romansh

 

Say what?

Did you read the essay?

Again, say what?

I have no problem distinguishing individuals ... but I do understand that the boundary I use to distinguish that individual in one sense is arbitrary.

I might use the skin and hair as that boundary. But I will ignore the person's education, experiences, environment, evolution etc.

I will ignore the causative factors that go into that distinct individual.

... nor do I believe in a "complete lack of individual distinction."

Personally I am more aligned with complete arbitrary individual distinction.

As an adjective, used with reference to God or Being; used to suggest that there is something 'more' that is Present in/to existence.

As a verb, used to state that man is 'more.' It goes to the idea of existence over essence: that man, the existential being, is 'more' - his existence is before him (open), he creates it; he is more and becomes more. In theology, goes to the discussion of unity, oneness and divinity.

 

Not meaningless at all - unless one arbitrarily calls it a 'none word.'

What is this God/Being? What is this more? What is Present?

Is there something more than the cosmos?

Sociology. The functions of religion in society are a well established area of study.

Two questions immediately arise:

1) How do you know this is not some atheist dogma?

2) How did you as an entirely separate individual divine this bit of knowledge?

All religion is primarily an attempt to artificially amalgamate individuals into a society. Individuality is never lost.

You know this how Burl?

We live within God, but we are not God. Those scriptures affirm the seperateness of mankind and God.

Try

John 10:30 ..

Rom,

 

Hard to dialogue if someone unilaterally decides that certain words in the language are 'none words.' BTW, I don't think 'none words' is a thing, but it is an easy out. And now we have 'flavors' of monism. You must be fun at cards, always changing the rules when it is your turn

On the old Joseph Campbell forum the definition of transcendent that was commonly used was ... beyond all categories of thought.

What is yours? But if what you mean is beyond all categories of thought then ... it does become a little meaningless, does it not.

So if I understand correctly, sentience encompasses consciousness and man, is also conscious of self - something that we 'assume' that no others are.

I posted this essay before it did not get any traction.

Am I conscious now?

It was obtained by deep meditation and introspection ... so it must be right ...

"We are of the cosmos." Man is indeed of the cosmos but at the same time it does seem that man transcends the cosmos.

I am afraid I increasingly find transcend is one of those none words. It means different things to different people. It is like emergent that scientists use.

Regardless, returning to monism (the 'many' are of the one reality and this one is (ontologically) prior to all), it seems to me that, by definition, the 'one' cannot be the cosmos, because the cosmos is the many, so it (the many) is not the one that is ontologically prior to the many. Not can the Big Bang be the 'one' because in its 'first' moment, there are the many - or at least a 'few' of the many. We could say that the 'one' prior to the BB, prior to the cosmos, was nothing...however, nothing could not be ontologically prior to anything, because it is nothing - and nothing is not (sounds like the beginning of an Abbott and Costello routine). So I go back to being as that 'one' which is ontologically prior in time (so to speak), ontologically prior as the possibility that anything can be: if something is, it has being, or conversely, if there is being, then something is (if there is not first being, there is nothing) : "we are all of being."

The're various flavours of monism ... Mine is quite simple ... all is connected through cause and effect despite Burl's protestations. I understood "Who's on first", the above paragraph I did not.

Of course this is, more or less, a logical argument and I do not believe that being or, at least, being as Holy can be arrived at logically, plus it's all so circular, I feel like eddy.

Personally I don't feel this oneness. Just logically if cause and effect are true it must be that way. I feel like an individual (so I have some sympathy for Burl's belief) but I am old enough to recognize at least some of the influences in my illusory life. I also recognize there are many influences that are totally subliminal. Also I understand well enough that the underlying chemistry that constitutes "I" is really not controlled per se.

Regarding the sun, I think we have some time and the stars await for man to transcend his environment.

Again I don't have a clue what you mean by transcends ... the universe is unfolding. Man is of the environment. Evolution will continue [we will no longer be homo sapiens] . The Sun will expire. In the mean time enjoy the ride.

Awareness of the environment is the definition of sentience.

 

We are not patterns or eddies. Life is not an illusion. We are entirely seperate puddles and ponds, rivers and streams. Everyone is a unique individual.

We end up playing a tortuous philosophical and semantic game here Burl. What is awareness? Does awareness require sentience?

Oh we are patterns ... you and I keep repeating ourselves (for example).

Life is what it seems for you? Fair enough. but if you do a little bit of research ... especially on xenobiology and what astronomers might want to look the definitions become a little tenuous. Wiki definition is also interesting. The second paragraph begins with ...The definition of life is controversial.

That you think of yourself as entirely separate, beggars belief ... at least mine.

We live in a world - a world/environment that impacts us and us, it. So the illusion is that we are independent and separate. If this is what you mean, I get it - if not, please clarify further.

Simply and it is simple ... yes

Whereas, it seems to me at least, you are concerned with the cause and effect environment - I believe that there is more to cause and effect than you consider. You (seem to) only 'tie' man to his environment but there seems to be no recognition that man 'transcends' his environment or, conversely, there is something transcendent in man's 'environment.' You ask, "how I am independent ... of the food I eat, education, experiences, evolution, genetics." Not independent - more.

Other than man and "her" environment are "one" ... I come and go from the environment. The eddy is continually sucking in carbohydrates, proteins and excreting stuff degraded in terms of "useful" energy. Am I more ... is a an eddy more than the water that is comprised off? It is a pattern of energy continually changing and eventually it will be subsumed by the environment. As I will be. Is this what you mean by more? Individuals will come and go and eventually not come ... at least not as we experience them.

I think we're 'more' than and I think our mothers knew it. And maybe you do too, since you said we might be magical.

There are things my mum knew that I will never know. But we do have the accumulated learnings of mankind. But this is just another pattern made up of other patterns. Like Carl Sagan said ... we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. We are of the cosmos. At least I am ... you and Burl will no doubt decide for yourselves. The universe is winding down. Our Sun is, at least temporarily, allowing us the illusion that it is not ... at least here on Earth.

Tariki might approve ...

The metaphor of Indra's net

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

Romansh, aka Rom, aka Roman ??

Actually romansh is my internet persona ...

It is a combinations of a typo my middle name and my last initial.

The typo ... lower case r was a fortuitous accident ...

My middle name Romans ... (pronounced closer to romance) never worked with the girls though ... Romans is my middle name.

rom or Rom works fine.

So, on one hand, I understand Burl's statement that we are seperate, individual sentient beings.

Thormas ... we are only separate in that we are by and large completely unaware of our connection to our environment.

Perhaps you can explain to me how I am independent ... of the food I eat, education, experiences, evolution, genetics ... you name it. While an individual is a useful approximation or short hand for a pattern of energy/matter ... that is all it is. Perfectly adiabatic containers are useful metaphor for learning physics and chemistry ... Human beings are not them ... what goes into one comes out in some form another.

We might be magical ... but we are not magic.

This idea of non-uniqueness is your own version is of seeing Jesus in a tortilla. You are simply imposing a mental pattern on randomicity.

 

We are individual sentient beings.

I suggest you go reread my posts Burl ... that way you may have some idea what I am driving at.

As far as I can tell .. I have not argued on way or the other about uniqueness; I have not used the word unique ... other than quoting someone else. But to address your point ... I think we can be seen as unique patterns/(eddies)

We can be treated as individuals ... but you continue to avoid my central point ... as individuals we are not independent of the environment. there is not one piece of me that is not a function of cause and effect. (Joseph sees it slightly differently). Now if you can point to something in your sentience that is not a response to cause and effect now is the time to speak up.

Supporting logic or evidence? How many fingers am I holding up?

Don't know ... but then again your does the number fingers have no effect on the environment?

try entering into the discourse Burl ... you may have an effect.

A slightly poetic but silly and irrelevant analogy. Water is not a sentient being. This concept has no logical basis, and everything in the world argues against it.

So your supposed sentience makes you independent?

No the world does argue against it. Our lack of (or at least very incomplete sentience) just reinforces it.

We are seperate, individual sentient beings and life is not an illusion.

There are beaucoup connections and there are perceptions which differ from reality, but it is silly to simply dump everything into one giant pot of sophist's stew.

Birth and death are sufficient evidence.

Burl ... you are like the eddy that thinks it is independent of the water it finds itself.

Hi Thormas (aka Thomas )

Hope Father Christmas was kind too you and you left him a glass of milk and some cookies (biscuits) for those on the other side of the pond.

While I will let those on this site argue as to what their faith is or is not ... my majority statement still stands. As to your apocryphal "a person of faith" that person is whatever you imagine that being to be. Not terribly helpful in discussions, but there we go,

As to illusion ... that Lisa believes this universe is real (as I do) does not mean she believes it is not illusory. I still sense some confounding in the discussion.

I must admit I like Joseph Campbell's quote:

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

To me this describes in a religious way what science (for me) describes as reality. Monism rules ...

 

That is exactly what a person of faith would say, just substituting God for the universe, but at least in both examples, there is a me. Or is there?

 

 

So this is not an illusion

Firstly ... the majority of those with faith that I have come across would certainly not say this. They (to me) see existence in dualistic terms. Sins need forgiving. God is somehow separate from us (in the sky, in us, all around us) but we are not god. It took the whole universe to make me and in my infinitesimal way I am making the universe, I am one. They strung up Jesus saying he was one with God ... and frankly mainstream religions have followed suit.

Regarding illusion versus delusion ... I think you confound the two ... I have tried to be very clear ... I am using illusion in the sense of not as it seems. When we go to a magic show ... seeing a tiger being substituted for an attractive assistant is an illusion. Believing it, could actually be considered a delusion (at least under certain circumstances).

Yes, that is why we are a universe of chemicals in unity.

While I might not phrase it quite that way but I think we are sort of in agreement.

Think of it as an intellectual koan ... we are our chemicals ...

"Chemicals" is a vehicle to get my point across.

For those of us who want or believe in more and the universe is not enough more, well I wish them well.

I also wish them, you and everyone else [no matter how illusionary they may be] a very Merry Christmas.

Straw man Soma, straw man.

You raise it high and pummel it with your stick ... like a piñata.

Just chemicals ... the number of times I come across this type of intellectual rhetoric is interesting.

I will repeat ...

When I look deep inside of myself

the universe stares quietly back at me

wrong spot

I am not doubting that we are products of evolution and our conditioning, Rom. But, I'm not ready to accept the proposition that one's individual "chemistry" cannot be adjusted.

:lol:

Our underlying individual chemistry is being adjusted all the time. What would cause you to say that other than Joseph's posts?