It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
The only time I find people cannot know themselves is when they over complicate the situation. ‘You ain’t that complicated’. ‘You’ meaning anybody of course. Everybody looks for the lofty when your actually sitting on the ground floor.
All that is really double speak though. You can’t even prove your own existence. You may not be here, really.[/quote]
But you don’t know, pat. You assume you are real, and even believe you exist independently of your body. You assume this without investigation, as a given.
I’m merely saying that you need to go a step further.
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
The only time I find people cannot know themselves is when they over complicate the situation. ‘You ain’t that complicated’. ‘You’ meaning anybody of course. Everybody looks for the lofty when your actually sitting on the ground floor.
All that is really double speak though. You can’t even prove your own existence. You may not be here, really.[/quote]
But you don’t know, pat. You assume you are real, and even believe you exist independently of your body. You assume this without investigation, as a given.
[/quote]
I don’t know what?
And yes, there is a metaphysical component to our existence, just like any other physical object. You thinking I assumed this as a given, was an assumption on your part. There is not a lot I will take as a given. These are topics I have given quite a lot of study to.
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
The only time I find people cannot know themselves is when they over complicate the situation. ‘You ain’t that complicated’. ‘You’ meaning anybody of course. Everybody looks for the lofty when your actually sitting on the ground floor.
All that is really double speak though. You can’t even prove your own existence. You may not be here, really.[/quote]
But you don’t know, pat. You assume you are real, and even believe you exist independently of your body. You assume this without investigation, as a given.
[/quote]
I don’t know what?
And yes, there is a metaphysical component to our existence, just like any other physical object. You thinking I assumed this as a given, was an assumption on your part. There is not a lot I will take as a given. These are topics I have given quite a lot of study to.
Further than?
[/quote]
Do you believe you are [a part of you is] an eternal soul that lives on after death?
It’s not about knowing or finding anything. It’s about knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t and knowing the difference. [/quote]
That’s not enough pat; knowing what you know, what you don’t know and knowing the difference is meaningless if you don’t know yourself.[/quote]
The only time I find people cannot know themselves is when they over complicate the situation. ‘You ain’t that complicated’. ‘You’ meaning anybody of course. Everybody looks for the lofty when your actually sitting on the ground floor.
All that is really double speak though. You can’t even prove your own existence. You may not be here, really.[/quote]
But you don’t know, pat. You assume you are real, and even believe you exist independently of your body. You assume this without investigation, as a given.
[/quote]
I don’t know what?
And yes, there is a metaphysical component to our existence, just like any other physical object. You thinking I assumed this as a given, was an assumption on your part. There is not a lot I will take as a given. These are topics I have given quite a lot of study to.
Further than?
[/quote]
Do you believe you are [a part of you is] an eternal soul that lives on after death?
[/quote]
Yep, but I did not know we were discussing the ‘soul’, there is an eternal component for every physical thing. It’s eternal because it’s metaphysical, which therefore exists in a timeless state and that which exists in a timeless state is de facto eternal. The “form” of you has always existed, technically speaking.
Nobody know it until the physical you popped out though.
Do you believe you are [a part of you is] an eternal soul that lives on after death?
[/quote]
Yep, but I did not know we were discussing the ‘soul’, there is an eternal component for every physical thing. It’s eternal because it’s metaphysical, which therefore exists in a timeless state and that which exists in a timeless state is de facto eternal. The “form” of you has always existed, technically speaking.
Nobody know it until the physical you popped out though.[/quote]
You’re putting the cart before the horse here pat, and this “eternal component” is the assumption you fail to investigate.
Just because you can conceptualise something does not mean the concept is an independent entity, but people believe stranger things than that so I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Earlier today I had this idea: we are born without essence, without soul, but by learning and experiencing we gather a framework of reference we’ll eventually perceive as “self”. By leading a good life, by following the tenets of your religion you can be granted eternal life by your deity in heaven but if this deity does not deem you worthy, you simply die and cease to exist.
Is this idea true, or did this idea exist prior to me having it just because it’s metaphysical?
[quote]kamui wrote:
actually, the struggle you just described is both our burden and our “greater purpose”.
We are finite beings. And we are conscious our own finitude.
But we do know that infinity exists and we have some very limited glimpse of the absolute.
We know that we will never completely get it. But we can’t help ourselves, and we try, regardless.
This is actually and precisely our “greater purpose”. And it is an endless task.
Believing in a personnal God doesn’t really help.
A personnal god will give you a few commandments, and a few “great purposes”, but he will not tell you his own mystery. So the greatest purpose will remain elusive and apophatic.
[/quote]
Isn’t this circular reasoning?
Our purpose in the greater purpose (infinite intellect) is to seek the greater purpose.
Therefore, there is a piece (humans) of the greater purpose that seeks to understand the Infinite Intellect outside and within ourselves and the relationship and unity of them, yet such is impossible because of our finite intellect.
It seems like an exercise in futility, yet such is the nature of our being and we do it anyway…
Are you suggesting it’s a state of being that we can only submit to?
I’m confused and I’m not sure why I feel confused right now to be totally honest lol.
edit: I think circular reasoning is the wrong term.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Even in Christianity, the goal is to become one with God basically, right? That’s basically what I mean by oneness and unity. >>>[/quote]Well, everyone who is “in Christ”, that is, joined to Him spiritually through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, is already one with God. This is what I’m always talking about when I say I’ve been raised from death in sin to life “in Christ”. He has has given me His death defeating life as a free gift by a faith which is also His free gift. All praise and glory is His.[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Having a self just means that you are aware of your distinct existence. >>>[/quote]Individuality as defined by God is what constitutes this "distinctness. It’s a real short hop from being aware of your own distinct existence over to autonomic independence which I will not make.[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Thus, you can choose to use one’s ‘self’ to isolate oneself, or to appreciate and understand oneness with God. >>>[/quote]As far as this goes? Okay. Of course I will fill this rather overconcise statement with Christian content because that’s what Christians are supposed to do with everything.[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< To know greater purpose and being is basically to have a realization that God and existence is greater than us. That we are not the center of existence. Even if in the smallest way. >>>[/quote]To know ANY purpose is to know our place in the created order of an infinitely wise and powerful God whose image we carry by His design. Sin prevents this,. The blood and resurrection of Jesus overcomes and defeats sin.[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< And to say that our being lives forever is saying that our legacy in some form will continue to live whether that legacy continues to isolate being from existence and God or be one with existence and God. >>>[/quote]Again, the bare form of this sentence works for me if I get to tune the definitions and put Christian meat on it’s bones. [quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< When our bodies cease to function, we lose our self. Our awareness of distinct existence.[/quote]You must have predicted that I would vehemently disagree with this part. When our bodies cease to function, our spiritual individuality persists in an incomplete form until reunited with our bodies at the resurrection.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by ‘our spiritual individuality persists in an incomplete form’ in your last statement?[/quote]God formed man of the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostril the breath of life. That life can survive the death of the body and does, but is incomplete without it because the design was to be body and spirit(yes, I’m a dichotomist). The body however does not function without the spirit. The body is the “clothing” for the spirit so to speak. If you take off your shirt and pitch it on the bed it just lays. There’s plenty we don’t know in this regard and I’m fine with declaring that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by ‘our spiritual individuality persists in an incomplete form’ in your last statement?[/quote]God formed man of the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostril the breath of life. That life can survive the death of the body and does, but is incomplete without it because the design was to be body and spirit(yes, I’m a dichotomist). The body however does not function without the spirit. The body is the “clothing” for the spirit so to speak. If you take off your shirt and pitch it on the bed it just lays. There’s plenty we don’t know in this regard and I’m fine with declaring that.
[/quote]
Nice explanation - this is essentially my point to Chris in the True Religion forum.
Do you believe you are [a part of you is] an eternal soul that lives on after death?
[/quote]
Yep, but I did not know we were discussing the ‘soul’, there is an eternal component for every physical thing. It’s eternal because it’s metaphysical, which therefore exists in a timeless state and that which exists in a timeless state is de facto eternal. The “form” of you has always existed, technically speaking.
Nobody know it until the physical you popped out though.[/quote]
You’re putting the cart before the horse here pat, and this “eternal component” is the assumption you fail to investigate.
Just because you can conceptualise something does not mean the concept is an independent entity, but people believe stranger things than that so I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Earlier today I had this idea: we are born without essence, without soul, but by learning and experiencing we gather a framework of reference we’ll eventually perceive as “self”. By leading a good life, by following the tenets of your religion you can be granted eternal life by your deity in heaven but if this deity does not deem you worthy, you simply die and cease to exist.
Is this idea true, or did this idea exist prior to me having it just because it’s metaphysical?[/quote]
Pretty please quit telling me I am assuming things. Now to address your point, metaphysics does not exist in the space/ time continuum, there for everything that is in it is not bound by time and, at least is in a temporal sense, is eternal.
Just like every atom has a law it adheres to, you “youness” is also bound by the laws of physics which are metaphysical in nature.
Once you understand metaphysics, it really takes the ‘abracadabra’, aspect out of it, that you intrinsically seems to believe is there. I just don’t get why though…
Is this idea true, or did this idea exist prior to me having it just because it’s metaphysical?[/quote]
Pretty please quit telling me I am assuming things. Now to address your point, metaphysics does not exist in the space/ time continuum, there for everything that is in it is not bound by time and, at least is in a temporal sense, is eternal.
Just like every atom has a law it adheres to, you “youness” is also bound by the laws of physics which are metaphysical in nature.
Once you understand metaphysics, it really takes the ‘abracadabra’, aspect out of it, that you intrinsically seems to believe is there. I just don’t get why though…[/quote]
If this is true, doesn’t that mean that anything metaphysical is equally true?
Then all works of fiction are true. My idea that The Great Spaghetti Monster looks out for us from the other side of the moon is true because it’s metaphysical.
On Wittgenstein’s view, we invent mathematical calculi and we expand mathematics by calculation and proof, and though we learn from a proof that a theorem can be derived from axioms by means of certain rules in a particular way, it is not the case that this proof-path pre-exists our construction of it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< it is not the case that this proof-path pre-exists our construction of it. >>>[/quote]And you really don’t find this to be a statement of faith that is itself not subject to any “proof path”?
What it tells me is that, inspite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.
[/quote]
And yourself and Ephrem have the strongest faith of all. If I could ever hold your attention long enough I could demonstrate that to you. That’s what the epistemology thread is all about. There is no such thing as autonomous objectivity. Your faith is no more “objectively” irrational than mine. Elder Forlife actually conceded that… in so many words, which is why I still have so much respect for him.
What it tells me is that, in-spite of pat’s insistence that his concept of independent metaphysical existence is objectively true, we’re still talking about subjectivity.[/quote]
It’s true for pat, because pat is a man of faith. Seriously, it’s just about impossible to argue with a man of such strong faith, because, well, they have faith. I’m not saying to this to denigrate, but when someone has faith, they have no need of “proof”. They have faith in their beliefs, because they choose to have faith in their beliefs. Just hard to argue with that.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And yourself and Ephrem have the strongest faith of all. If I could ever hold your attention long enough I could demonstrate that to you. That’s what the epistemology thread is all about. There is no such thing as autonomous objectivity. Your faith is no more “objectively” irrational than mine. Elder Forlife actually conceded that… in so many words, which is why I still have so much respect for him.[/quote]
He tickled your balls, that’s it. All you’ve done is make positive and definitive statements about the reality of life and existence, yet somehow you also concede that there’s no autonomous objectivity?
Define “autonomous objectivity”, if you would be so kind.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And yourself and Ephrem have the strongest faith of all. If I could ever hold your attention long enough I could demonstrate that to you. That’s what the epistemology thread is all about. There is no such thing as autonomous objectivity. Your faith is no more “objectively” irrational than mine. Elder Forlife actually conceded that… in so many words, which is why I still have so much respect for him.[/quote]
He tickled your balls, that’s it. All you’ve done is make positive and definitive statements about the reality of life and existence, yet somehow you also concede that there’s no autonomous objectivity?
Define “autonomous objectivity”, if you would be so kind.[/quote]The ability IN OURSELVES to apprehend any particle of reality as it truly is, uninfluenced by the finite AND sinful constraints of our own consciousness. That is the fatal philosophical symptom of death in sin. Only resurrection brings freedom. Only Christ Jesus can provide resurrection.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And yourself and Ephrem have the strongest faith of all. If I could ever hold your attention long enough I could demonstrate that to you. That’s what the epistemology thread is all about. There is no such thing as autonomous objectivity. Your faith is no more “objectively” irrational than mine. Elder Forlife actually conceded that… in so many words, which is why I still have so much respect for him.[/quote]
He tickled your balls, that’s it. All you’ve done is make positive and definitive statements about the reality of life and existence, yet somehow you also concede that there’s no autonomous objectivity?
Define “autonomous objectivity”, if you would be so kind.[/quote]The ability IN OURSELVES to apprehend any particle of reality as it truly is, uninfluenced by the finite AND sinful constraints of our own consciousness. That is the fatal philosophical symptom of death in sin. Only resurrection brings freedom. Only Christ Jesus can provide resurrection.
[/quote]
And yet you continue to base these beliefs on a book that was written bij men who, by your standards, were unable to “apprehend any particle of reality as it truly is, uninfluenced by the finite AND sinful constraints of our own consciousness”.
Yeah sure, inspired by the holy ghost or whatever other excuse you come up with; it just doesn’t cut it. You make one exception to your rule justifying all that you believe.