A contradiction

[cole grey]

"I am the most ignorant of men;
I do not have a man's understanding.
I have not learned wisdom, "

An important thing to understand about this is that the reason a person has the feeling described above is because they have begun to apprehend something they do not fully comprehend. In this situation, they are more ignorant because they are less ignorant. It not a comparison between the speaker and other men, but an acknowledgement of higher possibility for oneself.

Do you desire to know God? It seems so, otherwise why would it bother you not to? Why would you ask so many questions? To be safely protected from belief by rationalized contradictions that may or may not be true? Some problems are not meant to be solved by you, or me. Why would we need other people if this weren't the case? I have had enough experience to know that the way things should be is not the way things are. So the way God "calls" you may seem wrong to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Some people experience longing, some satisfaction, there is no one way to feel. I experience longing, but this is much more God to me than experiencing nothing, as I have at times in the past.
Maybe you don't believe in the future. Only the now. Maybe you would be right to think this way. Maybe not. What is so contradictory about not having an answer?

 

[Jenyar]

Am I being stubborn? A heartless bitch? Am I wilfully rebelling?
The only other option seems to become like a Golden Retriever -- but then, I am gone.

I have to agree with stretched here: the only person I have ever heard calling someone those things is you, and the only one I have ever heard you apply them to is also you.

As if stubbornness is the only thing you have no control over, and stubborness forces you to be "a heartless bitch... wilfully rebelling" (maybe you even propose any honest enquiry should be seen as that).

You have begun to apprehend that your control (whether good or bad) is not absolute - especially not over yourself. But the opposite is not the "Golden Retriever Syndrome", begging for acceptance. The opposite of rejection is not begging for acceptance, it is being accepted - and believing it, or it would not make a difference if you were accepted or saved or whatever; it would make no more difference than me telling you about some far-off and irrelevant principle of quantum physics. Like you said yourself: "You do not have to believe that you are free, but not believing it will mean that you continue working as if you're not free." Not believing something makes it irrelevant to you.

Cole Grey is right. That there remains problems to be solved and issues to be resolved is not an indication of the power of of those problems and issues, it is an acknowledgement of what is relevant to you.

And only you can decide if God's grace is relevant to you, whether you already understand it or not.

 

[water]

You HAVE to believe.

Hah! The wonders of the English language:

You HAVE something to believe.

Now if I only knew what this something is ...

Regardless of whether or not it seems real to you. You are a depraved sinner having turned away from God's free grace and you spit in His face. Repent! It is not His fault, but yours. All yours heathen.

No. This is in opposition with the principle that faith comes from God. You argue unbiblically.


* * *

The only being you can rebel against is yourself.

I hate to stomp in like this -- but I can rebel against others as well. I can rebel against you, for example.
Saying that I eventually still rebel against myself, even if it looks like I am rebelling against you or others -- you need to elaborate this, and you need to explain how the referencing of such actions back to yourself works.

The only judge that can ever judge you is yourself. The answers do not lie in religion, relationships, careers, science chocolate, the New York Times, or any other "thing". Focus your wonderfull intellect more within, and peace will surely find you.

Oh, the monsters within.
But thank you for the wonderful intellect!


* * *

Do you desire to know God? It seems so, otherwise why would it bother you not to? Why would you ask so many questions? To be safely protected from belief by rationalized contradictions that may or may not be true?

I hope you do see how most, if not all of my arguments, are such that even if they don't lead to God, they certainly don't exclude God.
It is not like I am making protection cushions.

So the way God "calls" you may seem wrong to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

How ... I know, it can't be explained. But I'll take your word for it.

Maybe you don't believe in the future. Only the now. Maybe you would be right to think this way. Maybe not. What is so contradictory about not having an answer?

If you don't have any answers, you can't make any decisions. If you can't make any decisions, all you can see is the now.

And like you said, we need other people -- some answers must be given to us by other people if we are to continue into a future. Otherwise, we are stuck in the now.

(By the way, have you seen We need the look of other eyes? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37653)

 

[water]

I have to agree with stretched here: the only person I have ever heard calling someone those things is you, and the only one I have ever heard you apply them to is also you.

Well, I know otherwise.

As if stubbornness is the only thing you have no control over, and stubborness forces you to be "a heartless bitch... wilfully rebelling" (maybe you even propose any honest enquiry should be seen as that).

No, I'm not proposing that. But I know very well how one can come to propose it, and believe it.

You have begun to apprehend that your control (whether good or bad) is not absolute - especially not over yourself.

Well, don't you just despise me for being a beginner?!

Not believing something makes it irrelevant to you.

While this may be true intellectually and in a short-term perspective, it is not true in the long-term perspective; and not believing something can and does have negative consequences -- it is relevant to you whether you believe something or not.

Anyone who has ever had something to do with a computer knows that what you don't know can and will hurt you. Knowing that one can't know everything and spend all the time figuring things out, in comes the disgusting concept of balance.
Going for balance means to be willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security. Eventually, one ends up with neither.

There must be some other way to reconcile one's inherent shortcomings with one's wishes, values and preferences.
Balance kills.

And only you can decide if God's grace is relevant to you, whether you already understand it or not.

How can I make such a decision?

 

[stretched]

Hi Water,

Quote Water:
"I hate to stomp in like this -- but I can rebel against others as well. I can rebel against you, for example.
Saying that I eventually still rebel against myself, even if it looks like I am rebelling against you or others -- you need to elaborate this, and you need to explain how the referencing of such actions back to yourself works."

Yes, you can rebel against me, but only if I empower you with that ability. (I am not talking on a physical level.) If I however disempower your rebellion, it becomes inconsequential. So what I mean by my statement is, one has to empower authority (religious or other) before it becomes meaningful. We make that choice for ourselves.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

This:

Well, I know otherwise.
...
No, I'm not proposing that. But I know very well how one can come to propose it, and believe it.

and this:

Well, don't you just despise me for being a beginner?!

Do not say the same thing.

Do you despise yourself as "a beginner"? Why?

While this may be true intellectually and in a short-term perspective, it is not true in the long-term perspective; and not believing something can and does have negative consequences -- it is relevant to you whether you believe something or not.

Anyone who has ever had something to do with a computer knows that what you don't know can and will hurt you. Knowing that one can't know everything and spend all the time figuring things out, in comes the disgusting concept of balance.
Going for balance means to be willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security. Eventually, one ends up with neither.

Case in point: Not believing that ignorance of a computer could hurt you, makes the warning "a computer can hurt you" irrelevant to you. You will proceed as if the computer cannot hurt you, and only when it does hurt you will the warning seem relevant, in retrospect. You might repeat the warning to someone else, and then it's up to them whether they believe it or not.

But believing the warning will change how you approach learning more about the computer. For one, you might look at the safety precautions in the manual more closely. You might see things you would not othewise have seen. And by avoiding the hurt ignorance could have caused, you end up learning, in stead of getting hurt.

There must be some other way to reconcile one's inherent shortcomings with one's wishes, values and preferences.
Balance kills.

Yes, a way that does not require you to supply the balance, to "pay for it", yourself. By believing that computers can hurt (something someone might have learned from experience or years of study), you gain the balance of truth, and can proceed with the "unbalanced" learning process.

That way, you do not have to supply the pain, with your own blood, that learning the lesson would have required.

How can I make such a decision?

By realizing that decisions are possible, and that mistakes aren't fatal. The first premise you already believe. The second is what I am asking you to believe. God payed for our mistakes, supplied the balance, so that we don't have to be afraid of making them anymore, and the manual, so that we may learn from the mistakes, experiences and lives of others.

So I repeat: The only mistake would be to believe that controlling factors control your options, in particular regarding God. It is only in not believing Him, not accepting His initial promises, that you can go wrong - because then you are at the mercy of yourself and your mistakes, just as you believe you are. To borrow from stretched: Believing in God empowers Him to empower you (by making Him relevant); Not believing in Him empowers yourself (and others) to disempower you (by making God irrelevant).

 

[§outh§tar]

Hah! The wonders of the English language:

You HAVE something to believe.

Now if I only knew what this something is ...

Disbelief. (Doubting Thomas was the father of empiricism)

No. This is in opposition with the principle that faith comes from God. You argue unbiblically.

Come now dear. Shall we then say the Prime Mover is responsible for faith in skepticism and disbelief?

 

[Jenyar]

Blind faith in skepticism and disbelief seems to be faith in yourself - never having to admit you're wrong. In that sense it is self-created, self-sustaining, and not from God. See the thread on deception. Thomas's doubt was resolved under the circumstances - which absolute skepticism can't be. Or do you believe what Thomas saw and felt for himself in John 20?

 

[water]

Yes, you can rebel against me, but only if I empower you with that ability. (I am not talking on a physical level.) If I however disempower your rebellion, it becomes inconsequential. So what I mean by my statement is, one has to empower authority (religious or other) before it becomes meaningful. We make that choice for ourselves.

Note that all this is for cases of non-physical rebellion -- although I am not so sure the line between physical and non-physcial rebellion are clear.

How can you "empower me with the ability to rebel against you"?

Do you mean that if I rebel against you, then I have thereby acknowledged that I find you worthy of rebelling against?

How can you disempower my rebellion?

Or do you mean that I could actively rebel against you only if you would actively be willing to respond to this rebellion, and respond?

Please explain.


* * *

Well, I know otherwise.
...
No, I'm not proposing that. But I know very well how one can come to propose it, and believe it.

and this:

Well, don't you just despise me for being a beginner?!

Do not say the same thing.

Of course they don't. What do you mean that the two things don't mean the same? Should they?

Do you despise yourself as "a beginner"? Why?

A beginner is to be despised. Wherever you go, you'll see that beginners are looked down on.
And you haven't answered my question.

Case in point: Not believing that ignorance of a computer could hurt you, makes the warning "a computer can hurt you" irrelevant to you. You will proceed as if the computer cannot hurt you, and only when it does hurt you will the warning seem relevant, in retrospect.

The popular "What you don't know can't hurt you".

But believing the warning will change how you approach learning more about the computer. For one, you might look at the safety precautions in the manual more closely. You might see things you would not othewise have seen. And by avoiding the hurt ignorance could have caused, you end up learning, in stead of getting hurt.

But it is never enough!!
To instal a program, I was once prompted to go to DOS and mess with the registry. Yeah right. Like I really know how to do things in the registry. It might have worked out fine, or I could have done some serious damage. But in order to mess with the registry, you have to know A LOT about the workings of it. This made me stop from even attempting it.
And there are just so many, SO MANY things one would have to know.

Yes, a way that does not require you to supply the balance, to "pay for it", yourself. By believing that computers can hurt (something someone might have learned from experience or years of study), you gain the balance of truth, and can proceed with the "unbalanced" learning process.

Or leave it.

By realizing that decisions are possible, and that mistakes aren't fatal.

How on earth "mistakes aren't fatal"?! The thunder! Shall I go mess with registry and let you know?

So I repeat: The only mistake would be to believe that controlling factors control your options, in particular regarding God.

I still don't understand: Why is this a mistake? How do the controlling factors not control my options?
Please bear with me.

It is only in not believing Him, not accepting His initial promises, that you can go wrong - because then you are at the mercy of yourself and your mistakes, just as you believe you are. To borrow from stretched: Believing in God empowers Him to empower you (by making Him relevant); Not believing in Him empowers yourself (and others) to disempower you (by making God irrelevant).

Just so you know, this is quite spacy to me.


* * *

(Doubting Thomas was the father of empiricism)

Really? But he was outempiricised.

Come now dear. Shall we then say the Prime Mover is responsible for faith in skepticism and disbelief?

Sugar, I think the "faith in skepticism and disbelief" is part of what makes us entities with free will.

I even venture to say that in God's eyes, "faith in skepticism and disbelief" aren't nearly such a crime as we make them out to be.

It is when *we* judge with *our* mortal standards what proof, fact, evidence are (and it is a BIG trouble to figure out what does qualify for proof, fact, evidence), and as a result of this trouble end up with faith in skepticism and disbelief, -- that we turn out to be "spitting in God's face".


* * *

Blind faith in skepticism and disbelief seems to be faith in yourself - never having to admit you're wrong. In that sense it is self-created, self-sustaining, and not from God.

Regarding what I have said before -- that the "faith in skepticism and disbelief" is part of what makes us entities with free will: One of the ways for us to exercise our free will is through skepticism and disbelief, this is how we "get a feel" for what free will is.
Free will is a potent potion, no wonder one can get drunk from it.


(Although I sound rather jocose, I mean what I have said, in all earnestness!)

 

[Jenyar]

Of course they don't. What do you mean that the two things don't mean the same? Should they?

You said two things: one, that you look down on yourself because others have (as opposed to you being the only one) - you don't think they should, but you believe it if they do.

And two, which contradicts the above (since it applies to anyone who is an honest enquirer, a learner, someone who has to ask questions): "Well, don't you just despise me for being a beginner?!" - "A beginner is to be despised."

And you answer my question of Why? with: "Wherever you go, you'll see that beginners are looked down on," so again: you don't "propose" that they should, but you believe it if they do.

A beginner is to be despised. Wherever you go, you'll see that beginners are looked down on.
And you haven't answered my question.

But you already know my answer! No, of course I don't - I don't think anyone should be despised - a dictator might be despised for oppression or genocide, but an intelligent human being for enquiring about something they don't know much about?? Then schools would really be concentration camps, and not just in the minds of those who don't like to be there.

The popular "What you don't know can't hurt you".

Yes, popular among people who live with blinders on like race-horses and no personal responsibility. And when they do get hurt they have to look for someone else to blame. The truth is that what you don't know can hurt you - and others too. Fatal mistakes happen when we want to be our own masters, too ashamed (or proud) of our ignorance to ask, which why we should consider the option of learning about whatever we have to deal with.

but it is never enough!!
To instal a program, I was once prompted to go to DOS and mess with the registry. Yeah right. Like I really know how to do things in the registry. It might have worked out fine, or I could have done some serious damage. But in order to mess with the registry, you have to know A LOT about the workings of it. This made me stop from even attempting it.
And there are just so many, SO MANY things one would have to know.

And they seem so mountainous and dangerous from our initial perspective that we could be intimidated, feel inferior, or even *despised*.

Or leave it.

Leaving life = suicide. And if you wish to learn about something, there is usually a reason serious enough to make you think twice about going back to your life as it was. Such as publishers not accepting typed or written manuscripts anymore.

How on earth "mistakes aren't fatal"?! The thunder! Shall I go mess with registry and let you know?

Fortunately I always keep backups. I have made enough errors while editing registries to make a note of every change and of what it did - that's how I learned. The worst that can happen is that you have to reformat and reinstall. The computer won't experience a nuclear meltdown, burn the house down and contaminate the neighbourhood with radioactive material, which is what most people seem to have feared while I did virus removals for pocket money.

And when there's someone to learn from, one may trust them to know which mistakes are fatal. And like I said, when it comes to religious laws, God payed for our mistakes so that they don't have to be fatal - as long as we're willing to learn from them (and from Him), we'll be fine. Afraid of losing your life? He is your backup.

I still don't understand: Why is this a mistake? How do the controlling factors not control my options?
Please bear with me.

Of course I'll bear with you. It is a mistake because it paralyzes you the way determinism or nihilism does. It's a philosophy that prevents itself from seeing alternatives by not defining any. Yes, we don't get to choose our options, and in many cases they're forced upon us, but we do get to choose between them. And believing in God is such an option - to Israel He made it an option through certain people and laws, all of which culminated in Christ who is our option. Circumstances don't tell God what to do, and what He may do for you; nothing you do can make Him love you more, and nothing that happens can make Him love you less.

Choices are made by acting on an option and following through. You don't choose between the red pill and the blue pill by staring at them or even by holding one of them - you make it by swallowing it; you choose a path by walking it. If you want things to stay the way they are, it becomes another option - not picking any other option means deciding to stay where you are, letting circumstances pick you; being an anihilated non-entity.

Just so you know, this is quite spacy to me.

To rephrase:

Deut. 30:19-20 ...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life...​

* * *​

Regarding what I have said before -- that the "faith in skepticism and disbelief" is part of what makes us entities with free will: One of the ways for us to exercise our free will is through skepticism and disbelief, this is how we "get a feel" for what free will is.
Free will is a potent potion, no wonder one can get drunk from it.

And what makes us human, free, and able to learn, is not despicable. It is only when people get drunk on their "power to choose" that simple selfishness and arrogance becomes despotism, oppression and they start looking down on "beginners". It only means they don't know the first thing about exercising love, or about the responsibility and accountability that comes with authority.

When "faith in skepticism and disbelief" starts excluding us from humanity and preventing us from finding any hope or truth, it ceases to make us "entities with free will" - it makes us hopeless slaves to it.

 

[stretched]

Hi Water,

We need to delve just a little deeper into the psyche for this discussion. How deep does the rabbithole go? I am using our interaction as a metaphor for a potential destructive self-introspection. In your discussion with Jenyar you stated a heartfelt:

“Do you think that knowing that Jesus died for our sins really makes a difference? I tell you: it doesn't. I can theorize about it as much as I like, I doesn't make it any more real or important *to me*. You might as well be telling me about a profound principle of quantum physics.”

And then the doubt creeps in

“Am I being stubborn? A heartless bitch? Am I wilfully rebelling?
The only other option seems to become like a Golden Retriever -- but then, I am gone.”

I said:
“The only being you can rebel against is yourself. The only judge that can ever judge you is yourself. The answers do not lie in religion, relationships, careers, science, chocolate, the New York Times, or any other "thing". Focus your wonderful intellect more within, and peace will surely find you.”

So here I am merely affirming that it is ok to doubt, your integrity and honesty is very apparent. In my humble opinion all the residue of growing up and living in a Judeo/Christian environment becomes an obstacle to self knowledge, the concepts of judgement and consequences of sin keep us looking for the answers to god, faith and meaning in the prison of that what surrounds us, “life at large”. So we seek approval and affirmation for who we are, what we think and say and do, in the constructs of our society. We feed the hunger of the norm. But if we discard the inherent credibility of the so called “norm”, we may see that we can exist beyond these constraints, if we choose to disempower the fear of judgement that is so deeply imbedded in our psyche. Once one breaks free of this mindset, we realise that nothing whatsoever, not religion, not people, not politics, not governments, not family, not emotions, not anything at all, has any power or value, unless we choose such. We may then achieve self-realisation, a love for the self and find value in the simple pleasure of existence. The true balance. Once the mind is clear, the physical implication will follow naturally. The body can be cut, burnt and tortured, but the experience of the serene mind is untouchable.

For example:
Quote water: “How can you "empower me with the ability to rebel against you"?

For you to rebel against me, you have to be of value to me. If I honestly disregard your authority, you have no power over me, thus rebellion is impossible. On a physical level, I can choose to vacate the environment. If I am physically threatened, the serene mind does not fear death. These are the realities of the deepest levels of self knowledge.

Quote water: “Do you mean that if I rebel against you, then I have thereby acknowledged that I find you worthy of rebelling against?”

Yes, as above.

Quote water: “Or do you mean that I could actively rebel against you only if you would actively be willing to respond to this rebellion, and respond?”

Depending on your value to me, I choose.

(these are my opinions only)

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

I have some questions regarding what you said, if I may:

In my humble opinion all the residue of growing up and living in a Judeo/Christian environment becomes an obstacle to self knowledge, the concepts of judgement and consequences of sin keep us looking for the answers to god, faith and meaning in the prison of that what surrounds us, “life at large”. So we seek approval and affirmation for who we are, what we think and say and do, in the constructs of our society. We feed the hunger of the norm.

What if she did not grow up in a Judeo/Christian environment? Would your advice still apply?

But if we discard the inherent credibility of the so called “norm”, we may see that we can exist beyond these constraints, if we choose to disempower the fear of judgement that is so deeply imbedded in our psyche. Once one breaks free of this mindset, we realise that nothing whatsoever, not religion, not people, not politics, not governments, not family, not emotions, not anything at all, has any power or value, unless we choose such. We may then achieve self-realisation, a love for the self and find value in the simple pleasure of existence. The true balance. Once the mind is clear, the physical implication will follow naturally. The body can be cut, burnt and tortured, but the experience of the serene mind is untouchable.

This is very "eastern" thinking, so can I assume you mean that the norms she should discard are typically "western" ones - materialism, rationalism, individualism, etc - I guess any norms could be regarded as constraints. But these measures didn't fall out of nowhere - they are instilled by people, expected by people - so what you really seem to be proposing is that she discards all things that has power and authority (whether real or imagined) in order to gain that power and authority for herself - in the name of "Empowerment". You call this ideological isolation "self-realization", but people don't exist that way. We exist in relationships and seek relationships, we find our value in the eyes of others, especially when we feel isolated.

Please feel free to disagree, but my opinion is that it is this kind of extraction from relationships - culture, norms, values, reality - that creates such vacuums, and people suffer under it. We need to feel and interact, to experience hurts and triumphs, the agony and the ecstasy, to get to know ourselves, to see who we are when faced with life at its most bewildering - and we need people to count on, honest, caring, trustworthy human beings, to give us feedback on how we're doing in the areas that are really important. It's the lack of coherent and loving relationships that is the real obstacle to self-knowledge.

I'm with you on this: "religion, relationships, careers, science, chocolate, the New York Times, or any other 'thing' " cannot tell you who you are; living for them is futile and having them is not enough. But they are inextricably part of life as we know it. They might be just meaningless "things", empty words, but among them you'll find people giving them content, doing what you do now: recognizing another person as a human being with a wonderful intellect, and telling her that. It's people who make the difference between a prison or refuge, not the structure. But removing the infrastructures that encourage this is like pulling the mat under their feet.

So my real objection is that love is not a "thing", and people have value whether you choose to bestow it on them or not. Taking away their contexts only robs them of finding meaning, and of ways to express it. It anaesthetises them against life, instead of injecting them with it.

Could I ask whether you grew up in such isolation yourself, to vouch for the benefits of spiritual solipsism?

 

[water]

You said two things: one, that you look down on yourself because others have (as opposed to you being the only one) - you don't think they should, but you believe it if they do.

And two, which contradicts the above (since it applies to anyone who is an honest enquirer, a learner, someone who has to ask questions): "Well, don't you just despise me for being a beginner?!" - "A beginner is to be despised."

And you answer my question of Why? with: "Wherever you go, you'll see that beginners are looked down on," so again: you don't "propose" that they should, but you believe it if they do.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Beginners are very often looked down on -- should I not believe it and close my eyes to this?

But you already know my answer! No, of course I don't - I don't think anyone should be despised - a dictator might be despised for oppression or genocide, but an intelligent human being for enquiring about something they don't know much about?? Then schools would really be concentration camps, and not just in the minds of those who don't like to be there.

But the fact that someone is a beginner is enough to reject this person, to say, "You can only be this much to me, for you are a beginner".
The effect is the same as that of despise.

Fortunately I always keep backups. I have made enough errors while editing registries to make a note of every change and of what it did - that's how I learned. The worst that can happen is that you have to reformat and reinstall. The computer won't experience a nuclear meltdown, burn the house down and contaminate the neighbourhood with radioactive material, which is what most people seem to have feared while I did virus removals for pocket money.

But in life, many mistakes are fatal.
One cannot pick oneself up after each fall.

And when there's someone to learn from, one may trust them to know which mistakes are fatal. And like I said, when it comes to religious laws, God payed for our mistakes so that they don't have to be fatal - as long as we're willing to learn from them (and from Him), we'll be fine. Afraid of losing your life? He is your backup.

... if only one believes ...


* * *

So here I am merely affirming that it is ok to doubt, your integrity and honesty is very apparent. In my humble opinion all the residue of growing up and living in a Judeo/Christian environment becomes an obstacle to self knowledge, the concepts of judgement and consequences of sin keep us looking for the answers to god, faith and meaning in the prison of that what surrounds us, “life at large”. So we seek approval and affirmation for who we are, what we think and say and do, in the constructs of our society. We feed the hunger of the norm. But if we discard the inherent credibility of the so called “norm”, we may see that we can exist beyond these constraints, if we choose to disempower the fear of judgement that is so deeply imbedded in our psyche. Once one breaks free of this mindset, we realise that nothing whatsoever, not religion, not people, not politics, not governments, not family, not emotions, not anything at all, has any power or value, unless we choose such. We may then achieve self-realisation, a love for the self and find value in the simple pleasure of existence. The true balance. Once the mind is clear, the physical implication will follow naturally. The body can be cut, burnt and tortured, but the experience of the serene mind is untouchable.

I think you are lucky, very lucky.

To be able to say "nothing whatsoever, not religion, not people, not politics, not governments, not family, not emotions, not anything at all, has any power or value, unless we choose such" you must be able to take yourself for granted. You cannot make such choices unless there is the self who makes them, and I think you are taking this self for granted.

I was raised in a family where my parents would best be described as consequent relativists and agnostics. For some time, when I was little, my father experimented with Zen -- in his own way though. "We suffer because we wish for things, therefore, to stop suffering, we must not wish for things." Thus, I was raised not to wish for anything. If I did come with a wish, it was met with an "this wish shouldn't be there in the first place".

You say that we "can exist beyond these constraints", beyond "societal norms". Having grown up is such a shapeless and non-shaping environment, I can tell you that "constraints" are necessary, of whatever kind they are.
Unless there are some constraints in the beginning, the self won't shape, and it will remain relativistic, able to doubt itself to its core, even undo itself anytime. It is a dreadful existence.

These are the realities of the deepest levels of self knowledge.

I'm sorry, but whenever anyone starts talking about "self knowledge", it gives me the creeps.
It is the lucky ones who can take that self for granted that can talk of "the deepest levels of self knowledge".


And I reiterate Jenyar's question:

What if she did not grow up in a Judeo/Christian environment? Would your advice still apply?

and would also like to hear your position on the rest of his post to you.

 

[ghost7584]

Someone please explain this to me -- for it is a contradiction:


By some Christian religionists, I get told both:

P1: Have faith in God, it is up to you whether you believe or not.

P2: Only God can give faith.


I1: Me having faith is my doing.

I2: Me having faith is God's doing.


So which is it? Both. Pharoah hardened his own heart against Moses, in some verses, and God hardened pharoah's heart in other verses.
Pharoah chose what he wanted to do and God furthered it along, it seems.
There is a principle in science, momentum. Objects tend to keep moving in the direction they are going unless acted on by a force that changes that. The bible says something like that.
To him who has shall more be given, to him who has not even what he thinks he has shall be taken from him. Momentum
You move further toward faith and God will give you more faith.

And if both God and I need to do our shares so that I would have faith -- still, how do I do my share, whom does my share depend on?

You get faith by reading the Bible. The most important part is the New Testament [the King James version is the most accurate.]
There are fake bibles on the market with some of the words changed.

Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Do your share by reading and re-reading the King James version New Testament over and over again. Ask God to give you the proper understanding of it.
You can listen to it being read on tape which is much faster. Scouby.com has the tapes.
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You can listen to it on your computer, being read by someone else at that website.
Read the King James version bible on your computer:
http://www.usaquality.com/bible/list_bcv/all.html

 

[stretched]

Hi Jenyar and Water,

The same fundamental needs of human nature permeate all societies, all major religions embed the concept of sin, and all societies yearn for approval and acceptance from their kind.
These, amongst others, are the norms that are hardwired into the various cultures over time. Martin Luther would not have created such a religious revolution, had he not escaped the accepted mode of thinking at the time. Most religions, it would seem employ fear of the consequences of sin to control the masses. From confession to indulgences to sacrifice, these are the norms employed to be “ok”.

Quote Jenyar:
“This is very "eastern" thinking, so can I assume you mean that the norms she should discard are typically "western" ones - materialism, rationalism, individualism, etc - I guess any norms could be regarded as constraints. But these measures didn't fall out of nowhere - they are instilled by people, expected by people - so what you really seem to be proposing is that she discards all things that has power and authority (whether real or imagined) in order to gain that power and authority for herself - in the name of "Empowerment". You call this ideological isolation "self-realization", but people don't exist that way.”

More free thinking than Eastern, per se. I am certainly saying that to gain “self realisation”, one needs to question authority, whether religious or societal, but to do so one needs to escape the net of the accepted worldview which contain the concepts of sin. etc. Discarding authority on grounds of logic and experience, and seeking meaning and value beyond these constraints, are methods of self realisation.

Quote Jenyar:
“We exist in relationships and seek relationships, we find our value in the eyes of others, especially when we feel isolated”

And this, in my opinion is the key to enslavement. If we can achieve a deeper level of relationship with ourselves, we can choose relationships without desperation, and yes, there sure are a lot of lonely hearts in organised religion.

Quote Jenyar:
“Please feel free to disagree, but my opinion is that it is this kind of extraction from relationships - culture, norms, values, reality - that creates such vacuums, and people suffer under it. We need to feel and interact, to experience hurts and triumphs, the agony and the ecstasy, to get to know ourselves, to see who we are when faced with life at its most bewildering - and we need people to count on, honest, caring, trustworthy human beings, to give us feedback on how we're doing in the areas that are really important. It's the lack of coherent and loving relationships that is the real obstacle to self-knowledge.”

Once the journey to the self is achieved, one can integrate into society as you describe above on your own terms, and not be a slave to the so called accepted system of norms. We can live truly compassionate lives within society, without the burden of necessity. When one has a loving relationship with oneself, then one can truly love another. (I think your Jesus might agree here)

Quote Jenyar:
I'm with you on this: "religion, relationships, careers, science, chocolate, the New York Times, or any other 'thing' " cannot tell you who you are; living for them is futile and having them is not enough. But they are inextricably part of life as we know it. They might be just meaningless "things", empty words, but among them you'll find people giving them content, doing what you do now: recognising another person as a human being with a wonderful intellect, and telling her that. It's people who make the difference between a prison or refuge, not the structure. But removing the infrastructures that encourage this is like pulling the mat under their feet.”

Why should the above be inextricable parts of life? That is a debate in itself. But yes, within these things are the people indeed, and I generally love people. But I don`t need that love reciprocated. One can move beyond that level of need, and discover deeper understanding of the human condition.

Quote Jenyar:
“So my real objection is that love is not a "thing", and people have value whether you choose to bestow it on them or not. Taking away their contexts only robs them of finding meaning, and of ways to express it. It anaesthetises them against life, instead of injecting them with it.”

No, love is an emotion. But one can choose to love or not. One can choose whether people have value or not. One can choose whether one needs god or not. One can expose deep seated societal norms to intense scrutiny, and make choices. The choice, unconstrained by norms, is what sets one truly free. Then love takes on a whole new and deeper meaning.

Quote Jenyar:
“Could I ask whether you grew up in such isolation yourself, to vouch for the benefits of spiritual solipsism?”

Heh, heh. Sure`s been lonely in the saddle since my horse died. We come into this world alone, and we leave this world alone. In between, what creates our psyche and individuality, are the people who touch us. If we are lucky, we are able to hear the voice of reason below the din of the madding crowd.

Quote water:
“I think you are lucky, very lucky.”

I am deeply grateful for what I am.

Quote water:
“To be able to say "nothing whatsoever, not religion, not people, not politics, not governments, not family, not emotions, not anything at all, has any power or value, unless we choose such" you must be able to take yourself for granted. You cannot make such choices unless there is the self who makes them, and I think you are taking this self for granted.”

Every day I give thanks for this “self”.

Quote water:
“I was raised in a family where my parents would best be described as consequent relativists and agnostics. For some time, when I was little, my father experimented with Zen -- in his own way though. "We suffer because we wish for things, therefore, to stop suffering, we must not wish for things." Thus, I was raised not to wish for anything. If I did come with a wish, it was met with an "this wish shouldn't be there in the first place".

I believe that desire can be an obstacle to inner peace. Desire is a fundamental facet of human nature, and has value. When desire leads to obsession, this can lead to unhappiness. I know that this is so cliché but when one is honestly thankful for whatever we have, we realise that we don’t need much. That all we really need is fresh air. Then maybe some water. Maybe some food. Maybe some shelter, and so on. Desire is relative to our gratitude level.

Quote water:
“You say that we "can exist beyond these constraints", beyond "societal norms". Having grown up is such a shapeless and non-shaping environment, I can tell you that "constraints" are necessary, of whatever kind they are.
Unless there are some constraints in the beginning, the self won't shape, and it will remain relativistic, able to doubt itself to its core, even undo itself anytime. It is a dreadful existence.”

Yes, we all seem to grow up within constraints of some nature or other (I suppose otherwise we would fall of the food chain). The self will shape one way or another. If shaped negatively, healing is possible (in an ideal world). But for yourself as an example, you have the ability to make the choices that can set you free from a dreadful existence.

Quote water:
“I'm sorry, but whenever anyone starts talking about "self knowledge", it gives me the creeps.
It is the lucky ones who can take that self for granted that can talk of "the deepest levels of self knowledge".

The lucky ones were not given that “self” on a platter. The lucky ones may have walked a bitter and torturous path to find the way home to the “self”. I know for sure that it is possible.

 

[water]

Stretched,


To recap:

Your strategy is thus:

1. Grow up in an environment with norms and constraints.
2. Get rid of these norms and constraints.
3. Choose your own norms and constraints.

All nice, but not all people grow up this way.
Some have no what is under 1., and they thus have nothing to get rid of, nothing to build on.
It is not all that hard to get rid of something once you have it. But first, you have to have it.
And if you never had it, you don't have a sense for what it is like to have something, and this way you will never be able to have something.

but when one is honestly thankful for whatever we have,

A demand that is impossible to fulfill. How do you know that you are honestly thankful? How can you be sure that you aren't pretending?

But you know, of course.

The self will shape one way or another. If shaped negatively, healing is possible (in an ideal world). But for yourself as an example, you have the ability to make the choices that can set you free from a dreadful existence.

This is what I am telling you: I do not have that ability, because there is noone, no self to make those choices.

The lucky ones were not given that “self” on a platter. The lucky ones may have walked a bitter and torturous path to find the way home to the “self”. I know for sure that it is possible.

It is absurd to use "lucky" and "I know for sure that it is possible." in the same breath. As if one could command luck!!

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Quote water:
"A demand that is impossible to fulfil. How do you know that you are honestly thankful? How can you be sure that you aren't pretending?"

Because there was a perhaps a time when there was no gratitude. The experience of life teaches us to become aware of our shifting perceptions and we can appreciate what we have, relative to what we had or thought we had, and for that be grateful. There is no time for pretence. We have limited time in this life, and tomorrow is only a possibility. Gratitude lives in the small moments of the now.

Quote water:
"This is what I am telling you: I do not have that ability, because there is noone, no self to make those choices."

What about you decides to get up in the morning? What about you is writing this copy? What about you displays such intellect? Stop trying to understand it and just go with it. It will not be given. It must be taken.

Quote water:
“It is absurd to use "lucky" and "I know for sure that it is possible." in the same breath. As if one could command luck!!

Wonderful passion! No, the closest concept to “luck” would be “positive” or “hopeful”. But we all act from experience which is subjective. But in my subjective experience I believe it to be possible. There are no magic answers. No blue or red pills. But by choosing a reality, one may well be creating that reality.

Allcare.

 

[water]

A demand that is impossible to fulfil. How do you know that you are honestly thankful? How can you be sure that you aren't pretending?

Because there was a perhaps a time when there was no gratitude. The experience of life teaches us to become aware of our shifting perceptions and we can appreciate what we have, relative to what we had or thought we had, and for that be grateful. There is no time for pretence. We have limited time in this life, and tomorrow is only a possibility. Gratitude lives in the small moments of the now.

I see your point, and it is a statement of faith.
From the begining on -- it is why I have started this thread -- I am saying that endless self-doubt is possible, and nothing heals it. Nothing.

What about you decides to get up in the morning? What about you is writing this copy?

To call it a "decision" is a misnomer.
To say I have the "choice" of either getting up or not is a minomer. There is the option that I don't get up -- but it exists only as a theoretical construct, so as to make the situation look as if one actually had a choice.

What about you displays such intellect?

What is this supposed to mean?

Stop trying to understand it and just go with it. It will not be given. It must be taken.

Then ask: Why? Why "go with it"? Why "stop trying to understand it"? What grounds do I have to believe that "it will not be given"? What grounds do I have to believe that I can "take" it? And what is this "it"?

There is no reason to do anything. You are telling me to "just believe" which is the stupidest thing anyone can say. Once in doubt, doubt is endless. One is like a glass ball: one can drop it a few times without breaking it, but when it breaks, that's it. Now imagine you are born a broken glass ball. And then people tell you "act as if you were whole".

Wonderful passion! No, the closest concept to “luck” would be “positive” or “hopeful”. But we all act from experience which is subjective. But in my subjective experience I believe it to be possible.

And my subjective experience is that it is not possible.

There are no magic answers. No blue or red pills. But by choosing a reality, one may well be creating that reality.

Again, what choice? People say they have "decided" or "chosen" just to make themselves feel as if they were in control. This doesn't mean they are in control.

 

[Jenyar]

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Beginners are very often looked down on -- should I not believe it and close my eyes to this?

To quote you: "... if only one believes ..."

If you believe the attitude is valid and trustworthy, and that it applies (is relevant) to you, then you have to look down on beginners yourself - and you are a "perpetrator" as much as a "victim".

If you don't believe knowing less makes someone worth less, however often people hold that attitude, you are doing what I believe stretched is suggesting: throwing it off as something that has authority over you (not as if it doesn't affect you negatively, but because it affects you negatively) - and you break the pattern. Then you keep your eyes open for it, and expose it whenever you come across it.

But the fact that someone is a beginner is enough to reject this person, to say, "You can only be this much to me, for you are a beginner".
The effect is the same as that of despise.

Then all that person is interested in is someone who regards him as superior. It is probably true that even if you spent years of studying, trying become an "expert" in his eyes, he will a)still regard you with that attitude even if you end up knowing more than him or b) resent you for robbing him of that power, and start looking for other ways to assert it.

If "it" is "enough to reject this person", then that "it" is arbitrarily defined, and the rejection is an attempt to gain (or hold) power and authority over another person.

Like saying that someone who is learning is "stupid" - it stops being a valuation of their knowledge, and starts being a valuation of their character. It is a psychological form of abuse.

But in life, many mistakes are fatal.
One cannot pick oneself up after each fall.

Something has only been "fatal" when you're dead, and then there's no point worrying about it anymore. If you're not dead because of a mistake, it hasn't been fatal.

One never picks oneself up anyway, one is sometimes able to pull oneself up with some external form of support, and sometimes people help to pull us up. The fatal mistake of someone trapped, sinking, dying, drowning, etc. is to refuse such support. And being trapped, sinking, dying, or drowning is not a mistake per se. If you are there because of a mistake, then knowing it out has already helped you, and so does knowing where your help comes from.

 

[water]

If you don't believe knowing less makes someone worth less, however often people hold that attitude, you are doing what I believe stretched is suggesting: throwing it off as something that has authority over you (not as if it doesn't affect you negatively, but because it affects you negatively) - and you break the pattern. Then you keep your eyes open for it, and expose it whenever you come across it.

And then what? It's not like they care.

But the fact that someone is a beginner is enough to reject this person, to say, "You can only be this much to me, for you are a beginner".
The effect is the same as that of despise.

Then all that person is interested in is someone who regards him as superior. It is probably true that even if you spent years of studying, trying become an "expert" in his eyes, he will a)still regard you with that attitude even if you end up knowing more than him or b) resent you for robbing him of that power, and start looking for other ways to assert it.

If "it" is "enough to reject this person", then that "it" is arbitrarily defined, and the rejection is an attempt to gain (or hold) power and authority over another person.

Like saying that someone who is learning is "stupid" - it stops being a valuation of their knowledge, and starts being a valuation of their character. It is a psychological form of abuse.

I see your point, but the issue is far more practical than you make it out to be.

For example, when you choose your friends, you choose them by some criteria, and those who don't pass, they cannot be your friends, even if they would want to. In effect, you are telling them "You can only be this much to me, for you are a [insert reason for your decision]".

You could hardly call that a "psychological form of abuse".

Something has only been "fatal" when you're dead, and then there's no point worrying about it anymore. If you're not dead because of a mistake, it hasn't been fatal.

Some fatal mistakes merely have a longer "action period". They don't kill right away, but they do kill eventually.

One never picks oneself up anyway, one is sometimes able to pull oneself up with some external form of support, and sometimes people help to pull us up. The fatal mistake of someone trapped, sinking, dying, drowning, etc. is to refuse such support.

And what if it turns out that these people pull one up just to push one down even more?
Who is to blame that one surely fails then?
The person who accepted help?

And being trapped, sinking, dying, or drowning is not a mistake per se.

How is not a mistake?

If you are there because of a mistake, then knowing it out has already helped you, and so does knowing where your help comes from.

Yes, if one believes in God. But to believe in God, one must first believe in God ... .