Panentheism

[Belinda]

Foolsoso4 wrote:

Ironically, you lack the intuitive knowledge that would allow you to see your mistake.

It's ironic because Nick claims that intuition allows him intimations of Truth. Intuition is actually that which allows us to understand from experience without necessarily having to work it out in conscious awareness. For this reason works of art might seed intuitive understanding where explicit language fails.

Nick's esoteric experiences don't count towards intuition because experiences , to morph into intuition, have to be concrete experiences, not imaginary ideas.

[Reflex]

Of possible interest:


Spinoza, panentheism and mystical Judaism

Thanks for the link. It seems obvious enough. Over the years the word God has developed a negative connotation. Even ideas like Plotinus ONE become offensive. Yet according to Spinoza reasoning should begin at the top and work its way down. But when people deny a top there is nothing but inductive reason and all the animosity its opinions produce. What a mess!

Indeed. Here's another you might like:
PROFLILES IN PANENTHEISM

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4. I don't think he has any ideas of his own. It seems that, for him, it's all about this person said this and another said that. So what? Granted, I don't read everything he says so I might have missed it, but what does F4 think of panentheism himself and why?

[davidm]

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4.

That's funny. I don't understand why anyone pays attention to Nick.

[Reflex]

Reflex, and Nick, according to panentheism is the mind closer to God than the body?

According to panentheism are esoteric experiences closer to God than reasoning?

Panentheism is a category, not a doctrine.

[Reflex]

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4.

That's funny. I don't understand why anyone pays attention to Nick.

And what are YOUR thoughts on panentheism? Do you agree or disagree with the central premise, that nature is in God?

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

Belinda, is your own common sense so unreliable that you actually require some kind of formal “evidence” of the fact that rocks, or amoebas, or flies are lower in consciousness than humans?

When I am doing philosophy or science then yes, I do require evidence. My common sense is insufficient for philosophy and science.

I am as aware as you are that rocks and amoebas don't have central nervous systems. Without this evidence we can surmise that rocks and amoebas as not consciously aware but we cannot explain how they are not consciously aware. I don't know anything about the nervous systems of flies.
My quarrel is with your metaphors which are loaded with the evaluation of your cosmology.

You must know I think, that "lower" is not only descriptive it's also an evaluation. Your drawings of ladders etc.also describe how you evaluate and fair enough if you admit that is what you are doing. I have no personal objection to preaching, even. What I do object to is that you seem to confuse evaluation with objective explanation.

[Belinda]

Reflex, and Nick, according to panentheism is the mind closer to God than the body?

According to panentheism are esoteric experiences closer to God than reasoning?

Panentheism is a category, not a doctrine.

So what?

You have not even attempted to answer my questions. If you cannot answer them then you can't understand English, or you are plain stupid.

[Reflex]

I agree with the premise that everything is in God. I also agree with Nick that reason begins from the top down, conditioned, of course, by personal experience, natural tendencies (genes) and what have you. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of "fallen man." It seems to me that while reason must begin at the the top, the cosmic processes are movement from the bottom up AND from the top down. That is to say, man originates in matter and moves godward and God lures man from above. There is no "fall" per se.

I may disagree with Nick in the details, but unlike his critics, I respect his perspective on things and his courage to voice it.

[Reflex]

Reflex, and Nick, according to panentheism is the mind closer to God than the body?

According to panentheism are esoteric experiences closer to God than reasoning?

Panentheism is a category, not a doctrine.

So what?

You have not even attempted to answer my questions. If you cannot answer them then you can't understand English, or you are plain stupid.

Your question was specific: "according to panentheism." We can speak only for ourselves, not for panentheism. We can disagree and both still be panentheistic. So, my suggestion to you is to take a course in English.

I'm still uncertain with respect to you view of panentheism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression you're a pantheist.

[fooloso4]

Reflux:

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4.

I will give you one good reason, I have repeatedly cited the texts of Spinoza. It is really not me you have to pay attention to but what I am pointing to. Pay attention to Spinoza and not questionable websites.

I don't think he has any ideas of his own.

I do, but you have admitted not reading my posts, so you wouldn't know would you? If we are talking about Spinoza (we are in case you have not bothered to read other posts as well) it should be about his ideas not mine.

It seems that, for him, it's all about this person said this and another said that.

It is all about this person said this and another said that when responding to Nicky’s claims that this person
(Einstein or Plotinus, for example), said this and another (Plato or Spinoza, for example) said that.

Granted, I don't read everything he says so I might have missed it, but what does F4 think of panentheism himself and why?

I think panentheism is an attempt to eff the ineffable, to say things about something we know nothing about. If someone wants to speculate about God and create imagined worlds, I have no problem with that, but when what he or she imagines is called “truth” or “reality” or “objective” then, when and where appropriate, I might object. A philosophy discussion board is just such a place.

[Reflex]

Reflux:

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4.

I will give you one good reason, I have repeatedly cited the texts of Spinoza. It is really not me you have to pay attention to but what I am pointing to. Pay attention to Spinoza and not questionable websites.

I don't think he has any ideas of his own.

I do, but you have admitted not reading my posts, so you wouldn't know would you? If we are talking about Spinoza (we are in case you have not bothered to read other posts as well) it should be about his ideas not mine.

It seems that, for him, it's all about this person said this and another said that.

It is all about this person said this and another said that when responding to Nicky’s claims that this person
(Einstein or Plotinus, for example), said this and another (Plato or Spinoza, for example) said that.

Granted, I don't read everything he says so I might have missed it, but what does F4 think of panentheism himself and why?

I think panentheism is an attempt to eff the ineffable, to say things about something we know nothing about. If someone wants to speculate about God and create imagined worlds, I have no problem with that, but when what he or she imagines is called “truth” or “reality” or “objective” then, when and where appropriate, I might object. A philosophy discussion board is just such a place.

Okay. So, you're a relativist, it's all BS in your view so there's nothing to discuss, and all you have to contribute is criticism.

Whatever floats your boat, man. (BTW, having worked in an oil refinery for 25 years, "reflux" is hardly an insult and came very close to being my screen name.)

[Nick_A]

I agree with the premise that everything is in God. I also agree with Nick that reason begins from the top down, conditioned, of course, by personal experience, natural tendencies (genes) and what have you. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of "fallen man." It seems to me that while reason must begin at the the top, the cosmic processes are movement from the bottom up AND from the top down. That is to say, man originates in matter and moves godward and God lures man from above. There is no "fall" per se.

I may disagree with Nick in the details, but unlike his critics, I respect his perspective on things and his courage to voice it.

My interest in the complimentary relationship between science and the essence of religion requires a logical universal structure. Panentheism or the idea of God both inside nature structured on the laws of time and space and outside of the limitations of time and space provides a necessary beginning for the structure.

The universe as I've come to understand it, consists of levels of reality reflecting a chain of being and a conscious hierarchy. The earth as a plane of existence is unique in that it potentially connects the mechanical evolution we are aware of with the human potential for conscious evolution.

Man is dual natured. We re born as reacting animals and creatures of the earth with the potential for conscious evolution.

John 11: 11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Jesus explains the transition. Animal man is born of women and its greatest being is limited by mechanical evolution. The first level of conscious evolution is greater than the height of mechanical evolution.

The fall of man is the reverse. For whatever reason, the essence of an expression of conscious man devolved to become a part of animal man. The potential still exists for animal man to include and acquire a higher quality of consciousness making it possible to return to man’s origin but the human condition has made it such that the animal part has become dominant and strives to preserve its dominance. The great teachings are designed for the minority who feel the benefit of becoming normal and opening to their conscious potential rather than just being governed by their lower natures. Lower natures in this case serve the higher rather than our higher natures being corrupted to serve the lower as happens now.

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

My interest in the complimentary relationship between science and the essence of religion requires a logical universal structure. Panentheism or the idea of God both inside nature structured on the laws of time and space and outside of the limitations of time and space provides a necessary beginning for the structure.

Complementary.

What you describe is theism. For theists God transcends the world and is immanent in the world.

[Reflex]

I agree with the premise that everything is in God. I also agree with Nick that reason begins from the top down, conditioned, of course, by personal experience, natural tendencies (genes) and what have you. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of "fallen man." It seems to me that while reason must begin at the the top, the cosmic processes are movement from the bottom up AND from the top down. That is to say, man originates in matter and moves godward and God lures man from above. There is no "fall" per se.

I may disagree with Nick in the details, but unlike his critics, I respect his perspective on things and his courage to voice it.

My interest in the complimentary relationship between science and the essence of religion requires a logical universal structure. Panentheism or the idea of God both inside nature structured on the laws of time and space and outside of the limitations of time and space provides a necessary beginning for the structure.

The universe as I've come to understand it, consists of levels of reality reflecting a chain of being and a conscious hierarchy. The earth as a plane of existence is unique in that it potentially connects the mechanical evolution we are aware of with the human potential for conscious evolution.

Man is dual natured. We re born as reacting animals and creatures of the earth with the potential for conscious evolution.

John 11: 11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Jesus explains the transition. Animal man is born of women and its greatest being is limited by mechanical evolution. The first level of conscious evolution is greater than the height of mechanical evolution.

The fall of man is the reverse. For whatever reason, the essence of an expression of conscious man devolved to become a part of animal man. The potential still exists for animal man to include and acquire a higher quality of consciousness making it possible to return to man’s origin but the human condition has made it such that the animal part has become dominant and strives to preserve its dominance. The great teachings are designed for the minority who feel the benefit of becoming normal and opening to their conscious potential rather than just being governed by their lower natures. Lower natures in this case serve the higher rather than our higher natures being corrupted to serve the lower as happens now.

Cool. I gotcha now. I think we're on the same page. Am I right in saying it's like, as the UB puts it: "When man fails to discriminate the ends of his mortal striving, he finds himself functioning on the animal level of existence. He has failed to avail himself of the superior advantages of that material acumen, moral discrimination, and spiritual insight which are an integral part of his cosmic-mind endowment as a personal being"?

From Paper 160:

The more complex civilization becomes, the more difficult will become the art of living. The more rapid the changes in social usage, the more complicated will become the task of character development. Every ten generations mankind must learn anew the art of living if progress is to continue. And if man becomes so ingenious that he more rapidly adds to the complexities of society, the art of living will need to be remastered in less time, perhaps every single generation. If the evolution of the art of living fails to keep pace with the technique of existence, humanity will quickly revert to the simple urge of living — the attainment of the satisfaction of present desires. Thus will humanity remain immature; society will fail in growing up to full maturity.

Social maturity is equivalent to the degree to which man is willing to surrender the gratification of mere transient and present desires for the entertainment of those superior longings the striving for whose attainment affords the more abundant satisfactions of progressive advancement toward permanent goals. But the true badge of social maturity is the willingness of a people to surrender the right to live peaceably and contentedly under the ease-promoting standards of the lure of established beliefs and conventional ideas for the disquieting and energy-requiring lure of the pursuit of the unexplored possibilities of the attainment of undiscovered goals of idealistic spiritual realities.

[Nick_A]

Of possible interest:


Spinoza, panentheism and mystical Judaism

Thanks for the link. It seems obvious enough. Over the years the word God has developed a negative connotation. Even ideas like Plotinus ONE become offensive. Yet according to Spinoza reasoning should begin at the top and work its way down. But when people deny a top there is nothing but inductive reason and all the animosity its opinions produce. What a mess!

Indeed. Here's another you might like:
PROFLILES IN PANENTHEISM

To be honest, I don't understand why you even pay attention to F4. I don't think he has any ideas of his own. It seems that, for him, it's all about this person said this and another said that. So what? Granted, I don't read everything he says so I might have missed it, but what does F4 think of panentheism himself and why?

Thanks for the link. Who knows, you may be responsible for revealing the missing link for science.

F4 is an excellent representative of a mind closed to the third direction of thought. The Bible advises not to throw pearls before swine. Normally this is taken as a shallow insult but the deeper esoteric meaning is that a pig has no neck. It cannot look up so no matter what is put in front of it it is still focused on the ground. It is the same with human psychology. For some reason some people lose their normal attraction to the vertical conscious inner direction of thought and remain stuck in duality. F4 gives me the opportunity to experience this blockage. After all, if it serves as a means for spirit killing in education I should understand why it is so powerful. You can discuss what those like Plato, Plotinus, Spinoza and others offer. F4 is closed. Why? What can be done to prevent the young from losing their attraction to conscious human potential.

"The danger is not lest the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry" ~ Simone Weil

Panentheism is an awe inspiring awakening idea which should be consciously contemplated. Those like F4 would prefer to kill it before it multiplies.