Transfering conversation from “What do you hate” in Mundane Babble:
So you have a more complex meaning for “athiest”?
As to the “second half of the sentence”, I’m taking the position of St Augustine as expressed near the end of his Confessions.
If you can’t take it literally, it’s symbolic.
Then how do you know Scripture’s inspired in the first place?
Mostly because it always has been taken that way.
mrn
Well the thing most people don’t realize about scripture, is the authority comes from those who believe in it.
I mean, people are just taking other people’s word, who are taking other people’s word, who are taking other people’s word, all down the line. Unless of course God actually appeard in front of them, like Moses, or whoever else claimed. But realize at once, these people are taking Moses’s word for it.
It’s like our libraries. Where does the authority of a book come from? It comes from citing other books, and those books were citing other books. Our libraries multiply by mitosis. Think about that.
I guess I’ll have to take your word for it…unless there’s another way to judge the authoritative.
mrn
Mrn wrote
Who has the authority to tell you if a pie tastes good? You can listen to all sorts of experts but if you really want to know, you must taste it yourself.
There is no such thing as an esoteric thought but there is esoteric thinking and thoughts can be combined in ways that can lead one to the experience of esoteric thinking and contemplation that lead to an “aha” moment of revelation that is beyond both our emotional and intellectual reason…
Sacred text has the capacity to do this because it is written by those that have had this “aha” and developed on it. They write from experience and in a way that can allow the reader to share the “aha” rather then just perceiving a string of thoughts.
If it can do this for you, then you’ll know it is authoritative.
Nick I love your analogy of the Aha! moment. This is exactly correct, it’s something that cannot be intellectualized. This is why I love Zen so much, it’s completely centered around giving you that Aha! moment.
I have heard some argument like this before. “I know it’s inspired because it inspires me.” Here is one problem I see with this:
Can a fantasy book be authoritative? They can give a feeling of “aha”, or intellectual pleasure. What does that say about the contents of the book. Are the events true? (No) Are the events meaningful? (Maybe) Or are they just beautiful?
Also, if the “aha” experience is from some sort of trick putting thoughts next to each other, is there anything worth being authoritative about in the text?
Would you like to clarify if you meant the “aha” experience was merely a gestalt, or an instance that “things are recieved according to the mode of the reciever”. Given our past exchanges, I suspect the former.
And I’m quite surprised “torrentfields” agrees with you as my originally quoted passage was just a reaction to his position of books only coming from other books.
mrn
Hi mrn
Yes it can. A book of fables and myths appearing as fantasy can be very authoritative. The myths and fables are constructed around psychological truths and are for the purpose of creating a psychological effect. If they don’t contain such psychological truths in a form that can lead towards a revelation, then the best they can be is pleasurable and inspirational. If such truths are intentionally within the myth, they have the ability, if conditions are right, to bypass preconception and become revelatory by touching our being.
It is not a trick but both mathematical and psychological. It opens the mind to perspective a person cannot find on their own their own. That is why it cannot be explained. A person has to experience it. Then the distinction between revelatory and inspirational becomes clear. I know it has been that way in my own experience.
Yes. The “aha” in my experience seems to have been what is referred to in Christianity as gnosis and in Zen as satori. The whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts. It is normally through the sacred arts including sacred text that a person can get beyond the preconceptions of parts and experience the degree of wholeness of which they are representative. This perspective is what a person can become open to.
Sometimes just being near a person who has become open has this kind of effect on a person searching for this revelation. It has to do with the organization of the life force within ones being. Our own is drawn to copy it and the result is the experience. This has nothing to do with an expert writing a book and giving a speech.
This is why many followed Jesus in spite of all the threats and growlings of the societal “Great Beast.” His “presence” allowed them to experience gnosis and consequently the state of presence retaining the perspective that was revelatory for them. To follow Jesus meant learning how to retain a conscious perspective that normally we have no conception of.
Someone writing texts to give an Aha! moment in people, for me, would have to be words that aren’t designed with preconceived beliefs on the part of the writer. A huge part of the Zen aha moments for me, is that pointing out there is no problem, the problem you are trying to solve doesn’t exist.
One of my favorite Zen passages is this, It being the mystical experience, satori, the realization that you are the eternal force of the universe.
You cannot take hold of it,
But you cannot lose it
In not being able to get it, you get it
When you speak, it is silent
When you are silent, it speaks
T
If you read the following article on satori you will see the purpose of the koan is not expressing a belief but is a preconceived psychological tool for the purpose of leading to the experience. This is not problem solving but revelatory. Sacred scripture serves the same purpose. Its value is psychological and not historical. Gnosis is similar and uses prayer to bypass associative thought.
I guess that wasn’t the best definition. It does have a preconceived belief, I suppose, but that preconceived belief rests on direct personal experience. However, it is not the normal preconceived belief, such as if you do not do A, B, and C you will go to hell. In other words, it’s not really an arguement, but more of arguement against arguement, without being arguementative. This may seem contradictory, but after studying Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, and other such faiths, you will realize it is not. It’s like a paradox, but the paradox doesn’t contradict itself really, it actually supports itself. Anyway, that’s my diagnosis.
As for the link you gave, I thought it was a pretty good synopsis of Zen and satori, however I’m more likened to the spoken word (audio recordings) of Alan Watts, when it comes to this. There’s just something about the fluxuation and resonance in someone’s voice that transcends written writing. But then again, you can notice easily in Zen, simplicity is the way. I find all too often, that too many words, lead to confusion.
I always liked the fact that in Zen the answers the masters give, when asked about something spiritual, always have to do with something totally ordinary. And when asking matters about something ordinary, they refer to something greatly metaphysical. This is what I mean by there discipline being designed around the paradox, which is much the same in Taoism, and the I-Ching, Book of Changes. Anyway, I could talk about eastern philosophy for days on end, because it is so beautiful and enlightening, which to me seems a pity that more westerners don’t open their minds to it. They end up going in circular debates that never cease. Oh well… such is the way of life… we create problems where no problem exists.