Don has drawn an objective idealistic model of reality from a number of sources, including Physics, Process Philosophy, Theosophy, and Neo-Platonic insights. He is seeking growth and a degree of novelty by participating in a dialogue here. 

 

 

060225

 

Djs:Symbiotic panentheism, however, eliminates all forms of “eternal judgment”. This is not to say there won’t be “consequences”

 

Don: I have come to the same conclusion.  The balance I refer to is not judgemental.  Rather, it is self-reflective.

 

I've enjoyed your reflections on the causative force, here and on the blog.  It has caused me to ponder and enrich my own perspective.

 

 

 

060308

 

Don: Hi Dan,

 

I wish you well on the direction you are taking your blog and your life.

 

I hope to quietly tread forth, advocating along the way.

 

We didn't have much of a debate.  Though I found it nice to have a sounding board.  Let me know if I can ever return the favor.

 

Take Care!

 

 

 

Continued:

 

Djs: I don't feel I was much of a sounding board or perhaps there were no in-depth questions you wished to ask.

 

Two questions Don,

 

What is it you are 'advocating' and 'why quietly'

 

 

 

 

060309

 

Don: What is it I am advocating?

 

In my words, it's "To Love and Be Loved". 

 

But I can see that being nebulous.  Someone I respect said:

  Protect the right and ability of the individual to travel life unimpeded.

  Travel life unimpeded.

Why quietly?

 

Because that is the method that has influenced me the most.  Subtle. Persuasive. 

 

A marathon rather than a race.  Probably best described by William Channing:

 

"To live content with small means; to seek elegance rather than luxury, and refinement rather than fashion; to be worthy, not respectable, and wealthy, not rich; to study hard, think quietly, talk gently, act frankly; to listen to stars and birds, to babes and sages, to occasions, and to hurry never. In a word, to let the spiritual, unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common."

 

 

 

Continued:

 

 

 

Djs: That is beautiful, truly. And thank you for the compliment, to be respected is one of the highest compliments a person can receive.

 

Don: What is it I am advocating?

 

In my words, it's "To Love and Be Loved".  But I can see that being nebulous.  Someone I respect said:

  Protect the right and ability of the individual to travel life unimpeded.

  Travel life unimpeded.

 

Why quietly?

 

Because that is the method that has influenced me the most.  Subtle. Persuasive. 

 

A marathon rather than a race.  Probably best described by William Channing:

 

 

"To live content with small means; to seek elegance rather than luxury, and refinement rather than fashion; to be worthy, not respectable, and wealthy, not rich; to study hard, think quietly, talk gently, act frankly; to listen to stars and birds, to babes and sages, to occasions, and to hurry never. In a word, to let the spiritual, unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common."

 

 

 

Djs: Questions:

 

1. Regarding: 'To love and be loved'. If one's goal is 'to love', does one not need to reach out? And if one needs to reach out, does one not need to reach out beyond the individual and into the level of the species itself, in fact into the level of all entities of consciousness universally (literally)?

 

2. Regarding: '... to let the spiritual unbidden and unconscious, grow up through the common.' I have attended many theosophical Q&A sessions and find this to be their mind set. I understand their thinking and find it very quieting, very reassuring, very comforting. However, having said that, I am still troubled by the idea of 'passive acceptance'.  There is so much that needs to be done in terms of moving our species to a higher plane of consciousness. I sense 'a responsibility to 'accelerate' the process as opposed to simply 'accepting' it will happen with gentle nudges here and there.

 

So the question: Do we not have a responsibility to do what we 'are capable' of doing to accelerate the process?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continued:

 

Djs: If one's goal is 'to love', does one not need to reach out?

 

Don: Most definitely.  Even a simple smile and hello works.

 

Djs: And if one needs to reach out, does one not need to reach out beyond the individual and into the level of the species itself, in fact into the level of all entities of consciousness universally (literally)?

 

Don: We are an inter-dependent One; we cannot help but to reach out to All. 

 

Djs: Do we not have a responsibility to do what we 'are capable' of doing to accelerate the process?

 

Don: I think Life is learning what we are capable of.

 

Your sensing a responsibility to accelerate the process has influenced your ability to follow through with what you are capable of.  For you were most certainly “capable” of this course long ago.

 

I sense myself drifting in this direction.  Navigating the course between being persuasive and being coercive is tricky.  Foremost is to protect the right and ability of the individual to travel life unimpeded.

 

I have a strong sense to being invited.  I have faith than when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

Don has drawn an objective idealistic model of reality from a number of sources, including Physics, Process Philosophy, Theosophy, and Neo-Platonic insights. He is seeking growth and a degree of novelty by participating in a dialogue here. 

 

 

060222

 

 

djs: Can you help me with this question?

 

Don: It was a rhetorical question leading into my hypothesis.

 

djs: When speaking of  ‘consensus’ are you referring to a nation, the human species, all individual entities of consciousness throughout the physical universe?

 

Don: I use consensus here to refer to all subjective threads of experience.  If the examples you cite extend to quanta within physics, we are in agreement.

 

djs: It could. By that I mean, if we find that all existences are capable of experiencing, then the answer is yes the examples I cite extend to quanta within physics.

 

 

 

 

 

djs: Why haven’t you been able to close the issue?

 

Don: I’ve only recently begun to explore the alternative and am not satisfied I’ve been thorough. 

 

 

 

 

djs: If the answer to the question: How does one rationalize the concept of there existing a ‘balance’ between ‘good’ and ‘evil’? is…Yes there is a rational explanation and it is…, then the discussion remains within a rational dialogue.

 

Don: Yes, I meant it to be a rational question.

 

djs: Symbiotic panentheism suggests the physical universe exists inside and outside the mind. As such, symbiotic panentheism does not suggest ‘balance’ exists in the physical universe but rather a form of ‘balance’ is suggested through the process of inner empathy through the revisiting of the effects of one’s actions upon one’s external environment including the affects and effects one generates upon what we presently call conscious entities.

 

 

 

 

 

djs: Personally I like the concept of ‘karma’ but having said that I can find no rational argument for it within a model of reality which demonstrates the existence of ‘free will’.

 

Don: I was attempting to be rational and philosophical with my hypothesis.  Yet, you find no rational argument there and seem content with leaving open the possibility of balancing moral debt on future generations.  Freewill appears to be a trump card?  I’m not sure I follow.  Are you suggesting the heavy burden would lie with existing subjectively after death under the weight of what we did in this life and what it lead to? 

 

djs: Yes.

 

Regarding: You speak of: ‘…existing subjectively after death’ Symbiotic panentheism purports you exist both objectively and subjectively after death as well as during ‘life’. Within the model of symbiotic panentheism your consciousness is no different before and/or after ‘life’ than during ‘life’. Your substance and essence are essentially the same in all three stages. (Your limits of knowing may differ but your substance and essence does not.) What is different is your being confined within a physical body which allows one to experience the physical universe. One simply steps in and out of this body. The question becomes: Does this suggest reincarnation is a valid concept? Yes and no. Symbiotic panentheism deals only with this one life time and its impact upon the Whole and upon discrete entities of knowing which exist within the Whole of consciousness ‘outside’ the physical universe.

 

In short, symbiotic panentheism does not deny your existence as a discrete entity of consciousness nor does it deny the physical universe existing. There are three truths upon which symbiotic panentheism is based: 1: You exist 2. The physical universe exists. 3. The Whole exists. These three truths are, for the most part, all supported by philosophy, religion, and science.

 

 

 

djs: Feel free to ask any questions and perhaps you will find yourself coming to some sense of closure.

 

Don: Makes sense now.  Thanks.

 

Continued:

Don: Your insights have been valuable.  Though, I may have read into your last response. 

 

djs: You are doing fine.

 

Don: On a philosophical basis, as an objective idealist, the following question emerges.  Is it possible to resolve disparities in nature / nurture without a mechanism for balance? 

 

djs: That depends upon the metaphysical model one develops. Symbiotic panentheism is a metaphysical understanding of reality based upon a consensus (to date) reached using the human tools of philosophy, religion, and science. This understanding of reality would suggest it is possible to resolve disparities in nature / nurture without the mechanism for balance. Symbiotic panentheism would purport the concept of balance is in fact not ‘balance’ at all. Symbiotic panentheism would purport ‘balance’ is simply a human quality assigned to action when in fact ‘balance’ applies to the physical laws as opposed to being a function of ‘free will’.

 

 

 

 

 

Don: Stated another way, in symbiotic panentheism, can two individual entities of consciousness start out disparately…

 

djs: Disparate: adj: essentially not alike, distinct or different in kind: unequal. Wow, much to be said here. In terms of quanta physics, symbiotic panentheism would agree two entities of consciousness could be described as ‘disparate’.

 

Narrowing this down to the human species, symbiotic panentheism demonstrates entities of self-knowing encapsulated within the characteristic of ‘free will’ are, by definition, responsible for their actions.

 

Symbiotic panentheism is a model of reality which clearly demonstrates two individual human entities of consciousness do not start out differently in terms of their substance and essence. They both are entities of self-knowing consciousness enveloped in the aura of ‘free will’. In terms of ‘free will’ they are not disparate entities. In terms of their development stages, yes they could be viewed as disparate. ‘Free will’ however, is the issue of primary concern in terms of ‘balance’.

 

 

 

Don: …and still be held similarly responsible for their actions without a mechanism for balance?

 

djs: Yes, in terms of a symbiotic panentheism. Symbiotic panentheism, however, eliminates all forms of ‘eternal judgment’. This is not to say there won’t be ‘consequences’. One may ask: How is it possible to have consequences without judgment? Take the analogy: A man touches something hot, if he is alone there is no one to judge but there are consequences nonetheless. If he is with a non-judgmental entity, again he is not judged but again there are consequences nonetheless.