Re: Attributive Monism (ritual, beliefs, spiritual, worship, God)

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Hence, the redundancy.

Not redundant, just fruitless.

Perhaps Monism is not appropriate to describe my beliefs, then, as the concept of "one encapsulating nothing" makes no sense. To me, it must be "one encapsulating something" or nothing.

In a total field, something may be inappropriate; isolating or acknowledging something to the exception of everything may be entirely meaningless so far as a boggling universal scale is concerned. The best we could hope for is a soupish consistency.

It may be illusionary, but it exists, and as such should not be ignored as part of a philosophy or description of reality.

It's not ignored, but it's just a split hair where no division is real. Any arbitrary ascription made is done to the complete unconscious, or inevitable crunch, which is to say, of no real distinction in the grand scheme of things.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Not redundant, just fruitless.

In a total field, something may be inappropriate; isolating or acknowledging something to the exception of everything may be entirely meaningless so far as a boggling universal scale is concerned. The best we could hope for is a soupish consistency.

"Fruitless" implies it is not worth the bother, which still acknowledges that the zero, the thing, exists. Which means it is "divvied". This is making less sense.

Meaningless to whom? The individual?

The very means we assign meaning is by identifying unique things and their relationship to each other and to ourselves. (In Hebrew mythology, that was the first task that God assigned to Adam.) Meaning is for our benefit. There is nothing that *exists* that can't be meaningful, even something mind-boggling.

Originally Posted by mr.guy

It's not ignored, but it's just a split hair where no division is real. Any arbitrary ascription made is done to the complete unconscious, or inevitable crunch, which is to say, of no real distinction in the grand scheme of things.

Again, a "split hair" implies that it is something not significant enough to be bothered with. If we then choose not to bother with it, that's ignoring. Do you see my problem, here?

The "arbitrary ascription" is made by us, and to dismiss it as unreal is not sufficient to describe reality as a whole.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Willamena

"Fruitless" implies it is not worth the bother, which still acknowledges that the zero, the thing, exists. Which means it is "divvied". This is making less sense.

What exists is not at odds here; the excercise of adding the representative zero to another is nonsensical within a monist framework; if everything is within this zero, where'd you get another one?

Meaningless to whom? The individual?

Beats me.

The very means we assign meaning is by identifying unique things and their relationship to each other and to ourselves.

Uniqueness is a perceptual faculty, not inherent, nor essential.

Meaning is for our benefit. There is nothing that *exists* that can't be meaningful, even something mind-boggling.

Benefit is irrelevant. However, i take no exception to how, why and where meaning is ascribed; just that it in no way properly addresses reality.

Again, a "split hair" implies that it is something not significant enough to be bothered with. If we then choose not to bother with it, that's ignoring. Do you see my problem, here?

Significance is difficult to recognize; what distinguishes itself in an undistinguishable universe is beyond me.

The "arbitrary ascription" is made by us, and to dismiss it as unreal is not sufficient to describe reality as a whole.

I've not said precepts are unreal, i've said they may not be able to describe real differences.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Just so, from what I've seen. I don't think I've ever 'worshipped' god, per se, so much as I have acknowledged it, felt something of it, and been grateful for it.


It's the "merger" part I don't understand --how can one merge with something one is already a part of?

My choice of words was confusing. Sorry.
It is the consciousness of unity that one strives for. The idea is that we are, in a way, asleep, and dreaming this world and our individuality. Buddhists and Hindus seek to wake up to an undifferentiated, Universal Consciousness.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

What exists is not at odds here; the excercise of adding the representative zero to another is nonsensical within a monist framework; if everything is within this zero, where'd you get another one?

Uniqueness is a perceptual faculty, not inherent, nor essential.

And this "perceptual faculty" is to be ignored? What I'm hearing is that something that exists as a part of reality but is deemed nonessential is, in fact, to be dimissed as not worth the bother.

I certainly hope this doesn't actually describe Monism.

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Benefit is irrelevant. However, i take no exception to how, why and where meaning is ascribed; just that it in no way properly addresses reality.

Significance is difficult to recognize; what distinguishes itself in an undistinguishable universe is beyond me.

I've not said precepts are unreal, i've said they may not be able to describe real differences.

Nothing distinguishes itself in the universe you describe. Nothing can exist, and nothing can distinguish itself. That is blatently contrary to the reality that we live in.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

My choice of words was confusing. Sorry.
It is the consciousness of unity that one strives for. The idea is that we are, in a way, asleep, and dreaming this world and our individuality. Buddhists and Hindus seek to wake up to an undifferentiated, Universal Consciousness.

Interesting. Then they would no longer be of body; so is the hope for this unity that it happen after death?

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Interesting. Then they would no longer be of body; so is the hope for this unity that it happen after death?

No. Enlightenment may occurr at any time, though the individual consciousness may have to cycle through multiple lives before waking to a Cosmic Consciousness.

[Comet]

[quote=Willamena]

Okay; perhaps I still don't get it, but what I'm hearing is that it's not so much a loss of the identity of the individual, per se, as it is a philosophy that embraces wholeness and identifying with the larger entity. For instance, if any of those organs in the body could think independently, they would identify with the whole, me; my identifying with any of them is irrelevant, but I have larger things that I identify with --the family, the culture, the country, the world, the physical universe, etc. And the individual spirit identifies itself with god, the whole of spirit.

Yes and no. It depends on the context to which one takes Monism. For example, seyorni and I view it a bit differently. I don't quite fall into line with Hinuism or Buddhism. To me speaking of "entity" without "non-entity" is meaningless. I don't per se believe in God in the sence that you seem to. To me an entity God falls into line with the same concept as humans, etc....

I'm not puzzled about the validity of worship, so much as what is worshipped. So... is god the zero, or us? You talk about us merging into the larger being, the whole, and yet make as example adding zero into something.

It depends on the Monist. Hindus worship Gods and Buddhists do not per se. Then again, I can't speak for them as I am not one.

The concept of zero I brought up is just an abstract way of thought to help view things. I believe it was mr. guy who said something like: all is within the zero. Nothing exists outside of ITSELF.

Is all this talk of nothingness related to solipsism?

Not in many sences. Many things exist in nonexistence and many things don't exist in existence.

Bear with me, please, as I try to puzzle this out. It sounds like with "non-being/nothing that is actually something" you are addressing the immaterial spirit (though I would hestiate to call it non-being, as it is the essence of being)... and the spirit as part of the greater whole of spirit is zero added to zero, or infinity added to infinity: a redundancy (which to me equates to 'the obvious').

You miss the point of my beliefs then. Do you understand Dualism? If so, or not:

Good and evil. Two forces in opposition to each other. (Could you have one without the other is really an irrelavent question) I view both as the same.... they came from the same place. They are only different by the splitting of the allness/oneness/nothingness.

You merely take it from the "spirit". As for the joining of a universal conciousness, that is not exactly what I believe. Thus I differ from the Hindu and Buddhist a bit in the end of all things.

The way I see it, it is illogical to worship non-being or nothingness, because there is nothing there to worship. The spirit is necessarily something or it does not exist. It is the essence of being. I'm not familiar with Hinduism, sorry.

It is no more strange than a theist worshiping a deity by the eyes of an atheist, I would suppose.

If spirit is the essence of being, what is the essence of non-being?

This says nothing about the physical being, though, and that is where the individual is consciously 'constructed' as part of our self identity. The individuality, then, is not "lost" by the spirit identifying with the greater whole, any more than it is lost by identifying with the family, the culture, the country, the world, or the physical universe.

Does any of this agree with what you said?

If there is nothing or only one, how is there any individual? Nothing would be distinguished from anything else..... it is all, one, and nothing.

I'm sure I've just confused you more.

The Big Bang example just went over my head, sorry.

How did the universe get here? (I'll try to explain in terms and ways that make sence to you)