|
28025. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 12:52:32 AM But I don't see where ego is culturally foisted upon us . . .
The word persona comes from the Greek word for the megaphone-masks that were worn by actors in their plays. We are taught and conditioned to invent our unique personas and then encouraged to be consistent in our roles so that our culture can maintain its power and influence.
The ego is a total, and I mean TOTAL invented illusion, but because its a habit of our mind (like looking through colored glasses and not realizing it) we think it's the way everything really is. Cultural imprinting gives us all unconscious (and therefore unquestioned) basic assumptions that make seeing through this hallucination near impossible–that is, until we drop the illusion-- and take off the glasses.
We are first given a name (a label) and our family conditions us to behave in acceptable ways. Once learned, we go on to each successive stage of "development." More ego-imprinting. Our family, teachers, friends, spouse, colleagues etc., all teach us what we think we are.
But all of this ego-imprinting is an illusion because it divides us and removes our ability to respond to experience directly--that is, as a divided self (in R.D. Lang's terminology). "Good I" reprimands "Bad me!" That's why your ego can't tolerate not being a "better daughter" to your Dad.
But once you see that the ego creates what it has been programmed to desire and learn not to identify with this invention of "me," you get a glimmer of liberationd--or on the road to "enlightenment" in Zen terms.
28026. anomie - 3/16/2006 1:14:03 AM I would like to know more about Zen. My short take on it is that it is a way to experience life free of symbols and presumptions or conditioned responses.
As for eternal existence, I have a rational opinion that we came from things that existed before us and we'll meld in some form into whatever exists after us. Obvious, but it comes from the rare (for me) feeling of being one with the universe. Not a mystical experience, but i did feel a profound sense of calm and well being when it occurred. Probably as close to Zen as I will get. 28027. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 1:22:36 AM You sound like you're already close to an intuitive awareness of what Zen essentially is, anomie. We all are the universe--we're what the universe is doing. The philosopher, Alan Watts, liked to say: "The way an apple tree, apples, the Earth (and the universe), peoples! 28028. anomie - 3/16/2006 1:34:07 AM I think I listened to his lectures on CD a few years ago. They were quite motivational without being a sell job. I should get them again. 28029. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 3:36:19 AM The ones on Zen and Taoism are particularly good--especially Zen and the Arts. 28030. Jenerator - 3/16/2006 3:37:32 AM Thoughtful,
I have some questions. What do you mean by
god is, by definition, manmade.
and
Faith to me means accepting that for which there is no evidence.
What about some evidence?
Faith means an unquestioning belief to the point where even questioning it means that you've lost your faith. Thus it can never be examined rationally.
I have never heard of this.
28031. judithathome - 3/16/2006 7:40:09 AM I have a rational opinion that we came from things that existed before us and we'll meld in some form into whatever exists after us.
That's what I've believed for a long time now. I feel that when we die, everything we've learned, everything we are, is released into the universe and is picked up by others who are then born and thus, we continue to "live". So we are eternal... 28032. judithathome - 3/16/2006 7:43:28 AM Faith means an unquestioning belief to the point where even questioning it means that you've lost your faith. Thus it can never be examined rationally
I have never heard of this...Jen
Well...not to put too fine a point on it but...you just did. And it makes sense to me. If the definiton of faith is "unquestioning belief", the questioning of it means you are no longer "unquestioning". Ergo, the questioner has lost faith. Very simple. 28033. anomie - 3/16/2006 12:03:13 PM Judith, that's one way to look at it. Afterall human knowledge and technology and technology grows with each generation. I was thinking of more the physical decomposition. But you remind me to wonder about about whether we have genetic memories of some sort that are passed on. Not the psychic hot-line type, but something more integrated into our human connection. 28034. anomie - 3/16/2006 12:08:15 PM Jen, why do you need to deconstruct faith into reason, evidence and certainty? Why do you need, and how do you practice faith if it consists merely of these other aspects? Aren't you minimizing the "gift" of faith by trying to explain it away as something ordinary and rational? 28035. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:16:46 PM Jen, (I'm always amazed at what seems obvious to you is a mystery to me and vice versa.) it takes a conscious sentient being to ponder its own mortality, its own awareness of itself and to question the reason for its own existence. dogs, cats, fish cannot and do not ponder such things. they cannot communicate such things with each other. for them there is only now. perhaps, as wiz is talking about, they are in the perfect zen state, being only what they are. they do not think of god, they do not worship god. they do not communicate with each other about god. such a concept is beyond them.
Man has created the concept of god(s) to help understand and cope with their present and the future, to help understand the why of existence and to give purpose and hope to man's activities, just and injust. The god(s) man created have changed over the millennia to suit their culture and lifestyle. For example, many agriculturally based ancient civilizations worshiped female goddesses...mother earth, goddesses of fertility as they relied on earth to generate the food for survival. Many hunter/nomadic tribes worshiped male gods for their strength and agility not only for their ability to hunt, but also because in their roaming they were more likely to run into other tribes leading to conflict.
What god is and what our concept of god is comes to us from our exposure to words and works of other people.
Perhaps to translate it into your terms, who wrote the bible? Men wrote the bible. Sure you can argue that their words were inspired by god if you wish, but it's still men's words written down and still men's words interpreting what was written. As such, god is manmade.
Take for example, the roman gods. I presume you believe they were false gods and that they do not exist and that there is only one true god. Well, then where did these incorrect concepts come from? Were they not manmade? And in the same way, isn't our understanding of the concept of a monotheistic god also manmade? 28036. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:26:10 PM Judithah explained the 3rd question, and I'm not sure I understand what your asking in the 2nd.
What do you mean what about some evidence? Please don't start with the ways in which you feel god or have interpreted certain actions and results as part of god's plan and so on. That is all your personal experience based on personal interpretation.
That does not constitute evidence in the sense of provable, testable concrete evidence. And as I said about faith, if you question it, it necessarily means it is no longer faith. If I prove that fire needs oxygen to burn, then it is no longer a point of faith, but a fact.
Getting from faith to fact necessarily means that faith is the first thing out the window as it requires questioning and testing that point. If I test it and it proves false than continuing to accept it 'on faith' is not faith but stupidity. If I test it and prove it right, then it is no longer faith but fact.
That is why so many religions wrap themselves in mystery and faith and teaching their followers to accept without question. Many of their points will not stand up to questioning. 28037. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 4:31:08 PM Those two posts are very good, thoughtful and vindicates your moniker. 28038. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 4:36:15 PM thanks pelle, appreciated coming from one as intellectual as yourself. 28039. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 4:51:54 PM FWIW, I think you are missing something significant in those posts, tful. I think you're relying on a kind of scientific determinism that entirely overlooks the fact that concepts are convenient illusions that limit one's perception and awareness of what is. Christianity is a concept whereby God is perceived as the Master Potter of the Universe. Science supplants that illusion with a just as phony a concept whereby the Universe becomes an autimatic cosmic pinball machine of cause and effect.
You're still mistaking the menu for the meal. 28040. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2006 4:53:45 PM . . . with just as phony a concept, whereby . . . 28041. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 5:11:43 PM My God, thoughful. Now you make me feel a need to post someting fiendishly intellectual which I'm not capable of right now, having had a G&T after a moderately successful day at the archives. But I will repost something I wrote several years ago.
"What we atheists have to realise is that believers do not arrive at their faith through a logical act. They don’t sit down at the kitchen table with a legal pad and list “pros and cons of believing” and take a decision based on that. How the thing happens is not important for this discussion, but it is not the result of some kind of utilitarian calculation.
Faith is not based on logic; it transcends logic.
Atheists question Christianity on logical grounds. They point to contradictions such as the existence of evil although God is all good and all powerful. The believer finds such arguments shallow. He intuitively knows that there is a deeper truth. He does not know that truth, but he is seeking for it. That is why people try to strip themselves of desires, chastise their bodies, spend hours in meditation and prayers to be allowed a glimpse of the truth, to become enlightened, to be in communion with God, if only for a fleeting moment. An that, I think, is the believer’s vision of Heaven: to be in communion with God.
Because the atheist attacks on the logic play ground, the believer feels he must fight back there. But because faith transcends logic he must fail. Even the most famous Christian logician, Thomas ab Aquino, failed. And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.
And that is where communication breaks down: at the barrier between logic and transcendence."
28042. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2006 5:14:39 PM concepts are convenient illusions that limit one's perception and awareness of what is.
I find that incomprehensible. How can you perceive without concepts? The concept of time? The concept of space? The concept of cause and effect? 28043. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 5:22:29 PM Wiz, as i've already confessed earlier, i am certainly limited by facts and logic. They've worked so well. They've kept me warm, clothed, fed, and healthy.
Like the story of the farmer who bought the raw acreage and sweat and toiled for hours, days, weeks, and years to turn it into a fruitful, producing farm. One day some folks stopped by and remarked to the farmer on god's beautiful creation. And he remarked, "You should've seen this place when he was running it."
28044. thoughtful - 3/16/2006 5:25:13 PM Yes, Pelle, that would be it. Logic has rules. Faith knows no rules so in any argument between the two, logic will fail. But objective reality will not.
The farmer who prays for food will be disappointed. The farmer who works to grow his own food will be successful. The farmer who does both is risk averse. :-)
|
