Curious notions: The latest speculations

A Curious Notion

From Time Spent Among Sufis, by Fritz Heidelberger:

Good Mr. Heidelberger continues:

• This method, of putting Sufi ideas into the terminology (culture-bound, etc.,) of the twentieth century is nowadays standard among Sufi theoreticians.

Okay, just a little more:

Today I propose that we all are erroneous in a certain aspect when examining religion. It has struck me that there is a certain kind of objective examination which has not taken place.

We see in the first quote, and also the textual note from Heidelberger, the idea of religious perspectives being discussed according to a more modern, secular lexicon. In the citation concerning Nuri, we see mention of a special clairvoyance. Putting the two together, a question arises.

Typically when we "test" a religion for credibility, we do so according to ancient expectations. That is, we give credit where credit is due and accept things at the face value put before us. But that might be the error:

• Why do we not modify the language to reflect our expectations?

While the onus for this goes largely on the religious, we might pause to consider the atheistic who, when examining religion, seek an objective point upon which the religion might gain credibility:

• Assertion: Nuri, a great Sufi, could read people's thoughts.
• Response: There is no objective evidence of clairvoyance.
• Problem: That Nuri could "read someone's thoughts" is not entirely problematic.

Christopher Walken, for all you movie buffs, gave a review of observational methods regarding a person's motivation in the Tarantino-scripted True Romance. The eyes, the posture, the breathing ... the father of a friend of mine became a motivational speaker; among his lecture materials was information on how to watch someone's eyes to tell when they are being forthright, honestly attempting to recall, outright lying, or attempting to construct a lie, among others. Trained fighters can listen to one another's breathing to anticipate what comes next; within fencing, boxing, and martial arts are a limited number of variations. What of human thought patterns? Are we truly unconnected and thoroughly unique?

Modern psychology has done much to explain phenomena once attributed to gods, devils, ghosts, and demons. While many religious folk fail to consider their faith according to the modern era, this does not mean that such considerations are impossible.

Thus, Nuri is asserted to read thoughts. I cannot provide a physical model to describe how one event in the Universe manifests itself elsewhere, such as would be required for one person's brain to perceive what its standard complement of senses cannot. However, I don't expect a physical model is entirely necessary; I don't think Nuri was actually "reading thoughts".

Rather it seems possible that Nuri, through self-discipline, learned to recognize what we would in later eras designate "psychological patterns", "pathological behavior", and other odd, clinical terms. It seems that if one looks for the tics and twitches and watches the eyes, and if one guesses correctly what portion of the limited standard human psychology is afoot, one can appear nearly clairvoyant. Con men in the modern day rely on this kind of psychological manipulation. These ideas exist in various forms in various religious ideals, as well.

Hence, according to the superstitions of the times, Nuri's profound perspicacity might merely be an early recording of human psychology, minus the scientific discipline and the discipline-derived terminology.

So what I propose in general is a re-examination of religious texts; treat them for a moment with the faith of history, and then seek in the Universe reasonable explanations of phenomena. Remember that a modern chiropractor, taken to Jesus' day, may have seemed a divine healer.

The idea makes religion at once infinitely more complex and infinitely simpler. Simpler because one might find within the examination data that construes a trend or pattern that can establish something about the source of a given document and its intended meaning. More complex because in addition to separating out myth from superstitious mistake, we must then enter the labyrinth of the human consciousness in order to figure out what all the components mean.

Nonetheless, even I have spent years attempting to understand, for instance, the Bible. And even I have let the Christians tell me what it says so that I might thus judge it. But it only now occurs to me amid my own harping about the allowing of others to set the terms of debate that I still take part in this massive forfeiture of perspective. I shall not do so any longer.

The vocabulary for various processes did not exist then. Of course the texts might describe something "real" in the sense that this is the only way someone may have experienced it. Some of it may even be hallucinatory--a good deal of it probably is. But the symbols are still important nonetheless, as they are even after considering the inaccuracies of the oral tradition.

Because the symbols can translate somehow into real terms.

I don't expect any particular religious body to be thrilled with the idea; for those of us who wish to know, though, the old religions might still have one or two useful gifts to give.

But even I, in writing and speaking of mythical, psychological, and symbolic interpretations of old texts, have overlooked any real method.

Is there a method to be found? In what context can an objective test of any religious precept be tested? Did Christ walk on water? I don't see it as impossible that people could think this happened. Ray Bradbury does a bang-up Ascent in Graveyard for Lunatics.

None of the ancient texts can truly said to be false; I have seen no evidence that we know how to read them in order to test them.

Notes:

° this: Technically, any odd Sufi notion. Specifically, in this case, it is the confusing appearance and possible multi-presence of the Sufi.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

shut up, you mean old fart.
trying to make people's posts go down in the list unnessecarily is evil.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Research "mirror neurones". You may find it very interesting. Personally, I suspect research and manipulation of mirror neurones may result in demonstratable telepathy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

tsk,tsk,tsk...

More hyperbole and non-sequirtus Tiassa?.

 

The Rock

Nice to see you out from under your rock, Godless.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL....

Actually Tiassa it was not a rock, it was that I've had to take a break from so much BS.

Specially from the non-sequirtus non-sence you post. Well at least you made me lough this morning!!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let us know, we'll have a party

Let us know, Godless, when you complete that remedial reading class. We'll have a party for you.

In the meantime, why don't you just shut the hell up? It seems the logical thing for you to do. That way, you're doing less to produce the same nothing.

It's more efficient, see?

Let me know if you learn to read. Let me know if you have something more substantial to offer this topic. In the meantime, go back under your rock until you can work and play nicely with others.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's an interesting thought Tiassa, maybe I just haven't chewed on it long enough because it isn't really *sinking in* yet... I haven't lost my equilibrium, my guts aren't time-traveling, I'm not reaching for the bottle, etc. Sounds promising, let's see if we can debunk one or more major religions (which I'm not sure you implied). Sorry if this post is pointless or not well formulated, hopefully there's something to discuss inside.

As an aside, can you tell me more about sufism? Sufism 101, sufism for newbs, links perhaps... unless it's too off topic; then you can PM it to me whenever the time is right (at your convenience).

 

Great idea but I believe it has been done many times over for most major religious texts. Of course, reading a book about the re-examination of a text is not the same as doing it yourself...but who has the time?

I am also clueless about sufism. Give us a good starter link.

 

Sufism 101?

The only thing I truly know about Sufism is that, in the long run, I am an inadequate spokesman.

Nonetheless, I am already giving consideration to such an overview as has been requested.

Please note, though, that any overview I give has the potential of being quite dangerous.

It's a long-acknowledged point of the Sufis that a lack of preparation can create dangerous results.

We'll do what we can. In the meantime, two notions from Ali Shah:

• Ali Shah, Sirdar Ikbal. "The General Principles of Sufism". From Sufi Thought and Action, ed. Idries Shah. London: Octagon, 1990. (Previously appeared in Hibbert Journal 20, 1921-22.

I'll try to put together a topic.

In the meantime, fadingCaptain has an excellent point. But I think the difference is something else:

• A priest, a rabbi, and a minister go fishing. While they're out in the boat, Father Dave's pager rings. He looks at the pager, excuses himself, hops out of the boat and runs across the water to use the phone. The rabbi is astounded at this and watches Father Dave run back across the water. Shortly thereafter, Reverend Pete's pager rings, and he excuses himself, walking slowly across the water to the shore. The rabbi, of course, is flabbergasted. When Reverend Pete walks back across the water to the boat, Rabbi Herschel loses his patience. Not about to be outdone by these two, he flings himself into the water and immediately sinks to the bottom. Father Dave and Reverend Pete haul him out of the water and wait for Rabbi Herschel to stop sputtering and coughing. "So Dave," says Reverend Pete: "Should we tell him where the rocks are?"

When we look at divine events, we take them at face value in order to consider their merit. Take the Ascension: did Jesus Christ really ascend to heaven, or is that what people thought was happening? Ray Bradbury in Graveyard for Lunatics uses heat distortion of light on a desert slope to create the illusion of an Ascension; Jesus was merely walking over a hilltop.

A lame man "healed"? We need not seek evidence of spiritual healing here until we've explored the mundane, e.g. the chiropractic.

Even in Catholic school certain interpretations of miracles were taught: Jesus healed a skin infection. Part of that healing was to wash in the river. It is entirely possible that the abrasive action of sediment in the water scraped away a surface skin infection.

Or the loaves and fishes? Anyone ever go to an April 20 party (4/20 party)? Lutherans even taught a certain interpretation of this miracle: generosity. Everybody has more than they let on. This is a truism among stoners. Watch when a large number of stoners get together.

With the loaves and fishes, it was more a conscience issue than a party issue. But so goes the assertion, when Jesus appealed to God and started feeding the masses, the consciences of those who were withholding were pinged. They coughed up the excess they had to offer, and everyone was fed. Miraculous? Frankly, yes.

Even Genesis, if taken as a myth, offers certain truths.

Driving out demons? Watch any modern televangelist/faith healer: they recklessly exploit psychological concepts and then call it "God".

Once we figure out what the texts actually allege, then we can check them for credibility. But trying to explain the divine act of healing such as we generally do at present, we might as well be trying to prove the divine aspects of Kirlean photography.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe I'll ask one of my more, uh, enlightened friends about the stoner truism. I doubt there were THAT many sheisty ppl in the crowd though... still food for thought.

But seriously, hasn't the notion been applied to most major religions already, as fadingCaptain said? I don't think that you can explain away all the events in such a way, i.e. for Christianity, Jesus rebuking the sea (which also has symbolic meaning I hear), being resurrected, and all that other stuff - and I doubt that the key to every "miracle" is out there in some unexplored branch of science, etc. Besides, having a possible explanation for a "miracle" doesn't exclude the possibility of a higher being - was it coincidence or divine will/intervention (I think this is a very old question). Of course, it might be that I'm not using my imagination at all...
In the same vein, I have a vague memory from the 6th grade that a "rational" explanation for Moses parting the sea was that the sea was actually 3-4 feet deep (something ridiculously low), and an abnormally strong wind was able to part the sea - it was the coincidence of a lifetime, basically. How every single Egyptian managed to drown in 3-4 feet of water is beyond me.

Yet another rambling post. Anyways, Tiassa, thanks for taking the time to assemble a topic. A separate one, I assume?

EDIT: Tiassa - I think that to some extent I'm not thinking this through clearly enough; I apologize if it seems that way... I may be responding to your argument in a very hasty (dare I say, emotional?) fashion. But I still think, for the moment, that the "coincidence vs divine intervention" issue is a valid one, one that has been explored by others to a much greater extent than you or especially I have. And if there were conclusive evidence for either perspective, the world would know - and I don't know if science will ever be able to murder religion (Christianity, for me). The signs may point to yes for you and many others on this forum, but choosing to believe that the answers lie in science (as a basis for being a skeptic/atheist/whatever) requires faith on your part as well - faith in human intelligence/perception.

 

It's a fine distinction

Honestly, I think the majority of that is an attempt to discern the divine nature of things. With telepathy, for instance, we might seek, as Adam has proposed, mirror neurons. This is not objectionable, and may provide an answer to questions about telepathy.

However, what if the assertion of telepathy is merely the assertion of the perception of telepathy? We do this sometimes for individual assertions, but not for the whole of what those assertions equal. If for instance we establish generosity as the miracle of fish, chiropractic techniques as healings, &c., it removes some of the bite of the divine assertion, and forces a reconsideration of what the divinity equals.

For instance, as I present more of Sufism, you will probably note a tendency among Sufis to refer to Divinity and God and other concepts without ever defining what they equal. Sometimes this is perceived as deception, but there is also the fair consideration that the Sufis themselves don't know entirely what they're dealing with. Thus, describing the Divine relationship of humanity discusses its relation to phenomena described as divine.

Sometimes a word like "divine" will compel a person toward thoughts of the nearest God to them. Hence when I say "divine" someone might think of God and Jesus. The divine is merely the divine. What it is beyond that is not yet known. As such, the IHVH/Jesus logos of Christianity is merely an assertion of what the divine might be.

And you've pinged a memory of my own, pertaining to the Red Sea. There are a number of explanations I've heard, including "Reed Sea" and other "translation errors". But when I was in Catholic school we talked about tides, water levels, and other natural phenomena. If something severely pulled the tide out, it could give the impression of a "parting of the seas". Typically, our expectations of the parting seem influenced by cinematic images of Moses with his hands in the air, two towering walls of water waiting for the right moment to collapse on Pharoah's men. In reality, how fast was that flight across the sea? Did the Jews exploit an unusually low tide, or even an atypical phenomenon, crossing the sea bed while water remained in the low points along the coast, and also in the deeper areas on the seaward side? Three examples: roaming Puget Sound at low tide; watching Lake Tapps (Sumner, Washington, USA) drain in the winter; walking on sandbars when the river is low. How far out, then, where the Egyptians when the tide started coming back in? Perhaps they couldn't reach safe ground in time? Had we more of the historical facts of the event, we might be able to answer some of these questions. But if we instead explore the possibilities, we might come back to some evidence suggesting that this is the likely place. If that evidence is proved wrong, at least then we know.

Not every miracle will be attributed to a real process. Correction: psychology is a real process. If someone sees something they can't understand, they might still tell of it anyway. How many "alien saucers" have proven to be airplanes, clouds, or balloons? Or how about the time people were calling radio stations in Seattle to report a Ufo getting ready to land on the moon? It was merely Venus. (That was years ago; I was a child, but I still remember it.)

But the thing is that there are grains of truth in religious texts. Finding them is still important, because if those concepts could be related otherwise, they would be. We see much of this occurring in modern times, but not enough to put the issue to rest.

Imho, you're doing fine. It's a big concept. It's big because of what it will affect. But I'm not going to pretend that I know entirely what I'm talking about.

And I do presume the Sufism topic will be its own in the long run. However, let no religious text or assertion be ruled out of this topic.

The processes exist, and we all have our opinions of what they are. But what are they really?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A few things:

From my illustrated NIV Bible:
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen.' Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the Lord swept them into the sea. The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen - the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived." Exodus 14:26-28.

So if anything the "parted sea" images from campy epics like "The Ten Commandments" (to whom it may concern: no disrespect) is even more questionable - Hollywood... But what I'm trying to say is this isn't the end of the world as we know it. There is room for reason in the Bible, God remains a mystery, and whether or not we can stone Him from the shroud He's hiding behind... is a belief left to the individual. Hope I haven't stepped on any toes.

 

See fokes..

It's like this, I've didn't have to wait too long to get, in this individuals tantrum, and like I've mentioned she points out herself.

Quote: "The only thing I truly know about Sufism is that, in the long run, I am an inadequate spokesman."

So literally, it's just non-sequirtus!!!!.

 

In good spirits...(an apology)

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers Tiassa!, I have much respect for you, and you are very intelegent, I've learned from you as well.

However I started noticing something about your posts, specially if they go contradictory to your points, immediately after you start attacking those who contradict you.

So if this thread is a "big-deal" to you in light of what is going on in the world, U.S. manipulating the media and the arm forces to enter WWIII, for greed and oil, of which is litterally taking much of my time, I'll leave you to your search. Here is a few links toward that end:

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Sufism.html

http://www.blaketashi.com/

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/sufism/sufismlumdef.html

 

Sorry interesting stuff!!.

Here's some more links into this:

http://www.qss.org/articles/sufism/sufi6.html

http://staff.jccc.net/mrobertson/120links.htm

http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/sufismandneoplatonism.htm

 

Godless

It's 8 in the morning, I'm finally getting some sleep. In the meantime, something I wanted to mention about your post:

• It is not the act of disagreeing with me that gets me frustrated. It is the level on which one disagrees with me. You know that segment of Christianity that asserts blindly and irrationally and annoyingly, that is very hard to respect unless you're already one of them? Should I treat an atheist any differently when they are behaving that way? It's not the actual disagreement, but rather the faux-intellectualism I'm expected to respect.

• Who in this topic have I been hammering on? Sure, there's you, but I'm not about to call those prior posts anything worth respecting. I hope you understand that part.

And I'm sorry to have to make this correction, but the word is "non-sequiter".

I understand typos. The other part just puzzles me. "Non-sequirtus" sounds like a sexual dysfunction.

But keep it up. As I recall, one of my early clashes with KalvinB was over the way he treated you and a couple of other posters. It's nice to see you following so closely in his footsteps.

(Oh, and if the rest of the world is so important, I'll just note it as ironic that you bothered to come in here and waste your time and mine. Nice show, Godless.)

Thanks for the links. I'll read through them when I've had some sleep.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hope you had a nice sleep

But when you wake up, please check the spelling of "non-sequitur" for I'm looking at it as I type it from the Webster Dictionary!!


Or perhaps in your intelect, it's mispelled as non-sequiter?

I gather by now that you do have the meaning.

just look at some of your posts and you will arive at the meaning of this word!!!!

And yes I do remember when you came to my aid, from the clashes I had from KalviB, even Tony1 thought you possessed my mind, I guess if they were here they would know this not to be true.

as for the rest of the world, well it's just a hoby really, reading the news got me pissed, as we are to enter war any time now.

My eldest is 18, and I'm so freaking afraid that he will end up over there. Fighting a war for mongers who fight for the greed of oil.

 

Must have been the cartoon

Must be the Sunday cartoon ... hmph.

Thanks for looking it up. I knew, though, that "non-sequirtus" was wrong. Maybe if you took the time to look up the fancy words you want to use beforehand, we can avoid such problems.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tell ya what: I'll refrain from correcting your spelling last thing before I sleep if you'll, oh, know how to spell the words you want to use.

In the meantime, the number of useless responses I'm getting lately is intriguing. I understand that people don't like my posts. I just can't believe how much effort they put into showing they don't understand them.

Did you happen to read the definition while you were there?

Perhaps you might want to use fancy words that will better-express reality.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually Tiassa

It's like this, English is my second language so the dictionary is always by my side, if you don't agree with the spelling of some words have it out with Webster!!!.

As for some other word to describe reality to you?

Well humans communicate by using metaphor, we can't get much metaphor out of just one word, like non-sequirtur which means "it does not follow" in it's shortest defenition of the term.

basically when you try to make an argument or a discusion it is very easily to fall in non-sequirtur, following the main topic gets to be distracted.

However I do enjoy your posts, don't get me wrong, though I sometimes have a hard time following thorouhly what you are trying to say, this is when I start calling your argument "non-sequirtur".

This is what prompted me in searching the Sufists, on the net.
Now I've got an idea what was that you are trying to do here. So I posted a few links for ya, other than that I've no qualms with ya, I know it gets tidious dealing with me, but bare with me, it's all in good intentions here.

Quote:" In the meantime, the number of useless responses I'm getting lately is intriguing. I understand that people don't like my posts. I just can't believe how much effort they put into showing they don't understand them."

My guess Tiassa is that I'm not the only one?. There seems to be a trend, how about shortening the blow and giving the info. in smaller doses?. This perhaps will give people some time to comprehend what you are trying to say. Then go from there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!