Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Lacewing]

If you do not live with the opposition between your higher and lower natures then you are not the wretched woman and have somehow become "one," free of hypocrisy, and an example of the relationship between the inner and outer man described by Socrates where there is no conflict and the lower becomes an expression of the higher:

“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

I do not feel opposition. It's all integrated... it all makes sense... and it's all divine.

There's nothing to "admit". There's no "denial". That is your stuff.

Can you consider that there are "ways of being and perceiving" that you may not be aware of?

Can you allow others to live outside of your rules, stories, and beliefs... or are you intolerant of that?

[Atla]

I wonder what such endless debates are good for?

People with split minds usually experience two realities. They usually experience one reality as higher, spiritual, the source, and the other one as lower, primitive, animalistic. They are crazy but it's usually not their fault, sometimes the mind splits even before birth, sometimes later on in life usually due to circumstances beyond their control. (Sometimes the split is not even literal, they just follow a split-minded philosophy.)

People with non-split minds usually experience a single reality. The two groups just mean something very different by human life, and the latter group is basically correct. But there can never be any agreement.

[Reflex]

I wonder what such endless debates are good for?

I just find it all very amusing.

[Reflex]

Can you allow others to live outside of your rules, stories, and beliefs... or are you intolerant of that?

There’s that pot and kettle phenomenon, again.

[Lacewing]

Can you allow others to live outside of your rules, stories, and beliefs... or are you intolerant of that?

There’s that pot and kettle phenomenon, again.

AGAIN, what are you talking about, Reflex? Show me where I am intolerant and what my rules, stories, and beliefs are. Simply expressing that I think something is ridiculous IS NOT INTOLERANCE. Nick can believe and live by whatever ideas he wants -- but it doesn't apply to ME! Do you not get that? What is this shallow habit you have of making your stupid-ass flip comments, and then refusing to clarify when you are asked about them? Your behavior is cheesy and cowardly... like a rat darting in and out of the conversation.

[Lacewing]

I wonder what such endless debates are good for?

I just find it all very amusing.

Yes, it IS very funny and entertaining!

Although, based on your superficial responses, Reflex, I don't think we're experiencing the same sense of humor.

[Nick_A]

If you do not live with the opposition between your higher and lower natures then you are not the wretched woman and have somehow become "one," free of hypocrisy, and an example of the relationship between the inner and outer man described by Socrates where there is no conflict and the lower becomes an expression of the higher:

“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

I do not feel opposition. It's all integrated... it all makes sense... and it's all divine.

There's nothing to "admit". There's no "denial". That is your stuff.

Can you consider that there are "ways of being and perceiving" that you may not be aware of?

Can you allow others to live outside of your rules, stories, and beliefs... or are you intolerant of that?

Of course I know there are other theories but forgive me since this is the first time I've met a woman who is totally integrated and become divine. Apparently you have acquired inner unity, become one, (I Am) so is not subject to the hypocrisy normal for the human condition as it manifests in most people. Plato in the Chariot, analogy describes our dual nature through his description of the white and black horses.. The fall of the black horse symbolizing our lower nature and dominates the drives of our personality is what attaches Man to Plato's cave causing us to live in imagination to justify the fallen condition and make our fallen nature tolerable. Apparently you believe you have transcended this limitation even if it does exist. I understand your theory but I just don't believe it.

I still believe it is possible for a person to heal their lower nature so the head, heart, and body, could establish a conscious connection in order to remember and further objective human meaning and purpose as opposed to creating an indoctrinated programmed connection with the purpose of becoming a servile atom of the Great Beast dwelling in Plato's Cave.

Of course the world must hate ideas which promote awakening. Such questioning is disruptive and corrupts the youth of Athens so one must be careful how to proceed. People have been killed for less. Big brother is watching.

[Reflex]

Can you allow others to live outside of your rules, stories, and beliefs... or are you intolerant of that?

There’s that pot and kettle phenomenon, again.

AGAIN, what are you talking about, Reflex? Show me where I am intolerant and what my rules, stories, and beliefs are. Simply expressing that I think something is ridiculous IS NOT INTOLERANCE. Nick can believe and live by whatever ideas he wants -- but it doesn't apply to ME! Do you not get that? What is this shallow habit you have of making your stupid-ass flip comments, and then refusing to clarify when you are asked about them? Your behavior is cheesy and cowardly... like a rat darting in and out of the conversation.

Instead of just dismissing something being said as "made-up" and "stupid" or stating the obvious (i.e., everyone has their own point of view), why not express your disagreement followed by an explanation as to why you disagree or not being like Buridan’s Ass? Most of what Nick says has been around for centuries and calling it "made-up" makes you look ignorant, and not liking the way something is said has nothing to do with its veracity.

For example:

"A human being is the relating of a relation relating to itself -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity. That is to say, a human being is a localized region of dominant characteristics."

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why? If you agree, what are the logical implications and ramifications? If true, it would mean that humans really do have a spark of the divine in them. If not true, then certain logical consequences follow.

[Nick_A]

There’s that pot and kettle phenomenon, again.

AGAIN, what are you talking about, Reflex? Show me where I am intolerant and what my rules, stories, and beliefs are. Simply expressing that I think something is ridiculous IS NOT INTOLERANCE. Nick can believe and live by whatever ideas he wants -- but it doesn't apply to ME! Do you not get that? What is this shallow habit you have of making your stupid-ass flip comments, and then refusing to clarify when you are asked about them? Your behavior is cheesy and cowardly... like a rat darting in and out of the conversation.

Instead of just dismissing something being said as "made-up" and "stupid" or stating the obvious (i.e., everyone has their own point of view), why not express your disagreement followed by an explanation as to why you disagree or not being like Buridan’s Ass? Most of what Nick says has been around for centuries and calling it "made-up" makes you look ignorant, and not liking the way something is said has nothing to do with its veracity.

For example:

"A human being is the relating of a relation relating to itself -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity. That is to say, a human being is a localized region of dominant characteristics."

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why? If you agree, what are the logical implications and ramifications? If true, it would mean that humans really do have a spark of the divine in them. If not true, then certain logical consequences follow.

Be careful when you write these things reflex. People have been killed for less. To suggest Man as an intermediary between levels of reality is poison to dominant secularism since it assumes we are the pinnacle of conscious evolution. We just need to be properly trained. To suggest otherwise is an intolerable insult.

[Lacewing]

Of course I know there are other theories but forgive me since this is the first time I've met a woman who is totally integrated and become divine. Apparently you have acquired inner unity, become one, (I Am) so is not subject to the hypocrisy normal for the human condition as it manifests in most people...

Apparently you believe you have transcended this limitation even if it does exist. I understand your theory but I just don't believe it.

You can describe it however you want... and then announce that you don't believe it -- you are still swimming in your own stuff.

I did not BECOME divine... the way I see it: ALL is ALREADY divine. All of us. Born that way... always that way... nothing to atone for or feel wretched about.

Does the following make sense to you: ALL human concepts... including concepts like higher nature, lower nature, universal laws, and eternal truths... are created by humans. And these concepts carry with them a set of conditions and stories defined by humans to maintain the concepts. That's all they are. Why treat them like they're the absolute word of a god? And if you're totally absorbed with them, doesn't it make sense that you're not going to see anything else that operates outside of those concepts, conditions, and stories?

[Lacewing]

Instead of just dismissing something being said as "made-up" and "stupid" or stating the obvious (i.e., everyone has their own point of view), why not express your disagreement followed by an explanation as to why you disagree or not

I provide plenty of explanation.

You should apply your advice to yourself.

[Nick_A]

Of course I know there are other theories but forgive me since this is the first time I've met a woman who is totally integrated and become divine. Apparently you have acquired inner unity, become one, (I Am) so is not subject to the hypocrisy normal for the human condition as it manifests in most people...

Apparently you believe you have transcended this limitation even if it does exist. I understand your theory but I just don't believe it.

You can describe it however you want... and then announce that you don't believe it -- you are still swimming in your own stuff.

I did not BECOME divine... the way I see it: ALL is ALREADY divine. All of us. Born that way... always that way... nothing to atone for or feel wretched about.

Does the following make sense to you: ALL human concepts... including concepts like higher nature, lower nature, universal laws, and eternal truths... are created by humans. And these concepts carry with them a set of conditions and stories defined by humans to maintain the concepts. That's all they are. Why treat them like they're the absolute word of a god? And if you're totally absorbed with them, doesn't it make sense that you're not going to see anything else that operates outside of those concepts, conditions, and stories?

Of course it makes sense to me. Objective reality doesn't exist for you. The whole idea of a universe structured on levels of reality being a machine serving a conscious purpose is just a man made conception for you. All the human needs for objective meaning and purpose are just fantasy since we create our own reality and we are the Gods of our reality.

I understand the idea and the motivations for it. It just doesn't make logical sense for me nor does it satisfy a certain emotional awareness I have acquired.

You seem to describe the sensing personality type while I am more the intuitive type.

https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/3816/ ... lity-type/

Advocates of the sensing mind have taken it upon themselves to destroy the gifted young who are natural intuites. This is the horror of secular progressive education. I can see why you must hate these ideas but I don't see why the gifted young intuites have to suffer a premature spiritual death because the dominating sensing types ridicule and look down on the natural intuites not satisfied with fantasy and drawn to the eternal truths which have devolved into fantasy: their need for God.

[Lacewing]

All the human needs for objective meaning and purpose are just fantasy since we create our own reality and we are the Gods of our reality.

Doesn't mean the human ideas and fantasies are not valuable and entertaining for our human experience. They just are what they are -- and I don't think it's a bad thing to see them that way... even if we keep on playing with them. Children have fun while knowing what's real and fantasy. Why can't adults? Why do we have to lose sight of our creations, and elevate them to some godly level?

You seem to describe the sensing personality type while I am more the intuitive type.

I'm a balance of both.

Advocates of the sensing mind have taken it upon themselves to destroy the gifted young who are natural intuites.

And here you go with your usual finger-pointing and wringing your hands at the horror of it all. Blasting your broad generalizations onto those you have determined are distinctly separate from the truth and what they should be, and therefore they are at fault for some sort of hideous plight that you have chosen to take up as your battle cry.

Such melodramatic generalizations are NONSENSE, Nick. I don't think there are any other philosophers who have convoluted things as you have -- NO, not like you, because you are just THAT SPECIAL.

[Reflex]

I did not BECOME divine... the way I see it: ALL is ALREADY divine. All of us. Born that way... always that way... nothing to atone for or feel wretched about.

Let's talk about that.

In a sense, I do not disagree: we are all born of the Divine so there is nothing to atone for or feel wretched about. (Nick may disagree.) On the other hand, do you deny that there are qualitative variations?

Does the following make sense to you: ALL human concepts... including concepts like higher nature, lower nature, universal laws, and eternal truths... are created by humans. And these concepts carry with them a set of conditions and stories defined by humans to maintain the concepts. That's all they are. Why treat them like they're the absolute word of a god? And if you're totally absorbed with them, doesn't it make sense that you're not going to see anything else that operates outside of those concepts, conditions, and stories?

Do you agree or disagree with the following:

"A human being is the relating of a relation relating to itself -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity. That is to say, a human being is a localized region of dominant characteristics."

If you agree, then your belief that all is already Divine is preserved with the understanding that qualitative variations are real as they are inevitable.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:34 pm
Advocates of the sensing mind have taken it upon themselves to destroy the gifted young who are natural intuites.

And here you go with your usual finger-pointing and wringing your hands at the horror of it all. Blasting your broad generalizations onto those you have determined are distinctly separate from the truth and what they should be, and therefore they are at fault for some sort of hideous plight that you have chosen to take up as your battle cry.

Such melodramatic generalizations are NONSENSE, Nick. I don't think there are any other philosophers who have convoluted things as you have -- NO, not like you, because you are just THAT SPECIAL.

From a discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker

http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1

....................Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.
I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art.........................

Philosophers worthy of the name know the harm that is done to the young by making them afraid of sharing or even contemplating the deeper questions of the heart. They have learned from experience that they are not respected and just bombarded with superficial answers as part of their "education." They must hide them. For you "Such melodramatic generalizations are NONSENSE." This is the normal secular view. You haven't suffered the way these gifted young people have who are compelled to engage in metaphysical repression. Not a pleasant spiritual death