11 thoughts on “Atheism & Theism: Two sides of the same coin

  1. Hello Tomaj,
    My comment is applied, more generally, to all of your posts. I have enjoyed reading all of them…have needed to ‘stretch’ some of my existing boundaries since I am not a physicist, yet, what you say (once understood to my ability) fits well within my ‘spiritual’ perameters and experienced ‘knowledge’. I do have some questions concerning a prior post in terms of your use of the meaning of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. I will go back, re-read the post and attempt to address my questions in that comment section.

    I have purchased the downloaded version of your book and I am eagerly looking forward to reading a more thorough description of your vision.
    Thanks for your generous offerings.


    1. Thank you Maryanne for your comment; and I should say it is my pleasure that you are reading my book; I hope you find it worthy of the time you spent for it. Regarding your question you are perhaps right if there is confusion since I use the words in their original sense conceived of in Greek philosophy and Medieval metaphysics.By objective I mean the capacity of the intellect in its impartial intuition of object, to see things as they are. In this sense objectivity is not a feature of reason or inference but a quality of intuition. Reason and inference which are the foundations of modern science have no intuition of themselves; they are fed with interpreted data. By subjectivity I mean when our intuition is biased by out own unjustified and unexamined assumptions. So objectivity in my writings is not the same as objectivity used in modern science since modern science is founded upon unjustified assumptions such as the independent existence of world. The many paradoxes and flaws in the foundations of modern science makes it a subjective enterprise. While logic and mathematics are objective. I hope I could clear the senses; objectivity is nowadays used to mean scientific but I used it in a more original sense. Since independent existence is in principle unverifiable, it cannot mean the same thing as objectivity as is meant in modern sciences.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Tomaj, thank you for your response and for your definitions of ‘objectivity vs. subjectivity’ in your terms. I still have some lingering questions, but, they may have more to do with my understandings than they do with your definitions. Perhaps I am attempting, in my enjoyment of your ideas, to ‘will’ them to be one and the same, save for semantics. I will need to go back to the original article, re-read it, think about it in light of your most recent discursive and, then, get back to you for more dialogue. I have always harbored some distrust in the usual description of the ‘subjective’ as is often presented. Perhaps, my understanding and definition is coming from the perspective of the ‘mystic’ and not of either the theoretical or the common definition of the ‘subjective’. Again, these are ‘deep waters’ that I am attempting to traverse and it may take me a bit to define exactly what I am questioning, am understanding and then, to even begin to put forth into language. In the end, we may be sharing the same understanding. I am most obviously a neophyte in this study; yet, I choose to persevere if you can bear to work with one who is so uneducated.

        Again, it may be a day or two until I can put my thoughts together. Perhaps, would it be best if I respond on the original page that sparked my question, or, would you prefer that I continue on in this space?

        Thank you and, of course, this ‘homework’ that I have assigned to myself will delay my reading of your book! HaHa to that…yes? Life is so funny. Perhaps if I read your book first, my queries would be answered…but then, what fun is in that?

        My best to you,

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Dear Maryanne,
        You can post your comment here in this space. And I think you should not consider me educated at all since I know thing about a very specific subject and not much outside it. And even this too is an angle from my experience, and I your angle too is as genuine as mine since we are all deeply connected to truth and I don’t think any of us has a better or closer relationship with it. I learn from people and our conversations way more than I learn from books. So you comments and questions are really gifts since they show new perspectives and also reflect my own deficiencies and mistakes in putting things in language. To give an idea of my general thought which may help in gasping what I write (since I may have a tendency to write obscurely as English was not my first language) I would say my thoughts comes from three directions: Theoretical physics, phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, and then my transcendental experience which made me more of an esoteric person. These three inform everything I say and also the book I wrote. I hope it helps. You can also email me if you prefer at toomajj@yahoo.com. But feel free to comment here and ask your question; I check the comments daily.
        I thank you again for engaging me 🙂


  2. salutation. the key to understand consciousness or noemaya is “independent existence is in principle unverifiable,” the beauty of atheism dates back to Vedic period where Charvakas questioned god etc. it is also believed to have been originated from Brihaspathi. ur consciousness alone can forget its consciousness is excellant. in Indian Puranas we read that whenever exalted souls discuss , their students and other exalted souls will assemble at the venue.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s