This Month
| September 2007 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
Sunday, September 30
Response to the Logician: 070903: Part IV of VI
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sun 30 Sep 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070903:
Part IV of VI
Logician: …Your work states that god is a rational being, …
Djs: You would suggest otherwise? If one suggests God is not a ‘rational being’ than there is no rational discussion to take place and this very exercise becomes irrelevant.
Logician: …what you mean is your version of god in your mind would be as rational as you think, and so will also think the way you think it should think. …
Djs: I am not suggesting that ‘God thinks like me’ but rather that ‘I think like God’. As religions say: ‘God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.’
I am simply beginning my ontological discussions from fundamental premises of religions and proceeding from there. I am also demonstrating, using the tool of metaphysical modeling, that the fundamental ontological premises, are steeped in rationality and reason.
Logician: …My works have been around for a time now and have met all sorts of responses, all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, …
Djs: …all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, … - This is known as ‘relative moralism’. Such a positing is based upon the fundamental: There is no such thing as absolute truth other than the statement there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Anyone and everyone has the ‘right’ to ‘believe’ such a fundamental principle but such a fundamental principle voids all legitimacy of opposing dialectics based upon reason.
Logician: … and I embraced them all, some of them tore it onto shreds then reassembled the pieces into a manner they thought better suited them and their own personal situation. When they showed the result and stated that this is what is should have said if it should apply to them I simply replied, all I gave was the blueprint, no two solutions are they same, all solutions are unique, as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. …
Djs: … as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. … -That is exactly the product of your model: There is no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical, …
Logician: …I never set out to give all life on earth a solution. …
Djs: Solutions are what people are looking for, are what people have been seeking since they began thinking and they look to the ‘thinkers’ to provide the answers.
If the ‘thinkers’ refuse to tackle the issues, the ‘thinkers’ are shirking there very reason for having been given the ability to think.
Logician: …I did however set out the availability of solutions for all. …
Djs: No you provided no solution at all, to suggest that everybody is correct is to suggest there is no ‘solution’ at all.
People are yearning for answers to the questions: What is reality? What are we? Why do we exist? Is there life after physical death? My son or daughter died, where are they now? ... To say the answer is whatever they want it to be is to suggest there is no answer.
An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are ‘art’ is to suggest there is no such thing as art. To suggest everyone’s pounding upon the piano keys is ‘music’ is to suggest there is no such thing as music. To suggest everyone’s solution to the equation 2 + 2 = ? is correct even if they answer 3, is to suggest there is no such thing as mathematics.
Logician: …Your question of survival if we are doomed to die is a common one by others too. The answer is as follows : Who am I to tell you, what to believe?
Djs: You speak of ‘belief’. This site demonstrating the model of reality called symbiotic panentheism, has nothing to do with ‘belief’. Reason, dialectics steeped in reason and rationality are the bases of the model.
‘Beliefs’ may be reasonable but they are not based upon reason. Beliefs are still ‘beliefs’ even if they are unreasonable because they are what they are, namely ‘beliefs’.
Logician: …I have a belief that allows me to think that when I die, it is only a physical response to prolonged exposure to physical time, yet there is still a part of me that does not die at that specific time as it is not physical. …
Djs: That is as it should be. Your ‘belief’ is your ‘belief’. Your have the ‘right’ to ‘believe’ whatever you wish to ‘believe’ but that does not make it a reasonable or rational concept.
To be continued: Part V of VI: Logician: … Just what that is, is up to me to...
Saturday, September 29
Response to the Logician: 070903: Part III of VI
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sat 29 Sep 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070903:
Part III of VI
Logician: …It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary “goal” in a world that is ripping itself apart.
Djs: Secularism has done more damage and been the demise of more individuals within the 20th Century than any form of religion – Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao …
Having said that: To suggest ‘the spiritual well being of the individual’ is not to be considered is to suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is unimportant and thus non-existent. In short, to suggest ‘the spiritual well being is not to be considered’ is to suggest the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence.
Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.
This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
Logician: …Inventing a “new” interpretation of God and whatever it is supposed to be and represent is new paint on an old wall. …
Djs: There is no ‘inventing’ or ‘new’ interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.
Logician: …What my thesis can deliver is a here and now solution to all of human suffering and allow all peoples to “redefine” just who they are, and in this process they automatically start to address they spiritual well being and what they are as an individual and as a nation and as a species. The difference between us is clear. I give all humans and everyone that has ever existed that right to believe exactly what they want to believe …
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no ‘rights’ away from anyone other than the ‘right’ to interfere with another’s journey.
Logician: …irrespective of a solution that saves them, …
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no ‘saving’ involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.
Logician: …you version saves them too but only after they all capitulate to your way of thinking as shown in your responses over that last few months in our correspondence. …
Djs: Again, there is no ‘saving’ involved.
Logician: …You do not accept a supposed “wrong” interpretation of your work,
Djs: Sure I do, I just expect those who suggest the work is ‘wrong’ to back up their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ with dialectics steeped in reason demonstrating their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ as opposed to simply stating the work is ‘wrong’ and concluding that the statement in itself is enough to prove them correct.
Logician: …to in fact even though I begged you to understand they are all correct, your “hackles” rose again and stated that there is no room for literal discretion.
Djs: My ‘hackles rose’, as you say, when you suggested you had the ‘right’ to take what I said and ‘interpret’ it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.
I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.
There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.
Logician: …Hell, I don’t think that your interpretation of a god is worthy of being divine if it can’t get over “recurrence”.
Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that ‘God’ can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but demonstrates ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’. Your model only states God ‘can’ circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but has nothing to offer regarding ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ other than ‘we don’t know how God can but It can’.
To be continued: Part IV of VI: Logician: …Your work states that god is...
Friday, September 28
Response to the Logician: 070903: Part II of VI
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070903:
Part II of VI
Logician: …and quite simply put, the universe allows life to exist within it.
Djs: I would suggest, it is not the universe which ‘allows’ anything, but rather the universe was ‘created’ as a tool, to advance a specific purpose, namely, ‘a’ means by which God circumvents ‘eternal recurrence’.
Logician: I use the euphemism “lab-rat” to coin a phrase, I should be more careful with the words I use to describe a situation, but this is an accurate phrase of what your work implies.
Djs: If it is an accurate phrase, why be ‘careful’ in using it? To suggest we are ‘lab-rats’ is inaccurate. Lab-rats have no free will. Lab-rats are ‘controlled’.
The model of symbiotic panentheism is a metaphysical model of reality which clearly and emphatically demonstrates that we as individuals and thus as a species have free will. The model clearly demonstrates we are not ‘controlled’.
We, therefore, are responsible as individuals for our actions and the repercussions said actions generate.
The difference between lab-rats and human individuals:
Lab-rats are not responsible for their actions.
Humans are responsible for their actions.
Logician: I do not suggest that we should not explore the concept of first cause, I think that it has merits and could quite easily be true, but then again there are other options than a singularity theory, should they be summarily dismissed?
Djs: I don’t know. What options other than a singularity theory specifically are you suggesting?
Logician: The big bang theory is a very, very recent development in human philosophy, and so exploring it is a “must” if we are to evolve in our thinking.
Djs: The big bang theory is in essence a singularity theory. The ‘creation’ of ‘the’ physical universe.
Logician: You state “Religion by definition was never a concept of logic. Religion is not based upon logic.” I totally disagree. I believe that religion was the logic of those who wrote it, or to put it in other words, it was the understanding therefore the logic of the time, which tried to explain life.
Djs: I suppose one could argue such a premise.
Logician: Djs: If so you are a very unusual individual, but then the very fact you think independently, demonstrates you are an unusual individual.
I take this as a compliment
Djs: As intended.
Logician; Now for your question;
My thesis is totally different from yours. I deal with real things in real time, I have an answer that works within a small time frame, and within my own lifetime.
Djs: In terms of ‘a small time frame’ we think similarly although the model I am proposing also has answers that work with a large time frame as well as no ‘time’ frame and also extends understanding beyond our own physical lifetime and ‘beyond’ our immortal existence frame.
This is the first means by which the metaphysical model ‘symbiotic panentheism’ demonstrates its validity through its broader abilities to answer age old metaphysical questions.
Logician: …I take all of human behaviour and explain life as a human in human terms.
Djs: Sp (symbiotic panentheism) goes beyond ‘human behavior’ and ‘human terms’.
This is the second means by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
To be continued: Part III of VI: Logician: …It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well...
Thursday, September 27
Response to the Logician: 070903: Part I of VI
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070903:
Part I of VI
Djs: There is a lot of material here. Thank you for writing
Logician: September 1, 2007
Daniel. J. Shepard
The World Embracing Hope Foundation
Dear Sir
I will try and answer your question from the end of your last reply, but first allow me to try and clear up a few things. As previously stated I believe that your work is meant only for good, and a better understanding of life for all. I also believe that your work is a “remodelling” of previous texts to suit a modern day interpretation. This is by no means a criticism Sir, just an observation. You back up your work with years of dedication and research to achieve your goal, and justly deserve the credit for bringing enlightenment of your findings into this world.
I still however choose to believe that even though you are obviously convinced that everything you state in your work is true, there is still scope to question a few points. My main point is your belief that God “needs” to learn.
Djs: First: Regarding: ‘…your belief that God “needs” to learn’, I did not say God ‘needs’ to do anything, what I said was God can circumvent Nietzsche’s concept of ‘eternal recurrence’ through the process of ‘learning’.
I agree with you: God does not ‘need’ to do anything God does not wish to do. In other words God has free will just as humans have free will – ‘man created in the image of God’.
Second: There is no ‘belief’ here. This is not about ‘religious faith concepts’ but rather the ideas put forth by myself are about reason and rationality. The two are significantly different from ‘faith’.
For instance: Can you give me a rational explanation as to how God could avoid ‘eternal recurrence’ other than God learning?
Logician: You state that it has to, to circumvent a human understanding called eternal recurrence, but in doing so I believe you “reduce” God.
Djs: There is no ‘reduction’ here. Quite the contrary. The concept expands the ability of God over that of others who profess God ‘cannot’ learn.
Logician: Who says God is subject to eternal recurrence? Just because we humans think the way we do, why do we need to believe that God is subject to the same rules?
Djs: Again you rely upon faith, religious dogma, ‘belief’. I am not suggesting God ‘cannot’… I am not suggesting religion is ‘wrong’. What I am suggesting is that religion is irrational in simultaneously arguing God is Omniscient and then arguing God ‘cannot learn’ more.
What I am suggesting is that reason and rationality would suggest God ‘can’…, reason and rationality would suggest God is capable of…, God being by definition, Omniscient, would know how to… and being by definition, Omnipotent, has the power to… and being by definition, Omnipresent, would do so ‘within’ itself as oppose to do so ‘outside’ itself.
Logician: I would like to think that God could quite easily surpass this small problem, as that is what Gods do, just how? God alone knows.
Djs: I am arguing, not only is God capable of understanding how It can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but that we as rational beings made in the image of God by God , are also capable of rationalizing such a process.
Logician: You state “God, like any entity with free will can choose to stop learning” if so, what happens to us?
Djs: Within the scope of the model, if God should choose to stop learning, we would remain as we are, souls which exist with the experiences and abilities we have at our disposal.
The model demonstrates we experience uniquely and once having experienced our unique knowing of such experiencing becomes a part of total knowing, God. This does not suggest we no longer exist, rather it explicitly demonstrates that while God’s knowing advances with our experiencing, we remain as discrete entities of uniqueness. If we as unique entities should not survive as unique entities, the Whole, God if you wish, would be less than It potentially could be via our loss which would, in turn, be counter to the very concept of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
Logician: When I stated it is the will of the universe to be host to life, I did not mean that the universe itself has a will, it may, it might not, what I meant is at this moment in time we know that there is life within the universe and so there must be a reason for it, …
Djs: Exactly. I would, however, go one step further and suggest we are capable of rationalizing just what that ‘reason’ is.
To be continued: Part II of VI: Logician: …and quite simply put...
Thursday, September 6
090701 from Logician
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 06 Sep 2007 12:00 AM EDT
September 1, 2007
Daniel. J. Shepard
The World Embracing Hope Foundation
Dear Sir
I will try and answer your question from the end of your last reply, but first allow me to try and clear up a few things. As previously stated I believe that your work is meant only for good, and a better understanding of life for all. I also believe that your work is a “remodelling” of previous texts to suit a modern day interpretation. This is by no means a criticism Sir, just an observation. You back up your work with years of dedication and research to achieve your goal, and justly deserve the credit for bringing enlightenment of your findings into this world.
I still however choose to believe that even though you are obviously convinced that everything you state in your work is true, there is still scope to question a few points. My main point is your belief that God “needs” to learn. You state that it has to, to circumvent a human understanding called eternal recurrence, but in doing so I believe you “reduce” God. Who says God is subject to eternal recurrence? Just because we humans think the way we do, why do we need to believe that God is subject to the same rules? I would like to think that God could quite easily surpass this small problem, as that is what Gods do, just how? God alone knows.
You state “God, like any entity with free will can choose to stop learning” if so, what happens to us?
When I stated it is the will of the universe to be host to life, I did not mean that the universe itself has a will, it may, it might not, what I meant is at this moment in time we know that there is life within the universe and so there must be a reason for it, and quite simply put, the universe allows life to exist within it.
I used the euphemism “lab-rat” to coin a phrase, I should be more careful with the words I use to describe a situation, but this is an accurate phrase of what your work implies.
I do not suggest that we should not explore the concept of first cause, I think that it has merits and could quite easily be true, but then again there are other options than a singularity theory, should they be summarily dismissed? The big bang theory is a very, very recent development in human philosophy, and so exploring it is a “must” if we are to evolve in our thinking.
You state “Religion by definition was never a concept of logic. Religion is not based upon logic.” I totally disagree. I believe that religion was the logic of those who wrote it, or to put it in other words, it was the understanding therefore the logic of the time, which tried to explain life.
Djs: If so you are a very unusual individual, but then the very fact you think independently, demonstrates you are an unusual individual.
I take this as a compliment
Now for your question;
My thesis is totally different from yours. I deal with real things in real time, I have an answer that works within a small time frame, and within my own lifetime. I take all of human behaviour and explain life as a human in human terms. It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary “goal” in a world that is ripping itself apart. Inventing a “new” interpretation of God and whatever it is supposed to be and represent is new paint on an old wall. What my thesis can deliver is a here and now solution to all of human suffering and allow all peoples to “redefine” just who they are, and in this process they automatically start to address they spiritual well being and what they are as an individual and as a nation and as a species. The difference between us is clear. I give all humans and everyone that has ever existed that right to believe exactly what they want to believe irrespective of a solution that saves them, you version saves them too but only after they all capitulate to your way of thinking as shown in your responses over that last few months in our correspondence. You do not accept a supposed “wrong” interpretation of your work, in fact even though I begged you to understand they are all correct, your “hackles” rose again and stated that there is no room for literal discretion.
Hell, I don’t think that your interpretation of a god is worthy of being divine if it can’t get over “recurrence”. Your work states that god is a rational being, what you mean is your version of god in your mind would be as rational as you think, and so will also think the way you think it should think. My works have been around for a time now and have met all sorts of responses, all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, and I embraced them all, some of them tore it onto shreds then reassembled the pieces into a manner they thought better suited them and their own personal situation. When they showed the result and stated that this is what is should have said if it should apply to them I simply replied, all I gave was the blueprint, no two solutions are they same, all solutions are unique, as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works.
I never set out to give all life on earth a solution.
I did however set out the availability of solutions for all.
Your question of survival if we are doomed to die is a common one by others too. The answer is as follows : Who am I to tell you, what to believe? I have a belief that allows me to think that when I die, it is only a physical response to prolonged exposure to physical time, yet there is still a part of me that does not die at that specific time as it is not physical. Just what that is, is up to me to find out in my own way and not to be told by someone who thinks they know more about life than I do or anyone else does for that matter. When I find out what I want to call it, i.e. a soul, it will be something that I choose. It also allows me to be totally incorrect and in conflict with what others believe happen to them when they die, and it doesn’t matter one iota. My belief is an all encompassing belief, call it omni-religious, if you will (it’s just a hyphenated word, not a rule), I represent humans and human behaviour without being a human saviour, remember when I asked you about the responsibility given to those of us who tread paths that were not meant for us? You stood and said you knew the inherent danger and were willing to put your name to it, well, it also gives you as an individual absolute “power” (within those who choose to embrace your teachings), I on the other hand disperse the “power” available to all humans and change it from “power” to responsibility of the individual and the respect of the individual to encompass all life, in other words all peoples for the first time have a reason for living, based upon the respect if the individual, the local, the national, the cultural and thus the global definition of the human species, we all become ambassadors of our species in each others eyes thus removing the inherent danger usually associated with these types of methods, by giving it freely to them all. Without changing on iota of whom they are. All become responsible for everything all do. (Scary eh!?) No one left to blame, except ourselves. No excuses for what happens after the implementation of the solution, and no going back either. (Even more scary!) A true test of all religious beliefs ever written, can humans take the reins and reign themselves? They haven’t been able to up until now, but I am one who believes that we can if we want to, we just have to want to.
Your works within the spiritual “sphere” of a human’s personal philosophy, are your interpretation only and “should” not to be impressed upon people who have no idea of what or who a divine entity is. As stated before you have reduced god into a pigeon hole with a label on it. God if you let God be what God is, is indefinable, just ask any true believer and they will tell you the same, therefore you have no right to tell them otherwise. You state that there is a divine part of a human, what you mean is there is a part of a human that even you cannot explain fully and so you associate this trait with being divine. Don’t worry it’s normal used by millions from the “shamans” of old to the “Pharisees” of the new, and the “charlatans” of the modern, all in a bid to impose their personal understanding of the world forward before others. If you can’t explain it, it is therefore divine or has a bit of the divine in it, that understanding has lead to more deaths then all the bombs ever dropped in history. Logically there is a part of every living thing that cannot be defined in a neat little sentence or phrase or word, and just what that is, is not for one individual to EVER define, thus taking away the mystery that is life and love and therefore (maybe) a combination of the two may possibly be. There can be a billion wonderful expressions attached to the question of life and love, so why the Hell should they be reduced to a few, let’s call them, popular phrases, which over time change no matter what.
Because I can believe in your teachings, basically because I can understand all the aspects of it, I can also choose not to believe in it, as I have found, as I have, in all other teachings, huge holes in their theories of the reasons for everything and they clouded it in religious dogma and the ever present “divine” card played at every table when the “chips are down”. Don’t take what I’ve written personally, if you do then you are not ready for what you thought you could achieve. Hey, you could be right after all and everything I have just written is false. It doesn’t mean I’m wrong though, and you still could be seriously wrong and on the verge of starting yet another “belief-krig” that could quite easily result in an early exit of the human species from this planet, but who am I to tell you anything?
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: Respoonse to follow
|
