# Proof



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

We know something akin to the word we use; "God" exists. Whether it be an entity or event, it *has* to, or it doesn't have to, meaning it already was.
Bigger question, who cares? Does this improve something?
Does this fix something?
And don't say self-knowledge, this didn't help me know myself at all.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Captain Epic said:


> This is why I refuse to participate in religious debates; I consider it a huge waste of my time to bring logic/reason into a discussion about theology, because (from a combination of my own experience and what I've observed) it never works :tongue: They trust their intuition too much to consider other possibilities and yet they can't seem to rationalize their own beliefs.


You cannot rationalize a perception because perception cannot perfectly simulate nature.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

aef8234 said:


> And don't say self-knowledge, this didn't help me know myself at all.


Then it does not help _you_ know or improve _yourself_ at all.

_You_ did not need to hear my message.

Fundamentally, it is a waste of anyone's time, and you are making a primary identification with that truth, instead of its balanced opposite, which is also true - which is to say that my statement is fundamentally meaningful to _anyone that perceives it that way. Because perception and judgment are not the same, but one exists within the other.
_


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Then it does not help _you_ know or improve _yourself_ at all.
> 
> _You_ did not need to hear my message.
> 
> ...


Explain how it can be meaningful.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

aef8234 said:


> Explain how it can be meaningful.


First of all, it must certainly have a meaning, because you can understand what I said. Thus, what I said was rational. You are therefore projecting the fact that you do not perceive what I perceive into your subjective judgment in order to 'flush' my perception out into a rationalization. However, there is no possible way that the mind can perfectly simulate perception, because how could the brain accurately simulate reality? Thus, there are things in nature that you can perceive, and know are real, because of the solidity of your perception and those like you who share the same perception, but not have any rationalization for or explanation for. This is perfectly rational, because it happens to everyone all day, everyday. You are always encountering information for which you have no cipher. You just 'tune out' this information and it floats 'in-one-ear, out-the-other.' This is the same thing people do with their perception of the divine. Because it requires a particular kind of perception to see, and it simply cannot be correctly rationalized - but it can be sensed and conceptualized.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> First of all, it must certainly have a meaning, because you can understand what I said. Thus, what I said was rational. You are therefore projecting the fact that you do not perceive what I perceive into your subjective judgment in order to 'flush' my perception out into a rationalization. However, there is no possible way that the mind can perfectly simulate perception, because how could the brain accurately simulate reality? Thus, there are things in nature that you can perceive, and know are real, because of the solidity of your perception and those like you who share the same perception, but not have any rationalization for or explanation for. This is perfectly rational, because it happens to everyone all day, everyday. You are always encountering information for which you have no cipher. You just 'tune out' this information and it floats 'in-one-ear, out-the-other.' This is the same thing people do with their perception of the divine. Because it requires a particular kind of perception to see, and it simply cannot be correctly rationalized - but it can be sensed and conceptualized.


That's a long, drawn out way of attempting to define meaning, how very meta.
How is meaning and meaningful the same again?


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> First of all, it must certainly have a meaning, because you can understand what I said. Thus, what I said was rational. You are therefore projecting the fact that you do not perceive what I perceive into your subjective judgment in order to 'flush' my perception out into a rationalization. However, there is no possible way that the mind can perfectly simulate perception, because how could the brain accurately simulate reality? Thus, there are things in nature that you can perceive, and know are real, because of the solidity of your perception and those like you who share the same perception, but not have any rationalization for or explanation for. This is perfectly rational, because it happens to everyone all day, everyday. You are always encountering information for which you have no cipher. You just 'tune out' this information and it floats 'in-one-ear, out-the-other.' This is the same thing people do with their perception of the divine. Because it requires a particular kind of perception to see, and it simply cannot be correctly rationalized - but it can be sensed and conceptualized.


Yes, not only do we filter out most data, our senses aren't even equipped perceive much of it in the first place. We know there are animals that with better sight/hearing/smell than we do. And there are some animals that seems to have some form of sixth or seventh sense that we have no clue about. Who even knows what we are not sensing and perceiving?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> Yes, not only do we filter out most data, our senses aren't even equipped perceive much of it in the first place. We know there are animals that with better sight/hearing/smell than we do. And there are some animals that seems to have some form of sixth or seventh sense that we have no clue about. Who even knows what we are not sensing and perceiving?


Exactly. And because there is so much the mind simply cannot process with perfect accuracy, this is what I would argue gives rise to imperfect concepts such as a divine creator or single origin, etc etc. Basically, I am trying to say that atheists, and theists, AND agnostics are ALL correct, and _eternally irreconcilable_. Each represents a _balanced path_ - each path is _equally accurate_ to the other two, _all three are equally valid_. It only depends on your subjective PERSPECTIVE. I want to argue, it's about as important as your favorite pair of sunglasses, if there were only three pairs in the whole world to pick from. (Bearing in mind, you can also just pick none, or all three, or any combination, in any pattern throughout time and space.) What all three represent, within my perspective, is a single 'meta-path' that unites them all into one path or one single holistic perspective. I see all three as one single state of awareness, one single way of looking at reality - as a trinity, dualism, and monism.

Because the brain either _will or will not_ process reality in such a way that reality itself appears to _demonstrate_ the existence of this concept called 'God'. Certainly this is fallible, but to argue that there is _NOTHING THERE AT ALL_ is absurd. Now, while I will not dispute that to call it 'God' is just as meaningful as to call it a teacup orbiting Venus, or a Flying Speghetti Monster, it is nevertheless apparent (to me at least) that there is some kind of transcendental nature to reality, something that simply goes beyond rationalizations and cannot be rationalized or explained - yet, it CAN be directly experienced with perception, and we CAN _partially_ rationalize it, but never with any degree of accuracy because you simply cannot really conceive of _infinity_ - how could you conceive of something _without ending or limits_? Yet we do, we have this concept called 'infinity' and we have a concept called 'nothingness' and a concept called 'balance' - or 'straight lines' or 'curves' and 'whole numbers' - I mean, this isn't new. There are tons of concepts we use on a daily basis which are completely subjective. The truth is that our entire experience of reality is simultaneously subjective and objective.

@_aef8234_ 

Hopefully this response also indirectly sheds some light on the answer to your question. I would address your question directly, but this is kind of how my mind works as an INTJ/ENTP. (ENTP is my shadow type, so technically I am both an INTJ and an ENTP). Even I do not really fully grasp the essence of what it is I am trying to say, and struggling to describe it, because it is simply so abstract and subjective. In fact, I would argue that there is no way I can give a concise and simple answer, only place down markers and road signs that point you in a general direction. This dialogue is thus just as informative for me as it is for you and anyone else. I use debate as a means of crystallizing my intuition into something sharper and better defined, since it is often so abstract I really cannot translate it correctly the first time, or the translation is one that seems irrational and therefore I find it unacceptable.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Sounds like weak theism (if memory serves about the name); best phrased as "I don't believe god doesn't exist."


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> Exactly. And because there is so much the mind simply cannot process with perfect accuracy, this is what I would argue gives rise to imperfect concepts such as a divine creator or single origin, etc etc. Basically, I am trying to say that atheists, and theists, AND agnostics are ALL correct, and _eternally irreconcilable_. Each represents a _balanced path_ - each path is _equally accurate_ to the other two, _all three are equally valid_. It only depends on your subjective PERSPECTIVE. I want to argue, it's about as important as your favorite pair of sunglasses, if there were only three pairs in the whole world to pick from. (Bearing in mind, you can also just pick none, or all three, or any combination, in any pattern throughout time and space.) What all three represent, within my perspective, is a single 'meta-path' that unites them all into one path or one single holistic perspective. I see all three as one single state of awareness, one single way of looking at reality - as a trinity, dualism, and monism.
> 
> Because the brain either _will or will not_ process reality in such a way that reality itself appears to _demonstrate_ the existence of this concept called 'God'. Certainly this is fallible, but to argue that there is _NOTHING THERE AT ALL_ is absurd. Now, while I will not dispute that to call it 'God' is just as meaningful as to call it a teacup orbiting Venus, or a Flying Speghetti Monster, it is nevertheless apparent (to me at least) that there is some kind of transcendental nature to reality, something that simply goes beyond rationalizations and cannot be rationalized or explained - yet, it CAN be directly experienced with perception, and we CAN _partially_ rationalize it, but never with any degree of accuracy because you simply cannot really conceive of _infinity_ - how could you conceive of something _without ending or limits_? Yet we do, we have this concept called 'infinity' and we have a concept called 'nothingness' and a concept called 'balance' - or 'straight lines' or 'curves' and 'whole numbers' - I mean, this isn't new. There are tons of concepts we use on a daily basis which are completely subjective. The truth is that our entire experience of reality is simultaneously subjective and objective.
> 
> ...


Let's say there's a frog sitting on a lilypad in a pond through the woods. And say it's a particularly intelligent frog and had a telescope and could observe my house through it. Even if he could figure out what it was, could he know I was inside typing a message about him on the internet? How would he even know what the internet was?

It seems that as we observe the universe, we are even worse off than that frog. How many things may exist out there that we not only can't observe, but don't even have a concept for? I would add to your list that there might be something more even more interesting than what we conceive of as God out there, but we have no way of knowing.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> Let's say there's a frog sitting on a lilypad in a pond through the woods. And say it's a particularly intelligent frog and had a telescope and could observe my house through it. Even if he could figure out what it was, could he know I was inside typing a message about him on the internet? How would he even know what the internet was?
> 
> It seems that as we observe the universe, we are even worse off than that frog. How many things may exist out there that we not only can't observe, but don't even have a concept for? I would add to your list that there might be something more even more interesting than what we conceive of as God out there, but we have no way of knowing.


You have grasped the essence of what I began to saw, which led to my motivation to post my OP.

That is precisely where I am at now. That revelation made me realize how much of everything we simply take for granted - for example, the 'self' itself. In essence, I experienced this moment of cognitive short-circuiting I guess you could say, where it was as if perception and rationalization stopped happening for a moment/happened at the same time, etc...

And I saw/knew... 'It'.

.

*EDIT: It just occurs to me, I would even venture to speculate that perhaps it is due to the synthetic (taken to mean 'synthesizing') nature of introverted intuition as my preferred cognitive function that I see a monist, rather than a pluralistic reality. By monism, we can call it 'God' or 'solipsism' (I like that one), or 'nihilism' or 'existentialism' - subjectivity, essentially. If you are an INTP (which you come across as with your post, as I am about to demonstrate), then your preferred perceiving function is your extroverted intuition, so naturally you see the infinite in the plural, because that is more objectively the way we experience the external universe right in front of us while eating a bowl of cereal.

Consider your telescope analogy a bit further. What if the reality right in front of us, I mean our immediate reality around us, how we experience it, is actually the very limit of the depth of the telescope? What if this moment, this eternal now between past and future, is the actual outer boundary of your subjective reality? I would say that it, in fact, is - and that includes your immediate access to your memories, and their immediate contents, and anything at all IMMEDIATE.

This gives rise to direct awareness of sensation itself - for what it is, I would argue. It is like a telescope, and we are all frogs sitting on lilies floating in a pond somewhere in the woods.
*


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> You have grasped the essence of what I began to saw, which led to my motivation to post my OP.
> 
> That is precisely where I am at now. That revelation made me realize how much of everything we simply take for granted - for example, the 'self' itself. In essence, I experienced this moment of cognitive short-circuiting I guess you could say, where it was as if perception and rationalization stopped happening for a moment/happened at the same time, etc...
> 
> And I saw/knew... 'It'.


Sounds like what they call a 'peak experience'



> EDIT: It just occurs to me, I would even venture to speculate that perhaps it is due to the synthetic (taken to mean 'synthesizing') nature of introverted intuition as my preferred cognitive function that I see a monist, rather than a pluralistic reality. By monism, we can call it 'God' or 'solipsism' (I like that one), or 'nihilism' or 'existentialism' - subjectivity, essentially. If you are an INTP (which you come across as with your post, as I am about to demonstrate), then your preferred perceiving function is your extroverted intuition, so naturally you see the infinite in the plural, because that is more objectively the way we experience the external universe right in front of us while eating a bowl of cereal.


Not sure about pluristic.. I believe there is some ultimate truth, but we haven't discovered it, we may not even be capable of discovering it. So I see the ultimate truth as a series of possibilities. Like maybe there is just a single 'self' outside the universe. This being has chosen to incarnate as every being in this universe. Since that being isn't bound by our time, he/she could do this serially or simultaneously. So we could all be the same soul. Maybe you are me in my next life. Maybe I'm Napoleon in my next life (time doesn't matter). Or maybe we are both separate souls, but yet we could both incarnate as Napoleon (maybe in alternate universes). Maybe the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Physics means that each of us chooses our best path, but everyone else chose a different path.. This leads to a kind of solipsism because everybody I encounter might be only conscious in another universe, and not really in this one (this one's kind of mind blowing and I haven't fully developed it) Maybe this is all something like a computer simulation and the 'Big Bang' was really the boot-up process (or what we could observe of it)

Ne to me means I can keep going and generating the above scenarios. Maybe there's truth in them, maybe not


> Consider your telescope analogy a bit further. What if the reality right in front of us, I mean our immediate reality around us, how we experience it, is actually the very limit of the depth of the telescope? What if this moment, this _eternal now between past and future_, is the actual _outer boundary of your subjective reality?_ I would say that it, in fact, is - and that includes your immediate access to your memories, and their immediate contents, and anything at all _IMMEDIATE_.


As in only the present exists, and the small space I inhabit? All the other dimensions including time are an illusion, and I'm just subjected to a continued flow of information (from somewhere) that makes it all seem a reality? yeah that's one possibility


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

> My belief is irrational, therefore true.

> Irrationality.

> Truth values.

*raised eyebrow*


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> > My belief is irrational, therefore true.
> 
> > Irrationality.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me either.

Therefore, it's true.


----------



## affezwilling (Feb 1, 2011)

@Abraxas I concur with your arguments.

What is proof? Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. What is evidence? Evidence is something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign. 

Evidence can be either empirical or circumstantial. Science requires empirical evidence to prove or disprove a hypothesis, but it is to be noted that there is a distinction between empirical evidence and evidence. Just because one is lacking the means to collect empirical evidence does not imply a complete lack of evidence. Regardless though of type of evidence, evidence is still collected through perception which, as stated, is by it's very nature, irrational.

Good thread.


----------



## Arcaeus (Dec 31, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> It's intuitive. Intuition is both objective and subjective vision into the future. Objectively, it is vision into the future of reality. Subjectively, it is vision into your interpretation of the future of reality.


You tend to give intuition a magical, prophetic role in the universe and human nature. That is the entire point of this thread, it seems. Why is that?



Abraxas said:


> He answers the question that way during a filmed interview I've seen before on youtube where he's wearing, I think, a white suit and a really big microphone hanging around his neck.
> 
> But, the way I am actually trying to answer it here in this thread is using his psychology as a language to describe how I made this subject make sense to my self.
> 
> Essentially, intuition is irrational. Jung describes it this way. Both sensation and intuition are irrational perceptive functions. Both feeling and thinking are rational (he uses the word 'apperceptive' in _Psychological Types_) functions. So, if one intuitively grasps the transcendental, then there is no possible way that it could be rationalized. Thus, a knowledge cannot be derived from it, nor can an emotional identification with it. This is to say that atheists, agnostics, and theists are all irrelevant, because the very concept of 'god' is not a concept at all, it is an _intuition_ - and thus it is _necessarily irrational_. Every concept of God that exists within the rational mind and heart is only a nihilistic rationalization of the irrational. _This is why there can be no ultimate truth - only an unsolvable paradox. Or inversely, you accept an ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth *is* the paradox._


I understand exactly what you're getting at here. Simply put: God is an irrational entity, and thus requires irrational intuition to understand, one way or the other; you cannot reason for God, and you cannot reason against God. Simple. 

Or, at least, I think that's what you were getting at.

I think you're making it much more difficult to understand than you need to. You make me have to stumble over your prose - purplish and philosophical when it doesn't need to be - which turns something simple into an unnecessary, existential mess.

But - back to what you were saying - this is exactly why people who argue against religion tend to go by the titles of "agnostic-atheist" and "antitheist". Because they *know* that if they argue against "God", it's a pointless, irrational endeavor; God cannot be defined and thus cannot be reasoned against. Of course, though, these people aren't perfect and do fall into arguing God on many occasions.

What they try to argue against is the dangers of religion. They don't work to abolish God, but instead work to abolish the religious inculcation of the masses. This inculcation works through a rational manifestation of an irrational thought.

I personally don't like going by the term of atheism (although I will typically accept it for the sake of expediency) because it delves into the same irrational sphere as theism.

But, as you said, an irrational thought is just as true as every other irrational thought. Is that the point you were trying to make?



> It's a Ni/Ne thing. _*You either get 'God' or you don't get 'God', or you simultaneously get/not-get 'God' by at one moment getting 'God', and then in another forgetting 'God.'
> *_


I assume you're talking about the "feeling" of transcendence at any one moment? To "get God" is to feel as if you go beyond reality, and to not "get God" is to sink back down to the real world? This would make it not an immutable concept, but a fleeting sensation that has as much truth to it as any irrational idea.



Abraxas said:


> Basically, I am trying to say that atheists, and theists, AND agnostics are ALL correct, and eternally irreconcilable. Each represents a balanced path - each path is equally accurate to the other two, all three are equally valid. It only depends on your subjective PERSPECTIVE.
> 
> ...
> 
> Because the brain either will or will not process reality in such a way that reality itself appears to demonstrate the existence of this concept called 'God'. Certainly this is fallible, but to argue that there is NOTHING THERE AT ALL is absurd.


Of course, arguing the nonexistence of something that is ultimately unverifiable is always pointless: that's not to say that there is something there, but it's impossible to prove that there isn't.

But based on what you said - that all three religious viewpoints were valid because it all only depends on subjective perspective - doesn't that mean that arguing something exists that is ultimately unverifiable is just as absurd, since it places one perception as greater than another? 

What if my perception (or intuition) told me there was nothing beyond us: wouldn't that make it absurd by your definition, even though it is a wholly subjective perception?

If your intuition tells you something is there, and my intuition tells me nothing is there, is yours valid and mine not?

Unless it was your point to show that atheism is just as absurd as theism, or that you can't technically argue either side (both being irrational), then I retract my statement. But I'm not sure.



> The truth is that our entire experience of reality is simultaneously subjective and objective.


Sure, as objective nature has to pass through our subjective senses; anything objective must be subjectively qualified.

What does that mean to you? Does it change anything or affect the real world? Most importantly, does it alter the way in which we should acquire information in the future, or is it only a fancy musing?


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

My input: awwww yeeeeee


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@Arcaeus

We meet again, good sir. And this time I am in much brighter spirits so I think this is an excellent time to help each other to refine our mutual understanding of this subject matter, in the hopes that you and I, and those to follow, shall glean some practical insight from our dialogue.

I will begin by addressing each of your questions one-by-one, as I deeply appreciate each of them. They are all a delight to reflect upon and respond to.



Arcaeus said:


> You tend to give intuition a magical, prophetic role in the universe and human nature. That is the entire point of this thread, it seems. Why is that?


For this, I shall simply take the humble route and apologize up-front. I believe you are seeing my ego/pride showing at the excitement of my self-discovery, and I am projecting at times - indeed, this whole thread is, as you say, something of an indirect glorification of intuition as this unique 'insight into divine matters' or some kind of special form of perception that deserves to be treated with difference.

This is partially true, and I will not deny I believe this, which again may stem from my cognitive preferences. However, I would argue that one cannot deny the historical and contemporary importance of intuition to science in the realm of both engineering and theory. From whence commeth the Enlightenment? I suppose, in much less grandiose terms, what I have been driving at is this: we have intuition to thank for all those mystical ideas that continue to resonate throughout the ages, those simplistic yet elegantly complicated languages designed to model and describe reality with superstition and religion, which underlie and form the foundation of all we currently know about ourselves and the world, and generally take for granted.





Arcaeus said:


> I understand exactly what you're getting at here. Simply put: God is an irrational entity, and thus requires irrational intuition to understand, one way or the other; you cannot reason for God, and you cannot reason against God. Simple.
> 
> Or, at least, I think that's what you were getting at.


This is precisely so.



Arcaeus said:


> I think you're making it much more difficult to understand than you need to. You make me have to stumble over your prose - purplish and philosophical when it doesn't need to be - which turns something simple into an unnecessary, existential mess.


My apologies.



Arcaeus said:


> But - back to what you were saying - this is exactly why people who argue against religion tend to go by the titles of "agnostic-atheist" and "antitheist". Because they *know* that if they argue against "God", it's a pointless, irrational endeavor; God cannot be defined and thus cannot be reasoned against. Of course, though, these people aren't perfect and do fall into arguing God on many occasions.
> 
> What they try to argue against is the dangers of religion. They don't work to abolish God, but instead work to abolish the religious inculcation of the masses. This inculcation works through a rational manifestation of an irrational thought.
> 
> ...


Once again, you have grasped the essence of my message.





Arcaeus said:


> I assume you're talking about the "feeling" of transcendence at any one moment? To "get God" is to feel as if you go beyond reality, and to not "get God" is to sink back down to the real world? This would make it not an immutable concept, but a fleeting sensation that has as much truth to it as any irrational idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is my opinion that you either can argue both sides, or you cannot argue either side, but that you cannot argue one and not the other. To say one is true and not the other is absurd, and to say both are true seems equally absurd, but to say that neither are true is also absurd because that leaves us with nothing, which is ignorance, and ignorance is not acceptable. We must have an answer, or at least, if we decide we must - then I would argue that the most practical answer is the synthesis of all three perspectives into a single 'meta-perspective' which is simultaneously subjective (because it is modular and can, at any moment in time, be one of the three - but it must always be one of the three, they are necessarily exclusive) and objective (because we have given it an objective purpose in nature by which a standard can be derived that gives us at least one axis of relative measurement).





Arcaeus said:


> Sure, as objective nature has to pass through our subjective senses; anything objective must be subjectively qualified.
> 
> What does that mean to you? Does it change anything or affect the real world? Most importantly, does it alter the way in which we should acquire information in the future, or is it only a fancy musing?


It is both a fancy musing, and I would argue quite practical in every day reflection. It forces us to distance ourselves from the way we perceive things in the moment, to compare how we have observed things in the past with how we foresee things in the future, and what that says about ourselves in the present. It is meant to bring one into the state of being mindful of both the subjective introverted side of reality, which is simultaneously creative and destructive, but is ultimately without beginning or end because it only exists in the immeasurable moment of 'now', and the objective extroverted side of reality, which is also eternal, and cannot be created or destroyed - merely altered and changed - and which never exists in the subjective moment of 'now', but only exists within the measurable past and the predictable future.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't trust empirical intuitions for a priori statements necessary to define the nature of god. The metaphysical gap is just too large.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

nonnaci said:


> I don't trust empirical intuitions for a priori statements necessary to define the nature of god. The metaphysical gap is just too large.


Of course not. In a way, it would be to deny your own existence. I kind of realized that at the time, but decided to post this thread anyway to see if some people had come to a similar epiphany. The essence being, _an epiphany about what?_ I have decided to go with 'intuition itself' at this point. I am simply going to say, I believe intuition is the origin of a perception of something 'transcendental' - which is really only a way of saying that one cannot find a way to rationalize a perception, in the same way one could say that perception cannot perfectly simulate reality, anymore than any model can perfectly simulate anything without then being simply an equivalent copy of that thing.

I suppose we must at some point, for the sake of sanity, adopt an arbitrary boundary to our beliefs - a geas of ignorance - and ideally this boundary is unknown to us and therefore given more permanence within the psyche so that it does its job much better; as it becomes the source of all power to a man, his soul and the strength of the very spark within him.


----------



## Arcaeus (Dec 31, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> For this, I shall simply take the humble route and apologize up-front. I believe you are seeing my ego/pride showing at the excitement of my self-discovery, and I am projecting at times - indeed, this whole thread is, as you say, something of an indirect glorification of intuition as this unique 'insight into divine matters' or some kind of special form of perception that deserves to be treated with difference.


Is it truly different, though? Couldn't intuition be a simpler, more nuanced form of reasoning? Or couldn't reasoning be a more elaborate, drawn-out form of intuition?

Could they be one and the same function, but with stylistic differences?

These questions are somewhat rhetorical, so feel free to skip them if you want.



> This is partially true, and I will not deny I believe this, which again may stem from my cognitive preferences. However, I would argue that one cannot deny the historical and contemporary importance of intuition to science in the realm of both engineering and theory.


But I also think you cannot deny the importance of hard work in those disciplines. As much as intuition may start you on a path, it's the ability to strictly apply that revelatory information that makes technological advancement possible.

As Edison purportedly said: Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration. Of course, though, Tesla believed Edison to be incredibly inefficient in his work due to his excessive use of trial and error, instead of applying a little bit of theory and math to mitigate the hardships.

One may have been more acute at his job than the other, but it would be unfair to say that both weren't important in technology. Even then, neither built his role in society simply on a stream of intuitive leaps.



> From whence commeth the Enlightenment? I suppose, in much less grandiose terms, what I have been driving at is this: we have intuition to thank for all those mystical ideas that continue to resonate throughout the ages, those simplistic yet elegantly complicated languages designed to model and describe reality with superstition and religion, which underlie and form the foundation of all we currently know about ourselves and the world, and generally take for granted.


Ironically, the age of enlightenment is also known as the age of reason, and I would assert that the age of enlightenment arose because of the rational, and not the irrational. The human race grew in power when they began to discard intuition as an absolute force and began to rely on the higher functions of logic and reasoning.

That's not to say that intuition no longer plays a role in society, but it is to say that we no longer see it as necessary for development. That isn't a good thing, though, as both are necessary for true understanding of the world around us. But I do think advancement halts when we start to "feel" that things are true instead of knowing that they are. I would propose the opposite and say that the human race takes reason for granted, inherently, which makes sense when considered through the lens of evolution.

I don't know if you want to consider this on a practical level or not, but I think an overemphasis on intuition creates dangerous, absolutist minds, as it relies on the idea that the unconscious mind is more attuned to the world than the conscious mind. That's not to say that it isn't, or can't be, but leaving knowledge to the interpretation of a single sense is debilitating. A person with only the power of sight knows very little about the world.



> It is my opinion that you either can argue both sides, or you cannot argue either side, but that you cannot argue one and not the other. To say one is true and not the other is absurd, and to say both are true seems equally absurd,


I completely agree.



> but to say that neither are true is also absurd because that leaves us with nothing, which is ignorance, and ignorance is not acceptable.


Ignorance is absolutely acceptable; it's a human weakness to believe it isn't. We seek answers to everything, but in reality, some things simply cannot be answered rationally. Thus, philosophy exists, which is an extension of the rationalization of the irrational.



> We must have an answer, or at least, if we decide we must - then I would argue that the most practical answer is the synthesis of all three perspectives into a single 'meta-perspective' which is simultaneously subjective (because it is modular and can, at any moment in time, be one of the three - but it must always be one of the three, they are necessarily exclusive) and objective (because we have given it an objective purpose in nature by which a standard can be derived that gives us at least one axis of relative measurement).


If we force ourselves to have an answer for something, the answer becomes arbitrary and can be filled with anything we deem worthy. You can do that if you wish, but I'm content to have no answer. It is wholly acceptable to not have an answer for something: it makes us no weaker as a species. Sometimes the only truth is that we will never know.

But how is your answer practical? If it is practical, is it more practical than no answer?

(As an aside. I wonder: does atheism actually have its own objective purpose, or does its objective purpose exist only to contrast the objective purpose of theism? If theistic intuition didn't exist, an objective purpose for atheism wouldn't exist, as the concept of atheism wouldn't need to exist. If the only possibility is atheism, then it can't serve an objective purpose. If you amalgamate all three stances into one, would it also erase all objective purpose? Sometimes, if there is only one possible philosophical answer, it can equate to having no answer. I'm throwing the question out there because I don't have time at the moment to think about it.

For example, if you assert that all actions are inherently selfish, its practical purposes instantly disappear and the idea invalidates itself. Knowing that all actions are selfish is fruitless, as it obligates the words selfish and altruism into nonexistence, as it morphs all "selfish actions" into just "actions". 

And once the words are gone, we'll need to redefine actions in a new way. Is the action rationally beneficial ["selfish" in a good way] or irrationally beneficial ["selfish" in a bad way]? Is the action irrationally beneficial because it's irrational, or because it's something else, something like... I don't know... altruistic? In my opinion, I can see an infinite loop arising from defining and redefining.

Although, this example may be misleading, as you've stated your idea is a sort of subjective merry-go-round, where ideas can be interchanged at a whim. I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to work, or its purpose, so I'm a little confused on that.)



> It is both a fancy musing, and I would argue quite practical in every day reflection. It forces us to distance ourselves from the way we perceive things in the moment, to compare how we have observed things in the past with how we foresee things in the future, and what that says about ourselves in the present. It is meant to bring one into the state of being mindful of both the subjective introverted side of reality, which is simultaneously creative and destructive, but is ultimately without beginning or end because it only exists in the immeasurable moment of 'now', and the objective extroverted side of reality, which is also eternal, and cannot be created or destroyed - merely altered and changed - and which never exists in the subjective moment of 'now', but only exists within the measurable past and the predictable future.


I'm not understanding exactly how that is practical, other than the fact that it's a form of mental exercise to sharpen our understanding. If that's true, any idea requiring substantial mental rigor should produce the exact same effect.

I have nothing against that, though: that's how we better our thought processes; it's the lifeblood of an INTP. I'm just wondering if I'm missing something, and I'm trying to figure out if it serves a purpose beyond intellectual practice.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

My ignostic beliefs are sort of related to another post I just made.
http://personalitycafe.com/critical...-god-multiple-levels-reality.html#post2195593

If divine reality supervenes physical reality, then I encounter a problem with the limitations of language. i.e. I'm forced to infer from an unsupervised clustering of particulars to which I assign a meaningful labeling that is called 'God definition'. There's no way to know if my particulars capture the entirety (exhaustively) of something that would be god in the divine world. All I can say is that I've found an interesting category/class of particulars that is meaningful, to which the concept of god arose. Hence if a divine definition of God exists, then I can say it is subsumed in the physical universe to which I can only infer a subset of its particulars in an unsupervised sense. The converse however is dubious as I can infer a set of particulars but for all I know, could refer to a divine concept that is 'Bob definition' rather than 'God definition'.

And I'd argue that intuition is grounded in physical reality once we simulate this stuff on future neural nets ;0


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Arcaeus said:


> Is it truly different, though?


_*EDIT: I'm removing all the bullshit that I posted earlier as my initial response because something much more concise and insightful occurred to me that I would rather share with you instead.*_

Quite simply, yes and no. You have the right of it, and your entire post shows something I had essentially seen already but failed to articulate myself.

What I am making a primary identification with and reacting to is the psychic energy of my dominant function. Naturally, it feels the most rewarding to me to use it, and so, I have demonstrated a cognitive bias for it wherever I see it reflected in external reality, even elevating it to the highest concept which can theoretically exist - God itself.

You have indirectly done the same, by showing me a 'slice' of the world view/perspective of a Ti-dominant, when you started to go into hard work and dedication, etc.

Why, indeed - it is even in my very own signature! The functions are _perspectives_. Perhaps this is all due to my having made the mistake of equating the word 'perspective' with the word 'perception' on some unconscious level? I believe this may be the essence of our logical dissonance.

I think we actually understand one another and just don't know it, because I am likely nowhere even remotely on your level when it comes to articulating my thoughts just so. It is a skill I can be quite good at if I have the motivation to be, as I'm sure you can see - but I confess, there is a deep sense of apathy and nihilism in my life that I still struggle with as well despite every conclusion and every insight. It feels as if it is simply never enough. _There must always be something *more*_ for me, you see. Perhaps it is an extroverted thing?

I hate to sound so fatal but... perhaps you struck the essence of it when you said that you found ignorance acceptable. You see, I simply cannot 'settle' with ignorance. I simply _must know_. And if knowledge itself is infinite, then I_ know I am ignorant forever_. But, if knowledge is finite, then I _really am ignorant forever_ and I will _never know it_.

Quite the epistemological quandary you've stumbled upon, good sir!


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> As of tonight, I am no longer an atheist, or an agnostic.
> 
> I am not a believer either.
> 
> ...


This is precisely the type of thinking that I was referring to in this post.

Without a factual baseline, intuitors can often get caught fabricating their own reality. This is something that I try to avoid.

And did you have an intervention that lead you to concluding that you are an ENTP? Previously, you posted on my profile telling me that some Ni-sounding force lead you to believe that you were an INTJ.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> This is precisely the type of thinking that I was referring to in this post.
> 
> Without a factual baseline, intuitors can often get caught fabricating their own reality. This is something that I try to avoid.
> 
> And did you have an intervention that lead you to concluding that you are an ENTP? Previously, you posted on my profile telling me that some Ni-sounding force lead you to believe that you were an INTJ.


Read the entire thread.


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Read the entire thread.


But... but... that would mean that I would have to exert myself instead of you just spoon-feeding relevant information to me.

Edit:
Okay, in post #28 you reference that ENTP is your shadow type, while still stating that you are an INTJ.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> But... but... that would mean that I would have to exert myself instead of you just spoon-feeding relevant information to me.
> 
> Edit:
> Okay, in post #28 you reference that ENTP is your shadow type, while still stating that you are an INTJ.


Which is now my stated dominant type, with INTJ being my shadow.

As well, I posted the inverse of my OP later in this very same thread, offering myself up as an atheist. Then, in the end, I offered up any stance on the issue as fundamentally folly to begin with, because it is to recognize something rational being discussed at all. If this be the case, then 'God' must therefore be rational on some level beforehand, otherwise only irrationality can be the result of any attempt to discuss it at all.

Hence, I created this thread - as an objective demonstration of that very fact. As anyone meta enough to notice has probably picked up on this subtle theme very quickly.


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

@Abraxas
I'm so meta, even this acronym.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> @_Abraxas_
> I'm so meta, even this acronym.



*bro-fist*


----------



## Arcaeus (Dec 31, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> I hate to sound so fatal but... perhaps you struck the essence of it when you said that you found ignorance acceptable. You see, I simply cannot 'settle' with ignorance. I simply _must know_. And if knowledge itself is infinite, then I_ know I am ignorant forever_. But, if knowledge is finite, then I _really am ignorant forever_ and I will _never know it_.


That doesn't mean you can't keep trying to find the answer to something; sometimes even when you know you won't find an answer, you can come back and fool around with the reasoning, see if something new pops up. I can tell at times when I first look at a question whether it's answerable or not. 

But, to me, a lot of the fun of pondering an unanswerable question is seeing how close I can get to that unreachable answer. If I can hit every rational point along the way until I reach that irrational barrier, I'm pretty happy with my time spent.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Arcaeus said:


> That doesn't mean you can't keep trying to find the answer to something; sometimes even when you know you won't find an answer, you can come back and fool around with the reasoning, see if something new pops up. I can tell at times when I first look at a question whether it's answerable or not.
> 
> But, to me, a lot of the fun of pondering an unanswerable question is seeing how close I can get to that unreachable answer. If I can hit every rational point along the way until I reach that irrational barrier, I'm pretty happy with my time spent.







Stood in firelight,
sweltering.

Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent.
Felt _cleansed._

Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in the night.

Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there.
The cold, suffocating dark goes on _forever_ and *we are alone.*

Live our lives, lacking anything better to do.
Devise reason later.

Born from oblivion;
bear children,
hell-bound as ourselves,
go into oblivion.

*There is nothing else.*

*Existence is random.
* 
Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long.
No meaning save what we choose to impose.

*This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces.*

It is not God who kills the children.
Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.

_It’s us._

_*Only us..*_


----------



## Arcaeus (Dec 31, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Stood in firelight,
> sweltering.
> 
> Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent.
> ...


Of course.


----------

