Adding reason to faith :: Fusing: East and West

Part II of II

The new metaphysical perception being presented in this work, suggests that what the multiplicity of individuality our universes spawns, suggests that what the individuality the Cartesian concept of ‘cause and effect’/’beginning and end’ generates is vital to the concept of abstractual existence of the whole/singularity, non-Cartesian existence.

Understanding such a model helps civilizations to simultaneously strengthen both the concept regarding the significance of the state and the concept regarding the significance of the individual.

In the ancient civilizations of the Egyptians and Babylonians, the kings and priests symbolized the state and those they governed as a whole, represented individuality.

Individuality exhibited by the person was not encouraged or tolerated because it represented independence.

Historically our specie has been waging a long and often violent struggle to raise the value level of the individual to that of the state, to that of the heads of state, to that of those who wield power.

With the onset of this new metaphysical perception, symbiotic panentheism, the value level of the individual rises to the level of the most knowledgeable, powerful, and all present entity we as a specie have been able to conceive, namely – God.

Symbiotic panentheism not only raises the value level of the individual to the level of the divine but explains the dynamics of the individual acting within God, of individuality being a part of singularity/God.

Without the understanding regarding the interrelationship of singularity/God/God and individuality/’being’, without the understanding regarding why individuality is significant to the whole, the argument regarding the legitimacy and importance of the individual simply becomes an interesting dialectic of suppositions.

The point:

This work, using reason and rationality as a tool, clearly demonstrates the argument that the individual has importance, clearly demonstrated that the individual verifiable significance.

End

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Sunday, October 15

Before the Pre-Socratics – Q1: Why is the individual important? Part I of II

by Daniel J. Shepard on Sun 15 Oct 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Part I of II

Before the Pre-Socratics – Q1: Why is the individual important?

Before the Ancient Greeks, two great Empires existed in close proximity to the Eastern Mediterranean:

These two Empires, though they differed outwardly in many respects, had much in common with each other.

Both the Egyptian and Babylonian Empires were the first two examples of urban civilization, each of which supported large populations.

Despite their size there was little or no diversity of outlook or opinion.

It was the kings and priests – possessors of magical powers – who ruled their people.

These civilizations, with their theocratic and monarchical institutions, had little tolerance for diverse viewpoints.

As a consequence, there was little scientific or technological progress or innovation other than that employed to support the prevailing belief systems.

djs: Diversity of viewpoint existed before the ancient Greeks.

Diversity of viewpoints existed through the acknowledged forms of heads of state: the kings and priests.

It took many millennium for the concept of diverse viewpoints existing through individuals as opposed to the state.

In essence it took many millennia for the concept of multiplicity/individuality/diversity to rise to the level of superceding the concept of the state being more important than the individual.

The argument regarding the concept of multiplicity versus singularity was fully addressed in Tractate 11: The Error of Philosophy. (www.panentheism.com – library)

But what does the issue have to do with a new metaphysical perception?

The new metaphysical perception being presented in this work, suggests...

To be continued: Part II of II

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Saturday, October 14

Philosophy appears to have lost its way. Part II of II

by Daniel J. Shepard on Sat 14 Oct 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Philosophy appears to have lost its way.

Part II of II

If we do not know ‘where we are’ we cannot begin to understand ‘what we are’ which in turn prevents us from knowing our function for existing, the purpose for existing.

We have a long way to go before we can say unequivocally:

There is no ‘outside’ to the physical universe.

Until we can state such a fact unequivocally, the study of ‘meta’ - beyond, ‘physics’ – the physical, will remain a critically relevant subject for the public regarding the efforts to answer questions regarding meaning and purpose.

v

The point: Philosophy has a moral obligation to return to the basics of its intended purpose, which is to address the questions:

Where are we?

Where is the individual in the scheme of it all?



What are we?

What is this ‘thing’ we call individuality?



Why do we exist?



Why does individuality exist?

This work is an attempt to help philosophy return to its moral task of finding answers to the most basic of questions, which have haunted our specie as far back in time as we are capable of remembering.

End

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Friday, October 13

1. Introduction – Q4: Philosophy appears to have lost its way. Part I of II

by Daniel J. Shepard on Fri 13 Oct 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Part I of II

Philosophy appears to have lost its way.

Would you care to comment regarding the statement:

But what should the future of philosophy look like?

Should it continue on its present course, a course that excludes metaphysical speculation, or should it return to a more inclusive and broader understanding of philosophy’s function?

Philosophy, in its present form, has turned away from the very questions that it was created to answer.

As such, it has become less and less relevant to the public, a public that still seeks answers to questions regarding meaning and purpose.

djs: Perhaps the best response to the statements given lies in the next paragraph presented in the introduction:

One response to the present impasse is Symbiotic Panentheism.

It explores the model of a new perception that could integrate the three disciplines of philosophy, science and religion.

In so doing, it outlines how the conflicts that have defined our species could be eliminated. As our perception of our significance changes, so do we.

Regarding the issue involving the validity of the subject of metaphysics.

To be continued: Part II of II: If we do not know ‘where we are’ we cannot

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Thursday, October 12

Philosophy appears to have formed many specialized branches of study, all of which ignore...: Part II of II

by Daniel J. Shepard on Thu 12 Oct 2006 12:00 AM EDT

Philosophy appears to have formed many specialized branches of study, all of which ignore...:

Part II of II

The action of embracing the validity of existence then moves into answering three basic questions in a very precise sequence:

1.      Where are we?

2.      What are we?

3.      Why do we exist?

The process begins with the examination of the basic question:

Where are we?

In other words are we in the physical, meaning is the physical the limit of existence or are we in an existence other than the physical.

This question led to the concept of Cartesianism/physicality/cause and effect existence versus non-Cartesianism/abstractual existence.

Such a debate led to the ethical foundation, the ethical base for behavior of physical hedonism versus abstractual/altruistic behavior.

v

The point:

What is ethical or moral behavior?

The foundation for such an understanding lies in understanding the answers to the three questions listed above.

Philosophically such an understanding leads to the development of what is often referred to as universal/categorical imperatives or what some would refer to as first principle, second principle, etc.

Regarding first principle, Tractate 6 dealt with the issue of Kant’s first categorical imperative and why this categorical imperative was not a categorical imperative.

The tractate outlines just what the first categorical imperative would be under the new metaphysical perception of the individual acting within God and then lists the second categorical imperative.

The issue is addressed in great detail as to the rational behind the establishment of the two categorical imperatives and their order.

End

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos