|
|
Post by dan on Feb 6, 2012 10:46:43 GMT -7
Yes, Who, indeed.....? If we follow the copernican Pied Piper of modernity, we can only come to one conclusion, which every other true modernist has ever come to...... We are meat-machines, lost in time and space, and that our lives are an absurdity in a meaningless universe. Am I right about that? Are there any exceptions to the Iron Rule of modernity? Of course, every last one of us, excepting the Four Horsemen of Atheism, likes to think that we are exceptions to the Iron Rule. We give lipservice to pantheism and deism. Yes, we like to think we are holding a candle to the Santa Fe Express, to the juggernaught we call Modernity. Let's stop kidding ourselves... per impossible....!? And where is this Juggernaught taking us? Right over the precipice of unsustainability.... Yes, my friends, we have come a long way, baby, and it is a very long way down, and, like most train wrecks, it will be exciting, and not real pretty. You can count on it..... Most of us are now refugees from the train wreck, that was once the promise of ufology. In point of fact, I can well claim to be the only survivor of that train wreck. And I do so claim. Can anyone hear my words? Probably not. Get used to it. I have. Ufology is the jugular of the juggernaut of Modernism. How so? Again, it's very simple, and it's definitely not rocket-science...... It's all about progress, and the Fermi Paradox..... Hey, sports fans, just do the numbers.... read down the list of possible ways to explain the Paradox.... Granting the possibility of Perpetual Progress, the bedrock assumption of Modernism, there is only one explanation for the apparent lack of Visitation...... a Cosmic Conspiracy!!! Am I not right about this? Someone tell me that I'm wrong..... And guess what..... I'm the biggest fan of Cosmic Conspiracy of anyone I've ever heard of, with the exception of the J-man. BUT, I don't believe in Perpetual Progress. And, guess what, sports fans, neither did the J-man! So there you have it.... it's just me and the J-man, against the world! Am I worried? Do I look worried? Am I insane? Do I look insane? As of late, this latter question has taken on a practical edge...... Senior Pastor, Danny O'Brien, of Grace Fellowship Church (GFC), asked me, two weeks ago, to get a psychiatric evaluation, prior to his facilitation of my further interaction with any members of his staff or congregation. Fair enough..... As I've often said, especially in the last couple of weeks, if there is anyone who doesn't think that I might be crazy, then I would know for sure that they were crazy! I saw the psychiatrist, Dr V, last Wednesday, I believe it was. Before he writes a letter on my behalf, he has requested that I be psychologically tested. Hmmm........ The problem is that there exist a virtual infinity of psychological tests. He told me that he would tell the psychologist, Dr H, which tests to administer, and he requested the appointment. Wonderful...... Dr H called me, late Friday afternoon, and wanted to know what my problem was, in so many words. Right away, my red light flashed. Once again, there had been a communications breakdown. The psychiatric profession wants me to be self-incriminating. Ron, OTOH, has strongly advised me not to comply with that proclivity of that profession, i.e. to force the accused to be self-incriminating. This has everything to do with Kafka's The Trial. I'm not going to go there..... not without extreme duress. The buck has to stop somewhere. It should have stopped with Danny. I allowed Danny to kick the can down the road to Dr. V. Dr. V passed the buck to Dr H, and Dr H, is, in effect, passing the buck back to me. And I'm saying, whoa! Is this some kind of circle-jerk, or what? (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by mdonnall2002 on Feb 6, 2012 13:01:51 GMT -7
I’d like to relate a tale that occurred this morning before 9am that skirts the premise of your thoughts.
Waking my youngest for school is never a pleasant experience unless it is usually tiered with a trip to McDonald's or Tim Horton’s. So it was this morning, barely a decade of life clinging to her frame, and the first real words she offers to me from the back seat of the car was to ask, “Dad, is the world ever going to end?” Not a typical question I would expect to hear from her, while still clinging to her slumber.
The more important question, I thought, was why she asked it at that time and who was it for?
I suspect Cy would call this synchronicity, others the Divine Source, and still others just the mere expression of uncertainty. I could speculate until the end times about the nature of her question – and I will, but I believe it had intention.
Is it so clear that even she can see this - without the maturity to express it? As I asked her what made her ask that particular question, she could only reply with, “I don’t know, it’s just what popped into my head.” She then continues, with “People keep making babies and more babies and more babies….” For the life of me, or her for that matter, she could not account for why she said either statement or understood how they were interlinked.
To end this short tale – if anticipation of two hash browns and a chocolate milk can inspire such questions – perhaps we should encourage more to do so in the short term…
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 6, 2012 15:46:58 GMT -7
Md02,
This may well be the most amazing response that I have ever received on my several 'blogs', and this is saying something.
What can I say? Sure.... out of the mouths of babes.....
Yes, if we sincerely pray to the Great Pumpkin, or whomever, our prayers will be answered..... The answers often come from unusual, innocent sources.
----------
Where were we......? Who are we?
The modernists can only say that, at best, you and I count only to ourselves. This is surely what the quintessential modernists, the existentialists, have told us.
I am here to tell you that Jean Paul Sartre was not playing with a full deck. Discretion is the better part of valor. Jean Paul, in that regard, was lacking in discretion. Can I bless his ignorant heart? I can only try.
Who are we?
The implied questions are..... from whence did we come, and whither do we go?
The modernists and existentialists tell us that we came from nowhere and are going to nowhere.... that our lives are an absurdity in a meaningless universe.
Should we believe them? Are they playing with a full deck?
Who was it, in the Bible, who said..... from dust, unto dust...? Wow. And those extremely ignorant existentialists, who thought that that they had invented absurdity, failed to read the bible. Bless their little hearts.....
Is this not the end of the story?
It is only the J-man who suggests that there might be an alternative. Mohammed does not suggest an alternative, and neither does Buddha.
No, wait, was it Mohammed who suggested the 72 virgins? I wonder where that came from. It is unchristian. Yes, the Muslims do have some recalculating to do. We will help them, to the very extent of our wisdom. That they do need help, should not be an issue.
Do the folks at GFC need help? Yes and no. I know for sure that they are not fully prepared for the Endtimes.
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 7, 2012 13:44:13 GMT -7
There may never exist proof that we are something more than accidental congeries of atoms swerving in the dark. Absolute certainty is a figment of our absolutist proclivities that are rooted in the psychological makeup of most of us. No kind of absolutism has ever stood up to careful, sustained scrutiny. I won't say never, but let's not hold our breath. There is no defeater for absolute skepticism.
But when it comes to mere plausibility, there is a very different story. I submit that it is not plausible that we are mere congeries of atoms. The existence of persons is at least as plausible as the existence of atoms, even though we have no clue as to what persons might consist of, beyond mere atoms. Here's the line of argument I prefer.....
Reason and truth have no purchase beyond the purview of independent rational agents, which is virtually synonymous with the definition of persons. Many books have been written on this topic. A handful of philosophers have made sustained arguments against the existence of persons. Their efforts, while clever and thoughtful, are a long way from gaining plausibility amongst their colleagues.
Where does this leave us, Kimosabe? Who are 'we', given our very plausible personhood? From whence come our personas, i.e. our personal identities?
Theists and pantheists agree that we have some kind of soul, i.e. there is some sort of personal survival. But even that statement of commonality is a bit of a stretch. The notions of transmigration and evolution loom large amongst modern pantheists. It took years of weekly arguments before I could get Louise to acknowledge a special status of humans, and then there would be a frequent backsliding. She was as stubborn as they come.
I am happy to espouse limited forms of reincarnation..... No, wrongo..... Of late, I hanker for extreme reincarnation, i.e. there is only one soul, of which we, persons, are all time-sharers.
And what about our feathered and furry friends? I was wont to say that they had collective souls. But, now, it seems like we may, too. Ooops......
I'm inclined to say that our soul is the Imago Dei, so suck on that, all you Dolphin-freaks. Truly, not very nice of me.... Louise would call 911, or whatever. Will my soul burn in Dolphin hell?
Is there not a Dolphin Deity? The Archetype, in Plato's Heaven? Sure.
(cont.)
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Feb 7, 2012 15:10:38 GMT -7
wrt 'plausible personhood, I would suggest that therer is another J-man you may be overlooking. I don't mean to put him up alongside _the_ J-man Himself, but Job is an interesting figure. Reality notwithstanding, that text is understood, in part, to be the oldest of the Old testament, drawn from pre-scriptural sources. The reason I bring Job up is that the whole concept of an afterlife in which the individual is recognized arises from the book of Job. His plea for a what essentially would be a court case in the next world, a presentation of evidence against him, is crucial to the prophetic traditions focus on the individual soul. He reflects a shift from salvation of 'a people' to 'a person'.
The text also serves as an answer to theodicy. Admittedly, it would only be satisfactory to someone already believing. But it amounts to the divine response to 'why is there suffering?' as being 'I'll tell you... later'
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 7, 2012 15:32:31 GMT -7
Rpm,
Thank you so much for this near refutation of my naive excursion into the ontology of souls, even setting aside any questions of inerrancy, I would hate to cross swords with the likes of Job. Out of my league......
Where is cosmic justice for us time-sharers?
The Kingdom is within. Justice need not be personal. Jesus saves all of us, in the end. Salvation is personal. He is eternal. So is Hitler? Well, yes, in as much as Creation exists, sub-specie Aeternitas. Beyond our historical personas, we are rocked in the bosom of Abraham. God is our altered state. From thence we have access to all Creation, in a total emersion. There might be an academic interest in the persona of Dan Smith, but it has little intrinsic meaning in isolation from its historical context. To be is to relate. Our individuality is subsumed under the, what..... the Trinity, perhaps?
Could we not reexperience the lives of whomever? Well, not without fully assuming that one's persona. Is it real or is it memorex? There would be no distinction, IMHO.
We read novels.... we go to movies. Are there no intermediate cases? That seems odd. Only if logic permits. Personal identity may not be reducible. It is what it is. Non-transferable.
What you do to the least of you, you do unto me.... That explains much. Vicarious atonement lurks in there, somewhere. We are our brother's keeper.
Individuality lies in memory, to a large extent. Are memories extractable? Probably not, even if they seem to be randomly accessible.
How great is the ontological distinction between the thing and our memories of it? Esse est percipi. No? Are atoms perceived? Is the earth hollow? We only perceive relations? The world exists in every fragment of itself. We cannot experience without meaning. Meanings are not extractable. Yet our lives can seem so fragmented. Alienation and absence are ever present.
If the world is of a piece, how could it be other than it is? To say it is the best possible one, or that God had a choice, would be devoid of meaning.
The least action principle, somewhat embodies this paradox. Optimization, then, is not an option, even though the suboptimal may be conceivable. Only the extremum is realizable. Our freewill is only ever a potentiality? Our imagination consists of that potentiality. Only in that, are we free.
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 8, 2012 7:14:00 GMT -7
In the end, though, it will be love and forgiveness. And they don't compute. Do we have more freedom in love, than does a mother for her child? Us, guys, we bask in that glory, and when that love does not suffice, the bodies pile up in the alley. Or there is the Overshoot.... Some blame it on greed. I blame it on an excess of love...... Looking for love in all the wrong places. When the Sun finally comes out, all we can do is break out the lotion and the shades. Who are we? We are fools in love, looking for love in all the wrong places.... Yes, we are homesick... always have been... afraid to admit it, especially to ourselves. We have grown used to the existential freezer. Bracing, isn't it?! Christians give themselves a bad wrap. They know that Jesus is the good Cop, and all they can think of is to play the bad cop. They got that one down, real good. It will be an easy act to follow... playing the good Cop. They would like to think I'm crazy, and send me to the shrink, who sends me to another shrink, who would love to hook me up to his computer. I think I'll hook him up to Ron. It's like that old movie, From Here to Eternity.... nice title. The Zeroes are zooming in over the harbor. The G.I.s race to the armory room. The Sergeant on duty refuses to open the door, because it's Sunday. That is precisely where we are now. Well, sports fans, at least we're keeping our powder dry, and we're already half-way to Eternity! Not bad, for beginners. We are little pieces of the sky that have fallen to Earth, trailing clouds of glory. We build rockets to get back to where we think we came from.... looking for love in all the wrong places. Me? I'm just Chicken Little..... So, the Four Horsemen have retired, for the most part, and they never were playing with a full deck. They were exp rts... former drips, under a lot of pressure.
Again, an easy act to follow.....
So far, so good.....
From here on, it's just a question of sorting the sheep from the goats, e.g. the theists from the pantheists, etc., etc......
Most ufologists, like my sister, Louise, and probably like Cy and the other ufologists, are pantheists, if anything at all, or anything other than Cargo-cultists, hanging around the Christmas tree, waiting for a little bugger to come down their chimney... looking for love, in all the dark places....!
Ok, so let's consider the pantheists......
I love pantheists.... so much so that I've gone right ahead and stolen their candy, and they don't even know it.
Their candy is their immaterialism.... No matter.... Never mind! The reason that they're not minding their store is because they're much too busy trying to hop in bed with the Scientific Materialists... bless both of their little hearts... so, slam, bam, thank you, ma'am! Just a little menage-a-trois, I guess!
Hey, just movin' right along.....
There is now just one fly left, in the BPWH ointment..... Jesus on a stick, or was that a stake?
Yes, sports fans, that can be a real sticky wicket...!
More than anyone else, it was Louise, God rest her soul, who drove that home to me.
Now, we're about to find out if I've learned my lesson.....
Us, poor Christians... we can't live without him, and we don't know how to live with him.
I sort of suspect that might be why I'm here, but who the heck knows....
Stealing Jesus from the Christians.... Is that gonna be like taking candy from a baby?
Talk about.... how do you spell it.... Chutzpah? Hubris? Prometheus?
Look, all you armchair shrinks out there... just thinking I'm Jesus is not really crazy. What's crazy is thinking that I might get away with it! Am I right about that? Who amongst us has never wondered if they might be closer to God than the angels? If you haven't, then, virtually by definition, you cannot count yourself as a card-carrying human. Am I right about that?
And so there it is, right there.........
Most humans think that the Christians are trying to impose Jesus between God and the rest of us.
Am I right about that?
There is only one answer to that fundamental complaint. It is to ask the quintessential question of Christianity......
WWGD.....?
And that right there is the whole point.... It is the whole shooting match, and it's the one question that I never asked Louise...!
Aren't I cheating? Ok, but if I can't explain it in one paragraph, then shoot me...!
Jesus was ever only intended to be our window, door and bridge to God?
Has anyone got a problem with that?
If you were God, wouldn't you want to provide a window, door and bridge?
Hey, sports fans, God even sent a serpent, but we cast him out of the Garden, didn't we?? And we almost cast out Jesus, as well.
And after that fact, how did Jesus admonish us? 'Be wise as Serpents,...' said he.
Do I have to finish this 'paragraph'? Can you not fill in the blanks?
So here I am, tanned, rested and relaxed..... all set to take charge! Don't I look a lot like a window, door and bridge? Will we once again be tempted to confuse the map with the territory.... lazy devils that we are?
Have I made myself perfectly clear......?
It all comes down to WWGD.... doesn't it?
But where did WWGD come from? Obviously it came from WWJD, didn't it?
And where did WWJD come from? It came from a bumper sticker, TBMK.
Wonderful, and where did the bumper sticker come from? What? It came from wikipedia? Hmmm..... Well, that's another story.
Well, to make a long story short, it all comes from the notion of the Imago Dei, which also comes down to the personhood of God.
This brings us back to the question of... Who are we?
If, by some chance, we happen to think of ourselves as persons, then, etymologically speaking, there is no question where we came from. No? And do you see what I might be getting at wrt to Wiki?
If we are to believe Wiki, and this almost blows my socks off, the first substantial(?) use of this term arose in theological disputes over the concept of the Trinity. I kid you not.... We don't say?!
But, wait, I emphatically reject the definition of personhood that was put forward by St Thomas.....
Well, I was going to amend a caveat to my objection, to the effect that we would be self-sufficient just to the extent that we might be identified with God. But that's not right, is it?
It contradicts a basic premise of the BPWH.... God is nothing, if not a creator. Therefore, Creation is not an act of whimsy, on the part of God, which act of whimsy is something implied by every bible-pounder.
Yes, I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.....
Here's the point.... here's what the pounders pound upon.... referring to... Hmmm.......
IMHO, there is a needle, here, waiting to be threaded.....
4pm----------
I just had a brief, 10 min, convo with John C, of GFC/SfA. He was walking his dog in the snow.....
The topic was WWJD, in the Endtimes. Jesus says and does nothing unscripted until he has acted out the script given in Revelations, which includes bringing the Saints back to Earth, and separating the sheep from the goats, amongst the survivors of the Tribulation.
99 says that she will be rejoining us, on this new thread, soon.... She brought up the notion of a continued dialog with Louise. Truth be known, I'm really not into seances, but it is the exceptions that prove the rule.....
From what I have said, it is strongly implied that my many convos with Louise were, invariably, tinged with frustration with her lack of rationale. In this regard, you may think of Lucy and Charlie Brown wrt the football, but it's not just about the... viva la difference. It's also about us wise asses, not to name any serpentine names.
What I'm asking of John is WWJD when his Endtimes script runs out. Is this merely an academic question? I think it may also be a theological question, keeping in mind that the Evangelicals care next to nothing about the theologians.
Can we blame them? Did not the pointy-heads help to pave the way into the Enlightenment and Modernism? That is a fair question. The theologians answer that question with a resounding silence, going right back to their intellectual capitulation to Descartes. Bless their pointy hearts.
What we theologians did, above all, was pave the way into existentialism, by way of St Thomas' benighted understanding of Personhood. Yes, there was a split between the theistic and atheistic branches of existentialism.
In fact, Buddha and St Augustine are listed as originators of existentialist thought. Is there something slightly askew in this listing?
Try this.....
Curiously, the only book referenced under personhood is The Personhood of God, which references only the Old Testament.
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Feb 8, 2012 15:43:22 GMT -7
If we are to believe Wiki, and this almost blows my socks off, the first substantial(?) use of this term arose in theological disputes over the concept of the Trinity. I kid you not....
Quote:
Christianity is the first philosophical system to use the word "person" in its modern sense. The word "persona" was transformed from its theater use into a term with strict technical theological meaning by Tertullian in his work, De Trinitate ("On The Trinity"), in order to distinguish the three "persons" of the Trinity.
We don't say?! I don't know Dan, wikipedia is definitely not a trusted source for information. On those things that I personally know about which admittedly is not a whole lot but I DO know my American History and in that regard they really do have a knack for misinformation in a big way. For example, let's take The Assassination of Lincoln...  "On December 7, 1941, President Abraham Lincoln was killed by assassin James Earl Ray, a tragedy that stunned a nation still recovering from the ravages of the Revolutionary War. Perched from the window of a nearby book depository, Ray shot Lincoln as he and his wife Hillary, entered Ford's Theatre for the Washington premier of 'Cats'. Lincoln supporters known as Lincoln Logs reacted with outrage, culminating in the Boston Tea Party, the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the nationally televised shooting of James Earl Ray himself as he was being led to prison. Lincoln's Vice President, Lyndon "The Gipper" Johnson, was quickly sworn in, on a plane, as President after Lincoln's death, ably leading America through the Great Depression, The Korean War and the "Dot-com Boom".
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Feb 8, 2012 16:03:05 GMT -7
At any rate, it used to be that most pontifications of End World scenario's were indicative of a post-modernist ennui.... but not so much anymore.... that's for sure! Your ongoing brilliant and disturbing critiques of modernity really do zero in on what's going on now and what's in store for the future! -------------------------------- What we theologians did, above all, was pave the way into existentialism, by way of St Thomas' benighted understanding of Personhood. Yes, there was a split between the theistic and atheistic branches of existentialism. But think of this Dan... " There are no atheists in foxholes". Put an atheist in a life and death situation and watch them squirm in existential angst (of the other kind), BIG TIME! Don't mind me.... lol, just getting warmed up.  |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 8, 2012 16:23:30 GMT -7
99,
The question of the hour is whether there are any pantheists in foxholes.....
Just wondering.....
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Feb 8, 2012 16:30:04 GMT -7
That's a scary thought Dan. But Am. Indians and most indigenous people are Pantheists, at least to some extent and I think they are the ones who have chosen to stay close to our physical realm to remind us to respect Mother Earth.
There's a reason for everything... including why people believe in the the things they do. The Universe requires that some of us stick around here to protect our planet and all life that resides on it.
PS -- who's to say that many authentic crop circles are not thoughtforms from pantheists who have crossed over but are still HERE...
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Feb 8, 2012 16:38:14 GMT -7
However, once Pantheists transit over.... some time after they've settled up there, they will see that their own beliefs were not quite on target. There will be a period of adjustment for them 'up there'. no question about that before they are ready to move on to a level comprised of intelligences who are closer to the TRUTH. If that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Feb 8, 2012 16:43:01 GMT -7
Just my own opinions and nothing more. But I have put some thought to that question before .... many times in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 8, 2012 19:26:27 GMT -7
Closer to the Truth?
You sound like the mathematician..... she only ever gets half way to the Truth....
Whereas physicists can figure out how to get close enough... for all practical purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Feb 9, 2012 9:06:18 GMT -7
This is from Skai, yesterday...... Thank you, Skai. My point is that we theists have dropped the ball wrt defending personhood. The secular humanists, et al, have come to suppose that they have claim to the idea of Personhood, and the alleged human rights that go with it. The only thing we hear, anymore, on the religious front, is the sound and fury over Right to Life, which seems mainly about removing all reproductive rights from women. IOW, personhood has mainly become a political football, and, in the process, we've forgotten that it must be the key to Being and Truth, i.e. to all of Reality. The only conscientious objectors to Personhood are the pantheists, like Louise, who emphatically deny any special divine status to humanity. Why? Very simple.... because that would have implied the Imago Dei, putting them right back into bed with theism. OTOH, secular humanists want to keep the 'baby', i.e. personhood, and throw out all the religious and metaphysical bathwater that seems to have come with it. Have they succeeded? Yes and no..... Politically, they have succeeded. But it has been a superficial skirmish, with political correctness ruling the discourse. When push comes to shove, expediency wins the day. Looking ahead to tough times, it's going to take a lot more than political correctness to uphold human rights over the good ol' notions of survival of the fittest, and might makes right. But as long as we can get by with politics as usual, these ultimate concerns will be relegated to a peripheral status. 1:05-------- If there is going to be a new world order, it will have to come from within, i.e. it will have to be accompanied an MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts.... a global change of heart. The UFO community somewhat agrees with this view.... wherein they see that Disclosure, per se, will have a profound effect on the global psyche, regardless of whether some regime might subsequently be imposed from without. I am simply restating the holistic nature of our ultimate concerns, and that to fragment these concerns is tantamount to diluting them, beyond all recognition. Alienation then becomes our lowest common denominator. Human rights is a wonderful idea, but to be universally understood as being inalienable, they must be an integral part of our worldview and our self-conception. They are seen as non-negotiable as is gravity, for instance. This is what we've forgotten. Science presents us with a world of means and of pragmatism. The world of ends is invisible to science. Until we comprehend the cosmic End, all other ends will become someone else's means. This is just a restatement of the title of Gauguin's Tahitian painting..... "Who are we, from whence do we come, whither do we go?" That we might possess cosmic personas, has everything to do with the complete context of our being. If the I Am is not of our essence, then our being is merely a cosmic contingency. If that is not our birthright, we have no right. Science, OTOH, has displaced being from Persons to Atoms. Atoms become the pivot or the basis of reality. We exist only on an extreme periphery, as an empty contingency.... a flash in the pan. To regain any standing, we must turn the scientific worldview inside-out... stand it on its head. That is our MoAPS. This new worldview is necessarily eschatological. It is very simply a return to the Prophetic tradition, whence came the very notion of Personhood and the I Am. All prophecies, all roads lead us back to the I Am. When we return, we'll encounter ourselves for the first time. This was our Sojourn of Deliverance. -------------- Here is a recap and update of the metaphysics or ontology of the BPWH...... There is just one Soul of sapience. This fact brings us back to the Cartesian dilemma of ensouling the other creatures. Mechanizing them is just the wrong move. It was the move that launched the nascent Science onto its fruitful but dead-end path of reductionism. I'm inclined to distinguish between forms and Soul. We could even say 'inspirited' forms, if that makes any sense. And I'm also thinking of the world Soul, the Anima Mundi. We are that. The inspirited forms are peripheral, thereto. Do mountains and/or atoms have spirits? Not sure, but atoms are surely formal, in their mathematical essence. The essence of the BPWH is its monism. It emphatically eschews Cartesian dualism. In particular, perception is direct. In effect, we are directly perceiving God's ideas. Ideas are directly shared or shareable. Memories need not be less direct that perceptions. The world consists of our shared memories. Our memories are the Telos of the world. Creation is mainly teleological. It is admittedly a stretch, but our dreams are also thought to display a teleological aspect, such as when waking to an external stimulus, with that stimulus being logically embedded in a complex dream sequence. So might end our slumber of materialism!? This provides a radical, and minimally theological, explanation for the Anthropic principle.... we, collectively, being the retrospecting creators of our own world. How might teleology be employed to explain calamities? Who, in their right mind, would wish to retrospect an earthquake? Clearly, it's not a question of wish fulfillment. Wishing is a purely prospective and individual affect. Shakespeare writes a tragedy. We pay good money to see it. We may vicariously suffer with the characters, if not the actors. Tragedy cleanses the soul, or so it is said. The world soul is cleansed in calamity, as might be rationalized in this BPWH. In real life, we go to great lengths to avoid tragedy, and pray that, if necessary, they befall the other guy.... not me, Lord, please, not me! In the end, the undivided World Soul pays the piper, and we, pearls on that necklace, dance to the tune. Thank God that only our hindsight is 20/20! We do adjust, within the overpowering solidarity. I suspect that pain is rather more democratic than is generally acknowledged, as is love. Prove me wrong...! And give me some credit for trying. So we can take credit for the good things, and blame the bad stuff on God. Hey, it was just an act of God! Fair enough? And we try to keep in mind that all's well that ends well. Sure, the world is more like a great thought than a great machine. OTOH, sticks and stones break my bones..... Tell the guy who fell off the ladder that the cement floor was a great thought! But what if the floor hadn't been there? That would not be such a great thought, either. The best imaginable world and the best possible world may not be totally congruent, unfortunately for the guy bouncing off the floor. So where's the payoff? When do we get to cash-in our chips? I suspect they all go into the Big Kitty in the sky, or is that God's slush fund? It rains on the sinners, as well as on the righteous? That's kinda what Jesus was trying to tell us, when he wasn't telling the Pharisees to go to hell. Amen to that, J-man! Keep in mind that the BPWH is just my exhaustive prayer. It's almost as good as saying the Rosary, I'll bet. We are the braincells of God. We hope he doesn't get a headache. Hey, this has only been an extended tuneup. We're just waiting for the Maestro to get off his duff. We hope he didn't break his magical baton, while out on his sabbatical. Will it be like a condo in Florida? What if we're not on the ocean side? I have the manager's phone number, right here in my pocket....... (cont.) |
|
