thormas

I have been using that meaning, actually wrote a couple of larger posts on it after Joseph's comments. Interesting idea but the jury is out for me. And if by unmentionables, you mean what I think you mean, a good step. But it is not a quid pro quo. Of course we still comment on "God" while at the same time stating he is not an object. It is human nature to try to grasp, to say something of that which some believe is and is in their midst. Isn't this similar (not identical) for those who think all is illusion (defined above) but posit a 'as it is' that underlies, if you will, the illusion? Is there proof, certainty, for such a supposed reality? Can such a supposed reality be analyzed or, if it is indeed, reality, is it beyond the tools and efforts of being who live in and actually are illusion?

Two comments only: On delusion: So just walk away: stop the comments! Opinion or not - they are unnecessary, especially on a site like this. on God: You have just nailed the difference: you speak of gods, I and others speak of "God" quotes and uppercase intentional (cf Hart). The gods, not "God" are objects that we can comment on.

Rom, you really have to remain calm. I already said I referred to them as statements (or if you prefer, assertions - who cares) so I was simply and repeatedly asking you to respond. Not that hard. So, sure people disagree and sometimes it is easy (at least supposedly) to say one is mistaken and the other correct, However if, as admitted, there is no absolute certainty, then who is mistaken and who correct is probably difficult (and increases in difficulty in given the topic) - actually impossible to determine. And it is obvious the delusional comment is not nonsense - since you doubled down, plus we are not talking about speaking in tongues (but even this one - what did the biblical writer mean, what does a modern mean by speaking in tongues?) is not as easy as it might seem. We, or you, have been through this before concerning ignorance. And even Joseph pointed out "better left unsaid when it comes to the word ignorant or inference that a view is pinned to just our perceptions as if that is inferior to our own on a particular matter. Don't you think so ?. As it doesn't seem to me to play out very well in a conversation or civil discussion that way." So, substitute, "Separateness is bordering on delusion in my opinion." If another person believe there is separateness (which seems to fall under opinion especially since we can't be certain) and you say it (that opinion/beliief) is bordering on delusion, you have implied and one may infer (again) you have said the person who holds such a belief is...... deluded or delusional. All Joseph was saying was such comments were better left unsaid; all I'm saying is you (we) should be a little more careful with our words. Okay, that's settled. So we are agreed that science is limited, that the scientific method has value - and no one is trashing science. One issue at a time, but you do realize, don't you, that not everyone has to jump through torturous pathways (catchy though) concerning God. Also, you impose your reliance on (demand for?) evidence on others yet some others believe (operative word) that "God" is not an object and, therefore, there is no evidence against .......or for "God." Even with evidence and scientific tools, you have stated that there is no absolute certainty; that science has no answer. Therefore you have opinions, you make 'rational' arguments and you present 'evidence' however there is no certainty: when you make statements that life has no meaning, when you make statements that "god" is not and/or is not Love, or everything, being, unconditional reality, etc. - these are opinions, these are your beliefs. This is not to deny science, it is only to agree, with you, on its limits. The religious believer also does not have absolute certainty, when they say, "God" is........it is a belief statement. The assumed delusion of another is in the eye of the beholder, in other word, it is opinion - so, the suggestion is to keep these kinds of opinion on the down low or simply mute them.

Well, just to show I did try (and I referred to the following as a question (perhaps implied) but also, a statement and I was awaiting your response. So here is the relevant part: ........ in effect you are saying anyone who disagrees with what you believe is delusional: mistaken, misunderstanding, misapprehending. ....... I'm saying is be a little more careful with your descriptors. You must realize that many people (present company excluded) might be offended by having their beliefs called delusional and, by extension, being called deluded themselves. You say, if positions were reversed, you would weigh the evidence - but you rely for everything on evidence. You must realize, that not everybody relies on it as you do and not all believe (the) evidence is conclusive, ........plus, some/many others simply believe that science studies the universe, has a limited (but expanding) array of tools to assess (judge, gauge, estimate, appraise, analyst, determine) the universe and that this work is on the objects in, the laws of, the energy of universe - in other words, all that is part of the universe (or even the multiverse); they believe the universe is continent (fortuitous), objective reality and, as such, is the proper focus of scientific study. However, they believe, to put it in classical terms, there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all continent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent. Given 'unconditional reality' and given what science is, there is no-thing, no object for it to assess, gauge or analyze. I know you do not, will not - ever -accept this - and not only am I fine with that and respect (but disagree with) your position - I have no need to call you deluded. Such would be a fruitless comment and a waste of time. Plus, in the best way, I simply don't care: your beliefs, your reliance on evidence I take as sincere, and I accept that never the twain shall never. And there you go!!

you seem to be avoiding the question on the table You were asked and I await your response....

You missed the point, it is not about separateness, believing it or not - it is about your comments on the opinions of others.

But how is science describing reality? What does it say? Or, does it say different things? Descriptions ........just looking to clarify that I understand what you are presenting. If there is no knowledge with absolute certainty then is all scientific knowledge conditional or just some of it? Or can we say that there is some real knowledge say about the big bang, evolution and that all is illusion but no absolute knowledge/certainity about reality? Again looking to clarify. I believe I follow when you say science only sifts out what is not true but, logically, if we are admitting it gives us no knowledge with absolute certainty, then to say something is not true seems to be a statement of certainty? Again, to clarify: if something is a cause that effects something else, is that 'in time?' And I'm not making an argument, I am seeking to clarify yours. Thanks for clarifying: you agree and have been arguing that "there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all contingent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent." Although, as said above, we do not know what that reality is and can never know with absolute certainty. But this seems to contradict your statement that 'science describes reality?' And how can we debate the accuracy of science's description(s) of reality if science doesn't provide certain knowledge and that only of what is not true? You have yet to respond to my comment that I meant what I said about your comment on delusion. anything?

correcting a typo that I was too late to edit: there is unconditional, necessary reality by which all contingent reality -. every-thing, every object - is dependent.

Let's finish one conversation at a time for right now. I raised questions and made different statements. Your answers, response?

The Heathens are back!!!!!!

Okay, helpful: ground of being = the universe (and I suppose a multiverse if it exists). When you say 'whatever it is actually' are you referring to reality or something else? You lost me: what is the 'separate' that Joseph might have implied? All I believe he said is 'being encompasses existence.' I can get what Campbell means, although in this one quote it is vague. However, in my question, "are being, reality, energy the same and one?" you have only mentioned being (and equated it with the universe). Are reality and energy the same as being, in your present opinion? And, my other question: "(in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?" Let me rephrase: if the illusion (all that is - 'it not as it seems') is in time (also shares the illusion since time is understood as illusion, is being which equals the universe, or is reality eternal? And, it is probably best to keep opinions like. "Separateness is bordering on delusion" out of the conversation as they are unhelpful.

Are you playing with the goalposts? Earlier, you said, "They (when I was asking a question about mass and energy) are an illusion and yes there is an underlying reality." And, in another thread, you agreed with Joseph that the ground of being could be understood as the substrate of being. Joseph then replied, "For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen . ..... Is being existence ? ..... perhaps one could say being encompasses existence ...." So we have ground/substrate of being, we have an underlying reality for all illusions and we have being that encompasses existence (which seemingly includes time). So, if we have being, and if being encompasses existence, and there is an underlying reality to illusion (including time), are being, reality, energy the same and one? How, do you understand it (in plain speak)? We do function whether time is illusion or not, and if illusion, whether we recognize it or not - but, again, is (in your present understanding) the substrate/ground of being or the reality 'behind' (so to speak) the illusion 'beyond time?' Is that being or reality eternal, i.e. beyond illusion?

So if time is illusion, then the substrate/ground simply is or is eternal, beyond time and time is the illusion necessary for us to function.

Say what on personal opinion? Yet, as we know, there is a limit to science (and all knowledge) and it is possible/probable that we will never be able to tell fully. But if, as you said, mass is an illusion, then, in this scenario, energy is the reality; all else is based on the ground/construct that is called energy.

Being encompasses existence, or is its substrate. Although we are not bound by definitions, I did recheck and substrate is defined as the surface or material on or from which an organism lives, grows, or obtains its nourishment. It, for me, is reminiscent of Paul's take on God: in whom we live, move and have our being.

Thanks. Still questions, and some of the answers don't really get at it for me (ex. evolution) and there seems to be room for personal opinion and understanding. Including: that there might be 'underlying' reality but might never know is tremendous wiggle room. Of course, when energy began (so to speak) is also one to ponder. Energy is one energy within which there is difference/diversity (concentrated to dilute)? It would seem if energy is the reality, evolution is the construct. Food for thought.

Thanks, but clarifications are needed: mass is an illusion, and it doesn't have any physical properties? Energy is not one reality, there are differences? How can time be real and illusory? What is the underlying reality? Time and energy are constructs of what? If we flip realities, we can't go back in time but we believe there was a past?

So, from a non-science person, if mass is involved in the equation, am I correct that mass can be a physical property? And, regardless of that answer, is energy a physical reality? And, again regardless of that answer, did energy have a beginning? Or, regardless of that answer, is energy that of which all is or participates or is energy that which sustains all?

Well. when frustration ends, weigh in. I do miss Heathens though, talk to Joseph.

.

True but still, valuing Burl's opinion, I was asking for a translation of a fuller explanation of his take on the topic.

Could you translate - I would like to know what you actually think but don't want to have to puzzle it out.

I think there is the problem with the use of the word illusion even when it is said to mean 'not as it seems.' If, we accept that there is energy or that 'all is energy' and if energy appears as physical reality and if, therefore, it can be said the physical is not as it seems and if we are 'built' the same given our senses and a mind which receives and makes sense of what is received – then, it seems energy is something objective or real in itself and there is something 'objective' about us: we are built to receive and perceive this energy and it is experienced as the physical world and it is experienced as real. I have no problem with the above (and I also recognize it is scientific theory and religious belief (Buddhism and Hindu - Joseph's comments). And, as I said above, I think this can tie into a Christian understanding: God is considered the Real in theology, it is accepted that God in himself is beyond our knowing, and God presents or manifest Self or the Real in a way that there is (physical) creation that is sustained and that creation is meaningful; we can 'know' God or Reality as presented (again the limitation is ours). In theology, Reality is created and sustained through the Word (or philosophy's Logos) and humanity can know the Word - which is truly 'knowing God. To be fair, theology adds that although we can know the Word (of God), we can still not know God in Self (would science say we can know the physical (and therefore energy?) but not energy is itself (otherwise why would there be the 'illusion' at all?). It seems obvious that we (humanity, including the scientists and the religious believers)) do not act as if all is not as it seems. There is 'wisdom' inherent in the everyday actions of ordinary men and women who react to the physical world as real. If there is something to the science and something to the religious insight, perhaps if we want to explain it to others, we should be more careful and rigorist with our use of language. For the simple reason that illusion, given its 'street' definition is taken to mean not real at all, mirage, hallucination, figment of imagination, or delusion. This is what I (a rather intelligent person :+}) have always taken from some here, in spite of the occasional use of "not as it seems' and, many times, it is part of the positions of some that life has no meaning. So, I can agree with Burl that having a baby is not an illusion but as a Christian, I can also assert that the Reality the baby is born to is presented in a way that s/he can know it and what is known is never All (God in Self). I can also state that, although the illusion theory or belief is intriguing or the Christian Godhead belief is interesting - on a rainy day spent in a college library, it is not significant for most people. I can imagine a SNL skit about reality as illusion with a comedian trying to sit on a chair then realizing 'it is not as it seems' and watching their imagination run wild, extending to trying to leave the room, unsure of what to do because the door, windows, walls, everything is not as it seems. Both illusion and Godhead are interesting for a few but have no impact on the many and even the few act and react to the physical world and in that acting probably take it as it seems. If one feels the desire to spread either understanding or teach it to another, I think great care should be taken - simply so the other can understand and follow. There is definitely something to the idea of experience being subjective but all is not reducible to the subjective. I agree with Joseph that we do experience the world subjectively, however it seems there is something objective for experience to encounter and there is something objective in the subjects: humans have the same way of knowing (this is not to suggest this knowing is not influenced by our own experiences or faults in the original equipment). There is something in common, there is something that can be known, there is something(s) that we have in common and agree on, the evidence of that, is the history of civilization (and I know the horror of that history also but that we can say there are horrors, says something about what we have in common and know when we stray from it). Regarding the baby, if we add to what we know and assume that a woman is in a healthy relationship, wants to be a mother and was planning on a family, for most/all in these circumstances it would be a happy experience. Change the circumstances and now the woman is a teenage girl, or older and not in a healthy relationship or didn't want a family now - then pregnancy might not be a happy experience. It is more than the stark fact of pregnancy and if the circumstances/experience are the same or similar - there is much greater 'agreement' on the meaning of the experience. It is not just our subjective reaction to a fact, (pregnancy) it is also the additional facts (healthy relationship, wants a family, timing) to which each subject reacts. This and the last post are continuing works, so I reserve the right to rethink and adjust if desired. Note: as for Trump: as it seems, sadly, it is. There is something to objective reality! :+}

He does not always say that but, indeed, he has on occasion - yet I never remember him doing so as carefully as you. So, at times, yes, but it also gets lost in his insistence that all must have evidence for their beliefs - failing to understand that not all is subject to his criteria. However, I said, "most human being who have ever lived, do not accept that reality is an illusion." And, that remains true. Nor do these people, or apparently the scientist quoted, act as if the world is not physical or real. Actually, could one act in the world, other than accepting the world as real? It seems as if we act as if reality is as it seems! Apparently, those you refer to accept that 'energy' is real, for to deny that would indeed be delusory, and to follow your line of thinking, energy manifests/presents itself (for lack of a better descriptor) physically - to/for us - so it can be perceived. Actually, that sounds pretty cool! And, if one had a mind too, s/he could suggest that Being is real and manifests itself, to/for us (in us), physically. The limitation is not in the stars or in reality, it is in us. And from there we could move to the question the ontological fortuity of it all. The physical order confronts us at every moment not simply with its ontological fortuity but also with the intrinsic ontological poverty of all things physical–their necessary and total reliance for their existence, in every instant, upon realities outside themselves. Everything available to the senses or representable to the mind is entirely subject to…impermanence, mutability, transience. All physical things are composite, which is to say reducible to an ever greater variety of distinct parts, and so are essentially inconstant and prone to dissolution…. Nothing within the cosmos contains the ground of its own being. (The Experience of God, 92-93) Note the (apparent) agreement in Hart: all things physical .....available to the senses or representable to the mind......with what you have written: "the physical world is not as physical as we believe........... everything around us is just energy (and, I add, the manifestation of energy). Now we have something! I have never had a problem with this understanding - however, one's presentation is essential. Yet, does it make a difference in the lives of people? We still and must act and react to the 'physical' world; we 'accept' it as real. And I wonder if illusion is too pejorative. The word illusion is synomous with mirage, apparition, hallucination, figment to imagination - even delusion. For me, and I suspect for most others, it doesn't work. And we have made the better case here: if, indeed, reality is energy, then it seems apparent that energy presents itself so it can be known to us and by us. Is energy real? We would say yes. Is it possible that energy manifests itself physically and is, thereby, know by us? Certainly seems to be the case. Is, then, physical reality an illusion? Well........probably not the best way to reach your audience and it seems we have, come across another and better way to talk about reality. Actually, with a little more prep time, I could present this and have people nodding their heads in agreement. It's all about the presentation of reality and truth (at least as we perceive it). Finally, this ties in nicely with a contemporary theology and a panentheistic take on "God:" our perception of reality is not of Reality Itself, or what is called, for some religious persons, the 'Godhead' or God in himself - rather it is what is possible for us to perceive - as if through a glass darkly. The difference seems to be that Christianity believes that what is 'behind' the perception is Real and what is perceived is a presentation (an incarnation?) that is 'accurate' - simply not all encompassing. Or, simply that the Godhead is presented as/through the Logos. Apologies to the Buddha, in this context, but I disagree a bit: we are 'of' this reality and when we understand this, we see that we are part of everything. Apologies to Hinduism, at least in this context: one can know s/he is an autonomous being and recognize the connection between one's self and the rest of reality. And Albert is intriguing: the illusion is a persistent one - because, if we accept the above, that which is 'behind' manifests the Real. I. of course, am using spatial terms like 'behind' but this should be taken no more literally that belief in a Supreme Being 'above' this world. Christian thinkers and theologians have said that "God" is beyond time and space but time and space are part 'our' reality. So if illusion is or includes the presentation/appearance of reality in 'time' for us..........seems to be general agreement. Well that was actually enjoyable and fun. Thanks