Philosopjhy in an Abstract World
Jack Rooney
By
Jack Rooney
A good portion of western thought is infected with a disease. It is an
insidious disease, not only because it is destructive, but also because it
is difficult to detect and even more difficult to cure. It has evolved
(emerged) over a very long period of time, having its roots planted in the
primal rainforests where our ancestors hooted and howled at each other from
the treetops with our first primitive vocalizations in an attempt to
communicate with one another. This disease crept into human endeavors at
the dawn of recorded history when humans first began to ask questions, to
ponder their relationship to the world, to wonder, to think. It became
full-blown illness thousands of years ago with the presocratics, perhaps
even earlier, and it has followed along side the early Greek philosophers,
rising in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, particularly with the
creation of the Categories. There is evidence to indicate that Plato, during
his final years, began to see the true nature of the disease (see Raphael
Demos' "Introduction" to Plato; Selections, Scribners, pp. xxxix - xli).
With the beginnings of Christianity, as it attempted to formalize itself in
the world as a religion, it crept into the Order and continued throughout
the middle ages, with St Thomas Aquinas' City of God (Being and Spirit), St
Anslem's "Being and Essence", into the Enlightenment with Descartes'
Meditations and the cogito, and the Age of Reason, right up through today's
most respected and popular sciences. This disease shows up again and again
in elementary schools and the lectures of university professors, libraries,
all sorts of books, on the evening news, in television shows and movies, in
newspapers and magazines, in political speeches and religious sermons, in
the writings of some of the world's most renowned thinkers and journalists
and in the idle talk of casual conversation. Both print and broadcast
media, like Typhoid Mary who spread typhoid fever through out New York, have
been, though perhaps unintentionally, the chief carriers of this disease in
the modern world and have spread it so far and so wide it is now epidemic.
It has infected every aspect of our daily lives. Sadly, it has led to
full-scale wars, to the erosion of liberty and freedom in America, to
violence and to racial hatred, to bigotry, and to the deterioration of the
family. It has led to the rise to power of men aware of its affect on the
human condition. It has given rise to new "sciences". It has created
tensions between nations and served to promote the selfish, wicked and the
deceitful intentions of those who lust for power and seek domination over
others. It is self-perpetuating and self-promoting, even though many
promoting it, those who are carriers of this disease, are probably unaware
of the subtle influence it exerts over their own actions. Those who are
aware of it often use it cunningly to their own advantage. It is, for lack
of a better term, a disease, which I shall call abstractionitis, which can
be loosely translated as "large and swollen abstractions".
I use the term somewhat tongue-in-cheek here mostly because I am at somewhat
of a loss as to what to call this phenomena I have observed in the areas of
philosophy and science, which has included study regarding the foundations
of the various social sciences, particularly sociology, psychology,
political science, economics and law. I cannot presuppose to use the term
abstraction as if everyone will automatically know what one is, or the term
abstractionitis as if everyone would understand if it were compared with
something like tonsillitis, where I could poke my finger at it and say,
"See, this is what is causing my fever, this is what is making me ill, can't
you see that this tonsil is abnormal compared to the one on the opposite
side of my throat. It is swollen, enlarged, bigger than it should be." Or,
for further example, appendicitis, where I could say, "It hurts here, Doc"
pointing to the lower left side of my abdomen." Analogies are always
inexact.
To claim all forms of abstracting are dangerous is like saying all bacteria
are dangerous. Certainly, some bacteria are dangerous and cause illness,
like staffloicocci and streptococci, while others are useful and necessary,
like E coli which lives in the intestines of humans and helps break down
food products. The mathematical abstractions of science have helped launch
men into space, developed new energy resources, increased agricultural
production, transportation, medical science, communication, living
conditions, and the quality of life here on earth.
Abstractionitis is somewhat more elusive, somewhat more difficult to
pinpoint and diagnose than other forms of physical disease. This is because
it is a disease of thinking or reasoning emergent from a misuse of technical
language (jargon). It is, figuratively, an inherited disease passed on from
one generation to the next through the intellectual marrow of our ancestors.
Abstractions arise from a sort of mental algebra, sort of an intellectual
game in which a thinker attempts to compute the value of an unknown factor,
as in the equation if x + 3 = 5 then x = 2. Notwithstanding that an entire
array of definitions must proceed the solution to this simple problem, such
as + and = as "is added to" and "is equal to" or "identical to" and 3 and 5
as (1+1+1) and (1+1+1+1+1) respectively, where "1" is itself, or 1 = 1 or 1
is 1 or as simply "1 is".
The concept of one is a survival mechanism; it allows a human to
distinguish, separate itself from everything else in the world. 1 and
combinations of it (an abstraction) is the starting point of the game. (0
could also be seen as the starting point, if you wish, as on a number line
with positive and negative numbers on either side) 1 is seen as a unit of
something in this game. It could be anything. 1 inch, 1 pound, 1 ton, 1
atom, 1 molecule, 1 volt, 1 cow, etc. All of these units, or entities are
established arbitrarily -- yes, even the cow and the molecule, and this
brings us to the platonic question of universals, to the problems inherent
in the activity of abstracting, and whether individual entities are, and how
language contributes to our understanding, or misunderstanding of the world.
Abstractionitis is an effect of the multidefinitionality of terms.
Definitionally obscure terms are just as deadly in an intellectual sense as
appendicitis is in a physical sense. COW: a domesticated hoofed animal
which chews a cud and is used by man as a source of meat and milk. Or, COW:
A conglomerate bimolecular mass situated in space and time. Which
definition we accept might depend on our purpose, our point of view, or our
needs. This will vary depending on whether one is a farmer or a physicist.
The Aristotelian blueprint for definitions of term, the word or symbol given
to the thing; genus, the general class or category of things in general to
which this particular thing belongs, and differentia, those characteristics
and attributes which mark the thing as different from all other things in
the class, allows us to construct a wide variety of definitions depending on
our needs.
Abstractionitis occurs when we take the whole debate just a little bit
further than reason should allow. There is a big difference between
observing some "thing" and then giving it a name and creating a term and
trying to define it: "Thus the question that was raised in the beginning
and is now and always being asked..., What is Substance [Being]?".
(Aristotle, Metaphysics).
What did Aristotle think he would learn if he answered this question?
Nothing that he did not already know. Perhaps an analogy will help make
this point clear: Imagine a primitive aborigine living in say, for the sake
of discussion, Borneo. Now let us also imagine two great hunters from
Chicago on a hunting expedition in Borneo. The two hunters hire the
aborigine as a guide to lead them around in the jungle, and, at the end of
the day as night falls, they make camp and build a fire and settle in for
the night. Now let us imagine that during the course of the conversation
around the campfire hunter #1 turns to hunter # 2 and says, "I'll bet the
snow is deep in Chicago right now." Such a statement might puzzle the
aborigine. It does not snow in Borneo; he has never seen or felt or
experienced a snowfall. In such circumstances the aborigine might ask,
"What is snow?" Within this context, the aborigine is honestly ignorant of
the meaning of the term snow and his question is appropriate or legitimate
within the context of this situation. In an epistemological sense, he does
not know what the term "snow" means, or he does not know what the term means
when the hunters use it as a word in their language.
Under circumstances in which the aborigine is honestly ignorant of the
meaning of the term "show", the hunters might provide the aborigine with an
explanation in a variety of ways: "Snow is a white, cold, powdery substance
that falls from the sky” They might pull a snapshot from their wallet and
show him a picture of Chicago in winter. They might reach into the ice
chest and pull out some ice and rub it on his skin to give him the feeling
of coldness. They might shave off flakes from a block of ice and toss it in
the air and say, in the form of an analogy, "Snow is like this." Or, in the
extreme, they might put him on a plane and fly him to Chicago and point to
the snow on the ground and say, "This is snow." In short, the hunters may
use a variety of means to provide the aborigine with an explanation of what
they mean by the term snow when they used it in their statement "...the snow
is deep in Chicago...." In this way, the aborigine can come to understand
what the term "show" signifies in the hunter's language.
Now let us imagine a situation in which the aborigine has never met the
hunters from Chicago. If we remove them from the situation and imagine the
aborigine siting by himself in the jungle, could he ask the question "What
is snow?" Since snow is not a part of his world, it is highly improbable
that he would be able to formulate a question about it. If he has nothing
in his experience to cause him to imagine such a thing as snow might exist.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the aborigine to even suspect
there is such a thing as snow. He could not have even the foggiest notion
about snow, and, therefore, it is impossible for the aborigine to question
the existence of something he has not experienced.
Let us extend this analogy further. Imagine a missionary visits Borneo to
save the savage aborigine and exclaims, "You must love God to be saved.", to
which the aborigine might respond, "What is God?" or "what is love?" or
"what is saved?" In short, the aborigine is asking what the missionary
means by the terms God, love, and saved when the missionary uses these
terms.
Continuing with the analogy, let us now remove the missionary from the
aboriginal world. Could the aborigine ask the question "What is God?"
without ever meeting the missionary? On the surface this appears to be a
somewhat different set of circumstances. On the one hand, the aborigine is
concerned with the meaning of the term snow and what the hunters mean by the
term when they use it in their language; on the other hand, the aborigine is
concerned with the meaning of the term God and what the missionary means by
the term when used in the missionary's language. Similarly, without the
hunters or the missionary to introduce these terms into the aborigine's
language, the aborigine would have no reason to suspect such terms refer to
anything. If the aborigine has such terms or like terms in his language,
then it would be inappropriate for him to raise questions about the meaning
of his own terms without placing himself in the position of an ignorance
that can not possibly be real, since he can not be honestly ignorant of the
subject or referent to which these terms apply. If the aborigine uses such
terms without ever having met either the hunter or the missionary, then he
knows what they mean.
The problem with the activity of questioning arises when we take the
question form "What is X?" and superimpose the form of this question on
abstract concepts. Questions of the form "what is truth, what is beauty,
what is justice, what is right, what is good, what is God, have the same
form as the question "What is snow?" But snow is a physical phenomenon one
can point to easily and say, "This [pointing to the snow] is what I mean by
the term snow when I use it in my language". The term "God", on the other
hand, is not so easily identified in this way.
There are those who have claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of
God logically. And there are many that believe this proposition with all
sincerity. But why should we believe it? Should we believe merely because
some person calling himself an agnostic or a logician or a mathematician
says it can not be done? It is simple to make grand statements of this
type. It is much more difficult, if not impossible to prove they are true.
There was a time when many people believed it was impossible for man to fly.
There was a time when people said it was impossible for man to break the
sound barrier. But we did it. And we have done great many things formerly
held to be impossible by the great masses. Because no one has yet
constructed a proof for the existence of God, which satisfies the logician’s
definition of “proof” does not mean it can not be done. It merely means it
has not been done so far to the satisfaction of the logician.
One technique in logic for logical proof is to negate that which one wishes
to prove (X). If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume not X; and,
then, if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical
system of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity
acceptable to the logician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is
tested according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a
contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must
necessarily be true.
Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description
of this method of logical deduction:
“The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio
ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In
deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he
wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to
an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the
theorem to be proved -- must be true”
(Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp. 52-53.).
This is what makes the position of the atheist so pointlessly absurd: to
totally deny the existence of God, he either knows what he is denying, or he
is a fool. If he truly knows what the concept of God means and knows what he
is denying, he can not at the same time and in good conscience deny it
exists. The atheist must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God
exists, which is absurd, or at the very least, a paradox. The atheist, in
his own act of denial, reduces his own proposition to an absurdity, and thus
proves the proposition “God is” is a true proposition.
Religious thinkers, scholars and theologians merely compound the confusion
when they fall into the atheist trap and make God the subject of debate.
And the debate begins with the question, "Does God exist?" When we question
whether God does or does not "exist", we enter the realm of abstraction in
order to be able to discourse about "it" to each other. We do not need
explanations and descriptions for things with which we are familiar. Once
scholars accept the appropriateness of a question of which they are
themselves the author, they are off like horses from a start-up-line
galloping down a thoroughfare in a race which has no clearly defined finish
line. They can run forever and never win the race. Consequently, there may
be more truth in a single poet's musings than in all the philosophical
theories and explanations which have been constructed by humans to date.
There is such health and length of years
in the elixir of thy note,
That God himself more young appears,
From the rare bragging of thy throat.
(see Henry David Thoreau, "Upon the Bank at Early Dawn")
Thoreau's objective was not to reduce God to a concept and then claim to
have solved the eternal puzzle but to invite us to look around at the world
and at ourselves and see that many of the puzzles and problems and riddles
of science and philosophy are not so puzzling after all. "It is only when we
forget all our learning that we begin to know." (Henry David Thoreau,
Journal (pub 1906) quotation from page dated October 4th, 1859).
The knowledge of God is experienced as an intrinsic part of human life;
belonging to, within, the essential nature or constitution of humans.
Problems arise when we begin talking to one another about God and referring
to "it", when we attempt to place brackets around it, categorize it, define
it, explain it, and reduce it to a concept. But God can not be an
objectified thing. God is not an it, or an object, or a being-in-itself, not
a person, place or thing; God is not a noun; God is a verb, and the concept
implies action or a state of being and all language which attempts to make
God an objectified thing, an abstraction, is either a misuse of the term God
or is pure poetic analogy.
The following questions exemplify the nature of the disease:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
What is the meaning of life? (Or, What should I do with my life?)
If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?
Is the whole equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?
To many, questions of the type listed here are considered great puzzles or
mysteries of science. All but the last of them will receive no comment
here, and it is rejected as absurd, and I ask you to entertain the
proposition: The whole has no parts.
The concept of God is of extreme importance in the various social sciences,
particularly in those areas that have an impact on government and law. The
concept of God serves as the corner stone of all moral philosophy. Without
it, as Sartre observes, "...existence is meaningless, reality is absurd,
life is a contradiction, and all morality comes to nothing" (see J.P.
Sartre, Being and Nothingness.).
The concept of God in the Declaration of Independence is a philosophical
precept, rather than a religious tenet. Whether God actually exists is not
an issue, it is a given in the Declaration of Independence, it is not a
subject of debate in American law. This may be why Marx, in line with
Nietzsche, went to such great lengths to declare God is dead; his attempts
to discredit religious belief by declaring religion "the opium of the
people", was a straw man attempt to eliminate the concept of God from
political philosophy ((Karl Marx, 1818 -1893, Critique of the Hegelian
Philosophy of Right, 1844, Introduction. see also Fredric W. Nietzche,
1844-1900, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Prologue, 2.) The concept of God is
replaced in Marxist/materialist philosophy with the notion of matter, and
the hand of God became "historical progress". The irony is that this does
not eliminate the notion of a Supreme Being; it merely renames it and calls
it "matter".
Again, this is old hat reiteration of the basic rift that developed between
Plato and Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago between Ideas on the one hand,
and Matter on the other hand. This is semantically skullduggery that
served Marx more as a diversionary tactic than anything else: "Men's Ideas
are the most direct emanation of their material state. This is true in
politics, law, morality, religion, metaphysics, etceteras." (The German
Ideology, 1846, written with Fredric Engels). With God out of the way, so
to speak, Marx was easily able to argue the case for historical determinism,
to make man a product of the environment, and to reduce all values to
relativism. It is often said that Marx stood Hegel on his head and brought
man out of the sky and back down to earth. But one must question the value
of this entire debate, of how much explanation is required, and how much of
it is pure sophistry.
It is a widely accepted belief that progress is linear, that it moves
through time in some sort of forward or upward direction. "The history of
the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
(See Hegel, The Philosophy of History (1832).). The entire notion of
"historical progress", which Marx adopted from Hegel, is by no means
necessarily so. Phrases like "time marches on" or "the march of history,
consciousness toward freedom" augment the notion that the world is in some
sort of forward evolution, moving inexorably toward some future goal, toward
its telos or ultimate end or good. (see also Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful
Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W.W. Norton ¤ 1989, 347
p.).
It is just as possible for a society to regress as it is for it to progress
and actions of government and groups of individuals do not always lead
necessarily and inevitably toward a better world. "Every Government
degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." (Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-1785, pp. 19).
Progress, is viewed by many as a building up, like piling bricks one on top
of another in the building of a structure. Einstein's argument for the
relativity of time demonstrates the falsity of this notion. Time is nothing
more than motion as seen from the point of view of an observer, it is an
intellectual construct, an abstraction; it has no separate existence apart
from the observer. Of course, this sounds like subjectivism. It is not.
To say that the world is nothing more than our perception of it is
subjectivism, but perception is not the issue and this is not what is
implied here: it is the experience of time on the part of an existing human
being, and not some metaphysical abstraction called perception. Einstein
warned about the dangers of taking the abstractions too far, and the theory
of relativity was never intended to supplant the validity of religious
experience or to suggest a relativity of morality. "Science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind.... To inquire after the meaning
or object of ones own experience or of creation generally has always seemed
to me absurd from an objective point of view." (Albert Einstein, The world
as I see It, 1934). Subjectivism creates a dualism which establishes an
abstract world and alienates us from our true connectedness with the world
and with God, as do all dualistic theories of man's relationship to the
universe which posit the existence of things called "minds" or "bodies" or
"egos" or "substances" or "ideas" or "matter". Time, as an example of an
abstract concept, is not a part of the world in itself but an experience or
event that we identify and separate from all of the other experiences of
living. Time as a concept or an idea of a human being, is itself a part of,
emerges from, the very world perceived, the earth/world, the cosmos, the
universe, infinity, and so forth.
***
To understand the relationship of ideas to the world and how ideas are used
by men and women, scientists, politicians, academicians, religious leaders,
authors, teachers, parents or anyone who attempts to communicate with
others, to construct explanations of the world, it is necessary to
understand not only the foundations of language and how terms emerge and
come into use, but it is also necessary to research, review, and analyze,
the effectiveness and use of media as it relates to the communication of
ideas.
What does it mean when the politician talks about the American public? How
are we to understand it when the newsman talks about mainstream America?
How can the words in a book incite a foreign power to condemn an author to
death? What should we make of it when a terrorist holds a jetliner hostage
and demands a time slot on the 6 o’clock news? How can a statue erected in
a public square incite a government to commit genocide? One thing appears c
lear: Words, either written or spoken, and images, photographed, painted,
sculpted or filmed are power. They have an effect which reaches out to
others, influences their attitudes and beliefs, and incites strong feelings
or emotions in people and moves them to behave or act in certain, sometimes
predictable ways. Language and the various media, which communicate ideas,
can, therefore, influence human behavior.
Media is a broad term that contains the spoken word, the written word (print
media, books, magazines, newspapers, journals, etc), visual media
(paintings, sculpture, photography, film, etc) and broadcast media
(videotape documentation, television, radio, the 6 o-clock news). What they
have in common is that they are each a tool for the sharing of ideas or
information about facts and events. But some of the ideas put forth by the
various media are of somewhat dubious origin. Mass mind manipulation
through the use of media spread propaganda is a technique long used by
governments for social control. With the rise of television, it has become
extremely simple for an agency of government to spread information. The
problem is that sometimes the information they spread is only what they want
the public to hear.
Much of the weight of any theory depends on how the researcher interprets or
misinterprets the data, what "facts" he chooses to include. In a sense,
then, much of what is said is opinion, one person's view of the world. A
personal point of view with regard to the issues, whether the researcher
acknowledges it or not, is an intricate part of any explanation designed to
provide answers as to why things are as they are. But this may not be, in
itself, so bad. The world would probably be a pretty dull place if we all
thought the same, held the same opinions, believed in the same things, and
if everything were perfectly ordered and there were no mysteries, no
unsolved questions, no puzzles or problems or unknowns. Without diversity,
there would be no art, music, or works of literature, no new ideas, or
"progress" in any direction or at any level. Everyone would be a robot.
On the other hand, this same diversity of opinion breeds many
misunderstandings and has been the reason for many wars, death, destruction,
brutality, cruelty and human suffering. Some acts are deliberate. Some acts
are a result of mistakes in judgement. Deliberate acts are criminal, while
errors in judgment are merely regrettable. Humans make mistakes in judgment
and commit crimes against humanity not because they hold diverse opinions,
but because some opinions are based on ignorance and prejudice and
superstition and arise from a misinterpretation of data or from false
inferences. This dogma has a tendency to predispose individual humans and
groups of humans toward a general intolerance to any opinions or notions
that are radically different from their own worldview.
Ignorance is not a term which means dumb, or stupid, or even uneducated.
There are a great many men who are well educated and yet ignorant. Even the
wisest and most pious of men make errors of judgment. One of the most
notorious examples pointed out in numerous historical texts is the
condemnation by the church fathers of Leonardo da Vinci's proposition that
the earth revolves around the sun in contradiction to the Ptolemaic system
which held that the earth is at the center with the sun, moon and planets
revolving around it. The sun rises and sets. The sun moves across the sky,
it says so in the Bible, therefore, the earth must be stationary. Yet we
could not say with any honesty that these men were stupid or dumb. In fact,
they were extremely well educated for their day, but fearing that such an
incongruity would undermine their belief system or somehow supplant the
validity of biblical teachings (even though strictly speaking Copernicus
discovery would have very little if any impact on Christianity), they
refused to believe it. They merely turned away from the facts Leonardo
presented and refused to listen to what he was saying. Their predisposition
toward accepting everything in the Bible as literally true clouded their
judgment, their failure to see these biblical passages as figures of speech
handed down from antiquity led them to draw false conclusions about the
reality of the world's position in the cosmos. They simply ignored the
facts. And this is all that is meant here by the term ignorance. It means
simply "to ignore".
Prejudice is an effect of ignorance. It is a predisposition to think about
things in a certain way based on one's culture, education (or lack of
education), influences of family, religious beliefs, attitudes of peers,
which we accept as true or believe to be true because we have been taught to
think of things in a particular way or because of experiences which have led
us to hold such beliefs. Prejudice is grounded in an inclination toward a
certain world view; it arises from, occurs as a result of superstition and
ignorance, mistaken notions about things, people, historical events, causal
connections between events, etc., and directly influences human thinking
about the world in a bias direction, sometimes with destructive
consequences. Carried to extreme, it leads to fanaticism and violence (see
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951.).
Intolerance emerges from prejudice. It is a tendency to refuse to accept
the ideas, attitudes, opinions or beliefs and behavior of another because of
certain preconceived notions or biases. It is a kind of territorial
behavior in which the actions of another are seen as a threat to a
preconceived worldview. Accompanying this behavior is the tendency to
protect and defend the familiar and to reject or strike out at the foreign
and unfamiliar. It often leads to violence. It is a major destructive
element in all societies.
The great challenge of the coming epoch, then, is not to attempt to
eliminate diversity, as it is an intrinsic part of our humanity, but to
eliminate ignorance and prejudice from the peoples of the world and to
promote tolerance toward the ideas of others. The key lies in education.
What kind of education is a real problem because how can one be certain the
ideas we are passing along to our children are not themselves based on false
and unfounded suppositions? How can we be certain we are not passing along
a lot of bogus ideas and mistaken notions to our kids? Through education
directed at eliminating ignorance, education which teaches children to try
to look at all sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions, education
which teaches them to anticipate possible objections to a line of reasoning
and to bring them to the fore and not to merely ignore alternative sides of
an issue because such alternatives may not support their own world view or
because the implications might contradict their own prejudices.
Through education which promotes tolerance for the ideas of others, many of
the world's problems can be eliminated or significantly reduced on a
long-term basis. It amounts basically to this: One ought to keep an open
mind until one is certain all the facts relative to an issue are considered.
The old notion about not jumping to conclusions is good advice. It forces us
to look at all sides of an issue before we pass judgment.
Theorizing, as a human activity of thinking about our world and attempting
to make sense of it all, of constructing explanations about why things are
as they are, takes place within the framework of our own human
understanding. None of us are capable of viewing the grand cosmic picture
and saying with absolute certainty why the world has come to be as it is or
what will be tomorrow. A little healthy skepticism is always good when
dealing with someone who claims to have all the answers, particularly with
regard to social issues. Human beings are not molecules of hydrogen and
oxygen. We know from experience that we can place a certain proportion of
hydrogen (H) in a beaker with a certain proportion of oxygen (O) and it will
produce water (H2O). And we know it will work every time we repeat the
experiment. But humans do not conform to the same laws of cause and effect
as molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. When we place two humans in a room
together, it is difficult to say with any certainty what they will do. There
is always the human factor as a variable in the equation which can radically
alter the expected outcome. The attempts on the part of the behavioral
sciences to reduce humans to the subjects of strict laws in an attempt to
construct a science of human behavior have yet proven fruitful (see B.F.
Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971.).
With respect to those who ascribe to a formal social philosophy, political
philosophy, or established religious point of view, a personal philosophy,
or believe in crystal ball gazing or new age mysticism, the best we can hope
for is to look around at events in the world, at history, at information
provided by science, and, within the limitations of scientific inquiry,
deduce, draw inferences, and extrapolate. If the sky clouds over and the
barometric pressure falls, there is a good possibility it will rain. There
is a dark cloud forming over America; it is filled with ignorance and
prejudice, and it is about to rain its acid content upon the people of the
land; it can be swept away only by the winds of reason promoting the free
flow of ideas to the people.
The framers of the constitution created the forum for discussing issues to
provide for the free flow of ideas -- the press. The Internet, with
advances in electronics and telecommunications, now permeates every area of
the globe. It has been the press, perhaps more than anything else, through
the worldwide network for disseminating information through the mass media,
which has contributed to the new emerging world consciousness and the
Internet must be seen as an extension of the free press. The Internet, as it
evolves, can be a true vanguard of progress and freedom; it can help strip
away ignorance by providing large numbers of people with information. But
the press can also muddle the issues and present a distorted perspective of
reality. Journalists can overlook things, fall to illogic, and give in to
sentiment and their own prejudices and biases. They can also be manipulated
by others, duped by clever forces who either lie to the press or who know
how to manipulate the press by feeding them information designed to support
a particular point of view. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth are at issue. The truth is what corresponds to the facts, and the
facts are what any rational man would believe it to be based on the whole
truth, the body of complete and accurate information given in support of the
proposed facts. If a journalist leaves out or fails to include all the
relative facts, the public receives a distorted or at least partial picture
of reality. The press, therefore, can be instrumental in spreading
misinformation.
Because one can never be certain when all the facts relative to an issue are
in, the journalist, the politician, the teacher must stand guard over
themselves to ensure that before they opine on a subject to an highly
impressionable public, every effort has been made to gather the whole truth
so any rational person can say, "Yes, I believe it because I have seen it or
have it from competent authority and have good reasons for believing it."
And when they do not know or do not have all the facts, they should say so.
There is no disgrace in simply saying, "I don't know."
The credibility of the press has waned in recent years due in part to the
proclivity toward sensationalism, over zealism, the rush to get the scoop on
the competition, and in some cases just down right sloppy journalism.
Sensationalism overplays the importance of an issue and ascribes to it a
value that is not real. They fuel the fire of public sentiment with the
popular jargon and buzzwords of the day. It was the British philosopher
John Locke who called upon us to express our ideas clearly and distinctly,
and although he never defined what a "clear and distinct idea" is, he
probably figured we would know one when we seen it (see John Locke, Theory
of Knowledge). Locke's faith in the human ability to discern sense from
nonsense appears to have been somewhat misplaced, but he could not have
foreseen the rise of the electronic media and its pervasiveness and
influence throughout the world.
In anticipation of an objection to all of this, there will be those who will
say, wait one minute, are you not here engaging in the same kind of rhetoric
you are criticizing? Does not this dialogue itself contain a vast array of
abstract concepts, undefined concepts, precepts and suppositions? The
answer is Yes. But when the forest is ablaze and running out of control,
it is sometimes best to fight fire with fire, it is sometimes a useful
tactic to set small fires around the conflagration to contain it so it will
burn itself out. In a way, it is similar to the old paradox which arises
from those who have argued that logic is useless. In order to show logic is
pointless one must construct rational arguments to show why. In short, one
must resort to using the very tools it is argued are pointless, i.e., the
rules of argumentation. Hence the paradox: To argue against the usefulness
of logic one must use logic; similarly, we can not escape the use of
language in a critique of language, the very phenomena which is the subject
of inquiry is also the very tool used in conducting the inquiry. The truly
important thing is that we try our best to do an honest job, even when
findings go against the grain of public sentiment or are expedient.
Consequently, journalists must bear witness to their own age as they express
that most cherished right, the right to write and express their opinions
openly without fear of reprisals. Whether these opinions prove correct or
incorrect or close to the truth or far from the truth is left to the
judgment of posterity, to some future, and hopefully more enlightened age.
Exposition, writing about the world in an expository manner, no matter how
formal it may appear at times, no matter how many footnotes it contains to
support its thesis or arguments, no matter how logical or rhetorical its
structure, no matter how grand and well defined its terms, is nothing more
than poetry without meter and rhyme. It is human understanding which lends
it any meaning at all.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
Herb Ludwig
Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7p8b8f$3sb$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
There are a great many men who are well educated and yet ignorant.>snip<
> Prejudice is an effect of ignorance. >snip>
>Intolerance emerges from prejudice.>snip<
>One of the most
> notorious examples pointed out in numerous historical texts is the
> condemnation by the church fathers of Leonardo da Vinci's proposition that
> the earth revolves around the sun in contradiction to the Ptolemaic system
> which held that the earth is at the center with the sun, moon and planets
> revolving around it >snip<
My god, Jack, came Leonardo da Vinci's proposition before or after Galileo
painted the Mona Lisa ?
You really don't need to demonstrate the evils of ignorance personally all
the time.
Happy ramblings,
Herb.
Rodney Dean Shiver Jr.
> (Aristotle, Metaphysics).
Energy
Problems arise when we begin talking to one another about God and referring
> to "it", when we attempt to place brackets around it, categorize it,
define
> it, explain it, and reduce it to a concept. But God can not be an
> objectified thing. God is not an it, or an object, or a being-in-itself,
not
> a person, place or thing; God is not a noun; God is a verb, and the
concept
> implies action or a state of being and all language which attempts to make
> God an objectified thing, an abstraction, is either a misuse of the term
God
> or is pure poetic analogy.
>
God is the whole. A being composed of everything in existence, lacking in no
value. A literal not an abstract.
> The following questions exemplify the nature of the disease:
>
> What is the sound of one hand clapping?
>
snaping of the fingers
> What is the meaning of life? (Or, What should I do with my life?)
>
expierence
> If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?
>
no, soundwaves
> Is the whole equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?
>
Equal to
> To many, questions of the type listed here are considered great puzzles or
> mysteries of science. All but the last of them will receive no comment
> here, and it is rejected as absurd, and I ask you to entertain the
> proposition: The whole has no parts.
The whole can exist in it's entirety parralell to it's parts given
reletivity 1=2
a dualism which establishes an
> abstract world and alienates us from our true connectedness with the world
> and with God, as do all dualistic theories of man's relationship to the
> universe which posit the existence of things called "minds" or "bodies" or
> "egos" or "substances" or "ideas" or "matter". Time, as an example of an
> abstract concept, is not a part of the world in itself but an experience
or
> event that we identify and separate from all of the other experiences of
> living. Time as a concept or an idea of a human being, is itself a part
of,
> emerges from, the very world perceived, the earth/world, the cosmos, the
> universe, infinity, and so forth.
> ***
>
No, my friend time is real. it is reletive to the observer in the since that
it is constant but in actually it is determined by the level of energy in a
given system of reference. Time is equal to an object inertial resistence to
be moved or the kinetic equivellency of the energy given an object to
increase it's rate of velocity.
One ought to keep an open
> mind until one is certain all the facts relative to an issue are
considered.
> The old notion about not jumping to conclusions is good advice. It forces
us
> to look at all sides of an issue before we pass judgment.
>
But it also stands to reason that if one never passed judgement one would
never err.
I dig your works man.
R.S.
Jack Rooney
the scientific endeavor and the artistic endeavor to draw comparison between
Galileo and DaVinci but removed because it needs work.
Of course it
would read Galileo. The entire work needs work... will correct on the next
draft. It t is neverending.. An ignorant error anyway...
Reprove me righteous men
it will be sweet song to my ears
the error of my ways
falls silently in the mist
against a backdrop of truth
from those who know.
Jack
Jack Rooney
their a theoretical model to reference here and equations. It seems
consistent with space-time and mass/velocity/acceleration concept.
Jack
Foggy Ray
"If he truly knows what the concept of God means and knows what he
is denying, he can not at the same time and in good conscience deny it
exists. The atheist must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God
exists, which is absurd, or at the very least, a paradox."
FOGGY REPLIES
Oh, Jack, come off it. You know that this is not true. To accept the concept
of God would not compel me to accept that there is something which exists
and it is God. If I understood fully the way in which you employ the concept
God (and I probably do not) then I might argue that the concept has no
referrent i.e. that there is nothing which exists of which the categoreal
attributes implicit in the concept might be predicated.
A concept is a categoreal idea. It groups objects according to attributes.
To have a concept of a unicorn means that I can envision a creature which
has the following attributes: the appearance of a white horse, a single horn
in the centre of its forehead. I have the concept. It doesn't mean that
unicorns exist. If you have a concept of God it does not mean that God
exists. My concept of the unicorn includes the further attributes "probably
mythical, probably fictitious". My own concept of God shares these
attributes.
You have a tendency, Jack, to argue that your opponents are deliberately
misunderstanding or deliberately blinding themselves to "God". Is it
possible that you blind yourself to those logical arguments which do not
accord with your prejudice. I can never prove that God exists. Nor can I
prove the existence of Zimwing (He's the guy from Belfast who created God.)
Equally I can never prove that God does not exist. All I can point out is
that I have seen no more evidence for his existence than I have seen for the
existence of the unicorn, Zimwing, or Terry Pratchett's turtle.
Just in case you forget the opening I will paraphrase. You say "The atheist
must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God exists, which is
absurd, or at the very least, a paradox." I say that the atheist must affirm
his understanding of a CONCEPT of God in order to deny that God exists. And
I say that this is neither absurd nor a paradox. Please prove me wrong on
one thing, Jack. I suspect that in the event of your replying you will
concentrate on the middle of this posting rather than the key point which
begins and ends it. I'd love to be wrong just to hear what you have to say.
I am taking the liberty of removing the remainder of your large posting to
save conncetion time. Any reader wishing to see your full argument can still
do so by clicking the parent posting.
Foggy Ray
Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7p8b8f$3sb$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Philosophy in an Abstract World
> By
> Jack Rooney
"If he truly knows what the concept of God means and knows what he
is denying, he can not at the same time and in good conscience deny it
exists. The atheist must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God
exists, which is absurd, or at the very least, a paradox."
> Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jack Rooney
or Jehovah's Witness bashing or Moonie bashing or any kind of bashing. So
it is difficult to critique what I feel to be fundamental error without
angering the person or group criticized. People have strong emotional
feelings about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is a normal
human reaction for people to strike out whenever the foundations of their
belief systems are jeopardized or questioned. Although tolerance and
respect are ideals to be sought, they are seldom achieved. From my point of
view, you are all God's children equally. None is greater or lesser favored
than any other in the eyes of God. Yes this is radical egalitarianism, but
the alternative, in my mind, is simply too horrifying to discuss. Some
ideas can lead in a direction which is ultimately destructive to human
progress and well being. I believe such destructive ideas should be
resisted for the good of humanity and the betterment of society as a whole,
not through censorship, let each man speak his mind on all matters, but
through well reasoned discourse in the open marketplace of ideas. No one
should ever fear the truth, even when it does not set well with the keepers
of conventional wisdom.
Now, Foggy, I already dealt with your red herring post about unicorns. You
appear to be
one of those theorists who defines proof to suit his own purposes and freak
when the true, scientifically accepted, conventional mathematics definition
of proof works to your disadvantage and exposes the flaw in the atheistic
line of reasoning. Let me remind you that Fermat's last theorem was
thought
unprovable until someone defied conventional wisdom and constructed a proof
acceptable to mathematics in 1994.
The reducio ad absurdum proof for the existence of God consists of three
parts: 1) an ontological observation
regarding the meaning of terms and their use (inspired by Wittgenstein.) 2)
An epistemological axiom taken from Einstein regarding the origin of
questions and human understanding of the meaning of terms and 3) an argument
form model taken from Pythagoras and considered a valid argument form by
every mathematician/logician on the planet. I also borrow from and
reference
Descartes' technique of radical doubt in considering the Atheist denial.
This is a general proof.
Since your memory is short or you did not read my earlier post, let's just
go over your red
herring unicorn thing again for our viewers. Unicorns are constructs from
known phenomena, in this case a horse and a
horned beast of some kind. The constituents parts out of which the unicorn
are constructed are known to the constructor prior to the construction.
Griffins, Chimeras, etc., there are many examples. We don't need to get into
an epistemological debate here about the meaning of the term 'know', as that
would be merely another red herring. If you wish to say God has a beard
and white robes and lives in the sky, you are talking about an
anthropomorphic construct god. This is not the God of Christian, Muslim,
Hindu, Buddhist understanding, although it does arise in Liturgy as a
metaphor. When I use the term God, I am not talking about imaginary
constructs. I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the
God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when
properly understood. If you need a definition, it is that given, "I am that
I am."
The problem for many occurs in attempting to use object language, which
describes persons places and things with a state clearly defined as not an
object. "AM" is a
verb and does not point to any "thing". Verbs describe action or a state of
being. Ergo, the God of the righteous is the ultimate active state of all
being which can not not exist. Enough about the unicorn thing, now let's
turn to your concerns regarding proof.
The subject of proof is the proposition "God is" and whether the proposition
is true or false. The subject of proof is not "what" God is, as in "God is
X", where X is the differentia, since the proposition "God is" has no
differentia and we are not attempting to prove the existence of attributes,
horns on horses, that is, we are not defining attributes of God, which
includes the attribute of "existence" as distinguished from Being qua Being
or pure being, rather, the subject of proof is "that" God is (or not). We
do not
construct proof to convince ourselves of the truth of the proposition "God
is". We know God is. We are not asking after the attributes of God, as
such a task is infinite, we are discussing the being as such of the
Almighty.
We construct the proof to eliminate the inherent contradiction and
subsequent moral problems ( discussed elsewhere) brought into the world by
the Atheist types -- by
the religion of Atheism. Yes, it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist.
And the belief in the non-god has all the trappings of numerous pantheistic,
animistic, and theistic religions combined with its own set of high priests
and prophets and a body of blind, unquestioning, and devout followers.
Atheism is as much a religious doctrine as any other religious doctrine
conceived by man. As we shall see, they are also the authors of their own
undoing.
If you define "proof" in such a way as to preclude the possibility of the
existence of God, then of course you can never prove God's existence.
Fortunately, this is not what is meant by the term proof. The actual
proof for the existence of God is much simpler:
If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume Not X. (this proposition the
Atheist conveniently hands us on a silver platter) And,
then if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical system
of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity acceptable to
the mathematician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is tested
according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a
contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must
necessarily be true. The atheist and agnostic provide the ammunition we
need to prove the proposition "God is" is a necessarily true proposition.
Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description
of this method of logical deduction:
"The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio
ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In
deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he
wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to
an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the
theorem to be proved -- must be true."
Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp 52-53.
If someone gave you the proof, and you said, "Yes, that's it" or "No that
is not the
proof I am looking for to prove God's existence," either way you already
know what you require to prove the existence of God and what the subject of
your inquiry is or is not -- end of epistemological problem. There is a
difference between wanting to know the meaning of the term in its use
(Wittgenstein) and an understanding of a term about which it is impossible
for one to have an honest ignorance (Einstein). In order to construct
questions about God, such as "What is God?", you must
already know, be familiar with, understand the subject of your own
questioning, God; even if you pretend you do not understand the referent,
the subject, of your own question; even if you pretend to an ignorance that
is not real; even as you fall away from your own understanding of God in
your questioning about God's attributes; even if you are lost, God is. There
is no mystery. The "proof" for the existence of God, for those who need
one,
resides in the simplest of truths you already know. You must necessarily
know, even those who chose to pretend they do not. There is no secret.
There is no mystery. There is no grand cosmic puzzle. You either already
know God, or you are playing a silly semantic game with the term "God" or
you are a fool (no disrespect intended - its a biblical allusion), or the
Atheist is simply being dishonest.
The contradiction occurs in the Atheist's act of denial itself.
We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are
already familiar. The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words
of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable and
so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this? I
find it a pleasant irony that the Atheist, in asserting the proposition,
"there is no God", has become the unwitting servant of the Almighty.
Blessings and salutations
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Jack Rooney wrote in message <7pdns1$3aq$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Let me begin by saying I do not believe in Atheist bashing, or gay bashing,
>or Jehovah's Witness bashing or Moonie bashing or any kind of bashing. So
>>Since your memory is short or you did not read my earlier post, I am
referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the
>God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when
properly understood.
what is the "ultimate reality" of the buddhists?....when properly understood
that is.....
The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words
>of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable and
>so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this?
i have often said the atheist position is unacceptable (newsgroup variety) but
have just as often have said the theist position is equally untenable in the
world of philosophy that is.....siamese twins with one heart beat...the very
questions hurled at the athiest returns and seeks the theist....
g.
>Jack Rooney
Herb Ludwig
This is not the God of Christian, Muslim,
> Hindu, Buddhist understanding, although it does arise in Liturgy as a
> metaphor. When I use the term God, I am not talking about imaginary
> constructs. I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the
> God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when
> properly understood. If you need a definition, it is that given, "I am
that
> I am."
> The problem for many occurs in attempting to use object language, which
> describes persons places and things with a state clearly defined as not an
> object. "AM" is a
> verb and does not point to any "thing". Verbs describe action or a state
of
> being. Ergo, the God of the righteous is the ultimate active state of
all
> being which can not not exist
Thanks, Jack, you just gave me a textbook example of an "imaginary
construct" for my next course.
MHK
Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7pdns1$3aq$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom? As I've known it to be, it has
been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most
"conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now.
The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more
vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was
hardly peace and light.
Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of
god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post,
from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What
atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him.
You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is?
> We construct the proof to eliminate the inherent contradiction and
> subsequent moral problems ( discussed elsewhere) brought into the world by
> the Atheist types -- by
> the religion of Atheism. Yes, it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist.
> And the belief in the non-god has all the trappings of numerous
pantheistic,
> animistic, and theistic religions combined with its own set of high
priests
> and prophets and a body of blind, unquestioning, and devout followers.
> Atheism is as much a religious doctrine as any other religious doctrine
> conceived by man. As we shall see, they are also the authors of their own
> undoing.
I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know
rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted
by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers.
You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is
that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim)
and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the key
sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an
absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have
shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis
is negated.
I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or
that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I
do not.
> The contradiction occurs in the Atheist's act of denial itself.
>
> We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are
> already familiar. The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words
> of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable
and
> so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this?
I
> find it a pleasant irony that the Atheist, in asserting the proposition,
> "there is no God", has become the unwitting servant of the Almighty.
This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you
know this? Answering that is all we ask.
> Blessings and salutations
>
> Jack Rooney
Thanks for the delightful conversation :)
MHK
Foggy Ray
doing this you have accidentally or deliberately ignored what I did say.
Again by your use of the term "red herring" you imply that the unicorn
argument is deliberate ofuscation on my part but demonstrate by your failure
adequately to address this argument that it might not be a red herring in
even in the least pejorative use of the term. Put your considerable
intellect to work on why we differ on this one matter and you see that this
is where true dialogue can begin.
Although your reply was irrelevant to the argument I will honour you by
accepting your intellectual honesty and willingness for dialogue. I will
presume that you simply missed the point. Please honour me as I do you.
Since we cannot as yet get anywhere by debating the nature of a concept and
since it is difficult to abstract from your scattergun response I will
address the point you raise which comes nearest to the ballpark in which the
discussion began. I hope I do not misrepresent you in saying that you
consider the construct "unicorn" to derive from objects and attributes of
objects. I would agree with you if that is what you are saying. You seem to
be saying that "God" is being per-se and action per se ("I am that I am")
and thus cannot be compared with the construct "unicorn".
"I am that I am" is a language utterance based upon the Subject -
Predicator - Predicate model. Since the predicate "that I am" includes the
subject ("I") together with the predicator ("am") it is unusual and is
different to any utterance which the plain man would consider to be
sensible. It is more than a tautology. It is an eternal loop. It might be
called nonsense yet our sense of the poetic makes this infinitely looping
proposition or name a wonderful piece of language. It relies on a perversion
of language conventions which makes it meaningfiul only to those who have
more than a passing grasp of those conventions.
I see little more in the expression "I am that I am" than that.
My original proposition was that you can have a concept of God but it does
not mean that God exists. My concept of the unicorn includes the attributes
"probably mythical, probably fictitious". My own concept of God shares these
attributes. In a Neo Platonic sense, then, the unicorn and God exist but
only in ideational form as probably mythical, probably fictitious beings.
Jack wrote: Unicorns are constructs from
known phenomena, in this case a horse and a
horned beast of some kind.
That is exactly how I see the construct "God", Jack. Forgetting all the "I
am that I am" mullarky "God" is for many people a construct based on the
known phenomena that material objects have origins - nothing comes into
existence without a cause. It is then concluded that there must be a First
Cause but there is no justification for such a conclusion. It is no more
sensible to expect a First Cause than it is to expect a last number. "Things
just iz!" And to say "Things just iz" is not the same as "I am that I am"
because the latter predicates personal characteristics on what is. That is
an unwarranted leap.
It was not my memory nor my laziness which prevented me reading any earlier
response you have given to the "unicorn red herring". I cannot see it
anywhere on the newsgroup as it comes to me through my server. Are you sure
that you were not replying to someone else on another occasion? I repeat
that for me it is a real question.
Finally thank you for putting so much effort into your reply.
I would be interested to read your considered response. I will attempt to
deal with the so called "Logical Proof" at another time when my wife is not
calling me up to bed.
Foggy
Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7pdns1$3aq$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Jack Rooney
Thank you for taking the time to review my posting and comment. Your
remarks and observations are appreciated and respected. I see I need to
make some clarifications and revisions, as always the growth and pursuit of
knowledge is never-ending.
I hope I do not misrepresent you in saying that you
consider the construct "unicorn" to derive from objects and attributes of
objects. I would agree with you if that is what you are saying. You seem to
be saying that "God" is being per-se and action per se ("I am that I am")
and thus cannot be compared with the construct "unicorn".
Although I believe the unicorn is an intellectual construct, I did not say
it was "derived from objects and attributes of objects." I do not believe
in objects. I said, "Unicorns are constructs from
known phenomena, in this case a horse and a
horned beast of some kind."
******
"I am that I am" is a language utterance based upon the Subject -
Predicator - Predicate model. Since the predicate "that I am" includes the
subject ("I") together with the predicator ("am") it is unusual and is
different to any utterance which the plain man would consider to be
sensible. It is more than a tautology. It is an eternal loop. It might be
called nonsense yet our sense of the poetic makes this infinitely looping
proposition or name a wonderful piece of language. It relies on a perversion
of language conventions which makes it meaningful only to those who have
more than a passing grasp of those conventions.
I see little more in the expression "I am that I am" than that.
You seem to want to continue to objectify the verb "Am". "I" is a pronoun,
typically referring to a person in ordinary language, but since there is no
predicate in the sentence, I=am. The repetition, "I am that I am" is
probably for emphasis, as it is later said, "tell them I am has sent thee."
Within the context of scripture, Moses wanted to know the name of God, God
is that which has no name. Why didn't God just say, 'tell them God has sent
thee" or "God is what God is"? Your interpretation attempts to make I am
that I am and God is what God is truth functionally equivalent statements,
and they are not the same from a Theological standpoint. The statements do
not convey the same message. God is what God is is indeed tautological. I
am is put forth as a statement of fact and of identity and to provide
information that God is not a "Thing"
*********
My original proposition was that you can have a concept of God but it does
not mean that God exists. My concept of the unicorn includes the attributes
"probably mythical, probably fictitious". My own concept of God shares these
attributes
OK, here is where we are not connecting. You continue to talk about
attributes, but I never mentioned God's attributes in any of my original
writing. I see I probably need to get rid of the term "Existence" also
because I see it is leading to confusion and is used much to loosely by
philosophers, myself included. I could go the essence proceeds existence
route, but I don't think I want to go there. I did respond to the
attributes thing after you introduced the term into the discussion in your
critique, but I do not see a discussion of it useful or germane unless you
are a physicist concerned with identifying objects; one can identify
attributes until the end of eternity and never know God. I reiterate my
response again: The subject of proof is the proposition "God is" and whether
the proposition
is true or false. The subject of proof is not "what" God is, as in "God is
X", where X is the differentia, since the proposition "God is" has no
differentia and we are not attempting to prove the existence of attributes,
horns on horses, that is, we are not defining attributes of God, which
includes the attribute of "existence" as distinguished from Being qua Being
or pure being, rather, the subject of proof is "that" God is (or not).
*********
In a Neo Platonic sense, then, the unicorn and God exist but
only in ideational form as probably mythical, probably fictitious beings.
when you compare watermelons with a 1956 Chevy it probably is
**********
Jack wrote: Unicorns are constructs from
known phenomena, in this case a horse and a
horned beast of some kind.
That is exactly how I see the construct "God", Jack.
Looks like we need clarification between known phenomena and idealized
constructs. When you substitute a concept like Idealized constructs for a
concept I use, known phenomena, and then critique idealized constructs, you
have not critiqued my concept. You switched horses in mid stream -- it
ain't my horse you are riding now.
*********
Forgetting all the "I
am that I am" mullarky "God" is for many people a construct based on the
known phenomena that material objects have origins - nothing comes into
existence without a cause. It is then concluded that there must be a
First
Cause
Not by me...You use my terminology but attribute attributes to it that are
not my doing -- "material objects have origins" In fact, my claim is that
there are no material objects. I gravitate toward the idea that spirit is
the primary substance out of which the universe is comprised, not matter.
*********
but there is no justification for such [First Cause] a conclusion.
I never made this (First Cause) conclusion, you seem to be talking about
Aquinas, not Jack Rooney...
**********
It is no more
sensible to expect a First Cause than it is to expect a last number.
I like that.
*********
"Things
just iz!"
?
**********
And to say "Things just iz" is not the same as "I am that I am"
because the latter predicates personal characteristics on what is.
You are correct but 'predicating personal characteristics to "God as an
active state of being" is not what is going on here. In fact, it is exactly
what I am suggesting one avoid.
**********
That is
an unwarranted leap.
Yes, it is. And one I did not take.
**************
It was not my memory nor my laziness which prevented me reading any earlier
response you have given to the "unicorn red herring". I cannot see it
anywhere on the newsgroup as it comes to me through my server. Are you sure
that you were not replying to someone else on another occasion? I repeat
that for me it is a real question.
It occurred under a posting called "The Proof", you commented and I
responded there with essentially the same response. No biggie.
Jack Rooney
thing and has no parts, ergo, not a construct.
Jack
Jack Rooney
been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most
"conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now.
All staunch dogma has the potential toward destructiveness in the hands of
unwavering fanatics.
***********
The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more
vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was
hardly peace and light.
Same God. Different men.
********
Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of
god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post,
from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What
atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him.
I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here.
***
You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is?
By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Pythagoreas.
**************
I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know
rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted
by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers.
I believe you...
***********
You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is
that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim)
and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the key
sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an
absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have
shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis
is negated.
Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is
negated.
*******
I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or
that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I
do not.
But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with
certainty (thank you Descartes).
*******
This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you
know this? Answering that is all we ask.
I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement
with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir
Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof.
Blessings and salutations and all peace to you.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
MHK
> Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom? As I've known it to be, it
has
> been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most
> "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now.
>
> unwavering fanatics.
Ok... but atheism still isn't the norm, which is what I meant.
> ***********
> The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much
more
> vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He
was
> hardly peace and light.
>
> Same God. Different men.
Interesting perspective, but isn't the bible the word of God? Why would he
paint himself in two different lights?
> ********
> Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes
of
> god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post,
> from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What
> atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to
him.
>
> I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here.
I believe I am, in terms of the definition of atheism.
> ***
> You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is?
>
> By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Pythagoreas.
This was the point I was unclear on... what was this indirect proof? I
didn't see it anywhere.
> **************
>
> I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know
> rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when
confronted
> by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers.
>
> I believe you...
> ***********
> You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted
is
> that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you
claim)
> and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the
key
> sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an
> absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have
> shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis
> is negated.
>
> Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is
> negated.
Right... that's two things we agree on so far.
> *******
>
> I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or
> that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that
I
> do not.
>
> But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with
> certainty (thank you Descartes).
Actually, I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist. I don't believe because
I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support the theory of God.
However, the possibility still exists, as it exists for most every theory.
It's just a matter of whether or not enough evidence has been discovered.
The amount of corresponding evidence is what allows me to lend any kind of
credibility in my own mind to any given theory. The less evidence, the more
likely I am to discard that theory as mere fancy.
> *******
>
> This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do
you
> know this? Answering that is all we ask.
>
> I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement
> with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir
> Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof.
See above. I claim there is not sufficient enough evidence to support the
claim that God exists. Since I started out without this theory, a blank
slate as it were, with no God, I remain with no God. It was presented and
lacked any evidence, and I left it as that, a theory unproven.
MHK
Herb Ludwig
> Keep me smiling, Herb. Constructs have parts. The God of Abraham is not
a
> thing and has no parts, ergo, not a construct.
Better not smile yet, it could be a fool's grin! <g>
Here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says as definition for
usage in grammar of the word:
"CONSTRUCT":
To put together words in syntactical arrangement; to combine in grammatical
construction.
Here is what Jack Rooney said:
I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the
God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when
properly understood.
Now, compare the OED with your above "God of xyz" arrangement.
Still smiling, Jack?
vin...@dmv.com
"Herb Ludwig" <hl...@mailnet.com> wrote:
>
> Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7pgtuv$e4b$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > Keep me smiling, Herb. Constructs have parts. The God of Abraham
is not
> a
> > thing and has no parts, ergo, not a construct.
>
> Better not smile yet, it could be a fool's grin! <g>
>
> Here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says as definition
for
> usage in grammar of the word:
> "CONSTRUCT":
> To put together words in syntactical arrangement; to combine in
grammatical
> construction.
Isn't this the same as the definition of a sentence, or am I missing
something?
> Here is what Jack Rooney said:
> I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the
> God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist
when
> properly understood.
>
> Now, compare the OED with your above "God of xyz" arrangement.
> Still smiling, Jack?
>
Well, it mays seem a bit conradictory on the surface to compare the "I
am" to nirvana(non-being), but knowledge of being is in the
reestablishment of ones being; which is to pass from being into
non-being and then into being again. Otherwise known as deliverance
another verb and the son(offspring) of "I am".
Vincent
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard E Reboulet
>Here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says as definition for
>usage in grammar of the word:
>"CONSTRUCT":
>To put together words in syntactical arrangement; to combine in grammatical
>construction.
>
definition - Never use the word itself or any of its derivitives in
the definition of that word!
Herb Ludwig
Jack Rooney says:
This is not the God of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist
understanding,>snip< am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses,
the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist
when
properly understood.
MHK says:
The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more
vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was
hardly peace and light.
Jack Rooney says:
Same God. Different men.
FlimFlam in action: "Why should I be bothered by my yesterdays assertions"
Jack Rooney
more at to build, structure 1: to make or form by combining or arranging
PARTS [my caps] or elements; build, also contrive, devise, 2.) to set in
logical order. 3.) to draw a geometrical figure..."
Also
"Construct. Something Constructed by mental synthesis (form a ~ by mentally
assembling and integrating sense-data)"
You have defined CONSTRUCTION, not construct.
"Construction (grammatical)...3.) the arrangement and connection of words or
groups of words in a sentence; synthetically arrangement."
But I guess it's not as bad a misnaming Galileo. I see your point, though
Herb, and which definition one uses depends on whether one is a philosopher
or and English teacher, and I have degrees in both fields (no brag, just
fact) and part of the concern of this post is philosophy of language, which
makes grammatical construction germane, but If one says: God is that than
which there is no other than that is a greater than, or God is the sum total
of all reality squared or God a 1956 Chevy, they are all equally
nonsensical statements outside of the context in which the statements are
made. If you wish to suspend a statement in the air and ask your students
to analyze, cool, but not very enlightening. What Jack says of God and what
God says of God are two different things. Forgive me if I fail to
understand your point.
Still smiling.
Jack
Foggy Ray
alert to the fact that we can miss the point in discussions with you. This
might seem the silliest of rejoinders but I will try anyway.
When asked how you know that GOD IS you say to a fellow poster
"I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement
with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir
Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof.
Does anyone else see the indirect proof of which you speak? Does it concern
you that you seem preciously close to being alone in seeing any logical
connection between the statement that God is not and the alleged "fact"
that God is?
Like the writer of that message I am less concerned with disproving the
existence of God which I believe is probably impossible than in establishing
why you see this connection.
You have to see that at the very least there is some gulf in communication
between yourself and your "opponents". We do not claim knowledge. You do.
Therefore the onus of proof falls to you. You claim that we deny knowledge
which we have.
You write "But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny
God with certainty (thank you Descartes)." That is the part which is getting
up our noses. I know that you might not like the use of the word "existence"
for the word "being" but let us assume that they are synonyms. The argument
seems to be based upon the idea that in claiming "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" the
claimant demonstrates his awareness of the concept of existence and since
"God" and "existence" are one and the same he is showing an awareness of
"God". If that is what you are saying I simply cannot agree. The argument
breaks down insofar as we need to agree on the meanings of the words with
which we communicate. The idea that the word "God" and the word "existence"
or the word "being" are interchangeable is not tenable. Just try
substituting them in any regular conversation and see what kind of reaction
you get.
Foggy
Jack Rooney <JackR...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7ph10b$mqh$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom? As I've known it to be, it
has
> been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most
> "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now.
>
> All staunch dogma has the potential toward destructiveness in the hands of
> unwavering fanatics.
> ***********
> The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much
more
> vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He
was
> hardly peace and light.
>
> Same God. Different men.
> ********
> Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes
of
> god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post,
> from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What
> atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to
him.
>
> I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here.
> ***
> You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is?
>
> By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Pythagoreas.
> **************
>
> I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know
> rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when
confronted
> by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers.
>
> I believe you...
> ***********
> You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted
is
> that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you
claim)
> and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the
key
> sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an
> absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have
> shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis
> is negated.
>
> Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is
> negated.
> *******
>
> I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or
> that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that
I
> do not.
>
> But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with
> certainty (thank you Descartes).
> *******
>
> This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do
you
> know this? Answering that is all we ask.
>
> I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement
> with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir
> Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof.
>
> Blessings and salutations and all peace to you.
>
> Jack Rooney
> Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jack Rooney
talking about? If anyone out there has any idea what this means, please
enlighten me.....
MHK says:
The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more
vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was
hardly peace and light.
Jack Rooney
(prerequisite) philosophical understanding of philosophical notions on the
part of all group members. When I reference Descartes, I am referring to
his concept of certainty, indubitability, and doubt. I did not feel it
necessary to explain his epistemology since he is a common read for most
philosophers. I do not mean to imply that the atheist is being deceptive
when he denies God with certainty. I am saying I find it impossible for it
to be a genuinely true statement within the context of its utterance in
which the thinker denies what he claims to know. To say "I deny God is" is
to
imply that I know what I am denying with certainty and that I am certain
that this that I am indubitably certain of is not, which is contradictory.
The atheist also makes, in defense of his denial, as has been my
observation, a subtle shift, imperceptible to most, and even perhaps to the
atheist himself, between the ontological status of his own understand of
God, and the phenomenological status of his abstract objectification of god
as a thing. He continues to confuse the is-ness with the what-ness. If I
say "god is a 1956 Chevy" and you say "I do not believe that is god"; or I
say "god is the sum total of all reality squared" and you say "no way",
then such a denial is perfectly OK by me, as you are denying only a man's
definition of God's attributes. But does it not also imply that you have
some sort of idea of God and that you are at least relatively certain about
the truth of your own denial. How do you know God is not a 1956 Chevy?
I believe he believes he does not know the contradiction that occurs at a
primal psychological level in the act of denying not that God exists, but
that "God is" with such absolute and indubitable certainty.
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
Herb Ludwig
>
> You have defined CONSTRUCTION, not construct.
My definition for the word "CONSTRUCT", was quoted verbatim from the Oxford
English Dictionary. (Complete Edition 1971, page 880, Subheading 2, usage in
Grammar ).
If you have any problem with that, Jack, take it up with the editors of the
OED, probably the most respected dictionary of the English speaking world.
But please, don't try to defend your error by quoting what the 9th
Collegiate Webster has to say about a different word. (construction.)
Herb
Herb Ludwig
> Does it concern you at all, Herb, that no one has a clue what you are
> talking about?
No clue? Why doesn't that surprise me. >g<
No one? Is that just plural majestaticus or do you speak now for everybody?
Smilin' Herbie.
vin...@dmv.com
Jack was saying that god is not 'a construct' the result of
construction. You gave him a definition not for 'a construct' but
instead for the phrase 'to construct'.
Of course one could also say that 'a construct' has similarities to a
completed construction.
Well, I'll let you get back to your misery...
Herb Ludwig
<vin...@dmv.com> wrote in message news:7pnpu5$ihc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Well, I'll let you get back to your misery...
>
Thanks for clarifying this, Vincent. Actually, Jack and I have a lot in
common, but Indiana is so far away from the ivory towers of Massachusetts.
We fight only over words and haven't used our concealed weapons permit once,
>g<
Herb
Jack Rooney
Jack Rooney
Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
g. asks "what is the "ultimate reality" of the Buddhists?....when properly
understood
that is.....:
Jack Rooney
by fearing to attempt." --Lucio, Act 1, Scene 4, Measure, for Measure
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Jack Rooney wrote in message <7pqjqb$g5m$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
where in the the four noble truths and in the path that the *buddha* placed
before humanity does it speak of nivana?
did buddha preach "nivana"?
there is the "saddharmapundarika sutra" it is considered by many to be the most
sacred....in it the buddha reveals the most significant communications ever
made to mankind present and mankind in the future..."there is only this one way
of salvation from the destructive elements of life, the way of buddhahood,
*not* the way of *nirvana*"
it's not that nirvana cannot be realized but as long as man is in turmoil then
our duty lies not only to ourselves but to those that remain in torment...if
you recall his life, you are aware he went out into the world to understand the
nature of sickness, old age and death and came out of this with his noble
truths and the middle way to alleviate the pain of life......right
thinking...etc.
the buddha was a compassionate man, not one to seek a personal bliss while the
world suffered.....and so your response "nirvana" would be inadequate....
g.
Jack Rooney
All peace to you along the path.
Jack
Jack Rooney
All peace to you along the path...
Jack
Jack Rooney
jack
vin...@dmv.com
"genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> the buddha was a compassionate man, not one to seek a personal bliss
while the
> world suffered.....and so your response "nirvana" would be
inadequate....
>
I am not a Buddhist scholar, but didn't the Buddha promote that every
state of human existance is suffering? Sorrow is sufffering, Joy is
suffering etc..
As I understand nirvana it is the state of not suffering which is to say
not existing since any existance is to suffer. To think that nirvana is
a state of bliss would be very incongruos I would think.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
vin...@dmv.com wrote in message <7psvm0$43c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7pru0h$e2v$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> the buddha was a compassionate man, not one to seek a personal bliss
>while the
>> world suffered.....and so your response "nirvana" would be
>inadequate....
>>
>
>I am not a Buddhist scholar, but didn't the Buddha promote that every
>state of human existance is suffering? Sorrow is sufffering, Joy is
>suffering etc..
the buddha was concerned with sickness, death, old age and suffering and
attempted to mitigate these age old problems of mankind...joy is suffering???>
>As I understand nirvana it is the state of not suffering which is to say
>not existing since any existance is to suffer. To think that nirvana is
>a state of bliss would be very incongruos I would think.
to exist does not necessarily mean to suffer.....the buddha was well aware that
not all people suffered equally, he lived in a time of extreme poverty where
the dead were removed from the streets in the early hours (usually starvation
or sickness) he was addressing those with a need for his teachings...eventually
the well-to-do came to listen as well....
in all classes sorrow is universal and desire is the cause of sorrow and
extinction of sorrow comes about by the extinction of desire and the way to
extinquish desire is through the eightfold path of right view, right intention,
right speech......etc.....right here and now, not in some distant twilight
zone.......buddhism is very down to earth.....some of course try to guild the
lilly......
but the teaching of buddhism is difficult as the buddha himself remarked "the
wisdom i teach is difficult to understand, difficult to practice"........but
once it is understood there comes a complete reversal of values, all the
tensions of life are released....nirvana.
>Vincent
vin...@dmv.com
have been interpreted is in hundreds of completely different ways.
I still value the interpretation that I gave. It coveys a very deep
realization of the nature of the true reality.
Vincent
In article <7pugfn$ao2$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
vin...@dmv.com wrote in message <7q9ccq$lp6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Well, I have heard that Buddhist literature is very vast and his words
>have been interpreted is in hundreds of completely different ways.
>
>I still value the interpretation that I gave. It coveys a very deep
>realization of the nature of the true reality.
>
>Vincent
one should value anything that conveys a deep realization....if it has a
pleasant sound in your ear then you have hit your mark.
g.