care to elucidate on the "mere useless epiphenonem"? [ before I google for definitions...
]
Pantheism - a one universe for all
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
]
Funny story:
I took the word "love" and checked all definitions of all words applied with in the definitions [ in a pseudo fun scientific manner] and in the end after literally thousands of word definition they all resolved to one word....
love is a ..... "thing"
...another famous derivitive of the word "love"....
Last edited:
One of the key ideas associated with Pantheism for me is that it seeks to unify, harmonise, rather than divide or segregate.
It seeks to accept duality and work with it so that the duality of existance [ yin and yang, in and out, left and right, wrong and correct etc etc are capable of a harmonious co-existence with out the usual polarisation.
"it's not about "you and me" it's about "us"" sort of accord.
It implies a more central, centered and inclusive approach to every.."thing"...
It seeks to accept duality and work with it so that the duality of existance [ yin and yang, in and out, left and right, wrong and correct etc etc are capable of a harmonious co-existence with out the usual polarisation.
"it's not about "you and me" it's about "us"" sort of accord.
It implies a more central, centered and inclusive approach to every.."thing"...
'Ineffable'maybe find a word that means "that which can not be defined in words"
but then one might not realize the scope of the term.
I misspelled epiphenomenon there so googling might not have worked.care to elucidate on the "mere useless epiphenonem"? [ before I google for definitions...
IOW we are mere spectators with no ability to cause anything.
I suppose I come at it more from myself, this piece. I do feel that much more is alive and aware than is commonly accepted by the weird tag team of the Abrahamic religions and the core of the scientific community. I do think that matter can be so twisted and poorly treated that it can seem dead even to the sensitive. I dislike the ideas where this world is either dead matter, mainly, or not sacred - contrasted as it is with transcendent realms where God and Heaven are. Something base. That is not my experience.
From "monotheistic" God perspective I feel you are correct in holding that view, however we are human and not God with the capacity to imagine ourselves in to a "cul de sac" of self defeat.
We do have ability as humans to cause effects, however this implies a schism with the whole does it not?
Thus the need for a duality even in our beliefs about our own potency to effect change independently of our bodily/ brains requirements.
in essence I believe it all come to a point where the distinction between psycho somatic's and epiphenomenalism becomes neither here nor there.
Another new word is needed perhaps to describe the union of both, such as the 2000 year+ old word Pantheism attempts to do.
I guess when science and the "church" can draw the line between organic [ living] substance and non-organic [dead] w emay see some ability to reconcile this issue.
Qu:
At what point does the substance of a living beings body actually become dead? Does it ever or is it always organic?
What is the difference to eating bread made of "living" wheat and the same meal using only the elements the "dead" bread is made of, apart from the fact that the "dead bread" affords no nutritional value and would probably kill you.
Of course it is our preference to think of the universe as a living entity with a "soul" as depicted in a few classic Video games. Yet the word "Soul" may simply mean "rudimentary self awareness" not unlike a skin cell may have or a lump of organic activated carbon may have or even "MOM" our planet Earth may have etc.
We get so caught up in the limitations of language due to our lack of conscious knowledge that the only way to unravel the mystery is by the use of poetry and music and dare I say metaphor [ not unlike the Bible ]
I'm not an epiphenomenalist. I see it as one trend in neuroscience and philosophy, unfortunately.
I tend towards both/and perspectives as much as I can, rather than either or versions. The whole Western A or not A, period, does not work for me. So individual agents changing things while at the same time being a part of a whole that also causes is not necessarily a contradiction for me. And, in fact, as a whole myself, I have experience of parts of me that affect things, often against what seems to be my will. Sometimes, perhaps often, for the good. I can imagine this becoming more harmonious, but I do not think this means that there will simply be unity and no parts.
Or what they see, so far, as what bodies and selves are.
I think it is amazing that the only source of knowledge - experience - the only thing we can be sure of, ultimately, our consciousness and experiencing can be labeling in such a way that it is merely peripheral. They really confuse their maps with the things that even gave them a chance to make maps.
They have drawn their lines.
Oh, I love Essene bread and sprouted breads. Yum. There's dead and there's DEAD and I don't think the latter exists.Qu:
At what point does the substance of a living beings body actually become dead? Does it ever or is it always organic?
What is the difference to eating bread made of "living" wheat and the same meal using only the elements the "dead" bread is made of, apart from the fact that the "dead bread" affords no nutritional value and would probably kill you.
Yeah, the part of me that always wants chocolate seems to think I have this kind of limited sentience too.
Though frankly to Bible seems very messy and seriously dated to me.
ahh I am glad... as we are in agreement with this.
yes a "claytons" duality or should I say an illusion of duality exists.
for example "deductive reasoning" indicates the use of duality in every thing yet we tend to focus only on a single pole of that duality.
"simultaneous relativity" within the whole.
the Yin and Yang together make a circle. Yin can not be considered correctly with out including Yang yet most persons do this all the time.
"seeing the forest as well as the trees"
etc
etc
"it all in the perception any way " say the marketing gurus
agrees and adds that I find is amazing that we are told to consider our experience as a fraud, a falsehood and a lie. No wonder people are so full of self doubt about their reality these days. A foggy surreality sort of wafting through their lives.
Last edited:
of course not as we can't digest the bread that is in elemental [dead ] form.
It wouldn't be called bread.
now we are talking about "instinctive intelligence" hmmmm...chocolate....mmmm
well the Bible places Christians on standby waiting for "Godot"....and forgeting that the most important part about traveling [evolving] is in the journey and not just the destination...
an interesting impression I get from reading the bible is that it gives the impression that the return of Jesus was expected very soon in time, after writing about it.
I would have thought maybe a couple of generations or even less. [ just impressions with no evidencial support]
Of course it's been 2000 years or so since and they are still waiting with out realising IMO that Jesus even in metaphor, never left in the first place.
Last edited:
I am going a bit further and positing parts with (some degree of) independence in me. The extreme form of this can be in dissociative disorders where different personalities actually take over - I think we can at least find hints of this in certain gestures or actions - if quickly aborted - that do not seem to fit our self-image. I think there are parts of me that are conscious, have some independence and are not aware they are a part of this whole.
Perhaps he's been coming back all along, with varying lives.
QQ, have you ever considered the role of the "play of difference"? While you are trying to define your Universality and its "oneness" (or "indivisible wholeness" if you like), you keep rejecting the different aspects/elements of existence. For instance, your Ying/Yang example says that
yes but you can not "equally" -this is important- ignore the fact that the picture of Ying and Yang necessarily consist of Ying and Yang. That is to say, Ying and Yang are separately important as well. If you want me to delve into this example more deeply specify your points; however I assume your main point is not Ying and Yang but Universality. So let's go back to it...
Have you realised that while you are conceptually positioning your "oneness", you are necessarily using elements from "separated things" as if they are the opposition, in other way of saying it, the things that do not represent oneness, but represent the other way -as you said- a.k.a. dualism and its thought carriers (such as mind vs body; god vs followers; etc.). While your universalism tries to become different than non-universal entities, concepts, understandings, ideologies, etc. it takes them into account. Your universalism is trying not to be like them.
Play of difference is crucial in here, actually unavoidable: Your universalism can not define itself without stating its differences from non-universal ideologies. Its not an independent concept from them. But while you are trying to become different from them, in fact you are constructing your concept according to them. Therefore it is not independent per se. And you are simply creating another illusion while you are trying to refrain from it: Conceptual Universalism. And worse part of it, you find yourself in a position engaging dualism (universalism vs non-universalism) while trying to reject it.
Amusement for philosophy...
yes but you can not "equally" -this is important- ignore the fact that the picture of Ying and Yang necessarily consist of Ying and Yang. That is to say, Ying and Yang are separately important as well. If you want me to delve into this example more deeply specify your points; however I assume your main point is not Ying and Yang but Universality. So let's go back to it...
Have you realised that while you are conceptually positioning your "oneness", you are necessarily using elements from "separated things" as if they are the opposition, in other way of saying it, the things that do not represent oneness, but represent the other way -as you said- a.k.a. dualism and its thought carriers (such as mind vs body; god vs followers; etc.). While your universalism tries to become different than non-universal entities, concepts, understandings, ideologies, etc. it takes them into account. Your universalism is trying not to be like them.
Play of difference is crucial in here, actually unavoidable: Your universalism can not define itself without stating its differences from non-universal ideologies. Its not an independent concept from them. But while you are trying to become different from them, in fact you are constructing your concept according to them. Therefore it is not independent per se. And you are simply creating another illusion while you are trying to refrain from it: Conceptual Universalism. And worse part of it, you find yourself in a position engaging dualism (universalism vs non-universalism) while trying to reject it.
Amusement for philosophy...
If I dare to presume understanding I believe I know exactly what you are talking about.
Years ago and even now this sort of thing when extreme is referred commonly to as Possession and in Church terms an exorcism may have been required...In a way this is how the invocation of Jesus brings about on some occassionas the evangelistic, born again fever often seen in those who have experienced the revelation of Jesus Chrst with in their "spirit" or being.
It is a real experience that they describe and one I believe is valid with out much doubt.
However possession is not restricted to just that which is deemed as positive such as the Jesus possession nor is it just an emotional loving possession but can be, amongst the pseudo infintely diverse forms, an intellectual and volition premised possession as well.
I don't talk of it in classic [spirtual ] terms as the form I talk of is common in every day life as we grow by "taking on" what we want from others and discarding what we don't want as part of learning and evolving.
The problem is that we very rarely have the luxury of getting what we want as needs have to be met first and sometimes what is needed is far from what is wanted. Thus aspects of the whole sometimes compete in ways that are disturbing to our integrity as individual point of focus of will.
Our Instinctive intelligence as not always as generous or benign to our current state as we would like...until we learn how to make it so...IMO
perhaps, however I don't reckon he ever left and can be invoked if one really wishes to. [ Jesus could be seen as an ideal of love and compassion and not a real personality]
We can invoke those ideals into our lives and in fact do so every day in our normal behaviours IMO. [positive thinking, affirmations, yoga type chanting, prayer, etc]
Last edited:
good post...thanks for the effort...I shall think on it some and respond later..
Often it seems that when people focus their attention they do so towards an extreme aspect and do so with out considering the opposing extremes. A form of bi polar were we consistently swing from one extreme to another over time.
Over the years I have had to learn that the key to finding balance or Moo [yoga] is to always consider both poles simultaneously and not over time, whilst focussing on an extreme within the range of possibilitis.
It is hard to describe it with out being suggestive of hypocrisy.
In Yogic practice for example a return to "Moo" or balance is achieved by focussing on both poles simultaneously thus rendering them nul and affording proper rest and relative peace [ through meditation techniques]. Essentially though to reduce the constant craving we have due to our various addictions to the extremes found in modern life.
It is not that hard to intellectually consider the polarised aspects simultanously however learning to live it can be quite a challenge.
So I disgaree with your comments that suggest hypocrisy or contradiction, because like you I am:
1] Talking from a typically accepted practice of mono poled perspective.
2] Attempting to communicate from this persepctive thus relying on relative appraisals of the notions presented.
Within the symbology of the Yin and Yang one could use a central point as the point of Moo or balance.
Imagine if you will a sheet of "rice paper" separating infinite pressures on both sides of the paper.
With out knowledge of the pressures and with out relative differentials the paper would apprear to be undisturbed by the significants of it's environment.
Until a differential is presented then suddenly pressures being applied become very relavent.
So in the main we are reacting to pressures with out realising the relativity of those pressures. [ The dualism employed leaves us ignorant of the dualism.]
Pantheism is about considering the whole and simultaneously consider the many aspects with in the whole [dualism] with out diminishing the whole.
Therefore the duality can be witnessed and experienced as relative to the whole.
A quick animated diagram may help:
The moving circle is symbolic of a center of perspective as it roams from one extreme to another. Moo is at the top in state of perfect balance. [ normally this is unconsciousness or deep sleep state and not perfectly achievable in a conscious state.]
Last edited:
A very tricky example. I will stick my neck out just a little longer in the thread and then like a tortoise pull it back where the scalpels cannot reach. I think, often, we try to control, get rid of, destroy, deny, parts of ourselves that are just peachy. They may be acting out, but that is often because of how they are treated and compressed. Exorcisms are performed by a wide range of belief systems including most secular ones. Hidden in the way 'discipline' in encouraged and practiced hides some of this, as one example amongst many.
I also, however, do think one can have entities that belong elsewhere. I am very skeptical however that the Catholic church knows how to decide.
There is a lot of introjection. To use a secular term for a potentially less secular event. Stuff we take in that we do not 'assimilate'.
Hence we often binge.
Or see what happens when we do not judge it and give it some breathing room. I have found some stuff in what seemed like, well, evil anger in me, that one allowed to breathe and spread its wings turned out to be solid productive portions of me. Much of the volitility and extremeness was caused by how hard I was stuffing it down.
Baftan please note the edit to my post..