Re: objectivity????

January 4, 2008

Toni, all,

Informal research is different than experimentation doing experiments for

which there is an observer effect.

I ask a person what their spiritual beliefs are; I record or otherwise

document their report.

As soon as I make a decision about how to frame a further consideration of

their report, I'm bringing my own framings, thus biases, to bear upon this

consideration.

One might do this lightly but the pressure of the decision is inescapable.

The overarching conception is that any and all experiential reports earn

an account.

***

I note that for some people that their personal beliefs (etc.) logically

require that other propositions found in other person's beliefs be held

not to be true in all cases where these untrue propositions are held.

Contrast this with the following concept:

" I believe that God exists but only exists for the person who believes

that God exists. If one believes God doesn't exist, then for that person,

God does not exist. "

Okay?

Some time ago I asked a very devout jewish colleague whether she had ever

considered whether the God of the Jews was also the God of the Muslims. I

then asked her whether the Abrahamic God was also the God of *All* and

thus was the Lord of the non-believer as well as the believer.

When she affirmed this idea, I asked her, then, whether it must follow

that the non-believer is simply wrong and hasn't affirmed the obvious and

necessary truth.

So, built into the ontic problem is--often--the requirement that, in this

example, that God exist in a logical position *not relative* to subjective

belief. God then exists over all and exists prior to belief in God. (Ha!

or so some seem to believe!)

When Jung said he " knew, " it somewhat jumps out that either his knowing is

justified in a universal and fundamental sense, or, that it is relative

only to his subjectivity. He didn't offer any trenchant, in the scientific

sense, justification. And, likewise there almost nothing in his opus about

the problem of agnosticism and atheism, beyond those being (obviously to a

psychologist of Jung's prejudices,) the realizations of unconscious

dynamics.

***

I understand that should one believe only in the God existent relative to

their own personhood, that this belief may be incorrect.

However, I generally have come to observe that almost all believers in God

require themselves to believe/know that God is *necessarily* a vital and

an absolute requisite of the entire cosmic arena, and, alas, this requires

this kind of believer to assert that the unbeliever is *always* incorrect.

This said, on the margins of the slew of such fundamentalisms are all the

modalities and practices which require not: gods or divinities or the

sacred or awe or spirit or soul. Etc.

My original points:

How interesting that such experiences/beliefs/responses exist in humankind.

How do we account for this?

regards,

January 5, 2008

Dear ,

Whether G-d exists or not has nothing to do with whether I believe he exists

or not.

The existence of G-d in itself is not the issue, since nothing we believe or

do not believe has any bearing of the subject itself.

We can know( if through experience) that we have known He/She/It exists,

since we experienced him. but whether you experience him or not is between

you and whatever you experience...or if not able, whatever you believe.

There is no human proof for the existence of G-d as any student of

philosophy will tell you. We make our own answers according to our own

intuition.

I can say I know G-d exists because I have experienced something, force or

energy that I consider 'G-d "

You say No way. He does not exist.

So where are we. No further along at all.

I know what I know, you know you have experienced nothing pointing to G-d's

existence.

Your answer is:

" I believe that God exists but only exists for the person who believes that

God exists. If one believes God doesn't exist, then for that person,God does

not exist. "

> Okay?

So now we human beings determine whether G-d exists or not?

No my friend we only decide how we will find our meaning....we have no

ability to bring G-d to existence or not.

It surprises me that you do not seem to realize that our beliefs and

intuition still belong to the larger culture and age we belong to. Of course

all our ideas are different....our milieu is different , so our images are

different, our expectations are different and our self understanding

differs. ( Sociology 101)

That it surprises you that all people have different images of the Image of

G-d , therefore different experiences dumfounds me

The sad thing is that I am forced to the conclusions that you think all

humans everywhere have the same amount of awareness and or

consciousness?????

There all I can say is that it seems those more aware, therefore more

conscious would be conscious of an unknown " something " on the edge of their

awareness, and the more conscious they are, the more that something

differentiates itself within.

never " right " or " wrong " , just aware, conscious of a little more of the

Unconscious as it come to light than others.

No blame,no wrongness attaches to those who are working themselves toward

consciousness at different speeds.

The answer is not so difficult. besides we have always to take into account

that many whom you insist on probing for their understanding of their " G-D "

do not know how to will not describe their experiences to you.

By the way, no need to answer if you do not wish to...is this your " work "

this seeking other peoples experiences or is it a hobby? What is your

profession? Are you trained to dive into other people' s beliefs and

spiritual experiences? What of your spiritual experiences which must deal

with those experiences?

Considering Jung's last years of life, I would find it hard to agree with

your assessment. I wager he was ay peace in the end and near it. Universal