Afterthoughts on Recent God Post
The recent discussion around religion, God, spirituality and Rational Philosophy was extraordinarily thought-provoking for me. Thank you to all who participated.
I have given much thought over the last 25 years to reconciling the meaningful and practical spiritality I choose to make of central importance in my life with my deep grounding in Objectivism and related thought.
Inspired by the recent discussion I have made and attempt to streamline and essentialize the framework I have come to (as of today...ever-evolving).
I want to share it here, and humbly request response, feedback, support and challenge. I believe it contains some good quality thinking. You tell me:
GOD
At any rate, how to streamline and essentialize this...? Ok, I define God as capital R Reality, as a whole in it largest all-inclusive sense. All-that-is. Not each part, process and subset thereof, but EVERY part, process and subset thereof, taken as the single fundamental greatest Unity.
In my spiritual practices (everything I do to build, maintain and grow my relationship with God = my spirituality), I consider 2 aspects of God.
One is what I call Presence, which is the very quality of Beingness which pervades and is shared by Everything That Exists. Through meditation and prayer (not in the traditional sense of that word) and other spiritual practices, I can feel and connect to that infinite reservoir of power and energy to recharge and turbo charge myself to rise above and perform beyond my own finite store of power and energy.
The second aspect is Grace or Spirit or Flow, as you will. This is the intricate field of interlocking beginningless and endless causual connections - The Way of Things. This is where I seek guidance, data and direction beyond my finite store of knowledge and understanding and my limited capacity for wisdom, insight, forsight, intuition and creativity. It is the realm of everything that I don't know that I don't know. It is where what I need to know - when I need to know it, to live at my peak performance and direct
my actions and my life optimally - unfolds as I need to know it in every next Emerging Reality. (My job is to pay attention [LOVE that phrase!], let go of the best-guess snapshot in my head of how reality should be, and continually integrate that data into my ever evolving strategies and next steps.
I have given much thought over the last 25 years to reconciling the meaningful and practical spiritality I choose to make of central importance in my life with my deep grounding in Objectivism and related thought.
Inspired by the recent discussion I have made and attempt to streamline and essentialize the framework I have come to (as of today...ever-evolving).
I want to share it here, and humbly request response, feedback, support and challenge. I believe it contains some good quality thinking. You tell me:
GOD
At any rate, how to streamline and essentialize this...? Ok, I define God as capital R Reality, as a whole in it largest all-inclusive sense. All-that-is. Not each part, process and subset thereof, but EVERY part, process and subset thereof, taken as the single fundamental greatest Unity.
In my spiritual practices (everything I do to build, maintain and grow my relationship with God = my spirituality), I consider 2 aspects of God.
One is what I call Presence, which is the very quality of Beingness which pervades and is shared by Everything That Exists. Through meditation and prayer (not in the traditional sense of that word) and other spiritual practices, I can feel and connect to that infinite reservoir of power and energy to recharge and turbo charge myself to rise above and perform beyond my own finite store of power and energy.
The second aspect is Grace or Spirit or Flow, as you will. This is the intricate field of interlocking beginningless and endless causual connections - The Way of Things. This is where I seek guidance, data and direction beyond my finite store of knowledge and understanding and my limited capacity for wisdom, insight, forsight, intuition and creativity. It is the realm of everything that I don't know that I don't know. It is where what I need to know - when I need to know it, to live at my peak performance and direct
my actions and my life optimally - unfolds as I need to know it in every next Emerging Reality. (My job is to pay attention [LOVE that phrase!], let go of the best-guess snapshot in my head of how reality should be, and continually integrate that data into my ever evolving strategies and next steps.
Previous comments...
A quick access source for any curiosity you have left is HB's AynRandLexicon, freely available on the web.
The essential issue, in terms Ayn Rand added to philosophical clarity, is:
"Primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness".
If you learn that distinction and its significance, it may give you a new understanding of the issue you are arguing about.
As a matter of fact, the central purpose of my entire spiritual practice is to strengthen and make denser, the integration and alignment of my consciousness (and actions) with Reality.
Perhaps you mean that you are working to become more rational in your integration of knowledge so that your actions will be more to your and rest of humanity's liking? Be happy with your quest but beware of the subtle tiny dishonest little things that can creep in when you are not really careful. Whether you find what you want to find or not, you will learn something about existence.
The purpose of philosophy, ANY philosophy, is happiness and fullfilment.
Human being's means of survival (and ultimately their happiness and fullfilment) are in the ACTION(S) they choose to take consistent with reality. A precondition of such action(s) is the understanding of same. A precondition to understanding reality is to identify whatever reality you are trying to grasp with clarity and precision. Clarity and precision, in turn, require that the definition of the concepts one MEANS when one identifies and subsequently claims to understand them, is essential in their use.
When you are alone and just "thinking," said clarity of understanding is consequential only to your potential efficacy in whatever action(s) you might subsequently wish to take in response.
When attempting to communicate with others however, then to the extent one's DEFINITION of the concept(s) that lie at the base of said communication is crucial. Clarity and precision are the MEANS by which communication is made useful and effective.
I am not "plowing new ground" here. In reading much of this thread there are others who have essentially indicated what I have stated above.
My "net" recommendation to you is that you develop far more precision in the definition you ascribe to the concept(s) you use, so as NOT to project broad, all-encompassing abstractions that can mean almost literally anything. You certainly understand that when you do so, then the concepts you use that you claim have great meaning, actually mean almost anything. Consequently, they mean what amounts to the subjective NOT the objective. Said succinctly, they mean nothing at all.
"Beingness" is but one glaring example.
Without malice, but with "clarity,"
Dave
Good points all and I agree. That is why I pay so much attention to definitions (I love the process - my favorite part of Objectivist Epistemology!) , and if for the purpose of theorizing, I am going to use a word differently than the most common meaning, I state my working definition clearly to those with whom I am speaking.
If they choose to ignore my words and respond based on a different definition than I am using, then they waste a lot of time (and frequently emotional energy 😕) saying things that are not really applicable.
Btw, I got the word "beingness" from Webster and cross-checked it with several other common dictionaries.
The linking here can be confusing as has been noted earlier.
I disagree - existence includes both matter and energy, as in all that exists.
However, my " 'Existence' is best just placed in Rand's 'Existence Exists' axiom as a general relation between matter and radiation." just means that the two are related by the property of existence, that existence is a common attribute of the two.
Einstein understood that "Consciousness" governs Existence and more than likely what ever created it, was aware of it's creation and the evidence lies in the details of existence. These details, (physical laws), are so specific and mathematically precise that if it were one digit, one decimal place off...existence wouldn't exist.
It's mind blowing, however, the pagan pre-conscious view and expression of it is not helpful at all to the rational, objective, observant mind. The conversation needs to be elevated in a new from with different language... therefore eliminating the mystically humanized descriptions and phrases that reference things unseen.
It is my assertion that Quantum physics might provide not just the answers but the language to articulate what is self evident.
I'm sure many along with our good friend Zenphamy will still say...GobbelyGook.
Somehow we need to show that the physical laws are not a strangle hold upon the creativity of man but provide the means inwhich we can create.
I don't think the concept "invent" is meaningful with respect to existence. It's an out of context term.
Just like "creation of the universe" is a contradiction in terms. Creation requires something to manipulate that is ones starting point. "The Universe" refers to everything - leaving nothing for "creation" to change into something "created". That's what a contradiction in terms is. And that's meaningless misuse of language.
Words like invent and create come from a human context of use. These examples contradict that context.
When one of my brothers tries to discuss the Universe referring to everything leaving out the 'that exists' thing and I say that there is existence regardless of there being a universe, the shouting begins and the discussion ends. 'Nothing' cannot exist and would contradict the concept of 'existence'. So there is either existence or ....
'Nothing' is not something just as a non existing god is .... :nothing to describe there. Therefore I have to remain an atheist and get along with the always wonderful, amazing, and knowable existence that exists.
So you think it would be better to say: Existence didn't create itself?...Ok...
It doesn't make sense to me that it always existed, like some prefer to think.
For this conversion it doesn't really matter.
Before answering a question it is proper to evaluate the question. Asking about the origin of everything is a mistaken question because it implies that there is nothing left for a causal explanation. Therefore the question is a contradiction in terms and unanswerable.
It's a common fallacy promoted by religion - asking unanswerable questions and then attaching moral implications to having their dogmatic but arbitrary answer. The moral loading to nonsense traps people in unsolvable guilt. The trap is sprung.
The only defense is the philosophical insight from good epistemology (theory of knowledge) to recognising a fallacious and therefore meaningless question.
Just because we can construct a question, it doesn't make it valid.
I hope that helps.
The other clear and valuable point is that it's not a pretty perfect process; one might find themselves at any of the levels at any given time...one moment in the bicameral brain and the next moment in his mind.
But much like Tony Robbins is to the originators of the NLP model, but then he is the high-profile student (and valuable popularizer), not the intellectual originator of the Integral Model. (Although his 4-square overlay did enhance the practical applications of the theory. I use it a lot in the executive and Enterprise Coaching work I do) .
But the originators, Cowan and Beck, were very (both/and, all/and vs either or, which is the central principle of the model) about the green meme, as with all the memes.
What brilliant paradigm-shaking, human evolution-turbo-charging work!
One of Jaynes students or associates; in the new book, discusses an event that triggers the achievement of self introspection and I know that some natural event, cosmic or solar that not just effected our atmosphere, our magnetic shields but our brains as well. Everything is electric. Also there was a spike in strength of our magnetic shielding about 2400 to 3000 years ago also. Our magnetic shielding has been weakening since. I can see that all these events play a role...but I'm having a tough time putting it all together with reliable resources.
However trying to reduce complex human characteristics, causally, too much to phenomena of physical sciences can stretch thin pretty easily.
This post gets rather confused...
- The topic of "completely knowable" is addressed in the omniscience fallacy. While here may effectively infinite to know in extent and detail, it not necessary to know all of that to her certain gravity is working when you place your cup on the table. Certainty does not require omniscience. It sound like you agree, this is just the formal understanding of the topic.
- What Einstein understood on these issues changed as he became a theist in later years. That's his personal issue and has no bearing on physics.
- "These details, (physical laws), are so specific and mathematically precise that if it were one digit, one decimal place off...existence wouldn't exist." That's a very convoluted and confusing statement. I'd say that if there was a difference in some details and because existence exists, that would be a different example or context - period. Now there is a possibility that physics is VERY different at the smallest and largest scales. But that's a topic for science to evaluate as evidence becomes available. Something like that may be necessary to explain phenomena at the quantum scale.
- with fiction and fantasy, there is no "strangle hold upon the creativity of man..." But the value that creativity creates needs to be judged. All creativity is valuable nor equal. and that begs the question - of value to whom? - since value is a personal evaluation.
Of course it's not completely knowable, that's why it's rejected...silly...but it's why we try...without that much...we would get bored and die.
There is nothing convoluted nor confusing about the specificity of existence.
His: "These details, (physical laws), are so specific and mathematically precise that if it were one digit, one decimal place off...existence wouldn't exist." is off the mark because it should be that the Universe might not exist. Not that existence would not exist. The physical laws pertain to the physical universe and may be different for any other universe depending on how matter and energy comes into being, i.e., as existing acting stuff with specific identities for action relative to each other.
Perhaps you can learn more with more research.
Whether my parents were theists or not was only important in that they did not force any beliefs on me and only taught ethics by how they acted and by little stories about honesty, independence, integrity, how to treat others well, etc.
My interest in Einstein is based on his theoretical science and not his personal life. I never have liked practical jokers which Einstein sometimes was, probably because my father scared me few times with such things as on an April 1st with a large crashing sound and " the floor fell through." Probably not a good thing to do to a little guy. I do applaud Einstein for thinking about and changing some of his boyhood beliefs, but mainly for his thinking about objective reality (a term he used in the EPR paper which tried to counter the spooky action at a distance of an interpretation of quantum mechanics).
First, though perhaps not completely known (at any given point in time), Existence and everything that exists is "knowable," because it exists with an identity, a specific nature and certain actions.
Also, I think we have to be careful of statements like "Consciousness governs Existence" and "what ever created it, was aware of it's creation" - even if only metaphorical. Consciousness and awareness are characteristics of living beings, so certainly Existence includes consciousness and awareness (as attributes of particular entities), but Existence itself doesn't possess these capabilities, nor do they exist in some disembodied form.
Also I don't think a creator or origin or "inventor" of Existence is a necessary concept, because Existence (in some form) can be reasonably be viewed as eternal and infinite.
At first I thought you were somewhat like the rosicrucian I met in college searching for some nonexistent connections for consciousness with external world. I never could see the energy field that he was looking at between his held apart hands.
There is no way to integrate many of the spiritual terms that religion took as its own without redefining them with respect to objective reality and by doing that removing that subjective reality perversion of reality which tries to get one to believe that there is some kind of revelation from god or the universe. Also beware of getting into a trance state by suspending your critical faculty and running off into some kind of selective thinking. That is what I consider to be the basis of all faith related thinking.
And what ever created it is obvious abet we still have the chicken and the egg enigma to contend with here. As to existence always existed makes no sense to me...no matter how far back one could go...there had to be a beginning and endings are not predestined...the creativity of conscious life might play a small roll here, so long as we create order, abide by the physical laws and not just make it up on our own...which is the direction we are headed. Also the obvious conclusion to make about being aware of it's creation is in fact it's specificity...
Re read my first statement about those that reject knowing because is can not be completely...I do not take this view.
And one last point; Identity only applies to Conscious Beings...those human like entities that are clearly not conscious rely on ego...a made up identity in the brain...nothing else, except our immortal energies might retain some form of identity...this is hard to prove but it is obvious to me when considering our conscious connection to the ether via our Minds...not our heads, our bodies nor our thoughts.
You wrote, "Once an event is observed consciously...the outcome changes."
1. What event? Only a Quantum scale one? Certainly you don't mean that about observing someone crossing the street. Your knowledge has changed, but not the facts of existence as a result of your observing it, unless by that you mean the content of your mind.
2. your last long sentence is incomprehensible to me. It strikes me as pretentious psychobabble posturing as profound. Try saying it in English if there's an "it" there.
Your number one makes me think of "as above so below"...so why not it the macro world...only not as dramatic as what we see in the quantum world...I suppose anything we learn or observe changes something along the way...although that is just a suspicion here. There seems to be 2 or more camps in quantum physics, each going in different directions according to my observations)(so to in Einstein's time as well)...quantum physics has a long way to go yet...hell if it was so easy or settled, we'd get bored.
As far as consciousness and the mind...I refer to Julian Jaynes...A new book out now about his work and much easier to read: gods, Voices and the bicameral mind. by Marcel Kuijsten. I'm a 1/4 was through and it articulates what I've been saying better than I have been...of course his work has progressed for some years now after his passing...there is more proof in his pudding so to speak.
And Jaynes!! What a brilliant scientist. His book shook part of my world and affirmed the rest when I read it almost 30 years ago. I am actually rereading it now!
I didn't know about the new book. I will check it out. Thanks.
What a spectacularly rich post this has been. I have profited immensely aleady - in many currencies.
And when I said "identity" I meant in the Objectivist metaphysics context. The Law of Identity: A is A. In this way, everything that exists has Identity.
Although Einstein would never admit it in the scientific world I am sure he realized that our perceptions of existence would evolve the more we observed it.
God is not stated as a name in the Bible. God has a name - "Ahura Mazda".
Most of the writings Books, Psalms, Gospels, and Etc; refer to God as "Lord" or "Father".
There are some historical tidbits there but not enough to call the Bible an historical text.
The Bible is a book that is written as a guide to the spiritual mind. A manual for meditation to transcend this reality and Light the Fire of human mind. This is all done in a positive way. There is no instant gratification but an on going discipline to create a better person through one's own daily visualized meditation.
This is not new age palaver, but old and new testment teachings. Read it without a prejudical viewpoint. You must also do some reading of historical theological material to read the Bible in a new light. Light and Fire are the key terms. Those are they keys in reading the text of the Bible.Go to the following link: https://www.youtube.com/user/bdona4556
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n09gq2hvsi9....
I appreciated very much johnpe1's post as you did. You have been amazingly benevolent and patient with some of the shallower and less intellectual if not rude and dismissive responses.
I see no evidence of mysticism or primacy of consciousness or anthropomorphism in your posts as some folks have said. As you plow new ground with your thinking, it is certainly permissible to use words that surface-level Objectivists would frown upon.
I myself find some of your formulations difficult to integrate perfectly but I certainly see and appreciate what you are striving for.
You come across as a very happy person for whom all this creative philosophizing has obviously been beneficial in real life terms.
I would enjoy continuing the conversation live by phone or video. You game? If so, let's move to email.
Kimsawyer@thewealthsource.com
Definition of beingness. : the quality, state, or condition of having existence.
There were several other name brand dictionaries, btw, that had the same definition when I searched. Language IS an evolving system, you realize...?
Although I can appreciate your post - still, i doubt that God will. Ask him, not us. The rest of us do not matter in regard to these you are having; only his thoughts will matter. .
Dan
Reality is a construct of our minds through which we perceive what is objective reality. Since our minds exist in a universe of time and space we are constrained from perception or even understanding what is "beyond' those dimensions.We can only guess by the manifestations in our dimensions. A 2d person on a piece of paper would perceive the touch of a 3 dimensional hand as five points in their 2d universe and totally not be able to conceive of a hand or a body or much less the totality of 3 dimensions.
There is one premise that ties in spirituality with reason. That intelligence can not arise unless the universe began with intelligence. DNA could not arise unless there was intelligence to program it and give it the purpose of becoming more complex and evolve. The universe has intelligence. Not like ours but intelligent nonetheless. A tree would not grow without a from of intelligence.
In the ancient language roots, the word for Tree is also the word for ideas which arise from intelligence and thought.
In the words of Moses the forces of nature making up the intelligent universe (Called Elohim) - and the existence in which our universe resides (Yahweh meaning timeless being) are a unity. In an analogous manner to our mind being a unity with our bodies, although they are separate intelligences. . The body has it's own intelligence but the mind influences that intelligence. The difference is that the mind is dependent on the body whereas the intelligent universe is dependent on the intelligence of Existence.
That is not the regular concept of God that has been misrepresented across the ages. God is an idol or an image which Moses cautioned us about become enslaved to. All the concepts of a God have been influenced by Pagan,Greek and Roman myths. Those myths and hierarchies of forces of nature corresponding to political hierarchies were the source of legitimacy for all the tyrannical regimes, the churches, Political Islam etc. What we call God is a Political fiction for control of the people rather than allowing self control as the intelligence in all of us warrants. 10 things that order society. That's the message of Moses if you read it in the original Hebrew and not the mis-translations.
Political ideas do not come out of thin air. They are the result of the moral premises which men have accepted. Whatever people believe to be the good, right and proper Human actions – that will determine their Political actions“. – Ayn Rand
If you are interested in a moral governance ordered by those 10 things, in the context of America, as it should have been organized, here is the link
http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
What we consider to be reality is Subjective reality, a construct of our minds, which we fool ourselves into thinking that it is the same as objective reality,
And no our mind does not ever perceive reality as it is because we are not equipped to do so. Our senses are limited in what they can detect and the amount of data that can be processed, we do not smell in the range a dog does. we do not see in the range of ultraviolet or infrared. We do not hear ultrasonic.
Ever see a magician? he moves objects right in front of your eyes and you don't see it because you are distracted. That's because our mind fills in the gaps in the limited data our senses send to the brain. So no we absolutely do not perceive objective reality as it is - we only make an image of what is. That is what Moses warned about. Don't make an image in front of objective reality and think it is truth. There is much more to objective reality than you think (pun intended)
Science does not understand mind so there is no way to know that it evolved or when. You might say a brain or nervous system perhaps but that is not the same thing.
Nor do you account for the intelligence in all of nature. Nor have you learned that evolution as Darwin theorized not sufficient to explain irreducibly complex mechanism in nature. Those whose parts must all come together for there to be a mechanism and whose parts do not have purpose otherwise and would not come together by chance. Sorry but you are still spouting the blind religion of evolution by chance and survival only. That science is outdated. Step out of your church of the flat world and try to overcome the need to shout heresy.