Can you believe in certain things without being religious?

[GaSSPaNiCC]

How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have evidence of WHEN the experience occurs? Ok, let's hear it.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE

its all in there, along with the skeptical arguements. I'm not asking any of you to consider this as proof as survival, but what i am asking you since she was able to recall events during her operation, would even consider the possibility that the event even took place?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that "philosophical" deals with desires or nice sounding things that border on reality but are not ever it then I'll disagree. "Philosophical" deals with truth or better yet "wisdom" and is not a carnival side show.As the word states it speaks to the "love of wisdom". This really comes to the individual and not some broad abstraction as "philosophy".

Reincarnation and Karma speaks to Morality.Man's destiny is a moral tone poem whose essence is Love.

When space, time and other scientific abstractions are treated as the "only real" then concepts such as "big bang" progressing to a death of "only heat" obfuscate the reality of the Moral. Without the Moral Man is a "fifth wheel" , watching the universal progression without being a part of the same.

We are "within nature" and if you consider yourself in any way involved with "morality" then a good logical conclusion is that "nature" is also involved with "morality". Around you is "nature" which is your karma. Your position and place on earth, your family, clan, nation and race, all karmic. Your very body is karmic and related to destiny.

Love frees one from earthly karma and in this Man becomes free, new and nobled. Karma is not a burden to be shunned but a great joy to be greeted and transformed, for in this comes the renewal of Man.

As an addition, yes, you planned your karma. What man can complain he is only a "atom of infinity" when he planned his house and now lives in it? Karma is Morality redeemed and is a boon to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i was not using "philosophical" as a putdown. i meant that the question of reincarnation, given my parameters on the definition, is one of philosophy, as opposed to "hard scientific fact." in other words, it can not be proven or disproven. it is a way of thinking about something rather than a material reality etc.

your idea of "karma" is interesting. it has never occured to me, and doesn't strike me as an obvious truth - most notably because i don't believe that there is any such thing as morality. one being's morality is another's demise. but i certainly admit that it could be true, given the truth of a certain set of assumptions.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have evidence of WHEN the experience occurs? Ok, let's hear it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE

its all in there, along with the skeptical arguements. I'm not asking any of you to consider this as proof as survival, but what i am asking you since she was able to recall events during her operation, would even consider the possibility that the event even took place?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood. I meant, "Do you have any evidence of WHEN the experience occurs?"

luckyme

[JammyDodga]

How can you possibly think this is scientific evidence? If that is the best you can do, you really dont have a leg to stand on.

1. She could have made it up with the help of one or more of the nurses
2. She could have hallucinated it either before she was made fully b raindead or after
3. She could have had some memories from during the operation, but she wasn't dead, she was in a state of near death, it really is different.
4. The website could have been making it up.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
actually, i was not using "philosophical" as a putdown. i meant that the question of reincarnation, given my parameters on the definition, is one of philosophy, as opposed to "hard scientific fact." in other words, it can not be proven or disproven. it is a way of thinking about something rather than a material reality etc.

your idea of "karma" is interesting. it has never occurred to me, and doesn't strike me as an obvious truth - most notably because i don't believe that there is any such thing as morality. one being's morality is another's demise. but i certainly admit that it could be true, given the truth of a certain set of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I should have been clearer as to my contention with your use of the word "philosophy". The drift of what I was saying is that a "thought" is a "fact" and it is scientifically "hard". If I call a tree a apple then my thoughts and speech appear to be disordered relative to the tree as seen by our senses. But in any case you and I cannot enter into this conversation unless we energize our thinking otherwise all we could do is stare out into space without thinking or thoughts.

Nonetheless our thoughts are "hard facts" and the study of "thoughts" and "thinking" untethered to the "tree" but correspondingly connected to the tree is relevant. This is another way of saying that only tying our thinking to our senses as if the sense bound world is all that is, is fatuous for the very world of our thoughts and thinking are a world of their own which can indeed connect the percepts of the external world.

By studying 'thinking" and "thoughts" one can and does come to a reality which is connected to the tree and in fact brings the earth bound senses into understanding. This world is the home of "philosophy" and in fact also "religion" and "art". Not definitions, but activities which climb the tonalities of Man in cosmic relation.

As to "karma" and "morality" many if not almost all relate morality to a given set of commandments but find that their individual moral tone is far more expansive than for example the ten commandments. Is not the "thou shall not kill" commandment an obvious moral concept(even though there are some who kill anyway)? If I exercise tact in relationship with my neighbor who may be facing a legal matter of severe humiliation am I not in the sphere of morality? Have I not lessened his burden or at least not added to the same by greeting him with compassion? I could have done otherwise and not been tactful and this again can lead to a moral tone, all of which may(maybe not) lead to a karmic response but not necessarily in this life. Yes, each man may have his own moral sphere and appear differently for in fact the history of Man can be seen as the history of Morality and Morals objectified.

In freedom, each man acts in moral activity, not a matter of "choice" but a matter of 'knowing" his activity. If Moses says"thou shalt not kill" and I put my head down and follow instructions then this moral activity is "not free". But if I do not kill because of my thinking and thoughtful activity buoyed by feeling and through the will then I am a "knowing doer" and am acting freely. What one sees when looking into nature is "wisdom" and Man through his work in the moral sphere lives within "Love" and transforms the earth. Karma and Love, within the sphere of Morality.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I should have been clearer as to my contention with your use of the word "philosophy". The drift of what I was saying is that a "thought" is a "fact" and it is scientifically "hard". If I call a tree a apple then my thoughts and speech appear to be disordered relative to the tree as seen by our senses. But in any case you and I cannot enter into this conversation unless we energize our thinking otherwise all we could do is stare out into space without thinking or thoughts.

Nonetheless our thoughts are "hard facts" and the study of "thoughts" and "thinking" untethered to the "tree" but correspondingly connected to the tree is relevant. This is another way of saying that only tying our thinking to our senses as if the sense bound world is all that is, is fatuous for the very world of our thoughts and thinking are a world of their own which can indeed connect the percepts of the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

while i agree that philosophical thought is a better tool than science for many things, i do not agree that a thought is a "fact" - at least by my definition of fact. a thought is not part of the material world (unless you get into brain science and start talking about synapses and receptors etc, which [i assume and hope] is not what you meant). that it isn't material does not diminish its value in any way - why would you want it to be "fact"? it's beyond fact. but it's not fact.

[ QUOTE ]
By studying 'thinking" and "thoughts" one can and does come to a reality which is connected to the tree and in fact brings the earth bound senses into understanding. This world is the home of "philosophy" and in fact also "religion" and "art". Not definitions, but activities which climb the tonalities of Man in cosmic relation

[/ QUOTE ]

i do appreciate your philosophy on this, sincerely. i think it's valid, but only equally valid to any other reasonable way of thinking about the same things. you might say, 'climbing the tonalities of man in cosmic relation.' another might say - 'being part of biology.' yet another might say - 'creating reality.' all could describe the same things and still all be valid. they are different ways of thinking about the same things. philosophies, not facts. i understand that you will counter with - "no, you don't understand me. _____ ____ ______." yes i do understand you, and you are right, but that does not exclude other, seemingly contradictory philosophies from also being right - precisely because reality isn't factual, its perceptual. (perception>fact)

[ QUOTE ]
As to "karma" and "morality" many if not almost all relate morality to a given set of commandments but find that their individual moral tone is far more expansive than for example the ten commandments. Is not the "thou shall not kill" commandment an obvious moral concept(even though there are some who kill anyway)? If I exercise tact in relationship with my neighbor who may be facing a legal matter of severe humiliation am I not in the sphere of morality? Have I not lessened his burden or at least not added to the same by greeting him with compassion? I could have done otherwise and not been tactful and this again can lead to a moral tone, all of which may(maybe not) lead to a karmic response but not necessarily in this life. Yes, each man may have his own moral sphere and appear differently for in fact the history of Man can be seen as the history of Morality and Morals objectified.

In freedom, each man acts in moral activity, not a matter of "choice" but a matter of 'knowing" his activity. If Moses says"thou shalt not kill" and I put my head down and follow instructions then this moral activity is "not free". But if I do not kill because of my thinking and thoughtful activity buoyed by feeling and through the will then I am a "knowing doer" and am acting freely. What one sees when looking into nature is "wisdom" and Man through his work in the moral sphere lives within "Love" and transforms the earth. Karma and Love, within the sphere of Morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think killing or not killing is a moral issue. it's ruled by social norm, which is a biological mechanism. i used to believe fervently in the morality of respecting individual rights. i still think respecting individual rights is important, but for practical reasons rather than moral. it would take me a very long time to write why. i'll try to do it sometime.

basically, i think it's mathematically impossible to respect the "rights" of all individuals at the same time - because all life is competitive and interactive.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
yes i do understand you, and you are right, but that does not exclude other, seemingly contradictory philosophies from also being right - precisely because reality isn't factual, its perceptual. (perception>fact)

[/ QUOTE ]

Madnak Speaks.

That's basically my position. We can ascribe "existence" to them, and it's perfectly valid in a contingent sense, but the only basis for this conception of existence is the set of criteria applied to determine that quality.

There are many ways to cut a cake. I can cut a cake into 8 pieces, and then there are indeed 8 pieces in the cake. Those pieces matter, because they'll determine who gets what part of the cake (and where crumbs will be left behind). But there is nothing special or fundamental that separates piece 1 from piece 2 - I just happened to divide the cake at a certain location. I could have divided the cake at another location, and it would have been equally valid. The individual pieces of cake are a function of my slicing, not a property of the cake itself.

When the cake hasn't yet been sliced, asking about where slice 1 and slice 2 are seems arbitrary and nonsensical. That all depends on where you slice it. In the same sense, a person or object's identity depends on how we choose to assign the property of identity - that property doesn't exist in the universe itself, it's a function of how we choose to divide the universe. I view animalism as a way of assigning idenity - it's just a method of slicing the cake, it's no more "true" or "false" than any other method. The dilemma presented in the OP strikes me as a different method of slicing - or maybe a question of "what should we do with the crumbs?" I don't think there's a right answer.





OK I've read your reply to me but feel that responding to this post would be more considerate. It appears you are presenting a type of solipsistic/Kantian type view of knowledge and the world.





In your presentation of "the cake" You are saying that your particular viewpoint of the external world has a validity and that another also may have a validity depending upon "how the cake is cut". You make no mention of the possibility that the cake has an existence of its own.You say it is not discrete, and knowledge of it is dependent upon your particular viewpoint. I'm sure this could be stated better but I believe the drift is apparent.





Let's look at a tree as I see it is a better way to examine the character of the issue. the tree is large, tall, has many branches and reaches to the sky. It is the fall/winter and leaves are not apparent. I would say that the tree speaks for itself and its discrete existence is undeniable and that any truths about this tree will be offered by the tree. There can be differences in our perspectives about the tree as for example if we are sitting around the tree but are a 150 angle from each other. We have what might be called a mathematical difference in perspective but no matter how you cut it it is undeniable that the tree contains its own truth even if we haven't an iota of understanding or in fact are totally incorrect in our thinking. The truths about the tree are not about "opinions" by you and I but are contained within the tree. One might believe that this tree is within the "immutable all" but that in no way comes to the reality of the tree. It seems that one should work with the tree first and leave open the possibility of the "immutable all" for if this is so it will be found in the work. It is not found in the work ,at present, for the naive look at the tree presents discreteness and if you will, an individual tree, via our senses.The tree exists, I know it exists, and refuse to deny my senses.








Now , back to Kant who stated that "you cannot know the thing in itself". Kant looks at the tree and is naively perceiving the tree, a perception. The moment he turns away from the tree he is left with a"memory" of a tree which is not the tree. the drift is that in all of our thinking we work with the "memory' of the tree, an imagination that is actually a condensed picture of the reality but IS NOT THE TREE. This is the Kantian viewpoint and one can see its similarity to yours. I believe that Kant then posited the "categorical imperative" which is common to all and acts as a basis for knowledge and through this we can come to some type of agreement as to our "apparent truths" for after all, we are all 'working within our heads". So if you add a stability factor as Kant did(this is not a justification of Kant), then we can come to agreement. The categorical imperative has its own difficulties but this hasn't stopped modern men from espousing Kant in substance and form.





Now the scientist comes along and states 'I can find the truth of the tree". He immediately begins to chip at the bark, perhaps even cut the tree in half and viola we have knowledge based upon the mineral kingdom. No doubt potassium, sodium, sulfur, etc. will be found and in this the naive man is befuddled for when the chips are made there is no longer a tree. A flower is a flower in the earth and if cut and placed on your dinner table it ceases to be a flower. In the scientific viewpoint the machine gives the relevance to the finding. Man is divorced from the finding for if man begins to think on these things we are back to the "categorical imperative" . This hasn't stopped scientists from thinking, thankfully.





The question is, how does one know the thing in itself?This question can only come about after denying the reality of the tree but it should be asked. What is it that disproves Kant but better yet makes us able to know the "thing in itself"? I'll take a break here and will follow up in another post.


Continuing on with the idea of not knowing the “thing in itself” we can see that this is relevant to the fact that the mental picture of the tree is not the tree and it is then assumed that Man, in his thinking, works with this mental picture of the tree but not the ‘real tree”. Further consideration reveals this to be faulty for the “real tree” is a perception which is limited by our being as we are limited beings in the world. Each man is individually limited by nature else we would be able to perceive the entire world complex in one fell swoop. The other consideration is that our “mental picture” is also a perception as the worldly tree percept is equally. In fact our entire being is a “percept” within our nature. One could therefore give no more credence to the “mental picture “as basis for knowledge than the original tree percept. Because of this some have posited that life is illusion, at best a dream, in which all men dream equally.




So how does “limited man” gain knowledge of the world? He does this through thinking. In each of the mental gyrations we go through thinking is assumed but not studied. If I throw a ball into the air a distance and watch it fall we will obtain a parabolic path and after pondering the presentation we, as mathematician, come up with the “concept” of the parabola. This “concept” is brought to us by thinking and in this the percept of the world which does not display the whole reality is complete by that part brought to us by thinking, the "concept". Because of Man’s limitations his percepts only display half of the reality while the concept, which is the part not observed by the senses is present and completes the whole. Likewise the concept “tree” or “animal kingdom” are concepts brought to us via thinking. In thinking we piece the world together connecting concepts to their respective percepts and to other concepts and therefore expanding our world knowledge vis a vis our precepts.




Of course, the idea of thinking must be considered. One must study thinking but can only do this in hindsight. To study or observe thinking while in the act of thinking is not tenable. One studies thinking at the completion of the act and in this thinking is studied and placed in our complex of concepts. The study of thinking reveals that thinking is that which is the part of the universal world process presented to all. Thinking is not individual but our substance in which truth is common to all of mankind, not the specific individual. In that an individual man is limited by his being as for example feelings or will which block perfect thought impulses the truths accomplished will display variations of multiplicity due to the fact that an individual man will obfuscate (depending upon the individual ,of course) the truth in reality, again secondary to his limited being. He works this worldly universe piecemeal and passes this to his brothers who in following the thought gain an appreciation of the world. Thinking is universal and in this we can all appreciate the truths involved and through thinking we can all come together. My feelings and will impulses are not common to all men but my thinking most certainly is so.


This is my response to Madlak concerning "percept" and I believe it responds to your consideration of"opinions" of many in relation to knowledge and knowing. the difficulty is that the disjunction between perception and thinking is spoken to. My post and others I've brought forward relates to how does Man break this seeming duality of perception and thinking. In it I categorically state that "thinking" is common to all men and that perceptions bring forth their own truths irrespective of the opinions of men(including mine).

The thinking brings forth the truths and the man rides the waves of thinking which is common to all. How does one know the truth of a presentation? That person knows the truth of the presentation but following this "thinking" for at that time we are in the supersensible world during the presentation of the thoughts. Its up to the listener or reader to make the judgment as to its reality. It is possible for these truths to be in error and for the reader or listener to correct the presenter. The disconnect between what the scientist may call "material" reality or "perception" is then closed and it will be up to others or the presenter to bring the "thoughts" into concordance with the perceptions which speak for themselves.

Man in his limitations sees a "tree" but this is only half of the reality for the concept of the tree completes the cycle and the sensible tree can be seen as a perceptive/conceptive whole not to be disassociated. This further leads to conclusions that the sensible percept is in itself a manifestation of a supersensible world.

Now I'll bring forth the ancient Indian concept of "Maya" or the shadows on the wall of a cave as brought forth by Plato. Relating to your sense that the materialistic scientist can weigh and measure reality it lives in a falsehood for this is the thinking of "death" which deals only with the inorganic and does not speak to life.

Dunno whether this helps but what I've presented is through thinking and hopefully the nudge away from materialism can be facilitated. I apologize for the length of the presentation but I'm trying to be a thorough as possible for in these studies a larger panorama of life becomes manifest and calls for more research or study in this supersensible world of thoughts.






















Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator