PDA

View Full Version : A moment for pantheism.



Ajamil
3rd April 10, 12:53 PM
I was watching Push because someone mentioned it being bad (Interesting take on all the psychics, especially dealing with seeing a changing future.), and at one point they show a spanning shot of this bridge in Hong Kong.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3413/span.jpg

Look at that. Take a moment and appreciate that beautiful design. How deep do you think those towers go into the Earth? How much weight could it hold? All in one spot or spread out over all of it? Look at how thin they could get the cables!

I looked at this for a while, trying to figure out the crisscrossing cables. They were clever and added a new dimension, putting the middle tower inside the lanes - so there's two ribbons of asphalt suspended over the water, instead of one.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8279/span2.jpg

That's flying. Screw walking on water, they're driving on air.

And so I bring up pantheism because if one were to really consider that everything is God, then you must include humanity within that. And since humanity is conscious, then you must conclude that God is conscious.

We are God's consciousness. We are Her morality. We are the Spaghetti-O eyes which look upon the rest of It's noodly creation and go, "Damn, that's fucking cool."

Are we the only eyes of God? Highly doubtful. Whoever has just 6(.1) billion eyes? The Vedas say that all life has a soul. Or, to put it in more naturalistic terms, I would modernize this conjecture to consciousness can exist in any sufficiently complex and interdependent environment. Thus given the time existing (both before and after the present) and the expanse of God I would find it unlikely that the order of complexity needed for conscious thought would never happen again after humans (or somewhere else, happen before us. Indeed I think it already has happened in various other species on the planet.

Is it fun being the eyes of God? Not always. Being conscious means we put labels on things. We witness events and assign their logical first step of making a distinction: good/bad. A classic example of the fun with this label assigning.

"My only mare ran away."
"Oh how terrible!"
"She came back with a fresh stallion following."
"Oh how wonderful!"
"My son broke his leg training the beast."
"Oh how terrible!"
"So when the army came, he didn't go to the war."
"Oh how wonderful!"

Are the eyes of God one? Never. Why must people limit the limitless? God sees everything, from all myriad of point's of view, and often contradictory and opposing ones. We're much the same way - does that mean we are not conscious? Consider the "words" of God. God has said many things, will say many more. God changes his words, but they essentially remain the same. Like us, we change our opinions, but our personalities rarely if ever change. Why can't God change His mind? Because He said so? "I will never do _____ again. I swear." Ever said that? The first time in the Bible, it got us rainbows. He usually doesn't though, so the words of God are usually safe and good (there are those labels) to live by.

So let's get back to atheist-speak. Consciousness - especially social orders of the complexity - often lead to social mores. These create cultural norms, which can vary from person to person, but taken over a sufficient (and often carefully selected) population, can be quite steady. It takes major upheaval to radically alter social mores. Like wars. Like the French and Indian War turning Frenchies "bad." Like the Revolutionary War turning Frenchies "good." Like Operation Iraqi Freedom turned Frenchies into a parody of "bad" - "coward."* Our consciousnesses (heh, say that out loud) when gathering into a social body has no choice but to create
the "laws of God." As in the "laws of Physics" - it just works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_physics) better.

I submit to you a suggestion to solving the paradox of the omnipotent and the omnipresent. God can be omnipotent and omnipresent because while they exist in one, they are not connected. The omnipotent body of God exists in the relentless commands of physics: Space, Time, Gravity, and the vibrations that flow through them. And existent separate from, yet totally dependent upon them, is God's mind: consciousness derived through complexity in the physical laws of nature. Consciousness may not always be apparent, yet neither is ours. Consciousness is a potentiality - an eternally "existing" level of complexity.







*Thought about WW2, but the resistance** was cool.


**Because I'm not French, and I speak Amurrikan.

Vieux Normand
3rd April 10, 03:24 PM
If everything is god, then god is a collection of material things.

Otherwise, god is nothing.

If god is material things, materialism suffices.

If there's nothing that can be called god, we have atheism.

Materialism or atheism: your choice.

Robot Jesus
3rd April 10, 11:27 PM
god is a lightly seared duck breast served rare with a light balsamic drizzle.

bob
4th April 10, 12:31 AM
god is a lightly seared duck breast served rare with a light balsamic drizzle.

In a pan? Coz that would be, y'know...

never mind.

Ajamil
4th April 10, 12:48 AM
I would not say God is limited to material things. Abstracts are not material, though they are considered by material things. If one goes about redefining the concept of God as an all-inclusive, rather than a supernatural element, then I don't see how it is much different than atheism. At that point, to insist there is no "god" is be ridiculously annoyed at the very use of a word.

EuropIan
4th April 10, 07:27 PM
Doesn't really matter anyway *points at religious field*

Vieux Normand
4th April 10, 08:39 PM
...to insist there is no "god" is be ridiculously annoyed at the very use of a word.

You know It doesn't like that name...

Ajamil
4th April 10, 08:45 PM
What's in a name? It's another label. Although perhaps God might not be the best, as it implies value - coming from "the good one."

Phrost
4th April 10, 09:24 PM
I can't read the word "Pantheism" without thinking about people worshiping a horny little goat dude.

EuropIan
4th April 10, 09:29 PM
I do like the idea of life, all life, being this universe's way to observe and thus affirm its existence.

The universe does love to pick its navel.

Ajamil
4th April 10, 10:53 PM
I sometimes consider a more literal translation of pantheism - whether the entirety of the universe itself is conscious. I don't think the level of observation we are at would make verification of this at all possible. I also have severe doubts as to whether the material of the universe is connected enough to be interdependent and contain any semblance of systems.

Vieux Normand
5th April 10, 12:44 PM
The universe does love to pick its navel.

Way to leave out the marsupials, placental-supremacist.

EuropIan
5th April 10, 01:01 PM
I guess they pick their pouches instead

Ajamil
5th April 10, 11:28 PM
Are there marsupials showing signs of self-awareness?

EuropIan
6th April 10, 05:42 AM
As far as I'm aware no.

But that's irrelevant to my "life is the universe's way to observe itself" hypothesis

Ajamil
6th April 10, 10:24 AM
The concept of life as a level of material organization changes the idea (for me) of "creating life" to "creating a system that life can inhabit." Like a radio. The waves are already all around us, but you can't tap into them until; the material components are put together properly.

To me, this means "artificial life" is perfectly plausible. Hell, if you could get the right level of complexity and self-replication, you could get life out of wooden gears.

EuropIan
6th April 10, 12:11 PM
as a tangent, what is your opinion on mind body duality?

Ajamil
6th April 10, 12:54 PM
I don't know. It seems a quantum shift to me. I can understand more or less intricacies of self-awareness (deep existential philosophies compared with "me vs. not me") but the idea of being aware of being aware originating in the mechanical...
I bet I could be convinced, but I don't think I want to be.

If consciousness is separate from the material, then I would say that they are not in any sort of relationship other than voyeur. I don't think consciousness has an effect on physical things - I think we are along for the ride in these bodies. We can show that the electric signal to press a button at an undetermined time precedesthe electric signal that would be the person "deciding" to press the button. It would seem conscious thought is either a physical afterthought to action, or is a dualistic delusion of post-hoc explanation on the "soul's" end.

In other, the Vedas say the soul is watching the body, and fooling itself into thinking that it is the one moving, the one pressing the button, and deciding when to do it.

So then how does anything we do affect our body? How do people go from the worst places in their life, gather their courage, and through "force of will" blossom into thriving citizens? In other words, how do we make our conscious thought apparent on the world, if what is self-aware has no connection ot the world? The Vedas say all impulses of the soul go through an intermediary of God in the form of the Paramatma - kind of like a router or an ISP.

It's complicated, and thus not a better scientific model, and even in theory does not require an overarching personality (like the idea of physical systems rising in complexity until they tap into a "consciousness field"). Still, I feel having an intermediary between the physical and the astral with total yet lessaiz-faire control over both sides removes some of the paradoxes in the basic idea.

EuropIan
6th April 10, 02:07 PM
An interesting explanation, if a bit confusing.

A brief summation of my point of view would be the marvel of our brain writing our own software through external stimuli and and internal processes.

Robot Jesus
7th April 10, 07:18 PM
this got me thinking

the way I think of the universe makes me feel very small and very special. very small because of how huge the universe is, very special because of how rare things that can observe it are. I would describe my relationship with the universe as tigress position, she's not even looking at my face and possibly barely notices I'm here; but I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Ajamil
7th April 10, 09:40 PM
Tigress position? Expanded explanation plz?

Robot Jesus
8th April 10, 02:15 PM
http://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/imageBank/cache/t/Tigress.jpg_e_be4a040f41dfb65a155b3b24351d007c.jpg NSFW

Cullion
8th April 10, 03:00 PM
If everything is god, then god is a collection of material things.

Otherwise, god is nothing.

If god is material things, materialism suffices.

If there's nothing that can be called god, we have atheism.

Materialism or atheism: your choice.

That's true, but reductionist. There are different flavours of materialism, and viewing the world as if everything is alive, is subjectively very different from viewing the world as if everything is dead. Subjective things matter.

Ajamil
8th April 10, 03:24 PM
I thought that was reverse cowgirl.

Cullion
8th April 10, 03:34 PM
No, that's called the 'Sieg'.

Robot Jesus
8th April 10, 03:34 PM
I thought that was reverse cowgirl.


depends who you ask

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
10th April 10, 10:35 AM
I have always liked Buckminster-Fuller's insistence on using the word 'Universe' instead of 'God'.

Ajamil
10th April 10, 11:00 AM
Hi Max! I saw you mention Buckminster-Fuller in your political beliefs post. Would you like to start a new thread and expand on what you mean?

(That might sound harsh, I mean I'd like to know more, and I think it deserves it's own thread.)

Vieux Normand
10th April 10, 09:47 PM
Subjective things matter.

Quantify this.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
11th April 10, 06:23 AM
Hi Arjuna, I would post but for some reason I am not allowed to create new posts?!? I have conatacted the site about my registration authorisation not comming through but nothing has been done. So for now errr no I cant start a thread about Bucky-Fuller.

Ajamil
11th April 10, 08:07 PM
Oh. Well that takes a squeaky wheel. I recommend bothering Steve and Phrost as much as possible until they give you a thread out of annoyance.

Or just steal this thread and have fun! The no new thread thing is most likely a protective measure against spambots, so no worries.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th April 10, 06:05 AM
OK I'll see if I can do Fuller's thoughts justice.

He was into looking at systems from the top down. So the whole system that we are part of would be Universe, as this encompasses everything, galaxies, stars, life, consciousness, unconsciousness, rocks, mormons, everything....


Notice that in Synergetics the whole system is not called "the" Universe but simply Universe much in the same way people dont say "the" God.

Ajamil
12th April 10, 08:41 AM
I feel that spirituality begins with the idea of seeing an interdependence within reality. Where does Fuller go with Universe?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th April 10, 09:40 AM
Not sure what you mean here?

Even materialists would agree that existence is depenedant on the myriad of interconnections of the various energetic states. Although few go as far as Fuller in modifing the day to day use of their neuro-semantic-symbolic systems to emphasis the fact.

Ajamil
12th April 10, 10:05 AM
Hmm, perhaps the wrong word. Agreement and ideas aren't the same as realization, like being told fire is hot compared to putting your hand in one. Having concepts like food chains and ecologies aren't the same as a subliminal one-ness with all of reality.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th April 10, 10:28 AM
Maybe, for me I have had the same level of awreness brought to me via understanding general relativity as I have taking mindbending psychedelics.

Just because it aint your path to understanding doesnt mean it isnt somebody else's