In article <2OydnYznPuZLASqiRVn-iw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
I have been thinking that there is a *bridge* between the mind and the body. I'm trying to put a name to that bridge. Perhaps *passion* is the word? Can that be shared by both mind and body if one were to consider them as separate entities?

I think it's more that we only have a limited number of senses and so
interpret everything that goes on in terms of those -- when our hair
stands on end from fear we literally *do* feel something in our nerves,
and so that feeling gets associated with fear. (for instance)

Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:161120031323531526%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <2OydnYznPuZLASqiRVn-iw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: I have been thinking that there is a *bridge* between the mind and the body. I'm trying to put a name to that bridge. Perhaps *passion* is the word? Can that be shared by both mind and body if one were to consider them as separate entities? I think it's more that we only have a limited number of senses and so interpret everything that goes on in terms of those -- when our hair stands on end from fear we literally *do* feel something in our nerves, and so that feeling gets associated with fear. (for instance) Ted Could that just be a type of conditioning*? It just struck me that,when we are aware of our senses, we are most *in-the-moment*

That is certainly one way of being very "in the moment."

But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my
intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been
just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense.

There are also things like "runner's high" which are physical (as
opposed to sensory or intellectual, though obviously related to
sensory) ways of being "in the moment." And there is music, which for
many people can provide a strong sense of being "in the moment" and is
related to _both_ the sensory and the intellectual.

In article <GbGdnQ-YUsG9iSWiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com>
wrote:
Rather like meditation is suppose.

Unless one acknowledges that in meditation something more than mind and
body is going on. Our brain is used to interpreting everything in
terms of our senses -- we can't even think of something without forming
words or pictures (and most of us, I believe, mostly use words) -- all
the results of sensory experiences. If the spiritual world touches
us, in some way intersects with the physical world, how else are we
going to interpret what's going on that to attempt to frame it in terms
of our five senses? No matter how rich a tapestry is presented in
front of him, a man who is color-blind is going to see it in terms of
the one or two colors he sees.

Ted

In article <Q4Vtb.219161$Fm2.216125@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense.

What do *you* mean by "transcendent" in that? In exactly what ways
are those moments different from other kinds of moments?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <Q4Vtb.219161$Fm2.216125@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense. What do *you* mean by "transcendent" in that? In exactly what ways are those moments different from other kinds of moments?

As near as I can tell, I mean the same as everyone else that I discuss
these feelings with. Even people good at describing transcendence in
words don't do very well, so I'm sure I don't.

It has to do with losing the sense of self for some moments and
instead "just being."

Often I find you ask questions like the above in a way that suggests
hostile challenge. Certainly you've done that to me before along
lines like this. Do I misinterpret?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Vtb.219161$Fm2.216125@attbi_s04... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes: "Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:161120031323531526%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <2OydnYznPuZLASqiRVn-iw@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: > I have been thinking that there is a *bridge* between the mind and
the body. > I'm trying to put a name to that bridge. Perhaps *passion* is the
word? > Can that be shared by both mind and body if one were to > consider them as separate entities? I think it's more that we only have a limited number of senses and so interpret everything that goes on in terms of those -- when our hair stands on end from fear we literally *do* feel something in our
nerves, and so that feeling gets associated with fear. (for instance) Ted Could that just be a type of conditioning*? It just struck me that,when we are aware of our senses, we are most *in-the-moment* That is certainly one way of being very "in the moment." But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense.

Please expand on this part.
There are also things like "runner's high" which are physical (as opposed to sensory or intellectual, though obviously related to sensory) ways of being "in the moment." And there is music, which for many people can provide a strong sense of being "in the moment" and is related to _both_ the sensory and the intellectual.

A *runner's high* is *of-the-body*, and
a *music high* is of the senses, in my opinion.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E7%tb.221260$Fm2.223566@attbi_s04... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <Q4Vtb.219161$Fm2.216125@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense. What do *you* mean by "transcendent" in that? In exactly what ways are those moments different from other kinds of moments? As near as I can tell, I mean the same as everyone else that I discuss these feelings with. Even people good at describing transcendence in words don't do very well, so I'm sure I don't. It has to do with losing the sense of self for some moments and instead "just being." Often I find you ask questions like the above in a way that suggests hostile challenge. Certainly you've done that to me before along lines like this. Do I misinterpret?

I didn't think that question was hostile, in fact I wanted to know more
about it myself.

I do know the feeling of transcendence.
I can not explain it either. I know it when I feel it though.
It is a feeling of being connected to everything in the world for me.
To know with absolute certainty for an instant that everything is perfect
and that I am alright and live as I was meant to live

I am curious about how you achieve that feeling *intellectually*.

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:171120030000057295%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <GbGdnQ-YUsG9iSWiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Rather like meditation is suppose. Unless one acknowledges that in meditation something more than mind and body is going on. Our brain is used to interpreting everything in terms of our senses -- we can't even think of something without forming words or pictures (and most of us, I believe, mostly use words) -- all the results of sensory experiences. If the spiritual world touches us, in some way intersects with the physical world, how else are we going to interpret what's going on that to attempt to frame it in terms of our five senses? No matter how rich a tapestry is presented in front of him, a man who is color-blind is going to see it in terms of the one or two colors he sees. Ted

Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt and
stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body
and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:E7%tb.221260$Fm2.223566@attbi_s04... Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes: In article <Q4Vtb.219161$Fm2.216125@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > But I've also experienced "in the moment" moments when using my > intellectual faculties to their fullest. And those moments have been > just as transcendent as those when most aware of my sense. What do *you* mean by "transcendent" in that? In exactly what ways are those moments different from other kinds of moments? As near as I can tell, I mean the same as everyone else that I discuss these feelings with. Even people good at describing transcendence in words don't do very well, so I'm sure I don't. It has to do with losing the sense of self for some moments and instead "just being." Often I find you ask questions like the above in a way that suggests hostile challenge. Certainly you've done that to me before along lines like this. Do I misinterpret? I didn't think that question was hostile, in fact I wanted to know more about it myself.

I think the "define the ineffable" part of the question may be
hostile. I could be just bringing my history with Ted into this
matter, because he's asked me questions like that before in a hostile
way. But it's OK, Ted can speak for himself on that matter, and
he's honest about such things..
I do know the feeling of transcendence. I can not explain it either. I know it when I feel it though. It is a feeling of being connected to everything in the world for me. To know with absolute certainty for an instant that everything is perfect and that I am alright and live as I was meant to live I am curious about how you achieve that feeling *intellectually*.

Well, it is difficult to describe for several reasons.

One reason is just that this sort of thing (for me feeling "connected"
may be part of it, but probably more important than that is the
feeling of losing awareness of myself as a _separate_ being) is just
plain difficult to describe.

Another reason has to do with the fact that I wish to protect my
anonymity (in so far as that is really possible) and have decided that
I prefer not to reveal my profession under this identity. And this is
related to my work.

But I'll try.


First of all, on the subject of music, for me the feeling of
transcendence that comes from music _is_, at least partly
intellectual. That is, it is something of the mind/brain as opposed
to the body/senses even though the _input_ is sensory. Sort of like
if you felt transcendence from reading, you wouldn't attribute it to
the visual sense.

As for music, there isn't a whole lot I can do except assert that for
me the transcendence induced by music often has an intellectual
component and sometimes is mostly intellectual. If your experience
differs, then it differs, and there isn't too much more to say.

I will point out an example, which may or may not be meaningful. If
you like Bach, I suggest listening to Glenn Gould's recording of the
Goldberg Variations from 1981 (they all have their strengths, and that
one isn't necessarily the best, but it is the best for my purposes at
the moment). Now that may or may not induce transcendent feelings in
you; that isn't what I care about right now. But if you listen
someplace quiet, and turn the sound up, one of the things you'll here
is Glenn humming along with himself. For me, it is impossible to
listen to this recording without realizing that Gould is in a
transcendent state. Furthermore, it isn't that he's induced by
_listening_ to what he's doing, otherwise he wouldn't be marring it by
humming. Instead it is induced by the musical structure he is
creating/witnessing/displaying _in his brain_ as he is performing. To
me this is transcendence brought on by using intellectual faculties to
their fullest.

OK, take it or leave it. I find this example compelling, you may not.


As far as my own experiences, my work involves fairly heavy
intellectual lifting (though it keeps me off the streets). It also
involves communicating this to other people, and sometimes
collaborating with them. There are moments when communicating as part
of work where I am completely swept up in the moment and lose my
"observer," feel perfectly connected to those I'm communicating with,
and just "am."

This can also happen during the collaborative process, though that is
much rarer for me.

I don't know if I can say this much better unfortunately.

urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us.

And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and mind
than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific state of the
art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that it's all biology and
chemistry.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us. And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and mind than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific state of the art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that it's all biology and chemistry.

What he said.

There are so many different definitions of 'spirit' that I find it a fairly
useless word. It's worse than 'love' in that respect.

Tai

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us. And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and mind than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific state of the art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that it's all biology and chemistry.

Eeeek! How clinical!!

Bill in Co. <ornery@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us. And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and mind than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific state of the art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that it's all biology and chemistry. Eeeek! How clinical!!

Nah. Clinical takes the mystery out of the natural universe; I see plenty of
it there. I just don't need "spirit" as a special word for that mystery, or
to invoke any sort of supernatural explanation of it.

Science, in and of itself, can be a downright "spiritual" pursuit.

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:34jo81-80n.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Bill in Co. <ornery@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote:> Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have
felt> and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind,
body> and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us. And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and mind than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific state of the art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that it's all biology and chemistry. Eeeek! How clinical!! Nah. Clinical takes the mystery out of the natural universe; I see plenty
of it there. I just don't need "spirit" as a special word for that mystery,
or to invoke any sort of supernatural explanation of it. Science, in and of itself, can be a downright "spiritual" pursuit.

In a recently on air NOVA program the subject was *string theory*.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Some scientists agree that at the level that strings exist, there is no
proof available and that the theory is a philosophy.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> writes:
"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:34jo81-80n.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Bill in Co. <ornery@earthlink.net> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: > urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: >> Good thoughts Ted. The introduction of the spirit is a key. I have felt >> and stated in this forum on more than one occasion that we are mind, body >> and spirit. The introduction of spirit completes us. > > And some of us see no evidence of that. There may be more to body and > mind than many people realize -- or even than the present scientific > state of the art realizes -- but in the end it's my firm belief that > it's all biology and chemistry. Eeeek! How clinical!! Nah. Clinical takes the mystery out of the natural universe; I see plenty of it there. I just don't need "spirit" as a special word for that mystery, or to invoke any sort of supernatural explanation of it. Science, in and of itself, can be a downright "spiritual" pursuit. In a recently on air NOVA program the subject was *string theory*. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ Some scientists agree that at the level that strings exist, there is no proof available and that the theory is a philosophy.

Physical science in general is _descriptive_. One would like to have
theories that explain existing phenomena, and which correctly predict
phenomena that had not yet been observed.

A theory that does a good job at these things is a good theory. One
that does a bad job is a bad theory. "Proof," in a mathematical or
philosophical sense really doesn't enter into it.

In article <E7%tb.221260$Fm2.223566@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Often I find you ask questions like the above in a way that suggests hostile challenge. Certainly you've done that to me before along lines like this. Do I misinterpret?

I'll admit to shooting from the hip now and then, but I don't intend to
be hostile -- i.e., with any intent to harm. "Transcendent" is, as a
matter of fact, not a word I would naturally find myself using (except
in speaking of transendental mathematical functions!) So it didn't
convey much meaning to me and I was too lazy too look up a formal
definition and see what you might mean. I have a large, educated
vocabulary -- and I'm finding it more and more useless, for what I seem
to care about can generally be described in pretty simple terms or it
can't be described at all. Sure I read a lot of stuff with the word
"transcendent" in it -- but it's in contexts that refer to an attribute
of God and so just as there is no meaningful definition of God there is
no meaningful definition of transcendent -- it's like Red -- you can't
define Red, you can only show someone Red, or not-Red or tell them how
to make Red so they can experience Red.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <E7%tb.221260$Fm2.223566@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Often I find you ask questions like the above in a way that suggests hostile challenge. Certainly you've done that to me before along lines like this. Do I misinterpret? I'll admit to shooting from the hip now and then, but I don't intend to be hostile -- i.e., with any intent to harm. "Transcendent" is, as a matter of fact, not a word I would naturally find myself using (except in speaking of transendental mathematical functions!) So it didn't convey much meaning to me and I was too lazy too look up a formal definition and see what you might mean. I have a large, educated vocabulary -- and I'm finding it more and more useless, for what I seem to care about can generally be described in pretty simple terms or it can't be described at all. Sure I read a lot of stuff with the word "transcendent" in it -- but it's in contexts that refer to an attribute of God and so just as there is no meaningful definition of God there is no meaningful definition of transcendent -- it's like Red -- you can't define Red, you can only show someone Red, or not-Red or tell them how to make Red so they can experience Red.

OK. I think I tried to answer the question anyway. And if I was
unclear, my usage is meant to be consonant with the formal definition,
for what that's worth

In article <o3ln81-e4d.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus
<trajan@sfchat.org> wrote:
And some of us see no evidence of that.

Pity. I wish I could give you mine, but I can't -- it seems each of us
has to experience it for ourselves.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <o3ln81-e4d.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: And some of us see no evidence of that. Pity. I wish I could give you mine, but I can't -- it seems each of us has to experience it for ourselves.

It's OK. If someone means to give us evidence, he will. If not,
either there is no one there, or he wishes to remain undetected by us.
OK either way with me.

In article <3BEub.185958$ao4.646810@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK. I think I tried to answer the question anyway.

Yes, you did. Thanks.

Ted

In article <c_cvb.194976$mZ5.1450908@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's OK. If someone means to give us evidence, he will. If not, either there is no one there, or he wishes to remain undetected by us. OK either way with me.

In article <4m65hiak2t.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
For me, it is impossible to listen to this recording without realizing that Gould is in a transcendent state.

And I suppose you don't see the contradiction in these statements...

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <c_cvb.194976$mZ5.1450908@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: It's OK. If someone means to give us evidence, he will. If not, either there is no one there, or he wishes to remain undetected by us. OK either way with me. In article <4m65hiak2t.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: For me, it is impossible to listen to this recording without realizing that Gould is in a transcendent state. And I suppose you don't see the contradiction in these statements...

I don't believe there is a contradiction.

If you define "god" to mean "that transcendant state that human brains
reach sometimes" then I grant you there is a contradiction.

I wouldn't define god that way. You're welcome to, but if you want to
avoid confusion, warn people first, because it isn't a standard
definition.

In article <4nhvb.196905$mZ5.1465482@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you define "god" to mean "that transcendant state that human brains reach sometimes" then I grant you there is a contradiction.

I don't define God that way. The question is -- what are you
conscious of when you are in a transcendent state? You assert it's
merely a state the brain assumes sometimes as the result of mental
processes. I assert , if I understand what you are referring to, that
it's a state that results from an awareness of something outside of,
beyond, different from, anything our senses can be aware of or our
intellect create. While imperfect and sometimes misleading, the
physical and mental processes we may go through that somehow seem to
heighten our awareness, or help us be receptive, or draw us closer to
what's there, or it to us -- do not themselves bring us into a
transcendent state -- but in some mysterious way they do sometimes seem
to help.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <4nhvb.196905$mZ5.1465482@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: If you define "god" to mean "that transcendant state that human brains reach sometimes" then I grant you there is a contradiction. I don't define God that way. The question is -- what are you conscious of when you are in a transcendent state? You assert it's merely a state the brain assumes sometimes as the result of mental processes.

Yes, that's right. It is sometimes a feeling of being a part of a
whole. Sometimes it is as simple (not that this is simple) as not
being aware of your "observer."

But in any case, you are correct that I think of this as a state the
brain assumes under some circumstances, and not something external.
I assert , if I understand what you are referring to, that it's a state that results from an awareness of something outside of, beyond, different from, anything our senses can be aware of or our intellect create. While imperfect and sometimes misleading, the physical and mental processes we may go through that somehow seem to heighten our awareness, or help us be receptive, or draw us closer to what's there, or it to us -- do not themselves bring us into a transcendent state -- but in some mysterious way they do sometimes seem to help.

Right. I would expect you to assert this.

But there is still no contradiction in my point of view; it just
differs from yours.

In article <HHhvb.201929$ao4.716523@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But there is still no contradiction in my point of view; it just differs from yours.

Well, on a technicality I guess you're right.
But you say there's no evidence and turn around and present some -- but
you don't recognize it as such.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <HHhvb.201929$ao4.716523@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But there is still no contradiction in my point of view; it just differs from yours. Well, on a technicality I guess you're right.

It isn't a technicality at all.
But you say there's no evidence and turn around and present some -- but you don't recognize it as such.

Evidence that people can disconnect from their observers is not
evidence of god. Again, unless you define god in a funny way.

In article <U%qvb.204255$ao4.723597@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Evidence that people can disconnect from their observers is not evidence of god.

That isn't what I heard you writing about. I heard you writing about
being connected to *everything* -- and if that isn't evidence of a
spiritual realm I don't know what is.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <U%qvb.204255$ao4.723597@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Evidence that people can disconnect from their observers is not evidence of god. That isn't what I heard you writing about.

OK, but I did write about it.
I heard you writing about being connected to *everything* -- and if that isn't evidence of a spiritual realm I don't know what is.

I also wrote about that.

I never said it wasn't evidence of a "spiritual realm" (though now I
have to ask what you mean by "spiritual").

To me, "spiritual" refers to feelings of connectedness which are too
deep to be articulated sensibly. I'm perfectly happy with that
concept of spiritual without having any desire to populate it with a
deity or deities.

In article <FADvb.274018$Fm2.287591@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, "spiritual" refers to feelings of connectedness which are too deep to be articulated sensibly. I'm perfectly happy with that concept of spiritual without having any desire to populate it with a deity or deities.

What does desire have to do with it?
Do you see your feelings of connectedness as being incompatible or
inconsistent with the existence of God and other spiritual entities?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <FADvb.274018$Fm2.287591@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: To me, "spiritual" refers to feelings of connectedness which are too deep to be articulated sensibly. I'm perfectly happy with that concept of spiritual without having any desire to populate it with a deity or deities. What does desire have to do with it? Do you see your feelings of connectedness as being incompatible or inconsistent with the existence of God and other spiritual entities?

No. I just don't see them as evidence _for_ the existence of god.

Remember, I'm an agnostic. (And a little bit more - I don't know, and
I don't care.)

In article <DuXvb.208453$mZ5.1557515@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. I just don't see them as evidence _for_ the existence of god.

What do you see them as evidence of?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <DuXvb.208453$mZ5.1557515@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: No. I just don't see them as evidence _for_ the existence of god. What do you see them as evidence of?

Nothing. They just are. I mean you just asked a very strange
question. What are rocks evidence of? Nothing in particular, they're
just rocks. Specific rocks or specific types of rock might be
evidence for something. But in general things don't have to be
"evidence for" other things. Unless perhaps you _assume_ the
existence of an all-knowing creator who does everything for a purpose.
But that isn't one of my assumptions.

In article <496wb.216614$ao4.765571@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing. They just are. I mean you just asked a very strange question. What are rocks evidence of? Nothing in particular, they're just rocks. Specific rocks or specific types of rock might be evidence for something. But in general things don't have to be "evidence for" other things. Unless perhaps you _assume_ the existence of an all-knowing creator who does everything for a purpose. But that isn't one of my assumptions.

Rocks obey the laws of physics.
Does your sense of connectedness -- especially when you compare it with
the observations of others have the same sort of sense -- indicate
there might be more to observed reality than is explained by the laws
of physics?

Ted

>> Nothing. They just are. I mean you just asked a very strange question. What are rocks evidence of? Nothing in particular, they're just rocks. Specific rocks or specific types of rock might be evidence for something. But in general things don't have to be "evidence for" other things. Unless perhaps you _assume_ the existence of an all-knowing creator who does everything for a purpose. But that isn't one of my assumptions.Rocks obey the laws of physics.Does your sense of connectedness -- especially when you compare it withthe observations of others have the same sort of sense -- indicatethere might be more to observed reality than is explained by the lawsof physics?Ted

Ted, I'm not Doug, but I, too, am an agnostic, and I, too, have had a feeling
of "connectedness", especially when hearing certain kinds of music
(particularly chorale music).

For me, this is an indication of a physiological phenomenon, within my brain,
not from beyond. The neural pathways of the brain interconnect in strange
ways. You may know that epileptics often have "auras" that preceed a seizure;
smelling oranges is a common one, as is an experience of deja vu. My guess is
that my feeling of "connection" comes from the stimulation of specific parts of
my brain, inadvertantly, while I hearing particular chords, vocal ranges, and
other parts of music I don't know how to to label ;-).

So, at least in my case, my interpretation of the event is very elegantly
explained by a physiological explanation. Given that I've seen no other
evidence of a deity, it seems to me to be the MOST elegant explanation.

Sheila

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <496wb.216614$ao4.765571@attbi_s51>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Nothing. They just are. I mean you just asked a very strange question. What are rocks evidence of? Nothing in particular, they're just rocks. Specific rocks or specific types of rock might be evidence for something. But in general things don't have to be "evidence for" other things. Unless perhaps you _assume_ the existence of an all-knowing creator who does everything for a purpose. But that isn't one of my assumptions. Rocks obey the laws of physics.

As does everything else. So?
Does your sense of connectedness -- especially when you compare it with the observations of others have the same sort of sense -- indicate there might be more to observed reality than is explained by the laws of physics?

No.

I'm not saying there isn't more to reality than can be explained
by the laws of physics.

But I see no evidence for that hypothesis.

(On the other hand, I see a _lot_ of evidence for the hypothesis that
people prefer to invent explanations as alternatives to perfectly
sound physical/scientific explanations.)

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Nothing. They just are. I mean you just asked a very strange question. What are rocks evidence of? Nothing in particular, they're just rocks. Specific rocks or specific types of rock might be evidence for something. But in general things don't have to be "evidence for" other things. Unless perhaps you _assume_ the existence of an all-knowing creator who does everything for a purpose. But that isn't one of my assumptions.Rocks obey the laws of physics.Does your sense of connectedness -- especially when you compare it withthe observations of others have the same sort of sense -- indicatethere might be more to observed reality than is explained by the lawsof physics?Ted Ted, I'm not Doug, but I, too, am an agnostic, and I, too, have had a feeling of "connectedness", especially when hearing certain kinds of music (particularly chorale music). For me, this is an indication of a physiological phenomenon, within my brain, not from beyond. The neural pathways of the brain interconnect in strange ways. You may know that epileptics often have "auras" that preceed a seizure; smelling oranges is a common one, as is an experience of deja vu. My guess is that my feeling of "connection" comes from the stimulation of specific parts of my brain, inadvertantly, while I hearing particular chords, vocal ranges, and other parts of music I don't know how to to label ;-). So, at least in my case, my interpretation of the event is very elegantly explained by a physiological explanation. Given that I've seen no other evidence of a deity, it seems to me to be the MOST elegant explanation.

Paraphrasing Sheila's post (possibly incorrectly): like me, she sees
scientific explanations as being adequate to explain her experiences,
and then heeding Occam's razor she prefers not to make more
assumptions than are needed.

In article <908wb.283017$HS4.2510448@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not saying there isn't more to reality than can be explained by the laws of physics. But I see no evidence for that hypothesis.

OK.

Ted

In article <x28wb.283029$HS4.2510333@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Paraphrasing Sheila's post (possibly incorrectly): like me, she sees scientific explanations as being adequate to explain her experiences, and then heeding Occam's razor she prefers not to make more assumptions than are needed.

For me Occam's razor cut the other way.

Either I am insane or what I have heard, seen, felt, and touched is
real and not the product of my imagination. And if I'm insane so are
several people I know personally, not to mention many of those
throughout history who have had similar experiences. In other words,
the *only* scientific explanation for what I have encountered is that I
am insane.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <x28wb.283029$HS4.2510333@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Paraphrasing Sheila's post (possibly incorrectly): like me, she sees scientific explanations as being adequate to explain her experiences, and then heeding Occam's razor she prefers not to make more assumptions than are needed. For me Occam's razor cut the other way. Either I am insane or what I have heard, seen, felt, and touched is real and not the product of my imagination.

That's fine. but I judge by _my_ experiences. And in my experience,
Occam suggests that the existence of god is not a useful way to
explain the world.

In article <GXewb.218687$9E1.1189722@attbi_s52>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's fine. but I judge by _my_ experiences. And in my experience, Occam suggests that the existence of god is not a useful way to explain the world.

Your experience is limited.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <GXewb.218687$9E1.1189722@attbi_s52>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: That's fine. but I judge by _my_ experiences. And in my experience, Occam suggests that the existence of god is not a useful way to explain the world. Your experience is limited.

Of course. Have I ever suggested that my agnosticism is more correct
than your religious beliefs? I don't think so. (I note that you've
done the symmetric thing by expressing the sentiment that it is a
"Pity" that I see no evidence of god. I find that condescending, and
would never tell you it is a "Pity" that you are deluded into
believing in god.)

But what you've always suggested before is that one's own
experience is what one should rely on for one's religious beliefs.
You say that _you_ only believe in god because the experiences
_you've_ had tell _you_ that there is no other sane interpretation.

Surely you'd afford me the same right to choose to be agnostic based
on having _no_ experiences for which god is the best interpretation.

In fact, by the arguments you've presented previously, my agnosticism
is not only a right, but an imperative given my experiences.

Doug

In article <Qbgwb.288897$Tr4.917315@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course. Have I ever suggested that my agnosticism is more correct than your religious beliefs? I don't think so. (I note that you've done the symmetric thing by expressing the sentiment that it is a "Pity" that I see no evidence of god. I find that condescending, and would never tell you it is a "Pity" that you are deluded into believing in god.)
Pity was probably a poor choice of words, because it can be interpreted
as being condescending, but I'm not sure I know a better one. What
emotion do you feel, say, towards somebody who has been born deaf --
and unless there's some miracle or it's a correctable condition will
never be able to hear and enjoy music the way you do? If you are at
all caring you can't help but feel *something.*
But what you've always suggested before is that one's own experience is what one should rely on for one's religious beliefs. You say that _you_ only believe in god because the experiences _you've_ had tell _you_ that there is no other sane interpretation.

No, I wouldn't say that one should *only* rely on one's experiences.
It needs to be a mix of that, what others in the past have experienced,
and what a contemporary community says about what *you* are
experiencing. If an adolescent were to approach the world just based
on his or her experience with it, that would not be a good thing.
Almost all of us are adolescents at best in our spiritual journey, with
most in fact still being children.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <Qbgwb.288897$Tr4.917315@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Of course. Have I ever suggested that my agnosticism is more correct than your religious beliefs? I don't think so. (I note that you've done the symmetric thing by expressing the sentiment that it is a "Pity" that I see no evidence of god. I find that condescending, and would never tell you it is a "Pity" that you are deluded into believing in god.) Pity was probably a poor choice of words, because it can be interpreted as being condescending, but I'm not sure I know a better one. What emotion do you feel, say, towards somebody who has been born deaf -- and unless there's some miracle or it's a correctable condition will never be able to hear and enjoy music the way you do? If you are at all caring you can't help but feel *something.*

But you've already said that you think I have all the "senses." I
just interpret things differently from you.

If god exists, it is surely capable of communicating with me if it
wants. Since it doesn't, I conclude either that it doesn't exist, or
that it doesn't want to communicate with me.
But what you've always suggested before is that one's own experience is what one should rely on for one's religious beliefs. You say that _you_ only believe in god because the experiences _you've_ had tell _you_ that there is no other sane interpretation. No, I wouldn't say that one should *only* rely on one's experiences. It needs to be a mix of that, what others in the past have experienced, and what a contemporary community says about what *you* are experiencing.

Hmm. I know I've seen you write that you believe in god because of
things that have happened to you which have no other rational
explanation.

Don't I get to apply that criterion myself?

In article <hmy8u5oa2r.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
But you've already said that you think I have all the "senses." I just interpret things differently from you.
I suspect you'd have a hard time interpreting some of what I've
experienced much differently than I do.
If god exists, it is surely capable of communicating with me if it wants. Since it doesn't, I conclude either that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't want to communicate with me.
Is that the only possible conclusion? Hmm. I know I've seen you write that you believe in god because of things that have happened to you which have no other rational explanation. Don't I get to apply that criterion myself?

Of course you do. But what exactly does your experience tell you:
that the God you don't believe in doesn't exist. To be less cute
about it, you have some mental image or images of God -- if God
exists, this is what God is like and how God operates. Your
experience, for probably very good reason, doesn't fit that image so
you are quite justified in concluding that *that* God doesn't exist.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <hmy8u5oa2r.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But you've already said that you think I have all the "senses." I just interpret things differently from you. I suspect you'd have a hard time interpreting some of what I've experienced much differently than I do.

Quite possibly. But I have to base my beliefs on what _I_ experience,
not on what _you_ experience. Wouldn't you agree with that?
If god exists, it is surely capable of communicating with me if it wants. Since it doesn't, I conclude either that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't want to communicate with me. Is that the only possible conclusion?

Well, firstly it is _two_ possible conclusions. And no, not the only
two, but the only two which don't violate Occam's razor.
Hmm. I know I've seen you write that you believe in god because of things that have happened to you which have no other rational explanation. Don't I get to apply that criterion myself? Of course you do. But what exactly does your experience tell you: that the God you don't believe in doesn't exist. To be less cute about it, you have some mental image or images of God -- if God exists, this is what God is like and how God operates. Your experience, for probably very good reason, doesn't fit that image so you are quite justified in concluding that *that* God doesn't exist.

Well, this is where we came in. If you have some non-standard version
of god in mind, it would be better if you were clear about that from
the outset. For example, if "god" to you means "the feeling of
transcendence" then I'd have to say that version of god _does_ exist.
On the other hand, if you take the conventional Judeo-Christian
notions of god, then I see no reason to believe such a being exists.

If you've got something else in mind, say what you mean man, instead
of palying guessing games!

But also, you keep asserting that I conclude god doesn't exist. That
isn't what I conclude at all. What I conclude is simply that I don't
know if he exists, and that in fact, I don't even really care.


I'm still finding this conversation condescending. You conclude,
based on your experiences that there is a god. I have no quarrel with
that. But you imply that even though my experiences do _not_ suggest
the existence of a god, that I am to be pitied, or am missing a sense,
or a less studied observer of the world, or something else of that ilk.

Mildly insulting, and as far as I can tell, unjustified.

In article <5VWwb.310105$Fm2.327943@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quite possibly. But I have to base my beliefs on what _I_ experience, not on what _you_ experience. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Not entirely. Why are you posting here or reading here at all if you
don't expect your experience (in whatever area comes up for discussion)
to be something others take into consideration, and vice versa?
Is that the only possible conclusion? Well, firstly it is _two_ possible conclusions. And no, not the only two, but the only two which don't violate Occam's razor.
What about the conclusion that it is preposterious for any mere mortal
to try to figure out what God is up to, why God has or hasn't done what
we think He ought, or ought not, have done?
Of course you do. But what exactly does your experience tell you: that the God you don't believe in doesn't exist. To be less cute about it, you have some mental image or images of God -- if God exists, this is what God is like and how God operates. Your experience, for probably very good reason, doesn't fit that image so you are quite justified in concluding that *that* God doesn't exist. Well, this is where we came in. If you have some non-standard version of god in mind, it would be better if you were clear about that from the outset. For example, if "god" to you means "the feeling of transcendence" then I'd have to say that version of god _does_ exist. On the other hand, if you take the conventional Judeo-Christian notions of god, then I see no reason to believe such a being exists.
No reason from *your* experience. As to "non-standard version of God"
I think if you really investigate people's beliefs you'll find there
isn't a "standard" version at all.

What we are talking about, I think, is whether anyone (such as you or
me) can directly experience the reality of God with as much conviction
as we can experience the reality of anything else. If you survey a
large cross section of people who *believe* in God you will find only a
very small percentage actually have that experience and conviction.
While some of those have had such experiences on the spur of the
moment, most have come by them only after actively pursuing one form of
spiritual exercise or another, sometimes conscious of what they are
trying to do, sometimes not. What have you tried?
If you've got something else in mind, say what you mean man, instead of palying guessing games! But also, you keep asserting that I conclude god doesn't exist. That isn't what I conclude at all. What I conclude is simply that I don't know if he exists, and that in fact, I don't even really care.
Yes, you have said you are an agnostic and yes I know what that means.
But you are the one who keeps saying your experience is inconsistent
with the existence of God (as you understand God.) I'm still finding this conversation condescending. You conclude, based on your experiences that there is a god. I have no quarrel with that. But you imply that even though my experiences do _not_ suggest the existence of a god, that I am to be pitied, or am missing a sense, or a less studied observer of the world, or something else of that ilk. Mildly insulting, and as far as I can tell, unjustified.

I'm sorry. Do you have any suggestions how I might have phrased things
(other than the poor choice of the word "pity" that I've already
acknowledged) differently so as not to have you feeling that way?

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <5VWwb.310105$Fm2.327943@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Quite possibly. But I have to base my beliefs on what _I_ experience, not on what _you_ experience. Wouldn't you agree with that? Not entirely. Why are you posting here or reading here at all if you don't expect your experience (in whatever area comes up for discussion) to be something others take into consideration, and vice versa?

Well, this isn't a religion newsgroup, and I _don't_ participate in
any of those. I do believe in marriage (more or less) and I'm
interested in other people's experiences with it.

If I were to believe in god, it would have to be entirely based on
"faith," since I have no actual experiences which imply the existence
of god. As I recall, you've pooh-poohed such beliefs in the past.

On the other hand, if I were to follow the spiritual experiences of
others in an attempt to weigh the evidence and make the best choice
based on others experiences, I'd see no agreement, and not even
something which could stand as a consensus among sensible people.
(With marriage on the other hand, it is fairly easy to find points of
consensus among most reasonable people.)
Is that the only possible conclusion? Well, firstly it is _two_ possible conclusions. And no, not the only two, but the only two which don't violate Occam's razor. What about the conclusion that it is preposterious for any mere mortal to try to figure out what God is up to, why God has or hasn't done what we think He ought, or ought not, have done?

A fine conclusion, but as I said, it violates Occam's razor. Since I
see no particula reason to assume there is a god, believing in a god
beyond my comprehension involves making an explanation more
complicated than the simpler ones that either there is no god, or he
isn't currently interested in communicating with me.
Of course you do. But what exactly does your experience tell you: that the God you don't believe in doesn't exist. To be less cute about it, you have some mental image or images of God -- if God exists, this is what God is like and how God operates. Your experience, for probably very good reason, doesn't fit that image so you are quite justified in concluding that *that* God doesn't exist. Well, this is where we came in. If you have some non-standard version of god in mind, it would be better if you were clear about that from the outset. For example, if "god" to you means "the feeling of transcendence" then I'd have to say that version of god _does_ exist. On the other hand, if you take the conventional Judeo-Christian notions of god, then I see no reason to believe such a being exists. No reason from *your* experience. As to "non-standard version of God" I think if you really investigate people's beliefs you'll find there isn't a "standard" version at all.

OK. So what is your image of god that "doesn't fit" my image. I'm
pretty open minded, but I would say that there is a "standard." In
Judeo-Christian tradition, god is
- a sentient being (OK, maybe 3 in 1 and 1 for all or something, but
still)
- possessed of great powers not explained by the properties of the
physical universe.
That's about it for me. There are also things about being all-knowing
and infinitely merciful, but let's let that slide; I wouldn't insist
on a god having those powers to call it a god.

Do you have something else in mind?
What we are talking about, I think, is whether anyone (such as you or me) can directly experience the reality of God with as much conviction as we can experience the reality of anything else. If you survey a large cross section of people who *believe* in God you will find only a very small percentage actually have that experience and conviction. While some of those have had such experiences on the spur of the moment, most have come by them only after actively pursuing one form of spiritual exercise or another, sometimes conscious of what they are trying to do, sometimes not. What have you tried?

Why would I try to pursue a spiritual exercise aimed at believing in
god? I've pursued a lot of spiritual exercise of various sorts, but
I've never had that aim.
If you've got something else in mind, say what you mean man, instead of palying guessing games! But also, you keep asserting that I conclude god doesn't exist. That isn't what I conclude at all. What I conclude is simply that I don't know if he exists, and that in fact, I don't even really care. Yes, you have said you are an agnostic and yes I know what that means. But you are the one who keeps saying your experience is inconsistent with the existence of God (as you understand God.)

I haven't said that once. If you think I've said that then you
haven't read what I've written carefully.

I _have_ said my experience gives me no evidence of god.
I'm still finding this conversation condescending. You conclude, based on your experiences that there is a god. I have no quarrel with that. But you imply that even though my experiences do _not_ suggest the existence of a god, that I am to be pitied, or am missing a sense, or a less studied observer of the world, or something else of that ilk. Mildly insulting, and as far as I can tell, unjustified. I'm sorry. Do you have any suggestions how I might have phrased things (other than the poor choice of the word "pity" that I've already acknowledged) differently so as not to have you feeling that way?

By not assuming that there is something superior about your beliefs.

By not writing as if I've said god doesn't exist when I'll I've said is
that I don't know and I don't care.

By not implying that I must be missing something because my
perceptions are different from yours.

By not implying I'm less spiritually developed (as in "what exercises
have I tried) because I don't believe in god.

I don't assume agnosticism is superior to religion, it is just what
makes sense to me. You, on the other hand, write as if you think
religion is superior to agnosticism (not just for you, which I can
buy, but for _me_).

If you want, I can go back and point to places where you are doing
this, but you can probably see them yourself if you reread this
exchange.

I don't pity you, or thing you are missing a sense, or even that your
intelligence is inferior to mine because you find the existence of god
a better explanation for the world you perceive.

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:261120032044014194%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <5VWwb.310105$Fm2.327943@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: Quite possibly. But I have to base my beliefs on what _I_ experience, not on what _you_ experience. Wouldn't you agree with that? Not entirely. Why are you posting here or reading here at all if you don't expect your experience (in whatever area comes up for discussion) to be something others take into consideration, and vice versa?

Agreed, that one takes some things beyond one's direct experience into
consideration in forming a view of the cosmos. But people judge the value
of the things beyond direct experince (what people tell them is so) based
upon it comporting with personal experience. If someone tells me there's a
tiger behind that door, and another someone says there's treasure for me
behind the same door, I decide whether or not to open the door on the basis
of the honesty and accuracy of the two someones' statements about other
things, and how it comports with other reasonable evaluations (if the door
is at the edge of the zoo and it smells... zoo-like around the door, maybe
there really is a tiger behind it).

Is that the only possible conclusion? Well, firstly it is _two_ possible conclusions. And no, not the only two, but the only two which don't violate Occam's razor. What about the conclusion that it is preposterious for any mere mortal to try to figure out what God is up to, why God has or hasn't done what we think He ought, or ought not, have done?

If it is preposterous for mere mortals to conclude what God is up to,
has/hasn't done, etc., isn't it eqally presposterous to suppose how He wants
mere mortals to respond? Or to conclude that other mere mortals had it all
figured out (or that He explained enough for them to explain it to us)? Or
to suppose that, if God wished us to know His will and act accordingly, that
He is incapable of explaining Himself unambiguously?

<snip>

Well, this is where we came in. If you have some non-standard version of god in mind, it would be better if you were clear about that from the outset. For example, if "god" to you means "the feeling of transcendence" then I'd have to say that version of god _does_ exist. On the other hand, if you take the conventional Judeo-Christian notions of god, then I see no reason to believe such a being exists. No reason from *your* experience. As to "non-standard version of God" I think if you really investigate people's beliefs you'll find there isn't a "standard" version at all. What we are talking about, I think, is whether anyone (such as you or me) can directly experience the reality of God with as much conviction as we can experience the reality of anything else. If you survey a large cross section of people who *believe* in God you will find only a very small percentage actually have that experience and conviction.

Why should one assume the experience of a very small percentage of people is
'the reality of God'? Especially if there isn't a 'standard version' (a
general consensus) as to what 'God' means?

--
Robert