Dialoguing - 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.
Our ability to affect ‘The Whole of Reality’ - Part III
[050531 cg continues] … I do not agree that "the present exists within consciousness", if that implies that any present could not exist without the existence of consciousness, unless one gives G-d the attribute of consciousness or defines G-d as Consciousness. …
[050603 djs] One does not ‘give’ G-d attributes but one can rationalize ‘such and such’ is an attribute of … Symbiotic panentheism outlines the rationale of ‘consciousness’ being ‘an’ attribute of G-d. (See Graphic: diagram 050605: The Whole of Reality
As for defining G-d as consciousness, that is the position upon which many present day religions adhere to. Many religions do not address the issues of section ‘D’ (omnipresence) and/or section ‘E’ (the un-manifested) presented in diagram 050605.
Symbiotic panentheism begins the process of opening up a dialogue regarding the omnipresence of G-d, the ‘un-manifested’ attributes of G-d, and the role of nothingness as it relates to the dynamics of reality.
Diagram 050605: The Whole of Reality, demonstrates that although G-d may have the attribute of consciousness, G-d is much more than consciousness.
[050531 cg continues] … I would argue that consciousness is not an intrinsic attribute of G-d; i.e., G-d, as Reality, may currently have the attribute of consciousness, but did not have the attribute in the past and may not have the attribute in the future, and G-d, in Itself, has no attributes; so the attribute is not intrinsic. To define G-d as Consciousness may be OK, but I do not know what that would mean.
[050603 djs] The ‘unmanifested’, section ‘E’ (See Graphic: diagram 050605: The Whole of Reality) would not ‘be’ ‘consciousness’. As the diagram clearly shows, the ultimate aspect of ‘G-d’ may well be beyond our limited ability to understand and as such can only be known to our limited form of ‘consciousness’ through the means of ‘negation’.
Having said this, what does it mean? It means I agree with you.
[050531 cg continues] … I would agree that an impression of the present exists within one's consciousness; the mind is often likened to a mirror.
I wrote that I experience consciousness presently and that the present, as the 'here-now', is Reality.
And what does "the totality of 'the present'" mean as differentiated from "the present"? Does "present" mean subjective presence; i.e., within one's (or presumably a collection of ones') consciousness and "the totality of 'the present'" mean the all-inclusive Reality? If so, OK, but I suggest we use Present (with a capital "P") to mean "the totality of 'the present'".
[050603 djs] It is not the ‘present’ with which I am concerned, since the present has already ‘occurred’ and as such is the past.
It is the future with which I am concerned for it is what we do with the future which will mold what will become ‘the past’ as we refer to ‘it’ while living in the physical, section ‘A’ in diagram 050605 found in the graphics. ‘The past’ in turn is what we call ‘the present’ when we return to the ethereal, section ‘C’ of diagram 050605.
In essence the process of experiencing the physical, creating (art, new ideas, music, …), and/or molding the future into ‘the past’ (section ‘A’ where time is a part of the universal fabric of existing) and ‘the present’ (section ‘C’ where time is not a part of the universal fabric of existing), becomes the focus of one’s concern for it is only the future one can directly affect.
How then does one ‘affect’ the whole of Reality? One ‘affects the whole of Reality through the process of molding the future, molding what it is section ‘A’ (diagram 050605) becomes/the past and thus forming what ‘is’, forming ‘the present’, forming sections ‘B’ and ‘C’ which in turn are attributes of sections ‘D’ and ‘E’.
One might then ask: What is real and what is not? And the answer would be: Why they, the temporal and the ethereal and nothingness, are all real and all interact and play a vital role with each other.