Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

The usual answer would be "By reference to general empiry and/or the dictionary (of one kind or another)."

Of course, there are many problems with those references ...

We can discuss all kinds of things. That doesn't automatically mean that we can thus know the truth about them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

then you better start explaining exactly what you mean and what the difference between the two words are IYHO because at the moment its sounding like a word salad buffet

premises are a given

eg : x = 2y
which means we can draw such things (ie understand) as x = y +y and exclude things like x = y +y +y

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you understand what I am saying - empiricism takes the seer out of the explanation so its not really a question of state of being ... the reason being that empiricism deals strictly with innate matter (or reduces individuals to demography or numbers or whatever). If you are talking about divine revelation or liberation (or even plain old social interactions between people) you are talking about (at least) two conscious entities and it tends to be governed exclusively by who, where and what they are and how they do things.

For instance the relationship between the president and his personal or intimate associates stands distinct from others and even the demographs or whatever that he or his associates represent

Are you talking about how the neophyte approaches spiritual subjects or how spiritual knowledge (ie divine revelation) is ascertained?

Innate knowledge starts making its appearance on the scene after anartha nivritti

So psychology would make more sense to you if mental health was a complete level playing ground?

Different than service to god?
(hell even mayavadis agree on that one - they just have a problem identifying who god is)

Even animals have a sense of service

actually its more a function of the mind - I mean its not like teenagers have radically different eye balls from adults which defines the disparity in ways of seeing

I know - no argument is easier than one fueled by doubt.

That's why I asked you to provide the constants of what a person can work with in order to assess plumbing

call it whatever you want
the result is the same
:shrug:

just try and explain it and I bet I can doubt you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is not the case with spiritual matters.[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me explain the difference this way: it is only in understanding an argument and its logic that one can assess its validity.

If you need any further help, seek a dictionary.

But not necessarily true.
One could thus arrive at an entirely consistent "philosophy" based on zero truth... or where the truth values of the premises are at best unknown?

So where and how would you establish the truth of such...?
Reliance on authority, perhaps?
Or perhaps the premises are inferred from the philosophy, but that can only be done by establishing the truth of the conclusions... which would be done... how?

We can understand them to be valid (notice the difference between validity and understanding) if we also understand the logic being followed.

 

So does religion.

So does religion.

Theists treat non-theists as if they were things.

And until we reach that state, we just have to grit our teeth and bear it - and let ourselves be fucked in the head - and otherwise abused - by people who claim to be our wellwishers, but who don't care whether we live or die.

My point is that both religion and psychology are operating as artificial impositions. Both discount any and all personal experiences that may be contrary to their ideals, but both nevertheless demand that people subject themselves to them.

The Catholics, for example, do not think that what you are doing is service to God.
You may all agree that "service to God" is essential, but you never agree on what exactly constitutes "service to God."
You might as well not agree on anything.

You make doubt look as if it were something dirty, an individual's fault.

You are forgetting the mess that people who claim to be theists have created in this world.

And now each one of those theists expects that the non-theists will resolve the conflicts and other issues between different theistic denominations.
And if we don't, you accuse us of having warped personalities, not wanting to make spiritual progress sand such.
As if we are supposed to do the theists' dirty work - and if we refuse to, we're bad.

So for you, letting oneself be brainwashed and abused is a legitimate way to approach spirituality?

I know by now that you will doubt me, even if I say nothing.

 

Exactly. This is what formal logic does.


LG still has to establish how the truth value of premises be assessed.

 

so by understanding you mean comprehending the key elements that come into play and by validate you mean the before mentioned are logically coherent in a do-able context?

sure
you can have true arguments that aren't necessarily logical and logical arguments that aren't necessarily true.

by application

for instance if I tell you water quenches your thirst can can know its is true by drinking it with or without a rudimentary understanding of the role water makes in the upkeep of the body.

Even your use of validity is a bit weak since a valid understanding of the logic of drinking water doesn't provide anywhere near the actual experience of drinking it.

IOW if we are talking about truths that dictate a state of being they override mere logic and validity (by dint of their application) since logic and validity are dictated by state of being. If you don't accept this, then you are left with the necessity of premises that are apriori and a state of being that is not assessable (such as reductionists who can neither explain why matter behaves the way it does or how their state of being can be illustrated by it)

 

Then you are talking about lesser forms of religiosity (karma kanda etc)

Like any other endeavor it does involve a degree of tolerance and the road will most likely be pathed with mistakes (which are also commonly agreed on to be the pillars of success)

So Psychology would make more sense to you if there was no standard to assess mental well being (since such an assessment would naturally have consequences of imposition - real or otherwise).?

Or are you saying that you understand the real (as opposed to artificial) imposition of the healthy model of psychological health that discredits the current popular (yet artificial) ones?

Or are you trying to say that everyone is their own unique model of psychological health that bears no similarity to others since everyone is so unique and individual?

Open your eyes and you will see that there is no consensus on anything academic (eg - childhood education, women's rights, economic policy etc).

The notion that a singular principle must enjoy a singular view amongst that hordes of disciplines that surround it is simply not an idea supported by the real world and all its variety.

doubt has a role to play - my point is that its not sufficient to resolve an argument

Its more that you insist on painting the picture of all theistic discipline as brainwashing and abusive - regardless of the truth of it - the result is the same.

Kind of like a person who has a fixation that all medical practitioners are brainwashing and abusive has successfully established a mental paradigm that will see them bereft of medical attention for the rest of their lives.

If you can't even establish something as rudimentary as plumbing in a doubt-free context, why demand it of other more elevated topics?

 

And yet you don't think empiricism is the key here, and thus the key in determining knowledge?

Let's look at your example...

Agreed. Now come up with an example that is not confirmed as true through empiricism, please?

Strawman. Unless you want to point out where I said otherwise?

But again, if you want to provide a non-empirical answer, perhaps you might get closer to making a point?

 

It is these "forms of religiosity" that a newcomer to religion will have to deal with from religionists.

Not just tolerance, but total abnegation of all self-interest.


You, for example, have been ignoring me from the beginning: you started out by ignoring my concerns, ridiculing them or diverting from them, and eventually, you moved on to not replying at all.

For some time, I tolerated your ignoring my concerns, thinking I should be humble and go along with you, but eventually, I was sick of it, and formally terminated our relationship.

I merely sketched out the problem, I didn't claim to have a solution.


Mind you, by mainstream standards of Western psychology, you yourself have issues of low self-esteem, sexual dysfunction and belong to a cult.
So much for your "mental health."

Surely there is little or no consensus on anything.

But that apparently doesn't stop the theists from doing as if there was!
Nor from ridiculing or even demonizing the non-theists for pointing out this variety and its possible implications.

Nobody said it was.

But I don't do that.
You (and some other theists) keep caricaturning my stance like that.


I want a gradual, natural, meaningful progression in theistic knowledge.
I don't want those immense leaps of faith that theists usually put forward.

Surely if God exists and is good, there would have to be a progression toward knowing Him that doesn't require a lobotomy, no?

Yet all mainstream theisms require what is in effect a lobotmy.

To see what the theists have to offer.

 

Seconded.

 

only if you would agree that you have empirically failed to apply yourself to religion since you fall short of issues of application ...

(no doubt you would say that you fall short because you don't see the evidence for the success of application ... which is why I brought it up at the onset - namely what the word "evidence" holds for an empiricist)

Ok then let's looks at applying one's self to religion ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Empiricism is going fine; just putting something else related here…

Life and its experience, in higher forms, came along way later, so it is an afterword, yet, like all other things in existence, it may shed some light on what constitutes the universe, since it is of the universe. What comes to mind are both the holistic and the detailed sides of the brain, something to consider, although what follows is but a very raw attempt at explaining life in general…

LIFE EXPLAINED?

It is, of course, that atoms and molecules make it up, through a casual nexus of physical-chemical reactions; however, this observation cannot be equated to an “explanation”, for it seems not to be plainly reductive, and so we might delve deeper, to look for something else going on, too, for there may very well be a background behind what the chemicals do.

According to the quantum realm, “matter” is only composed of potentiality—it only becomes matter when it’s “real-ized” by interaction.

In a stable configuration of matter, such as would be so in the inanimate, all the quantum uncertainties may be effectively statistically averaged out, this thus ever being deterministic; but in the case of the statically unstable but dynamically stable configurations of the animate, the “lively” features of the underlying quantum structure have a chance to surface to the macroscopic level; that is, to life, and I wish I knew how.


The electric dipole moment of biomolecules might be the ordering parameter for the corresponding macro-quantum system, and so this could result in a change in quality for that macro configuration. There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are probably truly not the actual reality.

There are, strictly speaking, perhaps, no objects that are identical with themselves over time—the temporal sequence remains open. Nature is often no longer seen as clockwork, but only as a “possibility gestalt”, the world occurring anew each moment. The deeper reality from which the world arises, in each case, acts as a unity in the sense of an indivisible “potentiality”, which can realize itself in many possible ways, it not being a strict sum of the partial states.

What remains unchanged over time are certain properties that find expression in the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, electrical charge, etc., these necessarily being closer to the basis of all. It appears to us, though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from “a moment ago”, and thus still retain their identity in time; yet, matter really only appears secondarily as a congealed potentiality, a congealed gestalt, as it were. Physical phenomena may not made of basic building blocks but are perhaps made of “elementary processors”, which are complex-valued field “operators” that depend on time and location. These generate certain overlappings of correlated multi-dimensional wave fields that are propagating through time, fields of possibility, whose intensity is a measure of the probability of an object-like realization, this intensity being very sensitive to the relative phase of the overlapping partial waves.

There are no point masses then, but only smudged particles, such as we suspect in the space-filling representations of the distribution of electrons in the shells of atoms—a ‘cloud’. There is a relationship structure that arises not only from the manifold and the complicated interactions of the imagined building blocks of matter, but also one that is substantially more inherent and holistic, again such as we see in quantum physics. So, there is form before substance, relationality before materiality. It’s hard to imagine pure relationships existing without a material substrate, but, consider electromagnetism: it fills space—without a material substrate, but is probably still physical, or consider a music CD—its singers and instruments encoded in a relationship structure. The material CD is only a carrier, of secondary importance, its information being primary, an analogy to particles and waves’ descriptions. Impressions of realizations are left in our 3D world by the gestalt that “lives” in the multi-dimensional spaces of quantum superpositional possibility.

Quantum systems of many quantum states are not then so much systems as they are holistically differentiated process structures. However, considering them as systems, they are complex, meaning here that such systems cannot be reduced to simpler systems without breaking connections; thus there can be no clear reductions, for, as in chaos theory, there are embedded instabilities—and if we disregard even the tiniest correlations then we may severely distort the result. We can no longer just analyze the parts but must try to use much more sophisticated statistical methods, these being more than the simple probability to which we are accustomed. Waves can reinforce, weaken, or even cancel out, this all being a kind of generation of partial disconnectedness by intermediate extinctions, such as in the way a biological organism forms from a single cell by successive cell divisions, which do not occur by parting, but by repeated formation of semi-separating cells walls; however, this is only a very rough analogy.

Via metabolism, life forms have a sufficiently powerful energy pump, one that could conceivably generate states of thermal disequilibirium in molecular systems embedded in certain substrates that would excite certain low-frequency collective modes of vibration with great power, perhaps via mechanisms similar to Bose-Einstein condensation, the electric dipoles coming into play as an ordering parameter; however, this is not a conclusive, direct connection. Information appears only in the animate, and is furthermore exchanged, the meanings somehow combining to make sense in some nonreductive process—the relational reality of life happening at this semantical level of information exchange.

Life is not mindless; it is inspired; its meanings cannot all be discovered by observation, but truly by participation. Life’s entities embrace one another: cell, organism, species, and biotope. A living creature is more like a poem, revealing further dimensions and expressing new properties at every level of organization: letter, word, sentence and [uni]verse.


Somehow, perhaps, the quantum states that continue on further in the quantum superposition have reached more efficiency and effectiveness, with all the paths being tried out, just as in the 95% efficient photosynthesis methods actually seen, using fermo-lasers, and so that’s what collapses out of it, the more productive paths that last, ones usually with the least amount of effort, too.

Or not, if reductive.

 

actually its the common misconception entertained by newcomers to religion ... but aside from that, newcomers to anything aren't celebrated as the pinnacle of knowledge based assertions in any field

technically that's not possible, not even amongst hard-core buddhists

The only thing I suggested to you was that you widen your interactions with a wider spread of other devotees - but even then, its not clear how this apparent ignoring of your concerns translates into total self abnegation for you. If I have concerns that no one else can address I usually interpret it as something I have to deal with personally as opposed to anyone or everyone's else's problem

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

well when you work it out in regards to psychology get back to me .....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

first you were saying there is no consensus in theism and now you say there is - Make up your mind
:shrug:

then why insist on the presentation of an argument that can withstand it?

err ... yes you do

you are wasting your time - apparently you can't even see what a plumber has to offer

 

empiricism + post dated rain cheques = bad science

 

At least it suggests that there may be more going on than just atoms bumping around.

 

bad science is full of suggestions ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Science is the only game in town.

 

which begs the question why you insist on playing a bad version of it ....

 

Science isn't all done yet, so the good or bad of it remains to be seen.