"Photons stimulating visual cortex within sight sense alone do not account for the blind and…"
The mixing of religious and non-religious beliefs in an individual.
Is Metaphysical Reality Empty of Potential Knowledge and Truth?
I wonder if a redefinition of god can be complete without metaphysical considerations? To restrict discussion to a physical or scientific domain alone would be to limit outcomes. Although we are in an era of extraordinary scientific advancement, science was born of the metaphysical framework.
Today, the scientific method provides a convenient means by which philosophical supposition and intellectual speculation are pulled from the metaphysical realm into the physical world of knowledge, understanding and science. In effect, the supernatural is brought
into the natural world – until now our body of knowledge is expanding at such a
rate that metaphysical relevance is becoming overshadowed and seen to be veiled
by myth and superstition.
If we conclude that the metaphysical realm is now devoid of potential knowledge and insight and filled only with bogus information and speculations, then all would agree the notion of metaphysical should be left behind – forgotten as a relic of our primitive past.
Alternatively, some would say that a metaphysical construct continues to be essential for future scientific learning and discovery. Others would maintain we cannot understand the order of the universe and the purpose of life unless and until we understand and believe that the soul exists – and for this no instrument has been
devised to detect or measure for this. If correct, one would do well to maintain a metaphysical perspective –
as difficult as that may be.
This discussion maintains that matter is not capable of visualizing the future or planning for it nor is it capable of brooding over the past because it lacks the ability to judge or extract the good from any action. Mind and intellect are not any subtle, internal organ but rather names of the faculties of the soul.
Tags: metaphysical, natural, physical, reality, soul, supernatural
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on -
My own perceptions of our existence as more than 3 dimensional, my experiences that led me to perceive the god of the old and new testaments as no longer relevant for today (but as all roads lead to Rome, the Bible has served and will continue to for some time I believe, a vital role) and to embrace the daily of experience of the divine as "Thou within whom I live and move and have my being in...." can only be defined as metaphysical. I found it nigh on impossible to talk with others of my altered perception of life, so seldom attempted to - until I made friends with a german male who held a doctorate in pure maths. I had not intended to discuss my perception of reality with him at all, but he was explaining a thesis on elliptical circles to me which he had just completed, and as I listened I was astounded because he was describing reality as I knew it. This man, Stephan, boasted atheism and I allowed him the freedom to do so - however for me discovering his work in the pure sciences revealed a reality to him, that I also experienced - was mind blowing. We could speak with understanding of reality as we both experienced it, and did both honor the fact we came to the same conclusions via completely different routes. For his part atheism was his way of alienating himself from the god of religion - and he explained that discovering people who don't study the pure sciences (quantum phycis) can attain the same perception of reality as those who do study them, influenced him into considering the possibility of spiritual/divine factor.
Therefore I do not see why maintaining metaphysics can be summed up as - 'as difficult as that may be.' Personally I can't understand the questioning of the vital role of metaphysics.
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on -
Science often contrives its way from the metaphysical. It doesn't mean that the metaphysical is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on
-
Extracting and refining from the metaphysical surely makes it seem that science is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on -
Yes, physical science has a well developed systems of arbitration and open communication of proven facts. The metaphysical domain - especially as it relates to religion, has segmented channels of communication and is limited to localized systems of arbitration.
The Physical and the Metaphysical draw on each other with the greatest flow of ideas moving from the metaphysical (philosophical) domain into the physical sciences. The flow of nourishing ideas is less apparent in reverse.
To be critical one could argue that physical science is weak on meaning but strong on facts, while religion, based on knowledge but lacking in facts. Science incorporated a defined methodology. Religion replaced methodology with ritual under the assumption that, at least, the monotheistic religions a perfect and written in gods word.
For RG to succeed at its task of redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0, a distinction must be maintained between metaphysical schools that exist in frameworks based on reason and those that do not. Myth, superstition, magic, dogma, though perhaps productive in a mystical sense are lacking in structure required to carry out the collaboration required at RG.
RG endeavours to build a Religion 2.0 framework for people wishing to incorporate and open source better understanding physical and metaphysical reality.
Roman Kozlowski said:Extracting and refining from the metaphysical surely makes it seem that science is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on -
RG will never succeed in redefining God, i.e., finding the God of reality, because God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe.
The Kernel said:Yes, physical science has a well developed systems of arbitration and open communication of proven facts. The metaphysical domain - especially as it relates to religion, has segmented channels of communication and is limited to localized systems of arbitration.
The Physical and the Metaphysical draw on each other with the greatest flow of ideas moving from the metaphysical (philosophical) domain into the physical sciences. The flow of nourishing ideas is less apparent in reverse.
To be critical one could argue that physical science is weak on meaning but strong on facts, while religion, based on knowledge but lacking in facts. Science incorporated a defined methodology. Religion replaced methodology with ritual under the assumption that, at least, the monotheistic religions a perfect and written in gods word.
For RG to succeed at its task of redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0, a distinction must be maintained between metaphysical schools that exist in frameworks based on reason and those that do not. Myth, superstition, magic, dogma, though perhaps productive in a mystical sense are lacking in structure required to carry out the collaboration required at RG.
RG endeavours to build a Religion 2.0 framework for people wishing to incorporate and open source better understanding physical and metaphysical reality.
Roman Kozlowski said:Extracting and refining from the metaphysical surely makes it seem that science is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
Mr. Bell, Relax. Don't be presumptuous.
You say that,"God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe." So belief is a precondition of knowing god? Therefore one must believe in God before one can experience god. Can one then say that the First Man (Adam) would have had to believed in God before god revealed Himself to Adam and, if so, how did Adam develop his initial belief in God if God could know reveal himself. Your position is arguable.
You also say, "RG will never succeed in redefining God." Mr. Bell, people redefine their definition of terms all the time. What makes you presume that people at RG cannot redefine their definitions of God? At one time people worshiped God in His plurality (or many manifest forms), then the concept was unified into a single God that judged and invoked pain & punished. More recently, God was defined as a loving God - agape. I know people who define Her in a variety of ways.
You can subjectively define God however you like. I too can do the same and even if we agreed with each others definition 100% we could still cannot even prove the objective existence of God. So continue to participate in RG as you are - for your input is appreciated and whether you want it to or not, you are helping the us Redefine God through Open Source Religion 2.0.
David Bee said:RG will never succeed in redefining God, i.e., finding the God of reality, because God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe.
The Kernel said:Yes, physical science has a well developed systems of arbitration and open communication of proven facts. The metaphysical domain - especially as it relates to religion, has segmented channels of communication and is limited to localized systems of arbitration.
The Physical and the Metaphysical draw on each other with the greatest flow of ideas moving from the metaphysical (philosophical) domain into the physical sciences. The flow of nourishing ideas is less apparent in reverse.
To be critical one could argue that physical science is weak on meaning but strong on facts, while religion, based on knowledge but lacking in facts. Science incorporated a defined methodology. Religion replaced methodology with ritual under the assumption that, at least, the monotheistic religions a perfect and written in gods word.
For RG to succeed at its task of redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0, a distinction must be maintained between metaphysical schools that exist in frameworks based on reason and those that do not. Myth, superstition, magic, dogma, though perhaps productive in a mystical sense are lacking in structure required to carry out the collaboration required at RG.
RG endeavours to build a Religion 2.0 framework for people wishing to incorporate and open source better understanding physical and metaphysical reality.
Roman Kozlowski said:Extracting and refining from the metaphysical surely makes it seem that science is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
DT, If people were given viable alternative to Religion 1.0 most would flock but a few would make it their profession to stop Religion 2.0 from filling their space.
When your God-spot (as you put it) is stimulated without basic knowledge of The Self, yes, chaos will result. This chaos can be controlled by seeking out a priest, for example, who will resolve the chaos by prescribing religion or whatever . . . else you could go through the process of getting to Know Thy-Self. The first lesson then is entitled, “Who am I”. The answer is “I am”. The answer is “Soul”. When explored under the right conditions, there will be no threads of attachment and in the end, no headache – me thinks.
Self, soul, ego, psyche, mind - these are terms used to describe the self. Would you say, “I am brain,” or “I am body.” But listen to this. . . I am self, I am soul, I am ego, I am psyche, I am mind. Does this not sound closer to the truth?
david thurman said:You nailed my big bug with the world around me, I am so glad that there are a few people at least that get the idea, What is there to believe? all truth lays in experiences that are continuiously referenced to and from for verificiation. Our beliefs can lead to mental illness. This is the basis of mental illness when beliefs become confusing or are confused. The word belief is really a term for blindness. This is how Paul described it directly. Paul said that those who are believers are blind they walk the path in faith. Paul was not about blindness he was about sight. I am very very emphatic here all beliefs are blindness. To comprehend and not experience is blindness. So for me who can see needless to say getting a degree in Theology in a blind community was a sort of odd and strange experience for me and deeply confusing. Kernal Imagine what it was like for me to have a whole community of blind people telling me what I can see directly to be true. How many versions of yellow do you think there is Kernal in a community like that. I love em but my God.......I was told after my experience which was independent of their blind faith I needed to do all of these thiings like accept Jesus as my savior. I did that only because they told me too I had no real idea why I was doing it. I'm referencing off an experience they are referencing of a belief. Talk about one confused puppy. But that was 30 years ago, We had religion, we had a very very immature view in science very engineering and really had nothing to do with my experience and we knew nothing about the brain. THANK GOD for cognitive science, praise Jesus..(while i'm smirking) We are finally beginning to have a deeper an I think healther take on the brain. Growing up it was a car engine today they look at is as a systems like weather. My little noodle is very sensitive to the enviroment aound me and events can trigger off occurances that can spin out of control if I'm not careful. I have to continuously be aware of my biology and be self aware as a biological being. There is a little God spot in the brain that can get triggered. That sets my brain into alignment and that weather system in my head references to and from that God spot so to speak. God for me is not a being it's a point of locus or reference and that is all. I don't define it, it is a very clear point of reference. I might say for me to try and define it is to spin into mania and chaos. That's a self referncing loop that spins me out of wack. So thank you thank you thank you. I wish people would stop using the word God and belief in the same sentence. One is not the same as the other and I simply look at is as aliens talking to me when people think like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
right on!
david thurman said:You nailed my big bug with the world around me, I am so glad that there are a few people at least that get the idea, What is there to believe? all truth lays in experiences that are continuiously referenced to and from for verificiation. Our beliefs can lead to mental illness. This is the basis of mental illness when beliefs become confusing or are confused. The word belief is really a term for blindness. This is how Paul described it directly. Paul said that those who are believers are blind they walk the path in faith. Paul was not about blindness he was about sight. I am very very emphatic here all beliefs are blindness. To comprehend and not experience is blindness. So for me who can see needless to say getting a degree in Theology in a blind community was a sort of odd and strange experience for me and deeply confusing. Kernal Imagine what it was like for me to have a whole community of blind people telling me what I can see directly to be true. How many versions of yellow do you think there is Kernal in a community like that. I love em but my God.......I was told after my experience which was independent of their blind faith I needed to do all of these thiings like accept Jesus as my savior. I did that only because they told me too I had no real idea why I was doing it. I'm referencing off an experience they are referencing of a belief. Talk about one confused puppy. But that was 30 years ago, We had religion, we had a very very immature view in science very engineering and really had nothing to do with my experience and we knew nothing about the brain. THANK GOD for cognitive science, praise Jesus..(while i'm smirking) We are finally beginning to have a deeper an I think healther take on the brain. Growing up it was a car engine today they look at is as a systems like weather. My little noodle is very sensitive to the enviroment aound me and events can trigger off occurances that can spin out of control if I'm not careful. I have to continuously be aware of my biology and be self aware as a biological being. There is a little God spot in the brain that can get triggered. That sets my brain into alignment and that weather system in my head references to and from that God spot so to speak. God for me is not a being it's a point of locus or reference and that is all. I don't define it, it is a very clear point of reference. I might say for me to try and define it is to spin into mania and chaos. That's a self referncing loop that spins me out of wack. So thank you thank you thank you. I wish people would stop using the word God and belief in the same sentence. One is not the same as the other and I simply look at is as aliens talking to me when people think like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
Jung was challenged for his apparent atheism. He tried, for the most part, in vain I think, to explain why he felt unable to state yes there is a God. From his works I think it unarguable that he had an abiding reverence for the sacred, for the intangible. But repeatedly highlighted the fact, everything we 'believe' is within the psyche. Is part of the conscious experience of being a thinking animal. As popular as it still is to believe there is a free standing world out there, separate and distinct from us, and up out of reach somewhere above us (interesting that eh, anyone want to tell me where 'above' is for a tiny planet? Praise gravity or we'd all fall off!) is a place called Heaven within which dwells an entity named - golly - God! To get to Him we need to gulp - die. Then go through a way station, it seems to resemble an airport by the descriptions I've heard. Destination Heaven - or Hell, and where that is beats me. Centre of the earth?
All these beliefs, and whoever knows how many more, exist within the psyche, our imagination. We are Believers. Douglas Adams writes of an Electric Monk designed to 'Believe'. In whatever we want him to. Believing in things is an integral part of what we do. True or false doesn't really come into it, it's the action of belief that sets our pulses humming.
And I wholly agree with what you say DT about the brain. So fragile, touch it with utter gentleness in the wrong place and off it goes believing in things whether you want it to or not. They say the mystic swims in the ocean the psychotic drowns in. Who knows, but as the mother of a daughter who suffers from manic depression I do know this, the brains ability to believe is awesome! Awesome and takes no prisoners. I have learnt to have the utmost respect for the function of the brain, to recognise we are essentially in its hands - and probably the most interesting factor of psychosis to me is, the religiosity it is imbued with as a rule. That coupled with aliens and conspiracies are the most common thread, so even if our brains are malfunctioning it seems, there is nothing new under the sun.
But DT your analogy of us being a fish nabbed me. Khamil (I think) said, "The fish is thirsty in the water." He alluded to the human looking for proof of divinity. For the numinous. We are in this ocean called this Universe as you say, and we need not be thirsty. We look for miracles, and yet we are miracles.
The Kernel said:DT, If people were given viable alternative to Religion 1.0 most would flock but a few would make it their profession to stop Religion 2.0 from filling their space.
When your God-spot (as you put it) is stimulated without basic knowledge of The Self, yes, chaos will result. This chaos can be controlled by seeking out a priest, for example, who will resolve the chaos by prescribing religion or whatever . . . else you could go through the process of getting to Know Thy-Self. The first lesson then is entitled, “Who am I”. The answer is “I am”. The answer is “Soul”. When explored under the right conditions, there will be no threads of attachment and in the end, no headache – me thinks.
Self, soul, ego, psyche, mind - these are terms used to describe the self. Would you say, “I am brain,” or “I am body.” But listen to this. . . I am self, I am soul, I am ego, I am psyche, I am mind. Does this not sound closer to the truth?
david thurman said:You nailed my big bug with the world around me, I am so glad that there are a few people at least that get the idea, What is there to believe? all truth lays in experiences that are continuiously referenced to and from for verificiation. Our beliefs can lead to mental illness. This is the basis of mental illness when beliefs become confusing or are confused. The word belief is really a term for blindness. This is how Paul described it directly. Paul said that those who are believers are blind they walk the path in faith. Paul was not about blindness he was about sight. I am very very emphatic here all beliefs are blindness. To comprehend and not experience is blindness. So for me who can see needless to say getting a degree in Theology in a blind community was a sort of odd and strange experience for me and deeply confusing. Kernal Imagine what it was like for me to have a whole community of blind people telling me what I can see directly to be true. How many versions of yellow do you think there is Kernal in a community like that. I love em but my God.......I was told after my experience which was independent of their blind faith I needed to do all of these thiings like accept Jesus as my savior. I did that only because they told me too I had no real idea why I was doing it. I'm referencing off an experience they are referencing of a belief. Talk about one confused puppy. But that was 30 years ago, We had religion, we had a very very immature view in science very engineering and really had nothing to do with my experience and we knew nothing about the brain. THANK GOD for cognitive science, praise Jesus..(while i'm smirking) We are finally beginning to have a deeper an I think healther take on the brain. Growing up it was a car engine today they look at is as a systems like weather. My little noodle is very sensitive to the enviroment aound me and events can trigger off occurances that can spin out of control if I'm not careful. I have to continuously be aware of my biology and be self aware as a biological being. There is a little God spot in the brain that can get triggered. That sets my brain into alignment and that weather system in my head references to and from that God spot so to speak. God for me is not a being it's a point of locus or reference and that is all. I don't define it, it is a very clear point of reference. I might say for me to try and define it is to spin into mania and chaos. That's a self referncing loop that spins me out of wack. So thank you thank you thank you. I wish people would stop using the word God and belief in the same sentence. One is not the same as the other and I simply look at is as aliens talking to me when people think like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
Hey David, Catch 22 - love that book!
David Bee said:RG will never succeed in redefining God, i.e., finding the God of reality, because God will never reveal Himself to those who do not believe.
The Kernel said:Yes, physical science has a well developed systems of arbitration and open communication of proven facts. The metaphysical domain - especially as it relates to religion, has segmented channels of communication and is limited to localized systems of arbitration.
The Physical and the Metaphysical draw on each other with the greatest flow of ideas moving from the metaphysical (philosophical) domain into the physical sciences. The flow of nourishing ideas is less apparent in reverse.
To be critical one could argue that physical science is weak on meaning but strong on facts, while religion, based on knowledge but lacking in facts. Science incorporated a defined methodology. Religion replaced methodology with ritual under the assumption that, at least, the monotheistic religions a perfect and written in gods word.
For RG to succeed at its task of redefining God via Open Source Religion 2.0, a distinction must be maintained between metaphysical schools that exist in frameworks based on reason and those that do not. Myth, superstition, magic, dogma, though perhaps productive in a mystical sense are lacking in structure required to carry out the collaboration required at RG.
RG endeavours to build a Religion 2.0 framework for people wishing to incorporate and open source better understanding physical and metaphysical reality.
Roman Kozlowski said:Extracting and refining from the metaphysical surely makes it seem that science is the main arbiter.
-
Permalink Reply by Kernel John on
-
Alison,
In The Undiscovered Self, eminent psychiatrist and psychologist Carl. G.Jung say, "In the same way that our misconception of the solar system had to be freed from prejudice by Copernicus, the most strenuous efforts of a well-nigh revolutionary nature were needed to free psychology from the prejudice that the psyche is, on the one hand, a mere epiphenomenon of a biochemical process in the brain or, on the other hand, a wholly unapproachable and recondite matter. The connection with the brain does not itself prove that the psyche is an epiphenomenon, a secondary function causally dependent on biochemical processes . . .
The phenomena of parapsychology. . . warns us to be careful for they point to a relativization of space and time through psychic factors which casts doubts on our naive and overhasty explanation of the parallels between the psychic and the physical. For the sake of this explanation people deny the findings of parapsychology outright, either for philosophical reasons or from intellectual laziness. This can hardly be considered a scientifically responsible attitude, even though it is
popular way out of a quite extraordinary intellectual difficulty. To assess the psychic phenomenon, we have to take account of all the other phenomena that come with it, and accordingly we can no longer practice any psychology that ignores the existence of the unconscious or of parapsychology.
The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to any thing else."
-
Permalink Reply by Alison Parker on
-
ummm - yes?
Sorry Kernel, I suspect you've made a point here but, unfortunately I don't quite know what it is. I have to assume it's a response to my earlier posting.
To assume; makes an ass out of u and me. So I'll stop doing so this minute. Through my understanding your posting says the same thing about Jung, that mine does - except mine is excessively over simplified. Was that your intention?
If not and you are attempting to highlight something else, do you mind clarifying for me?
The Kernel said:Alison,
In The Undiscovered Self, eminent psychiatrist and psychologist Carl. G.Jung say, "In the same way that our misconception of the solar system had to be freed from prejudice by Copernicus, the most strenuous efforts of a well-nigh revolutionary nature were needed to free psychology from the prejudice that the psyche is, on the one hand, a mere epiphenomenon of a biochemical process in the brain or, on the other hand, a wholly unapproachable and recondite matter. The connection with the brain does not itself prove that the psyche is an epiphenomenon, a secondary function causally dependent on biochemical processes . . .
The phenomena of parapsychology. . . warns us to be careful for they point to a relativization of space and time through psychic factors which casts doubts on our naive and overhasty explanation of the parallels between the psychic and the physical. For the sake of this explanation people deny the findings of parapsychology outright, either for philosophical reasons or from intellectual laziness. This can hardly be considered a scientifically responsible attitude, even though it is
popular way out of a quite extraordinary intellectual difficulty. To assess the psychic phenomenon, we have to take account of all the other phenomena that come with it, and accordingly we can no longer practice any psychology that ignores the existence of the unconscious or of parapsychology.
The structure and physiology of the brain furnish no explanation of the psychic process. The psyche has a peculiar nature which cannot be reduced to any thing else."
Top Content This Week
Latest Activity
Roman Kozlowski replied to Roman Kozlowski's discussion WHAT MAKES A BELIEF A BELIEF?"The very openness of this site is the very crux of understanding"
Roman Kozlowski replied to rob stone's discussion Predestined for Glorification"Serious discussion is the be all."
Kernel John replied to Roman Kozlowski's discussion What is God? And why the idea of God?"Roman, you say, "Knowledge or perception is a thought-wave in the mind." Do not…"
Sidian M.S. Jones replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"I'm just glad people still care. :)
And to be fair, I should be here commenting, sharing…"
Kernel John replied to Kernel John's discussion Are Your Religious Beliefs Plausible Facts of Probable Fiction?"Yes, we must be able to separate fact from fiction. To do this, we must become aware of being…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"Sid, now I understand, and you state your position well.
It's one of the finest sites of its…"
Roman Kozlowski posted a discussionWHAT MAKES A BELIEF A BELIEF?
What makes a Belief a Belief?The Bible says "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for,…See More
Sidian M.S. Jones replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"I don't mind being called out too much but my general experience is that people's…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"Please show some backbone and at least take part in leading discussion from time to time if you…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"This multi-fragmentational disintergration of proposed thought en-mass in this way is the most…"
Roman Kozlowski replied to Sidian M.S. Jones's discussion What is the Belief Genome?"What do you want to really know?"
© 2013 Created by Sidian M.S. Jones.
