Objective Vs Subjective - How we can be more honest with ourselves, and then others

[Rara]

I begin this as a spin off from Owledge's thread entitled "Atheism as a religion"

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/36593-atheism-as-a-religion/page-23

 

Mid-debate on this page, you will see a comment from Bubbles about stirring subjective views. This, we do find in most of life. Whether it's in forums, on the news, social media - everyone seems to have an opinion about something.

 

An educated opinion? Or a biased opinion based on values implanted in us. Notice how defensive we get if something of ours is criticised; religion, diet, parenting...the list goes on.

 

In the above debate, I had my own rumble with Iain, challenging him for a more objective view as opposed to going from what had been previously learnt from a yogi/teacher and attempting to apply it to neuroscience and quantum physics. My argument remains the same, and that is that I cannot go by what he argues because I have never experienced, nor had any reason to trust, his spiritual ideas. Yes, I can take them as a positive guideline for enhancing my own wellbeing and those around me, but if we're discussing the nature of the universe, religious and spiritual ideas provide very little other than what I see as beautifully written analogies. However, I can work with an evolutionist approach to at least use the tools that we have at hand to move one step closer, as opposed to making assumptions and links to dogmatic spiritual ideas that lack any form of credibility.

 

That said, Iain if you're reading this, don't think that I don't recognise your same goal. Your commitment to understanding theories of quantum physics, biology, neuroscience etc in addition to your spiritual practices is admirable and proves that you're not a man of blind faith. And feel free to present whatever teachings you have come across from the yogi teacher you spoke about, I just can't guarantee I'll be on board hehe.

 

So Bubbles' point is very valid as this is only one example of many conversations within that thread that had some very big opinions being thrown around. The main trend though, that I found, were almost reasons to argue for atheism as being like a religion. As opposed to looking at the scenario objectively, perhaps first looking at what defines religion and how atheism could (if it does at all) fit the description, some people instead choose to go straight for arguments such as it being a belief system of its own with its own label and following. Pure assumption, as you will see Marbehead fighting his corner many times on how this isn't the case.

 

The same could be said about religious debates in general, they all tend to be based around subjective, biased arguments depending on who wants to be right, as opposed to actualy being right. This is why I love the Tao Te Ching - it's pragmatic. In the same way as science (not all, but a lot) is pragmatic. It takes a lot of faith to read a holy book and take it as seriously word for word. It takes even more faith to deem it as reliable as the information you see directly in front of you.

 

Hypothetical example:

 

A fundamentalist christian believes in the word of God and that it is portrayed in the bible. This same person is told by a friend, but with no evidence, that their son has been seen kissing a man. How do you predict his reaction? Most likely dismissing the news because he hasn't seen his son actually doing it. Could he deny this if he had evidence? Probably not.

 

So in this case, he has made a choice about what he wants to believe. He wants to believe in the word of God and that it is portrayed throughout the bible. He wants to believe that his son is a straight man and that his friend is mistaken. Therefore there is a lack of objective thinking within this person - but it spares his feelings none the less. Of course, we don't even know if his son was actually kissing the man. That doesn't stop us trying to find the truth though, but his father probably wants to leve it there as he is worried about what he might find out.

 

A Recent example:

 

I was on Twitter the other day when over here in the UK, there was a huge storm over what this old talk show veteran said:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeOsBeeeEjI

 

In context, she is talking about a professional footballer's crime of raping a woman and his rights to return back to the team.

 

Due to her wording, trolls on Twitter went mad. Apparently she defended the rapist and blamed the victim.

 

Looking at the video objectively, what do you see? Personally, I heard her say that she in no way was "minimising rape" and that his actions were "reprehensible". Yes she did also say that the victim was very "drunk" and that it "wasn't violent", but this is fact stating. That is all I can say about that. People on Twitter would say "Judy, all rape is violent", which is a fair statement to make although, in this circumstace, as the court files confirmed, there was no evidence of bodily harm. Even though forcing sex is violent intent, in context with what she was saying, it is clear that the attack was not as severe as say, if he drugged and/or beat her. The justice system has different grades of violence, and this is why someone will get more jail time for murder than manslaughter. More for GBH than a quick one punch in a bar before walking out and calming down. She acknowledged that he had done a bad crime, and that he had done his time. The law sees the footballer, (Ched Evans if you want to research this yourself) fit to be let back out into the world and therefore Judy recognised this.

 

Still, Judy Finnigan had to make a public apology due to the subjective opinions and rants on Twtter. It resulted in her daughter receiving rape threats. I know, right! The wonderful opinion of "Oh, well let's see how she likes it if her daughter gets raped" mentality. The power of subjective opinion, aka, believe what suits you at the time.

 

So I wish to express the importance, and hopefully convince you that we should not be debating with our own personal biases. If we do, we find ourselves desparate to look out for ourselves in situations that require a neutral and practical solution. There is no harm in having our own preferences in life, depending on what they are of course, but an open mind to logic and evidence should not be discarded for dogma that could be likened to sheer imagination.

[Marblehead]

One of my favorite concepts: Subjectivity vs Objectivity.

 

I have many times on this board stated that something was "my understanding and opinion". This is because I rarely suggest that I am the holder of the truth as knowable by all thinking beings.

 

The best we can do is deal with the facts that are available to us. Sometimes we don't get enough facts and we make assumptions. Other times we get what we believe to be the facts but in reality it was only someone else's subjective assumptions.

 

In life we oftentimes do not get enough factual information and do not have the time to do the research needed to find the fact so we make assumptions.

 

This is the way life is. And we generally opt for whatever information we do get that agrees with what we already believe. But this doesn't necessarily make it true, does it? Only agreeable. Don't rock my boat.

 

People who follow dogmatic teachings don't want their boat rocked. They will even deny factual information and opt for what is agreeable to them. They cannot allow the first doubt to rise. It might destroy the dogmatic teachings.

[soaring crane]

thank you for the good read, Rara. I think you may have chosen an unfortunate youtube clip to illustrate it, but the thrust of your argument seems clear enough to me.

 

 

So I wish to express the importance, and hopefully convince you that we should not be debating with our own personal biases. If we do, we find ourselves desparate to look out for ourselves in situations that require a neutral and practical solution. There is no harm in having our own preferences in life, depending on what they are of course, but an open mind to logic and evidence should not be discarded for dogma that could be likened to sheer imagination.

 

I see a can of contradictory statements in that concluding sentence. Give us some examples, for example, of what you would consider harmful preferences. Who decides? And where are the lines drawn between harmful and beneficial? And when we have preferences, harmful or not, they're going to be in liege with our guiding principles, and color everything we perceive, and, whether we're aware of the coloring or not, what we think of as an open mind is a subjective result of those preferences. I believe, in fact, that "objective mind" is an oxymoron.

 

Logic is a purely cultural phenomenon and evidence is valid only within a narrow context of time and space. What passed for logic and evidence 500 years ago seems comical today; likewise, what passes the tests today will surely seem primitive in a few centuries (or sooner, given the rate of expansion in the Information Age).

 

edit to point out that I started that with "I see". And I'm totally open to anyone who doesn't see what I see :-)

 

edit to change the bolded part, to clarify

[Marblehead]

I believe, in fact, that "objective mind" is an oxymoron.

Well, don't expect me to be arguing with that statement.

[dust]

Sure..mostly agreed.

 

I am of the firm belief that language is the basis for a majority of disagreement/debate. For example, "Atheism as a religion" is almost entirely a linguistic issue, and most of the on-topic debate in that thread is disagreement over what constitutes "atheism" and "religion". If we can agree upon definitions for these terms, we have little more need for discussion.

 

The problem is, I think, often down to people's subjective definitions of -- and subsequent attachment to -- certain words.

 

For example, I would suggest that an atheist -- defined as someone who disbelieves in any God/gods -- can still be religious, as my definition of religion doesn't require belief in God (but is a system of rites, ritual, obedience, and the firm or fervent belief that some thing is better than other things).

An outspoken atheist, however -- one who feels attached to the label (being proud of having figured out that God probably doesn't exist and figuring himself smarter than someone who does believe in God) -- will generally take offence at being labelled religious, as he inextricably associates religion with belief in God.

 

On the other hand, we could just use different language:

 

Some people who believe gods are not real are quick to mock or harangue those who do believe in some sort of god -- some even to the point of being fervent and vitriolic in their disbelief, and in their hatred of the belief in and ritualistic worship of deities.

 

It is not uncommon for these same people to put their faith instead into something called "science". The hysteria that can result from their disbelief in gods and passionate belief in science as an answer to the troubles of the human race often takes a similar shape to the very practices that they disparage.

 

This is, as far as I can ascertain, often the case. Whether or not it means that atheism is a religion is fairly irrelevant.

[iain]

Hello Rara, a pleasure to read you,

As a Kashmir shavite; this thread is difficult to respond to objectively, I feel like re-explaining the quantum slit experiment for you here as you seem to have forgotten that it underlies our very reality, demonstrating the nature of time in relation to events; It is not for cognitive amusement, it is objective prof of a higher subjective nature.

Opinions are formed of lower objective energy and higher cognition; subjective energy is from experience an,d is not formed in cognitive thought.

There are 3 states of energy, imagine the yin & yang symbol, it has the smaller dots inside the larger swirls, this amply demonstrates that when objectivity and subjectivity are observed their is a 3 state, at their junction, that is cognition; To my mind cognition is that which Rara is describing above.

The video example shows very much the tales and woes of a people firmly fixed in the lower objective energy state, provoking to the turning of the wheel of births and deaths, and consequent pain as demonstrated. A higher state of understanding is that of subjective energy, which when obtained will stop this cycle of birth and death of ego.

Kashmir shavism is defined by a very real experience of subjective energy.

There is no "so and so vs. so and so" competition this statement is highly suggestive of being entangled in the wheel of repeated births and deaths, I like to visualise growth as an ebb and flow (spanda), but the wheel of Saṃsāra as a vortices or whirl pool near a riverbank, perhaps behind a rock on a corner somewhere in the universal flow of time. Some reside so firmly in objective energy and thus the wheel turns so slowly, that it is imperceptible; when these people experience the birth and death of the ego; it is by way of a massive life crisis. Those who are nearing an understanding of realisation, experience a rapid cycling of birth and deaths often perceived by the objective minded as being unstable, they are realising subjective energy.

There are many boats to cross over this life Rara, some swim; others might do the same pulling others in a boat. Which ever way you see best to cross is your path your journey.

The arguments postulated, to my mind, resides purely in the objective energy state.

Edited October 30, 2014 by iain

[iain]

... I believe, in fact, that "objective mind" is an oxymoron.

 

I believe the same: Objective mind, to my mind, being cognition based in objectivity.

 

I think similar a thought to your reference to "logic" soaring crane; this is the foundation of trika shavism.

Edited October 30, 2014 by iain

[iain]

In further reference to the OP; an honest nature develops naturally from knowledge of subjectivity; as those who are not honest; are either severely burnt in the transition between these energetic states, else they remain in state of severe flux; The process its self is self selective.

Rather like Darwin's theory of evolution, applied to the process of cognition.

Edited October 30, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

I will respond bit by bit when I can

[Rara]

thank you for the good read, Rara. I think you may have chosen an unfortunate youtube clip to illustrate it, but the thrust of your argument seems clear enough to me.

 

 

 

I see a can of contradictory statements in that concluding sentence. Give us some examples, for example, of what you would consider harmful preferences. Who decides? And where are the lines drawn between harmful and beneficial? And when we have preferences, harmful or not, they're going to be in liege with our guiding principles, and color everything we perceive, and, whether we're aware of the coloring or not, what we think of as an open mind is a subjective result of those preferences. I believe, in fact, that "objective mind" is an oxymoron.

 

Logic is a purely cultural phenomenon and evidence is valid only within a narrow context of time and space. What passed for logic and evidence 500 years ago seems comical today; likewise, what passes the tests today will surely seem primitive in a few centuries (or sooner, given the rate of expansion in the Information Age).

 

edit to point out that I started that with "I see". And I'm totally open to anyone who doesn't see what I see :-)

 

edit to change the bolded part, to clarify

May I ask what was wrong with the Youtube clip? My point was actually in reference to the Twitter trolls' reaction as opposed to the video itself.

 

Beneficial vs harmful preferences. That is a good question, as it is a tough thing to calculate. Reasoning differs too.

 

For example, it makes sense for me to tell my girlfriend she is the most beautiful girl in the world. Despite the statement being completely subjective, an objective view definitely would do me no favours whatsoever!

 

When discussing whether God created the world or not, a more objective approach is required, but it depends on the context. Here on this forum, that it more appropriate. In rehab, maybe it's better to push that dogma, but I know nothing about therapy, so it's tough for me to say.

 

Who decides? Collectively we do already. There danger I feel, is that subjective thinking is over ruling logic in many cases, weather it is political correctness or genocide (two extremes) they are both coming from the same root.

 

You can still be objective, logical and open at the same time. In fact, I argue that being objective is the only way we can be honest enough to become progressive.

 

I recognise what you say about 500 years ago, and before. But it was "passed" as logic, not actual logic. Yes we still have this - let's look at the big bang theory. There is a huge difference between believing that the big bang happened than to be one that understands it as a concept.

 

This is the difference I am talking about. Differentiating between fact and perceived fact.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Rara

[Marblehead]

You can still be objective, logical and open at the same time. In fact, I argue that being objective is the only way we can be honest enough to become progressive.

 

Well stated and I am in agreement.

 

There are two important words here that many overlook.

 

In the first sentence we have "open". In order to be objective and logical we must remain open tor new knowledge and facts. Without that we have nothing but dogma.

 

In the second sentence we have "honest". Screw political correctness. And especially being honest with ourself. If we can't be honest with ourself there is little chance we will be honest with others.

[Rara]

Sure..mostly agreed.

 

I am of the firm belief that language is the basis for a majority of disagreement/debate. For example, "Atheism as a religion" is almost entirely a linguistic issue, and most of the on-topic debate in that thread is disagreement over what constitutes "atheism" and "religion". If we can agree upon definitions for these terms, we have little more need for discussion.

 

The problem is, I think, often down to people's subjective definitions of -- and subsequent attachment to -- certain words.

 

For example, I would suggest that an atheist -- defined as someone who disbelieves in any God/gods -- can still be religious, as my definition of religion doesn't require belief in God (but is a system of rites, ritual, obedience, and the firm or fervent belief that some thing is better than other things).

An outspoken atheist, however -- one who feels attached to the label (being proud of having figured out that God probably doesn't exist and figuring himself smarter than someone who does believe in God) -- will generally take offence at being labelled religious, as he inextricably associates religion with belief in God.

 

On the other hand, we could just use different language:

 

Some people who believe gods are not real are quick to mock or harangue those who do believe in some sort of god -- some even to the point of being fervent and vitriolic in their disbelief, and in their hatred of the belief in and ritualistic worship of deities.

 

It is not uncommon for these same people to put their faith instead into something called "science". The hysteria that can result from their disbelief in gods and passionate belief in science as an answer to the troubles of the human race often takes a similar shape to the very practices that they disparage.

 

This is, as far as I can ascertain, often the case. Whether or not it means that atheism is a religion is fairly irrelevant.

Ok, but can I ask, what rituals do atheists adhere to? Maybe my definition of ritual is different to yours Even dictionaries define words differently.

 

I don't see your point of the Atheism as a religion being "irrelevant" though, consideing you just stated that they are due to ritual, obedience etc...

[Rara]

@Iain , I will respond later, just got a job to do

[dust]

Ok, but can I ask, what rituals do atheists adhere to?

 

It surely depends on the person, and the type of ritual we're talking about. And let's be clear again, we might be talking about people who don't believe but don't preach about it, people who vehemently deny the possibility of God, people who preach and rave about the ludicrousness of religion... there are many types of atheist.

 

Many people who profess disbelief still take part in "non-religious" versions of traditional ritual. For example, Humanist funerals, civil partnerships, naming ceremonies.

 

I know many atheists who celebrate things like Easter, Independence Day, Hallowe'en, Christmas, New Year, etc, many of which have a basis in religion but are no longer celebrated as such. Nevertheless, rituals are observed every year by theists and atheists alike, with many atheists adapting religious holidays to show how atheists can be giving and familial too.

 

The one I'd focus on, though, is the graduation ceremony. Though most universities are not specifically atheist, the prevalence of non-belief in God, strong belief in the goodness of education, and the passing down of knowledge from teacher to student with a final ceremony certifying that that person is now qualified to spread their knowledge... this is a rite of passage for the modern atheist. A degree is no longer a special achievement reserved for the superior intellect, but a required achievement for acceptance into society.

 

 

 

Maybe my definition of ritual is different to yours Even dictionaries define words differently.

 

This is my point, yes. Without recognizing that our definition of both atheist and ritual might be different, we might end up debating for some time whether or not atheists take part in rituals.

 

From what I've said above, I'll admit that it's unlikely that there are any rituals designed specifically to profess a love of atheism, but it seems clear to me that many atheists do adhere to certain rituals, and that -- when it comes to education -- there is most certainly a rite of passage in this day and age for the disbeliever. A form of worship of knowledge.

 

 

 

I don't see your point of the Atheism as a religion being "irrelevant" though, consideing you just stated that they are due to ritual, obedience etc...

 

What I should've said is that, for me, whether or not we define atheism/Atheism as a religion is unimportant. What is important to me is that we recognize certain possibilites -- for example, that just because people aren't traditionally "religious" any more, it doesn't mean that society or the world at large is any better off; or that there is a risk of too much faith in science taking the place of traditional religion, to the detriment of many people.

 

So, whether or not we put it in these exact terms -- "atheism is a religion" -- is not really relevant. What is relevant is that we understand each other, and that we use language that helps us to come to an understanding rather than causing disagreement for the sake of a word... right?

Edited October 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Rara]

Hello Rara, a pleasure to read you,

 

As a Kashmir shavite; this thread is difficult to respond to objectively, I feel like re-explaining the quantum slit experiment for you here as you seem to have forgotten that it underlies our very reality, demonstrating the nature of time in relation to events; It is not for cognitive amusement, it is objective prof of a higher subjective nature.

 

Opinions are formed of lower objective energy and higher cognition; subjective energy is from experience an,d is not formed in cognitive thought.

 

There are 3 states of energy, imagine the yin & yang symbol, it has the smaller dots inside the larger swirls, this amply demonstrates that when objectivity and subjectivity are observed their is a 3 state, at their junction, that is cognition; To my mind cognition is that which Rara is describing above.

The video example shows very much the tales and woes of a people firmly fixed in the lower objective energy state, provoking to the turning of the wheel of births and deaths, and consequent pain as demonstrated. A higher state of understanding is that of subjective energy, which when obtained will stop this cycle of birth and death of ego.

 

Kashmir shavism is defined by a very real experience of subjective energy.

 

There is no "so and so vs. so and so" competition this statement is highly suggestive of being entangled in the wheel of repeated births and deaths, I like to visualise growth as an ebb and flow (spanda), but the wheel of Saṃsāra as a vortices or whirl pool near a riverbank, perhaps behind a rock on a corner somewhere in the universal flow of time. Some reside so firmly in objective energy and thus the wheel turns so slowly, that it is imperceptible; when these people experience the birth and death of the ego; it is by way of a massive life crisis. Those who are nearing an understanding of realisation, experience a rapid cycling of birth and deaths often perceived by the objective minded as being unstable, they are realising subjective energy.

 

There are many boats to cross over this life Rara, some swim; others might do the same pulling others in a boat. Which ever way you see best to cross is your path your journey.

 

The arguments postulated, to my mind, resides purely in the objective energy state.

 

Hi Iain,

 

I don't have much I can respond to here as I have no experience of the Kashmir Shavite way.

 

But in your response about me not understanding that the quantum split "underlies our reality", I will say yes. It's an experiment much deeper and inconclusive. Not to get confused with the fact that I understand the experiment and what it suggests, but it is a work in progress. To say "it is this" is exactly what I mean about the subjective nature of your argument. It represents an idea which makes perfect sense. A Buddhist teacher also told me their teachings make sense. Anything can make sense if you want it to, but that doesn't necesssarily give it substance.

 

Then again, you did say that you would find it hard to be objective in your answer, so that's ok.

 

Your yin and yang explanation is ok (of course I'm sure you do know that it is broader than this in terms of representing the unity and crossover of all opposite ends of polarity) I don't dispute what you say other than my argument in that it is only a philosophical idea, and I would like a reference for this so called "3rd state".

 

However, we can't assume that philosophy can be put in the same ball park as science when it is unrelated in its approach. Science may be supported by philosophy, and vice versa, but as separate entities they stand alone in what their aims are. You can make as many links to spiritual teachings as you like, but this is only relation, or parallels. There is nothing that binds these together, solidly.

 

If the science supports a subjective view, that is all well and good, but this still leaves us with something biased. Just look at how people who swear by diets using scientific information to sell it. The people that buy into it justify this because of the science, not stopping to think about the scientific information that was ommitted.

 

Other than this, unless I look into the Kashmir Shavite way, I can't say anything else to what you have said other than politely nod. That said, you have got me curious and wouldn't mind a good link where I can find more information on these teachings

Edited October 30, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

 

cognition based in objectivity.

 

 

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[Rara]

In further reference to the OP; an honest nature develops naturally from knowledge of subjectivity; as those who are not honest; are either severely burnt in the transition between these energetic states, else they remain in state of severe flux; The process its self is self selective.

 

Rather like Darwin's theory of evolution, applied to the process of cognition.

Similarly, I'm trying to decode this...

 

First part ok, but where does this "knowledge of subjectivity" come from, in your mind? The objective, or "3rd state"?

 

I don't see how one is "burnt in transition". I could understand someone that is not honest, being "burnt" in subjectivity though.

 

I can only assume that your argument is based on some "3rd state", or higher state of consciousness being the ultimate, collective of the two?

Edited October 30, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

 

It surely depends on the person, and the type of ritual we're talking about. And let's be clear again, we might be talking about people who don't believe but don't preach about it, people who vehemently deny the possibility of God, people who preach and rave about the ludicrousness of religion... there are many types of atheist.

 

Many people who profess disbelief still take part in "non-religious" versions of traditional ritual. For example, Humanist funerals, civil partnerships, naming ceremonies.

 

I know many atheists who celebrate things like Easter, Independence Day, Hallowe'en, Christmas, New Year, etc, many of which have a basis in religion but are no longer celebrated as such. Nevertheless, rituals are observed every year by theists and atheists alike, with many atheists adapting religious holidays to show how atheists can be giving and familial too.

 

The one I'd focus on, though, is the graduation ceremony. Though most universities are not specifically atheist, the prevalence of non-belief in God, strong belief in the goodness of education, and the passing down of knowledge from teacher to student with a final ceremony certifying that that person is now qualified to spread their knowledge... this is a rite of passage for the modern atheist. A degree is no longer a special achievement reserved for the superior intellect, but a required achievement for acceptance into society.

 

 

 

 

This is my point, yes. Without recognizing that our definition of both atheist and ritual might be different, we might end up debating for some time whether or not atheists take part in rituals.

 

From what I've said above, I'll admit that it's unlikely that there are any rituals designed specifically to profess a love of atheism, but it seems clear to me that many atheists do adhere to certain rituals, and that -- when it comes to education -- there is most certainly a rite of passage in this day and age for the disbeliever. A form of worship of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

What I should've said is that, for me, whether or not we define atheism/Atheism as a religion is unimportant. What is important to me is that we recognize certain possibilites -- for example, that just because people aren't traditionally "religious" any more, it doesn't mean that society or the world at large is any better off; or that there is a risk of too much faith in science taking the place of traditional religion, to the detriment of many people.

 

So, whether or not we put it in these exact terms -- "atheism is a religion" -- is not really relevant. What is relevant is that we understand each other, and that we use language that helps us to come to an understanding rather than causing disagreement for the sake of a word... right?

I was tempted to quote this and move back to the other thread...then I realised I didn't know how! Hehe.

 

Certainly yes, the different type of atheist is something Iain too (I think) picked up on in that thread.

 

The ritual argument is a bit loose though. Yes, atheists join in on the social norm of holidays, just without necessarily giving thanks to God and Jesus or mimicing any sort of wiccan ritual of burying bits of wood etc. The "Atheists" don't set up churches for non-belief (or if they do, they must be very scarce - unless you count the church of Satan) I don't know about you but I at least associate a house of worship (or temple for meditation) as a key component of religion.

 

Sure, you then get the Christian that doesn't go to church, but that doesn't make the same difference - they still identify, willingly, that they belong to that religion and do the appropriate things they believe is required to be a member of that faith. All the atheists I know, struggle to get together for a common purpose, other than every day norms like watching football or going to dinner. Religious people do this too, but they also practice their religion.

 

Similarly with university. When I went, it was full of people from all different walks of life. Islam, Christianity, Pagan, Atheist, Sikh and so on. I would hardly liken it to a religious institute - just parallels, like I answered to Iain's first response.

 

To your last paragraph though, yes, right

Edited October 30, 2014 by Rara

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I was tempted to quote this and move back to the other thread...then I realised I didn't know how! Hehe.

 

Certainly yes, the different type of atheist is something Iain too (I think) picked up on in that thread.

 

The ritual argument is a bit loose though. Yes, atheists join in on the social norm of holidays, just without necessarily giving thanks to God and Jesus or mimicing any sort of wiccan ritual of burying bits of wood etc. The "Atheists" don't set up churches for non-belief (or if they do, they must be very scarce - unless you count the church of Satan) I don't know about you but I at least associate a house of worship (or temple for meditation) as a key component of religion.

 

Sure, you then get the Christian that doesn't go to church, but that doesn't make the same difference - they still identify, willingly, that they belong to that religion and do the appropriate things they believe is required to be a member of that faith. All the atheists I know, struggle to get together for a common purpose, other than every day norms like watching football or going to dinner. Religious people do this too, but they also practice their religion.

 

Similarly with university. When I went, it was full of people from all different walks of life. Islam, Christianity, Pagan, Atheist, Sikh and so on. I would hardly liken it to a religious institute - just parallels, like I answered to Iain's first response.

 

To your last paragraph though, yes, right (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Regarding atheist churches, please note the "Religion of Humanity" and follow the link below:

 

I would say that another thing that characterizes "religion" as opposed to philosophy is that a religion, whether personal or that of a group is authoritarian, some individual or group of individuals is taken as having the ultimate answers, to question these people and their works is heresy and all matters are referred to their words as represented in their books.

 

Marxism is an excellent example of this. It is basically an evangelical atheism and the "Religion of Humanity" founded by Auguste Comte is another example. This is organized "religious" atheism, but on the other extreme one finds people who set up their own private religions with one or more authorities to whom one appeals to justify ones beliefs and actions. Here on the Tao Bums this is how you get the "Tao Te Ching" fundamentalists arguing about the text of "Lao Tzu" like a bunch of Medieval Scholastics. The fact that this is not recognized as being basically "religious" is funny in its own way, that it is confused with philosophy is rather more tragic.

 

Rare, but a great improvement over Marxism.

[dust]

I was tempted to quote this and move back to the other thread...then I realised I didn't know how! Hehe.

Yeah sorry I didn't intend for it to turn back into that discussion..it was just the easiest example that came to mind

 

The ritual argument is a bit loose though.

Yeah. But I bet there are more that I/we simply don't know about? Freemasonry? And what ZYD mentions above..

 

The "Atheists" don't set up churches for non-belief (or if they do, they must be very scarce - unless you count the church of Satan) I don't know about you but I at least associate a house of worship (or temple for meditation) as a key component of religion.

Well, see, this is the definition thing. I don't think a religion needs a church any more than a man needs a house. It helps, but without it one can still exist. And anyway, I'd suggest that the laboratory is the worshipping ground for many atheists.

 

Similarly with university. When I went, it was full of people from all different walks of life. Islam, Christianity, Pagan, Atheist, Sikh and so on. I would hardly liken it to a religious institute - just parallels, like I answered to Iain's first response.

Yes, even in my small classes at uni there were different "races", religions, and cultural backgrounds generally. (My main class consisted of a Catholic Asian from Portugal, a gay Buddhist, a Jehovah's Witness, an atheist pole dancer, a couple of apathetics, and me -- by then just getting turned onto Taoism.) I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who goes to uni is an atheist with an agenda!

 

I am trying to suggest...well, I'm not sure. It is very clear to me, at least, that there are some dangerous atheists in the world. That's enough for me to realise. As far as trying to convince you or anyone that any form of atheism is potentially a religion, my heart's not really in it. I guess I don't think it's all that important.

Edited October 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

I will not be talking about Atheism vs religion in this thread so don't be expecting any responses from me. I will, however, continue to post in the Atheism as a Religion thread.

 

I will speak about objectivity vs subjectivity here in this thread though if anyone wishes to speak to the concepts.

[thelerner]

This was taught to me in a religious yeshiva. The way around this is beating the 'I, We, Them' game. This is psychological game we play when things 'I' do are considered in the best light, ie, running a yellow light, 'I' am brave. Seeing a friend (a 'We') do it and it he is foolhardy. When we see a stranger do it we think 'They' are dangerous idiots.

 

In other words we reframe our own actions in the best light, give a slight benefit of the doubt to our friends/group and judge others harshly, especially others the further out of our circle. The way around this, I was told, was to have clear definitions and not let yourself off the hook. This can be positive or negative depending on how you define things, but you have to mentally consider 'Them' as 'I' or at least 'We'.

 

Done enough it tends to show how prejudiced flashes through our minds daily.

[Bearded Dragon]

Subjective is the word of one idiot.

Objective is the word of many idiots.

[Seth Ananda]

I dont believe in objectivity at all, as I have not, nor can ever experience it.

 

I believe in subjective, and intersubjective.

 

Subjective is all the personal sensations, ideas, perceptions and so on that are not shared with others.

 

Intersubjective is all the shared phenomena in the world. So if we take a tree as an example, people might say "look, we all can see it, its 'real' and 'objective'!" Wrong! Each person will only ever have their subjective personal experience of the tree.

There might be an actual objective tree underneath all our sub/intersubjective perceptions but no one anywhere will ever see it. Even the tree within its own plant kind of awareness will only ever have a subjective experience of itself.

 

 

So for me Objectivity is an utterly useless and subjective construct, and a very very dangerous one at that.

[iain]

Hello Rara,

It is a pleasure for me to delve back into these roots of savism should it be that you find matters of interest here than that is great; if not then you will simply have a little objective knowledge of trika savism.

I don't have much I can respond to here as I have no experience of the Kashmir Shavite way.

But in your response about me not understanding that the quantum split "underlies our reality", I will say yes. It's an experiment much deeper and inconclusive. Not to get confused with the fact that I understand the experiment and what it suggests, but it is a work in progress. To say "it is this" is exactly what I mean about the subjective nature of your argument. It represents an idea which makes perfect sense. A Buddhist teacher also told me their teachings make sense. Anything can make sense if you want it to, but that doesn't necesssarily give it substance.

Then again, you did say that you would find it hard to be objective in your answer, so that's ok.

Oh you have misunderstood me; I have said that I felt like reciting the experiment as you are negating its obvious importance in this discussion, not that you have not understood it but that it must be considered when considering these subjects.
I am glad that I have not stirred your objection.

Your yin and yang explanation is ok (of course I'm sure you do know that it is broader than this in terms of representing the unity and crossover of all opposite ends of polarity) I don't dispute what you say other than my argument in that it is only a philosophical idea, and I would like a reference for this so called "3rd state".

The state of subjectivity is the higher state to which we aspire; the subjectivity that you have describe, to my mind is residing in cognition. Cognition being the intermediate state; My personal reference is experience.
This base of trika shavism is from the Mālinivijayottata-tantra and Bhairava Tantra.
Siva is of three energies: Parāshakti; supreme or subjective energy, Parāparā; intermediate or cognitive energy; and Aparā; Inferior objective energy.
Nothing is black and white my friend; but only infinite shades of grey.

However, we can't assume that philosophy can be put in the same ball park as science when it is unrelated in its approach. Science may be supported by philosophy, and vice versa, but as separate entities they stand alone in what their aims are. You can make as many links to spiritual teachings as you like, but this is only relation, or parallels. There is nothing that binds these together, solidly.

Again I must reference experiments performed at the quantum scale and suggest, based upon my own personal experience, that this quantum effect is visible at our human scale, if our own personal consciousness is adapted to it from subjectivity.

If the science supports a subjective view, that is all well and good, but this still leaves us with something biased. Just look at how people who swear by diets using scientific information to sell it. The people that buy into it justify this because of the science, not stopping to think about the scientific information that was ommitted.

Science is probability and statistics that is all it ever is, the issue with advertising is that it finds its base upon the pretext that our population are ignorant of high-school mathematics and entirely driven by their senses and desires.

Other than this, unless I look into the Kashmir Shavite way, I can't say anything else to what you have said other than politely nod. That said, you have got me curious and wouldn't mind a good link where I can find more information on these teachings

Yes it is only through investigation of these philosophies and practices that we can experience that which is being described.
I recommend only the teachings of students that have studied with swami lakshmanjoo. Some of the tantra are very qhickly very misleading if one is not with in the bounds of a lineage.
Many books are available with audio recordings by John Hughes, who spent around 30 in Kashmir Recording explanations of tantras from his guru.

http://www.universalshaivafellowship.org/fellowship/
http://lakshmanjoo.org/
http://www.kashmirtrika.org/kashmir_shaivism.asp