Solipsism is defeated most easily by pointing out that the world is the Other. It must not be us, we can see, because it suprises us, dissappoints us, and in all ways, does things we cannot predict or control. If everything in the world turned out just the way we expected it to, if we were never wrong, the world would be an extension of us- it would be contained without our minds, or at least, indistinguishable from a world contained within our minds.
If God never surprises us, if He never does something we would never do if we were God, if He never dissappoints, or in other ways conflicts with what an idealized God of the mind would do, He can never be distinguished from a God of the mind, and hence, we would have no good reason to believe in Him as the Other.
In summary, unless we can point to what God has done that would be in some conflict with our own imaginings of Him, we are obligated to take a solipsistic perspective on God, and conclude that He is only a part of us.
Now, I’m pretty sympathetic towards atheism, but I’m gonna take you out on a technicality here (at least from my perspective).
So, my issue is with your terminology of the “other”. We’ve touched on this before, but you’re definition of ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ is far too stringent for most people. If a person’s favourite sports team loses, it is physiologically indistinquishable from them having lost, personally.
But it goes deeper than that. This isn’t about mere cliques, but rather how we view ourselves. Dividing ourselves into groups isn’t merely a matter of convieniant labels, but rather an extension of our need to distinquish self from non-self, since we are pretty bad at it! Heck, look at how Durkheim talked about ancient society!
So within this, it is worth keeping in mind that ancient man had a similarly blurry relationship with the environment. Look at ancient religions and you see the blurring between man and nature because the two were seen as one, or at least readily able to harmonize with each other as well as they could harmonize with other humans.
The god, or gods, which were derived from that sort of thinking are very different from the sort of gods that are derived from a sterner ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ thinking.
I have yet to meet another human with whom I cannot harmonize and begin to view them as ‘self’, given enough time, energy, and searching. I can defend Ned, because I see much of myself in him. I can defend Mastriani because I see glimpses of myself in him. Even you, Uccisore, with whom I can see very, very little in common I can see that we are bonded through our passion for our own paths and an apologetic nature that goes with that. As well as a touch or two of civility, never a bad thing, eh?
So what happens now, when I am told of a divine with whom I cannot harmonize? With whom I can truly see no shared ground. To me this thing isn’t merely not-a-god, but it is also so completely other than I cannot concieve of its existence.
By forcing God to be an ‘other’ you force me into an atheistic stance. For me that isn’t an issue, but what if I were some transendentalist whose God was terribly unparsimonious?
But from a Gnostic perspective, God is not “the other.”
In the first place, that’s not a concept that has meaning when you’re dealing with the All. It’s only relevant in a context of the parts. We draw lines through the reality we experience, separating this from that, including self from other; these lines are in large measure arbitrary, but they are useful.
What constitutes “self”? That is by no means an easy question. There is a core perspective from which we look out upon the world. That core, the Eye in the center of the whirlwind, is unequivocally self. But it looks out upon thoughts and feelings and sensations, upon a body, upon possessions and immediate circumstances, upon an outer world known only through communication.
Most people think of that outer world as not-self. Most people look on possessions and immediate circumstances as not-self, too. Most people look upon the body as self, but it’s a fairly common insight that the body can also be thought of as not-self, as housing for the thoughts and feelings, the personality. It’s a rarer insight that the thoughts, feelings, and personality can also be considered not-self – something the Eye within watches go on, merely the innermost circle of experience and not the Experiencer – but this also is true. And, going the other direction, it is possible to consider the whole universe part of self, to identify with the All. True, most of that reality is not under the control of the individual will, but then, one’s thoughts and feelings are not entirely under control of the will, either, are they? The difference is only one of degree.
The drawing of a line through experience, and saying that all of reality within that line is “I” while all of reality outside that line is “not-I,” is a choice, not an observation. To believe that this choice represents the way things are in any absolute sense is illusion.
Now God, being the All, is outside these dividing lines altogether. When we achieve oneness with Him/Her/It, all such dividing lines are erased. There is no self, no other. There is no this, no that. And so to say that God is the “other” is misleading.
That was the first thing I thought, too, but then I saw his other thread where he’s raising the interfaith issue here overtly. So no, I’m pretty sure this thread is aboveboard.
I don’t think this really works as an atheistic argument, because it’s so difficult to show God doing anything, expected/desired or otherwise.
I find it interesting that children are in many ways solipsist in their approach and gradually begin to realise that first of all their mother, father, brothers and sisters are real “others†and then go on to discover the rest of the world. The feeling that the universe revolves around them is quite natural for this awakening to reality. Similarly humankind will have developed in this way, opening for the world at large. In so far, it could be said that we overcome our solipsism, to which the discovery of the God (another “otherâ€) would be a further development.
This however, would only be true if God were a physical entity and part of the universe at large which can be sensually discovered. This is by all accounts not so. It is the world that surprises or disappoints us, and the connection to a “god†must first be made before we can make that discovery. As with all things, the search for answers is influenced by the question at hand. Many things are found only when looked for because of the vast amount of stimuli which we have to sort in our brains and a priority system has to be installed. In a small way this is described by the hierarchy of needs from Maslow, which of course is only a construction to help us understand our psychology.
When we experience the world as an “otherâ€, we learn to expect certain occurrences and not to expect others. Surprise or disappointment happens when those expectancies are let down or contradicted. In my understanding, God is communicated before he is experienced. That means that expectations are created before anyone can register corresponding or conflicting incidents. Therefore, distinguishing a spiritual reality (as against a physical reality) from constructions of the mind or imaginations is not as easy as presented.
I my summary, God is the Ineffable, because he is not a physical experience. He is experienced in the same way as love and hope are experienced and therefore is difficult to distinguish from our own yearning.
I think we have to entertain the possibility that our sentience regarding what we call “higher†life or Being is an integral part of our psychological build up which we either observe or ignore. My observation is that cultivating this part of our being is rewarding both personally and collectively, and shows me that the physical reality is not the only relevant truth for my life. As I have said before, the spiritual is of course something that challenges and a provocation for those who are only sensually orientated. It is here that the need for humility and discretion is called for.
You both seem to be wanting to extend the notion of the self beyond the line where I draw it. That's fine, I know that's a limitation of mine, but I think my argument can be salvaged with a little different phrasing to make it work with extended notions of the self.
To understand what you've been saying, I'll look at the self as a set and not an item. If you consider your dog, or your car to be an extension of yourself, that does more change (I would say damage) to the definition of 'self', and little or not at all to 'that dog' or 'that car'. What I mean is, you haven't changed the dog, you've applied 'yourself' in a new way. It's still a fact that your dog will not appear in your lap, change breeds or become a crocodile by you wishing it to be so, and your dog will turn up in places you didn't expect, doing things you didn't expect. This still, to me, implies a level of seperation. I can accept for purposes of argument that some aspects of the self posses this degree of seperation (it just leaves me wanting a new word to describe this duality), I think most theists would consider it vital that God is a part of the self like their dog is, and not a part of the self like their imagination is.
thezeus18
If it is, it’s covert to me as well. But since you and Navigator both thought that, is there something about the presentation that leads that way, or is it just 'cause it’s me?
Bob
Yes! And those let downs or contradictions are possible because the universe is not contained within our minds.
That’s interesting, my experience is that people generally experience God, but have no understanding of what the experience was without communication. But I don’t understand what you wrote above, because it seems to agree with me, but comes to an opposite conclusion. If expectations about God are created before He’s experienced, doesn’t that reinforce the idea that those expectations would on occaision be shattered, if God was real? I also don’t understand why this notion would only apply to the physical.
How do people experience God? Do they meet him on the corner, or in a bar or on a bus? This “experience†is not suitable to be an opposite of solipsism because it is hard to distinguish from our own constructions of the mind or imaginations. The religious experiences I have heard of or had can not be distinguished by witnesses either and are very often difficult to communicate, except abstractly.
An expectation which is communicated to people and then disappointed can hardly be a proof that God is real! I can be disappointed and assume that I was on the wrong path and associate this to God’s guidance, but where’s the proof?
I think we’re getting somewhere. In what ways is the imagination different from a dog?
What is the imagination, anyway?
When we imagine something, we have an experience that resembles sensation in many ways, yet it is not sensation. Imagination and dreaming are essentially the same sort of experience, except that imagination happens when we are awake.
In your first post, you said this:
And if I link that with what you said above, it seems to me that you are presenting an idea of the imagination that fits this description: it never surprises, never disappoints, never conflicts with an ideal, and in short if fully under our conscious control. This is a common notion, but a little reflection will show that it is not at all true. Have you never had an imaginary scene or image – a memory, or a cherished daydream, or a fear – insist on presenting itself when you didn’t want it to? Have you never tried to imagine things going one way, and then had the imaginary scene go another willy-nilly? If not, you are quite a unique individual indeed.
Everyone has this sort of experience, but the illusion of “what’s inside my head is me, what’s outside it is not-me” is so compelling that people still hold incorrect ideas about how the imagination works, ideas that conflict with their own everyday reality. And while the boundary between self and not-self is fluid and arbitrary, it is the inward shrinking of that boundary that is more important for purposes of this discussion than the outward expansion of it. That the dog can be seen as part of the self is less important than that the imagination can be seen as part of the other.
Imagination is not “all in the head” in the sense that it can be controlled, and it is no more “all in the head” than sensation in the sense of being a purely mental phenomenon. Both of these are ways we have of experiencing the world around us, and imagination can be just as important in terms of providing information and understanding as sensation (although of course the two should not be confused; when that happens we call it “hallucination” rather than imagination).
How is God experienced? Through all four modes of experience, I would say: sensation, imagination, cognition, and emotion; but always indirectly. You cannot see God with your eyes (except by seeing the material universe of which She is the soul); you cannot imagine God, but you can have images that link with Her; you cannot understand God intellectually, but your thinking can help make you ready to experience Her presence; you cannot feel as She feels, but your heart can be moved by Her.
And yet there is no one object out there in the world to which one can point and say, “That is God.” God is not a part of the self like your dog is; God is a part of the self like the human race is. Or the planet earth. Except both of those are still too small.
We haven’t talked in a while, for which I’m sorry.
I’m not so sure, or perhaps not convinced. I can willingly concede that if the world were merely a predictable, unsurprising, utterly convincing thing then it at the very least would be very likely to merely be a projection of ourselves or our minds.
However, just because the world isn’t like this, I’m not sure that it necessarily follows that it isn’t the Other to the mind. What if the mind is inherently confused, unpredictable, surprising, uncertain?
Or, another possibility is that the mind is predictable, ordered, unsurprising and so on, but projects the opposite (as the world) as part of a necessary delimitation of itself (albeit an artificial one that breaks down under its own terms).
You are referring, I believe, to what I call a junk faith - where God is merely there to validate our beliefs and actions, where God is never a difficult and unpleasant belief. Still, as I say, I’m not sure about the very distinction/opposition on which it’s all based.
I see Ucci’s perception here as very interesting, and where you take issue with his premises, appears uncertainty.
That there can be found certain thoughts, mannerisms, actions of similarity, does not necessarily indicate absolute “self within self” perception. Often times, the similarity is only passing, which clearly pronounces “other”, and speaks of ambiguous familiarity, not certainty of “self”.
For some, that brief similarity, followed by the inevitable antithesis, is profound evidence of “others”, more leaning towards the “all other” category.
Ucci’s premise is provocative, but likely simplified enough at the current point to be viewed as incomplete. Like with most theories, there is still more for him to do.
Unless we can point to conflictions we’re to conclude that we’re God? Not real logical. You’ve pointed out plenty of conflictions between my force and the other forces I have a smaller percentage of control over, basic control over. Some controls require greater effort. Self-control is the first and most simple, but just because I have no original control over the outer forces, be they other people, objects, or atmospheres, does not mean I can’t control them and that humanity doesn’t control themselves as a society and their environments. This supposed godly force is slowly declining and is being systematically programmed to fit ours.
The idea of a god is like a leechy deal. You have no ability to control yourself and your environment. It’s in god’s hands. Think of it like you being a homeless man on the streets who believes that society takes care of you. You’re a beggar but quite deserving of it. The “others” work for you. You’re not apart of society. You don’t see your own abilities to contribute and to empower yourself so you cast yourself out. What you don’t understand is this is untrue. You’re just a bum who doesn’t want to work. Oh my god, I called you a bum. I don’t mean that. I don’t think you’re a bum. Not comparing Christians or any theists to actual leeches here and certainly not to society, but to a god who is not there. This god, in reality, is nature. Nature can be controlled and is becoming known to us. There are many others but they do not have power or authority over you. You can avoid and you can join in. It’s about your experience and your modifications with them. You are not a lost drifter to a god. You do not become its servant, its child, or its property. You are not threatened or doomed to hell and bribed to heaven. There is no savior. You don’t need a hero. You need a framework and interrelation with your society.
The hellion is not especially pleased. The hellion does not like ultimatums. She doesn’t like firey pits for not dressing in Sunday’s best and skipping off to the local steeple. She doesn’t like radical preachers and she’s done with the country folk who ain’t got no lick o’ sense but who gots their Jesus.
Wakey-wakey. You have been poked with a pitchfork. >.>
Your paradigm is entirely non-escapist, and oozes with responsability. Though correct, it might not be as appealing as infinite-bliss-after-a-faithful-death. People jump for what is most appealing.
You can move to whatever country you like, though, someday. You can check out really atheistic nations, if ya want. Whatever is best for you.
I just wanted to say, that I liked this reply of yours.
This only covers normal thoughts of religion and atheists. What about those that do not come near worship but, may know a higher order of creature. What text claims that religion is worship or athiest is antiworship?(besides the dictionaries) Why cannot these two words change or take a totally different path? This path of normalcy is done and done and done again with the same results, never changing. Why trod an overworked path? Why can we not say that a being not unlike us but quite advanced compartively, challenges us? Why must there always be hot or cold when there are temperatures yet unused? And why can not both sides have some rightness? What if both worked towards the center?
Atheist means the absence of deities. If you believe in deities, even if it’s none of the Gods the religions offer, you’re still classified as a theist.
The statement: “God exists” can either be true or false. There is no middle ground. If there’s a being more advanced than humanity that fucks with us periodically, then it’s not really God. Being greater than humanity is not warrant for something to be called godly. GOD, is supposedly that thing which created itself and the universe. So, THE God either exists, or he doesn’t. There can be no middle ground between GOD EXISTS and GOD DOESN’T EXIST. Either God exists, or he doesn’t exist. Other beings are a different thing altogether.
For an ant, which is the better atomic unit? The single ant, or the colony?
A lone ant is worthless. But a colony exhibits traits of memory, of purpose, and, heck, reproduction.
Humans are much the same. The individual human is a non-entity, it is other through our relationships with and to other humans that the idea of ‘self’ has any meaning. Since these relationships can be expanded to the point where groups of people identify as one, why hold onto a distinction like that?
