This is in resonse to a thread at PhilosphyForums.com which speaks of The effect emotions have on rational thinking ... which questions whether emotions are a blessing or a curse.


Liknites23:

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

We can't be the Yeast, but we can be leavened.

__________________
Once you find your way, you're there.

Good and Bad have nothing to do with the absolute nature of the universe or "truth". They are relative humna perceptions.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

Of course this would all be contingent upon the non-existence of evil then, right?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, but evil is simply a human concept. The idea of evil actually existing is a religious one, and IMO absurd

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

Well if you look at the post I started called, The Sun in Heaven, it might give you some idea about the relationship between Divine Good (or Love) and Divine Truth. As for the nature of evil, regarding hell, I don't have time to get into that now but, it does gives some detail in the thread I started called, Ruling Love.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well let me try to explain what my take on truth and good is so it might make more sense. First of all you have to understand that they're both correlatives, in the sense that you can't have one without the other. And, much in the way truth goes hand in hand with good, and in effect provides context for the good, falsity goes hand in hand with evil, where the lie is used to mask over or, conceal the evil. Doesn't this seem kind of basic and makes sense?

So basically truth (versus falsity) becomes the form, which holds the good in context, while good in effect becomes the essence which, gives rise to the form ... "Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence)." And here, falsity and evil have a similar relationship, except in the opposite sense.

So in effect what we're speaking of here is the external aspect of reality (truth or form), versus the internal aspect of reality which, gave rise to it (good or essence). In other words the external reality that we see and interact with, is merely the aftermath of those things which have gone on internally to produce it. And here, form has more to do with our ability to recognize and label something, while good or essence has more to do with its motives or intent. This is the difference between truth and good.

Does that make any sense?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Although I understand what you are saying, I see no realtionship between truth and good. Maybe it's because I do not see what you are calling God (and what I would call the universe) as inherently good. To me it is inherently neutral on all matters.

To my mind, truth and fact are related.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

Well all I'm suggesting is the difference between truth and good is like the relationship between form and essence, and if you understood that, you wouldn't need to pass it off as some kind of religious nonsense. Indeed, this is the very approach I think you need to take, if you truly want to understand the nature of religion.

Just to give an example here, take a look at a can of beans, and here you can see that the exterior aspect is the can with the label on it, which obviously corresponds to the truth. This is how you can acknowledge what it is from afar, without opening it up to see what's inside. While in nature you can look at a tree and, by acknowledging its outer form, you know that it's a tree, hence the truth-of-the-matter or, the fact that it's a tree. So in that sense truth is merely the observation or, an observable fact.

As for the beans inside the can (comparable to say a nut within its shell), this is the whole purpose behind the existence of the can with the label on it, to furnish us with something substantial to eat. Therefore, the good is typically that which is consumable, and thus sustains us, and the truth is more akin to the packaging it comes in and is typically discarded, much like separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

While obviously I'm referring to the relationship between objectivity (form) versus subjectivity (essence) here. And indeed, the good of life is nothing but life itself which, is the subjective experience we feel on the inside. In fact this is precisely what I think Science needs to get a grip on if it wants to understand the nature behind our being here.

To which I've obviously agreed with above.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

As for the beans inside the can (comparable to say a nut within its shell), this is the whole purpose behind the existence of the can with the label on it, to furnish us with something substantial to eat. Therefore, the good is typically that which is consumable, and thus sustains us, and the truth is more akin to the packaging it comes in and is typically discarded, much like separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

What sustains one, is totally subjective. I see nothing inherently "good" or "bad" in the essence of anything. Even with physical material there is no "good" or "bad" Is the "chocolateness" of a chocolate bar "good" or "bad"?
I guess that would depend if one likes chocolate or not.

To me, human, subjective truth is irrelevent. What I care about is objective truth...truth in the "absolute nature of reality" sense.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

But that's the whole problem, it's not irrelevant. Because we're speaking about that which determines the relevancy of anything in the first place which, happens to be the subjective nature of human beings or, consciousness if you were.

I mean what's the point in conducting all this scientific research if it isn't designed to serve one thing, humanity? Why must it denigrate the very thing which brought it into being? Which is more important, the fact we're alive and conscious or, that we have this apparatus called a body (with a brain) which our consciousness tells what to do? This in fact is my main gripe about Science, that it can't get past looking at me like I were some kind of machine.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But you ARE an machine; a bio-chemical one. There is EVIDENCE to that. There is ZERO objective evidence that some sort of mystical, magical force drives anything. As far as I'm concerned, NOTHING, is supernatural, magical, or mystical...the answers are simply undiscovered.

The goal of all this scientific persuit is to serve humanity in an OBJECTIVE sense....to get past subjectivity and find out how things really work...and than use that knowledge....and that's what "spiritual" people don't seem to get...

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

Well, if you can convince the native living in a grass hut that it was no different than living in a 20 room mansion, which in effect is the difference between this world and the next, then I would have to agree with you.

In other words Science is serving a mechanical machine without a soul, and I just happen to despise that! Sorry. People are people from inside out and not vice-versa. In order to continue any further, Science needs to discover that humanity has a soul. Knowledge is not wisdom by the way! ... And once again, in relation to good and truth, knowledge is the external aspect, of which wisdom is the internal.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I agree, Iacchus. That's why I say the important thing is not what you believe, it's that you believe.

__________________
Once you find your way, you're there.

Well even Atheists believe in something don't they? At the very least they believe in reason, and that would be tantamount to a belief in the god Apollo, as far as I'm concerned.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Response:
It is the goal of science to find out the hows, and of theological scholarship to find out the whys of existance.

Yes, pure science is "souless", but how can one dispise that, if the goal is clearly stated?

Knowledge is the assimilation of facts, substantiated to be emperically so by evidence which produces the same results over and over again.

What one considers wisdom is a totally subjective thing. As you state, it has little to do with knowledge.

Again, the goal of science is to find the OBJECTIVE answers to the nature of the universe.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

And it's the goal of religion to find the subjective answers.

__________________
Once you find your way, you're there.

So you're not necessarily discounting religion per se'? Because I continue to hear so many things to the contrary as the result of scientific evidence. Did you get a chance to check out the beginnings of my thread, Science is the Bridegroom?

The problem with this is that it tends to rub off on everybody else and effect their world view. By which it becomes the means or tool by which to promote materialism, not to mention the lack of spirituality.

Like I say, knowledge is merely the aftermath of some process that went on internally. In which case we're speaking of the effect, not the cause.

No, wisdom has everything to do with knowledge. It is the understanding of the interior nature of knowledge. Which as I say, is the relation between good and truth.

Well, we have the light of the sun which illuminates the way (truth), and we have the heat of the sun which sustains us (good).

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Quote:
No, wisdom has everything to do with knowledge. It is the understanding of the interior nature of knowledge. Which as I say, is the relation between good and truth.

My Response:
The "interior nature" of knowledge, which you call wisdom, is purely subjective.

Science tends to consider all subjective information annicdotal and therefore, pretty much irrelevent. It is interested in the results obtained from objective analysis of experimentation.

I'm in no way saying the scientific perspective is "better" than taking a "spiritual" direction in the attempt to find answers, but the goals and methodology are totally different, as are the goals.

__________________
There are some things that travel faster than the speed of light; the thoughts of an imbicile (To paraphrase Gabriel Voisin, automotive and aero engineer, 1934)

Perhaps "TRUTH" lies in the middle of what appears to be a paradox (ME)

You do realize that what you're saying here is there's a distinct difference between the left brain and the right brain and there should be no common grounds bewteen the two don't you? In which case how can we possibly serve humanity for the better if we don't at least try to bridge the gap between the two? ... i.e., Science and Religion.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?