possibility

Hi Thomas Oh no - I've written a novel again.... But have 'most of us' ever taken the time to look for this self? Descartes was reacting to what was being taught at the time: that "everything I know, I learned from the senses" - he took an important step forward: the recognition that I am not my body or my senses, that these are deduced as trustworthy or rejected as false by 'the thinking self'. However Descartes didn't feel the need to move beyond this (it was revolutionary enough for the 17th century), to further recognise that I am not my thoughts, either, but that these thoughts come and go as separate from my perception of 'self'. To declare "I think therefore I AM" is to believe that 'I am my thoughts'. Follow Descartes method of enquiry further: Have you ever experienced a thought that you just had to disown? One perhaps that you dismissed as 'evil', crazy, illogical or simply unkind, that you couldn't possibly bring yourself to entertain for more than a moment? And yet that thought appeared, even momentarily, before you rejected it? If 'I' can reject thoughts, then who or what am 'I' that rejects them? Certainly not 'the thinking self'...I suggest you keep looking... I think perhaps you are misunderstanding me in this instance, because this is not my assumption at all. I don’t believe that consciousness is a product of the brain, and I continue to hope that you take a look at Blackmore and Harris so you get a better idea of where I’m coming from on this question of self and consciousness. However, I don’t think that consciousness (or this particular mystery) is ultimately beyond the reach of science, either - although I agree that it's certainly beyond the reach of physicalism/materialism, and won't be accounted for in a purely physical study of the brain. I would hope that your view of science and the scope of scientific enquiry is not that narrow. As much respect as you may have for Hart's intellectual ability, his purpose is to attack physicalism/materialism in science, and so his awareness of the potentiality of science has narrowed to where his argument has the most impact. To a hammer, everything is a nail. In the interests of accepting what particular words mean, i thought I'd offer some widely accepted definitions (from the Cambridge English dictionary): Potential: someone's or something's ability to develop, achieve or succeed. Potentiality: an ability for development, achievement or success that is natural or has not been used. The difficulty you're experiencing with potentiality appears to come from your understanding of 'potential' as being necessarily attributed to something or someone - thereby assuming that 'potentiality' must also be attributed, rather than be in/for itself. But you're assuming a limitation where one doesn't exist. Forget the Absolute for a moment. When potentiality is considered as absolute, it is understood as the natural ability for development, achievement or success that is universally present, regardless of whether or not it has been used by someone or something. This is my current understanding of God. Potentiality is set only by the name we have given it. It's more than a seed when it's being a plant. 'Seed' is merely a descriptor, a label for the action of 'being that which fits the description of seed' - a subset of actualising potentiality that we define by our interaction (senses and thoughts that arise in consciousness) with this subset in spacetime. When it is labelled or defined as 'birdseed', we interact with it as if it is pet food, and readily forget that it ever had the potentiality to be 'a plant'. So it often comes as a surprise when this birdseed falls into a puddle of water and sprouts, and we're reminded that this potentiality has not been destroyed by our interaction with it as 'pet food'. Likewise the man in prison who becomes 'more than they were' (and your words here are telling) manages to pleasantly surprise us. We are reminded of the potentiality present within the 'him' we observe to at least be 'fully human' (whatever we determine that to be), and that in our past interaction with the label of 'criminal' or 'monster' - even with his name and all the expected continuity of self that implies - we have failed to see God in him. I don't believe we are ever justified in our judgement or condemnation of an actualising potentiality, regardless of what the structures of society tell you - and I think Jesus was pretty clear on this, too. To 'strip someone of their humanity', to say "they have not acted human and therefore are not human', is a destructive interaction that generates rather than prevents pain, humiliation and loss. A person should never be defined by their actions. How do we reconcile a heroic and an inhuman action from the one person? How many times have we heaped praise on someone for one heroic deed, revered them as 'the best of humanity', only to later discover that they're far from being a hero in other areas of their life? The fireman on 9/11 could simultaneously be a wife abuser or child rapist. Your supposed distinction between human and actualised or accomplished human, somehow define by what they do, does not hold water. Who are we to judge? In my opinion we are Adolph Hitler in very different circumstances, and any attempt to deny that possibility is false. Condemn the action, but love the person. To say "it is not we who have done it" is also false. There is no objectivity in judgement, no God-given distinction between good and evil. Personally I don't label Hitler as inhuman - I fully acknowledge his humanity in every action, and I think it's vital to do that in order to prevent history from repeating itself. Absolute potentiality is the ability to develop, achieve or succeed beyond a definition in spacetime (perceived actuality), regardless of whether or not it is used. To recognise that potential in any element of the universe is to recognise God. So a chunk of rock sitting idle for seventy years, declared 'riddled with faults' and rejected several times, could be recognised and nurtured with conscious interaction to become one of the most profound manmade expressions of absolute potentiality I have ever experienced: in Michelangelo's statue of David. What you've written is not the same as what I said. "The Absolute" are your words, and while I personally don't believe it adequately portrays what it is we're attempting to understand here, I've been referencing the name you've given because it connects your perspective of 'God' to mine. But now I realise that I'm not making myself clear. The word 'absolute' is an adjective, a descriptor for something that is 'true, right and the same in all situations, and not dependent on anything else'. As a noun it is a philosophical term: 'a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid, or which may be viewed without relation to other things'. Neither of these definitions is a complete or satisfying image of 'God' to me, and I've yet to find an accepted definition for 'absolute' or 'mystery' that portrays the fullness of 'God' in/for itself. So I have to assume that your use of "the Absolute" is a placeholder in the same way that "God" or "the Mystery" are placeholders for what you experience as both absolute and currently a mystery, and much more. Possibility: a chance that something may happen or be true. Potentiality: an ability for development, achievement or success that is natural or has not been used. The difference in these two words (in my opinion) speaks of substance, goodness and personal relation in the latter that seems to be absent from the former, and also absent from the terms you've been using. It is the capital letters that attempt to add back in what is missing in these terms, but for me the sense of inadequacy remains. A subset of interconnected energy in motion includes what is understood as body, brain, memories, thoughts and senses. It can be called 'self', but that is an illusion as such, not least because the subset is only ever definable in the past and changes from moment to moment. It can interact with another subset called 'apple', for instance, in such a way that it ceases to be definable as 'apple' and part of that energy in motion is absorbed into the original subset without altering the concept of 'self' that is perceived in consciousness, and a single thought can also interact without altering the self in any way. Yet other interactions with subsets, senses and thoughts can profoundly alter or distort perception of the self to the point where it is drastically inconsistent with the subset (eg. anorexia). So I think this concept of self is not what it seems (but neither is it necessarily more/less), and that an actual self does not exist, but is only perceived by consciousness at any one point. Reality: the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be. I don't know if I believe that such a thing as Absolute Reality exists, because I don't believe in an objective reality. My broadest awareness of 'reality', of things as they are, is more or less what I have described to you, but I am also aware that how I see the unfolding of the physical universe may have many similarities but is always going to be at least slightly different to how you see it. There is no reality (no state of things as they are) that is true, right and the same in all situations, or considered universally valid. Any gain in awareness, any sharing of experiences or knowledge, any actualisation at all is only achieved through interaction in spacetime. Potentiality is absolute - it is not dependent on anything else - and yet the actual development, achievement or success of anything lies in awareness of and interaction with other subsets of potentiality - from the rocks I walk on and the air I breathe to the frogs in my garden, to family, work colleagues and yourself. This means operating a complex interface of physical, biological, social, cultural, political and language constructs built by a long history of interactions to define, label, divide and control what is perceived, as well as recognising that awareness of the constructs and of the underlying 'reality' (such as I perceive it) will vary with each interaction. So I recognise you, for instance, as words on a screen that point to an individual human being (with subjective experiences and operating within a unique set of circumstances) that points to a subset of actualising potentiality (energy in motion, aware of unique thoughts and senses arising in consciousness) that points to the absolute potentiality in which you and I, Jesus and Hitler, the factory workers who put this iPad together and the mosquito that attacked me last night, are irretrievably interconnected. But it's just as easy to read the words on the screen and forget or ignore their connection to a human being at any one moment, let alone their (and my) connection to the infinite possibilities of the unfolding physical universe across time and space... Thanks again for the discussion, and for your patience. This has been so useful to me. I'd like to also open a particular topic on Hart's discussion (in two recent videos I saw) of 'the being of God', and 'God as Person' in relation to this, just as soon as I work out how to start one...

Sorry...Aristotle - not Aquinas....

Thanks again Thormas. I apologise for another exceedingly long post in reply, but I'm thoroughly enjoying this... I never said this was religion at its core - only that it was something we tend to do in religion. It's something we tend to do in any search for knowledge - and again I'm not saying this is religion at its core, either. You and I (and clearly Hart) recognise that when we talk about 'God', we aren't talking about a being, supreme or otherwise. I assume we recognise that the words of the bible refer to human experiences of 'God', and we strive to understand how these experiences and those of others relate to our own and contribute to a greater understanding of the mystery. We also recognise that it is this understanding that determines our beliefs and how we think we (and everyone else) should live. But as Hart suggests, many theists and atheists and most who talk about God are actually searching for something to name, to know. One can present an unknowable, unnameable mystery, and we invariably add a (well-intentioned) capital letter to give it importance, to distinguish it from all other mysteries. We at least recognise this as a futile attempt to name the unnameable, to give substance or form to the formless. But suddenly this Mystery can now be interpreted as a noun in its own right - named and therefore something to know, to define, to worship or destroy, to gather evidence for or against, to build a relationship with, to defend with one's life or to use against others. The 'flaw' here doesn't lie with atheism. 'Religions' can't be said to believe anything. Theologists argue such beliefs, and religious doctrine may even state it - the Pope may even say something to that effect - but none of these determine (let alone resemble) what each individual who adheres to that religion believes, thinks or says about 'God', or for that matter how they think they (and everyone else) should live. And that disconnect has only grown wider over the last couple of centuries. All evidence claims are a belief statement. As I understand it, 'evidence' is simply a high incident of shared experience (including first, second and third hand), and a 'thing' is an experienced point in spacetime. So when I talk about evidence here, I'm referring to documented, shared experience that demonstrates sufficiently reduced probability of a recognisable 'self' existing at any point in spacetime. Don't take my word for it, but don't dismiss the statement without exploring supporting documentation and/or conducting your own experiments. What about the idea that consciousness is simply the interaction of this energy in motion? This is where our language structures break down. Are you saying that absolute potentiality is not the same as 'the very possibility of all that is'? How can you be so sure that the Absolute is? I may have mentioned Actus Purus in passing, but I don't agree with Aquinas' argument, because it's built on an unprovable assumption that the Absolute is. I'm not saying that which is absolute has potentiality. I'm saying that it is potentiality - that potentiality alone has absoluteness. This is an interesting point. Are you assuming the Law of Excluded Middle applies here? That a seed becomes a plant that becomes a flower, and that all other eventualities would constitute a failure to achieve this predetermined, limited potential that it cannot become other than? I don't believe this is how nature works. If I take the seed and give it to my pet bird, it could become nourishment for that bird, and it could be overlooked. If I then take the overlooked seed and give it water but keep it in a cupboard, primary school experiments prove that it could still become a plant (albeit a thin, sickly looking one). If I then take that poor plant and give it sunlight and care, it could become a flower that eventually fades, and it could also become food. Potential is not what should be, but what could be. It is the possibility of all that is. Interaction with everything else is what eliminates those possibilities. At what point would you say that 'a human' is fully actualised? And considering that (until this point of said actualisation) one retains the potential to become human, at what point to do we label them an "animal", a "monster", and effectively destroy that potential? Who are we to label them or measure them as such - to fix them to that point in spacetime and declare it as definitive of who or what they are? Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. After all, Hitler was a human being, not a human becoming. In recognising him as such, we acknowledge our own potential to be other than whatever we determine 'human' to be. Perhaps 'human' is not necessarily a fixed state that one achieves, therefore, but a rather more diverse area of the dance than we imagined. And perhaps this potential that we attribute to 'becoming human' is not as limited or definitive as we might think. Perhaps no potential is initially as limited as we think.... I'm sensing some frustration here (could be the exclamation marks?). And we keep coming back to this question of 'who'? You've clarified that you don't believe 'the Absolute' is a 'who' or a 'what' (despite your use of capitals), and I hope I've made clear that what you name 'the Absolute' I see as potentiality - the possibility of all that is. So, I present my confusing attempt to answer your question of 'who is the illusory one who writes in these posts to whom I respond?': There is a subset of the unfolding universe, of interconnecting energy in motion or actualising potentiality in spacetime, experiencing 'sensations' and 'thoughts' as interaction of first, second and third hand experiences gained through interaction and interconnection in spacetime with recognised subsets of interconnecting energy in motion. This particular subset (me) is driven by awareness of potentiality to interact with other recognised subsets of actualising potentiality in order to share experiences and interconnect throughout this unfolding universe, with a view to maximising awareness, and subsequently actualisation, of its absolute potentiality... ...I think

Hi Thormas The questions you continue to bring up here have challenged my thinking and led me to this question of 'what if there is no subject?' In religion we have always searched for something to name, to know. In naming the Absolute Unchanging Reality and then struggling to grasp the concept within our current understanding of the universe, I think we do have to acknowledge, as you point out, that either there is a deficiency to its absoluteness, its changelessness, or that there exists some form of duality... OR perhaps there is an error in our thinking, in our use of language. What I'm suggesting is that this error may be in the naming. Elsewhere on this site it was mentioned that Spong has described God as a verb and not a noun (although I've yet to ascertain where he wrote that). If what we think of as 'the Absolute' is considered absolute but denied a proper name - enabling it to be regarded as a verb and not a noun - would this change anything? why is there anything, why is there (continuity of) self or even the consideration of no-self, why is there complexity and diversity, why is there anything, if the Absolute is truly Absolute?  Short, big word answer: because absolute potentiality can only be when observed in its refraction through the lens of spacetime. I'm going to attempt some explanation of this in reference to what you've written, thormas, because it has helped me to make sense of it all. Just as a side note there is a named subject: it is creation, the universe (and the processes of that universe) that acts: only that (those things/beings) which is not absolute has potential; only beings suffer (certainly the Absolute doesn't suffer) and it is beings who have consciousness (whereas the Absolute is Conscious in Itself). It could be said the Absolute doesn't act because it IS. Perhaps it's not just a side note. Creation implies a creator. The universe must in some way refer to the Absolute. If, as you say, the Absolute doesn't act because it IS, then how would you describe the nature of the relationship between the Absolute and the universe? You said in a statement of belief earlier: "...that the many 'are,' that all, including the human self, have their being in God until the 'Kingdom is established' or simply the many are One in Absolute Being." This duality suggests that there not only exists a boundary where 'the human self' is distinguished from what is not self, but also that there exists a point of convergence where (or when) we cease to be 'many' and become one. Can you explain at what points in spacetime you believe these to exist? What atheist arguments continue to bring up (perhaps with good reason) is that no thing can theoretically exist outside of time and space, let alone act - no God, no Being, not even Absolute Unchanging Reality. I can't deny that this makes sense, particularly from the standpoint of reason based on evidence. But if reason based on evidence also demonstrates that the 'self' is nothing but an act of consciousness and matter is nothing but energy in motion, could there be nothing but action? And can this action then exist beyond time and space? The problem is that if I name this action ('God', consciousness, energy, oneness, etc) it's often mistaken for a thing, a substance or a person. With a name, it readily becomes a noun instead of a verb, and I then lose the ability to reasonably argue the existence of 'God' as understood from my experience. Action suggests movement, the movement from potentiality to actuality; action suggests becoming (the Absolute IS , it doesn't become or it is not Absolute). As far as I understand it, 'action' only suggests movement (ie. from one state or position to another) within time and space. Outside of such constraints, that same action has no beginning or end, and needs no subject - it's eternal. The action is - but outside of space time it isn't happening. Perhaps, then, it's better described as pure potentiality (not to be mistaken for 'pure act'). Inside time and space, this is actuality: the universe unfolding, being - the dance in action. I get the impression that this pure potentiality refracts through time and space (like waves do - ie. light through a prism), enabling observation or interaction (ie. awareness) between these refracted waves of potentiality (a human and a rock, for instance) without initially recognising them as part of the one action (creation, the universe, etc). All of this apparent separateness, movement, change and substantiality is illusion, however, because it is one eternal action, which IS potentiality (its non-subjective existence outside spacetime, prior to observation): absolute, changeless and without substance as such. It's difficult to accept a theory in which insubstantiality is reality and substance is illusion. And yet this is where thinking appears to be right now in studies of consciousness and in quantum physics. So I'm starting to think the existence of God may be arguable after all - at least potentially...

Thormas I have enjoyed this discussion, although it's a little off-topic for this thread. I have written far too much in reply, so I'm not going to dump it all here, but I welcome the chance to continue it elsewhere... For now, I'll provide the example you requested, if only because the rest of the threads have gone quiet (on account of it being summer up there, I would imagine)... I guess here, I need an example, because we are still using language to connect and share. In my experience the limitations of language make this communication breakdown more common than not. It happens every time we think to ourselves "that's wrong" or "I disagree". As a specific example, I'll use a quote from Romansch in this thread... Now, we know that Rom's preferred 'philosophy' is "reason based on evidence", so when reading this I wondered: what reliably 'objective' evidence and subsequent reasoning can Rom present to support his claim that 'the self does exist'? I'll admit here that I haven't yet gone back to find the previous discussions he refers to and re-read his arguments at this stage. Regardless, using this as my example, I understand that what Rom has deduced through an interaction of limited first, second and third hand subjective experience is that the self does exist, even though I can also say that my similarly limited subjective experience suggests the opposite. We can trade and discuss definitions, but that's really just surface stuff, because what lies behind this apparent difference of opinion, belief, intelligence, command of the English language or logical reasoning (without attributing any values either way) - is actually a difference of limited subjective experiences. On the surface I think "he's wrong" or at least "I disagree", but I also understand that beyond the layers of illusion - beyond limitations of language, thought and awareness - our divisions of consciousness are approaching each other at this point in space and time (namely this statement "the self does exist") from very different directions. This is part of the 'complexity and diversity of life' that I referred to, thormas - and yes the self is also part of it - but frankly it's still illusion. Because we can perceive the 'self' and 'other' in this diversity and fail to acknowledge our interconnection, believing our separateness is reality, or we can strive to approach this diversity with a sense of oneness that enables us to embrace our interconnection with courage and catch a 'glimpse' of the beauty of the dance. So I'm going to entertain the possibility that Rom and I could both be right about the experience behind the words - that the self can both exist and not exist, depending, in particular, on how one approaches the words 'self' and 'exist'. I understand that, from Rom's point of view, everything that is observable or measurable in space and time is said to exist, and that nothing exists outside of that. But I also understand that what is observed or measured at a point in space and time will not be identical in its existence when observed or measured at a different point in space or time. This is my understanding of the evidence presented in studies related to quantum theory. So I can agree that, for...this specific point in space and time, what Rom understands to be the 'self' does exist by his reasoning. But I know that it's not the same 'self' that then exists in...this specific point in space and time, even though there is a sense of continuity between the two selves. If I say at this point that I disagree with Rom that the self exists, I am saying that what he understands to be the self at any one point in space and time has already ceased to exist by the time he's typed the words. If I then notice the rest of Rom's statement, that this self he believes to exist "is not what it seems", I get the sense that he may already recognise this problem - and that we are perhaps communicating the same experience, only in different ways. We're just approaching it from two different 'directions' (in all four dimensions), and I realise that I need to investigate further... So for me to have said "I disagree", would be an inaccurate communication, because I now have to consider the possibility that Rom and I might actually 'agree' beyond the constraints of awareness, thought and language. Who knew?

Hi Thormas, Sorry, it's been a busy week, and I wanted to give some due consideration to your questions. It's not easy to put into words, but I'll try to give you a sense of where I'm coming from at this point in my understanding, even as it changes and evolves and departs from logic... if the self searches for self but it actually doesn't exist ("beyond the fear of its non-existence and coming to terms with 'not self'") what or who is doing the search?  if self is illusion, what is the reality (at least in your present understanding)? why is there the illusion of self in the first place? why (in your understanding at present) is there anything? If whatever is beyond the illusion, manifests (or creates) in or through illusion, why? In discussing the search for self, it seems logical within the structure of language to name what or who is doing the search - there must be a subject to go with the verb, otherwise the structure of language fails and we are unable to communicate in clear, logical sentences. Because I work in communications, words are an essential tool of my trade (not that I'm particularly skilled, mind you). My day job requires me to communicate to specific audiences, reducing the possibility of confusion, misunderstanding, ambiguity or raising more questions than answers. So I understand the reluctance to discuss a 'search', without a searcher, for an object - the self - that doesn't even exist. But I think it's also challenges like this that draw me to these types of discussions in the first place... Because what if there really isn't a subject? What if there really is just the search? Lately I've been intrigued by what appears to be a convergence of thought around quantum theory, consciousness and this idea of not-self. What we are left with in each of these areas of thinking is an action without a named subject: being, suffering, consciousness, wave, potentiality...in these spaces we have looked closer and found no-one, no-thing, that acts. We like to think there are no limitations to language as a tool to communicate awareness and experience - yet there's a reason why myths, stories, literature and poetry are enhanced with music, art, theatre and film. And lately I've been getting the feeling that we're using an ineffective tool here - that it's not just my own limitations, but something in the structure of language that gives the impression of trying to enclose smoke in a cage... In my present understanding, God, the universe, consciousness, energy, oneness, etc all seem to be alternative, limited descriptions of the same universal action or process, for want of a better term. From the limited experiences of this element of the process that is 'me', I can develop awareness and get a sense of the enormity and pervasiveness of the action, but I struggle to grasp it fully as a concept and be confident that I have all of it contained, because the more I develop awareness, the more I become aware of the gaps and limitations of that awareness. When I get conceptually beyond all boundaries as illusion and the idea of God as a being, I imagine this action or process as a 'dance', where consciousness may simply be the overwhelmingly complex interaction of potentiality waves. I think the more we become aware of and understand this process of interaction that underlies our 'reality', the more we can contribute to the dance. And in those incredible moments when we are most aware of the complexity and beauty of this process in which the All is eternally intertwining, interacting...then the 'self' and all of the apparently separate elements, including their supposed reality or illusion, fade to insignificance - because only the dance is. why is there the illusion of self in the first place? I'm not entirely clear on this, but I have a strong sense that it has a lot to do with fear and lack of awareness, but that's a much longer discussion. I'll just mention the studies with split brain patients, which show that when consciousness divides it loses awareness of the 'other', and must discover it anew, including any recognition that the two parts were initially one. How this can be applied to the idea that 'all is consciousness' I think is an interesting area to explore in terms of the illusion of self. And, how do you see yourself, which 'philosophy' speaks most powerfully to you: Christian, Buddhist, a combination or other? I try not to attribute a value or hierarchy to terms such as Christian, Buddhist, etc. - it collapses too many potentiality waves. That sounds really kooky, but it makes sense to me at this point in my understanding. So my answer would be a combination, because I find most philosophies 'speak' to me in different ways, although I am most familiar with Christian, and most recently drawn to Buddhist. I may be wrong, but it seems you have a strong belief in the existence and importance of the self, which is tied very much to your understanding of Christian philosophy. I don't disagree as such - I can see how that makes sense. But from my understanding, I no longer see the existence of the self to be as essential to Christian philosophy as it has made out, and I sense that this difference might have something to do with the word 'self', and how we each understand it from different perspectives. But I'm not suggesting that settling on a succinct definition of the term will help, either - all that does is confine our awareness even further. I'm guessing you don't see the possibility of someone prescribing to both Christian and Buddhist philosophy on this topic, and you apply the structure of language to 'the search for self' in order to challenge the Buddhist perspective. It's a logical approach. But in my view it's the structure of language that collapses this potentiality into either/or, preventing awareness of the both/and possibilities. In this sense I think language is far from the perfect tool for the job, but it's the one we're using, so I'm acknowledging its limitations here in communicating the experience of not-self. The ultimate aim of communication, in my current understanding, is to share and interconnect subjective experiences - to interact and recognise in the 'other' a single, divided consciousness, an element of the dance... So when the words fail and communication appears to break down, we can try to connect to the subjective experiences that give rise to the words, to recognise the possibilities of both/and when freed from the constraints of language, and to strive for that sense of oneness that brings beauty to the complexity and diversity of life... ...and then try to work our way back from this experience to find some way of communicating it without losing too much in the process - recognising that this will be far from perfectly achieved. I hope I'm making some sense here.

I don't think meditation is about self-love, either. And having slept on it, I understand that the practice of meditation is engaging in attention to self as a search for self, and in the process of that search, looking beyond the fear of its non-existence and coming to terms with 'not self'. I have read Susan Blackmore before, and I highly recommend her writings on Zen Buddhism - she describes this process very well. Most commercialised western yoga and meditation practices (in my experience) stop short of this, however - they seem content with 'glancing' at the self illusion in a way that only reinforces its existence, like a comforting, absent-minded pat to reassure ourselves it is still there, functioning as expected. This chance to focus on 'me' is all people are chasing for the most part, so it sells really well in this form. Most people who have a go at meditation or yoga will pull back as it gets confronting, uncomfortable or challenging beyond the physical. After all, it's all inner experience from this point, and unless you're working one-on-one with a guru, no one else is going to care that it's as far as you're willing to go. As long as you keep paying for classes and telling everyone how 'centred' and 'peaceful' you feel after it...

Interesting discussion, as usual. As someone who has looked into Western yoga and meditation practices from time to time, I think the Buddhist practice of attempting to quiet the ego does not seem to be their aim for the most part. The focus is very much on the self: self-love, self-care, taking time out for oneself, centring oneself, improving oneself, etc. The only link to Buddhism is the word 'namaste' spoken at the end of the session - which is taken to mean "we're finished, thanks for coming, you can go home now." That's just my personal experience of the participants' attitudes before and after these sessions, the words spoken by instructors during the sessions, and the way these sessions are promoted. I might be a little cynical, but I certainly wouldn't associate Western yoga and meditation practices with the tenets of Buddhism. That's like saying that attending church every Sunday is living the life of a Christian. As for DPD, I think the feeling of disconnect associated with this disorder suggests that it is not the same as the Buddhist concept of 'not self' - which seems to be more a perception of interconnection that renders any sense of self irrelevant, rather than this sense of disconnection from a self that one still believes is essential. Just thinking out loud...

I'm going to try and describe my perspective on the 'I' versus 'i' - not as two sides of the same coin, as Rom suggested, but more like the way we 'experience' the world - as a function of consciousness (I know, Rom - bear with me). With the human brain bombarded by so much data through our senses every second, our consciousness can process only a small part of it by comparison - even in those rare moments when our awareness is fully in the present, as opposed to pulling up data from memory, imagining possibilities or manipulating abstract concepts. So the mind manages a seamless awareness of the universe by focusing only on a small section at a time, and then generically renders the periphery with memory, knowledge, guesswork, systematic grouping and gross simplification. If we think of our awareness or consciousness as a camera lens on a satellite, then we can focus in as the 'i' (the experiencing self) or focus out towards an experience of the 'I' (the experiencing universe) - but not consciously experience both simultaneously, because in order to fully understand or experience the unfolding 'I' as it is, the mind must let go of a number of concepts as illusion, including language, thought, time, objective reality and the 'i'. When the mind or consciousness returns from this experience to regain its 'control' of language, meaning and a concept of 'self' (illusory though they may be), any communication of this subjective experience is going to be insufficient. This is because thinking and writing/talking about what is a holistic experience of the unfolding 'I' must rely on simultaneous recognition of subsets of the 'I' that have been compartmentalised by the mind or defined by language, but appear to overlap, coalesce, contradict and disappear in the holistic experience of the 'I'. As an example, the notion of 'decay' is irrelevant when you consider that there is no loss experienced in the unfolding 'I' - 'decay' is a term defined by the illusion that each subset exists independent of each other: that a decaying apple or a body in a casket, including the 'life' that was once evident and the , is not simply an illusory subset of the 'I' but 'something' or 'someone' 'existing' in its own right, leading to the thought-defined experience that the 'person' who has 'died' is lost and their body decaying, instead of 'living' eternally as a subset of the unfolding 'I' that exists as a 'person' only in the communication of our shared subjective experience.... The 'I' that is conceived as I write this - that each 'i' conceives mentally - is also incomplete in that the subjective experiences we each have of the universe (including our first hand and second hand knowledge or understanding), are limited by the 'i'. We can imagine or speculate on the experiences of others based on the information we currently have, but even the most observant, imaginative and empathic human being cannot fully experience the pinpoint focus of every 'i' that has ever experienced the universe. And so it helps me, at least, to recognise that a complete awareness of the 'I' remains beyond the 'i', but its potentiality exists in every interaction with the universe - that I can approach a more complete and accurate awareness of the 'I' through my connection with others, my attempts to understand their subjective experiences and my recognition that, within that diversity from my own experiences, lies the experience of the 'I' that is missing from my own.

Sorry, Rom - I don't believe in summaries How did I form a belief that Jesus was born of a virgin? By trusting the source (parents, teachers, clergy, books, etc). I had an almost cloistered childhood - 'beliefs' were synonymous with facts. How did I lose that belief? By holding it up to logic and knowledge. I wouldn't at first - instead I tucked it away unchallenged for years, safeguarded as a connection to my family and culture. This is imperfectly simplified, but I think losing a belief is a conscious action to reject information that was previously trusted - it doesn't just happen when you're exposed to accurate and conflicting information. The mind is surprisingly adept at holding conflicting ideas safely apart from each other...one tied to logic and the other to emotion, for instance.

Of course, if they're all blind....

No problem, Rom. I had gone back to an interfaith site recently, and it struck me how well most posters here negotiate differences in beliefs by comparison. I felt I needed to say so. As for the analogy, you assume that one has an 'elephant' in one's experience to simply name and have everyone go "Hey, yeah - you're right - it IS an elephant, isn't it?" I don't know if this is the case here. Perhaps if he swings one arm in front of his face and makes trumpet noises, someone else might get a clearer picture of what he's saying. Sometimes precision of language can be more of a hindrance than a help. When you achieve a recognition of the subjective experience that lies behind the words, that's when you get mutual understanding. Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.

Joseph, thormas and Rom, I'm reminded of the blind men surrounding the elephant. Rather than comparing and discarding different positions in search of the one truth, you at least recognise that we're attempting to integrate limited, sometimes contradictory and/or overlapping subjective experiences - communicated from different positions - into one holistic understanding. If what at first thought couldn't possibly be flat, broad and solid as well as long, cylindrical and hollow can eventually be conceived of as two limited experiences of one large elephant, then there is certainly hope for these discussions yet... In the meantime, you have all provided plenty of food for thought, and the fact that I more or less agree with so much of what each of you have said at any one time is not only rather confusing for me, but also suggests to me that, yes - you are perhaps not far apart at all. Certainly much closer than those blind men... Cheers

Agreed. I think also the idea or promise that pain and suffering can somehow be averted through religion, whether that promise is for this life or an afterlife, has been just as damaging. Religion has the potential to divide or to unite and connect us. I sometimes think the more solid, definitive or concrete a religion appears, the weaker its ability to unite and the more it divides us.

Fair enough, Paul. I hope you get some interest, although it seems to me as if you're hoping for someone who takes Genesis 1 and 2 as figurative, but then Genesis 3 as literal...?

Hi Paul The story of Adam & Eve and its relation to sin has intrigued me, particularly since the idea of 'original sin' is not actually mentioned in Genesis at all. Everyone focuses on the eating of the fruit, and as a catholic it was never clear to me what the 'original sin' was. Was it disobedience, eating the fruit, listening to the serpent, recognising their nakedness, being ashamed of nakedness or hiding from God? Below are some of my thoughts... As far as I can see, the story of Adam & Eve marks that turning point in evolution when humans became humans instead of just another animal. In looking at the tree of 'the knowledge of good and evil', what did they gain in terms of knowledge by eating from it? Defining knowledge as 'an awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation', what Adam & Eve gained in particular was an awareness that they were naked. This is a deeper perception or awareness of the world - not of 'good' and 'evil', but of 'ourselves' as active participants in life. Being naked in front of someone else is the most vulnerable a person could ever be. No barriers, no shield, no interface, no pretence. And no weapons, either. Nakedness exposes us to every potential danger that we know: from cold and pain to assault, criticism and rejection. When we are naked, we have nothing to help us deflect or absorb the injury - we must bear it all, physically and emotionally. In evolution, we know that humans are just like other animals in most respects. When an animal senses danger, it responds instinctively by preparing to fight or to flee. But an animal is aware of danger only as a stimulus. It has no concept of the participating self, so it cannot be afraid, and therefore it has no awareness of good or evil. Like the serpent, all it knows is what is seen, felt, tasted, heard, etc. in relation to the response of its physiology. So the serpent also encourages Eve to respond according to her physiology: her instincts to survive and to bring her specific biological system to dominance. In eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve acquire the knowledge or awareness of themselves interacting with life. By knowing ourselves to be participating in each interaction, we are no longer confined to 'fight or flee' in response to threatening stimuli - we can also apply change to ourselves. Covering the body with fig leaves is different to a chameleon who changes colour to hide from predators. We are able to learn and adapt how we interact with life in a way that changes how life interacts with us. And even though it has so many other, much more productive applications, we mostly apply it to try and protect our vulnerable, naked selves from potential danger. An awareness of ourselves participating in this interaction of life brings with it an awareness of our vulnerability, which results in fear of what could undermine our ability to survive, to procreate or to bring benefit to ourselves and our kin, our kind. This fear encourages us to create barriers and shields - to close ourselves off from interacting with life - and prevents us from seeking the awareness, knowledge and understanding we need to reach our potential. Fear also encourages us to classify everything around us on a sliding scale of good and evil. This is for our own protection, of course. The difference between our knowledge of good and evil, and this idea of God's knowledge, is one of perspective. God sees His creation in its entirety, is aware of every tiny part of it and the role each part plays in perpetuating the whole and maintaining a perfect balance. Everything He sees is 'good', because He knows exactly how everything works and interacts with each other to benefit the whole, not just at this moment but into eternity. There is nothing here that has the potential to destroy life when viewed as a universal whole. Adam's perspective of God's creation is significantly limited in comparison. He has no idea how anything works. All he knows are the names he has given to everything, and what he has experienced so far - and that isn't much. He has barely grasped the concept of a day and night, let alone a million years. So the knowledge of good and evil that he acquires is equally limited. What Adam sees as 'good' is anything that is pleasing to him, such as beauty and taste, or that offers direct or indirect benefit to him-self. What he sees as 'not good' or 'evil', therefore, would be anything that is potentially harmful to himself. So natural disasters would be evil, as are any animals that are dangerous to humans, such as snakes, sharks and spiders. The first to make Adam's list of evil, however, is the first thing he notices with this new awareness: his own nakedness. After all, what could potentially be more harmful to Adam than a recognition of his own vulnerability? And the most evil of all beings is the serpent, without whom he would still be in the Garden of Eden. Women, other humans and animals are potentially evil, too - but they can also be beneficial. Even now, with many thousands of years experiencing life and the universe, we classify 'evil' or 'wickedness' as anything that intentionally sets out to be harmful towards, or else indirectly or potentially threatens the 'protected' status of, me or mine - depending on how we happen to define 'me or mine' at the time. Paedophiles and serial killers are considered increasingly more wicked or evil the closer they get to those we seek to protect, and so are weapons in the hands of strangers, devastating earthquakes or tsunamis, illicit drugs and anyone with a strong ideology that is different to our own.

I don't think it sounds silly at all, Paul. I still feel the occasional urge to 'talk to God', before reminding myself that I no longer believe there is anyone listening. Romansh, I can relate to that sense of belonging, of community, that encourages us to appear to 'live out' beliefs that are not our own, without consciously thinking "does this fit with what I believe?" When confronted with the conflict on a conscious level, though, it's hard to go back to that disconnect. You feel like you're not being true to yourself - living a lie, almost. But in the moment, it's surprisingly easy to keep what we think or believe from interfering with what we say or do or how we act. I hope she has since found a community, and didn't feel that particular loss too deeply. We build lots of 'walls' that appear to compartmentalise our conscious awareness of our own beliefs, words and actions - it's what enables people to cheat and lie, I guess. Denial is a big part of this internal sense of disconnect. The 'fear' I mentioned, Thormas, was not so much a conscious fear of harm, hatred or ostracism, but a need to hold onto the comfort and safety of a solid, known world that made sense - rather than tear down apparent walls that I can't get back. I chose to avoid the risk of losing that sense of connection to my culture and family by closing off any thought of beliefs that might compromise it. I could be conscious of my original beliefs in connection to my family, and conscious of the logic that would ultimately destroy those beliefs - but it was like there was a wall separating them - I couldn't or wouldn't be conscious of both at once. I am still re-routing the connection to my mother in particular, now that I no longer entertain those beliefs. I occasionally sense the gap in our relationship where that connection used to be - but it is what it is, and I know dwelling on that particular area of 'disconnect' will only spoil the connection we do have. Like a wound, it's a little tender in that area on both sides, but I'm making repairs bit by bit - building a new appreciation for each other's sense of God.

Thanks Paul - I think in order to feel betrayed, I would have had to attribute the formation of my beliefs to others. But these are my experiences and how my mind has processed them that have formed these beliefs and subsequently how I have lived them, just as my parents' or teachers' words and actions are guided by their beliefs, which are in turn formed by their experiences, and so on, until blame becomes irrelevant. At the time, I wanted to crawl back into that worldview where I was able to ignore or dismiss the logic as a lack of faith, to feel the comfort of being surrounded by like-minded believers - but I looked around and wondered how many others were simply rattling off the sounds without thinking about what they were saying, or if they ever had a chance to 'live out' these beliefs, or were they just there, rattling around unchallenged in their mind...

I'm happy to take it back to the original question, although I am interested in where thormas is headed with the creator-created discussion, because I think he's missed my point somewhat, as the decay, like the separation of creator and created, is merely perception - it's only 'decay' because of the way we 'believe' the system operates. While I am unable to put into words how this has changed for me, I can say that I no longer believe that the word 'decay' fits my understanding of what is happening. But let's humour Romansh and go back to the original topic... I once 'believed' that Jesus was born of a virgin. Born into a catholic family, this particular belief was perceived in my mind as a 'fact' - in much the same way as I also believed that the earth was a spheroid: I 'knew', because I relied on and trusted the data or information I had experienced, because I relied on and trusted the source: my parents, teachers, parish priest, church leaders, and the books, documentaries, etc that I was exposed to. Anyone who said differently was distant enough to be disregarded or distrusted - no reliable source directly challenged either belief, and I never felt the need to search. I was secure in my world. After 12 years of catholic schooling and very little exposure to alternative religious beliefs, it wasn't until I reached university that I had any thought that what I believed might be a 'belief' as opposed to a fact. People I began to care about or learned to trust as a source of information made conflicting - and convincing - arguments, and previous sources were gradually found less reliable or less informed by comparison. But I am non-confrontational by nature (and nurture), so for the most part I avoided processing this conflicting data, and focused only on thinking about or discussing those beliefs that were discussed by my social circle...for twenty years. I believed 'A', received new information, but then avoided the need to investigate, question or wrestle with that new information. In hindsight, I was afraid - I had become very good at avoiding conflict, both inside and out. 'Never discuss religion or politics' worked well for me for many years. I stopped going to church, and my mother, probably afraid to face the possibility that her eldest daughter may have lost the faith, and unable to make a strong argument herself, never pushed the issue. Because I avoided the need to articulate or even think about my religious beliefs, it's hard to say what they were at that stage - because I never had to 'say'. When pressed, my 'belief' would depend on the audience - if I'm being honest. I think fear can play a big part in the formation of our beliefs. I could say that I 'lost' my belief when I stopped going to church, but in truth I simply avoided it. I don't know if we lose a belief until we are asked to 'live out' that belief in word or deed, and find that we can no longer do so. I remember sitting in church a few years ago and starting to mindlessly rattle off the creed, when I realised that I no longer believed the words. It was a jarring experience for me - I remember feeling a distinct sense of loss.

But aren't you still separating the creator and created? You observe 'decay' because you perceive the individual body, for instance, as a closed system. But if created is the same as creator, then the body you observe is really an inseparable part of a much larger, interconnected system of energy which is not subject to decay. Pardon me for piping in - I have been reading along with great interest.

Tough one. I think our language is ill equipped to define what may exist in the universe that is independent of physics and chemistry. So I'm going to ramble for a bit, if you'll indulge me, because I can't deny that there is something... We often refer to it as 'something else', something undefined, unexplained, strange or surreal, a sensation, a gut feeling, a sense we can't put into words. We struggle to observe it, measure it or quantify it objectively, and often dismiss it because it exists only within the subjective experience itself, and is changed by the act of observation or measurement. Perhaps it is that 'wave of potentiality' inherent in each particle, oscillating continually in spaces between molecules, between elements of matter, between life forms and objects. Perhaps it is 'life' in action. We tend to think of the universe in terms of subjective experiences that we can share with others. If I experience something, I know it is real only if that experience is verified by others. The more people I can share it with, the more real it seems. If others can't relate to what I communicate then they doubt the experience, and I begin to wonder myself if I really experienced it at all. This is the basis of science. The key is communication. If I see a flash of light move briefly across the sky at night and disappear, then I turn to others around me and ask "Did you see that?" "See what?" "That bright flash moving across the sky." "Where?" "Over there, above that clump of trees." "When?" "Just a second ago." "Oh - no, I was looking at my phone." "Oh." Then someone else speaks up. "I thought I saw something, too." "You did?" "There was a flash out of the corner of my eye. In that direction." "Yes! It was moving down like this, and then it disappeared." "What was it?" "Maybe it was a meteor?" "Probably. It makes sense." The flash of light could very well have been a meteor, or it could have been something else. But it is an experience successfully shared through communication, and that makes it 'real'. But sometimes we respond to something in our subjective experience that we fail to share or verify convincingly with others. David Eggers' novel The Circle illustrates this purely subjective element of experience, and its rapidly decreasing importance in a world that relies more and more on sharable data. A crucial turning point in the novel comes when the main character must justify her decision to paddle on the river alone, without sharing the experience with others. She is unable to articulate the value of her unique experience, where she encountered a group of seals, and eventually accepts that her actions were dangerous, selfish and anti-social. For those of us who acknowledge the value of such an experience independent of any sharable data, her capitulation at this point is tragic. Society may be rapidly approaching that point where you can no longer trust your own experience - as if you didn't really go on that holiday or swim with dolphins unless you've posted a selfie on Instagram to prove it, and it's almost considered selfish or anti-social to not share everything. But the experience of paddling with seals or swimming with dolphins can't be fully expressed in a selfie, a tweet, or even a conversation. There is an element to the experience that can't be recorded or measured, satisfactorily explained with physics or chemistry, or proven to exist. Admittedly, you won't understand quite what I'm talking about unless you've perhaps swum with dolphins yourself, and even then you may not have been fully in the moment, or your own experience may have had a different focus. I'm think maybe what we insufficiently describe as the 'beauty' or the 'magic' of such an experience exists only in the space between molecules that are actively participating in that particular place and time. You're either conscious of it at the time, or you're not. And once the moment has passed, your memories (the retrievable data in your mind) can only point to the experience without recapturing it entirely. The subjective value of the experience leaves no trace in your physiology that can be reliably attributed to anything other than a 'feeling' or 'emotion', which we then reduce to chemistry and physics. But every possible method you have available to objectively share this subjective value with others feels incomplete, insufficient. Something isn't covered. And yet it is that 'something' more than anything measurable, that has changed you. Your view of the world is different, your decisions affected, even in some small way, by the experience. The closest you may get to sharing such an experience is through artistic expression: fine art, literature, dance, music, sculpture, theatre, film, etc. In this way you can attempt to fabricate a subjective experience for others that approximates your own. Looking at pictures of Michelangelo's David, for instance, or reading a book on the subject, is so far removed from the lived experience of standing at the statue's feet imagining a young man at the turning point of his career, embarking on a task that many 'greater men' had abandoned, using nothing but a questionable method of approach, his courage and his raw potential. The parallels are striking, and the result is nothing short of a masterpiece. The experience is as if thousands of years and thousands of miles were condensed into the truth of humanity carved into this block of stone, humanity in the process of conquering its sense of fragility and realising its own awesome potential. But many people don't share this experience at the feet of David. Does that make mine less credible? If I make decisions based on this experience, can it be reduced to chemistry or physics, or is there something else there? Is inspiration perhaps independent of physics or chemistry...?

Thanks for clarifying, Paul. It seems like your definition of 'traditional' differs a little from Burl: it can mean regular, common or usual as well as conservative, orthodox or old-fashioned. This only points out that such sweeping generalisations as 'traditional Christianity' aren't doing either of you any favours. Personally I see the points you made as traditionalist teachings within Christianity, because these types of teachings also occur across other faiths, and undermine interfaith discussions as much as they damage progress within a particular religion. What we try to do with religion is to make the spiritual or eternal appear concrete and tangible - it seems to be the only way some people will accept it as real, because we have learned to distrust our subjective experience. Then we begin to define it, perhaps kind of manipulate it, even try to control it... But it's like trying to keep pure white smoke in a gilded cage. Eventually you're going to have to decide which is more important - the smoke or the cage? I like to keep the cage handy because it reminds me about the smoke when I have trouble seeing it. It also makes a handy talking point. But I'm focused very much on the smoke these days. I know the cage can't confine it - all I have is my subjective experience to share with others. Traditionalist teachings will insist: - that the smoke is only inside the cage; - that the cage makes the smoke precious; or - that the cage is the smoke. But all you really possess in the end is an empty cage.

Yes, it does include it, but to 'run far away' from traditional Christianity as a whole is to deny the positive influences it has had on your life, alongside the negative. Perhaps this is an example of the 'black and white' thinking to which you were referring. My own Catholic upbringing has been a factor in a lot of problems I've experienced: my relationships, feelings of shame and guilt, my sexuality and the narrow view I've had of the world for the first twenty or thirty years of my life. It's easy for me to focus on these negative influences, and dismiss traditional Christianity as 'bad'. I did walk away from traditional Christianity from the age of 18-19, but I know now that it never left me because, like it or not, it's a fundamental part of who I am. I came to realise that I am fifty shades of grey - no purest white or darkest black, but everything in between. Any attempts to deny a part of who I am, to label it as 'bad', hide it in the darkness or reject it as something outside of myself only contributed to the shame and guilt that plagued my life, and prevented me from truly understanding (and accepting) myself. Letting go of black and white thinking has enabled me to accept my traditional Christian upbringing as a factor in many aspects of who I have become - from the issues I've had to work on, through to the values I want to pass on to my own children. My kids are now attending catholic school, were baptised and even decided for themselves to be confirmed in the church. With guidance from my own experiences and from my agnostic husband, they haven't been indoctrinated by any of the narrow-mindedness you've listed above, although they've certainly experienced it. But I see the positive influence this 'traditional' foundation has on their developing worldview, as they draw from all the myths and legends of their childhood alongside their experiences and expanding knowledge of the universe. And I have no regrets.

FWIW - EL James actually handles the 'black and white' versus 'shades of grey' discussion you're referring to surprisingly well in her books, particularly in terms of power-play in relationships, good vs evil, strong vs weak, etc. It's a trashy bodice ripper because the illustration works best this way - and it challenges our ideas of good and bad fiction, morality, etc. in the process. Just saying.

Hi Paul I agree that my own Catholic upbringing fits the points you've listed describing 'traditional Christianity', and I certainly wouldn't recommend this type of upbringing for those reasons. But - I also agree with Burl that there would be many others, particularly in the churches you listed, who would take exception to your denigration of 'traditional Christianity', because, while they identify with the term by their own definition (not yours), they weren't all raised with the same myopic attitude. I think an open-minded upbringing within a traditional christian church environment can be a good grounding for progressive Christianity as the children approach adolescence.