Religion for fear.

[iNow]

First, you said:

you can't both fear and love the same thing

Then, in the very next post you said:

you can love and fear at the same time.

Tar - You are once again are trying to have it both ways... Seeking to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

This is just one example among many of your inconsistency and imprecise use of language. Interacting with you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. These, when coupled with your stream of consciousness style posts and frequent PS,PPS,PPPS,PPPPS merged additions make conversing/debating with you for me very frustrating and unenjoyable. It often feels like I'm arguing with a wet noodle and so once again I'm inclined to walk away from the topic. Enjoy.

[PeterJ]

That's fine TAR. This is exactly what is taught, that we already are enlightened, or that the we all have 'Buddha-nature'. Or, that we are sparks of the Divine and can never cease to be so. This is what Imam Ali was saying. It is what all of mysticism claims.

 

As you say, if all is in all, then there are no real divisions or separations, no true categories or distinctions.

 

So why fear death?

 

Because having an intellectual belief that we are Napoleon is not the same thing as being Napoleon. Rather, it is madness. It is this madness that the practices of mysticism are designed to cure.

 

If we fear death, then according to the 'perennial' philosophy it would be because we have forgotten who we are. Nothing more complicated than that. Our vision is clouded with the dust of a myriad of mental phenomena and we have become too entangled in the physical world. We think we are puny beings, individual egos blinking helplessly in and out of existence, and to the extent that we believe this, this is what we are. And so of course we fear death. Mysticism says that it is possible to wake up from this state, like Neo in the Matrix, and see the truth. By becoming that truth, the truth of what we are, we overcome not just death but also life. We would be correcting an error of perception, not changing ourselves from a mortal to an immortal being, a feat that God himself could not achieve for sound mathematical reasons,..

 

I have you down as someone who has not yet tried to understand mysticism, but who would be very sympathetic to it if you ever did. Your objections would be very good if only mysticism did actually have the faults that you ascribe to it, and it seems to me that making good objections is an excellent way to investigate it, at least if we are too sceptical to try it out. I spent tem years looking for telling objections and never found one. Later I realised that this was a forgone conclusion since Its doctrine is unfalsifiable, but the exercise was very valuable.

 

But to make a start you'd have to stop dismissing it so casually. You state that in your opinion certain things are baseless, imaginary, made up. In this case. your opinion forming system operates more efficiently than the combined intellects of a few billion other human beings, including a few tens of thousands of great scholars, sages and prophets, and the perennial philosophy is wrong after all.

 

Does this not strike you as a rather arrogant thing to believe?

[tar]

iNow,

 

Well thanks for trying, anyway. Sorry my opinions and tactics and methods are not enjoyable to you.

 

I do tend to try and have it both ways. Rather wet noodleish indeed. Difficult to come up with a statement that would be agreeable to a scientist and a mystic, but that is my general goal.

 

In my own noodle defense, I was trying to use the word fear in a different sense in the two items you quoted.

 

That aspect associated with terror, as opposed to that aspect associated with awe or respectful subjegation.

 

And in the context of the thread, was looking to tease out the nuanced aspects of "fear". Basically believing that the heavy emotions had by a son beaten by his father (not me, the older gentleman I was talking about) are extremely complex and difficult for someone else to unravel. This kind of powerful complexity of thought and emotion between a father and a son,has its possible analogy to people's relationship to the universe in general, as might be apparent by the heavy use of the term father, when referring to God, in several religions I am familiar with.

 

While an anthropomorphic god is not evident, fathers certainly are. And other people form an objective reality for any individual to relate to.

 

Was just now wondering if there is any correlation between how one feels about their father, and how one feels about the universe. But in anycase, if we are talking about religion being used as a comforting blanket, to soften ones "fear" of death, its important to consider exactly what emotions and thoughts are "supposed" to be in place when death is confronted.

 

PeterJ,

 

I don't discount the insights of the sages that I have also come to. I have not, as you point out, had any of them that I have not had, by definition. But I can discount ones they say they have had, that make no sense. There is a requirement, in many Eastern minds, that reincarnation is a reality. A "real" path is supposed to exist, which a soul follows, from focused self to focused self. This path implies that death is not a substantial problem. One just leaves this body, and inhabits another, so death is no big deal, so no fear is required. But this makes no sense, because there is nothing, in actually that ties a particular life to the general world, other than that particular life. I for instance, have no memory of a previous life, the time before my birth is rather blank, in my memory. Basically because my mind/brain had not yet developed. Once I die, whatever signals are currently possible in by body/brain/heart group, will not be possible. My self will not be operational. This I consider very problematic. I do not WANT to lose my self. That would be a defeat, a loss, the end of the run. For me. Life will go on, the world will go on, but it will do it, without me. I am terrified at the prospect of no longer being aware, of no longer existing. Eastern religions suggest that I on purpose should lose my self. Not only does this seem completely ill advised, to me, but is logically and physically impossible.

 

The catholic chuch is believed in, by billions, very smart and good people. Arrogant of me to find their teachings lacking in realism, and being based on pretense. Arrogant as well, for me to be skeptical about the teachings of the sages. But I know what looks and feels like its made up, and what looks and feels like its actual.

 

Difficult for me to bring this all back around through the back door and try to prove that everybody is right about what they are right about, and wrong about what they are wrong about, without excercising a great deal of wet noodle, nuanced, abiguous, "stream of consciousness" writing style.

 

So I will stop here and simply ask, in reference to the fear of death, central to this thread, and in reference to the "secrets" of the Vedas...Do you have any evidence that a human soul is something different than the body/brain/heart group that it belongs to?

Any evidence that ones consciousness will continue past their death?

 

Regards, TAR

[PeterJ]

It's okay Tar, If I try to say more we'll just argue. I'll just note that reincarnation is a superstition as far as I'm concerned, and it certainly is not necessary to mysticism. I'm not even quite sure who endorses it. And the Vedas are clear - there is no consciousness after death. As I said, your objections are good but they are well wide of the mark. See you about.

[tar]

peterj,

 

Sounds good.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Do you have any evidence that a human soul is something different than the body/brain/heart group that it belongs to?

You are putting the cart before the horse here.

 

One must first clearly define what they mean by soul. They must do so in a way that the definition is consistent and agreed upon across observers.

 

They must detail how it can be measured or observed or studied, and then must demonstrate in a convincing and replicable way whether or not it actually exists at all... And they must do this all before they can reasonably be asked to provide evidence that it is somehow different from a body, brain, heart, or otherwise.

 

Until all of that happens, you may as we'll be asking what color dragon urine fairies use to make pixie dust or whether or not the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.

Edited May 21, 2014 by iNow

[tar]

iNow,

 

But the question is what happens to you when you die.

 

It is not a clear, understandable thing, where we have reporters telling us, exactly what it is like.

 

Had a turtle when I was young. Y.A.Turtle. (after a NY Giant QB). It died. I didn't understand how it could be my friend, moving around, eating food and such, and then just be still and "dead". Where did the life go? What was it, that was in the turtle the day before, that was no longer in it. It looked pretty much exactly the same, except...it was dead. It was not Y.A.Turtle any more.

 

I have seen a few relatives and friends lying motionless at a viewing. Like they were sleeping. But were not going to ever wake again.

 

The OP suggests that religion proposes some sort of wrong answer to what happened to the life, that was once very much in that body/brain/heart group.

 

What is the "right" answer?

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

What does any of that have to do with my feedback that one must first agree to the definition of a soul and demonstrate the existence of a soul prior to comparing the concept of a soul to demonstrably existing things like bodies, brains, or hearts?

 

It is as if I asked you what day it is and you replied crayon.

The OP suggests that religion proposes some sort of wrong answer to what happened to the life, that was once very much in that body/brain/heart group.

 

What is the "right" answer?

We continue existing in the minds of those who survive us just as we did while we were still alive beside them, we just no longer get to supplement those older memories and neural representations with new ones in those minds. We are simply no longer active participants in the realm of human existence and our components breakdown and transfer into other things... Metabolism within us crawls to a stop at the same time we are becoming the food source driving metabolism in other creatures like bugs and beetles. In the end though we all basically just transform into the radiative pressure we call heat.

 

I think that's mostly right. Not 100%, but close enough... And all without the need for woo and gibberish and nonsensical ill-defined ambiguous terms like soul or heaven.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Well, that is certainly what appears like what the situation is, but it is that realm of human existence, which is the area or realm in which one "exists", with or without their particular body/brain/heart group.

 

No woo required to be alive, and consider yourself part of life on Earth, and responsible for its maintenance. Even before and after your own life. That is why we by life insurance for the benefit our loved ones, and endeavor to add something to humanity.

 

I did answer crayon, but ill defined gibberish is an area into where one MUST, to some degree wade, when discussing "what it will be like" to be dead.

 

I appreciate your take, and it is very similar to mine, except it MATTERS that life will continue after I die. I am somehow invested in the enterprise, and do not consider that my ownership interest is cancelled or negated when I die.

 

The OP seemed to be suggesting that religion was a false understanding of this ownership interest.

 

By speaking of crayons, I am suggesting that belief in this ownership interest is something we can have, with or without woo. And in either case, ones woo is another's understanding of reality.

 

And in either case, with or without dehydrated dragon pee pee sprinkled on it, death is a tough nut to crack, and worthy of some trepidation. Nobody should really be "looking forward" to being dead. Thing is, that death is the only certain thing (other than taxes) we have to look forward to.

 

So religion for fear is not so plain and simple as considering a reward or punishment being meated out by a anthropomorphic god, as it is a consideration of what your life means to the rest of reality. In retrospect, or circumspect, were/are you good or bad. Your "spirit" or essence, so to speak, is the crayon I am talking about, when I speak of soul. How the world will remember you. BECAUSE you are more than the dust and heat that will be left of you, after your death.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

There was an interesting episode this week the TED Radio Hour about fear, what we fear, the different types of fear and how to deal with it.

 

Have a listen at the following link if you're so inclined:

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/24/315445191/ted-radio-hour-what-we-fear

Human beings have a fine-tuned sense of fear. But how do we distinguish between fear and danger? How do we decide which fears are rational and irrational? In this hour, TED speakers explore what it means to be afraid, and how we calm ourselves down or dont when were terrified. Astronaut and retired colonel Chris Hadfield discusses how to prepare your mind for the unexpected, and the worst. Through the story of the whaleship Essex, novelist Karen Thompson Walker describes how our most vivid fears are often not the most realistic. Folk singer Joe Kowan talks about the visceral, body-hijacking experience he feels when hes performing in front of an audience, and how a song helped him cope with stage fright. Illusionist and endurance artist David Blaine reveals how he has made a career out of fearlessly performing death-defying feats. Philosopher Stephen Cave delves into the simple question: Why are human beings afraid to die?

[tar]

iNow,

 

Listened to the Stephan Cave thing.

 

Suggested that the four irrational, biased ideas we have, the four stories we tell ourselves when reminded of the fact that we are going to die, are the elixir, the resurrection, the soul and the legacy. Then philosophically suggests that we never experience death, and should not "fear" the void, as that we will not be alive to notice it. Then suggests that ones life is like a book or a story, with a beginning and an end and the thing is, to have a "good story" inbetween.

 

My personal philosophy is similar, as I have mentioned that I figure death will be, for me, much as what it was like, before I was born. And I figure that the goal of life is to live and experience the world and make it possible for others to do the same.

 

But I am not so sure of what the benefit of thinking of these four stories as bias, is. That is, if these four stories are "incorrect", then what would a "good story" be, and who would read it, and who would be the judge?

 

An addendum to my philosphy is that one is remembered, and leaves their "works" in reality.

This is the "legacy" story, that Stephan Cave considers a bias. It is not irrational and it is not false, it is actual. We all benefit from the works of dead people, as others that will live in the future will benefit from any good work of ours. We really do achieve something when we die for our country...yet Cave believes that Nationalism is a biased story. I am not quite jiving this understanding of his, with reality.

 

That we would want to be immortal in one way or another, he figures is natural but not rational.

What of the ways in which one actually effects life or the world in ways that are not immediately forgotten? Are these not real, and therefore not irrational ways of achieving immortality?

 

A similar argument, toward being "real" can be made for one's genes. That a little piece of Lucy exists in each of us, makes her thusly immortal, and gives rationality and realism to the worship of ones ancestors, and not falseness to the belief that your own "essence" will be felt in the world, even after your death.

 

Plus, you know as well as I do, that many scientists "look" for ways to extend life, and consider what it would take to keep the brain going indefinitely, and the fact that the species has figured a way to get that job done, through language and schools and stories, that give the thoughts of the parents to the children has actually given us a way to carry our spirit, or soul forward.

 

Last week, my wife's cousin's daughter had a baby daughter. Last week my sister's husband's brother died.

 

What lessons and love the world has gained from the life of the one will be gifted to the other. A death and a birth, not completely separate from each other. Something like an actual resurrection.

 

So, I don't think the four stories are only bias and falseness. I think they all have some validity, in metaphorical ways, that mirror actual ways that things happen.

 

Which makes them all four, "good" stories.

 

Regards, TAR