Moderator: Carleas
Jayson wrote:I never believed in an entity figure deity.
I was raised Christian, so the ideology of what I felt was early on expressed in my comprehension as "God", but this concept was extremely vague and only really served to be a label of what I felt in spiritual emotion.
Jayson wrote:What I felt was the concept of breathing, but as an emotion. A lesser version of catching your breath, or sighing. The sensation your body has during these moments.
I still do feel this way.
Jayson wrote:The difference is that I no longer have a lacking for what this is as a name and therefore do not shuffle it off to an abyss named "God".
Jayson wrote:That mystery has no more mystery to it and therefore is no longer named "God".
Abstract wrote:Part of the problem i often see is that people have an idea for what God is that may not be accurate, and then say that they don't believe in God.
In other words different definitions.
What do you think the word God means?
You say you didn't believe in an "entity figure deity". What do you mean by deity? I would think God is not exactly a figure, but then what do you mean by figure? As for an entity, i would think entity basically means a "thing" typically associated with intelligence. I would think that God is a thing, but intelligence may not be applicable, for if one is to say he is All-knowing (for example) then in being all knowing he would know what he would have thought ahead of time, as such he wouldn't actually exactly be a 'thinking" thing, perhaps a knowing thing but not so much one that thinks at least not in so far as we do, or would think of thinking, for thinking requires considering, altering state of mind, and such and it would seem that an all knowing thing wouldn't process as such, or really process at all...It might rather purely act...
Are you certain that feeling wasn't merely a result of your subconscious, or even to some degree your conscious, trying to find some thing to relate to and justify the existence of God, fr which you had no clear to-you-understandable idea of?
what is the name? or thing...
And as for the other thing, i would say that God is more likely to seem like an abyss to those who don't have any clear to-them-understandable idea as to what God might be.
Such seems like saying you thought God was a non-thing (non-existent) and thus associating/attributing things to him seemed illogical.
But that's odd in that in such a case you would be assuming that God was not existent in order to arrive at the conclusion that God was not...?
Maybe part of the problem here is thinking that God is mysterious.
Say as I suggested that God is The everything, or as the bible and Qur'an say God is ever-present. One would be unlikely to see that God exists if God was and had always been there to begin with. Like one's own smell they don't smell it because they are used to it. it is only when there is a change or abnormal alteration, say one works out and gets sweaty, that they then recognize that their body can even have a smell.
Jayson wrote:I think it means something different to many cultures.
I have found no single definition and to me it means nothing.
And if I have the wrong definition, none, then what definition do you offer me for God?
Jayson wrote:Pantheism then is your form.
Jayson wrote:Universe and God are one.
Jayson wrote:Supreme Sentient Master Being is one term that I commonly use to identify the concept the standard Sunday Pew goer considers "God".
Here, I took a short cut and said "entity figure deity".
Jayson wrote:what is the name? or thing...
Existential reverence.
Jayson wrote:No. I don't think that way.
I think in intuitive modes when dealing with spirituality; not critical modes.
Jayson wrote:I let myself feel and try to identify what it is that I feel.
Jayson wrote:The only thing I was getting was existential reverence and early on I had no idea what the hell that was so I classed that as God.
Eventually I figured out that what I felt wasn't a separate thing like a god of any kind, but a sense of existential reverence connecting me conceptually to all that is and it to me.
Jayson wrote:You may say that's a god.
I do not.
Jayson wrote:Maybe part of the problem here is thinking that God is mysterious.
I don't see any problem.
Jayson wrote:Abstract wrote:Say as I suggested that God is The everything, or as the bible and Qur'an say God is ever-present. One would be unlikely to see that God exists if God was and had always been there to begin with. Like one's own smell they don't smell it because they are used to it. it is only when there is a change or abnormal alteration, say one works out and gets sweaty, that they then recognize that their body can even have a smell.
Again though, that's Pantheism.
All is God, God is All.
And if he doesn't know all then he couldn't be a good judge, or best judge of anything.
i am trying to ask what particular things do you think are surely not possible and why, so that I might then concur or express how your logic as to why they aren't possible might be otherwise
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary...
Plus it would seem to me that if God is the All or otherwise, that he would be Good by definition simply because anything he did would be Good, or the best, as he could make that the case... and why wouldn't he? and if it is Good for The All, it would seem to be good for all, and anything he did would be good for himself, or so it would seem.
Plus the fact that Good exists in our world seems as if evidence that God is good. For if God was evil there would be no need for God to have made Good exist...
I'm not sure what your personal definition of that is but i would take it that the idea is that you make your own meaning in life, in other words meaning is subjective?
It would seem that we recognize ourselves as defined purely by our body and mind, and for some soul.
But I would say we are a product of our environment.
Without sensory input from when we were children we would not be able to do anything, without a world to function in we would not be able to do anything, without other people we would not be able to enjoy socializing. As such it would seem your environment, as in all things that are things outside of your self, is in constant effect on you and thus has made you what you are, and continues to, but you also have an effect on your environment, and naturally that effect can return upon you (i.e. if you used up all the nonrenewable resources you would have a harder time producing electricity)
Why do you think that intuition is say better than logic?
It might be a problem in so far as that is not an actual denial of the existence. just an assertion that it is hard to understand or something...
Rather than considering the thought, it seems that what you did there is you defined it with a word that it would seem you already dismiss. (But that may be a big assumption on my part) With regards to the If condition I would think the idea wasn't particularly lacking in logic... And I'm not sure that is Pantheism as it is more about presence then actual being of the things or All.
Jayson wrote:And if he doesn't know all then he couldn't be a good judge, or best judge of anything.
Why do I need there to be a judge of existence?
Jayson wrote:See, while the first part of that sentence is what many would focus on; honestly, I find it more to the point to focus on the second.
Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.
Jayson wrote:Sucks living in Afghanistan, but...well...there you have it; people do.
Jayson wrote:I'm not sure what your personal definition of that is but i would take it that the idea is that you make your own meaning in life, in other words meaning is subjective?
No.
Existential
2. grounded in existence or the experience of existence
Specifically; the latter of that, "experience of existence", which defines existentialism.
Reverence
1. blah, blah : especially : profound adoring awed respect
Profound adoring awed respect (and gratitude) for this experience of existing as a human being.
It is the conceptual sense of connection for myself to all that is not me.
Jayson wrote:I hold four principle relationships of being human.
You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing
Jayson wrote:Why do you think that intuition is say better than logic?
I don't.
I didn't say that I don't use any logic.
Jayson wrote:I was stating that I pay attention to my emotions first as that is where sense begins in regards to spirituality.
Jayson wrote:If I want to know what I am touching, the first thing I pay attention to is my skin as it is the sense for touch.
I then apply reason after the fact.
Jayson wrote:With spirituality, I start at what I feel and meditate on the emotion without name.
Just the physical sense of it.
I let that expand and rest.
After that has been seated well in my body and my body has had time to experience that emotion at length; I then begin meditating upon what my body has felt by sifting through conceptual labels; as one does tasting (salty, no, zesty, yes, spicy, yes, hot, no, peppery, yes, sweet, somewhat, etc....) until you put your finger on what it is.
Doing so is easy once you hit the mark because once you utter the right reference for yourself, your body leaps as easily as it does when you figure out what that taste was.
Jayson wrote:Also, the emotions that I am speaking of are about two layers below an emotion like Anger.
They are below intuition.
It is where such emotions rest as existential depression or gratitude rests.
What drives general disposition in emotion.
Jayson wrote:(since neurology has verified the functional use and real existence of intuition as an important and highly accurate source of decision making regarding implicit input of the senses to the cognitive level; basically, if you don't overtly pay attention to it, then you lack a label and your implicit memory recorded it. Intuition is the part of your brain and central nervous system that processes those implicit recalls and transfers them into simplified impulse decisions to the cognitive neurology.)
Jayson wrote:I only offered the word to let you know that the idea of an all is god, god is all is an established theology.
I am a bit interested in what you think regarding my particular idea about how The Everything thinks evidently due to its complexity...Regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.
Why/How not?
I hold four principle relationships of being human.
You and yourself
You and others
You and inanimate objects
You and existing
I might amalgamate all those.
I didn't mean to suggest that you didn't use logic at all but that you seem to be saying that your feelings are better
but the feelings seem to be more easily altered by outside forces, than logic itself.
I wouldn't say spirituality is purely a part of the emotions. What you said seems to indicate that emotions are somehow directly related to the spiritual, but I would say they are more like a function of the body and the subconscious, such that listening to them might be like unto listening to aspects of the self that are largely influenced by habits, some good some bad, or influenced by the conditions you have grown up in, which when listened to could be listening to irrational things...But I would concur that they do connect with the spiritual. but I think that all things may in someway. But then I do wonder if there is some order of connection...IDK
why associate touch specifically with the part of your self which seems external due to the fact that light bounces off of it?
I do this too, but I also try to take into consideration what exterior things (events, people, places, etc...) might have caused that feeling. Then it becomes quite interesting when you have a feeling that doesn't seem to have any correlation with any exterior thing. Or even a thought or word that pops into your head without any seeming cause, when you can't even see how your subconscious would have produced such...though that is harder to be sure of, for words would seem to be more closely related to the subconscious, and thus possibly more susceptible to external influences..maybe... Another thing i find odd is when I find myself using a word that I have no idea what it means, and then I look it up and find that it is Ridiculously perfect, even poetic. but then I'm careful not to take too much meaning out of all of that as it is easy to misinterpret things like that, because just because you don't recognize the influence doesn't mean there isn't an influence and doesn't mean the influence is a good one. it is best to tell the tree by its fruit. Consider it, give it time, and if it seems to be good then it might be fair to trust...
I don't know that one can assert a definite level that these things may exist on relative to each other... I mean how would you know that these feelings you are listening to are not at the same point as say any negative feeling?
How did neurology show this?
And How do you know when a feeling is an intuition?
conspiracy-ish I know
Mine might be different in thinking that I might say, "All things as a whole is God, and God is all things as a whole." so as not to imply that God is say any part within....IDK
Jayson wrote:
That's really just a conjecture of entertaining thought; a fancy.
Jayson wrote:Even if someone proves how that could be logical in an extremely exhausting, and most likely theoretical, manner, the point would still remain that the affirming conclusion would not actively change anything on the ground level.
Why/How not?
Because..."there's going to be no difference to how things are ticking in life on this Earth as if they do exist then obviously whichever way they bend is already in play "
Same reasoning. My understanding of some large complex network of super-massive-universe-being, the universal turtle in which we ride the back of, makes no difference to what is here right now.
I'm drinking coffee and chatting on the computer. My daughters are building with constructs and watching their morning edition of Wiggles.
My wife is sleeping in to catch up on rest. The weather outside is slightly overcast. It's Saturday. Poorly made kimchi still tastes like shit. I still have duplicates of the same negative report on my credit to battle off. And I still taste the morning air in my lungs with wetting salivation of loving the briskness.
Nothing changes.
It would be more effective if Santa Clause were real than if the universal being were real.
Jayson wrote:It just takes longer for you to catch up to the names of what you spiritually sync with.
Jayson wrote:No; it is not exclusively emotions, nor are these emotions the caliber in which we think of emotions such as sadness, anger, love, or the like.
They are the undercurrent of emotion akin to the undercurrent of a wave. Standard emotions are more like the white caps cresting on the top of the wave.
Of course there are irrational concepts at this level; almost everything there is irrational - literally.
The only way you can state them to be rational at all is by stating that they have a circuit which has a logic unto itself for function.
Aside from this, by common terms of rational and irrational, they are irrational.
This is why meditation is required; to pull them up to cognition where reasoning can be applied.
Jayson wrote:Let me put it another way.
You have instinct to move in reflex. It is irrational.
You can learn how to evoke this reflex, meditate upon them in practice, and then control the function to a degree whereby reflex has now been altered by training that you decided through reason.
Thereby, instead of simply reflexively moving without controlled form; you can now reflexively react with greater precision to the event practiced.
Jayson wrote:Similarly, you can reshape your spiritual emotions.
Jayson wrote:In the example I gave, simply because if I am discussing heat, then the first to encounter that will be the skin.
We are not Vulcans. The first thing that picks up will not be logic. The first thing that will pick up is our implicit responses.
Jayson wrote:As to the definite layering; I can't.
I can only state that spiritual emotions that I am referring to are below intuition on a layering of cognition.
And I can only state that because of what intuition is: an implicit processor.
Long term implicit emotions are one of the things that would be processed by the implicit processor and served over to the explicit processor in translation of simple impulses.
Jayson wrote:They ran experiments in which people were told to pay attention to material information directly and later recall answers regarding that material.
Then ran experiments in which people were told to play a game while material information was shown indirectly behind their point of focus (the game) and later asked to recall answers regarding that material.
The second test results were equal to, and in some cases (not by a large margin) higher than, the results of the first test.
Jayson wrote:This is one way it was shown.
The other is still running in an active lab pretty regularly in which they can predict what your answer will be by monitoring where your brain is shuffling energy around. Every time your brain transfers energy to the wrong sections of the brain for the type of problem at hand; they can tell you are going to get the answer wrong before you even start your answer.
Jayson wrote:In cases of intuitive answering, implicit recall, the answers fair as founded as explicit recall and again, in some conditions it is superior than explicit recall.
It doesn't mean intuition is the way to go; it means that at some functions, intuition is the better tool. Ergo, why we have it in the first place.
i find all ideas to be merely conjectures...
But I at least think all things exist in so far as they have an affect, and understanding what does exist most often lends to other understandings, yet ultimately we often function the same while believing or thinking of things in a different way, and as such it may not be so important how one understands as that one understands enough to lend to that which is most important to lend to.
...
such that in recognition of such i find a form of logical progression that seems suited to functioning the best, at least for myself.
It is an interesting matter to attempt to think without the use of names or words, and then even images...
as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic...
Makes sense mostly, although actually controlling the reflex seems contradictory, but I think I see what you mean if i look past the "names" or words:
By practicing the reflex one is controlling the effectiveness and quickness of it?
Interesting thought, but how would such be good?
Almost sounds dangerous.
Do you mean alter the way the spiritual impacts you to elicit emotions, or alter the way your emotions react to the spiritual, or what...I don't know I grok this?
The skin may be the first part of the self to encounter the heat so long as one considers the self as within the aspect which is defined by what we see is our boundary.
After other discussions I've had, I think the idea of really being able to arrive at a definite layering of any aspect of the things mental is not really possible anyways.
But the study would seem to suggest that having commercials in the back ground on tv, or at the side of a web page, might be quite functional at what some might then call "subliminal" coercion.
Might I quote you i might use this in other arguments, and do you know of a reference to this, like a Wikipedia article or something?
I would like to be tested by that, might you know how I could arrange such? Or have any idea how i might find the place doing that and/or contact them.
I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.
Jayson wrote:OK, the most important thing for me to lend to is not discerning gods in an actuality thesis.
Jayson wrote:as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic...
We actually don't have a choice. Our prefrontal cortex necessitates this behavior.
Jayson wrote:Take the block in fighting.
By training a block many times, you can effectively ingrain your reflex to an attack to a degree range of the ideal block motion.
The same thing is true with psychology, and in so being true with psychology, true in neurology and that also means in spirituality.
Which we already know.
Cults use this feature to subversive measures.
Many religious practices use it for goals towards some concept of raising such as enlightenment or righteousness.
Jayson wrote:9 levels of hell, and there order; I am not outlining.
Jayson wrote:Sure,
Contact Dr. John-Dylan Haynes
Read up on it in this PDF.
http://www.socialbehavior.uzh.ch/teachi ... 08_ext.pdf
Jayson wrote:I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.
Not at all.
Intuition is actually best used with things foreign.
It is best used in things known, but poorly recalled by explicit memory.
Intuition is essentially implicit memory, and works by motive through simple sensory impulse in a near binary manner of either/or as its relay to the active and aware cognition.
what do you mean by "actuality thesis"?
and then the next fighter learns to be loose of habit and respond in accordance to attack, opened to new methods of response by the self and the other.
According to Dante right?
Thanx
But then I recognize the power of the non-conscious/non-higher-awareness to interpolate amazing things based on connections it makes.
Jayson wrote:Determining the classification of a thing's actual relationship with existing.
Jayson wrote:I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.
Abstract wrote:Jayson wrote:Determining the classification of a thing's actual relationship with existing.
So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on anything.
So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on you.
I would think that in order to exist a thing must have some impact.
For example if it did exist and as a result others believed in it that would have an impact...
Jayson wrote:I refer to this currently as the way of the reacting spirit, and it strives to outline exactly how to purposefully accomplish this.
Each being varies as to what may progress them, few if any processes are suited for all.
Jayson wrote:So it would seem implied that you simply don't believe that if God existed that it would have any impact on you.
Yes.
Jayson wrote:And if by some far stretched chance my disbelief or belief does matter on such a grand scale for their account of existence, then my state of disbelief is already accounted for in the system as it stands and poises with no direct need of change.
Jayson wrote: variance on that statistical effect and impact that is already present.
Jayson wrote:I'm not delusional.
I don't expect anything I do to fit everyone.
Hell, I don't want it to.
All it will be attempting to do is reduce the rigidity of form so that the modules are more adaptable to each person as they want them for their body and mind's fitting, if they so want to use a given module.
i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to the whole
What does end mean, to you?
And what have you witnessed ending?
Jayson wrote:What does end mean, to you?
A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.And what have you witnessed ending?
It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven't witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.
I don't know, however, what you specifically mean by the word "end".
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.
Abstract wrote:i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?
"A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually."
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?
Jayson wrote:Abstract wrote:i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?
Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing ."A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually."
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?
That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.
Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.
Jayson wrote:Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.
No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don't say that my hand still exists.
So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users