Page 89 of 124

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 5:50 am
by Belindi
GaryLouisSmith quizzed me:
Why do you think we don't experience the objects of reason as real things external to our thinking about them?
We experience objects of reason, such as is the right angled triangle on a plane surface, but we cannot experience the perfection of right angled triangles except as a mind object.

Whereas I may claim to know the perfection of red, or scrambled eggs, or musical performances, and most other experiences in my mind these claims are always subjective. Whereas the perfection of right angled triangles is proven and defined by the theorem for all to see and understand because deductive reason is democratic.


Philosophical naturalists can claim certain natural events such as clear mountain streams, or the songs of nightingales, or thriving apple trees, or babies, are universals that transcend the experiences from which they are abstracted. But we can't prove this to be true . We can prove the transcendent truth of right angled triangles on plane surfaces.

Reason is a worthy contender for the way to truth, goodness and beauty.

If as you say you see the Boy as transcendent, then you descend in line from the Romantics, the philosophical naturalists. You can hardly have been unaware of that historical line of ideas. Reason, however, is a safeguard against Romantic excesses such as undue worship of the savage and pagan.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 1:31 pm
by Consul
Belindi wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 5:50 amWe experience objects of reason, such as is the right angled triangle on a plane surface, but we cannot experience the perfection of right angled triangles except as a mind object.
You're talking about geometric imagination, with imagination in general being different from perception. You don't perceive what you imagine.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 4:04 pm
by Belindi
Consul wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 1:31 pm
Belindi wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 5:50 amWe experience objects of reason, such as is the right angled triangle on a plane surface, but we cannot experience the perfection of right angled triangles except as a mind object.
You're talking about geometric imagination, with imagination in general being different from perception. You don't perceive what you imagine.
I often perceive in my environment what I first perceive as a memory resulting from past perceptions: I perceive a memory of my bedroom, and subsequently perceive the bedroom in my environment is exactly as my memory had previously perceived it.

'perception' is usually used as pertaining to information from the brain-mind's environment.However neuroscientists know memories too supply information . The neuronal involvement is much the same whether information source is internal or external.

A subject's memories and that subject's perceptions are personal in the sense that that subject has privileged access to the perception, whichever information source applies. The Pythagoras Theorem can be perceived by anyone without privileged access. The information of such as the Pythagoras theorem is not synthetic information but analytic.

Alongside the perfect right angled triangle on a plane surface, i.e. the analytic proposition, we have a lot of manifested right angled triangles that are imperfect like in Plato's Cave.
God can be proved analytically like Spinoza did .In that case nature naturing itself is analogous to the perfect right angled triangle on a plane surface making possible its imperfect manifestations for a lot of practical purposes.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 4:16 pm
by Consul
Belindi wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 4:04 pm
Consul wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 1:31 pmYou're talking about geometric imagination, with imagination in general being different from perception. You don't perceive what you imagine.
I often perceive in my environment what I first perceive as a memory resulting from past perceptions: I perceive a memory of my bedroom, and subsequently perceive the bedroom in my environment is exactly as my memory had previously perceived it.
Recollection in the form of memorial experiences is a kind of imagination rather than perception. When you imagine your bedroom, you don't perceive it; and when you perceive it, you don't imagine it.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 4:31 pm
by Consul
Belindi wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 4:04 pm'perception' is usually used as pertaining to information from the brain-mind's environment.However neuroscientists know memories too supply information . The neuronal involvement is much the same whether information source is internal or external.
Yes, memory or recollection is a source of knowledge; but it's different from perception—although you cannot (veridically) recall or remember what you didn't perceive. (But you can certainly non-memorially imagine what you didn't perceive.)

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 4:38 pm
by Consul
Consul wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 4:31 pmYes, memory or recollection is a source of knowledge; but it's different from perception—although you cannot (veridically) recall or remember what you didn't perceive. (But you can certainly non-memorially imagine what you didn't perceive.)
(Veridical) Recollections depend on prior perceptions.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 3rd, 2019, 8:53 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 3rd, 2019, 5:50 am GaryLouisSmith quizzed me:
Why do you think we don't experience the objects of reason as real things external to our thinking about them?
We experience objects of reason, such as is the right angled triangle on a plane surface, but we cannot experience the perfection of right angled triangles except as a mind object.

Whereas I may claim to know the perfection of red, or scrambled eggs, or musical performances, and most other experiences in my mind these claims are always subjective. Whereas the perfection of right angled triangles is proven and defined by the theorem for all to see and understand because deductive reason is democratic.


Philosophical naturalists can claim certain natural events such as clear mountain streams, or the songs of nightingales, or thriving apple trees, or babies, are universals that transcend the experiences from which they are abstracted. But we can't prove this to be true . We can prove the transcendent truth of right angled triangles on plane surfaces.

Reason is a worthy contender for the way to truth, goodness and beauty.

If as you say you see the Boy as transcendent, then you descend in line from the Romantics, the philosophical naturalists. You can hardly have been unaware of that historical line of ideas. Reason, however, is a safeguard against Romantic excesses such as undue worship of the savage and pagan.
When I was in High School I loved geometry, algebra and Spanish grammar. Earlier I had learned to diagram sentences on the blackboard. I was not on my way to being either an engineer or a linguist. Rather I stared at those forms, including right-angled triangles, as mystical doorways into another world. They were supernatural beings. I can still feel that feeling.

The forms of mathematics and grammar are mystically beyond the practical mind. They are from the Excess. They are outside the domestic orderliness of the natural world. They go bump in the night. Bhairava. From Wikipedia -

Bhairava originates from the word bhīru, which means "fearful". Bhairava means "terribly fearful form". It is also known as one who destroys fear or one who is beyond fear. The right interpretation is that he protects his devotees from dreadful enemies, greed, lust and anger. Bhairava protects his devotees from these enemies. These enemies are dangerous as they never allow humans to seek God within. There is also another interpretation: Bha means creation, ra means sustenance and va means destruction. Therefore, Bhairava is the one who creates, sustains and dissolves the three stages of life. Therefore, he becomes the ultimate or the supreme.[12]
The origin of Bhairava can be traced to a conversation between Brahma and Vishnu which is recounted in the Shiva Mahapuranam[13]. In it, Vishnu inquired of Brahma, "Who is the supreme creator of the Universe?" Arrogantly, Brahma told Vishnu to worship him as Supreme Creator. One day, Brahma thought "I have five heads. Shiva also has five heads. I can do everything that Shiva does and therefore I am Shiva." Brahma became a little egotistical as a result of this. Additionally, he began to forget the work of Shiva and also started interfering in what Shiva was supposed to be doing. Consequently, Mahadeva(Shiva) threw a small nail from his finger which assumed the form of Kala Bhairava and casually went to cut off one of Brahma's heads. The skull (Kapala) of Brahma is held in the hands of Kala Bhairava, Brahma’s ego was destroyed and he became enlightened. From then on, he became useful to himself and to the world, and deeply grateful to Shiva. In the form of the Kala Bhairava, Shiva is said to be guarding each of these Shaktipeeth (Shakti temples). Each Shaktipeeth is accompanied by a temple dedicated to Bhairava.[14][15]
There is another school of thought which says that Shiva himself created Bhairava. There was one demon by name Dahurāsuraṇ who got a boon that he could be killed only by a woman. Kali was invoked by Parvati to kill him. The wrath of Kali killed the demon. After killing the demon, her wrath metamorphosed as a child. Kali fed the child with her milk. Shiva made both Kali and the child to merge with him. From this merged form of Shiva, Bhairava appeared in his eight forms (Aṣṭāṅga Bhairavas). Since Bhairava was thus created by Shiva, he is said to be one of the sons of Shiva.[16]
Puranas too give different versions of Bhairava. In this version there was a war between gods and demons. To eradicate the demons, Shiva created Kala Bhairava from whom Aṣṭāṅga Bhairavas were created. These Ashta Bhairavas got married to Ashta Matrikas. These Ashta Bhairavas and Ashta Matrikas have dreadful forms. From these Ashta Bhairavas and Ashta Matrikas, 64 Bhairavas and 64 Yoginis were created.[17]
Normally in Shiva temples, idols of Bhairava are situated in the north, facing southern direction. He is also called Kṣhetrapāla. He appears in a standing position with four hands. His weapons are drum, pāśa (noose), trident and skull. In some forms of Bhairava, there are more than four hands. He appears without dress and with a dog. His weapons, the dog, protruding teeth, terrifying looks, and a garland with red flowers all give him a frightening appearance.[18][19]
In all Shiva temples, regular puja (reverence) rituals begin with Surya and end with Bhairava. Bhairava likes ghee bath (abhiṣeka), red flowers, ghee lamp, unbroken coconut, honey, boiled food, fibrous fruits etc. If a Bhairava idol is facing west, it is good; facing south is moderate; facing east is not good. The right time to pray to Bhairavi is midnight. During midnight it is said that Bhairava and his consort Bhairavi will give darśana (appearance) to their devotees. The most appropriate time is a Friday midnight. There are eight types of flowers and leaves used in archana (अर्चन) to Bhairava.[20][21]
Bhairava is the ultimate form of manifestation or pure "I" consciousness. This form is called Svarṇākarṣṇa Bhairava. He has red or blue complexion and is clothed in golden dress. He has the moon over his head. He has four hands, one of which he holds a golden vessel. He gives wealth and prosperity. Performing pūja on Tuesdays gives quick results. In some of the ancient texts he is said to have thirty two hands, the shape of a bird, golden complexion, terrible teeth, and a human form above the hip. Worshipping him destroys enemies.[22][23]
Some forms of Bhairava are guardians of the eight cardinal points. There are 64 Bhairavas. These 64 Bhairavas are grouped under 8 categories and each category is headed by one major Bhairava. The major eight Bhairavas are called Aṣṭāṅga Bhairavas. The Ashta Bhairavas control the 8 directions of this universe. Each Bhairava has seven sub Bhairavas under him, totaling 64 Bhairavas. All of the Bhairavas are ruled and controlled by Maha Swarna Kala Bhairava otherwise known as Kala Bhairava, who is the supreme ruler of time of this universe as per some Śaiva tantric scriptures (āgamas). Bhairavi is the consort of Kala Bhairava.[24] The eight Bhairavas are said to represent five elements viz. ākāś, air, fire, water and earth and the other three being sun, moon and ātman. Each of the eight Bhairavas are different in appearance, have different weapons, different vāhanas (vehicles) and they bless their devotees with eight types of wealth representing Ashta Lakshmis. Continuous worship of Bhairava leads the worshiper to a true Guru. There are separate mantras to all the eight Bhairavas.[25]
Bhairava is also called upon as protector, as he guards the eight directions of the universe. In Shiva temples, when the temple is closed, the keys are placed before Bhairava. Bhairava is also described as the protector of women. He is described as the protector of the timid and in general women who are timid in nature.[26][27]
It is generally believed that worshiping Bhairava gives prosperity, success and good progeny, prevents premature death and gives solution to debts and liabilities. Different forms of Bhairava evolve only from Śiva, who is called the Mahā Bhairava.[28][29][30]

Buddhism also adopted Bhairava (Tibetan: 'Jigs byed; Chinese: Buwei) as a deity and a dharmapala or dharma protector.[32] The various buddhist forms of Bhairava (variously called Herukas, Vajrabhairava, Mahākāla and Yamantaka) are considered fierce deities and yidams (tantric meditational deity) in Tibetan Buddhism. They also have their own set of buddhist tantras, the Vajrabhairava tantras.[33] According to Tibetan tradition, these tantras were revealed to Lalitavajra in Oddiyana in the 10th century.[34] These texts play a particularly important role in the Sarma (new translation) traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, especially among the Gelug school where Vajrabhairava is one of the three central highest yoga tantra practices of the lineage.[35] Because of this, it is also popular in Mongolia as a protector deity and was also popular among the Manchus.[35] The deity is also central to Newar Buddhism.[36] The tantric practices associated with Bhairava focus on the transformation of anger and hatred into understanding.[36]

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 5:51 am
by Belindi
Thanks for directing me to Bhairava.
It's a fact of life (we are natural animals) we have to have egos otherwise we could not survive. Egos are the psychological manifestations of libido or will to survive.

Unless I misunderstand, and I'm unfamiliar with eastern philosophy and its poetic myths, Bhairava inspires fear because we think our egos are the central structures of our selves.Therefore it can be a frightening prospect to be stripped of ego.

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

I quite understand how you unwittingly came to use these mysterious structures as mantras.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 7:34 am
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 4th, 2019, 5:51 am Thanks for directing me to Bhairava.
It's a fact of life (we are natural animals) we have to have egos otherwise we could not survive. Egos are the psychological manifestations of libido or will to survive.

Unless I misunderstand, and I'm unfamiliar with eastern philosophy and its poetic myths, Bhairava inspires fear because we think our egos are the central structures of our selves.Therefore it can be a frightening prospect to be stripped of ego.

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

I quite understand how you unwittingly came to use these mysterious structures as mantras.
The interpretation you give to Bhairava is rather common even among Hindu pundits. I think it is a way of turning wine back into water. Psychologism is not my way of thinking about these matters. I would prefer to leave the story of Bhairava uninterpreted. That way I can keep its power. That Biblical quote you gave has an interesting aspect to it. The Greek work translated as "born again" is "anothen". Literally it means from above. Sometimes in Greek it did mean again, much as we say "from the top". Some Bibles actually might translate that passage as "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born from above". https://pilosopongtasyoweb.wordpress.co ... jano-spms/

A mantra is something else again and I would never use those structures as mantras, but that's a whole other topic.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 8:36 am
by Belindi
The urge to interpret must matter for making sense of where we find ourselves in the world. If you don't like to interpret a myth/poem you must be elevating form over meaning.

The way I was taught to meditate my mantra had to be all form and no meaning.

If you mention Bhairava on a philosophy website where people do a lot of interpreting, aren't you risking your need for the myth/poem to be devotional/performative ? I mean, casting pearls before swine.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 4:50 pm
by Jklint
The mind is a digestive organ. Everything gets interpreted, the externals as well as the internals. What's the point of having a freezer full if you aren't going to thaw it out and eat it.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 5:41 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 4th, 2019, 8:36 am The urge to interpret must matter for making sense of where we find ourselves in the world. If you don't like to interpret a myth/poem you must be elevating form over meaning.

The way I was taught to meditate my mantra had to be all form and no meaning.

If you mention Bhairava on a philosophy website where people do a lot of interpreting, aren't you risking your need for the myth/poem to be devotional/performative ? I mean, casting pearls before swine.
Susan Sontag used to be very famous and well-loved among the literati and the intelligentsia, but now she has apparently fallen on hard times,


http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/ ... tation.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Interpretation

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 6:29 pm
by Belindi
Thanks for the links.
Here is what I think sums up the problem of form and meaning, it's from the shifter magazine link.
The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful;
it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of
interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the
text, to find a sub-text which is the true one.
I am pretty sure I interpret like the "old style". Layers of meaning which are enhanced with feelings and sensuousness that can be appreciated entirely for the literal interpretation which is the closest to pure form.When more intellectual interpretations are concerned the literal meaning combined with the pure form keeps the intellect from the burden of emotional flatness. At best the attention slides around among the form , the literal meaning, and the sub-texts.

There is never a "true sub-text". Only sub-texts that appeal to the subjective consciousness of the interpreter. And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

The Sick Rose
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.


Indian and Chinese myth/poetry is almost a closed book to me and I can only think of the few poems, plays and so on I do know.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 4th, 2019, 9:29 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 4th, 2019, 6:29 pm Thanks for the links.
Here is what I think sums up the problem of form and meaning, it's from the shifter magazine link.
The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful;
it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of
interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the
text, to find a sub-text which is the true one.
I am pretty sure I interpret like the "old style". Layers of meaning which are enhanced with feelings and sensuousness that can be appreciated entirely for the literal interpretation which is the closest to pure form.When more intellectual interpretations are concerned the literal meaning combined with the pure form keeps the intellect from the burden of emotional flatness. At best the attention slides around among the form , the literal meaning, and the sub-texts.

There is never a "true sub-text". Only sub-texts that appeal to the subjective consciousness of the interpreter. And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

The Sick Rose
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.


Indian and Chinese myth/poetry is almost a closed book to me and I can only think of the few poems, plays and so on I do know.
In Kirtipur where the university I belong to is located there is a temple to Bagh Bhairav, the fearsome tiger. https://honeyguideapps.com/blog/bagh-bh ... ipur-nepal If you go there at midnight on certain nights and meditate you may be able to see the fearsome eyes of that tiger. Or maybe Bhairav himself. Or a skull that was the head of Brahma. Or some other entity that is part of the myth of Bhairav.

In other words, it isn't a matter of interpretation, it a matter of direct vision.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 5th, 2019, 4:50 am
by Belindi
GaryLouisSmith wrote:
In other words, it isn't a matter of interpretation, it a matter of direct vision.
I don't know how you can tell the difference between that and gothic ghost stories.