Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, December 01, 2006
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
The elephant and the embryo
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


When does an elephant become an elephant? That is the question.

At least it's the one that popped into my mind as I viewed images from an upcoming National Geographic documentary: "In the Womb: Animals."

The film, scheduled to air Dec. 10, may be the best weapon yet for the pro-life movement. That wasn't the purpose of the documentary -- the first ever to record animals in the womb -- but these images of gestating life pack a powerful wallop.

The mind makes a natural leap to questions of how we consider and treat the pre-born.

Let's just say that the thought of aborting a baby elephant, even in the earliest gestational stages, is repugnant in a way that transcends intellectual arguments about constitutional rights to privacy.

The images were captured with 4-D ultrasound scans and enhanced with computer graphics. In the elephant's case, suffice it to say they took a backdoor approach. Niiiiice elephant.

Other stars of the film are a puppy and a dolphin. We watch the golden retriever fetus perform full-grown dog behaviors in the womb, a dolphin learn to swim inside its mother, and the elephant grow from a single cell to a 260-pound, well, elephant.

Seeing similar images of a human fetus -- blinking, sucking his thumb and responding to sounds -- is equally amazing, of course. But something about these animals in utero breathes fresh air into the life debate.

Why? Because they're so adorable, helpless and vulnerable. It's the puppy reflex. With the exception of the occasional mass murderer, people see a puppy and go Awwww. They want to cuddle it.

Most people have the same reflex with human babies, too, but as a society, we've managed to emotionally distance ourselves from the human fetus. To think of it as cute or human would make abortion a much tougher choice

Within the context of abortion, ultrasounds of human fetuses are, in fact, controversial. Pro-life pregnancy counselors are considered manipulative and intimidating when they show a pregnant woman considering abortion an ultrasound of her fetus.

Pro-choice advocates recently protested when President Bush appointed Massachusetts OB-GYN Eric Keroack to the federal family-planning office -- in part because of his connection to a pregnancy counseling service that offers ultrasound imaging.

To be fair, Keroack does have some odd ideas. He contends, for example, that contraception is damaging to women because it thwarts their procreative power. He also has compared premarital sex to drug addiction and says it's damaging to marriage. Whether premarital sex is addictive, I can't say, but marriage is certainly an effective antidote.

Keroack's opposition to birth control is problematic, given that his job involves administering funds to groups that provide birth control, primarily to low-income women. Otherwise, his ideas about pregnancy counseling are sensible. I've long argued that education is the best tool in reducing abortion. Show girls and women their child in utero and abortion will eliminate itself.

Now we have another tool. That is, if we're really serious about reducing abortion. Take ``In the Womb'' to every classroom in America and let students do their own free-associating. When the tears are dry -- audiences reportedly weep at this film -- abortion will seem inconceivable. Who could destroy an unborn puppy?

We Americans are suckers for animals, often displaying greater empathy for them than for people. Be honest. In movie battle scenes, whose deaths bother you more -- men's or the horses'? Thought so.

Walt Disney figured this out a long time ago. He anthropomorphized a cartoon creature named Bambi and deer hunters have been despised ever since. Show children and teenagers Dumbo, Flipper and Old Yeller in the womb, and they'll extrapolate all by themselves. No fire and brimstone necessary.

Adults, ever effective in obfuscating the obvious, apparently have a tougher time. Recently, a federal appeals court heard arguments aimed at the essential life question: When does a human being become a human being?

The case was related to a South Dakota ``informed consent'' law that would have required doctors to tell women contemplating abortion that the operation would ``terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.''

The court ruled 2-1 against enforcement of the law.

We may not be able to define when a human being becomes a human being, but even children know this much: An elephant doesn't become an elephant without first being a single cell.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I've seen the photos
(on Huffingtonpost over a week ago) and they are really incredible. Do see them if you get a chance.

Not sure how much effect they'd have on the abortion debate, though. Emotional pictures are not new to the issue.

The abortion debate --
if it is a debate and not just an argument -- hinges on definitions. What is human, and when does it begin. Well, there are lots of points to be made on both sides. Points. I did not say "good" points.

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/01/travail.html

Stated simply, I see it as a failure of imagination. Ultrasound removes that failure. That's why the abortionists get so irate over the matter. It undoes their strongest asset -- darkness. As long as the "fetus" ... henceforth translated from the Latin as "young one" -- as long as the young one is enclosed in the womb, out of sight, a mere swelling of the midriff, well, who knows what it might be? It is an entirely theoretical proposition. It is as impersonal as deductive reasoning.

Ultrasound, though ... oh, ultrasound and abortion. Ultrasound doesn't let you hear the scream, but you can see it.

Argument over.


J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com

The health of one using contraception
I think this guy is correct on contraception's being dangerous to one's health. I was made infertile by using the Dalkon Shield IUD when the world said it was perfectly safe. Noone knows the long term, multi-generations effects of one's using devices which interrupt the natural processes of the human body. I know many other women who were trying to get pregnant in the 1970's but couldn't and it was implied to each by their doctor that her use of the 'pill' modified the reproductive capabilities of her body. And surely one hears (in places not edited by the feministas) about the mental health impact on women who have abortions. I now go by the old adage. 'Never try to fool Mother Nature!.

Jack H
You said:

"as long as the young one is enclosed in the womb, out of sight, a mere swelling of the midriff, well, who knows what it might be?"

Are you suggesting that it's Schroedinger's Foetus?

Excellent
article this one. Parker certainly got the point across, even though "beez" didn't get the tongue-in-cheek part!

Abortion is wrong, always. We'll never know how many Einsteins, how many Beethovens have been sucked out of the uterus. Just ask a loving child-less couple what they think of abortion and the lack of babies to be adopted.

This nation continues to slaughter babies in the womb while allowing illegals to infiltrate and multiply. What is wrong with this picture? It seems humanity just doesn't get it....but they will on Judgement Day!

I miscarried four times, including a set of twins, and will always wonder who they could have been. I give thanks to our Lord for my four sons who made the 9 month trek from conception to birth. They were human from the moment of conception and are a delight to me every day. Life is precious, a gift from God.

a philosophical point
I find it interesting that so many people can debate an issue for so long without getting any closer to an answer, and yet still believe that the answer is there if we would only keep arguing a little more.

Has it ever occurred to anyone, on either side of this debate, that there mightnot be a beginning to human life, or any other kind of life?

Shouldn't that at least be considered a possible answer?

By the way, this doesn't say anything about when it's okay to abort a baby, if ever. It's merely a philosophical point. The debate about when and if it's okay to abort a fetus will rage on regardless of what answer we choose to come up with.

The only point I wish to raise here is whether or not there are beginnings to "things".

If not, what does that say about endings? After all, how can something end if it never began?

What does it say about the beginning of the universe? Isn't the assumption that the universe had a beginning based on our assumption that everything else had a beginning?

Comments anyone?

Phylo out.

Phylo Se Fizer! You sure are smart.
Phylo,
Now answer this question. Just how many angels are on that pinhead of yours?


(response to phylo's 9:20 post)
I do wonder how phylo can debate so many different issues, without getting any closer to the answer. Yet still believe that constant arguing will give us those answers.

response to toomuchsense
I see, so philosophy is just a bunch of nonsense, right?

If you ever gave any of these questions some serious thought, rather than simply ridculing them out of hand, you might learn that all of the world's problems can be traced back to poor philosphical assumptions.

But I'm sure you'd prefer to just kick back and enjoy your ignorant smugness, so I don't know whay I am even bothering.

Phylo out


If liberals are right.

Fetus don't matter, for we are all just an accident of the cosmo. No soul. It's to dirt we will go.

And if they are wrong?


Phylo Se Saint & Pop Philosophy
Phylo,

I've been following your rants for some time. I will admit, that your post of today (9:20), is one of the few posts of yours that are not hostile. But it smacks of extraneous prattle on your part.

Your remark, that there may be no beginning, thus no end, etc. Is just silly nonsense.

My comment about counting angels, is thus quite relevant to the issue you brought up. Just expressed in a way, to invite a mental picture, and gather a few laughs.

In regards to the study of philosophy. I just don't go into pop philosophy. There are too many important issues to study. Including the study of human morals and character.

But if you think sitting around and discussing if life even begins. (you did not mention soul) No beginning, meaning no ending. I would suggest you visit your local hospital, hospice and morgue.

I guess you are just smarter than me.


Kit I like your point.
When we violate the natural law, it comes back to bite us in the arse.

Imagine what happens to our bodies when we eat, eat, eat, to get the pleasure, but don't want the consequences of this natural act. When we vomit to get rid of the consequences, or regularly take diet pills, it will wear down and hurt the body.

Same with sex. When we have all the sex we want for the pleasure of it, but frustrate the natural consequences, our bodies AND minds will pay the price. How many women (and men) today feel like sexual objects because they're supposed to be available for sex to their partner 24/7?


I can't imagine WHY a woman would pump her system full of hormones and steroids today, when Natural Family Planning is just as effective as the Pill today.


Abstaining from sex for the approx. 4-5 fertile days during a cycle is NOT impossible, and a woman certainly gets to know the rhythms and workings of her body much more closely using NFP.

Also, Kit, I am sorry for your condition caused by the artificial birth control. MANY women have been and are used as guinea pigs when it comes to birth control. The govt. says it okay, then years later, they say, oops, it's not as safe as we thought it was.

Liseux

Phylo
The way your present philosophy, YES, it IS a bunch of nonsense.

If something did not exist, and then later did exist, then it did, at some point, BEGIN. That's the definition of a BEGINNING. You can debate about the exact moment that it occurred, but you cannot debate the FACT that it DID occur. Likewise, if something did exist, and then later did not exist, then it had to END at some point. Again, you can debate about the exact moment that it ended, but you cannot argue that it never ended at all.

You're just trying to confuse the issue. Like Jack said, that is your best asset - darkness. As long as you can keep people guessing about whether a fetus is really a living human being, abortion will remain legal.

And speaking of that, once it is conclusively proven that life begins at conception, it most certainly WILL, necessarily, answer the question of "when it's okay to abort a baby, if ever". But I thank you for revealing the true beliefs of the pro-choice advocates. You people simply DON'T CARE if a fetus is alive or not. If it's an inconvenience to the mother, she has a right to terminate it. That may be acceptable in your form of morality and logic. But once a fetus is regarded as a living human being, the vast majority of people will assign more importance to LIFE than to CONVENIENCE, and abortion on demand will be a thing of the past.

One more thing. This is not a debate that has raged "for so long without getting any closer to an answer". There are at least two answers, the pro-life answer and the pro-choice answer. There is no CONCENSUS, and if you define concensus as 100% agreement, there never will be, I admit. But debate (or argument, as you call it) and facts (as opposed to the confusion perpetrated by the pro-choices side) can and will change the hearts and minds of people, and when enough hearts and minds are changed, there WILL be a large enough concensus behind one of the alternative answers to put this debate to rest.

I'm sure, some time in the 1950s, someone said of the issue of slavery, "I find it interesting that so many people can debate an issue for so long without getting any closer to an answer [resolution], and yet still believe that the answer [resolution] is there if we would only keep arguing a little more." Yet those people who wanted to keep arguing found that the "answer" WAS, in fact, there. It took a civil war and a Constitutional amendment to find that "answer", but it was there.

Regards,
Trevor

Phylo
I do believe that you may be trying to reach a determination to beginnings and ends, in your own way.

Might I suggest that you are actually in, what is known in "spiritual" terms,as the "dark night of the soul?" Questioning takes many forms. I DO hope your questions lead you to the possibility that God is leading you (perhaps in a more round about way than others) back to Him as THE source? St. John of the Cross describes this process well. It's just a thought--we're all God's creatures whether we believe that or not. Truth is a thing wholly apart from "reality" in our world. Philosophically speaking, might it not be worth the risk to seek out an "answer?" You may come to discover that God is the only unaswerable answer....

Aside: "liseux": LOVE your "nickname." Another one of my very favorite saints--St. Therese of Liseux. It is one of our granddaughters middle name as this saint is also a favorite of one of our daughter's!

The why, dear Kathleen,
are you for a woman's right to choose an abortion? Am I loony or did you say that in a column about a month ago?
Best regards, especially For Life,
Tim Cranston

beginning with Phylo
"I find it interesting that so many people can debate an issue for so long without getting any closer to an answer, and yet still believe that the answer is there if we would only keep arguing a little more."

Your perception of no one getting any closer to an answer may well be a reflection of your own position remaining the same. Meanwhile other people's hearts and minds are changing against the status quo of abortion on demand.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that people's minds are seldom changed via debate and argument. It certainly can happen, but it's rare. The more usual route is emotion. I heard it put this way: children easily change their minds by reasoning; adults are swayed more by emotion. That's not an exact quote and I don't know who said it. But it has stuck with me and I believe it is true.

I myself was persuaded to change my position on abortion, years ago, by listening to an Irish woman singing a lullaby to her unborn child. She got me, right then and there to completely change my mind.

The great debater and agnostic thinker C. S. Lewis was not converted to Christ by debate. Discussions with Tolkien and others influenced him, for sure. But his change of heart and mind came quietly while driving along a road.

I think we need to persist in argument and also seek to persuade by things less intellectual like sonograms, pictures and artistic expression and even elephants if necessary. Like sex and birth, the two (intellect and emotion) are related, but not always obviously so.

As for there being no beginnings. Maybe without God everything can sort of blend obscurely from one thing to another. But God is all about beginnings (and endings). In the beginning God . . .; I am the Alpha and the Omega; etc.

What possible good could it do to see life without any beginnings? That strikes me as a kind of blindness rather than enlightenment. I just got news of two new babies born into the world just yesterday. Tatonda and Madelyn. You should maybe take up any further discussion with them.

Maybe you need a new beginning in your life in order to answer your own question. A second birth kind of thing. Now there's a pregnant thot.



Tim
Thank you for pointing that out!! I THOUGHT she was the one who talked, in the end, about the woman's RIGHT to choose.

Another article about the preborn. Hopefully she is heading toward her own complete turnaround to accepting the utter awesomeness of the miracle of life!

Also, in response to another comment made earlier--yes, NFP is awesome!!!! Not only does one come to intimately know one's body in a way that feminists will never know--but it teaches strength of character, delayed gratification, intimacy and respect of one's spouse that is beyond measure and the knowledge that you are not making your uterine wall a hostile environment for any fertilized eggs. It's not easy--especially when you double ovulate--but, after 30 years of marriage, I have no regrets.

once again the Bible is true
When you shine light on something it has no where to hide and it's true nature is out for everyone to see.

The problem is that somewhere, deep deep down in their knee-jerk psyche, some folks will still see the animals as cute and fuzzy and defenseless but the babies as humans and therefore somehow responsible for their own defense.

Crazy, I know. They don't have a problem with bums being helpless but babies, "eh" (shoulder shrug).

Even an athiest would have to concede...
New to these boards and so an introduction may be appropriate. To begin, I was an agnostic that has finally been converted to atheist. I'm a registered republican with moderate views about social issues and conservative views about economics. I believe that I am of high moral fiber and that I don't need a God to back the hand that life has dealt me. I am pro-life because I believe that life begins at conception.

I don't care about the existence of a human "soul" but because I'm human, I believe that human life is more important than animal life. I do not believe in creationism or evolution. I am NOT undecided or wishy-washy about most of my core beliefs but I have been forced to change my mind about a number of important aspects of my life over the years.

Because I don't have the right to tell others what to believe, I have and will continue to defend your right to believe in God(s) or not as you choose. I don't try to persuade anyone that my beliefs or lack of same are any more correct than those of others.

But, a critical aspect of the human experience is the sharing of knowledge. My beliefs are based in the knowledge that I currently hold and they are subject to change as new or additional, verifiable, information becomes available.

I believe that abortion is wrong and that there almost always exists more viable alternatives.

To name three...

Birth control can be affected via contraception OR/and abstinence. However, the exercise of discipline in either practice is critical to success. Our children should be taught both the biology and the morality of their choices.

The significant number of qualified and desirous people seeking to adopt makes adoption an excellent choice.

Long term, changing the social fabric to reduce the emphasis on "Me first" will also go a long way to reducing the number of "unwanted" babies. We've developed generations of young adults that truly believe that their prerogatives should always receive priority. Our cultural attitude should be one of giving, not of taking. Giving life a chance or taking away that chance is an easy decision for me. In fact, I don’t really need to “know” when a human becomes a human. All I need to know is does that fetus deserve a shot at being born.

How many Einsteins and Beethovens
I'm always puzzled by this argument. If you say no one should ever have an abortion because they might give birth to a genius, to someone who could change the world, etc., you could also argue that no one should ever use contraception because they might conceive such a person or even that everyone should have sex all the time because they might conceive someone like this. Should we mourn all the Einsteins and Beethovens lost to sexual abstinence?

Pro-choice always leave out adjectives
Note that the elephant was pregnant with an elephant fetus, the dog with a dog fetus, and the dolphin had a dolphin fetus, ergo pregnant humans have human fetuses. I have been in some pro-abortion chat rooms that have further devolved the description to the acromym "ZEF", (Zygote, embryo, fetus), to help distance themselves from admitting that the "ZEF" can only develop into a human being, not a cucumber or a turnip, or even an elephant.

I have noted the same thing when they refer to "stem cell research", It's never "destructive human embryonic stem cell" research, because the adjectives reveal the truth.

I do beleive that Roe V Wade would have to be overturned even if the Supremes used the same arguements that they used to reach their onerous conclusion 35 years ago. They argued that they could not confer rights to a fetus in the first trimester because it could not survive outside its mothers womb and therefore was not a "person". Today we routinely create embryo's outside of a mother's womb, freeze them for decades in liquid nitrogen, thaw them out, and insert these willing new human forms into completely unrelated strangers wombs and bear perfectly human (not elephant) babies. So, from the moment of conception, a "ZEF" is viable outside its mothers womb thanks to the advances of science and the same arguments used in 1971 would result in an entirely different conclusion today.


Intolerance:
1)lack of tolerance, esp. of others' opinions, beliefs, etc.;bigotry 2) an allergy or sensititivity to some food, medicine, etc.

Mr. Intolerance,
What food are you sensitive to? For number 1) surely does not appear to apply to such a reasoned and reserved expression of opinion.


Phylo
Your comments aren't utterly wasted; I think you make a perfectly reasonable point. The greater spectrum of what you are postulating (at least as it tumbles about in my head) is far more vast a region than I care to explore just now--I think you'd agree that it's pointless in current company.

Mr.Intolerance - I'm curious
"I was an agnostic that has finally been converted to atheist."

"I do not believe in creationism or evolution."

Hmmm...well, then - just how DO you explain the origins of all this perfection, symmetry and complexity of life??

Thinking about thinking
As I sit here reviewing comments, wondering whether or not I want to put forth the effort to comment or provoke, I continue to reach the same conclusion.

You haven't given Phylo enough credit. He identified a key aspect of this whole issue. Philosophy.

Answer the tough questions, and think of the implications of some of the things you are using as examples for your own arguements.

Example:

An embryo can survive outside the womb with current medical technology. We not only sustain life, WE CREATE LIFE. You have just effectively destroyed any further arguement by taking this road. Are we not gods? What need have we for ethics or responsibility?

If you drag God into this and try to crucify me for my comments, then you have missed my point.

But only completely.

What makes Mr. Intollerance different is that he has decided FOR HIMSELF what is right and what is wrong. He doesn't excuse his personal responsibility to think for himself by quoting the Bible or his pastor or the Catechism.

Morality is self evident to those who think.


GunnyG
Thank you for being part of the ever present stupidity of which I comment on.

Wow, Phylo
Way to be philosophical! Not sure what it added to the topic, but definitely it presented a moving target that would be impossible to hit with a cogent answer.

Kit, about contraception
I feel for what you've suffered and I agree that the pill and the IUD both present problems for future reproductive capability.

However, I hope people don't embrace what you and Liseux are teaching because it doesn't work. It used to be called the "rhythm method" and its failure rate makes the dismal failure rate of condoms look acceptable. Something around 40-50 percent failure at preventing pregnancy. To be affective, married couples would have to refrain from sex about 1/3 of every month (4-5 days is a narrow window that varies in most women by as much as three days on either side in any given month, so you're really looking at 10 days) and, since most men I know don't want to have sex during menses, that would mean no sex for more than half of each month. Nice recipe for cheating (and,yet, it's happened and become public) and in those families where cheating perhaps doesn't occur, children sure do. I have several friends who swear by Natural Family Planning. I note that they all have in excess of four kids and are finding it hard to support them. One dad recently broke down and went for a vasectomy to put a stop to it. The others are insisting they planned their children, but when they have four in five years, people begin to wonder.

There are safe effective means of contraception that can be used by married couples who want to wait a while before starting their families, space their children out in a healthy fashion or who feel that they are done, but don't want to submit to surgery. For instance, diaphragms fail (at preventing pregnancy) about 13 percent of the time when used alone. Condoms fail about 23 percent of the time. Used together, they have a 99.5 percent contraceptive rate which is better than the Pill at 93 percent and without the side effects. It's used at the point of control and has no effect on the body beyond the time of use.

I know several couples who have used some form of combined contraception as I have described and they have no unwanted or unplanned children and as far as I can tell, nobody's cheating on anybody.

Please, folks, recognize that reproduction is something we should do carefully and with good sense. It is irresponsible to have sex and produce children you cannot feed. It doesn't matter if your excuse is you're young and stupid, or older and horny, or that you believe in a system of contraception that is a patent failure.

Let's use our heads as God intended, folks!

puzzling article
It is an odd article from Parker. I don't know if it is true that upon seeing the elephant fetus people really would shun the idea of an elephant abortion. If the mother's life was threatened by her pregnancy, then the morality of an elephant abortion would seem to be less of a moral dilemma than in the human case.
Parker's point then seems to be that in fact the cuteness of fetuses (whether human or elephant) would turn people anti-abortion. This might be true, but it certainly would not be a good reason for it. I would hope no ones view on abortion is really based on whether the fetus is cute or not. There seem to be other factors that are actually morally relevant.
But perhaps that answers one commentators question. Maybe Parker believes one should be allowed to abort fetuses until they become cute. Although I hope that is not the basis of her view.

What I learned in my career as a killer
Was that intro over the top? If so, sorry. but it got your attention!

When my Dad taught me to hunt, he told me to never shoot at a sound, or a vague shape. He told me about a local man who did that... and killed a kid walking in the woods.
Lesson learned: don't kill it unless you know what it is.

When we were prepping for our first deployment to Iraq, we had some very careful instruction on the rules of engagement. They told us about soldiers who had fired their weapons indiscriminately, and killed innocent civilians, and went to jail.
Lesson learned: don't kill it unless you know what it is.

Now, I repeatedly encounter people who claim that fetuses are not 'human beings'. When I ask them at what point they *become* human, they through out a couple of easily-refuted suggestions, then confess that they don't really know. They need to learn an important lesson:

If you don't know what it is, DON'T KILL IT.

If an enlisted soldier from Arkansas can understand this, anyone can.

tallil2long out.

tallil2long
tallil2long-- well put.

Those who argue for abortion should at least be honest enough to argue it from the position that it involves the taking of a human life. (Or elephant, as the case may be.)

But if not, as you imply, they should not be shooting first and asking questions in the process.




response to trevor
Below is an excerpt from a manuscript I'm working on. I hope it will at least make you think a little deeper about whether or not there are beginnings and endings to "things".

My point, as you'll see, is that what we see as "beginnings" and "endings" constitute little more than stories that we're telling ourselves about reality. And we can make up all sorts of stories about where things begin or end, and to a point this might make some sense. But, in the end, our stories don't match up with the way the world really is.

And, as far as the usefullness of asking these types of questions, I can only say that it's important to understand reality and what is Real for the simple fact that not knowing what is Real is the very definition of insanity. Which, I think, goes a long way towards explaining why humanity, despite our intelligence and hard work, still can't seem to find a way to get along with each other.

My excerpt:

Examination of the idea that
“things” have Real boundaries in time

Most of us think (and unquestioningly assume) that “things” have Real boundaries in time. We think that things have a Real “beginning” (i.e., an Absolute point in time when the “thing” in question comes into existence), and a Real “ending” (i.e., an Absolute point in time when the “thing” in question goes out of existence).

But when did this book in your hands right now actually begin?

If you think about it for awhile, you’ll soon realize that we can come up with any number of answers to this question: We can say that the book began when it first rolled off the binding machine, or when the publisher first agreed to publish it, or when I wrote the first sentence, or when I first had the idea to write it, or when the trees were processed into the paper, or when the trees were first harvested, or even when the seeds of the trees first germinated. I could go on indefinitely.

And I’m sure you could too. We can do this because there are literally an infinite number of answers to the question “When did this book in your hands begin?”

In other words, there isn’t just one Absolutely True answer to this question; it all depends on how you look at it. In other words, beginnings to “things” aren’t Real (i.e., Absolute); they’re conceptual (i.e., relative); they are ideas that we have about Reality.

Some people might argue that this book came into existence the instant it rolled off the bindery machine. We might argue for example that, before this exact point in time, the book did not exist; but after this point in time, it did.

But if you move in for a close enough look at this supposed boundary in time, you’ll eventually find exactly what we found when we went looking for the boundary to the lake: You’ll find that the boundary was never there. It was a mirage all along.

For example, let’s say that we were to film the book coming off the bindery machine. And let’s say that we use a camera that shoots 60,000 frames per second. Well, if there is a Real (i.e., Absolute) beginning to the book, we should be able to identify THE exact frame wherein the book first appears. And of course, in the frame immediately prior, we should see “no book”.

Do you see how this would be impossible? Do you see how there is no ONE absolute point in time when the book (or anything else) comes into existence?

And if there are no beginnings, there cannot possibly be any endings, because a “thing” must begin before it can end.

So, once again, on further examination, one of our uttermost fundamental ideas–––the idea that there are Real beginnings and endings to “things” crumbles under the weight of heavy scrutiny.



This is all in an effort to try to explain that there is a radical difference between the way we commonly think the world is and the way the world Really Is.

It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one. If, that is, one cares about seeing reality clearly.

Phylo out.



my 2 cents
1) Go to Michaelclancy.com

2) That philo - is he/she a piece of work or what?

my 2 cents
1) Go to Michaelclancy.com

2) That philo - is he/she a piece of work or what?

1 more thing
When the sperm gets to the egg and fertilizes it or whatever happens that's when life begins.

Life begins at conception.

get it?


Phylo my friend
Have you ever considered studying Quantum Mechanics??? The Subtley of your thoughts is actually quite provoking. thanks for throwing that into the mix. Live Long and Prosper

Knowstradamus Knows.........

God is....
apart and beyond "time" and therefore only He controls beginnings and endings. Alpha and Omega. Phylo's "book" began at the moment that God defined it. Phylo began when God first thought of him/her--as God is apart from time, Phylo has always been in existence from time immemorial. God has no beginning and no ending. It is only God that can fill the void that begs for answers to questions--"My heart will not find rest until it rests in Thee." St. Augustine

Phylo's story
Thank you Phylo for putting that on this post.

It's interesting that you use story telling as a kind of weak point for one's connection to reality. Stories can indeed seem to have an artificial quality about them. We recognize a difference between every day life and life as it appears on TV or even DVDs.

But I'm not so sure story telling is such a weak spot. You yourself are telling us a story. It's about there being no real beginnings. You are giving a negative vocabulary lesson telling us in words that words mean nothing. A "Once Upon a Time" story that can't really be started.

Your claim to having a more accurate view of real life can not even be made, let alone be true. The only way you can write a book with that premise is if you give words and stories some credit for accurately capturing real life. As soon as you do that, though, your idea of no beginnings crumbles under the even lighter weight of story telling scrutiny.


One thing you are not, is boring. I'd say you are a real 'story' but you might take offense at that.

May you one day become a real story-- in Jesus Christ. HiStory.







What Lack of Babies to Be Adopted?
There are plenty of kids in FOSTER CARE.

Abortion
How many would-be murderers, rapists, thieves were sucked out of the womb?

aurorawatcher, get with the program!
The old rhythm method went out with my grandmother. Natural Family Planning is thoroughly scientific and works with women who have extremely regular cycles, or even with irregular or problematc cycles.

What many Evangelicals and Catholics have discovered God's plan for our bodies.

Natural Family Planning is 99% effective for postponing or avoiding pregnancy, according to John and Sheila Kippley's studies in their book, The Art of Natural Family Planning, p. 3

Aurorawatcher, humans are not simply lower animals that can't control their urges. My husband and I abstained for 4-5 days during the fertile periods, and we have several planned children, spaced two to three years apart. We're waiting for another one to come along, but my I'm not as young as I used to be.

As for NFP causing carousing.... you might want to rethink that statement.

The Pill and other methods of conraception make adultery ultra easy, especially in covering up the consequences.

BTW,the divorce rate for those using NFP is less than 5%, while the divorce rate for those NOT using NFP is 50%. Surely, it's not just because of using NFP, but because of a lifestyle that is open to life, and not part of the culture of death.

response to dullhammer
dullhammer: "But I'm not so sure story telling is such a weak spot. You yourself are telling us a story. It's about there being no real beginnings. You are giving a negative vocabulary lesson telling us in words that words mean nothing. A "Once Upon a Time" story that can't really be started."

Phylo: Yes, you are right. In the very act of using words I am telling a story. And you are right that a story can never capture reality; not my story, not anybody's story.

In fact, this is the very point of my book; to show that Reality is not how we think it is. I'm trying to demonstrate that even our most fundamental ideas about reality do not match up with the way the world Really Is––not even our idea that there are temporal boundaries to "things".

If we want to know what is Real, we need to forget about our ideas for a while and just see what's going on in This Moment––Right Here Right Now.

Phylo out.


Easy
It is this simple:
The egg is alive.
The sperm is alive.
They meet.
They unite.
They form a new life.
There ya go.


Uncle Max: Philo a piece of work? Yep!

Phylo
"Phylo: Yes, you are right. In the very act of using words I am telling a story. And you are right that a story can never capture reality; not my story, not anybody's story."


Sounds mystical.

How can you admit that your story can not capture reality and expect there to be any value in the reading of what you write? Including these posts? Wouldn't it be more consistent of your idea to write no book? And write no posts? (Which I'm not advocating, btw.)



response to dullhammer
dullhammer: "How can you admit that your story can not capture reality and expect there to be any value in the reading of what you write? Including these posts? Wouldn't it be more consistent of your idea to write no book? And write no posts? (Which I'm not advocating, btw.)"

Phylo: Stories (words) can be used to point toward Reality, but they cannot capture it. They can be used to show that certain ideas are wrong, or incomplete. And I think there is value in pointing out that some of our uttermost basic concepts, concepts that underly all of our various religious and political stories, are incomplete representations of the way the world is.

For example, I think it's important to point out that there is a sense (a relative, provisional sense) in which there are beginings and endings to "things", and that there is also a sense (an absolute sense) in which there are no beginings or endings to anything.

This, it seems to me, is a more complete intellectual understanding of the way the world is then to say either "There are beginings and endings to 'things' and that's that." or "There are no beginings or endings to 'things' and that's that."

What I'm trying to do is get people to see that there are two fundamental aspects to reality (the relative and the Absolute). And I'm trying to show that ignoring either aspect is to fall into ignorance and confusion.

Still, it is not accurate to say "The way the world Really Is is that there are beginings and endings to 'things', and there are no beginings and endings to 'things'". That would be to try and capture the way the world Really Is in words.

If we want to know the way the world Really Is, all we have to do is take a look at what's going on Right Here, Right Now prior to snapping the world into conceptual forms (like beginings and endings.)

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Thanks for the challenge.

Phylo out.

response to Knowstradamas
It's funny you should mention that. Quantum Mechanics plays a big role in the book I'm working on.

Thanks for the kind words. Love your handle.

Phylo out.

Phylo-- Quantum Mechanics 'big' role
I'm eavesdropping on your response to Knowstradamas. You say Quantum Mechanics plays a big role in you manuscript. (Interesting choice of words: "big role" for something dealing with the infinitesimally small.)

I am no expert in this area, but am struck with there being something of a paradox in the study of the very small and the very large in physics. It's like there are two completely different systems at work (that is how it appears to our present knowledge anyway). It seems to illustrate the philosophical reflections on the Many and the One.

You seem to be attempting a solution by emphasizing the Many as being the One, with no real distinctions in between. Is that so? And if so, we come back to our earlier discussion about absolutes. Without God that’s all you have: i.e. the set of all ‘things’ as one. Do with it what you will. But with God you have the true One who is outside the set of all ‘things’. And who literally gives those things their beginning and their end. Both in the total and in the incremental pictures.

The place of God in this picture was a conversation stopper last time I believe. I hope not this time. I don’t bring him up for that purpose. I think it is an important distinction for you to consider.

Without God you see language as only being able to point to what is incomplete or wrong with our understanding of Reality. I question whether language (in your system of understanding) could even carry out that limited assignment, for the very ideas of ‘incomplete’ and ‘wrong’ would not be reliable.

On the other hand, with God, our language can be admittedly incomplete and sometimes wrong, but also sometimes right. Instead of pointing us toward a reality that is disconnected with our words, thoughts and concepts of beginnings, they point us to a Reality that has a Real analogy to the way things are.

To summarize: a book with no author has words that point nowhere; a book with an author has words with meaning. If our universe has not author, then everything points nowhere. But our universe has an Author. We ourselves have an Author. There is meaning beyond the mere physical characteristics of reality. There is truth. And human language has valid analogy to absolute truth.



How come Roe vs Wade ....
put the government (you and me)in the abortion business? When was the bill passed that said the government (you and me)had to fund abortions? And drug treatment and alchoholism?? These are ALL self inflicted issues! Why should law abiding, personally responsible citizens have to fund those that WILL NOT control their own actions??

yuzzy
Better yet. How come abortion has never been put to the public for a vote? Why is it that activist judges can write anything they want to into the Constitution? THEN make us fund it.

response to dullhammer
dullhammer: I am no expert in this area, but am struck with there being something of a paradox in the study of the very small and the very large in physics. It's like there are two completely different systems at work (that is how it appears to our present knowledge anyway). It seems to illustrate the philosophical reflections on the Many and the One.

Phylo: I would argue that this paradox is actually an illusion: quantum objects are just like regular objects. But most people are assigning characteristics to "ordinary objects", such as a precise location in space, that, if examined carefully, can be shown to be illusory.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of the Many and One.

The "many" is what I would call the conceptual or relative aspect of reality. the "One" is what I would call the Absolute aspect. And the point I want to make is that we have to take both aspects into account at the same time if we want to have a full and clear understanding of reality. To say that reality is divided up into separate "things" is incomplete; to say that reality is all "one" is also incomplete. (By the way, I don't like to use the term "one" because it seems to imply an "other". I prefer the term Undivided Wholeness.)

And when I'm speaking about Undivided Wholeness, I'm speaking about Right Here Right Now or The Eternal Moment. But I'm also talking about The One Mind.

And to me, The One Mind is God (i.e., the source of all "things").

The One Mind could also be called Pure (i.e., Unclouded, Unaltered) Awareness. Everything in the universe is a manifestation of The One Mind.

As far as consciousness goes, there are two forms of consciousness. The consciousness of particulars, which is what we think of when we think of our own individual consciousness. And this consciousness can be said to have been "born" and it will fade away. But then there is the Undivided Consciousness that is beyond all boundaries and particulars.

We could think of all of reality as being a sea of consciousness, and each individual "thing", including our "self", is like a tiny little whirlpool in that ocean––like the little whirlpool you get when you paddle a canoe. To "die" is to simply blend back in with the Whole.

That's the way I see it anyway. I appreciate your comments and look forward to more discussion.

Phylo out.

Phylo
Read your post. I simply want you to know that I'll probably be getting back to you once more this evening, later. And then, if we continue, it will be tomorrow. I have guests and a concert and then church tomorrow. But I will reply.

Phylo
"Phylo: I would argue that this paradox is actually an illusion: quantum objects are just like regular objects. But most people are assigning characteristics to "ordinary objects", such as a precise location in space, that, if examined carefully, can be shown to be illusory."


To some extent I agree that the appearance of two separate sets of rules guiding the very small and the very large is an illusion. I believe there is a unified field theory/reality. (But I am not at all confident that humans will discover it. Or even if they do, I'm not sure they'll know what they have. But that's a bit off track.)

I have a question: Why is viewing the very small more a window into what Reality Is, than viewing the very large? Are they not both Reality? Especially when employing your ‘Undivided Wholeness’ ideas. What you seem to be calling illusory is that same Wholeness. Just a larger chunk of it. It is my understanding that all that understanding of what goes on in quantum mechanics is useless when it comes to the physics of exploring Mars and explaining the motion of stars and galaxies. Like I said, I’m not saying there actually ARE two sets of rules out there. But right now that’s all we have. And I’m simply asking why it is that you are favoring the rules which point to the very small . . . and to illusion? Do you then, ignore the rules which point to precision?

There is more I’d like to respond to. Especially your further comments on God. You surprised me there. But I’m going to stop here as it is late. I’ll wait for your reply to this and then carry on after church.

Looks like we might have this site all to ourselves for taking our time.

response to dullhammer
dullhammer: "To some extent I agree that the appearance of two separate sets of rules guiding the very small and the very large is an illusion. I believe there is a unified field theory/reality. (But I am not at all confident that humans will discover it. Or even if they do, I'm not sure they'll know what they have. But that's a bit off track.)"

Phylo: My contention is that there is no difference between the way "big objects" behave and the way "quantum objects" behave. I contend that humanity has been deeply confused about "objects" all along and that quantum mechanics has revealed that confusion. Though most scientists still don't seem to understand what has been revealed. That's why they think they need to find a "unified field theory". The fact that they are still looking for such a theory tells me that they still don't understand how they are confused about "objects" in general.


dullhammer: I have a question: Why is viewing the very small more a window into what Reality Is, than viewing the very large? Are they not both Reality? Especially when employing your ‘Undivided Wholeness’ ideas. What you seem to be calling illusory is that same Wholeness. Just a larger chunk of it.

Phylo: It is my contention that our common sense understanding of objects is only one aspect of our experience, the aspect in which the world is divided up; and that there is another aspect, which we tend to ignore, that transcends all boundaries and divisions. This other aspect is what I'm calling Undivided Wholeness. This Undivided Wholeness is not conceivable because to conceive of something is to draw a boundary and establish a particular entity, thus creating division. Undivided Wholeness it is beyond big or small because to define big or small is to draw a boundary. Nevertheless, though it is inconceivable, we can, and do, actually experience this Undivided Wholeness immediately and directly.

However, most people tend to ignore the Undivided aspect of their experience because they are so quick and habitual about snapping the world into conceptual form (i.e., drawing boundaries dividing this from that, here from there, then from now, me from you, existence from non-existence, etc.). They are sort of skipping over the Undivided aspect and going right to the divided aspect.

This Undivided aspect is really what most religious people are seeking in their lives. They talk about becoming closer to God. Their major problem is that they see a division between self and other, between "in here" and "out there". Seeing this boundary dissolve is the essence of the religious experience or "enlightenment". It's about waking up and realizing that the boundary was an illusion all along, that we never were separate from the "source" in the first place. The "source" is not something mysterious or distant. It is simply raw Awareness, not awareness of something, just Awareness Itself. It is Consciousness. And Awareness isn't really a "thing". It's not something we can grab a hold of and pick apart and understand intellectually as something separate from ourslves. All we can do is just experience it directly.

I hope that answers your question. If not, let me know.

Phylo out.

phylo
Beginnings of the universe.....yes, of course we assume the universe has a beginning. We do not perceive it to be infinite. What is the big mystery? And that life has a beginning? Well, yeah, life is not infinite. We see things end. Things that end, must begin. I don't quite understand your question.

When is the beginning of "things?" is that what you said? Well Phylo, when IS the beginning of things? Things exist, life exists, so back to abortion, who are we to destroy the thing that exists? Who cares when "it" began. It is.

response to verbivore and Peppermint
Look a little deeper and I think you'll realize that it's not as simple as you two are prone to believe.

Phylo out.

of the nature of Truth
Phylo Se Fizer, don't insult me by presupposing I take a minimalist or simplistic view of your question. Your question is silly and makes no sense. Perhaps you feel you're in good company with Voltaire. But it just makes no sense to ask questions that skirt around the real questions of the nature of Truth and Reality. I was being sincere when I said I didn't understand your question.

Phylo, I am continually amazed at how you can step so close to the water's edge of Truth and yet never put your toe in. (you know I am HKCindy, right?....we've had these conversations before!)

Looking at your response to Dullhammer, at 9:50, Dec.2, I agree with your premise:
1. Stories (words) can be used to point toward Reality, but they cannot capture it. and
2. Just as there are beginnings and ending, there is also a sense in which there are no beginning and endings. (though we probably differ on what that means.)
3. Two aspects to reality....Relative and Absolute. (yes!)

But then....you confuse me.... You say : "to know the way the World really is all we have to do is ...take a look at what's going on Right Here, Right Now..."

What are you saying? a few posts later you contradict yourself when you say, "our common sense understanding of objects is only one aspect of our experience..."

How then,according to you, can looking only at "Right Here and Right Now," point to a reality beyond what we can touch and see?

From a biblical standpoint, I agree that the world we touch and see, points us to something greater, something beyond ourselves. But I don't think that is what you are saying.

We are finite beings. (Our bodies that is,) so we understand the world in a finite sense, hence our, (as you say) "snapping the world into conceptual form (i.e., drawing boundaries dividing this from that, here from there, then from now, me from you, existence from non-existence, etc.)."

And yet, Phylo, sometimes we are so close to being in agreement, and then you make this leap that makes no sense....

You talk about the "Undivided." I get that that is a mystical Bhudda type term, but you're right, it is that sense that we, as finite creatures, know there is an infinite. That there is a boundary there that shouldn't be there. That we are not quite whole. We differ of course in that for me, the boundary disolves when I enter into prayer and into the presence of a Holy God, via the Holy Spirit who intercedes on my behalf because of the death and ressurection of His Son, Jesus Christ. To Quote you "The Source is not something mysterious or distant." It is Jesus.

I fail to understand how you can believe in a disembodied, disconnected "Awareness," but fail to embrace a Holy, Loving, Creator. I would much rather place my hope in a "thing" (Jesus) than a Cosmic Disembodied Mind.

I'm reading a book right now that you might enjoy. It's called Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. The Author's note at the front of the book reads, "I never liked Jazz because Jazz music doesn't resolve...I used to not like God because God didn't resolve."


Phylo
Phylo: It is my contention that our common sense understanding of objects is only one aspect of our experience, the aspect in which the world is divided up; and that there is another aspect, which we tend to ignore, that transcends all boundaries and divisions. This other aspect is what I'm calling Undivided Wholeness. This Undivided Wholeness is not conceivable because to conceive of something is to draw a boundary and establish a particular entity, thus creating division. Undivided Wholeness it is beyond big or small because to define big or small is to draw a boundary. Nevertheless, though it is inconceivable, we can, and do, actually experience this Undivided Wholeness immediately and directly.


Big and Small.
Though in one sense “big” and “small” can be relative to one’s perspective, there is also an intrinsic quality about scale. I’m no mathematician, but this is related to the increase of a circle or sphere’s surface area and internal volume. They don’t stay proportional. As they get bigger or smaller they change. This is why Godzilla could not actually exist in a towering form over New York. Such a creature would collapse under its own weight. So, there is an intrinsic difference between the very small and the very big. You and I may have trouble drawing lines as to where those differences distinguish themselves, but on the extremes the difference should not be debatable. Though we seem to be debating just that.


Undivided Whole.
You describe an inconceivable awareness. An oxymoron that needs more than just another word like “raw” to explain it. You take away not only the human tool of language, but the human ability to make distinctions of any kind. And then you elevate awareness of what everything ultimately amounts to and call it “raw.” No disrespect, but you seem to take Helen Keller’s experience of overcoming her blindness and deafness and saying she was better off in her original state.


Blue (Like Jazz?)
“If all is blue there is no blue.” All the while we discuss this I have the nagging suspicion that we shouldn’t be able to according to your premise. You speak of the illusion of boundaries, conceptual forms, beginnings . . . words and language itself. To accept that should put a real damper on this very conversation. But to accept that also involves the acceptance of the reality of illusions (a strange idea, I’ll admit). How does that happen in the first place. If I can say first, that is. You see my problem?


God, the One Mind
Phylo: "And to me, The One Mind is God (i.e., the source of all 'things')."

"The One Mind could also be called Pure (i.e., Unclouded, Unaltered) Awareness. Everything in the universe is a manifestation of The One Mind.
I am pleased to see any reference to God in your vocabulary, even though I know we are not meaning the same thing with that word."


Phylo: "As far as consciousness goes, there are two forms of consciousness. The consciousness of particulars, which is what we think of when we think of our own individual consciousness. And this consciousness can be said to have been "born" and it will fade away. But then there is the Undivided Consciousness that is beyond all boundaries and particulars."



This is a serious problem for you to account for. (Harder than the Christian problem of the origin of evil and suffering, I think.) How can there be two of anything in a universe of such extreme singularity? In fact, in such a universe there really should be no possibility for any awareness at all— even if that universe has a mind. Even if that universe is a God of some sort. With everything being everything and God being also that everything and nothing else . . . where is there room for any illusion to exist? That brings about a differentiation, like it or not.

And how does this God come by any awareness? Awareness implies differentiation, does it not? I have long appreciated the difference between the Judeo-Christian God and other “Gods” which have tried to be more singular, such as Allah and the Jehovah’s Witness’ diety. Even the Jewish references to God combine the oneness of God with a certain sense of plurality within. The very word for God used in Genesis is a plural word. It does not mean multiple gods, but it does speak of a certain complexity that goes along with the unity. Then in the New Testament that complexity allows for the revelation of God in the radical form of God incarnating himself in order to communicate himself to mankind. Allah and the Jehovah’s Witness deity could never do such as that. They are too singular.

Even more so for your Undivided Whole, your One Mind, your God. Such an entity literally has no meaning. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has the rich ability to commune within himself and the revelational ability to communicate outside himself. The existence you describe of the universe/god whole is stagnant. Anything it does is an illusion. Anything it perceives is an illusion . . . other than itself as a whole. And yet to perceive itself as a whole involves a kind of paradox. It is like an eye. Just an eye. Unable to see within itself for that would be to differentiate. And unable to see beyond itself for there is no such thing. It may have a certain sense of existence . . . but no, that too would be an illusion, like a hand feeling itself feel itself.

I’m willing to continue discussing this. But I get the sense that the issues are increasing rapidly. It has been interesting, that’s for sure. Thanks for your time and patience thus far.


dullhammer
well spoken dullhammer. The dizzying logic is giving me a headache! I think Phylo's out!

Phylo-- a correction
I blended my own words with Phylo.
Sorry about that. The section should read:

God, the One Mind
Phylo: "And to me, The One Mind is God (i.e., the source of all 'things')."

"The One Mind could also be called Pure (i.e., Unclouded, Unaltered) Awareness. Everything in the universe is a manifestation of The One Mind."


[ME] I am pleased to see any reference to God in your vocabulary, even though I know we are not meaning the same thing with that word.

Verbivore
This is pushing my limits too. I'm going to check out that book you mentioned.

But I do actually enjoy these kinds of conversations when they're ernest. Phylo strikes me as ernest.

I take it the "Phylo's out!" reference is your play on his signiture and vote favoring my post. (Thanks.) I'm quite sure, though, he's not out in terms of being done in this conversation. Pray for us both, will you? We both know it's God vote that really matters.

out?
Well, he actually might be done. I've communicated with him for some months and he has a way of disappearing....I suppose he has other things to do! But you're doing a good job. It's ok if you feel over your head, I usually do too! My pastor this morning says you never need to worry about getting in over your head when sharing the gospel as the Holy Spirit "will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13)Always praying!

I started Blue Like Jazz this afternoon and I'm loving it. But keep wondering what Phylo would have to say. I think he would enjoy the book.

The Publisher is Thomas Nelson, and the book is basically this guys spirtitual transformation. The subtitle is, "Nonreligous Thoughts on Christian Spirituality." Its very funny and very honest.


Verbivore
You're probably right. But I'll check back once in a while just in case.

It did take me longer to get back to him than I had hoped. I had guests over for the weekend and a lot going on at church. Didn't really get some clear time until around three or four today. But I thought he really wanted to get into this. Seemed like most people were dismissive (though often good humoredly, if that's a word) and that he welcomed someone who took him seriously. Which I do. I also realize most people don't follow these posts past one day, but the absence of others also seemed like an opportunity for more reflection than usual. Oh well.

This was an excellent Sunday! Trust yours was too. Your words were important, especially if this is the way the conversation with Phylo ends. A disappearance without your voice would have been most disappointing. Thank you again.



a voice
And Thank you for being willing to be a voice, "in the wilderness." These internet forums are hidden jewels of opportunities to share the gospel. It's so cool!

Phylo will be back, in another post, on another day...with the same questions!

Don't be so sure
that others are not silently watching, listening, and praying for you too, dullhammer, Phylo and Verbivore!

Dear phylo
I never thought I'd see it, but I have! A lefty poster (you) actually spun himself into a philosophical circle!

Let's begin the journey with your comments "has it ever occurred to anyone, on either side of this debate, that there might not be a beginning to human life, or any other kind of life?" and "If not, what does that say about endings? After all, how can something end if it never began?"

Taken literally, this reads like you believe life never existed in the first place, an obvious absurdity. What, exactly, is your point? To deny that life had a Divine origin? Know what I think? Someone posted a) without really thinking about what he was doing, or b) tried to tackle a subject that was just a little too deep for himself. Try again!



Sorry friends I forgot about this thread
And it's to my shame because it was so interesting.

I'll post tomorrow. I promise. Had a few too many tonight. Wouldn't want to shame myself again.

Phylo out.


response to dullhammer
dullhammer: "Big and Small.
Though in one sense “big” and “small” can be relative to one’s perspective, there is also an intrinsic quality about scale. I’m no mathematician, but this is related to the increase of a circle or sphere’s surface area and internal volume. They don’t stay proportional. As they get bigger or smaller they change. This is why Godzilla could not actually exist in a towering form over New York. Such a creature would collapse under its own weight. So, there is an intrinsic difference between the very small and the very big. You and I may have trouble drawing lines as to where those differences distinguish themselves, but on the extremes the difference should not be debatable. Though we seem to be debating just that."

Phylo: When I talk about Undivided Wholeness, I'm talking about the aspect of reality in which there are no divisions of any kind. I'm talking about the aspect in which no boundaries have been drawn. And if no boundaries have been drawn, how can we talk about big or small? That said, there is also an aspect of reality in which the world is divided up into separate "things", and these "things" can be judged to be big or small relative to whatever they are compares to.


Undivided Whole.
You describe an inconceivable awareness. An oxymoron that needs more than just another word like “raw” to explain it. You take away not only the human tool of language, but the human ability to make distinctions of any kind. And then you elevate awareness of what everything ultimately amounts to and call it “raw.” No disrespect, but you seem to take Helen Keller’s experience of overcoming her blindness and deafness and saying she was better off in her original state.


Phylo: It's not on oxymoron. You, like most people, are assuming that the only form of consciousness is conceptual consciousness. I'm saying that there is also another form of consciousness––what Robert Pirzig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance called "Pre-conceptual Awareness". Pirzig made the point that, between the time that we see a tree, and the time we recognize it as a tree there must be a gap in time. This gap is the gap between the two forms of consciousness I've been referring to.

dullhammer: Blue (Like Jazz?)
“If all is blue there is no blue.” All the while we discuss this I have the nagging suspicion that we shouldn’t be able to according to your premise. You speak of the illusion of boundaries, conceptual forms, beginnings . . . words and language itself. To accept that should put a real damper on this very conversation. But to accept that also involves the acceptance of the reality of illusions (a strange idea, I’ll admit). How does that happen in the first place. If I can say first, that is. You see my problem?

Phylo: I say that the boundaries are ULTIMATELY illusory. But they are not entirely illusory. They could be called real in a relative or provisional sense. Objects and concepts are real in the relative, provisional sense, but not in the Ultimate sense.

The Buddhists often talk about the two truths, or the two realities. That's what I'm talking about too.


dullhammer: I am pleased to see any reference to God in your vocabulary, even though I know we are not meaning the same thing with that word."

Phylo: You're right. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. And I use God reluctantly because the term comes with all sorts of baggage.


Phylo said in a previous post: "As far as consciousness goes, there are two forms of consciousness. The consciousness of particulars, which is what we think of when we think of our own individual consciousness. And this consciousness can be said to have been "born" and it will fade away. But then there is the Undivided Consciousness that is beyond all boundaries and particulars."


dullhammer: This is a serious problem for you to account for. (Harder than the Christian problem of the origin of evil and suffering, I think.) How can there be two of anything in a universe of such extreme singularity? In fact, in such a universe there really should be no possibility for any awareness at all— even if that universe has a mind. Even if that universe is a God of some sort. With everything being everything and God being also that everything and nothing else . . . where is there room for any illusion to exist? That brings about a differentiation, like it or not.

Phylo: I am contending that there is a world of division and particulars AND a world that transcends all boundaries and divisions. You might say that the world of divisions operates within the world of "Oneness". As soon as you start talking and reasoning you are using concepts and are operating out of the divided up aspect of our experience.

dullhammer: And how does this God come by any awareness? Awareness implies differentiation, does it not? I have long appreciated the difference between the Judeo-Christian God and other “Gods” which have tried to be more singular, such as Allah and the Jehovah’s Witness’ diety. Even the Jewish references to God combine the oneness of God with a certain sense of plurality within. The very word for God used in Genesis is a plural word. It does not mean multiple gods, but it does speak of a certain complexity that goes along with the unity. Then in the New Testament that complexity allows for the revelation of God in the radical form of God incarnating himself in order to communicate himself to mankind. Allah and the Jehovah’s Witness deity could never do such as that. They are too singular.

Even more so for your Undivided Whole, your One Mind, your God. Such an entity literally has no meaning. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has the rich ability to commune within himself and the revelational ability to communicate outside himself. The existence you describe of the universe/god whole is stagnant. Anything it does is an illusion. Anything it perceives is an illusion . . . other than itself as a whole. And yet to perceive itself as a whole involves a kind of paradox. It is like an eye. Just an eye. Unable to see within itself for that would be to differentiate. And unable to see beyond itself for there is no such thing. It may have a certain sense of existence . . . but no, that too would be an illusion, like a hand feeling itself feel itself.

Phylo: I think you're trying to imagine the Undivided Aspect as existing all on it's own without this other divided up aspect. And yes, you're right, if there wasn't the relative aspect life would be totally impossible. We have to take both aspects into account at the same time if we want to fully account for the way the world is. We can't ignore either aspect.

dullhammer: I’m willing to continue discussing this. But I get the sense that the issues are increasing rapidly.

Phylo: If I might offer a suggestion: Let's try, as much as possible anyway, to deal with just one issue at a time.

As a starter, let me ask you, does it make sense to you to talk about these two different aspects? Or are you inclined to believe that there is only one aspect, the divided up aspect, and that's it?

All the best.

Phylo out



Phylo
Very nice post. Fair and balanced.

I'm glad you suggest focusing on one thing at a time. It kind of illustrates the very thing we're discussing. Trying to deal with the WHOLE all at once is daunting.

Phylo: As a starter, let me ask you, does it make sense to you to talk about these two different aspects? Or are you inclined to believe that there is only one aspect, the divided up aspect, and that's it?

dullhammer: It makes much more sense to talk about these two aspects. It had seemed to me that you were the one talking most exclusively on the Undivided Whole aspect. That it was the only thing that was real. Your references to both now seem more balanced. For example:

"And yes, you're right, if there wasn't the relative aspect life would be totally impossible. We have to take both aspects into account at the same time if we want to fully account for the way the world is. We can't ignore either aspect."

dullhammer: I can agree with that statement.

As for the divided up aspect. This, briefly, is the way I see it. God is one. God is also three persons. Period. Both are true. Neither is more true or less true than the other.

But also: God created the heavens and the earth. This come after the reality of God. God is self-existing. He needs no reference to anything else other than himself for existence. Creation, however, is derivative. And this introduces what we are more used to dealing with when it comes to the "divided up aspect."

I'll stop here and let you respond.

PS. I'm glad you did not stay away.
And
I'll be going our for supper after this post.





dullhammer
I hope this isn't offensive but I can't really comment on God as he is commonly understood. I don't accept the bible as a credible source for understanding reality. I try to rely exclusively on my actual experience rather than second, third and fourth hand accounts of what happened many many years ago.

But I have a question: What do you think Jesus meant when he said "The kingdom of heaven is upon you."

Regards,

Phylo

Phylo
I missed your post at 5:30 as I was only checking the number at the top (which has been reduced by one or two now) and that threw me.

You are asking me to consider something I do not believe and/or experience. I would have hoped you would be able to at least somewhat engage my view-- especially as it pertains to yours.

My mentioning of God was to show what I consider to be a possible correlation to your view of the Unified Whole and the divided up aspect, ie. God as one and yet experienced as three persons. I'm quite sure the two will not compare exactly and I'm not looking for that. It's just the tiny juncture of the one and the many. I see God as having both aspects. Then, I mentioned creation because there is a great difference there, as I see it, regarding the many. I saw these two points as natural places for me to start. Evidently God is a stopping point for you. That could be difficult for my own thinking. But I will try to work with it.


Phylo: But I have a question: What do you think Jesus meant when he said "The kingdom of heaven is upon you."


dullhammer: I think he was pointing to himself standing in their midst. It seems consistent with the context of Luke 17:20-25ff.


I have a question for you: What are the limitations of your own personal experience? Do you believe in your great grandparents?






dullhammer
Phylo: But I have a question: What do you think Jesus meant when he said "The kingdom of heaven is upon you."

dullhammer: I think he was pointing to himself standing in their midst. It seems consistent with the context of Luke 17:20-25ff.

Phylo: I thought you might say that. My interpretation of this statement is that he's saying that the Kingdom of heaven is Right Here, Right Now, not something that exists at another time or place.

What about Luke's quote of Jesus where he says "nor will they say 'See here!' or See there!' For indeed, the Kingdom of God is within you."?



dullhammer: I have a question for you: What are the limitations of your own personal experience? Do you believe in your great grandparents?

Phylo: I believe my great grandparents existed. This is based on deductive reasoning. Everyone else had great grandparents, therefor I must have had great grandparents. Indeed, I have a picture of my great grandfather. Of course, though I've been told he is my great grandfather, there is still a possibility that I am wrong.

All of our conceptual knowledge is inherrently limited because we can never know the whole story. All we ever get is part of the story.

But it isn't necessary to have conceptual knowledge to Know Reality or Truth. Truth and Reality are obvious. Truth and Reality are what's going on in This Moment prior to having ideas about what's going on. And while we shouldn't ignore our conceptual knowldege, it is not a reliable way to get at the Truth.

I would argue, also, that Right Here Right Now, is the Whole Truth with nothing left out. Right Here has no boundaries in space; Right Now has no boundaries in time.

As far as God goes. I think I see your point in terms of the One and the many. Perhaps there is some parallel there.

Regards,

Phylo

Interesting
First I want to concur that showing the pre-birth life of an animal may present a good way to show how human embryonic life is also precious. Of course it can never be quite as precious as the life of an elephant embryo!

Also I want to throw in some thoughts on the discussion going on as commentary following the article.

I think the post-er talking about two approaches to reality, whie having many interesting things to say, is guilty of imposing extra-rational concepts into the argument. What I am referring to is the distinction between "defining" or "separating" and "unifying". On the level of human reflection, I don't see how we can be aware of the unity of all as part of an "undivided oneness" (a problematic term loaded and ready to explode). We experience things as disparate objects. Various objects share qualities and so are recognized as belonging to specific classes of species, all objects can be said to possess some essence and also to share existence to varying degrees. The boundaries defining objects cannot be said to be illusion, at the magnitude proper to observing those objects. If we decide that all objects must be examined at the atomic level then of course all objects disappear. Such a decision however represents the imposition of a reductionist model, which is inadequate for recognizing objects that only become visible at a particular level of magnitude.
Buddha was mentioned. I think this is where doctrine was imposed upon reason. If I understand correctly, for the Buddhist the material world we all experience is finally illusory, while a deeper sense of the oneness of all including the merging of the individual Self with a greater nonself is reality. I find myself at odds with such a perspective based on my own experience of the material world, and my lack of experience of the oneness of all. Perhaps some imposition is required otherwise thought will have no direction...




Phylo
>>Phylo: I thought you might say that. My interpretation of this statement is that he's saying that the Kingdom of heaven is Right Here, Right Now, not something that exists at another time or place.

>>What about Luke's quote of Jesus where he says "nor will they say 'See here!' or See there!' For indeed, the Kingdom of God is within you."?



dullhammer: The context for that statement is actually quite large. Here is more of it.

Luke 17:20-25 (NIV)
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, [21] nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
[22] Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. [23] Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. [24] For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. [25] But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.


dullhammer again: The last two verses 24-5 speak clearly of Jesus. (He occasionally would speak of himself in the third person.)

In an attempt to speak in your "language," Phylo, I could say that what was right there in the midst of those people was the full reality of God (an amazing concept to consider), but unrecognizable because that reality was the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ. You might object that the Unified Whole must be far greater than any one person, for it is ALL "things" together in the present moment. But, just for argument sake, if God is an even greater reality than what would be composed of all "things material" than the presence of God in Jesus standing in the midst of those questioners about the Kingdom of God is not unlike what you might be asking me and others to see in our midst regarding the Unified Whole.

I know that's quite a long complicated sentence and thought, and I don't have time to stare at it and refine it. I'll just ask, Does this make sense to you?

I will check in again this evening and address the grandparents issue.


saltgrain
You seem to be in a bit of a hurry to summarize Phylo's view(s). Even though a lot has been written in this thread, I feel like Phylo and I are really in just the opening moves of a friendly game of chess.

And like chess, this could take a long time. Only to end in a draw, or something like that. Despite my own analogy, I'm not out to "win." I just want to listen to him; and hope he might return the favor to me.

Shalom

response to saltgrain
Your post is so thoughtful, interesting, and deep, that I'll need some time to digest it.

Thank you so much. I'll get back to you soon.

Phylo out,

response to dullhammer
I'll need some time to chew on that one.

Check in tomorrow, or perhaps the next day.

All the best,

Phylo

saltgrain
I like the line: "undivided oneness" (a problematic term loaded and ready to explode).

Phylo
I was surprised to see your two posts come up when I posted my second line to saltgrain.


I'll hold off on the grandparent thing then.

PS
Even for Postal chess this would be wicked slow.

Interesting
First I want to concur that showing the pre-birth life of an animal may present a good way to show how human embryonic life is also precious. Of course it can never be quite as precious as the life of an elephant embryo!

Also I want to throw in some thoughts on the discussion going on as commentary following the article.

I think the post-er talking about two approaches to reality, whie having many interesting things to say, is guilty of imposing extra-rational concepts into the argument. What I am referring to is the distinction between "defining" or "separating" and "unifying". On the level of human reflection, I don't see how we can be aware of the unity of all as part of an "undivided oneness". We experience things as disparate objects. Various objects share qualities and so are recognized as belonging to specific classes or species; all objects can be said to possess some essence and also to share existence to varying degrees. The boundaries defining objects cannot be said to be illusory, at the magnitude level proper to observing those objects. If we decide that all objects must be examined at the atomic level then of course all specific characteristics disappear. Such a decision however represents the imposition of a reductionist model, which is inadequate for recognizing objects as they only become visible at a particular level of magnitude.
Buddha was mentioned. I think this is where doctrine was imposed upon reason. If I understand correctly, for the Buddhist the material world we all experience is finally illusory, while a deeper sense of the oneness of all including the merging of the individual Self with a greater nonself is reality. I find myself at odds with such a perspective based on my own experience of the material world, and my lack of experience of the oneness of all.

Perhaps some imposition is required otherwise thought will have no direction...




saltgrain
I know it seems I deserved that.

But I had a hard enough time concentrating on one deep thinker. I was irritated. It was only after reading yours more carefully that I wanted to backtrack.

I also thought my comment would appear directly under my fist one.

It didn't.

My apologies for being rude.


He's all yours.

response to dullhammer
dullhammer: In an attempt to speak in your "language," Phylo, I could say that what was right there in the midst of those people was the full reality of God (an amazing concept to consider), but unrecognizable because that reality was the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ. You might object that the Unified Whole must be far greater than any one person, for it is ALL "things" together in the present moment. But, just for argument sake, if God is an even greater reality than what would be composed of all "things material" than the presence of God in Jesus standing in the midst of those questioners about the Kingdom of God is not unlike what you might be asking me and others to see in our midst regarding the Unified Whole.

Phylo: Actually, I would say that the entire universe can be found in every single "thing". Which is very difficult thing to imagine, and even more difficult to try to explain. But the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn said it like this:

If you really see what you are calling “cup,” well, then, you must see the sun as well. For many eons the sun has supplied the earth with energy, and it has helped to evaporate water into the atmosphere. The water has then condensed to form clouds and, for many eons, rain has fallen on the Earth. You have to understand this if you truly see this cup, because over many eons of time, under the sun and with the rain, vegetation began to creep out upon the land, and mosses and lichens began to create soils until eventually trees appeared. These trees get their nourishment from the sun and the rain and the soil. And being so nourished, the trees grew and produced wood.

And there was the person who thought to take some clay, and working with it a while, learned to shape it into many useful forms. And someone made a spinning potter’s wheel and shaped the clay into “this cup.” All of this thinking, all of this ingenuity and activity, all of this is the “cup”––for we can’t separate all this from what we call “the cup”.

And someone fashioned an axe and took the wood from the tree and split the wood and dried it in the sun. And someone built a fire. Eventually someone thought of making an oven and baking the clay. All of this goes into our “cup”.


He is saying, here, that if you look deeply enough into the "cup", you'll see the entire universe.

This might seem paradoxical but, while there is a difference between the "One" and the "many", there is another sense in which there is no difference: the "many" are "One" and the "One" is "many".

Is that sort of like what you were talking about?

Phylo out.

response to saltgrain
Welcome to the conversation saltgrain.

saltgrain writes: "I think the post-er talking about two approaches to reality, whie having many interesting things to say, is guilty of imposing extra-rational concepts into the argument. What I am referring to is the distinction between "defining" or "separating" and "unifying". On the level of human reflection, I don't see how we can be aware of the unity of all as part of an "undivided oneness". We experience things as disparate objects. Various objects share qualities and so are recognized as belonging to specific classes or species; all objects can be said to possess some essence and also to share existence to varying degrees. The boundaries defining objects cannot be said to be illusory, at the magnitude level proper to observing those objects. If we decide that all objects must be examined at the atomic level then of course all specific characteristics disappear. Such a decision however represents the imposition of a reductionist model, which is inadequate for recognizing objects as they only become visible at a particular level of magnitude."

Phylo: A couple of things: First, it's Undivided Wholeness, not Undivided Oneness. Whole implies no outside. "One" seems to imply that there might be a "two". Second, yes, what I'm pointing to is "extra-rational". It is beyond thinking and reasoning. Undivided Wholeness is referring to the aspect that is prior to our drawing boundaries and forming images in our mind.

Now, to address your main point:

On the ordinary level "things" do appear to have separate characteristics. It's only when we look deeper that we realize that the boundaries that define the differences dissolve like mirages.

And, while physicists have discovered this by going down to the subatomic level, this is not oweing to some special qualiity of quantum objects. All boundaries to all "things" will eventually dissolve into infinite complexity if we examine them closely enough.

My Zen teacher, Steve Hagen, said it like this in his book How the World Can Be the Way It Is:

…let’s consider a common object. Say a lake. Where is its boundary? What defines it?

If we don’t scrutinize our object, this question will need no answer, and we think there is no problem––we think the lines are clearly drawn and our concept matches Reality. But where does the lake actually begin and end. How about this drop of water now entering the lake? What about the little stream that drains it, or the vapor that rises from its surface. (Indeed, under these circumstances, where is the surface?) And what about the water seeping down through the ground “beneath” the lake? Is that part of the lake? (If it were not there, the seeping water might not be there either.) And is the water around this little pebble on the beach the lake? What about the fish and the microbes and the flora of the lake?

What is the lake exactly? What defines it?

What he’s doing here is illustrating the fact that, whenever we try to pin down the Real (i.e., Absolute) existential boundary to some “thing”, we find that we can’t do it. It’s a mirage: it seems to be there, but almost as soon as we start to approach it, it dissolves into infinite complexity.

And what I'm saying is that “lakes” are not unique in this respect. This is the way it is with all “things”. Even the boundary separating a “billiard ball” from “everything else” will dissolve into infinite complexity once you get down to the sub-atomic level.


saltgrain writes: Buddha was mentioned. I think this is where doctrine was imposed upon reason. If I understand correctly, for the Buddhist the material world we all experience is finally illusory, while a deeper sense of the oneness of all including the merging of the individual Self with a greater nonself is reality. I find myself at odds with such a perspective based on my own experience of the material world, and my lack of experience of the oneness of all.

Phylo: There is an experience that is sometimes called "enlightenment" or "waking up". In Japan it is called "Satori". And there is a sense in which some people have had this experience and others have not. But ultimately, we are all "enlightened" because we all see Reality just as it is. How could we not? It's just that most people cover up what they SEE with what they THINK without realizing they are doing this. An awakened person doesn't fall into this trap. That's the only difference between an ordinary person and one who is "awake".

Kosho Uchiyama expressed this sense of "waking up" beautifully in his book, Opening the Hand of Thought.

"Despite the fact that we almost always stress the content of our thoughts, when we wake up, we wake up to the reality of life and make this reality our center of gravity. It is at this time that we clearly realize that all the desires and delusions within our thoughts are substantially nothing. When this kind of zazen experience fully becomes a part of us, even in our daily lives, we will not be carried away by the comings and goings of various images, and we will be able to wake up to our own lives and begin completely afresh from the reality of life."

Well said Kosho!

Phylo out


Phylo
Phylo: He is saying, here, that if you look deeply enough into the "cup", you'll see the entire universe.

This might seem paradoxical but, while there is a difference between the "One" and the "many", there is another sense in which there is no difference: the "many" are "One" and the "One" is "many".

Is that sort of like what you were talking about?



dullhammer: Partly. I almost could agree with your stated view of the universe so long as I limited it to what is physical in nature. But I can’t. I can see more.


In the gospel of John, chapter 14, Jesus has a most interesting conversation with his disciples. Times are very troubled; in just a matter of hours Jesus will be arrested and crucified. Jesus comforts his followers by reminding them of heaven, his Father’s house. It’s a place; an infinite place. But the link between the here and there is not obvious to them. So they ask the way there. Jesus answers, “I am the way . . .. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He goes on to say, “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.” They still don’t understand. So one of them asks straightforwardly: “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” I’m sure they were asking and possibly expecting Jesus to show them some kind of amazing manifestation of God like what appeared at times in the Old Testament. But Jesus’ reply is, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ’Show us the Father’?”

I think Jesus would say, “If you look deeply enough into me, you’ll see the entire maker of the universe.”

In one sense he appears to be a simple “cup” if you will. But he is not a cup from this world, this universe, even this Undivided Whole. He is from “above”. He is the One who created all else. And he has come to this world as a “cup” with unique borders. He contains all of eternal God.

I know you don’t philosophically agree with what I’m saying. I think I can anticipate two objections. 1) There is nothing more; there is no “beyond” or “above” to the Undivided Whole. And
2) Even if there were, it could not be experienced. I can only know that which is within the realm of my own experience, which appears to be but a part, but, in a more profound sense, is an infinite whole.


In light of all the above, my question to you is this:

Would it be possible for your Undivided Whole to be pierced and impregnated by such an invasion as Jesus who claimed to be God in human flesh? (Who has even left a considerable bank of evidence in his wake. Evidence such as the documents of the NT, the emergence of the church, the predictions from the OT of his coming, centrality of the cross, the changing of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday relating to the resurrection, the dating of our year, to name just a few.)

response to dullhammer
dullhammer: Would it be possible for your Undivided Whole to be pierced and impregnated by such an invasion as Jesus who claimed to be God in human flesh? (Who has even left a considerable bank of evidence in his wake. Evidence such as the documents of the NT, the emergence of the church, the predictions from the OT of his coming, centrality of the cross, the changing of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday relating to the resurrection, the dating of our year, to name just a few.)

Phylo: Frankly, no. Because nothing can pierce the Undivided Whole. If it could, it would no longer would be the Undivided Whole.

I like part of your interpretation of what Jesus was saying to the diciples. It seems like he was trying to tell them that the kingdom of heaven is already upon them if they would only open their eyes and see. This is what Zen teachers are always saying to their students. Enlightenment is already yours. All you have to do is wake up and see it for yourself. Jesus also seems to be implying that the Truth is obvious and plain for everyone to see. I agree with that.

Where Zen and Christianity come together for me is in the areas of "selflessness" and "love".

I like M Scott Peck's definition of love. He siad it was the willingness to give of the self for the betterment of someone else. This definition of love incorporates the idea of selflessness, which I think is critical.

In the book The Brothers Karamosov, the elder Zosima was asked by a panic stricken woman about what happens after we die Do we just become worm food? I believe in heaven, but I have doubts.

The elder Zosima said, love others, love to the point where you forget yourself and then there will be no doubt.

To me, this is very similar to what a Zen preist might say. He's pointing to love as the path toward selflessness and enlightenment and, with enlightenment, comes a resolution to the life/death issue.

Some people think that Buddhism is about philosophy and gaining wisdom, but it is just as much about compasssion, as it is about wisdom.

By the way, what you said about Jesus makes sense in a way. "If you get to know me, you will know the father" sounds like a Zen teacher talking about, if you get to know any one "thing" all the way to the core, you will see the source (i.e., The Father) of all "things".


Regards, Phylo

Phylo
"Phylo: Frankly, no. Because nothing can pierce the Undivided Whole. If it could, it would no longer would be the Undivided Whole."


dullhammer: For sake of clarity do you mean, No longer be, or fail to be what you thought?

And if it is intrinsically impossible for the Undivided Whole to be pierced (which is what I think you will go on to say) how do you come by that rule of understanding? What is it about this Undivided Whole (other than the name which you have given it) that would, in essence, require Jesus to mean something more Zen than Christian with his words in John 14? For he does not really seem to be talking about the nature of the world, but himself. Himself uniquely.

I don't think this is an unfair question, either. I think the early Jewish Christians faced a very similar thing regarding God. Up until the coming of Jesus they saw God as being something akin to an "Undivided Deity". But Jesus pierced that with his very presence. He didn't violate it, though. Christians still teach that God is One. But at the same time three persons. This was not an invention of thought, either. It was an experience first. A doctrine second.

It seems to me that there is at least the philosophical possibility that Jesus not only pierced the Jewish understanding of the One God, but the Buddhist/Phylo understanding of an Undivided Whole. And if there is no possibility of that, I am simply asking why?

dullhammer
We might have reached a barrier here. You're working on some assumptions that I simply don't accept––the divinity of Jesus for example. I think that many of the passages of the bible were, at one time or another, rewritten with the intention of making it seem like Jesus was more like a God than a man. I know that that was a common practice back then. There are many stories from those times about people performing miracles and of people rising from the dead. And since none of those types of things happen these days, I naturally assume that there was some exagerating going on. I also know that no one recorded Jesus' words word for word. So to take each word literally doesn't make much sense to me. Instead I try to look for the spirit of what he was saying. And I like the sense that I get of Jesus. From looking at the aggregate of things that he said and were said about him he seemed to be all about selflessness and love. And this makes sense to me because these two things are crucial to spiritual awakening. It seems to me that he was trying to teach the people around him what spiritual awakening was all about.

I also find it interesting that, as the story has been told, he was visited by three wise men from the East. Considering the fact that the Buddha's teachings had been around for five hundred years before Jesus, it seems possible to me that Jesus got wind of the Buddha's teachings and came to an clear understanding of them during his forty days in the desert.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. And you might have contempt for my opinons. But that's why we might be at a stopping point. The fact is, this is all just speculation on our part. Niether one of us can really know what happened back then. So we would be just trading speculations back and forth which isn't very interesting to me. It doesn't go anywhere.

In any event, I've enjoyed this. And I'll check again to see if you've responded.

Thanks, Phylo

Phylo
I assure you I have no contempt for your opinions. In fact, just the opposite. We may well have reached a barrier, but not one of contempt for your opinions. I even wonder where that reference comes from. Do you find my opinions, especially regarding Jesus, to be contemptible?

The barrier is more likely arising from the fact that the differences between us are simply getting clearer. And that is probably more good than not. The clarity, I mean. I, for one, have a much better understanding (and respect) of you as a person and of Buddhism as a world view. I have learned a lot from this exchange. Far more than I ever could have gotten from a book or webpage.

I can see where my last questions to you regarding Jesus and the “Undivided Whole” would challenge your fundamentals, just as the views you expressed in your last post regarding Jesus imply a challenge to my fundamentals about him. We are indeed at a kind of barrier.

And I don’t think either of us are interested in “trading speculations” back and forth. I feel I have gone somewhere in this conversation thus far. Not a long ways, I’m sure, but I’m not where I was when I started. Believe it or not, I even feel our conversation has been relevant to the original topic of abortion. I won’t expound on it here, but it has to do with words as seeds and letting them come to their full development, or not.

And I don’t mind mutually stopping our conversation here. Maybe our stopping is a way of continuing with what is larger than the both of us.

I have enjoyed talking with you, too.

In Christ,

dullhammer

to dullhammer
I appreciate your kind words. And, may I say how impressed I am with your willingness to see other points of view––a rare quality these days it seems.

Also, I'm sorry, you're right, for me to assume that you would be contemptuous of my views was presumptuaous on my part. I apologize.

Perhaps we have reached an impasse (sp?), but prehaps not. If you ever come across me in a thread and you have something further to say, just say something like "Check out the elephant.". Assuming I see the message, I'll respond. I bookmarked this thread so it's easy.

Keep it Real dullhammer,

Phylo out for now.

I will . . .
I will keep your invitation in mind. And of course the same holds true for you.

Merry Christmas!

Phylo-- new, but related, question

Do you believe in free will?

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.