Christianity and Solar myth

[Fist and Faith]

The Esmer, as always, I don't have time to read all of this thread right now. (You make big posts, ya know!:D) But it's already clear that you're talking about taoism. I've said before that I seem to find the principles of taoism at the heart of many religions/philosophies, and I'm finding it here too.

The "doorway" to this perception is "internal silence", or "not-doing", or "stopping the world".

In taoism, this is wu-wei. My favorite description of wu-wei is from The Tao of Zen, by Ray Grigg:

When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive.

Here's my take on taoism. Or, more specifically, the Tao Te Ching: geocities.com/laochuangtsu/
And here's some translations of it: www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

[Avatar]

When the right man does nothing, his thoughts are felt for a thousand miles.

I've always defined wu-wei as the philosophy of dynamic inaction.

And it makes me think of the Discordian Saint, Emperor Joshua Norton, who prevented a riot between the residents of San Francisco and Chinese labourers on the railway, simply by standing between the two converging mobs with his head bowed. (In some versions, he was reciting a prayer quietly to himself.)

--A

[The Laughing Man]

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

I "know", heh, that I can't "convince" you of this, --A, or at least have you admit it if I ever did, but what I am attempting to do is use your own arguments (which are also mine, or have been) to slowly build a case that it is more likely there is a God than it is likely there isn't. All of your views may be valid, they just lack the "secret ingredient", IMHO, and I do this only for the purposes of debate, to be sure, and enjoy the opportunity to attempt to "prove God" using the principles of "science". I think its the "language" that disturbs most people, but how can one "verbalize" these "perceptions" of the "Unknowable" if one doesn't use terminology that is familiar to us as humans? I would also bet its this very same "language" that has most of you believing I'm some "Jesus Freak", or "religious zealot", and nothing could be further from the truth, at least in our "popular definition" of those terms. I am a scientist, first and foremost, I just don't believe a microscope is adequate or appropriate to discover the "secrets of life".

Fist, you are indeed correct, but what I am saying is that Tao is "talking about" Gnosis. That the "original" source is the one from which Tao, and all other religions and philosophies, have "sprung from". And it is my assertation that the Toltec's were Gnostics, and Don Juan Matus was a Gnostic, and that he alone has provided not only a "blueprint", but a technical and instructional manual to achieve these awesome "feats of awareness". All others "describe" what one may find, in inadequate and most importanly SUBJECTIVE "human terminology", but none tell you how to get there. This alone makes it, to me, the single most important scientific and religious information to be found in this day and age. Disproving this is my ultimate goal, for that provides me with the "ultimate truth", by eliminating the irrelevant and insufficient, all we are left with is the "irreducible residue" of what stands the "test of truth".

(PS - Fist, my posts wouldn't be so long if more people "talked to me" more often, heh. My posts just sit there so I just keep adding to them, trying to "debate myself", you just can't see the questions and challenges I am imposing upon myself to clarify my statements. )

[Fist and Faith]

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

We cannot answer this in any meaningful way. It's all speculation. We can't possibly know whether or not awareness and intent can arise from a source that does not contain awareness and intent. Just as we cannot know if a reality that operates on the principle of Cause & Effect can, itself, be uncaused. It is only the law and science of someone's subjective Logic and Reason that supports this. Another person's logic and reason might say that, to take a familiar example, it is more likely for this unimaginably huge and complex reality to be uncaused than for a being - God - capable of envisioning and creating it to be uncaused. God, after all, must be even more complex to have done this. Like everything else, logic and reason are more subjective than we'd often like them to be, and can only get us so far.

I "know", heh, that I can't "convince" you of this, --A, or at least have you admit it if I ever did,

I'm quite sure you're wrong about the second part.

Fist, you are indeed correct, but what I am saying is that Tao is "talking about" Gnosis. That the "original" source is the one from which Tao, and all other religions and philosophies, have "sprung from". And it is my assertation that the Toltec's were Gnostics, and Don Juan Matus was a Gnostic, and that he alone has provided not only a "blueprint", but a technical and instructional manual to achieve these awesome "feats of awareness". All others "describe" what one may find, in inadequate and most importanly SUBJECTIVE "human terminology", but none tell you how to get there. This alone makes it, to me, the single most important scientific and religious information to be found in this day and age. Disproving this is my ultimate goal, for that provides me with the "ultimate truth", by eliminating the irrelevant and insufficient, all we are left with is the "irreducible residue" of what stands the "test of truth".

Alas, I have read very little DJM, and no Gnosticism at all. But in general, my feeling has been that X is talking about Tao. Just some stuff added to the core teaching of taoism. Not intentially, mind you. Many systems developed without ever having heard of taoism. But it looks, to me, that taoism tells of certain things that are common to many people, and some people/groups/cultures added onto it. What they added depended on things like their history, geography, language, and lots of other things.

(PS - Fist, my posts wouldn't be so long if more people "talked to me" more often, heh. My posts just sit there so I just keep adding to them, trying to "debate myself", you just can't see the questions and challenges I am imposing upon myself to clarify my statements. )

Alas, I wish I could help you out more. I used to be a rather huge poster here. Before Av, Jem, and some others joined, I was involved in some seriously big, serious discussions. heh. And then some with those guys. But the last 13 months of my life have been... well... eventful, draining, time consuming, and all that. If I get the chance some day, I'll be back!

[The Laughing Man]

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

We cannot answer this in any meaningful way. It's all speculation. We can't possibly know whether or not awareness and intent can arise from a source that does not contain awareness and intent.


but we can "construct" a mathematical formula that can "represent" these odds. Just more bits of circumstantial evidence of the "known" that we can collect to assist us in discovering the "unknown". We need all the assuredness we can get to embrace such faith in the "unknowable". and "common sense" tells us automatically that it is more likely, just by "simple reasoning", which may be sufficient, lacking anything better you have to offer at the moment to convince yourself.


Just as we cannot know if a reality that operates on the principle of Cause & Effect can, itself, be uncaused. It is only the law and science of someone's subjective Logic and Reason that supports this. Another person's logic and reason might say that, to take a familiar example, it is more likely for this unimaginably huge and complex reality to be uncaused than for a being - God - capable of envisioning and creating it to be uncaused. God, after all, must be even more complex to have done this. Like everything else, logic and reason are more subjective than we'd often like them to be, and can only get us so far.


agree, wholly, but it is exactly my point that reason and logic can get us right to the edge, where we can observe the process you describe, and from there we stand without a plan, the best we can do is "clues". So the Warrior's task is to weed out the bad clues from the good clues, and from there maybe catch but a brief glimpse, of something that looks like so much more...

I "know", heh, that I can't "convince" you of this, --A, or at least have you admit it if I ever did,

I'm quite sure you're wrong about the second part.


It delights me to be so humbled for such a coarse and ignorant comment.

Fist, you are indeed correct, but what I am saying is that Tao is "talking about" Gnosis. That the "original" source is the one from which Tao, and all other religions and philosophies, have "sprung from". And it is my assertation that the Toltec's were Gnostics, and Don Juan Matus was a Gnostic, and that he alone has provided not only a "blueprint", but a technical and instructional manual to achieve these awesome "feats of awareness". All others "describe" what one may find, in inadequate and most importanly SUBJECTIVE "human terminology", but none tell you how to get there. This alone makes it, to me, the single most important scientific and religious information to be found in this day and age. Disproving this is my ultimate goal, for that provides me with the "ultimate truth", by eliminating the irrelevant and insufficient, all we are left with is the "irreducible residue" of what stands the "test of truth".

Alas, I have read very little DJM, and no Gnosticism at all. But in general, my feeling has been that X is talking about Tao. Just some stuff added to the core teaching of taoism. Not intentially, mind you. Many systems developed without ever having heard of taoism. But it looks, to me, that taoism tells of certain things that are common to many people, and some people/groups/cultures added onto it. What they added depended on things like their history, geography, language, and lots of other things.


looks like an indepth discussion.

But the last 13 months of my life have been... well... eventful, draining, time consuming, and all that. If I get the chance some day, I'll be back!

I hear ya, keep it real.

[lucimay]

The Ez sez:

My posts just sit there so I just keep adding to them, trying to "debate myself", you just can't see the questions and challenges I am imposing upon myself to clarify my statements.

why i like this guy.

[Avatar]

Thanks for your assessment Fist, I like to think that it's accurate. And we miss you in here, but you do what you gotta, we'll keep the fires burning 'til you're back.

Esmer, I must say, I've never thought of you as some religious zealot. Indeed, it's your careful use of language that convinces me that you're not. And I'll be the first to admit that the microscope is not the only tool to study the universe through.

But I'd be very interested to see a formulae for the odds of intent arising without intent backing it. Very interested. Indeed, I'm not sure that it's possible at all. Because we don't have a fixed point from which to work from.

And of course, as Prebe keeps touching on, if all intent depends on intent, then we'd simply be faced with the inevitable question of what intent that backing intent arose from. Is it elephants all the way to the bottom?

--Avatar

[Plissken]

Esmer is using language carefully? Icons and siggys maybe. But language?

I'm clearly getting distracted by the punctuation. I must now go and re-read his posts.

[Avatar]

Very carefully indeed usually. That's not to say "clearly" always, but "carefully" without doubt.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

But I'd be very interested to see a formulae for the odds of intent arising without intent backing it. Very interested.

You and me both! I do not see such a thing being possible.

We cannot answer this in any meaningful way. It's all speculation. We can't possibly know whether or not awareness and intent can arise from a source that does not contain awareness and intent.

but we can "construct" a mathematical formula that can "represent" these odds. Just more bits of circumstantial evidence of the "known" that we can collect to assist us in discovering the "unknown". We need all the assuredness we can get to embrace such faith in the "unknowable". and "common sense" tells us automatically that it is more likely, just by "simple reasoning", which may be sufficient, lacking anything better you have to offer at the moment to convince yourself.

Please continue. What bits of the known can help us discover the truth of this particular unknowable? Since "common sense" and "simple reasoning" are often nothing more than "wishful thinking," we need something else.

And of course, as Prebe keeps touching on, if all intent depends on intent, then we'd simply be faced with the inevitable question of what intent that backing intent arose from. Is it elephants all the way to the bottom?

It's turtles, no?

Very carefully indeed usually. That's not to say "clearly" always, but "carefully" without doubt.

"Yes," "I" "agree." Seriously. I really like the approach and the honesty I've seen in The Esmer's posts, even if I haven't yet seen anything that convinces me that the goal has been reached. (But I know there's a pretty big thread that was primarily between The Esmer and Av from months back, when I was barely around at all. I suppose I could try to find that and see if it explains The Esmer's ideas that have only been touched on here.)

[The Laughing Man]

--A, "thanks" for "defending" my "accuracy", and/or "lack of". Boy, I try really hard, don't I? I'm amazed myself sometimes!

Fist, I'm saying that "simple logic" tells us that "something" that came from "something like it" is more likely than "something" coming from "something not 'et al' like it". The "simple fact" that we are aware tells us that it is "likely" we came from something that also is aware. It's not a fact, of course, just a "tipping of the scale", because even tho I am "building a case" with "alleged facts" and "common sense", it cannot ever be "proven" until each individual experiences that "gnosis" for themselves, the kicker is they are likely to have no company on that journey, and tales of their "visions" are all we are left with. But odds are, if approached in a critically sober and unencumbered manner, the experience will coincide with the "nature" of the "descriptions" of others who have had "similar" experiences, but will likely differ in "content" and "circumstance", but can pass the "validation" test at least between the ones who have had this "rapturous" experience. Every account of this type of "knowing" between all different religions have many things in common. My stand is to gather these similarities, group them together, and continue to whittle them down until all you have left is "one truth", which can be verified "allegedly" by performing a feat called "heightened awareness" instructed and described by DJM, and described in all other religions in general, the only differences being "syntax" between them. "theoretically", heh.

And if I'm wrong? What harm can come to me attempting to "mimic angels", if my death is already certain, and what better time could be spent than trying to "find God" by "knowing myself"?

"quote" unquote

Esmer is using language carefully? Icons and siggys maybe. But language?

I'm clearly getting distracted by the punctuation. I must now go and re-read his posts.

Will someone please go check on Plissken?

(And in my "defense", may I say I do quite well considering most of it comes out of my gut? or is that butt? heh. )

[Avatar]

And if I'm wrong? What harm can come to me attempting to "mimic angels", if my death is already certain, and what better time could be spent than trying to "find God" by "knowing myself"?

No harm at all. And, as far as I'm concerned, through oneself is the only way to percieve "god", because, afterall, "Thou art God."

Never forget though, that "common sense is what tells you that the earth is flat."

None of which, however, addresses my question about the origin of the original "intent".

(Turtles, Elephants, it's all the same Fist. )

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, I'm saying that "simple logic" tells us that "something" that came from "something like it" is more likely than "something" coming from "something not 'et al' like it". The "simple fact" that we are aware tells us that it is "likely" we came from something that also is aware.

I see what you're getting at. My (and Av's) problem is that, eventually, there must be an awareness that did not come from something that also is aware. Otherwise, the endless progression back. If the Big Bang was aware, it must also have come from an aware source. And that source must have come from yet another aware source, etc, etc, etc. An infinite chain of aware sources does not fit my idea of logic and reason. I am much more comfortable with the thought that something aware did not come from an aware source. And I'm not nearly convinced that this first awareness isn't us.

(And in my "defense", may I say I do quite well considering most of it comes out of my gut? or is that butt? heh. )

I also think you do quite well.

And if I'm wrong? What harm can come to me attempting to "mimic angels", if my death is already certain, and what better time could be spent than trying to "find God" by "knowing myself"?

No harm at all. And, as far as I'm concerned, through oneself is the only way to percieve "god", because, afterall, "Thou art God."

Can I hear an Amen! I agree completely with both of you.

(Turtles, Elephants, it's all the same Fist. )

I dare you to say that to an elephant!!

[The Laughing Man]

"common sense" depends on "present company".

None of which, however, addresses my question about the origin of the original "intent".

what was your question again?


(TY )Fist, isn't "matter" and "life" under the same burden of origin and existence, even "re-existence" or "self perpetuating" existence? Where did "et al" come from? And how does it keep going?

And I'm not nearly convinced that this first awareness isn't us.

clarify?

[Avatar]

Hey Fist, no worries...I do live in Africa afterall...

Esmer, the question is, if intent arose from intent, what intent did the intent that originated the current intent arise from? Is there an unbroken chain of intent that stretches infinitely backwards?

Where did the "first" intent arise from, if all intent requires intent?

And what I think Fist meant there is that he suspects, (as do I) that we (humans) are the first awareness. (Intent?) That it's us who are the original intent, that we arose without the need for some supernatural other force.

Thats it is, in the end, only us.

It's not a matter of "like from unlike" as you seem to suggest, it's like from a little less like, and that from a little less like than that, etc.

Starting from "completely unlike" say, then progressing through various levels of similarity to that original, until the end product is so unlike as to be almost unrecognisable.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

syntax - def:The rules governing construction or formation of an orderly system of information

Syntax

A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
Ten billion revolutions around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements as facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.

The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound that they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
Thats the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.
prologue - The Active Side of Infinity

[Avatar]

And that relates to your usage of intent how?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

I have said the "irreducible residue", or "source", of "reality" is "intent". "Intent" is not a "thing being", it's a "being being".

endless fluctuations of intensity

do not require a "beginning", but can "originate" from a "source".

I feel I may be getting beyond my ability to "verbalize" the "idea" of "God" at this point. God after all is "unknowable", heh.

[Avatar]

But does that mean that the "source" is magically exempt from having to have originated from something?

If all things originate from a "source," doesn't the source need an origin?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

that is what Logic and Reason demand, and it has been stated that this is sufficient only to a point. Not "magically" exempt, "unknowably" exempt. "time" and "birth" and "death" are God's "commands", but not It's "masters". Indeed the "riddle of all riddles" that noone to my knowledge, that I listen to, has ever claimed to "know" the answer to, and always is the answer. You cannot know it, and you must accept it as the only plausible answer to the question of "faith".