Fran : ( 1 ) What is the material object out there, as against the subjective and the imaginary ?
Take, a chair. We say, there, that material object is a chair. But that's a word. Indeed, we mean the construct of wood ( or steel ). Then, someone who has not heard, seen or made use of a chair. He asks : what is that, that chair ? He understands what it is to sit and hence, on being explained, understands the chair - sit combination of meaning of the chair. He may then go further and understand more, of with what and how is the object formed. He understands both in terms of how every element is related to him, as a human being and particular person. So, what indeed is the chair ? We can nevertheless see or perceive it, sit on it, and say this it is. In other words, the material object, its meaning to us, includes much of what we have in our experience. I'll have the opportunity to terminate the thread of thought later in this post. ( 2 ) Incompatibility of certainities we each carry is often due to us being still in the process of discovering the ' elephant.' It is no ground to deduce that " therefore " there is nothing to it all. ( 3 ) Yes, Fran, these are aspects that cannot be treated merely rationally. ( We all may recall Molly's eloquent take on this on several occassions.) Strangely but, you were " opposing " SD's " soul " proposition on entirely rational grounds. My point is not against the opposition per se. It is about offering discussion space to the Soul Proposition ! On Mar 10, 6:20 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam wrote: "Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something > > " out > there." I would leave out the last two words, "out there." There is > certainly something subjectively perceived, and our perception is > central for us, usually founding the basis of our decisions and > actions. But we may subjectively perceive things which do not exist > "out there," (hallucinations, use of mind-altering substances, mental > disturbance, ischaemic brain damage, etc.). Or that which we perceive > may be quite different to that which is actually out there - this is > something which happens to us all the time, at all sorts of different > levels, from mistaking a stranger on the street for a friend, to the > illusions of David Copperfield. One pole of perception is always the > observing, interpreting subject. This can also be a basis for much > faith-based experience/perception. > > I suppose it was on this level that I started to take issue with what > Slip was posting about the "soul." I do not at all doubt that Slip has > had very real perceived experiences which are the basis for the > position he takes. But that is fundamentally anecdotally based > argument and the problem with that is that thousands of people present > various sincerely perceived anecdotes in this area, which are not all > compatable with each other. On the subject of "soul-transmigration" > for example, Catholic mystics report visions of the soul's future > after death in conscious union with God, writers from Eastern > traditions present very different views and perceptions. Christian > thinking presents a prospect of infinity as a state in which the self- > conscious soul (including distinct personality) is in direct union > with God, Buddhist thinking sees Satori as the advanced dissilution of > ego and awareness in Nirvana (I am simplifiying both viewpoints a lot > here). In the end, they're not compatable - and there is seems to be > no critereon for deciding between them beyond personal preference/ > judgement. But these are not issues which can be resolved by rational > examination and discussion. > > Francis > > On 10 Mrz., 09:26, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well said, Vama, especially: > > > <<Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out > > there. > > As what that " something " is, we can all have our respective takes ! > > > On Mar 10, 12:03 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 8:22 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Reasoning from perception to existence ("I feel like I have an extra- > > > > material mind, so I do" or "I have perceived apparitions, so they > > > > exist") simply cannot produce conclusions through an infallible, > > > > logical process. > > > > I suppose you are speaking of yourself, Michael ! When the ice cream > > > means " the whole world " to the child, it means just that ... the > > > whole world. That meaning is real, just as whatever the ice cream may > > > mean to the grown up or the old, the infirm, the scientist, the > > > artist, the playwright, the moralist, the philosopher, the sportsman, > > > the economist, the dietician, etc. So, perceptions are important ; so > > > is knowledge, of all kinds if I may add. If the dietician sees it as > > > calories, he is not wrong ; so is the scientist, who might see it as > > > atoms and electrons. So would be the technocrat, who would see it as a > > > product of an elaborate manufacturing process. > > > > > The > > > > fact that science hasn't infallibly produced truth means we shouldn't > > > > place absolute faith in science; it doesn't mean we should place > > > > absolute faith in what we perceive. > > > > I did not find SD placing absolute faith anywhere, much less demand > > > that others place theirs on what he is saying. He speaks of his > > > experiences and perceptions, physical and mental and intellectual, and > > > suggests his beliefs based on that. We each, of course, are free to > > > make whatever we are inclined to, in accord with our experiences and > > > knowledge and beliefs. I see that as being no reason for " opposing " > > > SD's suggestions by raising dogmas, scientific or logical or not ! > > > > > Arguing that something exists, from the fact that it > > > > is perceived, is simply a non-starter if you're trying to make any > > > > sort of claim about the actual truth of things rather than about the > > > > mere perception of things. > > > > Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out there. > > > As what that " something " is, we can all have our respective takes ! > > > > > On Mar 9, 7:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Simply remove the word "story" because ghosts are not a story. > > > > > Apparitions are real and I would imagine that their visual is > > > > > accomplished by their ability to attract particles in the air, dust > > > > > and whatnot, that create the visible form we see. Of course, this is > > > > > nearly impossible for some people to comprehend, when they have not > > > > > had any experience with apparitions. Most people I talk to about my > > > > > experiences think I'm a crazy. Well the crazy part is true but so are > > > > > the experiences! I wouldn't say I've ever been appreciative of > > > > > having experiences with dead people but the fact that I do remains. I > > > > > don't know what it is or why it is, but I just go along with the > > > > > flow. Not to get too far off track but that matter is that these > > > > > experiences lend themselves to my belief that souls do exist. Why > > > > > some are still floating around this place eludes me. Truth is I don't > > > > > care a smidgen about scientific proof for every aspect of living > > > > > because life is what it is and we can't explain everything from > > > > > something that is literally in its infancy; that is science. > > > > > Science has killed as many people as it has saved, is wrong as many > > > > > times as it is right and changes its colors like a chameleon. The > > > > > world abounds with "fallacies" of science. Thanks but no thanks, I'm > > > > > not some scientific guinea pig! > > > > > > On Mar 9, 10:11 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you > > > > > > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale? > > > > > > > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point > > > > > > > > completely, that > > > > > > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I > > > > > > > > have no > > > > > > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) > > > > > > > > leaves space- > > > > > > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason > > > > > > > > not to > > > > > > > > assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might > > > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > > reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in > > > > > > > > my next > > > > > > > > life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. > > > > > > > > If the soul/spirit is a coherent field of energy, then it must, > > > > > > > somehow, retain coherence. It could only do that given space and > > > > > > > time. That is, there is no 'coherence' outside of time (or > > > > > > > space). > > > > > > > Ghosts, if disincarnate souls, would stand as evidence that > > > > > > > spacetime > > > > > > > is STILL a factor after disincarnation. > > > > > > > > > Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > > > > > > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. > > > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As to theory when it comes to things like > > > > > > > > > reincarnation....theories > > > > > > > > > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > > > > > > > > > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers > > > > > > > > > experiencing > > > > > > > > > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been > > > > > > > > > > > answered by those > > > > > > > > > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > > > > > > > > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population > > > > > > > > > > > keeps growing, > > > > > > > > > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of > > > > > > > > > > > reincarnation > > > > > > > > > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new > > > > > > > > > > > souls must be > > > > > > > > > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls > > > > > > > > > > > exist, of > > > > > > > > > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls > > > > > > > > > > > reincarnate? Is > > > > > > > > > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm guessing > > > > > > > > > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually > > > > > > > > > > > die each > > > > > > > > > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? > > > > > > > > > > > Is there some > > > > > > > > > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, > > > > > > > > > > > 200 million > > > > > > > > > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, > > > > > > > > > > > non-reincarnated > > > > > > > > > > > souls are generated each year? > > > > > > > > > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it > > > > > > > > > > > decided whether > > > > > > > > > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely > > > > > > > > > > > new soul? > > > > > > > > > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of > > > > > > > > > > > people dying > > > > > > > > > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not > > > > > > > > > > > every new birth > > > > > > > > > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation > > > > > > > > > > > theory think > > > > > > > > > > > about this? > > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, whose theory? There > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
