"Lack of belief"

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Well, that's a lot to reply to. But let me address this one point for now:

I think reality means existing eternally (or without end). I think what is really existing cannot be threatened, and what is unreal (appears to exist, but understood as having an end) does not (actually) exist.

Then it seems we have been debating past each other this entire time. If you had clearly stated from the beginning that physical existence is not eternal (rather than stating that physical existence is not real... which means something entirely different, as per the standard English definitions of words), I would have agreed with you. Your point concerning "spiritual reality" is another matter. But when I say that physical existence is real, I am using the standard and philosophical definitions of reality: my claim is not that physical existence is eternal, but that physical existence both actually exists and can furthermore be shown to exist independently of the mind.

Eternity aside, do you agree or disagree that physical existence exists independently of the mind? If you disagree, do you believe physical existence operates as, say, dreams do? Iow, can we alter physical existence by changing what we think about it? For instance, if you witness someone get killed in a car accident, do you believe you can somehow make that person physically alive again using your mind? Perhaps by positive thinking, such as maybe repeating over and over again in your head, "This person is alive, this person is alive, this person is alive?" Or however else you might express using your mind to control physical existence.

 

[Acim]

my claim is not that physical existence is eternal, but that physical existence both actually exists and can furthermore be shown to exist independently of the mind.

But you mean, an individual solitary mind, right? Cause I don't see you having showing anything existing independent of collective consciousness. Indeed, I don't think it's possible.

Eternity aside, do you agree or disagree that physical existence exists independently of the mind?

Disagree. Disagree philosophically, spiritual and even scientifically - though obviously the last one is where a dispute is most likely. Not that there other two are free from dispute.

If you disagree, do you believe physical existence operates as, say, dreams do? Iow, can we alter physical existence by changing what we think about it? For instance, if you witness someone get killed in a car accident, do you believe you can somehow make that person physically alive again using your mind? Perhaps by positive thinking, such as maybe repeating over and over again in your head, "This person is alive, this person is alive, this person is alive?" Or however else you might express using your mind to control physical existence.

I don't think there is such a thing as actual death, which is what I hear you mostly asking about in the example. I think people are with us in reality in the same way they always are. But not physically, nor do I see that as actually being 'with us.'

I don't see night dreams operating entirely, or consistently based on wishful thinking, in the way you are communicating. It is wishful thinking, but it would have asterisk by it, for me. In my night dreams and in around 98% of those I hear about from others, there is not a constant appeal to - 'I wanted the reality to be different, and said a few (magical) words and then it was different in the exact way my (magic) words asked for.' I hear that (pre)conception a bunch, but that doesn't match up with my experience of dreams, nor what others report to me. People routinely take dreams as experiential existence of which they seemingly have no or little control over. Like making it a point to say I was in their dream last night. Not, "I willed you into a dream last night and willed you to do thus and so, and that's what occurred." In a day dream (not physically asleep), I see that sort of wishful thinking at work, but likely a lot less surrounding details, at least for me.

I see physical, and even spiritual, experience as wishful thinking, but with an asterisk by it. I definitely think we alter physical existence by (constantly) changing what we think about it. I see physical existence as the epitome of 'make-believe' and spiritual existence as the epitome of Knowledge. One existence has a consistency based on (supreme) thoughts, the other is seemingly not concerned with (individual) thoughts and is based on 'constant threats to the self.' Which is technically a thought, but the more that is unexplored, the better to maintain what 'consistency' there is to that existence. Best to make-believe something outside of you is harming you rather than you are plausibly doing this to own (illusion of) self.

 

[leibowde84]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

Most atheists I have come across merely lack belief in God, so I disagree. They don't actively believe that God's existence is impossible. They are merely withholding belief due to lack of evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Most atheists I have come across merely lack belief in God, so I disagree. They don't actively believe that God's existence is impossible. They are merely withholding belief due to lack of evidence.

Most atheists, I believe, do believe that the existence of a 'being' that is said to reside outside of the universe, and be able to manipulate things that go on inside it, is impossible. Also, a 'being' that is invisible, lives on a cloud, spans the entire time-line in his existence, and holds a place for 'souls' to rest after death, is impossible. It's the lack of evidence that engenders its impossibility.

 

[leibowde84]

Most atheists, I believe, do believe that the existence of a 'being' that is said to reside outside of the universe, and be able to manipulate things that go on inside it, is impossible. Also, a 'being' that is invisible, lives on a cloud, spans the entire time-line in his existence, and holds a place for 'souls' to rest after death, is impossible. It's the lack of evidence that engenders its impossibility.

That is not what most of the atheists I have run into believe, but that's as far as I can go. I can't speak to any of those that I haven't met or talked to about this. And, I would say that it is a bit unreasonable to equate lack of evidence with impossibility.

 

[Willamena]

That is not what most of the atheists I have run into believe, but that's as far as I can go. I can't speak to any of those that I haven't met or talked to about this. And, I would say that it is a bit unreasonable to equate lack of evidence with impossibility.

I haven't equated them. But if, based on your understanding of how the world does work, you encountered something that contradicted it and was not supported by the evidence of the world as you know it, impossibility would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

But you mean, an individual solitary mind, right? Cause I don't see you having showing anything existing independent of collective consciousness. Indeed, I don't think it's possible.

Solitary or collectively, either way you wish. If collectively is your preference, then you should be able to show how this represents reality. Reality, meaning what actually is, independent of what we think about it.

Disagree. Disagree philosophically, spiritual and even scientifically - though obviously the last one is where a dispute is most likely. Not that there other two are free from dispute.

Then you disagree with the observable facts of the universe, I'm sorry to say. And since you have not shown spiritual reality as you see it to be factually true, despite me asking for a demonstration numerous times, I will now assume you cannot do so, as I expected.

I don't think there is such a thing as actual death, which is what I hear you mostly asking about in the example. I think people are with us in reality in the same way they always are. But not physically, nor do I see that as actually being 'with us.'

I don't see night dreams operating entirely, or consistently based on wishful thinking, in the way you are communicating. It is wishful thinking, but it would have asterisk by it, for me. In my night dreams and in around 98% of those I hear about from others, there is not a constant appeal to - 'I wanted the reality to be different, and said a few (magical) words and then it was different in the exact way my (magic) words asked for.' I hear that (pre)conception a bunch, but that doesn't match up with my experience of dreams, nor what others report to me. People routinely take dreams as experiential existence of which they seemingly have no or little control over. Like making it a point to say I was in their dream last night. Not, "I willed you into a dream last night and willed you to do thus and so, and that's what occurred." In a day dream (not physically asleep), I see that sort of wishful thinking at work, but likely a lot less surrounding details, at least for me.

I see physical, and even spiritual, experience as wishful thinking, but with an asterisk by it. I definitely think we alter physical existence by (constantly) changing what we think about it. I see physical existence as the epitome of 'make-believe' and spiritual existence as the epitome of Knowledge. One existence has a consistency based on (supreme) thoughts, the other is seemingly not concerned with (individual) thoughts and is based on 'constant threats to the self.' Which is technically a thought, but the more that is unexplored, the better to maintain what 'consistency' there is to that existence. Best to make-believe something outside of you is harming you rather than you are plausibly doing this to own (illusion of) self.

But this entire viewpoint basically amounts to a carefully constructed product of wishful thinking, as far as we can discern. I've heard this kind of philosophy before. Frankly, it is simply unconvincing to me. Though more elaborate and sophisticated than I am about to describe, in essence it seems to simply pretend or presume that actual reality is unreal, that a particular make-believe vision is real, and this make-believe fantasy even attempts to evade objective scrutiny by being carefully constructed to do so.

...

I'm going to call it at this point, as I don't think you're able to really satisfactorily answer my points which either affirm physical existence as real or affirm your spiritual view of reality as real. You have painted yourself into a corner from the very start, I'm afraid. I've given you the opportunity to explain otherwise. But while you argue that your view of spiritual reality is not subjective, the very nature of your spiritual conception (that minds co-create our perceived reality) is, in essence, a subjective view of reality by definition: "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)." [Dictionary.com]

Being a subjective assertion, you are thereby prevented from objectively demonstrating your view as real. You even specify subjective mental processes (i.e. contemplation, prayer) to perceive this idea of spiritual reality as objectively real, even though subjective thinking is objectively indistinguishable from fantasy. Even if you wish to argue that the only way to know reality is through the mind, you paint yourself into a corner where you now cannot objectively demonstrate your vision as true since, in effect, you inadvertently admit your spiritual vision is subjective (i.e. of the mind), and therefore, from an objective standpoint, indistinguishable from fantasy.

I notice that you also like to use a lot of words, at least some with altered meanings, to paint a seemingly deep portrayal of your spiritual vision. But penetrating past what seems to me to be just smoke and mirrors, I ultimately see a person who believes that minds collectively (and apparently, magically) co-create reality yet cannot, protests notwithstanding, demonstrate this to be factually, objectively true, rather than mere fantasy.

...

That said, I don't like to end things on a bad note. I prefer to express my bluntly honest view of the matter in debate forums, and have done so here. But please do not infer additional negative connotations from what I've written. Nothing I have written is personal; nothing I've read from you has been taken personally; I never surmise intellectual inferiority when I debate (in fact, I expect you are among the more intelligent people I've disagreed with and debated online); and I furthermore respect your right to believe as you see fit, even if I do not agree with it.

 

[Kartari]

Hi leibowde,

That is not what most of the atheists I have run into believe, but that's as far as I can go. I can't speak to any of those that I haven't met or talked to about this. And, I would say that it is a bit unreasonable to equate lack of evidence with impossibility.

That describes my (weak) atheist stance as well. I'd personally love to see evidence presented of certain forms of theism at least. I personally have found pantheism particular appealing, for instance, as well as (ironically) the co-creative magical thinking paradigm described by Acim. I tried out both in my youth... it didn't pan out very well at all for me, though. Lol.

 

[Willamena]

That describes my (weak) atheist stance as well. I'd personally love to see evidence presented of certain forms of theism at least. I personally have found pantheism particular appealing, for instance, as well as (ironically) the co-creative magical thinking paradigm described by Acim. I tried out both in my youth... it didn't pan out very well at all for me, though. Lol.

Well, other people's belief isn't something you can put on like a set of clothes and be successful at.

 

[Acim]

Solitary or collectively, either way you wish. If collectively is your preference, then you should be able to show how this represents reality. Reality, meaning what actually is, independent of what we think about it.

Yep, that's what I'm saying is not possible to present. That version of reality that is independent of thoughts.

Then you disagree with the observable facts of the universe, I'm sorry to say.

Please, present any 'observable fact of the universe' that doesn't rely on thought/idea.

And since you have not shown spiritual reality as you see it to be factually true, despite me asking for a demonstration numerous times, I will now assume you cannot do so, as I expected.

Seems we are both unable to show it. I say it's all thoughts and that this is where Spirituality (comfortably) resides. You say it's more than that, and a reality exists apart from thoughts, but are yet to show this. I wish you luck in trying.

But this entire viewpoint basically amounts to a carefully constructed product of wishful thinking, as far as we can discern. I've heard this kind of philosophy before.

I (facetiously) love the 'we' pronoun interjection in there. It's essentially all wishful thinking from all known data I'm aware of. Just differently crafted.

Frankly, it is simply unconvincing to me. Though more elaborate and sophisticated than I am about to describe, in essence it seems to simply pretend or presume that actual reality is unreal, that a particular make-believe vision is real, and this make-believe fantasy even attempts to evade objective scrutiny by being carefully constructed to do so.

How I (or we) discern to be the case of so called 'objective' reality based on the illusion of physical existence. Carefully constructed make-believe fantasy, unable to truly overcome subjectivity, or intersubjectivity. All based on (a type of) thinking.

I'm going to call it at this point, as I don't think you're able to really satisfactorily answer my points which either affirm physical existence as real or affirm your spiritual view of reality as real. You have painted yourself into a corner from the very start, I'm afraid. I've given you the opportunity to explain otherwise. But while you argue that your view of spiritual reality is not subjective, the very nature of your spiritual conception (that minds co-create our perceived reality) is, in essence, a subjective view of reality by definition: "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)." [Dictionary.com]

Being a subjective assertion, you are thereby prevented from objectively demonstrating your view as real. You even specify subjective mental processes (i.e. contemplation, prayer) to perceive this idea of spiritual reality as objectively real, even though subjective thinking is objectively indistinguishable from fantasy. Even if you wish to argue that the only way to know reality is through the mind, you paint yourself into a corner where you now cannot objectively demonstrate your vision as true since, in effect, you inadvertently admit your spiritual vision is subjective (i.e. of the mind), and therefore, from an objective standpoint, indistinguishable from fantasy.

All the same holds true for your position, which attempts to deny thinking yet clearly, and utterly, relies on it. Wishing (or make believing) it to be void of consciousness, predicated on that, but magically unable to show this. How quaint.

That said, I don't like to end things on a bad note. I prefer to express my bluntly honest view of the matter in debate forums, and have done so here. But please do not infer additional negative connotations from what I've written. Nothing I have written is personal; nothing I've read from you has been taken personally; I never surmise intellectual inferiority when I debate (in fact, I expect you are among the more intelligent people I've disagreed with and debated online); and I furthermore respect your right to believe as you see fit, even if I do not agree with it.

Hard not to infer negative denotations from the wording used, the judgments, the disparaging remarks. All of which I see as actually judging of own worldview.

All of which don't actually lack belief. Takes a straw man for that to be seen as viably logical. And so let the philosophical games continue. One side denying thoughts/thinking have anything to do with reality, and that there is existence apart from this; the other side knowing that is inescapable and is the basis of actual existence. Knowing thoughts that manifest an (alleged) existence where threat is plausible/probable are inherently unreal when taken to their logical conclusion.

 

[Kartari]

Hey Acim,

Yep, that's what I'm saying is not possible to present. That version of reality that is independent of thoughts.

Please, present any 'observable fact of the universe' that doesn't rely on thought/idea.

*sigh*

I already did present over a dozen examples... which you've ignored in most cases. At best, in one case (i.e. the elephant), you made superfluous but meaningless comments about it.

Seems we are both unable to show it. I say it's all thoughts and that this is where Spirituality (comfortably) resides. You say it's more than that, and a reality exists apart from thoughts, but are yet to show this. I wish you luck in trying.

*sigh*

I have already shown it. Several times, in fact. You've either ignored or made superficial comments about my examples and demonstrations...

Ignoring valid arguments in a debate does Not make them automatically wrong. Nor does it make your own counterarguments somehow magically correct (though you do admit my point regarding Your inability to demonstrate Your own views). You have to actually address my arguments in a logical and sensible manner to hope to achieve this goal in reality.

One last time... if you are driving on the road, and you see a car out of control careening towards you, are you going to just carry on without responding, knowing that there is really no car there, that it's a figment of your imagination? Or are you going to immediately try to dodge the oncoming car and get out of the way of a collision which will injure and perhaps kill you and your passengers?

I am willing to bet money you will try to get out of the way, and ASAP. You Very Well Know that car is real enough that you want to avoid the consequences of a car collision. All your commentary to the contrary aside, you're going to treat that careening car as very real, and You Know It.

I (facetiously) love the 'we' pronoun interjection in there. It's essentially all wishful thinking from all known data I'm aware of. Just differently crafted.

How I (or we) discern to be the case of so called 'objective' reality based on the illusion of physical existence. Carefully constructed make-believe fantasy, unable to truly overcome subjectivity, or intersubjectivity. All based on (a type of) thinking.

All the same holds true for your position, which attempts to deny thinking yet clearly, and utterly, relies on it. Wishing (or make believing) it to be void of consciousness, predicated on that, but magically unable to show this. How quaint.

I'm making believe... that's rich.

Hard not to infer negative denotations from the wording used, the judgments, the disparaging remarks. All of which I see as actually judging of own worldview.

I am truly sorry if you take my words personally. I believe I have refrained from making any personal attacks. My attacks have (validly) been placed on your arguments and ideas. I recall you making wrong assumptions about my feelings and motives in past posts, which I did not have the time at the time to correct... rest assured, I have not been "disparaging" towards you personally.

You may find it helpful to Refrain from making assumptions about the intentions and motives of others, for future reference. You are speaking with someone who once, long ago, sympathized with your worldview and actually, legitimately tried it out. I would like nothing more than to realize I am in a magical world where my thoughts can change the reality around me. Alas, the problem is that physical reality is... well, real. And it seems to me, quite honestly and objectively demonstrable, that magical thinking is just a form of fantasy.

Even the best and brightest among us can be deceived.

All of which don't actually lack belief. Takes a straw man for that to be seen as viably logical. And so let the philosophical games continue. One side denying thoughts/thinking have anything to do with reality, and that there is existence apart from this; the other side knowing that is inescapable and is the basis of actual existence. Knowing thoughts that manifest an (alleged) existence where threat is plausible/probable are inherently unreal when taken to their logical conclusion.

Honestly, I find this debate frustrating and banal. I have presented my valid arguments, and you've essentially overlooked them, apparently opting to merely reassert the same claims over and over again as if I'd written nothing in response. I've seen this before on a number of occasions in online debates, and I'm not interested in continuing such a "debate" since it is entirely unproductive and one-sided. So if you respond to my actual argument (i.e. the reality of car accident avoidance) this time instead of merely reasserting your worldview and ignoring my arguments, I will respond in turn. If you do otherwise, then I will stop replying to this thread. Not out of anger, but simply because it's a waste of my time.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

My views on this are fairly complex and far beyond the norm, lol. For me it isn't lack of belief, in the slightest, but rather the result of an "aha" moment after meeting the deity of my dreams.

 

[Acim]

*sigh*

I already did present over a dozen examples... which you've ignored in most cases. At best, in one case (i.e. the elephant), you made superfluous but meaningless comments about it.

Because all your examples (i.e. the elephant) are consistently, I would say always, relying on ideas/thoughts. "Elephant" is precisely a thought/mental construct.

*sigh*

I have already shown it. Several times, in fact. You've either ignored or made superficial comments about my examples and demonstrations...

Your examples and demonstrations are the epitome of superficiality.

One last time... if you are driving on the road, and you see a car out of control careening towards you, are you going to just carry on without responding, knowing that there is really no car there, that it's a figment of your imagination? Or are you going to immediately try to dodge the oncoming car and get out of the way of a collision which will injure and perhaps kill you and your passengers?

I am willing to bet money you will try to get out of the way, and ASAP. You Very Well Know that car is real enough that you want to avoid the consequences of a car collision. All your commentary to the contrary aside, you're going to treat that careening car as very real, and You Know It.

I don't see how you don't see this, a hypothetical, as not thought based, filled with ideas about (your) existence. So, there's that.
Just because something is 'figment of imagination' doesn't mean reason cannot be applied. I can literally create a fictional story (as your hypotheticals are doing) where characters 'respond reasonably' to the stimuli, and does that then not make it a fiction/figment of imagination? If during a night dream where I'm driving and dodge an oncoming car, does that mean I was not dreaming and the car coming at 'me' was not a figment of my imagination?

All your examples are the epitome of superficiality. You are literally arguing that if on the surface of things I (as physical self, another superficial construct) respond to stimuli with fear/caution, it is therefore 'real.' And/or not a figment of imagination.

You are speaking with someone who once, long ago, sympathized with your worldview and actually, legitimately tried it out. I would like nothing more than to realize I am in a magical world where my thoughts can change the reality around me. Alas, the problem is that physical reality is... well, real. And it seems to me, quite honestly and objectively demonstrable, that magical thinking is just a form of fantasy.

I would say, in sound bite response to this, that discernment matters. Perhaps 20 years ago, I may have (I actually don't think so, but perhaps I did) thought the projection of spiritual ideas onto outer/physical reality would result in lots of noticeable magical occurrences. Not only is it that 'world don't work that way' (which is what you are earnestly trying to convey), but (spiritual) reality doesn't work that way. On both accounts, it 'can' but it is fleeting, or highly inconsistent. I believe many people (arguably everyone) witnesses to magical things that are not readily explainable (even in say matters of science), but other than very young people, it is likely not experienced in an ongoing magical way.

The discernment part deals with (among a few considerations) the acute understandings around white magic and black magic. Those aren't even terms I use but rarely. I tend to be more intellectual, if not 'psychological' in my understanding of this. Essentially, black magic seeks to invoke changes outside of one's self with the hope of impacting/benefiting own self. I personally see lots of that in 'the way the world works' and how we, as physical selves, choose to interact with external stimuli. Change something in the environment, in others, about others, and it will benefit me/us. White magic bypasses all that, by seeking the change foremost in the perception of own self. That can be invoked simply by utilizing say forgiveness.

For you, this may all read as 'superficial.' But forgiveness is good example, I think, of how people seemingly barely understand what even that entails. I routinely see people frame the concept along lines of, "oh, I'm supposed to forgive that person that crapped all over me. Oh, that sounds real good. Not!" Which is really just another variation of seeking to apply 'magic' to something perceived as outside / separate from one's self, and that will somehow, magically benefit 'me.' At that level of consideration, it is ENTIRELY superficial. It could still be helpful, in the same way a placebo is helpful in overcoming certain things, but it is clearly superficial.

Genuine forgiveness relies on discernment, not just during invocation but at any moment where perception (thoughts deemed as occurring outside of own self) are doubting the confidence that usually or naturally comes from forgiveness. It's basically, 'you perceive someone as crapping all over you. And you forgive own self/own thinking that imagined it possible for you to be wronged.' That's the invocation. It's a little more in depth than this, but not much. Not if you grasp the inverting of the typical worldly thinking that is invoked via forgiveness. And given that forgiveness doesn't (need to) occur in a mental vacuum, meaning that God/Spirit/Higher Self is aware of all of what you're up to, it is inviting a whole other way of understanding Self and situation. How that works in all instances, is perhaps not possible to account for. In essence, I would say it replaces all notions of wrongdoing/fear/guilt/shame with perfect Love.

To jump to 'inevitable conclusion' of what this could mean for the world, is very hopeful. But spiritual discernment would say let's just start with own self, and work on that consistently before we go imagining how the world (of separation) would benefit from such thinking if all people did this all the time.

Honestly, I find this debate frustrating and banal. I have presented my valid arguments, and you've essentially overlooked them, apparently opting to merely reassert the same claims over and over again as if I'd written nothing in response. I've seen this before on a number of occasions in online debates, and I'm not interested in continuing such a "debate" since it is entirely unproductive and one-sided. So if you respond to my actual argument (i.e. the reality of car accident avoidance) this time instead of merely reasserting your worldview and ignoring my arguments, I will respond in turn. If you do otherwise, then I will stop replying to this thread. Not out of anger, but simply because it's a waste of my time.

Either way is fine with me.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Because all your examples (i.e. the elephant) are consistently, I would say always, relying on ideas/thoughts. "Elephant" is precisely a thought/mental construct.

I see... so simply because I can think about them, elephants are therefore imaginary beings. Just like unicorns and faeries, I suppose... or you? I can think about you, therefore you are imaginary as well!

I'm sorry, but this just gets more and more ridiculous imho.

Your examples and demonstrations are the epitome of superficiality.

I don't see how you don't see this, a hypothetical, as not thought based, filled with ideas about (your) existence. So, there's that.

Of course it's a hypothetical question. Of course I see it is a hypothetical question. But it nonetheless represents a REAL event, with REAL consequences. Do you honestly believe it's impossible to actually be in a car accident? Come on!

It's clear to me that you're just going to continue dodging my questions...

Just because something is 'figment of imagination' doesn't mean reason cannot be applied. I can literally create a fictional story (as your hypotheticals are doing) where characters 'respond reasonably' to the stimuli, and does that then not make it a fiction/figment of imagination? If during a night dream where I'm driving and dodge an oncoming car, does that mean I was not dreaming and the car coming at 'me' was not a figment of my imagination?

All your examples are the epitome of superficiality. You are literally arguing that if on the surface of things I (as physical self, another superficial construct) respond to stimuli with fear/caution, it is therefore 'real.' And/or not a figment of imagination.

Judging from your above response, you apparently are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. You cannot, for instance, discern the difference between a fictional story about a car accident, a dream about a car accident, and an actual car accident... all falling into the category of fiction, in your opinion, it seems. This is not a personal criticism or disparagement btw... but rather a statement of fact, based on your own response which states this.

I do not believe I can convey my point to you. And not for lack of reasonableness on my part.

I would say, in sound bite response to this, that discernment matters. Perhaps 20 years ago, I may have (I actually don't think so, but perhaps I did) thought the projection of spiritual ideas onto outer/physical reality would result in lots of noticeable magical occurrences. Not only is it that 'world don't work that way' (which is what you are earnestly trying to convey), but (spiritual) reality doesn't work that way. On both accounts, it 'can' but it is fleeting, or highly inconsistent. I believe many people (arguably everyone) witnesses to magical things that are not readily explainable (even in say matters of science), but other than very young people, it is likely not experienced in an ongoing magical way.

The discernment part deals with (among a few considerations) the acute understandings around white magic and black magic. Those aren't even terms I use but rarely. I tend to be more intellectual, if not 'psychological' in my understanding of this. Essentially, black magic seeks to invoke changes outside of one's self with the hope of impacting/benefiting own self. I personally see lots of that in 'the way the world works' and how we, as physical selves, choose to interact with external stimuli. Change something in the environment, in others, about others, and it will benefit me/us. White magic bypasses all that, by seeking the change foremost in the perception of own self. That can be invoked simply by utilizing say forgiveness.

For you, this may all read as 'superficial.' But forgiveness is good example, I think, of how people seemingly barely understand what even that entails. I routinely see people frame the concept along lines of, "oh, I'm supposed to forgive that person that crapped all over me. Oh, that sounds real good. Not!" Which is really just another variation of seeking to apply 'magic' to something perceived as outside / separate from one's self, and that will somehow, magically benefit 'me.' At that level of consideration, it is ENTIRELY superficial. It could still be helpful, in the same way a placebo is helpful in overcoming certain things, but it is clearly superficial.

Genuine forgiveness relies on discernment, not just during invocation but at any moment where perception (thoughts deemed as occurring outside of own self) are doubting the confidence that usually or naturally comes from forgiveness. It's basically, 'you perceive someone as crapping all over you. And you forgive own self/own thinking that imagined it possible for you to be wronged.' That's the invocation. It's a little more in depth than this, but not much. Not if you grasp the inverting of the typical worldly thinking that is invoked via forgiveness. And given that forgiveness doesn't (need to) occur in a mental vacuum, meaning that God/Spirit/Higher Self is aware of all of what you're up to, it is inviting a whole other way of understanding Self and situation. How that works in all instances, is perhaps not possible to account for. In essence, I would say it replaces all notions of wrongdoing/fear/guilt/shame with perfect Love.

To jump to 'inevitable conclusion' of what this could mean for the world, is very hopeful. But spiritual discernment would say let's just start with own self, and work on that consistently before we go imagining how the world (of separation) would benefit from such thinking if all people did this all the time

Well, I would agree about the superficial form of forgiveness being a less enlightened response. But forgiveness, for me, has to do with releasing harmful attachments to past, painful experiences. With identifying with the pain and the lingering mental formations from that pain. Harboring vengeful thoughts, victimization thoughts, and similarly negative baggage is understandable. But to move forward, one must drop the baggage.

Either way is fine with me.

Well, yeah. I'm really done this time as far as this "physical is unreal" discussion. The forgiveness bit was more interesting. But, sorry, your other points are simply absurd imho.

 

[Kartari]

Acim,

Again, I'm sorry if my posts come across as disparaging. I really don't like coming across that way at all.

It has been a frustrating experience for me though, to try to get my points across to you. Your basis for believing as you do very clearly seems to me to essentially boil down to, "I imagine only the collective of minds and God are real, therefore everything physical must be a mass dream." Which, in essence, is wishful thinking in my view. You dismiss my points as "superficial" not because they are actually invalid or unreasonable, but because your beliefs about existence bias you, they inform you that, contrary to the evidence, there's no distinction between reality and fantasy. I can only hope that you really do know the difference and can act accordingly when the need arises, such as in a medical emergency.

I understand reality to be ever-changing and transient in nature. Nothing has permanent identity, all is in flux. And we can and do mentally fabricate ideas about existence, and can unravel those delusions through insight, through meditation, through cultivating present-moment awareness. That seems to be the extent of my agreement with you, however. For at the same time, none of this dismisses the reality of nature itself. It only dismisses the appearance of permanent identity, dismisses our wrong perceptions about that reality. While we might delude ourselves about reality with wrong perceptions, this does not mean that there is no fundamental reality to nature whatsoever. We furthermore do have real experiences of life as human beings that are beyond our personal control, events which occur independently of mind and are therefore quite real in that respect at least. This cannot be logically dismissed by simply imagining things to be otherwise, such as by imagining a grand deity co-imagines reality with us in a Matrix-like web of thought as you seem to believe.

If you want to believe that existence is unreal and indistinguishable from dreams and fantasies, or that God and our collective minds create reality, far be it for me to disabuse you of these beliefs. As long as people aren't harming others, it's none of my business what they want to believe. There are far worse beliefs in this world to be concerned about.

I am going to stop participating in this debate though, simply because I think we have been irreconcilably talking past each other, and getting nowhere.

 

[Acim]

I see... so simply because I can think about them, elephants are therefore imaginary beings. Just like unicorns and faeries, I suppose... or you? I can think about you, therefore you are imaginary as well!

I'm sorry, but this just gets more and more ridiculous imho.

Because you changed the goalposts. That's how I see it getting ridiculous.

When I click back to what started this tangent (about 3 posts ago), it is me saying: "Please, present any 'observable fact of the universe' that doesn't rely on thought/idea."

Now, that I see you realizing it relies on thoughts/ideas, you are jumping to new conclusion of "therefore imaginary beings."

Before I said "please present," I said: I'm saying is not possible to present - that version of reality that is independent of thoughts.

Of course it's a hypothetical question. Of course I see it is a hypothetical question. But it nonetheless represents a REAL event, with REAL consequences. Do you honestly believe it's impossible to actually be in a car accident? Come on!

It's clear to me that you're just going to continue dodging my questions...

I think its possible for physical self to be in a car accident. I don't understand that as a REAL event.
I honestly do not see me dodging your questions and am speaking directly to what is essence of the discussion.

Judging from your above response, you apparently are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

This would be one of those disparaging remarks I referenced.

You cannot, for instance, discern the difference between a fictional story about a car accident, a dream about a car accident, and an actual car accident... all falling into the category of fiction, in your opinion, it seems. This is not a personal criticism or disparagement btw... but rather a statement of fact, based on your own response which states this.

I'm the one that came up with the scenarios, making distinctions, so I think I can discern the difference. Thus a bit disparaging to frame it as I'm the one having trouble discerning.

Less disparaging/more accurate to suggest 'car accident' falls into category of fiction for me (and I would argue for everyone).

I do not believe I can convey my point to you. And not for lack of reasonableness on my part.

What I'm noticing is you can't budge from your point. You seem to not be able to bring yourself to understanding my point, and are instead choosing to mock implications of it in a way that I have done (decades ago) because of how much of an affront it is to what I'd call faith in physical existence, but really faith in perception of own self as physical entity. I'm actually very familiar with that type of thinking.

My point is that (actual) reality is entirely thought-based. There is no 'physical' self in that reality, other than as an illusion. I don't have much problem explaining this further, but is seemingly not worthwhile when counterpoints are about ridiculing me or mocking such understandings. And as much as this may read like I'm playing some victim card, I actually understand it is not about me, so if you wish to continue mocking, I say go for it. Just doesn't strike me as earnestly wishing to discuss what I'm getting across.

Well, I would agree about the superficial form of forgiveness being a less enlightened response. But forgiveness, for me, has to do with releasing harmful attachments to past, painful experiences. With identifying with the pain and the lingering mental formations from that pain. Harboring vengeful thoughts, victimization thoughts, and similarly negative baggage is understandable. But to move forward, one must drop the baggage.

Cool, we agree.

Well, yeah. I'm really done this time as far as this "physical is unreal" discussion. The forgiveness bit was more interesting. But, sorry, your other points are simply absurd imho.

For me, the 'forgiveness bit' and 'physical is unreal' go hand in hand. Essentially it comes down to conviction I have in the physical, along with fact that I have given all the meaning the physical has for me, along with idea that I (though not individual self) manifested the physical from mind split from God/Reality. I am theist that does not believe Creator God made the physical universe. The fundamental thought behind that (illusionary) existence is, or was, desire to be 'without God.' If filtering all of this through 'mere desire' or 'mere thought' as if it is whimsical and a fleeting thought to undo the physical is possible at any given moment, is I find not plausible. I do think it is possible, but not likely. Undoing takes conviction in going the other way toward understanding, foremost, perception of own self and not projecting onto own self - I must be a physical entity because that is how 'I' perceive myself. So, forgiveness is about forgiving that fundamental error, ultimately. But to get to the ultimate position, the inevitable conclusion of physical illusion, one can benefit from a gradual undoing that utilizes forgiveness as if that is the only sane function in this place where all appearances are - God is not.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Because you changed the goalposts. That's how I see it getting ridiculous.

When I click back to what started this tangent (about 3 posts ago), it is me saying: "Please, present any 'observable fact of the universe' that doesn't rely on thought/idea."

Now, that I see you realizing it relies on thoughts/ideas, ...

I don't see how I've changed the goalposts. And that last sentence above is not at all the case. I am not "realizing it relies on thoughts/ideas," I already understand, and have been reiterating, that (a) physical existence is real (a.k.a. a reality that's independent of our thoughts), (b) we can have ideas or thoughts about physical existence, and (c) it does NOT AT ALL follow that our ability to have thoughts or ideas about physical existence means it must be unreal. Just because I can think about or have ideas about an elephant, or a car accident, does not mean elephants and car accidents are therefore imaginary or unreal. It only means that I can think about them, which itself has no bearing on the reality of such concepts. The independent character of physical objects and events and their consequences are what establishes them as real.

That last point, (c) above, is the really important part here, the point I think you keep missing, the point you continue to assume is not the case without apparent justification. I've yet to see you address the very apparent and observable fact that physical existence operates independently of our thoughts. I've only seen you claim, without providing justification, the exact opposite.

you are jumping to new conclusion of "therefore imaginary beings."

Before I said "please present," I said: I'm saying is not possible to present - that version of reality that is independent of thoughts.

And yet, I've presented over a dozen examples that contradict your statement here... I really don't know what else to do here to communicate accurately.

I think its possible for physical self to be in a car accident. I don't understand that as a REAL event.
I honestly do not see me dodging your questions and am speaking directly to what is essence of the discussion.

Well thank you for more directly answering my question this time. The last time, instead of a yes or no answer to the question, you gave me a (misleading) spiel about hypotheticals.

So how is it possible for the physical self to be in a car accident if the physical self is imaginary? The physical self is fictional, right? And if I ask you to demonstrate this, we go back to square one again... you'll claim I cannot demonstrate physical existence as real, I give examples of how its real, you merely state my examples are fictional, and the circular logic goes on and on and on...

I do not believe we will find a mutually satisfactory conclusion here.

This would be one of those disparaging remarks I referenced.

I'm the one that came up with the scenarios, making distinctions, so I think I can discern the difference. Thus a bit disparaging to frame it as I'm the one having trouble discerning.

Less disparaging/more accurate to suggest 'car accident' falls into category of fiction for me (and I would argue for everyone).

So... I'm disparaging you by saying that you do not distinguish between fantasy and reality. And then, in Your Very Next Response, you write that "'car accident' falls into category of fiction for me..."

?!?

Car accidents are real events. Fiction is an alias for fantasy. Therefore, by describing In Your Own Words that a real event (a.k.a. car accident) is actually a fictional event... how am I Not forced to conclude that you have this difficulty to discern the difference?

What I'm noticing is you can't budge from your point. You seem to not be able to bring yourself to understanding my point, and are instead choosing to mock implications of it in a way that I have done (decades ago) because of how much of an affront it is to what I'd call faith in physical existence, but really faith in perception of own self as physical entity. I'm actually very familiar with that type of thinking.

My point is that (actual) reality is entirely thought-based. There is no 'physical' self in that reality, other than as an illusion. I don't have much problem explaining this further, but is seemingly not worthwhile when counterpoints are about ridiculing me or mocking such understandings. And as much as this may read like I'm playing some victim card, I actually understand it is not about me, so if you wish to continue mocking, I say go for it. Just doesn't strike me as earnestly wishing to discuss what I'm getting across.

I am just pointing out the ramifications of what I see you yourself claiming. It's not mockery, it's merely restating what you yourself are stating... I give up.

Cool, we agree.

Yay!

For me, the 'forgiveness bit' and 'physical is unreal' go hand in hand. Essentially it comes down to conviction I have in the physical, along with fact that I have given all the meaning the physical has for me, along with idea that I (though not individual self) manifested the physical from mind split from God/Reality. I am theist that does not believe Creator God made the physical universe. The fundamental thought behind that (illusionary) existence is, or was, desire to be 'without God.' If filtering all of this through 'mere desire' or 'mere thought' as if it is whimsical and a fleeting thought to undo the physical is possible at any given moment, is I find not plausible. I do think it is possible, but not likely. Undoing takes conviction in going the other way toward understanding, foremost, perception of own self and not projecting onto own self - I must be a physical entity because that is how 'I' perceive myself. So, forgiveness is about forgiving that fundamental error, ultimately. But to get to the ultimate position, the inevitable conclusion of physical illusion, one can benefit from a gradual undoing that utilizes forgiveness as if that is the only sane function in this place where all appearances are - God is not.

I guess I'm too compelled to keep responding when I see misunderstanding, the need to clarify is too strong in me. Let me just restate again that I am seriously not trying to mock you, but I am simply throwing your own words back at you, paraphrased words, yes, and words as I understand them to mean (going by dictionary definitions of those words, which as we've seen, you sometimes deviate from rather significantly - not a criticism, just an honest observation... something that only adds to the confusion imo).

 

[Acim]

I am going to stop participating in this debate though, simply because I think we have been irreconcilably talking past each other, and getting nowhere.

I don't see how I've changed the goalposts. And that last sentence above is not at all the case.

<snip>

I guess I'm too compelled to keep responding when I see misunderstanding, the need to clarify is too strong in me. Let me just restate again that I am seriously not trying to mock you, but I am simply throwing your own words back at you, paraphrased words, yes, and words as I understand them to mean (going by dictionary definitions of those words, which as we've seen, you sometimes deviate from rather significantly - not a criticism, just an honest observation... something that only adds to the confusion imo).

I'll come back to this at a later time, but just thought I'd quote these items as part of the record in our ongoing dialogue.