romansh

34 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

Well David ... you should practice what you preach and engage in the argi bargy of discourse. 

54 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

significance of my dissenting opinion regarding your assertions

If indeed I do have assertions they would go along lines like these:

• If cause and effect are true, then any opinions/beliefs we have are a product of our evolution and environment.
• If cause and effect are not true then our opinions/beliefs have just popped into existence. (I must admit this seems far-fetched to me).
• If it is some combination of the two we are no further ahead.

Take your Brené for example. She managed to shake her addiction to a combination of alcohol, smoking, emotional eating and an addiction to control. But she never managed to let go of Christianity, wavering between the Catholic and Episcopalian.

Now if any of my three ifs are true, it takes courage to think about them and go where our thoughts lead us.

8 hours ago, tariki said:

Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision.

I like Stephen Batchelor. I find I am much more aligned with him than other lines with Buddhist thought. Mrs rom is fine. Thanks. There's some weight to her bossiness now, the cast and moral black mail work fine.

Well, @David SundaramI do have to thank you for providing a little mirth on an otherwise mirthless day. Mrs rom phoned this morning, to tell me that she had slipped on some ice and passers-by had called an ambulance. I called a neighbour to ask her if I could give her a ride into town so she could bring Mrs rom's car home. She could. I got to the hospital and she, Mrs rom, informed me she had likely broken her wrist and banged her head on possibly a fire hydrant. She assured me the fire hydrant was OK. Anyway, hours pass, as they do in Emergency. It turns out her radius is broken. They set the fracture in a plaster cast. re-Xrayed it, not good enough. The surgeon wants to operate, but the theatre does not. I come home for a bite to eat. Mrs rom texts that they will try re-setting without an op. Drive back ... hunt down where the Mrs is hidden in the hospital. A couple more hours pass. Eventually, the Mrs escapes the event horizon of the local hospital.

In the meantime, during lulls in the events, I read a few bits of David's musings. And commented on them. It would appear a serious critique is not what was hoped for by David. It appears David wants happiness and not criticism. 

Now if someone were to critique my writing negatively and I respected their opinion or their negative opinion was accurate, I must admit, it would hurt. So extrapolating from a point of one, either my opinion was accurate or David respects my opinion. Who would have thought? An inaccurate, anonymous opinion on the internet ... 

For me, dissenting opinions and clarification is where the fun is.

7 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

I hope you will leave me to my business in said regard hereafter.

On a forum for debate and discussion?

11 hours ago, David Sundaram said:

The truth (which I just present as a hypothesis to anyone who is presently still agnostic in this regard) that one may potentially either integrally actualize the condition that Jesus referenced as ‘everlasting life’ as a coherent soul or irretrievably ‘lose’ one’s beingness and potential to do so as such as a result of what one believes and so thinks, feels and does or doesn’t think, feel and do (as suggested in statements like “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” and “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,” for instance) may, I  think, be functionally comprehended and profitably applied if and as one thoughtfully considers and contemplates the implications of the following reincarnational-possibility related propositions:

Take this sentence ... and even here the sentence appears not to end. It's gobbledygook. 

I am reminded of Chopra, but at least it is succinct.

7 minutes ago, David Sundaram said:

Clearly!

Now, how much time should I spend on reincarnation and the afterlife? I am far more interested in what is considered tangible.

I don't find you as interesting as you find yourself. You are here to proselytize whatever it is you are proselytizing. That's fair enough. But you have shown no interest in other people's thoughts. If I believed in shame, I would say "shame on you David." Happily,  I don't believe in shame.

And you can't even get my stage name correct.

39 minutes ago, tariki said:

It was 1963 that I remember.

You are right.  I would have been 8. No wonder the show seemed deeper.

To be fair David, I am letting a lot of what you say float by.

On a lot of websites what you post would be considered spam. But the admin here has a high tolerance for a variety of efforts of discourse.  Basically, cutting and pasting with a link to whatever it is you are trying to promote.

You like many alternative Christians, write in code. 

I don't think you are meaning to be rude David, but this particular receiver is tuning in on that perceived frequency.

My experience ... people who can't succinctly and simply describe whatever they are on about, often don't really understand it themselves.

@David Sundaram

5 hours ago, tariki said:

These things could be sorted in double quick time over a pint of ale in a tavern.

This is an offer I would jump at. Being presumptuous that you might extend the offer.  

At 73 ...

Well, you would likely remember the winter of '66. It was a wonderful winter. BC ...before cars, well before a lot of cars. This is for a twelve-year-old. Probably a bit of a hassle for a seventeen-year-old though. Great summer though - with the world cup and all.

On 12/7/2022 at 2:06 PM, David Sundaram said:

Your presumptions are erroneous, Romansh. I am not attracted to or suggesting that we reinterpret said text so that they fit in with current understandings.

My apologies for my erroneous assumptions. So can I ask, so are our current understandings irrelevant to how we navigate our lives?

Welcome David

I will ask you a similar question to what I have asked in the past. With the advances in science, philosophy, law, economics, psychology, sociology, and a general understanding of how the universe ticks in the last two thousand years: what is the attraction of reinterpreting ancient theological texts so that they fit with our current understanding?

9 hours ago, tariki said:

As said, we are what we understand

Are you certain about this?

9 hours ago, tariki said:

I did speak of final conclusions.

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.

9 hours ago, tariki said:

what I see according to my own understanding is simply "what you see is what you get."

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:

1 hour ago, tariki said:

All this "one with the all" kind of stuff is more what I would see as "New Age" nonsense.

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:

Quote

Dogen argues that to know the self is to lose the self and thus to find the self. The found self both is, and is not, the self that is lost.

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.

11 hours ago, tariki said:

Well, obviously what they are trying to say/suggest/explain is the bit following where your own quote cut off.........until we could at last find no illusion.

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?

8 hours ago, tariki said:

was not to eliminate illusion in favor of reality so much as it was to see illusion as the total realization—not as one illusion among others, but as the illusion, with nothing but the illusion throughout the universe ...

Not that different from what I am trying to say.

17 hours ago, tariki said:

"I'm not there yet, and probably never will be and that too is OK." Is there anywhere to get to?

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. 

17 hours ago, tariki said:

Is there any final place or conclusion to be reached.

In an unfolding universe no. Acceptance and understanding.

17 hours ago, tariki said:

Nice to witness such a conciliatory ending to this debate.

Ending? you got to be kidding.

17 hours ago, tariki said:

Getting back on topic, I can see "justice" written all over this. Justice is not administered by some transcendent power. It is intrinsic to Reality-as-is. What you see is what you get. 

And yet (I would argue) justness is illusory. How do we apply justice to illusory good and evil?

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

but for me that word has connotations of false representation

We seem to be agreeing  

On 11/20/2022 at 10:58 AM, romansh said:

my question is what do we call it when perception does not match reality?

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.

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

But we are experiencing it as it is

You know this how Paul? Here I assume you mean the colour of the fire truck.

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

Perception is one side of the coin, but what is actually happening to/with the firetruck is reality

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

On 11/14/2022 at 9:48 PM, PaulS said:

fire engines are a color! 

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:

On 11/13/2022 at 6:37 PM, romansh said:

not saying should be dismissed as being outside of reality. Illusions are real, but we can treat something more appropriately by realizing something is an illusion.

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.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Without a doubt, fire engines are a color!  Can we agree on that?

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

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

reacting/processing differently when you see the color 'blue' for instance.

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.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

That's why we have different names for different colours - they exist

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

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

It is no illusion - it exists.  

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.

22 hours ago, PaulS said:

Fire engines are red because that is the descriptor we use for the color

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.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

but it also does come naturally to us

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?

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

so I am not sure it can be dismissed as outside of reality

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.

On 11/10/2022 at 5:13 PM, PaulS said:

I think justness exists on a linear scale of degrees

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.

On 11/10/2022 at 11:26 PM, tariki said:

I'm not trying to head anywhere

Then are you content with where you are?