Re: An act of God
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:36 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I think you'll love it, IC.
Are you evading the point on purpose...or do I truly baffle you? Rephrased: Why do "order" and "chaos" need to be applied? What is order? What is chaos? Who has created these concepts and applied them? Humans, yes? How do we really know they are fitting for that which is broader than what we can recognize/know?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmWhat species's concepts would you like applied? If not our own concepts, then whose?
Why do we superimpose the models of our limited reality/understanding onto that which we guess to be greater/beyond us? We understand we have many limitations in our perceptions and abilities, and yet we want to believe that we somehow can KNOW of gods, and of models of universal functioning, and of ultimate purpose, truth, and correctness? How could that even sound sensible?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmI will happily respond...if I could figure out the meaning from the syntax. But I can't.Why would man’s model of reality, which is based on very limited perception and awareness, be “the model” for that which is vastly expansive beyond man’s reality?
Can you rephrase?
Yes. Why would we believe that there must be some sort of separateness?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmAn entity "separate" from what? Separate from the universe?Why would there need to be a separate identity directing everything?
Okay, perhaps not for you. It IS observable for many people. Countless studies of nature measure and describe the interconnected systems AND communications that flow energetically throughout life. I think the implications of this are more compelling than stories of gods.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmAnswer: no, it's not observable.Is it not observable that there is an energy flowing/shared throughout all, displaying no grand intentions other than creativity, exploration, and expression? Why would humans reject this non-ego potential, and superimpose a human story/model?
No, I don't think so. Nature includes these qualities boundlessly. You have to take the ego out of your perspective in order to recognize the other ways that these occur.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmMoreover, "creativity, exploration and expression" are far from "non-grand intentions": they're things only a person can do.
Yes.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm I think you have the idea that in using human terms we are possibly under-describing something. And that's probably partly right.
You seriously are saying that humans do not attempt to control or model with their ideas? They're just innocently trying to "describe"? Yes, we do imagine other realities to the best of our ability, but isn't it wise to stay aware of what our limitations are, rather than concluding what we cannot?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmBut what we're doing is attempting to describe, not attempting to control, or even to "model". We are approximating the realities with the best tools we have, not trying to shape our findings beforehand.
No, we can be ever-questioning and ever-exploring. When we come to conclusions that we can't possibly know, then we have cut off our legs and closed our eyes, and we're just talking egos who cannot recognize anything to the contrary.
Because we human beings are very good at detecting order where it exists. And chaos looks quite different from order.
Why do we superimpose the models of our limited reality/understanding onto that which we guess to be greater/beyond us?
It would depend. Could a human get a comprehensive concept of God? Clearly not...no more than a man could get the Pacific Ocean in a cup. But in a cup, you can still get an authentic dip from the ocean. So it still might be quite reasonable for a person to have genuine, informative contact with a concept upon which he/she could not close comprehensively.We understand we have many limitations in our perceptions and abilities, and yet we want to believe that we somehow can KNOW of gods, and of models of universal functioning, and of ultimate purpose, truth, and correctness? How could that even sound sensible?
Yes. Why would we believe that there must be some sort of separateness? [/quote]Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmAn entity "separate" from what? Separate from the universe?Why would there need to be a separate identity directing everything?
Okay, perhaps not for you. [/quote]Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmAnswer: no, it's not observable.Is it not observable that there is an energy flowing/shared throughout all, displaying no grand intentions other than creativity, exploration, and expression? Why would humans reject this non-ego potential, and superimpose a human story/model?
But I'm afraid you're begging the question there.No, I don't think so. Nature includes these qualities boundlessly.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pmMoreover, "creativity, exploration and expression" are far from "non-grand intentions": they're things only a person can do.
Ego's not the motive. It would be the argument to the best explanation of the observable facts.You have to take the ego out of your perspective in order to recognize the other ways that these occur.
You seriously are saying that humans do not attempt to control or model with their ideas?
One can't "question" where there is no intrinsic coherence.No, we can be ever-questioning and ever-exploring.
Thanks for your response. I think we are speaking two very different languages. My attempts to show another perspective are met with being drug back into the realm you are focused on, even though I've suggested that such human-created ideas/beliefs very likely do not apply to a larger perspective.
You are welcome. Thanks for yours.
I think we are speaking two very different languages.
I would need reasons to think that was so. They are very, very simple concepts, so they might well be universal.Since our human notions of "order" and "chaos" very well DON'T apply on a grander scale than we are able to see, I don't think it makes sense for us to build so much of our conclusions based on such notions.
Something that looks like chaos in the moment, often makes perfect sense when you widen the view or wait to see how it's a piece of a larger picture unfolding.
If that's what we were doing, it would be a low-probability exercise, for sure; we'd almost certainly get it wrong. But here's the question...IF the Universe that we know was created by SOMETHING, why claim to know that something, and give that something a name, and project a bunch of traits and purposes onto that something?
Yep. That often happens.It's not a problem that we try to understand and describe a bigger picture using the concepts we know -- but we create problems by believing in (and becoming addicted to) our own "firm conclusions" which are half-baked, self-serving, and skewed.
Well, the problem with being merely an "explorer" is that even explorers have a destination in mind. If they thought there was not "new world," or no "passage to India," or no "Northwest passage," they'd never have left home in the first place...and that wouldn't make them much good as explorers, would it?By truthfully acknowledging the limits of our understanding, we can use a more flexible and questioning approach: Explorer vs. "knower".
Perhaps IF there was a "source something" that was a "being" who thought in our terms and wanted to communicate with us for some reason. Doesn't it seem obviously self-serving to imagine a "source" that is a big, unlimited version of us? How does that even possibly make sense?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am Can the Supreme Being (assuming such were to exist) tell us the truth about Himself, even if we can't find it from our end? And being, by definition, the Supreme Being, He would have to be able to, wouldn't He?
I don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 amthe problem with being merely an "explorer" is that even explorers have a destination in mind.
Why would someone be ignorant for observing and remaining open to possibilities, rather than convincing themselves of some rigid reality/truth such that they recognize nothing more? I can assure you that I'm not in anything like a barren landscape. Strange that you imagine that as being the only possible reality beyond your own? Again, seems intentionally self-serving, yes?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am Likewise the "knower." She doesn't need to seek to "know" if she already knows there's no conclusion possible. Then she's just an ignorant wanderer in a barren landscape...and again, we can forgive her for not trying very hard, if that's what she thinks she's facing.
Agreed.
Yeah. That's all I'm saying.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 amPerhaps IF there was a "source something" that was a "being" who thought in our terms and wanted to communicate with us for some reason.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am Can the Supreme Being (assuming such were to exist) tell us the truth about Himself, even if we can't find it from our end? And being, by definition, the Supreme Being, He would have to be able to, wouldn't He?
Well, if there is a God, then you'd have the story backward.Doesn't it seem obviously self-serving to imagine a "source" that is a big, unlimited version of us? How does that even possibly make sense?
Maybe. But if that persists, then the motive for exploring dwindles. Nobody wants to waste their time. We want to find out something, for all our "exploring."I don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.
Why would someone be ignorant for observing and remaining open to possibilities,
There is no reason to believe that we are anything at all like a god IF there were one. Not only that, but we distort and misunderstand and create all sorts of “idols” based on our limited awareness and perception and understanding. There could be a naturally vibrant energy pulsing through our being every second with the power to manifest anything at all -- yet, at our current state of human evolution, we may still be dressing up a god doll.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 amWell, if there is a God, then you'd have the story backward.
God wouldn't be a "big" representation of us...we'd be the pale reflection of God.
He'd be the Original, and we'd be only the distant, faded image.
You might be speaking of one impatient, demanding, egoic and self-serving way of being. But the processes and possibilities for moving through our Earthly experience are VAST. It is not a waste of time to observe and openly explore without agenda. It is fascinating and entertaining!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 amMaybe. But if that persists, then the motive for exploring dwindles. Nobody wants to waste their time. We want to find out something, for all our "exploring."Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 amI don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.
But you are the one who is claiming what is something and what is nothing, yes? And maybe you do not see how much "more" there is while the curtain of your beliefs is in place. My experience/perception is that there is SO MUCH flowing and manifesting and connecting in all directions and on so many levels. I do not need to search. It is a flow of momentary songs/vibrations on the wind -- both, beautifully grand and beautifully insignificant. Why do we imagine there must be something that uniquely serves our notions? Why would a vast Universe be focused/obsessed with us, as we are with ourselves? Is it not more interesting and freeing to embrace a SENSE OF BEING without condensing everything down into human fantasies? Rather, to use the human framework as a structure to observe from -- a tower, not a cage.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 am To be "open to possibilities" means "to be open to the possibility of finding something out." If one knew beforehand that one would find nothing, then what sane person would search at all?
A human is the observed. The observed is not the observer. The observer is awareness, and awareness cannot be what it is observing as observer and observed are one unitary action, that cannot be reenacted.
Do you ever read back what you write before you hit send?
A human is a concept known ..known by the only knowing there is as observed.
Observer cannot be observed by what it is observing.
Awareness is just another concept for emptiness. There is no concept for emptiness, but if you prefer, emptiness is the observer.