Philosophy as a Practical Life-Art Form

[Violett]

The one theory that both Creationism and evolution agree on is that all humans come from one source. You may have family members that you don't like, but they are still part of your family. Even though different cultures sometimes vary in perspective, you should still treat your fellow human being with respect and kindness, since we're all members of the same family.

[rifleman]

Mystic notes: "I was reluctant to participate until I had a clearer idea of your intent because I see you as the polar opposite of the fundamentalists . . . equally intransigent in your worldview . . . i.e. Gestalt. I have read all the posts and have seen little to dissuade me from that view. There is nothing wrong with that . . . but I have little patience for it . . . since in my view it as equally unjustified as the fundies. In particular . . . it is your insistence on referring to the "supernatural" (which does not exist) while ignoring the possibility that what is being referred to by you as "supernatural" is in fact perfectly natural and part of your "Nature God ". . . that I find unacceptable.

Having been where you are philosophically and spiritually . . . I recognize the improbability of having any impact. I was extremely well read in the major philosophies, had adopted Buddhism as my preferred one. So I am quite certain no philosophical discussion with you would have any real impact at all. It took a very surprising experiential event to move me from the position you occupy . . . one which you are unlikely to experience because it takes a considerable amount of time to develop the skills necessary to achieve the end state in meditation. It took me 18+ years and the result was life-changing and completely unexpected. Thanks for asking me to participate. I hope you can understand my reluctance to contribute to your debate. Be well, Mystic"

Hmmm... "I recognize the improbability of having any impact." By "impact" are you saying you see a need to change my errant mind? Do you see this as a debate about whose philosophy is the better and more valid one? That you would fail in teaching me the errors of my ways? You misread my intent, sir. I'd hoped for a different "read" of my thread by you, and to hear some of what makes you "tick".

I don't anticipate ever having the exact same experiences in life that anyone else (or you) may have had. My point here was to move completely aside from religious overtones, and to address and inquire how different people might have arrived at some workable system of philosophical evaluation. No Gods required nor expected. But the usual suspects do have away of surfacing in others' interpretations, eh?

I, in my own way, had experiences that neither you nor almost anyone else on the planet could have possibly had. They weren't simplistic; certainly they were intense, (in some measurable ways, it's likely that they were far more intense than you could have possibly experienced, ever...) and they thus became understandable to me without ethical or spiritual guidance or input (as seeds) from anyone or any organization. Hence I realized they were unfettered and all the more rational and useful.

They were an epiphany for me, and started me down a path towards what now serves me as a highly functional system. It happens to work very well absent "supernatural" explanations, or incorporation of either real or imagined interactions & communication with an external being, real or mythical.

Of course, I did make the point that, unless one is delusional, there are no complete answers in this world. To that point, I noted:

"I've found it is possible to build and live within a workable overall philosophy if one doesn't require that it answer all questions, past, present or ANY future ones. The only way to do that (meaning: to answer all currently unanswered questions impatiently) is to assume some extra-corpeal supernatural nonsense, which surely is highly delusional. And limiting to an open-mind and growth."

In other words, given the proven limits to our intelligence, there may well be things for which we will never have a satisfactory answer. I'm assuming that, despite your obvious high intelligence, (and self-awareness & proclamation of same...) that Stephen Hawking or Al. Einstein could easily outhink you or I put together on some complex issues.

Face it, Mystic, we all have limits. I just like to openly accept them, and realize that there will be "unanswerables" in life. If some folks can't abide that, well then the only alternative answer for them would be to credit someone/thing/being with inexplicable "supernatural" powers. And that I'm not willing to concede. I'm happier not artificially limiting my lifelong efforts, however fruitless, to eventually understand the inexplicable. Unlike you, I don't wish to conclude that I've reached such a higher level of certanty that it's the end of any further inquiry. There may, after all, be so much more!

But, as I've stated quite clearly here, that's just me, and I'm intensely curious, as a possible means to my and others' further enlightenment, how they might have achieved such understanding.

You know; ask around and yah might get a better answer! Odd that you would see this as a hide-bound and self-limiting endeavour.

But regardless, herein I have simply asked others what path to enlightenment they (or you) have taken or been exposed to. Religious fundamentalism is one area that may function here as a case study, and may thus be referenced, but that is all. No criticism or denegration or judgement when an interested poster tells all. You won't find it in any of my posts here, nor will you as this thread expands to a final conclusion. Not my intent nor hidden agenda.

But... you seem to be stating that your enlightenment is more valid than mine or that of others, because it's pointed your well-read personality in a direction that apparently works so well for you. Or so you are convinced. One of my points here is that we all come to a point in our philosophical "development" where we "go with what we have" and perhaps look no further. If one feels a deep sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, if the chosen philosophy "resonates" with our world, why then we might conclude it must be "the final answer". Ergo, in your mind, your ideas must (if we had perfect knowledge and then utilized it) be fact.

In fact, I'm asking folks how they came to their "final answer", if it's open to modification, and if so, how so? Do they operate with a layered approach, depending on how close to sensitive and culturally mandated beliefs a particular question be. Perhaps, unlike you, I continue to be open to the evolution of my twisted little world-view. I am quite happy with that.

I think it may be you with the pre-conceived notions of me or my intents, basing them on analysis of my posts on forums unrelated to this one.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Hmmm... "I recognize the improbability of having any impact." By "impact" are you saying you see a need to change my errant mind?

No. But the possibility of reaching someone convinced they have an open mind when they clearly do NOT . . . is what I was referring to. You have a gestalt that requires the placement of currently poorly or misunderstood or unknowable into either the "supernatural" (your favorite dismissive word) or reality (meaning your indifferent Nature "God" as currently understood by you). Even in this response you repeatedly reveal this attachment to the dismissive "supernatural" term . . . I see no "openness" of mind in that. I repeat . . . there is no such thing as "supernatural" ANYTHING . . . just what you call natural.

They were an epiphany for me, and started me down a path towards what now serves me as a highly functional system. It happens to work very well absent "supernatural" explanations, or incorporation of either real or imagined interactions & communication with an external being, real or mythical.

Of course, I did make the point that, unless one is delusional, there are no complete answers in this world. To that point, I noted:

"I've found it is possible to build and live within a workable overall philosophy if one doesn't require that it answer all questions, past, present or ANY future ones. The only way to do that (meaning: to answer all currently unanswered questions impatiently) is to assume some extra-corpeal supernatural nonsense, which surely is highly delusional. And limiting to an open-mind and growth."

Face it, Mystic, we all have limits. I just like to openly accept them, and realize that there will be "unanswerables" in life. If some folks can't abide that, well then the only alternative answer for them would be to credit someone/thing/being with inexplicable "supernatural" powers. And that I'm not willing to concede. I'm happier not artificially limiting my lifelong efforts, however fruitless, to eventually understand the inexplicable. Unlike you, I don't wish to conclude that I've reached such a higher level of certanty that it's the end of any further inquiry. There may, after all, be so much more!

Try re-reading what you wrote there with the open mind you profess to have . . . do you not see your hang up. I claim no completeness of knowledge or answers. You assume that and attach it to my views to dismiss them . . . automatically. When you can see ONLY ONE alternative and that is your "supernatural" hogwash . . . THAT is NOT open minded.

You know; ask around and yah might get a better answer! Odd that you would see this as a hide-bound and self-limiting endeavour.

I think it may be you with the pre-conceived notions of me or my intents, basing them on analysis of my posts on forums unrelated to this one.

Take your advice and ask around, rifleman . . . my notions of your state of mind are based on the contents of THIS thread and including this very post. You tell me who is hidebound.

[SCGranny]

Sorry to see that this has turned into a "My Philosophy/Daddy can beat up YOUR Philosophy/Daddy" sandbox-style argument. Shrug. Ah, potential vanishes into the mist when each individual has to be right, to the exclusion of all others.

Besides, you're both wrong and I'm right. So there. Nyahh nyahh. Everyone feel all better? Pass the juice boxes...

[subsound]

I win, the crowd goes wild *cheer cheer*

[MysticPhD]

Having produced a couple of one or two liner posts from my explanation to rifleman . . . and not wanting this thread closed for violating the TOS of the Great Debates. I will comply with the OP's original request for a brief summary of how I arrived at my current philosophical position. I was raised in a Catholic household but never believed any of it from day one. I went along to get along until HS . . . when I became an avowed atheist. After HS I became Buddhist in college, pursued mechanical engineering and became a Stress Analyst on the Titan Missile Launcher. Entered the Air Force and joined a SAC B-52 crew as a RN/Bombardier, flew 60 combat missions in Viet Nam earning three Air Medals, left the AF and pursued advanced degrees in Industrial Psychology. Social Psychology and Quantitative Methods. My doctoral fields are the latter two.

During this period my meditation skills produced the end state experience that changed my life. As a result, I actively pursued knowledge of philosophy, theology, mythology, and the other sciences . . . notably physics, biology, and anthropology . . . using my audit privileges as a university professor.I am now a retired Professor Emeritus and retain journal subscriptions in Physics, Psychology and Biology . . . am an avid reader and user of library and online resources to stay up-to-date on all things that interest me. My belief in a Consciousness that establishes the universal field encompassing our reality is based on my meditation experiences, which were many and sufficed to establish to my satisfaction the absolute reality of it. I call this God consciousness. The characteristics of love and acceptance and oneness with all life are unmistakable.

My extensive researches of the many religious philosophies and my belief that they represent a spiritual evolution that is clearly documented in the many myths, legends, and religious writings through time that I have dubbed the "spiritual fossil record " revealed an undenial pattern in this "fossil record" that points to the existence of a "spiritual DNA" (or design) built in to the evolution of spiritual understanding. This is obviously related to the composition of the brain (Genes) and their activation/deactivation (Epigenetic). Following this evolution leads to only one conclusion . . . the culmination of the pattern to date (and its lack of violation of any science) points me to a belief in the existence and significance of Jesus Christ as the source of the consciousness I experience in the meditative end state.

While my selection of Christ and the conclusions about His significance are identical to the end state in the many versions of Christianity . . . the intervening rationale is quite different . . . containing no magic, hocus pocus, or ritual . . . and certainly no irrational denials of ANY scientific findings. What we do know is fully compatible with my rationale. What distinguishes my certainty from any of you atheists is entirely based on my experiences in meditation . . . which are absolutely conclusive for ME.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

Sorry to see that this has turned into a "My Philosophy/Daddy can beat up YOUR Philosophy/Daddy" sandbox-style argument. Shrug. Ah, potential vanishes into the mist when each individual has to be right, to the exclusion of all others.

Besides, you're both wrong and I'm right. So there. Nyahh nyahh. Everyone feel all better? Pass the juice boxes...

Quite so, SC... I "feel", (or, more correctly, having just seen Mystic's last post, where he finally gets it; I "felt" up until then...) that my own philosophies were specifically under attack as being incorrect, vastly under-developed or limited, and yet...

....all I asked, clearly, in the OP, was for others to expound on what their experiences were; their own inner searchings, their experiences looking down from 45,000 feet aboard a nuclear-armed bomber, or facing a snarling, growling, sub-adult starving polar bear at a distance of 3 meters and "whispering" one's way out of it....

I have no intention of arguing that mine, or theirs, is wrong. In fact, my honest intent, still, despite the inbound philosphy-seaking missles aimed at me, was to perhaps learn something from others, to prevent the calcification of my own thinking, and to perhaps help others see some larger perspectives.

Anyhow, Mystic, old bud; you do indeed seem to have had some unique experiences that no doubt shaped your uber-view. Fortunately, you didn't have the Slim Pickens "ride-em" experience, which would have truly been mind-blowing...

Do feel free to comment on other's realizations, keeping in mind as I'm sure you will, that no-one's philosophy is "wrong", just perhaps not yet solidly developed, or of too much use to them until they further iron out some of the oddities.

Hence this thread. Only trying to help, not argue!

Fortunately, for me at least, and as odd as it may seem, I apply precious little of my real-life time & resources analysing religion. That, and it's implications to my life, are minor in the exteme; it's just fun to argue and speculate and, perhaps, yes, to tease a bit. Dogmatic fundies, after all, offer a target-rich environment, right? As do dogmatic scientists, dogmatic dog catchers, and dogmatic dogs.

In the larger scheme, to me, whether or not I or others around me believe or not in a deity, it has no bearing on my solutions to life's constant quandries. I happen to have evolved a fully functioning set of ethical, moral, behavioral and skeptical curiosity-satisfying elements. I'm curious if others have been so lucky, and if so, how, and what might have prompted their epiphanetic moments. Is all.

It's also been therapeutic for me, keeping my mind off some endlessly painful situations (physically) that I've had to deal with. Better to sharpen one's sarcasm/wit/intellect here on C-D at 2:30 am than to park in a dark place in one's physical and mental accomodations, right?

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

I'm an anarchist.

The bomb-throwing kind, or the "everyone must learn self-rule" kind?