|
|
Sunday, July 31
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Re: Self and the lack of self: Part VIII
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sun 31 Jul 2005 12:24 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.
Re: Self and the lack of self: Part VIII
[050714 cg] I understand the concept of "evil" and I understand "evil acts". Does evil exist apart from the concept of "evil" or from "evil acts"; i.e., is there a thing, be it physical, consciousness, or an entity, that is evil, in and of itself?
[050716 djs] Regarding: '… is there a thing, be it physical, consciousness, or an entity, that is evil, in and of itself?' The model of symbiotic panentheism would leave this question to religions to answer. As for myself, well, I do have some personal, and I will admit rather different, thoughts regarding the concept of 'evil' which are not supported by religion, science, and/or philosophy but which fall within the dynamics of symbiotic panentheism.
[050721 cg] You posited the existence of evil. I acknowledged evil as a concept and evil as an adjective to modify acts performed by human beings. My question (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) is about your understanding of the nature of reality; i.e., a metaphysical question.
[050727 djs] Regarding: I acknowledged evil as a concept and evil as an adjective to modify acts performed by human beings. I agree.
Regarding: (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) I don’t know. There are times I think so and at other times I just don’t know. In general I personally think so. The metaphysical model, symbiotic panentheism, does not purport ‘evil’ to exist.
Regarding: My question (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) is about your understanding of the nature of reality; i.e., a metaphysical question. Metaphysically speaking in terms of the symbiotic panentheistic model of reality: Symbiotic panentheism would suggest ‘evil’ is differentiated from ‘good’ by the environment that is ‘created’ by a soul for itself by itself. ‘Evil’ would be the state wherein the soul would experience what it is the soul does not ‘enjoy’ experiencing, the less ‘enjoyment’ the greater the ‘evil’ and ‘good’ is the state wherein the soul would experience what it is the soul does ‘enjoy’ experiencing, the more ‘enjoyment’ the greater the ‘good.
In short, symbiotic panentheism purports: We each create our own ‘heaven’ and our own ‘hell’.
[deleted materials]
[050711 djs] Regarding: 'Do you really and fully merge, as in become ONE, or do you semi-merge, as in immerse, but maintain a self separated from G-d' Both, fully merge as in become ONE AND maintain a self separated from G-d but within G-d. The concept of 'semi-merge', is not a position symbiotic panentheism would embrace.
Regarding: '… by the 'nothingness of non-existence'?' In terms of the 'nothingness of non-existence', I am not suggesting that this process 'is' the means by which the individual is capable of maintaining its self separate from G-d rather I am suggesting that the existence of 'nothingness of non-existence' goes a long way towards explaining just how it is individuality could maintain its 'selfness'.
[050714 cg] OK, if this is what you want, you shall be one of the angels. I think you may tire after awhile, relax, and then…once one is fully merged with G-d, there is no 'one', so how would one be "capable of maintaining its self separate from G-d"?
[050716 djs] Take away the physical, in short, take away time, and one obtains timelessness. In such an existence time only remains 'within' one's self and one's self remains imbedded within timelessness, imbedded within eternity, imbedded within G-d.
Since G-d is 'all knowing'/omniscient, 'our knowing' becomes fully merged with G-d or G-d would not be 'all knowing', simultaneously you remain you, thus nothing is lost.
The result of such a process is not only the existence of you and the simultaneous existence of the summation of all including you but the existence of an omnipresence knowing of both, in short the whole is greater than the sum of its parts for it knows of the whole and it simultaneously knows of the 'you'.
We have now left geometry: 'The whole is equal to the sum of its parts' and entered the realm of metaphysics: The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So it is the understanding of G-d expands, and expands, and finally expands into being G-d is the unmanifested.
So it is the aspects of time, past - present - future, are found within G-d as: The past is what is. The past now becomes 'the present'. The future is not to be found for it is within the physical where the future emerges as the 'past' and which then becomes 'the present', becomes the 'is' through the process of transforming the 'future' into the 'past'. It is the process of you and I, by means of traveling through the physical, where we, beings shouldered with the responsibility of free will, turn the future into the past.
One could think of it (traveling through the physical) as our existing in a 'twilight' world where there is no 'present' for as certainly as the 'present is formed' it is past history. In the 'twilight' world within which we exist there is only 'what was' with the potential for creating more 'what was'. You and I have that responsibility of creating more and more of the 'what was'.
In short, the 'what is' is G-d, void the universal fabric of time. And what of our selves? Why we, the 'what was' likewise become what all the 'what was' becomes, we become the 'what is', never to be lost, never to cease, never to tire of being what we are for to tire implies existing within time and in G-d time is not an issue, for G-d simply is.
There is nothing to maintain for maintenance is only an issue in a cause and effect existence, is only an issue in an existence imbedded 'within' time, is only an issue in 'a realm of the potential becoming 'what was', is only an issue in a realm more generically called the physical universe.
In short, once within G-d, you live/experience/empathize with 'what is' knowing what, through the use of one's free will, one both accomplished and 'could' have accomplished. In a sense one might look at this as a form of both heaven and hell one is responsible of creating for one's self.
This is what symbiotic panentheism calls the ultimate form of 'the ripple effect' for not only do you become fully aware of your creations but so to do all forms of knowing become fully aware of your creations for it is through such a process that one can fully understand: nothing is lost.
[050721 cg] There are too many statements contained within your analysis with which I do not agree for me to present a simple argument. For example, in just the first paragraph you have asserted that the physical exists, asserted that time exists only in the physical, asserted that the self exists separate from the physical, asserted that time exists within the self, asserted that the self exists within timelessness, asserted that timelessness exists within eternity, and asserted that eternity exists within G-d. So, let me return to the question.
You wrote, "Both, fully merge as in become ONE AND maintain a self separated from G-d but within G-d." Your analysis does not explain how one may "fully merge as in become ONE" with G-d and "maintain a self" separate from G-d. What does it mean to you to "become ONE" with G-d?
[050727 djs] Regarding: There are too many statements contained within your analysis with which I do not agree for me to present a simple argument. I agree.
Regarding: What does it mean to you to "become ONE" with G-d? Symbiotic panentheism outlines an understanding of reality where, in terms of the individual, two states of existence eventually take place ‘after’ the individual journeys through the physical.
- First: The individual merges with G-d, becomes one with G-d, expands upon G-d’s very knowing, expands upon G-d’s very ability to empathize, expands upon G-d’s power (knowledge is power), … (without ‘changing’ G-d since G-d is the ‘is’, since G-d is the ‘present’, … Site Google ‘The whole does not change’ at www.panentheism.com.
I suppose one could think of this as a process of duplication and absorption of the individual.
Mathematically one might use the analogy that the set of whole numbers includes the elements comprising the set of natural numbers.
In a sense one might say that this aspect indicates the individual arises and passes away just as you say.
- Second: The individual retains its unique knowing, individuality, existence within the ‘realm’ of total consciousness.
In short the individual remains as the individual and as such the individual arises but does not pass away. Nothing is lost.
The metaphysical model of reality, symbiotic panentheism, is an unusual model for it is not an ‘either’/’or’ scenario but rather symbiotic panentheism is an ‘and’ scenario, for example: not Cartesianism or non-Cartesianism but is both Cartesianism and non-Cartesianism, not monism or dualism but is both dualism and monism, not phenomenology or existentialism but is both phenomenology and existentialism, not heaven or hell but is both heaven and hell, is not existence or nothingness but is both existence and nothingness, is not real or illusion but is both real and illusion, …
Friday, July 29
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Heaven/Hell - Good/Evil: Introduction
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 12:58 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.
Heaven/Hell - Good/Evil: Introduction
[050714 cg] I understand the concept of "evil" and I understand "evil acts". Does evil exist apart from the concept of "evil" or from "evil acts"; i.e., is there a thing, be it physical, consciousness, or an entity, that is evil, in and of itself?
[050716 djs] Regarding: '… is there a thing, be it physical, consciousness, or an entity, that is evil, in and of itself?' The model of symbiotic panentheism would leave this question to religions to answer. As for myself, well, I do have some personal, and I will admit rather different, thoughts regarding the concept of 'evil' which are not supported by religion, science, and/or philosophy but which fall within the dynamics of symbiotic panentheism.
[050721 cg] You posited the existence of evil. I acknowledged evil as a concept and evil as an adjective to modify acts performed by human beings. My question (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) is about your understanding of the nature of reality; i.e., a metaphysical question.
[050727 djs] Regarding: I acknowledged evil as a concept and evil as an adjective to modify acts performed by human beings. I agree.
Regarding: (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) I don’t know. There are times I think so and at other times I just don’t know. In general I personally think so. The metaphysical model, symbiotic panentheism, does not purport ‘evil’ to exist.
Regarding: My question (Does evil exist, in and of itself?) is about your understanding of the nature of reality; i.e., a metaphysical question. Metaphysically speaking in terms of the symbiotic panentheistic model of reality: Symbiotic panentheism would suggest ‘evil’ is differentiated from ‘good’ by the environment that is ‘created’ by a soul for itself by itself. ‘Evil’ would be the state wherein the soul would experience what it is the soul does not ‘enjoy’ experiencing, the less ‘enjoyment’ the greater the ‘evil’ and ‘good’ is the state wherein the soul would experience what it is the soul does ‘enjoy’ experiencing, the more ‘enjoyment’ the greater the ‘good.
In short, symbiotic panentheism purports: We each create our own ‘heaven’ and our own ‘hell’.
[deleted materials]
[050711 djs] Regarding: '
Do you really and fully merge, as in become ONE, or do you semi-merge, as in immerse, but maintain a self separated from G-d' Both, fully merge as in become ONE AND maintain a self separated from G-d but within G-d. The concept of 'semi-merge', is not a position symbiotic panentheism would embrace.
Regarding: '… by the 'nothingness of non-existence'?' In terms of the 'nothingness of non-existence', I am not suggesting that this process 'is' the means by which the individual is capable of maintaining its self separate from G-d rather I am suggesting that the existence of 'nothingness of non-existence' goes a long way towards explaining just how it is individuality could maintain its 'selfness'.
[050714 cg] OK, if this is what you want, you shall be one of the angels. I think you may tire after awhile, relax, and then…once one is fully merged with G-d, there is no 'one', so how would one be "capable of maintaining its self separate from G-d"?
[050716 djs] Take away the physical, in short, take away time, and one obtains timelessness. In such an existence time only remains 'within' one's self and one's self remains imbedded within timelessness, imbedded within eternity, imbedded within G-d.
Since G-d is 'all knowing'/omniscient, 'our knowing' becomes fully merged with G-d or G-d would not be 'all knowing', simultaneously you remain you, thus nothing is lost.
The result of such a process is not only the existence of you and the simultaneous existence of the summation of all including you but the existence of an omnipresence knowing of both, in short the whole is greater than the sum of its parts for it knows of the whole and it simultaneously knows of the 'you'.
We have now left geometry: 'The whole is equal to the sum of its parts' and entered the realm of metaphysics: The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So it is the understanding of G-d expands, and expands, and finally expands into being G-d is the unmanifested.
So it is the aspects of time, past - present - future, are found within G-d as: The past is what is. The past now becomes 'the present'. The future is not to be found for it is within the physical where the future emerges as the 'past' and which then becomes 'the present', becomes the 'is' through the process of transforming the 'future' into the 'past'. It is the process of you and I, by means of traveling through the physical, where we, beings shouldered with the responsibility of free will, turn the future into the past.
One could think of it (traveling through the physical) as our existing in a 'twilight' world where there is no 'present' for as certainly as the 'present is formed' it is past history. In the 'twilight' world within which we exist there is only 'what was' with the potential for creating more 'what was'. You and I have that responsibility of creating more and more of the 'what was'.
In short, the 'what is' is G-d, void the universal fabric of time. And what of our selves? Why we, the 'what was' likewise become what all the 'what was' becomes, we become the 'what is', never to be lost, never to cease, never to tire of being what we are for to tire implies existing within time and in G-d time is not an issue, for G-d simply is.
There is nothing to maintain for maintenance is only an issue in a cause and effect existence, is only an issue in an existence imbedded 'within' time, is only an issue in 'a realm of the potential becoming 'what was', is only an issue in a realm more generically called the physical universe.
In short, once within G-d, you live/experience/empathize with 'what is' knowing what, through the use of one's free will, one both accomplished and 'could' have accomplished. In a sense one might look at this as a form of both heaven and hell one is responsible of creating for one's self.
This is what symbiotic panentheism calls the ultimate form of 'the ripple effect' for not only do you become fully aware of your creations but so to do all forms of knowing become fully aware of your creations for it is through such a process that one can fully understand: nothing is lost.
[050721 cg] There are too many statements contained within your analysis with which I do not agree for me to present a simple argument. For example, in just the first paragraph you have asserted that the physical exists, asserted that time exists only in the physical, asserted that the self exists separate from the physical, asserted that time exists within the self, asserted that the self exists within timelessness, asserted that timelessness exists within eternity, and asserted that eternity exists within G-d. So, let me return to the question.
You wrote, "Both, fully merge as in become ONE AND maintain a self separated from G-d but within G-d." Your analysis does not explain how one may "fully merge as in become ONE" with G-d and "maintain a self" separate from G-d. What does it mean to you to "become ONE" with G-d?
[050727 djs] Regarding: There are too many statements contained within your analysis with which I do not agree for me to present a simple argument. I agree.
Regarding: What does it mean to you to "become ONE" with G-d? Symbiotic panentheism outlines an understanding of reality where, in terms of the individual, two states of existence eventually take place ‘after’ the individual journeys through the physical.
- First: The individual merges with G-d, becomes one with G-d, expands upon G-d’s very knowing, expands upon G-d’s very ability to empathize, expands upon G-d’s power (knowledge is power), … (without ‘changing’ G-d since G-d is the ‘is’, since G-d is the ‘present’, … Site Google ‘The whole does not change’ at www.panentheism.com.
I suppose one could think of this as a process of duplication and absorption of the individual.
Mathematically one might use the analogy that the set of whole numbers includes the elements comprising the set of natural numbers.
In a sense one might say that this aspect indicates the individual arises and passes away just as you say.
- Second: The individual retains its unique knowing, individuality, existence within the ‘realm’ of total consciousness.
In short the individual remains as the individual and as such the individual arises but does not pass away. Nothing is lost.
The metaphysical model of reality, symbiotic panentheism, is an unusual model for it is not an ‘either’/’or’ scenario but rather symbiotic panentheism is an ‘and’ scenario, for example: not Cartesianism or non-Cartesianism but is both Cartesianism or non-Cartesianism, not monism or dualism but is both dualism and monism, not phenomenology or existentialism but is both phenomenology or existentialism, not heaven or hell but is both heaven and hell, is not existence or nothingness but is both existence and nothingness, is not real or illusion but is both real and illusion, …
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: The art of rational thinking: Part VI
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 12:36 AM EDT
The art of rational thinking: Part VI
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.
[deleted materials]
[050716 djs] Regarding: "
So, how have you decided to believe that you are an eternal soul?" Do you believe because it is a consensus? Or do you believe because odf authority (scientific, philosophic, and/or religious)? Or do you rely on yourself? I 'believe' because it is a consensus of thousands of years of human observation/science, belief/religions, and reason/philosophies.
I do not rely upon myself for the analysis regarding the legitimacy of my having an eternal soul, since I do not 'believe' I am wiser than all of humanity.
This is not a statement of humility, it is a statement of rationality.
[050717 cg] I do not concede that it is a consensus of "all of humanity" that we are an eternal soul, but even if it were a consensus, is it rational to believe because it is a consensus? Maybe it is rational to believe. But rational or not, a consensus, even a consensus of "all of humanity", in the belief that we are an eternal soul, does not make or mean that the belief is true. I do not think so, but to debate the issue is a futile exercise where one holds a belief that is determined by authority or consensus.
[050727 djs] In a metaphysical discussion, the first statement of truth is the recognition that there is nothing we can know for certain.
Even science takes this approach. The approach acknowledges that we are limited beings and as such ‘interpret’ reality from our ‘point (physical point) of view’. It is the acknowledgement that there is nothing we can know for certain which allows us to remain flexible in our interpretations of what it is we observe and as such we willingly, although often reluctantly, change our interpretations.
Metaphysics must incorporate this fundamental premise of science before it can emulate the success of science.
Regarding: ‘… to debate the issue is a futile exercise where one holds a belief that is determined by authority or consensus.’ Both mathematics and science base their progress upon the concept of acknowledging authority and consensus. The process has served them well. I do not understand why it is that the process science has found to be so useful is rejected as a basic tool for rational thinking.
Thursday, July 28
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Individuated entities of knowing: Part VII
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 02:38 AM EDT
Individuated entities of knowing: Part VII
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.
[deleted materials]
[050716 djs] Regarding: We hear the ring tone; that is our experience of our internal reality, it is our perception, it arises and passes away. I can understand how it is the physical telephone ring arises and passes away since the physical is but a temporary existence, since the physical had a 'beginning' and thus most probably has 'an end', but I do not understand how it is that the self awareness regarding the experiencing of the telephone ringing also arises and passes away.
If self awareness is non-physical in nature and if time is an innate characteristic of the physical, Einstein, then if and when the physical 'ends' time ends and with the end of the physical, it would appear the non-physical, self awareness, would, by definition, remain and therefore the self awareness of one's experiencing the telephone ring would remain.
This thought process would seem to suggest your statement, '… it is our perception, it arises and passes away.' is illogical.
Can you help me understand the error of my thinking?
[050717 cg] I understand your argument leads you to think that "the self awareness of one's experiencing the telephone ring would remain." I understand you to mean that our perceptions (or memories of perceptions?) exist forever within our selves; i.e., our eternal souls are, like sacks, filled with our experience.
While I think your argument is flawed, there is a way that I can understand how (without the attribute "eternal") 'our souls are filled with our experience' is an expression of truth. I experience each separate moment and I may name the flow of my experiences my "soul". (Alternatively, I may name that which experiences the present my "soul". )
[050727 djs] Regarding: ‘I understand you to mean that our perceptions (or memories of perceptions?) exist forever within our selves; i.e., our eternal souls are, like sacks, filled with our experience.’ You are partially correct. Perhaps it would help for me to use your analogy of the soul being a form of ‘sack’. The ‘sack’/soul contains the experience, simultaneously the sack is more than just a ‘container’. The soul/’sack’ is the ability to know, is the ability to summarize the experiences into a unique form of perception defined by 1. the unique summation of experiencing through traveling the physical, which begins at zero and ends with the last experience of the physical journey, and 2. the unique ‘personality’ of that particular unique ‘soul’ to process and then form a unique spirit through the process of the mixing of experiencing with the unique ability to perceive.
In short the soul acts as the ‘sack’ capable of uniquely processing experiencing. In short the ‘sack’ is filed with unique experiencing from which a unique spirit emerges through a processing conducted by the soul. I suppose one could say it is like baking a cake, water is added to the mix forming a unique solution which in turn is baked forming something entirely different from the original mix.
The idea that this ‘spirit’, formed through a unique soul processing a set of unique experiencing, eventually could simply cease to be, is what I perceive to be a loss of great magnitude.
[deleted materials]
[050711 djs continues] To state unequivocally, supported by scientific validation - religious history - and philosophical dialectic, that 'multiplicity/individuality exists universally and interacts with the whole' is to state a 'universal absolute truth'.
[050712 cg] So you say.
[050716 djs] It is not 'I' that says it, it is humanity, to the best of its ability, that says it.
[050717 cg] If you are speaking for humanity, then I am outside of humanity.
[050727 djs]Regarding: If you are speaking for humanity, then I am outside of humanity. We are all ‘outside’ humanity yet we are all ‘inside’ humanity. We are all individually unique as opposed to being a ‘colony’ organism. In a society of unique individuals, humanity is simply a ‘color’ of the summation of human action, a historical vector of past action leading to and through present action pointing towards future action.
We cannot control past action nor can we control present action (the present does not exist in the physical universe). We can only control what our future action will be and thus we have the ability to shift the historical vector of human action. This is where our responsibility lies. This is what ‘free will’ is all about.
It is my ‘belief’ that the human historical vector of action cannot be consciously shifted if we do not recognize it, understand where it is pointing, and consciously understand how we can alter the vector’s direction. In addition, it is my ‘belief’ that once we consciously understand how to alter the vector’s direction, the direction will not automatically change, the change will only occur should we take the action needed to make it do so.
It is also my ‘belief’ that this historical vector can only be consciously shifted if we expand our understanding of reality for it is my opinion that humanity, as opposed to the individual, defines itself in terms of its understanding of Reality.
[deleted materials]
[050716 djs] Regarding:
What would your soul experience when we shook hands and I said, "Hello,"?
Regarding: Would your soul feel my warm hand in yours?
Regarding: Would your soul see me?
Regarding: Would your soul hear me say, "Hello,"?
Regarding: Would your soul experience these perceptions?
I do not mean to 'avoid' the issues but I am not suggesting that I am an expert in understanding the details which exist regarding the spirit, the soul, the physical body, the physical universe, and total consciousness. There are others who could better answer your specific questions. You might begin by looking to the Theosophy Society, the Rosicrucians, etc.
For me to get into all the minutia is to suggest I am an expert in the subject.
I am simply stating that 'truth' exists and the basic truths are: G-d exists, the individual exists, the physical exists, and nothingness exists. I am stating that 'nothing, that exists, is lost, ceases to be. I am stating that all that exists not only exists but has functionality for if what exists has no functionality/meaning it does not exists. I am stating that all that exists, exists in a symbiotic relationship with all else that exists. I am stating that we are capable of understanding what it is we capable of purporting or questioning, namely: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? From where did I come? To where will I go? Why am I responsible for my actions? Do I have free will? Is G-d powerful enough and knowledgeable enough to 'grow' in Its very power and knowledge? What role do I play in G-d's growth should G-d in fact grow? Etc.
It is these base questions for which I feel I have as much expertise as anyone, as opposed to having an expertise dealing with the questions the details details, intricacies, and minutia which surrounds every aspect of the spirit, soul, mind, and body. I am a metaphysicist not a biologist, physicist, or chemist. I am a metaphysicist not a priest, rabbi, or cleric. I am a metaphysician not an epistemologist, modal logician, or epiphenomenalist.
My apologies, I wish I could be more for you.
[050717 cg] There is no need to apologize. But I do wonder how you create a metaphysical model of reality that includes an eternal soul yet you find describing the functioning of the soul as "details, intricacies, and minutia". We may or may not have direct experience of G-d, the physical, or "the nothingness of non-existence", but our souls are immediately accessible to us because our souls are us, so we are each 'the expert' regarding our soul.
[050727 djs] There are two observational, literally ‘observational’, extremes one can take when discussing metaphysical issues.
There is the ‘micro’ metaphysical discussion emanating from the point of the individual, in such a case, issues regarding the individual, are not spoken of in terms of ‘details’, ‘intricacies’, and ‘minutia’, for the issues are personal in nature since we are each unique individuals and thus unique in our individuality. Issues, once taken personally, are no longer viewed by the individuals as being ‘simply’ this or ‘simply’ that for the issues become ‘our issues’, become, as I said, personal.
Then there is the ‘macro’ metaphysical discussion emanating from the point of The Whole, in such a case, issues regarding the individual, are spoken of in terms of ‘details’, ‘intricacies’, and ‘minutia’, for the individual, although significant, is ‘a minutia’, is an ‘intricacy’, is part of ‘the detail’.
Wednesday, July 27
Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Understanding - Step 1
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Wed 27 Jul 2005 12:06 AM EDT
Understanding - Step 1
[deleted materials]
[050716 djs] Regarding: Perhaps, we can agree that there is the truth, "G-d exists", that does not depend on us or any thing. I like your process, establishing what it is we can agree upon but I disagree with your supposition. Perhaps we can begin by stepping back a little and simplify what it is we agree upon and then proceed from there.
May I suggest we begin with your statement, break it down into its fundamental elements, and then discuss each in order:
1. Truth exists.
2. G-d exists
3. G-d is that which does not depend on us or anything.
I have no problems using the three as a beginning point. Seeing your statement dissected into its components would you like to begin here or would you like to reorder and/or change the three? If you have nothing to add, change, or discuss, I have some issues regarding the above but I will await your initiative.
[050717 cg] Let's simplify. I agree:
1. G-d exists.
2. G-d is that which does not depend on us or anything.
If you agree, I'm ready for your issues.
[050726 djs] As I stated 050716: ‘I have some issues regarding the above but I will await your initiative.’ So now I will say it: I have an issue with both the first and second statements.
Regarding: ‘G-d exists.’Although I personally agree with the first statement, I would suggest the statement cannot stand alone if it is to be anything other than a statement of personal belief, a personal religion.
[Personal thoughts: Even Euclid began his establishment of Geometry with understanding that the very first statement of Geometry is based upon a ‘common agreement’, based upon a consensus if you will, is in fact a consensually agreed upon definition, namely: Definition 1: ‘A point is that which has no part.’
It is from a willingness ‘to agree’ that mathematicians were then able to evolve an interesting and phenomenally useful train of thought which we call ‘plane geometry’.
It is from the first statement of definition that Euclid’s 13 books, Archimedes’ 13 most notorious works of geometry, and Apollonius’ three books addressing issues of conics all evolved. If mathematicians had not been willing to agree upon a first statement, no geometry would have evolved.
Having made the above observation, it would appear logical that to begin as Euclid began could potentially produce a broader understanding of reality. As such it would appear we should begin with a definition of ‘G-d’ upon which we can both agree.
Regarding: ‘G-d is that which does not depend on us or anything.’ Why is it that humans make the assumption that God does not depend upon us or anything?
The question is simply a rhetorical statement of wonderment.
My thinking leads me to the conclusion that we not forget the statement but rather that we address the statement after we ‘define’ ‘G-d’.
Verbiage, verbiage, verbiage, I apologize for the verbiage.
Let me get back on track.]
Since this site is labeled as, Adding reason to faith’, I have no choice but to ask:
- Regarding your statement, ‘G-d exists.’: What possible reason could you have for making such a statement?
- Regarding your statement, ‘G-d exists.’: What do you mean by ‘G-d’? Define ‘G-d’.
[deleted materials]
Tuesday, July 26
Human Issues - Science: The Universe - Purpose of the Universe
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Tue 26 Jul 2005 12:01 AM EDT
The Universe – Purpose of the Universe
Question
If symbiotic panentheism is not the model describing reality than what is the model that can do so?
Introduction
However if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that the universe and we exist. (Hawking, Stephen W. 1988, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, p. 175.)
Analysis
Symbiotic panentheism is composed of two parts: Panentheism – a description of the size of reality and Symbiosis – a description of the action taking place within the whole of reality. Until the advent of symbiotic panentheism (Shepard, Daniel J, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, Vol. II, Tractate 12: Symbiotic Panentheism, Global Academic Publishing, Binghamton University SUNY, Binghamton, New York) no rational complete theory regarding the structure of reality has been put forward which provides the rationality necessary to satisfactorily resolve religious variance, philosophical paradoxes, and scientific dilemmas.
Panentheism has been with us for a long time. Panentheism alone, however, describes what reality is but lacks the description regarding the interactions occurring within reality. Panentheism describes reality as being the whole of itself – everything is ‘within’ the whole. All the parts make up the whole. The ‘one’ is the sum of its parts. Therefore there are two aspects of reality:
The whole: singularity/oneness
The parts: multiplicity/Individuality
Remarks
The symbiosis aspect of symbiotic panentheism provides the understanding regarding the interactivity, which exists within reality. The symbiosis provides the rationality needed to understand the ‘purpose’ of the parts found within the whole of reality to the whole itself as well as the purpose for the whole of reality to the parts found within the itself, found within the whole.
|
