Sat 17 Mar, 2012 01:04 pm
The apodictical existential pantheist maintains that the disrepute of dualism is well earned, upon the basis that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. We think in terms of black and white, it’s required for practical purposes to survive, we have to. However Everything is really grey, analog not digital
Everything. For example Her existence or for that matter the existence of anything: We think of an apple as existing but an imaginary apple not. But how about Costco or the Catholic Church. Each consists basically of a smaller or larger number of humanoids busy moving objects from one location to another, either entity trailing off into uncertainty around the fringes. For instance is unsold produce a part of Costco or is a dead Catholic still a Catholic, etc
But you say, there’s an apparently very real divide of physical or “real" world v the mental or conceptual, material v spiritual. Yet some quantum-mechanical phenomena defy such clearcut distinction, for instance the effect of prediction upon outcome between the classification of light as particle v wave, action at a distance, retention of information notwithstanding the black hole, etc
She is merely the way things have to be because all happenings are mutually interdependent, explaining for instance why specific values for physical constants; where it will eventually be shown that a variation in any one entails a contradiction by its effect on all the others. As for creation, many apparent paradoxes are resolved simply by the assertion that She has always existed (in one form or another) while creation is an ongoing affair
Thus She exists or doesn’t depending on your concept of Her, what you mean by “God” while intuition insists She is finite, limited to doing only what's possible, incidentally thereby resolving the question, “Why couldn’t She have made things better"
Your first paragraph is essentiallly consistent with what I have been saying regarding dualism. It seems to be useful, like the subject/ego, for our survival even though it is fictitious.
And it seems to me that theism requires the duality between creature and Creator. The notion that God is separate from us contrasts profoundly with the Buddhist notion of the unity between us and Ultimate Reality (Dharma).
Agreeing with you here JL...
...I have the impression you don´t have a clue on what I am agreeing up there...you are really old school...
...while you n your pals put the subjects on the centre of "creation" I put them in the centre of the circumstance...
That´s your typical problem Fresco... your "us" against "them" thing like Naturalism vs Idealism...try n take off free will out of the equation n look closer to the outcome...maybe u get it then...
...candy given candy taken...
Thanks JL and other supporters, your response is a chatoyant dalliance in this callipgian parapraxis of perfunctory raillery
regarding dualism. It seems to be useful, like the subject/ego, for our survival even though it is fictitious.
Yes precisely, useful in everyday transaction but entailing ll sorts of contradictions and paradoxes in the realm of philo
Do you believe in the free agency of the Subject ? If not, do agree that such blurs the field way further ?
While it is certainly true that my subjective experience is real I am not at all sure that my experience is the product of my willing but rather that my willing is the product of my circumstance...if on one account it is true that I am "my world", on the other hand my world is not mine to control, but mine to experience...
...your 2 cents on that ?
Do you believe in the free agency of the Subject ?
If you mean his free will, the apparent contradiction with scientific discipline will eventually shown to be merely a semantic issue
…….. I am not at all sure that my experience is the product of my willing but rather that my willing is the product of my circumstance......your 2 cents on that ?
Yes, and maybe it is worth only 2 cents but our behavior is largely detrermined
My point being that if the conscience is not an agent but rather an experiencer then the apparent contradiction with Naturalism fades away...The limitations of my intuition and comprehension are explained away not as a product of my construction of the world but as the product of my circumstance in this world...
is not an agent but rather an experiencer
Fil that’s pretty deep stuff for the Average Clod (me) but where the idea of free will is almost a philosophical necessity to endow the Universe kith any sort of meaning, then it’s both agent and experiencer
Yes, the existence of gods does entirely depend on whatever a person means by "god".
When it comes to dualism and oneness, I feel it is important to progress in both perspectives. The dualistic aspects indicate the unity, but this concerns the perceptual approach. My perceptual approach to reality, the phenomenon that comes to mind when I focus on the unity of everything, does have qualities that would seem godlike if endowed with human characteristics.
The dualistic aspects indicate the unity,
I wouldn’t have put it quite that way. Maybe they’re incorporated within the unity
, does have qualities that would seem godlike if endowed with human characteristics.
You might wish Cyr to identify those qualities
What I mean by "The dualistic aspects indicate the unity" is that "right" indicates "left". Up indicates it's opposite, and so does every dualistic concept. The counterparts together make up the meaning of the dualism, and as such, they show the inherent unity.
You might wish Cyr to identify those qualities
I can't. At least not verbally, as that would be endowing it with human characteristics. I would be forced to break down impressions into dualistic phenomena to transmit them verbally. Then whoever receives them put these dualisms back into holistic impressions, but the result is woven by the receiver's mind, not mine. This is why religion is so divisive and full of conflict. Everyone paints their own conception of reality, and each one is unique.
I believe that each one is the same when perceived. There is one reality which we all share. But after perception it evolves into the physical playground of an inquisitive monkey, and our ideas of reality are like our fingerprints. All of them easily definable for what they are, but each one completely unique.
I like the dictum, "Not two, not one". I share your "perceptual approach" to reality. Monism and Dualism reflect a "conceptual approach" to reality. That's fine for many purposes. Black and white, like good and bad, and all other polar extremes are good to THINK with, but they are not descriptive of experience. As we all know, we do not perceive absolute black and white; we perceive only shades of grey, which are best conceptualized as degrees of blackness and whiteness. Sorry to be so hackneyed.
Hackneyed.. funny word.
I think we are pushing the limit of what our language can describe, which is why much of what we write sounds like trivial nonsense to those who do not share a rather specific and perhaps esoteric approach to "realitying".