>Do you really think that there is a knower and something to be known? Depends on which school you currently are in. For me, I currently embrace the philosophy of Samkhya (lit., enumeration, analysis), according to which, yes, there is a knower and the known.
But it is important to understand that although I currently am in Samkhya, I aim to embrace Advaita Vedanta eventually. However, owing to my complete lack of spiritual practice and experience, I embrace what fits my personal viewpoint the most, which, in turn, changes my personal viewpoint. My current affliation with the Samkhya school is in no way permanent, nor is it accepted by me according to the best of my knowledge. Akshay On 29/01/2008, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Greetings Akshay, > > Do you really think that there is a knower and something to be known? > > Marsha > > > > At 12:09 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote: > >1. On your criticism to my idea of defining God: you see, if God is left > >undefined, then how will we even know when we have found God? It simply > is a > >philosophical dead-end then, to search for something, when that > >something happens to be an experience we have no clue of. Even though we > >have not yet perceived God, we can still *anticipate/expect *some > experience > >that we might, depending on our idea of God, possibly experience in the > >future. You can think of God as the grey-bearded old man with a lot > >of advice and kindness, you can think of God as the ultimate unificatory > >quantum equation of the universe, you can think of God in many ways. If > you > >have some expectation in mind, only then will you know if you have found > God > >or not. > > > > >How is this obvious? Do atheists acknowledge the > > >existence of that which they cannot see? Do they accept the existence > of a > > >divinity as a logical principle? > > > >Atheists have to acknowledge a higher power. If there is no entity > governing > >them, then do they imply that they have all the power in the world? If > there > >are any limits to your powers, then obviously there is a higher power > >(unless you yourself chose to have lesser power, in which case you should > be > >able to gain back the power to be able to not believe in a higher power). > >Atheists primarily don't believe in a personal God. I have known atheists > >who believe in a God (as in, a higher power) but they deny that he should > be > >something you pray to and get rewards from. This is why I have stuck to > my > >idea of first having a clear idea of what to expect when we're trying to > >find God. As the famous song goes, if you don't know where you're going, > any > >road will take you there. > > > > >Do you refute the fact that what > > >you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this > universe" -- > > >has some consequence > > >for man? > > > >Maybe it does have some consequence. That is simply what I meant by my > >second statement. Let's see now... we know there is a higher power. Now, > let > >us see if this higher power cares about us enough and actually answers > our > >wishes. The question "does God exist?" is of low importance because it's > >very simple, it's a mere yes or no question. > > > >I do understand my mistake there. I made it sound as if all the stuff > about > >God was simply meaningless, which was not what I intended at all. You > see, > >depending on your idea of God, the question can be answered. Now, the > case > >is entirely different when all you know about God is "highest power" and > >you're investigating its characteristics. This scenario was completely > >outside the domains of the two statements I made. What I commented was > only > >on whether the entity (highest power) exists, not on the features of this > >entity, which is of course a lifelong pursuit of truth. > > > >Akshay > > > > > > > >On 29/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Akshay -- > > > > > > > > > The reason I responded to your 1/20 post is that one so logical and > > > articulate in his analysis of other matters could toss off the > existence > > > of > > > God as an irrelevant issue. It seems to me that there is no single > belief > > > in the annals of philosophy that is more paramount to man's > understanding > > > of > > > meaning and purpose in existence. > > > > > > Your assertion that "We only have to define God and then find out if > such > > > an > > > entity exists," is ludicrous for several reasons. First of all, a > > > definition is a statement designed to express the meaning of a word or > > > term > > > in common usage. To define something that is unknown and not > experienced, > > > let alone believed in, is a fabrication out of whole cloth. One might > as > > > well define the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. > > > > > > So the logical process of definition begins with naming what we know > or > > > experience, then narrowing down that name to express its essence or > > > nature. > > > Since, unless we've had a mystical experience, we don't know God as an > > > entity, and are therefore unable to define it. But the fact that God > is > > > not > > > accessible to man does not mean that God doesn't exist. > > > > > > You now say: > > > > [I]t is very obvious that there is a highest power > > > > governing this universe, who is to the universe what a > > > > dreamer is to the dream. I believe that atheists only > > > > nominally abandon. > > > > > > You see, that's my point. How is this obvious? Do atheists > acknowledge > > > the > > > existence of that which they cannot see? Do they accept the existence > of > > > a > > > divinity as a logical principle? Some may, but I don't think the > majority > > > do, or they wouldn't call themselves atheists. I don't think the > MOQists > > > here understand DQ as "a power governing the universe". In fact, I > don't > > > define God as a either a governing power or an existent. What > "exists" is > > > what appears to conscious experience in time and space, what has > > > "universal > > > reality". My idea of a primary source does not have such a > description. > > > > > > [Akshay]: > > > > I do not deny that they seem ludicrous, however, if you > > > > really attempt to ponder over the question, "does God exist?", > > > > at some point you have to define the word "God". > > > > > > I agree. And that's of critical importance to any philosophy. > > > > > > > Whether such an entity exists or not does not truly make a > > > > difference to us (coupled with the agnostic opinion), unless > > > > of course it is an entity that answers all our wishes provided > > > > we pray to him enough. > > > > > > If we cannot be certain that such an entity exists, how certain can we > be > > > that it doesn't make a difference to us? Do you refute the fact that > what > > > you've defined as "obvious" -- "a highest power governing this > universe" > > > -- > > > has some consequence > > > for man? On what basis do you say that it doesn't make a difference > to > > > us? > > > Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that your believe in a > primary > > > source that creates and supports the universe makes you "different" > from > > > someone who does not share your belief? > > > > > > > You could add many more layers of power and end up > > > > with an uninteresting hierarchy, what difference would it > > > > make about the question of existence of a higher power? > > > > This is what I meant by my first statement. > > > > > > Frankly, I think Mr. Pirsig has done precisely what you describe. His > > > philosophy adds layers of patterns to an arbitrarily-defined > four-level > > > hierarchy that makes the existence of a higher power uninteresting and > > > inconsequential. It offers no cosmic role for human beings, suggests > no > > > entelechy or purpose for individual consciousness, and even relegates > > > morality to an evolving universe rather than to man himself. > > > > > > Someone here quoted the philosopher-historian Joseph Margolis as > musing > > > that > > > if "...we use "exist" and "existence" of things which offer brute > > > resistance, while keeping 'the real' or 'reality' for numbers, and > such > > > entities which lack corporeal substance, we may escape many a > > > philosophical > > > headache." If God is a primary reality, like the number '1' or '0', > it > > > does > > > not exist; it simply IS. As one who believes in Essence as the > primary > > > source, I suggest that this concept is worth looking into. > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying your points, Akshay. I hope I've clarified my > > > criticisms, as well. > > > Regards, > > > Ham > > > > > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > Archives: > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list > >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >Archives: > >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > ************* > DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing > collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, > social and intellectual, static patterns of value. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
