionally lurking but mainly I was in Bali for a little bit on holidays and now back at work (13-14hrs days and then straight to bed usually  ).

Welcome back, Tariki.  I love that you can come back here (the forum) and post poetry and your thoughts and feel a sense of therapy and perhaps safety.

I'm not much of a poetry person myself, but I genuinely find you posts both interesting and educational.  I perhaps err on the side of not commenting partly because of my poetry ignorance, but also the sense of allowing you space to simply enjoy posting here.

Loving your signature - No blame. Be kind. Love everything.