Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Regarding Nothingness: Validity of: Part II

[050621 djs] When you state: I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance. That is a religious statement indicated by the words 'I believe …'. I am not talking religion here. I also have my 'beliefs' but I have cast them aside for the purpose of this discussion. Having cast them aside I am now examining them from afar in order to determine what is most probable from an unbiased point of view.

[050624 cg] I have concluded, based on personal experience and reflection, that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance. (All is in G-d and G-d is in All.)

[050625 djs] All is in G-d is panentheism. G-d is in All is pantheism. The two are opposites and as such contradictions, conflicts, moral dilemmas, ethical dilemmas, social dilemmas, irresolvable paradoxes, … arise and such emergences would tend to indicate there is a flaw in such thinking.

[050621 djs] In terms of my question: "And if 'nothingness' exists?" You appear confused about the question when you state: If 'nothingness' exists (Whatever that may mean!), For an understanding of the existence of 'nothingness' go to www.panentheism.com and appropriately Google the site.

I understand your confusion regarding nothingness and how it would lead you to make the statement: G-d is One (the Singularity), the Whole of Reality, and therefore G-d is the substance of both. Although I respect your personal belief, I would respectfully disagree with your statement G-d is the substance of both ['somethingness' and 'nothingness']. If nothingness exists as pure nothingness it would, by definition, be the absence of all including the absence of G-d. To suggest otherwise is to transform nothingness into 'somethingness'.

[050624 cg] If, as you argue, nothingness exists and G-d exists then it follows that there is an existence that incorporates both. In which case, I would suggest that you have mislabeled somethingness as G-d and that G-d is that Existence in which both nothingness and somethingness exist.

[050625 djs] So it would seem, unless … Unless one truly embraces all the nuances which follow the understanding that ‘nothingness exists and has functionality/meaning’purpose’.

For instance, your perception, ‘All is in G-d and G-d is in All.’, leads to the immediate understanding that G-d is in ‘nothingness’ but such an understanding establishes the seemingly irresolvable philosophical paradox that if G-d is in nothingness is it really ‘nothingness’?

Proceeding then to address your statement: ‘I would suggest that you have mislabeled somethingness as G-d and that G-d is that Existence in which both nothingness and somethingness exist.’ I must admit my understanding of G-d is very limited since G-d is the ‘unmanifested’ but I would like to suggest that should nothingness exist then the void of G-d within nothingness would not diminish G-d since nothingness is the void of all including the void of presence and thus G-d absence in the void is no absence at all.

[050614 cg continues] ... This means that we are all fundamentally equal and not separate, and is the source of respectfulness and kindness.

[050617 djs] I agree but just because you and I agree upon this statement does not make it a rational statement. The statement is simply a statement based upon the lack of an in-depth discussion of reality.

[050619 cg] I disagree. From my perspective it is quite logical. It is logical that I act respectfully and kindly to me. If you and I are truly the same substance and not separate, then it is logical that I act respectfully and kindly to you for it is an act to me. To do otherwise would be illogical.

[050621 djs] I agree with your position regarding fundamental moral and ethical behavior, however, your perspective is based upon the basic premise you have established 'I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance. Your position is based upon what it is 'you believe and I respect that, I respect your 'belief'. The question, however, is: What arguments other than religious beliefs support such moral and ethical standards? I would suggest the metaphysical model of reality demonstrated by symbiotic panentheism brings together the scientific observations, religious dialogue, and philosophical dialectics to support your and my perceptions of moral and ethical behavior. This is why sp can be labeled 'a 'universal philosophy".

[050624 cg] Now that I have asserted that 'I have concluded, based on personal experience and reflection, that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance' my ethical position is not based on belief or faith.

[050625 djs] Very good, uhhh except you have forgotten a couple things, correct me if I am wrong, but don’t you still ‘believe’ nothingness does not exist and don’t you still believe ‘the individual ceases to be’. In addition aren’t both such positions beliefs upon which your perception of reality is based.

In essence, aren’t your simply looking away from issues which might cause you to understand reality.

As for your ethical positions, I still don’t understand why your ethical position is any more valid than that of Stalin, Hitler, Manson, … They also were individuals that lived as they felt ‘they should’ live and they also simply cease to be and thus feel no consequences for their actions.

Symbiotic panentheism addresses this social issue, as well as a myriad other religious, philosophical, and scientific issues head on. Forgetting all the other issues, how do you address the social issue outlined directly above?

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Regarding Nothingness: Validity of: Part I

by Daniel J. Shepard on Mon 27 Jun 2005 12:16 AM EDT

Dialogue: A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist

Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

Regarding Nothingness: Validity of: Part I

[deleted materials ... ]

[050619 cg] You believe in the Nothingness of non-existence. According to you, this Nothingness of non-existence forms a boundary creating you from the substance of G-d as an "entity of consciousness" and separating you from G-d. And you believe you exist in this condition, like a bubble of consciousness, for eternity, forever separated by the Nothingness of non-existence from G-d. So, according to you, your existence is dependent on the Nothingness of non-existence.I believe that G-d is One and omnipresent and that all things (and entities) are of the same substance.You asked, "And if 'nothingness' exists?" If 'nothingness' exists (Whatever that may mean!), then there is also a 'somethingness' (a not nothingness) that exists. G-d is One (the Singularity), the Whole of Reality, and therefore G-d is the substance of both.

[050621 djs] Regarding your observation: 'You believe in the Nothingness of non-existence.' It is not that I 'believe' in nothingness, I simply state that 'nothingness' 'may' exist and proceed to analyze the concept on the basis of what religion, science, and philosophy have all given us. My conclusion: Nothingness/non-existence most probably exists.

As for your statement: According to you, this Nothingness of non-existence forms a boundary creating you from the substance of G-d as an "entity of consciousness" and separating you from G-d. This is what I have concluded from analyzing the information with which science, philosophy, and religious all appear to concur.

In terms of: And you believe you exist in this condition, like a bubble of consciousness, for eternity, forever separated by the Nothingness of non-existence from G-d. You speak of 'my belief' and again I will state that it is not a 'belief' but rather it is a possible conclusion drawn from analysis. I would also add that it appears to provide answers to haunting questions our specie has never been able to answer and as such the ability to answer previously unanswered question simply reinforces the legitimacy of the concepts.

You conclude erroneously: So, according to you, your existence is dependent on the Nothingness of non-existence. I am not saying that my existence is dependent upon the Nothingness of non-existence. Rather I am saying this understanding answers a lot of philosophical paradoxes, religious contradictions, and scientific puzzles which have previously gone unanswered. I am not saying it is an absolute I am simply saying it is not impossible. I am suggesting, based upon scientific observations, religious texts, and philosophical dialectics, it is more probable than improbable that non-existence not only exists but has functionality.

[050624 cg] In the above paragraphs you seem uncertain, writing that this or that is "a possible conclusion", is "not impossible" or is "more probable than improbable".If, as you stated above, you conclude that, "Nothingness/non-existence most probably exists," then you admit the possibility that nothingness does not exist. If the existence of nothingness is uncertain, what is certain?

[050625 djs] Regarding your statement: ‘then you admit the possibility that nothingness does not exist.’ You are correct, I do admit the possibility that nothingness does not exist. I am only postulating that nothingness exists based upon what sciences, religions, and philosophies have provided us over the last four thousand years. I am stating that to suggest nothingness does not exist is to misinterpret the fundamental wisdom established by the three over four millennia.

Regarding your statement: ‘…If the existence of nothingness is uncertain, what is certain?’ That is a terrific question! If one is to be completely honest, one has no choice but to admit that nothing is certain and if one is to be completely honest one has no choice but to admit one cannot name truth as an absolute, but one can define truth, define perceptions of reality as best one can and then one moves on from there.

This is the very foundation of science. Science does not claim they know anything as an absolute but rather they make statements based upon degrees of probability. In science there is, basically speaking, the first step – observation, the second step – hypothesis, the third step – Theory, the fourth step – Law of …

But even science will concede that the ‘Laws of science’ are not absolutes. For instance all the Laws of Physics have either been discarded, merged, modified, or allowed to stand as they are for the time being.

So it should be with any model of reality we establish which emerges from the examination of all three perceptual tools we use, namely science, religion, and philosophy.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: On logic

by Daniel J. Shepard on Mon 27 Jun 2005 12:08 AM EDT

Dialogue: A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist

Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.

On logic:

[deleted materials] [050614 cg] If, as you wrote above, "it is possible that 'Existence simply is'", then it must be rational to hold the position that 'Existence simply is'.

[050617 djs] Just because something is 'possible' does not make it rational. It is possible the universe could collapse into nothingness tomorrow but is it rational to stand, day after day after day, on the corner carrying a sign stating 'The world is coming to an end'?

I would suggest not. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the act, I am simply suggesting that it is not supported by any rational dialectics, direct observations, and/or universal beliefs.

[050619 cg] The question was "Is such a position rational ... ?"; i.e., the question was regarding one's belief or understanding and whether the belief or understanding was rational, not whether any act was rational; so your argument misses the point.And my answer to the question was "If it is possible that 'Existence simply is', then it is rational." If it is possible that Existence simply is, then it follows that the proposition 'Existence simply is' may be true. In a logical Existence not all logical propositions are true, but all illogical propositions are untrue. And if the proposition may be true, then the proposition must be in the logical category, because if it was in the illogical category it would not be possible for the proposition to be true.

[050621 djs] Ah, I think I am beginning to understand what separates us. I begin with the perception that nothing, literally nothing, is impossible. I reject nothing. I embrace all. I then proceed to analyze what is more probable. The more probable, the more rational.

[050623 cg] And I now understand that you are using the term 'rational' to be a measure of probability, where I am using the term 'rational' as a synonym for 'logical'. Then again you stated that being probable does not make something rational.

[050626 djs] See response: Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part I, posted June 25, 2005.

[deleted materials]

[050621 djs] As for your statement: "If it is possible that 'Existence simply is', then it is rational." For you, yes. For me, yes, but for me the position is very improbable since it is supported by nothing we observe as a specie and simultaneously it is supported by nothing we reason as a specie. In addition the statement, 'Existence simply is', is supported by little we believe universally as a specie.

Having said that I will admit that the position is not irrational, nor is it unbelievable, nor is it incapable of supporting moral and/or ethical foundations, nor is it 'wrong', nor is it illogical, nor is it harmful in nature, nor is it a stressful position, nor is it …

The concept, 'Existence simply is', however does not suggest any of the negative (negative as in it does not…, not negative as in detrimental) absolutes you suggest. As an example, the statement does not imply nor directly state: 'Existence simply is and therefore self is not a possibility.' Etc.

[050623 cg] HUH? I stated: Existence simply is and therefore it follows that Existence has no meaning or purpose. I did not suggest that the proposition suggested any other "negative absolutes". Nor did I suggest that 'Existence simply is' implies that "self is not a possibility".

[050626 djs] See response: Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part I, posted June 25, 2005.

[050621 djs] When you state: If it is possible that Existence simply is, then it follows that the proposition 'Existence simply is' may be true. In a logical Existence not all logical propositions are true, but all illogical propositions are untrue. At one point in our history it was considered illogical to think we would ever go to the moon. As history has demonstrated, man has stepped upon the surface of the moon. Thus what was once an illogical proposition, 'Eventually man will go to the moon' has been moved from the 'untrue' to the 'true' column. The result: 'all illogical propositions are untrue' may be true in the short run but has been shown to be in error in the long term.

[050623 cg] HUH? There is a difference between what is logical and what is probable. Certainly you, as a mathematician, can identify illogical propositions that cannot be true (real).

[050626 djs] See response: Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part II, posted June 25, 2005.

[050621 djs] I do not agree with your statement: And if the proposition may be true, then the proposition must be in the logical category, because if it was in the illogical category it would not be possible for the proposition to be true. Symbiotic panentheism would suggest the Buddhistic percepton 'Nothing is lost' is correct. Sp would also suggest that nothing is impossible. It is only our ego which suggests that we, limited beings, are capable of stating 'absolute impossibilities.

[050623 cg] If my statement above is not true, then are you positing that a proposition may be illogical and true? And if that is the case, then what is the value of logic?

[050626 djs] The value of logic lies in its ability to ‘help us’ as individuals and a specie understand physical reality within which we exist as conscious beings/spiritual beings within physical garbs.

But the question becomes: Is it possible for something to be simultaneously illogical and true. I would suggest that it is possible for something to be simultaneously illogical and true.

illogical: adj. 1. not observing the principles of logic 2: devoid of logic : senseless

logic: n 1: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of forma principles of reasoning 2: a branch of variety of logic 3: a branch of semiotic: exp : syntactic 4: the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty 2: ……

So you see logic deals with what makes ‘sense’, deals with knowledge, deals with’a particular mode of reasoning, deals …

In short, logic depends upon what it is we understand. There is much we do not understand and often we categorize such events or statements as ‘illogical’.

Understand this allows us to use ‘logic’ while not allowing ‘logic’ to ‘box us in’, to ‘limit us’, to succumb the phrases such as: ‘we cannot…’, it is impossible for …’, ‘… will never happen’, …

As such many statements of possibilities become illogical statements and likewise many negative absolutes become ‘apparently illogical’ when we perceive logic to be an absolute as opposed to perceiving logic to simply be a tool subject to its own limits, namely the limits of the very beings who implement it.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos