Hey how did you end up in heaven?

[c0de]

.

@ Brian

u never had a problem with fail pics before.

but fine, whatever...


@ CZ

aww shucks, thnX CZ

 

[path_of_one]

.All of this might have been "interesting" for you, and hopefully you learned something, but I'm not getting anything out of my interaction with you.

Then stop interacting with me.

You could have just said this and been done with it.

There... I have demonstrated brevity.

 

[c0de]

Then stop interacting with me.

You could have just said this and been done with it.

LoLz

you were the one who started this interaction, remember?

(... the river of confusion runs deep in this one)

There... I have demonstrated brevity.

good, u learned something.

Glad 2 be of service

 

[iBrian]

c0de, let's keep to a discussion please - you're just making personal attacks which are not welcome at all.

 

[path_of_one]

LoLz

you were the one who started this interaction, remember?

As I said before, I was interested in the interaction. You say you are not. So I fail to see why you continued beyond stating you were not interested.

I am no longer responding to your line of conversation because you said you have no interest in it. Conversation with a disinterested person is pointless.

good, u learned something.

I nearly always do.

Glad 2 be of service

*Gives gold star.*

 

[c0de]

I am no longer responding to your line of conversation because you said you have no interest in it.

So, you're saying u can successfully manage to respond to the "line" if i take an interest, yea?

Sounds like a bluff 2 me... and i think i'll Call.
*slides the chips in the pot* >Consider me interested<

Now, where were we? rite, you were about to respond to the following:

tran·scend·ent
–adjective

3.In Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
4.In Philosophy. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
b.Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental (defs. 5a, c).
c.(in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

It should be obvious from this (even for you) that if you believe in "no separation" then you DO NOT believe in a Transcendent Creator. It is THAT simple. So either change your language, or change your beliefs. As it stands right now: you are NOT a non-dualist you just think you are. If you want to be a monist, then you have to drop the idea of "no separation" or a transcendent Creator. You can't have both in a monist system...

 

[citizenzen]

You want her to describe the indescribable?

To put into words what is beyond words?

To accomplish what hasn't been accomplished in the history of humankind?

 

[path_of_one]

You want her to describe the indescribable?

To put into words what is beyond words?

To accomplish what hasn't been accomplished in the history of humankind?

I'm tempted to be flattered.

 

[path_of_one]

I'll have a go. Please know, though, that this is my last time with a computer (gasp!) for 2 weeks. I'm off to Oregon to visit family and then on to Nevada for an interfaith peace march. Walking 45 miles out in the desert... so no laptop. Can't wait.

.
tran·scend·ent
–adjective

3.In Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.

OK- so what is it to "transcend"? To go beyond the limits of, to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of, to outdo/outstrip in some attribute, quality, or power.

Well, yes, the Divine does all of these things in my opinion and experience. BUT, that does not necessitate separation. How?

Because we are the Divine extension- the end-point of the Divine power, so to speak. So yes, we are limited, and yet really our entire being rests within the Divine, not separate from or outside It. The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but it does have those parts within it. The barrier is transitory and artificial, a construct not a reality.

A limited but half-way decent analogy is my relationship to the cells of my liver. My cells probably don't usually think of themselves as belonging to me, or even to my liver. They probably aren't aware that they are part of a much broader being and unfolding plan than just doing their little liver-cell tasks. Yet they are. I am, somehow and miraculously, an awareness and being that is, at the same time, a process that is inclusive of myriad little beings, each of which have their own functions and attributes.

My liver is not separate from me. Yet is not all of me, or coterminous with me. I arguably transcend my liver, while embracing my liver within my own being and having no division whatsoever.

4.In Philosophy. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.

The Infinite would include the finite. Just not the other way 'round. Inclusion negates separation.

b.Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental (defs. 5a, c).

To me, this gets back to CZZ (I think it was he) and his comment in the Foundationist thread that while we can't know God fully, we can experience God. We can't realize the Divine within ourselves fully (perhaps, I'm not totally convinced that lack of having done it is lack of potential or possibility). But partial realization of the Divine indicates relationship, connection. And connection negates full separation.

c.(in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

See above.

It is THAT simple.

So simple that it has not inspired thousands and thousands of years of philosophy, mysticism, and religion. Oh, no. Because, you see, it's so darn simple.

you are NOT a non-dualist you just think you are. If you want to be a monist, then you have to drop the idea of "no separation" or a transcendent Creator. You can't have both in a monist system...

I think limiting the possibilities to dualism and monism is problematic. Any time there are only two options presented, I tend to think there is some lack of relationship to reality, because reality typically presents something more complex than that.

That said, the mind-body problem and related dualism is not (to me) equivalent to dualism posited in the Divine-human (or "creation"/Nature) relationship.

But, forced to take a stand in the Descartian conundrum, the closest thing I'd say my own beliefs conform to is neutral monism... but where the neutral substance is Spirit. From Spirit (or the Divine) arises both mind and body, arising from a single process and force/energy. In this way, information is actually stored outside the "self" and the "self" is actually non-existent, a temporary process within a larger unfolding. We think there is a mind and a body, but in fact there is neither (at least not independent of the Divine, and so all is ultimately reducible or consumed within the Divine reality).

 

[c0de]

.


@ CZ + Path

You want her to describe the indescribable?

To put into words what is beyond words?

To accomplish what hasn't been accomplished in the history of humankind?

err... actually, what I want her to do has been done by many a thinker before.
One of them was even mentioned by name in the definition I gave.

In fact, it is so basic, it is taught in first year philosophy classes
(but only in elementary proportions).

It is a task of clearing up the contradictions in your own beliefs,
which she has failed (in epic fashion) yet again.

I'll have a go. Please know, though, that this is my last time with a computer (gasp!) for 2 weeks. I'm off to Oregon to visit family and then on to Nevada for an interfaith peace march. Walking 45 miles out in the desert... so no laptop. Can't wait.

[/B]

OK- so what is it to "transcend"? To go beyond the limits of, to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of, to outdo/outstrip in some attribute, quality, or power.

Well, yes, the Divine does all of these things in my opinion and experience. BUT, that does not necessitate separation. How?

Because we are the Divine extension- the end-point of the Divine power, so to speak. So yes, we are limited, and yet really our entire being rests within the Divine, not separate from or outside It. The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but it does have those parts within it. The barrier is transitory and artificial, a construct not a reality.

A limited but half-way decent analogy is my relationship to the cells of my liver. My cells probably don't usually think of themselves as belonging to me, or even to my liver. They probably aren't aware that they are part of a much broader being and unfolding plan than just doing their little liver-cell tasks. Yet they are. I am, somehow and miraculously, an awareness and being that is, at the same time, a process that is inclusive of myriad little beings, each of which have their own functions and attributes.

My liver is not separate from me. Yet is not all of me, or coterminous with me. I arguably transcend my liver, while embracing my liver within my own being and having no division whatsoever.

[/B]

The Infinite would include the finite. Just not the other way 'round. Inclusion negates separation.



To me, this gets back to CZZ (I think it was he) and his comment in the Foundationist thread that while we can't know God fully, we can experience God. We can't realize the Divine within ourselves fully (perhaps, I'm not totally convinced that lack of having done it is lack of potential or possibility). But partial realization of the Divine indicates relationship, connection. And connection negates full separation.

[/B]

See above.



So simple that it has not inspired thousands and thousands of years of philosophy, mysticism, and religion. Oh, no. Because, you see, it's so darn simple.



I think limiting the possibilities to dualism and monism is problematic. Any time there are only two options presented, I tend to think there is some lack of relationship to reality, because reality typically presents something more complex than that.

That said, the mind-body problem and related dualism is not (to me) equivalent to dualism posited in the Divine-human (or "creation"/Nature) relationship.

But, forced to take a stand in the Descartian conundrum, the closest thing I'd say my own beliefs conform to is neutral monism... but where the neutral substance is Spirit. From Spirit (or the Divine) arises both mind and body, arising from a single process and force/energy. In this way, information is actually stored outside the "self" and the "self" is actually non-existent, a temporary process within a larger unfolding. We think there is a mind and a body, but in fact there is neither (at least not independent of the Divine, and so all is ultimately reducible or consumed within the Divine reality).

Path, do you see the sentence I highlighted in red?
You could have skipped everything else you wrote,
and just posted that. Because that is the sum total
of this post's contribution.

And this is how easily I can refute this point of yours.
Take a look at the definition again:

4.In Philosophy. a.Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.

If God was just "infinite" then your response would be valid
as the infinite DOES encompass the finite. But HE is not just infinite,
He is ABOVE infinite. Transcendent=ABOVE the INFINITE.

so there goes your entire thesis...
like ash blown away by the wind.

"Infinite" is a mathematical concept, that God created.
Infinite is NOT God. Infinite is our experience of the reality
that He created for us. Infinite is the chaotic nature of irrational
numbers that govern everything from the weather, to the our
stormy interpersonal relations. That is what is "infinite".

And as for the lack of separation that you feel, that is not your
connection with God, that is the connection between us. It's
humanity between which separation is only an illusion.
That is why God said that the creation of all human beings,
was as the creation of a single soul.

God is above all of this. Hence the term: "Transcendent"




p.s. enjoy your hippie desert love march (or whatever : P)

 

[citizenzen]

In fact, it is so basic, it is taught in first year philosophy classes...

Okay... if it's so easy, then you do it.

 

[c0de]

been there, done that (many a times on this forum).

btw, I thought you were trying to ignore me dude?

whahappened? (LoLz)

 

[citizenzen]

been there, done that (many a times on this forum).

Uhhh... can you say, "fail"?

I know you can.

btw, I thought you were trying to ignore me dude...

Hey, I was just giving you positive affirmations a few posts back.

I want us all to be a big group-huggin' happy family... eventually... after we throw a few more dishes at each other.

 

[c0de]

Uhhh... can you say, "fail"?

I know you can.

CZ, I would give you a list of conversations I have had with Netti, DITB and Thomas about this very issue. But honestly, I just don't take you seriously enuff to respond to your challenges. Me engaging you would just be sad, and wrong... like if mike tyson fought that vampire wannabe dude from twilight.

Hey, I was just giving you positive affirmations a few posts back.

I want us all to be a big group-huggin' happy family... eventually... after we throw a few more dishes at each other.

"we" ??? aww that's so cute. CZ thinks he's actually a part of the discussion : P

 

[citizenzen]

"we" ??? aww that's so cute. CZ thinks he's actually a part of the discussion : P

How absurd of me to have assumed such nonsense.

 

[citizenzen]

One last thing...

Since you've decided that I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the forum, you've earned a trip to my ignore list.

It's really quite a positive development for you. There will be fewer posts for me to respond to, hence fewer times that you'll have to endure my stupid thoughts. Just think how your IQ will benefit due to the decreased exposure to my idiocy. You may become even smarter than you are now... as if that were possible.

Peace out, brother-man.

 

[citizenzen]

...you've earned a trip to my ignore list.

The thread's looking thinner.

Has it lost weight?

 

[c0de]

How absurd of me to have assumed such nonsense.

One last thing...

Since you've decided that I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the forum, you've earned a trip to my ignore list.

It's really quite a positive development for you. There will be fewer posts for me to respond to, hence fewer times that you'll have to endure my stupid thoughts. Just think how your IQ will benefit due to the decreased exposure to my idiocy. You may become even smarter than you are now... as if that were possible.

Peace out, brother-man.

The thread's looking thinner.

Has it lost weight?

wow...

r u still here?

and seriously, how many times will u b telling me that you're ignoring me?

also, please stop quoting yourself, that's just, creepy.

 

[path_of_one]

.

Path, do you see the sentence I highlighted in red?
You could have skipped everything else you wrote,
and just posted that. Because that is the sum total
of this post's contribution.

No, it isn't. You presume that to fit the definition of transcendence, a concept must fit ALL definitions. This is not how the English language typically works. Generally speaking, one must only fit ONE definition to meet the criteria of using a word.

So perhaps you may wish to discuss the rest of the issue? Or not, as you desire. As you've said, you aren't finding this interesting, so perhaps you'd rather ignore it.

If God was just "infinite" then your response would be valid
as the infinite DOES encompass the finite. But HE is not just infinite,
He is ABOVE infinite. Transcendent=ABOVE the INFINITE.

OK. Correction on my part:

"The Limitless contains both the infinite and the finite, and that Limitless is God Herself. Thus, God Herself transcends both the infinite and finite, and yet contains them both."

Enjoy. Sorry for the confusion and pardon my poor word choice.

And as for the lack of separation that you feel, that is not your
connection with God, that is the connection between us.

Your powers to read my mind and feelings, and know just what I feel and what it means are astounding. Really, you should go into business as a psychic. I'm always impressed when other people claim to know better than myself my own thoughts and feelings and their origins.

p.s. enjoy your hippie desert love march (or whatever : P)

I very much did. It was not hippies, but rather clergy, monks, nuns, and dedicated lay-persons of various faiths coming together to pray and walk for peace. But, hippies are great too and no doubt some have hippie tendencies.

 

[c0de]

No, it isn't. You presume that to fit the definition of transcendence, a concept must fit ALL definitions.

I used the definition under "theology" and "philosophy".
Both relate directly to our discussion and ALSO to the
historical dialogue on the subject.

So perhaps you may wish to discuss the rest of the issue? Or not, as you desire. As you've said, you aren't finding this interesting, so perhaps you'd rather ignore it.

I rather ignore it because of the types of arguments that you
have made above, and the one below:

"The Limitless contains both the infinite and the finite, and that Limitless is God Herself.

"limitless" is just another word for infinite !!!

(LoLz)

Your powers to read my mind and feelings, and know just what I feel and what it means are astounding.

Don't flatter yourself... (you're not that hard a read.)


Anywayzz... this will be my last response on this thread.