Kevin's Watch

Indeed. The question of faith. And where it all falls down for me is that "magical" (if you'll forgive the use of the word again) exemption.

Reason does not permit that exemption, only faith can. And when it gets right down to it, "faith" is one thing I don't have. I prefer reason. It explains. Or attempts to. With faith, there comes a time when you are asked simply to accept without explanation.

--A

"Look around you. All this. Mars, too. The stars. Everything. You and me and everybody. Did the Old Ones tell you who made it?"

Mike looked puzzled. "No, Jubal."

"Well, have you wondered? Where did the Sun come from? Who put the stars in the sky? Who started it? All, everything, the whole world, the Universe...so that you and I are here talking. How do your Old Ones answer such questions?"

"Jubal, I do not grok...that these are 'questions.' I am sorry."

"Eh? I don't grok your answer."

Mike hesitated. "I will try. But words are...are not...rightly. Not 'putting.' Not 'mading.' A nowing. World is. World was. World shall be. Now."

"'As it was in the beginning, so it is now and ever shall be, World without end-'"

Mike smiled happily. "You grok it!"

As Av knows, that's from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Mike (Valentine Michael Smith) was raised by Martians, who are so unlike humans that we didn't even know there were Martians. Mike's education and experiences were as unlike ours as can be. Now that he's been brought to Earth, he's trying to understand humans. At the moment, Jubal is trying to explain what religion is, because Mike saw a tv evangelist.

This is kind of like taoism for me. As I say on my taoism website, I don't actually try to live as a tao/zen master. I see some advantages to such a lifestyle, to be sure. But I don't want to give up the things that gave us Beethoven, Hesse, and so many other beautiful human creations. I feel that taoism keeps me rooted. It stops me from getting too carried away by the negative crap of humanity. It helps me remember what's truly important.

What you, The Esmer, and Valentine Michael Smith are saying holds a similar position for me. There is a side of me that likes that letting go, the embracing of the unknowable. "Human being" means "poet" as much as anything else, eh? I like to visit there. It gives me a sense of wonder. And even peace.

But the stronger side of me puts demands on knowledge that are not answered your way. Av says, "With faith, there comes a time when you are asked simply to accept without explanation." That's the bottom line for me. I am unable to do that. So I'll visit your world from time to time, and debate with you at other times. It's all good!

It is indeed. Good post Fist.

Like you, it's not to say that I don't like the idea, hell, sometimes I like it a lot. But as you said, it's nice to visit, but I couldn't live there.

--A

I'm working on some "ideas" right now with this, Avatar, and it dawned on me, I don't know what the heck you DO believe! Only what you DON'T believe. Think you could "put it in a nutshell" for me? And "origin" is mainly what I am trying to focus on right now, btw.

Fist, great post,(I'm currently snacking on your website ) and I "buttered my biscuits" on Heinlein growing up, my parents both had nice collections of literature, and the great SciFi writers were all present. Asimov, Clarke, Roddenberry, Campbell's Golden Age, Lester Del Rey (SRD's salvation ), Bradbury, Pohl, Frederick Brown, Lieber, etc. I read them all, and can't remember a dam thing! Except they "crafted" the universe I lived in for a long time, and filled the sky night and day for me. Astounding SF Golden Age Authors

Today I worked with what I had
Nor longed for anymore
And what had seemed like only weeds
Were flowers at my door.

I could probably say that between you, me and --A, and likely a good majority of "everyone else" so inclined, there may be very little we actually "disagree" on, once we get past the "language barrier", and "individuality". Sometimes it seems we are talking about different thing when we're not just because we use different words, or even different definitions for the same words. I suppose (and I win a point here ) that in actuality you both, and me too, heh, are putting "faith" in "reason" to account for the known, and to "eventually" account for the "unknown", while also assuming it can "eventually" account for the "unknowable", in some "uncertain future". Reason and Logic is in many ways dependant upon "assumptions", or "faith", no?

With faith, there comes a time when you are asked simply to accept without explanation.

but it is my stand that now there is a way to accept this "explanation" thru "direct observation". You are able to be "aware" of It, you just can't "comprehend" It. Thinking logically cannot solve this, and DJM, and others, have stated that you must "act illogically" in order to "apprehend" this "state of being", which is defined as "not being", or "letting go" of the "self". This implies a direct seperability between "self" and "awareness", and "knowledge" and "thought".
(I'm a "little slow" tonight, forgive me if I wander or things are "hazy", heh. )

Anybody seen Dromond? Seems we may have "hijacked" this a bit, but I would like to hear some "comparative" ideas from him, as he is the "resident Gnostic expert" here.

Fist and Faith wrote:

"Look around you. All this. Mars, too. The stars. Everything. You and me and everybody. Did the Old Ones tell you who made it?"

Mike looked puzzled. "No, Jubal."

"Well, have you wondered? Where did the Sun come from? Who put the stars in the sky? Who started it? All, everything, the whole world, the Universe...so that you and I are here talking. How do your Old Ones answer such questions?"

"Jubal, I do not grok...that these are 'questions.' I am sorry."

"Eh? I don't grok your answer."

Mike hesitated. "I will try. But words are...are not...rightly. Not 'putting.' Not 'mading.' A nowing. World is. World was. World shall be. Now."

"'As it was in the beginning, so it is now and ever shall be, World without end-'"

Mike smiled happily. "You grok it!"

As Av knows, that's from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Mike (Valentine Michael Smith) was raised by Martians, who are so unlike humans that we didn't even know there were Martians. Mike's education and experiences were as unlike ours as can be. Now that he's been brought to Earth, he's trying to understand humans. At the moment, Jubal is trying to explain what religion is, because Mike saw a tv evangelist.

This is kind of like taoism for me. As I say on my taoism website, I don't actually try to live as a tao/zen master. I see some advantages to such a lifestyle, to be sure. But I don't want to give up the things that gave us Beethoven, Hesse, and so many other beautiful human creations. I feel that taoism keeps me rooted. It stops me from getting too carried away by the negative crap of humanity. It helps me remember what's truly important.

What you, The Esmer, and Valentine Michael Smith are saying holds a similar position for me. There is a side of me that likes that letting go, the embracing of the unknowable. "Human being" means "poet" as much as anything else, eh? I like to visit there. It gives me a sense of wonder. And even peace.

But the stronger side of me puts demands on knowledge that are not answered your way. Av says, "With faith, there comes a time when you are asked simply to accept without explanation." That's the bottom line for me. I am unable to do that. So I'll visit your world from time to time, and debate with you at other times. It's all good!

Good post and great reference, Fist. That book gives me more peace than the Beatitudes.

What do I believe? Not much. Not much at all.

I believe that we're independent individuals with free will.

I believe that most, if not all, of the things we believe, the way we act, and how we feel about things are the artificial constructs of society, partially based on evolutionary disposition and our attepts to overcome it, and that there are few, if any, absolutes.

Beyond that, it's all things I like to believe, but in which, attractive as the ideas sometimes are, I have no faith. Faith is antiethical to my nature perhaps.

There's no Justice. There's just us.

I like to believe that not only can we be better, but that, for our own sakes, we should be. But I can't prove it.

--Avatar

define:antithetical

define:antiethical (somehow I know what that means! )

Artificial constructs. werd. Should be. werder.

What about the "origin" of "life the universe, and everything". Are you a "big banger"?

Avatar writes,

I like to believe that not only can we be better, but that, for our own sakes, we should be. But I can't prove it.

inspiration is lacking, eh? we sure could use a good Divine Visitation right about now, eh Av?

Minor typo Esmer, minor typo.

And yeah, I guess that you could say that I consider the "big bang" to be a more likely explanation than a "creator." Or at least, a less unlikely one.

I'm certainly an "evolutionist" if nothing else.

Yeah LuciMay, a nice "divine intervention" might change my mind. Of course, the worth of that "divinity" would subsequently have to be proved to my satisfaction.

--A

well, I was 'tinkin, and I 'tought, The big bang is subject to the same "burden of proof" as intent. Where did "everything" come from? And where did that come from? so on, etc. You see? The requirement that a "source" requires a "source", ad infinitum, is highly illogical and unreasonable. To require for every egg there is a chicken, there can be no end, or rather no "beginning", to anything. Somehow there has to be a point where there is a "source", that has no "source", that is its "source" ". That to me is more reasonable and logical.

If your source is "intent," and your claim is that existing intent required prior intent, then I think that that labours under a far greater burden of proof than an "intentless" source.

Otherwise, yes, even that requires proof, but it also allows a simpler, (and thus, all things being equal, more likely) explanation.

--A

It's called the parsimonious explanation.

All right Plissken!! That means you, me, Av, and The Esmer have all read SiaSL! What a GREAT book!

Now if we can only talk duchess into reading it...

The Esmer wrote:well, I was 'tinkin, and I 'tought, The big bang is subject to the same "burden of proof" as intent. Where did "everything" come from? And where did that come from? so on, etc. You see? The requirement that a "source" requires a "source", ad infinitum, is highly illogical and unreasonable. To require for every egg there is a chicken, there can be no end, or rather no "beginning", to anything. Somehow there has to be a point where there is a "source", that has no "source", that is its "source" ". That to me is more reasonable and logical.

Didn't I say that to you on page 3 of this thread?

The Esmer wrote:I could probably say that between you, me and --A, and likely a good majority of "everyone else" so inclined, there may be very little we actually "disagree" on, once we get past the "language barrier", and "individuality". Sometimes it seems we are talking about different thing when we're not just because we use different words, or even different definitions for the same words. I suppose (and I win a point here ) that in actuality you both, and me too, heh, are putting "faith" in "reason" to account for the known, and to "eventually" account for the "unknown", while also assuming it can "eventually" account for the "unknowable", in some "uncertain future". Reason and Logic is in many ways dependant upon "assumptions", or "faith", no?

I agree with most of this. Our paths seem to diverge where this "unknowable" is concerned. I do not expect that humanity will ever find all the answers. I'm certain I won't. And... I don't care. I'm not concerned with whether or not the Big Bang is fact. Various bits of evidence point to it, which is why it was theorized (by a priest named Georges Lemaître in 1927) in the first place. But if new evidence suggests otherwise at any point, I won't be the least bit concerned. I mean, come on, does it truly effect my life?? heh

Nor will I be concerned if I become convinced that any particular creator exists. If that creator expects me to act against what I think is right, then it better have a REAL good reason. As I've said elsewhere, I couldn't love and obey any God simply for being God if I thought s/he was acting badly. And any God who would punish me for that would be acting badly, I'll have to take the punishment. Not out of defiance or anything, but simply because I am not capable of loving or obeying someone/thing with certain qualities. How much better could it be to follow and obey a God if it means doing things I think are wrong than being punished for not?

OTOH, If the creator thinks I'm doing just fine, then we have no problem anyway.

The Esmer wrote:but it is my stand that now there is a way to accept this "explanation" thru "direct observation". You are able to be "aware" of It, you just can't "comprehend" It. Thinking logically cannot solve this, and DJM, and others, have stated that you must "act illogically" in order to "apprehend" this "state of being", which is defined as "not being", or "letting go" of the "self". This implies a direct seperability between "self" and "awareness", and "knowledge" and "thought".
(I'm a "little slow" tonight, forgive me if I wander or things are "hazy", heh. )

I'll get back to you on all this tonight.

You mean Duchess hasn't read it? I'll start encouraging her to too. The only one I like better, I think, is Time Enough For Love.

Great post Fist. I especially agree with you that even if there turned out to be a creator, let alone a "god," there's no way that I'd suddenly start obeying, let alone worshipping, any being who was even half as capricious as mans gods seem to be.

--Avatar

ah yes, Av!! Time Enough for Love.

(while we're encouraging Duchess to read SinSL, i'll be working on my mate as well!! i called him Valentine Michael Smith the other day and he had no earthly what i was talkin about!! how in the heck do you get to 50 and NOT have read it???? )

It seems to me that SiaSL would be right up Duchess' alley. Perhaps she's been put off by the type of folk who wear T-shirts reading, "I Grock Spock"?

my Heinlein t-shirt says "thou art god brother"

ooooh. I want one of those!

Yes, SiaSL is clearly duchess' kind of book!! Unfortunately, she tried at least one other Heinlein book, which she thought was trash. I'm forced to agree with her, but I don't remember if it was Number of the Beast or I Will Fear No Evil. I think the latter. When the old guy's secretary dies and ends up in his head? I stopped not too far into it, because it was boring the hell out of me. duchess read farther, if not all of it, and said it was basically soft-core porn. I've sent her some great SiaSL quotes (the above, the one when Jubal and Ben are talking about art, a couple others), and she agreed that they were far better than anything in the book she read.

I also LOVE Time Enough for Love. But it's been years since I read it. Still, I prefer SiaSL.

And cheers for Lucimay!! Five of us in this thread have read it! I'm so sorry to hear about your mate, though. What sad times these are... Good luck with him!

I've read it.