Morality and Subjectivity

The 'I' (Ramana speaks of it as the 'I-I' to distinguish it from the 'I' identified as I am ...) always IS (remains) as it is intended to be, that is in speaking of God 'intention' and 'being' are words for the same thing.I would say that "I" experienced as enslaved by ego appears different from the I that IS. The ego illusion remains to some extent as long as God is experienced as an object of the self. This is not a criticism just a noting of a passage in a process.lfen

I'm off Lfen but will get back to this laterCiao

But of course a Christian must object that this is no illusion, that God IS an object of the self, separate from the self, truly our Creator and our Judge, as well as Lover and Friend to those who are His. One loves or is friend to another, not the self. One is judged by another, taught by another, not the self. This merging stuff that so much Eastern religion comes up with, the identity of self with Self or the dissolution of the self in the All, or however that is to be understood, eliminates the I and Thou of relationship, mutual love, all that good stuff, that is the core of Christianity. From this point of view the Eastern formulations seem sterile and lonely and boring.Edited by Faith, : added "this is no illusion"

Yes that is quite understandable. It can't be forced. It happens when the time is ripe. I'm not trying to force this on anyone. What I seek to do is present the possibility as something to note as a possibility that may occur. It's a teaching that some may find useful.When it happened to Franklin Merrell-Wolff he said that the earth and all it's pleasures became meaningless to him compared to the depths of Nirvana. He felt a keen desire to just release from the body and merge and in surveying the world could find no reason to be here except for one and that was to relieve the suffering he saw and share what he had found. I can't locate my copy of Pathways Through to Space which tells of his experience but that is a fairly accurate paraphrase.lfen

No one has to my recall ever commented on my avatar. I chose it with a purpose. It's a significant metaphor to me, a moebius strip.Pick a point on the strip. That point is on one side of the strip. Let's call that point "myself". There is a point on the other side of the strip we could relate that point to and call that point "God". It would appear that we are here on this side and God on that side, but following the strip around it turns out there are not two sides to it. It has only one side. Two sideness is a local illusion.Now a moebius strip is only an imperfect model but it has an elegance that pleases me as a demonstration. To extend the metaphor a bit I would say that using points called "myself", "you", "God" etc. is a model of language, a way of referrence and direction. The strip itself is not a point on the strip but the entire strip. It appears to have two sides but that appearance is a function of using language to refering to small locations. Taken as a whole the strip has only one side.lfen

What if natural language is in fact a pretty accurate reflection of actual reality and your attempt to escape it is the illusion? What if the experience of Nirvana or no-Self is the illusory experience? Is that a possibility? What if the reality is the I and Thou of God as Creator of man in His own image? What if the love that passes between the I and the Thou, as distinctly different objects -- or subjects -- contemplating one another, is the release from suffering?Yes I understand the moebius strip model. It appears sterile and lonely and boring too. I like the I and Thou model.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I knew that and it's fine. I'm testing the possibility of tolerance for those who like Ramana, Bernadetta Roberts, Buddha, Merrell-Wolfe, and etc. who have left the dual model and also illustrating that there are other ways of concieving of the source other than that presented by fundamentalist literal sects for those who find aspects of the dogma of those sects unacceptable.To get a little perspective on sectarianism I subscribe to an international list devoted to Argentine Tango and the arguments between adherents to different approaches to the dance and on issues such as should women lead or men follow or people of the same sex dance together are if anything more fervent than the discussions here.So sectarianism is a broad feature of human society.lfen

My reading of Bernadette Roberts was that she was never saved, never understood the teachings of Christ and therefore was never truly a Christian dualist. She had this out-of-the-blue experience of what she called "No-self" and became an active syncretist. I'm curious about this Merrell-Wolfe though.And again, what if YOU are wrong, and all these people wrong, and dualism IS the reality and the no-self experiences the illusion?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. There are more possibilities than I know of course. I don't know the future.Another way to approach this is to begin by recognizing that I am wrong.
I prefer the Tao te Ching's approach which is to say that the Path that can be named is not the real Path, we call it the Path because we are talking about it and need a word of reference [my rough paraphrase].So being wrong doesn't distress my over much. Oddly enough I think I have more faith than you. I have a trust of existence, of what Is that I rely on without a formulation. Didn't Jesus say something about the lily's of the field, and there is the Zen saying "sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes and the grass grows." It all is and it works. What I think about it is probably wrong in a thousand ways, but I don't need to be right. Though I do enjoy that feeling of "being right", I recognize that it's an emotional indulgence on my part and immature.lfen

I can't believe that its been only slightly more than a day given so many new posts, but I'd still like to respond because after careful consideration, I’ve finally gained a clear understanding of my position. It should be much more clear what I've been trying to argue by understanding my new approach, then how it applies to previous attacks or questions:The approach
My approach previously was to explain the difference between subjective and objective thought. However, certain trivialities in meaning made it so that these approaches were less independent than I had previously realized, so I’d like to break thought up into two completely independent groups: assumed and absolute reasoning.Assumed reasoning would be the base of all thought; the assumptions that I am referring to are irreducible, and therefore can’t be proved or disproved. For example, if someone stated that all apples are red, we can’t prove this to be false. We could show him a green apple, but he’d have to accept our definition of green as well as the axioms of logic to be inconsistent. It follows, then, that although it isn’t possible to prove or disprove any single assumption, it is possible to show a set of more than one assumption can be inconsistent. These assumptions are made, of course, for the sake of the potential for methodology or complex thought. Axioms, truisms, and some proverbs are subsets of assumed reasoning.Absolute reasoning is the type of reasoning that builds off of assumed reasoning. No amount of absolute reasoning can be disproved because the fault can only lie with the assumptions. Mathematics and logic might seem like examples of absolute reasoning; however, it can all be traced back to its axiomatic backbone. Because of my definition, there is actually no tangible subset to absolute reasoning; there can be only supersets.Attacks and questions
I found this to be the most aesthetic and basic intuitive notion about the way we think. Given this theory, I’d like to address three points that I failed to explain earlier: These can both be explained with the same argument:
The problem with the word “objective” is that as it is defined, nothing is completely objective. Nothing can be completely factual - math and logic are traced back to axioms, and even science acknowledges that it can produce only theories. Moral systems are no exception, and differ by the number and type of assumptions. As a base, moral systems will have what I’ve been referring to as axioms, or self-evident truths. The reason that these are accepted as “truths” isn’t because they can be proven, but because they are unanimously accepted by the world (possibly with the exception of the delusional or mentally sick) as true. On top of this base, we have less widely accepted beliefs such as the after-life and sanctity of life, which stem off to create limitless moral systems. Even if we were to accept the base of moral systems as being objective, it can’t all be objective or else cultural relativism wouldn’t exist. If they were indeed absolutely objective, we would all have the same moral system.As far as applying the term “especially” for the certainty of the existence of God, I am referring to the notion that there are no axioms for religion. There is nothing universally accepted for the presence, definition, or consequences for assuming the existence of God. Furthermore, the number of assumptions is much greater for any religion than the assumptions needed for concepts such as probability and logic (both of which can be traced back to less than 10 axioms). Therefore, the reason I used the word “especially” is that the number and contestability of your assumptions is much higher. Remember that I admitted that a person can be certain, but that it simply wouldn’t be rational. However, I now realize that this isn’t even the case; you would merely need to make another assumption. Allow me to explain:
Rational thought is what I referred to previously as absolute reasoning. To be rationally certain of the belief in God while including the axioms of logic, you need only to make these assumptions:(1) You can be certain of axioms. This may be because they are derived from the laws of the Universe, and in principle it’s bounded by logic which inevitably leads to these absolute and self-evident truths.
(2) The existence of God is self-evident.
(3) Though not everyone accepts the existence of God as being self-evident, your ability to reason is better than theirs. Note: Before you get too excited, this claim is common to people who believe that they’ve been “enlightened” by the teachings or intervention of a logically superior entity.If these are indeed your beliefs, I can’t argue against them because they are irreducible and consistent. Obviously you wouldn’t call these assumptions, but I’d like to note that I disagree with all three of these. On the other hand, if you don’t believe these, I’m curious to see you explain how you can rationally be certain of the existence of God, unless of course you admit to not being rational.Edited by jmrozi1, : identified wrong person for quotes

But wouldnt you say (from whichever point of veiw religious or otherwise) profit is immoral because for one to profit they must generally exploit others?
Even in the most mild form for example the medical drug industry; these people while helping others are still gaining on the misfortune of those who are sick.

Sorry didnt expect this post to end up quite here. It was a reply to the firts few posts. Specifically;Quote:If you allow killing for profit, everyone becomes a threat. You end up having to spend considerable resources on defense. As you can't trust anyone not to stab you in the back (literally), there's no cooperation, so you lose the efficiency of the division of labor.

​

Killing for profit simply isn't profitable.Posted by DominionSeraph

Im closing this out of respect for Robin. Looking over his many topics that he started, I see how dynamic of a thinker and how involved he was in them.It is only right to close them since he no longer can contribute.I believe he found his answers, though!