I am definitely further confused now. 
Therefore we have no knowledge of reality? So you define reality as that which we cannot know?
By the way, TPT, I apologize. I don’t even know who Dr. Laura is. I can stop posting in this thread if you want.
Sorry ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
It isn’t that simple. We do indeed build constructs to explain reality and to the extent that our explanations follow observation, testing, and ultimately provide predictability, we can say we have grasped a portion of reality - at least within the parameters and constraints of our constructs. So yes, we can know reality kinda sorta. But to “know” all of reality? One would have to be outside reality looking back in, and be capable of knowing EVERYTHING. We usually assign that to a god of some sort. This is why it is impossible for us to know what reality might be beyond our constructs. It is because we are IN reality and have no way to be OUTSIDE looking back in. Does this make sense?
Yes, it does to me in a basic intuitive way.
Anon,
Forgive me my bluntness. some of it is my personality, some of it is old age… 
It isn’t that we can’t know. We all know lots of things. But the most important thing to know is knowing what we do not, and cannot know. With that “knowing” we can let the mystery rest, and focus on dealing with what we CAN know. Does this do damage to metaphysics? Yes. But deservably so. For all our knowledge, we don’t seem to be doing too well. That is what we need to work on…
Peace, bro.
No problem Tentative. “Knowledge” is a funny subject - the question of what we can or can’t know. It’s hard to know what others mean by “knowledge”. It’s hard to know what I mean by it. Do you have to be separate from something to know it? Does knowledge imply alienation? Or does it imply oneness? etc. etc.
So then, Christians should advocate stoning women caught in adultery? There’s no ‘solution’ to this seeming ‘inconsistency’ without miring us in an unwinnable, subjective debate about interpretation.
Sorry tentative, that’s just willful stupidity. You want Christianity to be an easily-struck target, so you refuse to see it as anything but. If interpretation were really the way you describe, you could defeat any creed by saying “The Koran (or whatever) claims that God is a picked egg, and to disagree with me is to become mired in a hopeless debate over interpretation”.
All you do at that point is render yourself completely incapable of participating in philosophical conversation about whatever creed is under scrutiny. Which is fine- I’ve been saying that about you for years, and you demonstrate it as clearly here as ever.
Ucc,
Pure horseshit. I remember you and several others castigating Bob for “re-writing” the bible because his interpretations didn’t match up with anything you liked. It’s great for you to “discuss” interpretations and call it philosophy as long as your version finds agreement. Obviously, you didn’t read the rest of my posts between anon and myself and instead chose to pull one line out of context to make your not so subtle put down.
You want philosophical interpretation? Wonderful! Then either face up to the inconsistencies and start explaining them away or beg off. It can’t be done, and you know it. Oh sure, we can close our eyes and pretend they aren’t there. Christians and other religions manage to do that quite well. The extremists in all religions use “holy texts” as their excuse for whatever agenda they would like to pursue. There is nothing new about “interpretation”. So by all means, smooth out all the ambiguity, the inconsistencies, and provide everyone with a coherent christianity - but be careful. You wouldn’t want to be accused of re-writing god’s word.
So much to what we “know” … hi folks, long time no read!
Take Care
Hi Bob
This is a remarkable thread. First, because it opens with parody of Dr. Laura dealing with the issue of homosexuality when shock jock Dr. Laura’s present dilemma has to do with racism. Next because TPT claims his reason for posting the letter for reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality. Third for drawing in ILP luminaries Uccisore and yourself after long absences. Fourth for a deep discussion of epistemology that is only tangentially related to either the topic of the letter or TPT’s point. Lastly, you have posted and interesting excerpt from a Zen Buddhist essay whose relevance would have been immediately apparent on the “what does it mean to be a Christian’ thread but the relevance to the present thread could use a clever segway here.
There are two routes a Christian can take that come to mind in response to Suzuki. One is the Christianity as a species of universal religion a variety of which Bob I believe you have taken. The other is to recognize that while the issues Suzuki raises are real, they do not necessarily invalidate a historically based orthodox theology and press on. A third route, a perilous one to be sure, would entail finding common ground between the other two.
Meh, doesn’t matter. This always happens when the everything is subjective thing is brought up.
C’mon now Felix, don’t be so obtuse. Not nothing to do with it, but in addition to that issue. The writer was showing the absurdity of God’s supposed revelation that homosexuality is immoral by showing all the other Biblical revelations about other stuff that are often downright evil even by the Bible’s own standards; and that we’ve had to migrate away from them without God’s say-so. You might make a case that homosexuality is immoral, but not on the basis of such a Biblical dictum.
I must admit that I was urged to reply after seeing Tentative, Anon and others talking about knowledge and having Suzukis comment in my mind. But I like your terminology and yes, I do believe that Jesus somehow logged into something universal, like others have in their own cultural setting, and which really is what all religion is about.
Suzuki points out of course that the same conditions apply to Buddhism as well, and probably to any other genuine spiritual path. What amounts to Buddhism and Christianity in the modern age is an accumulation of contributions from people who have chosen Buddha or Christ to be the central figure of their spiritual journey, and yet they must know that the human beings behind the inspiration are but symbols of the movement towards the experience of Now – eternal life.
I found Suzuki’s comments valuable just because they do not invalidate a historically based orthodox theology, but leave room to see that it is a phase which we have to go through on the way to realising that reality encompasses much more that such theology can hold. I am still attracted to the idea of such phases, even if they are by no means to be taken dogmatically, and thesis, antithesis, crisis and synthesis seem to be a somewhat crude outline of the spiritual journey on which individuals find themselves, just as religious societies seem to go down a similar path.
I think too, that Jesus wouldn’t so much associate himself with theology, but with the experience of awareness, the confrontation with reality and God. It was a similar familiarity that Thomas Merton found with Tibetan monks when talking about Prayer/Meditation, or Bede Griffiths in India. Words are incompetent for transmitting this confrontation, except to some degree for people comparing their same experience.
The discussion here about the failings of early scripture is reconciliated in the understanding that Religion is in motion, and the past is a foundation to build on, but not the room we live in.
Take Care
Nice insight, into any religion or worldview. Good to see you again Bob.
I’m not challenging you on it. I just think it 's remarkable the way you bypassed the primary theme of the article to pull out a pet issue.
Hi Bob,
Thought maybe you were off in the Canaries… Yeah, I did drag anon off into the futility of epistomology. I’m guilty. But no part of this thread was addressing spirituality, only superficial religion, and you know how I’m going to react to that. 
An interesting take on “phases” that both the individual and religions must go through in the spiritual journey. I suspect it is quite accurate. This era of extremism seems to take that process backwards, not forward, but perhaps it’s just my impatience. Yes to awareness, for it is in awareness that a genuine grasp of the mystery can bring us spiritual satisfaction. The question then becomes how shall we live? and not why are we here? If there is a universal understanding of the ineffable, perhaps it is this.
Well, to say I’d bypassed something is to pretty much issue a challenge.
Hi Tentative,
The Canaries? Sounds good to me - if only I had no work … then again, delete that
Yes, I know … strange how this always comes up – I suppose we have to get used to the fact that it is what Religion is about for many people and move on.
Yes, I picked it up in one of Alan Watts’ Christian books, “Behold the Spirit” and of course in Ken Wilbers’ “Integral Spirituality”, where the phases are more intricate. It is a journey through the spiritual development of people and societies, the thesis being the accepted norm of society for a child of about six or seven, when they leave the Eden of innocence and pick up the tradition of their surroundings. In (supposed) Christian societies this could be seen as Catholicism, and Alan Watts compares the way that children of that age tend to wrap up and decorate those things they hold dear to the way the Bible and other religious artefacts have been decorated in Catholicism. Of course this may vary because we are very diverse cultures, but generally it is true of societies that grow from some kind of spiritual tradition. Note: It is simple acceptance of the tradition, not a differentiated look at it. The same phase could be seen to be the phase of many evangelicals in America (or perhaps anywhere) today, when their being protestant isn’t a deliberate step.
When people take a deliberate and critical look at their tradition and step away, criticizing the naivety or other misgivings of that tradition, it is comparable to puberty and the phase of antithesis. The connection with puberty is often the radicalism of the separation. There is a natural animosity that rises at this stage which Christians often compare to the criticism of Jesus of the Pharisees. This isn’t really fitting, because Jesus wasn’t at this stage, but much further and was therefore criticizing something else. In Germany this animosity was rampant even up until the 50’s and slowly wilted as agnosticism became a widespread attitude towards the church.
The criticism often finds very odd expression, like the call for simplicity and less church feasts, which protestants often assume is theologically arguable, but it had more to do with the “Bürger” or bourgeois class in Germany, who wanted their workers to spend less time in church or praying to saints.
The next step on this spiritual journey, if a next step is taken, is often the crisis. It is often the realization that neither of the previous phases really satisfies the yearning of the soul and people are often disillusioned and retire from religion. This is also where the kind of criticism is rampant which we often read on ILP or elsewhere about the Bible, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, or whatever else is deemed worthy of criticism. This is really quite healthy and can be the phase of a kind of “Auseinander-setzung” (lit. sitting apart), a contention, conflict or debate, wherein we reach the basis of our lack of satisfaction with the past, and find momentum to proceed. Of course we can also stagnate and make no process.
If we do proceed to synthesis, we find that this step reconciles everything and we experience “grace”. Synthesis realizes where the dissatisfaction comes from, namely from egocentricity and our separation in our mind from the rest of reality. It is not found so much in the things themselves which we have found worthy of criticism, but our own attitude towards them. Once this changes and we welcome the foregone phases as steps of the awareness-process, we realize that the naivety of the thesis, the pubescent protest of the antithesis, the conflict of crisis were necessary steps towards the wisdom of synthesis.
We must therefore help the people along the journey since, as Blake said, “the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.” This happens because it is a journey through the recognition of our own illusions and by putting these to one side, we hopefully achieve what Aristotle pointed to: “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
Take Care