Response to the Logician: 070603:

Part IV of IV

...Logician: It’s really a very simple thing. It’s easy to understand that two plus two can result in four, but if you open your mind there is no way that two exists as an absolute. We can mathematically understand atoms at the ratio of ten to the power of minus twelve meters and quarks at ten to the power of minus fifteen meters and then we get stuck in a quantum quagmire, well until some other bright spark comes along and takes our measurements even further. On the other side of the scale we can also speculate the plus side of the scale in relationship to the size of the universe which is at presently guess-timated at ten to the power of plus twenty five meters. (On a personal note Sir it is logical to deduce that for every measurement on the minus and plus scale, that there is an exact and opposite value, as previously understood in the latter twentieth century, so quarks are not the smallest entities within this physical universe.) The beauty of the universe and universal understanding is they are floating parameters that hopefully will never be fully understood in this era of human history. It is not for us to achieve this goal presently, but is for the thousands of generations yet to come.

 

Djs: No comment necessary here.

 

Logician: So the one you have waited for eh? What is God? You’re going to be disappointed though.

 

God is what you want and /or make it to be.

 

Djs: I disagree. If God is what you want God to be than we cannot discuss God. I am aware I had stated in my first book that ‘God was simply what we wanted God to be,’ or something to that effect, but what I was saying was we historically had interpreted God to be what we needed God to be at t particular time in history. I also stated there was a clear definition of God and with such an interpretation we could begin to understand God.

 

The definition: God is the creator of the physical universe.

 

 

Logician: God is different for every single individual who chooses freely to believe in it. The individual chooses uniquely just how much God has to do with their lives. Some choose to abandon themselves completely and leave their entire existence purely in the “hands” of God and some others choose to use the teachings they perceive to have been given by their God, as their guide within their lives.

 

Djs: This would be the case if God did not exist, if God were simply an imaginary being.

 

If, however, God does exist, then God is and as such is somewhat understandable just as you and I exist and are somewhat understandable to others.

 

Logician: You have chosen to want people to believe it is a form of consciousness that allows us as vehicles to attain knowledge it is unable to, to pander to the need for expansion instead of stagnation and decay.

 

Djs: Yes in terms of what God is but No in terms of what I want. It is not a case of what I want but rather it is a case of what reason and dialectics would deduce.

 

Logician: That we humans are equal to it before we exist and become equal to it again after years of service in the gathering of information in the form of human experience.

 

Djs: I am not suggesting we are ‘equal’ to God but rather demonstrating we are made in the image of God by God and God being Omniscient knows how to create us perfectly in It’s image and being Omnipotent has the power to create us perfectly in It’s image and being Omnipresent has nowhere else to put us but inside Itself. Where is the irrationality of such reasoning?

 

Logician: Some choose not to believe in a singularity called God …

 

Djs: This work is not about ‘choosing’ one’s beliefs but rather this work is about what observation and measurement, faith and ancient wisdom, and reason and dialectics basically confirm universally. 

 

Logician: …but an understanding. None and all of these interpretations of God are equally true when viewed from the point of view of the individual involved. No one human being has the right to say another’s perception of God is not true, and that is what makes God immaculate. God is everything everyone wants it to be. I hope I have cleared up this for you.

 

Djs: You have cleared up your understanding of God lacking specific existence as a unique entity.

 

Logician: There told you so, disappointed aren’t you. You’ll claim that this is not an answer, but it is the very core of the question answered in full!

 

Djs: I agree, your perception of God is clearly your perception of God.

 

Logician: Now for the question of existence. Yes we exist. I know you like to draw upon predetermined understandings of philosophical debate about if we exist or not, but really Sir, the argument that we reason we exist because we believe in ancient wisdom etc.. is nothing short of “The-Emperors-New-Clothes-Syndrome”. Don’t be fooled by interpretations of philosophy made by people who have had far too much time on their hands. We are not the figment of some being’s imagination and believing that we could be is like taking all of the forward thinking that humans have made all by themselves over the entire period of time we have existed and calling it knowledge we were graciously given in a controlled manner by this unknown entity.

 

Djs: I did not say we ‘were figments of some beings consciousness’ but rather I suggested we cannot ‘absolutely prove’ such is not the case.

 

Logician: If you have to argue that you exist then you are removing ALL human development and reducing it to the will of something more than humans could ever be, is that what you want to achieve?

 

Djs: That is not what I wish to achieve.

 

Logician: Isn’t being human good enough for you?

 

Djs: It is not a case of what is or is not good enough for me. It is a case of what is that I seek to reveal.

 

Logician: Do you need a Creator and a God and a Whole to make you who you are?

 

Djs: Again it is not a case of what I need but a case of understanding since with knowledge comes understanding which in turn leads to answers to questions which have been haunting humanity since self awareness emerged: What am I? Where am I? Why do I exist?

 

Answers to these questions are critical if we are to take the perceptual evolutionary leap necessary to bring us up to date with the technological age, the age which is to lead us into the depths of space itself.

 

Logician: Why the hell (excuse the expression) do people want humans to be ignorant of their own capabilities?

 

Djs: But isn’t this what you are doing, namely: ‘…want humans to be ignorant of their own capabilities?'

 

 

Logician: Humans are walking miracles, capable of so many wondrous things, over coming huge hurdles in their development and detriment. If humans are not good enough without the need for “greater beings” then you are nothing more than yet another writer condemning the human race to another era of ignorance. Open your mind Sir. If humankind is to make any advancement beyond that they have chosen to “barricade” themselves within, they must be allowed to become accountable for their history, and then freely choose to do something about it, or choose not to and never “grow”/ “evolve” call it what you will.  

 

Djs: I do not think I am the one whose mind is ‘closed’ here.

 

Logician: Your retort of : quote “whatever” end quote : is expected of a child. Grow up, you either want to engage in an adult discussion or you can cease to reply, one or the other, make up your mind. I will not accept “whatever” as an answer and I would not expect you to accept that as an answer either.

 

Djs: I will attempt to forgo such expressions in the future.

 

Logician: So, Mr. Shepard, may I thank you yet again for your reply.

 

Peace, Love and Respect

 With Respect comes Love, with Love and Respect comes Peace

   Remember : Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you.

 

J °C

 

Logician.

 

Djs: Thank you and the same for you.

 

End

Response to the Logician: 070603:

Part III of IV

...Logician: If what you say is to be accepted then it has to be able to be transferred from nomadic humans in Australasia with over fifty thousand years of history to present day Scientologists with less than fifty. It doesn’t, thus it is therefore more than likely to be incorrect.

 

Djs: Oh, but it definitely is able and in fact does transfer ‘.from nomadic humans in Australasia with over fifty thousand years of history to present day Scientologists with less than fifty’.

 

Logician: I am not saying that it is incorrect Sir, but you are using knowledge that has only just become available to human beings in the span of your lifetime.

 

Djs: Perhaps the work Stepping Up To the Creator - www.panentheism.com – will help you with this issue. The work not only address the issues of relatively recent science but specifically deals with the issues of antiquity. The following is the table of contents of the work Stepping Up To the Creator:

 

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

A Model 3

Beginning a Universal Philosophy 13

Matrix Writing 19

The Ten Questions 23

Religion 25

#100 - 109. Hinduism 29

#110 - 119. Judaism 41

#120 - 129. Buddhism 53

#130 - 139. Christianity 65

#140 - 149. Islam 77

#150 - 159. Ontology 89

#160 - 169. Modern Science 101

#170 - 179. . . . Atheism 113

#180 - 189. . . . Classical/Traditional Theism 125

#190 - 199. Panentheism 137

Religion – Conclusion 149

Science 153

#200 - 209. Entropy 157

#210 - 219. Big Bang Theory 169

#220 - 229. Symmetry 181

#230 - 239. Set Theory 193

#240 - 249. Space 205

#250 - 259. Topology 217

#260 - 269. Ecological Niche 229

#270 - 279. Palaeomagnetism 241

#280 - 289. Homo- 253

#290 - 299. Symbiosis 265

Science – Conclusion 277

Philosophy 281

#300 - 309. Unified View 285

#310 - 319. Philosophy, Religion, and Science 297

#320 - 329. Confucianism 309

#330 - 339. Taoism 321

#340 - 349. Ancient Philosophy 333

#350 - 359. Early Christian Philosophy 345

#360 - 369. Renaissance Philosophy 357

#370 - 379. Appeal to Reason and Experience 369

#380 - 389. Appeal to Humanism and Adjustment 381

#390 - 399. Symbiotic Panentheism 393

Philosophy – Conclusion 405

Prophecy 411

0. Mexico 414

1. The Great Pyramid 415

2. Mayan Calendar 416

3. Prophecy Rock 417

4. Wheel of Dharma 418

5. Revelations 419

6. Papal Prophecies 420

7. Nostradamus 421

8. Edgar Cayce 422

Conclusion 425

 

Logician: You may also be correct in everything you state to be a truth, but then again it is only true when you choose to look at it in exactly the same way as you have deemed appropriate.

 

Djs: If what I am stating, ‘is only true when you choose to look at it in exactly the same way as you have deemed appropriate’ then it is not what it is I say it is namely a universal truth

 

Logician: When I stated I believe in everything, it means I am able to encompass all forms of belief including nothing and nothingness. If this is too hard for you to understand then I feel sorry for you.

 

Djs: It is not ‘too hard for me to understand’.   

 

 

To be continued: Part IV of IV: Logician: It’s really a very simple thing. It’s easy to ...

Response to the Logician: 070706:

 

Part II of IV

...Logician: Embrace the differences of interpretation, sometimes it’s a blessing in disguise. All interpretations of writings are correct for the person involved in understanding them. If you feel that they are being misunderstood then you are only seeing it from one angle.

 

Djs: To embrace the differences of interpretation regarding what it is I  am expressing is in essence another form of embracing relative moralism. I embrace neither..

 

Logician: You understanding is your understanding and yours alone. You arrive at your conclusion due to the myriad of parameters that go to make up your life.

 

Djs: What is being expressed in these metaphysical writings has little to do with me personally.

 

Logician: If someone has been raised in different country with a totally different cultural structure and working history then they are not likely to fully understand what you write in the same manner. Open your mind Sir. It takes a world FULL of different people to make up the human population of this world. If you want to write something that cannot be misinterpreted by anyone no matter who they are, you have to be able to write it in all languages with all the idiosyncratic nuances still intact. You choose to write in a singular language therefore you have limited the scope of understanding available to the reader. An interpretation is just that, and nothing more, not to be dismissed or reviled, but to be taken as a floating parameter you have not yet taken into consideration.

 

Djs: This is not a literary site. I am not writing of my interpretations of reality but writing of an understanding of reality I have been privileged to ‘view’ from a macroscopic vantage point.

 

Logician: The next point of contention, this property of soul business, let me explain a few things to you Sir. The bit of God that is not you but comes from God is what I am referring to. Your example of you giving your D.N.A. sequence to your biological offspring has NOTHING to do with the part I am discussing, namely; the soul ! So yet again your argument is based upon your misinterpretation of the information given. I at no point mentioned the physical make up of a human, I did however point out in your work the meta-physical soul you stated God gave each human and then took it back at a later stage.

 

Djs: two points here: 1. I explained the DNA description was an analogy. 2. I clearly explained the aspect of the individual which is ‘made in the image of God’ was discrete in nature and was never taken ‘back at a later stage’. It was you who misinterpreted my writing as implying this was so. This is an example of the individual, namely yourself in this case, misinterpreting what it is I said as opposed to my having said such was the case.

 

Logician: Let me say one thing about this point Sir, my soul is MY soul, it has never ever been a part of God and never will be.

 

Djs: I agree, your soul is your soul. This does not mean your soul cannot affect God’s being.

 

Again to use an analogy: The raisins in raisin bread are in the raisin bread and make the ‘bread’ raisin bread. The bread of raisin bread is found in the raisin bread and make the raisin bread what it is, namely raisin bread. Raisin bread is not raisin bread without the raisins or the bread but neither the raisins nor the bread alone make raisin bread raisin bread. Now each raisin may claim it is a unique raisin and each raisin may say nothing one says will change that but despite such reasoning, there is no denying that raisin bread is not raisin bread without the raisins.

 

Logician: Your work revolves around the return to purity of consciousness and understanding to appease and follow the misinterpretation that has led humans in this world into conflict. Humans have been around far longer than Gods or what we have perceived Gods to be.

 

Djs: Again you misinterpret both what I have said and what I intend. In no way have I ever attempted to ‘appease’ or attempt to ‘return to purity of consciousness’.

 

Logician: If not then we are mere puppets of the Gods for their amusement …

 

Djs: The metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism clearly demonstrates free will is the fundamental principle of existence and free will is the antithesis of the concepts: ‘mere puppets of the Gods’ and ‘for their [the God’s] amusement’.

 

Logician: …and gathering of understanding they are not capable of. I don’t know about you but I do not want to be a tool of the Gods. If God has to use my physical presence to gain knowledge then God is no longer omniscient. Sorry but God is omniscient already and doesn’t need my history or anyone else’s to make Him whole.

 

Djs: You appear to embrace the classical concept of ‘omniscience’ wherein God know everything except how to learn more than exists. To know all does not imply the inability to learn. The classical concept of God knowing all and that is all there is to know is correct as far as it goes. The concept of knowing all simply states knowing all that is as opposed to what does not yet exist in terms of the present – in terms of potentiality of what is not yet. This is a simple yet complex concept. The details can be found within the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception – www.panentheism.com – search concepts such as the present, the future, the past, etc. Also check the thematic index of the work.

 

Logician: I feel as if you like so many others who believe in the “made-in-the-image-of…..” have the same tendency to transfer human ideology and understandings to and from supposed “greater beings”. You cannot compare human thought with that of beings we choose not to fully understand. You set borders and criteria that stand up to modern day human scrutiny on a moral scale, but humans have been in existence longer than these scales.

 

Djs: Specifics would help here.

 

To be continued: Par III of IV: Logician: If ...