awe + amazement = pantheism

[Howard Is]

Another thought that stays with me on this subject is the question whether some people's minds are more inclined to synthesis (story, religion) while others are more inclined to analysis (reasoned enquiry, science), a matter of primary emphasis rather than one to the exclusion of the other, of course.

I am in both camps.

I design and program embedded systems, read on subjects like genetics,acoustics, anatomy and biology...

I also practice meditation/yoga, which I studied formally with teachers.

My main thing is playing music. Both sides of my nature come into play there too. My music is improvisation on guitar over loops I have created electronically.

I have experienced lots of ‘weird’ stuff. And some profoundly beautiful stuff. I used to spend lots of time alone in the wilderness, either in pastoral bliss, or designing systems in a notebook.

We don’t have to choose between the ‘mystical’ and the ‘practical’.

Although I would suggest pragmatism as the basic foundation for their union.

 

[blü 2]

I am in both camps.

I design and program embedded systems, read on subjects like genetics,acoustics, anatomy and biology...

I also practice meditation/yoga, which I studied formally with teachers.

My main thing is playing music. Both sides of my nature come into play there too. My music is improvisation on guitar over loops I have created electronically.

All good so far.

I have experienced lots of ‘weird’ stuff.

Are you Yes, No, or Don't Know on the supernatural?

And some profoundly beautiful stuff. I used to spend lots of time alone in the wilderness, either in pastoral bliss, or designing systems in a notebook.

Enviable!

We don’t have to choose between the ‘mystical’ and the ‘practical’.

Although I would suggest pragmatism as the basic foundation for their union.

In terms of emotional outlook and balance, no problem. But philosophically my Polaris is, 'What's true in reality?'

 

[Howard Is]

In terms of emotional outlook and balance, no problem. But philosophically my Polaris is, 'What's true in reality?'

At the risk of sounding like a disrespectful airhead, true and false only matter in a court of law or a Karnaugh map, and reality is an undefined proposition.

Without unambiguous definitions of ‘true’ and ‘reality’, it is a null question. Also, it seems to me that the two definitions are tightly coupled philosophically. This makes it difficult to impossible to interpret the question without a lot of preamble and agreed meanings.

Personally, I feel no need to mediate my experience with that kind of assessment anyway.

What matters to me is the quality of experience, not the validity. The former is irrefutably known as personal experience, whereas the latter is potentially irresolvable speculation.

 

[blü 2]

At the risk of sounding like a disrespectful airhead, true and false only matter in a court of law or a Karnaugh map, and reality is an undefined proposition.

Without unambiguous definitions of ‘true’ and ‘reality’, it is a null question.

My take on that starts with three assumptions ─ assumptions, because each has the quality that I can't show it's true without first assuming that it is true: (1) that a world exists external to the sense of self; (2) that the (five classical) senses are capable of informing us about that world; (3) that reason is a valid tool. Anyone who posts here shows by that fact that they agree with the first two, and not many deny they agree with the third. It allows discussions on a shared basis.

Hence objective reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. It's the same thing as nature, or the realm of the physical sciences, or the sum of all things with objective existence.

Truth is a quality of statements. A statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects external reality. (Another usage of 'true' is, 'correct, according to the rules of the relevant formal system in question eg maths, formal logic, &c, but that's secondary.) Of course, there are no absolutes truths. Truth is the consensus of the best opinions for the time being. It was once true that the earth was flat and all the heavenly bodies went around it. It was once true that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether ... and so on and so on. Nonetheless, this is the most objective test for truth that we have, and it works very well. (The objectivity part is why the video will nearly always beat the eyewitness in court.)

Also, it seems to me that the two definitions are tightly coupled philosophically. This makes it difficult to impossible to interpret the question without a lot of preamble and agreed meanings.

Personally, I feel no need to mediate my experience with that kind of assessment anyway. What matters to me is the quality of experience, not the validity.

Since I want to know what's true in reality, validity / authenticity / accuracy of description are major factors.

The former is irrefutably known as personal experience, whereas the latter is potentially irresolvable speculation.

We seem doomed to differ.

 

[Howard Is]

We seem doomed to differ.

Fortunately I don’t agree

 

[tayla]

We seem doomed to differ.

Fortunately I don’t agree

I agree to disagree to agree.

 

[tayla]

My issue with pantheism is more linguistic than anything else. Traditionally, deities have personalities, thoughts, plans, etc. As far as I can see, none of these applies to the universe as a whole. And, while we can regard ourselves as the universe being self-aware, that doesn't quite seem to match up with the usual notions required of a deity.

Yes, that's a good point. But Pantheism is not the only religion not having a personal God. So I suppose the same point would apply to them all.

 

[tayla]

And another way to look at it, is that physicality is a part of the Mystery. You have thoughts themselves you engage with, and you have a brain with its electric signals as the physical component part of thinking. You have emotions, and you have chemicals. They are part of each other. It doesn't have to be reduced down to one or the other, nor necessary to divide into parts at all, in the way we relate ourselves to the experience of living.

Yes, both at the same time.

 

[tayla]

What pantheism has over both traditional theism and materialism is that it does not divide the sacred out of our lived experiences of reality. Both of these are dualistic in nature, and thus not in touch with Life as a whole. In pantheism, all the parts are expressions of the whole. A scientific view of reality doesn't offer that set of eyes. A traditional theistic view with God separate from creation, also does not offer that set of eyes.

I think materialism does, in a way, include the aspects of life and the soul and spirit of man -- the sacred. But it is often buried in the scientific emphasis. As your quote from Einstein shows, scientists are capable of great depth of intuitive understanding about all aspects of reality.

 

[tayla]

But pantheism does work better that either physicalism or traditional theism as both are products of a dualistic perspective of God or Reality.

I think physicalism has to include all aspects of reality, including things that could be called "spiritual". To be truly scientific, physicalism has to include consciousness and its contents.

 

[tayla]

Truth is the consensus of the best opinions for the time being. It was once true that the earth was flat and all the heavenly bodies went around it. It was once true that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether ... and so on and so on.

I don't think these things were ever true. In propositions of arguments, people believed them to be true. But their belief was mistaken.

 

[Windwalker]

I think materialism does, in a way, include the aspects of life and the soul and spirit of man -- the sacred. But it is often buried in the scientific emphasis. As your quote from Einstein shows, scientists are capable of great depth of intuitive understanding about all aspects of reality.

The quote shows that the most brilliant minds actually are so smart that they see beyond the lure of "scientism" into understanding that nature is far beyond what our "dull tools" of our reasoning minds and sciences, can possibly hope to penetrate. There is a short list of such minds, but for the average person, it's quite popular to imagine the lure that science and reason can finally someday penetrate that mystery, with the answer to everything we can one day comprehend. That is the fallacy of logical positivism, which persists yet today among the laity, and well as remains popular in the sciences, despite the most brilliant minds knowing better.

I think physicalism has to include all aspects of reality, including things that could be called "spiritual". To be truly scientific, physicalism has to include consciousness and its contents.

But it doesn't. That's why they use that term "physicalism" or "materialism". It excludes the soft-sciencey stuff in favor of hard "factual" stuff that they can measure, like the orbits of planets. I would in fact argue that it should include it, but then it's not "materialism" anymore, but "holism".

 

[tayla]

The quote shows that the most brilliant minds actually are so smart that they see beyond the lure of "scientism" into understanding that nature is far beyond what our "dull tools" of our reasoning minds and sciences, can possibly hope to penetrate. There is a short list of such minds, but for the average person, it's quite popular to imagine the lure that science and reason can finally someday penetrate that mystery, with the answer to everything we can one day comprehend. That is the fallacy of logical positivism, which persists yet today among the laity, and well as remains popular in the sciences, despite the most brilliant minds knowing better.

Certainly, arguments of philosophy can't be validated with the same degree of probabilistic certainty as those of empirical science.

I would consider any of the insights of the great thinkers to be a form of philosophical inquiry. So really there is only philosophy, with science being a subset of philosophy that can be used when the possibility of using the scientific method presents itself.

 

[tayla]

But it doesn't. That's why they use that term "physicalism" or "materialism". It excludes the soft-sciencey stuff in favor of hard "factual" stuff that they can measure, like the orbits of planets. I would in fact argue that it should include it, but then it's not "materialism" anymore, but "holism".

Example of scientists and philosophers considering soft-sciencey stuff as worthy of study: The hard problem of consciousness; the bubbly foamy multiverse that generated our universe.

Certainly, some kinds of questions are easier to answer than others, And some interesting questions will likely never be answered, especially the "why" questions.

 

[blü 2]

I don't think these things were ever true. In propositions of arguments, people believed them to be true. But their belief was mistaken.

Since there are no absolute truths, all true statements are vulnerable, ours as well as theirs, and may require adjustment, correction, or outright rejection in the future. So I think truth is simply retrospective; we known the earth rotates and goes round the sun, but if you asked the best brains in 500 BCE, they'd not only tell you, they'd show you, that the earth is flat and creation is geocentric.

And if you ask the best brains if the Copenhagen interpretation is true right now in quantum physics, and whether Bell's theorem is a major plank of that demonstration, you'd also get a (cautious) affirmative. But maybe in another five, ten, twenty, fifty years we'll think differently.

And so on.

 

[tayla]

Since there are no absolute truths, all true statements are vulnerable, ours as well as theirs, and may require adjustment, correction, or outright rejection in the future. So I think truth is simply retrospective; we known the earth rotates and goes round the sun, but if you asked the best brains in 500 BCE, they'd not only tell you, they'd show you, that the earth is flat and creation is geocentric.

And if you ask the best brains if the Copenhagen interpretation is true right now in quantum physics, and whether Bell's theorem is a major plank of that demonstration, you'd also get a (cautious) affirmative. But maybe in another five, ten, twenty, fifty years we'll think differently.

And so on.

Yes. But implicit in your argument is that, for every topic, the truth will eventually be teased out and will become known. Truth isn't relative or subjective, rather, our knowledge is increasing. We should be careful not to believe cutting edge ideas that are not proven with adequate evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Yes. But implicit in your argument is that, for every topic, the truth will eventually be teased out and will become known. Truth isn't relative or subjective, rather, our knowledge is increasing. We should be careful not to believe cutting edge ideas that are not proven with adequate evidence.

Truth is a quality of a statement, not of a thing. It refers to the accuracy with which the statement reflects, or corresponds with, objective reality.

So it uses the most objective test available to us; but our concepts of what such an accurate statement may be will vary with time and place, so truth, or at the least many truths, will vary with time and place. As I may have said above, it was once true that the earth was flat, that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, that the earth's crust was unitary and solid; but now it isn't. We can apply our version of truth retrospectively, but that won't alter the past, merely our perception of it.

 

[Windwalker]

Truth is a quality of a statement, not of a thing. It refers to the accuracy with which the statement reflects, or corresponds with, objective reality.

But isn't saying that there is an objective reality saying that truth is a thing, and that objective reality is that thing?

I'm trying another way to skin this, as we've enjoyed this discussion together previously. How I see this, as best I can, is that there is Truth as an absolute, and truth as perspectives of that Truth. It would seem you have to agree with this, as you attest that there is something that stands outside the relative perspectival truths we as humans engage in every moment of every day. There is some "measure" of Truth, with a capital T which you call objective reality. Would you agree with that?

So it uses the most objective test available to us; but our concepts of what such an accurate statement may be will vary with time and place, so truth, or at the least many truths, will vary with time and place. As I may have said above, it was once true that the earth was flat, that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, that the earth's crust was unitary and solid; but now it isn't. We can apply our version of truth retrospectively, but that won't alter the past, merely our perception of it.

We can understand today that the eyes that people looked though then shaped how their minds saw and understood the world. Based upon the available knowledge and insights and tools with which to understand the world, they held many things to be true, which we no longer do today. We also have to acknowledge the same can and needs to be said of us today.

While our understanding takes into account other information which shapes the eyes through we see and understand reality, that goes beyond theirs, for all intents and purposes their truth for them, functioned in the same way our truth does for us today. And that will be true of tomorrow when their eyes reshape the corneas of our collective eyes and see deeper and further and wider than we do today.

So objective reality for them with their knowledge, was seen and held as objectively true for them, just as we have an idea of what objective reality is today. Are we more in touch with that? Are we as far away from it, as they were? Are we anymore in touch with objective reality than they were, ultimately?

Would you agree with these points, or differ so far?

 

[blü 2]

But isn't saying that there is an objective reality saying that truth is a thing, and that objective reality is that thing?

Not quite. Reality is out there, and it is, or more accurately our most objective and informed understanding of it is, the great truthmaker, but reality isn't itself 'truth'. 'Truth' is a property of statements about reality, not of reality itself.

there is Truth as an absolute, and truth as perspectives of that Truth. It would seem you have to agree with this, as you attest that there is something that stands outside the relative perspectival truths we as humans engage in every moment of every day. There is some "measure" of Truth, with a capital T which you call objective reality. Would you agree with that?

First, there are no absolute statements anywhere about reality. For example, I base my worldview on three assumptions (that a world exists external to me, that my senses are able to inform me about it, that reason is a valid too) and so can only interact intelligibly with those who share them. Or again, the conclusions of science are based on empiricism and induction, so can never be protected against a counterexample which we may find tomorrow, or never find at all.

Second, it follows that truth will change as our understanding changes. That's why I say it was once true that the earth was flat. Truth is never absolute, only retrospective.

So if there's an absolute description of external reality, an absolute instead of a best-we-have truthmaker, we have no access to it, nor on our present understanding should we expect to find such an access.

But again, truth isn't a quality of reality. It's simply a quality of statements about reality.