Thought for the day

Interesting Paolo, and I agree to an extent, but I don't think such a thing is possible. Our whole perception of everything is relational. Without contrasts we are completely unable to function or understand anything. Our mode of perception functions completely on categorization, which in turn depends completely on contrasts. If all things were homogenous we would be unable to perceive patterns and as a result would be unable to understand anything. The concept of a utopia, be it physical or emotional, can't exist without something to contrast it to. If we ever found ourselves in any of our imagined utopias they would likely become their own kind of hell... never ending sameness. It would be dreadful. There can be no such thing as intimacy without there also being lack of intimacy. The concept of intimacy itself would cease to exist.

Jessica, I don't know if this will be comfort to you, but here is some information that might be of interest. In the past, researchers and therapists believed that depression was a result of negative errors in perception of oneself and the world. There are results of recent studies that challenge this notion. Results of these studies suggest that depressed people are more accurate about assessing themselves and their enviorment than nondepressed people. There are people out there thinking about questions such as "If depressed people are more realistic about life, it is possible or ethical to try to change their outlook through psychotherapy?"

for example:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/aboutk/drdeathchapters.html

Chip, is it so hard to imagine a place free of sin, or whatever secular name you want to put on it?

Just because good is not "contrasted" by evil in Heaven does not mean that it will be bland and meaningless "dreadful" existence. It is interesting how you find it necessary to have evil/sin or whatever to be "happy" to put a word on it. That is kinda sad don't ya think?

I think you're not quite understanding what I'm trying to say, Billy. If good wasn't accompanied by its opposite we'd cease to understand it. We'd have no conception of it at all.

But what are you sharing of "yourself"? Your flaws are the very things that make you unique. If we were all flawless (with respect to character), there wouldn't be anything interesting to share. So I still can't see why it's so important to be concerned about going to Heaven, when we have the ability to love one another, flaws and all, here on earth. *shrug* BTW, I want to re-assure you that I'm not trying to be a wise-ass; these are serious issues I have been studying and thinking about for several years now (yeah, I'm pretty slow, eh? )


I'm not sure if you're inferring that Jessica may be depressed (because I think her post suggested that she wasn't, in spite of her bleak outlook), but your comments make me wonder if people who think like Jessica are a minority because they are less likely to propagate their DNA (if it's a significant factor in determining one's outlook). Someone needs to do a study to see if there's a correlation between people having that worldview, and not having children...

But hmm... if there are some drugs that will make me less pedantic, self-righteous, niggling, and hypocritical... send them my way -- ethical or not. It's never that easy, though, is it?

And now, here's a really cool short story:

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/under.htm

I might describe it like this...

Have you ever fought against something, and overcome it? Was there satisfaction in victory? Now, without the "enemy" there, you'd never know satisfaction.

Suppose you had a job, and everyday you woke up precisely at the right time, took your shower for exactly x minutes, ate the same breakfast, caught the same bus, driven by the same driver, had exactly y papers to file at work, took z minutes for lunch, received a call from your girlfriend at precisely 3pm, during which she'd tell you exactly what she had done during the day (which would be of course the same thing as every day before it), caught the same bus home at the same time, watched the same television programme about the same subject, with the same dialogue, cooked the same dinner as the previous night, ate it, went to sleep at exactly q o'clock, etc...

Does it sound like something you'd want to do forever? What makes life interesting is the fact that you could very well get a call at work from your girlfriend's work, telling you she'd just been killed in a "gone postal" office tragedy. Yes, it's horrible thing to have happen, but if it couldn't happen, could you really appreciate your girlfriend? Would you still have seatbelts installed in your car if you were certain you couldn't crash? Maybe these are crappy examples...

Two potential options for the Heaven-bound, if there's to be any semblance of humanity, are:
1) frontal lobotomy
2) self-awareness, and all its good and bad points -- which eventually leads to "if God is so tuff, why can't I be like Him?" (and we see what happened there... )

But what are some others? Saying "we can't understand the mind of God" is a cop-out, because God would not give us the ability to be logical if He didn't want us to use it (well, if He did, He is seriously stir-crazy, and maybe we should be chummy with Him so He doesn't fuck us up bigtime).

The problem that I see with what you and Chip are saying is that you are attempting to look at Heaven through Human eyes. You are attempting to put human characteristics on a place that we truly will have no real understanding of until our human eyes are closed and out Heavenly eyes are open.

Imagine a place free of aches and pain, free of stress, free of sin, free depression, free of all physical and mental anguish and at the same time full of love, full of forgiveness, full of grace and full of hope. Imagine the moment in your life that you would label as your "best" moment and Heaven will be that times ten.

Heck yeah, I'll sign up. Does that place sound "dreadful" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Does the fact that I could get a call tonight telling me that my daughter was killed make this life somehow better, somehow more full of joy, somehow more rich? Not in my opinion.

If there was something I could say to help turn on for you believe as I do I would say it. Until then I'll simply pray for some meeting of the minds and hope that you have some things to perhaps consider.

Dude that would so totally suck. Without aches, pain, stress, sin, depression, mental and physical anguish you have no contextual framework to understand these concepts. These things must exist in order for someone to experience the polar opposite. It makes no sense Billy. And even if I can imagine such a place I am I would tire of that butterfly flying, angel singing shit after a few hundred years (I cannot even fathom eternity)…YAWN.! I would be seriously tripping for some aches, pains and a serious slow dose of depression after a few hundred years of that peaceful no stimulus hell.

And speaking of heaven and hell I also have a problem with the whole fiery hell thing. After a certain time it seems to me that the pain would become relative. It would stop feeling like pain after a while. It would just be an accepted state of being. And how the hell do you feel pain from the fire if we no physical body, no nerve endings to register the pain?

Anyway God is dead as well all know but nice thinking Billy. The power of Christ compels me! Haha!

Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my part, but my human eyes are all I have to see with. I can only go by the way in which I perceive and what I can conceive. If I'm going to be made to feel guilt for the "sin" of being an imperfect human being then I need something more in exchange than the vague promise of something no one can describe. It's a beautiful dream Billy, I'll grant you that... but I believe that it's only beautiful because it's a dream. If it was our experience every day for eternity, heaven would be someplace else. I wouldn't mind being eternally free from physical pain, but I'd never want to give up emotional pain and hardship. Without it I wouldn't know how beautiful joy is. It's beautiful because it's rare. Maybe I'm just too much of a literalist

Billy's imagination is the r0xx0rs!

An example of the very paradox I'm talking about: you claim we cannot (at present) have an understanding, yet you have imagined (created a sort of understanding of) your ideal Heaven. You say "full of forgiveness", but I ask "forgiveness for what?"; you say "full of hope", and again I ask "hope for what?" -- hope is what helps people hang in there in the face of difficulty -- for instance, cancer patients need hope for a cure; but without cancer, they don't need hope -- they are already "cured".

The point is that life's potential hazards can make you appreciate every moment that your daughter is safe and well, regardless of your belief system. You can be thankful to God since you believe, but even a non-believer can simply appreciate the beauty and fragility of life (for instance), and use that appreciation to bring joy to those around him/her. If everyone did that, wouldn't earth become as nice a place as many imagine Heaven to be? Positing that only Heaven can be that place may serve to make people care less about improving the reality around us (I've witnessed that sort of rationale first-hand -- yikes).

One of the big faith obstacles for me is that I am very empirically-minded -- and seeing some sort of proof for God (eg. a personal visit that is so compelling that it cannot be denied or chalked up to hallucinations, etc) would defeat the very purpose of having faith, so it's not likely to happen.

John 20:24-29 isn't super clear regarding Thomas (no record of Thomas confirming by touch, for instance), but I suppose he was still considered a true follower -- yet "blessed" are those who believe without proof... I'm kinda cynical, but it almost sounds like a peer pressure/marketing trick situation ("if you have doubts and demand proof, you're not one of the cool kids -- just believe, man; don't question stuff". Good or bad, I'm the type who insists on proof for incredible claims, in particular if they affect my behavioural choices (in other words, I don't mind that you can't prove that the gravitational constant in another galaxy is identical to Earth's, because it can't affect my behaviour much; but if you claim it's going to be warm outside tomorrow, here in Ottawa, I'll raise one eyebrow before putting on my jam shorts ).

Wow, I go off to the River Walk for a day and you all just go on without me as if I were some two-bit philosophical sex object. Sheesh!


I hear ya. Just to be clear, this is simply a personal hypothesis, one borne out of the deepest levels of introspection during an excruciatingly difficult period in my life. I think that a concept like "my" hypothesis is similar to a zen paradox in that one ponders non-sensical riddles incessently until bam - one day, revelation. That's at least how it was when this particular concept hit me about seven years ago. I get that this is kinda "out there," and I'm totally OK with the possibility of being called a loon . I simply wanted to offer up an idea that I am only just beginning to explore, myself.

Let me pose this rhetorical query: What about string theory and/or quantum mechanics? Do we have any empirical evidence, let alone awareness, of the alleged 7+ additional dimensions of the universe beyond those we presently take for granted every day? In a way, it's kind of a fluke that we even know that we don't know that which we don't know, for many of these theories only became possible when trying to solve a lesser problem in the grand equation that is the universe. And yet, it is quite common for people to excitedly embrace the possibilities that such theories entertain.

Put another way, if you were the average peasant living circa 1492, would you think atomic energy or relativity even remotely conceivable, let alone possible? Probably not, but the possibility of a round earth has just come into the visible horizon. It took scientific and mathematical genuises successive lifetimes over many centuries to reach a point where great minds could postulate such wonders. Despite great controversy, quantum mechanics is now an "applied science," and a unifying scientific theory -- be it string or otherwise -- is within our grasp. This evolution of science is somewhat analagous to the discussion of spiritual philosophy. Given that spirituality exists in a dimension beyond which we can currently quantify or measure, it remains elusive, and is relegated to a lesser state of philosophy. Honestly, I don't know if spirituality will ever move beyond this philosophical state because, in a way, to prove the theory is to know (or perhaps even "be" God (aka the Programmer).

And you're right: Every-day life is based on billions of assumptions and valuations, most of which we don't even consciously acknowledge. Our very language is prejudiced toward the judgment, characterization and labeling of virtually everything. And therein lies a possible answer. Consider that this hypothetical world of ontological purity I have conjurred not to be one devoid of gray scales and/or color palattes; rather, I believe it is a world where the murky grays and pea greens just "are," and they have no more or less value than the emerald greens or the brilliant sapphires. As you read my last line, did you notice any emotional reaction to one color possiblity vs. the other? That's kind of what I'm getting at: It's not that juxtapositions will disappear in heaven; they will just be accepted at face value, and will harmoniously exist.

Did you ever watch Deep Space Nine, gene? Remember Odo and the shape-shifter race? They lived on a planet where the shape-shifters could basically melt into a vast and shapeless ocean where they could experience profound intimacy with one individual or with all others while retaining a complete sense of self. That's about the closest analogy I've ever come across that even begins to relate to my concept of heaven, and to how we will relate to God and other people when we reach it. In the heaven I imagine, you could make a million mistakes and never be shamed for them. You could open your heart completely to a virtual stranger without fear of rejection. You could sing off-key and receive genuine applause from those who appreciate your unique expression (and for that matter, there probably would be no knowledge of off-key music!). So, some Hollywood version of a banal and mundane heaven filled with endless church choirs and chubby cherubs definitely ain't what this life-battered gay boy is after; it's the hope of interpersonal relationships completely unencumbered by the bull-shit of this world.

Nice post Paolo, well said.

It's irony that we are told to close our human eyes and look with our heavenly eyes, when the western world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, give their gods and angels such anthropomorphic qualities, and make heaven into a literal place rather than a state of being.

The human-likenesses of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are what makes these religions unique, along with the ability of (human) believers to identify and "interrelate" with gods, angels, places, etc. These religions propose a cosmology a lot like real life, and the average person has something easier to believe in and derive satisfaction from than an amorphous "one spirit", for example.

Meaning no offense, but I wonder if looking at matters discussed above from a different, heavenly perspective is merely a rhetorical and spiritual convenience.

And the difference between quantum mechanics and spirituality is this: quantum mechanics is subject to verification by material experimentation, and was, even in the 1920s when it was relatively new. Spirituality has, to my knowledge, never been adequately verified in any way by material experimentation. That which has been presented as spiritual verification by material experimentation has instead been anecdotal, statistically-manipulated, or merely built on a series of tautological assumptions.

Which is to say that spirituality, so far, belongs more in the realm of art than science, an often-beautiful, sometimes-horribly-ugly example of human dreams and visions, that requires wisdom to understand, and not necessarily reason.


edited for clarity

I don't disagree with the essence of your post at all, Seth. (BTW, I love the name Seth for a number of reasons .) Your point about derivative religions having an anthropomorphic element is an interesting point. As I read that particular paragraph, the first thing that came to mind was the New Testament parables. Allegorical in nature, the parables employ everyday imagery to describe complex spiritual concepts. The parable of the prodigal son, for instance, illustrates God's vast and illogical capacity for love and forgiveness. However, I don't think God is literally some rolly-polly old man who owns vast farmlands in Mesopotamia and who wanders the borders of his ranch keeping an eye out for the return of his wanton children. Even Jesus, as described in the New Testament, is a type of living parable; God purportedly taking a human form so that he could directly communicate with humans on a very personal level, and doing so in a form that would not overwhelm humanity.

And your point about the validation of QM via material experimentation is right on. I wasn't trying to state otherwise. Rather, I was apparently quite ineffective in stating this simple point: It took centuries for science to first conceive of QM, let alone find a means by which to validate it. The underlying point I wanted to make was that we tend to give science a much greater benefit of doubt than we do spirituality. In addition, I was postulating that the study of spirituality may also be evolutionary in nature.

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't have a theological degree and I am by no means an expert. I am merely sharing my personal observations for the purpose of rhetorical discussion. My last post was really just an expansion on my theory that the knowledge of good and evil is a major handicap toward understanding the essence of spirit. If you can take away from my ramblings a sense that a heavenly Christian experience is not comprised of an arbitrarily militaristic set of rules and regs, but rather, a state of perfect intererlational being-ness, then that is more than I could have asked for.

You're one of the sanest loons I know, hehe. Imagining an ideal world and living your life in pursuit of making this world ideal is a worthy goal. The problem with religion, and the Abrahamic varieties in particular, is that they're more concerned with the next life. They seem to spend more time fighting and arguing about whose vision of the firmament is correct and less time working under the belief that we could make this world ideal if we let go such petty disputes.



As Seth did such an excellent job of pointing out, there's a huge difference between something like string theory and religious concepts of ascension. String theory is the product of mathematics. It can be demonstrated with functional intellectual tools applied to observation, and in that respect it's testable. As technology advances it will become possible to devise experiments to verify the soundness of the theory. We will never be able to verify the veracity of religious claims no matter what tools we devise.



It won't ever move beyond philosophy, which is fine. Philosophy is a perfectly valid intellectual pursuit and has genuine value. The problem with religion is that is rejects the philosophy label, combines philosophy with mythos, and claims to be factual. It asks its followers to accept on faith what it can't quantify, observe, or demonstrate. It's philosophy with an attitude problem. You'll never hear a physicist demand that string theory be taken on faith and promise eternal life for doing so. No country will ever wage war on behalf of string theory against another country that believes membrane theory instead. Proponents of any scientific theory will spend their lives working to provide proof rather than expecting reward for their ability to blindly believe. Faith is the antithesis of science. It's anti-intellectual.



That's a nice analogy, Paolo. I think it's something we should all be striving to bring to furition in the here and now. Do you see any irony in contemplating a utopia where everything is of the same value when religion itself claims to be all about "values."? I do. I find it especially ironic when throughout history religion has been the greatest force in the world working against that ideal in this life.



I'd love to live in that kind of world too. If religion would fold up its tents and go away we'd be a lot closer to it.

I do want to address this idea that without contrasting sin existing that you cannot have a Heaven that is free from sin.

First I want to reiterates that we are attempting to understand a concept with human eyes that will not be a human existence. Can you understand a life where the dimension of time does not exist for example when everything we know relates to time? Can we fully understand what that would mean?

Now about the contrasting requirement, let’s take a look at that a little further.. even with our human eyes and human traits.

Is it necessary for me to know what a milk that has gone bad taste like for me to know that chocolate cake taste pretty darn good? Will that cake somehow all of the sudden taste bad to me or perhaps bland?

Is it a requirement that I need to have experienced physical pain like say perhaps burning my hand on the stove, for me to experience the pleasure of a gentile touch from someone I love? Would that gentile touch somehow not be as gentile and pleasurefull without ever having burned my hand?

Do I have to know what a rotten egg smells like to know that my grandmother’s apple pie smells delightful? Will it somehow smell bad or perhaps not as good if I have never smelled a rotten egg?

Do I have to have heard the noise of fingernails scratching a chalkboard to truly appreciate Mozart? If my ears have never heard the screeching of those fingernails does Mozart somehow become impossible to enjoy?

Do I have to see disgusting examples of art to fully enjoy casting my eyes on a Rembrandt? Would that Rembrandt somehow become distasteful to look at if I had never experienced horrible images with my own two eyes?

I do appreciate what you are attempting to say and the interesting logic that took you to such a belief but I respectfully disagree. The answers to every one of those questions is a resounding no. The concept that without the existence of pain, there can be no pleasure is interesting but does not hold water, not even with the real examples I have given. Chocolate cake taste good, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it… hehe.


Same logic applies here Darko. If a bee stings you every day of your life the last bee sting will hurt every bit as much as the first.

Good post Billy. Being the contrarian that I am I feel the need to point out that all of your examples are about human experience and all rely on subjective tastes. Maybe I don't like cake. I'd definitely come to hate it if I had to eat it every day. If I went to buy a used car and the salesman assured me that all its features are amazingly wonderful but beyond human understanding, I wouldn't buy it. In fact I'd probably laugh at him. Why should I buy a way of life based on even less? I could at least SEE the used car.

What Chip said! I like the car I am driving!

And in the counter-contrarian spirit ( ), I will refer you to Seth's earlier quote with a slight twist: I wonder if looking at matters discussed above from an earthly perspective is merely a rhetorical and spiritual convenience. Words are wholly inadequate to describe the nature of something that cannot be experienced in the here and now. What else do we have but human experience upon which to draw parallels and analogies for the realm of spirit? I could relay some pretty amazing stories about spiritual encounters I've had. However, given my lack of ability to scientifically quantify them, they are necessarily relegated to the realm of folklore.

Did you see the movie Contact with Jodie Foster? Yeah, it had its campy moments, but it was really the first time I have seen Hollywood seriously take on the topic of reconciling science and spirituality. Remember Ellie's trip in the "machine?" Overcome by the magnitude and beauty of the experience, she utters a revelation that the organizers were wrong to have sent a scientist on this celestial journey; instead, she states that they should have sent a poet. Later, upon her return, Ellie Arroway (interesting name choice) the scientist struggles before the review panel to describe that which she has just experienced. It is only then that Ellie begins to appreciate the realm of faith and/or spirituality. Yes, a work of Saganian fiction. Now, to relate this back to my theory, and if the logic of my hypothesis follows, words are necessarily inappropriate symbolic descriptors of the realm of spirit. So, we do the best we can with that which is available.

The point that follows is actually where I first began this post. I still think it is worthy of consideration, so here goes. It takes great risk to ponder the impossible. Queen Isabella of Spain, though a driving force behind the Inquisitions, no doubt exemplified great courage by risking fortune and reputation on Columbus' voyage. In that scenario, Columbus is your used car salesman and Queen Isabella is you, the car buyer. Would the world as we know it even exist if not for that act of courage? I'm not saying that a person who rejects the realm of spirit is inexorably a coward. I'd simply like to see the same depth of thought applied here as with any other topic worthy of this level of debate. Frankly, it appears to me that many of the contrarian (love that word!) arguments are as tenaciously biased as those who make statements of faith without first investing deep thought and internal contemplation.

Finally, I would say that I am perhaps the harshest critic of religiosity here. I, too, find religion to be a vile form of entrapment. I am a spiritual man who desires a relational context for life with God and others. For the most part, I find that organized religion runs counter to that stated goal. So if at all possible, consider the separation of religion from spirituality. They are not one in the same.

Substitute your favorite in every category and my examples all work. Obviously everyone has different tastes. The examples are allegorical and meant to emphasize my point.

Eating cake every day isn't the point either. And btw, who said you won't have all of your memories of this life as your contrast argument?

I am honestly not following the logic in your car analogy. Want to elaborate?

Ponder it Billy. It's not hard to understand. You're just being obtuse

Hehe, be nice to my buddy.

BTW Chip, not sure if you saw that I posted right before Billy on the previous page. Interested in your thoughts.

[SATIRE] Come on Paolo... what's wrong with you? Don't you know anything? He doesn't need to be nice to me, after all, I am a Conservative Christian. It is "politically correct" and cool to be rude to people like me. [/SATIRE]