Nothingness that results from complete denial of self is only a relative nothingness and not to be feared

Se intelege ca de aceea scrii tu mult; ca sa fie minciunile cat mai explicite.
Repet, eroarea este destul de evidenta(chiar daca nu am vazut-o de la inceput, in fond nici nu sunt de meserie pentru a avea cineva pretentii) incat nici nu se merita sa te mai intreb care este "sursa" informatiei tale. Dar daca te crezi asa corect, ca un ateu care se respecta, asa ca abis, amenhotep etc., si ca sa luminezi toti prostii, baga si tu link-uri, poze,... dovezi concrete. Ca degeaba depui efortul si explici in mai mult de doua randuri..., majoritatea ateilor a inteles acest lucru, numai tu (inca) nu.



Auzi, cum poti sa spui asa ceva cand eu aduceam argumente in plus la cele ce spuneai? Cred ca nu ai citit cu atentie...




La modul serios acum. Ce argumente ai impotriva existentei acelor lucruri inafara ca tu te afli oarecum inafara sferei lor?

abis:
sigur că nu numai mirarea... era doar un exemplu.

mothman:
nu, nu la ele mă refeream, dar în caz că ar exista, taman acolo s-ar încadra. Aşa că până la a dovedi că nu există, când ai tu însuţi o experienţă de genul ăsta e foarte posibil ca mintea să facă conexiunile necesare, în lipsa dovezilor. Nu te crede nimeni, nu poţi dovedi nimic.

Dacă emisfera stângă n-ar mai lăsa-o din când în când pe cea dreaptă să îşi spună părerea crezi că s-ar mai fi născut vreun mit? Vreo operă de artă? O poveste măcar? Sinergia celor două emisfere, cu toate funcţiile şi sarcinile creierului ne defineşte ca oameni, nu numai raţiunea.

Mintea sa faca conexiunile cu ce? Mintea functioneaza independent de minte?
Eu zic asa, cand "cand ai tu insuti o experienta de genul asta, e foarte posibil ca mintea" sa faca urmatoarea conexiune: "amice, iar te-ai imbatat, du-te si te culca" sau "prietene, ai o halucinatie, daca se repeta consulta un medic".
Ca sa nu apara discutii, cam astfel de conexiuni face mintea mea cand ma confrunt cu situatii inexplicabile.
Banuiesc ca tu Erwin sustii ca mintea face "conexiunile" cu mituri sau alte lucruri de genul asta. In final, indrazbesc eu sa afirm ca de fapt mintea face acele conexiuni pe care e "programata" sa le faca, prin backgroundul de cunostinte si patternuri pe care il are. De aceea miturile, viziunile, experientele mistice sunt atat de variate.
Parerea mea este ca daca ar exista un zeu unic, s-ar revela in cel mult cateva moduri diferite. Nu vad de ce ar alege in mod deliberat milioane de forme de revelare, de cele mai multe ori antagonice, in conditiile in care se presupune ca e omnibenevolent si vrea ca toata lumea sa creada in el si sa ajunga in rai...

Idealism / Realism:
Nothing is more false that the conventional opposition between “idealism” and “realism”, which insinuates in general that the “ideal” is not “real”, and inversely; as if an ideal situated outside reality had the smallest value, and as if reality were always situated on a lower level than what may be called an “ideal”. Anyone who holds this view is thinking in a quantitative and not in a qualitative mode. The current meaning of the terms is here in view, and not their specifically philosophical signification.

Proof:
All proof is relative by definition, since an absolute proof would be identical with the thing to be proved; a proof is always more or less separated from its object. There is something of its object, however, in the proof, and this something compels faith; in every manifestation of liberating truth there is an evidence to which we may or may not be sensitive, but which we grasp to the extent that our spirit recognizes in it some latent content of its own substance. The proof of the truth of the Invisible is the recollection which the expression of that truth actualizes in spirits that have remained true to their original vocation; the illuminative function devolves upon metaphysical argument, and also on symbols and miracles if account be taken of all the modes and imponderable factors of the intelligence or of the soul. To communicate Intellection to the receptive spirit is to remind it of what it is and at the same time of that Being through which it exists.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 19 Jul 2009, 09:44 PM

Absolute:
“In the Absolute, I am not, and you are not, and God (in His personal determination) is not, because He (the Absolute) is beyond the reach of all word and all thought.” {Sri Ramakrishna} The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as It transcends them. If we were to be asked what the Absolute is, we would reply first of all that it is necessary and not merely possible Reality; absolute Reality, hence infinite and perfect, precisely; and we would add – in conformity with the level of the question asked – that the Absolute is that which, in the world, is reflected as the existence of things. Without the Absolute, there is no existence; the aspect of absoluteness of a thing is what distinguishes it from inexistence, if one may so put it. Compared to empty space, each grain of sand is a miracle.
The Absolute, or the Essence, intrinsically comprises Infinitude; it is as the Infinite that it radiates. Divine Radiation projects the Essence into the “void,” but without there being any “going out” whatsoever, for the Principle is immutable and indivisible, nothing can be taken away from it; by this projection on the surface of a nothingness that in itself is inexistent, the Essence is reflected in the mode of “forms” or “accidents.” But the “life” of the Infinite is not only centrifugal, it is also centripetal; it is alternately or simultaneously – depending on the relationships envisaged – Radiation and Reintegration; the latter is the apocatastatic “return” of forms and accidents into the Essence, without nevertheless there being anything added to the latter, for it is absolute Plenitude. Moreover, and even above all, Infinitude – like Perfection – is an intrinsic characteristic of the Absolute: it is as it were its inward life, or its love which by overflowing, so to speak prolongs itself and creates the world.
Only the definition of the Absolute as such is absolute, and every explanatory description belongs to relativity precisely on account of the differentiated nature of its content, which is not for that reason incorrect, to be sure, but rather, is limited and therefore replaceable; so that if one wishes to give an absolute definition of the Absolute, one has to say that God is One. “The testimony of Unity is one” (At-Tawhidu wahid), say the Sufis, and by this they mean that an expression, within the limits of its possibility, must be one with its content and its cause.

Absolute / Infinite:
In metaphysics, it is necessary to start from the idea that the Supreme Reality is absolute, and that being absolute it is infinite. That is absolute which allows of no augmentation or diminution, or of no repetition or division; it is therefore that which is at once solely itself and totally itself. And that is infinite which is not determined by any limiting factor and therefore does not end at any boundary; it is in the first place Potentiality or Possibility as such, and ipso facto the Possibility of things,
hence Virtuality. Without All-Possibility, there would be neither Creator nor creation, neither Maya nor Samsara. The Infinite is so to speak the intrinsic dimension of plenitude proper to the Absolute; to say Absolute is to say Infinite, the one being inconceivable without the other. We can symbolize the relation between these two aspects of Supreme Reality by the following images: in space, the absolute is the point, and the infinite is extension; in time, the absolute is the moment, and the infinite is duration. On the plane of matter, the absolute is the ether – the underlying and omnipresent primordial substance – whereas the infinite is the indefinite series of substances; on the plane of form, the absolute is the sphere – the simple, perfect and primordial form – and the infinite is the indefinite series of more or less complex forms; finally, on the plane of number, the absolute will be unity or unicity, and the infinite will be the unlimited series of numbers or possible quantities, or totality.
The distinction between the Absolute and the Infinite expresses the two fundamental aspects of the Real, that of essentiality and that of potentiality; this is the highest principial prefiguration of the masculine and feminine poles. Universal Radiation, thus Maya both divine and cosmic, springs from the second aspect, the Infinite, which coincides with All-Possibility.

Absolute / Infinite / Perfection:
The Absolute, imperceptible as such, makes itself visible through the existence of things; in an analogous manner, the Infinite reveals itself through their inexhaustible diversity; and similarly, Perfection manifests itself through the qualities of things, and in so doing, it communicates both the rigor of the Absolute and the radiance of the Infinite, for things have their musicality as well as their geometry.

Absolutely Relative:
The notion ‘relatively absolute’ could not imply that there is an ‘absolutely relative’, for this expression – aside from its intrinsic absurdity – is practically synonymous with ‘nothingness’.

Relatively Absolute:
We have alluded more than once to the seemingly contradictory, but metaphysically useful and even indispensable, idea of the “relatively absolute,” which is absolute in relation to what it rules, while pertaining to relativity in relation to the “Pure Absolute.” There could never be any symmetry between the relative and the Absolute; as a result, if there is clearly no such thing as the absolutely relative, there is nonetheless a “relatively absolute”, and this is Being as creator, revealer, and savior, who is absolute for the world, but not for the Essence: “Beyond-Being” or “Non-Being”. If God were the Absolute in every respect and without any hypostatic restriction, there could be no contact between Him and the world, and the world would not even exist; for in order to be able to create, speak, and act, it is necessary that God Himself make Himself “world” in some fashion, and He does so through the ontological self-limitation that gives rise to the “personal God”, the world itself being the most extreme and hence the most relative of self-limitations.
. . . in the sense – paradoxical but real – of the ‘relatively absolute’; hypostases are relative in respect of the Essence, but they are principial – hence in practice absolute – in respect of cosmic Manifestation. The Vedanta distinguishes between the ‘non-supreme’ Principle (Apara-Brahma) and the ‘supreme’ Principle (Para-Brahma); the first is not, as is the second, the Absolute in itself, but it is ‘practically’ the Absolute in relation to the world; it is thus ‘relatively absolute’. The personal God is ‘absolute’ without being intrinsically ‘the Absolute’.


Relativity:
Relativity has essentially two dimensions: distance and difference. It is by virtue of the “vertical” dimension of distance that in divinis Being becomes crystallized, so to speak, on this side of Beyond-Being and that, in consequence of this hypostatic
polarization, the world becomes separated from God; and it is again by virtue of this dimension that the intellective Substance engenders the animic Substance, which in turn engenders the material Substance. It is by virtue of the “horizontal” dimension of difference that the All-Powerfulness is distinguished from the All-Goodness, or that on earth a rose is distinguished from a water lily. The whole Universe is a tissue of these two dimensions: all phenomena can be explained by their infinitely varied combinations; what unites them is Existence and, in the last analysis, a Reality at once absolute and infinite, the only Reality there is.

Relativism:
Relativism sets out to reduce every element of absoluteness to a relativity, while making a quite illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. In effect, relativism consists in declaring it to be true that there is no such thing as truth, or in declaring it to be absolutely true that nothing but the relatively true exists; one might just as well say that language does not exist, or write that there is no such thing as writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion nullifies itself if it is true, and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared alone to be possible. Relativism, even when it makes a show of admitting the interventions of an absolute in the relative, gives them such a quantitative air as to take away precisely their absoluteness; it seeks to destroy either the idea of truth, or that of intelligence, or both at once. To lend a relative character to what functionally stands for the absolute is to attribute absoluteness to the relative; to claim that knowledge as such can only be relative amounts to saying that human ignorance is absolute; to throw doubt on certitude is, logically, to avow that one knows “absolutely” nothing.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 19 Jul 2009, 09:57 PM

Probabil ca nu.

Un om complet isi foloseste, bineinteles, ambele emisfere. Insa preferabil ar fi sa nu interfereze functiunile afectivului si rationalului. De exemplu, nu te ajuta cu nimic afectivul atunci cand este vorba de a aprecia valoarea de adevar a unei propozitii, teze sau idei. Asa cum nici rationalul nu te ajuta sa apreciezi frumusetea unui curcubeu sau a unui rasarit de soare...

Cum scrie in biblie c-ar fi spus Isus, sa dam Cezarului ceea ce-i al Cezarului... Si sa nu incercam sa aflam daca ceva exista cu instrumentele afectivului, pentru ca probabilitatea de a ne (auto)insela este uriasa.

Aici gresesti. In numeroase cazuri chiar afectivul este cel care da sens sau valoarea unui enunt.

da... dar ne şi-nlănţuie... când dai sens prin afect exact asta faci: dai un sens, traiectorie prin voinţa ta unei posibile idei... şi asta înseamnă să o înscrii pe axa determinaţiei care actualizează în tine posibilitatea unei înlănţuiri cauză-efect care te acroşează şi poartă mai departe sămânţa unei noi determinaţii ce va germina, încolţi în alţii...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 19 Jul 2009, 11:55 PM

Cand este vorba despre arta, iti dau dreptate... Dar cand este vorba despre a stabili valoarea de adevar a unui enunt, nu cred ca gresesc.

pe ce plan stabileşti cu raţiunea valoarea de adevăr a unei propoziţii?

Myth:
A myth is a doctrinal content and not a concrete spiritual force, a “saving emanation.” The mythological wording of a traditional perspective is essentially determined by a spiritual and social interest which in an ultimate sense coincides with the truth; this it does by definition. The sacred wording contains in its own way the infinite Truth, failing which it could not serve an interest concerning that very Truth. The notion of myth usually evokes a picture of traditional stories charged with a wealth of symbolism and more or less devoid of historical foundation; however, in defining myth one should not lay undue stress on this supposed lack of historical basis, for the function of myth is such that once it has been properly understood the question of historicity ceases to have any practical importance. What guarantees the spiritual function of a sacred story is its symbolism on the one hand, and its traditional character on the other. In the case of stories belonging to the Mahayana, it is the Buddha who stands surety for the reality and hence for the efficacy of the story; that is to say, if he does not guarantee absolutely the historical truth of the facts, at least he guarantees the certainty of their spiritual truth, which takes precedence over the historical aspect, and he guarantees also their power of salvation which is the reason for the myth’s existence.

ai trăit vreun mit?

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 12:46 AM

de acord să-i dăm Cezarului ce-i al Cezarului, adică raţiunii cunoaşterea raţională şi afectivului cunoaşterea spirituală. Cred că e limpede acum unde vroiam să ajung, adică există o explicaţie suficient de raţională pentru credinţă, ea face parte din noi şi tocmai, că nu trebuie nici raţionalizată, nici despicat firul în 4 folosind raţiunea din moment ce ea se găseşte în emisfera opusă. Poate că probabilitatea de a ne auto-înşela este uriaşă, chiar aşa se întâmplă în cele mai multe cazuri. Dar nu avem de ales, până la a găsi dovezi şi certitudini, pentru a completa imaginea mentală, modelul despre lume, creierul astupă golurile cu ceva. Cutii negre în cazul ateilor, voinţa divină în cazul credincioşilor. Pe unii credincioşi îi înspăimântă ideea de cutie neagră. Ei zic că trebuie să fie "ceva supranatural" acolo. Eu zic că nu, e doar o realitate necunoscută şi că există probabilitatea nenulă de a "ghici" sau de a intui ce se află în acele cutii negre, fără a folosi logica raţională.

nu se găseşte în nici o emisferă... se poate doar exprima... asta nu înseamnă decât că creierul tău a fost făcut apt să exprime ce trebuie...

----------
Pe unii credincioşi îi înspăimântă ideea de cutie neagră. Ei zic că trebuie să fie "ceva supranatural" acolo. Eu zic că nu, e doar o realitate necunoscută şi că există probabilitatea nenulă de a "ghici" sau de a intui ce se află în acele cutii negre, fără a folosi logica raţională.
----------
vezi că şi la aveoane, cutia neagră nu-i aşa neagră... ceva supranatural? dar de supranatural-natural ai auzit? nu cred.., altfel nu mai aberai ca mai sus... când rupi supranaturalul de natural ce rezultă? îţi spun io: o afirmaţie stupidă de genul ăsta:
„Ei zic că trebuie să fie "ceva supranatural" acolo.”...

în realitate, atunci când supranaturalul se infuzează în natural, adică mereu, nu-l anulează ci prelungindu-se pe sine ia în braţe naturalul... şi aşa se face că trăim într-o lume supranatural-naturală!

Naturally Supernatural:
Let it be noted that, just as there is a “relatively absolute” – the logical absurdity of this formulation does not preclude its ontologically plausible meaning – so too is there a “naturally supernatural,” and this is precisely the permanent divine intervention, in virtue of immanence, in cosmic causality.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 12:59 AM

după definiţia de mai sus, nu pot spune că am trăit vreun mit. Dar cine face ca adevărurile spirituale să precede aspectele istorice dacă nu omul ca fiinţă sensibilă atât la fapte cât şi la sentimente? Pentru cine ar mai avea vreo putere miturile dacă n-ar mai exista sensibilitatea spiritului? Dacă toţi am fi strict raţionali ne-am mişca precum nişte roboţi, urmărind un lanţ cauzal predefinit, extrem de eficient şi perfect adaptaţi, chiar şi adaptarea s-ar face logic, cu algoritmi genetici ş.a. Dar, în om există şi un pic de nebunie, neuronii funcţionează la limita haosului. Doar echilibrul dintre raţional şi emoţional ne face să rămânem oameni.

adevărurile divine înseşi...

roboţi nu pot fi decât cei care cred că nu au deloc liber arbitru... în realitate există un tip de robot: omul pe care îl ia dracu în primire şi-i schimbă firmware-ul...

-----------
Doar echilibrul dintre raţional şi emoţional ne face să rămânem oameni.
-----------
cum poate fi vorba de echilibru între ce e în planuri diferite? dacă te defineşti prin neuroni atunci eşti asemenea unei maimuţe care s-ar ridica subit la stadiul raţional fără a avea vreun plan emotiv... un fel de maimuţă-robot...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 01:04 AM

nu, e portocalie, dar nu despre cutii din alea vorbeam, ci despre Matrioşca.



pentru că planurile, oricât ar fi de diferite, nu sunt decât aspecte ale aceleiaşi realităţi. E ca şi când ai proiecta un corp 3D în plan, pentru convenienţa reprezentării, dar realitatea e cea 3D, nu planurile. Sigur că nu e vorba doar de neuroni aici. Neuronii sunt o urmă de creion pe hârtie în timp ce spiritul este ceea ce semnifică desenul.

Acest topic a fost editat de Erwin: 20 Jul 2009, 01:08 AM

matrioşca-matr... măsură... măsura măsurii în măsura măsurii...

matr+ioşca... ioi iştenem, alt ungur!

----------
pentru că planurile, oricât ar fi de diferite, nu sunt decât aspecte ale aceleiaşi realităţi. E ca şi când ai proiecta un corp 3D în plan, pentru convenienţa reprezentării, dar realitatea e cea 3D, nu planurile. Sigur că nu e vorba doar de neuroni aici. Neuronii sunt o urmă de creion pe hârtie în timp ce spiritul este ceea ce semnifică desenul.
----------
conjectura conjecturii trecută din 3d în 1d naşte monştri în 2d... planurile care se intersectează sunt adumbririle 3d trecute într-un plan 2d subţiate la 1d... lumina cu care neuronii înscriu şi subscriu la penunmbra spiritului, lasă urme pe hârtia cenuşie a creierului înmuiată în cerneala peniţei lui Allah...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 01:13 AM

nu, numa' bănăţan! noapce bună!

tu acolo eşti înapoi cu 40 si ceva de minute, deci mai e timp să adormi în timp ce eu voi fi pe drum... spre mare... arătându-ţi răsăritul...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 01:14 AM

Religion:
First, religion is essentially discernment. It is discernment between God and the world, between the Real and the unreal, or between the Everlasting and the ephemeral.
Secondly: religion is union. It is union with God, the Great Spirit. Everything in religion has its foundation in one of these two elements: in discernment or in union.

Man is intelligence and will, and religion is discernment and concentration . . . Religion is discernment between the Everlasting and the ephemeral, and union with the Everlasting. In other words, religion is basically discernment and concentration; separation from evil, which is illusion, and union with the Divine Good, which is Truth and eternal Reality. A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism that develops according to necessary and exact laws; one might therefore call it a spiritual organism, or a social one in its most outward aspect. In any case, it is an organism and not a construction of arbitrary conventions; one cannot therefore legitimately consider the constituent elements of a religion independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts. Religions are like lamps of colored glass; now a lamp lights a dark place because it is luminous and not because it is red of blue or yellow or green. On the other hand, the color transmits the light, but on the other hand, it falsifies it; if it is true that without a given colored lamp one would see nothing, it is quite as true that visibility cannot be identified with any one color.

Pai asta incerc eu sa-ti spun: aia nu-i cunoastere! E imaginatie. E poezie. E ce vrei tu, dar cunoastere in niciun caz.

Bineinteles, a dat-o Actionmedia mai sus: cei inzestrati cu credinta au avut, in decursul istoriei, un avantaj evolutiv.

Nu face parte din noi din nastere, este dobandita cultural, pe fondul unei predispozitii genetice probabil.

Cine are aceasta parere, sa nu o faca...

Doar ca niciodata nu ai cum sa stii daca ceea ce crezi ca ai ghicit sau ai intuit corespunde realitatii.
Asta-i singura problema.

Faith is the participation of the will in the intelligence; just as on the physical plane man adapts his action to the physical facts which determine its nature, so also, on the spiritual plane, he should act in accordance with his convictions, by inward activity even more than by outward activity, for “before acting one must first be,” and our being is nothing else but our inward activity. The soul must be to the intelligence what beauty is to truth.

Faith is in fact nothing else than the “bhaktic” mode of Knowledge and of intellectual certainty, which means that Faith is a passive act of the intelligence, its immediate object being not the truth as such, but a symbol of the truth.

Insofar as Faith is a contemplative attitude, its subject is the intelligence; it can therefore be said to constitute a virtual Knowledge; but since its mode is passive, it must compensate this passivity by a complementary active attitude, that is to say, by an attitude of the will the substance of which is precisely confidence and fervor, by virtue of which the intelligence will receive spiritual certainties. Faith is a priori a natural disposition of the soul to admit the supernatural.

Faith is belief when the volitive element predominates over the intellectual; it is knowledge or gnosis when the intellectual
element predominates over the volitive. But there are also certitude and fervor, the latter being volitive and the former intellectual: fervor gives belief its spiritual quality; certitude is an intrinsic quality of gnosis. The term “faith” could not mean exclusively belief or fervor, nor exclusively knowledge or certitude; it cannot be said either that belief that it is all that is possible in the way of faith, or that knowledge is not faith at all.

Faith as such does not result from our thought, it is before it; it is even before us. In faith we are outside time.

Faith (divine archetype of):
The divine archetype of faith is the “yes” which God says to Himself; it is the Logos which on the one hand mirrors the Divine Infinity, and on the other hand refracts it.

Faith (mystery of):
The mystery of faith is in fact the possibility of an anticipatory perception in the absence of its content; that is, faith makes present its content by accepting it already, before the perception properly so-called. And if faith is a mystery, it is because its nature is inexpressible to the degree that it is profound, for it is not possible to convey fully by words this vision that is still blind and this blindness that already sees.

Faith / Knowledge:
There is no faith without any knowledge, nor knowledge without any faith. But, it is knowledge that has precedence: faith is an indirect and volitive mode of knowledge, but knowledge suffices unto itself and is not a mode of faith; nevertheless, being situated in relativity, knowledge requires an element of faith to the extent that it is a priori intellectual and not existential, mental and not cardiac, partial and not total; otherwise all metaphysical understanding would imply sanctity ipso facto. However, all transcendent certitude has something divine about it – but as certitude only, and not necessarily as the acquisition of a particular man. In other words: in a Semitic climate much importance is given to the incompatibility between knowledge and faith, and to the pre-eminence of the latter, to the point of holding the former in contempt and of forgetting that within Relativity the one goes hand in hand with the other. Knowledge is the adequate perception of the real, and faith is the conformity of will and sentiment to a truth imperfectly perceived by the intelligence; if the perception were perfect it would be impossible for the believer to lose his faith. Yet theoretical knowledge, even if perfect and hence unshakable, always requires a volitive element which contributes to the process of assimilation or integration, for we must “become what we are”; and this operative element, or this element of intensity, stems from faith. Inversely, in religious faith there is always an element of knowledge that determines it, for in order to believe, it is necessary to know what one must believe; moreover, in plenary faith there is an element of certitude which is not volitive, and whose presence we cannot prevent, whatever be our efforts to refuse all knowledge in order to benefit from the “obscure merit of faith.” It is only in God that knowledge can entirely dispense with that element of intensity necessary for realization or with the will for totalization; as for faith, its prototype in divinis is Life or Love; and in God alone are Life and Love independent of any motive justifying or determining them ab extra. It is by participation in this mystery that Saint Bernard could say: “I love because I love,” which is like a paraphrase of the saying of the Burning Bush “I am that I am”; “That which is.” It is knowledge, or the element truth, which gives faith all of its value, otherwise we could believe no matter what, so long as we believe; it is only through truth that the intensity of our faith has meaning.

Faith / Science:
Faith is the acceptance of that which we do not see, or rather, of that which transcends the experience of the average man; science is the experience of that which we do see, or at least of that whereof we can have an empirical knowledge.

Faith / Virtue / Rational Certainty:
Faith is the quality that converts into deeds – positive or negative depending on the case – the facts provided by truth; and virtue is the aptitude of our will and sensibility to conform ourselves to what truth and faith demand. Faith is to be distinguished from rational certitude in that it brings together the acceptance of the true with the love of the true and the will to realize it; thus it is a certitude that is not just mental, but that encompasses and engages every fiber of our being.

Faith / Intelligence:
Unlike an intelligence which is all for exactness but never satisfied in its play of formulations, and which passes from concept to concept, from symbol to symbol, without being able to make up its mind for this or for that, the faith of the heart is capable of being satisfied by the first symbol that providentially comes its way, and of living on it until the supreme Meeting. Faith as a quasi-ontological and premental certitude ranks higher than the discerning and speculative aspects of intelligence, but intelligence as pure Intellection ranks higher than that faith which is no more than an adherence of the sentiments; it is this ambivalence which is the source of numerous misunderstandings.

Inspiration / Reflection / Reasoning / Intellection:
Inspiration, like revelation, is a divine dictate, with the difference that in the second case the Spirit dictates a law-giving
and obligatory Message of overriding force, whereas in the first case the Message, whatever be its value, has no dogmatic import, and has an illustrative role within the framework of the fundamental Message. Reflection, like intellection, is an activity of the intelligence, with the difference that in the second case this activity springs from that immanent divine spark that is the Intellect, whereas in the first case the activity starts from the reason, which is capable only of logic and not of intellective intuition. The conditio sine qua non of reflection is that man reason on the basis of data that are both necessary and sufficient and with a view to a conclusion, the latter being the reason for the existence of the mental operation. From the point of view of knowledge properly so-called, reasoning is like the groping of a blind man, with the difference that – by removing obstacles – it may bring about a clearing of vision; it is blind and groping due to its indirect and discursive nature, but not necessarily in its function, for it may be no more than the description – or verbalization – of a vision which one possesses a priori, and in this case, it is not the mind that is groping, but the language. If we compare reasoning to a groping, it is in the sense that it
is not a vision, and not in order to deny its capacity of adequation and exploration; it is a means of knowledge, but this means is mediate and fragmentary like the sense of touch, which enables a blind man to find his way and even to feel the heat of the sun, but not to see.
As for intellection, on the one hand it necessarily expresses itself by means of reason and on the other hand it can make use of the latter as a support for actualization. These two factors enable theologians to reduce intellection to reasoning; that is to say, they deny it – while at the same time seeing in rationality an element that is more or less problematic if not contrary to faith – without seeking or being able to account for the fact that faith is itself an indirect, and in a way, anticipated mode of intellection.


Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 03:29 AM

Objectivity:
By “objectivity” must be understood not a knowledge that is limited to a purely empirical recording of data received from outside, but a perfect adequation of the knowing subject to the known object, which indeed is in keeping with the current meaning of the term. An intelligence or a knowledge is “objective” when it is capable of grasping the object as it is and not as it may be deformed by the subject. Objectivity is a kind of death of the subject in the face of the reality of the object; the subjective compensation of this extinction is the nobleness of character. One must not lose sight of the fact, moreover, that the transcendent Object is at the same time the immanent Subject, which is affirmed in the knowing subject, to the extent that the latter is capable of objectivity. Objectivity is none other than the truth, in which the subject and the object coincide, and in which the essential takes precedence over the accidental – or in which the Principle takes precedence over its manifestation – either by extinguishing it, or by reintegrating it, according to the diverse ontological aspects of relativity itself.


Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 03:56 AM

Pai tu nu realizezi ce spui... "Arta" asta o cam traiesti zilnic si din punctul meu de vedere nu are de-a face cu imaginatia. De exemplu, pe ce baza stabilesti tu valoarea de adevar a propozitiei "Gigel cu Petrica sunt buni prieteni." presupunand ca-i cunosti pe amandoi, fara sa te ajute cunoasterea afectiva sau spirituala, cum zicea Erwin.

Pai nu o pot stabili cu certitudine.

Daca ii cunosc pe amandoi si daca se comporta unul fata de altul ca doi buni prieteni, si ei se recunosc ca atare unul pe altul, ma comport si eu, in consecinta, ca si cum cei doi ar fi prieteni buni. Dar asta nu inseamna ca pot fi sigur 100% de prietenia dintre ei.


Stiu ca asta-i punctul tau de vedere. Insa nu vad niciun motiv pentru a fi si punctul meu de vedere.

Acest topic a fost editat de abis: 20 Jul 2009, 08:24 AM

Pai tocmai ce-ti spuneam; daca nu ai conoasterea afectiva sau spirituala si esti doar un robot care face rationamente, chiar nu ai certitudini in astfel de cazuri, care nu tin nici pe departe de domeniul artei.

sigur că nu-i cunoaştere ştiinţifică, de asta am precizat "spirituală" şi era în sensul definiţiei date de religie. Dar între cele două extreme, ştiinţa cu certitudinile ei maximale (care nu-i decât vârful icebergului sau culmea clopotului lui Gauss de care vorbeam mai devreme) şi "cunoaşterea" intangibilului, asimilarea misterului şi înţelegerea asupra a ceea ce este de neînţeles există o linie continuă, neîntreruptă. Nu trebuie să ai vreun scurt-circuit sau să fii căzut în misticism ca să observi că lumea e mai largă decât ceea ce se poate vedea şi dovedi cu certitudine, iar aspectul că unii plăsmuiesc liberi iar alţii iau din cărţi e unul secundar, oricare dintre noi, fie atei, fie credincioşi, avem nevoie de echilibru în cunoaşterea lumii, să ne bazăm pe ceva şi atunci când suntem faţă în faţă cu ceea ce ne dă peste cap logica obişnuită.

sunt şi evenimente de genul unei presimţiri al unui pericol pe care odată evitat îl poţi dovedi ca real, dacă rămâi în viaţă. Dacă nu, rămân alţii să găsească explicaţii raţionale.

Acest topic a fost editat de Erwin: 20 Jul 2009, 09:21 AM

Pai nimeni nu poate avea certitudini in astfel de cazuri. Chiar daca unii isi imagineaza ca au.

Cate cazuri de buni prieteni care nu s-au mai inteles s-au vazut? Nenumarate.



Nu-i nici cunoastere stiintifica, nici un alt fel de cunoastere.

Eu nu cred ca adoptarea unor teorii care ar putea sa fie farao prea mare legatura cu realitatea iti confera vreun echilibru ori ca te ajuta in cunoasterea lumii...

Pai tu confunzi o stare a unui moment cu evolutia care poate avea loc.

Sa-ti amintesc: enuntul era facut la timpul prezent, deci se referea strict la starea din acel moment si nu la momente viitoare. Este la fel cu modul in care emiti enunturi despre viteza unei masini pe baza citirii vitezometrului. Intr-un moment ai sa spui ca viteza este de 50km/h, in alt moment ca este de 150, iar in altul ca este zero, fara sa gresesti cu nimic.

nici eu, căci asta e o extremă, iar eu vorbesc despre intermediar. Şi cunoaşterea nu se limitează la cea ştiinţifică, demonstrabilă, de orice fel ar fi, înţeleg prin cunoaştere obţinerea de adevăruri despre realitate, aşa că nu vorbesc despre ce n-are legătură cu realitatea, ăla e misticism.

Ok, atunci restrang raspunsul la: nimeni nu poate avea certitudini in astfel de cazuri, ca sa fii tu multumita. Desi parerea mea este ca daca respectivii ajung sa nu mai fie atat de buni prieteni, probabil ca n-au fost cu adevarat niciodata.


Pai acele lucruri despre care vorbesti nu poti fi sigur ca sunt adevaruri, asta tot incerc sa-ti spun...

Uite, da-mi te rog cateva exemple de adevaruri despre realitate imposibil de cunoscut prin cunoastere stiintifica, demonstrabila, si care pot fi in schimb cunoscute prin metode spirituale.

Nu neaparat. Ci poate ca dau prea multa atentie rationalului care se grabeste sa traga imediat concluzii definitorii, asa cum procedezi si tu in acest caz de altfel, pe argumente stiintifice si probe tip "batista Desdemonei"...