Just one letter can change your whole world view (caution - possible religious thread) (Page 3)

Wow... good one.

Is the "I" in this the me that I know, or the higher me that is running the show?  Does it matter?

My limited, and often difficult to explain, belief system involves me, my higher self, that self's higher self, that self's higher self... so on and so on, until we get to All That Is.  Like a kind of network.

I am the fingertip on the hand, that is on the arm, that is attached to the body.  I am a small part of the "we." 

If the "I" that is me were to no longer have congnative thought, it wouldn't matter, because the "I" that is my higher-self would still be aware of everything, and the learning experience that is this existence would still be valid.

So what is that like for you?

When you're listening to your heart, what are you listening for? 

So are there any names for the levels between madkat and All That Is? 

You know what Don?  You're right.  I got wrapped up in discussing the opposing theories as opposed to answering the question in the OP.  MadKat did it the right way, very interesting answer too.

So here's my answer:  I think Descartes was reasonably on the money in terms of dispelling commonly accepted beliefs that had not supportive proof other than the fact that they were commonly accepted.  I think that Baaden is presenting an argument based on an assumption (wrapped in an enigma, yada yada yada).

I think that Religion should not fear Philosophy.  However, I think that there are (and have been) religious people who fear Philosophy for their own selfish (human?) reasons.  I think Philosophy challenges Religion to think, and to be accountable for the claims it makes.  I want a religion that can be introspective and challenge itself.  I want a religion that makes a person think for themselves and want to learn.  I don't need a religion that answers everyone's questions, just mine.  I think that Philosophy can push a Religion to raise its standards of critical thinking and that ultimately benefits everyone.  Close-minded blind acceptance of unsupported claims usually leads to disaster.

I apologize if I was becoming adversarial earlier in the thread.

Chucky, you gotta say more about that.  

No need to apologize. Really.

I don't know about other folks, but I often use what someone has written as a springboard for something that I've already been thinking about. That's what happened when I read your post.

And what you wrote was hardly adversarial.

And when I mentioned other adversarial threads, I shoulda mentioned that I recognize that I am one of the most adversarial posters on them. Although I try to be nice about it.

I agree 100%.

It's my purest voice. It's the voice that never lies, never rationalizes.

I'm listening for truth. Clear, unfettered truth.

What do you do if what you hear is in conflict with other people of good will who are trying to do the same thing?

I know that this is an issue that has come up often for Quakers in their history. 

What do you mean?

I follow my heart. I think others should do the same.

Right.  But what do you do in the event that what your heart sincerely tells you is in conflict with what someone else's heart sincerely tells them.  Let's say it's an issue where only one outcome can be true, but not both.

I know with Quakers, they have something called a clearness process where they sit together and further try to discern what is being said through the two members.

Just wondering if this has come up for you and how you handle it. 

Depends. Give me an example. Your question is too vague. And please clarify what you mean by a "true" outcome.

OK, let's say there are two people.  They are trying to find out if God exists or not (god in however you want to define it)

One listens to their heart to discern whether God exists, and comes to the conclusion that God does not exist.

The other listens to their heart for the same thing, and comes to the conclusion that God does exist. 

One is correct, but not both.

How do they each know whether what they are hearing is true or not?  If they both are sincere and do not want to be in error, how could they check their conclusion?

No Names, per se, but I consider the tier just above "me" to be my personal 'god' or the being most responsible for "me".  But, at the same time, that's Me too.  When I pray, that's the being that I imagine I'm communicating with. 

But that being is connected to everything else, so, in a way they are me and I am they...  it's all connected.  We are just one really big experiment in experience.

It depends on whether at the moment I feel like a body with a soul, or a soul with a body. 

Why must one "prove" the other to be in error (wrong)? I accept that other people have different views about god, life, the universe, and everything.  I don't need to reconcile their differing views to mine. We've walked different paths; we're going to see the world and life differently. I'm okay with that.

I like to learn how people have arrived at their own truths/conclusions. I think I can learn something in the journey they made to reach their truths. Sometimes you find a gem, sometimes not.

Unfortunately, the only way to check the conclusion appears to preclude the ability to report on the answer.

Why must one be correct, but not both? That assumption seems to limit the possibilities of the divine.

Mike, interesting question.  I'll throw out an answer why but I want to make clear it does not represent what I believe.  It's just a position for discussion so don't flame me too badly for it.

The answer may be that the only reason that both answers cannot exist is because of the reason the question was asked in the first place.  Man is imperfect.  Man is selfish, greedy, violent.  Men with self-interest in their hearts will not allow others to hold a belief that opposes their faith because they believe it represents a threat to their own faith.  Thus the need to have an answer.  The Divine Being may be all Gods to everyone, at the same time.  As imperfect Man we can't understand or comprehend all that the concept of God encompasses.  When we claim to, we put limits on Him(use your own term).  The need for a conclusion to the discussion between the two people in the example above is Man's need, not God's.

 Thoughts?  Comments?  It's Friday.