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.

 

Empty Words and Euphemism

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
... But that doesn’t change the fact that you are unable to paint a clear enough picture, to produce anything tangible, to lead one down a path of sound arguments to your conclusions. This is likely because you have been lead there by the hand, perhaps by youtube videos, by the harness, with someone else showing you the way, and you forget how you’ve gotten there. If you arrived with your own reason, you would be able to explain how without having to tell people to "feel into the depths of their being" to do so.
Okay, then, can you, and if so, will you, write a letter employing the Modes of Persuasion that fully convinces us of your conclusions relative to materialism, that we are only the human-apparatus, etc. - whatever your materialistic notions altogether entail?

You did say that any such letter can be written, at least in theory, right? It would be most interesting to read - and wouldn't such a letter be your obligation to inform, even to convince others of the truth you have discovered, so they can be set straight in their ways?

Also, given your statements to me that my attempts to convince you beyond your materialistic notions have failed as you said, "...likely because you have been lead there by the hand, perhaps by youtube videos, by the harness, with someone else showing you the way, and you forget how you’ve gotten there..." - can we also expect that your reasoning, as detailed in your letter, is solely your own, that you had no help along the way, and that you can tell us first-hand of the experiences that convinced you of the truth of materialism?

Thank you, LesMis!


edit on 30-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by MamaJ
 



Based on the experience of Thomas Merton he undoubtedly knows what he is talking about through his own personal and mystical experiences, that which you do not. So be it.


This presupposes that I have never had a mystical experience.

I understand the words of what Merton speaks, except he forms them into something intelligibile and tries to imply divinity by using terms such as "the infinite" and equating the incomplete sentence of "I am", which really means nothing, by somehow connecting it to the something someone wrote about God in a book?

The thing is, no one has experienced anything infinite, no one understands why he would call himself indefinable then attempt to define himself, no one understands what it means when he says the depths of his own existence, and if they do, they have made it up in their minds, imagining what they see in their heads, and not seeing any glimpse of what Merton has experienced.

This is seduction, not explanation.


You know 'you are' right now so look directly at whatever it is that knows you are.


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.

If you so, then maybe you will understand the last bit of Merton's quote.

edit on 30-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


You are right to challenge me with this, bb.

But I only subscribe to my own philosophies. I do not support materialism. It is too incomplete. There are too many holes (I'm certain I've mentioned this elsewhere). I would be doing you and I both a disfavor by trying to convince you (and I) of it. I don't think it's possible to convince anyone to support a materialistic world view. It would be futile and dishonest for me to do so.

I don't like talking about myself, but in an attempt to distance myself from the assumptions you and others make about me, I will try to explain where I'm coming from.

Yes there was a time I was a follower and an advocate of other people's philosophies and religions. This only ever led me astray. So I restarted from scratch, so to say, in an attempt to remove most indoctrination, and now attempt to rely on my own mental faculties by derriving my own conclusions from whatever data is presented. This has allowed me to become my own mental authority. Because this is still a fairly recent approach to my thought, my philosophy is still very much in its infant stage, and it will probably be a life-long work in progress, but what's left over when I die will be a work I can call my own. Philosophy is art to me.

I don't subsribe to any atheism, any materialism, any idealism, any "scientism", any religion, any label which would seek to pigeon-hole me into a certain way of thinking. Subscribing to anything else but one's own thoughts is limiting. To use my avatar's name, my philosophy would be best labelled LesMisanthropeism.

I don't find value in what our philosophers or prophets thought, but how they thought.This is what I take away from philosophy. I am led by their methods.

Now the reason I cannot be convinced of the existence of something called consciousness is because I have never been privy to it. Yes, I have not yet been able to outright deny my senses. I've found that every misperception—optical illusions, mirages etc.—are, in my opinion, misconceptions, a mistake of the inner senses, and not a mistake of the outer senses. In that sense, yes it would appear that I would require something like the scientific method to understand anything, but that does not mean I subscribe to materialism or "scientism". Correlation does not imply causation.

And yes, so far I have not been able to deny my physicality. I am perceptually and conceptually physical, meaning I can physically interact, and imagine physically interacting, with other objects we have deemed physical. So far, the only things that can be doubted, for me at least, are the objects and forces that are said to be immaterial, the non-objects, the things which a materialist would say cannot be observed or measured, and what the immaterialist promises is there. Even though I seem to be in agreement with the materialist, it wasn't materialism that lead me here.

This is where my philosophy is currently at: still child-like, still escaping the nihilism that religion and faith have left me, still trying to build some sort of foundation and soil to grow from. I am still working on the bare bones and have yet to flesh it out.

You might see this as a cop out to your challenge—and perhaps it is—but I really have no philosophy to sell you. I can only share my observations.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



You know 'you are' right now so look directly at whatever it is that knows you are.


I do this every time I look in the mirror.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I don't like talking about myself, but in an attempt to distance myself from the assumptions you and others make about me, I will try to explain where I'm coming from.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify this, LesMis. I hope you understand that when I said I thought your position was materialistic and close-minded of you, it was because it seems you only ever give credence based on mental logic (conceptualization) and perception to determine what you consider real or not, and deviating from this approach was unacceptable for you.

For example, perceive an object simply, say a piece of fruit, without thinking anything about it relative to its label, attributes, molecular make-up, etc. Simply perceive it and even "feel" it with your free attention. Consider what it IS - you can never know what it is, and yet in this moment of unknowing, the subject-object separation disappears and you can recognize the reality or consciousness that the object (and you) are arising in.

This reality is not knowable but can certainly be recognized. Notice this relative to others, with your intimate, etc. There is no inherent separation in this release from thinking about and knowing an object - and it is happiness itself, beyond any sense of happiness being just a euphemism.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
So I restarted from scratch, so to say, in an attempt to remove most indoctrination, and now attempt to rely on my own mental faculties by deriving my own conclusions from whatever data is presented. This has allowed me to become my own mental authority.
I think it's great that you have such mental capacity to discriminate sh** from shinola, and you clearly have served many on this website. However, since you are not simply a materialist, I am now hopeful you will consider that exercise of simply perceiving an object, beyond thought, mental knowing, etc.!


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I don't subsribe to any atheism, any materialism, any idealism, any "scientism", any religion, any label which would seek to pigeon-hole me into a certain way of thinking. Subscribing to anything else but one's own thoughts is limiting.
See comment above. I too put no credence in belief systems - I am only really interested in the revelation of reality.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Now the reason I cannot be convinced of the existence of something called consciousness is because I have never been privy to it.
No one is privy to it as though it is an object to know - we are consciousness itself beyond subject and object. Try that exercise!



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
... In that sense, yes it would appear that I would require something like the scientific method to understand anything, but that does not mean I subscribe to materialism or "scientism". Correlation does not imply causation.
That is very helpful, and I apologize for assuming you to be simply a materialist based on your arguments. I also sensed that you must not be a hard-core fixed materialist, otherwise I would not have continued to consider all of these matters of consciousness, etc., with you.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And yes, so far I have not been able to deny my physicality. I am perceptually and conceptually physical, meaning I can physically interact, and imagine physically interacting, with other objects we have deemed physical. So far, the only things that can be doubted, for me at least, are the objects and forces that are said to be immaterial, the non-objects, the things which a materialist would say cannot be observed or measured, and what the immaterialist promises is there. Even though I seem to be in agreement with the materialist, it wasn't materialism that lead me here.
I have never brought up anything about denying one's physicality. I only bring up the matter of whether the body-mind is our actual reality in terms of who we are. I have always felt that one cannot deny the body-mind in one's consideration of reality - otherwise it would not be completely real, just partial at best. But I also refuse to accept that in reality I am the body-mind as a self-evident truth.

The singularity of the body-mind is actually something we agree on, but I also feel that one's recognition of this singularity provides the basis for releasing one's sole dependence on mental processes for determining one's reality. What about feeling altogether as the singular body-mind? To do this, one must release the constriction in the head that identifying with the endless stream of thoughts results in.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
You might see this as a cop out to your challenge—and perhaps it is—but I really have no philosophy to sell you. I can only share my observations.
Not a cop-out at all - I appreciate the detail you went into, though I was hopeful to read such a letter because it would clearly run very contrary to my direct experience.

edit on 30-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


For whatever reason the symptom of something called eclat is completely ignored (humor). Words are not useless, and euphumisms are what they are 'personal' (go look over there instead) distractions that have no thing to do with you as an innocent bystander, whether they are artifical constructs to throw you off tract of the original thinker IS THE POINT. You become the deliberator/quantifier, its a form of poetry to identify other members to its train of thought spectrum analysis, Red vs Green Color blindness would call these colors GREY.. Words are magickal things, they have the ability to transform ideas into print and change future past and present. They are the wordbombs that transmute the world, if spoken and written with precise intent can do major damage to out of date thoughtforms. I wonder, rhetoric is as powerful a word tool as the euphumism, the latter deflects the former is a better constructed rote and is totally honest bearing the writer is not color blind.


edit on 30-4-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
The thing is, no one has experienced anything infinite, no one understands why he would call himself indefinable then attempt to define himself, no one understands what it means when he says the depths of his own existence, and if they do, they have made it up in their minds, imagining what they see in their heads, and not seeing any glimpse of what Merton has experienced.

This is seduction, not explanation.


Now that I have had more time to dwell on it, I have actually come around to agreeing with most of your assessment of the Merton quote.

Out of context, the words you quoted communicate very little besides the ethos (if I am using the word correctly) of the new-age-type community to whom he is speaking. It contributes nothing substantive to an understanding of consciousness, reality, self, or God. I can well understand that words such as those would leave the listener/reader dissatisfied if they do not already relate at a personal level to what is being described.

Although I readily accept the existence of metaphysical realities, I do have a scientific bent, and if a teaching or belief system fails to offer tangible methods whereby those claims may be tested, then it leaves me rather disinterested.

In fairness to this Merton gentleman, I am unfamiliar with any of his works and/or teachings, but going simply by that one quote, I have no interest to learn more about them.
edit on 30-4-2013 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2013 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I do not support materialism. It is too incomplete. There are too many holes (I'm certain I've mentioned this elsewhere).
This statement actually surprised me when I initially read it and it still does. I have not read anything by you that does not generally support a materialistic view - especially relative to the materialistic approach(es) to the matter of consciousness.

I read your opening post for "The Paradox of Modern Spirituality" and some other posts on that thread, and though I see some departure from hard-core materialism, it still fundamentally seems materialistic to me - e.g., physicality is the only reality.

If you have written how your views differ from materialism, would you post the link(s) here? If not, would you write something about this here? Or both?

Thank you.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

Materialism


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It is true, “matter” isn’t well enough defined, and therefore materialism, as a philosophical outlook, raises many as-of-yet unanswerable questions—for that, it is suspect—but it is becoming more and more difficult to pretend that there is no physical nature to everything we’ve already discovered and defined.

The Materialist Insult



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
It is true, “matter” isn’t well enough defined, and therefore materialism, as a philosophical outlook, raises many as-of-yet unanswerable questions—for that, it is suspect—but it is becoming more and more difficult to pretend that there is no physical nature to everything we’ve already discovered and defined.
Okay, but essentially you are still saying every thing has a physical basis, and perhaps even concluding this is a correct view of reality, right? Or is this matter still one of great consideration for you - i.e., no firm conclusions have been made about this?

And if you have come to firm conclusions, what are they - if you please?



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Okay, but essentially you are still saying every thing has a physical basis, and perhaps even concluding this is a correct view of reality, right? Or is this matter still one of great consideration for you - i.e., no firm conclusions have been made about this?

And if you have come to firm conclusions, what are they - if you please?


I'm saying things appear to have a physical basis. I cannot find anything that doesn't appear to have a physical basis. Now I don't know what physicality is composed of (no one does) as materialists might claim, but I do accept the apparent world and its physicality for what it appears to me to be.

I believe that anything incorporeal (God) is an abstraction of the corporeal (the universe), and all abstractions a work of language, semantics and human desire.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'm saying things appear to have a physical basis. I cannot find anything that doesn't appear to have a physical basis. Now I don't know what physicality is composed of (no one does) as materialists might claim, but I do accept the apparent world and its physicality for what it appears to me to be.

I believe that anything incorporeal (God) is an abstraction of the corporeal (the universe), and all abstractions a work of language, semantics and human desire.
But does your "method" actually allow you to discover anything beyond corporeality? I can certainly understand your not wanting to be categorized as a materialist, but it still seems to me that your beliefs are simply an extension of the fundamental assumptions of materialism.

The Uncertainty Principle is certainly worth considering here. It is understood that the speed and location of a particle of light cannot be precisely known simultaneously. This is simply one particle of light from one point-of-view that science has discovered cannot even be known.

Why do many materialists (I am not saying you) think that reality can be known through scientific methodology, when it cannot even simultaneously measure the speed and know the location of ONE particle of light?

This inherent paradox cannot be overcome by scientific methodology and discovering what reality actually is in this manner, would have to account for all forms' speed, location, etc., simultaneously from all possible points-of-view. This is not knowable from even one point of view.

So a good descriptor of reality is Unknowable.

The Unknowable - can it be recognized, even fully realized, given we have clearly appeared in Unknowable Reality? This is what must be discovered directly, as it is clearly beyond the methods of scientific-materialism.


edit on 3-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join