thormas

I understood that was the fear and was trying to get across that fear was not my experience. I found my comfort and safety in my family and all else was just commentary to me. What was coming from the Church, the Catholic school, the monsignor, even the Pope was secondary to family (for me). And that's what my wife and I gave to my daughter (not raised Catholic, not raised in any formal religion system, without the performance of any sacraments): free to be but raise in the 'informal beliefs' and, most importantly, unconditional, unwavering, ever-present love (which for me is God in man/woman) that builds and is essential to life. That said, I get, at least to a degree, the desire and the need to not lose the connection to culture and family that was so much a part of you from the earliest age. The image of the wound is a powerful one.

Joseph, What I'm trying to get is that even if the i or ego is illusion (not as it seems), it is 'something' that imagines itself as thinker and doer. So, it is! For you, is the i singular or many and, simply, what is the i? Illusion seems to suggest that 'something' (sorry, language) is - although it is, it imagines itself to be more whereas it is not what it imagines, it is not what it seems to be. Now, if you are saying that, for example, man sees himself as a 'supposedly independent sole entity' but that this is not what it seems because man is one with/in context, consciousness/universe, that makes sense. Also, I thought you thought the content was consciousness, not the physical universe. Finally, and again, why do you think the I, the context, allows or creates or manifests as i?

possibility, I would be glad to get into the creator/created and decay issue but I too will return to the thread's first purpose. I also was born into a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools from kindergarten, not just through high school but thru grad school. However, I count myself lucky because, although brought up Catholic, it was never forced on us (it just was what it was) and there was never any fear. I had a friend who was raised by his grandmother and aunt, from the old country, and I discovered years later that he was raised with an incredible amount of what only can be called Catholic superstition - for example, sprinkling holy water around the house. I was not raised this way, at all. I saw my Father take a knee every morning and night before the cross on his bedroom wall but, again, there was never any 'have to' in my family. However, all the kids were intimidated by the monsignor, especially when we went to confession and we got him. You would say, "bless me father for I have sinned and I disobeyed my parents." Now at the tender age of 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, there was no horrible disobedience occurring but he would immediately ask, "don't you love your mommy and daddy?" So, you felt worse leaving then when you entered the confessional, but even this, I later though was just his way (best intentions, perhaps) to get us to consider the effect our actions have or what they might mean. I guess I got him back, though very unintentionally, when I went to confess some 'impure thoughts,' got rattled (after all, given his comment on disobeying, what could it possibly be in this case?) but remembering what commandment it fell under, I said,"bless me Father I have sinned, I committed six acts of adultery." My parent fell off the chair when I recounted the monsignor's shock :+" The thing I left K through 12th grade with though was not this or that belief (though we had them and I accepted them, without question), but, for lack of a better way to phrase it, a 'sense' of God. Catholic were not people of the book like the Protestants, so we were spared the biblical literacy (again, we accepted the stories, what we were taught, but the whole literal reading was not so drilled into us so that we/I had no real difficulty shaking it later in life). In college, a Catholic college with a seminary on campus, we were taught by, as luck would have it, some simply brilliant people, not a few of whom were a bit radical. And, my first philosophy class was an introduction to Being: our thinking was turned on its head and people I went to school with (who later became business leaders, Lawyers, Judges, actors, Business Consultants, Social workers, Professors, etc.) all agreed that it was the most radical re-learning we had ever (or have ever) experienced. I had also grown more than a bit bored with Catholic traditions, the liturgy, etc. and so that faded to the back. However, I was taken by philosophy, it fed my curiosity, my wonder and gave me a 'sense' of Being - along side of my 'sense' of God; I majored in philosophy - assuming it would be great on a resume and when applying for positions in the real world :+}. So I learned philosophy (and logic), its history, its language and continued the study of Being. I later decided to go for a graduate degree in Theology (again Catholic) and found that philosophy was the language often used in theology. And teaching high school (again Catholic), I met kids (mostly, Catholic but also many from other faiths) who had grown tired of what they had been taught but were hungry to know, to understand, to see if there was anything 'to it.' So between my grad studies and my teaching I read my ass off, took new approaches and presented Christianity in a way that kids could 'understand it for the first time.' I also had the unenviable task once, as the Chair of the department, of observing and discussing with a priest/teacher, who I had known as a kid, that his students had no idea what he was talking about. He really liked me :+} Anyway, I taught for 12 years and used grad level books in my classes that were a bit 'different' than the traditional Catholic teachings, in combination with Andrew Greeley's 'The Jesus Myth',' Steinbeck's 'East of Eden' and one of the 'deepest' children's books ever written: 'The Velveteen Rabbit.' I only left after I married a teacher and decided if we ever wanted to have kids and be able to afford a house - one of us had to make money, plus I wanted to test myself (and have a new adventure). So I entered the business world, eventually starting my own business with clients in the Fortune 100 - a philosopher conferring with senior executives; it was and is fun. But I never stopped reading or writing or attending seminars and discovered more and more brilliant men and women who thought seriously on Christian theology. I question everything, never lost my sense of God and gained the opportunity, the language and the resource to consider Christianity anew. I am not a practicing Catholic but I am a Christian as understood by the two (really one) great commandments and by the understanding that the man Jesus (man 'become' God, not God become man), was (is) important. Jesus had an insight into "God" (elaborated on - sometimes brilliantly, other times, not so much - by others in the tradition) that I think is important and can be 'presented again for the first time' to a present generation, so they can decided whether or not it 'speaks' to them and is relevant (or not) to their lives. So, my formation: introduced to the religious (and the informal) beliefs of my parents, as understood in an earlier age and also understood from the perspective of a child. Given a 'sense' of God, from the Catholic theistic tradition and my parents. This childhood 'sense' met philosophy and theology (the latter, a tradition of those who have gone before and continue to this day, who thought/think deeply on the same issues) which have given me the opportunity to consider God and Being in a contemporary way that articulates the 'sense of God' that was always there. And, as mentioned previously, this is belief.

Good god, you do make mountains...... This is where the topic is under discussion, so what if we move (once again) off topic: it's all a piece. As previously stated, I have no problem with new threads, simply don't dictate what we should do - suggest a new thread and begin fresh. Maybe even suggest you think it would be a good idea and maybe even ask for the opinions of others. Or just start and see if people join in. Just don't start deciding to move posts, other than your own where you want them to be. If I post something under B, that's where I am responding, that's where others, who might be following, are reading and that's where I want to post. Again, just ask. How simple is that? If you gave a rationale and suggested you wanted to 'clean things up' and asked permission to move posts (or simply started a new post without moving anything), I would typically have no issue. Just to be clear, that is not carte blanche for the future: ask. However, I sometimes like the change in direction and I like it captured in one post so I can refer back easily. As to the rest. I am responding and asking questions of others and this is an appropriate thread - because we are discussing it where?: here for now. Again, no problem with tidy only with the approach. We have all touched on the nature, nurturing and investigation of one's beliefs and flowed to the content of belief - so I'm fine with the direction, as the what seems more important, right now, than the how.

So, good, we have, perhaps, another take on the topic. Using the terms (above) to be consistent: the creator and the created are not the same, yet are the same, in some sense. I agree. This would be interesting to 'pin down' for all interested parties. And that's what I have been doing with my posts ad questions. It seems (to me) that Joseph and 'possibility' have said there is sameness and yet also allude to that which is not the same (decay, inseparable part, interconnected system, that which is created, i ). And you just said there is not sameness, yet there is sameness, in a sense. So, I remain interested and I am asking (while recognizing the limitation of language) for further explanation of the insights or beliefs of others. Simple. In addition, these questions follow: if the created is not the same as the creator, then, in some sense, is the created different or 'other' than the creator (yet paradoxically, the 'same'); and, (going back to the concept of illusion) if the created is 'not as it seems' (and it seems to be not the same), then is the created actually the same as the creator? Also and again, don't talk to me about the introduction of something more in the thread. I have no problem with it, not having the need to always color inside the lines, but I did not originate it. Go with the flow!!!

Thanks possibility.

I really have no interest and don't find helpful this back and forth on each sentence and comments like "did I say that?" I'll do it on occasion but not endlessly as it has shown in the past to not get anywhere in furthering understanding. I accept that you have not thought this topic through. If it is clear to one that s/he has been misunderstood, then take the time to better explain it and allow another to process and respond. Otherwise we go endlessly back and forth. If one can't explain themselves or they have not yet followed through on where their thinking leads - that is fine. We move on. Finally, in spite of what you think or think you know, I do not (intentionally) derail threads: I ask questions, follow up and go with the flow, Nor did I have an overwhelming desire or need to discuss this particular topic, I merely followed up. Actually Joseph introduced the topic (did you say to him, "start asking is it OK to derail threads") and I said to him since it was his comment that it might be a topic for an interesting thread but responded to him on the thread (as appropriate). Again, no need to accommodate what I didn't ask for or expressed a desire to discuss. There is no problem starting a new thread but, as mentioned, we were having a conversation on the original thread and your new one was unnecessary, at that time. All I'm saying is tell people what you're thinking of doing and perhaps go the extra mile and ask them if they want their comments moved by you - as it does or could interrupt the flow of a conversation. Not a big thing Rom, just a courtesy and not a hard thing to do.

I'm merely asking a question in our necessary dualistic language and we do observe decay and, we suffer/endure our decay and that of others. Yet the question remains and it is in our capacity to present an answer(s) and one of the reasons that sites like this exist: to ponder everything. Plus. I'm asking for others to further explain their 'positions' - and to see what those positions mean for a range of questions. So the questions remain: how is that which 'creates' and is the same as the created, not subject to the same decay as that which it creates, as that which it is? Plus, there seems to be a difference on that larger, interconnected system: is it consciousness and can that decay; is it the universe and are we saying the universe is not or will not decay , will not end? And, you are not piping in - you are a member and the more the better.

Rom I have accommodated you here - but you create new threads when interested parties are tracking the original thread to get replies. And the new thread 'covers' the old one and if someone just takes a quick glance to check on replies, they are missed. The I vs i was part of the earlier one and separating them is not necessary. Or, at least ask........

Yet the fact is we think and know in dualistic terms. But, dualistic or not (and, again, I recognize the limitation of language), you are saying, in effect, I made/make "I" and "I" am shaping the universe (seemingly) to something is was not before I shaped it. The universe is shaped (in new ways) by "I" (and of course was shaped before there was "I")- which is not an I (i.e. illusion), which is not separate and which is not. So, accepting the 1st sentence for argument sake, why is it that I, if it is the universe, sees itself, the only thing there is, as separate? Or, as you say, why does "I" do anything - so indeed, why? What is there to flit in and out if there is only the universe? As to how the universe does anything, how is anything done - what's your answer (even in dualistic terms)?

I get the inadequacy of words. I get that creator and creation are not separate, yet, if the same, how is the created (same as creator) subject to decay? Again, I know words fail to capture Reality but do you see the difficulty with the seeing both (so to speak) as the same? And, if the separation is the physical mind in the ego, this speaks to separation and against sameness. Again, just trying to see how you see it. And why is there creation, if it is the creator which already is?

Thanks. The following is not to be argumentative but an attempt to understand your position further. How is it possible for the i to 'take on the identity as separate from the rest of creation?" Be it illusion (not as it seems) or not, this statement suggests that there is that which is able to 'take on a separate identity' - which seems to suggest that there is 'separation' in creation; there is a multiplicity. Also, why does (the large) I create in this view? For the I to be creator and source implies that there is that which is created and that which needs to be sustained (by the source). Thanks

then the i has it :+}

This is interesting and perhaps a topic for another thread but: What is the small i, in this belief? One assumes the i is an illusion but in dualistic terms, what is the i and what is the I? And, why is there the i, why did I created or manifest this way?

You recognize, as choice, the process that goes into making decisions and then zero in on the supposed very 'moment' of decision or choice and say it is not a choice. I am saying it is a process that one chooses to enter into (agreeing with you), after an initial belief has been challenged and that leads to a new belief: it is all a piece; it is all part and parcel of choice. This has been answered: you are setting up an artificial experiment rather than how choices are made real time in real life. Belief 'decisions' are not made in a void. This is a different thing. We know people cannot fly unaided. It is not a question of belief. Believing in Santa, virgin birth, Joseph's point about minds, etc. - these are subjects of belief. However, if for argument sake, we want to throw flying unaided in, then if you belief you can't, nothing gets done, that is your belief. If somehow this belief were legitimately (?) challenged, then one would investigate, question, consult experts, read, study, etc and, in the end, as part of the process (see above) his initial belief would be confirmed. Actually I did have a choice: and, believing, we might have something, we investigated (dated), questioned and studied (got to know one another and know stuff about one another) and having lived this process: Poof, the choice was made (again not an artificial lab experiment, not a single moment but the entire, lived process of moving to belief. It's been fun but we obviously disagree and you have made the choice to believe what you think (after challenges, investigations, study, reflection, discussion, etc.) is right. Me too :+}

I disagree: challenge to belief, consideration, weighing information, decision for new belief. The new belief is a piece with the previous decisions (choices) and actions. However, Santa is not the best example, so take virgin birth of Jesus. Now I believed that, and with my choice to read, study, consider, question, I arrived at and decided on a different belief. Unlike Santa (which is typically the experience of a little kid, unless you're really sheltered), if asked "what choice did you really have" the response would a lot and there seems to be three possible choices: a choice to move from 'certain' belief to an agnostic stance (don't know what to believe), continued belief (stay with the original position) or a completely different belief, that is in opposition to the former belief. Many, with the same challenge, information, debate and study, choose to continue, to this day, to believe in virgin birth. However, this is not a mechanical process, with separate and distinct steps (such as challenge - and then the decision/choice to considerate different possibilities, gather information, study, reflect, etc.) and, then, a final, step where a person announces that, "I now have a different belief." It is, instead, a very human decision making process that is all a piece including or resulting in a new belief. It is a bit odd (to me) that you value and give credence to all that goes into decision making and see this as choice but not the result of that work. Again, it is one, continual process. And, to ask an adult, who does not believe in Santa, to instead choose to believe in him again - is not the way choice comes about in real life. This is a lab experiment, not life. The latter involves choice, the former is a game. Therefore, my actions, questioning and experience result in choosing to believe there is choice :+} But, does that mean any guy who accepts your position would have to say to his 'significant other' that "I really didn't choose you, I really didn't have a choice, the evidence just indicated that I had to go with you, so, here we are. But I love you, honey." No, my friend, to my dying day, let the truth be known, especially to my wife. I choose (rather than saying "I was left with no choice.")!

A good laugh. Where in the Lord's name do you find this stuff?

Yet it remains interesting that (the) "I" is that which/who says there is no I:everything is just happening, at least according to "I."

But I don't believe in Santa because, as noted above, my initial belief was challenged, I investigated (even as a kid, I asked questions and regarding the big guy in red, a lot of questions) and challenge the new information, accepted that the consequence of that effort was against the former belief and for the present belief (i.e. no Santa). However, as also noted, it was not a solitary decision but in concert with and influenced by those who assisted, i.e. my parents. I believed 'A' then received new information, investigated, questioned, wrestled with the new info, accepted it and now belief 'B.' I could/would not go back because there is no new information that would warrant a new investigation that would result in a newfound belief in 'A.' We're talking about informed decisions that lead to new beliefs not opting for something that the information now points against. So, no I couldn't believe in Santa again because I already made that choice and continue to agree with it. Choice isn't done in a vacuum and once made, if one is comfortable they move forward. It gets more complicated with religious belief: I no longer believe much of what I previously believed, and based on investigation, study, experience, weighing possibilities, have moved to a new belief (which also includes updates and translations of the old, making them new perhaps) but I realize there is more (for me) to investigate and the final decision, the final choice is a work in progress. But to go back to my belief as a child is not warranted so I choose not to by the fact that I continually choose where I am (or one could say, I live with my present choice that began ages ago). I was the one who, when prompted by circumstances (be it Santa or religious belief) choose to do the work and go where it lead me and what I decided made sense. Where I ended is where my work got me and I was the one 'in charge.' To knowingly choose not to believe what you know(believe) is true is absurd because it goes against your belief!?? This, to me, seems like a head game (not meant to be pejorative or demeaning, but pointing out it is an intellectual exercise that doesn't reflect the reality) that separates choice from that which goes into or supports any real human choice. Choice is not made in a void.

(Me neither) But isn't that your choice: not to believe? I guess, with my choice to investigate and challenge, the consequence was against the former belief and for the present belief. To me, that is a choice - not a solitary decision but in concert with and influenced by those who assisted along the way of my investigation, but I was the constant, it was (is) my life and I decided.

We are born into both our formal (example religion) and informal beliefs and it most likely could not be otherwise. Parents have beliefs (and values) that they pass on to their kids. Most grow up in their religious systems, some disregard it when they go off to college (or life) and many of those same people bring it back, perhaps as a default position when they have children (I have often heard, "you gotta bring them up in something, in some religion and this is the one I know"). Others, as indicated above (cf. Joseph), with study, with input from different sources (history, science, literature, etc,), with life experiences and with reasoning, slowly begin to carve out a new (updated and/or different) understanding and (sometimes) a new belief system. There are situations and circumstances that are factors in where one ends up but, I agree, there is also choice. Obviously, there will continue to be debate on the reality and role of free choice and on different belief systems that people eventually adopt - but going forward, the decision or choice to engage rests with the individual.

Well said, Joseph.

Joseph, Forgot to mention, in my earlier response, that if you want to start a thread, under the Progressive Christianity section I assume, and move my initial response with your opening post, please feel free - an intriguing topic.

Not a problem Joseph, I assumed as much. I agree that perception is (can be) 'an impersonal quality of consciousness' and an impersonal engagement with Reality. It is a knowing ‘of ‘or about reality; the knowing of objects among other objects. Perception, our usual mode of ‘knowing about’differs, in kind, from ‘knowing’Reality as (it) Is. I had a professor who said: the infant 'wakes' to Life proper in the (immediate) knowing of Being. When the mother, holds a (toy) rhino or a rattle to the baby, it matters not what individual thing it is, because the preeminent in this moment of human intuition is Being/Reality. However, as is necessary, as is proper, this immediate intuition of Being 'takes a back seat' as the child learns to identify different objects, learns language, names her world and, thereby, 'forgets' Being as Is. I actually don't believe this is a bad thing: we perceive and distinguish among the 'things' in our world, holding them as objects to be known and we also learn to know about ourselves (we too are objects - yet more). This is a knowing that is suited to our existence and necessary for our survival as finite beings. I think, in life, for some, there are moments when wonder 'breaks through' or, conversely, we see Being, we intuit ‘More’ in and through our encounters with and in the world. I also think that there are moments when another pulls back the curtain and says, now 'see.' A professor of mine was one who did this: a slight, blading man with a monk like beard, stood in front of a class of guys and said, "nothing, nothing, nothing" then ever so slowly brought his hands from behind his back, in which he held a rock and said, 'being!' Or he rolled a ball across the floor and when someone picked it up, he said simply, "what is?" Or he told us the Pope came into a room, stood up on a table and danced: he, then, asked, "what is: the Pope or the running; is the Pope the one who runs or is there just the running?" So began our introduction to being, the greatest re-learning we have ever experienced to that time and to this day. So I agree, if I correctly understand you (in the short time it took to read and respond). However, I think the mystics, the one who tries to open himself to this awareness and encounter with Being - even the mystic must come back to his world, avoid objects, distinguish among deadly snakes, and think on (as object) what they encountered in their mediation or on their walk. Even the Eckharts of the world, think and write about what they 'experience, what they ‘know’and give us this insight, this information, these 'things' to think about and in thinking, in contemplation, perhaps realize the possibility of 'wonder, of insight' and, thereby, draw us to walk also. I can see where duality is created by perception, created by our way of knowing and that Divinity/Being is (also) obscured by this knowing. However, I am thankful that any immediate knowing of Being is a walk, a journey, yet to be. To live constantly in the immediacy of the Beatific Vision (so called by Catholics) would be overwhelming and remove choice (and we will leave freedom of choice to another thread also) to 'discover' (and live in) Being. I believe Life Proper/Being/Divinity presents Self to being(s) and the possibilities are before us: to wonder, to know, to walk into the fullness of Being. Obviously this is not a luxury for all human beings, which, for me, is a realization that I (we) must embody Divinity/Being and, once lived in finite human beings, can, more easily, be seen and made present in the lives of others. I have never been able to get my head around the idea that Being must throw itself out into creation in order to know itself. On a philosophical level it makes no sense (another later discussion) but it just seems like a ‘selfish’act; it is all, we are all about Being knowing itself. There is One but knowing itself is the reason to be for all that is – and the good news is the one finds its way back to itself - after discovering itself. I always thought there was graciousness in Life and a giftedness to creation, thus Eckhart’s prayer of ‘thank you.’And a gift is always‘for the other.’Plus, although there is One, there is multiplicity in the One: not a multiplicity of being(s) but a multiplicity of persons in being. There are, paradoxically, others in the One. Finally, I was impressed with Whitehead’s notion of Beauty: that there is a higher beauty in the many becoming one (diversity in unity) than there is in the unity of the same or the one. Another way of putting this is that, even in my moments of wonder, insight, having the curtain pulled back, I never thought I was (or we collectively were) God or the One; actually it was enough to be a child of Being, the One, Divinity and grow into the fullness of Life. I know much is here and much might need elaboration but I felt your post required a thoughtful, if hurried, response.

No, my particular presentation of what I wanted to contribute to the dialogue is more than fine and on point. The question is what is the substrate or ground of being and that goes to (encompasses) all that is: all is of and is sustained by the ground/substrate* of being; there is nothing 'outside' of the substrate, outside of being. So to say patriotism is writ large in (the) substrate is to state the obvious: all is in the substrate, some more obvious than others. You say that the ground of all is the merely physical; others do not. Regardless, patriotism is non-physical and, as shown, it is embodied by and in physical, (self)conscious beings. Concerning your game of fetch: if one is unsure of their argument and seeks to obfuscate the dialogue, an effective way to do it would be to lift sentences from past posts and try to send another on the proverbial goose chase - but this only works if another wants to play games. Of course, if one is confident in their argument, there is no need or desire to chase geese or past posts. *Note: I never liked the idea/word, ground or substrate, in the context above, but because it has been used in this thread, there is basic agreement on what is meant by the term.