Perspective

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4240
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:09 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:01 am
Reflex
Not much of a difference IMO. The symbol (the head swallowing its tail) seems to me to correlate with Convergence.
It was a real mind blowing experience for me when I began to realize that the cycles of material convergence was known as the breath of Brahma and a kalpa in Buddhism. Apparently the ouroboros or universe is created, eats itself, and returns to its source. Then it is created again.
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
In The Power of Myth Joseph Campbell tells a story that relates to a power greater than Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
One day, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were boasting about each other’s greatest power. At that moment, a little boy came up to the holy trinity and asked Brahma, “What do you create?”. Brahma replied, “I can create everything.” He then asked Vishnu, “What do you preserve?”. “I preserve everything,” said Vishnu. “What do you destroy?” he asked Shiva. Shiva replied, “I can destroy everything."

Then this young boy had a single piece of straw in his hand, which was about the size of a toothpick. He asked Brahma, “Can you create a piece of straw exactly like this?” Brahma, exerting some great effort, tried to create the exact piece. But he failed. Brahma was astonished.

Then he asked Vishnu if he could protect the straw, which started to slowly dissolve under their gaze. But, Vishnu couldn’t. The straw completely vanished.

The boy picked another straw again and asked Shiva to use his power and destroy this piece of straw. Even Shiva with all his efforts failed to completely destroy the straw. The straw remained intact all of the time.

He then turned to Brahma and asked, “Did you create me?” Brahma was lost in the thought for a while. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t remember ever creating this child. When he realized that he did not create the child, the child vanished.

This was the point where the three gods realized they were living in heir delusion. They now realized that there is a power behind their power that is a greater power.
I know this from esoteric Christianity as the relationship between one and three. It is like the relationship between white light and the three primary colors. White light is unity while the three primary colors are their first division on a lower level of vibration. Both white light and the primary colors simultaneously exist but at a different levels or quality of vibration.

I’ve read how the idea that God is both one and three ridiculed in so many ways only because people are closed to the idea of levels of reality. The example given by Joseph Campbell is another example of the relationship between one and three, They are the same but three is the beginning of creation within time and space while ONE is the ultimate source of creation and the unity of three and the highest vibration..

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:16 pm

It’s really quite interesting. On one hand, there is VA who is irrational and on the other, there is F4’s over-rationalizing. Maybe together they make sense?

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:20 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:09 pm
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:01 am
Reflex



It was a real mind blowing experience for me when I began to realize that the cycles of material convergence was known as the breath of Brahma and a kalpa in Buddhism. Apparently the ouroboros or universe is created, eats itself, and returns to its source. Then it is created again.

In The Power of Myth Joseph Campbell tells a story that relates to a power greater than Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
One day, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were boasting about each other’s greatest power. At that moment, a little boy came up to the holy trinity and asked Brahma, “What do you create?”. Brahma replied, “I can create everything.” He then asked Vishnu, “What do you preserve?”. “I preserve everything,” said Vishnu. “What do you destroy?” he asked Shiva. Shiva replied, “I can destroy everything."

Then this young boy had a single piece of straw in his hand, which was about the size of a toothpick. He asked Brahma, “Can you create a piece of straw exactly like this?” Brahma, exerting some great effort, tried to create the exact piece. But he failed. Brahma was astonished.

Then he asked Vishnu if he could protect the straw, which started to slowly dissolve under their gaze. But, Vishnu couldn’t. The straw completely vanished.

The boy picked another straw again and asked Shiva to use his power and destroy this piece of straw. Even Shiva with all his efforts failed to completely destroy the straw. The straw remained intact all of the time.

He then turned to Brahma and asked, “Did you create me?” Brahma was lost in the thought for a while. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t remember ever creating this child. When he realized that he did not create the child, the child vanished.

This was the point where the three gods realized they were living in heir delusion. They now realized that there is a power behind their power that is a greater power.
I know this from esoteric Christianity as the relationship between one and three. It is like the relationship between white light and the three primary colors. White light is unity while the three primary colors are their first division on a lower level of vibration. Both white light and the primary colors simultaneously exist but at a different levels or quality of vibration.

I’ve read how the idea that God is both one and three ridiculed in so many ways only because people are closed to the idea of levels of reality. The example given by Joseph Campbell is another example of the relationship between one and three, They are the same but three is the beginning of creation within time and space while ONE is the ultimate source of creation and the unity of three and the highest vibration..
The Vehicle is one thing; the experience/realization is quite another. Know what I mean?

Nick_A
Posts: 4240
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:05 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:23 pm

Your relating of the relationship is, I take it, a relationship between you and the divine or man and God.
You interject things never said all the time. Why?
We may push against the limits of language but we are still within them. Each of the things you affirm that God is is within those limits and each speaks of the relation that circles between being and beings. Each of those things articulates a concept or idea pertaining to God.
Again, you are interjecting your own ideas into what was actually said. What are the implications of what was actually said?
Apophatic theology is an attempt to avoid this, via negativa. But it still operates in the same categories of being and existence.
The finger is not the moon.
You affirm what you wish to deny. These terms, synthesis, Infinite, finite, Eternal, temporal, Freedom, and necessity are the concepts through which you not only relate your experience but through which you experience what you experience. A further sign of you conceptualizing is the use of capitals, signaling a conceptualized ranking in terms of priority, importance, and difference.

We do not first experience and then express what we experience in words. To see is not passive perception, it is active conception. It is “seeing ‘as’”. We do not simply see something, we see it 'as' this or that. The same object may be seen or taken in different ways, depending on the conceptual framework.*
Why are you so fixated on words? Have you ever tried discussing the meaning of what was actually said? Try looking past the definitions of words and look to where to they point. “Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.”
If you can make this understandable you're a better man than I am. I've tried to do it in several threads including my intuition thread. Some people are just closed to the potential for the Christian concept of gnosis or the Buddhist concept of satori and insist on arguing words or fragments at the expense of the momentary experience of the whole leading to a universal perspective.

Nick_A
Posts: 4240
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:32 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:20 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:09 pm
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am


In The Power of Myth Joseph Campbell tells a story that relates to a power greater than Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

I know this from esoteric Christianity as the relationship between one and three. It is like the relationship between white light and the three primary colors. White light is unity while the three primary colors are their first division on a lower level of vibration. Both white light and the primary colors simultaneously exist but at a different levels or quality of vibration.

I’ve read how the idea that God is both one and three ridiculed in so many ways only because people are closed to the idea of levels of reality. The example given by Joseph Campbell is another example of the relationship between one and three, They are the same but three is the beginning of creation within time and space while ONE is the ultimate source of creation and the unity of three and the highest vibration..
The Vehicle is one thing; the experience/realization is quite another. Know what I mean?
Yes. This is why I consider sacred scripture to serve the function of art. It opens the mind in a way impossible for ordinary argument. I know that writings of a certain quality enabled me to experience the third dimension of thought necessary for me to begin to "understand" and experience the vertical inner path leading to a human perspective.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:18 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:32 pm
Yes. This is why I consider sacred scripture to serve the function of art. It opens the mind in a way impossible for ordinary argument. I know that writings of a certain quality enabled me to experience the third dimension of thought necessary for me to begin to "understand" and experience the vertical inner path leading to a human perspective.
When skeptics say they understand the finger-moon analogy, they instantly revert to looking at the finger and ignore the moon. I am therefore convinced that seeing the moon cannot be taught but is something we grow into. It’s not that they are stupid or anything like that, it’s just that haven’t been weaned off their mother’s milk. The confuse quantity for quality.

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

If you can make this understandable you're a better man than I am. I've tried to do it in several threads including my intuition thread. Some people are just closed to the potential for the Christian concept of gnosis or the Buddhist concept of satori and insist on arguing words or fragments at the expense of the momentary experience of the whole leading to a universal perspective.
Don’t look at me. With “philosophers” like F4, no wonder philosophy has a reputation of being useless hair-splitting.

Nick_A
Posts: 4240
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:57 pm

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:18 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:32 pm
Yes. This is why I consider sacred scripture to serve the function of art. It opens the mind in a way impossible for ordinary argument. I know that writings of a certain quality enabled me to experience the third dimension of thought necessary for me to begin to "understand" and experience the vertical inner path leading to a human perspective.
When skeptics say they understand the finger-moon analogy, they instantly revert to looking at the finger and ignore the moon. I am therefore convinced that seeing the moon cannot be taught but is something we grow into. It’s not that they are stupid or anything like that, it’s just that haven’t been weaned off their mother’s milk. The confuse quantity for quality.

I started a thread on Progressive vs. Platonic Education which deals with this question. I contend that Platonic education has the potential to gradually open the mind in the direction of a universal perspective while Progressive education through selective intimidation closes the mind in favor of societal indoctrination. I agree that weaning off the milk is possible but I also know the world is against it in favor of remaining attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. I hate to say it but I've come to believe that collective hitting bottom is the inevitable result of sacrificing the big picture in favor of superficial pragmatism



Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

If you can make this understandable you're a better man than I am. I've tried to do it in several threads including my intuition thread. Some people are just closed to the potential for the Christian concept of gnosis or the Buddhist concept of satori and insist on arguing words or fragments at the expense of the momentary experience of the whole leading to a universal perspective.
Don’t look at me. With “philosophers” like F4, no wonder philosophy has a reputation of being useless hair-splitting.
They can't see the forest for the trees. Yet philosophy worthy of the name transcends argument and enables the experience of the contradictions between what we say and what we are and contemplate why as we are it must be so. Who am I and why am I here as a slave to hypocrisy? Hair splitting just proves hypocrisy but doesn't deal with the basic questions. We have forgotten how to approach these questions realistically with conscious contemplation.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:25 pm

Reflex:
fooloso4 wrote:

Your relating of the relationship is, I take it, a relationship between you and the divine or man and God.
You interject things never said all the time. Why?
Do you not see how you are relating yourself or man within this relation of the infinite and finite, the eternal and the temporal, freedom and necessity? Do you not see that these are concepts that are being related? Do you not see that the relation is onto-theological? (Caputo will not make sense to you unless you understand what onto-theological means.)
Why are you so fixated on words?
This is ironic, because what you do not see is your own fixation on words. The remedy, however, cannot be to do away with them. Without words you could not have said any of the things you said, or think any of the things you think, or even feel many of the things you feel.
Have you ever tried discussing the meaning of what was actually said?
The meaning of what was actually said cannot be determined apart from the words used to actually say it.

You say:
… concepts and ideas pertaining to God are all but irrelevant.
And:
… it’s about felt relations and interpretative concepts
Whether concepts are interpretative or not they are still concepts. The felt relations are not simply expressed in words they are marked off as what they are by words that distinguish one thing from another - the infinite from the finite, the eternal from the temporal, freedom from necessity.
Try looking past the definitions of words and look to where to they point.
Words define, they distinguish and separate. Definitions clarify what the word has set apart, what the word has set a boundary to. What you fail to see is that the things you are pointing to are concepts. The infinite, the finite, the eternal, the temporal, freedom, necessity are all concepts. They are not concepts that interpret something else, they are the concepts that guide the way you conceive of and divide reality.
If you can begin to understand Caputo’s method and aim of deconstruction and the importance of alterity, you would begin to understand what is really at issue with words. You would begin to see that you are not pointing beyond them but functioning fully within them. That your efforts are self-defeating because you are relying on the very thing how hope to move past. You are entrapping yourself in a theological language that Caputo has shown to be problematic. That is the beginning of the story. If you cannot comprehend this much then you cannot understand the alternative he is proposing.

Unless or until you can see what is really at issue it is futile for me to say more. Perhaps you will continue to name-drop Caputo or perhaps you will drop off using his name, but if you continue to read him and attempt to understand him you might come to see that your defensiveness and hostility have been misplaced.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Perspective

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:54 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:28 am
Because Caputo is not interested in assertions about what God is. His interest is in response to a calling. He is called upon. His concern is with what he feels called to do, and this has nothing to do with ritual or worship but with service to man, which he sees as service to God.
By "His" in each occurrence above; and one occurance of "He"; you mean Caputo or else you mean God? I HATE poorly or ambiguously referenced antecedents by pronouns.

I gave you the benefit that god would be referenced by you by capitalizing the pronouns; but most start a sentence, and hence the irreparable ambiguity conveyed to the reader. Both God and Caputo are male in your text. Therefore "He" and "His" at the beginning of sentences could refer to either of the two.

On the other hand, I assert that Caputo does not know this. Caputo may think this, believe this, but his belief is neither more believable or less than any other assertion by any other human what God wants us to do or what He wants Himself to do.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Perspective

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:01 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:59 am
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:46 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:36 am
There is nothing to debate or challenge.
Except whether you made sense to your readers or not.

If it is a stream of consciousness, which you seem to be saying it is, then it's acceptable. The only thing with streams of consciousness is that it never communicates; it uses language, yet it is never any part of any person-to-person information exchange.
Reflex makes sense to me.
Nick_A, it is clearer than the azure sky in the deepest summer that Reflex makes sense to you.

The problem, if you want to consider it, is that Reflex makes no sense to normal, reasonable human understanding. A circle is not a circle; god is impotent' god can withdraw himself from himself; etc. I am not surprised at all, not the least bit, having read your posts quite extensively, that these things make sense to you.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:03 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:57 pm

I hate to say it but I've come to believe that collective hitting bottom is the inevitable result of sacrificing the big picture in favor of superficial pragmatism.
I can see that. However, I question value one Hellenistic model. “The name of God is to be thought in terms of the Hebraic model of the call calling rather than the Hellenistic model of a cause causing, of covenant rather than of causality, of undying loyalty to his word rather than of eternal being, of a primordial promise rather than a prime mover—or if a mover, then one who moves by a motivating call or a provocation or a promise rather than by the strong force of an efficient cause.”
They can't see the forest for the trees. Yet philosophy worthy of the name transcends argument and enables the experience of the contradictions between what we say and what we are and contemplate why as we are it must be so. Who am I and why am I here as a slave to hypocrisy? Hair splitting just proves hypocrisy but doesn't deal with the basic questions. We have forgotten how to approach these questions realistically with conscious contemplation.

Do you think F4 will ever come to understand that, in final analysis, ideas are meaningless images frozen in time?
Last edited by Reflex on Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:06 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:01 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:59 am
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:46 am


Except whether you made sense to your readers or not.

If it is a stream of consciousness, which you seem to be saying it is, then it's acceptable. The only thing with streams of consciousness is that it never communicates; it uses language, yet it is never any part of any person-to-person information exchange.
Reflex makes sense to me.
Nick_A, it is clearer than the azure sky in the deepest summer that Reflex makes sense to you.

The problem, if you want to consider it, is that Reflex makes no sense to normal, reasonable human understanding. A circle is not a circle; god is impotent' god can withdraw himself from himself; etc. I am not surprised at all, not the least bit, having read your posts quite extensively, that these things make sense to you.
I can’t speak for Nick, but I’m flattered! Thank you! :)

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:48 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:25 pm
Reflex:
fooloso4 wrote:

Your relating of the relationship is, I take it, a relationship between you and the divine or man and God.
You interject things never said all the time. Why?
Do you not see how you are relating yourself or man within this relation of the infinite and finite, the eternal and the temporal, freedom and necessity? Do you not see that these are concepts that are being related? Do you not see that the relation is onto-theological? (Caputo will not make sense to you unless you understand what onto-theological means.)
Why are you so fixated on words?
This is ironic, because what you do not see is your own fixation on words. The remedy, however, cannot be to do away with them. Without words you could not have said any of the things you said, or think any of the things you think, or even feel many of the things you feel.
Have you ever tried discussing the meaning of what was actually said?
The meaning of what was actually said cannot be determined apart from the words used to actually say it.

You say:
… concepts and ideas pertaining to God are all but irrelevant.
And:
… it’s about felt relations and interpretative concepts
Whether concepts are interpretative or not they are still concepts. The felt relations are not simply expressed in words they are marked off as what they are by words that distinguish one thing from another - the infinite from the finite, the eternal from the temporal, freedom from necessity.
Try looking past the definitions of words and look to where to they point.
Words define, they distinguish and separate. Definitions clarify what the word has set apart, what the word has set a boundary to. What you fail to see is that the things you are pointing to are concepts. The infinite, the finite, the eternal, the temporal, freedom, necessity are all concepts. They are not concepts that interpret something else, they are the concepts that guide the way you conceive of and divide reality.
If you can begin to understand Caputo’s method and aim of deconstruction and the importance of alterity, you would begin to understand what is really at issue with words. You would begin to see that you are not pointing beyond them but functioning fully within them. That your efforts are self-defeating because you are relying on the very thing how hope to move past. You are entrapping yourself in a theological language that Caputo has shown to be problematic. That is the beginning of the story. If you cannot comprehend this much then you cannot understand the alternative he is proposing.

Unless or until you can see what is really at issue it is futile for me to say more. Perhaps you will continue to name-drop Caputo or perhaps you will drop off using his name, but if you continue to read him and attempt to understand him you might come to see that your defensiveness and hostility have been misplaced.
Still confusing the finger for the moon, I see.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:51 pm

-1-:
you mean Caputo or else you mean God?
By you I assume you mean me. I mean Caputo in each case.
On the other hand, I assert that Caputo does not know this.
Surely Caputo knows that Caputo is not interested in assertions about what God is, and that his (Caputo’s) interest is in response to a calling, and that he (Caputo) is called upon, and that his (Caputo’s) concern is with what he (Caputo) feels called to do, and that this has nothing to do with ritual or worship but with service to man, which he (Caputo) sees as service to God.
… but his belief is neither more believable or less than any other assertion by any other human what God wants us to do …
Caputo makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of God. The call he hears may be his own in the sense of from himself or one that he hears and others do not. Part of the his concept of the unconditional is that he is not going to impose conditions such as on where the call comes from. From an earlier post:

This call is not one of obedience to a moral code. There is no road map for the road is always under construction. We must make our way. One’s way is not guided by principles and rules but by love, mercy, and justice. It is a response to those in need.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:16 am

Reflex:
Do you think F4 will ever come to understand that, in final analysis, ideas are meaningless images frozen in time?
Will you ever come to understand that, in the final analysis, you have not moved beyond ideas? Even the idea that ideas are meaningless images frozen in time is an idea. You may desire something more but that too is an idea. You are ensnared in the idea of going beyond ideas. And where does that idea come from? No doubt from what you have read. It is an idea that resonates with you, but it is still just an idea. You can read as much as you want and talk as much as you want, but it is still just talk. You will mistake the meaning of this as long as you think that this is a statement about anything other than you. It does not mean that there is nothing but talk but that you are not free from talk.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests