Panentheism

[davidm]

Seeds

Two – As per item one, in what I call “true reality,” there are no strange and bizarre subdivisions of life, such as angels, or demons, or Satan, or hell, or any other such “old paradigm” nonsense as depicted below:

Do you believe in the Great Chain of Being? If so, where does it begin and end? Without getting into details do you sense any truth in this ancient idea?

http://www.esotericonline.net/profiles/ ... n-of-being

The great chain of being (Latin: scala naturae, literally "ladder/stair-way of nature"), is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus. It details a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals………………………….

No truth whatsoever in this. The (correct) theory of evolution completely discredits this idea. Also, God, angels and demons do not exist.

[davidm]

Just look at what a nasty idea this is! Kings, princes and nobles are somehow "above" men -- as if they are not men themselves!

Nick, you are certifiably nuts.

There is no great chain of being. We know this because of evolution.

[Harbal]

Nick, you are certifiably nuts.

That's rather tactless, david, couldn't you have broke it to him a bit more gently?

[davidm]

Nick, you are certifiably nuts.

That's rather tactless, david, couldn't you have broke it to him a bit more gently?

Dear Nick, you are non compos mentis.

Is that better?

[Nick_A]

Nick, you are certifiably nuts.

That's rather tactless, david, couldn't you have broke it to him a bit more gently?

Dear Nick, you are non compos mentis.

Is that better?

No. I like it better the other way. When Harbal and David agree that I'm nuts it is proof I'm on to something important

[Harbal]

Dear Nick, you are non compos mentis.

Is that better?

It's a bit late, the cat's already out of the bag.

[Harbal]

No. I like it better the other way. When Harbal and David agree that I'm nuts it is proof I'm on to something important

That's the spirit, Nick, don't give in to it.

[Nick_A]

Just look at what a nasty idea this is! Kings, princes and nobles are somehow "above" men -- as if they are not men themselves!

Nick, you are certifiably nuts.

There is no great chain of being. We know this because of evolution.

Sez you. Actually the fact that you deny with such passion suggests that there is much more to it than is normally considered. For example: Can anyone become a philosopher king as described by Plato through indoctrination? Could a robot become a philosopher king or does it require a quality of being? Also, can someone become one of the elect in Christianity or do they have to be born with the potential? If a person has to be be born with the potential to be one of the elect or a philosopher king it suggests they are born with a quality of being greater than the average human being understandable as an expression of the Great Chain of Being.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

First things first. If the idea of the ONE is unacceptable, then so is its relationship to matter.

You have this backwards. If you are going to argue that Plotinus concept of the One is or will be compatible with science then you cannot ignore what he says about matter. If you do, it ignores his cosmology, it is no longer his concept

The question remains is if the ONE in any way contradicts science.

And the answer is yes. Science rejects the notion of forms shaping and determining matter conceived as a passive substratum of all things physical. There are, for Plotinus' One, no sensible objects without forms informing passive matter.

Science relies on discursive reasoning but the ONE is known through contemplation revealing what is already known. Can more people science be brought to to the point of accepting its limitations like Basarab Nicolescu?

Contemporary science is not discursive reasoning. Scientists are well aware of the limits of scientific knowledge. An awareness of those limits, however, does not mean that science should accept Plotinus' contemplative claims or the contemplative claims of anyone else without sufficient physical evidence for why it should be taken seriously.

If so, that is the beginning for appreciating what spirit in matter means, the Law of Vibration, why all matter vibrates …

Matter according to Plotinus does not vibrate. It is pure passivity. If contemplation is the touchstone then you cannot pick and choose. Not all who practice contemplation consider it a productive activity and not all are in agreement as to what is seen in contemplation. Disputes in science are resolved by the evidence not by what one sees in contemplation.

The scientific method is basic inductive reason.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/)

Nick:

Contemplation leads to deductive reason verifying what was experienced during the deeper states of conscious contemplation.

You may believe that truth is revealed in contemplation, but the idea that contemplation provides verification of itself through deductive reason is circular. Verification of claims about the physical world cannot be done within a closed circle that excludes physical evidence, testing, and repeatable results.

The ONE doesn’t create. The ONE IS. Creation begins with Nous.

It is not creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, and so how can it be the same “truth” as the “truth” of creatio ex nihilo?

Unless people agree on this conception, there cannot be a structure for universal existence within Isness.

Does this mean that Weil is wrong? That her universalist claims that:

one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality …

Is wrong? That people must agree that creatio ex nihilo is wrong?

Without this structure there is nothing for science to contemplate; nothing for the scientific method to fit within –

There is no need for an additional structure for the scientific method to "fit within" other than the structure of the universe itself. No need for positing some transcendence that is other than what is that cannot itself be explain but just is or “IS”, as if what cannot be explained could stand as an explanation.

[Nick_A]

F4

You have this backwards. If you are going to argue that Plotinus concept of the One is or will be compatible with science then you cannot ignore what he says about matter. If you do, it ignores his cosmology, it is no longer his concept.

There is no argument.

And the answer is yes. Science rejects the notion of forms shaping and determining matter conceived as a passive substratum of all things physical. There are, for Plotinus' One, no sensible objects without forms informing passive matter.

Science cannot reject the notion. All it can say is that it doesn’t know. The aether does not exist alone. It is inhabited by spirit. That is what vibrates and creates forms. I’ll copy a small passage from the Kybalion. Are you suggesting that science denies matter vibrates?

3. The Principle of Vibration
"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."--The
Kybalion.
This Principle embodies the truth that "everything is in motion"; "everything vibrates"; "nothing is at rest"; facts which Modern Science endorses, and which each new scientific discovery tends to verify. And yet this Hermetic Principle was enunciated thousands of years ago, by the Masters of Ancient Egypt. This Principle explains that the differences between different manifestations of Matter, Energy, Mind, and even Spirit, result largely from varying rates of Vibration. From THE ALL, which is Pure Spirit, down to the grossest form of Matter, all is in vibration--the higher the vibration, the higher the position in the scale. The vibration of Spirit is at such an infinite rate of intensity and rapidity that it is practically at rest--just as a rapidly moving wheel seems to be motionless. And at the other end of the scale, there are gross forms of matter whose vibrations are so low as to seem at rest. Between these poles, there are millions upon millions of varying degrees of vibration. From corpuscle and electron, atom and molecule, to worlds and universes, everything is in vibratory motion. This is also true on the planes of energy and force (which are but varying degrees of vibration); and also on the mental planes (whose states depend upon vibrations); and even on to the spiritual planes……………..

Contemporary science is not discursive reasoning. Scientists are well aware of the limits of scientific knowledge. An awareness of those limits, however, does not mean that science should accept Plotinus' contemplative claims or the contemplative claims of anyone else without sufficient physical evidence for why it should be taken seriously.

If science establishes a lawful relationship between vibrating matter as a necessary expression of the ONE for sustaining creation it will open new doors to understanding.

Matter according to Plotinus does not vibrate. It is pure passivity. If contemplation is the touchstone then you cannot pick and choose. Not all who practice contemplation consider it a productive activity and not all are in agreement as to what is seen in contemplation. Disputes in science are resolved by the evidence not by what one sees in contemplation.

The Spirit in matter vibrates. It creates its being. The aether doesn’t vibrate. Appreciating what matter is didn’t come from people practicing inductive science but from those remembering what had been forgotten and translating it into expressions of universal laws.

The ONE doesn’t create. The ONE IS. Creation begins with Nous.

It is not creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, and so how can it be the same “truth” as the “truth” of creatio ex nihilo?

Only nothing can come from nothing. Creation comes from No-thing expressing itself as nous or everything within conscious potential.

There is no need for an additional structure for the scientific method to "fit within" other than the structure of the universe itself. No need for positing some transcendence that is other than what is that cannot itself be explain but just is or “IS”, as if what cannot be explained could stand as an explanation.

Of course it does. If the duality of science is all that is, it means existence came from nothing and the height of its conscious potential is Man. The Great Beast is God. However if existence begins from above and devolves into descending levels of reality, then the ONE is God and Man can consciously evolve to the quality of being it originated from. Then Simone is right:

“Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison.” ~ Simone Weil

Animal Man is a product of the earth while the seed of the soul and Man’s higher parts have the above as their origin. The World defines progress by technology. Recognition of the source makes recognition of man’s higher origin sensible

http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/hand ... otinus.htm

Science can’t blindly accept it but neither can it deny it. All it can do is become more open to top down involution as what initiates bottom up evolution and begin to verify the relationship between involution and evolution. The ONE is a good place to start.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

There is no argument.

Either you forgot or do not know that there are different senses of the term ‘argument’.

Your initial post begins with a distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. You go on to say:

Panentheism is a God concept which serves as a plausible premise for the relationship of God to the universe.

In a later post:

I suggested Plotinus' description of the ONE as a god concept from which logical deductions can be made.

I introduced Plotinus into the thread on Panenthisms since in order for Panentheism to serve as the logical basis for uniting science with the essence of religion,

Science cannot reject the notion. All it can say is that it doesn’t know.

Science has rejected the notion of matter as the passive substratum of physical objects that receives form. It does not say that it does not know if this is what matter is, it clearly and unequivocally rejects this notion. It is incompatible with modern science.

Are you suggesting that science denies matter vibrates?

No, I am saying that Plotinus denies that matter vibrates.

If science establishes a lawful relationship between vibrating matter as a necessary expression of the ONE for sustaining creation it will open new doors to understanding.

But science has not established that relationship, and will not establish that relationship without solid evidence. Where is the evidence that vibrating matter is a necessary expression of the ONE?

The Spirit in matter vibrates. It creates its being.

Where does Plotinus say this? Or are you jettisoning him?

Appreciating what matter is didn’t come from people practicing inductive science but from those remembering what had been forgotten and translating it into expressions of universal laws.

This is a load of crap! If you are going to attempt to unite science and religion you cannot simply ignore science. “Appreciating” what matter is comes from understanding what matter is which comes from experimenting, observing, measuring, and that is much more than induction. It has nothing to do with remembering what has been forgotten because it is only contemporary science that has moved beyond idle speculation.

Only nothing can come from nothing. Creation comes from No-thing expressing itself as nous or everything within conscious potential.

You are evading the problem. Plotinus is incompatible with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. If these “truths” are incompatible then they are not, as Weil claims, one thought with only slight differences.

If the duality of science is all that is, it means existence came from nothing and the height of its conscious potential is Man.

It does not mean that existence came from nothing. It means the we have no evidence of nothing. Man may be one of many lifeforms that are conscious and there is no reason to think our consciousness is the summit. There is also no reason to assume that man has reached the fullness of his conscious potential. The jump from the limited understanding of man to existence or the cosmos is unwarranted. The jump from what is seen in contemplation to truths of the cosmos is hubristic, anthropocentric, and unsupported by evidence.

However if existence begins from above …

If existence begins from above then unless the mind of man comprehends the mind of God everything we might think or imagine about what is above is just idle (or idol) speculation. One would think that the Copernican Revolution put an end to such self-importance.

Science can’t blindly accept it but neither can it deny it.

Science neither accepts nor denies the One, it simply ignores it as irrelevant.

Although Jonathan Bain teaches or taught a course on Plotinus (the link you provided to Plotinus) if you look at his list of papers and his interests the One does not play any role in his views of science or philosophy or physics.

The ONE is a good place to start.

With regard to questions of self-knowledge I think an acknowledgement that we are animals is a good place to start. We are not divine beings or semi-divine beings or between divine beings and animals. We are far more capable in some respects than other animals, but far less capable in other respects. Imagining that we are somehow of cosmic importance is self-congratulatory and irresponsible delusion.

With regard to the physical universe the ONE is the worst place to start. Instead of Jonathan Bain’s outline notes on Plotinus take a look at this interview with him: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/philosophy-and-physics/

[Reflex]

I wonder...In what universe do does F4 live? Does he(?) even have a worldview? I think F4's radical skepticism in a kind of mental illness.

With regard to the physical universe the ONE is the worst place to start.

It's the ONLY place to start.

[seeds]

In other words, we need a new “mythology” - one that can exist in harmony with our advanced understanding of the universe.

But our "advanced understanding" of the universe incorporates nothing of what you have written -- quite the opposite.

I stated quite clearly that humans can never be allowed to have any verifiable or irrefutable evidence that proves the claims I am making. So of course our advanced understanding of the universe is not going to incorporate what I've written.

However, if one’s mind is not completely closed to Idealism, then it (our advanced understanding of the universe) clearly “hints” at what I am suggesting.

And secondly, for anyone to expect billions of humans to summarily relinquish the “hope” that there may be more to life than the few fleeting moments we spend on earth, is absurd and will never happen.

Here I agree. Humans will always concoct fantasies like yours to avoid facing the hard reality of our cosmic insignificance and our fleeting mortality.

I asserted that we need a “new mythology” (a new spiritual paradigm) that can work in harmony with (or at least not brazenly contradict) modern science. But I never proclaimed that it wouldn’t still have issues of credulity with hardcore materialists.

However, if you want to speak of “fantasies,” then how about the one that proposes that the near infinite details and unimaginably ordered processes represented in the image of these spectacularly complex objects...



...owe their existence to the “blind and mindless” influences of gravity and thermodynamics.

Now that is a fantasy.

As I have stated many times before:

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly ironic it is that our exponentially growing accumulation of knowledge can reveal mind-blowing levels of complexity and order in how the universe is constructed, yet the more complex and ordered it seems to be, the more willing some humans are to think that the order is founded upon “serendipity.”

_______

[seeds]

...
And secondly, for anyone to expect billions of humans to summarily relinquish the “hope” that there may be more to life than the few fleeting moments we spend on earth, is absurd and will never happen.

You think this would be the case if their lives were not in the main lived in poverty and misery with no end in sight?

If they had access to healthcare, education and economic opportunity?

As such things seem to have led to a decline in such beliefs where they have occurred.

So let me get this straight.

Are you suggesting that if all human misery and poverty were eliminated, then all humans would just naturally migrate to a belief that the resolution to the mystery of our existence lies solely in the tenets of materialism? - that they would all become atheists?

Do you actually believe that?

Furthermore, I'm aware of lots of people (including myself) who all have good healthcare, education, and economic opportunity, yet they still have a deep and sincere spiritual outlook on life (including hope in an afterlife).

That, in itself, is in stark contrast to your point.
_______

[Harbal]

However, if one’s mind is not completely closed to Idealism, then it (our advanced understanding of the universe) clearly “hints” at what I am suggesting.

This theism, that theism, you people must find the World as it is awfully boring to feel so compelled to dream up all these theisms.