It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by akushla99
that, if you don't count dinosaurs.
2nd line
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99
This ATS thing is worldwide and people have things to do, like work and sleep. If he thinks that something I posted needs rebutting then I'm sure he will get around to it when he can, even if I didn't address it to him personally.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
. Rather than consider that nothing is there, which is offensive to their tastes, they invent a cover story, a euphemism, to convince themselves and others that something is there.
Originally posted by Bluesma
Why would the possibility of nothing being there (which is, in literal, material terms, correct) be offensive to their tastes ?
Having a discussion with someone can be difficult...
"If I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty."
Are we any closer to understanding anything he is talking about? That quote is pure pathos, forged and designed to appeal to the readers desire to feel good. There is no logical or ethical reasoning here, even though it smells of divine understanding and infinite truth. It leads us further from understanding. But worse, it leaves us empty of meaning and imagery, resulting in a necessarily imaginative, and therefor fabricated meaning. Every single abstraction in Merton’s rhetoric is without the meaning that aids in conjuring certain imagery. What imagery pops in the head when we hear about things such as “the depths of my own existence” or the “indefinable am”? What experience do we picture when he says “through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am”? This whole statement is guilty of begging the question. Under the feather-like weight of these words, this is all he can convey:
Originally posted by mysticnoon
What I took his/her words to mean is that the possibility of nothing being there would appear to invalidate the belief system of the spiritual seeker/new-ager/whoever, hence they would find that too objectionable to contemplate. If you embrace a particular worldview, you would wish to avoid admitting that you are completely deluded.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
I do not consider the ego as "evil', but only as an adversary when it hinders the natural impulses of my real self.
Why would the possibility of nothing being there (which is, in literal, material terms, correct) be offensive to their tastes ?
He, from my pov, is saying the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots (going deep is maybe something you do not possess). As he journeys through self at the roots he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.
The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[8] One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end.
There may be zero philosophical ideas in your very being, I don't know.
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
"If I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty."
Are we any closer to understanding anything he is talking about?
He, from my pov, is saying the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots (going deep is maybe something you do not possess). As he journeys through self at the roots he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.
the self being indefinable is definable in its deepest roots
As he journeys through self at the roots
he finds himself aware and defining "I am" as a part of the Almighty.. which he is also.
I'd like 5 minutes alone in a room behind a locked door with the guy who dreamed up the phrase "I AM". When I was done with that idiot, he'd be wishing "he wasn't."
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster
Yes I don't understand this whole ego-death doctrine. For some reason I picture a bunch of mindless automatons frolicking in a field of flowers. It's a horrible sight.
Because this gesture of subjectivity is typically moment to moment, it tends to define the being as separative attention. It is just a fear-based obsessive focusing or contraction of the function of attention (and of feeling and of body altogether), and this results in one's identification with this, and the calling of it "I" - but there is no actual entity there.
The function of attention, and the process of abstraction from objects and others occurs within consciousness - we can simply witness these processes without actually identifying with them. However, once again, consciousness cannot be objectified because it is who we are. This simply must be discovered for oneself.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Aah we are getting closer to 'something' here. This is a better, more concrete explanation of your consciousness. Good job, it is tough to do with such abstract non-subjects.
Exactly, these processes occur within the context of the human organism, and create this false notion of the ego-I as some separate entity. Consciousness inherently simply witnesses all such processes - this can be discovered as self-evident, though I understand you do not accept such a notion because you cannot objectify it.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
But remember, there is always an entity there! Something needs to perform these actions! The human organism.
For instance, if we are blaming something called "the ego" for our evil natures, we are blaming a euphemism instead of the guilty party, which we are often too fearful to admit. Not once have we experienced something called an ego; we have only ever experienced ourselves.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Exactly. It is quite funny. Nonetheless, that's what happening. Why is indeed the question.