” . . so help me Dyēus.”

irregulartimes.com

irregulartimes.com

Dyēus Bless the USA

Reverend Alicia Obeys, Trusts, and Gives Praise

About last Thursday . .

friendlyatheist.com

friendlyatheist.com

Ever wonder what the fark is going on?

This explains it.

A Vision of Hell

How is this a vision of hell?

 

 

 

cat_and_guinea_pigs

Science and Buddhism

Heracles/ Vajrapani as the protector of the Buddha; a Greco-Buddhist relief from Gandhara

Heracles/ Vajrapani as the protector of the Buddha; a Greco-Buddhist relief from Gandhara

(image)

Via 3quarksdaily, a report on relations between some Buddhists and some scientists:

The Dalai Lama is keen for Buddhists and scientists to interact.

In the troubled relationship between science and religion, Buddhism represents something of a singularity, in which the usual rules do not apply. Sharing quests for the big truths about the Universe and the human condition, science and Buddhism seem strangely compatible. At a fundamental level they are not quite aligned, as both these books make clear. But they can talk to each other without the whiff of intellectual or spiritual insult that haunts scientific engagement with other faiths.

The disciplines are compatible for two reasons. First, to a large degree, Buddhism is a study in human development. Unencumbered by a creator deity, it embraces empirical investigation rather than blind faith. Thus it sings from the same hymn-sheet as science. Second, it has in one of its figureheads an energetic champion of science. The current Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetans, has met regularly with many prominent researchers during the past three decades. He has even written his own book on the interaction between science and Buddhism (The Universe in a Single Atom; Little, Brown; 2006). His motivation is clear from the prologue of that book, which Donald Lopez cites in his latest work Buddhism and Science: for the alleviation of human suffering, we need both science and spirituality.

(more…)

Islamic Mystical Philosophy

I’ve been reading an article about a school of Islamic mystical philosophy called “unity of existence.” Their position on the nature of existence is neither entirely monist nor entirely dualist, but rather something in-between.

The starting point of their position is that, in our conventional perception of reality, we tend to see lots and lots of discrete things or forms, i.e. multiplicity. Metaphorically speaking, we are seeing the images of things in the mirror of the Absolute.

However, it’s possible for someone to have a mystical experience wherein their ego-consciousness is completely annihilated. Upon returning from this experience, their perception has become the reverse of the conventional perception, i.e. they see the image of the Absolute in the mirror of the multiplicity of forms.

In the first case, things obscure the Absolute. In the second case, the Absolute obscures the multiplicity of things.

Finally, the person with deepest insight – a true metaphysician worthy of the name – is capable of experiencing both forms of awareness simultaneously, i.e. they can perceive the multitude of forms as articulations of the Absolute, *and* they can perceive the Absolute as reflected in the diverse forms of the world.

Also, this school maintains that the Absolute is real, and the world of forms is not real. But, at the same time, the situation is not quite that simple. The forms are real in a conditional or dependent way, inasmuch as they are manifestations or crystallizations of the Absolute.

Writers of this school are fond of using metaphors to describe the situation.  For example, an individual person is like a drop of water that had always viewed itself as a discrete drop of water.  Then one day, the drop suddenly discovers that it’s part of the ocean.

Another relevant metaphor is waves on the surface of the ocean:  People become fascinated by the waves, i.e. the phenomenal world, and attach all kinds of importance to the waves, without it ever occurring to them that the waves themselves are just articulations of the vast, underlying ocean.

In other words, the world around us is essentially a dream or a mirage.  Nevertheless, at the same time, it still possesses some shadow-like realness.

To add a further wrinkle, it is only when the Absolute comes into juxtaposition to the phenomenal world that it makes sense to talk about Allah or God. Now, to say that God is somehow contingent seems surprising. However, we can think of the word “God” here as a relational concept: “God” is what the Absolute becomes as soon as the Absolute is set off in relation to the created world. Without the world, all that exists is the all-embracing, all-inclusive Absolute, i.e. the ocean of existence.

For this reason, Islamic mystical tradition understands God to have explained His motivation for creating the world by saying (paraphrase): “I was a hidden treasure and wished to be known.”

The Nation, October 8, 2007

See the post below for an explanation of what I’m doing.

The cover story is a love letter to Keith Olbermann by Marvin Kitman; several pieces deal with the likely impact of the Iraq war on the 2008 elections.  Alexander Cockburn’s column starts with the arresting sentence “I never thought there’d come a time when, even for a moment, I’d trust Fidel Castro less than a former chairman of the Federal Reserve.” 

The best pieces are in the book reviews.  Ian Hacking considers several books about America’s anti-Darwin movement.  He expounds on Imre Lakatos’ theory of science.  According to that philosopher, Hacking writes, the proper “unit of valuation [in science] was the research program rather than the theory.  A rational program is, he said, ‘progressive’ in that it constantly reacts to counterexamples and difficulties by producing new theories that overcome old hurdles.  When challenged it does not withdraw into some same corner but explains new difficulties with an even riskier, richer, and bolder story about nature.”  Hacking favors Darwinism over fundamentalism not because it is the cut-and-dried, incontrovertible truth that a writer like Richard Dawkins would suggest, but precisely because it is confusing, superficially improbable, full of uncertainty.  Hacking even closes with a feint towards a new kind of argument from design, appealing to Leibniz’ description of a God whose plan calls for combining “the maximum of variety with the minimum of complexity for its fundamental laws” and arguing that a God like that  “would have to be a ‘neo-Darwinian’ who achieves the extraordinary variety of living things by chance.”

J. Hoberman reviews a new study of the Communist-inspired American literature of the World War II era, bringing up some interesting-sounding novels, such as Jews without Money by Mike Gold, I Went to Pit College by Lauren Gilfillan, and The Street by Ann Petry.

http://www.thenation.com/

A provocation from Mencius Moldbug

Lefalcon seems to be interested in “political theology,” the notion that all political ideologies are really religious doctrines in disguise.  Below, Mencius Moldbug of the “Unqualified Reservations” blog tries to identify the religious doctrine behind the liberal internationalism that animates supporters of things like NATO, the UN, etc.

  http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/07/universalism-postwar-progressivism-as.html

If you don’t want to follow the link, I’ll put the key paragraphs after the jump:

(more…)