Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about Vance's mystery novels? I see some, at
> least, have a northern California setting -- which
> might not be so far from southern Oregon, where I
> grew up, went to college, & got married.

I have not read them. I hear The Man in the Cage is good (set in North Africa). I have The Pleasant Grove Murders on audio book, but have not listened to it yet. Then there is the horror Bad Ronald, about a teenage boy hidden in a concealed room by his mother after a crime he did, and when his mother dies, he remains in the room as the new family moves into the house ... .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Aug 21 | 05:15PM by Knygatin.

The horror novel probably wouldn't be to my taste, but I think I'll try one of the mysteries supposing the library can get it for me.

Luminist.org has many PDFs by Vance and other writers.

I confused The Pleasant Grove Murders with another. It is The Fox Valley Murders that I have on audio, first of his Sheriff Joe Bain series. I don't think it is a very pleasant read, there is a sexual murderer in it.

The Man in the Cage is probably more enjoyable.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repentance (I'd say even to the Lord) and remorse are
> radically different things. Repentance is a
> recognition of the wrong one's done and the wrong
> one is and (I'd say) should bring one to the foot
> of the Cross. Remorse is a vain self-vexing, and
> a gnawing, unfruitful thing. It is, I take it,
> the perpetual occupation of souls in hell.
>

I have certainly had some issues with remorse, and still have. More over things I didn't do, than over clumsy mistakes. Some missed chances are lost forever, and do not come back. The pain is part of the material universe of duality, this illusion which our divided bodies act in and in the passing of time. Repentence yes, for the meek, ... but something of happy innocence is still lost, when creeping to the Cross. Complete forgiveness made be had in Eternity, and it can come instantly, if truly recognizing the illusion of duality. (I suppose that is meant to be the function of creeping to the Cross, but to me the act is submissive, which I don't find ideal.) In complete forgiveness we realize we are part of God, not submissive to God. But I think it is difficult to attain completely as long as we remain in the illusion of a body. Some individuals are said to have attained complete enlightenment, but I doubt that. Prayers and meditation helps though, to reach more peace of mind. It clears some of the confusions, putting light on the duality illusion, lighting it away. Helping see reality as united, instead of divided.

At the same time, in the material Universe, duality is the natural expression. God expresses through materia (the clay of God) by making infinite variations. The globe is an infinite form, symbol of Eternity. So our Earth, with its complexity of species, colors, and forms, is God's outward expression of Infinity. So to not respect the differences, the richness in variations, and try to erase these, is a crime against the Creator.

The balance between living in the material Universe, and seeking spiritual unity, is a relationship often beyond the ability of rational reasoning and calculation. It just is, and the balance is deep inside us, as long as we don't corrupt it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Aug 21 | 03:17AM by Knygatin.

Duality, ... that is in meaning as division.

God works through materia, but God is not of materia. That is how I see it.

The Big Bang in the Universe, was the rejection of God, with material chaos everywhere. God immediately started bringing order into the chaos of atoms and molecules. Gradually organizing it more and more, slowly perfecting it, bringing complex beauty out of disorganized rubble, as a reflection of the Divine harmony. It has been a long and painful journey, of complex paths, with much strife and grinding friction, for all the struggling souls who identify themselves as material bodies. And the journey will continue for billions of years ahead.

On this point I strongly disagree with H. P. Lovecraft, who viewed the Universe and Cosmos as a meaningless mechanistic madness. Viewing the Earth, our planetary system, or a distant spiral galaxy, one can see there is a beautiful order to it. There is nothing of madness in it (except in the grinding imperfections that have not yet found their proper positions). The Cosmos is slowly perfecting itself (through God).

Thank you, Knygatin, for these expository messages. I'm grateful to you for the care with which you have written them and for the trust they imply in ED as a place where one can disclose such matters and expect to be read with respect. It looks to me like you have come to these beliefs through a long and thoughtful process.

These messages also help me to understand how our favored literature here -- imaginative fantasy -- is read by you. I'll bet you find echoes or glimpses of your beliefs when you read some stories -- echoes or glimpses that other readers might not perceive. I wondered if there were certain poems, stories, memoirs, etc. that seem particularly resonant to you.

I can agree with some of what you say and would not be able to go along with other things, but I think you probably have a pretty good idea of "where I'm coming from" already, thanks to many remarks I have made here -- without anyone jumping in and telling me to quit!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Aug 21 | 11:17AM by Dale Nelson.

I thoroughly agree with you, Dale, in that I see ED as a near-unique venue "...where one can disclose such matters and expect to be read with respect."

I've not yet found any other places where questions/positions of all sorts will be met with respect, even if the interlocutor profoundly disagrees with them.

This, to me, is the difference between what I'll term "civil behavior" and a disorganized mob--which describes almost the entirety of the web.

Knygatin's post, the one to which you directed your response, is very intriguing to me; I'd like to discuss it frankly and openly if others are willing. You already know, more or less, my stance on spirituality and God; I am dully aware of something that might be spirituality and can as yet see no clear cause or reason; and for God I am insensitive to His clues and hints and by extension, His existence.

And to compound matters, you probably know that if I cannot perceive an immediate, or longer term, reason to positively resolve these issues within the context of my life, I simply ignore them, pretty much.

Last peculiarity--and maybe in the entirety of my self-description here, I'm defining "post-modern" sensibility--if I cannot see either concrete examples that are unambiguous, or logical proof that does a good job of withstanding empirical rigor--I do not default to accepting a position with anything approaching absolute certainty.

So the cosmos and ethics, even, exist as a continuum for all intents unbounded, and each perceived phenomenon fits on it for me in a position of certainty, from approaching 100% to approaching 0 (no absolutes, remember! ;^) ).

Now that you know for sure where I'm coming from in this proposed discussion, a sample of the sorts of questions I'd like to ask you in honesty and openness is:

Do you feel any necessity in fixing a "start date" for the cosmos? Is it important to know with any degree of certainty what was, or if there was, a beginning of the universe? What caused it? What will be its ultimate end (if any)?

I'll tip my hand: I've never concerned myself with this, nor the putative reason for my existence.

I've never been troubled trying to comprehend *why* I'm here.

What say you fellow-EDers?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Repentance (I'd say even to the Lord) and
> remorse are
> > radically different things. Repentance is a
> > recognition of the wrong one's done and the
> wrong
> > one is and (I'd say) should bring one to the
> foot
> > of the Cross. Remorse is a vain self-vexing,
> and
> > a gnawing, unfruitful thing. It is, I take it,
> > the perpetual occupation of souls in hell.
> >
>
> I have certainly had some issues with remorse, and
> still have. More over things I didn't do, than
> over clumsy mistakes. Some missed chances are lost
> forever, and do not come back. The pain is part of
> the material universe of duality, this illusion
> which our divided bodies act in and in the passing
> of time. Repentence yes, for the meek, ... but
> something of happy innocence is still lost, when
> creeping to the Cross. Complete forgiveness made
> be had in Eternity, and it can come instantly, if
> truly recognizing the illusion of duality. (I
> suppose that is meant to be the function of
> creeping to the Cross, but to me the act is
> submissive, which I don't find ideal.) In complete
> forgiveness we realize we are part of God, not
> submissive to God. But I think it is difficult to
> attain completely as long as we remain in the
> illusion of a body. Some individuals are said to
> have attained complete enlightenment, but I doubt
> that. Prayers and meditation helps though, to
> reach more peace of mind. It clears some of the
> confusions, putting light on the duality illusion,
> lighting it away. Helping see reality as united,
> instead of divided.

In conjunction with my earlier post, K, can you expand upon your ideas on "duality"?

I have very limited understanding of this concept; I tend to see things all existing on the same plane of existence, but with infinite incremental gradations, and hence true simultaneous duality would not exist in this model. It would require a parallel concurrent plane, it seems like.

I have no idea whether or not my view has any grounding in reality and am eager to hear other views.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish, these things can be difficult to explain to someone who doesn't experience it. It departs from the rational and material reality and its references of understanding.

I will try, although from lack of scientific tools I will be brief.

The material reality is bound in the dimensions of space and time. Every unit of materia is separated and isolated from all other by its geometrical borders. It can be mixed up into others, such as in a liquid, but that requires a time scale. In the static moment the unit is isolated within itself. Especially so in solid materia, which can remain isolated for quite a long time.

Duality, or division, means that the material object unit sees itself as alone, separated from the rest of the Universe, and also feels like it is the center of the Universe. We are isolated within ourselves, looking out from this "box" onto the rest of the material Universe. When two units meet, they look at each other, and there is duality, they are divided from each other. They can try to unite (for two units of liquids it will be easier), such as two human bodies embracing in a kiss or sexual intercourse, or less dramatically in friendship, and that will give some limited satisfaction to the minds, feelings, and souls, and spirit; but the unification will not be complete, the bodies will remain divided and isolated from each other, looking out on each other in duality. In the material Universe we are isolated, ultimately alone, which is the great pain. By seeking the spiritual, we get access to a higher reality, and can somewhat transcend the limits of space and time. But for as long as we remain in the body, the release will be limited.

That is how I experience it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, these things can be difficult to explain
> to someone who doesn't experience it. It departs
> from the rational and material reality and its
> references of understanding.
>
> I will try, although from lack of scientific tools
> I will be brief.
>
> The material reality is bound in the dimensions of
> space and time. Every unit of materia is separated
> and isolated from all other by its geometrical
> borders. It can be mixed up into others, such as
> in a liquid, but that requires a time scale. In
> the static moment the unit is isolated within
> itself. Especially so in solid materia, which can
> remain isolated for quite a long time.
>
> Duality, or division, means that the material
> object unit sees itself as alone, separated from
> the rest of the Universe, and also feels like it
> is the center of the Universe. We are isolated
> within ourselves, looking out from this "box" onto
> the rest of the material Universe. When two units
> meet, they look at each other, and there is
> duality, they are divided from each other. They
> can try to unite (for two units of liquids it will
> be easier), such as two human bodies embracing in
> a kiss or sexual intercourse, or less dramatically
> in friendship, and that will give some limited
> satisfaction to the minds, feelings, and souls,
> and spirit; but the unification will not be
> complete, the bodies will remain divided and
> isolated from each other, looking out on each
> other in duality. In the material Universe we are
> isolated, ultimately alone, which is the great
> pain. By seeking the spiritual, we get access to a
> higher reality, and can somewhat transcend the
> limits of space and time. But for as long as we
> remain in the body, the release will be limited.
>
> That is how I experience it.


Thanks for your time and patience on this, K. The explanation was meaningful, presented in a way that I can begin to grasp it. I'll try to paraphrase it, and offer up a real-world example. Please correct/expand where needed.

It sounds to me that the negation of duality, as we've defined it, is a non-material unification with one or more other separate units, be they quanta or molecules, or human individuals. For now, let's stick with humans.

Would you say that "crown phenomenon", and by this I mean the sort of spontaneous unification of feeling, emotion that might happen at a very evocative rock concert, is a temporary negation of duality?

I'm going to take this next example from external sources because I've never experienced it, but some people tell me that at some religious services they feel transcendent and unified, perhaps with the congregation, or maybe the congregation and something called "God". Is this another instance of negation of duality?

Last example, tied closely to the previous one. I've seen Pentacostal worship (Holly Rollers) on documentary TV. If you've seen this, is this another such example?

I want to be sure I've got the basis of this: I believe that you are saying that under normal circumstances, individuals exist in a state of duality by default, but seek to negate this isolation. THat's the part I want to be sure of: the great attempt is to overcome the state of duality. Is this more or less right?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I want to be sure I've got the basis of this: I
> believe that you are saying that under normal
> circumstances, individuals exist in a state of
> duality by default, but seek to negate this
> isolation. THat's the part I want to be sure of:
> the great attempt is to overcome the state of
> duality. Is this more or less right?

Yes, our whole lives are spent seeking to overcome duality (or rather our individual isolation) and finding unity. Finding our way back to God. When born we are pure, but very soon learn the reality of duality and its pain, and after that spend the rest of our lives trying to get back to the undamaged perfect unity.

I think I will pass the other questions over to other ED members. I find it difficult to give definite answers to these questions.

Generally I agree that we temporarily forget our isolation in various social activities, such as going to a concert. It depends on what it is we do and how we personally relate to it. A classical music concert is perhaps better at stimulating a spiritual state than rock music which is more about ecstatic feelings and wild passions/aggressions.

The sense of spiritual unity is not necessarily attached to specific activities.

I think prayer is an effective tool. I ask God to help me, to guide me so I don't get stuck in delusions, but can see clearly so I will act in balance and make wise decisions. It helps me through the day (it programs my brain, a psychologist perhaps would analyze it). Definitely makes my steps smoother, less faltering and stumbling, and gives better social interactions. Being simply more united with the surrounding environment.
I say my quiet prayers at dinner, asking God to let the nutrients work through my body in the most beneficent way and give me energy for meaningful activities.

I think there is a spiritual dimension in everyone, some are just not aware of it. Lovecraft defined himself as a mechanistic materialist, but I see a spiritual side to him (even though he would call it the subtlest brain neurons).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When born we are pure, but very soon learn the reality
> of duality and its pain, and after that spend the
> rest of our lives trying to get back to the
> undamaged perfect unity.
>
>

Or, more correctly, it is at the moment of birth that the shock of duality is crystalized within us.

Knygatin Wrote:

> I think I will pass the other questions over to
> other ED members. I find it difficult to give
> definite answers to these questions.

Before we leave the topic of duality, I'd like to offer a comment for what it might be worth, in case it would be appropriate for the thread and of interest to someone.

The duality that matters most is that of Creator and creature. The word "creature" refers to whatever is made -- if there are multiple cosmoses, they're all creatures and their inhabitants are too.

God the Creator is other, even "Wholly Other," from me and all beings. One can refer to God as a "being" for convenience's sake. But God's existence is not "parallel" to the existence of any created being.

God is other, but not parallel to any other being. God is the "ground" of all created beings. They did not cause themselves to be.

Sociological consciousness wants to dismiss this inconvenient truth. In North America and Europe, Red China, etc., we want to think of ourselves as much as possible as being self-caused and self-creating, or as "caused" and "created" by "society," with "society," in turn, being a product ultimately of evolution. Marx deals with the relatively recent origins of society and Darwin & Co. deal with the presumed farther-back origins. The key is that there is no God, no Mind, at the root of things or in the process of development. Minds (plural) are late arrivals because they are phenomena requiring elaborate physical structures from which they can develop.

I see Knygatin as on the right track insofar as he posits a divine origin for the cosmos(es), but if I understand you, Knygatin, you would say that the idea that "we" are creatures made by God is an illusion; finally, there is only just God. This is, I suppose, an advaita understanding.

[en.wikipedia.org]

The goal for this understanding is to become progressively more free of the illusion of separateness. This progress is enhanced by practices such as prayer, meditation, for some perhaps bhakti -- devotion to a personal God; such devotion isn't an ultimate resolution of the spiritual situation, but it helps many ordinary people.

I don't know how much of this type of Eastern thought you endorse, Knygatin -- please correct my misunderstandings.

OK, back to my own view. We, all creatures, are not "discontinuous" from God as we are from one another. We would cease to exist if we were. Yet we are forever not God; but we may begin in this life to be in-godded, through rebirth, regeneration in Christ, through Baptism and faith, and we look to a destiny of fellowship with God and His creatures that will go from glory to glory.

(The Greeks thought of eternity as changeless; if something can be changed, it must not be perfect yet. Christians understand heaven and the saints' experience of heaven as perfect, yet changing, in that the capacity for joy grows forever. Think of a cup at first small, but filled and spilling over with joy, a cup that keeps growing capable of more and more joy, always filled but always growing. That might help.)

The key thing is that this understanding of Creator and creature allows love to be eternal. Love requires one who loves and one who receives love, and perhaps returns love. Love existed before anything was created because God, who is love, is both one and three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God had no need to create in order to acquire fulfillment. But being good God created creatures that live, might love, etc. And God became a creature without any compromise of His godhead, in the incarnation, and it was because He "so loved the world" that He did so.

So that's an attempt to explain my take on "duality."

Sawfish, did you want a discussion of the "when" of the cosmos?