As to describing the One…some attempt to do so. I find that besides attributes, the following negative theology view is as good as one can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology On Nov 26, 1:43 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > No, Allan, truths are that which have existed, exist and will exist. > We are aware of some and we are not aware of many. Truths appear and > disappear. > > The Truth of all these truths, collectively and severally, is the > Supreme Truth. It is what I refer to as One. All truths lose their > identity ( as we know ) in One. > > I, as one truth among the countless all, can say nothing of the One. > I, merged with the One, do not exist. > > All our terms pertain to the truths. There is no term to describe the > One. Perhaps, the One is describing itself through this manifest > universe ! > > On Nov 26, 12:19 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > " ... ancient methods of fully understanding a complete thought." > > > > One of which as defined in Patanjal Yoga : > > > > Savitarka Samadhi | > > > | > > > Nirvitarka Samadhi | pertaining to gross material objects > > > > Savichar Samadhi | > > > | > > > Nirvichar Samadhi | pertaining to subtle mental ( subjective ) > > > objects > > > Just what is this Supreme truth of truths > > > > and, Kaivalya Samadhi >>> the Supreme Truth of truths. > > > that is a very simple question that the answers seems to get lost > > or is it just a buss word? > > Allan > > > > On Nov 26, 8:26 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes Neil, it is common to not have enough ‘facts’ to make wise > > > > decisions. In fact, some people do consciously withhold, some lie, > > > > some are ignorant, some obtuse…and this is just with themselves! Of > > > > course there are those who suggest one can never have enough in the > > > > way of facts to make a good decision. I don’t agree. And, there are > > > > ancient methods of fully understanding a complete thought. > > > > > On Nov 25, 5:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Spent the evening updating my new (old) computer. It can be difficult > > > > > enough learning this kind of stuff, let alone fangle qualia arguments > > > > > or unravel the balance sheet at the Bank of England to discover how > > > > > much they were really lending to our wonder bankers. It's clear on > > > > > this last one that institutional insiders knew the BoE was lending > > > > > much more to banks than it was letting on in public and the laymen on > > > > > the public accounts committee in Parliament were so lay they didn't > > > > > know despite their claims to 'expertise'. Much of what troubles me > > > > > about subjective decision-making is that it is routine to hide facts > > > > > we need to make sensible decisions. How might we include this fact in > > > > > a broad sense in our personal development? > > > > > > On 25 Nov, 23:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The truth of theories is generally accepted as less reliable than > > > > > > evidence in epistemic risk. Theories are under-determined by > > > > > > evidence. Sagan may have put this in a simple manner. > > > > > > I wonder, Bill and all, how we deal with the esoteric. It can be a > > > > > > pettyfogging backwater for years and then produce something > > > > > > insightive. Much of the time it is a distraction from simpler > > > > > > truths > > > > > > we need to get into our practices, or becomes fodder for the > > > > > > swanker. > > > > > > It gets in the way, too often, of our personal views, expressions of > > > > > > what we are as people. I've had a framework in mind for some time > > > > > > that allows us some protection from gullibility and being gulled. > > > > > > As > > > > > > you say Orn, there are people who can't even read, let alone classes > > > > > > of recalcitrant undergraduates in our silver spoon societies. > > > > > > Eduication has caused a lot of damage, not least in telling so many > > > > > > their ideas aren't worth spit. I believe (mostly) we should tell > > > > > > others that their idea is a cow if we think it is - but what oif the > > > > > > questions about how to do such? I can write academic papers in an > > > > > > afternoon, but generally don't because they say nothing (as you > > > > > > rightly guessed of that one on PTSD). Yet we can spark a few ideas > > > > > > and see people change and do different things. This latter has been > > > > > > lost under the mounds of paper that academics make their livings > > > > > > sleeping on. > > > > > > > On 25 Nov, 19:07, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > In a different group, I did some research about a popular atheist, > > > > > > > Carl Sagan. In closing I added the following. > > > > > > > > “Do the ideas we believe about the world truly correspond well > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > and reliably represent the world we actually inhabit? > > > > > > > > The late Carl Sagan–in an interview with questioners in an > > > > > > > audience > > > > > > > asking about seeing truth–suggested that "A simple question: How > > > can > > > > > > > we recognize the truth? It is, of course, difficult. But there are > > > a > > > > > > > few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It > > > > > > > should not contradict itself; that is there are some logical > > > > > > > criteria. > > > > > > > It ought to be consistent with what else we know." > > > > > > > > "We know a great many things–a tiny fraction to be sure, of the > > > > > > > universe, a pitifully tiny fraction. But nevertheless some things > > > we > > > > > > > know with quite high reliability." > > > > > > > > The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we should > > > > > > > be. > > > > > > > It involves a kind of courageous self-discipline. > > > > > > > > I think those three principles at least will winnow out a fair > > > amount > > > > > > > of chaff. It doesn't guarantee that what remains will be true, but > > > at > > > > > > > least it will significantly diminish the field of discourse." > > > > > > > > In response to a physicists prompt Sagan said: "So do I," > > > > > > > referring > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the questioner's point: "I don't believe as a physicist that > > > physics > > > > > > > deals with the truth. I believe that it deals with successive > > > > > > > approximations of the truth."” > > > > > > > - Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, ed. Ann > > > > > > > Druyan, > > > > > > > New York: Penguin Press, 2006, pp. 229-230, 239. > > > > > > > >http://web.rollins.edu/~jsiry/PHYSIS.HTML<http://web.rollins.edu/%7Ejsiry/PHYSIS.HTML> > > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 10:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > These philosophical issues are deeply misunderstood, not least > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > practitioners of them. When we unpick rationalities we usually > > > > > > > > discover them to be less rational than we had hoped or thought. > > > This > > > > > > > > is an unlikely place for 'answers' as you rightly point out Orn. > > > On > > > > > > > > the notion of even 'smelling' differently from someone else (not > > > as a > > > > > > > > result of body odour) DJ, the point is merely that this could be > > > the > > > > > > > > case in argument such as that around qualia. On Levine, one can > > > > > > > > easily point to recent attempts to create life at Harvard in > > > which > > > > > > > > fatty-acids form 'cell-membranes' on contact with water - there > > > is a > > > > > > > > complex chemo-mathematical explanation of this, yet it falls > > > short of > > > > > > > > all kinds of other questions we can raise. Science does tend to > > > > > > > > support that perception depends on the receiver, that it is > > > > > > > > 'computational'. Other thought experiments include how a > > > > > > > > Martian > > > with > > > > > > > > no notion of empathy and so on could understand a memorial > > > service. > > > > > > > > > My eventual view is that we are broadly incapable of rational > > > action > > > > > > > > because we can't recognise the extent to which we are driven and > > > > > > > > individuated - in short are kept several shillings short of the > > > full > > > > > > > > quid by basic issues in competition rather than solidarity. > > > There is > > > > > > > > a paradox - I loathe individualism yet yearn to be free as one. > > > I > > > > > > > > would restrict life in terms of population control, in order > > > > > > > > that > > > life > > > > > > > > could be worthwhile. I believe we could establish an acceptable > > > > > > > > rationality by taking account of big and brutal facts, but in > > > > > > > > the > > > end > > > > > > > > people have to grok this. I wonder what the average person > > > > > > > > experiences of revealing self in company? > > > > > > > > > On 25 Nov, 09:57, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > At the risk of appearing extremely naïve and ignorant, I > > > question what > > > > > > > > > I can only guess is the prevailing view of the ‘hard problem > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > consciousness’. As I dog paddle, no, merely wade in the > > > shallows of > > > > > > > > > the ocean of western qualia, ….I stumble across Joseph Levine: > > > “…our > > > > > > > > > knowledge of chemistry and physics makes intelligible how it > > > > > > > > > is > > > that > > > > > > > > > something like the motion of molecules could play the causal > > > role we > > > > > > > > > associate with heat…. Once we understand how this causal role > > > is > > > > > > > > > carried out there is nothing more we need to understand.” > > > (Levine > > > > > > > > > 1983) To this I reply balderdash! > > > > > > > > > > A quick look at Popper finds his formula: > > > > > > > > > PS1-->TT1-->EE1-->PS2 > > > > > > > > > > Here he assumes that PS2 in fact is ‘more applicable’ than PS1 > > > > > > > > > apparently by fiat. Further, even his own notion > > > > > > > > > (requirement?) > > > of > > > > > > > > > falsifiability does not seem to apply! At least he does soften > > > the > > > > > > > > > more fanatical views of materialists. > > ... > > 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.
