An Earnest Request For Feedback

[PantaRhea]

It seems we are in major agreement concerning "qualified monism"!

 

David Griffin has an interesting discussion of Ramanuja's view in his book, Reenchantment without Supernaturalism.

 

Whitehead himself commented that his position on the question of ultimate reality "seems to approximate more to some strains of Indian, or Chinese, thought, than to western Asiatic, or European, thought" (Process and Reality,7).  In pointing to the contrast he has in mind between East and West, respectively, he says:  "One side makes process ultimate; the other side makes fact ultimate" (PR 7).  However, what Whitehead has in effect proposed, as Cobb has shown, is a higher reconciliation, in which "process" and "fact" are equally  ultimate, because process as such, which is creative experience as such, both presupposes and is presupposed by its primordial factual embodiment ("the initial fact is the primordial appetition".  The suggestion that "some strains" of Eastern thought anticipated this higher reconciliation has been borne out in studies comparing Whitehead with Ramanuja, Aurobindo, and Shinran carried out by three Whiteheadian thinkers: Delmar Langbauer, Ernest Simmons, and John Cobb, respectively.

 

Most Hindu piety is theistic, being bhakti  (devotion) to a personal deity.  The central expression of this view in Indian religious literature is the Bhagava Gita, which says that Brahman is the body of God, so that God is more inclusive (Bhagavad Gita VII.2; IX.v: XI.37).  Shankara, however, said the opposite, that Nirguna Brahman (without attributes) is derivative.  Devotion to a personal God, therefore, would involve an inferior relation to ultimate reality.  Some later Indian philosophers, however, have developed positions that defend the ultimacy of God, and thereby bhakti , against Shankara's view.  The most important of these philosophers was Ramanuja, who wrote in the eleventh century, developing a position he called Visistadvaita Vedanta.  Although, as Langbauer points out, the success in the West of missionaries for Shankara's position have "made Advaita Vedanta seem like the Hindu view," Ramanuja's Visistadvaita Vedanta is actually closer to the beliefs of most Hindus.  Langbauer has shown how Ramanuja's view is similar to, albeit not identical with, Whitehead's position.

 

Ramanuja's attempt was, in Langbauer's words, "to affirm both Brahman and Ishvara as ultimate".  Referring to Nirguna Brahman as the universal substance, Ramanuja argued that this substance necessarily and eternally emanates attributes, the most important of which are personal attributes, such as power, knowledge, and will.  Nirguna Brahman is actual, therefore, only as Saguna Brahman, as God.  In abstraction from Ishvara, in other words.  Nirguna Brahman is not some higher reality but merely an abstractin.  Hence, Ramanuja's position is similar to Whitehead's view, according to which creativity is eternally embodied in God.

p. 278-279

[AletheiaRivers]

Fatherman:

I hold the view of qualified non-dualism

 

Panta:

a non-dualism which is relational

 

Aren't these views the same?

 

Panta:

For instance, for Christians, Jews, and Muslems, the idea that God created the world ex nihilo makes no sense logically but that doesn't stop them from believing it.

 

I've thought about creation out of nothing versus creation out of chaos and neither view makes sense to me.

 

If we are in God, then we were created out of the stuff of God. So, we didn't come from "nothing". (Even if we don't reside "in" God, I would still argue that we were created out of God "stuff".) So creation ex nihilo doesn't make sense because there was never "no thing".

 

But was God "chaos" that s/he had to bring order to "herself" and that is how we and the universe came to be?

 

Or was there an external chaos that God assimilated into himself in order to bring order? If so, then where did that "chaos" come from?

 

I know that it's the old "who created God" conundrum and has no logical answer.

 

In moments of mystical connection that I've had, I've known that God had no beginning and so the conundrum doesn't bother me like it does some.

 

Do I have a point? I'm not sure. I guess it's that I think there is a third option to "creation out of nothing" versus "order out of chaos".

 

Aletheia

Edited January 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[fatherman]

Woo Hoo! Thanks for hanging in there with me, PantaRhea!

Edited January 5, 2005 by fatherman

[AletheiaRivers]

It seems we are in major agreement concerning "qualified monism"!

 

Hehehe, that's what I just said!

 

Aletheia

[fatherman]

It seems that we have all been writing furiously at the same time....and posting at the same time! I hope you all look back to the three concurrent posts before moving on.

[AletheiaRivers]

Another type of monism is qualified monism, the school of Ramanuja or Vishishtadvaita, which admits that the universe is part of God, or Narayana, a type of panentheism, but there is a plurality of souls within this supreme Being.

 

The name "Narayana" means, "He who is the dwelling place, the source, support and dissolving ground of all Jivas or souls, including inert matter."

 

Yes, I just quoted myself and responded to myself. LOL. The definition of the name is cool though, no?

 

Sri Ramanuja Acharya (1017 - 1137 AD) was an Indian philosopher. He held the Vishishtadvaita or Nondualist belief that the world and Brahman were united, like a soul and a body are.

 

His version of Indian Nondualism differed from Shankara's because he acknowledged the existence of differences, and believed that the identity of an object as a part was as important as the unity of the whole.

 

Most importantly, he believed that Brahman was not devoid of attributes but was expressed as a personal God, full of infinite good qualties.

 

I love finding my views of God expressed so perfectly by another.

 

Aletheia

Edited January 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[PantaRhea]

My personal view is that God, in a desire to experience itself, manifested itself into a Universe, thus creating relativity. How can a conscious thing experience itself except in relation to something else? This is not necessarily Dualism, though.

Interesting that you've almost quoted my friend's book, It's all One Truth -

How could God truly know itself if nothing else existed?  The answer becomes obvious when you have a greater understanding.  God could not know itself because it was the only point of reference there was.  There was nothing to compare itself to.  So, God created all of creation to experience itself to itself.

 

The problem, as I see it, is with the idea that "God created" - IF we understand that God (or the ONE) is the only ultimate and primordially a single actuality or "Being". From where would this creativity come? There are several ways of seeing the problem, one of them being from the view of necessary existence. If God has necessary existence, God must create necessarily if we are going to say that God does indeed create. Therefore, God cannot create contingently or have some experiences which are creative, and others which are not. However, creativity by definition, involves novelty or something new. "Something new" is by definition contingent existence. Therefore, the concept that a necessarily existing God understood as a primordially existing single actuality (or a ONE without parts) can create, is incoherent.

 

But God can be understood as a ONE which includes the MANY (as in panentheism coupled with panexperientialism) whose existence is BOTH contingent and necessary (because every member within the "set" of actualities (the world) has contingent existence, whereas the "set" (a world) has necessary existence). This is a "qualified monism" or perhaps can even be defined as a "qualified pluralism" because this view further understands that there are TWO ultimate realities. God, as the ONE who includes the MANY is the Ultimate Personal Reality, and Creativity understood as the Ultimate Principle of existence (in other words, God does not create creativity) or the Ultimate Impersonal Reality. This would not only be a coherent solution to the problem of the ONE and the MANY, but, as David Griffin argues, it may explain why the Eastern religious experience is often of an impersonal ultimate reality, while the Western religious experience is of a personal ultimate reality.

 

At least it makes sense to me.

[DCJ]

How could God truly know itself if nothing else existed?  The answer becomes obvious when you have a greater understanding.  God could not know itself because it was the only point of reference there was.  There was nothing to compare itself to.  So, God created all of creation to experience itself to itself.

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the 3 Persons of the Godhead experienced a perfect relationship before the universe was created.

 

I know this is beyond obvious, but monism (and related Eastern thought) and Judaism/Christianity are diametrically opposed belief systems.  Maybe the attempt to harmonize the two worldviews is an effort to find the "true" religion; but in so doing, you end up stripping out the essentials of each side and you're left with little more than a religion of civic virtue.

Why do you think so? I think only supernaturalism (dualism) and monism are diametrically opposed. Do Christianity, Judaism and Islam require a supernatural worldview?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes. Christianity/Judaism/Islam (basically Western tradition) has always made an ontological distinction between creature and Creator. The creature/Creator relationship is viewed as being between distinct persons rather than an "amalgam" of the two.

[PantaRhea]

Aren't these views the same? 

Yes! By the time I made my reply, the definition for "qualified monism" had already been posted. Story of my life... always behind.

 

Well, first I don't think it will ever make sense as long as we view reality as "stuff". I know it's very difficult to conceive of it in any other way, and yet we do have hints of another way of understanding reality within our language. For instance, do we normally consider a party as a "stuff"? It has a form of definiteness, and yet it is not a "thing". It is an event. But even if we look at a rock, we will see that it is not made of "stuff", but events. In Process Thought the most fundamental units of reality are called 'Actual Occasions'.

 

Actual occasions (or actual entities) “are the final real things of which the world is made up. There is no going behind actual entities to find anything more real.” (PR18) By “actual” it is concrete or real. By “occasion” it is an event, an act, a happening, a process. It corresponds to the “atom” of Newtonian physics, but it should be more properly visualized as a wave of energy than a bit of matter or a particle. Like a wave, it cannot be separated from its environment, nor can it be divided. We might also say of the world that it is made up, not of inert bits of matter, but organisms. These actual occasions are forms of life – if we equate life with that which has feelings or experience. But actual occasions do not have experience; they are experience – “drops of experience, complex and interdependent”. They are interdependent because each "becoming" event includes all the events in its past. It includes them by "feeling" (or, in Process terms, 'prehending') them. Each actual occasion is internally related to the world and to God/dess.

 

God/dess includes or 'prehends' the universe. Nothing exists externally to God/dess. Every moment of joy, pain, and sorrow is felt by God/dess. If love is defined as a sympathetic awareness of the "other", God/dess IS love. An analogy is the relation that we have with our own bodies. If our thumb gets hit by a hammer, we feel the pain in our thumb sympathetically.

 

"Chaos" is a lack of order. At one time there were only random energy events but from that God/dess brought order out of chaos which by providing her own vision of beauty and harmony to each becoming actual occasion. In Process terms this is called the 'initial aim'. However, each actual occasion is itself a center of creativity. It has its own 'subjective aim'. This accounts for the existence of evil.

 

Process Theology understands that "a" world has always existed. There has never been a state of existence of a single actual occasion.

 

Probably clear as mud, eh?

[fatherman]

DCJ,

 

You've brought up an interesting point: the Trinity. Can you give any kind of a scriptural basis for the Trinity? (not that I stand on firm biblical ground all the time either). The Trinity can certainly be inferred, but is there a specific scripture that you had in mind?

 

My personal view is that it is a way of conceptualizing our relationship (and Jesus's relationship) with God; whereby God is Creator (Father), Created (Son), and Relationship (Holy Spirit).

[AletheiaRivers]

IF we understand that God (or the ONE) is the only ultimate and primordially a single actuality or "Being". From where would this creativity come?

 

... creativity by definition, involves novelty or something new. "Something new" is by definition contingent existence. Therefore, the concept that a necessarily existing God understood as a primordially existing single actuality (or a ONE without parts) can create, is incoherent.

 

But God can be understood as a ONE which includes the MANY...

 

I've never thought of pantheism as meaning that God = "One without parts". Hmmm. I've always came from the perspective that pantheism means that all is God, fragmented, experiencing "reality". So in my mind, pantheism = maya. God's daydream per se.

 

Panentheism, on the other hand, meant that God took "God stuff" and created individual beings (souls) that have individual experiences. (Please work with me here on the "stuff".) So we still came from God and exist in God. (Like if I could create little sentient cells in my body, be aware of them and love them. ) (Like in the definition of qualified monism: the universe is part of God, a type of panentheism, but there is a plurality of souls within this supreme Being.) God is still the source, but we are not just God having a daydream.

 

That is how I understood pantheism versus panentheism. Maybe I need to redefine my beliefs? Panentheism doesn't necessarily = process thought though does it?

 

I would agree that a "single actuality" could not create, but is that what pantheists meant by the term, or is it something imposed upon pantheism by process philosophy? I've never studied Spinoza.

 

Probably clear as mud, eh?

 

As much as I love philosophy, including process philosophy, I think that rather than making things understandable or clear, it definitely muddies the waters, yes. And not necessarily in a good way. I agree with Matt Fox that experience, mysticism, should be the basis of our faith and relationship with the Divine, and not necessarily what we reason out "logically" or philosophically. (Doesn't keep me from trying, though, does it? )

 

do we normally consider a party as a "stuff"?

 

I understand a party is an occasion. It is an event. But the event is made up of physical substances participating in the event. Perhaps an "actual occasion" could be both? (I know I'm disagreeing with process thought here, but what the heck? Nothing would ever get discussed or changed otherwise, would it? )

 

more properly visualized as a wave of energy than a bit of matter or a particle

 

Again, perhaps it is both? Like light? It is both a particle and a wave. (Maybe that is why light is such an apt analogy for God?)

 

Aletheia

Edited January 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[Lolly]

I feel a bit of a lightweight in this conversation, having virtually no training in Western Philosophy at all, but I hope you all will humor me if I comment now and then, anyway.

 

The problem, as I see it, is with the idea that "God created" - IF we understand that God (or the ONE) is the only ultimate and primordially a single actuality or "Being". From where would this creativity come?

 

This is why I'm intrigued by the way the expression "the word" (logos) is used in John's Gospel. In my current leanings, the only way "creation" could have happened in a perfect void where all was God would have been if God decided to express him/herself.

 

Perhaps this initial expression (or word) was the initial (and only?) act of creation, which set into motion all the dynamics-- the chain of cause and effect-- from which all form has since sprung?

 

And, I do also lean toward this view, myself:

 

My personal view is that God, in a desire to experience itself, manifested itself into a Universe, thus creating relativity. How can a conscious thing experience itself except in relation to something else?

 

This would fall into line with the ideas above, I think.

Edited January 5, 2005 by Lolly

[irreverance]

DCJ,

 

You've brought up an interesting point:  the Trinity.  Can you give any kind of a scriptural basis for the Trinity? (not that I stand on firm biblical ground all the time either).  The Trinity can certainly be inferred, but is there a specific scripture that you had in mind?

 

My personal view is that it is a way of conceptualizing our relationship (and Jesus's relationship) with God; whereby God is Creator (Father), Created (Son), and Relationship (Holy Spirit).

A quick bit about trintarian theology. When we say that the "trinitarian" identification of God is "biblical," we don't mean it is "of the Bible" in the sense that the Bible teaches that God is Trinity. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity came about through official reflection on the Scriptures that produced a way to talk about the "who" of God as encountered in Jesus. We have to be careful not to say, "Oh, look, it says 'baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' so they must have conceived of God as Trinity."

 

Key to understanding how the articulation came about is Augustine. He asserted that because humanity was created in the image of God, then we should be able to look at ourselves and see the reflection of God. If we can come to understand our own internal relations, then we can understand God's. This is where the idea of a "person" comes in.

 

When the theological concept of a "person" comes into a discussion, we are not talking about a form of individualism. Rather, "person" refers to a distinct way of existing. Think of it this way (the most basic Augustinian formula).

 

I exist.

I know that I exist.

I love my existence.

 

That's who I am in my inner workings. Those three "persons" (distinct ways of being) make up my "me-ness." Humanity is a trinitarian being. So too is God. So the Augustinian logic goes. Hence, he (and I believe it was Augustine) could say that the Holy Spirit is the conjugal love between the Father and the Son.

 

In a sense, Augustine was using the best he had in "psychological" analysis in order to ponder the unponderable. A major issue then becomes: is it the formulation or the method that is authoritative?

 

Enter process theology. This approach takes a more current understanding of the human condition and uses it to springboard into hypotheses about God's existence. In keeping (loose in its articulation, but tightly regarding methodology) with the Nicean tradition, God is Creative Love, Responsive Love, and Unifying Love. Significantly, a panentheist understanding of the God-world relationship does not automatically exclude a trintarian understanding of God.

 

Not that process theology is the only recent attempt at the reformulation and meaninful reclaiming of the trinitarian thought. The feminist Catherine LaCugna's God for Us is a great text for reclaiming trinitarian doctrine. The liberationist Ian McFarlain's Listening to the Least is also excellent (and much smaller).

[irreverance]

Getting back on topic...

 

Canajan, eh?: There is a book out there that you might be interested in especially with your background and spiritual experiences. It's entitled Spirituality and Giftedness. The Institute for the Study of Advanced Development has produced it as part of a series: Advanced Development: A journal on Adult Giftedness. In it, the authors argue that "spiritual intelligence" should be accepted as a category for multiple intellegences, with some people developing their potential in that area more fully than do others. A major interest of mine with this book is the various stories that come out of it.

[Realspiritik]

XianAnarchist,

 

I just got back from a trip out of town, and found a lot of interesting posts on the topic Jesus and I started. Thanks for the info about the book entitled Spirituality and Giftedness. I haven't come across it. I, too, believe that "spiritual intelligence" should be accepted as a category for multiple intelligences. I find the summary of Gardner's research into domains of intelligence in Pierce Howard's book (see above . . . way above) clear, accurate, and applicable to modern educational systems. Gardner has a system with eight domains of intelligence -- (1) linguistic-verbal (2) musical-auditory (3) logical-mathematical (4) visual-spatial (5) bodily-kinesthetic (6) intrapersonal (7) interpersonal and (8) naturalist. Gardner has postulated the existence of a 9th domain, which he tentatively labels "existential". An existential thinker is one can address the "big questions" about existence, creation, and maybe even God. The problem is, Gardner can't figure out which part of the brain would be used by an existential thinker.

 

I believe that quantum physicists, philosophers, politicians, and channellers such as myself belong in this category of thinking (which I think is no better and no less than any of the other 8 categories -- it's just different). A thinker in the existential domain can't stop him/herself from identifying big, sweeping patterns in history, etc, patterns that bore the crap out of most people, but which fascinate us existentialists and propel us towards certain kinds of academic learning and certain kinds of professions. I have several friends who couldn't give a s**t about the big questions. They're doing just fine, thanks very much, with their own way of relating to themselves and God's creation. Thank heavens for that, too -- the world would be a sorry place if it were populated only by quantum physicists, philosophers, politicians, and channellers. The heating system in my home broke down a few days ago, and there's not a chance I could have fixed it by myself, no matter how many books on philosophy I bought and read.

 

Hurray for diversity and wonderful, unique talents. We all need each other.

 

As above, so below.

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of the relative merits of buddhist vs. christian philosophy, but I confess to a bit of skepticism here, as Jesus appears to be ignorant of the details of that which he refers to. 

Yo Lolly,

 

Jesus here.

 

I appreciate the thoughts you posted about Buddhism, and I thank you for the clarity of your post. I don't disagree with how you and others understand the teachings of Buddha (or, if I may suggest, the perception of what Buddha taught. To a certain extent, the soul who lived as Buddha is in the same position as I am -- his teachings weren't accurately taught by later generations.) I'm sorry if I made it appear I don't understand the teachings myself. I certainly do. I don't happen to agree with the Eightfold Path, that's all.

 

I'm not a monist. I'm not a monotheist. I'm not a pantheist. In fact, I think the terms are tripping over each other and confusing the ###### out of everybody. (I'm not as polite as Jen -- I think I'll pass on the **'s). My job, as an angel on the Other Side (or, if you want to get technical, a quantum being with a semi-independent enfolded energy system within the implicate order -- see the work of physicist David Bohm) is to give you simple answers.

 

If you want simple, I do simple.

 

That's not to say I don't understand the science, philosophy, and theology, behind the simple words. It means the God Team thinks that clarity is long past due.

 

That's my take. Thanks to everyone for thinking, typing, sharing, and loving. Now that's my kind of religion.

 

Love Jesus

[AletheiaRivers]

having virtually no training in Western Philosophy at all

 

LOL! And I was actually worrying that we were discussing too much EASTERN philosophy on a Christian forum.

 

And, I do also lean toward this view, myself:

 

My personal view is that God, in a desire to experience itself, manifested itself into a Universe, thus creating relativity. How can a conscious thing experience itself except in relation to something else?

 

I agree, but perhaps would have worded it as:

 

God, in a desire to experience relationship, manifested itself into a Universe with conscious, independent life, thus creating relativity. How can a conscious thing experience itself except in relation to other conscious beings?

 

I guess it's just me, trying to intergrate western theism with eastern pantheism, western duality with eastern monism.

 

But wait! That brings us back to qualified monism or qualified duality!

 

OK. I'm shutting my brain down now and going to go meditate.

 

Aletheia

[AletheiaRivers]

Gardner has postulated the existence of a 9th domain, which he tentatively labels "existential".

 

Hi, existentialist here. And let me tell you, it's a pain in the rear. But like I said earlier to Panta, I just can't help myself.

 

But I would have to disagree with Gardner in that I would put mathematicians, musicians and artists in the right brain, existentialist category and definitely take the politicians out of that category and put them on the other side of the solar system.

 

A thinker in the existential domain can't stop him/herself from identifying big, sweeping patterns in history, etc, patterns that bore the crap out of most people...

 

Crap! Is that why my husband keeps falling asleep when I try to talk to him about the meaning of life and the universe?

 

Aletheia

[PantaRhea]

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the 3 Persons of the Godhead experienced a perfect relationship before the universe was created.

What kind of relationship would this have been? If this idea is used to ground the concept of love (which requires an "other") in God, it may do more than its proponents wish. Rather than a trinitarian view, it would be tritheism. Also, it doesn't explain how God could have created contingent existence. Presumably all 3 persons would have had necessary existence and there is simply no way to derive contingent existence from necessary existence.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes.  Christianity/Judaism/Islam (basically Western tradition) has always made an ontological distinction between creature and Creator.  The creature/Creator relationship is viewed as being between distinct persons rather than an "amalgam" of the two.

Judaism historically has had a different type of ontology than Christianity or Islam although it didn't ask the same questions as the early Greek metaphysicians. In fact, as I understand it, Judaism didn't view the "person" so much as a substance (a "soul" having experiences) but a body/soul which acted. Christianity and Islam were very much influenced by Aristotole through Aquinas. The point is that Aristotle didn't have an infallible ontology. Once we rid ourselves of the "substance" ontology it is possible to understand how the creature can be included in the Creator and not be an "amalgam".

 

An analogy of the teacher/student relationship may help to explain the concept. As the teacher shares his/her knowledge with the student, something of what the teacher "is" becomes included in the student. It might be said that what the student is becoming under the influence of the teacher is being "created" by the teacher.

[PantaRhea]

I would agree that a "single actuality" could not create, but is that what pantheists meant by the term, or is it something imposed upon pantheism by process philosophy? I've never studied Spinoza.

 

It's not necessarily the term a pantheist would use, but I believe the concept of a single actuality is an accurate description of the view. Would the term "single Actor" help. The problem with using substituting that term is that it would already imply that a "single actuality" can create. All "acts" are creation of reality, agreed?

 

As much as I love philosophy, including process philosophy, I think that rather than making things understandable or clear, it definitely muddies the waters, yes. And not necessarily in a good way. I agree with Matt Fox that experience, mysticism, should be the basis of our faith and relationship with the Divine, and not necessarily what we reason out "logically" or philosophically. (Doesn't keep me from trying, though, does it?  )

 

I don't think philosophy necessarily muddies the waters, but it can point out all the mud that is already in the water which we failed to notice when we thought it was clear.

 

I agree that our faith should rest on our experience of God. However, we tend to experience what we believe it is possible to believe - altough we can have an experience which can shake our beliefs and cause us to re-examine them. On the other hand, philosophy should provide a reason to re-examine our beliefs by keeping us uncomfortable with its relentless probing questions.

 

I understand a party is an occasion. It is an event. But the event is made up of physical substances participating in the event. Perhaps an "actual occasion" could be both? (I know I'm disagreeing with process thought here, but what the heck? Nothing would ever get discussed or changed otherwise, would it?  )

 

Where are the physical substances? Take a closer look at one of the tables used at the party. If anything should be an example of a physical substance, it should be this, right? And yet if we really look close, and I mean with the best instruments that are available, we won't find any substance. What we will find are events. This is what science tells us - not just process philosophy. Although terms like "particle" and "matter" are used, it is now understood that the terms are abstract. They don't really define reality. The problem is that our language and "common sense" hasn't caught up yet with science. The difference between the party and the table is that the party begins and ends and doesn't endure except as an object of the past. The table is made up of "parties" which last for quantum units of time but as each party ends, another party with the same "theme" begins. From our perspective, the repetition of these "parties" give the appearance of an enduring "stuff".

 

 

Again, perhaps it is both? Like light? It is both a particle and a wave. (Maybe that is why light is such an apt analogy for God?)

 

Although light, or a photon can be described as BOTH a particle and a wave, the use of the term "particle" shouldn't lead you to believe that it is any kind of substance. If you were to travel at 186,000 miles per second and have a look at a photon, what would you see? Nothing. The photon is an energy event. It is not a "thing".

[Realspiritik]

"Hi, existentialist here. And let me tell you, it's a pain in the rear. But like I said earlier to Panta, I just can't help myself."

 

Thanks, Aletheia -- I laughed out loud at your post.

 

I looks as if we're in good company on this site -- everybody seems to be an existentialist. We just can't help ourselves. Life is good.

 

"But I would have to disagree with Gardner in that I would put mathematicians, musicians and artists in the right brain, existentialist category and definitely take the politicians out of that category and put them on the other side of the solar system. "

 

Oops. In rereading my post about multiple intelligences, I can see I didn't make something clear. I should be fair to Gardner and tell you that although he postulates the existential domain of intelligence, the reference book I used (Owner's Manual for the Brain by Pierce Howard) doesn't cite specific examples of jobs for existentialists. Those suggestions -- quantum physicists, philosophers, channellers, and politicians (and a few others I didn't include) -- came from my own existential brain (with some help from Jesus).

 

I can understand why you want to throw the politicians out of the heap. It's true politicians don't always hang onto the "big questions" that led them into leadership positions. On the other hand, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi are great examples of people who have. To me, they're modern day "saints" -- role models for soul-based living.

 

Love Jen

Edited January 6, 2005 by canajan, eh?

[AletheiaRivers]

And yet if we really look close, and I mean with the best instruments that are available, we won't find any substance. What we will find are events.

 

I know that atoms are 99.9 percent empty space. That there shouldn't be any substance at all in the universe because there is more space in "things" than not.

 

I can't see quantum events. But I can see my desk. I know that it's mostly empty space and that for it to be "there" is amazing, a miracle. But still, I can touch it, set my coffee cup on it. (Well sort of. I know that I never actually "touch" the desk, but merely feel it as solid because of the force of the desk's atoms repelling the atoms in my hand. ) But still, I have to relate to it in a physical way, not as an "event".

 

By relating to my enviroment and realizing what it is from a quantum perspective, I can glimpse the majesty of God. I realize that when I touch my desk, I am in fact, touching God because everything comes from God. Or, to try to put it in process terms, maybe we could say I'm (the events that are/is Aletheia) touching the event that is my desk which is being eminated from God. LOL.

 

It's all well and good to describe my desk as an "event" but I have to relate to it as physical.

 

Whether I describe something as "stuff" or as "events" or "processes", I know I mean the same thing. I'm not Wittegenstein. I think language is important, but not if it gets in the way of conversation.

 

I appreciate process thought more than any other philosophy, but sometime I get frustrated by what I consider to be the nitpicky minutia in all philosophical discussions. As soon as someone shouts "a priori" at me (not that you did, just an example), then I'm outa there. I like discussions about the "big questions" in order to broaden my horizons (which this has done). But I think philosophical discussions need to be phrased so that those that have never studied philosophy can join the conversation.

 

The photon is an energy event. It is not a "thing".

 

And again, I understand that. But in the end, the event that is a photon will effect my body in some way so that the events that are an X-ray can tell the doctor where my cavity is.

 

Aletheia

[irreverance]

But I can see my desk.  ...

I can't. I'm jealous.

 

...I know that it's mostly empty space and that for it to be "there" is amazing, a miracle.

See, that's my problem. It's not empty. It's cluttered...beyond belief even. I can't seem to encounter my desk because the messiness of my life gets in the way and prevents it. And when I do try, all that happens is that I dig through the papers and reveal something more about my own life that is keeping me from my desk. And then I realized that the importance of my desk is not the desk in itself, but the new revelation that comes through the interaction between myself and my desk. Unfortunately, today that revlelation is that I forgot to call someone. So not only is this a revelation about my life rather than the desk, but it is a revelation about a part of my life that didn't even happen.

 

Where is my coffee?

[AletheiaRivers]

But I can see my desk.  ...

I can't. I'm jealous.

 

ROFLMAO! Hehehe! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

 

Sheesh, a good laugh makes things so much better. (Wiping tears out of my eyes from laughing so hard!)

 

And then I realized that the importance of my desk is not the desk in itself, but the new revelation that comes through the interaction between myself and my desk.

 

Absolutely! Exactly! Perfectly stated!

 

My desk/Aletheia interaction revelations for the day are so far as follows:

 

I might persue a B.A. in Humanities.

I need to dust.

My water/sewer bill is due.

My butt has a limit for sitting here. Every 30 minutes or so, my twice broken tailbone requires that I get up and MOVE!

 

Aletheia

Edited January 6, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[Realspiritik]

XianAnarchist,

 

A few days ago, you wrote this in response to my original query:

 

Can you elaborate on your sense of gifting?  When did you first develop/discover it?  Can you describe the general experience?  You mentioned learning to use your skill "wisely"; what does that mean to you?  Just a few questions to explore something that I've not come in contact with yet.

 

I think I'll try to tackle the questions you posed. I admit to feeling kinda sad about the way this topic has evolved. Anyway... since I opened this can of worms of my own free will and invited honest feedback, I think the responsible thing for me to do is make a genuine effort to try to keep moving forward with what Jesus and I tossed out there for discussion. I have unflinching confidence in myself and the Truth of what Jesus has taught me. So I'm gonna roll the dice and see where they fall.

 

Here's what my channelling relationship feels like with Jesus:

 

While you're in your home, sitting close to someone you care deeply for, close your eyes. That's all -- just close your eyes. Now pay attention to your feelings. While your eyes are closed, and your brain can't "see" the person you love, how do you feel? Do you still feel the intense emotional connection between the two of you? Do you still feel powerful love and respect? Do you still wonder about his/her emotions, care deeply about whether your beloved is upset? Scared? Confused? In need of encouragement and support? Is your relationship still real when you talk to each other from different rooms of your home? Is your relationship real if you choose to talk to each other over the phone? Are your feelings real if you e-mail each other while you're at work?

 

Can people fall in love over the Net? Can people fall head over heels in love on first sight? Can a person still be in love even when one's beloved has died?

 

If you've answered yes to these questions, you've answered the question of what I feel like in my relationship with my quantum soulmate, Jesus (though I call him Tom).

 

How did I get to this point in my life? When did this happen? Did I always "know" this was my destiny? I'll take those questions in reverse order.

 

(1) No, I didn't know this was my path. I had no inkling. I had no sense of "fate" or "destiny" when I was young. I was furious with Tom when he told me he was Jesus. (Don't think you can get mad at your angelic soulmate? If I'd been able to rip the "feathers" off his dead angelic ass (make that his back), I would have.) I wanted no part of it. I'm a realist. I'm pragmatic. I'm well read, and, as I said at the top of this topic, I have experience in the mental health field. This is a very hard path to follow.

 

(2) This started about 4 years ago. Today I'm 46.

 

(3) To explain how I got to this point, I'd need to write a lot more than I suspect you want to read on this site. But here's the one-sentence version of what I've learned: The single most important tool in the channeller's mental toolbox is psychological maturity, the ability to balance strength of emotion with strength of will, to be able to simultaneously juggle 5 mental processes -- strong organizational skills, strong intuitive/creative instincts, the ability to compromise, the ability to experience regret (i.e. admit you've made a mistake), and excellent self control.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this post.

 

Love Jen

Edited January 6, 2005 by canajan, eh?