I only have one thing to say, Curtis: you are more impressive as a person than any of the theories of consciousness and the brain you are most inclined [at this time] to embrace. Those theories seem to fit for the scientists and philosophers who have developed them (Churchlands, Dennett, Shermer), and in believing in these theories (reducing everything to the physical as the explanation for the your mind, your free will, your personality, your experience of yourself right now) these materialists begin to behave somewhere such as to indicate that indeed what you believe in can influence your own way of seeing and experiencing the worldException: Christopher Hitchens. He is the only atheist (other than yourself) out there who transcends always the point of view he has about God and religious experience. (And he was right, as a leftist, on Iraq.)
Richard Dawkins, however brilliantly he writes as a scientist (about biology and evolution), isI have studied him closelybigoted, narrow-minded, and even insincere in the way he treats believerseven if he maintains a veneer of politeness. He is angry that people continue to believe in God; and he refuses to conceive of how it is possible for an intelligent person (just as intelligent as he is) to believe in the existence of God. He will not experimentally open his mind to the reality of *what is happening* in the give and take of a debate or conversation between himself and a believer. He is fiercely and unfairly dogmaticand, if my experience can be trusted, this is generally the case with most atheists and materialists. They may not be aware of this, but somewhere, because they are fighting reality (in eliminating the reality of what gave them existence in the first place and what sustains them in existenceYes, very orthodox that: Tommy A coming at you again) they have to compensate for this, and what this results in is a reactive and reflexive ontological stance vis-a-vis reality. Their atheism, then, becomes in its denial of ontological reality a form of negative ontology. However, a lot can be said for entirely eschewing any religious belief whatsoever, since, according to my own lights, God has no interest in our believing in him anymore; which means he is no longer supporting, in the way he arranges the metaphysics of his universe, the belief in himself. To believe in God, then, has become an arbitrary and conditioned reality, and cannot spring from genuine inspiration and truth. Thereforein some way that feels very significant to meyour own conversion to atheism represents a negative positive: although it [your present philosophy] is ultimately leaving out the uncreated and personal consciousness which created you, it nevertheless is a healthy, truthful context within which to field the a priori Hindu assumptions which are so prevalent here on FFL. Of course, since God appears at the moment not to care whether one believes in him or not, your atheism becomes instrumentally the functional equivalent of truthand were you not posting at FFL, I would never have come here. The only thing that is deficient in your atheism (by "your" atheism, I mean the atheism that is behind the words and life of CurtisDeltaBluesthat, as you already know, is a different kind of atheism, because CDB insists on not allowing that atheism to dogmatically close himself off from any experience, any insight, any creative contingencyso in this sense, you act as faithfully and humbly as any good theist) is that it leaves out the truth that: At one time God *did* indeed exist, and the experience ontologically of existing in the world before you and I were born, did, up until one chronological point, ideally required one to know that God exists. That is not, according to my own original perspective, the case anymore. So, then, Curtis, if you were not an atheist, you would somewhere be soft in the head, and incapable of objectively actinghere comes Maharishi"in the benefit of the truth" of the metaphysics of the universe in this very moment. Somehow you, personally and intellectually, embodybeneficentlythe truth of the universe at this timewithout knowing it. And I am exploiting this extraordinary truth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Thanks for clarifying. I already figured that despite your very kind support > for my post. I am giving Michael Shermer a chance to make his point in The > Believing Brain. He is an unabashed reductionist and I am still making up my > mind. But I know that I need to input his arguments and the information > about our neurology as a step in forming my own opinion. I hope it will > provide some good fodder for future discussions. > > There are two sets of issues. One is how can we approach our best > understanding of reality. And secondly, does it make any difference in how > we approach our lives. I do not believe that an understanding that our brain > activity IS our mind is going to change that much for how I live. It is just > an understanding of how our machinery of perception works. And so far it > have become clear to me that not accounting for the specific way that our > different brain parts communicate with one another and the mechanics of our > perceptual machinery, creates a hole you can drive a bus through. With guys > like Adyashanti at the wheel pointing our all the high points of reality for > us. "Ladies and gentlemen, if you look out of the right side of the bus you > may feel a tendency or desire to collapse the contradictory nature of the non > dual using the habitual patterns of a life lived in duality, and if you just > allow yourselves a moment to connect inside again with that part of you that > has always known who you are inside beyond the activity of the mind and the > yearnings your individual hearts, into the reality that is behind that > activity, the being of all that is or could be imagined in this state of our > true natures unified with that same quality in everyone and everything around > us and it may give way to a feeling of coming home to our center, to our true > nature and once realized the infinite work can begin as we find ourselves > enjoying the growing levels of awakening and the paradox that it has always > been this way and that we have so much more to grow beyond the infinite.... > > oops that's time....that does it for this session, please get your credit > cards out if you want to purchase any of my lecture series on your way out, > if you don't have any of them yet I can recommend "I Know You Don't Know You > are Broke, That is Why The Universe Sent ME To Fix You." > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardwillytexwilliams" <willytex@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I am trying on another version of nondualism which > > > > > involves a bit of reductionism that labels the mind > > > > > body split as an illusion, an artifact of how our > > > > > brain operates... > > > > > > > > maskedzebra: > > > > Am I all alone in exclaiming how beautifully wise and > > > > sober and acute this analysis is? > > > > > > > Well, it hasn't been established that the world of the > > > senses is an "illusion" - that may be an assumption. > > > > > > If this world we experience is just a dream, an illusion, > > > then what is the constructed character of knowing? Are > > > we each dreaming the same dream - it would seem so, since > > > we all agree that a table is a table and a door is a door. > > > > > > There is a lot to be said about accepting the mind-body > > > duality as reality. It makes a lot more sense to accept > > > the duality rather than accept that events are an > > > illusion and therefore, not real. > > > > > > Who in their right mind would climb to the top of a red > > > ant hill on fire and shout "I don't exist - it's all > > > just an illusion!" > > > > > > Adyashanti: "Get rid of all of your illusions and what's > > > left is the truth. You don't find truth as much as you > > > stumble upon it when you have cast away your illusions." > > > > RESPONSE: I should have stipulated that my praise of Curtis's analysis of > > Adyashanti applies only to the videoand not to Curtis's recent assumption > > about "the mind body split as an illusion". I completely disagree with > > Curtis here; I am an orthodox dualist all the waythe physical and the > > metaphysical are not made of the same thing. But let me stop right here: I > > do think that the disposition in Curtis to go the reductionist neurological > > route is an appropriate and heuristic corrective to his submission to the > > Hindu mysticism he absorbed into his mind at MIU, and then in proselytizing > > on behalf of TM as chairperson of the TM Center in Washington. Of course he > > will deny that his present tendencies intellectually are in any way driven > > by his past association with the TM Movement (and its religious beliefs). > > But for me, his interest in, even his belief in, eliminative materialism > > (if he will accede to that description of his belief system) is the perhaps > > necessary antidote for clearing out all the mystical deceit lodged in his > > and bodyor just in his memoryfrom being a teacher of TM and a follower of > > Maharishi. I think he is doing all of us a favour by so scrupulously > > sticking to the scientific and naturalistic model of reality. It means HE > > CAN'T GET DECEIVED. So, even as I can't go there with him (and hold out for > > a much more complex and post-Catholic reading of the universe and the > > selfI think of myself as a Mysterian, with a difference), I nevertheless > > find his way of seeing reality the (as Wallace Stevens might say) > > "necessary angel" for seeing through someone like Adyashanti. > > > > > >
