Faith/Observation
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: a spiritual vortex, Colorado
Posts: 844
Faith/Observation
good morning Don
re: your earlier post [BTW thanks again - you are really inspiring me to sort out the intellectual side of my sobriety- ]
your post:�where do you derive these concepts?
In that order:
Self-consciousness: I know that I exist.
Will: I know that I can cause things to happen of my own volition.
Meaning of life: I can create whatever meaning I choose for my life.
Creativity: I can create things of art that I and others give meaning to.
I don't need a higher power for any of that, and I really don't see how faith has anything to do with it. It certainly doesn't seem fuzzy to me. If you're saying that I am using faith to recognize my own existence or the things I can see or do, you're talking at a level of philosophy that I can't really understand. I'm not really sure why you want to ascribe faith to me.
Don S�
I am not pushing a HP concept. I am pushing the idea that we all operate from a non-emperical view of ‘self’. That this a view , even, if conceived of as ‘inner generated’ as opposed to ‘outside of mind’, which is still a subjective, non linear, faith based concept.
The tautology of “I know that I exist� [the presupposition of the agent: ‘I’] is a statement that you and i BELIEVE we know what each other is referring to. But the concept of SELF lies outside what our minds are capable of emperically, scientifically proving.
The same holds true for words such as: will, volition,create, and meaning. -each of your definitions is entirely subjective, i.e. belief-based. And this is as it has to be.
part of the process of stopping my suicidal impulse to drink was to find meaning to my life- to feel that i was a part of, not apart from. When someone says that they BELIEVE that we can make the CHOICE to not drink again as an entirely SELF generating mechanism, they are making a whole slew of subjective, philosophical assumptions that , because they are non emperical, are not assumptions that we can expect others to possess as we “KNOW� them.
Addiction is the mind’s quite rational response to an existence which is logically and inherently devoid of meaning.
Sobriety always requires that we discover that meaning. and that meaning lies outside the notions of ‘proof’ or ‘objectivity’ or ‘logic’.
It always requires a Kierkegarrdian leap of faith- an integration of ‘self’ with ‘life’
Powerlessness means that i finally , willingly, yield to the idea that my mind does possess limitations within the context of its rationality. I can accept a new , non rational reality: that there are all those fuzzy concepts, unbendable to the emperical.
And regardless of whether i CHOOSE to BELIEVE that these subjective MEANINGS for my life are outter or inner inspired, i still have done steps One, Two and Three.
mackat
re: your earlier post [BTW thanks again - you are really inspiring me to sort out the intellectual side of my sobriety- ]
your post:�where do you derive these concepts?
In that order:
Self-consciousness: I know that I exist.
Will: I know that I can cause things to happen of my own volition.
Meaning of life: I can create whatever meaning I choose for my life.
Creativity: I can create things of art that I and others give meaning to.
I don't need a higher power for any of that, and I really don't see how faith has anything to do with it. It certainly doesn't seem fuzzy to me. If you're saying that I am using faith to recognize my own existence or the things I can see or do, you're talking at a level of philosophy that I can't really understand. I'm not really sure why you want to ascribe faith to me.
Don S�
I am not pushing a HP concept. I am pushing the idea that we all operate from a non-emperical view of ‘self’. That this a view , even, if conceived of as ‘inner generated’ as opposed to ‘outside of mind’, which is still a subjective, non linear, faith based concept.
The tautology of “I know that I exist� [the presupposition of the agent: ‘I’] is a statement that you and i BELIEVE we know what each other is referring to. But the concept of SELF lies outside what our minds are capable of emperically, scientifically proving.
The same holds true for words such as: will, volition,create, and meaning. -each of your definitions is entirely subjective, i.e. belief-based. And this is as it has to be.
part of the process of stopping my suicidal impulse to drink was to find meaning to my life- to feel that i was a part of, not apart from. When someone says that they BELIEVE that we can make the CHOICE to not drink again as an entirely SELF generating mechanism, they are making a whole slew of subjective, philosophical assumptions that , because they are non emperical, are not assumptions that we can expect others to possess as we “KNOW� them.
Addiction is the mind’s quite rational response to an existence which is logically and inherently devoid of meaning.
Sobriety always requires that we discover that meaning. and that meaning lies outside the notions of ‘proof’ or ‘objectivity’ or ‘logic’.
It always requires a Kierkegarrdian leap of faith- an integration of ‘self’ with ‘life’
Powerlessness means that i finally , willingly, yield to the idea that my mind does possess limitations within the context of its rationality. I can accept a new , non rational reality: that there are all those fuzzy concepts, unbendable to the emperical.
And regardless of whether i CHOOSE to BELIEVE that these subjective MEANINGS for my life are outter or inner inspired, i still have done steps One, Two and Three.
mackat
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by mackat
good morning Don
re: your earlier post [BTW thanks again - you are really inspiring me to sort out the intellectual side of my sobriety- ]
I am not pushing a HP concept. I am pushing the idea that we all operate from a non-emperical view of ‘self’. That this a view , even, if conceived of as ‘inner generated’ as opposed to ‘outside of mind’, which is still a subjective, non linear, faith based concept.
The tautology of “I know that I exist� [the presupposition of the agent: ‘I’] is a statement that you and i BELIEVE we know what each other is referring to. But the concept of SELF lies outside what our minds are capable of emperically, scientifically proving.
The same holds true for words such as: will, volition,create, and meaning. -each of your definitions is entirely subjective, i.e. belief-based. And this is as it has to be.
part of the process of stopping my suicidal impulse to drink was to find meaning to my life- to feel that i was a part of, not apart from. When someone says that they BELIEVE that we can make the CHOICE to not drink again as an entirely SELF generating mechanism, they are making a whole slew of subjective, philosophical assumptions that , because they are non emperical, are not assumptions that we can expect others to possess as we “KNOW� them.
Addiction is the mind’s quite rational response to an existence which is logically and inherently devoid of meaning.
Sobriety always requires that we discover that meaning. and that meaning lies outside the notions of ‘proof’ or ‘objectivity’ or ‘logic’.
It always requires a Kierkegarrdian leap of faith- an integration of ‘self’ with ‘life’
Powerlessness means that i finally , willingly, yield to the idea that my mind does possess limitations within the context of its rationality. I can accept a new , non rational reality: that there are all those fuzzy concepts, unbendable to the emperical.
And regardless of whether i CHOOSE to BELIEVE that these subjective MEANINGS for my life are outter or inner inspired, i still have done steps One, Two and Three.
mackat
re: your earlier post [BTW thanks again - you are really inspiring me to sort out the intellectual side of my sobriety- ]
I am not pushing a HP concept. I am pushing the idea that we all operate from a non-emperical view of ‘self’. That this a view , even, if conceived of as ‘inner generated’ as opposed to ‘outside of mind’, which is still a subjective, non linear, faith based concept.
The tautology of “I know that I exist� [the presupposition of the agent: ‘I’] is a statement that you and i BELIEVE we know what each other is referring to. But the concept of SELF lies outside what our minds are capable of emperically, scientifically proving.
The same holds true for words such as: will, volition,create, and meaning. -each of your definitions is entirely subjective, i.e. belief-based. And this is as it has to be.
part of the process of stopping my suicidal impulse to drink was to find meaning to my life- to feel that i was a part of, not apart from. When someone says that they BELIEVE that we can make the CHOICE to not drink again as an entirely SELF generating mechanism, they are making a whole slew of subjective, philosophical assumptions that , because they are non emperical, are not assumptions that we can expect others to possess as we “KNOW� them.
Addiction is the mind’s quite rational response to an existence which is logically and inherently devoid of meaning.
Sobriety always requires that we discover that meaning. and that meaning lies outside the notions of ‘proof’ or ‘objectivity’ or ‘logic’.
It always requires a Kierkegarrdian leap of faith- an integration of ‘self’ with ‘life’
Powerlessness means that i finally , willingly, yield to the idea that my mind does possess limitations within the context of its rationality. I can accept a new , non rational reality: that there are all those fuzzy concepts, unbendable to the emperical.
And regardless of whether i CHOOSE to BELIEVE that these subjective MEANINGS for my life are outter or inner inspired, i still have done steps One, Two and Three.
mackat
I know that you're not pushing a HP concept, but you're stretching the word faith to include lots of things that most people would consider observable.
We obviously have to have shared definitions of words, but again I don't see how faith is any part of that. That is just communication. There is an element of subjectivity involved, but I think we share definitions of will, volition, create, and meaning.
When we get to the word rational, though, you and I have very different meanings for that. I think you've come to a definition of 'rational' by a tortured semantical path if you can describe drinking as rational! In the context of substance abuse, I use it to refer to beliefs and actions which lead to healthy results emotionally, physically, and mentally. That which doesn't is an irrational (or maladaptive, if you prefer) choice.
Many people believe that we drink because of a spiritual void, and that we must fill that void to achieve sobriety. I disagree. Perhaps we will attain happiness or comfort by filling that void. But sobriety does not 'always require that we find that meaning'. It just requires that we stop drinking. I agree that spirituality itself lies outside the realm of logic and empirical thought.
But the concept of SELF lies outside what our minds are capable of emperically, scientifically proving.
Pinch yourself. Look in a mirror. What other concept of self do you have, that you aren't capable of proving by simple awareness of your existence?
Dancing on the head of a pin,
Don S
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: a spiritual vortex, Colorado
Posts: 844
hi don [you angel you! LOL]
yeh- know what you mean- i know i could get all ego-centric here too. but so far, i've been making my meetings, reaching out to newcomers and working with my sponsor/sponsees. [not to mention my prayers and meditations hee hee!]
re: concept of self. Pinching myself will result in neuron exchange so that the brain registers the sensation of touch. a flea can also register that same stimulus response mechanism. Yet i would not say that a flea has the same awareness of self that you and i have.
re:"In the context of substance abuse, I use it to refer to beliefs and actions which lead to healthy results emotionally, physically, and mentally. That which doesn't is an irrational (or maladaptive, if you prefer) choice. "
This still requires some PRIOR feeling, belief, sense that my life is meaningful. I cannot do this by any' if A then B' logic. No one can show me 'will' , they can demonstrate it, but they cannot hand it to me, nor can they run the chalkboard proof for its existence.
re: rational - most addicts i hang with have no problem with the notion that using is a quite rational response to an irrational world. I still stand by the earlier post as to why immediate gratification w/ addictive substance can just as well be pro adaptive behavior.
BTW- i am indeed glad you are sober. I responded to these initial posts because it looked to me as if there were underlying assumptions about the concepts of human nature and how the mind works which, although couched in the language of rationality, were really, themselves, based on belief systems.
dancing w/ ya and all the gods
mackat
yeh- know what you mean- i know i could get all ego-centric here too. but so far, i've been making my meetings, reaching out to newcomers and working with my sponsor/sponsees. [not to mention my prayers and meditations hee hee!]
re: concept of self. Pinching myself will result in neuron exchange so that the brain registers the sensation of touch. a flea can also register that same stimulus response mechanism. Yet i would not say that a flea has the same awareness of self that you and i have.
re:"In the context of substance abuse, I use it to refer to beliefs and actions which lead to healthy results emotionally, physically, and mentally. That which doesn't is an irrational (or maladaptive, if you prefer) choice. "
This still requires some PRIOR feeling, belief, sense that my life is meaningful. I cannot do this by any' if A then B' logic. No one can show me 'will' , they can demonstrate it, but they cannot hand it to me, nor can they run the chalkboard proof for its existence.
re: rational - most addicts i hang with have no problem with the notion that using is a quite rational response to an irrational world. I still stand by the earlier post as to why immediate gratification w/ addictive substance can just as well be pro adaptive behavior.
BTW- i am indeed glad you are sober. I responded to these initial posts because it looked to me as if there were underlying assumptions about the concepts of human nature and how the mind works which, although couched in the language of rationality, were really, themselves, based on belief systems.
dancing w/ ya and all the gods
mackat
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by mackat
hi don [you angel you! LOL]
yeh- know what you mean- i know i could get all ego-centric here too. but so far, i've been making my meetings, reaching out to newcomers and working with my sponsor/sponsees. [not to mention my prayers and meditations hee hee!]
re: concept of self. Pinching myself will result in neuron exchange so that the brain registers the sensation of touch. a flea can also register that same stimulus response mechanism. Yet i would not say that a flea has the same awareness of self that you and i have.
re:"In the context of substance abuse, I use it to refer to beliefs and actions which lead to healthy results emotionally, physically, and mentally. That which doesn't is an irrational (or maladaptive, if you prefer) choice. "
This still requires some PRIOR feeling, belief, sense that my life is meaningful. I cannot do this by any' if A then B' logic. No one can show me 'will' , they can demonstrate it, but they cannot hand it to me, nor can they run the chalkboard proof for its existence.
re: rational - most addicts i hang with have no problem with the notion that using is a quite rational response to an irrational world. I still stand by the earlier post as to why immediate gratification w/ addictive substance can just as well be pro adaptive behavior.
BTW- i am indeed glad you are sober. I responded to these initial posts because it looked to me as if there were underlying assumptions about the concepts of human nature and how the mind works which, although couched in the language of rationality, were really, themselves, based on belief systems.
dancing w/ ya and all the gods
mackat
yeh- know what you mean- i know i could get all ego-centric here too. but so far, i've been making my meetings, reaching out to newcomers and working with my sponsor/sponsees. [not to mention my prayers and meditations hee hee!]
re: concept of self. Pinching myself will result in neuron exchange so that the brain registers the sensation of touch. a flea can also register that same stimulus response mechanism. Yet i would not say that a flea has the same awareness of self that you and i have.
re:"In the context of substance abuse, I use it to refer to beliefs and actions which lead to healthy results emotionally, physically, and mentally. That which doesn't is an irrational (or maladaptive, if you prefer) choice. "
This still requires some PRIOR feeling, belief, sense that my life is meaningful. I cannot do this by any' if A then B' logic. No one can show me 'will' , they can demonstrate it, but they cannot hand it to me, nor can they run the chalkboard proof for its existence.
re: rational - most addicts i hang with have no problem with the notion that using is a quite rational response to an irrational world. I still stand by the earlier post as to why immediate gratification w/ addictive substance can just as well be pro adaptive behavior.
BTW- i am indeed glad you are sober. I responded to these initial posts because it looked to me as if there were underlying assumptions about the concepts of human nature and how the mind works which, although couched in the language of rationality, were really, themselves, based on belief systems.
dancing w/ ya and all the gods
mackat
If you're looking for a physiological basis for cognition--awareness of self-- the interaction of dopamine on the receptors of the brain provides it. Dysfunction of that interaction is being studied in schizophrenia, ADHD, cognitive deficits, aging, etc.
Mammals have evolved extensive development of the nerve structures that process information, and dopamine is a "key neuroregulator which contributes to behavioral adaptation and to anticipatory processes necessary for preparing voluntary action consequent upon intention. All together, it can be suggested that a correlation exists between DA innervation and expression of cognitive capacities."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract)
'Voluntary action consequent upon intention'….that sounds like choice, will, and some other key concepts in sobriety!
Given the known impact of alcohol and other drugs on dopamine and the nerve structures in the brain (http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/drugs_m.html
is just one web site with information on drugs and neurotransmitters) it seems to me that the best thing you could do to achieve greater awareness of self is to….quit abusing drugs and alcohol.
I'm glad we're both sober! For a lot of reasons.
Don S
member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Posts: 281
I have a question. Doesn't it require faith to believe the results of experiments and research of scientists to be accurate? There are so many things I assume to be true although I've never observed them for myself. The study of the history of the world is based completely on assumption that what has been written actually took place. Being impossible to go back in time and observe these events for myself, I am required to rely on assumption if I'm going to believe it to be true. Wouldn't this be faith: believing in something I haven't witnessed or observed for myself? I conclude that almost everything I think I know began with some basic assumptions. It would be impossible for me to literally verify everything for myself.
Mike
Mike
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by Captain Morgan
I have a question. Doesn't it require faith to believe the results of experiments and research of scientists to be accurate? There are so many things I assume to be true although I've never observed them for myself. The study of the history of the world is based completely on assumption that what has been written actually took place. Being impossible to go back in time and observe these events for myself, I am required to rely on assumption if I'm going to believe it to be true. Wouldn't this be faith: believing in something I haven't witnessed or observed for myself? I conclude that almost everything I think I know began with some basic assumptions. It would be impossible for me to literally verify everything for myself.
Mike
Mike
Scientific research is reproducible. That's a key test. You don't have to believe the results; you can set up the same experiment and find out for yourself. You don't have to verify everything. But any information based on one researcher's results is less useful than something which has been repeated many times. When research doesn't produce the same results, it often provides insight into some key variable overlooked by the original researchers.
I don't assume that what has been written actually took place! You should read history with an understanding of the biases and influences of the authors. The bible comes to mind quickly as a book that we would all do well to approach with that healthy skepticism. But it seems to me we've already had that discussion....
Don S
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 1,432
Hey, mackat, here's a link to a well-written description of the physiology of spiritualism, religion, murder, sex, and related subjects. It gets tangentially to the subject of perception of self, in that the author describes the parts of the human brain that are highly developed compared to, say, fleas.
Warning: individuals prone to excessive limbic system activity may find this article offensive!
http://www.brain-mind.com/BrainReligion.html
Don S
Warning: individuals prone to excessive limbic system activity may find this article offensive!
http://www.brain-mind.com/BrainReligion.html
Don S
member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by Don S
The bible comes to mind quickly as a book that we would all do well to approach with that healthy skepticism. But it seems to me we've already had that discussion....
Don S
Don S
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: a spiritual vortex, Colorado
Posts: 844
hi Don
will get to your research later- ty- gonna go out and do some more carpentry before the &*@@%& wind arrives - whew some kinda spring here!
Capt morgan- i'm sorta inbetween you and don here [i think] science differs from faith for the reasons don mentioned. it is the arena where we all discover a level playing field. there's plenty of psuedo science out there, but by using falsifyable experiments which produce the same results regardless of the personalities [yep, right out of The Traditions] we can get consensus.
but , i do agree w/ you about the limits of science. And i tend to call that event horizon, the satori- or spiritual awakening. Like Don, i do not take the bible, koran, upanishads or the torah as historical accountings of history- i DO read them as significant contributions to humans attempts to get at the Mystery. Job is still my all time favorite!!
later guys
mackat
will get to your research later- ty- gonna go out and do some more carpentry before the &*@@%& wind arrives - whew some kinda spring here!
Capt morgan- i'm sorta inbetween you and don here [i think] science differs from faith for the reasons don mentioned. it is the arena where we all discover a level playing field. there's plenty of psuedo science out there, but by using falsifyable experiments which produce the same results regardless of the personalities [yep, right out of The Traditions] we can get consensus.
but , i do agree w/ you about the limits of science. And i tend to call that event horizon, the satori- or spiritual awakening. Like Don, i do not take the bible, koran, upanishads or the torah as historical accountings of history- i DO read them as significant contributions to humans attempts to get at the Mystery. Job is still my all time favorite!!
later guys
mackat
member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by mackat
Capt morgan- i'm sorta inbetween you and don here [i think] science differs from faith for the reasons don mentioned. it is the arena where we all discover a level playing field. there's plenty of psuedo science out there, but by using falsifyable experiments which produce the same results regardless of the personalities [yep, right out of The Traditions] we can get consensus.
but , i do agree w/ you about the limits of science. And i tend to call that event horizon, the satori- or spiritual awakening. Like Don, i do not take the bible, koran, upanishads or the torah as historical accountings of history- i DO read them as significant contributions to humans attempts to get at the Mystery. Job is still my all time favorite!!
later guys
mackat
but , i do agree w/ you about the limits of science. And i tend to call that event horizon, the satori- or spiritual awakening. Like Don, i do not take the bible, koran, upanishads or the torah as historical accountings of history- i DO read them as significant contributions to humans attempts to get at the Mystery. Job is still my all time favorite!!
later guys
mackat
I agree it doesn't require faith to believe in experiments you reproduce yourself; this is where I see science differing from faith. In this case, you're believing in something you are observing with your own eyes, something physical, and this does not require faith. On the other hand, what about all the experiments we don't reproduce on our own, including the ones reproduced by several researchers? Doesn't it still require faith and assumption because we haven't actually observed the results with our own eyes?
Like Don, i do not take the bible, koran, upanishads or the torah as historical accountings of history
Mike
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: a spiritual vortex, Colorado
Posts: 844
hi mike
RE: "On the other hand, what about all the experiments we don't reproduce on our own, including the ones reproduced by several researchers? Doesn't it still require faith and assumption because we haven't actually observed the results with our own eyes?"
First, when the experiment and results are published, anyone is then free to dupicate it and verify or falsify the results. It actually happens a lot- cold fusion being the most recently well publicised one. If we accept our personal sensory information as the ONLY evidence for reality, we are in deep trouble: senses themselves can be fooled, we might be under the influence of chemical insanity
[been there done THAT no thanks] but more importantly, we are discounting a huge part of what our human minds have been endowed with, namely, our ability to exchange information with other humans.
still, verification by either falsifying the results, or disproving the mathematics, are the essential cornerstone of science.
mackat
RE: "On the other hand, what about all the experiments we don't reproduce on our own, including the ones reproduced by several researchers? Doesn't it still require faith and assumption because we haven't actually observed the results with our own eyes?"
First, when the experiment and results are published, anyone is then free to dupicate it and verify or falsify the results. It actually happens a lot- cold fusion being the most recently well publicised one. If we accept our personal sensory information as the ONLY evidence for reality, we are in deep trouble: senses themselves can be fooled, we might be under the influence of chemical insanity
[been there done THAT no thanks] but more importantly, we are discounting a huge part of what our human minds have been endowed with, namely, our ability to exchange information with other humans.
still, verification by either falsifying the results, or disproving the mathematics, are the essential cornerstone of science.
mackat
member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by mackat
Addiction is the mind’s quite rational response to an existence which is logically and inherently devoid of meaning.
mackat
mackat
I found this to be true in my own life. When I came to the conclusion this world had nothing to offer me and I had no hope in anything, drinking 24/7 made complete sense. What did I have to live for? We all go to the grave, and once I'd get there, what would it matter how I got there? Why prolong a miserable existence? At least drinking nonstop numbed me to much of the pain I was causing both for me and for others.
It wasn't untiil I had hope in the future and had meaning in my life that I would even consider not drinking for a day of consciousness. I don't look back on that as being irrational; it was completely rational based on my perspective at the time.
I don't believe one has to believe in God to stop drinking or to stop doing anything for that matter. Nor do I believe one has to stop drinking in order to truely believe in God. I do think, however, that one has to get to the point where the consequences of drinking outweigh its benefits.
Mike
Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: out there...
Posts: 2,653
In an attempt to simplify my existance and free up more time for living and less time for long drawn out philisophical discussion, I have reduced my definition of faith to "I'll see it when I believe it" and my definition of science to "I'll believe it when I see it" I use to think I had an enormous contribution to intellectual discussion. I may have placed unrealistic expectations on my once chemically saturated brain.
( I'm still attracted to it as I read this thread and I would have to reread it more than once to grasp a small percentage of the concepts.. wow you guys are talking way over my head .. I guess thats why I like the 12 steps, they aren't brain science and rocket surgery)
( I'm still attracted to it as I read this thread and I would have to reread it more than once to grasp a small percentage of the concepts.. wow you guys are talking way over my head .. I guess thats why I like the 12 steps, they aren't brain science and rocket surgery)
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
