FredP

That is a good question to bring up. No, it isn't that I, as an individual ego, as Fred, am God. That would be rightly diagonsed as a God-complex. It's two different, but related, things. First, philosophically speaking, God is the ground of being itself, so everything that exists -- everything that has being -- participates in the being of God. Second, spiritually speaking, there is cross-cultural evidence suggesting that our experience of ourselves can expand beyond identification with the ego, or individual self, to an experience of self as the One Self -- the Self of all things. Sometimes it occurs just for brief moments or for prolonged periods of time, during meditation or in response to a deeply moving experience; sometimes it occurs as a more or less permanent state. But when it does occur, people consistently report a direct experience of profound oneness with everyone and everything -- an obliteration of the ordinary boundary between "self" and "other." This is far from being an egotistical God-complex. On the contrary, it is the only possible ground of true selflessness -- there is literally no more "mine" and "yours." Without the knowledge that comes from this experience, the best we can do is obey commands because we're told to, or "do unto others" based on a mental projection of our ego and its needs and wants onto those around us. This experience of absolute union, not the bells and whistles that sometimes accompany it, but the pure oneness itself, is the heart and goal of mystical practice in every religion. Hope that helps.

It's not that a computer that can pass the Turing test is automatically pronounced conscious -- it's that, if a computer can pass the Turing test, there is no objective way to prove that it isn't conscious. The thesis behind the test is that there is no mental ingredient called consciousness. What occured to me yesterday as I was thinking about this some more is that the Turing test is actually based on an intersubjective criterion -- the only way to know something might be conscious is that a person talks to it and says it is! So the Turing test is fundamentally hermeneutic -- fundamentally subjective. Right, Penrose suggests that perhaps certain mental processes (like what we might call "insight" or "intuition") are not strictly algorithmic. This gets back to the claim I'm making that subjectivity cannot be reduced to objectivity, and vice versa. The computational processes involved in understanding Chinese would be, in principle, objective, such that a complete analytical description of understanding Chinese should be possible given enough data. But the phenomenon of awareness involved would be subjective, and therefore amenable to the language of subjectivity -- self-descriptions of intentional states, intersubjective dialogue, etc. It's not quite that both understandings are necessary to get a "complete picture" -- it's that each understanding is complete in its own right, while being irreducible to the other. It just depends on what you want to know. Now, to throw one more wrench into the system, it turns out that these descriptions are much more complex than modeling brain states, as the strong AI folks, the Ray Kurzweils, are suggesting. The fact is, there is no such thing as "understanding Chinese" in the abstract -- there is only "humans speaking Chinese to each other in the course of doing family, culture, society, politics, religion, and so on." It's still a phenomenon that can, in principle, be analyzed objectively -- but now we've gone beyond the mere manipulation of representational symbols, and we're talking about speech as a dimension of living. We're talking anthropology and sociology as well as neuroscience. Same for the subjective side of the analysis. This is where, it seems to me, that the gung-ho AI'ers are just being flat-out naive. Modeling a human brain, perfectly or better, is all well and good, and we'll probably continue to see computers get better than people at purely abstract cerebral activities -- playing chess, proving logical and mathematical theorems, etc. But what about all the data that's taken in via our bodies, and therefore comes heavily tinged by knowledge and beliefs about emotions, pleasures, pains, etc. -- things that require complex feedback between cognitive and affective information? This is all still brain-in-a-vat type stuff.

Of course we'd all love to see the end of hatred, violence, and division in the name of religion. When Christianity is used as a dividing tool, an exclusionary means of separating the "us" who "believe in Jesus" (whatever that means), from the "them" who don't, then you're right, it's not a tool of God or Christ. Ideally, however, Christianity is an expression of the universal mystical fact of God's union with the world, and therefore has an even greater potential to do the very opposite of this. A nebulous "religion based on Christ" inevitably means a religion based on some person or group's idiosyncratic interpretation of Jesus' actions, teachings, personality, etc. -- i.e., still focused on a set of historical particulars which mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, not being condescending, just offering you an alternative view. Good luck in your quest.

I think it's a metaphor for a level of consciousness that has sufficiently complex neurochemical architecture to form self-referential symbols. That's a geeky cog-sci way of saying reflexive self-consciousness -- consciousness that can perceive and comprehend (to some degree) itself. Your pets have consciousness, they just don't have the hardware to focus it the way we can. My comment was that the matter of our bodies and brains -- which of course is the same matter that exploded out of the big bang, the only matter in the universe -- must have some kind of proto-subjective dimension or aspect, no matter how slight, or else subjectivity in any form could not exist. There would be behavior and function, maybe even exactly what we observe, but no subjective awareness of it. At least that's the conclusion I've come to. Plenty of folks will tell you that, [1] in principle, all your behavior can be expained without resorting to a notion of "consciousness" or "subjectivity," and that therefore, [2] it's not an elemental fact of reality -- it's just a side-effect of your brain crunching on data all day. I think [1] is probably true, but [2] doesn't follow. I simply can't deny the irreducible fact of awareness -- not what I perceive, but that I perceive -- and I've burned enough years being skeptical about it out of a religious devotion to scientific reductionism. Say that three times fast.

It is true that quantum mechanics is a description of the observation of the quantization of energy at microscopic levels, nothing more. Some notable physicists, however -- Roger Penrose, among many others -- believe that there is a possible connection worth exploring between quantum mechanical phenomena and consciousness. Specifically, he suggests that the indeterminacy which is due to the quantum energy threshold may be able to allow for the nonalgorithmicity of consciousness, in a way that pure randomness would be unable to do. If true, then QM seems eminently relevant to religion. The thesis isn't immune to criticism, but it seems unduly harsh to throw it out a priori, out of a zealous committment to the Church-Turing thesis. I appreciate that you got the highest grade in your undergrad QM class, but I dunno, Dr. Penrose seems pretty smart too. As for reducing objectivity to subjectivity, I wholeheartedly agree -- it's just as much of a mistake to try to reduce physical phenomena to mental projections as it is to try to reduce mental phenomena to physical side-effects, like Daniel Dennett and other "consciousness experts" are currently trying to do. It's reductionism in either direction. I very much appreciate the explanatory power of the cognitive sciences, as far as how information is gained, processed, stored, and retrived; I am, however, ultimately not convinced that awareness itself can be described completely in terms of side-effects of neurochemical processes. At the same time, I also don't believe that awareness is some sort of elan vital that is added to an otherwise unaware heap of matter. The only possible conclusion I can draw is that matter in some sense must contain the latent potential for awareness, or else it couldn't actualize that potential in life, and especially sentient life, given the right architectural conditions. There's nothing anymore magical about matter having a subjective dimension as there is about humans having one. Actually, if humans had it but matter didn't, that would be magical.

Cheers, MT!

Coming from the perennial/mystical angle, I'd add that, while theological concepts and ideas about God can be relatively true -- and it's important to discover these relative truths -- they are all ultimately false because God is beyond all understanding. When the veil is lifted and "we know as we are known" -- whether that occurs at some eschatological future event, or in mystical union -- what we get is not a perfect grasp of theology or doctrine, but a direct inward knowledge of God that is beyond concepts and ideas.

A group of blondes walk into a bar. One of the women tells the bartender to line up a row of drinks for all of them. The gals lift their glasses and toast, "Here's to 51 days!" and they proceed to down their drinks. Once again, they tell the bartender to "line 'em up", and once again they toast 51 days and down their drinks. The bartender says, "I don't get it. Why in the world are you toasting 51 days?" One of the blondes explains, "We just finished a jigsaw puzzle. It had written on the box '2-4 years,' but we finished it in 51 days!"

Oh, man, was it ever bad. It was so bad that I couldn't bring myself to watch it again until season 3 -- and by then it was already incredible. Pretty much all we watch now is Medium, Lost, and Invasion, because they're good, and happen to fall in the slots when both of us aren't working or watching John.

Well, the churches were in Asia, after all.

Ok, so this thread is like a year old, but I just happened to notice it. Maybe I couldn't preach a liberal/progressive sermon on it, but I could probably come up with a fairly decent non-literal/esoteric sermon on it. The three main features would be: That the Seven Churches refer to the (roughly) seven developmental levels of consciousness (chakras, etc.), which must be properly aligned for Christ to emerge in the soul/cosmos; That the Great Battle refers to the transformation of the self/cosmos, and the emergence of the Cosmic Christ as its center and organizing principle -- a process which the ego resists with all its might, and launches every psychological and spiritual attack it can muster; That the Wedding Feast refers to the integration of the masculine and feminine energies/principles in the soul/cosmos -- the ultimate union that finally occurs when we become fully awake It's a rough sketch anyway....

Inclusive means that spiritual truth -- as belief and as action -- is acknowledged and included wherever it is found, irrespective of culture, religion, or personal preference. It doesn't mean that everything is spiritually true, or should be acknowledged or included. Anything that comes from a spirit other than love, for example, is spiritually false, and should not be included. This is in the spirit of the original post, but still worth pointing out. Thanks Cynthia for the reminder!

Yes! Lord of the Rings, in a nutshell. Power is always frought with ambiguity, even when we genuinely have the best of intentions. Apparently this is why political rhetoric has to be so unambiguous. Thanks for this observation.

That is the point. We can't. Nor are we meant to. But then there's no way of knowing whether the theology of Jim Jones or Pat Robertson or Marcus Borg is better or worse. By your own logic, liberalism is no closer to being true than fundamentalism, because we can't know which is true and which is false, or how much of which is true or false. I'm not saying that any human being or institution can be confident that they are in possession of perfect truth; but if we abandon the notion of truth altogether, the quest for logic and rationality and consistency, then you're not allowed to criticize fundamentalism for being false. You may be allowed to say you don't personally like it, but frankly, why should anyone care? I reject fundamentalism precisely because I believe in truth, not because I don't. Not following your logic. The logic is, if all religious statements are partially false, then your statement that "No single one corners the market on who God is or isn't" is, by definition, partially false too. Indeed, "all religious statements are partially false" is also, by definition, partially false. This is the self-defeat of strong post-modernism in a nutshell -- as soon as you say, "We can't know the truth," you've shot yourself in the foot, because then we have no way of knowing that "We can't know the truth" is true. If it's true, then it isn't.

Lucifer means "light-bearer," which I take to refer archetypally to the principle of light and truth nearest to the very being of God -- the reflector and messenger of God's light and truth. The original phrase "Morning Star" was rendered into Latin as "Lucifer" by Jerome in the 4th century. Traditionally, the idea is that this luminary figure was not content merely to reflect God's light, but wanted to be the highest light itself. Of course, by turning away from God's light, it became literally unplugged from its only possible source, thereby banishing itself from the true light and becoming mired in darkness forever. It symbolizes the downward aspect of the soul, the disposition toward ego, fragmentation, domination, ignorance, violence, and on and on. And please, a little imagination here. We're in the domain of symbolism! Metaphysical mythologizing, right Flow?

Oh yeah, totally! As long as I can still have my geek toys to play with....

Which "currently popular sins" would those be? I know it's too easy, but pride is just so easy to wind myself up in. One of the pages I came across today made the really asute observation that, if someone else's pride really bothers you, you have a lot of pride. Dammit! Sheesh, I'm quite rather skilled at them all... Maybe not so much envy and greed, I guess.

I contemplated a monastic lifestyle quite a bit actually, but I always sensed it was partially motivated by a desire to run away from whatever loneliness, or depression, or painful experience I was having. It was always about feeling like life was meaningless, and wanting to find identity in something meaningful -- rather than to really know myself deeply, which is the essential prerequisite for allowing the Spirit to transform you. I think, if you're really called to it, and are doing it with the right motivations, you can still have a profound and effective ministry to the world at large -- though, especially in the more contemplative orders, one must relinquish the obsession with activity, and the feeling that God needs you to do things to bring the New Creation about. Even to be part of an order sends a message to those who are seeking, that there is meaning to be found in all this, if one only looks for it.

Superbia: Pride Invidia: Envy/Jealousy Ira: Anger/Wrath Avaritia: Avarice/Greed Acadia: Sloth/Laziness Gula: Gluttony Luxuria: Lust It would be pretty wild if our culture actually regarded these as vices! Here's an interesting article I just came across: "The Tao of Pope St. Gregory the Great" http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven/dao.html

Yes -- in fact, when I hear the more allegorically stated notion of a "planetary aura," or a collective spirit, idea, thought-form, etc., feeding off our thoughts and emotions, I immediately think of self-replicating or autopoietic systems in chemistry, biology (broadly), neuroscience (specifically), sociology, and so on -- and how similar logical, mathematical, and algorithmic structures have been discovered across these domains. What Platonism -- Perennialism's granddaddy in the West -- asserts, however, is that these patterns and structures are not by-products of physical processes, but rather independent and ontologically prior to them. They have real ontological existence. Roger Penrose would be a high-profile example of a modern physicist and mathematician who holds this view. Alright, that's enough for today!

Welcome! Where are you?

Sorry if my last comment came out crankier than I meant it. Aletheia's response was a lot better than mine anyway. The only point I was trying to make was that the view suggested by the two-day-old baby example is too simple a characterization of the doctrine of original sin -- even the orthodox view isn't that harsh. I think the reality this doctrine is trying to point to is fairly simple: we know in our own hearts that we don't always strive for God as we ought, that we frequently let the demands of less important things drown out the call to go beyond. There's no self-loathing and worthlessness going on here, just the simple realization that we find ourselves often unable to choose what is best, even though we desire to. The only "punishment" is that God allows us to make poor choices, and inflict the pain of those choices on ourselves and those around us. I really do understand the strong need to distance yourself from the obsessive guilt and shame that fundamentalism heaps on you. It's quite liberating to get out of it, and I think a necessary step in the journey. But it's also important to be realistic and radically honest with oneself. The journey into God is a journey of intense self-understanding, that exposes the deepest and darkest corners of our motivations, and shines the blazing light of transformation on them. Is it much wonder that most of us don't want to get too close? Peace, Fred

Classic perennialism, especially of the eastern variety embraced by Watts, never tried to spell out the world of forms in pseudo-physical terms like etheric realms, astral bodies, electromagnetic fields, and so on. Yes, the realms of forms "make" the realms of manifestation what they are; but the two aren't thereby collapsed into one. Neo-gnostic and New Age systems seem to do this; but it's clear that, among ancient gnostics, for example, some took the mythologies literally, while others did not. As far as I'm concerned, to take these descriptions too literally is to make the same mistake Christians make when they take the Bible too literally -- the realms of universals and particulars are confused and collapsed, and the point is missed. Gnostic and even some New Age terminology systems contain some very penetrating metaphysical insights, when approached in an allegorical sense; but again, taking them literally is the shortest possible route to lots of confusion IMO.

Well, nobody suggested that a two day old baby was going to be punished for not being able to understand sin or accept a savior. Even the most conservative of Catholics and most fundamentalists believe in the notion of an "age of accountability." But in any case, knocking down a straw man doesn't prove anything. I had written more about this, but I decided not to go off topic any further. Plus we're not in the debate section.

Right, and this is why the notion of "sin" and "perfection" as breaking and not breaking rules can only take you so far. Being told what not to do doesn't help me figure out what I should do, to bring about the best good. This is why deontic forms of ethical reasoning sound so convincing and so logical, yet it ultimately can't move me to do anything beyond the path of least resistence that doesn't involve doing any harm.