Minds So Infinitely Small.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: bb23108
I = activity of attention = Soul

That sounds right to me. Thank you.

Good.

You can also equate the "I" with the whole integrated body-mind complex - whatever that is altogether (gross, subtle, and causal) - if you want to think of "I" in terms of an actual entity.

That is the only "separate entity" the "I" actually is, and of course, is what we refer to generally as ourselves when we speak to others.

So I don't disagree with LesMis about the "I" being the whole integrated body-mind (and not some elusive detached "other") - what I disagree with him about, is his limiting the definition of the body-mind to only what the five senses can experience and verify.

And of course, there is the whole matter of fundamental awareness that the senses cannot experience, and most scientific-materialists basically dismiss as an emergent property of the body-brain, because they cannot figure it out.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

i invite anyone to have a look and tell me i am wrong.

The thread entitled, "I Believe in Religion"

LeMisanthrope stated that people can make their own religion, just that you can't make a religion out of religion.

I'm still trying to achieve that goal. I find myself still dealing with religion out of religion. I probably will never achieve the goal while talking religion with other people. Ah, aspirations!

that thread was using religion to mock anti-religion. lesmisanthropes feelings for religion and spirituality in general arent much more flattering than his treatment of atheism.

in regards to the practicality of spirituality, I see little benefit.

how 'bout that?

In my own opinion, the word “spiritual” is derogatory, a sign of a weaker more tender sort, whom I have some instinctual obligation to defend from bullies whenever the need should arise.

or this one.

How much more stupefying can spirituality get? There’s something of a resignation in it, explicitly found in spiritual teachings and practices, and its propensity for narcotic dosages. It’s not a quest for truth, but an escape from it. It is not an advance, but a retreat. It’s not a moment of clarity, it is a drug; ideas such as union with god or mystical experience being the exact same as getting lost in religious enthusiasm, a once popular euphamism for psychotic episode. It’s just too easy for someone to pass by and say “I’ll have what she’s having”.

or even this.

Spirituality is anti-truth.

i am not psychic, i only get what lesmisanthrope posts. and this is what he has posted. which, incidentally, happens to contradict what he posted in THIS thread:

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

for someone who so staunchly declares spirituality a waste of time, you sure do like to post about it. which is, in my opinion, the most interesting take-away observation here. the amount of threads you make concerning something that isnt worth your time. ironically.

I've never said spirituality is a waste of time.

so then whats all that stuff i just quoted up there?

a reply to: bb23108

what I disagree with him about, is his limiting the definition of the body-mind to only what the five senses can experience and verify.

I don't know LesMis any more than anybody else on this forum.

The five senses transmit data to the brain ( I think that's the latest science ). In the brain the data is arranged to create a coherent fact set ( whether the facts are correct or not ). I wish I'd studied Psychology.

Is perception a sixth sense? Or is empathy as a perception of another's perception a sixth sense. Somewhere, somehow, people do perceive people as people with perceptions of their own. Psychologists have that listed as the top tier of self awareness.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have to be honest here, even if it sounds a bit harsh. To my "small mind" your writing looks and sounds like a sad and pathetic whine about how you don't understand nor accept people who have different world views (and, God forbid, even non material views - oh the heresy!) and how you feel yourself to be so much bigger, better, faster, harder and scooter than the rest of us.

Using your "logic" here, we could simply state that any scientific information whic you cannot verify with your own eyes, ears, nose or touch is invalid and therefore does not exist. "Cooz it's too small for my eyes to see!" That would also mean - with your logic - that most nowadays accepted chemical and small physical components miraculously came into existent only when someone (big minded) invented a microscope, x-rays, electron microscope/whatever invention to see smaller than eyesight particles -or particles out of our wavelength.

In general, you say nothing new that the atheist minds haven't said thousands of years ago. Yet, we still have billions of people who believe otherwise. They don't all have a need or desire to actually split everything into super small components like you claim and try to shrink every emotion, feeling, idea and thought into "just a chemical reaction in your organ X" -ideology. Because those people rather live and feel, and let their minds, bodies and souls do the work they were designed to do. We are currently waiting for CERN to find some miraculous "God particle" (one more, once more smaller than the previous) and who is to say after that there isn't something smaller than that or what kind of effects they have on mind, matter or energy around us?

Thank God we have a right to disagree freely, and your illogical rant from this side of the fence might work just as fine as the illogical rant we have in this side. Personally, I just hope your life isn't as dull and boring as it sounds, reading your few lines of bitterness. And maybe you will encounter something "so small that it does not even exist" which still seem to move you like no other thing ever did in your life. Be it love, hatred, religion or just the feeling of awe watching the night sky full of stars and thinking how SMALL you are - just like the rest of us.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I suppose I should just break down and admit the sordid advantage I have.

I have a close relationship with an atheist. She has described herself as "spiritual". Since we have a very good rapport, it was not difficult to question her about what "spiritual" meant to her.

Long story short - what she described was none other than top tier self-awareness as I described in the post to bb23108.

It seems self-evident to me that people call themselves "spiritual" as a defensive mechanism; as in, "I'm an atheist but I'm spiritual." If the expression were to be expanded it would be "I'm an atheist, but don't hate me. I'm not an evil atheist. I'm a spiritual atheist."

It is a retreat, just as LesMis has stated. With no clear definition of what "spiritual" even means, people are defending a word.

a reply to: PilgriMage

I respect that opinion.

But your emotionally charged rant does not argue against my point.

My only issue is—and maybe you can help me with this given your expertise—why is it illogical?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

I relay my experiences not my ideas, that is where your failure lies.

You live your experiences; you don't relay them. That's where your failure lies.

I do live my spiritual, metaphysical, and physical experiences, and choose to relay them to others as I have done repeatedly here on ATS, but again, you fail in this metaphysical debate because you have no frame of reference other than your experiencing a physical existence, and for that fact, I do understand why your replies are evasive, dismissive, and/or confused.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

so you are just going to ignore the points i made. sure, have fun with that. wont make me go away and it wont keep others from reading what i post.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TzarChasm

I suppose I should just break down and admit the sordid advantage I have.

I have a close relationship with an atheist. She has described herself as "spiritual". Since we have a very good rapport, it was not difficult to question her about what "spiritual" meant to her.

Long story short - what she described was none other than top tier self-awareness as I described in the post to bb23108.

It seems self-evident to me that people call themselves "spiritual" as a defensive mechanism; as in, "I'm an atheist but I'm spiritual." If the expression were to be expanded it would be "I'm an atheist, but don't hate me. I'm not an evil atheist. I'm a spiritual atheist."

It is a retreat, just as LesMis has stated. With no clear definition of what "spiritual" even means, people are defending a word.

spirituality is a sense of significance in the role that we all play. the most condensed summary i have run across. that means that someone who doesnt believe in a god can still feel that we are all important in our own way and that coincidence can still be appreciated for the advantages it offers and that not being religious doesnt keep us from admiring beauty and love where it may be found no matter how it got there.

but according to SOME schools of though, love and beauty and that sense of significance or awe are useless unless quantifiable.

a reply to: InTheLight

Do you know what metaphysics is?

a reply to: TzarChasm

so you are just going to ignore the points i made. sure, have fun with that. wont make me go away and it wont keep others from reading what i post.

Your points have nothing to do with the topic. But you know this—you've been banned before.

Don't worry, I won't rat you out. Would you? We already know the answer to that...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

so you are just going to ignore the points i made. sure, have fun with that. wont make me go away and it wont keep others from reading what i post.

Your points have nothing to do with the topic. But you know this—you've been banned before.

Don't worry, I won't rat you out. Would you? We already know the answer to that...

i will let the general population of ats decide that.

if it makes you feel better to try to shame me then tell on me for some perceived crime, go for it. i cant stop you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

Ah well... so you don't appreciate my little internal fantasies. Doesn't matter. They are mine. You cannot touch them, manipulate them, change them, correct them, control them.

Your "internal fantasies", though probably interesting (and knowing you, likely sordid), is not a postulated entity.

LOL!
Guess you didn't get the joke.
"Fantasy" was the word I used for postulated entity.


Never mind.




I'm "sordid" though? Jeez. Screw you.

a reply to: bb23108

what I disagree with him about, is his limiting the definition of the body-mind to only what the five senses can experience and verify.

Would you be able to furnish us another way in which to experience and verify?

I respect your disagreement, but you have yet to provide a reason as to why you think this way. Please—how am I limiting the definition of the self?

a reply to: Bluesma

I'm "sordid" though? Jeez. Screw you.

From me, that's a compliment.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i will let the general population of ats decide that.

As will I. If only others were so lucky.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I'm "sordid" though? Jeez. Screw you.

From me, that's a compliment.

Calling me vile and selfish is a compliment?
Yeah right.
I am not sure what I did to deserve it.
But all I can say is, right back at you.

a reply to: Bluesma

Calling me vile and selfish is a compliment?
Yeah right.
I am not sure what I did to deserve it.
But all I can say is, right back at you.

Anyone who does not have sordid fantasies does not know how to fantasize. I obviously know nothing about your fantasies, hence I figured it would be taken for a joke.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Do you know what metaphysics is?

To me it is trying to discover what is ultimately real and, of course, as with so many of these threads we always end up at a standstill due to conflicting philosophies and experiences. So that is the question, "What is real?"...and it will vary from everyone due to beliefs, experiences, prejudices, etc.