The Nature of Illusion as it Relates to Pantheism

[Treeshepherd]

Two ontologically distinct forms of being are clearly represented by Merton's words.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that whenever we parse reality, we limit our ability to get a handle on all the complementary variables. Sort of like you have to kill a frog to dissect it. The frog is no longer a frog as it floats in formaldehyde. Reality is one contiguous indivisible whole. But, language is an abstraction and words are artificial constructs. So, I'm not sure if it's possible for Merton or anyone to describe non-duality without engaging in dualism.

"Om (or Aum) is a very simple sound with a complex meaning. Om is the whole universe coalesced into a single word, representing the union of mind, body, and spirit that is at the heart of yoga. In the Hindu tradition, the sound om is said to contain the entire universe. It is the first sound from the beginning of time, as well encompassing the present and the future." The chanting of Om is an exercise (praxis). Merton's statement is doxic (of, relating to, or based on such intellectual processes as belief or opinion). Merton's praxis was based on the Spiritual Excercises of St. Ignatius, the purpose being "to conquer oneself and to regulate one's life in such a way that no decision is made under the influence of any inordinate attachment." I think Merton would say that Christian praxis, ideally, involves deprogramming rather than indoctrination.

 

[Treeshepherd]

" In philosophy, supervenience is an ontological relation that is used to describe cases where (roughly speaking) the upper-level properties of a system are determined by its lower level properties. Some philosophers hold that the world is structured into a kind of hierarchy of properties, where the higher level properties supervene on the lower level properties. According to this type of view, social properties supervene on psychological properties, psychological properties supervene on biological properties, biological properties supervene on chemical properties, etc. That is, the chemical properties of the world determine a distribution of biological properties, those biological properties determine a distribution of psychological properties, and so forth. So, for example, mind-body supervenience holds that "every mental phenomenon must be grounded in, or anchored to, some underlying physical base (presumably a neural state). This means that mental states can occur only in systems that can have physical properties; namely physical systems."
Supervenience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure why I posted that. I'll have to mull it over.

Changing the subject... Have you ever read Carlos Castaneda? It's been a long while since I have. The shaman dude describes his ability to engage the world and mourn for his lost son. But he can also transcend the duality and enter a unitive state where nothing is ever really gained or lost.

 

[Capstone]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that whenever we parse reality, we limit our ability to get a handle on all the complementary variables. Sort of like you have to kill a frog to dissect it. The frog is no longer a frog as it floats in formaldehyde. Reality is one contiguous indivisible whole. But, language is an abstraction and words are artificial constructs. So, I'm not sure if it's possible for Merton or anyone to describe non-duality without engaging in dualism.

Never been a fan of applying the uncertainty principle to any realm beyond quantum physics, mostly because disciplines such as language and metaphysics have far more bearing on the macro than the micro, at least in terms of practicability. "Artificial constructs", true enough, but constructs of the macroscopic realm no less. Why should a theoretical rule of QM which apparently holds no sway over complex physical structures, such as thrown baseballs, speeding cars, ETC., be applied to complex ideas? A dead frog floating in formaldehyde is no less a "frog", nor are its position and momentum inside the beaker beyond the bounds of simultaneous determination.

As for this business of doubting our human ability to describe non-duality without engaging in dualism, frankly, it smacks of non sequitur in relation to the UP and your analogy.

Show me a single quote in which Merton equates "God" to "Man", or for that matter, to anything else in the whole of existence. So long as he holds that the being called "God" is in any way distinguished from any other form of being (much less all of them), his theology is not indicative of non-duality.

..."Om (or Aum) is a very simple sound with a complex meaning. Om is the whole universe coalesced into a single word, representing the union of mind, body, and spirit that is at the heart of yoga. In the Hindu tradition, the sound om is said to contain the entire universe. It is the first sound from the beginning of time, as well encompassing the present and the future." ...

Neither the notion of "the union of mind, body, and spirit", nor the idea that "the whole universe is coalesced into a single word", are necessarily relevant to the distinction between "God" and "the universe". If that distinction exists in one's theological belief system, then he or she is a dualist, period.

...I think Merton would say that Christian praxis, ideally, involves deprogramming rather than indoctrination.

Well, to this day, Merton's ideal methodology in that regard remains as far away from the reality of common Christian practice as his theology remains from pantheism. That's pretty damned far.

 

[Programmer]

By "pantheism", I mean the multitier conviction that all things are fundamentally connected to one another and that this singular totality of existence is intelligent, multi-personal, and on the whole ... divine.

In order to understand how such a oneness of being is even possible, it's necessary to first get a handle on the nature of illusory thinking relative to 'perceived reality'.

The OED defines "illusion" as "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses". My favorite example of this kind of thinking can be seen in the following clip:



Did master illusionist, David Blaine, really penetrate the window with the chosen card, or did some of the spectators make faulty assumptions based primarily on what escaped their perceptions (namely David's cohorts both inside and outside of the diner)? For those not inclined toward magical thinking, the answer is obvious.

Likewise, physical reality only shows us a partial picture via sense perception. Do the limitations of human perception negate the truths that rest beyond its scope? Again, the answer is clear: hell no. Therefore, the prospect that what lies beyond the senses is, at base, universal oneness, cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the potentially faulty assumptions associated with our limited perceptions.

Does it presume too much of the unperceived, this oneness?

 

[Capstone]

Does it presume too much of the unperceived, this oneness?

That's an excellent question.

In my view, the oneness is implied by the available physical evidence (quantum non-locality in particular), not merely presumed.

 

[G.T.]

This theory makes no sense, there's not a purpose in connecting everything in a subtle way and then watching it all squirm as you giggle that it doesnt know its connected and cannot act upon it unless it did know.
It boils down to wishful thinking at best, and no poetic or abstract language can pull an oopsy daisy so great as to make a reasoned mind believe it.

 

[G.T.]

Does it presume too much of the unperceived, this oneness?

That's an excellent question.

In my view, the oneness is implied by the available physical evidence (quantum non-locality in particular), not merely presumed.

It sounds like youre alluding to a connection on a quantum level through the fabric of space, itself. That's just obvious but doesnt imply a deity n'or does it imply a conscious connection.

 

[Programmer]

Does it presume too much of the unperceived, this oneness?

That's an excellent question.

In my view, the oneness is implied by the available physical evidence (quantum non-locality in particular), not merely presumed.

Well, is it a quantum theory of itself, or is it a view worth throwing faith at? How far does it reach?

 

[Capstone]

We are the "I's" of God

If "I" am everything I see,
if "all", that is, is really me,
then "you" aren't what you seem to be,
and "we" are purely fantasy.
~~~​

I'll reply to both of you at greater length in the next few days.

 

[pillars]

Would it be fascist to impose similar restrictions on the religious indoctrination of children for the exact same reasons?

Yes, I think it would be. Wouldn't you consider it fascist if Christians were forcing indoctrination in Christianity?

I think you can eventually shame people for engaging in indoctrination, but I don't think you can make it illegal. You're proposing "thought crimes," and I think that we have to allow people to be free even if that freedom results in stupid thinking. I would support making information more widely available to people, but I don't think you can completely force people to stop sharing their beliefs with their children.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Show me a single quote in which Merton equates "God" to "Man", or for that matter, to anything else in the whole of existence.

Merton wouldn't equate "God" to "Human" any more than someone would equate a skeleton with a brain cell (though they happen to be elements of one body).

But I think the title of his book No Man is an Island says it all. I could paste some quotes from his New Man;

"Contemplation goes beyond concepts and apprehends God not
as a separate object but as the Reality within our reality,
the Being within our being, the life of our life. 11 (P.19)

"Contemplation is a mystery in which God reveals Himself as
the very center of our own inmost self." (ibid.)

"Contemplation is the highest and most paradoxical form of
self realization, attained by apparent self-annihilation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rastafarians speak in terms of 'I and I', sort of a linguistic reminder of man within God and visa versa. "I and I don't expect to be justified by the laws of men." - Bob Marley

"Life and Jah are one in the same. Jah is the gift of existence. I am in some way eternal, I will never be
duplicated. The sigularity of every man and woman is Jah's gift. What we struggle to make of it is our sole gift to Jah. The process of what that struggle becomes, in time, the Truth."- Bob Marley

Of course, Rastafarianism is a Bible-based religion. Thomas Merton is no less a Christian if he doesn't fit into someone's stereotypical mold of what they expect Christianity to be.

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'".
God refuses to be named (made distinct).

 

[Capstone]

This theory makes no sense, there's not a purpose in connecting everything in a subtle way and then watching it all squirm as you giggle that it doesnt know its connected and cannot act upon it unless it did know. ...

For me, the main "purpose" is self-control. That's not to say I'm looking to impose the will of a single vantage point over all others, as if such a thing were possible. I see and embrace the importance of the multiplicity of high-order viewpoints, BUT I sincerely believe that a common consensus will be necessary in order for those many divergent viewpoints to come together in the most beneficial ways possible for the one who ultimately possesses them all - the universe.

It sounds like youre alluding to a connection on a quantum level through the fabric of space, itself. That's just obvious but doesnt imply a deity n'or does it imply a conscious connection.

The tentacles have been working against each other to the detriment of the Octopus for far too long; but we CAN become conscious of our connection to the common body. All eight arms. Until that happens, we'll continue in our self-destructive ways.

 

[Capstone]

Well, is it a quantum theory of itself, or is it a view worth throwing faith at? How far does it reach?

Not to imply that "faith" is a dirty word, but I think the theory could rightly be characterized as a "quantum theory", yes.

Moreover, I think it avoids the cognitive dissonance associated with views that promote the notion that true 'separateness' can arise at the macro level from the wholeness of the quantum level.

 

[Programmer]

Well, is it a quantum theory of itself, or is it a view worth throwing faith at? How far does it reach?

Not to imply that "faith" is a dirty word, but I think the theory could rightly be characterized as a "quantum theory", yes.

Moreover, I think it avoids the cognitive dissonance associated with views that promote the notion that true 'separateness' can arise at the macro level from the wholeness of the quantum level.

We, for example, aren't one another for all intents and purposes other than quantum analysis via this theory. Maybe faith plays a role here: to glean intent and purpose from this particular theory.

 

[Capstone]

We, for example, aren't one another for all intents and purposes other than quantum analysis via this theory. ...

We are two among the nearly unfathomable number of totally unique viewpoints...of one and the same being. Granted, pragmatically speaking, we live and act as separate individuals by virtue of that uniqueness, but in no way could our actions ever sever the bond of oneness at the common core of all existence. In a deep and very real sense then, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together " (Lennon/McCartney).

...Maybe faith plays a role here: to glean intent and purpose from this particular theory.

I think that's fair and accurate. We have the science to support a theory of oneness based on a kind of 'quantum entanglement'; what we don't have is the science to bridge the gaps between certain physical and philosophical concepts. That's where faith comes in.

 

[Programmer]

We, for example, aren't one another for all intents and purposes other than quantum analysis via this theory. ...

We are two among the nearly unfathomable number of totally unique viewpoints...of one and the same being. Granted, pragmatically speaking, we live and act as separate individuals by virtue of that uniqueness, but in no way could our actions ever sever the bond of oneness at the common core of all existence. In a deep and very real sense then, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together " (Lennon/McCartney).

...Maybe faith plays a role here: to glean intent and purpose from this particular theory.

I think that's fair and accurate. We have the science to support a theory of oneness based on a kind of 'quantum entanglement'; what we don't have is the science to bridge the gaps between certain physical and philosophical concepts. That's where faith comes in.

It's very modern.

 

[Capstone]

It's very modern.

Yes, and no. It's a mishmash of modern and very ancient ideas.

 

[Programmer]

It's very modern.

Yes, and no. It's a mishmash of modern and very ancient ideas.

Oh, it's not a philosophical free-for-all?

 

[Capstone]

Oh, it's not a philosophical free-for-all?

Hardly. It's an implicit rejection of several philosophical schools of thought.

 

[Programmer]

Oh, it's not a philosophical free-for-all?

Hardly. It's an implicit rejection of several philosophical schools of thought.

So there are prophet-philosophers evangelizing these thoughts? Is this a full-on religion then?