thormas

I'll let you and Joseph lead any discussion (for now) on consciousness and the non-physical. But your take on consciousness is of course opinion (dare I say belief?). Just one note: to allow that the non-physical 'interacts' with the physical, suggests the non-physical has 'thingness' (with which to interact) and that it must be a lesser reality because it is subsumed or absorbed. Another option is that 'it' is not a thing, as such does not 'interact' and is not absorbed but can still impact/influence the physical, or more properly speaking, the physical that is self-conscious. A symbol comes to mind: a symbol 'points' to that which is not physically present, or that which is not even physical, and 'makes' it 'present.' That which the symbol points to has a presence (i.e. impact or influence) greater than mere physicalness or nearness. Think of a country's flag which 'stands for' or points to 'patriotism' and that patriotism is/can be(come) present in one who recognizes the symbol. Patriotism does not interact, it is not absorbed: for one for whom the symbol is important, patriotism is embodied, made physically present in him/her and influences who they are, how they act. The non-physical is present and brings change (if acknowledged and accepted by the human being) and it has greater 'presence' (influence not proximity) than, for example, the T-shirt worn that day by the one for whom the symbol points. Schillebeeckx, when speaking about the Eucharist (which works the same way). called this transignification. You miss the point about the word illusion. It is not scary: watch: ILLUSION! See all is still okay. It was from a teaching perspective: the word is too easily defined in a way that does not make your case and as such is easily dismissed. Further, as indicated, it's different definitions can take the place of your preferred definition and (see previous sentence). I know some people use certain words for their possible jarring impact (such as atheist Christian) but, I find, if the effort is put forth, there is no need to jar people. And, to clarify, I spend a great deal of time on reality, what is known, how we know just not specifically on the word illusion which I find illusory (misleading). However, it has been a fun conversation. I get what you're saying about color and now noise - my point remains this is simply the way we have evolved to encounter and 'know' reality - as it seems to us. Not sure what you are talking about with the whole thing about falseness??

Joseph, Welcome back. I found your earlier comment helpful but when I responded, nothing. And here you are again. Thanks. First, as you must know, this understanding of illusion v reality is not mine, not one I spend much time on. However, I tried to get Rom's take on things and kept asking questions to get that understanding. The problem, from my perspective, was twofold: first, I believed I was getting different and contradictory answers and I was asking, "what is real or reality" and we never got there (unless it was lost in the back and forth). Finally, reviewing the posts and doing additional reading, I summarized my understanding of this issue. And I believe the word illusion is not helpful, given its definition is, wrongly perceived or false idea. Rather 'not as it seems - for me' suggest that human perception is limited or incomplete or 'human.' Since we, seemingly, have no idea if it is wrong or false, this allows for a more nuanced understanding. Regardless, as summarized, human beings do 'know' in a particular way and it can be said that our perception is what reality 'seems to be - to/for us.' However, as you added, "things are not exactly what they seem:" reality is - however, we perceive reality, not exactly as it is, but rather as it seems to us. It is also not helpful to say that our perceptions are i'llusory in nature:' simply, this can be is an impediment to hearing and understanding this idea (simply not the most effective way to explain it for others). It is intriguing (but for a later post) that we find not just two or more but the vast majority (effectively all) human beings who either think otherwise or don't even consider whether our perception of reality is what it seems to be for us but might not match what is. There seems to be a sense that, regardless of how we know and what we perceive, it is sufficient, we are sufficient to what is necessary or important to life - especially when we admit we don't know what reality is. Actually, this sounds very much like how people have talked about their 'knowledge of God:' they recognize they are human, limited and can never know it all - yet they live, move and have being. Good presentation about waking up in the morning and exactly, what is reality - a question I have posed repeatedly. However one wonders how 'off target' (for lack of a better description) what seems is from what is. I've always thought if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, not only is there no noise, there is no tree, no forest, no-thing. Because it is man whose perceptions (must) differentiate in order to move in the world and name the differentiation in order to know the world and self. "Whatever reality is, it isn't what it seems." Conversely, it might be close to what it seems - we simply don't know. However, reality is what is 'met' when we perceive, name and know - as we are able. Interesting, 'math is reality.' But whether Einstein saw it or not, it was his math (a means of perception) that 'saw' something of reality or, to remain consistent, math perceived 'what seems to be' from the perspective of man. For, isn't 'expanding' a concept and concepts objects and objects illusion? Math is not reality, it sees reality or what seems to be! "While we can say the universe is real, science points to present evidence that it is clearly not what it seems." I agree with the first part of this statement but it is interesting that we are saying science, which is a human tool for perceiving reality (viewing objects as does man), is cited to present evidence that what seems to be is not what it seems. If I understand Rom, he is a physicalist and, as such believes that reality is (only that which is) physical. So I'm not sure if he would consider a theory that argues that reality is consciousness. And if we are talking one consciousness that is reality, does this theory trip over to the more than physical or that which transcends the physical - which is also called super-natural? For consciousness seems to be other or more than the physical - unless we conceive of a universe size physical brain. Furthermore, I don't think the universe is inside my head because neither my ego or my head is that big and I am not "God." Many great minds also find it impossible to know if consciousness is all there is. There is uncertainty for us all and one lives with it (a comfort of sorts) but, human beings also need to know: there is sense of the transcendent in man, simply that 'there is more' and s/he reaches beyond self to become Self; reaches beyond consciousness to become Consciousness. But this too, if for another thread.

Almost. The universe is real (as you once said, yet now you merely assume its existence), and everything, including the universe, is not illusion (as you once said). Rather, given the way we encounter the world, we perceive and distinguish objects; we name and know about 'our' objectified world. So, the universe 'is what it is' (i.e. real); the universe is not illusion. The only illusion, i.e. things being not as (what) they seem is from our perspective. The universe/everything 'is not' what it seems to be for us. And this is so, precisely because of the way we know (the world and self). Perhaps, It is more accurate to say that the universe is not exactly how we perceive it: our perception does not reflect the universe, as (it) is; our perception reflects the world as it seems to us. When we look in the mirror, we still see objects, we still see the world (and ourselves) as it seems to us; we don't perceive in a new way; what we perceive, in the mirror, is only (and still) a reflection of what we perceive. Illusion is a descriptor that must be used in small, careful measure, less one assumes that all the universe or the contents of the universe is illusion whereas it is our perception of the universe that is not what it seems to be - for us. At another time we will have to revisit 'nothing is the first cause' which appears (poof) as a reliance on magic - a magic more magical than the supposed work of deities or gods.

That was my summary understanding of what you were trying to say, albeit contradictory and confusing at times for someone who does not frame things that way. So, having read it, just give a summary of your understanding.

hardly

Regardless, and since there is no sincere attempt to respond, I think this is the correct take on what you have been trying to say. You are welcome.

I think the word illusion is not the best descriptor. Take the chair: what is seen as red is not what is (in itself) rather it is what seems to be (for us). But does the same go for the chair: is what we see and call ‘chair’ not what it seems? However, by this, do we simply mean we are not always thinking or conscious of what ‘makes up’ the chair, the arrangements of atoms – or do we simply mean that the chair is seen as ‘object’ and that we name it chair? Thus it could be said 'chair' is a concept (of ours). If we accept that the universe is real and that physical reality is made up of fundamental matter (ex. atoms) and arranged in different ways, then the ‘chair’ is a particular arrangement of reality, and, as such, is not an ‘object in itself,’ not a ‘separate thing’ - however, it is seen as such by us; it seems to be that which it is not. And it is named as such by us so we can navigate the world, so to speak. Therefore, it can be said that such ‘objects or things’ like chairs are simply the way we refer to particular arrangements of matter; they are not independent 'things.' So it could be said ‘things or ‘objects’ are not what they seem, because they only seem a certain way, because of us. Therefore, it can be said the objects (and the naming) are not ‘real’ but are concepts devised by us; therefore, objects are concepts. Therefore what is real is the universe, but the 'individual objects' of the universe are not independent existences or parts of the universe. They are our conception (and naming) of the real, physical universe. And this is the ‘result’of how we are built so we can make our way in/though the world. The physical world is indeed real, but “objects” are our conception - that which we regard as things and upon which we place names is real. The universe is real, it is what is (in itself) yet seems to be a particular way because of us and for us. Therefore, the universe is real and is not illusion. And if we say everything is illusion, it must be qualified: everything that is, is real - however, our conception of it is what it seems - for us and therefore illusion because the universe is not a multiplicity of objects, it is not (in itself) what it seems to us. When the universe, when reality is encountered by (self)conscious beings, then that reality is objectified, conceptualized, named so man might know it. Man encounters reality as it is but to know it, he (must?) encounters it as it seems: as objects to be named so he can make his way (so to speak). Is this what you mean?

We differ: surprise! I like the so called wall of text, especially when it is full of complicated terms and something worth the work. The piecemeal never satisfies: go all in or go home. As for ill defined, the onus is on the one who presents his case, to carefully present and explain terms so his audience can respond. And never out of questions or thoughts.

Yeah, I know. But, makes no sense to break down the whole lot or repeat the entire quote. As I said, just respond in full. Actually, responding to every little bit is awkward for me, as a reader, but, since it is your style..........I went with it.

Joseph, If you mean the quote box that Rom refers to, I don't really like it: it breaks down every sentence and we never, in my opinion, get to the big idea. I have used my version (typically my response is set off by underlining or italics) and a couple times I have just responded in a paragraph or two. Perhaps I will give it a try but it makes the response too piecemeal for me. I prefer a full response and summarizing rather than the back and forth over an individual sentence or two. But that's is my style. But thanks for the 'tutorial.'

Ok, to summarize, the universe is what is real or, put another way, the universe is reality. Universe means the entirety of the universe (seen and unseen, physical and non-physical so to speak)? And, if '0 energy' is true, then not only illusion but meaninglessness (let's leave meaninglessness for another day). And, it is science and logic that allow or enable you to see that which is illusion. Is it correct that this seeing is not the physical act of seeing with your eyes but, understanding based on science and logic? Moving on, the tools enable us to see that what is, is, actually, not as it seems (i.e. illusion) - but, can the tools enable us to see/understand what is as it is, i.e. reality? And if so, what is reality; if science enables us to understand reality, then what is its understanding? Ok, something is not clear: you have said the universe is reality (i.e. what is real ); there is nothing else; and, also, that all is illusion. If all, i.e.,everything, is illusion, how is the universe real? It seems that if the universe is all - and all is illusion - then reality or the universe is not as it seems - therefore reality is illusion: nothing is as it seems, nothing is as it is (real). Finally, it (reality) can be seen more clearly - perhaps with developing scientific tools. However, reality can not be known but it can be understood. Ok, but if all is illusion then the tools of science (and logic) are illusion as are the object of science's inquiry. How can illusion look at illusion and see/understand reality?

Rom, humor! I did not miss it, I was playing.

Nope not yet. Working on mine but need to have a more solid understanding of your before I can proceed. Don't worry, I'll get to it and it will be worth the wait..........Maybe :+}

The video is 'heavy.' However I don't think I will ask the farmer to help build my house because if I turn to him and ask if a particular brick should be placed in a particular spot to start the construction- he won't lift a finger but he will say "maybe." In the meantime, my family freezes in the cold. Maybe!

First, real and reality are the same in the questions posed. So two levels, is fine: so what is reality in the pragmatic, everyday (and why)? What makes sense? So it is individual consideration/decision? It seems that humanity or parts of humanity share what makes sense. Why is that in your opinion? And what is your scientific/philosophical aspect - what is real/reality? I don't really mean purpose if understood as utility. Meaning is more, 'what is this about' (not utilitarian) just a basic wondering or question. And, I would think that if one finds meaning, one has purpose - think of a something you love to do - many, find meaning in say writing, playing a musical instrument, painting and they also, then say, they have found their purpose. So there is a similarity for meaning and purpose (if the latter is not utilitarian). But if the concept of meaning is an illusion, and concepts 'present/represent' image and an 'image' can be a metaphor (remembering Campbell) or a symbol that points to 'something else' - (in your opinion) does the concept of meaning (you'll love this one) mean something? Sorry, you said more sensible but still making some sense, but fine. But if you only 'see a pale reflection of reality,' what is the reality you 'see' that enables you to see that which is illusion? If there is illusion (not as it seems) and reality (what is) is only seen as a pale reflection, do you have theories on what reality is? Simply, what is the reality that is seen only in/as a pale reflection? Can it ever be known or 'seen more clearly?'

Not yet my friend, we still need to finish as I never got a real answer on what reality is for you. In other words: If there is illusion (and I assume all in the universe, everything, is not as it seems) what is real (understood as it is)? Or is all illusion, all meaningless? And, since you seem to be attracted to the eastern traditions and consider them sensible - do you accept them, any of them? Do they tie to you understanding of what is real?

You're on a roll - good stuff.

No idea what hypothesis you mean Eastern traditions, then you really do need to read Hart who quotes frequently from Hinduism. And yet you never answered the questions about Campbell.

No complains about Campbell though?? Is he just flowery language? Is his a hypothesis or belief? I mean you did quote him! What hypothesis is not helpful? Campbell?

no, a revelation :+}

Joseph is not the only great theological thinker. And, we must say of Joseph what we say of all religious or theological thinkers, is that his is a belief statement - we do not know, there is no absolute certainty. So Joseph's depiction of the 'ultimate' is his belief. I like Campbell and I like what he says here. I allow for the transcendence of duality and I allow for the dissolving of self* into the ground of being (actually such dissolving of self is referred to as selflessness in everyday life) and I have already said that theologians speak about the human experience of God as opposed to God in himself. Therefore, and of course, our images are metaphor - (a favorite book by John Hick is 'The Metaphor of God Incarnate'). So, our metaphors refer to ultimate mystery (an idea sacrosanct in theology). So, I am in agreement with a good deal of Joseph's belief but then we diverge a bit (believing somewhat different things) or we simply give the same 'ultimate' different names. I agree that there is 'one - the mystery of our being and the being of the world.' And, that (the various and diverse human) images for god give way in the experience of the ultimate mystery, I also agree that there is nobody there (and also no there), no god, no you. Because you, me, god, there, nobody, anybody are objects and in uniting with mystery, there are no objects among other objects, there is one, the mystery. Where I differ, respectfully, very respectfully with Joseph is that for me, there is no god (understood here as human image of god, metaphor), there is only the Ultimate Mystery (from which we come, in which we are, to which we unite or re-connect). It is precisely Campbell's ultimate mystery that theism calls "God." Not a supreme person, not part of the universe, not Jesus Christ, not an object capable of being explored - rather, in Campbell's words: "the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well." It is this mystery, that I refer to as "God." The ultimate mystery is unnameable and unknowable (for Campbell who never names it and states that all our images/names are metaphor that never fully touch the reality). The mystery is not an object, not one of us, not part of the universe - the mystery is that to which all that is, tends (goal), the mystery of our being. So is the mystery prior to our being, is it the source of our being, of all being- especially since for Campbell, it is our destiny/goal? Rom, you quoted Campbell: so I assume you agree in whole or part with him (or were you just throwing ontological)? If you are in agreement, then you are agreeing with his belief statement- is there evidence for the specifics of what he has said? Do you believe there is ultimate mystery which is our goal and source? If all dissolves in the ultimate mystery which is the source of the being of the world, it is also the source of the being of the universe- so is it the universe? Anyway, it is this mystery, that I refer to as "God." So, with Joseph I am in good company.

The scope of science is the entirety of the universe; science posits theories, offers descriptions and delves into secrets of the universe. However, as said, we can debate its accuracy: there is no absolute certainty with science. Many of us, (atheists, agnostics, theists, humanists, pantheists and panentheists) agree that science gives us more and more accurate descriptions of how the universe ticks and also that it has limitations. It is because we 'don't actually know anything' (although I prefer to say everything) that I have referred, numerous times, to opinions or beliefs, however, I think this statement needs a clearer explanation. I want to make two simple points (meant to be explanatory not argumentative). First, science: we do have facts, hypotheses and theories about the universe and the things, laws and processes in the universe, so, on one hand, we do know some-things. However, there currently seem to be two possibilities (perhaps there are others), either seemingly acceptable: if all is illusion then, then the objects of scientific inquire are illusory and, we portray the universe as it seems while speculating on what is real. Conversely, if we accept that the universe is real, then, the vast range of scientific tools, is giving us greater insights about the universe, as it is. If those who are more versed in science care to elaborate, please do. Most of us appreciate the sciences and, seemingly, all of us rely on the sciences. Furthermore, many people (me included) see no contradiction or problem(s) with science as it relates to religious belief (some obviously do, but they are not the present concern). For me, and if you read Hart's 1st chapter, you'll see that 'believers' or religious persons, should have no issue with science (nor fear it). The point is that, for me, for Hart, for many others, science describes the universe and we are better for it: the universe (illusion or real) is the object(s) on which science focuses and postulates. Second, religion: "God" is not believed to be part of the universe. Or, to use language from this thread: "God" is the reality, the substrate/ground of all objects (be they not as they seem or as they seem). "God" is not the universe or the multiverse; not in or part of the universe or multiverse, as one object among others. Rather, "God" is the very possibility of every-thing: "God" is ontologically prior to and the continuing ontological possibility of the universe, of creation, of all. "God," so understood, is not an object and, as such, is not within the scope of scientific inquiry. This is why I have referred to "God" as the subject of faith - different from the objects of science. You will see, in this paragraph that I have continually use the word, believe. Religion, by definition is belief and for all theistic religions, that belief is (in) "God." Religion, the best of religion and its best thinkers is not (should not be) anti-science. The primary focus (although not the only one, since its adherents are inhabitants of the universe) of religion is not the universe (in the way it is for science) but the ultimate meaning of life and the living of that meaning. It believes that meaning is found in "God," or the meaning is "God." "God" says Hart is not a proper name (his use of quotes signifies this and also that he is not talking about gods). The best religious thinkers talk about the human 'experience' of 'God" - realizing they cannot talk about what is referred to as "God" in himself. So too, when I say “God” is Love, it is a belief statement, a human insight, of the "Reality" that is experienced in creation. I fully accept that some do not accept this explanation of religion or “God” and I have no problem with that. I fully accept that some people do not believe there is anything ontologically prior to the universe or creation (i.e. what some call “God”). I fully accept some people believe that creation, whether it is real or illusory, is all there is and, I assume, they believe this because there is no evidence to prove there is anything other than the universe - even at the same time they acknowledge there is no certainty either way or any way! However, if some others posit there is no “God” (as understood above) but that there is a reality 'beyond' the universe or 'behind/ beyond or transcending' illusion, and since they cannot know this with certainty, this seems to be a statement of belief. Moreover, for someone to ask for evidence of “God” is to disregard (which is their right) the difference between science and religion (see above): it disregards that there can be no evidence, for or against, that which is not an object; it disregards that there is, there can be no certainty. And, such requests can be disregarded. Finally, I don’t have a problem with ‘illusion’ although I sometimes felt it was not always clear – especially when coupled with free will as illusion and the meaninglessness of life (the first two I can see as valid lines of scientific inquiry , the last is, regardless of what side you come down on, a statement of belief). Be that as it may, I believed the concept of ‘illusion’ could be linked to a Christian understanding (cf. an earlier post in this thread).