Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2014, 05:07 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 02:16 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 07:00 PM)Baruch Wrote:  In terms you may understand of "Beauty, Truth and Goodness" your explanation is:
Unintelligible therefore an ugly presentation.
Cannot be good because you cannot explain it therefore has no wholeness/completeness/Goodness.
As for Truth - It is unintelligible so by definition cannot be true.

Yes I agree with that, but the situation we have here may be hopeless, in that it may just be a fact of the situation that my ideas simply won't make sense inside your perspective. If that's so - then there's not much I personally can do about that.

Phil

I dont think your ideas make sense inside your own perspective - thats an educated inference because obviously I am not you, but if they make you feel good and as if they make sense then there is nothing I can do about that either.

Any way its non dual and my perspective is your perspective and its all one. If its all one then you might share an ISIS & Taliban perspective two. Which shows the absurdity of saying one experiences non-duality. Intellectually we may derive a monist metaphysics as I mentioned - but we dont experience it - zen or no zen or zazen.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 06:12 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 04:51 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
Quote:Reality occurs to me as an indivisible nonduality, e.g. I see no concrete or absolute separation between any phenomena. There's relative separation (enough separation for talk of separate phenomena to be meaningful) but not absolute separation. The separations and distinctions that do appear are a projection of my own mind, e.g. a projection of it's desire to split and separate things into separate boxes in order to categorise and control, and the separations are formed not from what I do know, but from what I don't know e.g things appear separate until I investigate a bit more deeply, then I always seem to find processes that connect the entities in some way. So "separation" in a sense resolves to "ignorance".


I think your confusing "reality occurs to me as nonduality" vs a metaphysical understanding of reality may be monist.

I am not confusing these two things. To differentiate them, the former is "zen" and the latter sounds more like "stinking of zen".

Quote:Monism and pantheism - actually deny any transcendence because reality is made of a single substance (whatever that may be eg energy, matter).
Yes there is no "absolute separation" by any Monist can agree with that be it Bertrand Russell's "Neutral Monism" or George Berkeley's idealism or Baruch Spinoza's Pantheism or even John Searles case for "aspect dualism" (the dualism is just a a human perspective vantage point) or Aristotles hylomorphism. or various forms of physicalism such as Galen Strawson - You can look up the terms & names - but essentially all point to the same thing that reality is "one thing" i.e Monism (without committing to exactly what the substance is in some cases).

In your opinion, how do these systems specifically deny the general idea of transcendence? Perhaps if they make the mistake of reifying the "essential essence" at the heart of reality, then I'd agree with you. But all monist philosophies which actually do that have made a category mistake by describing the essence itself in terms of a few products of the essence. This is rather like trying to put a box inside itself! It's worse and less meaningful than a circular argument because it involves not just self-reference but reduction.


Quote:The above philosophers are in contrast to the dualistic perspectives such as plato, Descartes, most religious systems etc.
Quote: things appear separate until I investigate a bit more deeply, then I always seem to find processes that connect the entities in some way
Any Monist would agree with this - all the above philosophical traditions.
However this denies the universal transcendentals your talking about (Beauty, Goodness, truth etc) - THESE universal transcendentals fit better within a dualist framework like Plato.


OK fair point, although did you not notice that i've integrated Plato's transcendentals into a single absolute. I've said that reality is a dialectic of Beauty, Goodness and Truth. So "the absolute", e.g. the "essential stuff" of monism occurs as a process dialectic, that of Beauty -> Goodness -> Truth. Another way of putting this is that Beauty, Goodness and Truth are perspectives of the absolute, or faces of the absolute. The absolute itself is radically beyond human language, or as the Tao Te Ching begins: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao".


Quote:...and by the way - you DON'T experience non duality

I do. I think perhaps you mean, you don't?


Quote:- your phenomenological perspective is split up and that's an emergent REAL property of your mind NOT an illusion. The fact you see a rainbow in different colours is dependent on your neurology & particularly V1 visual cortex, different wavelengths of light, photoreceptors [cones for colour] in the eyes and a whole host of other factor. These are all real properties which give you a real phenomena of seeing a rainbow as something split up.

Perhaps, but beyond "taking a perspective" there is simply "being present to what is".

Have you ever had a peak experience? Perhaps something out of the ordinary occurred and silenced your mind and brought you into the present moment into an intense and direct experience of wonder and awe. Perhaps it was a beautiful sunrise, or perhaps someone close had just said or done something that touched you deeply.

In the moment, no analysis, no thinking about the experience, just being there in the experience, as the experience.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 06:16 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 04:55 AM)Baruch Wrote:  To carry on Phil:
Intellectually from what you don't see you may know reality is monist.
But you phenomenologically experience aspect dualism
You DONT phenomenologically experience "Monism" or "non-dualism"

That's fine - I'm not stuck inside phenomenological analysis at the times I experience nonduallity.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 05:02 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Firstly re-Edit your post as all the quotations are messed up.
What do you mean by lack of direct reflective awareness of the transcendentals of Beauty and Goodness.?

Well, what I means is this: I've explained the transcendental (or absolute) aspect of beauty and goodness quite a few times now. I've described it in different ways, using different analogies, using different conceptual frameworks.

And yet - you haven't directly engaged with any of it. Are you aware there's quite a lot of stuff I've written that you are not reflecting back at me, or engaging with? I assume it's because it just seems empty of meaning for you and so you just sort of pass over it when you are reading my posts. So (because it does not jump out at you as something you want to respond to) I'm starting to think that you find all my descriptions completely empty of meaning.

I have reflected on why that might be. I think it might be that reflective awareness of the transcendentals of beauty and goodness may actually be required for what I am saying to make any sense. Eg the very thing I am trying to explain to you is something you'd need to have direct experiential knowledge of before my words would have meaning. So that would make my posts a bit pointless, regrettably.


Quote:I have phenomenal awareness of Beauty and Goodness (albeit a plurality of definitions & experiences). However these are mind dependent - how can they be something transcendental ?

I am curious here, it seems you not aware I have explained this quite a few times? (It might be you aren't aware that you are skipping over all my explanations)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 12:02 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it is, but you didn't acknowledge that there are prescriptive dictionaries vs descriptive dictionaries, and that not all language change is positive.

When the meanings of two different words are confused, that is a loss to the language.
These two words are such a case. Drinking Beverage
As far as I know, when it comes to English, there are virtually no more prescriptive dictionaries.

There may not be - even the OED has lowered its standards. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 07:09 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 01:38 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you don't. There have been many people who never experienced cold but did experience hot.

Please explain that claim further.

I don't think they will have experienced "hot" as "hot", but rather as a bunch of other (symptomatic) phenomena. E.g imagine if there were was a tribe of people living somewhere where the temperature remained completely constant 24/7, 12 months of the year, but was just above the comfortable temperature range for humans.

I don't think they would have a word for "hot", and think the'd describe the heat as nausea, sweatiness, etc. E.g. would describe it in terms of other phenomena of which they might have in fact a cause for a relative knowing of the phenomena.

Their fires would be 'hot'.

Quote:
Quote:People are aware of differences, but they need not be opposites.

I think primary distinctions are always created by differentiating opposites. Any of those opposites may then be further differentiated (split into opposites), creating a subordinate pair of sub-qualities neither of which is of and by itself the true and complete opposite of the original differentiation.

Eg, consider a square coin - heads is the opposite of tails. Heads could be differentiated as the "top edge" and the "bottom edge".

Well, "heads top edge" isn't the opposite of tails.

("heads top edge" plus "heads bottom edge", all integrated in the dimension of "height") is the opposite of "tails".

But the knowing of "top edge" (of heads) is in a sense relative to a knowing of tails, even if it's not a complete opposite.

No, I just gave you an example of a continuum - temperature. One needs neither experience of ice to know hot nor of fire to experience cold.

Quote:
Quote:That is your reality. I don't subscribe to that.

And yet I subscribe to your reality.

If we look at this using set theory, surely that means your reality is a subset of my reality?

Phil

No, your reality is a subset of crazy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 05:07 AM)Baruch Wrote:  I dont think your ideas make sense inside your own perspective - thats an educated inference because obviously I am not you, but if they make you feel good and as if they make sense then there is nothing I can do about that either.

Interesting! I think everyone's ideas make sense from inside their own perspective. Ipso facto.

Your ideas certainly make perfect sense to me.

Quote:Any way its non dual and my perspective is your perspective and its all one. If its all one then you might share an ISIS & Taliban perspective two. Which shows the absurdity of saying one experiences non-duality. Intellectually we may derive a monist metaphysics as I mentioned - but we dont experience it - zen or no zen or zazen.

I feel I can understand the ISIS and Taliban perspective on it's own terms, e.g. "see the truth of it".

I find this a very useful skill - the number one rule of self-defence is "know thy enemy". And there's certainly no way the underlying issue is going to be improved without some true understanding of the underlying social situation and reality.

I see a lot of ignorance in the west around what is taking place in the middle east, and regrettably I feel our consequent ignorant meddling is frequently making things worse rather than better as a consequence.

For example, I see ISIS as an emergent property of a social system that we ourselves pushed into regression by invading Iraq. Saddam Hussain was hardly the nicest man in the world but in fact, he was a fit for purpose strong-man dictator in a social reality where there's still elemental and irrational tribal blood allegiances pushing up against each other.

It took a tough dictator to keep the Iranian warlords under the thumb of a central Iraqi system of governance, democracy by it's nature lacks a mandate to do what is required here, which would in a room of warlords where you are the top dog and someone is challenging your authority, to pull out your gun and personally shoot the warlord dead, in front of the other warlords, thereby (a) solving the problem and (b) cementing your authority over the remaining warlords.

Nothing else is really going to cut the mustard in that social reality. Committee meetings, focus groups, votes, all irrelevant.

There is nothing happening in Iraq today that I and quite a few other Integral thinkers did not foresee happening at the time the west made the mistake of installing a "democracy" to replace Saddam Hussain.

As if you can impose a democracy!

Did that not ring alarm bells for anyone? It's a charade, a sham democracy, the act of imposing democracy undermines any possibility that it was ever true democracy. A true democracy always comes from inside, because it by definition is "we the people".

Anyway, I digress :-)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 07:10 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 02:03 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you can't give a coherent explanation is plain language without jargon, then you probably don't have a coherent understanding yourself.

OK so now demonstrate that you have a coherent understanding of relativity by giving a 5 year old a "coherent explanation is plain language without jargon" ;-)

Actually, I agree with your point, but in fact earlier I stated my understanding concisely and in a few simple words, and it was dismissed as meaningless and in need of full explanation.

I responded to that with an expanded and more verbose explanation, which I now see is being dismissed because it is too verbose.

This is moving the goalposts. Not just moving the goalposts, but moving them in a circle! Moving the goalposts is a symptom of something.

I'll give you the concise and coherent explanation again. In simple words:

Reality is a dialectic of Beauty, Goodness and Truth.

Because this is doubtless "word salad" inside your perspective, allow me to put more dressing on it.

Your terse style of debate is a clear expression this dialectic in action, you are a zen master of dialectics. So, since you are a fact of reality, if i need to present evidence for what I'm saying, then i present you.

Phil

Except you never gave a coherent explanation. So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-08-2014, 07:29 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2014 01:38 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Please explain that claim further.

I don't think they will have experienced "hot" as "hot", but rather as a bunch of other (symptomatic) phenomena. E.g imagine if there were was a tribe of people living somewhere where the temperature remained completely constant 24/7, 12 months of the year, but was just above the comfortable temperature range for humans.

I don't think they would have a word for "hot", and think the'd describe the heat as nausea, sweatiness, etc. E.g. would describe it in terms of other phenomena of which they might have in fact a cause for a relative knowing of the phenomena.

Their fires would be 'hot'.

There are no fires or any other sources of heat, everything everywhere is the exact same temperature.



Quote:No, I just gave you an example of a continuum - temperature. One needs neither experience of ice to know hot nor of fire to experience cold.

A continuum exists between 2 opposites.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(25-08-2014 07:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except you never gave a coherent explanation. So, there's that.

Is that so?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: