For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Note that quite a ways back I believe I did understand your most salient objections. I get that you, in your scheme, understand “physics” as the starting point, the ground. It is realism and as such based in “modern discoveries” and the reformatting of epistemological bases.
This too I understand. “Soul” therefore is a metaphor, but a misleading one. The notion of soul is part of a linguistic picture, a mythologically infused interpretation of reality, and as such more proper to the Middle Ages (where a vast Picture of Reality was concretized, and still infuses and undergirds our language — especially in metaphysical poetry, not to mention the general ‘visualization’ of Reality.I have no argument, none, against your view of metaphysics either. What I find unnecessary and, in fact, delimiting is how you constantly subsume the natural process of a more refined consciousness under the rubric of soul and divinity. That's too Cartesian for me and adds nothing to what metaphysics can and could be, i.e., it's true power, not inflected or inhibited by some artificial separation of mind & body. Is it because you aspire to that through the ambiance of metaphysics that it must, in your view, presuppose those conditions before it can be fully practiced as a natural brain function?
This also makes sense.For me, metaphysics and the mystery of it occurring as an emergence from the exclusively materialistic is a far greater mystery than any quasi-religious deposition soul and divinity which themselves default to mere metaphysical utterances.
I am more tolerant, I think. I believe in levels of understanding, higher and lower explanatory discourses, and that masses of people need religious structure. Described in another way, when “religious certainty” is undermined, the only means available to that Average Man to link to high metaphysical concepts, is destroyed. That man (the evidence is all around us) becomes bereft, unmoored.Metaphysics is a spectrum of many colors whereas religion only has a few which are mostly fixed. It's one's ability to see into the ultraviolet which creates the Dunamis effect in proclaiming the dormant powers of the physical brain.
Undermining "religious certainty" is how we try to avoid conflict between major religions leading to nuclear holocaust. So much for your super-evolved understanding and tolerance.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:28 pm I am more tolerant, I think. I believe in levels of understanding, higher and lower explanatory discourses, and that masses of people need religious structure. Described in another way, when “religious certainty” is undermined, the only means available to that Average Man to link to high metaphysical concepts, is destroyed. That man (the evidence is all around us) becomes bereft, unmoored.
You mean about Einstein being pantheist?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:10 am ?
Ah, I see your edit.
Yeaahh. If God were the ground of infinite, eternal being They would have to be immanent and transcendent. Which utterly refutes IC's wooden literalism of course.
Einstein was no pantheist.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:42 pmYou mean about Einstein being pantheist?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:10 am ?
Ah, I see your edit.
Yeaahh. If God were the ground of infinite, eternal being They would have to be immanent and transcendent. Which utterly refutes IC's wooden literalism of course.
As for 'ground of being', I never have known and I still don't see what people mean by that metaphor.
I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time. Even Trinitarians can only think of one aspect of the Trinity as one time.
Pray , why must I or anyone else enjoy Tillich's metaphor?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:46 pmEinstein was no pantheist.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:42 pmYou mean about Einstein being pantheist?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:10 am ?
Ah, I see your edit.
Yeaahh. If God were the ground of infinite, eternal being They would have to be immanent and transcendent. Which utterly refutes IC's wooden literalism of course.
As for 'ground of being', I never have known and I still don't see what people mean by that metaphor.
I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time. Even Trinitarians can only think of one aspect of the Trinity as one time.
I've linked to the source of 'ground of being' repeatedly. Tillich.
God's transcendence and immanence are a given. He can't not be both. In His own head.
Because it pre-empts, is prevenient of, all that exists, that is; from eternity, for infinity. All that has existed, exists, will exist, from and to forever, all that comes and goes, is encapsulated, thought, sustained, willed in God. Or it would do if He were necessary. But nature is its own ground of being.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:57 pmPray , why must I or anyone else enjoy Tillich's metaphor?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:46 pmEinstein was no pantheist.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:42 pm
You mean about Einstein being pantheist?
As for 'ground of being', I never have known and I still don't see what people mean by that metaphor.
I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time. Even Trinitarians can only think of one aspect of the Trinity as one time.
I've linked to the source of 'ground of being' repeatedly. Tillich.
God's transcendence and immanence are a given. He can't not be both. In His own head.
I still don't enjoy his use of English which is my point that you don't seem to understand. I don't always enjoy other people's metaphors even when they are best selling authors.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:32 pmBecause it pre-empts, is prevenient of, all that exists, that is; from eternity, for infinity. All that has existed, exists, will exist, from and to forever, all that comes and goes, is encapsulated, thought, sustained, willed in God. Or it would do if He were necessary. But nature is its own ground of being.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:57 pmPray , why must I or anyone else enjoy Tillich's metaphor?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 1:46 pm
Einstein was no pantheist.
I've linked to the source of 'ground of being' repeatedly. Tillich.
God's transcendence and immanence are a given. He can't not be both. In His own head.
I can't understand it for you. I understand perfectly that you can't.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:48 pmI still don't enjoy his use of English which is my point that you don't seem to understand. I don't always enjoy other people's metaphors even when they are best selling authors.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:32 pmBecause it pre-empts, is prevenient of, all that exists, that is; from eternity, for infinity. All that has existed, exists, will exist, from and to forever, all that comes and goes, is encapsulated, thought, sustained, willed in God. Or it would do if He were necessary. But nature is its own ground of being.
To be truthful “you”, Don Señor Atla, do absolutely nothing in any arena, anywhere. Functionally, you operate at the level of a moderately advanced retard with nothing relevant or even mildly interesting to communicate.
Well to be truthful, you're a Dunning-Kruger. You can't see beyond your particular delusional religious arena, don't know where you got the idea that you could judge other arenas. And there's indeed little to say about your arena other than it ought to be destroyed so that humanity can get a chance. Times have changed, we can now blow up the planet which places your arena within “maddened religiosity”. You would't realize that you are working against a global new spirituality which would give the average man enough certainty for living, and is safe enough.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 3:29 pmTo be truthful “you”, Don Señor Atla, do absolutely nothing in any arena, anywhere. Functionally, you operate at the level of a moderately advanced retard with nothing relevant or even mildly interesting to communicate.
Now with that said, when I speak of “certainty”, the sort that average men seek and need, I am referring to something existential about meaning & value.
I am aware of the intersection of fervent belief in the Middle East with geo-political machinations. And everyone should be concerned about these conflicts and what they portend.
These two levels therefore need to be separated. There is such a thing as “maddened religiosity”, and there is another pole where clearer realization is possible.
Major religions aren't going to engage in nuclear holocaust, beyond regional, and even they're not. India & Pakistan are in MAD configuration. Orthodox Russia won't collapse and spasm as it knows how to suffer. Atheist North Korea is Atheist China's comrade from hell. So what religion do we need to undermine to prevent the nuclear ELE[E]? Christianity? Judaism and Shiism?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 3:29 pmTo be truthful “you”, Don Señor Atla, do absolutely nothing in any arena, anywhere. Functionally, you operate at the level of a moderately advanced retard with nothing relevant or even mildly interesting to communicate.
Now with that said, when I speak of “certainty”, the sort that average men seek and need, I am referring to something existential about meaning & value.
I am aware of the intersection of fervent belief in the Middle East with geo-political machinations. And everyone should be concerned about these conflicts and what they portend.
These two levels therefore need to be separated. There is such a thing as “maddened religiosity”, and there is another pole where clearer realization is possible.
Can you differentiate between assertion and logic here viewtopic.php?t=44552 please?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:42 amYou claim rationality and yet provide nothing but assertion, as evidenced by your response...who is really the deceived one?
Thank you. But if truth be told, I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for the passing of years. Eventually the case will be as with all, Die Frist ist um. The question then becomes to recycle or not to recycle and if I were thus refurbished, would there still be any instance left of who I was...and more important, do I really want to know! A cosmic anonymity is not to be frowned upon.
This is madness I tell you. And it makes me very angry!
I only assert I am at the Ascended Master level of hyper-awareness in this specific domain. There, of course, I flutter and hover strictly within those confines. I am a crappy mechanic. I abhor carpentry, accounting, vacuuming, pruning — effectively all mundane tasks except that for which Divinity has prepared me over many laborious incarnations.