I like the idea of Pantheism

[Horatio Parker]

Yeah, I agree with this. One can be rational without being a rationalist. I guess my hope was for a discussion about the nature of rationality.

exactly what are you looking for about the 'nature of rationality?' It's a process. It seems to work. That's how we get moon landings and cancer cures. I'm not sure if it's really the basis of a philosophy, as much as a dependable tool.

I suspect you mean something else entirely, but you would need to flesh that out.

It is indeed a philosophy, and that philosophy is Plato. Nothing exists outside of chaos without the One. Every intelligible thing in an ordered universe is emitted by(it's intelligibilty not its matter) and participates in the One. We use the One to make all distinctions and judgments; it's always around us and we interact with it constantly.

Platonic love is where Platos name pops up the most, and that's usually assumed to mean sexless love. But what Platonic love means is that all love is the same love. We don't all love the same things, but there is only one universal love and when we love we "participate" in that universal love. The One is the same principle, but even more fundamental. Anytime we make a distinction or judgement, the process whereby we decide this is this and that is that is also universal, and that is the One. Paradoxically, every distinct thing is distinct because it participates in the same thing: Oneness. The fundamental source of reason is therefore the focus of spirituality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What did you mean by a 'theory of rationality?'

You may be unaware that the question of consciousness is of growing interest in scientific circles.

So, you're asking more for a theory of what makes up our consciousness?
Does that really impact rationalism?
I mean, i HAVE a consciousness.
I can rationally evaluate ideas.
How would an answer to "the question of consciousness " change the usefulness of rational analysis of any given idea?
How would NOT having an answer to "the question of consciousness " change the usefulness of rational analysis of any given idea?

 

[Keith&Co.]

exactly what are you looking for about the 'nature of rationality?' It's a process. It seems to work. That's how we get moon landings and cancer cures. I'm not sure if it's really the basis of a philosophy, as much as a dependable tool.

I suspect you mean something else entirely, but you would need to flesh that out.

It is indeed a philosophy, and that philosophy is Plato. Nothing exists outside of chaos without the One. Every intelligible thing in an ordered universe is emitted by(it's intelligibilty not its matter) and participates in the One. We use the One to make all distinctions and judgments; it's always around us and we interact with it constantly.

I'm confused. Are you trying to define rationality, here? Because you lost me pretty quickly if you are.

 

[No Robots]

but talking about the interconnectedness of the universe gives no more information about reality than discussing different methodologies for griffin training does.

Even from a physicalist standpoint this is absurd. It is precisely the interconnectedness of material objects that provides us with the basis of our scientific understanding. That the universe is understood as matter in a continuum is the basis of all practical scientific activity.

 

[NobleSavage]

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

This seems dumb. How can you have a knowledge of something we can't penetrate.?

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

This I agree with.

 

[Keith&Co.]

but talking about the interconnectedness of the universe gives no more information about reality than discussing different methodologies for griffin training does.

Even from a physicalist standpoint this is absurd. It is precisely the interconnectedness of material objects that provides us with the basis of our scientific understanding. That the universe is understood as matter in a continuum is the basis of all practical scientific activity.

Please define 'interconnectedness,' then. In a scientific meaning.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Even from a physicalist standpoint this is absurd. It is precisely the interconnectedness of material objects that provides us with the basis of our scientific understanding. That the universe is understood as matter in a continuum is the basis of all practical scientific activity.

Please define 'interconnectedness,' then. In a scientific meaning.

I'm betting it's going to be one of those things where a poorly understood quantum mechanics concept is misapplied to some philosophical notion it's not related to in order to find profoud meaning in wrong interpretations of overly vague generalizations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Please define 'interconnectedness,' then. In a scientific meaning.

I'm betting it's going to be one of those things where a poorly understood quantum mechanics concept is misapplied to some philosophical notion it's not related to in order to find profoud meaning in wrong interpretations of overly vague generalizations.

I suspect so.

Wow, our skepticism is interconnected!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm betting it's going to be one of those things where a poorly understood quantum mechanics concept is misapplied to some philosophical notion it's not related to in order to find profoud meaning in wrong interpretations of overly vague generalizations.

I suspect so.

Wow, our skepticism is interconnected!

Well, duh.

If you'd have briefly skimmed over a wiki article on quantum entanglement, you'd know that changes in one thing can cause changes in another thing that's kind of like it in some way. Because we're both skeptics, that means that our minds are part of a unifed whole that gives birth to baby kittens and my thinking something has the idea implanted in your mind too because we're all brothers.

It's science, dude.

 

[abaddon]

Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows.

The whole post was marvelous but this sentence sparked some ideas for me.

It simplifies things to shove interiority into a closet and engage an imagination that persons can take a disembodied god-like perspective on “outside” reality. They imagine that the resulting story is “more true” or “objective” than to include the observer within the observed, and won’t realize every description, however sparse, still comes out of a stew of subjective values.

It actually just fragments the picture of reality more than what it was already. “We” do commonly walk off the cliff’s edge thinking there’s solid ground there. Observe the environmental crises for an example. That’s not deluded religious people doing that; it’s a deluded high-tech, “rational”, “enlightened” civilization doing that. Because they have a story about the world (though the story instructs “this isn’t a story, it’s ‘facts’” so its believers will mimic that) that’s as fucked as any story about the world has ever been. Scientific and fucked.

That says something about how “true” our “scientific” story about the world is. I’m all for science and believe it can help in writing a better story of the world, but we need to confront our values rather than pretend we can shove them aside and attain “objectivity”. We need to understand that we DO write our stories, and in the end it’s their pragmatism and meaningfulness that matters most (since they're never really wholly "true" or complete).

Include yourself in the picture while describing nature then look at your "description" (story) and see what role "we" are playing (the Master?). Pantheism, while I disagree with the label and am not sure I care for the “congregation”, at least doesn’t try to strip the story down to something falsely alleged to be "just descriptive". The scientistic believers commonly say “Oh but it’s not science doing any harm!” But, again, it’s the values of the culture practicing it that get dismissed from mind in a vain attempt at objectivity that results in evaluating the more-than-human earth as something to be used at will and with much, much too little restraint.

I'm not advocating being religious in order to feel free to "make shit up". I'm advocating taking responsibility for the values we input into our worldview. And I'm advising that no worldview is ever really "scientific"; science can only help inform the story in places. Philosophy isn't dismissible, that's as stupid as dismissing language in order to leave only the most "effective" words... but it leaves no words. And possibly religion isn't wholly dismissible either; I think "crutch" is a propagandist's way of being easily dismissive of other beliefs than his own.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It is indeed a philosophy, and that philosophy is Plato. Nothing exists outside of chaos without the One. Every intelligible thing in an ordered universe is emitted by(it's intelligibilty not its matter) and participates in the One. We use the One to make all distinctions and judgments; it's always around us and we interact with it constantly.

I'm confused. Are you trying to define rationality, here? Because you lost me pretty quickly if you are.

No. As Popper said, I'm interested in understanding, not definitions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm confused. Are you trying to define rationality, here? Because you lost me pretty quickly if you are.

No. As Popper said, I'm interested in understanding, not definitions.

Okay, so your understanding of 'rationality' is that it's a philosophy because nothing exists without The One?

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're doing the typical atheist thing: anything "sacred" must be magical and therefore false. That is not what No Robots or I are talking about. These structures are for the unnamed, unproven part of existence. While some degree of mysticism is involved , nothing has been said about commandments coming out of a burning bush or reanimated corpses. That's a straw man.

However clear eyed you may imagine your grasp of reality to be, it does not on its own provide one iota of meaning. Meaning comes from within. Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows. You may be satisfied experiencing ecstasy or the profound as isolated events eg Art is Beautiful, great orgasm etc. Others attempt to relate these things to a whole. As long as one admits it's a construct, there's nothing magical about it.

Superman, the Matrix, Gandalf, Harry Potter - none of these are "accurate" in any empirical sense except the psychological. Nevertheless, they influence people. At least in a rational pantheism, the practitioner knows and recognizes that process. Constructs like pantheism are not as arbitrary as they appear at first. They have a tradition and are subject to a dialectic of their own. I would argue that any group discussion of rational pantheism is far more grounded in reality than a discussion about say favorite reality TV stars.

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. Discussions about pantheism aren't inherently different than discussions about Harry Potter or Superman. They're perfectly fine as abstract concepts to provide meaning and structure, but talking about the interconnectedness of the universe gives no more information about reality than discussing different methodologies for griffin training does. The discussions about what gives meaning to our lives and the discussions about the nature of reality are wholely different discussions.

If you want to say that you are a better person and your life has more meaning because of the value you take out of the ideas you learned from a pantheistic philosophy, that's fine. If you want to say that learning the ideas from a pantheistic philosophy have you more knowledgable about how the universe works than you were before you learned those ideas, then that's an unsupported assertion that you can't back up.

Concepts of justice, eternity, ethics, morality, love, beauty are all subjective, all "made up". If you want to trivialize, why not go all the way. If you want to equate entertainment fiction with serious attempts to build a framework of understanding for those parts of life not explained by science, fine. But I would suspect you're not being completely honest.

Sorry, but the fact is ideas and abstract concepts do matter in our lives.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No. As Popper said, I'm interested in understanding, not definitions.

Okay, so your understanding of 'rationality' is that it's a philosophy because nothing exists without The One?

In this context, a philosophic context based on Plato, sorta yes.

We perceive only chaos without the One, not nothing exists. The system is based on a dual reality of ever changing matter, and the invisible eternal intelligibility, at the center of which is the One.The One brings order and understanding to the universe of matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows.

The whole post was marvelous but this sentence sparked some ideas for me.

It simplifies things to shove interiority into a closet and engage an imagination that persons can take a disembodied god-like perspective on “outside” reality. They imagine that the resulting story is “more true” or “objective” than to include the observer within the observed, and won’t realize every description, however sparse, still comes out of a stew of subjective values.

It actually just fragments the picture of reality more than what it was already. “We” do commonly walk off the cliff’s edge thinking there’s solid ground there. Observe the environmental crises for an example. That’s not deluded religious people doing that; it’s a deluded high-tech, “rational”, “enlightened” civilization doing that. Because they have a story about the world (though the story instructs “this isn’t a story, it’s ‘facts’” so its believers will mimic that) that’s as fucked as any story about the world has ever been. Scientific and fucked.

That says something about how “true” our “scientific” story about the world is. I’m all for science and believe it can help in writing a better story of the world, but we need to confront our values rather than pretend we can shove them aside and attain “objectivity”. We need to understand that we DO write our stories, and in the end it’s their pragmatism and meaningfulness that matters most (since they're never really wholly "true" or complete).

Include yourself in the picture while describing nature then look at your "description" (story) and see what role "we" are playing (the Master?). Pantheism, while I disagree with the label and am not sure I care for the “congregation”, at least doesn’t try to strip the story down to something falsely alleged to be "just descriptive". The scientistic believers commonly say “Oh but it’s not science doing any harm!” But, again, it’s the values of the culture practicing it that get dismissed from mind in a vain attempt at objectivity that results in evaluating the more-than-human earth as something to be used at will and with much, much too little restraint.

I'm not advocating being religious in order to feel free to "make shit up". I'm advocating taking responsibility for the values we input into our worldview. And I'm advising that no worldview is ever really "scientific"; science can only help inform the story in places. Philosophy isn't dismissible, that's as stupid as dismissing language in order to leave only the most "effective" words... but it leaves no words. And possibly religion isn't wholly dismissible either; I think "crutch" is a propagandist's way of being easily dismissive of other beliefs than his own.

Thanks. One reason I like Plato and the Greeks is that theological language is kept to a minimum.

Have to go, I'll try to post more later.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Concepts of justice, eternity, ethics, morality, love, beauty are all subjective, all "made up".

Sure. But most of us that aren't pantheists would not claim that such are qualities of the universe that pervade all matter that exists.

If you want to trivialize, why not go all the way. If you want to equate entertainment fiction with serious attempts to build a framework of understanding for those parts of life not explained by science, fine. But I would suspect you're not being completely honest.

I think he's being quite serious. You're not building anything to help understand the universe, you're building something in your head that makes you feel better about the universe. A story you tell yourself about reality.

Sorry, but the fact is ideas and abstract concepts do matter in our lives.

Why be sorry? Tom isn't saying that such things aren't important. Just that your story about the universe relates to it in much the same way as the Jedi's Force. Or, maybe, explaining ethics to a tiger to get him to not eat you, if you prefer that flavor of fiction.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, so your understanding of 'rationality' is that it's a philosophy because nothing exists without The One?

In this context, a philosophic context based on Plato, sorta yes.

We perceive only chaos without the One, not nothing exists. The system is based on a dual reality of ever changing matter, and the invisible eternal intelligibility, at the center of which is the One.The One brings order and understanding to the universe of matter.

Okay, so you can show where 'the one' is crucial to 2+2=4? How that's just chaos without this one?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sure. But most of us that aren't pantheists would not claim that such are qualities of the universe that pervade all matter that exists.

I think he's being quite serious. You're not building anything to help understand the universe, you're building something in your head that makes you feel better about the universe. A story you tell yourself about reality.

Again you misperceive. Not a story about a reality, a story about the mind perceiving reality. And it does more than a trivial feel-good. It provides a framework of understanding for the totality we all experience.

Sorry, but the fact is ideas and abstract concepts do matter in our lives.

Why be sorry? Tom isn't saying that such things aren't important. Just that your story about the universe relates to it in much the same way as the Jedi's Force. Or, maybe, explaining ethics to a tiger to get him to not eat you, if you prefer that flavor of fiction.

I disagree. I think he is saying precisely that. Do you think such things are important? And if so, then why since they are nothing more than the products of human imagination. And if they are not mere products of the brain, please provide some evidence.

 

[Horatio Parker]

In this context, a philosophic context based on Plato, sorta yes.

We perceive only chaos without the One, not nothing exists. The system is based on a dual reality of ever changing matter, and the invisible eternal intelligibility, at the center of which is the One.The One brings order and understanding to the universe of matter.

Okay, so you can show where 'the one' is crucial to 2+2=4? How that's just chaos without this one?

Please empirically demonstrate the existence of "two". What are the properties of two, it's dimensions, mass, location etc. I don't want to waste time with someone's arbitrary fantasy.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Often these discussions lose sight of the vital fact that it is the relationship of the mind with reality that is pertinent, not reality somehow separate and isolated which none of us knows.

The whole post was marvelous but this sentence sparked some ideas for me.

It simplifies things to shove interiority into a closet and engage an imagination that persons can take a disembodied god-like perspective on “outside” reality. They imagine that the resulting story is “more true” or “objective” than to include the observer within the observed, and won’t realize every description, however sparse, still comes out of a stew of subjective values.

It actually just fragments the picture of reality more than what it was already. “We” do commonly walk off the cliff’s edge thinking there’s solid ground there. Observe the environmental crises for an example. That’s not deluded religious people doing that; it’s a deluded high-tech, “rational”, “enlightened” civilization doing that. Because they have a story about the world (though the story instructs “this isn’t a story, it’s ‘facts’” so its believers will mimic that) that’s as fucked as any story about the world has ever been. Scientific and fucked.

That says something about how “true” our “scientific” story about the world is. I’m all for science and believe it can help in writing a better story of the world, but we need to confront our values rather than pretend we can shove them aside and attain “objectivity”. We need to understand that we DO write our stories, and in the end it’s their pragmatism and meaningfulness that matters most (since they're never really wholly "true" or complete).

Include yourself in the picture while describing nature then look at your "description" (story) and see what role "we" are playing (the Master?). Pantheism, while I disagree with the label and am not sure I care for the “congregation”, at least doesn’t try to strip the story down to something falsely alleged to be "just descriptive". The scientistic believers commonly say “Oh but it’s not science doing any harm!” But, again, it’s the values of the culture practicing it that get dismissed from mind in a vain attempt at objectivity that results in evaluating the more-than-human earth as something to be used at will and with much, much too little restraint.

I'm not advocating being religious in order to feel free to "make shit up". I'm advocating taking responsibility for the values we input into our worldview. And I'm advising that no worldview is ever really "scientific"; science can only help inform the story in places. Philosophy isn't dismissible, that's as stupid as dismissing language in order to leave only the most "effective" words... but it leaves no words. And possibly religion isn't wholly dismissible either; I think "crutch" is a propagandist's way of being easily dismissive of other beliefs than his own.

I think we have been taught to discount ourselves and our inner lives. Wittgenstein has won; we are all living separately in our own meaningless dream. I admit that materialistically that may be true, I don't know and have no evidence of any kind, but I find I don't like living my life that way. I prefer life with values; it's simply richer. I don't care if it's a delusion; it's my life to waste. It becomes a matter of choice at that point and a journey of discovery, but one that multitudes, many of them brilliant, have also undertaken. That it is a choice and not a dictate from some authority makes it stronger, a feature not a bug. Courage is one of Plato's prime virtues(along with reason, justice and temperance). If one has the courage to adhere to ones highest values through pain, desire, fear and pleasure, then one attains the capacity for vision. I like that, even if I'm not always sure what the highest values are or what capacity for vision means.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Lots of assumptions being made in this thread.