What is your relationship with your Self? To God?

RobRobRob said:
If you're gonna go that far, go hard nihilism.

Everything is a lie.

Love isn't real so your family only holds you in such high regard because you're a future provider/caretaker for the elders in your family and they don't want to be carted off to a home.
Your wife doesn't love you because she was groomed by her culture and you to be trapped in a legally binding contract, which if broken leans in her favor - therefore your wife only wants you for your money.
Your children don't love you because they are born with the genetic instinct to unconditionally seek their parents' approval no matter how they are treated. If your children knew better, they would pick a better caretaker.
Law and order doesn't matter because morality is just rules that were made up by someone who thought they knew better.

Just put it all in the garbage already.
Click to expand...

What does nihilism matter to a nihilist?

Regarding the advent of atheism and pseudo-religions - I think you will enjoy this, even though I feel bad for basically stealing it from elsewhere. My justification is that it would take me another 3 hours to compose something this concise and revealing:

"...a madman with a lantern in the marketplace cries: “I’m looking for God! I’m looking for God!” He is laughed at and mocked: “Has he been lost, then? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us?” Not only do the men in the marketplace know there is no God, they attach no importance to it. They learned to live godlessly long ago; the non-existence of God causes them no alarm.

Then the madman shifts gears. “’Where is God?’ he cried; ‘I’ll tell you! We have killed him – you and I!’ […] ‘God is dead!’” Later, the madman says that the people in the marketplace don’t understand him. “This tremendous event is still on its way, wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.”

What’s going on? It looks as if (a) the the people in the marketplace don’t believe in God, and (b) the people in the marketplace don’t understand the madman when he says that God is dead (and, additionally, that they are God’s murderers). How can this be?

The people in the marketplace are men of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. They understand themselves to have explained the world without appealing to God, which makes them atheists. But these apparent unbelievers are in fact holding on to the belief in God in another form. That is, bound up with the idea of God is the idea that the most important thing that human beings can do is subordinate themselves to a value that is independent of their desires and interests – an objective value. Scientific knowledge, they believe, is such a value.

Even though the people in the marketplace say they don’t believe in God, they still believe in objective value, and that objective value is the highest value. They just think that objectivity requires them to abandon the belief in God. But an unconditional commitment to objectivity, is like a commitment to God. Until we grasp that the death of God implies that the search for objective knowledge isn’t the highest human enterprise, we won’t have understood what the death of God really amounts to. The notion that our highest duty is to acquire knowledge of something whose value is independent of our needs and interests is the “longest lie,” and God is merely one version of that lie – reason is another.

The men of the Enlightenment “know” that God is dead, but they have a literal concept of God. God, they believe, was a way of explaining the world supernaturally. They found a way to explain the world scientifically, and they believe that their scientific explanation can replace the theological explanation without loss – on the contrary, the scientific explanation is superior to the theological one, they believe. They still haven’t faced up to the fact that the scientific explanation of the world lacks something that the theological one possessed, namely a justification of the world. More specifically, the scientific explanation lacks a justification for the scientific enterprise itself. In killing God, the men also deprived themselves of purpose – in other words, they laid the groundwork for an age of nihilism."
 
An interesting observation. Nihilism shouldn't matter to a nihilist, and the fact of it mattering or not mattering also shouldn't matter.
Do you prefer an objective value @Sidis Coruscatis ? or something else?

Unrelated, but don't feel bad about borrowing it; this quote about the madman in the lantern seems to have been borrowed from Diogenes the Cynic. We all borrow from somewhere ^_^
 
Winterflowers said:
An interesting observation. Nihilism shouldn't matter to a nihilist, and the fact of it mattering or not mattering also shouldn't matter.
Do you prefer an objective value @Sidis Coruscatis ? or something else?

Unrelated, but don't feel bad about borrowing it; this quote about the madman in the lantern seems to have been borrowed from Diogenes the Cynic. We all borrow from somewhere ^_^
Click to expand...

That's the kicker. I do prefer objective value, in the sense that what I believe must be absolute to me if I am to act on it in good faith - but by making that distinction I'm actually being subjective. Why does objectivity matter to people so much? Especially the ostensibly intelligent ones? What does objectivity matter to a lion? He lives by the means he was given by nature, he knows exactly where he belongs and his role in the world. And by that very fact he can't be anything else but objective - precisely because he doesn't concern himself with things like being objective. It seems like we are the only species that are so compelled, so proud, so determined that being objective is something so noble and important, that I have no other explanation except that the concept of objectivity itself must derive from the valuation of emotion and subjectivity. Human consciousness itself demands subjectivity.

I'm pretty sure the excerpt is actually from The Gay Science, but it's possible that Nietzsche himself borrowed it. I feel bad mostly about copy-pasting the interpretation itself, I could have come up with my own. Don't worry about it, that's just my vanity getting restless. :)
 
Great thread!

Currently its an ever shifting relationship...sometimes there's complete Love, pure connection and knowing, deep trust and safety, oneness, excitement and infinite possibilities,
sometimes it's one of loathing and rejection....sometimes i feel lost, betrayed, confused, disconnected, angry, sad, despairing, hopeless...
...sometimes its a relationship of wankery, deception. judgement and misunderstanding.

I'm building a relationship of enduring commitment, friendship, honesty, trust and Love.
To consistently honour and love myself, and live God.
Have the courage to be completely my self
This has been tricky and i seem to trip myself up and still have blind spots.
I'm pretty shitty at being me and not good at life lol
But the goal is worthy and i'm committed
There will always be ups and downs and i unapologetically Iike being human and whatever that means....but I wish to always remember who and what i am and my responsibility to my self.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
What does nihilism matter to a nihilist?

Regarding the advent of atheism and pseudo-religions - I think you will enjoy this, even though I feel bad for basically stealing it from elsewhere. My justification is that it would take me another 3 hours to compose something this concise and revealing:

"...a madman with a lantern in the marketplace cries: “I’m looking for God! I’m looking for God!” He is laughed at and mocked: “Has he been lost, then? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us?” Not only do the men in the marketplace know there is no God, they attach no importance to it. They learned to live godlessly long ago; the non-existence of God causes them no alarm.

Then the madman shifts gears. “’Where is God?’ he cried; ‘I’ll tell you! We have killed him – you and I!’ […] ‘God is dead!’” Later, the madman says that the people in the marketplace don’t understand him. “This tremendous event is still on its way, wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.”

What’s going on? It looks as if (a) the the people in the marketplace don’t believe in God, and (b) the people in the marketplace don’t understand the madman when he says that God is dead (and, additionally, that they are God’s murderers). How can this be?

The people in the marketplace are men of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. They understand themselves to have explained the world without appealing to God, which makes them atheists. But these apparent unbelievers are in fact holding on to the belief in God in another form. That is, bound up with the idea of God is the idea that the most important thing that human beings can do is subordinate themselves to a value that is independent of their desires and interests – an objective value. Scientific knowledge, they believe, is such a value.

Even though the people in the marketplace say they don’t believe in God, they still believe in objective value, and that objective value is the highest value. They just think that objectivity requires them to abandon the belief in God. But an unconditional commitment to objectivity, is like a commitment to God. Until we grasp that the death of God implies that the search for objective knowledge isn’t the highest human enterprise, we won’t have understood what the death of God really amounts to. The notion that our highest duty is to acquire knowledge of something whose value is independent of our needs and interests is the “longest lie,” and God is merely one version of that lie – reason is another.

The men of the Enlightenment “know” that God is dead, but they have a literal concept of God. God, they believe, was a way of explaining the world supernaturally. They found a way to explain the world scientifically, and they believe that their scientific explanation can replace the theological explanation without loss – on the contrary, the scientific explanation is superior to the theological one, they believe. They still haven’t faced up to the fact that the scientific explanation of the world lacks something that the theological one possessed, namely a justification of the world. More specifically, the scientific explanation lacks a justification for the scientific enterprise itself. In killing God, the men also deprived themselves of purpose – in other words, they laid the groundwork for an age of nihilism."
Click to expand...
The discussion I had with Asa and Deleted member 16771 a couple of weeks ago might be relevant here - certainly this particular comment I made.

I suspect that people get lost inside the labyrinths of their own minds while thinking they are working with objective truth. Pure objectivity in understanding the world is necessarily an illusion because in the end we all confront the world with our selves when we make the attempt to be objective and we cannot step out of that. Our senses do not see the world as it is, but express it in ways that paraphrase it at best - even the very idea that the world could have an objective existence with its own 'as-is' is saturated with anthropomorphic thinking. The idea that science is founded on logic is misleading too, because all logical exegesis has of necessity to be based on irreducibly given things, or on observations, that are taken as true. But scientific logic is not conclusive because it uses induction to verify the validity, or otherwise, of scientific conjectures - this can certainly demonstrate something to be definitely false, but never that something is conclusively true, only that it's probably true.

From a different angle, there seems to me to be a false antithesis set up between scientific and religious viewpoints. In fact both of them rely extensively on faith - as I said in the comment I linked, I have to take on faith that changes in the world's climate are caused by human activity. I have no way practical way of verifying it for myself scientifically, so I have to make an act of faith in the scientists and politicians who in a sense operate as priests and mediators between me and the actual science. I have no doubt that there are scientists who have the background and means of formulating and verifying what is happening, and I have little doubt that the facts and theory that they have access to is far more complex, multi-valent and nuanced than anything I have access to, or ability to grasp easily, so I accept the simplifications and the risk assessments as an act of faith.

This is really no different to the way we access religious concepts. There is a deception in the idea that all religion is based on arbitrary belief, but that isn't so - at the roots of all real religion is direct experience of what is expressed. In the same way that only a very few people can experience and verify the facts and the concepts behind much of science, the same is true of religion - it is rooted in what certain people have experienced and reflected upon, then passed on to others in simplified forms that they can understand and access, even if they can't experience the same things directly themselves. As with science, there is no easy path to accessing these experiences - you can't become a scientist at the cutting edge of developing cures for major diseases without treading a long path of personal training, development and practice, and the same is true in religion. Just about anybody can benefit from a medical cure though, and in the same way, just about anybody can benefit from religion without having to become an adept at it. There's a similar need for faith, in the form of trust, in both these cases though.
 
John K said:
In the same way that only a very few people can experience and verify the facts and the concepts behind much of science, the same is true of religion
Click to expand...
Science is more universal than religion. Religion may have underlying currents which are universal, but on the surface they often don't add up with each other.
We do need a leap of faith in everything though.
 
John K said:
The discussion I had with Asa and Deleted member 16771 a couple of weeks ago might be relevant here - certainly this particular comment I made.

I suspect that people get lost inside the labyrinths of their own minds while thinking they are working with objective truth. Pure objectivity in understanding the world is necessarily an illusion because in the end we all confront the world with our selves when we make the attempt to be objective and we cannot step out of that. Our senses do not see the world as it is, but express it in ways that paraphrase it at best - even the very idea that the world could have an objective existence with its own 'as-is' is saturated with anthropomorphic thinking. The idea that science is founded on logic is misleading too, because all logical exegesis has of necessity to be based on irreducibly given things, or on observations, that are taken as true. But scientific logic is not conclusive because it uses induction to verify the validity, or otherwise, of scientific conjectures - this can certainly demonstrate something to be definitely false, but never that something is conclusively true, only that it's probably true.

From a different angle, there seems to me to be a false antithesis set up between scientific and religious viewpoints. In fact both of them rely extensively on faith - as I said in the comment I linked, I have to take on faith that changes in the world's climate are caused by human activity. I have no way practical way of verifying it for myself scientifically, so I have to make an act of faith in the scientists and politicians who in a sense operate as priests and mediators between me and the actual science. I have no doubt that there are scientists who have the background and means of formulating and verifying what is happening, and I have little doubt that the facts and theory that they have access to is far more complex, multi-valent and nuanced than anything I have access to, or ability to grasp easily, so I accept the simplifications and the risk assessments as an act of faith.

This is really no different to the way we access religious concepts. There is a deception in the idea that all religion is based on arbitrary belief, but that isn't so - at the roots of all real religion is direct experience of what is expressed. In the same way that only a very few people can experience and verify the facts and the concepts behind much of science, the same is true of religion - it is rooted in what certain people have experienced and reflected upon, then passed on to others in simplified forms that they can understand and access, even if they can't experience the same things directly themselves. As with science, there is no easy path to accessing these experiences - you can't become a scientist at the cutting edge of developing cures for major diseases without treading a long path of personal training, development and practice, and the same is true in religion. Just about anybody can benefit from a medical cure though, and in the same way, just about anybody can benefit from religion without having to become an adept at it. There's a similar need for faith, in the form of trust, in both these cases though.
Click to expand...

Thanks John, insightful as always.

I agree with much you said in both posts, except perhaps the part about logic in science. If I'm not misunderstanding you, you're extending axiomatic inconsistency to logical inconsistency on the whole, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Science must be logically consistent for it to come to a conclusion; the thing is, logical consistency alone doesn't constitute truth. In the fashion of Moorean paradoxes, I could say that it's raining outside, but I don't believe it's raining. This is logically consistent, non-contradictory and could be true. It seems to me rather that the problem always arises in the a priori assumptions.

It's also a source of frustration when trying to discuss there things publicly. I once proposed that all scientists must have their religio - the thing that binds - in order to do their job properly through the scientific method. It took about 5 seconds to have been declared "anti-science" and from there it's just a trainwreck of misrepresentation and strawmanning about humanities being a travesty and wanting reality to be whatever I want to believe - although I suppose they're not entirely wrong on that account. It certainly reeks of irony though. Maybe it's my lack of rhetorical skill, but then again maybe it's just the problem of trying to communicate a conclusion while omitting the deluge of information that had to be processed to attain it in the first place.

I don't know if it was what you were implying in the linked post, but Fitch's paradox of knowability (along with Tarski's theorem which I already mentioned) definitely and fundamentally changed my outlook on everything. On the off-chance that you visit Quora, I recommend looking up David Moore (no relation to the paradoxes). It was through him that I was able to synthesize a lot of this, and I think you would enjoy his posts.
 
Winterflowers said:
Science is more universal than religion. Religion may have underlying currents which are universal, but on the surface they often don't add up with each other.
We do need a leap of faith in everything though.
Click to expand...
I think this depends on which viewpoint we adopt and what we are attempting. If we want to return to the moon, then science and technology will be the main means by which we do it: if we ask the question why we'd want to do that, then the means of answering that question bridges the gap between the material and the spiritual. It seems to me that they each bring a different perspective on human relationships with the world in which we find ourselves - they are really different faces of the same coin and complement rather than compete with each other. I know what you mean though because science tends to have an apparently consistent viewpoint, while there are many different, even competing forms of spiritual expression, and there is a lot of accrued bullshit around the spiritual so it takes more discrimination to disentangle the good stuff. That's not to say there isn't a load of bullshit around science too in the form of 1001 pseudosciences.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
I agree with much you said in both posts, except perhaps the part about logic in science. If I'm not misunderstanding you, you're extending axiomatic inconsistency to logical inconsistency on the whole, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Science must be logically consistent for it to come to a conclusion; the thing is, logical consistency alone doesn't constitute truth. In the fashion of Moorean paradoxes, I could say that it's raining outside, but I don't believe it's raining. This is logically consistent, non-contradictory and could be true. It seems to me rather that the problem always arises in the a priori assumptions.
Click to expand...
No - I agree with you here and I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out that science depends on a couple of acts of faith - one is in the givens that are accepted as true without proof, and which are the necessary start of all logic chains, the other is in the inductive process which can definitely guarantee falsity but can never guarantee truth.

Sidis Coruscatis said:
It's also a source of frustration when trying to discuss there things publicly. I once proposed that all scientists must have their religio - the thing that binds - in order to do their job properly through the scientific method. It took about 5 seconds to have been declared "anti-science" and from there it's just a trainwreck of misrepresentation and strawmanning about humanities being a travesty and wanting reality to be whatever I want to believe - although I suppose they're not entirely wrong on that account. It certainly reeks of irony though. Maybe it's my lack of rhetorical skill, but then again maybe it's just the problem of trying to communicate a conclusion while omitting the deluge of information that had to be processed to attain it in the first place.
Click to expand...
LOL you trod on someone's scientific religious toes - it goes with the territory I'm afraid. I'm a crusader for positive skepticism myself - always be prepared to think something might be wrong or right, always be prepared to hold contradictory worldviews and move between them because none of us is ever absolutely right and thinking we are is an ossifying straight jacket that makes people old in mental attitude. Switching between world views is very entertaining too though it can be hard work.

Sidis Coruscatis said:
I don't know if it was what you were implying in the linked post, but Fitch's paradox of knowability (along with Tarski's theorem which I already mentioned) definitely and fundamentally changed my outlook on everything. On the off-chance that you visit Quora, I recommend looking up David Moore (no relation to the paradoxes). It was through him that I was able to synthesize a lot of this, and I think you would enjoy his posts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion - I'll have a look at that :). I guess I don't have a hard edged position on such things, but all my instincts are that rational thought by itself is no good way to try and get hold of reality and simply leads off into a maze of dead ends. It's a very good servant in the quest but a pretty useless master. It's very revealing to see how the great scientific insights come from an intuitive process, with rational thinking tidying things up after the event.
 
For those of you that are interested...
God is love. Love is God. And the way back to God is also through love. Very simple. All the true saints have said this since the beginning of time. This past century has been one of remarkable developments on many levels. The ones most revelent to spirituality in my mind has been of travel and communication. In the not too distant past, saint's influences have been limited to (with few exceptions) 200 miles radius. This is why various religious founders have sprung up, and their successors lost. They all brought the same identical messages but the religions have changed their original teachings to suit the societies of the councils that harbor them. They all mean well, but the inner teachings have been lost because they were not understood by people who were not enlightened beings themselves. There IS light inside of us but also sound. These are primal manifestations of God...a way for us to go back to Him. In order to experience this light and sound one MUST invert. Close off all our senses that drag us into this world. MEDITATE. Then if your lucky and find a good teacher, you can find your way to your true home. Good luck and Godspeed.
 
What is my relationship with myself that’s a really interesting question and I think that discovery really started when I began my journey in therapy and still to this day the most relevant question which I ask myself daily is how am I feeling

And every time I am able to answer that question a few little bit more connected with myself and that really helps me stay in tune and grounded but with myself and the reality around me

And so for me it is to nurture the relationship with myself and to have a connection with myself. The more my inner universe is connected and understood I can then translate and transcribe that into verbal language and that was something I couldn’t really do well when I began my journey in therapy about two years ago

And I would say to know myself and to know how I feel about myself has been one of the pillars or cornerstone that stabilisers my personality and emotions in the more that I can know myself and accept myself I love myself that becomes strength in which I can love others

So to know myself and to be comfortable hollow feel about myself and accepting of myself translates to a healthy in a world which then presents itself in my character as I interact with people around me and on this forum.

But it also means that I faced my inner Demons and except my shadow self and not be afraid of what it is and it took a while for me to know that I did not need to be afraid of this explosive energy that existed within the bus I accepted my shadow self I could then Harness the energy and presented in a way which would be calm and assertive and that is self is a separate process but the integration of myself in the way made me healthier as a person as well to know my strength and to bring it under control

Ordz
 
Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you dont really care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth
The minor falls, the major lifts
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew her
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Maybe I've been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
Its a cold and its a broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the Name in vain
I dont even know the Name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light in every word
It doesnt matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, but it wasnt much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didnt come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah...
Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: Leonard Cohen
Hallelujah lyrics © Sony/atv Songs Llc

For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. Cohen's words have been hammering me a lot lately. Relationship? God is in me and I in He. By His stripes we are healed.
 
well it is always so hard to evaluate your relationship because i think you have take into account the ideas of the other person. and i dont know how good am i connected to myself or to GOD ! and they both tend not to answer some how !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top