Pantheism vs. Panentheism:
An A.T. Commenter ("Old Dog") said, "You know...I just don't understand why...why? What possesses these people to make them want to destroy America? I can only come up with two words. Ignorance and Evil. Not a good combination but it is the only answer to why."
*****
Well, they have lost almost all faith. Many have been so misled or abused as to have become incorrigibly conditioned for serving only themselves, having learned no appreciation for just how hollow that sort of service is. The moral belief system to which they hang on to for dear life is the one that is most accessible for zombies who are already almost dead spiritually. This belief system is also the default system for sociopaths, gang-bangers, cult-bangers, and those so twisted as to wish to stamp out all contrary belief systems (and infidels?) as being alien to empirically based logic. This belief system drives most adherents (Pelosi?) to barely concealed rage, which its adherents duplicitously channel in order to pretend they are our champions (Stalin and Soros?). Intuitive empathy for any higher level of consciousness slips beyond them. Their ideal becomes this: That no consciousness exists beyond the consciousness they now know. The after-world as they conceive it is a "physics" that is populated only by dead rocks. Thus, they behave as if all higher empathy should already be dead. For them, there is no conscious source of empathy. There is only random physical evolution for expressing recurring memes. Know what has twisted this enemy, for it is a dangerous adversary of decency. At every reasonable opportunity stand fast and employ tough love, while wishing the poor shells that carry these lurching creatures about, "Merry Christmas."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Money is the oxygen of politics. At the stroke of a magical pen, gangsters now pretending to be representatives can tax opponents into extinction, enrich lickspittles into demigods, and all the while create an illusion of serving a constituency. The source of this magic lies in the sinister buying and selling of trust, by pretending to serve a false world view. Warlords of this magic pen are wrestling: one now has a chokehold, but both are giving the middle class the middle digit. What champion will grasp the pen and wield it without being corrupted or destroyed?
Well, I took the watchword in Avatar to be “balance,” as in mathematical balancing of the physics and empiricism of nature. But pantheists and empiricists seem never to voice intuition of a Source for the balancing, which Itself would be superior to such balancing.
Such Source’s interactions with IT’s creations could never be empirically measured by IT’s creations as being other than consistent with mathematical balancing. Yet, IT’s meta-choices among potentials for IT’s interactions would be ruled under IT’s own holistic kind of consciousness.
This kind of intuition entails empathetic respect for a meta-Consciousness, beyond the mere balancing of “physics.” This is the kind of intuition and empathy that pantheists fail to respect, and often disrespect (as if it were disproven by “science”).
Why is it important to notice how pantheists deny any higher or meta-consciousness, as they place all their faith in an illusion of our incomplete, mortal “physics”? Well, do a mind experiment and ask: What sort of moral principles would devolve to be espoused by a pantheist versus a believer in a higher Source of consciousness?
Which would seek at all costs to perfect a tower of Babel, and which would seek primarily to teach good will, good faith, and sustainable empathy among all? Which would contrive a self-serving vision of “saving the planet” and then insist it was the only scientifically supportable vision? And which kind of civilization do you want to be a part of?
BTW -- If "natural balance" is your most superior moral guidepost, who among our elites should say when how it should apply? Is not nature always, necessarily, "in balance"? If "balance" is your only guidepost, are you really saying anything substantive? On the other hand, if empathetic respect for each perspective of consciousness is the guidepost, then no mere mortal need be taken as superior to each person's individual responsibility to account directly for his or her own relationship with meta-Consciousness. Did God give us minds to sense His creation, only for us to surrender our minds to mere spins on dogma? Must all bow to Lord Gore, Obama, Dear Leader, or Whackjob?
Kate7 said, "We cannot fight them with religion. We do not all agree on religion."
Well, this is an unnecessary confusion among non-believers. We don't need to agree on dogma. The dogma is useful only for figurative inspiration. We need only become practiced in humble receptivity to guidance direct from a higher Source. For those who have that, good will and good faith will resolve the rest. Literalistic dogma is less about religion or spirituality than it is about establishing and enforcing hierarchies of power and control. For those who care not for receptivity to a higher Source, your notion of punting in respect for the "uniqueness and inalienable 'rights' of all human beings" would, at best, constitute only a cheap substitute. That may be better than nothing, but you're only fooling yourself if you believe some purely material, unconscious world consciously cares a whit about supposed "rights." What is your basis for these "rights"?
As among (1) Spiritual Individualists and (2) Religious Communalists or
Secular Humanists:
One inclines to the existence of good; the other often inclines to a
delusion that it is good that there is no existential Source of good.
One appreciates the Community; the other surrenders his identity of
self to the existentiality of the Commune.
One retains conscious freedom of conscience to empathize with others,
as God gives him the light; the other subordinates his freedom in order
to empathize with others, as his superiors interpret that God or Gaia
gives them the light.
One is jealous to stay close to the Source of truth, beauty, and
justice; the other regiments himself to the visions of others as to
truth, beauty, and justice.
One keeps God company; the other appreciates God or Gaia only through
intermediaries.
One appreciates God as a partner, bestowing free will; the other sees
God or Gaia as a ruthless subjugator of free will.
One wants to revere particular points of view regarding freedom and
dignity; the other wants to tame laws from the field of Gaia in order to
subjugate and regulate communalists.
Of “the other,” some go so far as to consider God to be nothing but
naturally dictating, replicable, predictable laws of nature, i.e.,
Gaia., i.e., God of Secular Humanists.
For the teleology of God, the Story of man is the story of the
interrelations of One with the Other; i.e., the ongoing struggle between
forces for defending the dignity of freedom of thought versus forces for
reducing human minds to zombie regurgitators of dogma.
TOPS: Hey Brian,
I share aspects of your take on consciousness. Merrily, life is but a dream; the material world is means for logos, for inter-signification and feedback between perspectives of consciousness. If the material world could come from nothingness, there would be little reason to believe it cannot return to nothingness. Were all of material being to return to nothingness, what would be left of potential for consciousness?
I suspect our various perspectives may more intelligibly traverse the rift between Conscious Will and Causal Materialism once we better appreciate the receding illusoriness of trying to reduce Conscious Will entirely to Material Causation. But no, a TOE cannot explain the beauty of "this." lol!
Post a Comment