(June 25, 2017 at 9:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: Are you ever going to get around to showing us any of those "philosophical formulations"?  That would help.  I'm certain that whatever they are they can be mind calming, ofc.

I think calmness of mind is a subjective matter. There is no point arguing about it. I merely suggested reading philosophical formulation of pantheism can calm the mind based on my personal experience. I don't think my personal opinion is interesting for you. But Einstein has said:

Quote:I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism

 It is by no means an evidence, proof or anything like that. I thought the scientific status of this person might suggest you to consider the possibility of pantheism being more than absolute "nonsense".

Quote:He would still be part of and in the universe, and he would still exist in the universe, even if he were just an imagination in his mind...because the term "universe" explicitly denotes -everything-, even the "imaginations in our minds".  That's what the "uni" prefix means.  What you are trying (and failing) to convey here can only be that he would not exist...as he thinks he does....in the universe.  Well, no shit, most of us aren't half as attractive as we think we are, either.  

Imaginations do not exist, they of course exist if you see them as activities of neurons in the brain. But when you say "I" you are not to those neurons activities, are you? In fact even if you are referring to those pulses within your brain, there is no actual referent, because those pulses constantly change there is no "object" within the real world that can be referred to as I.

There are many people who claim they understand this on a subjective level and experience the voidness of their "I". They experience "I" as having no actual referent. It is said that this understanding can be a natural consequence of meditation (Yogic meditation or whatever) you do not need to have any sort of talent or ability to experience it.

Quote:You think that pantheism can be proven...by proving some -other- thing?  That's not how that works.  I also think that self is something like "an imagination of mind"...and yet pantheism -still- makes no sense.  So how did that happen?  I did what you said would work...and it didn't.  

I think there is nothing to prove about pantheism. I think if your imaginary "I" is removed, which means there must be some significant shifts in the patterns and behaviors of neurons within your brain, it makes absolute sense. There is no way to prove what I'm saying as we are talking about a subjective experience. Someone must experience it to verify if it's true or not, I don't think philosophical investigation of it can yield any result.


If you are interested you can practice a technique called "Self-Enquiry" I think it can lead you to experience some degrees of "lack of I" within a relatively short time.

Quote:Self-enquiry, also spelled self-inquiry, is the constant attention to the inner awareness of "I" or "I am" recommended by Ramana Maharshi as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the "I"-thought.

[quote pid='1574417' dateline='1498397249']
It is nonsensical.  I won't be the only person here who thinks that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about...that your self has not been silenced, and that you've never seen the universe "shine". Is this, btw, one of those philosophical formulations?  If something is shiny it's a god?  
[/quote]
I never claimed my self is silenced or any other claims about my personal experiences. I'm sorry if my bad use of language made you think that. I think it's absolutely absurd to make such claims as my inner conception of self is absolutely irrelevant to you or anyone on this forum and there is no way to verify what I say about it. But what I can do is to refer to many well-known individuals who claim this is possible to achieve this experience through different techniques and practices. This can be some evidence that this is possible, if someone is very interested to verify it (s)he can give it a try.

Quote:[quote pid='1574417' dateline='1498397249']
It is nonsensical.  I won't be the only person here who thinks that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about...that your self has not been silenced, and that you've never seen the universe "shine". Is this, btw, one of those philosophical formulations?  If something is shiny it's a god?  

[/quote]
You are being right, the way I put it went somewhat "poetic" which was not consistent with my tone. I apologize for that. I'm just simply suggesting (not proving) that pantheism can be "experienced" that's all. You can do some research and read about the testimony of many others who have experienced that. My personal testimony, as a random person on the Internet on that doesn't mean anything.

(June 25, 2017 at 1:32 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I think calmness of mind is a subjective matter. There is no point arguing about it. I merely suggested reading philosophical formulation of pantheism can calm the mind based on my personal experience. I don't think my personal opinion is interesting for you. But Einstein has said:

Quote:I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism

 It is by no means an evidence, proof or anything like that. I thought the scientific status of this person might suggest you to consider the possibility of pantheism being more than absolute "nonsense".

Why would it...that would be an irrational inference.  I know better.  Many smart people have found many dumb things fascinating.  OFC, you're probably inserting a little bit of your own beliefs into einsteins fascination..so there's that.  I;m fascinated too, as are many others....by what seems to be such an effectively subversive rhetorical tactic that it slips right under god believers' noses.  

Quote: 
Imaginations do not exist, they of course exist if you see them as activities of neurons in the brain. But when you say "I" you are not to those neurons activities, are you? In fact even if you are referring to those pulses within your brain, there is no actual referent, because those pulses constantly change there is no "object" within the real world that can be referred to as I.

At what point did it seem like a good idea to you, to say that something which clearly exists and for which no human being on earth is short of evidence...doesn;t exist?  At what point did it seem like a good idea to you to then..in the next breath, explain exactly how the thing you had just claimed didn;t exist, exists..of course?

........................?

You're preaching to the choir, as regards self or I...but you're only saying that these thongs don't exist as we perceive them..that's all you -can- be saying with such comments.  

Quote:There are many people who claim they understand this on a subjective level and experience the voidness of their "I". They experience "I" as having no actual referent. It is said that this understanding can be a natural consequence of meditation (Yogic meditation or whatever) you do not need to have any sort of talent or ability to experience it.

That's nice, other people™..who aren't here, and can't demonstrate this to be true even if they were?  Yoga....yoga.......jesus christ......

I'm telling you, in no uncertain terms..that the concepts that you are butchering up above are not only familiar to me, I agree with them - but the universe still didn't shine, like you said it would, when I came to understand what I already understand.
 

Quote:I think there is nothing to prove about pantheism. I think if your imaginary "I" is removed, which means there must be some significant shifts in the patterns and behaviors of neurons within your brain, it makes absolute sense.

I spoke the magic words and the devil didn;t appear.

Quote:There is no way to prove what I'm saying as we are talking about a subjective experience. Someone must experience it to verify if it's true or not, I don't think philosophical investigation of it can yield any result.

OFC there would be.  You just offered a way.  You claimed that if I got x, that y would happen.  Well...I get x, strangely y isn't happening.  

Quote:If you are interested you can practice a technique called "Self-Enquiry" I think it can lead you to experience some degrees of "lack of I" within a relatively short time.

..................sigh.................

Quote:I never claimed my self is silenced or any other claims about my personal experiences. I'm sorry if my bad use of language made you think that. I think it's absolutely absurd to make such claims as my inner conception of self is absolutely irrelevant to you or anyone on this forum and there is no way to verify what I say about it. But what I can do is to refer to many well-known individuals who claim this is possible to achieve this experience through different techniques and practices. This can be some evidence that this is possible, if someone is very interested to verify it (s)he can give it a try.

So, you haven't experienced it, but you think that's what happens....and can't explain either why you think that, or why it doesn't happen?  

What can you do, what can you explain?  

Quote:  
You are being right, the way I put it went somewhat "poetic" which was not consistent with my tone. I apologize for that. I'm just simply suggesting (not proving) that pantheism can be "experienced" that's all. You can do some research and read about the testimony of many others who have experienced that. My personal testimony, as a random person on the Internet on that doesn't mean anything.

Plenty of things can be experienced.  Not every experience is an accurate description of reality.  Your personal testimony has been riddled with sloppy thought and miscommunications, if not downright lies. In all of it, there's a sense of pointlessness, with all this talk of no self or removing the self or meditating the self away. None of that, absilutely none of that...would establish that the universe were a god regardless of it being true. It's just a bunch of unrelated concepts mashed together in the new age fashion and misrepresented by a person who clearly, very clearly, has absolutely no idea what they're talking about at any point.

(June 25, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So, you haven't experienced it, but you think that's what happens....and can't explain either why you think that, or why it doesn't happen?  

That's not what I said. I think my personal experience is irrelevant here, so I just avoid bringing it into the discussion. Let's assume, just assume that I'm experiencing myself and the universe in a way that is not conceivable by people who haven't gone through the same meditative practices  due to a drastically different subjective experience. Does this claim add anything to this discussion? I don't think so. 

Quote:What can you do, what can you explain?  

I think there is a misconception, I'm not following a logical reasoning here. I do not want to prove anything I don't think I can and I don't think it's possible. All I'm doing is it to suggest, merely suggest (and not prove) that universe can be perceived in an alternative way. I also introduced a simple technique that can help the individual to achieve this perception which you found displeasing I suppose. So this is what I try to say:

1. There are many people who claim the universe can be perceived in a drastically different way (I know this is not a proof or anything)
   
2. They claim this happens when the "I thought" is removed (this is also just a claim nothing more)
   
3. Some of these people suggest various techniques that anyone can employ to remove the "I thought"  (these are very definite, precise techniques) 
   

All that I'm saying it to suggest that if anyone is interested, they can try these techniques to see if the above claims are true. I'm not trying to prove that you should do that. I can't and I don't want to persuade you either. This is merely a suggestion. Please note that you can actually go and practice those techniques and see if they are true. I completely understand that you might not want to put time and effort on something that you find unfounded and nonsensical. There is nothing I can do about it and I absolutely respect your opinion. But please understand that if the claim of these individuals is true, they don't have any way to "prove" to you, they can't let you see their subjective universe and verify their claim. If you want to make sure whether their claim is true or not, you should try it yourself.

(June 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I think there is a misconception, I'm not following a logical reasoning here. I do not want to prove anything I don't think I can and I don't think it's possible. All I'm doing is it to suggest, merely suggest (and not prove) that universe can be perceived in an alternative way.

Following "a logical reasoning" is important even when you aren't attempting to prove something..and..btw, you are, you're trying to prove that an atheist cannot say "I don't believe in god" coherently in the face of the god of pantheism.

-In case you forgot. 

Obviously, we can, and I have.

Quote:I also introduced a simple technique that can help the individual to achieve this perception which you found displeasing I suppose. So this is what I try to say:

1. There are many people who claim the universe can be perceived in a drastically different way (I know this is not a proof or anything)
   
2. They claim this happens when the "I thought" is removed (this is also just a claim nothing more)
   
3. Some of these people suggest various techniques that anyone can employ to remove the "I thought"  (these are very definite, precise techniques) 
   
   All that I'm saying it to suggest that if anyone is interested, they can try these techniques to see if the above claims are true. I'm not trying to prove that you should do that. I can't and I don't want to persuade you either. This is merely a suggestion. Please note that you can actually go and practice those techniques and see if they are true. I completely understand that you might not want to put time and effort on something that you find unfounded and nonsensical. There is nothing I can do about it and I absolutely respect your opinion. But please understand that if the claim of these individuals is true, they don't have any way to "prove" to you, they can't let you see their subjective universe and verify their claim. If you want to make sure whether their claim is true or not, you should try it yourself.

There's no need for me to put time and effort into yogic meditation, or any of the other wooster shit you believe in (the pile seems to be growing by the day, in spite of your initial protestations),  in order to arrive at a conclusion that I already arrived at...through study of the actual subject, and an ability to both understand and communicate rational thought. I understand x, somehow...I;m still here, somehow, the universe has failed to shine, and I still don't believe in any gods...not even the pantheist god.

Now how do you think that happened?

(June 25, 2017 at 3:22 pm)Khemikal Wrote: There's no need for me to put time and effort into yogic meditation, or any of the other wooster shit you believe in (the pile seems to be growing by the day, in spite of your initial protestations),

I find your use of language very attractive despite being sometimes kinda humiliating! I know some English but I don't really see it in myself transcending my boring tone. That's kinda sad!

BTW, I don't really believe in Yogic meditation, they are just a set of very concrete techniques, nothing more. They are widely used in western societies for mental illnesses like anxiety, depression etc. the thing that some of them can have unusual effects on human consciousness after prolonged practice is not also something woo. It's actually scientifically validated that there are unusual transitions in the brain waves of a practitioner. My personal experiences verify these unusual effects also. 
I don't really consider myself believing in in any kinda of woo, the divinity, etc of universe thing is also not something woo for me. That's just a subjective perception and I'm aware of it. Maybe you have identified a place or a person as having "divine" qualities at some point in your life. ha? I mean all emotions are just our mind's constructs aren't they? Is a rational person obliged to ignore all this perceptions just because they are mere products of the mind? I don't think so. Being able to discriminate facts and emotions is sufficient. I think if god is real and you see him and recognize "divinity" in him, it's nothing but you mere emotion about god. There is no "actual" divinity in that supposed god.

I genuinely assume there is not any kind of "woo" that differentiates my belief and yours.

Quote:I;m still here, somehow, the universe has failed to shine

[*]
I didn't really meant that. I was referring to prolonged practices which involve constant inspection of the self, in a way that the inspection becomes a second nature for you. not just doing it once. I admit the way I put it did not imply any prolonged practice though.

(June 25, 2017 at 5:59 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I find your use of language very attractive despite being sometimes kinda humiliating! I know some English but I don't really see it in myself transcending my boring tone. That's kinda sad!

Thanks. I'm always smiling, if it helps.  

Quote:BTW, I don't really believe in Yogic meditation, they are just a set of very concrete techniques, nothing more. They are widely used in western societies for mental illnesses like anxiety, depression etc.

Sure, so long as someone is getting -actual- treatment....then maybe sitting cross legged for a few hours a day is a good idea.  That;s a few hours they won;t spend killing themselves, at least (one hopes - though somehow somebody somewhere is going to manage it).  Beyond that, meh.  The data on the efficacy of meditation is sparse, spotty, and open to vast interpretation.  No physician or psychiatrist in their right mind would see a patient suffering in the grips of a serious physical or metal illness....and proscribe that they sit still and quiet for a few hours.

Cancer?  Meditate on it.
Schizophrenia?  Meditate on it.
Depression with self harm? Meditate on it.

-said no competent healer ever.

Quote:the thing that some of them can have unusual effects on human consciousness after prolonged practice is not also something woo. It's actually scientifically validated that there are unusual transitions in the brain waves of a practitioner. My personal experiences verify these unusual effects also. 

I think that you're greatly overselling the scientific validation, and that you have an experience you expect to have - as was described by a belief-set which you clearly have some affinity for...is hardly an improvement to the credibility of that validation.

Quote:I don't really consider myself believing in in any kinda of woo, the divinity, etc of universe thing is also not something woo for me. That's just a subjective perception and I'm aware of it. Maybe you have identified a place or a person as having "divine" qualities at some point in your life. ha? I mean all emotions are just our mind's constructs aren't they? Is a rational person obliged to ignore all this perceptions just because they are mere products of the mind? I don't think so. Being able to discriminate facts and emotions is sufficient. I think if god is real and you see him and recognize "divinity" in him, it's nothing but you mere emotion about god. There is no "actual" divinity in that supposed god.

Yes, yes, I know, everyone knew, at the outset...that you don't consider yourself to be a person who believes in woo.  Just as surely, even as you said it, it was becoming increasingly clear that you do.  My magic is not magic.  My woo is not woo.  

I could sympathise with a poetic or figurative use of the divinity of nature, of the universe.  That;s clearly not what we're discussing.  That is not the divine nature of a existent god, which is not meant or taken to be figurative, or metaphoric, but literal. It;s not about how you -feel-...it;s about what that god, or in this case that universe -is-. I look at the universe and I do not see the divinity that would be required to include it in the set of "gods".  I'm not interested in the flippant use of the term divine, or god that would be required to make this work..chiefly because they will say absolutely -nothing- for having done so.  

I still won't believe in what you call a god, even if it's the universe, because I do not think that the universe is divine. You see something there which I do not. It's not -just- the universe, after all. It's a divine universe. I neither see nor believe in -that- universe.

By referring to your feelings, you have reduced the proposition "The universe is god" to the linguistic equivalent of "I feel awed by the universe". It's not about a god at all. It's about you (though..this is pretty common to god belief, granted).

 

Quote:I genuinely assume there is not any kind of "woo" that differentiates my belief and yours.

My belief of what?  In what?  I don't believe that I do not see the divinity you ascribe to the universe.  I know that I don't see it.  This, is woo.  

Quote:[*]
I didn't really meant that. I was referring to prolonged practices which involve constant inspection of the self, in a way that the inspection becomes a second nature for you. not just doing it once. I admit the way I put it did not imply any prolonged practice though.

[*]

Okay, and the other part, wherein you said that pantheism would begin to make sense?  That didn't happen either.  When you said that, if I understood about the I, the I would disappear?  That didn't happen either.   Why do you think that is?  

Don't tell me, you didn't really mean that either.  Or perhaps I didn't sit...cross legged, quietly...for quite long enough, or the right way™?

(June 25, 2017 at 6:28 pm)Khemikal Wrote: My belief of what?  In what?  I don't believe that I do not see the divinity you ascribe to the universe.  I know that I don't see it.  This, is woo.  

I was referring to belief in god. 

What is divinity? please define it concretely. Then define God. Please make sure you are avoiding a circular definition. You're rejecting the definition that Universe is God on the basis that the definition of these two is not compatible, also you say "the Universe is not divine" the definition of the universe is somewhat clear for me. But I don't know what God is. I really don't know. Please define it. I don't know what divine is either,  I use it in my conversations, but I think it's a nonsensical word an does not have any actual referent except our neurons activities. 

Quote:Don't tell me, you didn't really mean that either.  Or perhaps I didn't sit...cross legged, quietly...for quite long enough, or the right way™?

Yes some degree of persistence is required before you see the first signs of small transitions in your consciousness. Again I admit I was unclear about it. My bad. BTW, meditation has nothing to do with sitting, although it's recommended for beginners. It's merely a mental process.

(June 25, 2017 at 6:58 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: I was referring to belief in god. 

What is divinity? please define it concretely. Then define God. 

Shouldn;t you, as a person who';se proposed that the universe is divine, and a god, be able to define those terms?  This is not my work to do, but..here, have a bone.  Have a whole wiki page of bones.

Quote:In religious terms, divinity or godhead is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, supreme being, creator deity, or spirits, and are therefore regarded as sacred and .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

Quote:Please make sure you are avoiding a circular definition. You're rejecting the definition that Universe is God on the basis that the definition of these two is not compatible, also you say "the Universe is not divine" the definition of the universe is somewhat clear for me. But I don't know what God is.

How could you possibly have come to the conclusion that the universe is a god...not knowing what a god is? What sense could you have possibly employed?

Quote:I really don't know. Please define it. I don't know what divine is either,  I use it in my conversations, but I think it's a nonsensical word an does not have any actual referent except our neurons activities. 

You keep mumbling about nuerons as though it somehow made a difference.  It doesn't.  If you don't know what a god is, then you are unqualified to offer an opinion on what -is- a god. If you don;t know what the divine is, then you are unqualified to offer an opinion on what -is- divine.  End of.  

Quote:Yes some degree of persistence is required before you see the first signs of small transitions in your consciousness. Again I admit I was unclear about it. My bad. BTW, meditation has nothing to do with sitting, although it's recommended for beginners. It's merely a mental process.

.....nothing about why the magic words didn't work?  Why, understanding that self is not as it reports to be, the pantheist god didn't suddenly begin to make more sense?

(June 25, 2017 at 8:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Shouldn;t you, as a person who';se proposed that the universe is divine, and a god, be able to define those terms?  This is not my work to do, but..here, have a bone.  Have a whole wiki page of bones.

Quote:How could you possibly have come to the conclusion that the universe is a god...not knowing what a god is?  What sense could you have possibly employed?

I didn't come to any conclusion. Universe is God is simply a sentence to invite people to try to see the universe in a different light. It doesn't mean anything. Why? Because it's very cool. It's very very cool to see the universe in a particular way. In a way that it is one and there is no multiplicity in it. So it's natural to invite others also. God is just the most popular nonsensical word to refer to something very desirable which must be attained and is not already here with you. It's a useful word, but once someone observes the oneness of the Universe, the term is useless. The story ends. Of course you'll have to use God to help out those who are interested to join.

Quote:.....nothing about why the magic words didn't work?  Why, understanding that self is not as it reports to be, the pantheist god didn't suddenly begin to make more sense?

Ok, let's talk some nonsense to see if it makes it more interesting for you, the illusion of "I" makes you perceive the Universe as a collection of objects, and prevents you from seeing the real nature of the Universe which is one. As soon as the illusion of separation of "I" and the Universe is removed, the separation of objects from each other and the Universe also vanishes. What remains is the Universe alone. Once you attain this state of conciseness you are no longer an independent agent within this Universe but a mere observer.

Oh! and I forgot to mention that you'll burn eternally in fire if you don't do that, this is also surprisingly effective for some people. Thought maybe it'd work for you.

You're talking about that meditation thing where you ascend beyond the physical or something? Wouldn't someone that enlightened not be hanging around here on Earth anymore?