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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You know 'you are' right now so look directly at whatever it is that knows you are.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Now the reason I cannot be convinced of the existence of something called consciousness is because I have never been privy to it.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.