Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It lacks substance.
Yeah, pretty much. Pantheism essentially amounts to "all is sacred." Or "all is God/holy/happiness/nirvana/etc." But if everything is, nothing is. It becomes so vague and diluted that it loses meaningful purpose. I have no problem admitting that subjective interpretation of existence means that we can find meaning, purpose, happiness, etc. in any aspect of existence. But that's a rational analysis of the state of our consciousness. To grant it a mystical import beyond that is needless.
Now, shakya's comment that the universe is a living, sentient entity is a bit different, but would need some sort of evidence to support it. There is none. That's decidedly different than traditional pantheism, though no less outlandish. The only way we could support such a claim would be to define "life" in such a way that it is equivalent to "energy" or "matter." It loses meaning, and again just becomes a needless spiritualizing of empirical facts. Unified consciousness fields abound in mystical thought, and are appropriately poetic and comforting to many, though they all lack a credible basis of evidence to build off of.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, pretty much. Pantheism essentially amounts to "all is sacred." Or "all is God/holy/happiness/nirvana/etc." But if everything is, nothing is. It becomes so vague and diluted that it loses meaningful purpose. I have no problem admitting that subjective interpretation of existence means that we can find meaning, purpose, happiness, etc. in any aspect of existence. But that's a rational analysis of the state of our consciousness. To grant it a mystical import beyond that is needless.Now, shakya's comment that the universe is a living, sentient entity is a bit different, but would need some sort of evidence to support it. There is none. That's decidedly different than traditional pantheism, though no less outlandish. The only way we could support such a claim would be to define "life" in such a way that it is equivalent to "energy" or "matter." It loses meaning, and again just becomes a needless spiritualizing of empirical facts. Unified consciousness fields abound in mystical thought, and are appropriately poetic and comforting to many, though they all lack a credible basis of evidence to build off of.
However, I don't go that far. I realize that beyond our understanding is a true reality. I simply choose to believe that all things are alive, because the alternative is there is no such thing as life. However I think that reality is somewhat different then those two choices, but it is beyond me to ever understand. So, to see all things as life is more beneficial. It is a leap of faith, but it is not blind faith.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I don't go that far. I realize that beyond our understanding is a true reality.
Speculation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I simply choose to believe that all things are alive, because the alternative is there is no such thing as life.
You're setting it up as a zero-sum game, or more colloquially as a duality. Either everything is alive or nothing is? That's a bit absurd to me. Let's say we use "sentience" as a stand-in for life. I don't think anyone would argue that each cell, or any particle of matter, has life or sentience, but organisms certainly do. A larger body, for example a community, similarly doesn't have a collective consciousness. It's individual ones interacting to produce various results.
But you're trying to use a reductionist formula, at which point, if we go to maybe the atomic level, nothing is "alive." That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist. It's kind of like Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics. People who use quantum mechanics to try to push their own agendas often try to discredit Einsteinian models, saying it's not compatable with QM. It isn't. But the reverse is true too. Quantum mechanics become meaningless once you reach anything larger than the atomic level. Both are incomplete but true. But looking at life as either all or nothing is similar incomplete. Viewing it as different organisms and clusters is equally valid, and much more practical when defining life.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However I think that reality is somewhat different then those two choices, but it is beyond me to ever understand. So, to see all things as life is more beneficial. It is a leap of faith, but it is not blind faith.
I don't see how it isn't blind. You're admitting you can't understand it, then arbitrarily making a decision based off of which one "seems" more right, or which is more beneficial to your worldview. It's every bit as blind as any other belief. Which isn't to say it's certainly false, but that nothing exists to support the theory as of right now. It's also not harmful in any way, so it's more bening than some beliefs, but that doesn't make it any more suspect....and still lends credence to the idea of faith itself, which I think is a poison in many situations.
NOT SURE. yet I have a belief system that incommpases others...we sorta overlap others...and, I know what I certainly know..I don't have a name for it yet except deb..ism....sorry for that, but it is one for being true to ones own self and also treating others as you would like to be treated....seems there isn't a religion for that..it was supposed to be called christian but found it was not true..
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Speculation.
As if there was anything else other then speculation when it comes to the topic of what is life. After all, the idea of life is something we made up to describe something we observe in nature. We do not understand what is really going on.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're setting it up as a zero-sum game, or more colloquially as a duality. Either everything is alive or nothing is? That's a bit absurd to me. Let's say we use "sentience" as a stand-in for life. I don't think anyone would argue that each cell, or any particle of matter, has life or sentience, but organisms certainly do. A larger body, for example a community, similarly doesn't have a collective consciousness. It's individual ones interacting to produce various results.
I did say that I believe that the true nature of reality is different then this duality. However, after spending a lot of time going through this line of thought, I have come to the opinion that we really don’t know. Now, Buddhism takes it one step further with the idea of the Mystic Law. In the 3rd chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the multitude of followers ask Buddha to reveal the true nature of reality. Reluctantly, Buddha starts to tell the people, but then the next line is the crowd praising Buddha for his great wisdom. It’s like a part of the story is missing, but it’s not. The truth is that no one can understand the true nature of reality, therefore, no one can write it down, not even Buddha.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But you're trying to use a reductionist formula, at which point, if we go to maybe the atomic level, nothing is "alive." That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist. It's kind of like Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics. People who use quantum mechanics to try to push their own agendas often try to discredit Einsteinian models, saying it's not compatable with QM. It isn't. But the reverse is true too. Quantum mechanics become meaningless once you reach anything larger than the atomic level. Both are incomplete but true. But looking at life as either all or nothing is similar incomplete. Viewing it as different organisms and clusters is equally valid, and much more practical when defining life.
I agree, and all this tells us is that Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian Physics are both wrong, at some point. The idea of life is also, wrong at some level. Now does this mean that the idea of life is wrong all together? No. But if you are going to talk about something as far out there as God, then you have to remind yourself that we made it all up.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't see how it isn't blind. You're admitting you can't understand it, then arbitrarily making a decision based off of which one "seems" more right, or which is more beneficial to your worldview. Its every bit as blind as any other belief. Which isn't to say it's certainly false, but that nothing exists to support the theory as of right now.
This could be a point of definition. I feel that a person with bland faith will not listen to other views because they refuse to see anything else but their own beliefs. A choice to believe something does not qualify as bland faith as long as the person is able to see other points of view.