You've never encountered of philosophy of religion? I've noticed that you can't help displaying your aversion whenever anyone dares mention religion on this forum. That's a you problem. Deal with it.

What's with all the religions threads recently? — Jackson

Just get over it.

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism

Please explain how Buddhism can pull one towards Christ. Genuinely curious and not trying to start a quibble. I just don't see it.

https://archive.ph/QiU2g

Why is philosophy so preoccupied by delineation and classification? What is the use in carving up reality (via natural articulations or artificial)? Even if we could grasp absolutely what human-ness is, it would be a mere catalogue entry; nothing more. Searching for the essence of a thing is a futile endeavour anyway. I very much agree with @Hanover

Does the self have a core that remains self-identical
over time , or is it always a slightly new and different self that come back to itself minute to minute , day to day? Have you read Varela and Thompson’s ‘The Embodoed Mind’? There , they use neuropsychological evidence to make the argument that there is only a contingent center of agency, and that the organism is a community of temporary selves. — Joshs

I wonder how they account for continuity. Maybe I should read it ...

What are the implications of considering addiction in such a manner (enactive model)?

Then why do I see the evidence all around me and you don't? — Hillary

Because you are a hopeless romantic

Is this question an example of dialetheism?

Oh ho ho, are you saying that what concepts track differ based on what we decide? — StreetlightX

I would prefer to say that chromosomes track biological sex. Not gender.

Do you want to ask whether biological sex is an institutional fact?

Well for the sake of argument I totally disagree and submit that gender is defined by your chromosomes such that "The bishop is made of wood" is no different to "George is a man". What now? — StreetlightX

"Je vais prendre ma voiture."
Which chromosomes does my car have?

A quick intuition pump to see how incredibly facile the distinction is: is gender an institutional fact, or not? — StreetlightX

Gender is a grammatical category within a wider activity (language).
Gender use is deontic: "Tout vas bien ma fils?" would be an incorrect usage.

So yes, at first glance, gender does seem to fit the description of institutional fact given by banno in his opening post.

How does the baby dog know to go to mamma's nipples? — Haglund

Seems plausible to me that instinct is empirical knowledge. Genetic knowledge evolves through world interaction.

Atheists seem as happy as theists if not more — Agent Smith

Citation needed

the meaning of life — Agent Smith

Or in a conversation about the nature of reality.

can't compare absurdism to the PSR — Agent Smith

Opposites of the same coin.

The only reason for any axiom is its usefulness, what it enables one to do/construct. It's pretty evident how useful PSR is.

The PSR has enjoyed the favor of philosophers, logicians, and scientists. It's considered rationally legit. Not woo woo, not nonsense. — Agent Smith

Absurdism has also enjoyed the favour of philosophers. Perhaps less though.

And the sufficient reason for the "PSR" is ...? — 180 Proof

Axiomatic?

Those who would go on a suicide terror mission are driven by ideology, their thoughts have taken the reigns. This is not in the least bit mindfulness.

Mindfulness is not complacency, it is total awareness.
Mindfulness is not a state of detachment, it is pure presence.

Ultimately, talking about mindfulness will not reveal what it really is. Words are inadequate after a certain point. Direct experience is required.

I will leave you with the last word. — Paine

And thus you follow in the footsteps of everyone who encounters Mr mellow. Wise move.

Context matters, no? — 180 Proof

Not when the context is from a position of ignorance.

@180 Proof :roll:

Better watch out @Jack Cummins

Mindfulness will turn you into a crazed suicide bomber.

The point is that you can be mindful of emotions without getting caught up in them. They have as much power as you allow them. Doesn't matter whether the emotions are dark or blissful, they come and go in the same manner. Attention magnifies: A tiny thought can become a giant monster. So where you direct your attention is important. Mindfulness is turning the attention back on itself (being aware of awareness). Resting as awareness is not getting sucked into streams of thoughts or emotions, but rather observing the fact that these things (all phenomena, thoughts) rise and fall in awareness, while you (the unchanging observer of all that is changeful) remain untouched. Like clouds drifting through the sky, the sky remains unblemished. I agree it's true that alcohol or drugs hinder ones ability to be present.

I find it odd that one who claims to have been a friar has such an abrasive character.

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. — Joe Mello

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.(A) 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.(B) 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands(C) and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven

Alright have fun with your thread.

That seems unlikely to me because Wittgenstein’s focus was on meaning as sense , and sense is a form
of feeling — Joshs

More likely Wittgenstein's notion of sense is derived from freges distinction between sense and reference, which has little to do (if anything) with feeling. Sense is the expression of a sentence, while reference is the truth value.

I literally said the same thing as you in my previous posts. I don't know why we are talking past each other. I have said God is not your metaphysical principal or your conceptual understanding. Sometimes discourse can be useful, sometimes not. I certainly don't need this discussion to occur in order to find God. Infact yes you're right, this is a mere distraction from the truth. But hey ho, here we are existing in this dualistic world. Discourse tries to rationalize that which can't be rationalized.

God’s answers are given to us, not put away in secret — Joe Mello

Who's God? .

“…no matter how much the thoughts off the top of our heads won’t shut up.” — Joe Mello

Thinking is the most benign addiction.

You’re on a philosophy forum and don’t know that all metaphysical discussions are in the realm of our imaginations? — Joe Mello

No there is also the realm of sense experience and the realm of concepts (among other things). You don't know the basics son. God is beyond your metaphysical understanding. Your attempt at deriving a metaphysical principal is rooted in a dualistic understanding of reality. Come back when you get past the mirage kiddo.

God is the greatest being we can imagine. — Joe Mello

Yep you are firmly rooted in the realm of imagination. If you were not holding onto your idea of God it would drift away with the wind. God is an idea that you sustain and keep alive. Let it go and find what is unchanging.

That matter has mass and light doesn't is a "qualitative" difference. — Joe Mello

So for you 'greater' is something in subjective experience? Mass is quantitatively measured.

I apologize for being "vague" about lesser and greater things. But I was so because I took for granted that people on a philosophy forum had learned and incorporated into his or her thinking this basic tenet of philosophy. — Joe Mello

Defining terms is one of the first things that should happen in philosophical discourse. You're trying to claim that there is a generally accepted definition of 'greater' used amongst philosophers. That is obviously false.

Ignorance of our past is just that -- ignorance. — Joe Mello

Yeah we are ignorant of whatever meaning you have in your mind. Aka not mind readers.

Light and matter both emit electromagnetic waves. But matter has the extra element of mass. So, we can also proclaim with absolute certitude that matter is greater than light. — Joe Mello

Isn't mass quantitative?

emancipate, to ask a question that has already been answered is kinda dumb.

Did you not read my long post about a “Baptism of Tears”?

If you’re truly interested in the quality of my experiences of God, starting there would be a better place than spurting out questions off the top of your head. — Joe Mello

The only thing you have done so far in this thread is reply with petty remarks and a bad attitude. This is not philosophy and neither does it make anyone want to engage with you seriously. Do not assume that I (and others here) have not spent many years thinking about such topics; and by that I wish to suggest to you that the questions asked were not "off the top of my head". You are not the first to think deeply, so get off your high horse old man.

Joe! Where is your head at? I looked at your "elegant principle", and realized instantaneously that I have no idea what you mean by "greater". One could spend an eternity pondering 'what does Joe mean by greater', approaching an infinity of possibilities. I chose a more appropriate action, ask Joe what he means by "greater". Your replies indicate Joe does not know what he means by "greater", and he reacts to my questioning in a defensive way, trying to make me feel like the uneducated one. — Metaphysician Undercover

There were multiple posters in the thread who wanted clarification on what exactly Joe means by 'greater'. It is apparently something so vague and vacuous as to be meaningless.

don't think this is true. I think lots of people experience God. That doesn't mean I agree with Joe Mello on the things he's written. — T Clark

I think that all God-related experiences are fingers pointing at the moon. Not the moon itself. Just enough to get a fragrance of the thing.

I told you that I have spent decades experiencing God, and you replied that “no one experiences God”. — Joe Mello

So what were your God experiences then? Your thoughts? Sensations? Émotions?

emancipate, you didn’t just call me a liar or delusional for claiming to have received from God a direct revelation, you called everyone throughout the history of humanity with such claims, and they’re myriad, liars or delusional — Joe Mello

How are you 70 years old and as touchy as an angst ridden teenager? I called you neither a liar, nor delusional. And I am not an atheist. Completely wrong on all accounts.

I know you all have put God in a safe little box. But you should understand that you’re in that box, too. — Joe Mello

God is a concept for you also. No-one experiences God because God is necessarily beyond finite representation. You're in a box, just like the rest of us.

emancipate, I’ve given many.

So, again — Life is greater than the elements, and thought is greater than life, and love is greater than thought, and God is greater than us. — Joe Mello

Life, love, god.

Just a bunch of extremely vague concepts. Also you claimed science has confirmed your opening statement, yet science deals exclusively with the quantitative and doesn't touch these vague concepts.

Hello, jgill.

Your example is greater in quantity not in quality.

Big difference. — Joe Mello

Please give a definition of 'greater' that isn't quantitative. That will perhaps serve as a starting point to understanding the statement in your opening post:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances. — javi2541997

Nope. Thoughts come into awareness and they drift away. So does all phenomena. The only thing you need to be sure about your existence is awareness.