thormas

Welcome, I look forward to the discussions.

Seemingly, man is part of the 'stardust,' part of the universe and is 'let be' by/in what is common to all that is: being. There is a 'sameness' (an interconnectedness) with (beings) the universe (in Being there is only Being). And, there is a 'difference:' man is capable of (called to?) 'let be' thereby enabling (empowering) self/other selves/the universe to fulfillment/abundance: diversity in unity. Contradictory? No. Paradoxical? Definitely.

Rather heavy topic and questions to begin a Sunday morning. If "I" is an illusion the question and the answer does not matter. If it is an illusion and one knows it is an illusion, why engage in what one knows is illusory? On the simplest level, I do not experience myself as an illusion. Actually, I don't think anyone does - until maybe they begin these kinds of conversations but immediately have second thoughts - because they simply do not experience self or other as unreal. To move beyond Decartes (I think therefore I am), the to primary experience is, "'I' am." All that is, IS and there is nothing other. All that is experienced is experienced as being, in other words, it is. I do not experience myself as the one (for lack of a better phrase) who 'keeps' everything in being or is 'responsible' for their being. I experience myself as dependent, creation, 'part of,' immersed in........... This (question of being) is not a theoretical question, it is an existential question, arising from one (as we all are) involved in being. For Heidegger, being is an issue for man. And John Macquarie adds, being is the act or condition of being - which is not the same as everything that is and not the same as anything that can be called a being, yet in some way, being is common to all beings. Before both of these philosophers, Aristotle stated that it is not possible that unity or being should be a single genus of things. And again, Heidegger: being is the transcendens pure and simple. The essence of being is the dynamic 'letting be' of beings. Being 'lets be' all that is (which includes the universe - all that is, i.e. beings). There is (only) One - but I will offer the words of the man who introduced me to Philosophy (and Being) in 1970: : there is not a multiplicity of beings (in Being, there is only {one} Being) but there is a multiplicity of persons in the One). Philosophers might call it being but the person of faith might move beyond philosophy to call being, Holy Being (God). This is but a brief answer to a very 'heavy' topic. It is just an indication and a topic that I continue to both try to understand and articulate.

Rom, All that is, is or has being. It is 'a' being. I'm reaching back but I believe Heidegger called it being-there. Being refers to that in which all beings participate, or conversely beings are emanations of Being (so there is indeed One). Being 'lets be.' I agree there is no 'separation' in Being, no multiplicity in Being in that It is all that is. However, there is diversity in Being. I guess where I disagree with you is that the I is not an illusion. We do, in the first moments of existence, 'forget' Being and focus on beings and being in the world. I also agree there is no need for the upper case but find it easier so people can distinguish and then move forward. That's the best I can do now but it is Saturday, just finished the lawn and a bit weary for philosophy.

Free will, morality and forgiveness are all a piece with, nor does the 'about me' fail, the reality of the interconnectedness of/in Being.

Agreed, most importantly it is about me: my attention, how important 'I' think it is, where I have 'decided' to go. You'll have to explain the Christian comment. I would think they do, they just don't think about it much - which, of course, could be a problem in and of itself.

Seems the speed is out of my control, the answer in the stars. The Big Bang was just a curiosity that is never answered; it is intriguing but not something to lose sleep over - but one wonders about the chemistry before the chemistry. Christianity too acknowledges dependent origination - in I AM.

Humor is always appreciated especially in such heavy discussions. I too doubt our choices are predetermined but it does get a bit vague when we talk of chemistries and the environment causing choices. If I have followed you and if by chemistries you mean we (everything) comes to be from the 'stuff' ( a rather technical term) of/from the Big Bang, then, although I have never studied this precise use of the word chemistries, it makes sense. Although I must wonder what was before the Bang? And I haven't thought about this in great detail but what exploded? And if it was 'something' then there already was existence/creation. And if it was nothing, then 'there is nothing,' meaning nothing 'is' and we're back to something that was 'before' the Bang. Was, past tense of the verb to be or when used with the first person singular, present tense: I AM :-) The mind melts. So I accept that the stuff of the Big Bang, i.e. stardust becomes/evolves to us and our higher functioning brains and I get that we are interacting and reacting to the environment. However, isn't the stardust now uniquely me as other stardust is uniquely a tree or a rock? If so, it appears that my stardust higher brain is enabling me to not merely function at a higher level but also enjoy a greater, conscious participation in all this (or what some would call Being). I interact and react to the environment, but where the 'response' of the rock or the tree seems predetermined, my response, although called for or elicited from the environment, is not predetermined like the rock - but is it wholly determined? Somehow, I think there is more to it (and I don't mean the supernatural) but maybe the Big Dipper interacting with the last rays of the sun in my neighborhood made me think that. Hold it, is this idea of the stars, and their dust, acting on/with man and his the environment, astrology? So, Mesopotamia was right and Israel was wrong? The next time I get caught going a bit too fast on a local road, I am going to try this one on the cops: a little addition or subtraction in his stardust, a little bit more sun or less sun, a pine or a hardwood near the road and that cop's actions might have been determined differently. But not this time - Damn, just my determination!

Have to re-read the last but I was asking how we got to the latest part of the thread not how we got HERE! One thought though since I don't accept the traditional (supernatural) understanding of incarnation as God in one particular man, but rather humanity 'incarnating' Divinity (but this opens up a whole other thread). Despite appearances, I don't buy into dualism but do recognize a paradox: One in the many or diversity becoming Unity.

Again, from the physical or accessed from the physical. I have a picture in my mind and I also have imagined a unicorn. Neither, are physical although one might say they have a physical likeness - but still they are not physical yet I have accessed them. They are both non-physical: neither has physical material or is matter. Both are ideas but ideas can be material on which to build. Neither exists but they are in my mind, so they do exist? Or have I imagined them? BTW, how did this series begin? I can no longer imagine it. Given all this, beings are physical, we can pretend beings. So, if beings participate in Being - what does that say about Being? That it is?

It sounds like it bounces, if it does it must be all over the place, is it therefore possible to reconcile it with the universe?

Be it from just the brain or only the brain, I agreed on chemistry Was it my imagination or did I already say that imagination is base in the physical?

Although I don't take the Bible literally or think it is the 'word of God,' it seems that Jesus in the NT, is shown to have made simple, the difficult concept of life and its meaning, by presenting it in a way that makes sense and is understood by others. As for "reconciliation with the universe," if it resonates, is found meaningful and is/was lived by a large % of people, this would seem to be a reconciliation of sorts. However, if one is looking for reconciliation on a grander scale, it would seem that the universe will not be forthcoming in any provable way. Jesus' answer is either, ultimately, right or wrong, will be reconciled or not, but we seemingly will not know "on this side of the grave." Based on the definition offered, it does appear that one can look to the Bible as an authority.

Rom, I merely meant that literally he said freedom was immaterial not irrelevant as you indicated. Regardless, I was saying that , for example, imagination comes from or is born in the brain, the physical, chemistry - but in 'itself' seems to be something more/other: writ large in the physical but not physical. As for freedom, are our choices, predetermined or merely determined by circumstances?

Is Soma saying freedom is irrelevant? Thought he said it was immaterial. As for immaterial freedom, I took it to mean immaterial as are love and imagination.

Rom, I think I understand your statement and if I do, I don't disagree with the first sentence. Actually, some philosophers and theologians say something very similar: we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to being that makes all things perceptible. By the way, that is just a commentary on being: to then equate, as some do, being with God is a faith statement. And this is hardly immaterial: when the baby 'awakens' it does not matter if they behold a rattle or a rhinoceros (material), they are beholding being (also material for what is perceived is being - just as you would say things and the chemistry are present and perceived but the latter is not always obvious). It seems almost inevitable that we focus our attention on beings - some call this the forgetting of being - you might call it the forgetting of chemistry.

I obviously don't deny "chemistry" and, as mentioned, acknowledge our brains consists of it - but still wonder if the same can be said of what comes from it, for example, imagination (or love). So does imagination exist or is it possible in chemistry's absence , no. But is imagination (or Love) perhaps more than chemistry, I think yes. Then again, is it safe to assume that stardust came from stars (chicken before the egg or vice versa)? In either case, stars and stardust, are beings; they 'are' because Being 'lets (them) be.' This is not assuming a supernatural cause, it is merely allowing that there is a depth in (not above) and to all the 'pieces' of stardust, all the stars, all everything in which/by which they are: Being. At least I think......................:}

Bill, An agnostic is not neutral as they have a POV: we don't know. The atheist says there is nothing to know, the person of faith believes there is something to know. None are neutral. Also, can't it be said scientists have a horse in the race?

*

Bill, just getting caught up on some of these posts - I believe I get your point and, I guess, many people did accept Thor at one time. So we might have believed with you, but eventually, with our development, Thor would have gone the way of the theistic Supreme Being.

Bill, The topic of the theistic god and evil is one that has driven many away (and confounded many others), even or especially those who have grown up in theistic religions. This topic is one I have been reading on for quite some time,with no easy answer (as if we will ever have one). Right now I allow that god is Being, not the ground of being which comes off too static, but the constant, eternal 'letting be' that simply enables all that is to have being. Some authors allow that this is the world God had to 'let be' - this vale of soul making - in which and by which we achieve our Humanity. And since it is obvious that not many are 'truly' Human at death, they allow for a continued purging of selfishness and growth into our humanity after death. This seems to suggest that God 'allows' natural freedom/law and human freedom (and, thus, all the evil and suffering that results) because this is the way we work through and create ourselves. Other authors disagree, saying that God is always against evil and suffering. What I have been thinking about lately is that 'letting be' is and must be a 'letting go.' That creating is a risk and vulnerability for 'God' (and for all). Just like we as parents, when we created a child, in the very and in all the moments of 'letting be' we had also to be letting go. The minute the child is born, there is a letting go because you have create a being who is determinate and 'other' than the creator. For the parent, it can be no other way if we give our child life and want them to have Fullness of that Life. Any true loving parent's power is only the power of love: it is persuasive not coercive. I think the same might be said of the world of nature: it is determinate and other than God and as such is on it way to its fullness - all creation, all beings are 'let be' and participate to varing degree in Being (Paul's groaning of creation) and acts according to its natural freedom/laws. I allow (but I am still working on it) that in the very act of creating (which is constant?) God 'lets be' and must 'let go' and 'his' only power is the persuasive power of love calling and encouraging us, in and through creation, to Unity (love is all-powerful because it alone empowers humanity to become divinity). Further I allow, just like any true parent, that God is again evil, again suffering (nor does 'he' use it) that cause harm or setback to humanity, to creation but he must 'let be' for that what love demands and creating requires. It could not have been otherwise: to let be is to let go; love is powerless (not coercive) and a risk. In this I allow that Being is always 'with us,' always letting be until we become our True Self (now, through death and for eternity). To make it more human, to communicate to my students years ago, I presented the hope born in faith, by asking a question: in the midst of a horrific place accident, where is God? God, in the midst of death and destruction is there, saying, "Child, I have always been with you, would I leave you now in your hour of need? Come, rise, it begins anew!"

Rom, it would be interesting to discuss many of your points at some time. At first read, I agree with your first statements , especially that we don't have to go supernatural - but, again, I associate that term with theism alone. Moving along, not sure of the comment that chemistry is the all, the stuff - perhaps the stuff we use, i.e. our brain but is it the stuff that comes our, especially when it is not stuff, like imagination? Have to noodle on that one. Agree though that we are usually oblivious but I would have to ask the unanswerable: is it only the chemistry that we are oblivious of or is there more that is missed? Also, understand some of the stuff that allows us to make decisions/choices but, given the variety of choices and decisions in the world, not sure, again that there is not more to our choices that the chemistry. This last does go to the point of first causers, although perhaps not little gods, in that we do say we 'own' our choices and by or through them, 'cause' newness. Ex. if you don't throw the first stone while others do somewhere else, what results is not only different but new. If you say others use the chemistry to argue with you about the chemistry (at least I think that was your point), couldn't the religious man say, they use Being to argue about the very Being of which they are? I do like the discussion of the 'en.' I guess, for me, in pantheism there is and always was unity, because the world and God are one. In pan'en'theism, there is the possibility of unity but it comes out of diversity. For the many to become Unity is, as Whitehead, the mathematician, in process philosophy says. a higher Beauty - than a unity that comes out of unity. In addition, Unity from diversity is more hard fought and seems to have some dependence on the 'first causers' as it is New. The former is true at-one-ment, the latter always was one. Perhaps semantics, perhaps not but fun to consider. thanks

I think we are all agnostics in that we simply don't know, one way or the other, what the truth is (for lack of a better way of putting it). And then come the decision. I believe people, as we do here on the site - read, dialogue, debate, study, think (to greater or lesser degrees) on the many subjects that fall under 'religion,' including the most basic subject of all - who or what or is God (and what am I?). One can read and reason only so far but ultimately one decides: to accept and 'give oneself over' or not, i.e. to simply say, for whatever reasons, no, I don't buy it. Both are completely valid and honest responses. And, I believe both are belief statements, as we cannot definitively know or prove which stance is true. There is Truth, in that it can't be both, has to be either/or but we can never know 'this side of the grave. One of my favorite quotes was from Chesterton ends with this: "the man who signs himself with the cross of Christ goes gaily through the dark." It is no less dark than for other men (other believers, atheists, agnostics), it is just that the believer 'knows' the ground on which she stands. But I must quickly add that this knowing is still through faith, there is no proof.

I too like Campbell, Darwin and Hawking. However, given I am a person of faith, authorities I read are biblical scholars and historians (Ehrman, Allison, Armstrong and others) whose expertise provides a more realistic understanding of the NT and early Christianity. Even more, I like the theologians like Baum, Hick, Macquarie (and I would include Spong in this group) in particular. I also like when one of these people bring to greater light the ancient theologians, sometimes called Fathers of the Faith. As an example, well before Augustine (4th C CE) and his understanding of the fall of humanity and original sin was Ireneaus (2nd C CE) who believed we were not created perfect and fell but born imperfect and had to achieve our Humanity. From this, theologians can fully acknowledge evolution culminating in man (image of God) and then man's task (a 2nd moment of creation?) to become Truly Human (likeness of God). I like Eckhart (and Fox and other mystics) and my most profound learning was thanks to a college philosophy professor who introduced me to the idea of Being in 1970. I highly value those who have moved from a theistic view of God and those who use process philosophy as a basis on which to articulate their understanding. I have also enjoyed the books of some who don't share my understanding like Sam Harris.

Burl, I'll pass on your history but it seems from the few I've read people are often disagreeing and correcting your comments toward others. Also, this is casual after-dinner conversation - not sure what you consider academic, but this isn't it! BTW, difficult to be readable if you insult people. Perhaps you can change it up a bit. And, you have just said that the supernatural can and cannot be analyzed. Helpful.