17 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo be fair most Anglicans don't believe most of what the Anglican Church teaches. That makes them quite endearing, don't you agree? I noticed a second hand book today titled "The Church Hesitant" about that curious institution. Excellent title but I did not buy it.
I was brought up an Anglican. Were you ever a theist? Have you talked to many theists? I can assure you that most theists do not believe exactly what their Church preaches - or more importantly in this case, even know what it is their Church preaches.
19 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdYes: one need not talk about 'ground of being' from an exclusively theistic viewpoint.
Therefore, one can use the phrase “ground of being” in a strictly non-theistic sense, and without imagining that one can somehow ascribe to the ground any specific attributes of itself, separable from all the attributes and patterns that we can observe among identifiable entities.
This is why the language of such system{ as Taoism and Ren Buddhism is often so paradoxical.
The vexed question was whether all theists attribute 'the ultimate causation of the existence of the observer universe' to God. Counter-examples were asked for. Can you think of any?
I've belatedly got around to reading Kaufmann's book on Nietzsche: Kaufmann explicitly draws attention to the affinity of Nietzsche's thought to Taoist thought and discusses will-to-power cosmologically! N. was also fond of talking about foregrounding issues.
(I haven't read AN Whitehead but Kaufmann keeps alluding to him as well, albeit 'there's not enough space to talk about that properly'. I don't know if anyone else has taken up that thread.)
19 Apr 10
Originally posted by Green PaladinWell, this would seem to show that African traditional belief typically has the world being created by God (Umkulunkulu, etc) but not out of nothing. I'm tempted to find a parallel with Spinoza.
"God is not apart from the world. Together with the world, God constitutes the spatio-temporal 'totality' of existence. As we saw earlier, the natural-supernatural dichotomy has no place in the African conceptualization of the universe. The thinking is hierarchical, with God at the apex and extra-human beings and forces, humans, the lower animals, ve ...[text shortened]... ith Readings[/i], edited by P.H. Coetzee & A.P.J. Roux, Cape Town: Oxford University Press
19 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOur Green Palladin offered a crystal-clear point; methinks the parallel with Para Brahman is more obvious than with Spinoza -but I would agree with you😵
Well, this would seem to show that African traditional belief typically has the world being created by God (Umkulunkulu, etc) but not out of nothing. I'm tempted to find a parallel with Spinoza.
19 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhich of the Greek or Roman gods were creator gods?
Theism is belief in god(s), by definition.
If you don't believe in some god, you're not a theist. It would be like saying I'm an atheist but still believe in god.
So that leaves room for theists who believe in gods but not creator gods. Hence my invitation to you to find a form of theism that excludes a divine creation (or consider the universe itself divine).
If monotheism is different from polytheism, do polytheists always have a single creator god, or multiple creator gods? If so, why the distinction?
20 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFor the time being it's hard for some beings to deal with the ground of all being and remain sane; transcending the whole jazz worked fine wi me -I 'm 47yo and I 'm neither dead nor a philosopher or insane😵
Nietzsche was one too.
A surprisingly large number of philosophers have died or gone insane around age 45. N. & Sp. being two of them.
20 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleI read a book sometime back (recommended by Dr. Scribbles, I think) called Aleph, which had to do with the history of mathematicians exploring infinity. The author (whose name I forget) noted that a significant number (like Cantor) also had sanity issues.
For the time being it's hard for some beings to deal with the ground of all being and remain sane; transcending the whole jazz worked fine wi me -I 'm 47yo and I 'm neither dead nor a philosopher or insane😵
Moving from the implicate ground to the whole figure/form/manifestations-ground gestalt, the notion of the boundless (boundless by definition: what could the Whole be bounded by) Whole seems also difficult to handle. I think that’s perhaps where “ineffability”, and all the Zen-like paradox comes into play. I’m not sure that we have a proper language for describing the Whole (or “the One” )—maybe mathematics does, I don’t know.
Nor do any of us have a “view from nowhere”; our only viewpoint is always from within the Whole—which also includes us and our viewing from particular viewpoints.
I’m 59. Sane? Who knows… I also do my chores…
_________________________________
No inside, no outside:
only the Whole
in myriad manifestations
with no remainder—
20 Apr 10
Originally posted by vistesdChess knowledge is approached in four ways: through intuition, through calculation, through sensory perceptions and through strategic reasoning. Our intuition along with the knowledge achieved through the repetition of the classical rules and axioms and through constant studies and puzzles solving, is extremely powerful. Master Bobby was insane, however his intuition was sharp to the hilt and through time he overcame the dependence on the recognition of the patterns. His analysis became part of his knowledge and, when this superb knowledge annihilated thought, his dynamism was unstoppable.
I read a book sometime back (recommended by Dr. Scribbles, I think) called Aleph, which had to do with the history of mathematicians exploring infinity. The author (whose name I forget) noted that a significant number (like Cantor) also had sanity issues.
Moving from the implicate ground to the whole figure/form/manifestations-ground gestalt, the ...[text shortened]... ________
No inside, no outside:
only the Whole
in myriad manifestations
with no remainder—
However master Bobby was also depended on his power of calculating -his tactics' ability was pure magic; he was entering early a state of partial intuition and knowledge, and digging into the dynamism of the position he was testifying a truth in it or in its transformation through development.
Master Bobby was also relying on his sensory perceptions. The choice of the opening was considered by him crucial because this phase is a part of a long term planning, as was demonstrated decades earlier by master Akiba. Deep Knowledge of the theory gave master Bobby abstract insights and enabled him to proceed by means of multileveled planning realization.
Master Bobby’s strategic reasoning was not relying on his sensory perceptions for analysis of data, for he was using his intuition as a more efficient and accurate extension of his senses. The analyses of his sharp and deep variations prove that he interpreted the position with concrete reason and logic. This sanity of his, was the flip side of his insanity. Who is sane afterall?
Methinks keep up doing the chores is crucial; sane or insane, it's enough to inhale and exhale😵
So
Train and Love and Dance as if
There ‘s no tomorrow!
Overcome the strategies, overcome the tactics
Recognize the Position at a glance with intuition
Sanity/ Insanity -just a naïve Yin/ Yang😵
20 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleYaa! 🙂
Chess knowledge is approached in four ways: through intuition, through calculation, through sensory perceptions and through strategic reasoning. Our intuition along with the knowledge achieved through the repetition of the classical rules and axioms and through constant studies and puzzles solving, is extremely powerful. Master Bobby was insane, however ...[text shortened]...
Recognize the Position at a glance with intuition
Sanity/ Insanity -just a naïve Yin/ Yang😵