On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:39:18 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was
referring to
modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value system.
I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the
parmenides one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of
those
who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical
popularization,
who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with politics.
But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political
because
the "unifying truths" are the cultural proscriptions about behavior and
values.
Not according to the writing.
If there is one clear thing from Parmenides to Enneads, it is the separation between
appearance of world affairs and divine reality,
Bruno was referring to Christians and Jews.
with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze.
You mean their assertion of that is clear. It's begging the question to say it
is clear.
Divine reality is not some political stance, nor is it set of cultural traits.
That's what you say. It's not what the Pope or the Southern Baptists or the Imam's say.
They all claim that God commands certain political stances.
Political stance, behavior, laws, and rules we can talk/argue about, but by antique
definition, "one" is the simplest of all ideas.
Why isn't it "zero" or "two".
So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization,
The "one" is the simplest of all ideas is a facile abstraction.
or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to break something,
which is the ultimate simple, down further), so simple as to elude people, try as they
might to capture it or make it fit some personal agenda.
I haven't noticed them having any difficult making it fit their personal agendas. It's
vague enough to fit anything.
The "unifying truth" is "one" and it is nameless and without graspable attributes and
properties.
So you say.
And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave of forms, easily
mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc.
"Fits with" is vague enough to fit with assertion.
God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all,
and
rewards and punishes all. The truths of mathematics and physics and
biology are of
little relevance. His "truths" are about procreation and war and ethics
and loyalty
to the tribe.
You seem to be treating some projection of yours, as what Bruno references is pretty
standard Greek mythology.
Bruno referred to Christian and Jewish mythology. But standard Greek mythology consisted
of supernatural immortal beings contending for power and sexual adventures. Do you believe
in Zeus, Jupiter, Juno, Hermes,... And why are they of any more interest than Ba'al or
Odin or Ahura Mazda?
>>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend.
Well, if you
forget the superstition, it has some important relation. Monotheism is a
reflexion
of parmenides or Plotinus monism.
Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth
kether
(kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet cannot be
named;
the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… that is without form
or
definition yet which fills and animates all things…. The divine spark so to
speak.
I think so.
A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral and
considered
(by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who do not fear god;
But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the
devil
should be feared. (between us).
Unless you are the devil. Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to
stone
adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.
Brent
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns
out that
God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott
The very idea of "people's relation to god => who we should hate, superiority, politics
etc." is already too low and worldly to start with, that it itself cannot be divine. So
those comments and the quote don't seem relevant.
Concerning the devil, I think the Yazidis have a noteworthy take on who they see as
Peacock Angel. It makes one ask whether the vain Peacock Angel's tears of remorse would
soften the harsh truths or not: e.g. will some benevolent future Star Trek force defrost
Clark's awesome ice cube head or judge that he spammed too much and is taking too much
disk space for the money he spent?
And thanks Brent for the Castaneda article to show how mystical types are all the same.
I would say that our naive theological attitude, equating all theological questioning
with some fear-based cartoon in our heads
It's not in our heads, it's in this culuture and written in the sacred books which Bruno
referred to: "I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of
those who believe in an unifying truth."
(instead of sincerely trying to parse and test them rationally), is what made the
western reader ideal prey for this kind of manipulation. Your anti-mystical posts, in
this regard, repeatedly make this rather irrational point,
What "irrational point"? That all mystics are the same? that's not a point I've ever
tried to make.
when all it needs is reason: if the western reader had had sufficient mystical
experience with techniques of trance and ecstasy, that book would have never made the
bestseller list.
How is experience the same as reason? That's the attitude that charlatan's prey on: "If
you don't believe in my magic you're just prejudiced, you have to try it first." Your
theory seems to be that if people had sufficient experience with travel to other planets
and remembering their time in the womb they wouldn't be taken in by Scientology? I can
think of a lot easier and more efficient ways of avoiding nonsense than by indulging in it.
People would have thrown it into the trash, ridiculing the inept and naive consumption
of poisons, as well as the experiential results that the book points towards.
Exactly what I did with it after reading a few pages. So why wasn't I "ideal prey for
this kind of manipulation"?
Brent
It is impossible for anyone to dispel his fear over the most important
matters, if he does not know what is the nature of the universe but
instead suspects something that happens in myth. Therefore, it is
impossible to obtain unmitigated pleasure without natural science.
-- Epicurus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
