Adding reason to faith

These two Empires, though they differed outwardly in many respects, had much in common with each other.

Both the Egyptian and Babylonian Empires were the first two examples of urban civilization, each of which supported large populations.

Despite their size there was little or no diversity of outlook or opinion.

It was the kings and priests – possessors of magical powers – who ruled their people.

These civilizations, with their theocratic and monarchical institutions, had little tolerance for diverse viewpoints.

As a consequence, there was little scientific or technological progress or innovation other than that employed to support the prevailing belief systems.

djs: Diversity of viewpoint existed before the ancient Greeks.

Diversity of viewpoints existed through the acknowledged forms of heads of state: the kings and priests.

It took many millennium for the concept of diverse viewpoints existing through individuals as opposed to the state.

In essence it took many millennia for the concept of multiplicity/individuality/diversity to rise to the level of superceding the concept of the state being more important than the individual.

The argument regarding the concept of multiplicity versus singularity was fully addressed in Tractate 11: The Error of Philosophy. (www.panentheism.com – library)

But what does the issue have to do with a new metaphysical perception?

The new metaphysical perception being presented in this work, suggests...

To be continued: Part II of II

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Action versus inaction 0610 04k

by Daniel J. Shepard on Sun 15 Oct 2006 12:00 AM EDT

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.

Dan;

OK, acknowledging that we have not addressed the issue of how desirability of consequences is defined and your qualifier regarding our ability to know, we are mostly in agreement. That leaves this:

Cg: How would your suggestion that “one is responsible for the actions one does not take”, given the above conclusion, effect your decision making? To me (you may feel differently) it seems that such a consideration might cause me permanent indecision or, more likely, to ignore that suggestion and choose.

Djs: I would disagree with this point. We make decisions every day, every hour, every minute, every second regarding what actions we will or will not take. This scenario does not cause us to enter into a state of ‘permanent indecision’ although it does cause us to pause from time to time.

Yes, people make decisions every day, but that may be because people do not believe that “one is responsible for the actions one does not take”.

Djs: I am not suggesting we are capable of knowing ALL potential actions, rather I am speaking of potential actions of which we are aware.

Oh, of course, not literally ALL, but reasonably aware. Yes?

But even when considering only the consequences of the “potential actions of which we are aware”, those consequences will depend on the actions taken by everyone, excluding you, at that moment of your act and ALL the actions taken by everyone, including you, thereafter eternally.

And remember, the point of my original e-mail to you was that I had found something that corresponded to “your search for something personal that was born and would live eternally” and that was “our action; that was born because it came into existence with our doing, and would live eternally because the consequences are endless”.

Do no harm,
clyde

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos