Excellent post. I had never heard the baldness analogy but it will become a part of my future raps off the board.
I am not sure that this: " These are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being." has meaning for me. I guess I am not convinced that we could subjectively distinguish some expanded mental state from being able to actually experience Reality (I am using this as another term for unbounded being) this way. And I'm not even sure that Reality or unbounded being really has much value for us outside our filters that turn it into something we can comprehend. It has a bit of an acid trip feel to it where the only comment you can make is "Wow". I am kind of over seeking that out, ineffable experiences seem overrated to me somehow. I guess I am more interested in how these states can be used for creative expression. Is there a case for that? Thanks for joining the rap with this level of firepower! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > As to the various flavours of those who believe in various interpretations of > reality, I recall reading a comment on atheism somewhere that those who > believe atheism is like a religious belief are looking at the situation in > the same way a person imagines that baldness is a hair color. There do seem > to be those like this. > > A general indifference to the idea that there is some kind of god is > sufficient, or the hypothesis that the various imaginings of the nature of a > god that are in the marketplace seem highly untenable is sufficient. > > The only reason for the idea of an ultimate 'doer' is to support the concept > of causality. A universe that is constructed entirely of being has no need of > causality, or creation. It is just there. Like a tautology in logic is true, > but conveys no information about anything; it is in your face and that is > that. Within that being there are beginnings and endings, since to apprehend > the universe as composed of distinct entities there has to be sense of > differences. > > But when we try to extend that concept to the totality, we create an endless > regress. Intellectually we are trying to impose the characteristics of > limitation on unboundedness. We conceptually put infinity into a bounded > intellectual space, and then imagine another infinity to produce the first > one. Then we can always ask, who or what made the second infinity? > > This whole deal with 'enlightnment' is concerned with this question of > causality. The 'path' is constructed to run all your ideas about reality into > the dust, even though, if corrupted, or you are a total loser, the path may > ensnare you in a new set of ideas. When your imaginings about life finally > run down to zero, or perhaps thinned out enough, you wake up. You have to > give up theism, you have to give up atheism as an idea about reality. These > are hypothetical constructs the mind/brain maps onto unbounded being. > > Once you see on a gut level they are all hypothetical, that all thinking is > hypothetical when it applies to understanding the world, you are free, though > that freedom is not of the character of what you previously imagined. > > May Zeus bless you with his non-existence so that you may find what yours > really is. >
