|
|
Saturday, October 27
Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part V of V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sat 27 Oct 2007 12:00 AM EDT
From the Logician: Part V of V
... So you dismiss the truth of the ancestors? They fought and died for nothing? For a small child the truth of the matter is the biscuit jar is way to high to reach, but this changes as it grows.
Djs: I would take this as a compliment if I didn’t know you believe in everyone’s beliefs, rational dialectics, statements, arguments, conclusions, morals, ethics, fundamental premises, As you say: Everyone is right.
In their own way
Djs: I do not know how a belief-krig could start from this site since the concept of belief is not the foundation of this site.
I know you don’t believe that your site could start a belief-krig, but believe me if you wish, I know it could as not everyone has the same perception of your work as you. Ever had someone send you a death threat because they believe that what you write would mean the end of their way of life?
Djs: The point of this site is to bring us as individuals and a species to a new level of understanding regarding reality and our role within reality. This site does not act as a catalyst for our demise.
You know that and I know that but there are some who will see it as a threat.
The point is to prepare us to respect the uniqueness of the individual as opposed to verbalizing the individual being unique but taking actions to force the individual to conform.
“Forcing the individual to conform” ? You thinking like God again?
The point is to prepare us for an interaction with life forms outside our planet.
Who says we haven’t already?
We have a choice. We can either attempt to understand reality and understand our role within reality or we can, out of fear of offending anyone, simply say everyone is right.
I offended everyone with what I wrote and that was with telling them they were all right as well. Humans are fickle beings who don’t even like it when they get what they want.
Djs: As always your insights have been interesting. Again thanks for your interest.
You’re welcome
A piece of friendly advice, drop this “I think like God” trip.
So, Mr. Shepard may I thank you yet again for your reply.
Peace, Love and Respect
With Respect comes Love, with Love and Respect comes Peace
Remember: Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you.
J °C
Logician
Reply to follow
End
Friday, October 26
Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part IV of V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 26 Oct 2007 12:00 AM EDT
From the Logician: Part IV of V
...An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are art is to suggest there is no such thing as art.
To suggest that everyone’s paintings are not art, is to believe that art can only take a certain form. When a child draws a picture that makes no sense to anyone else but the child it is true art, to believe that art can only be found in certain places is not only being a snob, but a fool as well.
To suggest everyone’s pounding upon the piano keys is music is to suggest there is no such thing as music.
It is music to the person pounding upon the keys, just because sometimes its more melodic than others does not mean it’s not music. Thrash metal is to some an unholy racket, but to others it is the sweetest sound. How you get to the bit about it suggesting there is no such thing as music is I am afraid beyond be, it’s all music. Narrow mindedness I suppose.
To suggest everyone’s solution to the equation 2 + 2 = ? is correct even if they answer 3, is to suggest there is no such thing as mathematics.
Irrelevant statement to the argument that all answers are correct.
Djs: You speak of belief. This site demonstrating the model of reality called symbiotic panentheism, has nothing to do with belief. Reason, dialectics steeped in reason and rationality are the bases of the model.
Yes it does, can’t you see that? It’s your belief. Colour it as you will, there is no difference between what you have written on your site and any other form of dogma. All beliefs validate themselves through reason, their own reasoning, just like yours does.
Beliefs may be reasonable but they are not based upon reason. Beliefs are still beliefs even if they are unreasonable because they are what they are, namely beliefs.
All beliefs are based upon reason, the reasoning of the individual involved.
Djs: That is as it should be. Your belief is your belief. Your have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe but that does not make it a reasonable or rational concept.
Again with this belief rigmarole, listen, I said I believe that when I die some part of me doesn’t, it’s not a belief I just want to believe that it could be true, I might be wrong, I’ll find out when it happens, to be honest, I don’t dwell upon my demise, I’m too busy living.
Djs: I am not telling you to believe anything. I am just proposing a model of reality based upon reason and rationality.
You are telling me to believe in your model of reality, otherwise why did you write it if you didn’t want people to believe in it?
You have the right to believe whatever it is you wish to believe.
Damn right, and what you have written is for the most part very believable. Your arguments are sound and your reasoning very well thought out if I may say so.
I am here to participate in dialectics based upon reason not simply what it is one believes.
That is very obvious
Djs: Because you call it this or that does not make it so, rather it simply is a statement of what you believe.
English speakers call it Blue, Danes call it Blå, French Bleu etc…
For instance: If a blind man feels the leg of an elephant, he may believe it is a tree but does not make the elephant a tree.
Only if the blind man was deaf and had no sense of smell or it would be a smelly breathing tree.
Djs: You are correct. There is life after death or there isn’t. Life after death is not dependent upon what you believe, it either is or it isn’t.
Can’t fault you there old chap!
Djs: Again, I am not dealing with beliefs but rather I am proposing rational arguments.
Again
I state the following and then provide the rationale dialectics for such statements:
- You exist yes
- I exist yes
- The physical universe exists yes
- The Whole exists so you believe
- You and I are within the physical universe yes
- The physical universe lies within the Whole/God so you believe
These six statements describe panentheism.
- All that exists impacts all else that exists (including the existence of non-existence) symbiosis
Thus symbiotic panentheism. Only if the previous seven statements were proven to be true
Symbiotic panentheism is a form of panentheism. Yes
Symbiotic panentheism is literally a model of reality, nothing more. Agreed
Symbiotic panentheism is not based upon beliefs but rather based upon reason.
A.k.a. belief in the validity of the reasoning behind the statement
That’s all, nothing more, nothing less.
All or nothing would be a better description IMHO, ok maybe not so humble.
Djs: Truth is truth and does not change over time. Our perception of truth may change as we grow to understand reality but that does not change truth, what it changes is simply our perception.
To be continued: Part V of V: So you dismiss the truth of the ancestors? ...
Thursday, October 25
Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part III of V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Thu 25 Oct 2007 12:00 AM EDT
From the Logician: Part III of IV
... Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue how God thinks and to state that you do is one step on a slippery slope, I sincerely hope that you do not really mean it literally, if you do, our correspondence will be hereby severed.
As religions say: God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.
And that one statement has caused nothing but sorrow since it was first uttered. It is sheer human arrogance to believe that God or similar entity would look anything like us. Patriarchal tosh.
I am simply beginning my ontological discussions from fundamental premises of religions and proceeding from there. I am also demonstrating, using the tool of metaphysical modelling, that the fundamental ontological premises, are steeped in rationality and reason.
Metaphysical modelling? You mean imagination, creative imagination.
Djs: all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, - This is known as relative moralism. Such a positing is based upon the fundamental: There is no such thing as absolute truth other than the statement there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Anyone and everyone has the right to believe such a fundamental principle but such a fundamental principle voids all legitimacy of opposing dialectics based upon reason.
It does not void all legitimacy of opposing dialectics at all, that is such a narrow minded view, quite the opposite is true, it allows opposing viewpoints to have equal validity, thus giving a broader spectrum of viewpoints.
Djs: as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. That is exactly the product of your model: There is no such thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical,
You obviously have not read the model I sent you a while back, it does not state that there no such things as “right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical” at all, it asked you to put everything you have ever been taught to one side, then to read the logical text proving that we are all human way before we are introduced to religious belief and suchlike, then with that understanding give rise to the cessation of all hostilities. It then asked you to take what you put aside, back again and redefine the principles on which society can be based upon as a united, yet unique individual, nation and world. This means all previous understandings of morality are once more bought into the forum. Each nation would then be able to write the laws which specifically pertain to them, along with the basic laws of human rights. It allows the differences of nations to be celebrated and not congeal all nations under one supposed set of rules. True equality within and across all borders.
Djs: Solutions are what people are looking for, are what people have been seeking since they began thinking and they look to the thinkers to provide the answers.
If the thinkers refuse to tackle the issues, the thinkers are shirking there very reason for having been given the ability to think.
It is not up to one “thinker” to provide all the answers/solutions, it is far better to allow all others to think for themselves.
Djs: No you provided no solution at all, to suggest that everybody is correct is to suggest there is no solution at all.
Oh but I do provide a solution by suggesting that everyone is correct, in doing so they can for the first time understand that they might all be wrong, thus enabling the advent of their own solutions by themselves for themselves, and with every nation on Earth doing it at the same time, voila a global solution based upon unique solutions and not just one.
People are yearning for answers to the questions: What is reality? What are we? Why do we exist? Is there life after physical death? My son or daughter died, where are they now? ... To say the answer is whatever they want it to be is to suggest there is no answer.
You really do have a problem with logic that’s not your own don’t you? Let me put it another way then; When the question of reality is raised for example, because there is no definitive answer, it opens up the floodgates for a myriad of answers all with equal validity, thus the answer of “it can be whatever you want it to be” becomes correct. Just because someone else has a difference of opinion about life after death etc… doesn’t mean they are wrong, we humans have a passion for immortality, a need to believe that we survive after death, but if you look back in history only a few select were allowed to believe that they went into the afterlife, and they were the “rulers”. The rest of them were not allowed to be immortal or even have immortal thoughts about themselves. Go even further back and no-one thought of immortality, they accepted they came and went as the world around them showed that this was the way life is. It matters not if the answer is not the same around the world, the fact it isn’t makes it all the more interesting. You could of course answer the questions with logic, so here goes:
What is reality? Everything you can think of
What are we? Humans
Why do we exist? To experience life
Is there life after physical death? Of course
My son or daughter died, where are they now? In your heart and mind
An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are art is to suggest there is no such thing as art.
Part IV of V: To suggest that everyone’s paintings are not art, is to believe...
Wednesday, October 24
Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part II of V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Wed 24 Oct 2007 12:00 AM EDT
From the Logician: 071016: Part II of V
... I wrote : Logician: it doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary goal in a world that is ripping itself apart.
Where does it say that the spiritual well being is not important? It clearly states that my theory does not take it into consideration as it is a SECONDARY goal. The PRIMARY goal of the theory is to give a logical reason for the cessation of hostilities between nations. Nowhere have I stated that I think the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence, you drew that conclusion all by yourself, but I will tell you something, right now, the physical form of existence is the only form of existence everyone in the world can relate to. Right now, it is the physical, that is doing all the killing, so forgive me if I think with every fibre of my being, that right now it is more important to sort out physical problems facing our species.
Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.
This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
Again with the validating? What is this need you have to validate your own work? Others with validate it by believing in it.
Djs: There is no inventing or new interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.
Of course there is, otherwise by now everyone in the world would understand the concept of “sp” and it would be a widely know as the bible, but it isn’t. It is a new interpretation of existence, presented to the world for the very first time by YOU, so don’t state otherwise.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.
The existing definition of God is a best guess scenario to suit a human need for immortality, according to you (and some others) we do not know if we exist, let alone God, it’s a question of personal belief.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no rights away from anyone other than the right to interfere with another’s journey.
It takes away the right to believe that God is a human invention.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no saving involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.
Well that’s a shame, my theory saves lives, the lives of everyone needlessly suffering because of ignorance and denial.
Djs: My hackles rose, as you say, when you suggested you had the right to take what I said and interpret it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.
That goes both ways, my friend.
I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.
There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.
All statements are open to the “twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others” otherwise they wouldn’t be statements, they would be facts.
Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that God can circumvent eternal recurrence but demonstrates how God can circumvent eternal recurrence. Your model only states God can circumvent eternal recurrence but has nothing to offer regarding how God can circumvent eternal recurrence other than we don’t know how God can but It can.
You obviously have no sense of humour, you put up the “eternal recurrence” thingamajig as a problem God has to deal with, whereas I have never believed it to be a problem for a God. In my book (don’t get in a tizzy, it’s only a saying, I don’t really have a book) Gods can do things we humans cannot.
Djs: You would suggest otherwise? If one suggests God is not a rational being than there is no rational discussion to take place and this very exercise becomes irrelevant.
God? Rational? You have got to be joking, what rational being would allow the suffering of billions? I know that in your model you state we come from the whole, only to return to give a “sit-rep” so it can learn, but tell me, how much suffering does it take before it has learned enough about the ease in which humans can hurt each other?
Djs: I am not suggesting that God thinks like me but rather that I think like God.
Part II of V: Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue...
Tuesday, October 23
Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part I of V
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Tue 23 Oct 2007 12:00 AM EDT
October 16, 2007
From the Logician: 071016: Part I of V
Daniel. J. Shepard
The World Embracing Hope Foundation
Dear Sir
Once more unto the breech my friend. I do feel however that we have a tendency as ships in the night to pass each other without really knowing that we are of the same mind. It maybe because I am not yet skilled enough to put my point across or we both are too set in our ways to understand the similarities as we tend to focus upon the differences. This of course is what makes a good rapport, but is ultimately negative as we still have not fully understood each other. I am having a hell of a time trying to put what I mean into words and have already edited this first paragraph umpteen times in a vain attempt to begin this answer to your previous mail, but I will endeavour to do so.
For instance: Can you give me a rational explanation as to how God could avoid eternal recurrence other than God learning?
Yes, quite easily, for God there is no such thing as eternal recurrence, it is a human invention to explain a single facet of existence.
Djs: There is no reduction here. Quite the contrary. The concept expands the ability of God over that of others who profess God cannot learn.
There is a reduction Sir, God does not need to learn from humans.
Djs: Again you rely upon faith, religious dogma, belief. I am not suggesting God cannot I am not suggesting religion is wrong. What I am suggesting is that religion is irrational in simultaneously arguing God is Omniscient and then arguing God cannot learn more.
What I am suggesting is that reason and rationality would suggest God can, reason and rationality would suggest God is capable of, God being by definition, Omniscient, would know how to and being by definition, Omnipotent, has the power to and being by definition, Omnipresent, would do so within itself as oppose to do so outside itself.
Again you have misunderstood. I do not in any manner, shape or form rely upon faith, religious dogma or belief. Logically your interpretation of God has an ability and reason to learn and it goes against what popular religious dogma states as being factual. This is also irrational as God is an entity reliant upon ones belief in such an entity, so it matters not if it can or should be able to learn.
Djs: I am arguing, not only is God capable of understanding how It can circumvent eternal recurrence but that we as rational beings made in the image of God by God , are also capable of rationalizing such a process.
But to argue this point you have to believe that we are made in Gods image and God is subject to our rationalizing process.
Djs: Within the scope of the model, if God should choose to stop learning, we would remain as we are, souls which exist with the experiences and abilities we have at our disposal.
The model demonstrates we experience uniquely and once having experienced our unique knowing of such experiencing becomes a part of total knowing, God. This does not suggest we no longer exist, rather it explicitly demonstrates that while Gods knowing advances with our experiencing, we remain as discrete entities of uniqueness. If we as unique entities should not survive as unique entities, the Whole, God if you wish, would be less than It potentially could be via our loss which would, in turn, be counter to the very concept of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
But because in your model God is “using” us to learn, if it decides to stop learning then there would no need for further human beings to be born. I agree in the model the previous beings would be part of “a whole” as you call it and they would still exist etc but it would mean logically the end of the human race a physical entities living on this planet or planets throughout the universe.
Djs: I would suggest, it is not the universe which allows anything, but rather the universe was created as a tool, to advance a specific purpose, namely, a means by which God circumvents eternal recurrence.
I would suggest that the universe is the host to all life within it, and has nothing to do with God getting around a human defined restriction called eternal recurrence. It is the medium in which all physical matter can exist/co-exist.
Djs: If it is an accurate phrase, why be careful in using it? To suggest we are lab-rats is inaccurate. Lab-rats have no free will. Lab-rats are controlled.
As are we all by our environment, be it physically or metaphysically.
The model of symbiotic panentheism is a metaphysical model of reality which clearly and emphatically demonstrates that we as individuals and thus as a species have free will. The model clearly demonstrates we are not controlled.
We, therefore, are responsible as individuals for our actions and the repercussions said actions generate.
The difference between lab-rats and human individuals:
Lab-rats are not responsible for their actions.
Humans are responsible for their actions.
How can you say lab-rats are not responsible for their actions? All the actions of a lab-rat are subject to consequences. As for humans being responsible for their actions you must mean humans who have developed a sense of right and wrong, for as far as I am concerned when a human is born it has no such sense.
Djs: I don’t know. What options other than a singularity theory specifically are you suggesting? Djs: The big bang theory is in essence a singularity theory. The creation of the physical universe.
Read “A Brief History Of Time” by Steven Hawking and his interpretation of the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity, a very worth while piece of reading and very interesting concept.
Djs: Sp (symbiotic panentheism) goes beyond human behaviour and human terms.
My theory does not, as it does not need to. Whereas your work envelops the immortal aspect of existence, mine concentrates upon the problems facing everyone alive today. Logically taking steps to allow future generations to develop beyond human behaviour and human terms.
This is the second means by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
Seriously? You reckon you validate sp because it goes beyond human terms? If that is all it takes to validate a theory, I’ll change mine to come up with a supposed scenario of immortality.
Djs: Secularism has done more damage and been the demise of more individuals within the 20th Century than any form of religion Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao
Having said that: To suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is not to be considered is to suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is unimportant and thus non-existent. In short, to suggest the spiritual well being is not to be considered is to suggest the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence.
I wrote :...
To be continued: Part II of V
|
