T3rinity, what you've written (below) is way over my present mental acuity to grok but I do agree with you that Curtis is not the rational atheist Edg is railing against. Basically, I don't get what Edg's problem is; if Curtis just said he believed in a God then that's cool, but if he follows his true feelings and interior muse and continues to investigate those feelings for their continued validity against what he learns and in the light of other new experiences, somehow that's standing in a cesspool?
Furthermore, from what I've read of Curtis and the personal experiences he has alluded to, I would wager that his interior life as well as his appreciation and awe of the manifest universe is something most folks would give their right arm for (that is, if they could even appreciate or comprehend it). And Curtis isn't denying an underlying ground or basis or mystery to the universe, quite the contrary, he appears to be marveling and enjoying the mystery that can't be explained (either by religion or science or rational thought). As I understand it, he's qualifying all the mystical experiences he has had (with the admission that they carried all the self-evident authority that such interior experiences convey) with the caveat that they "may" all be just mechanisms within the physiology of the species. For that matter, didn't Maharishi first explain the concept of the siddhis as just tweaking the inner physiology such that the desired (siddhi) experience was produced from the side of the experiencer without having to resort to an experience outside the experiencer? It just doesn't seem to me that Curtis or Turq is engaged in a superficial metaphysical study or that they are under the dictates of the mind or that an atheist can't truly LOVE what IS. The ability to Be and to Love cannot be circumscribed by whether or not you subscribe to a "belief" in God. If you fall through the rabbit hole you're not required to label it by any particular name to know that you've fallen. Anyway, mostly rambling, but it doesn't compute with me that these guys or atheists in general are somehow excluded from anything and it puzzles me that so much energy is spent attempting to knock them off their own internal gyroscope. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Curtis, et al, > > > > To me, this "refining an atheistic stance" is merely a waste of time > > like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a > > cesspool. "Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear > > than than the doo-doo stink over there." > > Well I don't know about the way you put it Edg, but basically, > principally I agree with you. Out of reasons I have already tried to > point out, and that particularely directed at a 'Rationalist Atheist'. > The moment you deny an ultimate ground / being / mystery at the basis > of creation which cannot be rationally contained (for a rationalist > its only a matter of time till science will understand it all), you > have no way of attaining anything, or evolving towards a 'higher > goal', like the mystic would do. All the fine-edging on yur > intellecual POV will be mute, as it is clear what becomes of you in > the end: A dissipation into the inconsciousness. > > I am not sure though, if Curtis is really in this category. It seems > he is still on his quest. > > <snip> > > > Major AWE can only come from seeing Pure Being's manifested diversity > > as ALIVE, not MERELY an almost infinite, glorious, incredible > > clockworks a'tickin'. It's all the difference between looking at the > > Mona Lisa, and looking at the Mona Lisa and understanding that she's > > actually there looking back at you -- and her smile now blazes at one. > > > > That's the difference between an atheist's awe and enlightenment's awe. > > I think thats the bottom line for me: Religion /spirituality is all > about living it and practising. An atheist may be in awe, but > basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring a > kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he cannot > LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a passion about it. (maybe > some out there regard or sense this passion as something dangerous) > There is no one there to love, except of course his spouse, his > children etc. He can love everything in the objective world, but of > course he cannot love the WHOLE Essence in a personified way. > Similarely, a Buddhist, being an atheist (soft one)can have all the > detachment in the world, but whatever awe Curtis or barry may have, it > cannot translate into love - not at least in a unfified way towards > the essence of everything. A believer to the contrary is more > interested in loving God than proving him/her. > > An atheist is under the dictate of th mind - he can gauge what the > mind can know and what the mind cannot know. A believer does not trust > the rationale, he trusts his heart only. He is not interested in the > truth of his mind, if he/she is practising, he will trust the truth of > his heart/soul. This is completely internal and has no relationship to > external reality. I am very much a fan of Kierkegaard when it comes to > his views on subjectivity and choice: > > "We cannot think our choices in life, we must live them; and even > those choices that we often think about become different once life > itself enters into the picture. For Kierkegaard, the type of > objectivity that a scientist or historian might use misses the > pointhumans are not motivated and do not find meaning in life through > pure objectivity. Instead, they find it through passion, desire, and > moral and religious commitment. These phenomena are not objectively > provablenor do they come about through any form of analysis of the > external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of > looking at one's life that evades objective scrutiny. Instead, true > self-worth originates in a relation to something that transcends human > powers, something that provides a meaning because it inspires awe and > wonder and demands total and absolute commitment in achieving it." > > "Johannes Climacus, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to > Philosophical Fragments, writes the following cryptic line: > "Subjectivity is Truth". To understand Climacus's concept of the > individual, it is important to look at what he says regarding > subjectivity. What is subjectivity? In very rough terms, subjectivity > refers to what is personal to the individualwhat makes the individual > who he is in distinction from others. It is what is insidewhat the > individual can see, feel, think, imagine, dream, etc. It is often > opposed to objectivitythat which is outside the individual, which the > individual and others around can feel, see, measure, and think about. > Another way to interpret subjectivity is the unique relationship > between the subject and object." > > "Scientists and historians, for example, study the objective world, > hoping to elicit the truth of natureor perhaps the truth of history. > In this way, they hope to predict how the future will unfold in > accordance with these laws. In terms of history, by studying the past, > the individual can perhaps elicit the laws that determine how events > will unfoldin this way the individual can predict the future with > more exactness and perhaps take control of events that in the past > appeared to fall outside the control of humans." > > "Subjectivity comes with consciousness of myself as a self. It > encompasses the emotional and intellectual resources that the > individual is born with. Subjectivity is what the individual is as a > human being. Now the problem of subjectivity is to decide how to > choosewhat rules or models is the individual going to use to make the > right choices? What are the right choices? Who defines right? To be > truly an individual, to be true to himself, his actions should in some > way be expressed so that they describe who and what he is to himself > and to others. The problem, according to Kierkegaard, is that we must > choose who and what we will be based on subjective intereststhe > individual must make choices that will mean something to him as a > reasoning, feeling being." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard > > Here a short side note for anyone who has a problem with me using the > word choice: In your language its you (the individuals) choice, in my > language its Gods choice. Any problem? >
