Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Who/What is God?

Re: Who/What is God?
November 30, 2013, 05:16:52 PM
Quote
That's the point. God is within reality. Reality and God play by the same rules. There may be additional dimensions, afterlives, alternate realities, occult dimensions, etc. but they are not dualistic, e.g. of an entirely different logical rule-set than reality itself.

If only I could reason people into this idea. This is like the very last concept that people (spiritual, religious, superstitious, atheist, whatever) want to accept. I don't know what is so difficult about accepting the idea; it practically shines with righteous truth.

Re: Who/What is God?
November 30, 2013, 05:37:03 PM
It is very comforting to people to have the idea that any world that exists should work by THEIR made-up rules. It means they'd have to do much less work to adapt.

Not that that is any revelation. But it is a psychological barrier that holds people back from accepting the above idea.

Re: Who/What is God?
November 30, 2013, 06:04:37 PM
Intellect, or any abstraction of mind, is to God what the ox-cart is to the starship.

Here's my take on this:

The way most people approach "intellectualization" is as a form of linear thought. That means comparing single factors, one to the other, and backward-deriving a causal relationship.

My method is pattern comparison, which requires more of than not a sense of aesthetics and proportion than it does any kind of linear thinking.

I think this is analogous to what crow is talking about above.

Neither of us are talking about a leap of faith, which isn't the worst approach ever but is baffling to nerdcore logic-heads.

My vision of the leap of faith is like this: you either believe the universe is a good place, that fundamentally tends toward order and goodness, or you think it is something else. Not necessarily bad but perhaps not ordered.

If you believe life is good, then it makes sense -- not linearly, but emotionally -- that it has an underlying goodness, a managing force of goodness, and a not-terrible consequence after death.

As a lifelong anti-dualistic and inveterate blasphemer, I have trouble with where my realization has led me to on these issues. The fact is that it doesn't very well fit within how we use language to describe these things, mainly because language is socially-mediated (think of Whorf-Sapir but in reverse).

However, as a nihilist, I deny all that is not correspondent to reality. This includes all human wishful thinking, both materialistic and dualistic. Once one recognizes what Schopenhauer unleashed with Idealism, there is no turning back.

You must go on. There is no non plus ultra. It is, as Huxley surmised, infinite, once you clear those doors of perception. Doesn't even require LSD.

Quote
That's the point. God is within reality. Reality and God play by the same rules. There may be additional dimensions, afterlives, alternate realities, occult dimensions, etc. but they are not dualistic, e.g. of an entirely different logical rule-set than reality itself.

If only I could reason people into this idea. This is like the very last concept that people (spiritual, religious, superstitious, atheist, whatever) want to accept. I don't know what is so difficult about accepting the idea; it practically shines with righteous truth.

Let me say a few things here that I find comforting because they restore order to what otherwise appears disorded.

Nihilists negate truth, knowledge and communication; this is because nihilists recognize the esoteric nature of such things. Truth requires human minds, and those aren't uniform; rather, truth is something perceived by some in varying degrees. This means it doesn't exist in an objective sense, but in an objective sense within subjective minds, and other subjective minds can deny it. Thus, negate truth. Knowledge exists only where it corresponds to reality, and that occurs through a process of learning like The Scientific Method, but not as linearly. Thus, it aggregates. However, it is also cumulative, and thus, one doesn't move on to the next level without conquering the previous. That is esotericism. There is no communication because people make subjective choices, and have objectively subjective differing abilities to perceive and different levels of esoteric experience. Thus not everyone can understand everything, and thus even if they're forced to accept it, they will simply pervert it back to the usual suspects of human mental fallacy: universalism (a form of mirror fallacy of the ego), false dichotomy, cherry-picking, etc.

"That wasn't very comforting," you might be saying right about now. "Instead of believing in a world where we can all work together through reason, you've shown me a new Dark Age based in a complete lack of certainty."

Well, true -- except for reality itself. That is consistent, which is the essence of its function. There is no cure for the fact that on any given point, most of us know less than jack, except to find those who have the gut level instinct to not only know jack but to re-invent that knowledge out of love for the subject. This is the underlying principle behind aristocracy, as well.

Back to knowledge and aduality/monism: do most people need to know the truth? They need to function, and believe the universe is a good place so they don't get bitter and vandalize it (see: consumerism, egalitarianism). Those who seek more should be able to do so, and be put in charge of the rest.

In summary however I have to say that it is ironic how many of the best truths in life are hidden in plain sight. It has been some time now since I realized that the authors we champion as "genius" are those who tell us what we know on a subconscious level to be true, but deny for demands of the ego. It's a useful mission statement for those here who want to help nudge the human world back toward sanity.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 05, 2013, 01:00:14 PM
Quote
God se Jesus, we come to party
Pump your speakers, yo rock your body
In God we trust, You can't fuck with us
We not taking kak, I'd like to say what's up

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/dieantwoord/ifinkufreeky.html

Thread isn't complete without this commentary.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 05, 2013, 04:23:40 PM
To define God is a fruitless endeavor because it has had so many different meanings throughout history.  It's a loaded word that has been defined differently by every religion and sect in the world. Even to this day, if you ask the average joe what God means to them, you will still get "a bearded guy in the sky who watches over us".

Equivocating God to nature/reality/reason seems like a cop out to please others by appealing to this vague term.  Call a spade a spade. Different definitions for the same term are the fountainhead of all futile arguments.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 05, 2013, 06:46:52 PM
Equivocating God to nature/reality/reason seems like a cop out to please others by appealing to this vague term.


As far as I know, nobody before me ever stated that God equals Reality.
As far as I know. And there are things I do not know.
The point being that those words are the direct, condensed revelation of one of history's holiest men.
There having been a few of those, but who is more holy than one to whom holy is the most important thing?

I am holy because I choose holiness. First I need to figure out what holy means.
Years later I can say Holiness equals Reality.
In keeping with, in concert with, not going against...

It's all the same thing. Truth. Not the kind humans decree as truth, but what exists in spite of what puny humans do to it, or in its name.

IT IS. And i am with it.
So there.
Squawk!

Re: Who/What is God?
December 05, 2013, 07:05:20 PM
It doesn't matter how you define God, at all. It only matters that you place God above and before yourself.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 01:51:57 AM
It doesn't matter how you define God, at all. It only matters that you place God above and before yourself.

If your definition of God is Elvis or Ronald Mcdonald, I hope you don't place it above yourself. It got to be some restrictions about the notion of god if not everything can be a god.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 02:29:31 AM
Haha :)
Some things are too obvious to be seen.
It is good to have someone around to point them out.
Squawk!

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 02:35:26 AM
God IS God, and that is that!

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
It doesn't matter how you define God, at all. It only matters that you place God above and before yourself.

If your definition of God is Elvis or Ronald Mcdonald, I hope you don't place it above yourself. It got to be some restrictions about the notion of god if not everything can be a god.

If you place Elvis on the kind of pedistal I describe, I can almost guarantee it will be Elvis in name only.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 08:54:47 PM
Hey! Everybody knows what Elvis is. Elvis is da King! And he ain't dead, neither!
So I am told.
Squawk!

Re: Who/What is God?
December 06, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
A resurrection story in the making. Christ wasn't alone.

Re: Who/What is God?
December 07, 2013, 01:58:43 AM
In my view, it is pointless to reject dualism without also rejecting materialism.

Further, materialism is fucking boring.

The question upon you is this: which came first, the design or the matter?

You have have three options:

1. Design
2. Matter
3. Simultaneity

The third is actually coherent with idealism, which states that all is idea, which is separate from thought in that it applies to design and abstraction alone. It does not imply a thinker per se; many believe in an unconscious God that operates more like a machine.

Then there are those of us who are more interested in godhead, and see from it a geometry of lesser gods emerging, in infinite order back to the original Idea, which encompasses all we have "now" and all that will be.

In this view, life is not based on material instigation, but material reveals an underlying order that manifests in both idea and matter. It is perfect harmony of layers, something I call parallelism.

In this context, we're very far from the "God" of public exoteric fame, but we're also closer to the ancient spirits of the forest. And that is where our souls truly dwell, at least us Euripid types...

Re: Who/What is God?
December 07, 2013, 02:24:18 AM
There have to be a prior set of physical laws in order for us to even have material, particularly stable matter. The laws themselves are without substance and it should follow that they would have a prior cause as well.

Materialism only possibly makes sense as a philosophy fit for the proletariat so that in the Leninist view, they can keep their focus on labor and working class interests rather than, as they said, "pie in the sky" religion or ethnic interests

I'd bank on the political left's propaganda in promoting materialism through the institutions (no school prayer, multiculturalism e.g.) rather than on any vigorous, logical legitimacy. The original hipsters must have felt that a world of grey, passive drones who only differentiate themselves in harmless, superficial ways after work hours was ideal.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793