belief, superstition, reality and truth

[Paladin]

I've always loved that story

 

[Pathless]

bingo!

Now for the practical application of the abstract realization...

The trinity provides the continuity in the Christian paradigm.

Ah, but is your answer a possibly deliberate discontinuity? Unless the suggestion is that the trinity is at root a pagan paradigm...?

So, uh, can we stand the suggestion that Christianity is itself a Pagan religion?

There is certainly a slightly different trinity in Pagan traditions:

1. maiden
2. mother
3. crone

 

[juantoo3]

So have we broached anything here that we didn't argue over in the "Function of Belief" thread? What happens when we stay in the artificial continuity that Chris so compellingly describes? Have we merely created a safe place from which we can engage our own version of reality? I mean, sure we can play more confidently if emotionally we feel our bases are covered, but are we really engaging actuality or some kind of simulacrum?

Right. Does the belief in the skivvies make the basketball player into a championship calibur player? Or is his superstitious belief superfluous?

Does it even matter?

 

[juantoo3]

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
One said, “The flag moves.”
The other said, “The wind moves.”
They argued back and forth but could not agree.

Hui-neng, the sixth patriarch, said: “Gentlemen! It is not
the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is
your mind that moves.”

The two monks were struck with awe.​

Forgive my ignorance, I do not understand...

 

[juantoo3]

So, uh, can we stand the suggestion that Christianity is itself a Pagan religion?

There is certainly a slightly different trinity in Pagan traditions:

1. maiden
2. mother
3. crone

Not to mention the adoration of the Mother and child, the Queen of Heaven, the winter solstice, and the spring equinox among others.

I am not so certain Christianity at its roots is Pagan, rather it is quite Jewish. I do think there is substantial evidence to indicate that Pagan traditions were co-opted into Christianity a few hundred years into its development, for political expediency.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

So have we broached anything here that we didn't argue over in the "Function of Belief" thread? What happens when we stay in the artificial continuity that Chris so compellingly describes? Have we merely created a safe place from which we can engage our own version of reality? I mean, sure we can play more confidently if emotionally we feel our bases are covered, but are we really engaging actuality or some kind of simulacrum?

Thinking out loud again: How does one make a map of an intangible location? If, in my adventures in consciousness, I somehow find myself in a really groovy state of mind which results in some amazing vantage point of clarity or extraordinary sense of connection to the Source, how do I get back there again in the future? How can I imbue objects or actions from the physical side with special significance so that they function as a sort of map to a location in the non physical? The meaning isn't necessarily intrinsic to the natural properties of the objects, so in that sense, to an uninformed observer, my actions could appear to be entirely illogical and superstitious. This would be especially true where ritual has become, to a large extent, anachronistic, having taken on the characteristics of a classic simulacrum- the original intent having been blurred over a long period of time not unlike noise building up on an analog tape loop through constant re recording.

Chris

 

[Paladin]

That can become problematic Chris. People have a peak experience and then go chasing after the phenomenon, not the reality behind it. I have seen that time and again, and this is known as spiritual materialism.

 

[seattlegal]

Thinking out loud again: How does one make a map of an intangible location? If, in my adventures in consciousness, I somehow find myself in a really groovy state of mind which results in some amazing vantage point of clarity or extraordinary sense of connection to the Source, how do I get back there again in the future? How can I imbue objects or actions from the physical side with special significance so that they function as a sort of map to a location in the non physical? The meaning isn't necessarily intrinsic to the natural properties of the objects, so in that sense, to an uninformed observer, my actions could appear to be entirely illogical and superstitious. This would be especially true where ritual has become, to a large extent, anachronistic, having taken on the characteristics of a classic simulacrum- the original intent having been blurred over a long period of time not unlike noise building up on an analog tape loop through constant re recording.

Chris

When the meaning is lost, chaos begins...
Tao Te Ching 38
excerpt:

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.
​

Compare to the "outer fringe" mentioned in Tao Te Ching 1

 

[seattlegal]

Forgive my ignorance, I do not understand...

The only way you can notice the flag waving is by remembering its positions in the past, and compare it to its position in the present. You need your mind to find this continuity. (Notice how recalling a memory is a very creative process?)

 

[juantoo3]

...are we really engaging actuality or some kind of simulacrum?

I love you guys, always making me stretch my mind. I had no idea what "simulacrum" was, so...

The simulacrum has long been of interest to philosophers. In his Sophist, Plato speaks of two kinds of image-making. The first is a faithful reproduction, attempted to copy precisely the original. The second is distorted intentionally in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers. He gives an example of Greek statuary, which was crafted larger on top than bottom so that viewers from the ground would see it correctly. If they could view it in scale, they would realize it was malformed. This example from visual arts serves as a metaphor for philosophical arts and the tendency of some philosophers to distort truth in such a way that it appeared accurate unless viewed from the proper angle.[6] Nietzsche addresses the concept of simulacrum in The Twilight of the Idols, suggesting that most philosophers, by ignoring the reliable input of their senses and resorting to the constructs of language and reason, arrive at a distorted copy of reality.[7] Modern French social theorist Jean Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. Where Plato saw two steps of reproduction — faithful and intentionally distorted (simulacrum) — Baudrillard sees four: (1) basic reflection of reality, (2) perversion of reality; (3) pretence of reality (where there is no model); and (4) simulacrum, which “bears no relation to any reality whatever.” Baudrillard uses the concept of god as an example of simulacrum.[8] In Baudrillard’s concept, like Nietzsche’s, simulacra are negatively perceived, but another modern philosopher who addressed the topic, Gilles Deleuze, takes a different view, seeing simulacra as the avenue by which accepted ideals or “privileged position” could be “challenged and overturned.”[9]

Simulacrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I presume the discussion is about the philosophical application of the term, although the artistic application of the term is quite telling as well.

 

[juantoo3]

The only way you can notice the flag waving is by remembering its positions in the past, and compare it to its position in the present. You need your mind to find this continuity. (Notice how recalling a memory is a very creative process?)

OK, I had not made that connection before. Thanks.

 

[juantoo3]

Thinking out loud again: How does one make a map of an intangible location? If, in my adventures in consciousness, I somehow find myself in a really groovy state of mind which results in some amazing vantage point of clarity or extraordinary sense of connection to the Source, how do I get back there again in the future? How can I imbue objects or actions from the physical side with special significance so that they function as a sort of map to a location in the non physical? The meaning isn't necessarily intrinsic to the natural properties of the objects, so in that sense, to an uninformed observer, my actions could appear to be entirely illogical and superstitious. This would be especially true where ritual has become, to a large extent, anachronistic, having taken on the characteristics of a classic simulacrum- the original intent having been blurred over a long period of time not unlike noise building up on an analog tape loop through constant re recording.

It's OK China Cat, I for one like it when you think out loud.

Maybe I am way off base here, but I am reminded of the idea that the recreational drug user is chasing that original high, which is a plateau that is never (or very seldom) regained. Or how orgasm is just not the same experience as it was the very first time.

I suppose it is possible one might apply some superstitious ritual in an attempt to regain that plateau, but I question whether that plateau can ever actually be regained...ritual or no. Maybe it is the drive, the desire, to reach that plateau again that makes the ritual so appealing, in the vain hope of someday revisiting a glorious moment of experience. Just a dumb thought...

 

[seattlegal]

It's OK China Cat, I for one like it when you think out loud.

Maybe I am way off base here, but I am reminded of the idea that the recreational drug user is chasing that original high, which is a plateau that is never (or very seldom) regained. Or how orgasm is just not the same experience as it was the very first time.

I suppose it is possible one might apply some superstitious ritual in an attempt to regain that plateau, but I question whether that plateau can ever actually be regained...ritual or no. Maybe it is the drive, the desire, to reach that plateau again that makes the ritual so appealing, in the vain hope of someday revisiting a glorious moment of experience. Just a dumb thought...

That sounds as good as any rendition of idolatry, (or spiritual materialism, as Paladin calls it,) that I've heard.

 

[juantoo3]

That sounds as good as any rendition of idolatry, (or spiritual materialism, as Paladin calls it,) that I've heard.

Hmmm, even if that ritual is in association with an...

<cough, cough>...idol...<cough, cough>...

such as a Madonna or a Crucifix in an attempt to recapture a *spiritual high?*

 

[seattlegal]

Hmmm, even if that ritual is in association with an...

<cough, cough>...idol...<cough, cough>...

such as a Madonna or a Crucifix in an attempt to recapture a *spiritual high?*

The way I think of idolatry is that it is veneration of an empty shell. Faith can fill up an empty shell, but one must ask the question: is it the faith or is it the shell that is the key?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

More thinking out loud: It seems to me that there are two parts of myself, one of which has a sort of cosmic existence "out there", and the other a more physical-mental existence "in here" in my brain. They seem to be part of one conscious continuum, but there is a degree of separation which, evidently occurs because the part that uses my body, and that I identify as "me" resides here in the physical. In observing my mental and conscious processes it seems that a lot of my "thoughts" seem to come from the "out there" part. They don't seem to originate from inside my brain. So the "out there" part is always communicating easily with the "in here" part. But what if I want turn the information flow around and communicate some instructions from "in here" the "out there"? The landscape of consciousness doesn't have the same properties and control surfaces as the interior mental processes which arrange things hierarchically and analogically. But these are the mental tools that I have. So how do I adapt their function: the objects, actions, signs, symbols, and hierarchical orderings of the physical-mental realm, for use as a tool to navigate the featureless landscape of consciousness?

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Congrats on the long birdie! Breaking 90 is excellent.

Sorry to hear that you don't get to play as much. We're in the same boat actually. If the girls get into playing it might be worth it for us to get some kind of family membership as our main form of entertainment, but that's a long way off. I was really spoiled because when I was in grad school we lived right next to a really excellent and really inexpensive golf course. Roger was in heaven. And in upstate NY we also were near some pretty good inexpensive courses. But in MO and here in CO it is so much more expensive.

Do your girls play at all?

Aubrey and Carly's interest in golf is mainly confined to riding around in the cart and getting sodas from the beer lady. I took them to play putt putt recently, but they weren't very interested in it. I'll keep exposing them to it and hope they develop an interest, but I'm not going to push it.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

But what if I want turn the information flow around and communicate some instructions from "in here" the "out there"?

What if the interface is intended to be "one way?" I mean, what if the tv wanted to use the remote to tune you to a different channel?

The landscape of consciousness doesn't have the same properties and control surfaces as the interior mental processes which arrange things hierarchically and analogically. But these are the mental tools that I have. So how do I adapt their function: the objects, actions, signs, symbols, and hierarchical orderings of the physical-mental realm, for use as a tool to navigate the featureless landscape of consciousness?

Dunno. It seems reasonably obvious we utilize symbolic thinking and association to categorize and catalogue, assembling a library of memories and learning/training. But I'm still not convinced of the value (or at least continuing the value) of superstitions and superstitious symbolism. When used to convey an idea, I suppose it is OK as long as the idea is actually conveyed and it stops there. The parable, the metaphor, the allegory. What troubles me is the tendency to confusing the symbol for reality and calling it truth, the literalization of the symbol.

That's when skivvies turn into idols. As funny as that sounds, I think religions do far worse things and end up dogmatizing metaphors and symbols as though they are reality instead of teaching tools.

Which is how we end up with people sincerely believing in some pretty strange ideas and fervently believing them to be true.

 

[juantoo3]

The way I think of idolatry is that it is veneration of an empty shell. Faith can fill up an empty shell, but one must ask the question: is it the faith or is it the shell that is the key?

I relate to doubting Thomas (the disciple, not our good friend Thomas), I struggle with faith in things unseen (other than those things that have made themselves known to me by other means).

So much in my faith walk in Christianity just feels hollow and empty to me. If these hollow shells serve a valid purpose for another I certainly don't wish to undermine that process. Neither do I enjoy the condescending glances that seem to question if I am a "real" Christian. I find myself more and more willing to cast off the label of "Christian" if by being one I must be resigned to holding to hollow superstitions. Sure, those superstitions serve a purpose in teaching, a finger pointing to the moon so to speak. But they are not the moon. Once the direction is discovered, is the finger still necessary (other than the possible recheck of position)?

Christianity is just so rife with the insistence of crossing "t's" and dotting "i's" without really giving full consideration to just what that really means. Every sect says believe as we believe and you are OK, but miss some trivial point of contention and you're doomed. Follow the book to the letter, except when it is inconvenient or contradicts our long cherished traditions (even when those traditions are in direct defiance of what the Book says).

Dunno Seattlegal, I see too much conflict and contradiction between what I read in the Book, and how that ends up getting applied in real life after various institutions get through putting their brand of selective spin on the teachings. Like deleting the commandment that says not to keep idols and replacing it with something a little more compatible with the politics of the day...

And the irony is that they all lament the disunity in the Christian faith...

 

[Paladin]

I relate to doubting Thomas (the disciple, not our good friend Thomas), I struggle with faith in things unseen (other than those things that have made themselves known to me by other means).

So much in my faith walk in Christianity just feels hollow and empty to me. If these hollow shells serve a valid purpose for another I certainly don't wish to undermine that process. Neither do I enjoy the condescending glances that seem to question if I am a "real" Christian. I find myself more and more willing to cast off the label of "Christian" if by being one I must be resigned to holding to hollow superstitions. Sure, those superstitions serve a purpose in teaching, a finger pointing to the moon so to speak. But they are not the moon. Once the direction is discovered, is the finger still necessary (other than the possible recheck of position)?

Christianity is just so rife with the insistence of crossing "t's" and dotting "i's" without really giving full consideration to just what that really means. Every sect says believe as we believe and you are OK, but miss some trivial point of contention and you're doomed. Follow the book to the letter, except when it is inconvenient or contradicts our long cherished traditions (even when those traditions are in direct defiance of what the Book says).

Dunno Seattlegal, I see too much conflict and contradiction between what I read in the Book, and how that ends up getting applied in real life after various institutions get through putting their brand of selective spin on the teachings. Like deleting the commandment that says not to keep idols and replacing it with something a little more compatible with the politics of the day...

And the irony is that they all lament the disunity in the Christian faith...

You know Juan, I thought something like this was going on with you from what you wrote in the OP. I can only imagine what you are feeling about this, but I do know that inquiry along these lines can only be healthy, and if followed through will bring deeper understanding. Maslow wrote about what happens in groups that follow on behind a founder who has had a peak experience, usually they become somewhat dogmatic and superstitious about the things the founder has said.
Every mystic in history couched his experience in terms that his fellows understood, usually religious terms.
Looking deeply, you won't find much real difference between St. John of the Cross and Rumi for example.
Further I think it important in the growth of an individual when they stand up and say " I respect all that my elders have taught me, and the traditions are of great value, but now I would open my mind to all the possibilities of reality and inquire what is real"