93 posts tagged “philosophy”

So, I'm having an interesting discussion with a friend on a message board.  He belongs to the Orthodox Church, believes that no one goes to Hell when they die, and thinks that Jesus' message was primarily about *this* life and not the next.  So far I agree.

Our discussion is centered around the events in Christ's life, and whether them actually taking place in the time line has any affect on the meaning derived from them.  I'm quite enjoying this discussion, so I'm going to paste some parts of it here for remembrance sake...and for anyone who wishes to continue it. :)

*****

So, it's important to you because it gives you a warm feeling that you're on the right path? lol, I don't mean it that harsh of course, but if it was important to the apostles, *why* was it important? Surely this seems to be a question worth exploring, right?

I guess I find so much meaning in the story that I'm not sure what affect its historicity would have on its impact?

I mean, say we had the bible, but the names were all changed...would it still have the same power? If it doesn't, is it a meaningful difference, or does it just have less power because it's not what we are used to? Or, say someone came up with undeniable proof that Jesus never existed at all, would that shake your faith?

I think it was important to them for a number of reasons, including validation of Jesus' claims, encouragement in their sorrow, hope that they share the same fate, and confidence that they could now risk their lives and do anything they dreamt of.

I see your point here. And I know for a great many people throughout history it has been somewhat of a security blanket that gives them courage and strengthens their faith. But, I guess, that's exactly my point. It's a huge comfort, and since when did Jesus tell us to seek comfort? Again, I'm not arguing that the story *wasn't* historically true, I just think that we tend to be way too attached to that aspect, and it can limit our understanding so that we miss some of the most profound and meaningful things in the story itself.

I guess I am just wary of attachment to particulars.

For me, even thinking that the story may be entirely myth, I still find incredible power in it. My life experience validates Jesus' claims. The concepts in the story give me encouragement in my sorrows and hope for my own resurrection (mainly in my life here, but sure after death too). It doesn't always give me the courage to risk everything and follow my dreams, because often my vision is clouded by fear. But when I am calm and centered, I see clearly and that courage comes to me in waves. I worry that a courage based on a particular historical event is a way to deny that fear. It's a subtle underlying aspect of human life, and it cannot be denied.

The only way to be rid of it is, as through Jesus' example, letting it in and not avoiding it. It's a subtle thing I'm talking about, how someone might push down a feeling of fear because of their unshattering faith in a particular event...versus understanding what that event tries to show us (regardless of whether it happened that way or not) and listening to that advice and being open and receptive...even to fear and suffering.

Let's not forget though that it was important to Jesus too. For some reason, it had to happen, he predicted that it would, and told his followers to look forward to it.

It did have to happen, in the story, because of what it means. Because of how it teaches us. It would make sense that Jesus would acknowledge that it has to happen, because part of his point is that even seeing something like this looming up ahead in our future, we must not be afraid, for there is nothing to fear. If you imagine Jesus' prediction as a literary device in the story of the resurrection, it makes a lot of sense. Not that it can't be real as well, but it seems that the meaning is there regardless.

But as to why it should be important historically, I guess I don't really have an answer right now, but it seems inseparable from the story, to me anyway. Perhaps they are pat Christian answers, but if it's just a story, and never happened, and the Son of God didn't exist, and the Incarnation didn't really happen, I'm forced ask what the point would even be then? Besides just trying to be a better person by modeling your life after a character in a story. And the Gospels, as well as the other NT writings, and the writings of those shortly thereafter, place great importance upon these events really happening.

Do you really think the Bible becomes empty and meaningless if these events didn't happen? Acknowledging that the events may not have taken place in real life does not take away from the profundity and the *truth* found in the story. This story puts into beautiful and precise terms what so many other stories try to get at...some with better success than others. It speaks directly to our hearts the way only stories can. And there are echoes of these truths in almost every story we write, in almost every life we live. But here we have it unclouded by the fear in our normal stories. Jesus is a character without fear (or rather, who does not act of fear), without sin, and the huge tragedy in his life puts God's lessons to us practically in neon lights.

It's so much more than just trying to be a better person. It's discovering the path to truth, to life. It's trusting in the process, even if it looks like it is leading you toward death...because the path to death is a path to rebirth. It teaches us that there is no need to fear, ever. And that love is a never ending spring; the more you pour out of yourself the more you have. It is about letting go.

Stories are meant to teach eternal truths in such a way that we can resonate with them on the deepest level. Christ's story is one of, if not the, most profound of all. I don't know about you, but when I talk about these things my heart fills with excitement and joy at the sheer *truth* of it all. It's incredible.

Question for you, what was Paul meaning when he said if Jesus didn't really die and rise again, our faith is in vain? If it's not important as an event that really happened, why do they all place so much importance upon it?

Well, I'm not a bible scholar, so I can't tell you what his original meaning was. I can only tell you what I gather from it. Why must Paul be talking about a concrete event? In the same passage he talks about the reflection between Christ and Adam. But you don't believe Adam existed. You have no attachment to the particulars in that story. Yet somehow what Paul says is true, isn't it? That what was introduced with Adam is now overcome by Christ. Is it an event that somehow canceled out a prior event? No, because the prior event never happened in real life. It was a myth. But the meaning of it is still strong...and the eternal aspect of the myth, the truth of it...is now reflected and expanded on in the story of Christ.

I don't think he's really talking about Christ being risen on a concrete level (though again, it may be concrete as well), but on a personal and existential level that goes much deeper. If Christ is not risen, if there is no rebirth after death, then your faith and your preaching are worthless. You do not fully believe in the meaning you preach. You do not truly have faith. You are still in sin because you are still in fear of death and suffering. And in your mind, those who are asleep (notice he doesn't say dead, interesting) have no hope of awakening, so why preach? I think he's showing how their point of view is reflective of an inner state of despair and fear, when it should be one of hope and life.

Anyway, just my perspective.

*****

"You thought that you could climb the highest mountain, that the end was in sight.  You reached a peak only discover that another mountain range lay before you.  You've been a brave pioneer.  That is one way to look at it.  Another way is that you are but a link in a chain of seekers, and that many have preceded you and many others will follow you.  The end is not in sight.  The end is insight."

-June Singer

"The free will we are endowed by our Creator is the very thing that defines our existence-- creation without free will is creation without love; ironically, it is love, and only love, that can create life, for all goodness rests in love. That which is not love is only for tearing down." -Amanda

If we approach life through love, then we are much more relaxed.  We do not grasp at things or at people.  We love them without wanting to possess them because we do not fear emptiness.  We have found that emptiness is a window through which we might view love, truth, and authenticity on the deepest level.  Love, it seems, is about letting go.  And this letting go does imply a will to let each and every creature or force behave as it is.

"This is what is meant of the Something More when I say it is "the individuality and unity of life."" -Amanda

You seem to be getting at something essential here.  Two components of God.  Individuality, unity.  Others have labeled them immanence and transcendence, or the Sophia and the Logos.  It is an ironic view of God, because it holds two seemingly opposite qualities together.  For me, this idea is absolutely essential to my concept of God. 

I understand your flirting with pantheism, because strict monotheism doesn't seem to give you the same impression of cohesiveness and unity.  It emphasizes God being set apart, transcendent.  While this feels true to you, it doesn't emphasize how present God feels. How he brings us together and exists in every level of his creation.

I also understand your hesitance to take on pantheism.  Christians have long looked down on it.  You do not want to lose the transcendent aspect of God.  But you don't have to. :)

I suggest you look into panentheism. It's monotheism and pantheism combined.  The ironic God.  Both immanent and transcendent.  And the fun part?  You can find traces of it (along with mysticism) in every single religion.  I believe it is a more accurate description of how God feels to us.

As far as the art and artist, I think God's presence goes deeper than that.  To me, God is the artist, but he is also the canvas, the paint, the will and the life of the art itself.  Once he has created, he lets it take on a life of its own, but it is not separate, not on the most fundamental level.  For though it does as it wills, it is made of the canvas and paint.  It is free and separate on one level, but it is made of God on another.  In every living thing exists a spark of God's presence.

And on the topic of free will...I actually think that the more you reveal this spark, the freer you are.  The more you let it become buried, the more ignorant you are of your true nature, and the more bound to separation you become.

So, paradoxically, I think that to be free *is* to be one with God.  To have your will freely join with his.  It is rather ironic that in order to become truly free, we do not start bound and have to separate ourselves, but the reverse.  The moment we are born we are introduced to separation, and our lives are a quest to find a way to rebind (re-lig  the root of the word religion) ourselves with the essential unity and become free.

"It is not necessary to tell another person that he is drinking from a glass of foul water.  What is needed is only to place a glass of clean water beside his glass."

- a Hindu sage

Just some reposting of things I said on a messageboard.  Random thoughts.

What I was trying (and probably failing) to say was that Truth is not a fact or a collection of facts. I need to be careful here because my thought is somewhat experimental. Sure there are true facts, but I don't think they touch (at least directly) on the essential, eternal heart of reality.

What I am proposing is that the heart of reality is not something you look at. It's something you look through. This is why I said Truth is a perspective and in that sense subjective. Because you can experience the heart of reality (God, if you want to call it that), in your own subjective experience when your perspective aligns with that of Truth. And the experience seems to be an experience of experiencing (heh). That is, when you feel God (or truth, or reality, or true aliveness), you actually see things differently. It is the perspective that is experienced, and that is so powerful.

Perhaps this is what is meant by putting on the mind of Christ.

Again, disclaimer, these thoughts are rather experimental and not to be considered an entire philosophical system. Also note that I mention nothing about how truth changes.

Language on its own doesn't mean anything. Words are symbols pointing towards something that is much more real. When two people who speak different languages meet for the first time, neither can understand the other. Each seems completely different from the other. In fact, if you had never been exposed to any languages other than your own, you might think they were living in some other reality or something. All you hear from them are a bunch of meaningless sounds that may even feel offensive.

But then you both look at an object. Say, a tree. You say the word "tree" and he says "mti." You start to understand each other, because you share a common experience. The tree is not the sounds "tuh ruh eee" it is the object in itself. Can you say anything meaningful about the tree without using words? No. We need language to help us describe reality and share our experiences.

So too, with two different religions, only here there are layers upon layers of meaning, as the experience we are pointing towards is grander and more basic and even ineffable. Each religion is based in the shared human experience of the divine (whatever they may call it). They are just trying to describe it in the best way they know how. All the stories and the mythologies and the ideas are pointing towards that essential experience.

Is there any belief out there that is warped so much that it is against eternal truth? Sure. But I think it's important to note that even the worst ideas have a seed of truth in them, and that all is not lost.

How do we know what's in line with truth? That is a very very good question. If I answer it simply, it won't be complex enough. If I answer it with complexity, it won't be simple enough. It seems to me that it springs out of love. Love can be mislead and perverted, but the love underneath it is still true. If you learn to look for the signs, it will become easier and easier to see it.

Anytime you are shut down, closed, fearful, worried, prideful, possessive, etc...your love is buried deep and trapped within you. But when you are relaxed, open, giving, humble...your heart pours out and your perspective opens and you can welcome everything and everyone, and come to know truth. In both cases, it's still there. Perhaps you are just waiting for the right key, or perhaps it will take a wrecking ball to get through to you.

Similarly, any idea that promotes fear or pride, any idea that divides us into an in-group and an out-group, is a love buried underneath varying degrees of worry for the self. Sometimes it's on a very subtle level. And sometimes all it takes is a slight shift in perspective, and what once was an oppressive idea becomes a liberating one.

There is a certain comfort in letting certain things in and excluding others from our view.  The same goes with people.  There's people who have God, and people who don't.  People who know what's up, and people who are idiots.  People who pay attention when they drive, and people who should never be let out on the road.  People who have truth, and people who have no grasp of it whatsoever.

This method of looking at others has it's comforts, has it's securities.  It is a means by which we can understand the world by translating it into what is approved and what is not.  It certainly makes life much more simple.  Here's what's on my list of approved things, ideas, and people, and I reject what's not on this list.

We all do this, to a certain extent.  And it makes sense.  We *are* trying to constantly simplify our experience to make it easier to handle.

But it's interesting what happens when you stop putting people and ideas in categories.  You start looking closer, you start seeing more.  Because you've stopped filtering things out.  The priest at the church Ben and I go to was leading us through a meditation, and she said for us to stop filtering, and to let everything in.  Do not exclude any sounds, feelings, thoughts...just let it all flow and observe it.  Then, you start to see deeper.

The same is true for people and ideas, I think.  When you stop trying to declare something as either bad or good and just witness it, you see deeper.  And seeing this way allows you to see the truth hidden in everything, because it frees you from your misconceptions and even your opinions.  It humbles you because you *have* to let go of the things that make you comfortable in order to let everything in, and in doing so, brings you closer to truth.

Compassion and love break down barriers.  They stop us from doing this categorization and from simplifying the world.  Love asks us to look at the whole, to see each person, each idea, each moment as valuable in some way.  There is no in group or out group.  There is only truth, and what it is buried underneath.

And when you see things this way, you approach conversations, people, ideas with an entirely different perspective.  You start to understand the subtle language of the heart, and how it is speaking even through people's so called intellectual ideas.  You start to see how someone's pure intuition or pure desires were led astray.  And instead of feeling contempt for their ignorance, you can feel nothing but compassion and love.  You see their soul buried under so much weight, and you long to free them. 

You are no longer distracted by the wrongness of what people say.  It seems petty to argue about it, almost tragic.  And it gives you patience and strength.  When you talk with someone it's more like a jazz improvisation...each of you contributing ideas and playing off one another to build something interesting that may open up both of your understandings.  You don't feel attached to (or the need to reject) any one concept or dogma because you sense the truth in all of them.  This gives you a freedom, a spontaneity, a creativity that you never had before.

And it is all in ceasing to seek comfort, and treating people and even their ideas and their words with compassion and love.  It's not always about simplification; often, it's about inclusion and integration.

From The Alchemist, a conversation between the boy and the alchemist:

"My heart is a traitor...it doesn't want me to go on."

"That makes sense... Naturally it's afraid that, in pursuing your dream, you might lose everything you've won."

"Well, then, why should I listen to my heart?"

"Because you will never again be able to keep it quiet.  Even if you pretend not to have heard what it tells you, it will always be there inside you, repeating to you what you're thinking about life and about the world."

"You mean I should listen to my heart, even if it's treasonous?"

"Treason is a blow that comes unexpectedly.  If you know your heart well, it will never be able to do that to you.  Because you'll know its dreams and wishes, and will know how to deal with them.  You will never be able to escape from your heart.  So it's better to listen to what it has to say.  That way, you'll never have to fear an unanticipated blow."

...

"My heart is afraid that it will have to suffer...."

"Tell your heart that the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself.  And that no heart has ever suffered when it goes in search of its dreams, because every second of the search is a second's encounter with God and with eternity."

...

That night, the boy slept deeply, and, when he awoke, his heart began to tell him things that came from the Soul of the World.  It said that all people who are happy have God within them.  And that happiness could be found in a grain of sand from the desert, as the alchemist had said.  Because a grain of sand is a moment of creation, and the universe has taken millions of years to create it.  "Everyone on earth has a treasure that awaits him," his heart said.  "We, people's hearts, seldom say much about those treasures, because people no longer want to go in search of them.  We speak of them only to children.  Later, we simply let life proceed, in its own direction, toward its own fate.  But, unfortunately, very few follow the path laid out for them--the path to their Personal Legends, and to happiness.  Most people see the world as a threatening place, and, because they do, the world turns out, indeed, to be a threatening place.

"So, we, their hearts, speak more and more softly. We never stop speaking out, but we begin to hope that our words won't be heard: we don't want people to suffer because they don't follow their hearts."

Some quotes from Carl Jung that I really like.

"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."

"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool."

"I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. "

"Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering."

"Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. "

"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes."

In my experience, people hold to their opinions because on a very deep level, they sense truth in them.  It's an intuitive truth that they feel regardless of logical implications.  And this is why so often logic is not enough to sway a person, because what they have latched onto is not logical, it's intuitive. 

The thing is, they have *rightly* latched onto this deep truth within their view.  But what most people don't realize is that we build on top of these...or when we hear an idea we will eventually accept, we sense that seed of truth, and because of that we accept the entire idea.  Because we received them at the same time, this leads us to believe that every part of that idea is essential, and to let go of one detail would be to deny the entire truth, which we are not willing to do.

This picture offers us two useful pieces of advice when dealing with truth.

The first is on a personal level, when you are looking within yourself and deciding (or examining) what you believe.  Look for those seeds.  Probe deep into your views about life, about God, about science, about your personal relationships.  What is it that brought you to accept these views?  What little seed sprouted into the view you currently possess? 

This is more difficult that it may seem, because often we sense these truths on a subconscious level, and at the forefront of our brains cannot tell the difference between the seed and everything that has been added onto it.  This is not to say that the add on's are bad and should be removed.  It's only saying that you will understand yourself better if you know the deepest reasons you hold your beliefs.

The second insight this can give us comes when we are trying to engage others in debate.  Rather than attack the details of a particular set of beliefs, try looking deeper into the other person's view and find that seed of truth that keeps them holding fast.

If you can expose this seed to them, and it makes sense to them, suddenly they understand what is most important about their views.  If you then acknowledge the truth of that seed, and go on to say that such and such detail is different, you will have a better chance of changing their minds.

But again, this is very difficult.  You need extraordinary perception often much practice to discern what it is that is really important to a person.  Especially when it is so easy to pick at the logical inconsistencies within their view.  It's not easy and there is no sense of winning. Instead of seeing the other as an opponent, you see them more as a lock.  Only the right key will open them, and you must find it.

Just something I was thinking about today.  Does it make sense?  Would examples help?  It's hard to think of examples that wouldn't be too controversial for the point to be seen.