Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:57 am
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
I suspect you have got it arse about tit and that gods are created in our image. Once more, as Xenophanes said:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.
Well, unfortunately for Xenophanes, he lived and died just before Plato arrived on the scene to help him realize that his shallow theory is the result of him being utterly fooled by the illusions on the cave wall.

Forgive me for constantly uploading the same (over-used) images from my book, but I tried to demonstrate the superficial nonsense proposed by Xenophanes in yet another of my illustrations...

Image

The blurry captions read as follows:
"The great God in "heaven" just above the topsoil, created "acorn" in his own image. So obviously, the great God in heaven has a very light colored shell with a cap that extends halfway down his perfect oval body that ends with a well formed nubbin like mine....

...All of the rest of you who have darker shells, or oddly shaped caps, or poorly formed nubbins, do not fit that description. Therefore, you are not created in the image of the great God in "heaven" just above the topsoil."
"You are such an idiot!"

"...We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..."
And in keeping with the acorn theme, there's this illustration...

Image

The captions read as follows:
"He was so young, why did he have to die?"
"Why does God allow this to happen?"
"This is such a tragedy!"
"Death is so cruel!"
"Oakley, get down off of that ladder!"
"I think there's something up here!"
"Oakley, there's nothing up there! Have some respect for the dead, please!"
Meanwhile, up in acorn heaven...
"Wow! Just wait till the gang sees this!"
And the point is that Xenophanes would be amongst the seated mourners. Indeed, he would be the one yelling up at Oakley in defiance of what the (Plato-ish) Oakley is claiming to see through the peephole in the ceiling of their lower dimension of reality.

I shouldn't have to explain any of this stuff. And that's because the meaning in the imagery should be self-evident.

On the other hand, whether or not the obvious metaphor can be applied to humans (as is depicted in one of my flagship illustrations)...

Image

...is another issue altogether.

Nevertheless, you can at least see why I refer to humans as being "THE ULTIMATE SEEDS" (be it true or not).
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:38 pmWell, unfortunately for Xenophanes, he lived and died just before Plato arrived on the scene to help him realize that his shallow theory is the result of him being utterly fooled by the illusions on the cave wall.
That's a bit sloppy seeds. Xenophanes was criticising the anthropomorphic pantheons common at the time, and in particular the very human weaknesses attributed to the inhabitants. In his view God does not have human form, is eternal, the epitome of goodness and doesn't interfere in human affairs - much more like your god than Homer's. Unfortunately for us, we live after Plato arrived on the scene and argued for using myth as a political tool. If you want to know where christians got their ideas of heaven and hell, it's in the Myth of Er, which closes The Republic, itself a handbook for how to control populations with propaganda and lies. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/14 ... k2H_4_0013 the last 6 paragraphs of Book X if yer fancy checking it out.
seeds wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:38 pmForgive me for constantly uploading the same (over-used) images from my book...
Be my guest.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:11 pm That's a bit sloppy seeds. Xenophanes was criticising the anthropomorphic pantheons common at the time,...
Okay, and what do you think I am doing with my acorn illustrations if not criticizing how humans anthropomorphize God?

However, you are sidetracking the question I asked you.

If you will recall, I had suggested the following...
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm If my theory is correct, then we each have a precise model of a panentheistic entity right within our own skulls.
In other words, our minds...

(with their accompanying "agent/I Am-ness" that is capable of creating absolutely anything imaginable out of the living fabric of its very own being)

...represent the true "image" of whatever God's ontological (physiological) form actually is.

And that's why I asked you...
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm ...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
To which you then journeyed off into your sidetracking non sequitur of the Xenophanes quote.
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:11 pm Unfortunately for us, we live after Plato arrived on the scene...
I hardly think it unfortunate for us that one of our extremely insightful ancestors was able to intuit the fact that what we call "reality" (as in our everyday material world) may indeed be nothing more than a "shadow-like" facade (or projection) from a deeper level of reality...

...(something of which not only quantum theory seems to be confirming, but is also a key feature of my own theory).
seeds wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:38 pm Forgive me for constantly uploading the same (over-used) images from my book...
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:11 pm Be my guest.
Thanks.

You might consider using some of your own excellent illustrations from time to time (you know, as in the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words").
_______
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by attofishpi »

seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
Not sure if you want my opinion on the matter as a panentheist.

I believe God formed wo/man as a perfect being, thus Christ was God incarnate in human form. This is the preferred 'image' thus, we are not the 'image' of the universe of things, but the finite form that God eventually developed.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:35 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
Not sure if you want my opinion on the matter as a panentheist.

I believe God formed wo/man as a perfect being, thus Christ was God incarnate in human form. This is the preferred 'image' thus, we are not the 'image' of the universe of things, but the finite form that God eventually developed.
Needless to say, I could be completely wrong about all of this stuff, however, atto, as a fellow panentheist, I suggest that you are talking about something that I consider to be nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of a higher form of placental "afterbirth" that will be discarded at the moment of our second and final birth into true reality.

In other words, our material human facade (or "seed pod") no more resembles our ultimate and eternal form, than this glob of no longer useful visceral tissue...

Image

...resembles the human infant that emerged from it a few minutes earlier.
_______
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by attofishpi »

seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:27 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:35 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
Not sure if you want my opinion on the matter as a panentheist.

I believe God formed wo/man as a perfect being, thus Christ was God incarnate in human form. This is the preferred 'image' thus, we are not the 'image' of the universe of things, but the finite form that God eventually developed.
Needless to say, I could be completely wrong about all of this stuff, however, atto, as a fellow panentheist, I suggest that you are talking about something that I consider to be nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of a higher form of placental "afterbirth" that will be discarded at the moment of our second and final birth into true reality.

In other words, our material human facade (or "seed pod") no more resembles our ultimate and eternal form, than this glob of no longer useful visceral tissue...

Image

...resembles the human infant that emerged from it a few minutes earlier.
_______
I have no idea wot u r talking about.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:11 pmThat's a bit sloppy seeds. Xenophanes was criticising the anthropomorphic pantheons common at the time,...
Okay, and what do you think I am doing with my acorn illustrations if not criticizing how humans anthropomorphize God?
That's not the point I was making. I was just sticking up for Xenophanes who you called shallow. If not for him, and Plato co-opting his ideas, it is quite possible that monotheism would not have taken root.
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pmHowever, you are sidetracking the question I asked you.
I'm sorry if it looks like that.
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pmIf you will recall, I had suggested the following...
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pmIf my theory is correct, then we each have a precise model of a panentheistic entity right within our own skulls.
In other words, our minds...(with their accompanying "agent/I Am-ness" that is capable of creating absolutely anything imaginable out of the living fabric of its very own being)...represent the true "image" of whatever God's ontological (physiological) form actually is.
And that's why I asked you...
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
Be fair seeds, I have made my position abundantly clear, most recently here:
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 7:57 amGiven the basic template of an invisible Almighty, anything is possible; so that when you ask:
seeds wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:21 pm...what do you think being "created in the image of God" actually means?
I suspect you have got it arse about tit and that gods are created in our image.
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pmTo which you then journeyed off into your sidetracking non sequitur of the Xenophanes quote.
Xenophanes' point was that attributing a particular physical appearance to god is naïve. He would agree with you that god is more like our minds than our bodies. My point is that our minds show as much variation as our bodies and that gods have uncannily similar cerebral attributes to the minds that believe in them.
seeds wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:27 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:11 pm Unfortunately for us, we live after Plato arrived on the scene...
I hardly think it unfortunate for us that one of our extremely insightful ancestors was able to intuit the fact that what we call "reality" (as in our everyday material world) may indeed be nothing more than a "shadow-like" facade (or projection) from a deeper level of reality...

...(something of which not only quantum theory seems to be confirming, but is also a key feature of my own theory).
I think the credit for that should go to Anaximander. The whole point of the article was to acknowledge the great thinkers who preceded and shaped the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Both those writers were generous in their praise, and equally scathing on occasion, of their forebears, quoting them liberally. They knew they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:58 pm I have no idea wot u r talking about.
It's simple, atto...

If, like me, you subscribe to Panentheism, then you must realize that God's ultimate and eternal form (i.e., God's true "image") is something that not only subsumes (contains) the entire universe,...

...but also is an image that contains a cognitive feature (a central and self-aware consciousness or "I Am-ness") that exists "above" the universe's material components.

Image

And the point is that the "image" we have been created in is whatever the physiological structure of God's eternal "I Am-ness" may actually be.

For example, as I have proposed in other threads, if you were a lucid dreamer, and during a highly vivid dream you could create a mirror in your mind - a mirror that could actually reflect an image back at you,...

Image

...then what do you suppose you would see if you looked into that mirror?

Hint: it's not going to be the image of that blob of farting flesh, drooling on a pillow in a darkened bedroom where your body is located...

Image

No, I suggest that you would see a "familial" replication of whatever it is that God is.

Or, in other words, you would witness what being "created in God's image" truly means.

You said that you have no idea of what I am talking about.

However, come on now, atto, if you believe that...
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:35 pm "...Christ was God incarnate in human form..."
...then that implies that God has an "un-incarnate" form. And, therefore, all I am suggesting is that we (our minds) are created in the "image" of God's un-incarnate form. And that is a form and image that we will never be able to see or fully fathom until we ourselves become un-incarnate.

Why?

Because it's the metaphorical equivalent of the impossibility of seeing our mother's (outer) human form while we still existed within her womb.

Alas, I seem to be in the same pickle as poor old Oakley the acorn...

Image

Captions:
"It's true, you are going to become a wonderful and glorious thing called a "tree." You will tower a hundred feet into the air and unfurl your beautiful green leaves to the sun!"
"That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. What are you anyway, some kind of a nut?"...
...Humph!! Tree!...leaves! How stupid does he think I am?"
"Is it my deodorant or what?"
"Once again, Oakley the acorn fails to promote his theory."
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:18 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:58 pm I have no idea wot u r talking about.
It's simple, atto...

If, like me, you subscribe to Panentheism, then you must realize that God's ultimate and eternal form (i.e., God's true "image") is something that not only subsumes (contains) the entire universe,...

...but also is an image that contains a cognitive feature (a central and self-aware consciousness or "I Am-ness") that exists "above" the universe's material components.

Image

And the point is that the "image" we have been created in is whatever the physiological structure of God's eternal "I Am-ness" may actually be.

For example, as I have proposed in other threads, if you were a lucid dreamer, and during a highly vivid dream you could create a mirror in your mind - a mirror that could actually reflect an image back at you,...

Image

...then what do you suppose you would see if you looked into that mirror?

Hint: it's not going to be the image of that blob of farting flesh, drooling on a pillow in a darkened bedroom where your body is located...

Image

No, I suggest that you would see a "familial" replication of whatever it is that God is.

Or, in other words, you would witness what being "created in God's image" truly means.

You said that you have no idea of what I am talking about.

However, come on now, atto, if you believe that...
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:35 pm "...Christ was God incarnate in human form..."
...then that implies that God has an "un-incarnate" form. And, therefore, all I am suggesting is that we (our minds) are created in the "image" of God's un-incarnate form. And that is a form and image that we will never be able to see or fully fathom until we ourselves become un-incarnate.

Why?

Because it's the metaphorical equivalent of the impossibility of seeing our mother's (outer) human form while we still existed within her womb.

Alas, I seem to be in the same pickle as poor old Oakley the acorn...

Image

Captions:
"It's true, you are going to become a wonderful and glorious thing called a "tree." You will tower a hundred feet into the air and unfurl your beautiful green leaves to the sun!"
"That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. What are you anyway, some kind of a nut?"...
...Humph!! Tree!...leaves! How stupid does he think I am?"
"Is it my deodorant or what?"
"Once again, Oakley the acorn fails to promote his theory."
_______
Acorns are limited by their Earthly nature to become oaks or die as acorns, not conifers or elms.

1. The final form of an individual at the end of an individual's life is limited by his genes and his environment.
2. There is no final and absolute rule about which stage in development of any given individual was the moral or physical apogee. It follows that the panentheistic God is extremely broad- minded, if you will forgive the anthropomorphism.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:57 pm Acorns are limited by their Earthly nature to become oaks or die as acorns, not conifers or elms.
Come on, B, it's just a simplistic metaphor to help us visualize our "familial" relationship to God and what it truly means to be "created in God's image."

As much as I used to argue with our exasperating old friend Nick_A, I have to admit that he did manage to offer-up a good quote every now and then from prominent figures.

This one in particular seems fitting to our conversation:
“The seed of God is in us: Pear seeds grow into pear trees; Hazel seeds into hazel trees; And God seeds into God.”
— Meister Eckhart
Now it is highly unlikely that Meister Eckhart was thinking that humans are the literal seeds of the universe itself, imbued with the potential of creating their own universe out of the living fabric of their very own being (as is depicted in one of my most important illustrations),...

Image

...but that is precisely what I am suggesting.

And it is precisely why I refer to humans as being "The Ultimate Seeds" in all of reality.
Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:57 pm 1. The final form of an individual at the end of an individual's life is limited by his genes and his environment.
Belinda, if we are indeed the literal seeds of God...

(which is a speculative supposition that implies that our momentary earthly form is not only the very beginning of life for us, but also a life filled with infinite and ever-evolving potential)

...then in what way are we "limited"?

Furthermore, before your head explodes from the influx of all of the justifiable reasons for why us lowly humans are simply not worthy of such a fantastic destiny, or how this is all just wishful (delusional) thinking,...

...keep in mind that besides promoting the theory that humans are God's offspring (created in God's image), Christian metaphysics also asserts that at the moment of death...
"...we shall all be changed..."
In other words, a profound transformation in our setting, personal physiology, and overall mental nature is coming our way.

And in terms of our "optional" response to the Being who made this amazing gift of (eternal) life possible for us, let me refer you to yet another quote from Meister Eckhart...
"If the only prayer you say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."
— Meister Eckhart
_______
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by attofishpi »

seeds wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:18 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:58 pm I have no idea wot u r talking about.
It's simple, atto...

If, like me, you subscribe to Panentheism, then you must realize that God's ultimate and eternal form (i.e., God's true "image") is something that not only subsumes (contains) the entire universe,...

...but also is an image that contains a cognitive feature (a central and self-aware consciousness or "I Am-ness") that exists "above" the universe's material components.

Image

And the point is that the "image" we have been created in is whatever the physiological structure of God's eternal "I Am-ness" may actually be.
I usually only relate to panentheism from what I do know, from experience of this 'God' - that it has the ability to entirely control what I perceive within REALITY - anything beyond that would be speculation on my part.

The only reason I step away from pantheism, is from what I have read, pantheism has no personal interacting God, whereas panentheism does - and that is what I have experienced.


seeds wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:18 pmFor example, as I have proposed in other threads, if you were a lucid dreamer, and during a highly vivid dream you could create a mirror in your mind - a mirror that could actually reflect an image back at you,...

Image

...then what do you suppose you would see if you looked into that mirror?

Hint: it's not going to be the image of that blob of farting flesh, drooling on a pillow in a darkened bedroom where your body is located...
I would see in the mirror precisely what God wants me to see, since it is God that is projecting reality to me right now, and also when I have lucid dreams.
I have had many lucid dreams, and have met my sage in two of them. Both times I asked him not to awake me so I can explore the "virtual world" that was being projected to me. One time I started scraping the paint from a wall, another time I was in a market in a fishing village in bare feet and was hopping up and down looking down at my feet. Both times I kept saying to the sage - this is so REAL.



seeds wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:18 pmNo, I suggest that you would see a "familial" replication of whatever it is that God is.

Or, in other words, you would witness what being "created in God's image" truly means.

You said that you have no idea of what I am talking about.

However, come on now, atto, if you believe that...
attofishpi wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:35 pm "...Christ was God incarnate in human form..."
...then that implies that God has an "un-incarnate" form. And, therefore, all I am suggesting is that we (our minds) are created in the "image" of God's un-incarnate form. And that is a form and image that we will never be able to see or fully fathom until we ourselves become un-incarnate.

Why?
I honestly do not have an idea what you were talking about, I'm still not sure what you are implying. No, I don't believe it is our final destiny to be a GOD if that is what you are suggesting.

I base everything, including conjecture and belief on analysis of what I have experienced, and what this God entity is capable of - from experience. When it comes to the Christ thang, is just makes sense to me considering the suffering Christ endured to insist on faith - and some other reasoning, that HE was not the son of God, but was indeed God in human form.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

Seeds wrote:
Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:57 pm
Acorns are limited by their Earthly nature to become oaks or die as acorns, not conifers or elms.
Come on, B, it's just a simplistic metaphor to help us visualize our "familial" relationship to God and what it truly means to be "created in God's image."

As much as I used to argue with our exasperating old friend Nick_A, I have to admit that he did manage to offer-up a good quote every now and then from prominent figures.

This one in particular seems fitting to our conversation:
“The seed of God is in us: Pear seeds grow into pear trees; Hazel seeds into hazel trees; And God seeds into God.”
— Meister Eckhart
Now it is highly unlikely that Meister Eckhart was thinking that humans are the literal seeds of the universe itself, imbued with the potential of creating their own universe out of the living fabric of their very own being (as is depicted in one of my most important illustrations),...

Image

...but that is precisely what I am suggesting.
The Bible is literature and is not the property of religionists, so I hope nobody will accuse me of bringing religion into the discussion. In Genesis, Adam named the animals and other entities. This is a poetic statement of an important insight into how human consciousness is what causes differentiation between one thing and another thing.

If, as Genesis claims, it was Adam and not God who created differentiated events
and things then God is either:

1. The undifferentiated plenum from which men select what they will differentiate i.e. manifest in consciousness.Or

2. Both the undifferentiated plenum and also the minds of men.

In both cases 1. and 2. Meister Eckhart "God seeds into men" means that the seeds are naturally what men do. Men 'name' i.e. make manifest previously undifferentiated possibility.

Is this what you mean by men being the ultimate seeds of all reality?
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:39 pm The Bible is literature and is not the property of religionists, so I hope nobody will accuse me of bringing religion into the discussion. In Genesis, Adam named the animals and other entities. This is a poetic statement of an important insight into how human consciousness is what causes differentiation between one thing and another thing.
Human consciousness is not what "causes" differentiation between one thing and another thing. No, the human consciousness simply recognizes what is already there and then sorts it all out in ways that make sense.
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:39 pm If, as Genesis claims, it was Adam and not God who created differentiated events and things then God is either:

1. The undifferentiated plenum from which men select what they will differentiate i.e. manifest in consciousness.Or

2. Both the undifferentiated plenum and also the minds of men.

In both cases 1. and 2. Meister Eckhart "God seeds into men" means that the seeds are naturally what men do. Men 'name' i.e. make manifest previously undifferentiated possibility.

Is this what you mean by men being the ultimate seeds of all reality?
No, B, that is not what I mean.

What I mean is that human bodies and brains...

(which I am proclaiming encapsulate minds that are imbued with the potential of evolving into separate universes of their own)

...are the LITERAL (embryonic-like) "SEEDS" of the universe, with the universe being the mind of the absolute highest lifeform (or highest "species" of being) that life can attain.

Now of course I don't expect you to simply accept my crazy sounding theory on its face value, nevertheless, I have to ask, what is it about this illustration...

Image

...that seems ambiguous to you?

B, if eternal life is indeed a possibility, then we simply must have something logical to do to occupy our time. And thus, the creation and maintenance of a universe...

(created from the living mental fabric of our very own being)

...seems to be (at least to me) the only thing that could even come close to providing us with something interesting to do in order the fill the void of an endless existence.

Not to mention the fact that once we grow to become the "adult" version of that which we are the seeds of, we will from then on have an eternally "fruitful" purpose.

And that's because we will eventually evolve to a point where we will be able to pass on eternal life to our own offspring in precisely the same way that we have received it from the Creator of this universe.

Again, I realize that this sounds absolutely bonkers. However, I suggest that you compare the Ultimate Seed concept to the useless and purposeless nonsense that billions of humans already believe about our status in the afterlife,...

...for example:
  • 1. Muslim males believe they will have "eternal erections" that will allow them to forever rape 72 "perpetual" virgins - (which is utterly ridiculous). Or...
    2. Christians believe that whoever is lucky enough to make it into heaven...

    (as opposed to those who will be eternally tortured in hell, some of which, btw, could be their own loved ones)

    ...will be forever stagnating in some kind of medieval-like setting where, apparently, the "beatific vision" of a (humanoid) "King" sitting on a throne with his "princely" son at his side, is all they will ever need to keep them satisfied for trillions of years on into eternity - (again, more ridiculousness). Or...
    3. The believers in reincarnation who insist that we must keep coming back into the universe - again and again - until we "get it right." (Get what right?) Furthermore, after "getting it right," then what? I mean, no matter how long it took you to "get it right" through the process of reincarnation, eternity would still loom before you in a vision of endlessness that defies comprehension. In other words, you would still need something logical to do from that point on if your life is indeed eternal.
The point is that, again, when you compare the Ultimate Seed concept to the stagnating and purposeless nonsense that billions of humans already believe about our status in the afterlife,...

...then you should begin to see the logic of what I am proposing, in that it not only suggests that we will be forever developing and perfecting our creative mastery over our own (infinitely malleable) mental substances (just as the Creator of this universe has done),...

...but more importantly (as mentioned earlier), we will be forever "fruitful," in that we shall eventually reach a point where we too will be able to pass on (eternal) life to others in the same way that we, ourselves, have received it.
_______
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy’s Roots and Branches

Post by Belinda »

Seeds, the "ultimate seeds concept" is hard for me to understand. It would be easier for me to ujnderstand if you would say whether or not you are describing

1. the evolution of human nature

and 2. Evolution of human nature via the genetic channel

or 3. Evolution of human nature via the cultural channel.
Post Reply