NationStates Jolt Archive

God lives in the world of our own psychology, mythology and the mystery of the being within the "reality" of each and every conscious "I am." When "God" is ripped from that womb, and placed into the world of ideated things and concepts, where "He" is the "Creator," rather than the experience of the creative soul of the human being creating light in the darkness and form in the chaos, then God's tombstone is thereby carved in doctrine. And it is in this sense that the Madman tells us that "God is dead." Who killed "God"? We do, when we bring "God" into the world of dead "things," by talking about his "existence" and "being" as though "God" did not represent an experience that transcends language and thinglyness.
Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives,—who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science~ Brendan McBride
Thought I'd introduce a new perspective of God that I hadn't yet seen on this forum, that of the Mystic. Life happens from the subjective perspective; when we objectify things, we place them in a world where everything is on an equally valuable footing by removing the judgemental value that they had in relationship to our being. Everything, animate and inanimate, is equally a "thing." Objectively, the only difference between any thing, including things like "life" and "death", is our arbitrary definition.

When we imagine God to be a part of the world of "things" then we "kill" God in Nietzsche's sense. He is nothing more than a subject of our arbitrary definition. This speaks to all those who would ask silly forum questions like "Can God do this..." or "If you have proof...." Just being is God. Our existence is creation.

Does this resonate with you?

Thought I'd introduce a new perspective of God that I hadn't yet seen on this forum, that of the Mystic. Life happens from the subjective perspective; when we objectify things, we place them in a world where everything is on an equally valuable footing by removing the judgemental value that they had in relationship to our being. Everything, animate and inanimate, is equally a "thing." Objectively, the only difference between any thing, including things like "life" and "death", is our arbitrary definition.

When we imagine God to be a part of the world of "things" then we "kill" God in Nietzsche's sense. He is nothing more than a subject of our arbitrary definition. This speaks to all those who would ask silly forum questions like "Can God do this..." or "If you have proof...." Just being is God. Our existence is creation.

Does this resonate with you?

no it doesnt. it makes god sound like a figment of my imagination.

no it doesnt. it makes god sound like a figment of my imagination.

Would that be a bad thing? But see there, a figment is a thing.

Even in saying "God is..." anything I too have indulged in killing God by bringing it into the world of definition and making it a thing. Making it an "it". That's what Neitzsche is on about.

How could bringing something into existence kill it? Ending existence is what kills something, bringing it into existence is creation, creation requires life.

Also, if I have a choice between a God who's an endless, formless, impersonal ocean, and a God who's personal, loving, and wants a relationship with the world He created, well I'll take the latter, thank you.

If you take the former, well that's your right. But why on earth would you want that?

Would that be a bad thing? But see there, a figment is a thing.

Even in saying "God is..." anything I too have indulged in killing God by bringing it into the world of definition and making it a thing. Making it an "it". That's what Neitzsche is on about.

i dont see any upside in believing in something that cant be known in any way without destroying it.

i dont see any upside in believing in something that cant be known in any way without destroying it.

In the mystics view, it is known by stripping away definition. What you are left with is Unity, but even concepts of God that are housed there vary greatly. Many eastern religions teach a sublimating of "self" through meditation, and in losing self any difference between self and other, "I" and the world around "me", vanishes. God is found in being God, an experience described as "undescribable".

no it doesnt. it makes god sound like a figment of my imagination.ultimately, it is.

How could bringing something into existence kill it? Ending existence is what kills something, bringing it into existence is creation, creation requires life.

Also, if I have a choice between a God who's an endless, formless, impersonal ocean, and a God who's personal, loving, and wants a relationship with the world He created, well I'll take the latter, thank you.

If you take the former, well that's your right. But why on earth would you want that?
"Kill" is a metaphor, a contrast to the metaphor of "life" that subjective judgement ("Being") brings to the world. To take away that "life" is to "kill" it.

We do that when we speak objectively about things. We maintain a thing with an imagined existence apart from what we know of it. We assign the value "truth" to acknowledge it, and it becomes "real".

What if "relationship" is the difference between "me" and the formless ocean? Then why would I not want it?

ultimately, it is.

of course it is

even if god does exist (highly unlikely) anything we think we know about "him" is so completely wrong as to be a delusion on our part.

of course it is

even if god does exist (highly unlikely) anything we think we know about "him" is so completely wrong as to be a delusion on our part.so burning bibles is the right course of action?

In the mystics view, it is known by stripping away definition. What you are left with is Unity, but even concepts of God that are housed there vary greatly. Many eastern religions teach a sublimating of "self" through meditation, and in losing self any difference between self and other, "I" and the world around "me", vanishes. God is found in being God, an experience described as "undescribable".

yeah but even the concept of unity is a definition and thus wrong.

i prefer the idea that god (even the title is a definition and thus an error) is so unknowable that any definition we have of "him" is wrong. we get brief glimpses of the eternal and use human metaphor to describe what we see.

it is the idea that we "kill" god with our definitions that seems utterly wrong to me. we have no effect on god. all that dies is our inadequate concept of him.

so burning bibles is the right course of action?

noooo

bad for the environment.

of course it is

even if god does exist (highly unlikely) anything we think we know about "him" is so completely wrong as to be a delusion on our part.

Everything to us is composed in the imagination. All we know of the world is contained in the mind, and the imagination is the faculty that turns that into images of "light", "sound", "shape", "solid", "texture", "quantity", "you", "me", etc. Definition. The world apart from our mind exists with a high degree of probability, in inverse proportion to degrees of delusion.

God is no more or less imagination than anything else.

yeah but even the concept of unity is a definition and thus wrong.

i prefer the idea that god (even the title is a definition and thus an error) is so unknowable that any definition we have of "him" is wrong. we get brief glimpses of the eternal and use human metaphor to describe what we see.

it is the idea that we "kill" god with our definitions that seems utterly wrong to me. we have no effect on god. all that dies is our inadequate concept of him.

Definition is not "wrong." To acknowledge that God is "killed" (metaphorically) by definiting it simply changes what "it" is that we're talking about. In acknowledging that change, we know from what it changed, even if we cannot speak of it.

God is no more or less imagination than anything else.That's just not true, and you know that pretty well.

Everything to us is composed in the imagination. All we know of the world is contained in the mind, and the imagination is the faculty that turns that into images of "light", "sound", "shape", "solid", "texture", "quantity", "you", "me", etc. Definition. The world apart from our mind exists with a high degree of probability, in inverse proportion to degrees of delusion.

God is no more or less imagination than anything else.

no

things exist outside of our minds. we dont create them even if we create our own understanding of them

god either exists outside our imagination or he doesnt.

im not interested in "worshiping" something that i made up in my own head.

so no, i guess the mystic god will never resonate with me.

That's just not true, and you know that pretty well.

True. But I haven't yet had an experience of God. Well, just one, for a moment. And I'm still learning.

no

things exist outside of our minds. we dont create them even if we create our own understanding of them

god either exists outside our imagination or he doesnt.

im not interested in "worshiping" something that i made up in my own head.

so no, i guess the mystic god will never resonate with me.

They do indeed exist outside our minds, in my belief. What I had said is that definition of them is in our minds.

What I had said is that definition of them is in our minds.No. The properties of a thing define it. We only collect information of that definition and call it definition.

No. The properties of a thing define it. We only collect information of that definition and call it definition.

So it's a definition before we call it a definition? In what context is it defined then?

Edit: I'll answer, then. In the context of the objective perspective, which is one of our ways of looking at the world.

So it's a definition before we call it a definition? In what context is it defined then?

Edit: I'll answer, then. In the context of the objective perspective, which is one of our ways of looking at the world.What is a definition? It's just a list of properties. So it does indeed exist before we name it as such. You know, a definition does not create the thing it describes.

What is a definition? It's just a list of properties. So it does indeed exist before we name it as such. You know, a definition does not create the thing it describes.

It's existence isn't in question, by me at least, and I did not suggest that definition creates the thing. Perhaps you mis-read what I said.

Do you agree that our observation and knowledge of a thing is distict from the thing itself? "Definition" is our brains formulating the information that is stored there through the senses into patterns that are recognizeable (re-cognize-able) and hence "retrievable." Making lists, as you say. Memory and sensation are essentially the same thing.

What I had said is that everything to us is composed in the mind. Whatever it may be apart from what we know of it, or that it may be there apart from our knowing of it, I am not addressing.

Life happens from the subjective perspective; when we objectify things, we place them in a world where everything is on an equally valuable footing by removing the judgemental value that they had in relationship to our being. Everything, animate and inanimate, is equally a "thing." Objectively, the only difference between any thing, including things like "life" and "death", is our arbitrary definition.



A framework for looking at things that is too fantastic and abstract to be evaluated rationally, and moreover, completely devoid of any practical relevance.

Trivial, in a word.

It's existence isn't in question, by me at least, and I did not suggest that definition creates the thing. Perhaps you mis-read what I said.

Do you agree that our observation and knowledge of a thing is distict from the thing itself? "Definition" is our brains formulating the information that is stored there through the senses into patterns that are recognizeable (re-cognize-able) and hence "retrievable." Making lists, as you say. Memory and sensation are essentially the same thing.

What I had said is that everything to us is composed in the mind. Whatever it may be apart from what we know of it, or that it may be there apart from our knowing of it, I am not addressing.
You were saying that knowledge and imagination are the same, weren't you?

God is no more or less imagination than anything else.Your experience in real life has the same quality as a belief in God would have? Well, maybe in the way such "information" is stored in the brain, but surely not in the way how it got there.

no it doesnt. it makes god sound like a figment of my imagination.

Instead of, of course, a figment of everyone ELSE's.

How could bringing something into existence kill it?

Heisenberg?

Just a point, the "god" you are describing GBrooks is not a 'Mystics God', you misunderstand what a mystic is. A mystic is one who has (at least, from an atheistic standpoint, one who claims to have had) a direct vision or experience of a God who is distinct from him/herself.

What you are describing, and trying to make God, is essentially a feeling. While I will not argue that the sense of awe I get while looking at a sunset, or at a mountain, or at the waves on a beach is often a very transcendent, mystical feeling- and that at those times, I feel close to God in a unique way-I would not say that the feeling itself is, in fact, God Himself.

Instead of, of course, a figment of everyone ELSE's.

well, yes.

not that im interested in worshipping the figments of anyone's imagination.

not that im interested in worshipping the figments of anyone's imagination.
Not even Kari Byron's?

Perhaps not "worship", but certainly "indulgence".
I find certain aspects of other peoples' imagination fascinating, like anyone else.
Society would be a LOT different if it weren't for that natural characteristic.

Not even Kari Byron's?

Perhaps not "worship", but certainly "indulgence".
I find certain aspects of other peoples' imagination fascinating, like anyone else.
Society would be a LOT different if it weren't for that natural characteristic.

i would answer if i had a clue as to what you are talking about.

who is kari byron?

What I had said is that everything to us is composed in the mind. Whatever it may be apart from what we know of it, or that it may be there apart from our knowing of it, I am not addressing.

Then we're getting nowhere. All roads of denying the existence of a Ding-An-Sich, a "thing in itself" lead into the cul de sac of solipsism.

You say "to us". So you are sort of aware of the difference of "an sich sein" (being in itself, independent of a perceiving mind) and "für mich sein" (beyond translation, means as much as "what it is to me, inside my mind."

What I see here is confusion between a word (concept) and a thing, which leads to the above question: is there anything outside the mind or not? If not, I declare all of you, forums and universe, my personal figment.

Realism-Idealism debate, after all.

To me that argument makes sense; that by perceiving something a a part of what we tend to call reality, we reduce the something to an entity within the class of objects, in the broadest possible sense. In the context discussed this is quite possibly a mistake.

If however, we decide that we cannot ascribe God exclusively to "reality", since that would make Him an "object", then how can we say that He does exist beyond our own imagination? I fear we lack the terms necessary to discuss the concept of "existence beyond reality".

Is it reasonable to assert that true existence is to exist independently of other consciousnesses?

Is it even reasonable to ponder the nature of His existence, or is "I AM" the most profound and true answer that we can grasp?

What mystics do you have in mind, man?

God is nothing more than Santa Claus with a +2 Magic Ring.

To me that argument makes sense; that by perceiving something a a part of what we tend to call reality, we reduce the something to an entity within the class of objects, in the broadest possible sense. In the context discussed this is quite possibly a mistake.

If however, we decide that we cannot ascribe God exclusively to "reality", since that would make Him an "object", then how can we say that He does exist beyond our own imagination? I fear we lack the terms necessary to discuss the concept of "existence beyond reality".

Is it reasonable to assert that true existence is to exist independently of other consciousnesses?

Is it even reasonable to ponder the nature of His existence, or is "I AM" the most profound and true answer that we can grasp?

i think it is

i am that am

anything more is to limit god. god isnt limited only our understanding of him is limited.

which is mysterious but not quite in the same way as the OP suggests.

i think it is

i am that am

anything more is to limit god. god isnt limited only our understanding of him is limited.

which is mysterious but not quite in the same way as the OP suggests.

The mystery is in the fact that it is unknowable, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. Not in that it is subjective to an individual.

The mystery is in the fact that it is unknowable, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. Not in that it is subjective to an individual.

thats my contention

although to follow up on old atlantia's post, we can catch a glimpse of the mystery, we just cant possibly understand it. hence the differing interpretations of "god" by the various religions of the world.

thats my contention

although to follow up on old atlantia's post, we can catch a glimpse of the mystery, we just cant possibly understand it. hence the differing interpretations of "god" by the various religions of the world.

I agree. Though I wonder if what we're seeing is really supernatural or something emergent in humanity. Some product of a collective imagination?

I agree. Though I wonder if what we're seeing is really supernatural or something emergent in humanity. Some product of a collective imagination?

no way to know if its real or a product of the evolution of our brains, eh?

even if its real, there is no way to know for sure.

now thats mysterious.

no way to know if its real or a product of the evolution of our brains, eh?

even if its real, there is no way to know for sure.

now thats mysterious.

Quite. Considerably more mysterious than what qualities it does and doesn't have.

i would answer if i had a clue as to what you are talking about.As in, if you were to indulge in other people's imaginations on a regular basis.
Most of our "cultural structures" and interest-based economic structures have a certain amount of complicity to them, which is essentially indulging in a notion, regardless of it being actually true or not.
Religion is a great example of indulging someone else's fantasies.
And it's in human nature to study and emulate, to fantasize, to appropriate identity from outside sources/incorporate it, et cetera. Not just resonance, but identification.
Also, for clarification, how popular fiction is when it's just that - fiction.


who is kari byron?
whatWhatWHAT?

http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/kari-byron/baloons-lrg.jpg
She's the goddess with the ballons, claws, and collar. She's on Mythbusters.
*salivates*
As in - her imagination, as i see it represented to me, is something i most definitely would indulge in. Arh yeah.
*nods emphatically*

As in, if you were to indulge in other people's imaginations on a regular basis.
Most of our "cultural structures" and interest-based economic structures have a certain amount of complicity to them, which is essentially indulging in a notion, regardless of it being actually true or not.
Religion is a great example of indulging someone else's fantasies.
And it's in human nature to study and emulate, to fantasize, to appropriate identity from outside sources/incorporate it, et cetera. Not just resonance, but identification.
Also, for clarification, how popular fiction is when it's just that - fiction.


whatWhatWHAT?

http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/kari-byron/baloons-lrg.jpg
She's the goddess with the ballons, claws, and collar. She's on Mythbusters.
*salivates*
As in - her imagination, as i see it represented to me, is something i most definitely would indulge in. Arh yeah.
*nods emphatically*

hmmm theres a bit of imagination that i didnt need to be in on.

as to fiction of all sorts, im not expected to believe that .... luke skywalker... really existed nor am i expected to conform my behavior to that which would most please luke.

hmmm theres a bit of imagination that i didnt need to be in on.
I'm willing to share, but not ALL of her :p
as to fiction of all sorts, im not expected to believe that .... luke skywalker... really existed nor am i expected to conform my behavior to that which would most please luke.That's okay, you would stand as an example of contradiction to people who've made "The Force" a life philosophy, for example. Surely, you've seen the posters and websites, right?

Thought I'd introduce a new perspective of God that I hadn't yet seen on this forum, that of the Mystic. Life happens from the subjective perspective; when we objectify things, we place them in a world where everything is on an equally valuable footing by removing the judgemental value that they had in relationship to our being. Everything, animate and inanimate, is equally a "thing." Objectively, the only difference between any thing, including things like "life" and "death", is our arbitrary definition.

When we imagine God to be a part of the world of "things" then we "kill" God in Nietzsche's sense. He is nothing more than a subject of our arbitrary definition. This speaks to all those who would ask silly forum questions like "Can God do this..." or "If you have proof...." Just being is God. Our existence is creation.

Does this resonate with you?


Yep of course, heh I am constantly amazed at how God can be viewed as anything but 'the all'

What mystics do you have in mind, man?

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite FTW! :p

Sorry, I just thought that would sound funny. It did in my head. :p

Then we're getting nowhere. All roads of denying the existence of a Ding-An-Sich, a "thing in itself" lead into the cul de sac of solipsism.

You say "to us". So you are sort of aware of the difference of "an sich sein" (being in itself, independent of a perceiving mind) and "für mich sein" (beyond translation, means as much as "what it is to me, inside my mind."

What I see here is confusion between a word (concept) and a thing, which leads to the above question: is there anything outside the mind or not? If not, I declare all of you, forums and universe, my personal figment.

Realism-Idealism debate, after all.

Eh. I read it as "everything is composed in the mind," rather than "everything is the mind." Which would be simple physicalism, right? No need to go out on a limb, then. :p

As one of the few people on this forum that has had multiple experiences of mystic ?rapture?ecstasy?unity?, I can say it resonates with me because I have experinced it. I'm not sure the OP would resonate with someone who has never experienced it. It is simply undescribable.

A framework for looking at things that is too fantastic and abstract to be evaluated rationally, and moreover, completely devoid of any practical relevance.

Trivial, in a word.

It is not really a framework for looking at things. It is an experience. It disrupts frameworks and resists them the same way new information destroys old theories. It makes you realise that your frameworks are just that: a human structure for defining what we sense. It is neither fantastic or abstract, but you are correct that it can not be evaluated rationally. It is simply too individual. Too irrational. Too sensual.

This is why mystics never try to convert you. How the hell can I make you feel something I can't even describe?

It is as devoid of practical relevance as children's laughter, your favourite song, the smell of coffee, the gift of friendship and dancing in the rain. To me, that is not trivial at all, but each to his or her own.

Just a point, the "god" you are describing GBrooks is not a 'Mystics God', you misunderstand what a mystic is. A mystic is one who has (at least, from an atheistic standpoint, one who claims to have had) a direct vision or experience of a God who is distinct from him/herself.

What you are describing, and trying to make God, is essentially a feeling. While I will not argue that the sense of awe I get while looking at a sunset, or at a mountain, or at the waves on a beach is often a very transcendent, mystical feeling- and that at those times, I feel close to God in a unique way-I would not say that the feeling itself is, in fact, God Himself.

I don't know if I'm a mystic, but I know what I experienced. It was not some vague sensation of feeling close to God. It was a direct experience of God who is definitely not distinct from me, or from any part of creation. God is creation. God is creating. God is not a noun. God is the only verb. And we are living God, right now.

You see, I told you it was undescribable.

I'm willing to share, but not ALL of her :p
That's okay, you would stand as an example of contradiction to people who've made "The Force" a life philosophy, for example. Surely, you've seen the posters and websites, right?

yes i have.

and as you might expect i find the whole thing very stupid.

Does this resonate with you?
You can't "kill" God, because God is a fiction that many humans use to satisfy a variety of drives. God is whatever each individual decides it is. An individual could choose not to believe in the literal existence of God, but that wouldn't "kill" God any more than it would "kill" Harry Potter to have a fan recognize that he is a fictional character.

You can't "kill" God, because God is a fiction that many humans use to satisfy a variety of drives. God is whatever each individual decides it is. An individual could choose not to believe in the literal existence of God, but that wouldn't "kill" God any more than it would "kill" Harry Potter to have a fan recognize that he is a fictional character.

It is a metaphor. When we discuss God as a thing, a noun, an object, we reduce it to something definable and communicable. We do this by excluding the living and becoming aspect of god.

The reason the metaphor of death is used, in my opinion, is because any definition of god relates to god in the same way that a dead body relates to the living human that it once was.

As one of the few people on this forum that has had multiple experiences of mystic ?rapture?ecstasy?unity?, I can say it resonates with me because I have experinced it. I'm not sure the OP would resonate with someone who has never experienced it. It is simply undescribable.



It is not really a framework for looking at things. It is an experience. It disrupts frameworks and resists them the same way new information destroys old theories. It makes you realise that your frameworks are just that: a human structure for defining what we sense. It is neither fantastic or abstract, but you are correct that it can not be evaluated rationally. It is simply too individual. Too irrational. Too sensual.

This is why mystics never try to convert you. How the hell can I make you feel something I can't even describe?

It is as devoid of practical relevance as children's laughter, your favourite song, the smell of coffee, the gift of friendship and dancing in the rain. To me, that is not trivial at all, but each to his or her own.



I don't know if I'm a mystic, but I know what I experienced. It was not some vague sensation of feeling close to God. It was a direct experience of God who is definitely not distinct from me, or from any part of creation. God is creation. God is creating. God is not a noun. God is the only verb. And we are living God, right now.

You see, I told you it was undescribable.

I'd offer the idea that you might be experiencing chemical imbalances in your brain when you conceive the ideas that you're experiencing 'mystical' illluminations. Your 'proof' is reminiscent of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's reasoning for his theological standpoints on any number of issues.

What is this similarity? They'll often remark they are self-affirmed in their doctrines because of their 'burning in the bossom.'

Or how about many of the Protestant espousements, that they know their truths to be self-evidant in lieu of the apparent spiritual gifts they claim to possess, such as the laying on hands of healing. And yet, no matter how much you demand proof from them, they are unable to show it to you - yet they claim you are the close-minded individual who wishes for 'arbitrary' proof.

Holding every experience under the same meter of probability is a healthy aspect of using one's brain matter. If I were, tomorrow, to experience some great esoteric experience that was indescribable, as you put it, I would seriously consider some sort of clinical help, whether in the form of psycho-analysis, medication, or at least speaking with a doctor about such an experience.

The moment an individual claims an isolated incident that is indescribable, doubt and caution are rational (and even common sense, I would dare say) dispositions to hold. If an individual ran up to me tomorrow and exclaimed, "I was abducted by aliens last night!" how should I respond to such an exclamation?

Should I accept his testimony, merely because he exclaims such? I assume even you will concur that such would be absurd. I imagine you will also say that you do not expect us to believe your testimony, because we have not 'experienced' it. But this smacks of what many religious people say, again.

I have been told over and over by many fundamentilist Christians that my theological analysis of many aspects of their religion are inaccurate, because I, myself, am not a Christian. Because I am not a Christian, I can not understand what they believe. That is, honestly, absurdity at its finest. Clearly, they must have a greater understanding of etymology, just because they claim Christ as their Saviour.

An objective view of events that have transpired (or possibly will transpire) is not a negligable foundation, as so many supernatural and mystical pundits would claim. Your ability to justify an event according to its evidence is not a 100% fail-proof evaluation, but it certainly more reliable and accurate as the alternative - believing whatever you 'experience.'

Otherwise, the men we have locked up in asylums, for good reason, are just as correct about the consistency of reality as others. Those that say that are confused by concepts such as Ignorance, Delusion, Justification, and Objectivity.

Those men, by all means, are justified in their beliefs, because they know no better. But it does not mean their Delusion excuses Objectivity. The man that screams at you that there is a Flying Walrus behind him might genuingly believe it is so, but it does not mean you should automatically accept that it's probable.

Post-modernism is riddled with subjectivity. Relativity is our best new friend, it seems. It makes me rather nautious that so many provide their self-affirmation as their evidence to their fanaticism.

It is a metaphor. When we discuss God as a thing, a noun, an object, we reduce it to something definable and communicable. We do this by excluding the living and becoming aspect of god.

Bunk.

I wish I had something more substantive to say in reply, but those sentences are simply bunk.

Discussing God, even as a noun, doesn't remotely require excluding any particular aspects of God. Perhaps you choose to do so, I don't really know (or care).


The reason the metaphor of death is used, in my opinion, is because any definition of god relates to god in the same way that a dead body relates to the living human that it once was.
God is whatever a human defines it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

Eh. I read it as "everything is composed in the mind," rather than "everything is the mind." Which would be simple physicalism, right? No need to go out on a limb, then. :p

Not with you.
If everything is "composed in the mind" it would "be in the mind", or where else?

What is the subtle difference I seem to be failing to grasp here?

Not with you.
If everything is "composed in the mind" it would "be in the mind", or where else?

What is the subtle difference I seem to be failing to grasp here?

"Composed in the mind" is a matter of perception. "Be in the mind" is a matter of imagination. Or at least that's my take.

...snip intelligent but long post...

My first and most consistent reaction to my experiences is one of doubt. I am a healthy skeptic. To use your flying walrus image, if I saw one of those behind me, I'd get a referral to a shrink ASAP. And if my bosom starts burning, I'll have some yogourt.

You are also correct that it may be a brain imbalance, as recent studies have shown alterations in brain chemistry corelating with these moments.

I do not hold them to be proofs of god's existence for anyone but myself, and you should only believe them as much you believe me. If you would like, we can discuss why I think this is something other than just my head, but I would never attempt to debate it. It would be impossible for me to prove I am telling the truth.

The reason I am in this thread is to attempt to describe an experience that is impossible to convey without resorting to poetry. If you have any questions I am more than happy to answer them.

My first and most consistent reaction to my experiences is one of doubt. I am a healthy skeptic. To use your flying walrus image, if I saw one of those behind me, I'd get a referral to a shrink ASAP. And if my bosom starts burning, I'll have some yogourt.

You are also correct that it may be a brain imbalance, as recent studies have shown alterations in brain chemistry corelating with these moments.

I do not hold them to be proofs of god's existence for anyone but myself, and you should only believe them as much you believe me. If you would like, we can discuss why I think this is something other than just my head, but I would never attempt to debate it. It would be impossible for me to prove I am telling the truth.

The reason I am in this thread is to attempt to describe an experience that is impossible to convey without resorting to poetry. If you have any questions I am more than happy to answer them.

I confess, I am in a bit of shock concerning your mature assessment of the discussion at this point. It was unexpected, but highly appreciated - and impressive. The majority of 'mystic' individuals I have discoursed with react with vehement hostility to statements similar to the ones I previously made, so your alterior recourse has certainly garnered respect.

Since you actually have admitted the possibility of the source culminating from chemical reactions within your brain, I am then curious as to why you believe that possibility is not the most reliable.

Since the matter at hand is rather subjective (not to say subjective matters are inherently irrelevant, by no means), my questions will be hard placed, considering my recognition that the answers I seek are most likely transcribed in what you have previously announced as "indescribable."

So, for a primer, would you care to explain, to the best of your ability, the critera of this experience that made you prefer it as a mystical event?

...So, for a primer, would you care to explain, to the best of your ability, the critera of this experience that made you prefer it as a mystical event?

I am not your average believer. I think if someone feels threatened by your comments, it is probably because they never really had a transcendental experience, or they weren't brave enough to ask themselves the hard questions afterwards.

This is understandable. It's pretty mind blowing, and no one wants to tell themselves they may be crazy.

But you were asking me to talk about why I think it's mystical, not speculate on the motives of others.

Have you ever done psychoactive drugs? I'm talking about drugs that interfere with your brain's normal processes: Mescaline, LSD, psilocybin, etc.

So there you are, hallucinating away. A good time if you're into that sort of thing. But you can tell what's a hallucination and what's part of the concensual reality. Same with vivid dreams. Part of you is aware that it's not real. And do you know what the difference is between what your mind makes up and what is really out there?

I'll tell you: surprise.

Reality surprises you. Almost all the other altered states I have explored do not do that. My previous post surprised you. That's how you know I'm a real person and not some nifty computer program that Jolt cooked up.

And this experience was surprising, to say the least.

That's the primary indicator, for me, that it came from something other than my own brain.

There are other reasons too. I find that the worlds we create for ourselves and each other are limited to what we can sense with our five senses, yet the information/joining I experienced involved more than that. This is where it starts to get indescribable. Because I am trying to explain something that I sensed without my five senses into ideas that can only be described and communicated within the framework of those five senses. Hallucinations and emotions can be described and analysed in those terms, but not this. This requires poetry.

I know these reasons are not going to convince anybody. But that's okay. The way I see it is that if god really wanted you to believe or understand me, she would just do the same thing to you.

"Composed in the mind" is a matter of perception. "Be in the mind" is a matter of imagination. Or at least that's my take.

Taken that way, a unicorn "is" in the mind, whereas the Niagara Falls are "composed" in the mind?

Isn't anything in the mind also "composed" somehow, either by what the brain composes out of sensoric data, or by mere operations of the mind itself?

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite FTW! :p

Sorry, I just thought that would sound funny. It did in my head. :p

You're right, it did. :p

Taken that way, a unicorn "is" in the mind, whereas the Niagara Falls are "composed" in the mind?

Isn't anything in the mind also "composed" somehow, either by what the brain composes out of sensoric data, or by mere operations of the mind itself?

Yes, that's about right. But the imagination itself only uses the senses internally, whereas the experience and perception of exterior things is something that requires processing and composition.

yes i have.

and as you might expect i find the whole thing very stupid.

Fair enough.
People generally look for meaning in the strangest of places, and once there's resonance, they' tend to latch on worse than a pit bull, regardless of how fanciful or delusional it might be.
The thing is, literature stands as the great distraction to keep people relating to things that way. As does religion.

You were saying that knowledge and imagination are the same, weren't you?
They vary in degree of certainty and other such values, but in essence are the same: composed in the mind.

Your experience in real life has the same quality as a belief in God would have? Well, maybe in the way such "information" is stored in the brain, but surely not in the way how it got there.
How did it "get" there? Did it travel?

Then we're getting nowhere. All roads of denying the existence of a Ding-An-Sich, a "thing in itself" lead into the cul de sac of solipsism.
Well, that's certainly the reason I don't deny it.

You say "to us". So you are sort of aware of the difference of "an sich sein" (being in itself, independent of a perceiving mind) and "für mich sein" (beyond translation, means as much as "what it is to me, inside my mind."

What I see here is confusion between a word (concept) and a thing, which leads to the above question: is there anything outside the mind or not? If not, I declare all of you, forums and universe, my personal figment.

Realism-Idealism debate, after all.
Okily dokily. Not the topic of this thread, though.

To me that argument makes sense; that by perceiving something a a part of what we tend to call reality, we reduce the something to an entity within the class of objects, in the broadest possible sense. In the context discussed this is quite possibly a mistake.

If however, we decide that we cannot ascribe God exclusively to "reality", since that would make Him an "object", then how can we say that He does exist beyond our own imagination? I fear we lack the terms necessary to discuss the concept of "existence beyond reality".
Just so! Any terms we give it "kills" it by bringing it into reality. We cannot know beyond what we can know, hence the most rational approach to God is through the philosophy that addresses what stands in contrast to what we know - agnosticism. I believe in God as an epistemological puzzle, not a ontological one.

Is it reasonable to assert that true existence is to exist independently of other consciousnesses? Is it even reasonable to ponder the nature of His existence, or is "I AM" the most profound and true answer that we can grasp?
In my opinion, it is more reasonable not to deny either the "true" existence that we cannot consciously know without reasserting "self," and the conscious "self", in unity. Both undeniably exist to us.

What mystics do you have in mind, man?

Neitzsche, for one. :) I gotta make a note to read one of his books someday.

i think it is

i am that am

anything more is to limit god. god isnt limited only our understanding of him is limited.
No arguement, there.

which is mysterious but not quite in the same way as the OP suggests.
In what way is it mysterious, in your opinion?

Eh. I read it as "everything is composed in the mind," rather than "everything is the mind." Which would be simple physicalism, right? No need to go out on a limb, then. :p

Actually, what I had said was: "All we know of the world is contained in the mind..."

If you remove the definitions and assumptions by which we understand the world, then you remove all knowledge and analysis. After all, isn't virtually all our science, daily life and logic based upon a reasonable assumption that our senses aren't lying to us?

Without all the definitions and assumptions people will make, then you just end up with the world without a layer of human interpretation... Just the world, without any labels...

How in any way is that god?

Without belief, our faith fails
Without axioms, our logic fails
Without perception, our science fails
Without these, what then do we have?

Without belief, our faith fails
Without axioms, our logic fails
Without perception, our science fails
Without these, what then do we have?

MU!

@ Deus malum:

Ok, agreed. Although the proof that there is anything outside the mind at all hasn't been established yet. Solipsism can't be disproved.

It's a faith thing, after all, with Epistemological Realism being a working hypothesis for everyday life, which goes: there is an outside world, and our sensoric apparatus and the brain as the processing unit give us a picture that somewhat fits that external reality, which remains inaccessible (transcendent) in its totality.

A strong argument: we have survived as a species so far, so the picture our brains project in front of us must be sufficiently adapted to the outside reality, otherwise we'd long be extinct.

When we imagine God to be a part of the world of "things" then we "kill" God in Nietzsche's sense. He is nothing more than a subject of our arbitrary definition. This speaks to all those who would ask silly forum questions like "Can God do this..." or "If you have proof...." Just being is God. Our existence is creation.

Does this resonate with you?

World of things translates to "world of phenomena as perceived/composed in the mind"?

In that case, God, according to Nietzsche, becomes just another "mind object"; he is internalised into the mind and thus denied his transcendent reality/existence in itself, outside the mind. That's the flaw in Nietzsche's thinking: any mind-internal conception of God may well be complete bull (old man with beard and a triangle above him as a crass example), but it doesn't destroy the possibility of God as an external/transcendent reality outside the mind. Not God is dead. Only our wacky ideas and concepts of God are flushed out. God's absolute existence, completely independent of any human mind operations is not touched at all and remains open.

Result: Nietzsche is dead. About God, no faint idea.

In the end, it boils down to "did Man create God or did God create Man".


Yeah, and this:

This has nothing to do with mysticism. From what Gift of God hinted at, as far as it's possible to hint at such matters, the mystic moment happens when all these mind operations of discriminating thinking, such as subject-object, inside-outside, internal-external, mind-matter, God-Not God, Self-Non Self, transcendent-immanent, reality-perception and what have you, blow into smithereens, cease to be and become null and void. When all collapses into a big ONE and differentiation is no more.

And I believe this mystic experience is possible, although not for everybody.
And then, it can still be due to some chemical malfunction in the brain.

Buddha on dopamine?

World of things translates to "world of phenomena as perceived/composed in the mind"?
I'm a thing. He's a thing. She's a thing.

Wouldn't you like to be a thing, too?

"World of things" translates into objective reality. "Composed in the mind" translates into our perception of such, structured to be of that perspective. The objective perspective. One of our perspectives.

Only our wacky ideas and concepts of God are flushed out. God's absolute existence, completely independent of any human mind operations is not touched at all and remains open.
You're right. But God is persona non-perspective. Perspective is a particular structuring of these "mind objects." What I think Neitzsche is on about is that God is only a "mind object" when we bring it into the world of things by addressing it as an objective thing, same as the sorts of things we perceive. Then "God" can no longer be God. We've "killed" God by addressing the idea "God" instead. Of course, we don't actually change God in this scenario, we just change the way we look at God. The perspective. We change from a spiritual to an objective perspective. God isn't found there, though, just images of God. "God" becomes nothing more than a word without substance, and without context.

I agree that the possibility of God is not altered by our "mind objects", our images of God.

This has nothing to do with mysticism. From what Gift of God hinted at, as far as it's possible to hint at such matters, the mystic moment happens when all these mind operations of discriminating thinking, such as subject-object, inside-outside, internal-external, mind-matter, God-Not God, Self-Non Self, transcendent-immanent, reality-perception and what have you, blow into smithereens, cease to be and become null and void. When all collapses into a big ONE and differentiation is no more.

And I believe this mystic experience is possible, although not for everybody.
And then, it can still be due to some chemical malfunction in the brain.

Buddha on dopamine?
They do not cease to be, but rather cease to be for us; until the self reasserts itself and we "return to reality." What you describe is the mystic experience of unity, yes, as I understand it. The world of duality is the world of things.

To Dorstfeld:

Just curious, because I don't understand forum speak... what does "MU" mean?

More seriously,
You mention a mystic experience in which all human layers through which we view the world (not just through sight) are removed.

I would like to point out that since our perception is filtered through our brain, any experience at all, including that described by the original poster, would also be experienced by the brain and be filtered to fit the human framework. If there is an experience outside the human scope of understanding, we wouldn't perceive it at all...

To GBrooks:

I am a thing. =)

I agree too. Assuming God exists as an independent object, any perceptions/labels humans create to identify God will not change God in any way. Much like calling a table a table doesn't change what a table is...

Mystic experience of unity? Enlighten me please...

This thread reminds of the thread about teaching kids philosophy. The one which eventually turned into a debate about a river and could you step into the same river twice. Bodies w/o organs brought up the point about existance being a process rather than a static definition.

It seems like the Mystic point of view seems to reflect that concept of existance.

Everything is a process, and God is the collective part of all these processes. Kinda like the ghost in the machine. Only that phrase is meant to be derogatary... and maybe... meh nevermind.

This has nothing to do with mysticism. From what Gift of God hinted at, as far as it's possible to hint at such matters, the mystic moment happens when all these mind operations of discriminating thinking, such as subject-object, inside-outside, internal-external, mind-matter, God-Not God, Self-Non Self, transcendent-immanent, reality-perception and what have you, blow into smithereens, cease to be and become null and void. When all collapses into a big ONE and differentiation is no more.

And I believe this mystic experience is possible, although not for everybody.
And then, it can still be due to some chemical malfunction in the brain.

Buddha on dopamine?

That's a decent description. Not quite so violent. More liking wiping away a chalk drawing with a wet rag, leaving only a blank slate.

I'm a thing. He's a thing. She's a thing.

Wouldn't you like to be a thing, too?

...They do not cease to be, but rather cease to be for us; until the self reasserts itself and we "return to reality." What you describe is the mystic experience of unity, yes, as I understand it. The world of duality is the world of things.

I'm not a thing. My cells and essential stuff are constantly being rearranged and exchanged with the rest of the environment. My thoughts are changing as I write this. As Buckmister Fuller said, I seem to be a verb.

To Dorstfeld:

Just curious, because I don't understand forum speak... what does "MU" mean?

Mu is not internet speak as far as I can understand. It is part of Buddhist or Zen philosophy. Mu is the third answer to a yes or no question. It implies that the truth can not be confined to a simple binary proposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

It seems like the Mystic point of view seems to reflect that concept of existance.

Everything is a process, and God is the collective part of all these processes. Kinda like the ghost in the machine. Only that phrase is meant to be derogatary... and maybe... meh nevermind.

Yes, my experiences would agree with that. Including that maybe at the end. When you start talking about this kind of stuff, there's a lot of maybes.

@ GBrooks

Just for clarification: We use the word "object" differently.

If I understand you right, you take "object" as the "thing" outside the mind, the Kantian "thing in itself". Fair play, valid definition, no problems with that.

I understand "object" as the "thing" as it appears in front of the perceiving subject, thus as a thing inside the mind, a mind phenomenon. Following Kant's and Schopenhauer's terminology in this.

Where I can't follow Nietzsche, is how it affects God in its "objectivity" (in your meaning) if some subject happens to internalise God in his mind. Just because someone has a crappy picture or idea of something, this doesn't "kill" the objective reality of that something (always provided there is an objective world outside the mind.)

I suppose what Nietzsche means with "killing God" is that God in his objective transcendental reality is replaced by our ideas of God, this idea being a mind-made fiction and not God as the transcendent Being in itself. This act of replacing transcendent, "objective" reality with a mind-made phenomenon is what he paraphrases as "we killed God".

Like hell we did! We just mistake an internalisation into the mind for an external objectivity, and the external God in itself is alive and kicking.

That's a decent description. Not quite so violent. More liking wiping away a chalk drawing with a wet rag, leaving only a blank slate.

Yep. I call it "pull away that net." I managed it once, no lasting effect, though.

I'm not a thing. My cells and essential stuff are constantly being rearranged and exchanged with the rest of the environment. My thoughts are changing as I write this. As Buckmister Fuller said, I seem to be a verb.

Quite Buddhist, isn't it? The dynamic universe. Nothing is stable, everything is in continual motion, fluctuation, interactive, interdependent, intercontingent. What appears to be solid is only temporary and unstable condensations of elements (dharmas) which will come apart again for new temporary reorganisation, clustering, condensation in different shapes (shi), all subject to Karma. Hence Man is not a thing or name or noun. Man is a process within interdependent processes, a verb among verbs.



Mu is not internet speak as far as I can understand. It is part of Buddhist or Zen philosophy. Mu is the third answer to a yes or no question. It implies that the truth can not be confined to a simple binary proposition.

Yes. "Mu" can mean as much as "neither!" or, bluntly, "not even close, try again" or very bluntly, "your question/answer/way of thinking is complete rubbish." Zen Masters can be quite rude.

To Dorstfeld:

Just curious, because I don't understand forum speak... what does "MU" mean?
One day Zarathud took his students to a pleasant pasture and there he confronted The Sacred Chao while She was contentedly grazing.
"Tell me, you dumb beast." demanded the Priest in his commanding voice, "why don't you do something worthwhile. What is your Purpose in Life, anyway?"
Munching the tasty grass, The Sacred Chao replied "MU".
Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened. Primarily because nobody could understand Chinese.
- Zarathud's Enlightenment, The Principia Discordia (http://principiadiscordia.com/)

(I think the thing is, no one could speak cow.)

To GBrooks:

I am a thing. =)

I agree too. Assuming God exists as an independent object, any perceptions/labels humans create to identify God will not change God in any way. Much like calling a table a table doesn't change what a table is...

Mystic experience of unity? Enlighten me please...
Actually, my position would be to assume God's existence apart from what we know as independent objects, but yeah. :D

Dogen says, "Realization is the state of ambiguity itself." Englightenment is knowing uncertainty.

This thread reminds of the thread about teaching kids philosophy. The one which eventually turned into a debate about a river and could you step into the same river twice. Bodies w/o organs brought up the point about existance being a process rather than a static definition.

It seems like the Mystic point of view seems to reflect that concept of existance.

Everything is a process, and God is the collective part of all these processes. Kinda like the ghost in the machine. Only that phrase is meant to be derogatary... and maybe... meh nevermind.
I like that idea a lot.

I'm not a thing. My cells and essential stuff are constantly being rearranged and exchanged with the rest of the environment. My thoughts are changing as I write this. As Buckmister Fuller said, I seem to be a verb.
And that makes you not-a-thing?

@ GBrooks

Just for clarification: We use the word "object" differently.

If I understand you right, you take "object" as the "thing" outside the mind, the Kantian "thing in itself". Fair play, valid definition, no problems with that.

I understand "object" as the "thing" as it appears in front of the perceiving subject, thus as a thing inside the mind, a mind phenomenon. Following Kant's and Schopenhauer's terminology in this.
I think we are using the term very similarly.

Where I can't follow Nietzsche, is how it affects God in its "objectivity" (in your meaning) if some subject happens to internalise God in his mind. Just because someone has a crappy picture or idea of something, this doesn't "kill" the objective reality of that something (always provided there is an objective world outside the mind.)

I suppose what Nietzsche means with "killing God" is that God in his objective transcendental reality is replaced by our ideas of God, this idea being a mind-made fiction and not God as the transcendent Being in itself. This act of replacing transcendent, "objective" reality with a mind-made phenomenon is what he paraphrases as "we killed God".

Like hell we did! We just mistake an internalisation into the mind for an external objectivity, and the external God in itself is alive and kicking.
The external God is "alive and kicking," and Neitzsche does believe in it even as he is accused by his peers of being an atheist. His point addresses those people who would address their own ideas and perceptions of God as if the actual God.

Even the idea of God as an unknown or undefinable nothing-being makes God a something. To us. It makes God a part of our structuring of an objective perspective on the world.

Yep. I call it "pull away that net." I managed it once, no lasting effect, though.

Quite Buddhist, isn't it? The dynamic universe. Nothing is stable, everything is in continual motion, fluctuation, interactive, interdependent, intercontingent. What appears to be solid is only temporary and unstable condensations of elements (dharmas) which will come apart again for new temporary reorganisation, clustering, condensation in different shapes (shi), all subject to Karma. Hence Man is not a thing or name or noun. Man is a process within interdependent processes, a verb among verbs.
No; from your description, all nouns.

No; from your description, all nouns.

...and a few adjectives thrown in. :D

.

Even the idea of God as an unknown or undefinable nothing-being makes God a something. To us. It makes God a part of our structuring of an objective perspective on the world.

yeah, what a great circle, isn't it? All thinking about transcendent, mind-external objects is just another internalisation, it just creates an other mind-internal "thing", and the cat chases its tail till all eternity and infinity. No way out.

yeah, what a great circle, isn't it? All thinking about transcendent, mind-external objects is just another internalisation, it just creates an other mind-internal "thing", and the cat chases its tail till all eternity and infinity. No way out.

Hence the use for metaphor in religious texts as the only proper language to portray these concepts. And hence, myth.

Hence the use for metaphor in religious texts...where can such metaphors be found?

where can such metaphors be found?

All over. They are the heavens and the earth. They are the void, and the emptiness. They are lion and the eagle. They are man and the snake. They are the kingdom and the myriad worlds. They are the hero and the villian. They are the god and the goddess. They are the sisters and the sons and the daughters. They are the father and the mother. They are the faerie and the forest dweller. They are the whale and the ark. They are the dice and the lots. They are the salt and the sand...

If you remove the definitions and assumptions by which we understand the world, then you remove all knowledge and analysis. After all, isn't virtually all our science, daily life and logic based upon a reasonable assumption that our senses aren't lying to us?

Without all the definitions and assumptions people will make, then you just end up with the world without a layer of human interpretation... Just the world, without any labels...

How in any way is that god?

Without belief, our faith fails
Without axioms, our logic fails
Without perception, our science fails
Without these, what then do we have?

It would seem that the labeless is precisely god. It is the I AM. No labels. Infinity.

To put lables on the infinite, to use words - which are no more than abstractions, approximations which separate part of the world and define it in a way it can be approached and studied separtely in relation to diety may not kill it, but it definitely belittles it. It makes diety into nothing more than human terms.

I think Voltaire was very correct in his assement of the way the modern Western world thinks of diety "God made man in his image, and man returned the favor."

How can something able to be bound by the mind and understanding of humans be god?

It would seem that the labeless is precisely god. It is the I AM. No labels. Infinity.

To put lables on the infinite, to use words - which are no more than abstractions, approximations which separate part of the world and define it in a way it can be approached and studied separtely in relation to diety may not kill it, but it definitely belittles it. It makes diety into nothing more than human terms.

I think Voltaire was very correct in his assement of the way the modern Western world thinks of diety "God made man in his image, and man returned the favor."

How can something able to be bound by the mind and understanding of humans be god?

Infinite lost it's membership in the Labels Club, did it? If this was something completely beyond our scope, you wouldn't even be able to conceive of the practice of discussing the act of defining it. Not only would words not apply, the concept of not applying wouldn't apply.

Infinite lost it's membership in the Labels Club, did it? If this was something completely beyond our scope, you wouldn't even be able to conceive of the practice of discussing the act of defining it. Not only would words not apply, the concept of not applying wouldn't apply.

I disagree. It is quite possible to put lables on things which are not understood. The danger which is all to frequently given into is then to believe that the understanding of the label is the same as the understanding of that which is labeled.

I am certainly not hubristic enough to believe that the concept of infinity is within the scope of human understanding. God either, for that matter. And I do believe most religious texts even back up the concept that God cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.

I disagree. It is quite possible to put lables on things which are not understood. The danger which is all to frequently given into is then to believe that the understanding of the label is the same as the understanding of that which is labeled.

I am certainly not hubristic enough to believe that the concept of infinity is within the scope of human understanding. God either, for that matter. And I do believe most religious texts even back up the concept that God cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.

It would seem that the labeless is precisely god. It is the I AM. No labels.

You then proceed to label.

Infinity.

Methinks you have a very selective view of what is and isn't a label.

You then proceed to label.



Methinks you have a very selective view of what is and isn't a label.

"Infinity" is only a label to the degree that one claims to have an understanding of it. I understand how the word is used. But the word/concept of infinity doesn't give anything like an experience of that word. Just because there is a term doesn't make it in the grasp of comprehension.

"Infinity" is only a label to the degree that one claims to have an understanding of it. I understand how the word is used. But the word/concept of infinity doesn't give anything like an experience of that word. Just because there is a term doesn't make it in the grasp of comprehension.

Hmm. You have a lot to say about what's incomprehensible. Either that's a label too, or you're just going on about something you don't even really understand.

Seriously, what's with these conversations?
"Hey, this is how much I don't understand"
Ahhh, that's interesting, but I don't understand this much."
"Ah, yes, well, I also don't understand that"
""Haw, I don't understand that so much I don't even refer to it as 'that'."

So tell me then, if you can't experience or comprehend God, what the heck has all this been about? What's the meaning behind any of the terms used here? Just much ado about how meaningless this conversation is?

Hmm. You have a lot to say about what's incomprehensible. Either that's a label too, or you're just going on about something you don't even really understand.
What does it mean, to "understand"?

Seriously, what's with these conversations?
"Hey, this is how much I don't understand"
Ahhh, that's interesting, but I don't understand this much."
"Ah, yes, well, I also don't understand that"
""Haw, I don't understand that so much I don't even refer to it as 'that'."

So tell me then, if you can't experience or comprehend God, what the heck has all this been about? What's the meaning behind any of the terms used here? Just much ado about how meaningless this conversation is?
You can experience and comprehend God. Experience beyond thought, comprehend beyond expression. To not "know" God is to know God.

Mock if you will. Much ado about nothing.

Or, as someone recently said:
You might as well lay flowers and incense around a can of pork and beans.
God cannot be accessed through the mind.

What has this all been about? The OP was looking to find people who can idenitify with a particular vision of God.

Isn't the lack of comprehension a form of comprehension? You can point at something (not literally in all cases) and say "I don't understand that"...

I don't understand your arguments about the incomprehensible...

Isn't saying that God is beyond comprehension and infinite almost the same as saying God is whatever we cannot understand? So to be able to point at god, all we need to do is to look at everything we can understand and say, everything else is god... which I should not be able to do according to some arguments...

Can someone put an argument detailing each logical step precisely for me? Thanks in advance...

(perhaps you (whoever the replyer maybe) could do something like this:
Premises:
1. human is a subset of mortals
2. Socrates is a subset of the set of humans
Steps:
Given 1 & 2: Socrates is a subset of mortals
-End
Not just deductive logic though, perhaps a structured answer is better than essays which can fail to explain clearly to those who do not follow the argument)

I could do one detailing my arguments:

Define:
1. God is a subset of Not( human comprehension)

Premise:
1. Human perception (senses) is a subset of human comprehension
2. Any and all things we experience is a subset of human perception

Steps:
1.
Given: Perception applies to all experiences
Therefore: Any experience of God must be within Perception

2.
Since: Any experience of God must be within Perception
Given: Human perception is a subset of human comprehension
Therefore: God is a subset of human comprehension

Contradiction with definition
...

I like that idea a lot.


And that makes you not-a-thing?

I think so. A friend of mine who took philosophy courses once told me about Theseus' boat. Every time Theo pulls into port, he gets something changed. Eventually, every piece of the boat has been replaced. Is it still Theseus' boat?

I'm thinking yes.

It's a metaphor for the self. Every day my cells get replaced, so I'm not my cells. Am I a particular arrangement of cells? Not really, as the arrangement changes all the time too. My thoughts are also changing all the time, as are my beliefs. Everything that is me is in constant flux. Am I the motion or am I the thing that is being moved? I don't know. I don't think there's really a difference.

I do know one thing, though: that I'm still me; even though I'm always changing, I'm still the same person.

But I never took a philosophy class, so I don't know if I figured all that out right.

So tell me then, if you can't experience or comprehend God, what the heck has all this been about? What's the meaning behind any of the terms used here? Just much ado about how meaningless this conversation is?

But you can experience god. I don't think we can comprehend god, though. If by comprehend you mean 'wrap our head around'. It's not that that terms don't have meaning...actually, in this context, I think you're right. Our terminology is useless to communicate what happens when we experience god.

You can experience and comprehend God. Experience beyond thought, comprehend beyond expression. To not "know" God is to know God.

Mock if you will. Much ado about nothing.

Or, as someone recently said:
You might as well lay flowers and incense around a can of pork and beans.
God cannot be accessed through the mind.

What has this all been about? The OP was looking to find people who can idenitify with a particular vision of God.

I prefer peaches to pork and beans. Peach juice on your tongue in the summer, dripping down your lover's arm. The hairs on the arm bleached by the sun, looking like the fuzz tickling your lips.

The taste of peaches makes agape easier.

There was a theologian in Middle Ages, a scholastic of course, who came up with a radical stance not entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's. If someone can dig out the name, that would be great, for I've lost it.

The thought goes that all talking and thinking about God is in itself blasphemy, and the reasoning goes along the lines we already had here: that all thinking and reasoning produces mind-garbage only, which then to attach to HIM is really not on. Result: God cannot be talked about, and thus MUST NOT be talked about.

Does that make sense?

Operations of the human mind cannot grasp God, because all they'll ever produce is internalisations of mind-stuff or constructions on sensoric phenomenals or pure fiction, thus Not-God, going around in circles, keeping the cyclone going around no axis till Judgement Day.

That settled, now the important question: is there or is there not another way to grasp God, since all intellectual approaches are doomed from the start. Are all the mystics' ways and approaches (direct experience, illumination, enlightenment, revelation and what have you) just another category of mind-stuff, but mind-stuff all the same? Albeit expressed in mystical, mythological, religious terminology? Different language, but the same nonsense, guesswork, speculation within the mind?

Do mystics really have the exit, or are they just deluded on a different Level?

There was a theologian in Middle Ages, a scholastic of course, who came up with a radical stance not entirely unrelated to Nietzsche's. If someone can dig out the name, that would be great, for I've lost it.

The thought goes that all talking and thinking about God is in itself blasphemy, and the reasoning goes along the lines we already had here: that all thinking and reasoning produces mind-garbage only, which then to attach to HIM is really not on. Result: God cannot be talked about, and thus MUST NOT be talked about.

Does that make sense?

Operations of the human mind cannot grasp God, because all they'll ever produce is internalisations of mind-stuff or constructions on sensoric phenomenals or pure fiction, thus Not-God, going around in circles, keeping the cyclone going around no axis till Judgement Day.
I am for ever walking upon these shores,
Betwixt the sand and the foam.
The high-tide will erase my footprints,
And the wind will blow away the foam.
But the sea and the shore will remain
For ever.
~Kahlil Gibran
Is he talking about sea and foam, or is he talking about a mortal life? We can talk about things through metaphor without actually talking about them. At all. Yes, when we 'grasp' what he's talking about, what we grasp becomes one of our ideas, but we also have the power of uncertainty that allows us to hold that idea apart from "objective reality" as our understanding of objective reality, for ever only "standing under" it.

Whether our understanding matches "objective reality" then becomes insignificant, because it is our understanding that will shape our world. It's hardly "garbage."

That settled, now the important question: is there or is there not another way to grasp God, since all intellectual approaches are doomed from the start. Are all the mystics' ways and approaches (direct experience, illumination, enlightenment, revelation and what have you) just another category of mind-stuff, but mind-stuff all the same? Albeit expressed in mystical, mythological, religious terminology? Different language, but the same nonsense, guesswork, speculation within the mind?

Do mystics really have the exit, or are they just deluded on a different Level?
The path away from solipsism is the same path to stand with mystics: a firm grasp of the subject/object divide. Knowing that there is a divide is the same as knowing what is on the other side of it (for the mystic, the Void).

You acknowledged earlier "objects" as mind-things. The objective perspective is composed in our mind by assigning the observable variable "true" to things of perception and reason. This separates the "objects" from our "knowing" (subjective perspective), and allows for all things to be looked at objectively, even the subject ("I").

A third perspective is possible. Just as the objective perspective is a re-assignment of subjectively perceived things, a third "spiritual" perspective re-assigns them again to grasp the world in a different way. In knowing objects as mind-things, a product of imagination, we can extend imagination to reassemble the world to include the Void beyond perception. That is the mystic's "exit." Making that understanding real (real-izing it), in the same way that objective reality is realized, is a step through that exit.

Still not convinced.

The way I see it, whatever and no matter what goes on within the mystic's mind is still all and completely operations inside a mind, and neither the mystic can't transcend that, nor can anybody else.

The mystic may well enter into or emulate a world of mind phenomena of highest intricacies and multiple ontological levels, but it's still a world of mind-phenomena after all. Thinking about or "experiencing" the "void", for example, is still a mind operation, thus happening inside the mind. The void is inside the mind. In other words, the world ends where one's ideas of it end, no matter how far they are pushed, and no hyperspace jump or rabbit from a hat will take us beyond that horizon. I will, however, concede that it's possible to extend this horizon quite considerably. Extend, yes, transcend, never.

"Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung" - the World is my ideas, says Schopenhauer. The mind with all its known and unknown abilities and capabilities will never take itself anywhere outside of itself and its limitations. It is entirely incapable of doing so, that's like trying to outrun one's own shadow. So all metaphysical or mystic thought is just another sort of mind operations. Even the idea of a world outside the mind itself is another idea inside the mind. All "outside" is inside. There is no getting out, it's only getting more stuff in.

...if I go on like this, I'll end up idealist.

And no, I didn't mean to dismiss mystic's way of dealing with reality as garbage.
My apologies if it came across that way.

Still not convinced.
Darned good thing! I'd be astounded if you were convinced by so few words.

It's not really my intent to convince you. I'm just making conversation. :)

The way I see it, whatever and no matter what goes on within the mystic's mind is still all and completely operations inside a mind, and neither the mystic can't transcend that, nor can anybody else.
Good enough. And you suspect this because... (because you've never personally done it?) That's not unreasonable.

Yes, what goes on in the mystic's mind is completely inside the mystic's mind. And you probably already knew that this is why meditation techniques attempt to still the thoughts. But any 'experience' reached that way is momentary, as the mind will always reassert itself. Of necessity. But it still leaves a lasting impression.

The mystic may well enter into or emulate a world of mind phenomena of highest intricacies and multiple ontological levels, but it's still a world of mind-phenomena after all. Thinking about or "experiencing" the "void", for example, is still a mind operation, thus happening inside the mind. The void is inside the mind. In other words, the world ends where one's ideas of it end, no matter how far they are pushed, and no hyperspace jump or rabbit from a hat will take us beyond that horizon.
Now who is sounding like a solipsist? :D

As I said earlier, the requirement is to keep separate "that which we know" from what is.

I will, however, concede that it's possible to extend this horizon quite considerably. Extend, yes, transcend, never.

"Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung" - the World is my ideas, says Schopenhauer. The mind with all its known and unknown abilities and capabilities will never take itself anywhere outside of itself and its limitations. It is entirely incapable of doing so, that's like trying to outrun one's own shadow. So all metaphysical or mystic thought is just another sort of mind operations. Even the idea of a world outside the mind itself is another idea inside the mind. All "outside" is inside. There is no getting out, it's only getting more stuff in.

...if I go on like this, I'll end up idealist.

And no, I didn't mean to dismiss mystic's way of dealing with reality as garbage.
My apologies if it came across that way.
No worries.

I suspect Schopenhauer, too, never actually had a mystical experience. It's easy to diss that which we don't understand; but even in doing so he's not wrong. If we insist we are locked in our minds, then that's all we will be.

One day Zarathud took his students to a pleasant pasture and there he confronted The Sacred Chao while She was contentedly grazing.
"Tell me, you dumb beast." demanded the Priest in his commanding voice, "why don't you do something worthwhile. What is your Purpose in Life, anyway?"
Munching the tasty grass, The Sacred Chao replied "MU".
Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened. Primarily because nobody could understand Chinese.
- Zarathud's Enlightenment, The Principia Discordia (http://principiadiscordia.com/)


Mega-*BOW*

*misses Miss Holy See*

I suspect Schopenhauer, too, never actually had a mystical experience. It's easy to diss that which we don't understand; but even in doing so he's not wrong. If we insist we are locked in our minds, then that's all we will be.

Not so sure he wasn't into that. After all, he thinks highly of Brahmanism and Buddhism, defends reincarnation and also claims he has found the gateway to metaphysics, which is the very mystical path of going inside, since there is no outside approach possible. But all he finds inside is an insatiable Will that wills nothing but itself, with all the perceptible world just the objectivations and individuations of this Will. In the end, he arrives at the conclusion that the denial of this Will is the highest and most necessary of achievements.

That aside: if anything mystical happens, it will happen at the horizon, where the knowable, perceivable, thinkable touches the unknowable, imperceptible, unthinkable. At that ever fluctuating border, or nowhere. Where borders are no more.

Not so sure he wasn't into that. After all, he thinks highly of Brahmanism and Buddhism, defends reincarnation and also claims he has found the gateway to metaphysics, which is the very mystical path of going inside, since there is no outside approach possible. But all he finds inside is an insatiable Will that wills nothing but itself, with all the perceptible world just the objectivations and individuations of this Will. In the end, he arrives at the conclusion that the denial of this Will is the highest and most necessary of achievements.

That aside: if anything mystical happens, it will happen at the horizon, where the knowable, perceivable, thinkable touches the unknowable, imperceptible, unthinkable. At that ever fluctuating border, or nowhere. Where borders are no more.
Perhaps that was Schopenhauer's problem too: there is no "horizon."

Perhaps that was Schopenhauer's problem too: there is no "horizon."

Well, he's based on Kant, who, in his Critique of Pure Reason, had "proven" much of what I was going on further above, that the mind can't transcend itself and thus metaphysics being impossible. Schopenhauer attempted to drill a hole into the hermetic wall that Kant had erected to last for all eternity, but what Schopenhauer finds behind the Kantian wall isn't quite encouraging.

After all, as long as one goes on about the inside (what the mind can reach) and the outside (what is out of reach), one is still stuck in a mind-internal discrimination of immanent-transcendent, and this will only produce worlds constructed along this discriminator.

As long as this (Kantian, also Positivist) discriminator is accepted as valid, we are reduced to the option of eternally trying everything in order to approach the horizon, but we'll never get anywhere close, since the horizon retreats from ourself by the scope of our efforts to approach it. Forever chasing our shadows, forever searching for the end of the rainbow.

As far as I can tell, Buddha said: "Do not let a discriminating mind emerge. Let emerge a non-discriminating mind", or something like that, my English. Right, giving that a shot, we just drop the discrimination of immanent versus transcendent, we wipe out the chalk line that separates inside from outside, or rather the (inside idea of an)inside from the (inside idea of an)outside, and everything is open again. As the Zen-Master exclaimed:

"All open! Nothing holy!"

= "there is no transcendence! Immanent, transcendent, that only exists as concepts in your mind!" as I understand that. Yikes, he's getting his stick out...I probably deserve it.

I must say I enjoy this discourse very much. I know you're not trying to convert anybody to anything. You throw a stone in the water to watch the ripples, and I throw in a few pebbles, too, and some beautiful patterns emerge.

After all, as long as one goes on about the inside (what the mind can reach) and the outside (what is out of reach), one is still stuck in a mind-internal discrimination of immanent-transcendent, and this will only produce worlds constructed along this discriminator.
Both "insdie" and "outside" are inside/outside, in the sense you seem to mean, to the mystic.

There is no "horizon."

Edit: Even your sig acknowledges it.

Both "insdie" and "outside" are inside/outside, in the sense you seem to mean, to the mystic.

There is no "horizon."

Edit: Even your sig acknowledges it.

Again with "The Matrix spoon"
:p