Response to the Logician: 070706:

Part II of IV

...Logician: Embrace the differences of interpretation, sometimes it’s a blessing in disguise. All interpretations of writings are correct for the person involved in understanding them. If you feel that they are being misunderstood then you are only seeing it from one angle.

Djs: To embrace the differences of interpretation regarding what it is I  am expressing is in essence another form of embracing relative moralism. I embrace neither..

Logician: You understanding is your understanding and yours alone. You arrive at your conclusion due to the myriad of parameters that go to make up your life.

Djs: What is being expressed in these metaphysical writings has little to do with me personally.

Logician: If someone has been raised in different country with a totally different cultural structure and working history then they are not likely to fully understand what you write in the same manner. Open your mind Sir. It takes a world FULL of different people to make up the human population of this world. If you want to write something that cannot be misinterpreted by anyone no matter who they are, you have to be able to write it in all languages with all the idiosyncratic nuances still intact. You choose to write in a singular language therefore you have limited the scope of understanding available to the reader. An interpretation is just that, and nothing more, not to be dismissed or reviled, but to be taken as a floating parameter you have not yet taken into consideration.

Djs: This is not a literary site. I am not writing of my interpretations of reality but writing of an understanding of reality I have been privileged to ‘view’ from a macroscopic vantage point.

Logician: The next point of contention, this property of soul business, let me explain a few things to you Sir. The bit of God that is not you but comes from God is what I am referring to. Your example of you giving your D.N.A. sequence to your biological offspring has NOTHING to do with the part I am discussing, namely; the soul ! So yet again your argument is based upon your misinterpretation of the information given. I at no point mentioned the physical make up of a human, I did however point out in your work the meta-physical soul you stated God gave each human and then took it back at a later stage.

Djs: two points here: 1. I explained the DNA description was an analogy. 2. I clearly explained the aspect of the individual which is ‘made in the image of God’ was discrete in nature and was never taken ‘back at a later stage’. It was you who misinterpreted my writing as implying this was so. This is an example of the individual, namely yourself in this case, misinterpreting what it is I said as opposed to my having said such was the case.

Logician: Let me say one thing about this point Sir, my soul is MY soul, it has never ever been a part of God and never will be.

Djs: I agree, your soul is your soul. This does not mean your soul cannot affect God’s being.

Again to use an analogy: The raisins in raisin bread are in the raisin bread and make the ‘bread’ raisin bread. The bread of raisin bread is found in the raisin bread and make the raisin bread what it is, namely raisin bread. Raisin bread is not raisin bread without the raisins or the bread but neither the raisins nor the bread alone make raisin bread raisin bread. Now each raisin may claim it is a unique raisin and each raisin may say nothing one says will change that but despite such reasoning, there is no denying that raisin bread is not raisin bread without the raisins.

Logician: Your work revolves around the return to purity of consciousness and understanding to appease and follow the misinterpretation that has led humans in this world into conflict. Humans have been around far longer than Gods or what we have perceived Gods to be.

Djs: Again you misinterpret both what I have said and what I intend. In no way have I ever attempted to ‘appease’ or attempt to ‘return to purity of consciousness’.

Logician: If not then we are mere puppets of the Gods for their amusement …

Djs: The metaphysical model of symbiotic panentheism clearly demonstrates free will is the fundamental principle of existence and free will is the antithesis of the concepts: ‘mere puppets of the Gods’ and ‘for their [the God’s] amusement’.

Logician: …and gathering of understanding they are not capable of. I don’t know about you but I do not want to be a tool of the Gods. If God has to use my physical presence to gain knowledge then God is no longer omniscient. Sorry but God is omniscient already and doesn’t need my history or anyone else’s to make Him whole.

Djs: You appear to embrace the classical concept of ‘omniscience’ wherein God know everything except how to learn more than exists. To know all does not imply the inability to learn. The classical concept of God knowing all and that is all there is to know is correct as far as it goes. The concept of knowing all simply states knowing all that is as opposed to what does not yet exist in terms of the present – in terms of potentiality of what is not yet. This is a simple yet complex concept. The details can be found within the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception – www.panentheism.com – search concepts such as the present, the future, the past, etc. Also check the thematic index of the work.

Logician: I feel as if you like so many others who believe in the “made-in-the-image-of…..” have the same tendency to transfer human ideology and understandings to and from supposed “greater beings”. You cannot compare human thought with that of beings we choose not to fully understand. You set borders and criteria that stand up to modern day human scrutiny on a moral scale, but humans have been in existence longer than these scales.

Djs: Specifics would help here.