Monorealists and church of Reality?

[singular_me]

"Our world view is that reality is good for everyone, even if they choose to believe something else". ....looks interesting to me, although I dislike the fact that it is called "church"....only scanned through it...


=========
We are Monorealists, which means we believe in The One True Reality. This reality is the sum of everything that actually exists. Our definition of reality includes what some people call "other realities" that actually are real with the exclusion of imaginary realities and religious fiction. We care about what is real, not what we think is real or what we want to believe is real. The Church of Reality puts "real" reality first.

The Church of Reality is not just a religion of science, it is a religion of people understanding reality through science. We explore reality from the human perspective. In order to explore reality, we need a strong, healthy society where people can live freely and peacefully, have more Telescope Time, and the human race can evolve toward a better future. The pursuit of reality is something that is a shared process. It's something we do together as a church, as a community, and as the human race.

We are about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Reality!
The Church of Reality provides a religious identity for people who have made a personal commitment to pursue reality the way it really is. When we are asked, "What religion are you?," we answer that we are Realists; we practice Reality because we believe in Reality. We also provide a sense of community, a social structure, and a moral compass to define right and wrong. We provide a sense of purpose about who we are, why we exist, and how we live our lives, in the context of science and logic.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

We Ask the Sacred Moral Question - What is Good?
The Sacred Moral Question is, "Is this a Good Thing?" What does "good" mean? That too is involved in the Sacred Moral Question. Right and Wrong and morality and ethics are all relative to your basic assumptions and goals. We base our morality on reality and it is our duty to make sure that reality is taken into consideration when questions of right and wrong are decided. The commitment to Reality is a commitment to truth, honesty, wisdom, and responsibility. The Church of Reality is committed to getting the moral questions right.

We are committed to the Principle of Positive Evolution and the Sacred Direction - as well as the other Sacred Principles - as our foundation for determining right and wrong. Our moral compass is based on the assumption that we want to explore reality, that we choose evolution over extinction, that we accept responsibility for our actions, that we are a society, that we are human, and what is good for humanity is important. In contrast, other religions base their morality on holy books that describe the will of fictional deities. Many of the fictional deities are far too insane for Realists to follow.

Our world view is that right and wrong are important concepts that deserve to be carefully considered in realistic terms. Often reality is ignored and no one asks if the decisions that are being made are a good thing. Our world view is that when reality is ignored and no one asks if the decision is good, we end up with bad results. As Realists, we are dedicated to asking the Sacred Moral Question in order to make better choices so we can move in the Sacred Direction. Our world view is that reality is good for everyone, even if they choose to believe something else.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/introduction/home/we_ask_the_sacred_moral_question_-_what_is_good.html

[Neuro]

So no relativism?

[Santa]

If there is only one reality, and these so-called realists exist within this one reality, what's the point of them pursuing reality? Mathematically, it might look like this. A=reality B=realists A+B=one reality, or A+B=C so, A+B=C-B=A-B=C(A-B)+A=B-A+C=0 :(

[Santa]

"If there is only one reality, and these so-called realists exist within this one reality, what's the point of them pursuing reality?" Put another way, as a realist existing only within 1 reality, wouldn't the pursuit of reality be the metaphorical equivalent of the snake swallowing its own tail?

[Neuro]

"If there is only one reality, and these so-called realists exist within this one reality, what's the point of them pursuing reality?" Put another way, as a realist existing only within 1 reality, wouldn't the pursuit of reality be the metaphorical equivalent of the snake swallowing its own tail?
I am not sure if metaphors are an accepted description of reality to a real realist...

[sirgonzo420]

"If there is only one reality, and these so-called realists exist within this one reality, what's the point of them pursuing reality?" Put another way, as a realist existing only within 1 reality, wouldn't the pursuit of reality be the metaphorical equivalent of the snake swallowing its own tail?



https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4JhxpJ9t9UEDPLA-lsILtXNBnmNViOQhVoUQ5B_qDZ8LEvYoF6w

[Santa]

Plato described a self-eating, circular being as the first living thing in the universe—an immortal, mythologically constructed entity. The living being had no need of eyes because there was nothing outside of him to be seen; nor of ears because there was nothing to be heard; and there was no surrounding atmosphere to be breathed; nor would there have been any use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which went from him or came into him: for there was nothing beside him. Of design he created thus; his own waste providing his own food, and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. For the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything; and, as he had no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands: nor had he any need of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking; but the movement suited to his spherical form which was designed by him, being of all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence; and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot, within his own limits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their deviations. And as this circular movement required no feet, the universe was created without legs and without feet.[7]

[Santa]

I am not sure if metaphors are an accepted description of reality to a real realist... All human language is universally predicated on metaphor. Every letter in every language is a metaphorical symbol for something else. Most of our metaphors come from ancient religious texts, predominantly the Bible written in ancient Hebrew. It seems it would be pretty unrealistic to dismiss metaphor as imaginary. In fact, it would be more realistic to dismiss realists as being imaginary. :)

[Neuro]

All human language is universally predicated on metaphor. Every letter in every language is a metaphorical symbol for something else. Most of our metaphors come from ancient religious texts, predominantly the Bible written in ancient Hebrew. It seems it would be pretty unrealistic to dismiss metaphor as imaginary. In fact, it would be more realistic to dismiss realists as being imaginary. :)
Metaphors are image-inary by nature no? Further Latin derived alphabets (and many others) are fonetical, which means every letter represent a sound, not something else, I don't understand the connection to metaphors that you allude to here. Can you explain?

[Santa]

There is that idea. That pernicious idea that a metaphor is imaginary, yes, and because it's imaginary, it has been somehow construed as false. "Oh that's just imaginary." And perhaps it is, but we're stuck with it, because language for all its imperfection, is ALL we have to express our human understandings. In order to convey our sensory input, in any sort of intellectual sense, we must use language. Language is the baseline of our human cognition. The Human Mind in any collective cognitive sense, is based on language. The WORD came first. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Language is that water in which the goldfish is completely unaware of. We take the fundamental nature of language for granted. We play in it all day long without really even knowing what it's made of. We jabber and scribble on and on, without really knowing what it is we're saying because we've long forgotten what the point of it actually is. Comparing one thing to another. Language is both the bridge that compares and unites one thing to another and the division that separates us from that reality we're living in. Essentially, language itself is the baseline or origin of duality. We can't speak a single word without striking up the original distinction between YOU and I. The distinction, the difference, the separation between YOU and I. Metaphor is the linguistic tool used to convey the similarity, and thus difference between YOU and I. It's the bridge. But there's no need for a bridge if there's no separation. Language is the precursor of "The concept of The Human Mind" cognitively speaking, and it cannot handle the concept of ONENESS. Even as I write this jibberish, the snake is devouring it's own tail. Lao tzu says, “the truth that can be spoken is not the truth." What I say is that One Reality can only exist in Man's imagination, as a metaphor of God. We speak of ONE REALITY and imagine beauty and unity, but just look at what we do with reality. We tear it to shreds like Harpies, like Hyena's on a carcass. Lol

[Santa]

"Plato believed that poems were lies, and there was no place for poets in Plato's Republic. To him, poets were unreliable, substituting dreamlike visions for the true essences of the world that a responsible philosopher should seek. If the only authentic beauty is the truth found in nature, he asked, then what use is man-made beauty, fabrications loaded down with fantasies and lies? " http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=295 Is this true? Or are poets responsible for creating the metaphors that both unite and separate one reality from another?

[Santa]

Attempting to explain the premise of ONE REALITY, requires that there be an observer of reality as well as the ONE REALITY being explained. The observer AND the observed.

[Santa]

Noam Chomsky... Yep, that Noam Chomsky... The Jew, the left gate keeper,... who also happens to be considered the preeminent linguist of the 20th century, as a Linguist posited that there was indeed an original language. An original universal language from which all the worlds languages originated. But what's really interesting to me is that he also theorized that the original language began suddenly and complete in form. Whereas, traditional academia has long suggested language to have evolved from the babbling of African monkeys in the trees from which we supposedly came.

[Santa]

Anyway, the idea being that somewhere in human history, perhaps after Adam and Eve and before the Tower of Babel, where we have scant evidence to guide us, language just happened. And it was a language in which everyone understood everyone else without confusion. Universal. I don't know. It may be that those Biblical stories are just metaphors and allegories, or........ I don't know. It may that we came from ONE REALITY, but it got all shook up and we're attempting to come back home to that ONE REALITY. Taking the long road home, so to speak.

[singular_me]

thank you guys for your participation , will say more tomorrow

[singular_me]

So no relativism?

LOL... good sense of humor - as relativism is too an aspect of the greater reality...

[singular_me]

"If there is only one reality, and these so-called realists exist within this one reality, what's the point of them pursuing reality?" Put another way, as a realist existing only within 1 reality, wouldn't the pursuit of reality be the metaphorical equivalent of the snake swallowing its own tail?

while there is one reality, and we can agree with this easily I think, we cannot perceive it as we are not omniscient. But we can at least have a good sense of IT IF we are wise enough to understand that everything operates in full circle, so your allegory of the sneak eating its own tail, Ouroboros, is right on.

[singular_me]

Plato described a self-eating, circular being as the first living thing in the universe—an immortal, mythologically constructed entity. The living being had no need of eyes because there was nothing outside of him to be seen; nor of ears because there was nothing to be heard; and there was no surrounding atmosphere to be breathed; nor would there have been any use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which went from him or came into him: for there was nothing beside him. Of design he created thus; his own waste providing his own food, and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. For the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything; and, as he had no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands: nor had he any need of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking; but the movement suited to his spherical form which was designed by him, being of all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence; and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot, within his own limits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their deviations. And as this circular movement required no feet, the universe was created without legs and without feet.[7]

while I am no fan of Plato (I prefer socrates and artistole) I like this allegory... All in One... and One in All is as old as mankind, yet today it is sold a "new age" ... LOL...

[singular_me]

All human language is universally predicated on metaphor. Every letter in every language is a metaphorical symbol for something else. Most of our metaphors come from ancient religious texts, predominantly the Bible written in ancient Hebrew. It seems it would be pretty unrealistic to dismiss metaphor as imaginary. In fact, it would be more realistic to dismiss realists as being imaginary. :)

I concur, especially hebrew and Sanskrit. this topic deserves a new thread, I have several videos in my database explaining this.

realists as being imaginary? All knowing is the result of a moment of wild imagination/dream/utopia that came true. I am sure that cavemen were observing birds with the envy to be able to fly... so we should question the nature of (day)dreams... Reality does not only comprise which can be seen but ALL that can be imagined while awake or asleep.

[singular_me]

Anyway, the idea being that somewhere in human history, perhaps after Adam and Eve and before the Tower of Babel, where we have scant evidence to guide us, language just happened. And it was a language in which everyone understood everyone else without confusion. Universal. I don't know. It may be that those Biblical stories are just metaphors and allegories, or........ I don't know. It may that we came from ONE REALITY, but it got all shook up and we're attempting to come back home to that ONE REALITY. Taking the long road home, so to speak.

correct, the collective unconscious is struggling to achieve that... going back/understand to that One Source. Thats why religions are talking of paradise and nirvana, etc. But I digress, enlightenment while alive is completely possible for everyone.