Pantheism and Panentheism

[Thomas]

Hi Shawn —

I'm a typographer ... so I design Corporate Communication materials for my company ... so I try and explain the idea of a deadline, ie, a line which, if crossed, means you're not gonna get your brochures printed in time for your conference.

The reasonable, c'mon guys, we all want a life, deadline was the 25th of last month ... but you know what clients are like ... they're still changing copy, and everyone wants to be a designer ... and no-one looks at anything until after the deadline's passed ... and this on a 60 page brochure, so:
Saturday: 12.00 - midnight
Sunday: 12.00 - 6.00pm
Monday 8000am - 03.30am Tuesday morning ...

... what I need here is a bit less abstract than pantheism ... perhaps panther-ism, something sleek and predatory prowling the corridors that might instil a sense of urgency, you know?

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

Looking at the universe I see nothing that is perfect, indeed I see no two things that are the same. I would hazard an intuit that it is impossible for two things to be absolutely identical. Based solely on our Earthly observations that nothing appears to be.

Why do you define perfection in terms of duplication?

s.

 

[seattlegal]

How can you know that if there is a creator that it would be perfect? Looking at the universe I see nothing that is perfect, indeed I see no two things that are the same. I would hazard an intuit that it is impossible for two things to be absolutely identical. Based solely on our Earthly observations that nothing appears to be. Why cant this creator be imperfect, flawed, even mindless.... an automaton if you like? In short why do you keep imposing upon it human ideals? If there is a creator, and I believe that not to be the case in any meaningful way we could comprehend, why would it have to be this perfect thing you want to paint it?

Have you ever noticed how we call these imperfections and blemishes "beauty marks?" {or would that be a human ideal? }

 

[wil]

Hi Shawn —

I'm a typographer ... so I design Corporate Communication materials for my company ... so I try and explain the idea of a deadline, ie, a line which, if crossed, means you're not gonna get your brochures printed in time for your conference.

The reasonable, c'mon guys, we all want a life, deadline was the 25th of last month ... but you know what clients are like ... they're still changing copy, and everyone wants to be a designer ... and no-one looks at anything until after the deadline's passed ... and this on a 60 page brochure, so:
Saturday: 12.00 - midnight
Sunday: 12.00 - 6.00pm
Monday 8000am - 03.30am Tuesday morning ...

... what I need here is a bit less abstract than pantheism ... perhaps panther-ism, something sleek and predatory prowling the corridors that might instil a sense of urgency, you know?

Thomas

I feel for ya Thomas,

but if the 'deadline' was the 25th of last month... And you are still waiting...and they'll get their brochures...it wasn't really a deadline was it?

tis the problem isn't it. That they know that it will get done regardless?

Unless their budget is charged significantly enough that it hurts...or you simply don't complete the project after the deadline passes...what you see is what you get..

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Unless their budget is charged significantly enough that it hurts...or you simply don't complete the project after the deadline passes...what you see is what you get..

That's the point I've been trying to impress.

The one is a matter of bad practice and/or incompetence ... the other is that each time we meet the critical deadline, then the next time our client sails a little closer to the wind ... which is why I've done 19.5 hours yesterday/today, and two of us are still sitting here, four hours after close of play ... waiting once more...

My main point is one day, they'll sail too close, and we'll miss the deadline, and it's a sure thing that the job that doesn't make it will be one of the really crucial ones ... and then the handbags will start to swing, and I shall sit back and say "I warned you ... but would anyone listen?"

We have a post-mortem meeting next month ... that'll be fun.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I have contract deadlines that I simply abide by. Too late, things don't get done or people don't get paid.... they only do it once. Same with overbillings...I calculate how much you over biilled and deduct that from the reasonable billing amount (eg underpay by the amount they over billed) they only do that once...or confusing billngs...I pay what I want, they complain, I say make it easy for me to uinderstand and verify and I'll pay what you want, if it is so important hand deliver your bill at meeting and we'll discuss...again they only do it once.

then it is clear sailing.... I haven't been rushed in years... most of my counterparts (similar title/job) with our company other companies work 60-80 hours a week... I quit working over 40 in 1992....

Take your spirituality to work....tis a different life.

Don't commit adultery....don't dilute your principles...

Panentheism...G!d is in it all, might as well work together.

 

[shawn]

Hi Thomas, I am in a similar boat with work as I am in finish construction (stone and tile primarily).
People involved in the designing end can dither away the bulk of the project time making revisions and changing colors and layouts and owners can completely change their minds (several times), yet the deadline remains the same, so who gets to work overtime???? all the people doing the finishing.
Some clients are completely oblivious to the fact that their nose-picking is causing the tradespeople to lose money as we all get payed for what we do, not the time spent (all piecework).
This has been a major bee in my bonnet for years.
I once worked 74 hrs straight to get a house finished before the movers came.
Then a 3 hr drive home.
That was 14 yrs ago and I will never do it again.


*now back to your regularly scheduled talk show where we are discussing the merits of panentheism*

 

[Avi]

Dauer, it seems like R. Zalman of Liadi's position is very consistent with pantheism. But don't you think this consistency goes much further back, even to Avraham ?

Brief correction: It's Schneur Zalman, not Zalman. He's more accurately an acosmic panentheist, not a pantheist.

I meant panentheist, thanks for the correction.

And no I don't think such a view goes back to Abraham.

I think Avraham was a panentheist in the modern sense of the term. I think he may have been the first. He did not believe in an anthropomorphic corporealist G-d. Probably my favorite story of Avraham is the destruction of the idols in his fathers idol shop. What a classic !!! What an iconoclast !!

If Abraham existed

What do you believe the real story is ??

it's much more likely that he believed in some sort of pantheon,

Do you mean in the classic sense of pantheism, meaning a multiplicity of natural gods ?

a Divine couple,

You mean two gods ? Where did this idea come from ?

or (and most unlikely to me) was a henotheist.

I like that idea !

We've had a talk about belief before, so I won't respond to that bit of what you've said....


.......Based on that information the entire direction of your quote seems misguided.

Looks like you are in a bad mood today ???

In the Jewish mystical tradition "No one can see Him and live" is sometimes used as a reference to the idea that we cannot have an unfiltered experience of God because it would either destroy us because we would be so blinded in that light, as it were, that we could not perceive anything other than God, not even our own awareness of God.

Ok, well I think you probably know I am not big on hyperbole !!

Yes, it's an illusion. Nothing exists independently of God and everything is constantly being created, willed into existence, by God.

Huh ?? Where did this one come from ? You are back on the "active" description of G-d again. Now this sounds like your own idea, is that right ?

The kelipah itself is an illusion.

Does this mean "forces of evil" ? Figures, the one part you think is metaphor, I believe is real .

Being self-aware is realizing on a palpable rather than intellectual level that one's sense of self is an illusion,

This is sort of a stretch, although in the sense of biocentrism that we discussed earlier, I can make the stretch.

that He fills all worlds, surrounds all worlds, and nothing else exists but God.

Ok, I think we are back to pantheism and panenthism.

The kelipah is filled with beings who are ignorant of their own nature who we help to strengthen when we do not maintain a proper awareness of God.

I think you've gone too far here. If G-d is reality (pantheism) or reality plus (panethesim) I am not sure the forces of evil come from not understanding this. Perhaps they come from understanding this all too well ???

 

[dauer]

He did not believe in an anthropomorphic corporealist G-d.

How do you know?

Probably my favorite story of Avraham is the destruction of the idols in his fathers idol shop. What a classic !!! What an iconoclast !!

Yes, it's a good example of what I mean by the way in which interpreters project back onto the past.

What do you believe the real story is ??

I have no idea, but I don't think it's likely that, if Abraham is more than a mythical ancestor figure, that his beliefs were particularly different from those of his neighbors. Why are you so trusting of midrashic accounts about Abraham but skeptical of many other parts of the Torah? Does it matter to you whether or not the Torah is historically true?

Do you mean in the classic sense of pantheism, meaning a multiplicity of natural gods ?

Yes.

You mean two gods ? Where did this idea come from ?

If you're interested in the history of the Divine feminine in Judaism or in studies into YHWH's possible consort then you might find The Hebrew Goddess by Patai interesting.

Looks like you are in a bad mood today ???

Not at all. What makes you say that? I've discussed issues of belief with you before. I tend not to form strong beliefs about speculative areas of thought and saw no need to rehash all that.

Huh ?? Where did this one come from ? You are back on the "active" description of G-d again. Now this sounds like your own idea, is that right ?

No. You asked me about Reb Schneur Zalman of Liadi's beliefs about independent existence. Everything that followed my quote of your question is discussed by Reb Schneur Zalman. What I stated above that you were responding to is very typical of his views. This isn't about what I believe. Why would you think it odd for the first leader of a hasidic dynasty to belief in some form of involved deity? If the sefirot are pathways by which God interacts with the world, then by necessity we are discussing a God with involvement. Certainly for hasidism the whol idea of Divine providence, on a personal level, can be quite a big deal. When I'm discussing my own ideas I tend to make explicit reference to that fact when differentiation is necessary.

Does this mean "forces of evil" ? Figures, the one part you think is metaphor, I believe is real .

Not quite and I've never mentioned metaphor. There is some association of the kelipah with evil but it would be wrong to say that the kelipah is, simply, "forces of evil" as that's very vague and suggests some degree of power. If it's something you're interested in understanding, R' Adin Steinsaltz has a very good commentary on Tanya.

I think you've gone too far here. If G-d is reality (pantheism) or reality plus (panethesim) I am not sure the forces of evil come from not understanding this. Perhaps they come from understanding this all too well ???

I think it most likely comes from your not understanding this all too well. And, as I've said elsewhere regarding other things, the awareness suggested isn't about any sort of intellectual understanding or even about belief although both may be present as well.


-- Dauer

 

[Tao_Equus]

Why do you define perfection in terms of duplication?

s.

I do not. I included that merely to illustrate that nothing is so perfect that it is duplicated by some omnipotence recognising perfection.

Have you ever noticed how we call these imperfections and blemishes "beauty marks?" {or would that be a human ideal? }

It is always in the eye of the beholder. There are many people who think this universe beautiful beyond measure, and I am one of them. But perfection is a human notion. I just kind of object to this religious notion that the big guy in the sky is perfect and infallible and all knowing....its just banal "my daddy is better than your daddy" childishness. Its roots are in a totalitarian imposition on the psyche rather than warmth and love. I just object to people claiming they know who or what this deity is when it is clear to any rational person that nobody knows diddly squat.

 

[immortalitylost]

Hm, some really interesting, (and well worded) stuff here. I think my theories fall under panentheism. Can I play? Lol.

I like the idea that everyone can be right, and there is still one God, or creating force. Like someone said earlier, I don't see how a realistic God could be explained in other terms. Or, I haven't seen it done.

I saw a comment earlier about the universe being infinite... I was wondering how this fit in with the big bang, where, supposedly, a finite amount of energy and matter came into existence. Though, I do see your point about us creating false limitations and boundaries based on our limited understanding and "sight."

I've seen something interesting about the big bang, coincenedtly, about it being the result of a gynormous reverse balck hole. So, theoretically at least, it's possible that our universe was born out of recycled material from another universe. All very interesting.

So... I guess the purpose of my post was to say you can count me in as a part of the panentheist pack, lol. That is all, for now.

 

[immortalitylost]

For now didn't last very long...

Tao, true that. But we all have our favorite theory, lol.

Personally, It's a question of what makes sense to me in terms of a creator, or God. I choose to believe that there is a God, a creator. So, I try to describe him <-- (not trying to personify here it's just easier) and I choose the words omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Cuz, those are just the most applicable terms I can find to describe something that created a universe so vast and complex that bloomed out of a space the size of a pinprick and contains such diversity, and is so stable and destructive at the same time. I surmise that it would take those three things to create and be part of all of that. (and they do have a nice ring to them ). And all my reasoning about "him" blossoms from those three descriptors.

I don't know anything. But I guess at things. Cus, I'm just like that, lol, it's in my nature. I try not to fix any of my theories down. They're just the best guess I have at any given time until more information comes along. Because nothing is ever certain. Even fact. I've learned that much so far, lol.

 

[Avi]

Quote Avi:
He (Avraham) did not believe in an anthropomorphic corporealist G-d.

How do you know?

From my JPS commentary (1999, p. 10)

In the story of Abraham......God, portrayed for the most part less anthropomorphically than in the primeval history, overcomes the obstacles to His promises and blessings, so that Abraham finally acquires both the son from whom the promised nation shall descend and a foothold in the promised land.

Still looking at scripture for evidence.

I also believe his rejection of idolatry is proof of this belief.

 

[Tao_Equus]

For now didn't last very long...

Tao, true that. But we all have our favorite theory, lol.

Personally, It's a question of what makes sense to me in terms of a creator, or God. I choose to believe that there is a God, a creator. So, I try to describe him <-- (not trying to personify here it's just easier) and I choose the words omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Cuz, those are just the most applicable terms I can find to describe something that created a universe so vast and complex that bloomed out of a space the size of a pinprick and contains such diversity, and is so stable and destructive at the same time. I surmise that it would take those three things to create and be part of all of that. (and they do have a nice ring to them ). And all my reasoning about "him" blossoms from those three descriptors.

I don't know anything. But I guess at things. Cus, I'm just like that, lol, it's in my nature. I try not to fix any of my theories down. They're just the best guess I have at any given time until more information comes along. Because nothing is ever certain. Even fact. I've learned that much so far, lol.

Yup, I know you are a fence sitter....like me.
For all we know if there is a creator, (and there isnt ), it could be an incompetent retard of a deity incapable of tying its metaphorical shoelaces. Its just when I read all this crap about who said what about this or that I think...what an utter load of balls. Cant you see you are just talking about rather dull people who had too much time on their hands to gaze at their navels? Come on!! Wake up, smell the friggen coffee. Nobody knows sweet f all and thats the truth. So get your pompous delusion extracted from that smelly orifice and realise it. What I detest is that belief is an industry, a multi billion dollar one. And its all crap. The whole lot is just self-indulgent bull with no actuall relevance to our waking reality. It is dishonest, corrupt and most of all steals valuable effort and time from things that really do matter. I'm just fed up watching people discuss minutae as though it friggen matters. Its nonsense. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

 

[immortalitylost]

*holds out a Prozac* *cough* LOL

That's why all my theories tend to stay grand scale, lol. I hate squabbles about trivial little things that mean practically nothing in the big picture.

The multi billion dollars wouldn't be so bad if it all went where it should go, to help mankind. Same with government. Same with anything given enough time and spin power. People just get greedy and lose perspective.

ooo, and have you heard that ting about the reverse black hole and stuff? That's crazy, but it'd be cool if it was true, black holes always made me nervous because it was like death for matter and energy, but it may all get recycled, lol, so no worries.

And, I was watching this show about the first second after the big bang showing stages in plank time, and it reminded me a lot of how a baby grows. It was weird, but just some more of that syncronicity, lol.

 

[Thomas]

How can you know that if there is a creator that it would be perfect? Looking at the universe I see nothing that is perfect, indeed I see no two things that are the same. I would hazard an intuit that it is impossible for two things to be absolutely identical.

So would I. In fact, philosophically it's impossibly, as to be absolutely identical, they would have to occupy the same space and the same time ...

... but here we're into the philosophical argument of universals and particulars, of multiplicity and diversity ...

Why cant this creator be imperfect, flawed, even mindless.... an automaton if you like?

Because the universe shows signs of its own inhering rationality?

In short why do you keep imposing upon it human ideals? If there is a creator, and I believe that not to be the case in any meaningful way we could comprehend, why would it have to be this perfect thing you want to paint it?

I could respond the same might be said of science ... why do you keep looking for the answers to things ... why to understand things ... why do you invent 'laws of nature'? (who were the philosophers who opposed the idea of cause and effect?)

I suppose because, for some, the universe seems to make sense ... to communicate something of its own nature? If the universe is ultimately rational, then ... ?

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

Hi Nativeastral —

I am not deeply conversant with the Hindu texts, but does that not suggest the opposite on pantheism, or panentheism — not that the Divine is in the material, but that the material has no ontological being it can call 'self'?

From my reading of Guénon, he points out that the 'self' of Hindu metaphysics is not the self that most westerners assume. This 'self' is a universal self, the transcends the individual, which assumes something — selfhood — which it does not actually possess.

I suppose it devolves to whether 'reality' is perceived as a reality, or as an illusion. The Hindu texts would seem to suggest the latter, whereas generally the Abrahamic Traditions infer the former.

If reality is illusory, then so is pantheism, and panentheism?

I admit this is only an impression, but it revolves around the 'Big Question' I have always asked about reincarnation — if all that is 'me' is transitory and ephemeral, all part of the illusion ... what is it that reincarnates?

In the Christian Tradition, at least, 'being' is a given, a reality. Not God, for God is 'beyond-being' as both Plato and Christian philosophy insist, but being is real, concrete and actual.

That it depends on the Divine as it source, and as its sustainer, does not make it any less real ... it just means there is something greater than it.

A useful notion I came up with is that any quality that can be predicated of God, inescapably calls up its contrary ... and as there is no contrariness in God, it cannot adequately define the Deity.

In the Cosmos however, we cannot conceive of something without its contrary ... in fact we can only conceive things by their difference to other things ... so whilst I cans ay that all things are brought into being by God, I do not assume that God is in all being ... as being itself immediately invokes its contrary.

Really, I'd have to get into a deep investigation of the meaning of 'metaphor', 'analogy' ... but I think that would show that there is no necessary contiguity between a thing and its source.

Sorry ... rambling ... I've worked 38 hours of the last 72, just recovering from a 19.5 hour run ... so whilst I might seem lucid to me, I might actually be opaque to everyone else ...

... but we could conceive of a God, the deus absconditus, who made the finite realm, and has absolutely nothing to do with it ... where does that leave the various Modes of P then, I wonder?

Thomas

'everything that is in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth is penetrated with relatedness' hildegard of bingen

hi Thomas, check this guy out

'For consciousness is conscious of reality and consciousness of being reality; it is conscious of the ground of being and conscious of being the ground of being. Human nous and divine Nous are the same and yet not the same." [Hughes 1993:27-28]'

"The mystery of origins is, from the differentiated perspective, the mystery of the How and Why of the emergence of a finite, conditioned universe from a non-finite, unconditioned ground. As Voegelin convincingly argues there is no escaping the question of the ground itself, the question of what it is we ultimately 'come from'; and differentiated reason demands that the presence of finite reality be accorded a non-finite origin or cause. The ultimate purpose of the coming-into-being, therefore, and the manner of its creation, are unknowable to us, transcending finite powers of comprehension. Even the general notions of 'origination,' 'coming from,' 'creation,' 'causation,' and formation' can be applied to the relation between finite being and its transcendent ground only analogically; for the meanings of these terms derive from our understanding of relations between finite beings." [Hughes 1993:90]


"(5) The world cannot be adequately understood as the sum total of relations of autonomously existing things. That is not possible even when the directly experienced relations are extrapolated into infinity, for the indefinite progression is itself a world-immanent event. The mystery of a world permeated by divine activity is not eliminated by dissociating the transcendental experience of the cosmos into God and world. The impossibility of construing the world as a purely immanent complex of experiences is even today a central problem of theoretical physics.
"The historical-concrete problems will become more understandable in the light of these theses.

Dictionary of Voegelinian Terminology

Time as linear or cyclic, historical or ahistorical l suppose differentiates meaning and interpretation as well.

 

[Snoopy]

I do not.

OK.

I included that merely to illustrate that nothing is so perfect that it is duplicated by some omnipotence recognising perfection.

Now I'm confused again

You say that "perfection is a human notion", but is this above quoted bit not the same notion rephrased i.e. if something was perfect then you would see its duplication - and thus duplication is a sign of perfection?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

I just object to people claiming they know who or what this deity is when it is clear to any rational person that nobody knows diddly squat.

You seem to know that your idea of perfection would be the same as this deity, if such exists...

s.

 

[Snoopy]

The whole lot is just self-indulgent bull with no actuall relevance to our waking reality. It is dishonest, corrupt and most of all steals valuable effort and time from things that really do matter. I'm just fed up watching people discuss minutae as though it friggen matters. Its nonsense. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

(Quote taken from your post number 5,577 )

Is either more wasteful:

a) People discussing nonsensical minutae that doesn't friggen matter.

b) Watching people discussing nonsensical minutae that doesn't friggen matter.

s.