Pantheism - a one universe for all

[baftan]

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.

I didn't even imply anything about your hypocrisy; I said it is impossible to create any concept of Universality without playing the differences among non-universal concepts.

But we have a problem with "contradiction" issue, that's correct: I am not saying that you are "deliberately" doing so, but have a look at this:

Your first point ("Talking from a typically accepted practice of mono poled perspective") does not make any sense to me as it requires a lot of explanation including:

What does "typically accepted" mean? We didn't even agree upon the main point of what religion is in the beginning of this thread, and now you are talking about "typically accepted" things...

How about "mono poled perspective"? If this was something very common as you suggested, we should have got some hits when we type it on Google. Guess what: We get nothing, you may try it yourself. Or give some hints about this "mono poled perspective"...

Just because of this, your second point ("Attempting to communicate from this perspective...") creates equally blurred implications. We are not on a wider agreement on your first point, so we can not communicate on this channel, we must clarify it first. My suggestion is this: Your mono (centralised) polar perspective must necessarily ignore or exclude some elements (unlike your initial promise of inclusiveness). Only one example and you will understand what I am trying to say: When you talk about "mono perspective" you necessarily isolate (keep out) poly perspectives. What happened to them now? Where are they? Are they within your mono? No, at least not in reality, only in your perception...

Pantheism is about considering the whole and simultaneously consider the many aspects with in the whole [dualism] with out diminishing the whole.

What is your definition of "whole"? Don't tell me everything, because like everybody else you don't have the knowledge of everything; you only consider or imagine this "everything".

Therefore the duality can be witnessed and experienced as relative to the whole.

Dualism is nothing but a way of interpretation of phenomenons just as holistic approach. That is to say, dualism is not something "experienced", it is something constructed in our thinking, just as "whole". Therefore it is a matter of interpretation, nothing else. As soon as you define your whole, there will be some "holes" in it. Maybe that's why you are carefully refrain yourself from defining it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

yes self truth denial fueled by our paranoia is the culprit...

agrees with your post ....

"Feudian slips" can sometimes be the most productive of insights don't you think...

 

[Doreen]

yes self truth denial fueled by our paranoia is the culprit...

agrees with your post ....

"Feudian slips" can sometimes be the most productive of insights don't you think...

Sure and jokes often give us an outlet for some anger, fear, etc, that is real if formally denied and perhaps not even noticed by oneself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I didn't even imply anything about your hypocrisy; I said it is impossible to create any concept of Universality without playing the differences among non-universal concepts.

But we have a problem with "contradiction" issue, that's correct: I am not saying that you are "deliberately" doing so, but have a look at this:

Your first point ("Talking from a typically accepted practice of mono poled perspective") does not make any sense to me as it requires a lot of explanation including:

What does "typically accepted" mean? We didn't even agree upon the main point of what religion is in the beginning of this thread, and now you are talking about "typically accepted" things...

How about "mono poled perspective"? If this was something very common as you suggested, we should have got some hits when we type it on Google. Guess what: We get nothing, you may try it yourself. Or give some hints about this "mono poled perspective"...

Just because of this, your second point ("Attempting to communicate from this perspective...") creates equally blurred implications. We are not on a wider agreement on your first point, so we can not communicate on this channel, we must clarify it first. My suggestion is this: Your mono (centralised) polar perspective must necessarily ignore or exclude some elements (unlike your initial promise of inclusiveness). Only one example and you will understand what I am trying to say: When you talk about "mono perspective" you necessarily isolate (keep out) poly perspectives. What happened to them now? Where are they? Are they within your mono? No, at least not in reality, only in your perception...



What is your definition of "whole"? Don't tell me everything, because like everybody else you don't have the knowledge of everything; you only consider or imagine this "everything".



Dualism is nothing but a way of interpretation of phenomenons just as holistic approach. That is to say, dualism is not something "experienced", it is something constructed in our thinking, just as "whole". Therefore it is a matter of interpretation, nothing else. As soon as you define your whole, there will be some "holes" in it. Maybe that's why you are carefully refrain yourself from defining it.

ahh but is this not the nature of discussion? A journey towards an understanding of each others POV?

But our first priority is to find out where our "differences" are.
And this is what we are doing.

An understanding can not come with out the task of understanding.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll write more later...but for now I have to attend a birthday celebration for yours truly...

 

[Big Chiller]

So God has to avoid being immanent so nothing can be above him? Again, limiting himself. Further you are assuming he must be either in or out. In fact God could be both manifest and transcendent. Omnipresent and not present at the same time. Your version seems to have a deity avoiding certain things to stay on top, and also to limit God to the categories we are limited to: either in or out. Here or there. Manifest or transcendent. And so on.

Something located above Him, below Him, around Him all pose the same problem, but just goes to show what kind of position you're willing to put God in. God not being in a location means inside, outside, above Him, below Him are not applied. God doesn't avoid doing certain things just that there are absolutely impossible concepts you know e.g. an organism that is not an organism but an inanimate object, object A inside object B while object B is smaller than object A.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I didn't even imply anything about your hypocrisy; I said it is impossible to create any concept of Universality without playing the differences among non-universal concepts.

But we have a problem with "contradiction" issue, that's correct: I am not saying that you are "deliberately" doing so, but have a look at this:

Your first point ("Talking from a typically accepted practice of mono poled perspective") does not make any sense to me as it requires a lot of explanation including:

What does "typically accepted" mean? We didn't even agree upon the main point of what religion is in the beginning of this thread, and now you are talking about "typically accepted" things...

How about "mono poled perspective"? If this was something very common as you suggested, we should have got some hits when we type it on Google. Guess what: We get nothing, you may try it yourself. Or give some hints about this "mono poled perspective"...

Just because of this, your second point ("Attempting to communicate from this perspective...") creates equally blurred implications. We are not on a wider agreement on your first point, so we can not communicate on this channel, we must clarify it first. My suggestion is this: Your mono (centralised) polar perspective must necessarily ignore or exclude some elements (unlike your initial promise of inclusiveness). Only one example and you will understand what I am trying to say: When you talk about "mono perspective" you necessarily isolate (keep out) poly perspectives. What happened to them now? Where are they? Are they within your mono? No, at least not in reality, only in your perception...



What is your definition of "whole"? Don't tell me everything, because like everybody else you don't have the knowledge of everything; you only consider or imagine this "everything".



Dualism is nothing but a way of interpretation of phenomenons just as holistic approach. That is to say, dualism is not something "experienced", it is something constructed in our thinking, just as "whole". Therefore it is a matter of interpretation, nothing else. As soon as you define your whole, there will be some "holes" in it. Maybe that's why you are carefully refrain yourself from defining it.

Ok...I will do some explaining,

I didn't even imply anything about your hypocrisy; I said it is impossible to create any concept of Universality without playing the differences among non-universal concepts.

I was referring to my own concerns about being hypocritical and didn't mean to imply that you were alluding to such. I apologies for the misleading nature of my post.

To your point:

You are correct in what you have stated IMO, but as I have suggested, to play the differences properly and effectively, one has to be in a position of agnostic impartiality so that those "differences and non-universal concepts" can be played in a way that if bias is applied it is by choice and not by the compulsion of conditioning. [ e.g. Judicial systems at highest levels such as Federal or National courts, etc ]

But we have a problem with "contradiction" issue, that's correct: I am not saying that you are "deliberately" doing so, but have a look at this:

Your above statement makes this issue of contradiction clear from your perspective.
[ Good will and good faith is sometimes not assumed on these forums]

Your first point ("Talking from a typically accepted practice of mono poled perspective") does not make any sense to me as it requires a lot of explanation including:

What does "typically accepted" mean? We didn't even agree upon the main point of what religion is in the beginning of this thread, and now you are talking about "typically accepted" things...

How about "mono poled perspective"? If this was something very common as you suggested, we should have got some hits when we type it on Google. Guess what: We get nothing, you may try it yourself. Or give some hints about this "mono poled perspective"...

By way of explaining;

• We always look from a mono or singular perspective.
• That singular perspective is typically conditioned to "look" with an inherent bias and prejudice.
• This is commonly accepted as normal although can be exhibited in extreme forms such as racism, and bigotry etc etc.
• Pantheism when considering the whole as a priority rather than the aspect afford the perspective a greater opportunity to "look" with less bias and conditioning.

e.g.
"seeing that the forest is full of trees" rather than saying "many trees make up a forest" a slight but important distinction in approach and way of looking at everything.

Humans have the ability to refract their perspective from center to allow for bias and prejudice so that their mon perspective is "poled" in favor of, and towards one extreme over another. This is most often quite normal every day function. [ and part of playing the differences as you called it]

So this is what I meant by mono poled perspective and I wrote this thinking of other readers who I know would have a handle on it from past posting experience and also to invite thought on the subject.
This is all so called leading edge discussion and new phrases may be needed to bring in concepts that are not typically found on the Internet when you Google. Even the term "Pantheism" proves rather hard to find anything of real value.
I drew that diagram to show how many different POV's can be acheived as we refract our perspective to view from various extremes due to the various conditioning influences.
Here it is again: [ I'll draw a better one later when I have the time ]

you will have to imagine that we always maintain a central core Moo perspective in some form yet we always look from a refracted perspective simultaneously until we learn to center ourselves with proper training and discipline often using meditation as a tool for acheiving such.

So imagine that in the diagram your true perspective is always at the top and your conditioned perspective is a floating variable, there fore we can realise our prejudices and biases because our True perspective is always present but often hidden [ subconscious ]

to the rest of your post later.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

This animated diagram may make it easier :

You can imagine the refraction of perspective as we tend to one bias or the other in various degrees as part of every day life. [due to the conditioning that we allow and the compulsive conditioning we are striving to alter and bring under our volition as part of self growth and development.]

It is the difference between Moo [or true center] and your perspective at the time that determines the degree of tension, suffering or pleasure within the self.
Pantheism ultimately is directed towards bringing all conditioning within the realm of volition IMO thus leading to a happier and self governing life.

 

[Doreen]

Something located above Him, below Him, around Him all pose the same problem, but just goes to show what kind of position you're willing to put God in. God not being in a location means inside, outside, above Him, below Him are not applied. God doesn't avoid doing certain things just that there are absolutely impossible concepts you know e.g. an organism that is not an organism but an inanimate object, object A inside object B while object B is smaller than object A.

So some things are impossible for God.

 

[baftan]

QQ, have you realized your smiley face reaches the furthest distance from Moo, from Negative and from Positive when it arrives to the top point. In other way of saying, your smiley is the happiest (because brown background makes it more visible), because it is far from everything; far from the clashes presented below.

If you didn't use a triangle but a linear instead, the result wouldn't change: Smiley was going to be equally alienated from negative and positive points when it was located on Moo.

And I believe I couldn't express what I meant when I say "play of difference": Play of difference is a philosophical concept coined by French philosopher Derrida. And this term questions the safe net of the words. Such as negative and positive. What is negative, and what is positive? What is/are the reference point(s) for this definitions? How can we give meanings to these words, what regime of thoughts we employ in order to confidently talk about negative and/or positive; what is the process? If we try to establish an equal distance to talk about them (let's say this point is Moo in your diagram if we ignore triangle; and this line of equal distance is the one between Moo and the top brown point if we accept the triangle)?

And Moo, being a middle point between negative and positive, define itself according to the assumed clash between these two points: Actually, Moo is the reason, or the result of this clash. Because the position of Moo tell us that there is a definite clash between these two points. You see, when you put it into graphs, the central question doesn't get easier, if not gets more complicated. And this is another problem: What is central? How do we define it? How do we fix it and according to which criteria? As soon as we make a definition we exclude and/or include certain aspects politically, ideologically, philosophically, ethically, religiously, grammatically, and/or using some other measurement. This is true for science and equally true for language.

Play of difference; play of words, play of measurement...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Great post! and thank you....your opinion is welcome...

QQ, have you realized your smiley face reaches the furthest distance from Moo, from Negative and from Positive when it arrives to the top point. In other way of saying, your smiley is the happiest (because brown background makes it more visible), because it is far from everything; far from the clashes presented below.

You may consider them to be clashes where as I consider them to be necessary in making a full life.
The problem is in the process of understanding as we jump to different levels in the attempt to expedite it.

The negative is not "negative" per see but just a form of what I would consider is the positive nature of a universe existing. the poles are really just with in the over all context of a positive something ness when compared to a state of voidness or nothing ness.

The use of words like negative/positive are really the necessity of playing someone else's polarization game as a way of bridging the gap between two paradigms.

If you didn't use a triangle but a linear instead, the result wouldn't change: Smiley was going to be equally alienated from negative and positive points when it was located on Moo.

Again understandably, you have used the word alienation which is far from the what is intended.
The main point is not about defeating our suffering [ Sansara ~ the cycles of sufferance and relief of sufferance (pleasure) ] but mastering it. So the descriptor "alienation" is not really appropriate unless coming from an embattled perspective.
Ultimately Pantheism leads to the mastery of life with out diminishing/defeating it. [ contrary to Buddhism and most Western Ideals of "Nirvana and Heaven".

And I believe I couldn't express what I meant when I say "play of difference": Play of difference is a philosophical concept coined by French philosopher Derrida. And this term questions the safe net of the words. Such as negative and positive. What is negative, and what is positive? What is/are the reference point(s) for this definitions? How can we give meanings to these words, what regime of thoughts we employ in order to confidently talk about negative and/or positive; what is the process? If we try to establish an equal distance to talk about them (let's say this point is Moo in your diagram if we ignore triangle; and this line of equal distance is the one between Moo and the top brown point if we accept the triangle)?

A whole new approach to personal philosophy/theosophy is implied in that diagram which is far from perfect I must admit. [ I am slowly learning how to communicate using both paradigms in a away that avoids this sort of confusion.

And Moo, being a middle point between negative and positive, define itself according to the assumed clash between these two points: Actually, Moo is the reason, or the result of this clash. Because the position of Moo tell us that there is a definite clash between these two points. You see, when you put it into graphs, the central question doesn't get easier, if not gets more complicated. And this is another problem: What is central? How do we define it? How do we fix it and according to which criteria? As soon as we make a definition we exclude and/or include certain aspects politically, ideologically, philosophically, ethically, religiously, grammatically, and/or using some other measurement. This is true for science and equally true for language.

Play of difference; play of words, play of measurement...

There is no clash between the two points. The smiley face is merely a POV as we move from one extreme to another as part of every day life.
The distance between the smiley and the top MOO is effectively the tension and inner sufferance that we endure most of the time subconsciously as part of utilizing the extremes as we do.
When the understanding fully accommodated emotionally and physically the distance between the POV and the MOO is lessened and the tension and inner sufferance is made more tolerable.
However the point is not to annihilate or perform some sort of nihilism but learn to live in a way that allows full experience of all extremes without the addictive qualities to them. Extremes by choice and volition rather than by compulsion due to the inherent subconscious tensions/suffering seeking relief.

If you keep in mind the fundamental ambition/approach being "The mastering of our life"
Most of our energy and effort is devoted to battling the addictions we aquire through out life and when we have mastered the process of addiction we have effectely Mastered our lives. [ Very similar to Buddhist Philosophy except there is no attempt to anhilate our desires but to learn to control them and bring them under our volition.]
Pantheism offers a way towards this end..IMO

it may help....

 

[Hapsburg]

....and wicca...etc

Speaking from the perspective of someone who practises that religion and has for some time: Wicca is not pantheistic, strictly speaking. It has a wide spectrum of specific theological ideas, but the thing consistent throughout them is polytheism, not pantheism.

You might be thinking of other neopagan religions, e.g neodruidism. Or the New Age philosophy spectrum (which, despite popular misconception, is something entirely different from neopaganism and Wicca).

 

[Enmos]

I find human achievements more romantic; against nature, against its kind, against all odds...

You must be a Holland fan

 

[Quantum Quack]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who practises that religion and has for some time: Wicca is not pantheistic, strictly speaking. It has a wide spectrum of specific theological ideas, but the thing consistent throughout them is polytheism, not pantheism.

You might be thinking of other neopagan religions, e.g neodruidism. Or the New Age philosophy spectrum (which, despite popular misconception, is something entirely different from neopaganism and Wicca).

thanks for the clarification...

 

[Big Chiller]

So some things are impossible for God.

Doreen its not "some things" if you use reasoning you would understand it better.

 

[Doreen]

Doreen its not "some things" if you use reasoning you would understand it better.

Alright, there is ONE thing God cannot do and God is therefore not omnipotent. God cannot, for example, do what I am doing right now: sit in a chair and type. In your version of God, God cannot be immanent. This is a limitation. It might be perfect and beautiful, but it is a limitation in what God can do. There are many people who do not see God having this kind of limit. Christians, for example, see God as having come 'here' in the form of Jesus. Many other religions have God avatars here. Pantheists and polytheists often have God interacting with humans here one earth or being the earth. IOW there are many versions of God where God is not limited to transcendence. In your version God is limited in this way, which is fine, but it is a limit.

 

[Big Chiller]

If you think this way then you can't deny that everyone is God and then God is not God all kinds of strange things.

 

[Doreen]

If you think this way then you can't deny that everyone is God and then God is not God all kinds of strange things.

That is a separate issue. What I believe and any problems with that belief have nothing to do with your version of God and what I have been saying all along: your God is limited because your God cannot be immanent. That's all.

Edit: you could also be right in your belief about what God can and cannot do. That is also beside the point.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Alright, there is ONE thing God cannot do and God is therefore not omnipotent. God cannot, for example, do what I am doing right now: sit in a chair and type. In your version of God, God cannot be immanent. This is a limitation. It might be perfect and beautiful, but it is a limitation in what God can do. There are many people who do not see God having this kind of limit. Christians, for example, see God as having come 'here' in the form of Jesus. Many other religions have God avatars here. Pantheists and polytheists often have God interacting with humans here one earth or being the earth. IOW there are many versions of God where God is not limited to transcendence. In your version God is limited in this way, which is fine, but it is a limit.

just to add and extend, as I agree...
A sentient God can only be limited by his own volition and sanity.
Thus self limiting by his own self restraint. However the act of self limiting does not impinge on omnipotency or immanence in fact it exemplifies it IMO.

I.E. "Can a omnipotent immanent God play chess with out cheating?"

In a Christian paradigm God is only what HE wants to be and justifies himself only unto himself and no one else.
In Panthiesm, God [ universe ] is exactly the same in that the universe is self justifying and not reliant on something outside itself. [there can be nothing beyond everything]

Is the universe immanent? IMO absolooooodelly so.

 

[Big Chiller]

Sentience in a sensational sense and sanity/insanity cannot apply to God.