The Science of Belief (page 9)

SixofNine

A couple of statements here have caught my curiousity,

Daystar said:

And I did prove it to myself. Whether I believe in these supernatural entities or not made no difference in my experience. Appeals to them, if performed properly, in alignment with their archetypal form within our unconscious, proper type and amount of force, proper direction, with good understanding of the medium and the subject, will produce results. Hell, even without all of that, there is likely to be some result. It just might not be what was intended.
Through a daily ritual practice, with daily adorations to the "Lord of the Universe" over a period of a few months, my life was changed. It was a very difficult transition. It was a trial by fire. But I am a much, much better person for it.

And Tetra:

for example, over the last few months, i have had several experiences that many would consider totally mystical. this is because, in the moment that they were occuring, i was not seeing and being through the lense of skepticism, but rather through other conduits that i have become aware of. they were sublime, and beautiful, and i will always cherish them, knowing that language is not going to do them full justice. on the other hand, i also know what probably occured, and i would never try to convince any other person of their mystical nature, because i do not believe this is fair to me, or them. it was all in my head, and yet the experiences still held the power to change me at core. and they did.

I know that the two of you are talking about very different types of experiences/practices, but beyond that, if you feel you can share, would you expound on specifically how you are changed?

The "ontological" part of Tillich's theology (about being, and non-being as the ground of being) is probably out of philosophical fashion, but it is still an important attempt at making sense of "faith" in a post-Christian world imo...

(Btw the French translation, accepter d'être accepté, "accepting to be accepted" is perhaps a bit clearer.)

For a little more context see http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/tilground.html

(interestingly it seems to be an xJW site, does anyone know about it?)

DD,

More literal translation, not really "better" inasmuch as the best translation of a common sentence in the source language is usually a common sentence in the target language...

As has been repeatedly shown, the real unit of meaning in translation is the sentence rather than the word. For instance, both oida and ginôskô have to be translated savoir in John 7:27 -- because usage and stylistics require it in this particular sentence. In that case Greek can change verbs, French cannot. You never have an exact word-to-word correspondence from one language to another.

Deputy Dog

Nark

Maybe the fact that, je suis Quebecois (well... half), has something to do with it.

SixofNine

Didier, so it would read "It is the accepting to be accepted without somebody or something that accepts."?

Is this a complicated, hidden way of saying "accept yourself"? (or, "absolute faith means to accept yourself")

Narkissos

Mark,

I guess so... it's a case where the translation is clearer than the original but I don't think it betrays Tillich's thought (English was not his first language either).

It is self-acceptance, but not just simple, positive, self-acceptance. It is the acceptance of being as a "gift", as being appears only when confronted to the possibility of non-being -- this, Tillich thinks, is the core of religious (and perhaps philosophical) experience under many different coatings, including the Christian theology of the cross.

Tillich's existentialist background may be outdated but he is interesting as the first great a-theologian, inasmuch as his "God above God" is compatible with, or actually implies, atheism. This "God" cannot "exist" because it involves both being and non-being. The next step would be connecting "non-being" with symbolism and language, as the later structuralist period would do...

bernadette

Nark

thats an amazing website. Worth visiting

LittleToe

Daystar:Wherefore art thou, brother of mine?

daystar

sixofnine

if you feel you can share, would you expound on specifically how you are changed?

Sorry ladies and gentlemen. I have been busy with Brigid and also busy at the office lately.

The goal of my practice was to "cleanse" or to "banish" negative influences. It sounds kind of hippy-dippy, but it does precisely what it's intended to do. It "banishes" negative influences upon your person.

I was changed in that I know myself better and that I don't accept influences in my life that are not conducive to where I am choosing to take it. I don't keep people in my life out of politeness when I know they are causing me problems. I don't allow myself to indulge in behavior that is not conducive to my life choices.

In short, I am a stronger person, a more focused person, higher integrity, more honest... Not that I may not have developed into this at some point anyway. But the practice elevated it and brought the changes sooner.

Forget about all the claptrap about demons and angels and "magical powers". Some people believe in them, some don't. It doesn't matter. I have used these practices to effect changes within my life, within myself, in accordance with my Will.

tetrapod.sapien

but beyond that, if you feel you can share, would you expound on specifically how you are changed?

mark,

the thread i made a week or so ago, the "smile" thread, really sort of sums up the fundamental change in my view of the cosmos. all i am saying is that i have realized the power of positive intention inside myself, and as a result in the universe too. but only because it is in me first. where before, the universe was indifferent to me. and i believe that one is only going to understand the outside universe to the extent that he understands the inside universe. iniverse. ;) and in this regard, daystar and i might be describing similar phenomena.

but it really is difficult to explain these experiences with words, because language is loaded with duality, and duality is not a phenomenon in the dimension, or bubble of consciousness i have started experiencing and exploring. language is good for explaining this current bubble of consciousness, self consciousness, and indeed some people believe that human self consciousness and language are pretty much one and the same. which is why we see paradox everywhere with our regular minds, because there is duality everywhere in our language, imho.

but in all of this, i am speaking of nothing more or less than the evolution of our own consciousness, as humans, which is a totally *natural* process. we once thought like animals (simple consciousness), but now think like humans (self consciousness). why should evolution stop at this level? after all, we are talking about the evolution of memes within a given human life span, as much or even more, as the genetic evolution of our frontal lobe.

i believe that different people experience different, and highly personalized, manifestations of this evolution. however, i believe it is ultimately the same thing, though they may beg to differ.

evolution, peace, sentience, love,

tetra

tall penguin

I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying this thread. I've been hashing a lot of this stuff around in my head in recent months and enjoy the discussion.

tall penguin

The Science of Belief

Share this