A fool does not understand beyond his level;so too Gopalaa; same YM also wrote about the french father as well as the book spectrum of the consciousness where I added more; poor soul who does not know english and still need of Oxford etc, cannot stretch out out of shear sarcasm. Now read bodhu Gopal : K R IRS 23324 The Evolution of the TheosphereTeilhard described some turning points in evolution, from the atomic through the emergence of large masses of mineral compounds, planets, and geological forms—but not yet life. He called this phase the *geosphere*.
Life appeared—we don’t know how yet—but it is not implausible to consider the possibility that there are other dimensions operating in the shift towards increasing complexification of matter. From the first pre-bacterial compounds through several shifts of complexity and emergent qualities, we have today an incredibly varied and complex *biosphere*. Soon after or possibly concurrent with the emergence of the biosphere the most rudimentary forms of mind emerge. (Indeed, DeQuincey argues compellingly for interiority, subjectivity, mind-like dynamics operate even at the sub-atomic level, are integral as a dimension in existence—and he draws on a goodly number of philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead to make this argument.) As mind becomes more complex, it becomes able to communicate with other minds, and this might be the beginning of the next level, what Teilhard called the *noosphere*. With the emergence of consciousness capable of reflecting on its own existence, this uniquely human capacity (at least on this planet) also began to envision a greater wholeness, a living dynamism that included individual, separate existence. A number of writers more recently have written books about the history not just of Western religions, but of all religions, of the very notion of there being a Greater Integrity to existence. Teilhard called this growing sensibility the *theosphere*. One problem in this schema is the Western tendency towards associating monotheism not just with the underlying principle of unity, but rather with a single being. God is imaigined not as the over-all field of becoming, but the image is personfied as not just a single pervasive force—the single force—in the cosmos, but a force that has a will, a focus of intension, a specific desire. (The idea that God might desire everything to become more in more interesting ways seems to be beyond many early prophets. Some Hindu theologies might come closer.). This view of a more patriarchal, king-like god certainly supports monotheistic clerical establishments, but it denies the idea that God enjoys, celebrates, emphasizes the way Divinity can express itself through an innumerable variety of forms and activities—a variety that enjoys expanding, splitting off variations, creatively elaborating in all possible ways. This “Creative Advance” (a term used by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead) is truly glorious, a zillion times more glorious than the obsolete patriarchal image of a single king on a throne. (Tillich wrote about a "ground of being," and that's good, but doesn't capture the dynamism of becoming, or the underlying lure towards becoming, the value inherent in every event.) Similarly, a trend in the evolution of all of the above has been an expansion of variety and complexity and integration and types of harmony and balance. It has not been a reduction to a single victorious species and a defeat of all other species, or other variations of lifestyle within our own species. That was a temporary world-view—only a few millennia in duration—, an expression of a stage of immature but necessary development as humanity learned to operate in collective endeavors. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: 'gopala krishnan' via Thatha_Patty <thatha_patty@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 18:27 Subject: Theosphere To: iyern...@gmail.com <iyern...@gmail.com>, Patty Thatha < thatha_patty@googlegroups.com>, Kerala Iyer <keralaiy...@googlegroups.com>, Laxminarayan Sarma <laxminarayan.sa...@gmail.com> Sirs, Even Mr Markandeyalu who wrote the article wrote, it is a word coined by him. I searched my Oxford dictionary and there is no word like theosphere in it. There is no wonder in the foolish dictionary of Mr Rajarm the word could be there!!! Gopalakrishnan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/136873287.294611.1711150059370%40mail.yahoo.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/136873287.294611.1711150059370%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqGSov9j_Pnq%2BNygC_m0MMhZhwRS-G1KW3VUR%2Bzq-Sm4g%40mail.gmail.com.
