Jump to content

Inspiration


Javelin

Recommended Posts

To me pantheism is a valid way to describe the divine, but not the only way. The idea of the 'limitless divine' strikes me as one that, from at least one perspective, speaks to pantheism, in the sense that what is limitless must be everywhere, and everything must in some way identify with it or find identity in it. In some sense, the world and God must be one. The absolute can have no other (else it is not absolute), and therefore the relative world must be one with the absolute, this is a basic logic behind non-duality.

 

Now, Huston Smith writes:

 

"The Christian world is Infinite, for if you stop with finitude you face a door with only one side, an absurdity...

...The Infinite includes the finite or we would be left with infinite-plus-finite and the Infinite would not be what it claims to be. The natural image to depict the Infinite's inclusiveness is a circle, an all-including circle that encompasses our finite universe and out of which it is impossible to fall. "In Him we live and move and have our being," Paul tells us, and Augustine added, "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere." [soul of Christianity 3]

 

In my understanding panentheism seems to speak to pantheism while yet keeping in mind the transcendental nature of God - while everything can identify with God, God cannot become synonymous with any system, or truly identified, exhausted, or limited to what we call or perceive as the physical world. While pantheism says the world is God -- this is God, that is God, everything is God - the transcendental point of view like that of panentheism will take the opposite approach -- this is not God, that is not God - nothing in this relative (or non-absolute) created world is God, God is beyond being and non-being, movement and stillness (as in Dionysius). Perhaps both pantheism and panentheism are true. God transcends the world precisely because the world owes its very identity to God. If the world were truly separate from God, God could not be limitless or transcendent - he would be as a relative object set over-against the world.

 

Of course, this logic is all worked out from my perspective. If others work from the framework that God is ultimately a relational being not intrinsically different from other beings, then their conclusions will be very different, and that is fine too. Relational theology contains very powerful ideas to me (Dutch often expresses them very beautifully) that I would not say are false - just that they are not contained within my 'system of thought'. But that is fine, because I am not a big fan of systematic theology in the first place. It may be that the limitless divine is just so limitless that it has the power to 'other' itself while yet somehow mysteriously retaining the divine identity, as Alan Watts suggested in 'Behold the Spirit'. Who knows? Who can know?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I took some time to think about this and now there seems to be another conversation I am interrupting but here it is

 

Adi, thanks for suggesting the Pratchett book. It looks to be a fun read.

 

Rivanna, I am not saying that God is dependent on humans for God's existence. God-becoming and creation-becoming are interdependent. One can not be complete without the other.

 

I found this -

 

God himself is 'in process', in the sense that he is not abstractly eternal, utterly above and beyond all temporal succession. Rather, he is eminently temporal. God is seen not as primarily the 'unmoved mover' or 'first cause' or 'absolute reality,' but as the supremely related one. God in his consequent aspect is persuasive, sympathetic, affected by all that is not himself, inclusive of all possible good, supremely tender -- indeed, God so portrayed is Love.

 

From the Table of Contents, Alfred North Whitehead by Norman Pittenger

I don't think we can say anything real/objective/true about God the Divine Mystery which we experience in the present. All significance of that experience is held in a construct of our making.

 

Two examples of the power of language are cognitive therapy and Discipling new members. In both cases, I think, new language redefines the past in substance and in power and this new language influences which experiences we seek out and what we think about our experiences.

 

Letting the above Pittenger quote become part of the story I tell would be profoundly life giving. And would change how I report some of my experiences and what experiences I would seek out. Language and construct. Separate from any purposing by a higher power I believe in the power of story to move creation and the strength of a language to hold a people's culture and religion and the emotion of language to carry the message of love. Walter Goldschmidt, The Bridge to Humanity, talks about the "affinity hunger" that the infant has and fulfills in relationship with mother. He describes how this deep and often unrealized, desire for affinity is the fuel and the power for establishment of culture and society that could only take place with the development of language. From the first hominid that had language to carry ideas from one location to another, from one time to another, through written language, the Ten Commandments, The Two Great Commandments of Jesus, meditations on the commandments 5-10 in the Catechism of the Westminster Confession to the Search for Global ethics and the Charter for Compassion - language has carried our learning of how to live together. (My list is not Western/Christian centric on purpose, only out ignorance.)

 

I am suggesting that language did not carry ideas from on high about how to live together but that language collected and gathered ideas and constructs of human making that formed our reality and our foundation. We tell stories in which to hold these ideas. The stories of Jesus are powerful in this project (They are the ones I know best and that have formed my experience.)

 

This entanglement with language is not a closed loop, nor is everything locked in place by language. Visionaries, Prophets, Scientists, Artists are necessary to stretch categories and shatter concepts, to create new vocabulary and therefore new experiences.

 

Am I moving toward humanism and Noetic Sciences? Maybe. We'll see where language takes me. :D But all my stories are out a Christian faith.

 

The hours go by - enough

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

Thanks for your clarification, I agree with your quote -- “God-becoming and creation-becoming are interdependent. One can not be complete without the other. God himself is in process, as the supremely related one… indeed, God so portrayed is Love.” It seems to follow, that what we do on earth makes a difference to the very reality of God. That shifts a lot of responsibility onto humanity.

 

Also like your emphasis on the importance of the role of language, the culture-shaping power of story, and the deep desire for affinity – somehow reminded me of Wallace Stevens’ saying “Poetry is a satisfying of the desire for resemblance.” --The Necessary Angel

 

You had said earlier, that your “goal was to develop language that you can use to talk about passages in the bible that was consistent with your understanding of process theology.” A direction that appeals to me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rivanna,

 

Thanks for your response. I took time to think and process because I was going in a very dry direction in discussing what one can say about God "objectively", a line of thought pushed by personal questioning about what separates an epiphany or revelation from a hallucination - to be extreme.

 

"..desire for resemblance." to see our self, to recognize others as like our selves? Looked at Necessary Angel at amazon. I liked what was written on the back cover. Another book to read :)

 

That shifts a lot of responsibility onto humanity.

Sounds like a heavy load to me. There is a tension between doing and being, resting and working, breathing in and breathing out. Mike's quote from Smyullan? about the sage who didn't worry about what was not Tao and what was but just enjoyed everything has wisdom. I think attending to the moment, being here now, is a most important first step. Then choice, and doing, comes.

 

Do you have a lot of time or do you just use it effectively? I must have written that quote four or five months ago. I have often wanted to collect texts from this forum as part of an extra-Biblical canon but I spend too much time as it is.

 

"language that you can use to talk about passages in the bible" Sometimes I think if people in our neighborhood churches didn't keep participating in Bible studies, there would be no Bible.

 

Take care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

It is an illusion to think that objectivity as a methodology can really be divorced from objectivity as a belief - that is, from the object-category of thought, from the pursuit of the object-ification of reality, from the assumption that reality really can be handled as an object and assumed to be an object.

 

sometimes I am in awe of your thinking

 

Take care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adi,

as I find it fascinating the notion that you can be both, ie, only believe in individual perceptions of reality AND a theist.

For now I would claim that position with one rephrasing. The "reality" that exists is in community and the perceptions are shared. It is not a group of individuals with or without pink or not elephants or not on their shoulders. They are in the group talking about the presence or absence of the elephants and from that comes "reality". And out of that conversation develops shared perceptions and shared significances. Is it important to have an elephant on your shoulder? what does it mean if you don't? If there is enough talk about the elephants they may appear - although they will not look anything like the elephants in the zoo and will be given a different name - but I ramble. There are theisms that arise over the millenia. Maybe cheap civil providential theism, maybe costly theism. In God we trust. Suicide bombers.

 

You are right. It is problematic. Can I maintain a theistic world view while knowing that it is a world "we" have constructed. Do I have to forget that I am only playing? And if I am only playing why is the kind of God that is part of my stories so important?

 

 

Take care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You are right. It is problematic. Can I maintain a theistic world view while knowing that it is a world "we" have constructed. Do I have to forget that I am only playing? And if I am only playing why is the kind of God that is part of my stories so important?

 

 

Take care

 

Dutch

The way I see a subjective god like the god of pantheism is that it's like having faith in democracy. Democracy is something which exists both subjectively in our minds but also "exists" in the world outside our minds. What we define as democracy is subjective and no one can agree on a universal objective definition of what is democracy, like how in the current health care debate over if health care reform is compatible with the values of a democracy. At the same time, democracy is something we "know" is real when its put into action in real life even though it's also a subjective concept that exists all in our heads if I'm making any sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon Genesis,

 

The way I see a subjective god like the god of pantheism is that it's like having faith in democracy. Democracy is something which exists both subjectively in our minds but also "exists" in the world outside our minds.

 

Yes, I think this might be a good example.

 

The idea of democracy wasn't given to us, we discovered it and developed it over millenia. (I read recently that America may have chosen the "wrong" :blink: kind of democracy.)

 

Take care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly different line of thought -

 

If God is in "process" then it would seem to follow that the God of 10 million years ago is different than the God of now and that the God of 10 million years from now will also be different. Not a Dispensationalist God who chooses over the ages different rules for humans but a God who is evolving.

 

In the April issue of Discover two scientists are highlighted who are proposing that similar to ever more complex development in biology the laws of physics are evolving and that those enigmas in the cosmos which are confounding us will make more sense when we discover the "new" laws of physics. Not laws that existed yesterday undiscovered but laws that didn't exist yesterday/yester-millenia

 

Why do we need to re-construct God several times in our life time?

 

Take care

 

dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much that it's a "need" to reconstruct God, but as we learn more about the natural universe, our concepts of God will naturally evolve over time. Take for instance, Galileo's conflicts with the Catholic church over the geocentric model of the universe. The Catholic church believed Earth was the center of the universe and revolved around the sun because the bible said God stopped the sun in the sky but Galileo proved it wrong and proved the Earth revolved around the sun. They tried to silence Galileo but no matter what they did, they couldn't stop the truth and so people's concepts about God naturally evolved over time. Now even biblical literalists try to deny that the bible ever said the Earth was flat and they claim that the bible in fact predicted that the Earth is round before scientists discovered it, which somehow proves the bible is the literal word of God. Yet even their beliefs about God naturally evolved as a result of Galileo's discoveries. They may have only changed their interpretation of scripture rather than the way they read scripture, but they were still effected by Galileo and had no choice but to evolve if they wished to survive. I like to think of it as religion's version of natural selection. As we learn more about the universe, like that sexuality is something natural we're born with, or that evolution is a scientific fact, religion will adapt to its surrounding changes if it wishes to survive. I don't think there's any reason for us to force religion to adapt the way we want it to because I think it'll adapt naturally for the best on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess who!

 

Hey y'all,

 

Couple of observations and comments:

 

For me it comes down to there being an objective yet mysterious absolute,... but what shape does that take?- Adi

 

I believe you're on the right track. Let's then ask: what are the possible shapes the "objective yet mysterious absolute" can take?

---

 

we can only subjectively experience truth of that [c]oncerning that which is beyond subjectivity.

Yes, "what we do know can be true"

Actually I am not keeping score, - Joseph

 

(These were individual comments and should not be be considered otherwise) There is a question that flows from this. "Beyond subjectivity", does it mean- independant of mind (objective)? If so, I can only say that this is what I've been communicating all along.

The second comment, complimenting the first, seconds the existence of the possibility of knowing something truly,.

 

The third: Why would it be necessary to deny something where there is no accusation? Is it really surprising, or even objectionable, that someone may be keeping score in a debate? Or, was it just an excuse to gibe someone?

---

 

Finding meaning in life doesn't prove that there is meaning it only says that I find meaning.- Dutch

 

Interesting. I agree with the importance of language.

Finding meaning in life means that the evidence for it does exist. Something which doesn't exist cannot leave evidence that it does.

Adi also recognized the tension in your argument over your need for an objective divine (in order to explain any real meaning for anything).

---

 

the main idea behind objectivity - to make an object out of everything - is mistaken.- Mike

 

I think the clear understanding of objectivity reveals it is the relation of being completely unimpassioned toward what exists, whether material or spiritual. The object of ones "faith" could be either.

---

 

The adjective- objective, describes what exists independanrt of mind; reality.

The verb- exist, is to have actual or real being whether material or spiritual.

The adjective- subjective, describes the percieved as opposed to reality as it is.

---

 

The problem for any form of pantheism is that it ultimately makes subjectivity impossible to exist.

 

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

---

 

The problem for any form of pantheism is that it ultimately makes subjectivity impossible to exist.

 

 

Davidk

[/size][/font]

How so? Besides, I thought you were the one who said we could only have an objective standard with a personal god yet now you're admitting subjectivity cannot exist in pantheism? Which one is it? Can you only have an objective standard with a personal god or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finding meaning in life means that the evidence for it does exist.

 

David,

 

"Finding meaning in life" satisfies the need for "Finding meaning in life". It is not proof that the evidence exists - What evidence is necessary for satisfying the need for "finding meaning in life"? other than to listen as someone says that they "found meaning". Are you talking about the satisfaction of the need for meaning as evidence that it does exist?

 

Take care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess who!

(snip)

---

 

we can only subjectively experience truth of that [c]oncerning that which is beyond subjectivity.

Yes, "what we do know can be true"

Actually I am not keeping score, - Joseph

 

(These were individual comments and should not be be considered otherwise) There is a question that flows from this. "Beyond subjectivity", does it mean- independant of mind (objective)? If so, I can only say that this is what I've been communicating all along.

The second comment, complimenting the first, seconds the existence of the possibility of knowing something truly,.

 

The third: Why would it be necessary to deny something where there is no accusation? Is it really surprising, or even objectionable, that someone may be keeping score in a debate? Or, was it just an excuse to gibe someone?

---

 

(snip)

Davidk

 

Davidk,

 

Beyond subjectivity as used meant beyond taking place in a person's mind or existing outside of the perceived thinking mind. In my experience, as a human, we can only experience objectivity, subjectively.

 

What we do know can be true or I can add, what we do know can be false. Yes, it does second the existence of the possibility of knowing something truly but is no more valid than it seconds the existence of the possibility of not knowing something truly. Therefore things only seem to be so by me and i remain open to inspiration and change rather than thinking i know something truely.

 

It was of course not a denial. It a communication to those who seemed to be keeping score by their comments which included you and Adi whether in jest or not. The comment was to convey that I personally was not playing or interested in keeping score.

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? Besides, I thought you were the one who said we could only have an objective standard with a personal god yet now you're admitting subjectivity cannot exist in pantheism?

 

That's why pantheism is not the answer, it's not objective about individuality.

---

 

It (meaning in life) is not proof that the evidence exists

 

The evidence of a final answer is proof of meaning.

---

 

In my experience, as a human, we can only experience objectivity, subjectively.

 

May I paraphrase: In our individual experiences, we can only truly experience what objectively exists (objective reality). Am I getting close?

 

what we do know can be false

the existence of the possibility of not knowing something truly.

things only seem to be so by me

 

That which is false cannot be known. That's why false is a deception- making you think you know something truly when you don't.

---

 

Actually I am not keeping score,... but it seems davidk is.

The comment was to convey that I personally was not playing or interested in keeping score.

 

No offense, but no one asked whether you were or not. That's why it appeared the sole purpose was merely to scoff. "(If these personal attacks don't stop, I'll have to report you to the moderator. :lol:)

 

 

God's grace to you,

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why pantheism is not the answer, it's not objective about individuality.[/font][/size]

 

 

 

But you just said before that subjectivity is impossible in pantheism, now you're saying the opposite that objectivity about indivudality cannot happen in pantheism? Which one is it? To be blunt, you seem to be wanting to have it both ways. Either it's subjective or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It (meaning in life) is not proof that the evidence exists

 

David you changed my sentence.

 

It (finding meaning in life) is not proof that the evidence exists [for meaning in life].

 

As I said "finding meaning in life" satisfies the need for "finding meaning in life" There is no "meaning" on grocery store shelves or in the universe. Humans make meaning, create significance. After the fact.

 

The evidence of a final answer is proof of meaning.

 

I have no idea what you mean. Having a final answer is not proof of a final answer.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

To quote from what Shane Claiborne called the greatest sermon ever told, 'blessed are the peacemakers'. So at the risk of annoying some, I thought I would give it a try.

 

Pantheism, theism, panentheism, even deism, are fascinating topics and obviously I have had a crack at expressing my opinion about almost all of them. But I think the time has come to grab hold of the similarities in all of these approaches. I think what we can agree on is that God or the limitless divine, as I like to call it, is ultimately mysterious and, whether totally or partially, unknowable. However we can 'experience' God, whether objectively or subjectively, and this can be a transformative state. Furthermore, as Christians, we believe that Jesus Christ served as a template of what it is to be human and, in a sense, whether pantheistically or incarnationally (is that a word?), he also showed us the divine. To emulate Jesus then is the key to our faith, everything else, though wonderful to discuss, is something each of us must think about and make a decision about. Indeed, if these posts have proven anything definitively, it's that the members of this board can show the rest of christianity what it is to have a strong, yet questioning, faith.

 

I read the original question to this post this morning. I feel I should address it rather than send it off in another direction. For me, I read the bible through the lens of Jesus of the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment. Love trumps hate, if a passage would result in something that is not a loving action, according to the cultural norms of NOW, I feel okay in disregarding it. Furthermore, as Borg once said, "Jesus trumps the bible". My faith is not bound between dust covers. The Jesus I believe in can be experienced NOW, and was not only experienced two thousand years ago which we can gratefully read about. It sounds trite, but asking the question 'What would Jesus do?', is, for me, more important than 'What does the bible say?'.

 

Pax et fides everyone.

 

Adi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post. Thanks Adi.

 

Joseph

 

Davidk,

 

Since you ask, No, it would be best if you did not paraphrase me. Perhaps you can just let it pass as i have written as we do seem to be on a different wave-length. smile.gif

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jesus I believe in can be experienced NOW, and was not only experienced two thousand years ago which we can gratefully read about. It sounds trite, but asking the question 'What would Jesus do?', is, for me, more important than 'What does the bible say?'.

 

 

I agree strongly with this. I think what matters most is not the metaphysics of Jesus but the teachings of Jesus. I see faith as an action rather than a correct set of beliefs. James says that faith without works is dead. We could spend all day debating whether or not God is personal or impersonal, but unless your faith is making a positive impact in the world, it's meaningless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to put this into as simple a language as I can.

In pantheism everything is finally only one thing. With no answer for the individual anything to have any meaning, pantheism ignores what actually is there.

 

I do agree on the importance of Jesus' teaching. I do see that our actions generally reflect our beliefs, and I believe the infinite-personal God gives the final meaning for everything.

---

David you changed my sentence.

 

If I had, it was not intentional. I offer my apology.

 

I think the core difference here is that one area of thought begins with man providing the final meaning, while another considers it to be God. Which one fits what is there is essentially the argument.

As what should be clear by now, I believe the evidence clearly demonstrates the infinite-personal God is the final source for meaning.

---

 

I agree with Adi's sentiment, if not all of his argument.

---

 

Since you ask, No, it would be best if you did not paraphrase me.

 

Asking to paraphrase was simply to see if I understood clearly what was being said, not to be critical of it. That should have been more than obvious when I followed up with the question, "Am I getting close?"

---

 

In closing, inspiration comes from the certainty that something meaningful exists which can, by act or power, move or influence our intellect or emotions.

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In closing, inspiration comes from the certainty that something meaningful exists which can, by act or power, move or influence our intellect or emotions.

 

Davidk

 

Davidk,

 

You have inverted the technical definition of emotion (and intuition BTW).

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to put this into as simple a language as I can.

In pantheism everything is finally only one thing. With no answer for the individual anything to have any meaning, pantheism ignores what actually is there.

Hi David,

 

Thanks for clarifying. I too did not know what you meant by your previous statements about pantheism. However, I think your critique may more readily apply to forms of monism than to pantheism in general. Some pantheistic ideas may be monist in this way, but not all. I would say that some religious traditions which might be called reservedly pantheistic, like either Taoism or Buddhism, or even Christian mysticism, would strictly deny what is said here, and suggest that the exact opposite is true: there is no final thing, and reality is not a thing, much less to be reduced to one thing.

 

Things are meaningful precisely because they lack any such finality or absoluteness in themselves. They are meaningful precisely as empty, open, non-absolute. Thus they are open to, penetrated by, identified with, the mystery of Divinity. In Buddhism, this emptiness is absolute reality. Not as a purely negative or nihilistic term, but one that is suggestive of reality-in-truth. It does not actually positively define what reality is, as if to pin-point reality as one thing or another, as something like this as opposed to that. That would be a mistaken endeavor from the very start. Thus, the mystery of Divinity is identified not as something separate from the world, but the world's true nature, and not as something that can really be reasoned about as being one, two or three, or simple or complex, as if these quantitative categories of thought really apply to that which is not a thing. It's called 'Mystery' for a reason.

 

If anything were truly separate, that is, absolutely and truly an individual, it would be meaningless. There could be no sense in even speaking of it. To that I think you might agree. It would be a reality unto itself. An individual is only truly an individual when wholly identified with 'the rest of' reality. The belief that all things are finally separate, then, too suffers the same problem as believing they are finally one thing. I think the traditions of non-duality would call into question both notions, since they are just two sides of the same coin.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tibetan Buddhism implies a species of pantheism that distinguishes between innate human capacities and the content produced by those capacities with or without conscious awareness. This concept is found in Whitehead (Process and Reality), Jung's Complex Psychology, etc. These theories asert that "nothing comes out of nowhere" and that motivation (inspiration) is derived from the interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The notion that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are, in part, biologically constituted is backed by empirical studies stemming from a variety of disciplines.

 

In common terminology, Jung proposed that the capacities we have in common with all other human beings are based in biology and thus part of "objective reality". The argument is extended by the observation that by virtue of these common capacities we have a predisposition to certain thoughts and bahavior with certain thoughts that apply to typical situations in life. Uncertainty is introduced into the discussion as innate predispositions do not quarantee a conformity of behavior (that would be purely instinctive behavior).

 

Put another way, nature provides us with certain innate capacities that are guided by certain innate predispositions to form specific mental contents under certain limited conditions. Returning to the "nothing comes from nowhere" causal assertion, the discussion here is about not one form of causation, but two: essential and final cause. Hence compassion is defined as empathy (emotion, essential cause) with the will to act on the feelings of emotion (final cause).

 

From and ethical standpoint, Jung suggests that we often miss the point when we assume that all individuals are alike when it comes to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. They are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In pantheism everything is finally only one thing. With no answer for the individual anything to have any meaning, pantheism ignores what actually is there.

Whether or not meaning exists in pantheism is a different question than your earlier criticism of pantheism. You earlier said that subjectivity was impossible in pantheism but then you said an objective individuality is impossible in pantheism. Which one is it? Can you have objectivity in pantheism or not?

 

 

 

 

In closing, inspiration comes from the certainty that something meaningful exists which can, by act or power, move or influence our intellect or emotions.

 

Why is a personal god necessary for inspiration or to believe in something meaningful?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service