Your God/Goddess

radarmark said:
Quite incorrect. Metaphysics is the philosophical discipline of looking at basic and general issues. Like what is there? (ontology). What is the universe like? (cosmology) What is God? (theology). It has been around since forever and gone by that name since Aristotle.
Click to expand...
You are terming the informed guesses based on current knowledge of physics as 'meta-physics'. But those can be termed also as 'matas', opinions, projections, hypotheses, etc.
bhaktajan said:
Like a Gennie out of the Bottle
Click to expand...
I do not believe in gennies in or out of the bottle. :)
 
:). Nice answer. I once heard the sound of clap with one hand, but I have forgotten that now. Will try to recollect.
 
Very nice. Since one cannot go outside the universe, one has to be free from attachments. Then only one can be a neutral observer.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Very nice. Since one cannot go outside the universe, one has to be free from attachments. Then only one can be a neutral observer.
Click to expand...
Why can't you go outside the Universe?
The Subjective Universe lies outside of the Objective Universe, the SU houses the OU, so whenever you dream for instance, you are outside of the OU, inside the SU.

At least that's what they told us at Sorcery School ;)
 
Well, it all depends on what you think the universe is. For me it is the sum total of everything there is, was, or shall be. And "thing" is "event" or "experience". So, I percieve time and position as basic constituents, as are mind and spirit.

Yes, there is a "beyond" but it is not observable by anyone, only experiencial to a few (not everyone goes beyond).

I am afraid your SU and OU just are a (jmho) a false dicotomy, like material and mental or matter and time or energy and position. There are only concrete moments of experience (from "The Big Bang" to "The Big Crunch" and before and after (maybe, maybe not)).

Separating sense of self and residual self (kamma) from everything would get one "beyond".
 
I like the idea of the Monad/Ain Soph, of how existence is mapped out in Qabalah, for me it makes sense. Time only exists in relation to the one perceiving it, just like the OU in that like-minded sees like-minded in the OU (a troll sees the OU full of trolls e.g.).

The SU is truly separate from the OU if not for anything else other than the laws and principles of the OU have no authority in the SU (I fly in my dreams e.g.).
 
Etu Malku said:
I like the idea of the Monad/Ain Soph, of how existence is mapped out in Qabalah, for me it makes sense. Time only exists in relation to the one perceiving it, just like the OU in that like-minded sees like-minded in the OU (a troll sees the OU full of trolls e.g.).

The SU is truly separate from the OU if not for anything else other than the laws and principles of the OU have no authority in the SU (I fly in my dreams e.g.).
Click to expand...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

~Albert Einstein

wikiquote:



  • I believe in intuition and inspiration. … At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
    • Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97; also in Transformation : Arts, Communication, Environment (1950) by Harry Holtzman, p. 138. This may be an edited version of some nearly identical quotes from the 1929 Viereck interview below.
 
The universe is the totality of existence both known and unknown. This is a complex model, divided into at least two components:

1) the objective universe
2) the subjective universe.


The objective universe is the natural cosmos- or world order. This is essentially mechanical or organic, i.e. it is ruled by certain predictable laws manifested in a time/space continuum. The objective universe, including the laws governing it, can be equated with "nature" as well as with "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition. All of natural science as wen as orthodox theology is predicated on the concept that these laws of the objective universe can be discovered and quantified or described in a purely rational manner in the first instance or by "divine revelation" in the other. When considered closely it is evident that what is usually referred to as "God" in orthodox religions is actually identical to that which he is said to create the natural /mechanical zorganic order- or cosmos. It might also be pointed out that there has generally been a popular but sometimes misleading distinction between the concepts "mechanical" and "organic."



On one level they are the same in that both are governed by predictable laws. A clock-work or the human body are both ruled and maintained by certain mechanical structures which allow them to function in their environments. At another level there is a distinction between the mechanical and the organic in that the organic model has the ability to propagate and mutate its mechanical structures to ensure its survival. This is possible because there are coded mechanisms within the organism expressly for this purpose (DNA) and because the malleable molecular structure of the mechanism allows for these mutations.



The subjective universe is the "world" of any sentient entity within the universe. There are as many subjective universes as there are sentient beings. The subjective universe is the particularized manifestation of consciousness within the universe. Usually experience of the objective universe is only indirect as information concerning it must come through the subjective universe. Curiously enough the subjective universe does not seem governed by the same natural/mechanical/organic laws as the objective universe- in fact this is the main distinction between them.



The subjective universe has the option of acting in a non-natural way, i.e. free from the limitations of the world of five senses and three dimensions. At this point it might be worth pointing out that the terms objective/subjective have nothing in common with the distinction between accurate/inaccurate, or exact/inexact which popular usage might have projected onto the terms. The subjective universe is capable of far more accurate and exact manifold operations than the objective universe- your reading and understanding of these words is based on the exercise of a faculty within your subjective universe. In simple grammatical terms the subject is the reader, i.e, that which reads, and the object is that which is read. The subjective universe is capable of a full spectrum of possibilities which range from virtually absolute precisions to almost total delusion because it is not bound by natural laws. The focus or epicenter of this non natural subjective universe is equated with human consciousness, or soul, or self.



- Dr. Stephen Flowers
 
Yep, I knew what you were saying. I just do not agree. We cannot "see" the subjective universe of others, as they are qualia. Yep.

If I pulled my Desert Eagle out on Dr Flowers, bet you the OU trumps his SU and he will duck.

It is all one thing. There is lots of what you are calling OU that is not see-able either (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, multiverses (if they exist), and the universe beyond 26 billion light years in each direction (the existent but "unobservable" universe). As well as the spiritual that some can see.
 
SG, old Albert was right about that. 'Tis hard to model in terms of Artificial Intelligence. However, he does make the die-hard difference between what is intuited as "truthy" and what is imagined when "false".
 
Etu Malku said:
Time only exists in relation to the one perceiving it
Click to expand...

Except if operating and planning enterprises in a pragmatic world ...with dependents to provide for; or benefactors to answer to.

Ironically, such a load of responsibilities leaves little time to philosophise.
 
I don't consider myself a pagan as such, but my spiritual worldview is very electic, and I take inspiration from traditional religions. For some reason I identify strongly with Athena, perhaps because my most foundation religious practices derive from Greek philosophy (Stoicism with a little Epicureanism thrown in -- naughty, naughty). For me she represents both the high ideals of civilization as well as more primal virtues like strength.
 
Hi Smell- ...it's going to be really hard to think of a good nickname for you. But welcome! Feel free to summarise yourself in the Introduction part of the forum, I would like to more about your relationship with Stoicism for example. Be aware that some of your post will probably be moderated before you reach 10 posts, it's nothing personal. Keep a copy of the things you post just in case and tell us when one of your post disappears into nothingness and we'll try to sort it out.

I hope you stick around, I really think we need some new blood.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Hi Smell- ...it's going to be really hard to think of a good nickname for you. But welcome! Feel free to summarise yourself in the Introduction part of the forum, I would like to more about your relationship with Stoicism for example. Be aware that some of your post will probably be moderated before you reach 10 posts, it's nothing personal. Keep a copy of the things you post just in case and tell us when one of your post disappears into nothingness and we'll try to sort it out.

I hope you stick around, I really think we need some new blood.
Click to expand...


Feel free to call me "SC", and thank you for the welcome. :) I'll mosey over to the introduction section shortly. Is the moderating team very zealous? :D
 
Good to meet you SC, that was quite a text you posted in the introduction I'll read it when I'm not so easily distracted. This place isn't moderated at all except by Brian who owns this place, and he doesn't show up a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top