Sociopath Community

Hi RichardParker:

I posted this new thread to get back on track instead of politics that was boring people.

Too bad Em- I don't think this topic will interest people (other than me) much more - lol

That's what makes it interesting, is that it is personal to you. Not that superficial political stuff that is all "projection" anyway.

Do you want me to start? Or go ahead and add some more. 

something you say will trigger someone else to say something. this is a deep topic about

beliefs about truth and perception, faith and free will. Go ahead. Glad to see you back!

Sure. After Pi shares the horrific version of what happened while at sea (the ones with humans and perhaps the truth) he asks "which story do you prefer?" Most people prefer the one with the tiger.  

I think the tiger is a creation of Pi’s imagination that he needed to help himself survive the horrors he saw and the things he did
that violated his conscience, belief system, and identity. In order to move forward and have a normal life he had to find a way to understand where he’d been and the things he had done. That was the role of the tiger, I think.       

Or maybe it made for a better novel turned visual movie adventure!

JK

I do understand that people have historically used archeotypes to "personify" divine concepts in human form to quantify "relations" between the human and the divine collective level of universal truth and spiritual laws of nature.

However, I don't see these as "mythical" as in "made up."

The religious symbols have real life meaning. Like God meaning "love or life. Truth or Wisdom" and "Jesus meaning Justice, with mercy or peace."

so I focus on that, the meaning behind the dreams or symbology,

and not criticizing or judging the format these ideas are expressed in.

The languages and religious terms may be made up by man, but the meanings behind

them are self-existent, that part is not made by man.

umm yeeaahh…sorry Em, I don't understand anything you said above? I don't contemplate the book from a religious perspective, since I'm not religious. In fact, I'm VERY anti-religion. I'm also agnostic, which oddly, Yann Martel despises.  

Ok now this can get very deep. I distinguish the concepts/principles that are universal to all people. From the religious terms and traditions of teaching these as a requirement of that group.

I don't recommend getting caught up in any one religion, but I'm not "anti-religion" either. I'm just against "religious abuse" the same way I'm against legal/judicial/political abuse. Not against the religion or govt itself, just opposed to abusing either authority to oppress.

I recommend using each religious system as a "native language" for communicating and connecting with people/groups of that mindset, since that is what makes sense to them.

But for another person or group, I would communicate and reach agreements on principles and points using THEIR terms. So there is no pushing one religion over any other.

So how this relates to the concept in the movie?

A lot of people I know assume that "since God cannot be proven," it's all a "choice" to believe on faith.

I believe we can prove there is one central/universal truth which God represents, so I disagree that this can "never be proven." What can be proven is that proof depends upon agreement, so by reaching an agreement on God/Jesus, that's the same as proof.

What I do instead is find out with each person, what do they believe that is the "equivalent" of God in their system of looking at life and their purpose in it.

So it's not a matter of proving "the Christian God" exists, or the "Muslim views" are the laws of God.

It become a matter of aligning with each person. And either proving or agreeing that those values ARE the same as God or Jesus. So these ARE universal to all people.

Independent of what religion we use to describe it. The concepts are there.

So it's not the same as the message in the movie, that since anything could be true, what do you choose to believe.

It's more like given the principles (that God/Jesus represent) ARE universal to all people, each person has their own VERSION of them. 

So what is YOUR way of saying the same thing?

I don't think that is a choice. I think people have certain ways of seeing things in life. And they can't help if they related to life as a nontheist/atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian or a Muslim.

What we can choose is to communicate and interpret BETWEEN systems instead of fighting for dominance or control of one system/group over another.

So that is where is believe WE CAN PROVE there is one universal truth or body of laws which is the same as God's truth or God's will. We can reach an agreement, a consensus, including all the diverse languages out there, any political or religious ideology, and align.

So by forming a consensus among all the diverse ways out there, that would "prove" there is one source of truth that all these point to and align with. So that is the equivalent of proving the meaning or existence of one "God."