Lucky Guesses?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dark Matter »

Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.

Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without distorting the truth or disintegrating Life. The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.

The same sentiment has been expressed in many ways and many places. Here's a few:
  • “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)
  • “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.” (Meister Eckhart)
  • “God is an infinite circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” (Nicholas of Cusa/Hermes Trismegistus)

    "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art that: Hindu phrase.)
Correlation is not confirmation, of course, but everything said above correlates very well with 21st Century physics. (I know most here won't agree with an interpretation of modern physics in a way that makes such a correlation possible, but that's irrelevant.)

My question is this: did those who made these statements make lucky guesses, were they ahead of their time, or were they really on to something bigger than what the science of their day could even begin to grasp? And if they were really on to something, how?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Dark Matter:
The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.
Infinite, God, self-referential system, synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity, and Being are all ideas. The assumption that they name or identify something and are not just concepts is another idea.
Correlation is not confirmation, of course, but everything said above correlates very well with 21st Century physics. (I know most here won't agree with an interpretation of modern physics in a way that makes such a correlation possible, but that's irrelevant.)
Of course the interpretation is relevant. If your interpretation is wrong then there is no correlation.
My question is this: did those who made these statements make lucky guesses, were they ahead of their time, or were they really on to something bigger than what the science of their day could even begin to grasp? And if they were really on to something, how?
We find this idea in Parmenides, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel and and many others. It is a logical necessity in any theory of a self contained systematic whole. We also find this idea in neoplatonism and mystical practices of unification and reunification. It can be found in both rational and mystical systems, as both a rational conclusion and something that transcends rationality.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dark Matter »

Keen insight into the human condition, coincidence, or lucky guesses? Whichever it is and given the limitations of our physical sensibilities, why do they correspond so well with 21st century physics?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Dark Matter:
Keen insight into the human condition, coincidence, or lucky guesses?
I think it simply follows logically from the idea of an intelligent being thinking about the world as an intelligible whole. That it is intelligible follows from our ability to make sense of things (even if the way in which we make sense of things turns out to be wrong). That it is a whole is one of two options, and is consistent with such things as our experience of bodies as wholes.
Whichever it is and given the limitations of our physical sensibilities, why do they correspond so well with 21st century physics?
We understand things in terms of other things we understand. Part of the problem with physics is that our language misleads us because it has developed in relation to things of ordinary experience. Commenting on how well they correspond requires specifics regarding what you see as corresponding.
User avatar
Renee
Posts: 327
Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Renee »

Dark Matter wrote:Correlation is not confirmation, of course, but everything said above correlates very well with 21st Century physics. (I know most here won't agree with an interpretation of modern physics in a way that makes such a correlation possible, but that's irrelevant.)
In other words, science, with its facts and claims, is irrelevant when it irrevokably annuls your theory.

We have known as much of your blind and militant devotion to your false ideals and idols already. Tell us something new.

-- Updated January 4th, 2017, 6:10 pm to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.
Apply this logic to the Holy Trinity, and you'll see how transparently impossible your system of belief is.

It is one thing to believe in something that can't be proven to exist (Unicorns, Santa, Flying Teapot), and can't be disproven either; but to believe in something that ab ovo, and a priori is an impossible arrangement, takes a real man.

-- Updated January 4th, 2017, 6:15 pm to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:My question is this: did those who made these statements make lucky guesses, were they ahead of their time (...)?
No, no... the answer is much simpler. It is you who is behind the times, in my opinion. That's what the distortion is all about.

-- Updated January 4th, 2017, 6:27 pm to add the following --
Dark Matter wrote:Keen insight into the human condition, coincidence, or lucky guesses?
Fooloso4 wrote:I think it simply follows logically from the idea of an intelligent being thinking about the world as an intelligible whole. That it is intelligible follows from our ability to make sense of things (even if the way in which we make sense of things turns out to be wrong). That it is a whole is one of two options, and is consistent with such things as our experience of bodies as wholes.
Dark Matter wrote:Whichever it is and given the limitations of our physical sensibilities, why do they correspond so well with 21st century physics?
Fooloso4 wrote:We understand things in terms of other things we understand. Part of the problem with physics is that our language misleads us because it has developed in relation to things of ordinary experience. Commenting on how well they correspond requires specifics regarding what you see as corresponding.
Haha... this broke me up. Speaking with an angel's voice, are we now, Fooloso4?
Ignorance is power.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Renee:
Haha... this broke me up. Speaking with an angel's voice, are we now, Fooloso4?
Nu? Vat, I’m an alter cocker but must I always be a momzer?

(Your gonif cats can translate.)
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dark Matter »

Sounds like science is hindered by empiricism that excludes reason.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Sy Borg »

Dark Matter wrote:Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without distorting the truth or disintegrating Life.
I don't think life is so readily distorted or disintegrated. Rather, in describing life, matter or anything, the description is always incomplete, a work in progress. Still, over time science's sketchy models increasing fill with detail. How much detail is left? No one knows because we, who are within reality, can obviously never understand the whole of reality.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dclements »

Dark Matter wrote: Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.
Your trying to say a lot..without saying anything really at all. We can label something this or that and talk all about something being 'infinite' and 'eternal', but that doesn't mean anything other than how we choose to think or label something, nor does it mean in any way that reality corresponds to how you think it should be.
Dark Matter wrote: Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without distorting the truth or disintegrating Life. The "knowingness" I'm talking about is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without the mediation of ideas.
If you cannot define yourself, let alone the whole, without distorting the truth or disintegrating life as you say then what makes you think that anything you are saying in this post is anything more than nonsense? Talking about how the sky is blue and circles are round and then switching to matters concerning infinity and 'eternal nature of being' itself doesn't make what your talking about anything better then when people use to argue how many angels could dance on the head of a pin or more examples of just words on a page.
Dark Matter wrote: The same sentiment has been expressed in many ways and many places. Here's a few:
  • “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)
  • “The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me.” (Meister Eckhart)
  • “God is an infinite circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” (Nicholas of Cusa/Hermes Trismegistus)

    "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art that: Hindu phrase.)
Give me about five to ten minutes and I can also cut and paste some quotes to try to help a OP or other post, but most of these quotes nether seem to be about your topic and/or really support your argument as they are also both vague and as arbitrary as your own statements. Perhaps they have more meaning in the context that they are in, but I don't see it in the context that you try and give them. Heaping nonsense on top of nonsense is only useful if your hoping to make another example of nonsense on stilts.
Dark Matter wrote: Correlation is not confirmation, of course, but everything said above correlates very well with 21st Century physics. (I know most here won't agree with an interpretation of modern physics in a way that makes such a correlation possible, but that's irrelevant.)
As far as I know science doesn't claim ANYTHING in our universe is eternal; since the half life of atoms all but guarantee that EVERYTHING will eventually breakdown. And since everything else is pretty much just more fluff there is nothing to correlate what you say to what 21st Century physics say.
Dark Matter wrote: My question is this: did those who made these statements make lucky guesses, were they ahead of their time, or were they really on to something bigger than what the science of their day could even begin to grasp? And if they were really on to something, how?
Lucky guess as to what? All the statements including yours are vague and as arbitrary and only mean something if someone chooses to read into it something that really isn't there in the first place. I sure there are plenty of religious doctrines that have passages that are written in such a way to confuse someone to agree to it since they can't figure out what the heck they are talking about but writing in such a doesn't prove anything since it doesn't really say anything in the first place. Confusing someone in order to make them think can have it's uses (which is often to trick/brainwash someone to agree to your position), but when use on those that have already been exposed to it they can easily realize that such arguments do not support anything since they do not really say anything in the first place.

-- Updated January 5th, 2017, 5:05 pm to add the following --
Renee wrote:
Fooloso4 wrote:We understand things in terms of other things we understand. Part of the problem with physics is that our language misleads us because it has developed in relation to things of ordinary experience. Commenting on how well they correspond requires specifics regarding what you see as corresponding.
Haha... this broke me up. Speaking with an angel's voice, are we now, Fooloso4?
I agree, that passage deserves a golf clap for effort in trying to one up Dark Matter in the game of word play. It makes me what to go back over some of my old post in another forum to save some of the posts I've written where I use to like doing the same thing.

-- Updated January 5th, 2017, 5:33 pm to add the following --
Renee wrote:
Dark Matter wrote:Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.
Apply this logic to the Holy Trinity, and you'll see how transparently impossible your system of belief is.

It is one thing to believe in something that can't be proven to exist (Unicorns, Santa, Flying Teapot), and can't be disproven either; but to believe in something that ab ovo, and a priori is an impossible arrangement, takes a real man.
I will admit that I really not sure of what you are saying here other than I think it means something similar to what I claim that Dark Matters arguments could seem true because A) that is how he claims/defines things to be B) you can't make a counter claim on arguments of such nature without making another equally ridiculous argument based on how we label/define/claim things to be or making an counter argument that has nothing to do with the original argument (aka. straw man fallacy). I've heard such arguments have been considered sometimes as 'anti-logic' when the writer is of enough skill and can force it's reader to really have to think of a problem, but I think real 'anti-logic' requires more skill and shouldn't be used to support religious dogma since there is already MORE than enough of that kind of stuff already out there. Although reading/knowing of religious examples could be useful in helping one come up with non-religious examples of anti-logic. Of course this is just my thoughts on it since all of it could still be just more examples of arguments concerning how many angel can dance on the head of a pin or more examples of nonsense on stilts.

Word play can still have a time and place if it can amuse it's reader even if it doesn't support or say anything ; although I haven't found any examples of such in Abrahamic religions. Although there has been a few theists in other forums that wrote some beautiful/entertaining stuff. Maybe in Dark Matter is a little less of a blow hard, learns a little more about philosophy (and making proper rational arguments), and keeps practicing he'll get to the point where he can make posts that are nice to read ; even for those that do not believe as he does. Well, at least I can hope.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Burning ghost »

Mathematics when applied to measuring nature makes it infinite for us.

Prior to making mathematical measurements of nature there was no natural infinity. Prior to logical discourse and reasoning there were no means to come to measure anything.

That is about the extent of it all. What people wrote hundreds of years ago is interpreted with your view now not your view as it would have been then living in that time and speaking whatever language was spoken (certainly not anything much like this language, it being a part of our world).
AKA badgerjelly
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dark Matter »

Apply this logic to the Holy Trinity, and you'll see how transparently impossible your system of belief is.
Don't be silly.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not affirm the logical nonsense that three is one and one is three; it describes in dialectical terms the inner movement of the divine life as an eternal separation from itself and return to itself.
Like I saId elsewhere: Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that, although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot be identical when I [or God] define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Ormond »

Dark Matter,

I sense you are on to something interesting and important. The quotes you shared are good, and I hope you might continue to explore other ways of presenting your message.

There are two processes underway, that of insight, and then communication. My sense is that you're doing good with the first, and struggling with the latter. If true I have a great deal of sympathy for such a situation given the inherent limitations of language. I suggest trying to simplify your descriptions to the greatest degree possible. Go easy on the philosophical lingo and look for language that would be accessible to the average man in the street. Doing so may help you think this through, given that simplification is typically more challenging that complication.

What if God is space? This would make God infinite and everywhere, as often described. It's clear that science has only a hint of understanding about space, so personally I see no reason to insist that space is a lifeless void, as is so often assumed. If we are willing to consider an alternate theory that space is somehow alive and somehow intelligent, the word God then starts being useful.

If God is space, both the theists and atheists could be somewhat correct, given that such a God would be both everywhere and everything, and nothing, at the same time.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Gertie »

DM I'm going to be frank in this post, it's a philosophy forum and I'm trying
to do a philosophical critique as best I can, but hopefully not coming across as
gratuitously insulting to something you hold dear.
Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was
something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that,
although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot
be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition
of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the
defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the
defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of
view of the subject.

Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of
the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity
— relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without
distorting the truth or disintegrating Life. The "knowingness" I'm talking about
is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without
the mediation of ideas.
If I try to break this down into what we limited humans can generally agree on
as a Shared Working Knowledge of the world I get this -

The universe seems to be something we call infinite in space denoting the fact
we haven't found its edge. Possibly infinite in time past, we don't know. In
time future it will probably continue to dissipate towards maximal entropy, but
conscious creatures like ourselves will be long gone by then, existing only as
fundamental particles.

For now, there are conscious critters such as ourselves kicking around. We are
part of the universe, inhabiting physical bodies within it, and view everything
else as 'outside' of us. This is because we experience consciousness as a
field of various types of subjective experiencing from a specific point of view
located in time and space within the universe. That is how we 'relate to' what
is 'external' to our direct experiencing. We create working models of the
external world as outlined above and call it the universe. We can't know if our
models are accurate or complete, but they have an internal consistency which we can discuss in a coherent shared way with each other. In fact, we can't know
for certain if anything exists outside our (or rather my) subjective experience.
But still, this Shared Working Knowledge which is constantly updated and
corrected using empiricism and reason crucially works as our lingua franca, and
is afforded credibility on that basis.


Everything you say outside that is outside of our Shared Working Knowledge of
the world. It's a framing which resonates with you, and maybe it contains some
deep truth or meaning which I'm missing and you're accessing. But for me it
doesn't resonate that way. (And you make no case for why I should take it seriously, just point to some vague one-liner quotes and go 'See!').

So when you use the commonly accepted language constructions we use to
communicate about the Shared Known World we roughly agree on (the world of
apples and gravity), and make statements of fact that 'God is' this or that,
you're co-opting our Shared Framing Language in a Personal Idiosyncratic and
philosophically inappropriate way. And there's no reason for me to give it this
Shared credibility because you borrow its clothes.

And I can't even make this parse in a way which isn't self-contradictory nonsense -

''If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire
structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So
subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less
than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.''

Think it through -

If I (I-Subject) define myself (I-Object), I am the defining self and the thing
defined. By definition no more or less. And more bizarrely... I-Subject can't be less than the defining self (I-Subject), because they're both the same I-Subject.

I think part of the problem is you treat Part-of-the-Total and
The-Total-of-the-Total as being the same when you want to use it one way, but
different when you want to use it to express something else, without offering
any justification . And unsurprisingly end up with self-contradictory nonsense
hidden within confusing obfuscation. My suspicion is that clarity dispels the
sense that there's more than meets the eye.

You can use the catch-all fallback position and say yes, we limited creatures
can't make sense of it, we don't have the language for concepts beyond our ken. Well OK, but where does that leave your claim? You're saying you have some special access to knowledge beyond human understanding, which again is self-contradictory. So I'm inclined to think you're just making stuff up, or have found personal meaning in something someone else has made up. Doesn't mean you're not onto something, but I've no reason to think you have access to any knowledge or insight beyond human understanding, so there's no reason for me to treat it as anything beyond making stuff up.

Feel free to point out what I'm missing, or what I'm getting wrong and explain
clearly why, better still offer clear supporting justifications which counter
my objections. Lets have a go at doing some philosophy on it.

Or if this is simply something which feels meaningful to you, fair enough, just
say so.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dclements »

Ormond wrote: If God is space, both the theists and atheists could be somewhat correct, given that such a God would be both everywhere and everything, and nothing, at the same time.
Or you could just say that 'God is the name we give to mental subconscious projection we give to both our individual potential and our potential as a race (and potentially other sentient/non-sentient beings) if we where able to work together toward common survive and goals. Under such a scenario, mystics and/or prophets would receive messages from 'God'(aka collective conscience) about what to do and not to do based on whatever our super-egos (working alone or together depending on whether the latter is really possible) is aware of that we are not when we are only using our/id/egos by themselves.

From what little I know of Gnosticism (a schism of Christianity that was wiped out by what is modern day Christianity because it was a threat) there was a belief that this physical world was imperfect because it was created by a rogue God-like being (or demon if you what to call it such) and real existence was one of pure mind/spirit which was controlled by something like 'God' (which may be a she instead of a he). Anyways they seemed to be influenced by eastern religion/philosophies, where surprisingly tolerate of other Christian sects, and seemed to a bit immune to some of the hypocrisy that other religions has at the time; although that may have been because they were too small develop the problems of bigger religious sects. The importance of this group is that they are not that different from modern day Unitarian Universalist, and the argument that 'God' may just exist as a projection from our mind. See if you take away the whole story of a rogue angel/devil creating our universe and replace it with something along the lines of cosmic accident (aka a large uncontrolled process, just like any other large uncontrolled thing/process we deal with but bigger), and replace 'God', other mind/spirit realm, etc with the potential of what creative sentient beings are capable with their minds and collective efforts; then you can kind of bridge the gap a little between Gnosticism and Atheism (or at least with atheist that can kind of accept the possibility of collective conscience).

Of course there is still the difference between Christianity and Gnosticism and atheist (as well as theist) who do not like the idea of collective conscience, and of course the issue of IF there is a collective conscience and 'God'/God-like beings would these being be subjects of the collective or above it (although it is usually assume the former instead of the latter) but since 'God'/God-like are usually counted as just other sentient beings (or just the collective itself) this isn't a problem.

At any rate the theory (if it was true) would resolve the problem of what physical manifestation 'God' takes if he is a being that we never really see or understand.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Lucky Guesses?

Post by Dark Matter »

Ormond wrote:Dark Matter,

I sense you are on to something interesting and important. The quotes you shared are good, and I hope you might continue to explore other ways of presenting your message.

There are two processes underway, that of insight, and then communication. My sense is that you're doing good with the first, and struggling with the latter. If true I have a great deal of sympathy for such a situation given the inherent limitations of language. I suggest trying to simplify your descriptions to the greatest degree possible. Go easy on the philosophical lingo and look for language that would be accessible to the average man in the street. Doing so may help you think this through, given that simplification is typically more challenging that complication.

What if God is space? This would make God infinite and everywhere, as often described. It's clear that science has only a hint of understanding about space, so personally I see no reason to insist that space is a lifeless void, as is so often assumed. If we are willing to consider an alternate theory that space is somehow alive and somehow intelligent, the word God then starts being useful.

If God is space, both the theists and atheists could be somewhat correct, given that such a God would be both everywhere and everything, and nothing, at the same time.
I agree, especially about my inability to articulate what I so clearly "see" in my head. es
Gertie wrote:DM I'm going to be frank in this post, it's a philosophy forum and I'm trying
to do a philosophical critique as best I can, but hopefully not coming across as
gratuitously insulting to something you hold dear.
Being infinite, God, can only be a self-referential system, for if there was
something extraneous to God, God would not be infinite. The problem is that,
although self-reference means subject and object must be identical, they cannot
be identical when I define myself. Why? If I define myself, then the definition
of what I define is its entire structure, whereas it is only part of the
defining entity’s structure. So subject and object are not equal, and the
defined self will always seem less than the defining self seen from the point of
view of the subject.

Put more simply, a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of
the Infinite and finite, the Eternal and the temporal, and Freedom and necessity
— relating to itself. We cannot define ourselves, let alone the Whole, without
distorting the truth or disintegrating Life. The "knowingness" I'm talking about
is the realization of the Infinite and eternal nature of Being itself without
the mediation of ideas.
If I try to break this down into what we limited humans can generally agree on
as a Shared Working Knowledge of the world I get this -

The universe seems to be something we call infinite in space denoting the fact
we haven't found its edge. Possibly infinite in time past, we don't know. In
time future it will probably continue to dissipate towards maximal entropy, but
conscious creatures like ourselves will be long gone by then, existing only as
fundamental particles.

For now, there are conscious critters such as ourselves kicking around. We are
part of the universe, inhabiting physical bodies within it, and view everything
else as 'outside' of us. This is because we experience consciousness as a
field of various types of subjective experiencing from a specific point of view
located in time and space within the universe. That is how we 'relate to' what
is 'external' to our direct experiencing. We create working models of the
external world as outlined above and call it the universe. We can't know if our
models are accurate or complete, but they have an internal consistency which we can discuss in a coherent shared way with each other. In fact, we can't know
for certain if anything exists outside our (or rather my) subjective experience.
But still, this Shared Working Knowledge which is constantly updated and
corrected using empiricism and reason crucially works as our lingua franca, and
is afforded credibility on that basis.


Everything you say outside that is outside of our Shared Working Knowledge of
the world. It's a framing which resonates with you, and maybe it contains some
deep truth or meaning which I'm missing and you're accessing. But for me it
doesn't resonate that way. (And you make no case for why I should take it seriously, just point to some vague one-liner quotes and go 'See!').

So when you use the commonly accepted language constructions we use to
communicate about the Shared Known World we roughly agree on (the world of
apples and gravity), and make statements of fact that 'God is' this or that,
you're co-opting our Shared Framing Language in a Personal Idiosyncratic and
philosophically inappropriate way. And there's no reason for me to give it this
Shared credibility because you borrow its clothes.

And I can't even make this parse in a way which isn't self-contradictory nonsense -

''If I define myself, then the definition of what I define is its entire
structure, whereas it is only part of the defining entity’s structure. So
subject and object are not equal, and the defined self will always seem less
than the defining self seen from the point of view of the subject.''

Think it through -

If I (I-Subject) define myself (I-Object), I am the defining self and the thing
defined. By definition no more or less. And more bizarrely... I-Subject can't be less than the defining self (I-Subject), because they're both the same I-Subject.

I think part of the problem is you treat Part-of-the-Total and
The-Total-of-the-Total as being the same when you want to use it one way, but
different when you want to use it to express something else, without offering
any justification . And unsurprisingly end up with self-contradictory nonsense
hidden within confusing obfuscation. My suspicion is that clarity dispels the
sense that there's more than meets the eye.

You can use the catch-all fallback position and say yes, we limited creatures
can't make sense of it, we don't have the language for concepts beyond our ken. Well OK, but where does that leave your claim? You're saying you have some special access to knowledge beyond human understanding, which again is self-contradictory. So I'm inclined to think you're just making stuff up, or have found personal meaning in something someone else has made up. Doesn't mean you're not onto something, but I've no reason to think you have access to any knowledge or insight beyond human understanding, so there's no reason for me to treat it as anything beyond making stuff up.

Feel free to point out what I'm missing, or what I'm getting wrong and explain
clearly why, better still offer clear supporting justifications which counter
my objections. Lets have a go at doing some philosophy on it.

Or if this is simply something which feels meaningful to you, fair enough, just
say so.
I'm on meds I got from the VA now, so you're cool. :D

I don't need to use the catch-all fallback position, but when dealing with infinity we inevitably encounter paradoxes and, let's face it, while paradoxes can be fun, they can also give you a headache. Here's a fun one:
A company CEO informs his secretary that they’ll be attending a conference abroad in a week’s time and asks her to make all the necessary preparations for their trip together. The secretary texts her husband: ‘Have to be with my boss abroad for a week — congress. Take good care of yourself, my love.’ The husband calls his mistress: ‘My wife will be abroad for a week. How about spending this week with me, princess?’ The mistress, who is a teacher in private school announces to the kids: ‘Due to a private issue, I’ll have to be absent next week, so you’ll have a week’s vacation.’ One of the kids, who was very fond of his grandfather, runs to him and says, ‘Grandfather, next week I am on vacation from school. You promised me that if I’ll have time, we’ll go hiking together.’ The grandfather (the company CEO in this story) loved his grandson very much. He calls his secretary and tells her, ‘My grandson asked me to be with him next week, so we are not leaving. Please, cancel the tickets.’ The secretary texts her husband: ‘The boss canceled the trip, so we’ll be together next week, my love.’ The husband calls his mistress: ‘We can’t spend the next week together because my wife is not leaving.’ The mistress announces to her pupils that her issue was solved and consequently, they’ll have to attend class next week. The boy tells his grandfather, ‘Grandfather, next week I’ll have to attend school, I’m so sorry I can’t come with you to hike.’ The CEO grandfather calls his secretary: ‘My grandchild just called saying he won’t be able to come with me next week, so please, continue your preparations to leave…’
Here's another: To cease relating is to cease existing. But there's a problem: Wholeness (infinity) can only relate to itself by divesting itself of itself, but by so doing, it is no longer Wholeness. How, then, can it be said Wholeness exists?
The Talmud has an apocryphal story of a dialogue between God and Abraham. God begins by chiding Abraham: "If it wasn't for Me, you wouldn't exist.“After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, "Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn't for me, You wouldn't be known." ― Leonard Shlain
In God, we live, move and our being; in us, God escapes the limitations of unqualified infinity. By defining itself as a creature apart from itself (as Abraham), Wholeness provides itself with the capacity to know, be, and experience itself in a ways not otherwise available to it. In a sense, the finite is greater than the infinite that gives rise to it.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021