|
0 members (),
632
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2 |
I have had thoughts of this universe without life, everything without life. I think to myself, "What am I without life?". Nobody I have talked to really understands what I mean. So I have came here looking for a person that can relate to these thoughts. If you can, I would really appreciate a talk with you. Even if you can't relate, can you tell me if I am mentally crazy? However, please don't think about this topic to much, it will probably haunt you. It has been coming back to me for ages, and many of those times it has left me afraid, and sometimes even in tears.
Last edited by unknownuniverse; 12/28/08 06:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60 |
Unk  Life is ephemeral, even that of our universe (as while light seems to be the speed limit if dark matter/energy is filling in the spaces between matter-devolved to a level at which gravitational 'attraction' does not rule- at a rate even faster then light speed, it seems likely that at some point the universe would 'prove' lifeless... The quintessential natural occurrence... As regards our own mortality, whether we're on hold (life) until the next great adventure (post-life;) or this is it for our self awareness, it would seem likely that we're all to share the same end result... No tears, mate, try to be a little kinder, enjoy what you may and damn the rest ;)~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Hello unknownuniverse.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I can empathise. I've been there as, I imagine, have a great many others. My turn came when I was around twenty years of age (far too long ago!). I hesitate to presume that your experience is identical to mine - we are all unique, but we generally share more or less of the human propensity to wonder, and ask questions, about the profound enigma of life, the universe and everything. This can lead to a psychological/spiritual crisis, very often in our late teens to early twenties. You are far from crazy. You appear to be at a critical point in personal evolution. I'm told that the Chinese equivalent for the word 'crisis' means 'danger and opportunity'. The dangers are obvious, as you have indicated; but there is an opportunity to break through to new insights. For me, the insights came though yoga and meditation. For you, the way may be similar, or perhaps quite different.
I wish you all the very best.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yoser
Unregistered
|
|
Yoser
Unregistered
|
I think about this time to time and wish I could see how it would be without life, water, air etc. But we are destroying the earth everyday and if we do not do something about it you vision will come true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Given favorable circumstances, potty-training a dog is very simple. Dogs naturally don't want to make a mess in the place they have to live - walk, sleep, eat. Humans, though, are much more advanced than dogs and so we have nothing to learn from them. We can crap in our own home, if we want - and nobody can stop us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
WARNING!!!!!!
Anon: Every time I try to open the site you posted my 'puter shuts down. Am I the only one who has this problem? Fortunately, I have a restore function.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Rev, it must be your computer. I just clicked on it, and it opened to a translation of the Koran. A compendium of arguments against Darwinism and science in general. very anti-science. More of the same old, same old fantasies regarding the origin of the world and of the human race. You haven't missed much.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
I wonder if 'unknownuniverse' is still around. I wanted to ask him/her: What do we mean by 'life'? IMO, it comes in many forms. BTW, is there any scientific evidence that life--in one form or another--is an eternal phenomenon? At 79, I am getting to that time of life when I am very interested.  As a minister, over the years (since 1950) I have buried--that is, I did the funerals--of quite a number of people around this age and younger--one was less than a day, very sad. The oldest was 99. interestingly, my first funeral was in the summer of 1950. I was a student minister in Dundurn, Saskatchewan--a Canadian prairie province. Mr. Parmier was in his 80's. He told me, before he died, that as a teenager he rode with the Jesse James gang in Missouri and nearby states. "My father was friend of James and was shot riding away from a robbery: He was in his 90's. Later that night, he died in the saddle, and we buried him in the dark, on the prairie. I think it was somewhere in Iowa." Just recently, I buried a close friend. She was 83. She died within a few days of taking ill. BTW 2, how many took the following comment by Unknown as a plea for help? And why did we drop the topic? Even if you can't relate, can you tell me if I am mentally crazy? However, please don't think about this topic to much, it will probably haunt you. It has been coming back to me for ages, and many of those times it has left me afraid, and sometimes even in tears. QUESTIONS ABOUT 'DEATH AND DYING' ================================ What is a scientifically and healthy attitude to 'death and dying'? Who feels the need to talk, or write, about it? Who would rather avoid it? Or just listen. If there is an interest, I could set up a special thread, unless there is already one. ===================== 40 years ago: ON DEATH AND DYING--What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy, and Their Own Families by Elisabeth Kübler Ross, M.D. ============================= http://www.growthhouse.org/books/kubler1.htmhttp://www.google.ca/search?q=on+death+and+dying+kubler+ross&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
I have had thoughts of this universe without life, IMO this is an oxymoron ! That "universe" DOES HAVE LIFE... YOURS! You observe it in your "mind's eye". NO OBSERVER = NO OBSERVED. ALL "THINGS" require a "THINGER".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
unknownuniverse,
BTW, I do understand your morbid fear. You are not going crazy.
There are at 3 ways to counteract this.
1. Understand the corollary of my post above, namely "I" cannot
exist seperate from its "observed world".
2. Ask yourself where "you" were during the major part of the night when not dreaming. Answer..."you" were not there..."you" were the equivalent of "dead" ! "Death" (the absence of consciousness) happens to you every night and doesn't bother you !
3. Read "The Death of Forever" by Darryl Reanney. It expands on these ideas and many others.
Last edited by eccles; 04/22/09 05:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Eccles: Thanks for your input, and welcome!
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498 |
..is there any scientific evidence that life--in one form or another--is an eternal phenomenon? By AWT rudiments of life and conscious behavior are contained within every particle . In environment, which enables the repetition of many temporal events (i.e. mutations) the space-time will condense into conscious life undeniably. In this way the life can never be completely destroyed, because it can be recreated/restored in every generation of Universe rather quickly from fundamental principles as an undeniable emergence of complexity. It even seems, conscious life is a geometric property of every sufficiently large piece of space-time, by the same way like galaxies and their black holes. Nevertheless, a concept of cosmic inheritance exists (promoted mainly by Lee Smolin in his "Life of the Cosmos" book), where he collect evidences for idea, organic life has survived cosmological cycles and as such it's a product of more general evolution inside of many universes gradually. Personally, I don't think, life requires survival of Big Bang for its creation and the concept of cosmic evolution is built in AWT at deeper level, then Mr. Smolin has considered. It can be rather understood as a certain observational perspective of inorganic matter evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
"What am I without life?".
#
If you answer to the question:
‘ What make me to be living person? ‘
when you have solution to your question.
============= . .
Last edited by socratus; 04/26/09 10:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
socratus- ecccles gave an excellent answer in his replies. The universe exists for each individual (or organism) because each of us observes it. This can be used as an explanation of the existence of God- ie God is The Observer, and without his watching the universe will cease to be. Personally I am comfortable with the idea that the universe can exist without me, or any deity, watching its every move, but the 'watcher' theory is a neat and arguable idea!
Is there evidence of eternal life? No. We all know that when an animal dies they are dead. Humans are animals too.
Is there evidence that people believe that there is a life after death? Of course there is. Many people hold well-thought-out, sincere beliefs in the prospect of life after death, and many are comforted by it.
I agree Rev-- perhaps if 'unknown' is reading our posts he/she would take advice to find someone to talk to about this question as they sound troubled by it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
ellis, I would not go as far as advocating "a deity" as an "ultimate observer" (as per Berkeley). For me "existence" presupposes "relationship" ( exists for whom or what ?). When we talk about "self" that necessarily co-exists with that which we call "not-self". In other words "self" and "not-self" are co-extensive rather than "mutually exclusive" in a set theoretical sense. IMO Duality may be pragmatic, but non-duality is intellectually the more coherent. If there is no other, there will be no I. If there is no I, there will be none to make distinctions.
Chuang-tsu, 4th Cent., B.C.
Last edited by eccles; 04/27/09 11:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
For me, all that we experience--physically, mentally and spiritually--is what I think of as 'deity'. For short, I use the term,GØD, which is the One, over & in & through-ALL that is. Warren Farr and I discuss this, in detail, at http://wondercafe.caFeel free to join in. See also: http://www.unitheist.org Panentheism not pantheism http://www.flfcanada.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498 |
is what I think of as 'deity' How such "deity" is defined? what we can deduce from such definition by sequence of logical steps?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Let me put it this way: I have no evidence that there is a supernatural deity, or a god--one who is separate and apart from Nature as I perceive it.
But unless Nature is nothing more than an illusion, a dream state--and we are all victims of fraudulent senses, physically, mentally and spiritually--I have enough evidence to convince me that I am part of a dynamic and total process. I have a strong, mystical, sense that there is Being and Presence in the Now, which has practical value, for me, moment by moment. I call this dynamic and total process, GØD. Compare this with the 'religion' of Spinoza and Einstein.
Is this a subject that can be taught, like reading, writing and arithmetic?
No, it is more like an art. Yes, one can learn to be a better artist, especially from other gifted artists; but only if the gift is already present.
BTW, I feel the same way about scientists like Tesla and Einstein.
Last edited by Revlgking; 04/28/09 05:13 AM.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
is what I think of as 'deity' How such "deity" is defined? what we can deduce from such definition by sequence of logical steps? You can deduce anything, from any kind of definition you want. The mind loves to live from its points of past reference, and it bases its logic on what it has been programmed with as reality. A child sees the world one way, a young adult another way and an octogenarian another. An atheist looks for what it believes is real and sees and experiences that which is sought, and a spiritualist experiences and finds what it imagines is real. Once one defines reality and sits in that definition it isn't likely he/she is open to see much else, unless persuaded by some kind of evidence or convincing argument that it is real. Unfortunately we are taught to take the word of others on their authority regardless of whether it is their experience or ours. Without the experience of something behind the words definitions are just words. If you have never seen a cow, no description will ever really prepare one for the event of the cow experience. The experience will not be anything like listening to words that describe the cow, any more than describing a meal will satisfy the taste buds or the empty stomach of a hungry man or woman. The idea that mankind would find any satisfaction from a description that comes from someone who has no experience of what they are talking about, would say something about the maturity of mankind as a species. The next level of blind acceptance is to take the word of someone who has had an experience without ever seeking the experience themselves. Mostly the complacency of autosuggestion, and the acceptance of any story is geared toward how one feels about something and not necessarily the direct experience of the object or idea of discussion itself. "Seek and ye shall find" is a description of the commitment to one pointed faith and the desire for more than a definition. Perhaps the world is only ready for You Tube or Wikipedia as the authoritative reference to all things great, and all things of little consequence. It takes more than an open mind, it takes conviction and the ability to use the awareness to see beyond definitions to overcome limited ideas about something, even if it's a God.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking wrote Is this a subject that can be taught, like reading, writing and arithmetic?
No, it is more like an art. Yes, one can learn to be a better artist, especially from other gifted artists; but only if the gift is already present. Not necessarily. I have not followed up your links yet so forgive me if they cover "Second Order Cybernetics" which is a systems theory approach to "the observation of observation". (Von Foerster) I find this useful when thinking about "deities" or "holistic consciousness" because either of these terms implies psychological closure of a mathematically potential infinite set of nested organizational structures.( "cells" are subservient to "organs" which are subservient to "bodies"....etc).
Last edited by eccles; 04/28/09 06:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Eccles, Forgive me, I am not clear as to the points you are trying to make, or where you stand philosophically, and theologically. Speaking of being subservient, I am reminded of the old Greek myth of Prometheus--the myth is about one who made himself independent of the gods. The myth tells he gained much knowledge for humanity, but at what price. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/prometheus.htm
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498 |
...you can deduce anything, from any kind of definition you want... Well - if so, why not to demonstrate it by one simple example? The more easier it should be for you to do so...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking Perhaps the word "subsevient" was ill chosen. Systems Theory imples that the parts cannot be "understood" without reference to the whole. This is the epistemological opposite of reductionist approach. This paper by Bernard Scott explains the approach and gives a possible line for theologists to explore. http://www.thehope.org/Bernard_Scott/Observer.htmlI myself would not take that line, but I am not adverse to a concept of "holistic consciousness".
Last edited by eccles; 04/28/09 04:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Eccles, I call the whole, GOD, or GØD. What do you call it?
The poet, Alexander Pope, in his Essay On Man, wrote:
All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
I would not want to call it "God" because that has anthropomorhic connotations of purpose or intent. But this body which I seem to inhabit may be like a single bee's in a hive...a component of a larger organizational structure which may itself have the equivalent of "self awareness". Such a "structure" would transcend the psychological construction we call "time", thereby removing that very dimension in which "purpose" logically operates.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Whilst the idea of shared consciouness/awareness is very enticing, and since you infer that the dimension of time would be dispersed by this phenomenum, do you therefore anticipate that this altered state of being will find death immaterial, or are you suggesting that this consolidation is to happen after death? Or, are you suggesting that at all times, including after death but also including life which has been transended by the removal of time, we are all part of the 'thing' that is the manifestation of the diety? This really implies that life and death are the same thing, parted only by timimg, and it will not matter anyway since we are all gods!
I'm interested but not convinced. I am a big Occum's Razor fan-- the most obvious answer is usually the correct one. As in- when you're dead-- you're dead!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Ellis,
Your point raises the question of "levels of consciousness". Those who meditate claim to leave the "normal self" behind and transcend to a timeless ineffable state one of "oneness with the universe". (See Krishnamurti for example). I make no claim for this personally. I agree that the "normal self" certainly disappears during sleep, and "dies" with the body. It also seems to be the case that "self" is an unruly committee evoked and manipulated by situation. Its perceived unity may be an illusion sustained by the social convention of having a "name" and thereby being "socially accountable".Internal conversations aka "thinking" are social events involving different members of the committee.(See Gurdjieff). It may be that "transcendence" involves seeing the committee for what it is...shedding "the illusion of the self"...or indeed simulating "death".
The problem with Occam's Razor is that it operates on standard epistemology (for "normal selves") which seeks causal explanation. Those who advocate holistic epistemologies have de facto rejected "cause" and its running mates "prediction" and "control". And it may be that we are ultimately hampered by the structure of "language" in making joint "sense" of these issues.
Last edited by eccles; 04/29/09 07:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
...you can deduce anything, from any kind of definition you want... Well - if so, why not to demonstrate it by one simple example? The more easier it should be for you to do so... Since the words God and Consciousness are being used, the examples would be in the personal opinions of what they are in the meanings applied to the words, and as they vary by belief and what you mentioned as levels of consciousness.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
I would not want to call it "God" because that has anthropomorhic connotations of purpose or intent. Of course! Have you noticed that, when I speak of the Whole I do not use the noun "God"? GØD/GOD is not a noun; it is an acronym. Eccles, may I borrow your simile and write: But this body which I inhabit is like a single bee's body in a hive (the cosmos).It is a component, an essential part, of a larger organizational structure within the mystery we call the space/time continuum, or the vacuum. However, unlike an instinct-driven bee, we human beeings have the power of self-consciousness. As such, following the principle of the Golden Rule, we can will (love) and choose to bee a G-O-D-like SOB (Son of a Bee, or D(aughter)OB)--one who is willing to work creatively, with others, to create a life that is truly wonderful, true and good for all involved. Or I can choose to bee a selfish and, therefore, destructive SOB/DOB and thus opt out on being part of the wonderful life. BTW, it is I--not my instinctual drives--who makes the choice to bee or not to bee. If it is to 'bee"  , it is up to me, not up to a personal god (God), or a devil up, or down, there. IMO, such a "structure" can transcend the pneumatological construction we call "time". Time now becomes, not a thing that passes, but simply the way we measure how we process--at one with the eternal now--within the infinite and ever-expanding space/time continuum.
Last edited by Revlgking; 04/29/09 03:04 PM. Reason: Always a good idea.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am ".
Is it enough for us in the XXIc ?
Why didn’t the formula E=Mc^2 write in the Bible?
=============..
Each religion uses a system of symbols
(images, metaphors, ancient myths and legends ,
beautiful stories) to explain its truth.
But Bernard Shaw wisely remarked :
“ There is only one religion,
although there are a hundred versions of it.”
It means that the source of all religion is one.
And I try to prove this idea with the formulas and laws of
physics. I don’t invent new formulas. I use simple formulas
which ,maybe, every man knows from school.
Is it possible? Is it enough?
Yes. Because the evolution goes from simple to the complex.
So, in the beginning we can use simple formulas and laws.
For this purpose I explain what the first law of Universe is,
and second law is and ...........etc.
Step by step I create a logical system of the Universe.
I think everybody can understand it.
================= . ======
Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws?
Of course.
Why?
Because if God exists, he would necessarily to work
in an Absolute Reference Frame and have set of physical
and mathematical laws to create everything in the Universe.
And now we can find and understand this Absolute God’s House
and we can find and understand these Cod’s Laws.
============= . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking
You've taught me a new word - "pneumatological" !
I understand the "love" aspect of holism but I am also aware that this could be phenomenon of brain chemistry. No doubt the psychology of the aging process will eventually move me off the fence one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Eccles, please check the re-edit I did of my last post.
BTW, how familiar are you with the concept of pneumatology--the parent of psychology?
In my opinion, human beings who fail to understand the nature, function, value and importance of their pneumatological (spiritual) component will forever remained trapped in their psychological (mental) and somatological (physical) ones. In other words, they will be less humane, to themselves and others.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am " ... Socratus, what is your concept of "God"? Keep in mind, for me, GØD is uncreated Being and Presence--including the space/time continuum--not a being who can be created.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking,
(Okay on the edit). My understanding of "pneumatology" or "active spirituality" as I might call it,is that is a "top-down" approach to "consciousness". I need to contrast it with "deflationist" views of consciousness which see the latter as an epiphenomenon of "the general life process". (Maturana) It is an open question whether "life" is a spontaneous structure (like the dissipative structures of Prigogine) or whether such a structure is being "tweaked" by some form of "higher" organizational force. (Polkinghorne, the Cambridge physicist turned theologian, argues for "tweaking of the strange attractors" in the context of a catastrophe theory model).
So, whereas your pneumatological standpoint focuses on the emotional praxis of "ethical living", my intellectual one focuses on issues of comparative epistemology and ontology. This is not to say that they cannot co-exist.
Last edited by eccles; 04/29/09 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
So, whereas your pneumatological standpoint focuses on the emotional praxis of "ethical living", my intellectual one focuses on issues of comparative epistemology and ontology. This is not to say that they cannot co-exist.
Co-existence, yes. I, too, am all for being as inclusive, and as integrative as possible. And the more I think about it, the more amazed I am that we are spiritual beings, with the ability to know, and to know when we do not know. In other words, we have the power of consciousness, which, BTW, is what Jesus meant when he said "born of the spirit (pneuma)". John 3:1-8 (New Living Translation)
John 3
1 There was a man named Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader who was a Pharisee. 2 After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.”
3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again,[a] you cannot see the Kingdom of God.”
4 “What do you mean?” exclaimed Nicodemus. “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?”
5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water [the metaphor for the unconscious mind (psyche) and the Spirit [pneuma, air, wind, breath--the metaphor for conscious mind].[b] 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.[c] 7 So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
In an answer to Ellis above I said It may be that "transcendence" involves seeing the committee for what it is...shedding "the illusion of the self"...or indeed simulating "death".
It is clear to me that "the born again" metaphor follows directly from a "transcendance of self" experience which some call "epiphany". I think it is too general to be identified with Christianity specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
... It is clear to me that "the born again" metaphor follows directly from a "transcendence of self" experience which some call "epiphany". I think it is too general to be identified with Christianity specifically. Keep in mind, Jesus was speaking as member of the Jewish tradition--one with a universal approach. What we call "Christianity" came later, under the leadership of Paul. Acts 11:19-26 (New Living Translation)
The Church in Antioch of Syria
19 Meanwhile, the believers who had been scattered during the persecution after Stephen’s death traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch of Syria. They preached the word of God, but only to Jews. 20 However, some of the believers who went to Antioch from Cyprus and Cyrene began preaching to the Gentiles[a] about the Lord Jesus. 21 The power of the Lord was with them, and a large number of these Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord.
22 When the church at Jerusalem heard what had happened, they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he arrived and saw this evidence of God’s blessing, he was filled with joy, and he encouraged the believers to stay true to the Lord. 24 Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and strong in faith. And many people were brought to the Lord.
25 Then Barnabas went on to Tarsus to look for Saul. 26 When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers[b] were first called Christians.)
Footnotes:
1. Acts 11:20 Greek the Hellenists (i.e., those who speak Greek); other manuscripts read the Greeks.
2. Acts 11:26 Greek disciples; also in 11:29.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
I have always supposed that while trancendental experiences have something to do with brain chemistry they also respond well to many other chemical influences. Not that I am against that all the time, but it is a bit like cheating Ben Johnson style isn't it?
Hi there Rev-- nice to see you are posting again!
This, below, is an interesting point you make. So much of what we regard as Jesus' teaching in fact did come to us, somewhat subtly changed through Paul. Though it has to be admitted that without his input a lot of stuff may have been lost.
"Keep in mind, Jesus was speaking as member of the Jewish tradition--one with a universal approach. What we call "Christianity" came later, under the leadership of Paul."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Ellis, Make no mistake about it: I agree that Paul--born a Jew who became a Roman citizen--deserves a lot of credit in that like Jesus, he was also a universalist in his attitude. Acts 22
“Brothers and esteemed fathers,” Paul said, “listen to me as I offer my defense.” 2 When they heard him speaking in their own language, the silence was even greater.
3 Then Paul said, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, and I was brought up and educated here in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. As his student, I was carefully trained in our Jewish laws and customs. I became very zealous to honor God in everything I did, just like all of you today. 4 And I persecuted the followers of the Way, hounding some to death, arresting both men and women and throwing them in prison. 5 The high priest and the whole council of elders can testify that this is so. For I received letters from them to our Jewish brothers in Damascus, authorizing me to bring the Christians from there to Jerusalem, in chains, to be punished.
6 “As I was on the road, approaching Damascus about noon, a very bright light from heaven suddenly shone down around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
8 “‘Who are you, lord?’ I asked.
“And the voice replied, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, the one you are persecuting.’ 9 The people with me saw the light but didn’t understand the voice speaking to me.
10 “I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’
“And the Lord told me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told everything you are to do.’
11 “I was blinded by the intense light and had to be led by the hand to Damascus by my companions. 12 A man named Ananias lived there. He was a godly man, deeply devoted to the law, and well regarded by all the Jews of Damascus. 13 He came and stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight.’ And that very moment I could see him!
14 “Then he told me, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and hear him speak. 15 For you are to be his witness, telling everyone what you have seen and heard. 16 What are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized. Have your sins washed away by calling on the name of the Lord.’
17 “After I returned to Jerusalem, I was praying in the Temple and fell into a trance [An interesting reference to self-hypnosis in Acts. See also 10:10 and 11:05] 18 I saw a vision of Jesus saying to me, ‘Hurry! Leave Jerusalem, for the people here won’t accept your testimony about me.’
19 “‘But Lord,’ I argued, ‘they certainly know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20 And I was in complete agreement when your witness Stephen was killed. I stood by and kept the coats they took off when they stoned him.’
21 “But the Lord said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles!’”
22 The crowd listened until Paul said that word. Then they all began to shout, “Away with such a fellow! He isn’t fit to live!” 23 They yelled, threw off their coats, and tossed handfuls of dust into the air.
Paul Reveals His Roman Citizenship
24 The commander brought Paul inside and ordered him lashed with whips to make him confess his crime. He wanted to find out why the crowd had become so furious. 25 When they tied Paul down to lash him, Paul said to the officer standing there, “Is it legal for you to whip a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been tried?”
26 When the officer heard this, he went to the commander and asked, “What are you doing? This man is a Roman citizen!”
27 So the commander went over and asked Paul, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”
“Yes, I certainly am,” Paul replied.
28 “I am, too,” the commander muttered, “and it cost me plenty!”
Paul answered, “But I am a citizen by birth!”
29 The soldiers who were about to interrogate Paul quickly withdrew when they heard he was a Roman citizen, and the commander was frightened because he had ordered him bound and whipped.
Paul before the High Council
30 The next day the commander ordered the leading priests into session with the Jewish high council. He wanted to find out what the trouble was all about, so he released Paul to have him stand before them. BTW, if anyone has the right to be called the first pope, IMO, it was not Peter, but Paul. Note the strong words he used as he chastised Peter's old school and narrow approach. Galatians 2:11-14 (New Living Translation)
Paul Confronts Peter
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
14 When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions? Note, Paul, a Jew was not attacking his own people, as people; but the narrow traditions of some of them.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Paul was very important in the development of the early Christian church, and as a person who had to achieve a total intellectual change of mind, and possibly heart, he is impressive. However he was less than accepting of the role of women in the early church, preferring them to be helpers rather than leaders, and insisting that they dress in a certain way. I remember, for eg, when I was a child, a woman could not enter the Anglican church without a head covering thanks to Paul's edicts!
So---- a universalist --maybe---- if you were the right sort (ie male) --- but a few problems if you were a bit of an uppity female!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am " ... Socratus, what is your concept of "God"? Keep in mind, for me, GØD is uncreated Being and Presence--including the space/time continuum--not a being who can be created. ========================================= Keep in mind, for me, GØD is uncreated Being and Presence-- Socratus. For me too. including the space/time continuum- Socratus. For me too. -not a being who can be created. Socratus. For me too. So, what is God? =========================
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Keep in mind, Jesus was speaking as member of the Jewish tradition--one with a universal approach. What we call "Christianity" came later, under the leadership of Paul.
Jesus often spoke to the Jewish Tradition, and tried to break the ideology of God and Heaven being separate from the experience of life after the physical birth and or before the death of the physical body. He himself never labeled himself as a Jew but as "The Son of God." It was the priests and their subordinates who claimed he was an abomination to the Jewish Tradition because they saw him as a threat to their tradition of beliefs. Chrestos (Gr.) The early gnostic term for Christ. This technical term was used in the fifth century B. C. by AEschylus, Herodotus and others. The Manteumata pythocresta, or the "Oracles delivered by a Pythian God" through a pythoness, are mentioned by the former (Cho. 901), and Pythocrestos is derived from chrao. Chresterion is not only "the test of an oracle," but an offering to, or for, the oracle. Chrestes is one who explains oracles, a "prophet and soothsayer," and Chresterios, one who serves an oracle or a God. The earliest Christian writer, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, calls his co-religionists Chrestians. "It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians, instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. IV., cap. VII.). The terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians, were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans. Chrestos meant, in that vocabulary, "a disciple on probation," a candidate for hierophantship; who, when he had attained it, through Initiation, long trials and suffering, and had been anointed (i. e., "rubbed with oil," as Initiates and even Idols of the Gods were, as the last touch of ritualistic observance), was changed into Christos -- the "purified" in esoteric or mystery language. In mystic symbology, indeed, Christes or Christos meant that the "way," the Path, was already trodden and the goal reached; when the fruits of the arduous labour, uniting the personality of evanescent clay with the indestructible INDIVIDUALITY, transformed it thereby into the immortal EGO. "At the end of the way stands the Christes," the Purifier; and the union once accomplished, the Chrestos, the "man of sorrow" became Christos himself. Paul, the Initiate, knew this, and meant this precisely, when he is made to say in bad translation, "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19), the true rendering of which is, " . . . . until you form the Christos within yourselves." But the profane, who knew only that Chrestos was in some way connected with priest and prophet, and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos, insisted, as did Lactantius and Justyn Martyr, on being called Chrestians instead of Christians. Every good individual, therefore, may find Christ in his "inner man," as Paul expresses it, (Ephes. iii., 16, 17) whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu or Christian.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
... a woman could not enter the Anglican church without a head covering thanks to Paul's edicts!
So---- a universalist--maybe---- if you were the right sort (ie male) --- but a few problems if you were a bit of an uppity female! I think that Paul was ambivalent about women. He was also ambivalent about circumcision, and the end of history, which he failed to predict. In other words, he was not infallible. Neither was Jesus. Is anyone? Well, perhaps you and I are, eh?  BTW, I suspect--just my opinion--he had a dominant-kind of mother, or wife--his "thorn in the flesh". I also suspect that he had no idea his letters would become part of the Bible--and thus a basis for laws--of the future.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
I did not anticipate that my mention of "epiphany" would result in a somewhat tangential discussion of Pauline Christianity. However since that is where we are "at" I would simply remark, in the spirit of Krishnamurti, that organized religion has historically shown itself to be pernicious at the social level even if it is deemed to be benign or therapeutic at the individual level. At the social level it has tended to reify the chauvinistic status quo, and it is clearly over concerned with the regulation of sexuality which we, a "conscious" species which manipulates its world, ironically find difficulty in handling. For me, "spirituality" starts with a departure from religion.
Last edited by eccles; 04/30/09 08:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
If Jesus the answer,
what is the question ?
============================
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
If Jesus the answer,
what is the question ?
============================ Fear of the unknown pushes the ego to seek a reality that is safe. Spirituality of the species or the interconnectedness of all things bubbles thru the individual beliefs and opinions of personal idealism and creates a smell that attracts like minded individual opinion and belief together which gathers into something like a religion. Where people find commonality in beliefs that can create a temporary relief from fear, it ends up as a house of morals and rules to help keep the mind from thinking too much about the unknown. Unfortunately this also tends to stifle creativity to a degree because whenever a thought emerges that is outside of the box, or foreign to common belief and scientific principle it is run through the gauntlet of opposing thoughts and beliefs that live in the houses of religion. Since religion/belief is a part of all philosophy regardless of any definition, be it scientific or otherwise, the opposing thought will either inspire the few who are not bound by rules, or contract the Many who can not live without them. It is only the higher state of conscious awareness that binds the morality of universal connectedness to the one who lives without rules so that he or she who lives beyond religion and its morals is never opposed to the designs of the universe. Unfortunately Krishnamurti who was born enlightened could not relate to the ignorance of the waking state mentality of religion and could not understand why man stayed in ignorance. Like those who traversed the path of enlightenment in a single lifetime to retain the process of change required to escape the confines of religion, Krishnamurti had done the work in a previous lifetime and was born without the karma of delusion and fear that binds religion to the ego. Krishnamurti and his followers stood on two sides of a fence and neither really understood what was on the other side. Krishnamurti was familiar with the flow of the universe but not the delusion of the ego. His followers understood their beliefs, were ignorant of their delusions, and were also fascinated by the truth Krishnamurti resonated with at a spiritually vibrant level of being. It is that vibrational resonance that inspires lesser states of consciousness, but like a faint voice that is overpowered by the stronger voice of the ego, it is suppressed by the ignorance of belief and personality.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
... For me, "spirituality" starts with a departure from religion. I presume you mean the dogmatic, hypocritic, organized and sick kinds of religion. Of course I avoid them. I also avoid sick forms of spirituality. What is it about human nature that we find it difficult not to generalize?
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Tutor Turtle,
Having visted Krishnamurti establishments, I think your analysis is somewhat nebulous.
Krishnamurti did not claim "enlightenment",and famously rejected that status thrust upon him by others. He was no paragon of virtue and his private life included at least one affair with an associate's wife. Amongst his circle (not "followers") were many intellectuals such as Yehudi Menuhin and David Bohm the physicist
none of whom could be accused of failing to see the "delusions of self". BTW, he probably states somewhere that concepts like "karma" are vacuous.
However, I agree that his oratory (including his address to the UN)tended to fall on deaf ears, probably because of the conditioning of "the world" by religious and ideological opiates, but also because the level of intellect needed to appreciate his words is beyond the masses. In addition, unlike Krishnamurti whose comfortable lifestyle was secure, others tend to caught up with the details of making a living.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Tutor Turtle,
Having visted Krishnamurti establishments, I think your analysis is somewhat nebulous. Understandable
Krishnamurti did not claim "enlightenment",and famously rejected that status thrust upon him by others.
Because he saw himself as normal while others saw him as enlightened. Without the ego based self measuring system, his innocence of being saw no limitation in those who claimed to experience a superiority of presence when compared to their own. He simply could not understand why anyone would see life any differently than he did.
He was no paragon of virtue and his private life included at least one affair with an associate's wife. Amongst his circle (not "followers") were many intellectuals such as Yehudi Menuhin and David Bohm the physicist
none of whom could be accused of failing to see the "delusions of self". BTW, he probably states somewhere that concepts like "karma" are vacuous.
Circle, followers, believers, friends, disciples... It's all a matter of perspective from the external point of view. Interestingly enough to have an affair with another mans wife and still be called a paragon of virtue would have to point to the expression of love having no ownership or boundaries. In the society of today as well as that in which Krishnamurti lived it was not a virtuous act to sleep with another mans wife. The idea that love could be owned or that one could attach themselves to just one person was something that was foreign to Krishnamurti. It was not something in his nature to see it as a non-virtuous act regardless of whether the woman was married to another man. IF she made the choice to do so it would have been of here own free will and not because Krishnamurti wasn't virtuous. Probably he stated something more substantial regarding Karma than it being vacuous. Cause and effect is a relative mechanical aspect to the creation of what is called the physical experience. Knowing the Self does not free ones self from the awareness of duality in the manifest because it (duality) must exist in order to support experience. How much of this Krishnamurti knew would have to be determined from one who is conscious enough to Know of His experience. Consciousness recognizes consciousness.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking
By "religion" I mean anything involving worship of a deity, ritual behaviour, reverence for written texts or the words of a Guru.
Turtle Tutor
K advocated the cessation of individual thought, i.e the rejection of "self". This is a call for the experience of non-duality whether or not such is practically achieveable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Turtle Tutor
K advocated the cessation of individual thought, i.e the rejection of "self". This is a call for the experience of non-duality whether or not such is practically achieveable.
It is very much an achievable experience. The experience of Self witnessing the Self by standing aside the ego/self. To one that does not understand the concept it would seem an impossibility. It however in no way deletes duality but it does keep it in perspective.
Jn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Revlgking, By "religion" I mean anything involving worship of a deity, ritual behaviour, reverence for written texts or the words of a Guru.... Eccles, thanks for communicating. Your interesting comment demonstrates how important it is for sincere people to dialogue until they do communicate. With this is mind, if that is what you understand "religion" to be and mean, then I am not "religious". Sure, I respect others who respect whatever. But, tradition for tradition's sake, and ritual bore me! However, I do affirm that I am working on being a self-reflective and, therefore, spiritual and humane-kind of human being.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Rev- I think that the aceptance of the acknowledgement of the divinity of whatever it is a person acknowledges as their god has to be an integral part of belief. It is the repudiation of this belief, that there is some form of supernatural 'realm' (for want of a better word), that identifies an atheist. It is possible to feel awe, wonder and joy without ascribing the source to god, in whatever state of mind or form you wish to recognise him/her/ it. The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Rev- I think that the acceptance of the acknowledgment of the divinity of whatever it is a person acknowledges as their god has to be an integral part of belief. Ellis, I have no idea what you just said. BTW, how many times do I have say: I do not believe in A god separate and apart from what IS? GOD is not a god, or God. It is the repudiation of this belief, that there is some form of supernatural 'realm' (for want of a better word), that identifies an atheist. Ellis. Holo-unitheism, like the panentheism of Spinoza and Einstein, accepts that what is, is GOD. It is possible to feel awe, wonder and joy without ascribing the source to god, in whatever state of mind or form you wish to recognize him/her/ it. Go ahead! You have my blessing to do so. The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine intervention. GOD is not a god who intervenes. GOD is!!!!!
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Rev- How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT believe that what is, is God.
The thing I said that you did not understand ((? !) Is, to put it simply..... There is no god. Of any sort.
I will alter my statement to allow for semantics...... "The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine presence (or even divine osmosis.)
Rev. Do you believe in a soul?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Rev- How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT believe that what is, is God. You have a right to your belief. All beliefs and opinions are nothing more, or less, than beliefs and opinions. But note: In my comment, I used the acronym, GOD, or GØD--a short way of writing "that which is total, universal and all encompassing--and interpenetrates everything". I do not have to " believe" in it; I know it, perceive it with all my senses and experience it as reality. Years ago, the great Carl Jung made a similar statement on the BBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&NR=1 The thing I said that you did not understand ((? !) Is, to put it simply..... There is no god. Of any sort. While respecting those who do, I agree with you. There is no god, or God. Rev. Do you believe in a soul?
I prefer to say that I am a soul, or a spiritual being. I happen to have a mind and a body in this incarnation.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Revlgking
Thanks for that Jung link.
My local philosophy group is discussing Heideggar at present, and your "postition" could be described by his concept of dasein. That is, your perception of "being" is couched within a particular concept of holistic consciousness, such that everything that your "self" engages in is referenced to that framework. But Heidegger both applauds this and dilutes it ! He applauds it in the sense that all should live "authentically" i.e. "true to some framework", but he dilutes it in the sense that all "frameworks" tend to be equivalent in that they are natural products of particular cultures and conditioning. Even "rebellion" against a prevailing view is dependent on that view for its significance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
THIS IS INTERESTING
In you r last post you mentioned the word Dasien.
================================================================
Dasein is a German word famously used by Martin Heidegger in his magnum opus Being and Time. The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heidegger, with the meaning of "existence" or "presence".
It is derived from da-sein, which literally means being-there/here, though Heidegger was adamant that this was an inappropriate translation of Dasein. In German, Dasein is the German vernacular term for existence, as in I am pleased with my existence (ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden).
For Heidegger, however, it must not be mistaken for a subject, that is something definable in terms of consciousness or a self. Heidegger was adamant about this distinction, which carried on Nietzsche's critique of the subject.
Dasein, as a being that is constituted by its temporality, illuminates and interprets the meaning of Being in Time. For more information, see other related Heideggerian concepts, such as being-in-the-world.
Heidegger used the concept of Dasein to uncover the primal nature of "Being" (Sein) which Descartes and Kant left unexplored. Like Nietzsche, Heidegger criticized the notion of substance, arguing that Dasein is always a being engaged in the world. The fundamental mode of Being is not that of a subject or of the objective but of the coherence of Being-in-the-world.
On Heidegger's account, traditional language, logical systems, and beliefs obscure Dasein's nature from itself.
Beings are Dasein even when they are ontologically wrapped up in a tradition which obscures the authentic choice to live within and transmit this tradition.
In this case Dasein still authentically chooses the tradition when it is confronted by a paradox within the tradition and must choose to dismiss the tradition or dismiss the experience of being confronted with choice.
Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of Dasein as we all are, in our average everydayness. Dasein does not spring into existence upon philosophical exploration of itself. Heidegger intended Dasein as a concept, in order to provide a stepping stone in the questioning of what it means to be.
When Dasein contemplates this, what seems (absurdly) circular in ontic terms, is recursive in ontological sense, because it brings the necessary appearance of time to the center of attention.
In Being and Time, Heidegger opens by positing that the potentialities of Dasein's Being extend beyond the realms disclosed by positive science or in the history of metaphysics.
"Scientific research is not the only manner of Being which this entity can have, nor is it the one which lies closest.
Moreover, Dasein itself has a special distinctiveness as compared with other entities [...]" What distinguishes Dasein from other existent entities is that "[...] in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it."
Dasein's very nature poses a philosophical (or ontological) problem for it. Thus, we see Heidegger, being Dasein, attempt to tackle this innate dilemma in his philosophical works.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 149 |
Heideggar is particularly difficult. Those interested might like to dip into these Berkeley audio lectures http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978475(You can skip the local admin chat which starts every session The first session for example really starts about 30 mins in).From this emerges the concept of Dasein of both "living within a framework" and "taking a stand on that framework".
Last edited by eccles; 05/04/09 08:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
IS GØD AS SPIRIT WHAT WE CALL THE VACUUM? IN WHAT SENSE IS GØD A THING? Check out http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/finding-darwins-god?page=2&commentId=855906%3AComment%3A64259&x=1#855906Comment64259 ======================== In the forum RE-DEFINING GOD, I write as a theologian, pneumatologist and philosopher with a deep interest in, and curiosity about, the sciences. I asked any scientist, willing to answer some questions I have about the nature of SPACE and what we call the VACUUM. The following is a re-edited version of the excellent dialogue taking place. I asked: Did the primordial ball of matter--I presume it was matter--which scientists tell us "EXPANDED" into what we call the cosmos, start of as a thing? And, did it come into being mysteriously, out of the no-thing, out of the vacuum, which I call GOD, or GØD? Without being dogmatic, I say: It came out of the no-thing, GØD. Interestingly, I got several responses from James S. Saint, apparently well versed in science and technology. He wrote: It came out of the empty nothingness, GØD, and you are right. I can even go through the explanation as to how and why that "Bang" came about. Although being logical, it cannot be said to be scientific because I would have to actually produce a Big Bang in order to demonstrate the physical validity of the logic. I am sure that I can't remember enough of the mathematics any more but the reasoning isn't that difficult.
But your GØD IS a thing in a sense, in that ALL things come from that "stuff", "aether", "emptiness of space", "fabric of space"... This is a logically and mathematically provable theory although extremely impractical to prove via demonstration. Then he added Actually, let me try to give an explanation void of any math, just to get you into the playing field.
Imagine a swimming pool on an extremely calm day. You place into the pool a number of transducers made to merely cause waves in the pool at a chosen frequency. I asked myself, what is a transducer? Here is an answer I found: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-transducers.htm At first, you turn on one transducer at perhaps 1 cycle per sec. and watch the waves travel throughout the former still water surface. They reflect around quite a bit, but there is no question that the waves are present.
But then you decide to see what happens as you turn on more transducers at different frequencies.
You notice that as you turn more and more transducers on, the waves become more chaotic, but are still obviously there.
Finally you decide to see just where all of this would lead is you just kept adding more and more waves at random frequencies to each other.
The surface of the water, as you add more, becomes less like waves and more like short peaks and spikes with no noticeable direction of wave motion. The more you add, you begin to notice that the height of those peaks seems to be getting less and less as more and more of them cover the surface.
If you could add enough (an infinite number preferred), you would see those peaks gradually get smaller and smaller in height and greater and greater in number.
Eventually you would be able to see no waves at all and in the infinite case, the water's surface would again be perfectly still as the peaks have become of zero height and infinite in number.
Where you started is where you end up, yet all you did was make waves the entire time (sounds like the youth of America, huh).
The point to this is that for anything to have affect on anything else, it must be a "noticeable wave". For you to see one of the waves it had to be different from its surroundings in some way. The same is true for all electromagnetic waves.
If you add enough random electromagnetic waves together, they add up to zero influence and have no potential to be observed or to effect anything - empty space.
The ONLY existence is the disturbance of the "nothingness" or the "aether". This can be logically determined to be what absolutely must be true regardless of anything Science could ever discover.
Thus existence as you know it, all came from and could become again, the nothingness of the calm sea of empty space (aether stuffins).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
In my opinion if God exists, He would necessarily to work
in an Absolute Reference Frame and had set of physical
and mathematical laws to create everything in the Universe.
If we find and understand this Absolute God’s House then
is possible to find and understand these Cod’s Laws.
============= . .
Your opinion . . .my opinion . .. his / her opinion . . .
Your meaning . . .my meaning . .. his / her meaning . . .
The opinion of opinion . . . . .
The meaning of meaning . . . . .
And so is endless.
Why?
Because quantum of light, light wave and other particles
and other waves must act in some Absolute Reference Frame . . .
. . . . . .the origin of the Universe, the origin of the Cosmic
Microwave Background Frame, . . . .the origin of everything.
All debates are nonsense without an Absolute Reference Frame.
====================== . .
If you want to understand what God is then search
for an Absolute Reference Frame.
============ . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Thanks, Socratus. As my friend at http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/finding-darwins-god?page=2&commentId=855906%3AComment%3A64259&x=1#855906Comment64259 put it to me But your GØD IS a thing in a sense, in that ALL things come from that "stuff", "aether", "emptiness of space", "fabric of space"... His use of the acronym with the Ø, the set without numbers, the null, gives me the confidence to keep on using it. Now, the next question is: If GØD, as matter, is the Source of all matter, what is the practical value of this concept. I think it has great practical value. It takes theology and pneumatology out of the hands of the dogmatist and ritualists--those who would have us believe without questioning and without evidence. Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality. BTW, I happen to have a hard-cover copy of James Michener's novel, The Source (1965), which I read years ago. The first section is all about EL (the source), the root of ELOHIM (The Hebrew for the POWERS). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_(novel)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
Now, the next question is: If GØD, as matter, is the Source of all matter, what is the practical value of this concept. I think it has great practical value. It takes theology and pneumatology out of the hands of the dogmatist and ritualists--those who would have us believe without questioning and without evidence. Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality.
[/quote]
================================
I like this point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
"Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality." (socratus)
Isn't there something in the Bible or somewhere about belief being the foundation of true faith? Read St John, Ch 20, Verse 29- where Thomas gets told by Jesus that he needs to believe without verification. Lack of belief means there can be no god, and if you can't believe without proof than you are an unbeliever-- or, from what I have seen here, likely to be a scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Now, the next question is: If GØD, as matter, is the Source of all matter, what is the practical value of this concept. I think it has great practical value. It takes theology and pneumatology out of the hands of the dogmatist and ritualists--those who would have us believe without questioning and without evidence. Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality.
I think the value of reducing God to matter and its creator is that self evidence can be applied to any belief and or any religion so that such a system may make a claim to their personal perceptions. Unfortunately this won't unite religions or the personal as long as individuality continues to make a claim to the appearance and manifestation of their God. To expand God beyond the personal perception and unite all personal perceptions would take a bit more than to reduce God to matter and it's creator. Something like surrendering the personal to that which preceded the personality.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
Isn't there something in the Bible or somewhere about belief being the foundation of true faith? Read St John, Ch 20, Verse 29- where Thomas gets told by Jesus that he needs to believe without verification. Lack of belief means there can be no god, and if you can't believe without proof than you are an unbeliever-- or, from what I have seen here, likely to be a scientist.
============================= Isn't there something in the Bible or somewhere about belief being the foundation of true faith? !!! Read St John, Ch 20, Verse 29- where Thomas gets told by Jesus that he needs to believe without verification. !!! Lack of belief means there can be no god, and if you can't believe without proof than you are an unbeliever — or, from what I have seen here, likely to be a scientist. !!! Socratus. To believe without verification. . . . . To believe without proof ( scientific ) . . . . . . . . I believe because it is absurd. / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) / Why didn’t the formula E=Mc^2 was written in the Bible? Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws? Can God be Materialist? Have physicists found the God? Is it possible to understand the Religion with physical formulas and laws ? The XX! Century needs answers of these questions. We live in modern scientific world and I think the Science/ Physics will purify the religion of the “dross”. I think the science will prove the truth of the Religion's basic. Of course, at first the Physics must understand all its own paradoxes. ===============. . # " I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." /Einstein/ # " Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me ". ========== . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
"Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality." (socratus)
Isn't there something in the Bible ...if you can't believe without proof then you are an unbeliever-- or, from what I have seen here, likely to be a scientist. ============================================ Ellis, keep in mind that, in my opinion, the Bible is not A book--that is, the kind of book that we know. Bible scholars agree: the Bible is a complex collection of 66 disparate documents, not all of which are books. These documents were collected over more than 2000 years, or more. Is the Bible "the Word of God"? Get serious! Calling THE Bible "the Word of God" is, in my opinion, not unlike calling a collection of any newspaper--for example, "the New York Times", the "word of God". I do not now, nor have I ever, accepted the Bible as the word of GOD, literally speaking. Like the media, the Bible is the word of those who wrote it. For me, GOD/GØD (The unit&the whole) is Being itself, not someone who speaks words.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
a) I am at a loss to understand what Socratus was trying to say. I've waded through it twice--- I can read the words OK, but they just don't make any sense when linked together.
b) I can see your point Rev. I, as you know, do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, but I thought that the incident with Thomas, inconvenient though it may be to those who wish to ignore it, is accepted as the words of Jesus. Who may or not be a god, or a son of a god, depending on personal belief. It is surely belief in what ever it is that one believes in that is the foundation of personal faith. And without personal faith there can be no belief. Therefore it is possible, indeed encumbant that a believer believes! With or without proof!
Last edited by Ellis; 05/06/09 02:45 AM. Reason: typo- still can't type!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Perhaps we should let Socratus clarify his own thinking. But I will hazard the guess that he is conflicted, and has a problem writing in English. On the one hand, he wants to believe in the teachings of Orthodoxy, but on the other, knows that such teachings, often, do not harmonize with the findings of science.
By the way, Socratus, what is your mother tongue?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Yes you could be right Rev-- I am very willing to let Socratus, or anyone, clarify his/her thinking, however his/her act in posting here does seem to suggest he/she wishes to engage in dialogue with the other posters, and his/her replies are, at the least, very disjointed.
I do not think Socratus lacks fluency. He/she has a vocab that I would love to have in another language as I am a completely monolingual person, (and ashamed to admit it).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Ellis, keep in mind that Socratus wrote: "Personally, I want an evidence-based theology and spirituality."
I repeat what I have said, often: So do I. This is why I equate GOD with Being--what I am experiencing with ALL my senses--physically, mentally and spiritually.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
BTW, the following thread: "Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including ..." is a thread I started awhile ago using my wife's maiden name, Turner, now has over 914,000 clicks on it.
Does anyone know: how come I cannot access it. Just curious.
Here is the response I got: "Internal Server Error.
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@scienceagogo.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error."
I did try to contact the webmaster, and got no response.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Rev, the forum was hacked, and the whole thing had to be reset. Try it now.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Yes! It works now. But when I click on the thread on "Philosophy of religion, all religions..." by Turner (I used my wife's maiden name), which now has 925,000 clicks, I get the following. Is the problem with my personal computer?
============================
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@scienceagogo.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
================
Where is the error log?
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Revljking,
I clicked on "Philosophy of religion, all religions..." and got it to come up right away. Perhaps it was just a burp of the server. Why don't you try again?
Amaranth
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
I got the same response as before. It gets curiouser and curiouser! Here is a suggestion: You send a message to the topic and we will see what happens, okay?
BTW, what is "hacking"? Any explanation as to why this happened? What is a "Spider"?
Last edited by Revlgking; 05/16/09 10:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37 |
I have had thoughts of this universe without life, everything without life. I think to myself, "What am I without life?". Nobody I have talked to really understands what I mean. So I have came here looking for a person that can relate to these thoughts. If you can, I would really appreciate a talk with you. Even if you can't relate, can you tell me if I am mentally crazy? However, please don't think about this topic to much, it will probably haunt you. It has been coming back to me for ages, and many of those times it has left me afraid, and sometimes even in tears. Hey unknownuniverse, do you still think about this? Does it ever lead you to question the meaning of life?
- Kevat Shah
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
a) I am at a loss to understand what Socratus was trying to say. I've waded through it twice--- I can read the words OK, but they just don't make any sense when linked together.
======================= The God. !!! ??? ===================== . . # The God is something Infinity and Eternal. He exists in every place and in everything. He is Absolute and Concrete. # What is God? Can God create our world without physics laws and formulas ? No. If God can act only in such way, then what is the first law ( formula, system) from which He begins to create our world? In my opinion ‘ The theory of Vacuum and Quantum of Light ‘ gives answer to this question. ===================== . . # 'Quantum of Light' is the Subject, not the Object! http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=1598Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney # Photons have knowledge in them, . . . The Truth itself is hidden inside light. . . . . . The relationship between light itself and knowledge is the answer to the 'disturbing feelings' people get in this field, because they don't want to admit that if Light was itself Intelligent there might be religious implications to it. 14 Aug, 2008 Posted by: ron naldoda Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html===================== . . # You seem to have it all figured out. Have you figured out why it is that light exists in quantum chunks? / Vern / ============== . . # According to the Quantum Theory the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space which can create quantum chunks – virtual particles - energetic particles - frozen light quanta. The ‘chunks – virtual particles - energetic particles – frozen light quanta ‘is not a “ pure philosophical concept “ that is never observed in practice. The Quantum Theory says that : “ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. “ / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /. =================== . . Without Aether/ Vacuum physics makes no sense. =========== . . Is something not clear? ================== . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htmhttp://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372===================== . .
|
|
|
|
|
