Philosophy of God.

[wiiiire]

There is a great Zen saying which covers this:

"As a child I observed the mountains and knew them as mountains, when I was middle aged I realised they were not mountains at all but actually rocks and dirt and shrubs and trees, now I'm old they are mountains again"

This is fantastic and reminds me of something Bruce Lee wrote in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do :-

"Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I’ve understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. It is the halfway cultivation that leads to ornamentation. Jeet Kune-Do is basically a sophisticated fighting style stripped to its essentials.” – Bruce Lee

Enlightened guy, in the truest meaning of the word.

[wiiiire]

Something occurred to me last night that I think is relevant :

"why is odd"

I'm not sure that

"why is God"

however alluring the notion

I do find it all very odd though hahaha

[Ben Burkhill]

Originally Posted by wiiire

Wouldn't it be wonderful if eventually people woke up to the fact that we don't need money if we'd just mutually co-operate instead?

I have hope, hehe

So do I - if we can see it then others can be helped to it too.

[Ben Burkhill]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

This is fantastic and reminds me of something Bruce Lee wrote in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do :-

Enlightened guy, in the truest meaning of the word.

Very cool indeed. He was definitely enlightened - he could see the core elements for what they really were, pure truth is often very simple - the path to seeing it is often very difficult.

[Ben Burkhill]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Something occurred to me last night that I think is relevant :

"why is odd"

I'm not sure that

"why is God"

however alluring the notion

I do find it all very odd though hahaha

Cute - Explain what you mean please. Slightly confusing.

[Jorge1907]

Give me a break - Bruce Lee???? LOLOLLOOL


But in the context of the semiliterate ben, I suppose he would seem "enlightened".

[wiiiire]

Originally Posted by Jorge1907

Give me a break - Bruce Lee???? LOLOLLOOL

Yep. He majored in Philosophy actually, did you know that? Not that I place huge emphasis on degrees, but I think it's funny that you quickly dismiss him when we're sitting here talking on a philosophy forum and he devoted so much of his life to it.

Martial arts is a very real way of philosophising.

Let's not sidetrack Ben's thread though

[wiiiire]

Originally Posted by Ben Burkhill

Cute - Explain what you mean please. Slightly confusing.

Sorry, I know it is. I'll try and explain what I mean, but the meaning is diminished through explanation, so it's really hard.

"why is odd" - partly that the fact of us asking why is odd and partly that which connects everything in the universe... the *why* that we seek and may never find... doesn't seem to fit... like the harmony itself is strange! the way everything has developed... is odd

"why is God" - that interconnected nature is what you have called God, a position I appreciate but am just not sure enough of to be able to name it such. I know there's a danger of being deluded by semantics here, but while I think it's possible both statements could be true, I just can't take that step in belief. "Philosophy of God" is really just philosophy to me. I think I find it alluring because of the connotations that come along with the word God.

The thing is, I just find it all too unspeakably odd to call it God!

[Ben Burkhill]

Originally Posted by wiiiire

Sorry, I know it is. I'll try and explain what I mean, but the meaning is diminished through explanation, so it's really hard.

You did fine - better a distillation than a misunderstanding.

"why is odd" - partly that the fact of us asking why is odd and partly that which connects everything in the universe... the *why* that we seek and may never find... doesn't seem to fit... like the harmony itself is strange! the way everything has developed... is odd

Quite - why is it strangely harmonious? What is the meaning of that? Why is the 'not so odd' odd?

LOL - I like it.

"why is God" - that interconnected nature is what you have called God, a position I appreciate but am just not sure enough of to be able to name it such.

I'm not either, I only named it that way to draw deep discussion with people who would question my naming it thus - mostly the world is made up of atheists and theists - calling it God drew all of them to the table to discuss and criticise it - the real targets are those who are agnostic and looking for a reasonable answer. I'm testing my theory in the crucible.

In this thread I have already declared it not really God but what people have felt and mistakenly declared as the biblical version of what God is - my theory tries to demonstrate that God is not God but something else entirely, something they mistakenly called God - so it is God but it isn't really.

I know there's a danger of being deluded by semantics here, but while I think it's possible both statements could be true, I just can't take that step in belief.

It was a bitch for me too - I couldn't satisfactorily answer the deeper questions about life whilst an atheist, the answers were totally vague and unsatisfactory - like "It just is, accept it and get on with it". So I ran an experiment where I allowed myself to believe in God for the sake of the argument - a handy debating skill - but what I found shocked me, there was indeed an undercurrent of spirituality and only when the truth of this undercurrent was allowed did all questions become answerable.

That sounds a bit queer but in the reality of the biosphere it actually explains everything extraordinarily satisfactorily, it gives all the why's, the how's and the what's. If you read the whole thread then you would know what I mean by this.

"Philosophy of God" is really just philosophy to me.

Quite - this is why I put it in the philosophy forum and not the religion one, it suits here much better.

I think I find it alluring because of the connotations that come along with the word God.

Expand on what you mean here please - determine the connotations you specifically mean, they can be very different to each individual.

The thing is, I just find it all too unspeakably odd to call it God!

Me too but I haven't thought of a good name to encapsulate what I mean yet - "Bob" was taken and nothing else yet has seemed suitable.

[wiiiire]

haha, Bob, that is brilliant

I've read large sections of this thread, but I really should go back through it all. I agree with a lot of your ideas, but I think our origins as star dust and beyond are also pertinent (and odd! good grief), so I think there are differences too

[Ben Burkhill]

I like exploring differences.

[slippery_soap]

to most people god is the answer to what happens to us when we die.

me personally i do not know, that's why i believe in agnosticism

even if we are not promised anything in death it doesn't give me one bit of reason to commit immoral crimes or be a jerk.

[WindRose]

Originally Posted by Ben Burkhill

I wouldn't say never here, I've known plenty of people who get what they want by dragging other people to their preferred intellectual battle ground, intellectual bullies, people who require sympathy, passive aggressiveness etc - they are honed in their craft but only that one craft so they push certain buttons to try to force a confrontation on their terms to create the best chance to get what they want. So I think that sometimes people require there to be a problem otherwise they can't get what they want.

I would say that to me the most preferable way of getting something is to do it the way it is profitable for both sides – the giving and the getting. But you are right, sometimes people use another instruments.

I just think it is much easier to do a specific large job with many people at the helm working as a team - essentially this is how nations are run already, corporations etc, but we spend an awful lot of resources on not sharing our work, effort and knowledge to protect our nations efforts. We are one - we should work as one.

As to the whole truth - it is more of a goal than a destination, it would be easier to reach if we worked together instead of against each other was my point. Sorry - I wasn't clear.

Yes, you are right, I only wanted to say that it does not necessarily give the whole picture. I mean that not every knowledge is available despite our cooperation.

LOL - I should proof read before posting.

I believe the current monetary system actually works against global unity. The monetary system (this became starkly apparent during my 20yr business experiences) rewards greed and the withholding of information - it encourages misinformation - to gain wealth you generally have to remove opposition/competition, greed is the defining character trait of the monetary system and greed (one of the seven deadly sins) means we end up with self interested mega corporations instead of good resource distribution, we end up with cheap and poor quality goods designed to fail so we have to buy more of the same - it seems counter productive to me and a criminal waste of scarce resources.

The monetary system requires competition but when a corporation 'wins' we all end up losing due to the monopolisation as supply and demand is totally controlled by one entity who withholds common goods to increase their value - look to the diamond trade as proof of this - they burn diamonds to increase their worth, what a waste of such a useful commodity and all to satisfy the greed of the Debeirs* corporation.

Yes, but is there any alternative? Natural economy?

Let me use a parable then - people look at a cog and describe it as a metal object, the look at a piston and describe it as a metal object, they look at a engine block and describe it as a metal object etc etc - they look at all the individual components and declare that all the components are metal objects which all behave in the same way - what they don't see is the tractor which the metal objects have been constructed to work together symbiotically to be, how it works on ploughing the field, transporting goods etc.
<…>
The big picture eliminates natural selection as reasonable in my opinion - natural selection works on a case by case scenario but when applied to all species all at once over all of time (trace it from the beginnings of evolution to today) and you will begin to see where it fails to comprehend the symbiotic biosphere ecosystem.

Thank you, it couldn't be explained clearer. Indeed, Ben, you should be a writer. I enjoy reading your posts more and more.
The thing I am trying to say is that 'the big picture' you are talking about does not (in my opinion) contradict the natural selection theory but 'completes' it adding something that is beyond the understanding this theory could provide. The only difference is that you say 'God' where I would say 'an inexplicable thing'. Despite this I think we understand it the same way.

Thank you for the endorsement - I appreciate that, I love to do it to be honest, despite being fought with by both sides (the religious and the natural selection advocates), and every now and again I get to explain myself to a non-opinionated, open minded person which makes it all worthwhile - thank you for that WindRose.

My pleasure, Ben. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Know for sure = I personally believed the information to be true and correct - I certainly did not gather the information on my own but I did 'organise' it into my own particular pattern of understanding. Stood on the shoulders of giants so to speak.

So, finally it is only your decision to treat the information as true or false, right?

In a film I watched recently there is a sentence - "Making up your own mind is the only true freedom we have, use that freedom" - Good comment no?

It is true that it is nobodies business how you perceive yourself unless it 'directly' interferes with their life.

If you treat others as though you are the emperor of the world and they are beholden to you then they have the right to correct your attitude - unless it is true of course. Each of us is emperor of our own world - not other peoples.

Knowing in truth who and what you are protects you from other suggesting who and what you are - only you can determine that truth and the answer to who and what you are lay in your own personal history which only you can be truly aware of if you take the time to ruminate on it. You become vulnerable to others suggestions on who and what you are if you have an unconsidered life.

And what is more important for self-understanding: your knowing (who you are) or others' suggestions? Does one always understand himself better than others do? I ask this question because there are some people who seem to understand what I am better than I do for myself. Is it a real understanding or just a reasonable way of thinking?

It took me twenty eight years for my social mask to be broken down - it took me to do it, I never knew it was there until I made myself aware of the truth of it through examining my life through the absolute perspective of truth instead of preferred truth.

It was the best thing I have ever done for myself despite the pain it caused my ego.

I think such things are worth doing despite all the dificulties they could cause.

You deserve to feel good about this rather than insecure.

I am glad you said it.

There is a great Zen saying which covers this:

"As a child I observed the mountains and knew them as mountains, when I was middle aged I realised they were not mountains at all but actually rocks and dirt and shrubs and trees, now I'm old they are mountains again"

We, as children, see the world as it is - in middle age we break it down into its individual components and dismiss the immature perception - in old age we recognise that the individual components, when combined, make up the whole which we perceived as a child to begin with and realise it was not an immature perspective at all but a true perception - but now we know why it is so.

To see the whole – to learn what the whole consists of – to see the whole consisting of components. The wise things are always precious, though I thought that a deeper level of understanding does not depend on one's age. Not necessarily.

I remove inappropriate absolutes to protect myself from supplying suggestion and auto suggestion - like, for example, I wouldn't say 'can not' nor 'language barrier' in the above sentence because this auto suggestion creates an unnecessary personal block - I would say "I'm learning to be precise to improve my use of the English language - thank you for your advice with this"

Thank you, Ben. You are really helping me a lot; and not only with the English language.

It's only complicated until you learn it - then it isn't.

Agreed.

I know this - I'm sorry if I've annoyed you, I can be a pedantic prick sometimes, I say things as I see them and sometimes my honesty is way too blunt and is always 'only my perspective' but the delivery comes out as though I think it is absolute truth - make up your own mind about this and do what you want, what works for you.

I could say all this about myself too. What we have is a good discussion going in a constructive way (I think); you have not annoyed me a bit, hope I haven't annoyed you either. I just enjoy a good company, learn good things; I like the way your words are: honest, responsible and wise – what else could I wish to be content?

I do understand now - it was the wording you used before which confused my perception. Instead of "I fear flying" you say "I love flying"? If that is what you mean then that is perfect.

Right

I'm being an inconsiderate pedantic prick - please excuse me.

I wouldn't like you to feel this way – this is my fault, I thought it is not the thing that matters within the scope of this thread, but anyway I should not say this.

Ahhhh....but it is defeating ones self. One side of you (not you but people in general) likes to take the easy short road, one side recognises the importance of the hard long road - we are perpetually battling ourselves for the right to which-ever mode is suitable for which-ever road becomes apparent - but this is another thread.

You are right. Maybe it would be better to say 'defeat something within myself' – not like the snake biting its own tail… But I would prefer a more peaceful way: understanding, changing and accepting.

WindRose - I sense that I have delved inappropriately into personal issues and have offended you, you were merely asking me to share my version of my God concept and somehow I turned it into delving into your personal issues - I am an armchair therapist by nature (ask Meme about this - I pissed her off in the same way) and it is annoying for those who never asked for their lives to be pried into and exposed. I'm sorry for doing this and I'll work on this bad habit as it strains my friendships - which I don't want. I hope you'll forgive me this trespass.

Ben, I am afraid you are taking it a wrong way – I have no idea what could offend me in the words which are sincere and honest like yours. As to my 'personal issues', actually they are not of big secret, so in the case you are really interested, I will answer all the questions. I thought it does not matter, but sometimes discussing 'personal issues' could be very useful for both sides. And I like the way you discuss things.

[Meme Virus]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Oh and I joined JREF too, but still waiting to be authorzed.

Hey, that could be good. You might find it interesting debating with new people.

Have you been able to register under the name Dragon, or did you have to use something else because someone else was using that?

[Ben Burkhill]

LOL - said the spider to the fly.