From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   >> I don't know. I think his critique is about the exoteric   
   >> side, ossifying and becoming something else not originally   
   >> intended. For me, the esoteric side can only be experienced   
   >> subjectively, and today, in most mainstream religions,   
   >> due to ossification, there is no longer any connection   
   >> between the exoteric and esoteric.   
   >   
   > That sounds reasonable, possibly explaining how unearthing   
   > buried treasure therein in my journey benefited from   
   > teachings from other traditions "jostling the ground" a   
   > bit by seemingly presenting similar concepts differently -   
   > as though similar but not identical frequencies, such that   
   > putting them near each other led to a pulsing of greater   
   > and lesser peaks/valleys of constructive/destructive   
   > interference of overlapping waves.... :-)   
      
   Sounds very reasonable. It's like some pieces of the puzzle have been   
   kept in the various religions, and combing through them you can piece   
   together something.   
      
   >>> There's also the difference between a purely   
   >>> mental/conceptual approach, and actually *trying*   
   >>> the teachings. The former might be likened to an empty   
   >>> styrofoam cup; the latter, a bottle of properly aged   
   >>> distillate from fine raw materials.   
   >>   
   >> Are you thinking something along the lines of reading   
   >> about meditation vs actually meditating?   
   >   
   > Yes!   
      
   Got it! Then it makes perfect sense to me.   
      
   >>> In that context, I can't be satisfied with a mere   
   >>> surface exploration: me gots to do it to feel qualified   
   >>> to evaluate.   
   >>   
   >> True. Sometimes I've played around with a pragmatic   
   >> definition of religion, as in, does it make me a better   
   >> human being? If yes, then why not. However... in terms   
   >> of a formalized religion, for me, without belief, it just   
   >> becomes unconvincing acting, so from that point of view,   
   >> the pragmatic approach collapses. That in turn, leads me   
   >> to the philosophical way where I "deconstruct" the religion   
   >> into rules/aphorisms/life lessons, and I ground them in my   
   >> values, and if they correspond, then at least I can say   
   >> _without acting_ that yes, there seems to be some sense   
   >> in that and I can respect the rule.   
   >   
   > You've definitely a "how to live better" book in you!   
      
   Thank you! Who knows... maybe a paradigm shifting best seller will one   
   day be created? ;)   
      
   >> But dogma, angels, saints, the entire theology and   
   >> super-natural stuff, I've never been able to reconcile   
   >> that with any behaviour on my side, since to me, that has   
   >> always seemed like childrens stories.   
   >   
   >    
   > Well? There are children, right? And there are many adults   
   > whose mind/intellect is essentially childlike, right? Who's   
   > to say such wasn't included to "reach" them?   
   >    
      
   True. Nietzsche is big on priests creating sin and all the "stuff" in   
   order to increase their power over "the children" thus ensuring they are   
   on top in society.   
      
   > I think all of it has numerous meanings depending on the   
   > context a mind brings to them. My context was somewhat   
   > captured in a paragraph above, which I'll repeat so   
   > the reader doesn't have to dig for it:   
   >   
   > --------------------------------------------------------   
   > Or there's one thing that is no thing pretending to be   
   > lots of things to a pretend thing it called "I" - which   
   > inter-relationships/arrangement somehow gets lost in the   
   > pretense aka magic aka dream that the mess of things   
   > called "life" is but!   
   > --------------------------------------------------------   
   >   
   > To/for me, that context brings a whole lot of bible   
   > and Hindu and Buddhist material to a certain kind of   
   > explanatory life.   
      
   Interesting. I'm quite minimalist in my bible readings and have kind of   
   settled (for the moment) on the gospel of thomas. I think that kind of   
   boils it down to the essentials for a deeply personal and subjective   
   christianity that could be pretty similar to some eastern religions as   
   well. I think we discussed this a while back.   
      
   >> For some, that is a shock, and a huge pain in the soul,   
   >> and they are not ready to accept that responsibility. To   
   >> others, philosophers, humanists etc. it is a challenge   
   >> and they have been hard at work for centuries already.   
   >   
   > Put that in the book too. :-)   
      
   Will do! ;)   
      
   >> True. My best proof of the world existing, is to shift the   
   >> burden of proof! =P The logic is that the world and other   
   >> people existing is the most common sense explanation for   
   >> what we encounter every day. So by all means, propose   
   >> platonic worlds, heaven etc. but please do back it up   
   >> with proof.   
   >   
   > Since when does the world need proof of existence? Isn't it   
   > obvious? Don't "proofs" invariably cover the reality with   
      
   Not at all if you talk to idealist philosophers!   
      
   > webs of conceptuality/representation? Doesn't attempting   
   > to prove it relocate the prover into a seeming place apart   
   > from it?   
      
   Depends on the philosopher you're talking with. ;) A clear yes and no.   
   )   
      
   But proof of existence is one of those things that go many hundred years   
   back. Millenia perhaps. Man wants an iron clad, iron proof of existence   
   so they can build a world of 100% certainty based on some fundamental   
   undeniable axiom. In my opinion, no one has succeeded in 2500 years, and   
   likely no one ever will. We'll have to accept that due to awareness   
   being aware of itself, we'll never achieve 100% certainty.   
      
   So due to that, I find assuming the world as it is, for daily purposes   
   the most practical and reasonable solution. Idealist philosophers beg to   
   differ. ;)   
      
   >>> What we are can't explain itself to itself because it   
   >>> defies explanation.   
   >>   
   >> Sigh... yes, but at least we can try. Can you imagine   
   >> waking up on sunday and actually succeeding at that? ;)   
   >   
   > What is gained by having a representation of reality? Isn't   
   > it more directly comprehensive to be the reality than to   
   > "know" it, the latter of which implies a knower separate   
   > from it who effectively replaces the reality with a mere   
   > re-presentation thereof?   
      
   Steadiness? As for knowing it, it seems to be a deep human drive to   
   extend our knowledge of our universe. When it comes to the   
   subject/object dichotomy, that's another barrier to knowledge. I can   
   know all about you, but neither I nor science will ever know what it's   
   like to _be_ you, to experience you as you, since that's a running,   
   operational system we others can only view from the outside.   
      
   >> True. We do complement each other that way. =)   
   >   
   > You need to change your last name to "Two", because   
   > then people could say the Two's complement!   
      
   )   
      
   >> Oh yes, but I follow it less and less as I get   
   >> older. Currently I'm down to 12 minutes of TV-news per day   
   >> and perhaps 20 minutes max on average reading some news   
   >> articles online. I hope to push it further down to 0.  ;)   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)