A point of view

[shawn]

Consciousness (*C) gives birth to everything.
C is always in place first, followed by what it creates: matter, events, nature, creatures- everything.
Conscious creation (as people experience it) works because of this underlying fact. It is the first cause and people are consciousness- literally, extensions of the C of All That Is, with the same characteristics including the ability to create with our thoughts.
The universe is a vast multidimensional quantum cloth with infinite figures and patterns which do not remain flat, but spring forth and live and move and die and then come alive again while the fabric of which they are made of never wears out, but constantly revitalizes itself and reweaves its parts.
There is a portion of All That Is that is directed and focussed on each individual , residing in each consciousness.
Perhaps portion is the wrong term, perhaps connection is a better way of describing this.
In the beginning, All That Is, created the psychological growing medium, which is the universe we see (including all the components which we do not see) and also individualized consciousness fro its whole.
These fragments of All That Is were given a life of their own (individualized awareness) so that All That Is could experience every possible nuance of creation.
All That Is produced this and bade the creation to go forth and be fruitful....live and experience everything they possibly could.
Because every piece is and always will be a part of All That Is, all they experience/create is known and shared by All That Is.
This, in fact, is the point of existence.
So where does C reside?
Everywhere.
Nothing can be separated from the cloth of C and C cannot be quantified.

 

[Thomas]

Nicely put, Shawn.

Aristotelian!

May I offer another point of view?

We would say that C exists before anything came into being, so whilst C is the cause of all existence, what exists is not C, but what is created by C, because C was there before existence.

C is in all that exists because it underpins the very act of existing, so for existence C is the primary and principle reference of its existence, indeed of its existing, but C does not exist because existence exists, nor would the extinction of all existence cause C not to exist.

C neither grows nor decays; increases nor decreases, move nor change. It cannot be added to nor diminished, multiplied nor divided ...

C is Cause, everything else is caused.

C is uncreated: creation is quantification — all that is shares is-ness with all that is, but all that is is equally, by its mode of existence, differentiated from everything else that exists.

Only C is not differentiated ... it contained all differentiation in Itself, undifferentiated. C is Simple. C is One.

... I think you get my drift?

BTW, have you read Plotinus, The Enneads?

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Good call, shawn - reminds me of something I read once - that the John 1:1 account "in the beginning was the word..." can be more interestingly read as "in the beginning was the thought..." where thought is required to form the word.

Not sure how that would fit in with Christology, though??

 

[wil]

Not sure how that would fit in with Christology, though??

Tis the capital C.

 

[shawn]

C is uncreated: creation is quantification — all that is shares is-ness with all that is, but all that is is equally, by its mode of existence, differentiated from everything else that exists.

Only C is not differentiated ... it contained all differentiation in Itself, undifferentiated. C is Simple. C is One.

... I think you get my drift?

BTW, have you read Plotinus, The Enneads?

Thomas

I agree that all is One and One is all.
All the rest is artificial division so intellects can comprehend things.
I wouldn't use the term differentiated as that puts a nice little barrier between what is One.
The only barrier is our blindness and our ignorance, which does not require a savior to overcome, nor an intercessor.
In Consciousness, we live move and have our being.
This holds true whether one believes in it or not.

No, I have not read Plotinus.

 

[wil]

unless I amiss me thinks Thomas does not believe all is one and one is all, but that C and creation are seperate

 

[shawn]

unless I amiss me thinks Thomas does not believe all is one and one is all, but that C and creation are seperate

Methinks the same.

 

[lunamoth]

Nicely put, Shawn.

Aristotelian!

May I offer another point of view?

We would say that C exists before anything came into being, so whilst C is the cause of all existence, what exists is not C, but what is created by C, because C was there before existence.

C is in all that exists because it underpins the very act of existing, so for existence C is the primary and principle reference of its existence, indeed of its existing, but C does not exist because existence exists, nor would the extinction of all existence cause C not to exist.

C neither grows nor decays; increases nor decreases, move nor change. It cannot be added to nor diminished, multiplied nor divided ...

C is Cause, everything else is caused.

C is uncreated: creation is quantification — all that is shares is-ness with all that is, but all that is is equally, by its mode of existence, differentiated from everything else that exists.

Only C is not differentiated ... it contained all differentiation in Itself, undifferentiated. C is Simple. C is One.

... I think you get my drift?

BTW, have you read Plotinus, The Enneads?

Thomas

Don't you mean G?

Good OP post Shawn.

 

[Thomas]

unless I amiss me thinks Thomas does not believe all is one and one is all, but that C and creation are seperate

No, you're right. Christian doctrine, theology and metaphysics holds a more nuanced understanding: That all is in the One, but is not the One, and that the One is in all, but the all is not all that the One is.

The One and creation are not synonymous, one is created, and the One is Uncreated ... else Christianity would be a monism, which it is not (nor a pantheism, nor a panentheism), it is a doctrine of Divine Union.

The One was before creation — therefore creation is not the One, but an Act of the One.

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

all is in the One, but is not the One, and that the One is in all, but the all is not all that the One is.

The One and creation are not synonymous, one is created, and the One is Uncreated

The One was before creation — therefore creation is not the One, but an Act of the One.

We agree, Thomas. God is not limited to the scope of his creation, but he does reside in every fragment of it. Well said.

I believe also that the barrier between us and God is there for a reason. I've no idea what the reason may be other than perhaps the small tidbit of an idea that it may be there for our spiritual growth. Kinda like a baby bird being kicked out of the nest. It's so we can learn, and grow, and figure things out on our own, because it is the best way to do it.

 

[Thomas]

I agree that all is One and One is all.

Our distinction is that little word 'in' ... all is in the One, and One is in the all.

The only barrier is our blindness and our ignorance ...

How can the One be blind and ignorant with regard to itself? There is nothing else it could assume itself to be.

The One is Absolute, Infinite ... etc., whereas everything that exists is finite and contingent ...

No, I have not read Plotinus.

I'd give him a go, I think you'd really get into it ... it was the highpoint of pre-Christian Platonism. At least there would be food for thought.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I believe also that the barrier between us and God is there for a reason.

I believe the barrier is in the very nature of things ... we are created nature, God is Uncreated nature ...

I've no idea what the reason may be other than perhaps the small tidbit of an idea that it may be there for our spiritual growth.

I think there are many offerings to explain the mystery of separation. I think all nature was created, in the image of its Maker, to be self-communicative, but chose, instead, to be self-possessive.

It's so we can learn, and grow, and figure things out on our own, because it is the best way to do it.

I disagree. Man cannot 'figure out' God, that would require a human intellect equal to the intellect of God?

Thomas

 

[immortalitylost]

I didn't mean it's there so that man can figure out God, of course we cant.

I meant that it was there so that man could figure out man, and life, and love, and for our spiritual growth. There is no barrier, perhaps because the physical creation is the spiritual testing ground. It's very purpose is to shape and mold us, and teach us, and make us grow spiritually. That's all I meant.

I think where we diverge is man's fallen nature, but that's a free will thing, and I don't wanna get into that again.

 

[shawn]

No, you're right. Christian doctrine, theology and metaphysics holds a more nuanced understanding: That all is in the One, but is not the One, and that the One is in all, but the all is not all that the One is.

The One and creation are not synonymous, one is created, and the One is Uncreated ... else Christianity would be a monism, which it is not (nor a pantheism, nor a panentheism), it is a doctrine of Divine Union.

The One was before creation — therefore creation is not the One, but an Act of the One.

Thomas

I mentioned something about that...
ahh..here it is:

In the beginning, All That Is, created the psychological growing medium, which is the universe we see (including all the components which we do not see) and also individualized consciousness from its whole.

What we perceive is such a limited slice of the whole reality pie that it is ....insignificant.

From revelation:
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

The was a letter ostensibly to one of the churchs....so one of the ahem " chosen and the saved/redeemed", but obviously thick and a bit handicapped.

 

[shawn]

Our distinction is that little word 'in' ... all is in the One, and One is in the all.


How can the One be blind and ignorant with regard to itself? There is nothing else it could assume itself to be.

Aye...look what you have stumbled upon...a wee bit of the Mystery.

The doctrines you are supporting, IMO, have been formulated by people who assumed that their handicapped condition was normal.
They could not see very much of the Universe and they could therefore also not imagine nor speculate with much soundness about the parts that we could not see with any accuracy.

 

[GlorytoGod]

Exodus 3:14


14And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE; and He said, You shall say this to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you!

 

[Thomas]

I mentioned something about that...

In the beginning, All That Is, created the psychological growing medium, which is the universe we see (including all the components which we do not see) and also individualized consciousness from its whole.

That does not alter the fact that the One that created is not in any way altered or modified by the production of the Cosmos ... so the Cosmos is not the One that produces it, it is a product of the one that produces it ...

What we perceive is such a limited slice of the whole reality pie that it is ....insignificant.

And I'm saying you're still limiting the pie ...

Do check out Plotinus, it'll give you something substantial to work your thinking against.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The doctrines you are supporting, IMO, have been formulated by people who assumed that their handicapped condition was normal.

Oooh, that's a bit rich ... Couldn't be more wrong, old chum ... I'm still skirting round the edges of neoPlatonism, but the doctrine I support goes way beyond that, and we've been informing the world of its condition, a condition far from its proper one, for a couple of thousand years now.

Thomas

 

[PandaMentionalBeing]

I am has sent me to you.

I've been following this thread, because thats mostly what I do here. Everyones just so fascinatingly insightful. I'm curious, because nobody else has asked you yet; Thomas, which doctrine(particularly) is it that you support, that you've referred to as 'we'? Do explain how you've been informing the world of it's condition for a couple thousand years now?

 

[shawn]

That does not alter the fact that the One that created is not in any way altered or modified by the production of the Cosmos ... so the Cosmos is not the One that produces it, it is a product of the one that produces it ...


And I'm saying you're still limiting the pie ...

I don't agree with that opinion.
A retort to the first part could be....sez you!
All I hear is conjecture and speculation...albeit very learned speculation, but speculation none the less.

An important point to bring up at this juncture is that one should consider the fact that the catholic institution/cult has for thousands of years had millions of men and women, whose jobs (and social standing)depended upon people believing that there is a gulf between man and God/All That Is which is only crossable via the intercessor, or Jesus (and sometimes a saint could stand in and do some things from time to time).
And the agents of that intercessor (self-proclaimed of course) were (and are) the catholic cult and christian church.
So All I see is vested interest there M8.