perhaps we "become as children" to maintain a position of appreciation for the present moment. There are many possible childlike ideas that could be used, but we will have to "cherry-pick", i guess. Is cherry-picking really not what we all are doing? Even if we pick a particular farm to go cherry-picking at (a tradition), we are still co-creating our understanding of reality. It seems you have some sort of natural or learned aversion to this cherry-picking concept, perhaps we will discuss that more at some point later. I have only had teachers that inform me, and help me to make more intelligent, or at least more informed, choices. Their job was never to make my decisions for me, so I don't have contexts for the other type - a mentor basically. A mentor is specifically not a guru. You could have a bad mentor who misleads you, but who would never have the power of a guru in your life. I am just saying teachers could be mentors and shouldn't be gurus until we reach a higher state of humanity. believing that takes real faith. The evidence doesn't show us that idea is true or false. You can have faith that the world isn't flawed, but not knowledge of that. hence my desire to apprehend being grateful and happy about this "faithed" concept is not always fulfilled. want, not need. In my ideology i don't have a metaphysical need, only physical needs, and the savior fits the metaphysical need. i suppose i would have a stronger feeling of life being "right". Right now, i feel that there is a lot of improvement for humanity to do, and i am not doing my own part 100%. I would like to get rid of destructive attachments, so to speak. because my ideal and my life don't overlap all that much, although in some ways they do. I would hope i am in the process of living up to the ideal, also it is possible that some of the ideal will change when i have less opportunity, and i can lower the bar, so to speak. I think it was the great spiritual teacher Yoda who said "the future is cloudy, hard to see, it is" or something like that. i am willing to give myself some benefit of the doubt, but i just can't get into that, "everything is exactly how it should be" idea, without changing my symbology/abstractions/language. cooking is not a good example because the trust of a cook is in the tasting. If some "great chef" serves you dishes you hate, yes you will be running their credentials against your own trust in your own tastes. I personally have heard a chef mention that he isn't interested in pandering to the masses, but when you eat the dish he created it is delicious, and has all the best elements of good food in it (other than super healthy element i guess). Religion is similar. Fundie churches promise this great christian life which all people types will get once they convert. They don't tell you that when you actually get to tasting this life they are promising you, you might not like it. Religion is based on variables, or maybe ranges, not concrete provable entities. Higher level math is pretty complicated also, i guess. The higher you go, perhaps it becomes less of a system of concrete numbers that are always the same (3x3=9), and more of a set of rules with which to manipulate data, data which sometimes doesn't have to be specified as specific point in a field (9 for example). I suppose that may be similar to what i propose for religious study, i.e. that we think about the rules, and spend less time saying, "this idea isn't giving me a concrete output that makes sense right now, so let's throw it away." (E.g.Balerion's bible) i still see your trust in an ideal as an abstraction and my "living out" of the trust as the non-abstraction. trust and distrust. There is always distrust involved, wether skepticism or denying your own perception and taking on someone else's. Children are taught that adults know better how to think and act. Perhaps in some ways, the kids would be better off without this implanted distrust of their own thoughts. I don't know. *tangent* On a perhaps related note, more related to our other discussions related to zen or whatever) what you describe here may be the layout of one time stream of the "second-mind" working along side the "buddha mind". The now itself, the effort required to participate in that moment, the analysis of what may or may not happen, the analysis of what actually happens. Also the other backwards direction, i.e. the now itself, the effort to exist, the analysis of what could or could not have been, and the analysis of what actually happened. I am sure there is some healthy way to have an analysis without devoting all my energy to the what if of life, what could have been, and constant value judgement of what actually is.
You are addressing this in a meta-discourse that I generally avoid. It's a meta-discourse typical for Americans, but not for the rest of the world.
Cherry-picking is a problem in the sense that by cherry-picking, one cuts oneself off from what is promised. If you pick and choose what ingredients and procedures from a recipe you will use, you can't really expect that the recipe will turn out as promised. Of course, if you're not interested in what is promised, then that is another matter. I presume that people join a religion because they want what the religion promises. Who is this "we"? Humanity as a whole? Can't relate to that. It's interesting that you focused on this aspect of cooking, which is one I did not have in mind. By developing a measure of self-sufficiency in cooking I meant that with time, one develops expertise as to the order and kind of procedures that are required to cook something, to recognize when something is undercooked, overcooked, etc. Cooking is essentially a matter of applied physics and chemistry. One can develop a measure of expertise, and doesn't need to go running to one's teacher, asking "Is this rice sticky or not?" I think that is the responsibility of the convert-to-be. ?? I take for granted that all people who claim to be religious, know what they are talking about. It's interesting that you formulate it like this, I don't know why you do so, and what are the exact things you are trying to convey. I'd formulate it like this - There is always selectivity involved, whether skepticism or denying one perception and taking on another one. I don't infuse these things with a subtext of an interpersonal power game. I find it strange to utter "You're right," "You're wrong," "I'm right," "I'm wrong." I'd say - "That idea seems (to me) to be right/wrong" or "I agree/disagree." That's how I was taught critical thinking in Europe. But Americans tend to add the subtext of an interpersonal power game, and critical thinking suddenly isn't about premises anymore, but about who gets the upper hand. So I experience the American style as a kind of button-pushing, an ego-contest.
I let others believe in whatever gets them through life as most of the time others do not want to convert me into what they believe.
This assumes that your cooking teacher is completely trustworthy to pass down the recipe, which, it seems clearly to me, is not the case. The question this brings up is - does the membership in a religion, however half-hearted and unimportant the religion may remain in the persons's life, "save" them? We all cherry-pick. There are millions of people who follow most of the christian ideals, but not all, so we either must say they have a false hope, or that they are not cutting themselves off. yes then you are saying experience is valid. And if so, why can't the chef go beyond the teacher, or beside at least? Should I trust my cooking 101 teacher who taught me how to boil water to decide when my pastry crust is flaky enough, or do i use my own experiences? i.e. cherry pick through my eating experiences and perhaps remember a time when i tasted something more flakey, or less so, and try to make the crust come out like that instead of following the 101 teacher who cannot make that happen. i think it is actually impossible for the convert-to-be to know whether the promise made will be fulfilled. When Kierkegaard says that religion promises a basis for "eternal happiness" (in "the first existentialist"), he also points out that the doctrines as such cannot be proved enough to constitute that basis and that at some point faith in something that is not "known" must be employed. This is the requirement of a "belief", as opposed to a "knowledge". If the practitioner can't even rationally question all the doctrines to see whether they are in perfect harmony with providing a basis for "eternal happiness", how could a person who doesn't even know them yet? i would like take it for granted that people who claim to be religious make any sense at all, but religious and non-religious alike do not always even make sense, much less so can they point to concrete provable ideas once they step into the realms of philosophy and religion. I don't see any difference in denying that a perception is valid for me and saying, "i disagree with what you are saying". "Cooking is like this, this is why, your perception of cooking is incomplete." That is perfectly valid. It may be incorrect and it is in fact my perception of cooking that is wrong. In more complicated subjects i often insist that answers can not be either/or just as a matter of course. The reality that my personal perspective is very very limited, and OBJECTIVE right and wrong are quite difficult to see and should most often not be professed, is just part of my worldview, and I assume after a certain period of talking to someone they will understand that I am not fighting to control anyone. The point is that we all agree/disagree (if you prefer to use those words rather than trust/distrust). It doesn't matter whether we say select or trust, the point is the same - we all do this all the time, selecting from external sources, comparing them to our internal ideas, and deciding whether to accept or deny. We even do this physiologically, rejecting sounds our brains feel are unimportant. You and i do it all day long, hence i still don't see "cherry picking" as a pejorative, but rather a necessity.
Precisely. Who said the student can't top the teacher? This is the responsibility that comes with choosing a religion. It's not clear there could even theoretically exist a way around that. I do think that the very notion of "choosing a religion" is absurd, or trivial. I wish that those who expect people to "choose a religion" would acknowledge that. I've challenged LG on this several times, but he always backs away. There seems to be no record of how Jesus has responded to such a challenge, if there existed one. Surely there had to be someone back then to ask him - "Well, Jesus, why should we believe you? You do some hocus-pocus, turn water into wine and heal some lepers and such, but any half-assed mystic can do that. On the grounds of what, Jesus, do you expect that we should just trust you?" As for Kierkegaard: I am skeptical about his work, given that he wrote some of his major texts in character, not as "Soren Kierkegaard." I think language allows for clarity of expression right away: one can tell exactly what one means. There is the aggressive, the passive, the passive-aggressive, and the assertive communication style. But many people don't seem to be aware of that, so they don't express themselves as clearly as they think they do or as they wish they would. This suggests a particular ontology/epistemology that I am not sure I agree with.
As much as i am skeptical about him as well, he frames some questions very well, and i think his ideas on what the grounds are for belief in the "thing you will base your life upon", would make sense to you. His framing of the problem, not his answer to the problem, would make sense to you i think. He even uses the word "absurd". As for Jesus, i think if the point was to prove he was the savior of mankind he did a poor job leaving proof. As something to have faith in, I think he did well. I honestly don't know why God would have chosen to do things in a particular way. It seems strange to me. As we have noted before, i have much less confidence in the ability of language to express ideas than you do. Part of any communication is the reception, so if the words are misinterpreted the communication is not the best possible, even when that sometimes means using the "wrong" words to get the point across. i feel more comfortable accepting the necessity of cherry picking than accepting any particular specific line of thought that i have seen so far. There always seems to be some major things i don't agree with in each tradition, and i may end up with nothing, but better that than being false.
Sure. My point is that since he wrote those texts in character, not as himself, he was talking about a constructed, hypothetical convert-to-be, not an actual person. He might as well state that in order to convert, one first has to become someone else! I can't say that I love Jesus ... that would be a hollow claim ... There is one person with whom communication has to be clear: and that is oneself. To judge the quality of one's communication abilities by how some other person understands one, is to set oneself up for a fall. Sure, but then you can't reasonably hope to get what is promised, nor can you hope to fit in with the community of believers that are nominally the same religion as yourself. So you're bound to be isolated, and it's quite possible that in this isolation, the rest of your belief will become eroded as well. I am a confirmed ecclectic, but I see my ecclecticism as a passing stage, not as the final destination. I do believe in the "one true religion," and I do so on entirely formal grounds, namely, to find a coherent system that can explain everything.
the idea of becoming a "new creation" or "new man" may be a part of his religious view, although i think his anonymity was for practical purposes, perhaps to allow him the freedom to so whatever he wished without having to spend endless hours explaining himself to his neighbors. Also he stated his dislike of the crowd, and that truth had to be sought in the individual not in crowd assent, so perhaps he was actually avoiding somehow the crowd's input on his work by distancing himself from it. same kierkegaard document "the first existentialist", he mentions something as possible which i totally think is impossible. An unperceived revelation. An unreceived communication is not complete. Of course, i agree that you can't expect the dog to understand if you tell him to "go run around the block and stop at the store and pee on the store owner," and that doesn't make you a bad communicator. Although saying that to a dog may imply you are a bad at communicating to dogs. well if you do't fit in, then going along is just pretending to believe, which surely can't be any more valuable than believing out on the fringes. the difference here is that you seem to expect to find some person or group who has put it all together in such a way that it makes sense. I do not. I have found many people that make sense, who i am sure i could be in a community of faith with, although i have my differences with them. I am sure nietzsche and i would not be in a community of faith together, but i don't see why i can't insist that some of what he said made sense and should be incorporated into my system of thought. I guess there is some idea in here about willingness to believe your reality tunnel coincides with other people's.
Well, that is then a merely enacted conversion, not an actual one. Like an online forum-conversion: a poster works out his religious view on a forum, declares this and that about God, but in reality behaves as if nothing happened ... No, that is not good enough. An unperceived revelation? I'd say that is basic to Christianity, and to some other theisms as well. It's rather common for theists to work out of the assumption that everyone already knows God, but denies it. Yes, because you should have told the dog instead that he should "go run around the block and stop at the store and bark at the owner so that he pees his pants." Sure. My point is that being out on the fringes tends to be rather stressful, very demanding, in the metaphysical sense, as well as in the practical sense. In roundabout, yes.
it could be a person talking about what actually happened but using a pseudonym to allow themselves to say things that would make them uncomfortable admitting. an unperceived revelation would be one that nobody perceives. I think it is safe to say that most christians feel that they have perceived christian revelations of different types. The eye may not have seen or the ear heard, but something was perceived, or at worst imagined to have been perceived. That is unfortunate. i think it is pretty unsafe intellectually to pretend we know what everyone else knows and doesn't know. i guess i feel it is less demanding than sitting in a church as the pastor claims indian religions are somehow demonic. That was the last sermon i attended at a large church, and it isn't that i would never go back, it is just that i can't sit in front of that particular guy or people like him. I voted with my feet against christianity like his. To me it is a moral issue not to sit calmly in front of talk like that. It is also not my place to argue against everything he is saying and make waves week by week.
Why would anyone be uncomfortable admitting that he believes in God? Other than perhaps if he thinks that God is a mere sky fairy or some such. Yet that assumption seems to be necessary for evangelical preaching. Without the evangelist taking for granted that he knows what the other person thinks, feels and wants, there would be no basis for preaching. Instead, he'd actually have to talk to the person, which would, in most cases, be completely unproductive in terms of making converts. I agree. I couldn't stand going to a religious establishment where the people believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, but who nevertheless ascribe all kinds of nonsense to the Buddha, and don't care whether they actually can produce a scriptural reference to what the Buddha said. I would expect them to have more respect for an incarnation of the GOD they believe in. That, and a number of other things ... Agreed.
i think with kiekegaard it wouldn't have been that so much. His approach seems to be pretty sarcastic at times, so perhaps he didn't want his public persona sullied with his impolite arguments against other philosophers.
