Bravissima! That's a wonderful answer.
And this, indeed, is the "leap of faith" you mentioned previously. However, I find it difficult to fault Descartes. He was writing in the context of the times; you write - possibly, I admit, with considerable justification - that such is the illogical nature of the way God (and belief therein) works with his argument, such is the leap of faith required, such the lack of explanation, that deities were probably strapped onto his arguments in order to satisfy the moral climate of the times. That may well be true; however, even in so doing, he makes his arguments contextual, and pertinent to a particular era, and within the cultural context of the early Rennaissance, God, of course, was a given, unquestioned element. We don't have that luxury; God, as we are frequently reminded - in a metaphysical, rather than literal sense - is dead, and it's incumbent on us to try to make sense of a universe in which Deities may not exist.

It's interesting how important the use of mind-altering substances is in the rituals of shamanic and aboriginal cultures, and how it is nearly always defined as a "mystical" experience. The mysticism is, in fact, the broadening and alteration of perception; seeing the world in a detached - if not truly objective - sense.
Totally. The mind is, in its pure, unpolluted state, the only tool we have for interacting with the Totality of Existence - without it, we would be automata. And what a tool it would be capable of being if freed from the bounds of cultural preconception!

I understand the distinction you're making here, and I'm going to need to think a lot about what you're saying and how it compares with what I've said; essentially, I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin - perhaps, I'm a little too... cynical?

It's interesting, however, that you make the point that my perspective appears almost that of a Buddhist. It was, I swear, not intentional; however, of the major religions, Buddhism has always been the one to which I have felt the closest affinity.

Yes! I totally agree with all your points here, especially that of social context determining the basis of our beliefs. In another thread, you made a great argument on the subject of cultural pollution, and the eradication of pagan cultures, and that as a consequence, the paganism practiced thesedays cannot be guaranteed to be absolutely pure, and I think that's a great example of what you're saying - yes, you can de-programme yourself from those values of which you may be consciously aware, but you can't do it completely because every word, every concept, every idea, is permeated by centuries of - yes, totalitarianism! So, by the same token, it would be hard, if not impossible, for a person brought up in a modern culture - no matter what that culture is - to free themselves completely of the concepts of that culture, and as such, it would never then be possible for that individual to achieve an understanding of the Objective Truth.

As I mentioned before answering to nachtvlindler, I don't think that the fact that Descartes was one of the highest minds in human history is reason enough to consider everything he wrote as gold. What I mean is that once the writing is taken away from it's context, as Descartes' writings read in our time, as beings gifted with intellect we should be able to notice his lack of explanation and while we can, as you did, justify it, we still must operate a distinction between what still applys and what can't be applied, which doesn't mean any offence to Descartes, it only means times have changed and other as bright minds have changed our views.



Which reminds me of something I forgot to mention for nachtvlindler. After reading Kant, I'm going to read Nietsche and Schopenauer who, as far as I know, score as the two god-killers of philosophy ...actually Nietsche should be the one who killed God(s) whereas Schopenauer should be the one who first states that God(s) never existed...
I'm really curious to read them...




you forget about the breath limitation practices that reduce the ammount of oxigen brought to the brain and induce mind-altered statuses...






Just take the concepts you're describing, the Objective Truth and human mind being part of it. Stop thinking of any possible higher being. Consider that Objective Truth and the universe as a single thing, consider that as the circle death and life where death is only a new beginning where the soul remelts in the universe and the Objective Truth to reincarnate afterwords in another being that is a part of the universe... It's simply a matter of putting your though in a ciclical perspective.




I'm a linguist, at least in part. To me language is the expression of thought and language is wonderful exactly because it permits to convey different meanings using the same word. The fact that the language will keep it's cultural background and that unless we create new words it will be impossible to show how different our meanings are from what everybody else is thinking, doesn't mean it is impossible to stop thinking in a certain way. Let's take the example of the word "sin", we all feel guilty in specific situation which match the concept of sin, in my experience it is completely possible to stop feeling that guilt with the use of reason. Which doesn't mean to stop feeling guilt in general, just be aware that certain actions bring to certain consequences and if we want to avoid such concequences we must act in different ways, life is a path through which we learn how to avoid future mistakes, why would something as beautyful as an improved human being be something to regret?
Still, if we chose a certain action and a certain concequence knowing that this will harm those around us, the world or the universe or ourselves and we do it rationally and knowing it's going to be harmful, shoudn't we feel guilty?
I guess the point in this specific context is a word choice, we're used at chosing among could, should and would, what if we chose the verb "to decide" instead? Wouldn't this already be a start point to free our mind of a bound to the Catholic religion?
I hope this little example is explicatory enough of what I mean by freeing our mind of the bounds to that totalitarism we were subject to for ages...
Moreover, let's not forget that the words christianity is using are partially borrowed by the pagan religion as most of the holidays catholicism celebrates match old pagan holidays (christmas and the birth of the god of the ancient religion; easter and spring rites).



Even though I completely agree that the human mind is too little to completely comprehend the Objective Truth, I still think that the fact that great minds such as Nietsche and Schopenauer used their precious time and minds to explain us why we should reconsider our position in matter of religion has already changed the cultural background a lot. We find ourselves in a point of history that is located between deep and totalitarian religious beliefs, the times of history in which religion and law where working together and the future world in which religion will probably be bannished... I guess this is a good reason why it is more difficult for those of us who perceive the Objective Truth as the whole of which they're part to accept being in a transitory phase between two worlds...

So, I am away for one day... Let me see if I can catch up. I'll start with a relatively short post, because reading all your arguments online and in the text editor makes my eyes hurt.


I think that the human mind is for an important part or maybe even completely consistituted by the human brain. This also means that our minds and our thinking are embodied, informed by our senses. You can only hear certain frequencies, and if you lack certain cones (?) on your retina, you are said to colourblind. I think our senses in an important sense mediate our experiences and thinking inspired by/about empirical things. We are also capable of rational thought, but in day to day interaction this embodiment is - just like cultural heritage, the stories and values you grow up with - very important.

On the matter of the Objective versus Subjective Truth, I would say that there is a physical given in the universe, which can perhaps be logically written down in mathematical laws, a set of mathematical or physics descriptions of things. By measurement the truth of statements of this kinds might be determined, possibly. Because a statement should be in accordance to the measurements to qualify as "true". However, I do not think that there is something like an objective moral truth, something that is to guide or explain life. What is "true" when it comes to things like sense-making of life is, like terms as "good" or "beautiful", depended on the culture, values, interpretation of experiences, etc. And it is very hard, and probably impossible to totally abondon your cultural upbringing to try another perspective. But these truths are not individual, I think. They can be shared by large groups of people over time, and some might have a biological origin, but they are (at least to a large extent) culturally depended. I think I think


The idea of an Objective Truth also reminds me of panpsychism or even pantheism (if I am using the right terms here). I believe there also is a lot of Buddhistic philosophy on issues like we're discussing, might be worth to check that out someday...

Personally, I also think that religion, like what we now call "myths" originated to make sense of the world and to give some authority to some measures to live together happily. Because it must have been scary, to see days shortening, be depended on what you grow or catch for food, being plagued by diseases and storms without knowing what, why, or how. And a lot of questions exist to this day, questions for which science might have an answer, but not one that is necessarily satisfying to everyone (think of evolution theory for example). A lot of people find being fed answers easier than trying to find them for themselves, I fear. Which perhaps forms a part of the explanation why religion (still) attracts so many people, and why people (still) try to prove the existance of god.

But what I do not get, never have, in the idea of an objective truth is what it should encompass? I get it for physical laws, which are independent of perception and cultural changes, but life, and especially humanlife, is for an important part made up of stories, language, changing values, fashions etc. Is the Objective Truth like the Great Explanation of Everything, but how then???


Let me clarify that I didn't want to suggest that you did nor wanted to imply that I believed Descartes (or any other great mind) blindly.


I am too! Haven't read a lot by them, so do tell when you've read them!

Agreed - we're always going to notice the flaws when, perhaps, contexts change, and with them the actual approach to Philosophy, and conception of the world around us, as long as we bother to try. However, I have to marvel at the genius of something as beautiful as "Cogito ergo sum" - that, in itself, in a world riven with religious reliance, is nigh-on heretical, and the fact that he could encapsulate such an incredible notion into three words just floors me.

If Nietzsche is the god-killer, then Sartre is the gravedigger, who, having fulfilled his task, walks away wiping his hands...

You're right. I'm also forgetting about the fact that many tribal societies use the use of repetitive rhythm and movement to induce similar states. However, there's no doubt - as Timothy Leary and Ken Kesey discovered - that the use of substances like peyote are quick, easy routes to a different perspective. Please note, however, that I am in no way advocating their use.

Okay. Thus far, I've simply been commenting on what you've said, because, to be fair, I actually agree with it in its entirety.

Here, - while I still find myself understanding, appreciating, and in the main agreeing - I find that it's essential to expand on this.

Firstly, this is where the concept of "Objective Truth" becomes really contentious. For me, it exists without higher beings; to be fair, they never enter into the equation.

And this is where my conception of Objective Truth MAY be fatally flawed. What if I'm completely wrong? What if there IS a higher power which makes the Universe work? What of my Objective Truth then? To me, the Earth is a piece of rock flying around in an unthinkably large void; it moves according to a pattern set by the gravitational fields of its neighbouring bodies. What if that's wrong? What if it DOES move according to a pattern defined by an omnipotent being? Can I be so arrogant as to claim my Truth the Light and that of others mere blindness?

As to considering what I believe to be the Objective Truth to be one with the Universe... Yes, and everything in it, including the minds of the living organisms, wherever they may be. Please note that I don't mention souls. I remain to be convinced that such a thing exists.

On the subject of cycles... I see where you're taking this, and I'm incredibly grateful to you for making the effort to bring what I'm saying to a logical conclusion. However, I can't make that leap of Faith; for me, the Wheel turns only once, and this is ultimately where my path diverts from that of the Buddhists.

Aaaahhh... Language. A beautiful construct, and yet, the greatest of contaminators, too.

As you - and most other people here too - know, I'm a linguist, too, and inevitably, the nature of Language is of incredible interest to me. While I agree, part of its beauty is its potential for layered meaning, I believe that - in the same way philosophies cannot be divorced from their ethical and moral context - language is equally prone to the context from which it has arisen.

You've chosen an absolutely perfect example for a word - "sin". Never was a word more suited to a particular ethical perception, and therefore ultimately extremely subjective in its meaning ad usage. We say the word "sin", and no matter how we react to thaqt word - either with revulsion, or with pleasure - the actual meaning of the word is unmistakable, and is totally defined by the cultural context which gave birth to it. And, of course, it's such a cultural cornerstone; in the Christian West - and maybe in the Muslim world too - it's a key concept, something we're brought up with, a concept which our language will not allow us to be free of.

And it's THIS kind of cultural indoctrination, or, indeed, pollution, I was talking about. Not how words are used, as much as the fact that they exist in the first place. As soon as we're taught about, for example, sin, and the meaning of sin, whether or not we can subsequently free ourselves of the canon of any kind of religious/spiritual/intellectual indoctrination, we are still ultimately doomed by the fact that such words exist in our vocabulary to a subjective, rather than objective, existence.

Sorry for the delay, I didn't want to omit anything or skip anything you both said...



Some materialistic philosophies justify the existance of intellect through the scientifical statement according to which the human body is crossed by electricity, this electricity is what science accepts as the sparkle of life. But this rises a question... if our mind is our brain or mostly it, and the sparkle of life is electric power, how come there is no cat or dog or monkey discussing with us on this board? They have brain and electricity in them too...




I think this is the point where all of us agree, that this "Objective Truth" is simply the set of scientifical laws that make the universe such.
Now, my question is, if this is true, and everything we can base on is science and nothing else, and we accept the token that mind is brain, then brain is part of this scientifical laws, so my theory about the universe being one (as a set of rules) and mind being part of it and in accord with it stands... and if it stands it is also true and possible that the cicle of death and life I mentioned before is scientifically proven as correct. When we die we all agree our body decomposes and bits and pieces of our body mix with the earth and somehow norture it... so if we become food for an apple tree our mind/brain will become part of the apple too, and when another human being eats the apple part of our mind/brain is absorbed by that human being and when he/she breeds part of our mind/brain will be part of that new human being who will die and decompose... and so on... right?



Moral is something that goes back, once more, to that time when humanity tried to build what Rousseau called social contract and is part of it, using Descartes' analitical approach I would totally discard it as objective truth, it can be Subjective Truth shared by a moltitude, but it's most definitely not part of the Objective truth, a proof? Let's take death penalty. Not all states in the US accept it as morally ok, some states in Africa would cringe at the idea of death penalty NOT being morally ok, european countries do not apply nor accept it (schematically speaking), so, what's the objective truth?



Yes, they are linked to the way we grew up, the way we were raised, the studies we made and the background in which we live, true, but isn't it also true that we can change our mind on very important matters during our life?
Let's take changing mind about religion itself. If you read my posts in april in the religions thread you'll notice that I was having a very deeply spiritual approach, whereas now, I'm being the cinical one tring to find a scientifical explanation for the existance or not of God(s), fifteen years ago I was deeply Catholic and considering entering the monastry where they were raising me, until I graduated and entered a new world, and I ended up refusing the very religion I was so ready to embrace. People constantly change their minds on any matter, even science changes it's mind and fortunately it has done so through history, or we wouldn't be at the point we are... My thought here is that it's probably true that it's impossible to invent new ways of thinking and it is most definitely out of question forcing others to understand different ideas using a common language, but getting rid of thoughts we consider wrong is definitely possible, it's the thoughts we do not want to reject or renounce to that it is impossible to change...



I'm having a look at it in these days and I have to admit that now Black Milk's definition of Buddhists as atheists makes PERFECT sense. I was trying to through some of those views in the discussion, I hope I didn't end up being misunderstood, I'm not Buddhist, I'm just analyzing things trying to use EVERY perspective I can put my hands on...



I guess on this we agree, humanity needed answers and the easiest answer was that of a higher all knowing being deciding for everybody... I appreciate a lot the fact that you, like me, still keep in mind that not even science has every answer, which to me, is a good reason to use philosophy and mind to rationally look for those answers so many people still find in religion.



Reconsidering what said on this thread in the last couple of days I guess I agree with Descartes that the Objective Truth is the set of concepts that are completely and safely true, like the fact that the human being thinks and the fact that something that thinks must be, because if it wasn't it would be hard for it to do something like thinking... I would consider an objective truth also rousseau's statement that the human being is a "social animal" because it's definitely true that human beings tend to socialize and if they are thrown on their own they USUALLY go mad... even eremits still have a way to be social, by reading for instance...



I'm going to start with the Antichrist by Nietsche

now to Minnie



This brings my mind back to that statement I read by critics that the explanation on the existance of God MUST be added later, when he heard that galileo had been excomunicated.



Which reminds me that after Nietsche and Schopenauer I must add to my list something by Sartre...
even though I'm still going to read Rousseau and Kirkegaard after Kant...



What I was mentioning is a yoga tecnique used for concentration...
Most of the good things humanity has invented like concentration exercises or drugs to cure illnesses, have been also used for less justified aims. I think we must make a distinction between concentration and alternate state of mind as Cunningham calls them...

I mean, I would justify any means that brings the human being to a higher level of concentration, but I would never ever justify the use of said means to have hallucinations!



which is exactly what I was saying in my example.




What you mention here, Minnie, is just common sense. Socrates used to say that the wise man (or woman) is he (or she) who knows he (or she) doesn't know... but, if the mind is part of Objective Truth and you evidently have one, shouldn't we agree with Descartes that it is the sujbjective truth we can't confute that best mirrors Objective Truth... I personally think the highest of "sins" ( sorry, I couldn't resist ) against onself is that of not following our good faith.



Sorry, but here I'm almost offended as a human being ... I have a feeling there is a slight difference between animal mind and human mind, am I right? And if I am, what makes that difference? How do we want to call it?
How can we define it?



I have the strange feeling you got me wrong here... can you explain better?



The fact that a word exists doesn't imply that we have to use it, nor that we have to agree or stick to the concept... we also know the word totalitarism, but that doesn't mean we must have a totalitarian mind or we have to stick to a totalitarian behaviour... we can exist without sin as much as we can exist without totalitarism... and this comes from an italian... did you know that we (remember Italy is where the Pope resides) have no distinction between sin and pity? we basically say "it's a sin" instead of it's a pity...

Hmmm... A three way discussion... This is going to get interesting, so if I may, I'm going to follow the convention you've established, NightLight, and comment first on nachtvlinder's thoughts, which, I know, slightly predate my last post, but which appeared when I was verging on having completed that post, and therefore brought too much new information to the table to successfully incorporate into it. Then, I'd like to take a look at NightLight's ideas.

That's a very important equation. I wonder what the mind is like if deprived totally of sensory input (please note this is a hypothetical question and certainly not intended to make light of the suffering of individuals who are in any way, through misfortune, disadvantaged by perception problems)? The reason I ask is because I wonder whether it is genuinely possible to conceive beyond our senses? Is the mind greater than the sum of what we are capable of perceiving? And if so, does it have implications for a Greater, Higher, or Objective Truth? And, by the same token, is imagination, that human trait which informs Culture, genuinely greater than the sum of sensory input? I'd be interested in your ideas...

Yes; I appreciate I'm preempting my response to NightLight's post a little here, but we clearly agree on this. However, for me, the Objective Truth is best summed up by only one mathematical concept, in which all others are contained - that of Infinity; that point where mathematics, science, and culture all merge into the morass of Ultimate Knowledge, Ultimate Understanding.

Firstly, I want to say I agree with the overall idea that there is no objective moral truth. There can't be; morals are a basically subjective concept, established by humans. And, indeed, the relative values you mention are precisely the product of the application of judgmental filters which are essentially cultural, and therefore subjective, phenomena.

You speak of shared, common, experience, and these give a spurious sense of objectivity because they are a common reaction to a certain set of stimuli. However, surely, these are the very roots of cultural development, rather than an actual product of culture?

In talking about a great Objective Truth, I personally hesitate to go as far as implying that the Universe effectively is a mind of its own. I don't necessarily ascribe any level of sentience to Infinity; to me, sentience is a phenomenon which is a minor subset of the whole. Similarly, pantheism introduces concepts which I essentially reject because, as I think I've mentioned, gods, as the creation of Man, are subjective phenomena.

As you'll see from what I said initially, I agree with this totally; I think your comment here works as the perfect synthesis of both my, and Nightlight's, comments on the subject, and I wish I could have found a similar point of conjunction!

Yes! The Objective Truth is indeed precisely what you say. On the one hand, as stated, it appears to be the physical universe stripped down to its nuts and bolts, a set of mathematical formulae; but on the other hand, it's the actual Reality of the things we explain in mystical terms, simply because we have no means of genuinely explaining them. I am, I admit, as a sentimental being, a great champion of culture and cultural values, but I recognise that they are essentially insignificant, mere trappings for our comfort, in the overall objective picture.

Yes, that, I think, is completely understood, but NightLight's point is one worth making - as, indeed is yours.

I'll second that...

And now to NightLight's post.

Well, we did have a bloodhound...

Seriously, however, you raise an interesting question, and it's possible to invoke scientific concepts like evolution as answers. However, while not a sceptic, I am still not sufficiently convinced that they answer the specific question you're asking. If you like, here, I'm going to have to be a scientific Descartes and state that while not explained yet, there is clearly a cause for the differences relative levels of ability to reason, but it's not something I could personally explain.

I agree with what you're saying about the physical process of birth, life, death, decomposition, absorption, consumption, etc. Yes, you're quite right. But are you ascribing any kind of cyclical continuation of our sentience to this process? If so, then as monkeys or horses or other creatures eat the apples from the apple tree as well, indeed, why aren't they here arguing with us? For me, mortality is total and complete. And, using electricity as a - reasonably appropriate - analogy, death is like a light switch - when it's on, the Light, sentience, is possible, but when we die, the electricity is switched off and we cease to exist in every sense.

Clearly, we're all pretty much agreeing on this, as well, although we may - debatably - have slightly different stances on that perception.

Personal experience is always a valuable tool in philosophical debate, because it provides living proof of the point being made.
However, while I think the point you make about changes of direction - while certainly valid, and very important from the point of view that it backs up your contention about "decision" - is different from that of totally eradicating cultural influences which we can't avoid from birth, of pulling down the building blocks of our very existence and rebuilding it on new foundations. We're immersed in cultural stimuli from the moment we're born, and those stimuli are all-pervasive. To escape them in entirety would mean to spend many years in solitude, existing according to one's own terms. And to me, this is the most important aspect of seeking the Objective Truth, if such a quest is even practical; we need to totally purify ourselves of all cultural contamination...

And rightly so. In the absence of the ability to take an objective stance, the best way to approach things is to take elements from all subjective cultures to give a semblance of objectivity through concensus...

To allow anybody reading this a little diversion, I think that the way we agree on things means that, when we are old and wise, we will be the reincarnation of the three witches in Shakespeare's "MacBeth"...

Logical conclusions are essentially objective. Thus, Descartes's assertion is definitely a good definition of objective thought. Whether, however, I necessarily agree with Rousseau's statement as being equally objective, I'm not sure. Humans are social animals, and on the surface, that appears to mirror behaviour in Nature. Therefore, one might assume that it is part of our essence.

But is it? What's to say that the social aspects of human behaviour are not in themselves informed by cultural influences?

I'd like to take credit for having arrived at the thought independently, but I was spurred by your own comment, which I assume was partly informed by your reading of the critics.

All such exercises are keys to altered perceptions of Reality, and in essence are therefore a means of accessing the Objective, because they remove you from the subjective perception of the mundane. "Hallucinations", as you describe them, are no less a useful tool in the experience of a different Reality if accepted as such, rather than for hedonistic purposes.

I am flattered that you consider me to possess common sense! However, I prefer to believe that I maintain a sense of humility in the face of issues of incredible magnitude.

Interestingly, one of the great dichotomies of our culture is that of Truth/Falsehood. Essentially, there is no grey area between these concepts; that which is not Truth, is Untruth, or falsehood.

However, the point you're making actually undermines that dichotomy very effectively. Admittedly, from a dogmatic perspective, anything that is not the Objective Truth - even the most convincing of subjective truths - should be disregarded; however, there is something strongly appealing and beguiling about this playful suggestion.

As you'll realise from what I said earlier, this is not something I have a satisfactory answer to... Yet. However, maybe in the course of discussion, something will become apparent which is appropriate and worth developing which will act as that answer. Yet, I would say that at this point I'm not prepared to consider the difference being that of a soul. And no matter about their difference; they are all still a part of the Totality of Existence, would you not agree?

Apologies. The suggestion you appeared to be making is very Buddhist in scope, and appeared to therefore be sympathetic to my own leanings in that direction. However, whereas you talk about re-incarnation, which of course is a key mystical concept of the Buddhist religion, this is one area with which I can't reconcile myself, for reasons which may have become apparent throughout my posts.

I'd disagree with your opening contention. If a word exists, it's because it has, at some point or other, been used at least once, and will be used again. It cannot, in a cultural context, be totally abandoned, and the more central it is to the culture, the more likely it is that it will be used.

I do, however, agree that the fact a word exists is not a compulsion to a particular behaviour. It's not necessarily the word itself which causes the problem (although some branches of philosophy contend that because a word exists, the associated behaviour is essentially called into being - something I refute vigorously), but the cultural associations which have added themselves to its meaning. And yes, we can exist without sin, but when the word "sin" is raised in a text or a discussion, it nonetheless calls up particular associations, associations which would not exist without the cultural context in which we place the word.

It's interesting... We, too, can say "It's a sin" in a way which would closely equate to "It's a pity." I have to wonder whether this arises from the idea that only the Deity is pure enough, free enough of sin, to forgive sin and thus pity us poor, flawed mortals?

And, on this note, I'm going to wrap up this post.

The ball's in your court, ladies!

ah... and I'll change the convention just to go against ... reading your post I realized that quoting and entire extract as much as respective of the original intent will make the posts incredibly long and almost unreadable...
Hence, I'll try to give a specific direction to this post of mine to give Minnie my (incomplete) answers to her question to see if we can find a common field somehow.



Minnie, this approach is far more spiritual then mine... I was sticking to science and considering only substance whereas you are making a step further already...
Ok, symbolist poets speak of a sprit undeling everything, they say they can feel it using absinth... philosophers or the same time call this spirit "con-text" directly picking from the concept of spirit used by simbolists... If we deprive said concept of its nature of higher being and we metaphorically think of the univers as a piece of fabric, said "con-text" becomes the weave that keeps the universe together. If we accept this token, we are talking about what you mention here as "Ultimate Knowledge, Ultimate Understanding".






Personally, I wonder, I'm looking for that answer. If you want a Buddhist perspective, as far as I understand from the book I'm reading, take the concept of "Ultimate Knowledge, Ultimate Understanding" you mention purely as such, take a no as an answer to your question and you have the idea. The difference between you and Buddhism is the idea of soul. To Buddhist the fact that the human being is able to understand and know means they have a soul, but I really don't think they are talking about the idea of soul you think as such...
Let me point out something. In all my studies Buddhism was always mentioned as a PHILOSOPHY not a religion, and a family friend who's Buddhist tells me that even though it is considered a religion by law it actually is not and it is simply a philosophy. What is it that draws the line? Buddhist do not believe in any kind of God, they do not worship any deity nor any icon nor symbol, they celebrate the universe as the texture that connects all things and as the cycle of death and life.
No, we're not talking about us being reincarnated meaning that our sencience (christian concept of soul) comes back into a new body to continue it's path, or we should take as right the vignet with Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy where Stanlio is a speaking horse... because Buddhism believes in reincarnation in every living form. What do they mean then? Take the subjective truth as a little portion of the objective truth, in other words the individual knowledge and individual understanding as a portion of the universal knowledge and universal understanding, when we die that portion doesn't go completely lost to Buddhist, it melts into the universal knowledge and universal understanding becoming once again part of the whole. An example... take a glass of water from the sea, then break the glass, where does the water go if not back in the sea?
From this point on, I don't know what Buddhism would give you as an explanation, but we could continue the example like this:
If you take another glass of water will that water be exactly the same as before? No, but it will contain part of the water of the previous glass, maybe just a molecule, just a "memory" of it, but it will contain part of it. But if we consider that the previous form was part of the whole as much as this new part containing a memory of it and we accept the concept of unicity, the whole is a whole and no matter how many times you cut it or divide it it's always the same whole, because the portion never stops to be part of it, hence even though it's just a memory it will be the same portion as before anyway, because it's always sea water...



Disagree ! Think of teenagers, they are the clear proof that escaping cultural indoctrination is perfectly possible... it's after that age when we start to consider ourselves grown ups and we start feeling to much bound to the teachings we received that changing direction seems impossible, but it's perfectly possible for a teenager, hence for a human being, not to feel guilt for having sex before marriage one day and then as an adult feel completely destroied for having done it... or vice versa... Actually, sex before marriage is a very good example of how easily we get rid of the concept of sin...



You have no idea how long I thought about this concept , I think rousseau is my weak point somehow... anyway, my answer here is: you cannot indoctrinate someone to want to be with you unless they are themselves deciding to spend time with you, which makes the whole indoctrination process on the subject of socializing completely useless



Wait a second, let's not call the wolf if it's not around!
Concentrating doesn't mean to reach a different state of mind or another dimention. Did it ever occour to you to write or read something and be so concentrated in what you were doing that you didn't hear someone telling you something or you didn't hear the door bell ring? That is concentration, and I personally find it unavoidable to achieve good results in life. So yes, I practice concentration exercices, and it never occoured to me to see the spirits in any of them...



But, if I didn't get us wrong, we were past this concept accepting the subjective truth as part of the objective truth... I personally don't worry if religious people have a bigger or a smaller portion of truth then that I have, I only care of having my own truth and developping it on my personal terms, freed of a dogma imposing me to think a certain way.
I have a horse, if it's bigger then yours good, if it's smaller I'm glad for you, but I'm going to keep mine



I guess this is what pulled me away from Christianism... :S ...I can't accept that... it never became completely part of my way of thinking... how? I always told myself that God might even be the only one able to forgive me, but if I decide not to be forgiven he's screwd, so it's me in the end deciding to save myself and since I don't believe in that poor lad called Satan, I don't see anything to be saved from if not ignorance... TO THE PIRE!!!!

Granted... I appreciate my last post was extremely long, and I'm sorry. However, when a subject is so interesting, it's easy to get lost in it, and concepts like Time and Space become nigh-on meaningless...

Thank you, however, for responding!


Do you think my approach "spiritual"? If so, it may be that we need to concentrate on a definition of what constitutes the "spiritual", for in giving my previous response I thought my answer purely mechanistic; I have to bow in deference to your definition.

However, in the quest for common ground, I agree with the image you use of con-text acting as the weave which binds the Universe together - as long as it is purely a combination of the physical we understand and that which we do not, at present, understand, but for which there are laws which remain to be discovered.


I concede that possibility. But then, I would - preempting subsequent discussion - state that my concept of "soul" is very much that of the cultural context in which I've been raised, eg, Christian, and it's difficult for me in that context to conceive of an alternative... Although not impossible, I grant.

Hence your assertion that Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy. Thank you for clarifying that.

And, indeed, your previous comment that my philosophy verges most on the Buddhist view of Infinity.

Indeed, I understood this from your previous comment, although I am grateful that you have made the effort to provide a fuller analogy - it's helped me understand it (even) better, and I hope has also clarified it for anyone else reading our posts. And thank you for answering the question, too - that sentience, as such, is non-cyclical.
I'd actually disagree, and point out that teenagers think they're rebelling and freeing themselves from the cultural indoctrination handed down through the generations... However, being the age I am and having lived here for as long as I have, I can see that the people who were rebellious teens when I arrived have just grown up to be substitutes for their parents... Thus the human race stagnates and dies in filth, stupidity and squalour... Thankfully.

Do you think so?

How many times were you encouraged by your parents to "go outside and play while the weather's nice"? And did you do it? I did; I hated every minute of it - I would rather have been inside the house, reading, once I'd learned to read; but it was what our parents wanted, right? But the vast majority of children never question - they just go out and play with other children. Would they if they weren't encouraged? I wonder.

Point taken, and I fully agree. However, there's concentration and Concentration. You can lose yourself in something... But there's also the level of concentration which goes beyond that, which becomes totally meditative, which allows you to experience something greater than mundane existence. This very thread achieves that, for me; whereas the early parts of the post are laboured, intellectually controlled, gradually, that control loosens as Thought starts to flow, until such point as I find myself almost a channel for pure Thought. It's not just a stream of consciousness; it's an aura, controlling my mind and allowing me to function very much, as our cousins across the Atlantic would put it, "in a Zone". It's not quite reaching Nirvana (even if it was, I would hesitate tyo use blatantly subjective imagery), but I have little doubt that it comes close.

Of course, totally agreed - remember, I used the words "of our culture"; I like grey areas, although the Truth/Falsehood dichotomy is one of the hardest of which to purge onesself!

Actually, when I mentioned this in my previous post, I was speculating, or more precisely, extrapolating, rather than citing from actual, first-hand knowledge... I'm glad - in a sense - that I could so easily glean the nature of Christian morality... But I totally agree. To quote a long-gone friend, "I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member."

What a lot to reply to! Let me get to work immediately. I will discuss some of your answers together, as I feel I would otherwise be to lengthy and repetitive. So, my reply is more of an thematic reply to some issues you both touched than a complete response to all your points.


Don’t worry about it! I actually appreciate it that that you and Minnie take the time to think about your posts. Since I am doing the same, I am also not able to respond quickly.



On the question whether the mind is completely or for a significant part constituted by the brain – there are different forms of materialism defended by philosophers and I am right now not going into that debate – then there is indeed a role for electricity. Neurons can communicate electrically, in a way, but I am not sure this is what NightLight means. Anyway, she is absolutely right in saying that other animals also have brains, which grosso modo work in the same way human brains do. However, there are big difference between the various brains of different animals and between animals and humans. However, I do believe that animal brains are similarly constituted means that they can have all kinds of levels of conscious experience. To be able to engage in language driven, philosophical debates, however, requires to learn – in this case – the English language and to type. While some animals do communicate (some even with sounds) and use tools, it might be that concept-driven debates is a little bit too much to ask of them. Or they just don’t care, of course Maybe the ability to engage in conceptual thinking or storytelling is what separates us from cats, dogs, and chimps, etc.
MinnieUnfortunately, you don’t have to think (as a thought-experiment) about trying such an experiment. Some very cruel parents have put their young children away, in rooms with very little to no visual, auditory or sensory stimulation –doing basically nothing for the poor children but feeding them to keep them alive. When those children are removed from such a situation - depending on factors like how young they were when they were placed in them, for how long, and how much and what kind of contact remained - they can only learn language very poorly, if at all (and have suffered all kinds of psychological damage). They can function (some more than others), but only in a very limited way. To me that suggests that the human mind (or brain) needs stimuli in order learn how to function properly. I also think that our experiences are “mediated” or “made sense of” by language. You do not see some coloured blobs, you see chairs, books, computers etc. (and you immediately see them as chairs, books and computers). I don’t think that this means that it is completely impossible to conceive of something that hasn’t been experienced. Although even conceptual thinking is often enlightened or explained by examples, experiences, etc, I think the mind is capable of going beyond perception, but is even then informed, or inspired if you will, by perception. So I am not sure if the human mind is capable of thinking things which are not in any way informed by the senses. Maybe purely mathematical theories (those far advanced of 2+2=4) are examples of thinking that is not informed by the senses. Honestly, however, I do not know enough about mathematics to know this for sure. Or maybe the laws of quantum mechanics (but: same problem as with maths)? To answer your question, I do think that most human thinking is informed by the senses in one way or the other, and if it is possible to think of something completely unrelated to the sensory experience, it is very difficult to do so. Again, take the examples of advanced mathematics or physics. The discovery of such insights is not for everyone. For the idea of the Objective Truth, the mind itself and how it might or might not work, has no consequences. I’d say that the Objective Truth, those scientific principle constituting the universe, just are – independent of the mind. I think we all agree that there is a way things work, which we as humans would call laws of physics. These do not change, and are not influenced by the mind. But what the mind is and can do, is relevant for our understanding of it. This means that – depending on what form the understanding of the universe takes – it might not be attainable for humans. But if, as some think, all things in the universe boil down to formulas, then it might be possible to understand them and the universe in turn. Or the Objective Truth will always be something beyond human knowledge. I will need to think this through much harder to come up with a more useful answer, I’m afraid.
Now to imagination. I agree that it plays an important part in culture. I guess that imagination is always informed by the senses, but not always directly. But, in essence, all imagination, I think, falls within categories, like it takes place in time (even if time does funny things, like forming a loop or stretching out long), in a space, with our without colours etc). Imagination does play an important role in forming Cultures and keeping them living, changing. Imagination is, I think, firmly rooted in sensory experience, but is not the same (or limited to, if you will) those experiences. Does that mean that I believe that imagination is more than the sum of sensory input? I guess the very definition of ‘imagination’ could encompass that it is. Otherwise it would just be experiences.

Now that I understand you both mean more or less the same with Objective Truth, and I can agree with this although I myself would probably never use the term myself, I wonder: do you think humans think about concepts like these and try to unravel the principle of the Objective Truth because of their nature (being intrinsically curious) or because they expect something valuable of it (for their lives)? And would the world as we know it and experience it change but unraveling it? And also, do you think the human mind is able to do discover such principles?



While I do agree that after death our (buried or cremated) bodies will taken up into nature again, I do not think that it is our minds that fall into little pieces of mind and get taken up again as pieces of minds. I think that only a certain configuration of matter, if I might say it that way, can constitute the mind. Once this is broken down, there no longer is a mind, I believe. So, our minds will no longer be around after our deaths – unless the pieces will be reassembled into our minds again, somehow. But I think that the chances that that will happen are extremely small, so you can best say, I think, that there is a material cycle that can bring forth minds (which thus are not necessarily a part of the cycle). For the horses etc. not engaging in this debate, see above.

Those Buddhist philosophies are really starting to intrigue me, so thanks for sharing. I’d like to learn more about it, so this must be added to my (already quite long) “still to read list”.



I think that escaping cultural upbringing, or indoctrination depending on how you view a culture, is very, very hard to completely realize. It requires one to completely abandon all values, practices, stories etc. one was brought up with, and develop a new set without using the old practices. You become ‘one’ with your culture in a sense – whether you want it or not – and it changes how you interpret things and how you judge situations and people. This is also why it is so hard for cultural anthropologists to give an unprejudiced description of another people with completely other cultures, habits etc.. Teenage rebellion is still within the culture of a society; the actual cultural norms define what is rebellion and what not, I’d think.


I am not sure I completely agree. To a lot of people, things must indeed be either ‘true’ or ‘false’. But in a lot of situations we can perfectly well live with ‘indecisive’/’not yet known’ or ‘from one perspective it’s true, from another it’s not’. Common sense would dictate that in the first examples, there is a truth of the matter, but it is not yet known. So this falls under the dichotomy. In the last example, which is probably best described as a complicated social situation, people seem to be able to deal with things that can be ‘true’ and ‘false’ in the same time. There might not be an appropriate term for it, and many people might prefer a more ‘black or white’ situation or norms, but it’s not unthinkable. Although this dual truth value (true and false at once) – for most people – will not extend to measurable or quantifiable things. If you can measure it, it must fall in the dichotomy.

For now, I am going to wrap this post up – with my sincerest apologies that I could not respond to every idea you both made in the last four posts. It became too much, and if I would have tried, I would have fallen even further behind. Don’t think that the rest of what you wrote was not interesting enough, because it was. I hope that I have been able to give some interesting replies to your thoughts.

Hi girls and Hi everybody...
I've been away for a while and some things have changed in my life. Coming back to this thread I had to notice a couple of things I didn't notice before, how is it possible?!?

Coming back to the concept of "social indoctrination" we were talking about.
First of all I just realized that those who are talking are somehow already out of that indoctrination. Come on, people like you, Minnie, or sweet DP, or she who used to be called tacticgirl are the first and greatest example of how social indoctrination does LUCKILY NOT work. In these months I realized that the first and most important step of social indoctrination is that of annihilating any sparkle of ourselves, but you girls, you all show how it is possible in this world to raise above such indoctrination and forge ourselves into what we truly and honestly are. I guess this is one of the reasons why I used to envy you all girls, your power of being yourselves no matter what your families and society say. Everybody else in this board is goth or anyway looking to social indoctrination and mainstream culture with respectful disdain, stating their individuality with pride and dignity. People like Bfly take a widespread and definitely mainstream faith and forge it into a good hearted attitude and motherly embrace, taking the good and leaving out any form of fanatism. Isn't it proof enough that the world starts to raise, resist and rebel to social indoctrination?
I see the point of thinking that stepping out of the dichotomy we grew up with is difficult, but is it really?
I think of a world in which each being is considered part of a whole, a world in which existing makes one part of existance itself and as such a part of a unique universe.
Maybe the true difficulty is not stepping out of dichotomy or not being influenced by social indoctrination, maybe what we really find difficult is actually to accept to be independent individuals who are not touched by mainstream culture still being part of it. I'm not sure I expressed this concept clearly enough, so please forgive me if I spend another few words on it. We are already thinking differently from the mass and we are all already working our way out of dichotomy, but maybe the difficult part is realizing that this is a truth nobody can change and look with com-passion to our beloved ones who do not achieve what we already achieved.
In other words, what has gone lost is spirituality (I'm here borrowing an oriental concept where, spirituality is intended as our hidden self, not as a blind faith in something incomprehensible, but faith -trust- in our inner selves, maybe Black Milk could help me explaining this) and we feel it missing in our everyday life giving fault to anything being out of us, when actually what we should look for is IN us.

Interesting…

Are you saying - to use an analogy, which I suspect has been expressed elsewhere – that effectively, we’re all part of a river which leads to the sea, but that at a microscopic level we are individual droplets making up that whole? And that to achieve enlightenment we need to appreciate our part in the river, how we work with all the other droplets in creating a single whole, all flowing toward the same goal?

Trust in you inner selves, but always tie up your camel. To mangle an aphorism.

mmm ... It was more "trust in your inner selves, and forget the camel."



Lovely! You opened another chapter! But I'll answer your question first.
Water is not just in the river or in the sea. But more then that, water is just water, no matter if it's a droplet or a lake or the lymph of a tree. Cogito ergo sum, just taking away the cogito part.

As to the other chapter you just opened, have a look at my new signature...