Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GaryLouisSmith]

So aside from all that how do you personally find the depths? Or do you think it's hopeless?

In the shamanistic, ´+past life, more emotional based practices.

I am an American right now living in Kathmandu, Nepal, where I am doing research at Tribhuvan University in Hindu Tantra and shamanism. I would love to here some of your ideas on shamanism. If you have any questions about my understanding of it, I would be glad to answer them the best I can.

[Belindi]

However religion in general is an indispensable part of any culture and its culture is an indispensable part of a society.

Here's an excerpt from the book The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen, a book I highly recommend if you want to understand religion.

Freud, Durkheim and Otto all recognized the importance of the numinous; they understood that religion established the foundation for many cultures. Holy dread, taboo, and the numinous were the religious phenomena that served to uphold and stabilize societies. These were the fundamental source of religious power. Incredibly, the matters are given almost no discussion today. Otto was particularly perceptive and noted: “with a resolution and cunning which one can hardly help admiring, men shut their eyes to that which is quite unique in the religious experience, even in its most primitive manifestations. But it is rather a matter for astonishment than for admiration!” These words are even more true now than when they were written eighty years ago.

Today we read only sociological theories about the origin and meaning of religion. NO ONE in the scientific community writes about Holy Dread, the paranormal or Taboo. Writing about such has instead become taboo. That, I suppose, does speak to its truth and power.

I very much like the passage you quoted. I believe what it says is true including what Otto wrote about holy dread. These people lived and died many years before the crisis of human extinction, however now the words have modern implication.

Moderns who have seen planetary exploration, the wonders of the quantum world, and the functions of the brain-mind, are unlikely to be controlled by traditional holy dread concerning ghosties and ghoulies. However it's becoming more apparent to all but the stupid contingent that we are going to know worse disasters than we have before experienced unless we combine our human resources on a global scale. Only religion can do this. We have the modern version of holy dread and we have the modern version of holy awe. Now, I hope to God, this religion will grow in time to bind us together as men of good will.

[Belindi]

GaryLouis Smith wrote:

BUT there is always the suspicion that they are being duplicitous. Many people think they can't quite be trusted. And that is their power.

The passive voice, as above, is itself deceptive. Who suspects? Who are the "Many people"?

Divided societies do contain hostile factions. The more the rich rob the poor, or the more the ci-devant poor rob the ci-devant rich , the more the victors have to lose and the more paranoid they need to be.

[GaryLouisSmith]

. Now, I hope to God, this religion will grow in time to bind us together as men of good will.

I think that you know that there is no chance of that happening at all. Every religion predicts the end of the world. Here in Nepal, in Hinduism, we are in the Age of Kali, Kali Yuga. It still has some time to play out, during which there will be more and greater horrors for mankind’s viewing pleasure. Then Shiva will begin his dance of destruction and he will utter that famous phrase – Behold, I am become death.

What’s going to happen is that disasters will pile up and only a small remnant will survive. People should read Darwin’s Origin of the Species. He speaks at length about the Struggle for Existence during which most members of a species die. It’s a violent vision, not without a certain beauty just like the religious Apocalypse. There’s nothing to be done about the coming world catastrophe. It’s as natural as rain. Please read Darwin.

[Belindi]

. Now, I hope to God, this religion will grow in time to bind us together as men of good will.

I think that you know that there is no chance of that happening at all. Every religion predicts the end of the world. Here in Nepal, in Hinduism, we are in the Age of Kali, Kali Yuga. It still has some time to play out, during which there will be more and greater horrors for mankind’s viewing pleasure. Then Shiva will begin his dance of destruction and he will utter that famous phrase – Behold, I am become death.

What’s going to happen is that disasters will pile up and only a small remnant will survive. People should read Darwin’s Origin of the Species. He speaks at length about the Struggle for Existence during which most members of a species die. It’s a violent vision, not without a certain beauty just like the religious Apocalypse. There’s nothing to be done about the coming world catastrophe. It’s as natural as rain. Please read Darwin.

It so happens that I am not imbued with Eastern passivity.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouis Smith wrote:

BUT there is always the suspicion that they are being duplicitous. Many people think they can't quite be trusted. And that is their power.

The passive voice, as above, is itself deceptive. Who suspects? Who are the "Many people"?

Divided societies do contain hostile factions. The more the rich rob the poor, or the more the ci-devant poor rob the ci-devant rich , the more the victors have to lose and the more paranoid they need to be.

Yes, I love the passive and middle voice. Paradox is close. Ambiguity looms. Suspicion grows. And deception. Btw, what is ci-deviant? I couldn't find in on google. In my opinion, it is the poor and the people with low social status who know the art of deception much better that the rich and the high status people. The poor shall inherit the world. The rich and the elite are doomed. Have you read William Burroughs. I follow him in all this. He's my favorite writer.

[GaryLouisSmith]

It so happens that I am not imbued with Eastern passivity.

LOL You just have to learn to love disaster movies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX68yuQ0ivE

[Belindi]

Ci-devant alludes to the French Revolution . Sorry! I just thought it was a well known phrase but obviously you have not all been readers of The Scarlet Pimpernel

I may have spelled it wrong I'd better check.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Ci-devant alludes to the French Revolution . Sorry! I just thought it was a well known phrase but obviously you have not all been readers of The Scarlet Pimpernel

I may have spelled it wrong I'd better check.

Ok, you got me. I googled everything I could think of about ci-deviant and the Scarlet Pimpernel and I still have no clue. I do know the French Revolution and its importance in the history of thought. BUT I am a 75 year old bookish person living on the other side of the world and what young people look at on the Internet is way outside my ken. I really am interested in the metaphysics of revolution. Sartre had overmuch to say about that. Do you think blood running in the streets is cleansing for the human soul as he thought? You seem to me a thoughtful, nice, gentle guy (of gal) so you probably don't. Do you think you can survive what's coming?

[Belindi]

But Gary, you keep spelling it wrong. 'Devant' has no 'i'.

Regarding Holy Violence:


Now, our Saviour, when he witnessed all this struggling round about to get near him, said, "This is just a picture of what is done spiritually by those who will be saved. As you press and throng about me," said Christ, "and thrust one another, with arm and elbow, to get within reach of my voice, even so must it be if ye would be saved, 'For the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.'" He pictured to himself a crowd of souls desiring to get to the living Saviour. He saw them press, and crowd, and throng, and thrust, and tread on one another, in their anxious desire to get at him. He warned his hearers, that unless they had this earnestness in their souls, they would never reach him savingly; but if they had it, they should certainly be saved. "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

I do believe that to be authentic , believers in an authentic cause , partakers of an authentic culture, have to risk our lives. I hate violence but it has to be true. Look at Hong Kong just now.

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-ab ... 129/112373 (The article by Marie Perinbam)

In The Wretched of the Earth (1961, Les damnés de la terre), published shortly before Fanon's death, the writer defends the right of a colonized people to use violence to gain independence.

[GaryLouisSmith]

But Gary, you keep spelling it wrong. 'Devant' has no 'i'.

Regarding Holy Violence:


Now, our Saviour, when he witnessed all this struggling round about to get near him, said, "This is just a picture of what is done spiritually by those who will be saved. As you press and throng about me," said Christ, "and thrust one another, with arm and elbow, to get within reach of my voice, even so must it be if ye would be saved, 'For the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.'" He pictured to himself a crowd of souls desiring to get to the living Saviour. He saw them press, and crowd, and throng, and thrust, and tread on one another, in their anxious desire to get at him. He warned his hearers, that unless they had this earnestness in their souls, they would never reach him savingly; but if they had it, they should certainly be saved. "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

I do believe that to be authentic , believers in an authentic cause , partakers of an authentic culture, have to risk our lives. I hate violence but it has to be true. Look at Hong Kong just now.

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-ab ... 129/112373 (The article by Marie Perinbam)

In The Wretched of the Earth (1961, Les damnés de la terre), published shortly before Fanon's death, the writer defends the right of a colonized people to use violence to gain independence.

Yes yes yes, What made me put that i in there? If I take it out then it is just an ordinary French word. That said, I seldom, if ever, think in terms of social groups. I usually interpret the violence of religion as the tearing apart of analysis or the violence of Eros. I see the spirit world as a place of spiritual violence. Philosophy is violence. I suppose the madding crowd is also, but I am far from that.

I have spent my life thinking about philosophical puzzles. Ontology is a bewilderment. A jungle, a wild thing. It will tear your mind apart. In the midst of that there stands that mind-blowing beauty. Here is Rumi -

Jalal al-Din Rumi
translated by Arberry
18.
Go forth, my comrades, draw along our beloved, at last bring to me the fugitive idol; with sweet melodies and golden pretexts draw to the house that moon sweet of presence. And if he promises, "I will come in another moment," all his promises are but cunning to beguile you. He possesses a flaming breath, by enchantment and wizardry knotting the water and tying up the air. When in blessedness and joy my darling enters, sit you down and behold the marvels of God! When his beauty shines forth, what shall be the beauty of the comely ones? For his sun-bright face extinguishes all lamps. Go, fleet-paced heart, to Yemen, to my heart's beloved, convey my greetings and service to that ruby beyond price.

26.
If you are Love's lover and in quest of Love, take a sharp dagger and cut the throat of bashfulness.
Know that reputation is a great barrier in the path; what I say is disinterested – accept it with a tranquil mind.
Why did that madman work a thousand kinds of madness, that chosen wild one invent a thousand wiles?
Now he rent his robe, now he ran over the mountains, now he quaffed poison, now he elected annihilation …..
Love's path has proved all drunkenness and abasement, for the torrent flows downwards; how should it run upwards?
You will be as a bezel in the lovers' ring, if you are the ear-ring slave of the king, my master; …..
My son, it behoves not to beat the drum under a blanket; plant your flag like a brave warrior in the midst of the plain.
With your spirit's ear listen to the thousand tumults echoing in the green dome's air from the clamor of the passionate ones!
When the cords of your robe are loosened by Love's intoxication, behold then the angel's rapture, the houri's amazement!

[Belindi]

Regarding Rumi 26:

'Love' indicates a meaning within (or beyond if you prefer) romantic love. Only the bravest men are able to rise above their personal safety and some men fail to reason. Rumi inspires. Ontology leads towards what neurology now explains and finds ample evidence for : mind-brain unity.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Regarding Rumi 26:

'Love' indicates a meaning within (or beyond if you prefer) romantic love. Only the bravest men are able to rise above their personal safety and some men fail to reason. Rumi inspires. Ontology leads towards what neurology now explains and finds ample evidence for : mind-brain unity.

By having mind-brain unity you pay a heavy price, a price I am not willing to pay.

Let’s says you are looking at some object in the world. An object you a fond of. A face. A shapely body of someone you would like to have as a lover. A motorcycle. A garden. Your favorite pizza. A cat. A mathematical proof. The Gulf of Mexico. Your new shirt. I contend that by having mind-body unity you have lost mind-object unity. By object I mean such things as I mentioned above. Instead, all you have is the image of the object in your brain.

In the ontology I hold there is the Intentional Nexus. And there are minds which are among other things ideas. Suppose you have or are the idea that this breeze is soothing. As I analyze that there is a breeze and the Form of Soothing that it exemplifies. The idea [this breeze is soothing] intends the fact of this breeze being soothing. The idea and the fact are united by the Nexus of intending. That is a very intimate nexus. The idea, the mind, is right up against the fact, the breeze and the Form it exemplifies. No intermediaries. Mind-object unity is achieved by means of a nexus. But all you have is mind-brain unity. The objects you behold are not there, only a stand-in, a deputy, a vicar, a concept that is removed from the object and that Form you would like to make love to is just a brain imprint.

That is why you remove “love” from the visible form that romantic love directly sees. Then love is just something in your brain and the form of the body out there is as nothing. You have lost the beloved object in favor of a vague neurological thing. You have paid a heavy price.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

I contend that by having mind-body unity you have lost mind-object unity. By object I mean such things as I mentioned above.

I am a self: you are a self. We relate to each other and that is how we can talk to each other. Moreover the tension between one self and another, or between ones self and an inanimate object,is how we gain knowledge of an antithesis without which we could not learn. If we cease to learn we die unless supported by others.

Cartesian dualism was popular especially with European religionists when minds were supposed to be better than bodies; that's an example of rationalising.

I think I understand what you mean by "mind-object unity". It's when you love so much that you become one with the beloved. I don't of course refer only to sexual passion. Still, orgasm has been called a little death. The orgasmic individual loses himself . Apart from sexual ecstasy we can be so devoted to some work or other that we loses ourselves in it. I think that's a Buddhist precept, to choose good work and give yourself to it whole heartedly.

Even if I were to devote self to some not-self I doubt if I could do so unremittingly without dying of such constant selflessness. I can focus my attention, however I don't want to completely abandon my own memories and my own instincts until I am actually dying.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

I contend that by having mind-body unity you have lost mind-object unity. By object I mean such things as I mentioned above.

I am a self: you are a self. We relate to each other and that is how we can talk to each other. Moreover the tension between one self and another, or between ones self and an inanimate object,

You speak of a relation and tension. What is that relation? What is that tension? Here I am doing analysis. The “relation” I proposed is the Intentional Nexus. It is not just between a mind and an extraordinary thing; it is between a mind (not a self) and everything it thinks about whether attentively or nonchalantly. It is the core of the act of awareness. There are many types of awareness: perception, imagining, remembering, doubting, etc.. They are all mental acts. Every mental act has an object to which it is tied by means of the Nexus of Intentionality. Now if there is tension, it too is an object of a mental act. We become aware of it just as we become aware of everything else. It is a thing in the world.

I am not speaking of some grand mystical experience of losing oneself. I am speaking of ordinary perception. I perceive an empty cup of coffee on my desk. And I am aware that I need to go get some more coffee. I hear the loud rumble of a motorcycle. I remember that I have to meet my friend this afternoon. I wonder why he hasn’t called. All of those mental acts are tied to their object by that Nexus.

Wittgenstein said that the world is all that is the case. The world is composed of facts not of things. All those things I mentioned about are some of the facts that make up the world. What I meant by saying you have lost the mind-object unity is that the world of facts, our world, is lost to you. All you know are shadows in your brain since you are one with that.

Btw, why don't I get a notification when you post something where you quote me? Also, is it possible to edit a post after it is posted? How?