Ultimate Metal Forum  
UltimateMetal.com homeContact UltimateMetal.com
 
Ultimate Metal Zine Ultimate Metal Photo Gallery Ultimate Metal Classifieds Ultimate Metal Link Directory Ultimate Metal Events Ultimate Metal Radio Ultimate Metal Store

Sponsored Links

Go Back   Ultimate Metal Forum > The Life > The Philosopher


Register FAQ Donate Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

The Philosopher Intelligent (and mature) discussions only.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old April 22nd, 2011, 08:53 PM   #1 (permalink)
Astrum
Psion
 
Astrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 4,884
the living universe, and misunderstood religion

I was browsing threads to see if i could express some of my opinions about this matter in relation to another conversation, but i had too many vauge options so i decided to put this out here on my own. there are two parts.

i have done a lot of reaseach, general learning and some interesting personal experiences over the past year or so that have led me away from my lifelong bounce between vauge agnostisism and outright atheism. i have developed some ideas, that continue to develop, that now define my ever changing personal belief system on the nature of the universe and what all people refer to as "god" under so many different names.

i'm going to cut straight to the point and hopefully provoke some questions, arguments, and insights. one thing, divided into two parts: the universe, and the supreme being (god, whatever)

i beleive god (or whatever you choose to call god) and the universe as we know it are one and the same. we view outselves subjectively as separate from the objecive world around us. but what separates us from this world? what makes us beleive that there is an "I" that is seperate from everything else, which is external. there is nothing, us included, that isnt a vibrational field. our bodies interpret these vibrations using our senses as what we see and feel around us. but this is an obvious truth to me: the universe is the being, not "us". we think of a "being" as "something" that is "alive". this "something" existsin the "world" around us.

this is an illusion. everything is one and the same, and the fact that "we" even exist, think, and feel emotions, is only further evidence to me instead of the opposite. The universe itself is one consious emotional entity, and us as "people" are just, as a figure of speech, six billion eyes of "god". to me, any religious text is an interpretation of this truth as it was understood then by the enlightened idividuals who wrote them. as civilizaition progressed, people developed into different groups, the five senses became more distracted, we further divided into groups and categories until a complete sense of indivudiality has been reached. "we" think that "we" are "us", that everyone is an "I" and "we" are intelligent beings in a universe that exists around us. this, to me, is obviously false. we are a hyper-microscopically small fragment of a massive force we cant even begin to comprehend. we are god, everything around us is god, god is this. as alan watts once wrote, "If you ask me to show you God, I will point to the sun, or a tree, or a worm. But if you say, 'You mean, then, that God is the sun, the tree, the worm, and all other things?'--I shall have to say that you have missed the point entirely"

Words are a creation of the unmeasurably young race of men, and we live by them. most people dont realize that the "things" "around" them cannot be siimply defined by words, nor are they the words themselves. the universe is what has been vaugely referred to as god throughout the ages, and because the universe isn't exactly humanoid in appearance we do not think of it as a living being. it is.

my other opinion that is one of the main foundations to my belief is that we live in a basically fictional world. what we see, feel, touch, smell, and hear around us are products of our own mind and the organic computer that is our body. without those senses, there is absolutely zero reason to assume the things our senses interpret are actually there, if we didnt have those senses. people are capaple of literally anything.

i literally could go on and on for hours (i'm currently writing a very long essay about this sort of thing) but you get the idea.
__________________
Astrum is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2011, 12:23 AM   #2 (permalink)
crimsonfloyd
Senior Member
 
crimsonfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,402
I think you're a little confused. The first part and the second part of what you say are completely opposing philosophical views. The first is a pantheistic externalism and the second is a transcendental idealism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrum View Post
i beleive god (or whatever you choose to call god) and the universe as we know it are one and the same.
If God were anything, this is what it would be. You should check out Spinoza's ethics. He gives a very strong argument that God is nature. Unlike you, he doesn't think that god or nature is anthropomorphic, but nonetheless I think you would find it interesting.

However, I think any time someone uses a term to refer to "everything" that term is nonsense. The word "everything" is meant to point out a group within a larger group (i.e. "everything in my room is green"). Therefore words like "God", "Universe" when used in such a manner are meaningless. Words show. When used in such a manner these words show nothing.


Quote:
Words are a creation of the unmeasurably young race of men, and we live by them. most people dont realize that the "things" "around" them cannot be siimply defined by words, nor are they the words themselves.
Things certainly are not the words themselves. However, words to show things in a certain way. For humans, which are inherently linguistic animals, words give and take. They reveal certain respects of an object and cover others.

Quote:
the universe is what has been vaugely referred to as god throughout the ages, and because the universe isn't exactly humanoid in appearance we do not think of it as a living being. it is.
Well what do you mean by "living"? To me calling the universe "living" is to misuse the word living. Organisms can be alive. Rocks cannot be alive, water cannot be alive. This does not necessarily mean that these objects are inherently meaningless, but they are certainly not alive.

Quote:
my other opinion that is one of the main foundations to my belief is that we live in a basically fictional world. what we see, feel, touch, smell, and hear around us are products of our own mind and the organic computer that is our body. without those senses, there is absolutely zero reason to assume the things our senses interpret are actually there, if we didnt have those senses. people are capaple of literally anything.
This completely contradicts what you said earlier about there being no reason to believe in a distinction between "I" and the "world". If it is the case that the world is fictional, then it must be represented to a subject, an "I".

The body is not a computer. It is not a machine. It is a living entity. Living entities cannot be reduced to functions. Of course, we can reduce it to functions- as we do in science or behaviorism-- but this cannot account for the unity and meaning inherent to the living being.

Furthermore, if we are to think of our own bodies as "computers" (though this makes no sense since embodied beings created computers) then why would we not think of nature as a "mega-computer"?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krow
Nah I'm pretty sure Mort is an animephile. He just doesn't want to disrespect the fictional characters by saying he would have sex with them.
crimsonfloyd is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2011, 03:29 AM   #3 (permalink)
Blowtus
Senior Member
 
Blowtus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 906
you take quite the realist perspective regarding what to me are just pragmatic linguistic devices... my 'I' exists because I want to say it does. Similarly, you can describe aspects of your experience with a term like 'the universe', and even call it conscious if you think you gain something from it. To me the former (universe) distinction is useful, but calling it 'conscious' just reduces the term to meaninglessness...
Blowtus is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2011, 10:32 AM   #4 (permalink)
monoxide_child
Senior Member
 
monoxide_child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,247
i've said it before, and i think someone else said it before me,

religion is a wheelchair for the crippled mind
monoxide_child is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2011, 03:54 PM   #5 (permalink)
hexwind
Creepiness Och Terrorism
 
hexwind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Psychedelic Planet
Posts: 9,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonfloyd View Post
If God were anything, this is what it would be. You should check out Spinoza's ethics. He gives a very strong argument that God is nature. Unlike you, he doesn't think that god or nature is anthropomorphic, but nonetheless I think you would find it interesting.
You said it before me
__________________
I am just a spectator
An advocate documenting the loss
Fluttering with conceit
This doesn't concern me yet
Still far from the knell






Opeth Forum | Pabulum | Desolator
hexwind is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2011, 12:00 PM   #6 (permalink)
monoxide_child
Senior Member
 
monoxide_child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonfloyd View Post
If God were anything, this is what it would be. You should check out Spinoza's ethics. He gives a very strong argument that God is nature.

Well what do you mean by "living"? To me calling the universe "living" is to misuse the word living. Organisms can be alive. Rocks cannot be alive, water cannot be alive. This does not necessarily mean that these objects are inherently meaningless, but they are certainly not alive.

The body is not a computer. It is not a machine. It is a living entity. Living entities cannot be reduced to functions. Of course, we can reduce it to functions- as we do in science or behaviorism-- but this cannot account for the unity and meaning inherent to the living being.
+1
monoxide_child is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0
© Copyright 2000-2010 UltimateMetal.com | MetalAges Media