Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Mary, You write Tom, it s fairly difficult to think of creation non-anthropomorphically. Acceptance of the random is more akin to koan thinking. I agree
    Message 1 of 50 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      You write

      Tom, it's fairly difficult to think of "creation" non-anthropomorphically. Acceptance of the "random" is more akin to koan thinking.

      I agree that the anthropomorphic projection is necesary to relate the mystery to our mental operations. I am only saying that in all probability it is only a way for us to relate it in our minds.As Einstein said "The human mind is not capable of grasping the universe", and that is Einstein speaking.

      Peace,
      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mary
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:56 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: implicate order



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > I suspect terms like the "Gods" are symbols to depict unknown realities, like the x in Algebra.I have heard it said that according to the Big Bang theory, before the Big Bang, there was no time and space, and since our brains have evolved to deal with space/time problems,our mind sorta comes to a blank. That may be a bit like the Zen koan.

      Tom, it's fairly difficult to think of "creation" non-anthropomorphically. Acceptance of the "random" is more akin to koan thinking.

      > I have had enough syncronicities over the years to not have any doubt that something more than can be explained by materialistic reductionism is going on.

      If we discover how synchronicity or the paranormal works, the explanation will become reductionist. The experiences, however, will not be common to everyone, and the argument about what's "real" will continue. Semantics and labeling will go on and on...

      Mary





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • hb3g@ymail.com
      Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence. The only thing I might take issue with is using the
      Message 50 of 50 , Feb 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence.

        The only thing I might take issue with is using the term "Copenhagen solution". It is not really a solution. It is more like an interpretation. But the fact does remain that we run into that brick wall of indeterminacy.

        How we interpret that fact was the issue. Neils Bohr concluded that the indeterminacy was an intrinsic feature of physical reality. Einstein was more Kantian about it. He viewed it as a limitation of human intellect.

        Where the truth lies is hard to say.

        Maybe they are both half right and half wrong.

        For, even if it is a characteristically "human" phenomenon to have this brick wall there, the human being is still a natural phenomenon that has come into existence through natural evolutionary processes. The human being is a form of life. And a configuration of matter and energy.

        That "indeterminacy" is, in some sense, ontologically intrinsic. Maybe, without it, there could be no freedom or knowledge.

        I don't know.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > I would still have to say that there is no actual 'product' here, and hence no producer, designer or creator. When pressed on the matter, Einstein explicitly cites Spinoza. In Spinoza (regarded always as an atheist, until certain post-War Jews have tried to make him -- and Einstein -- Jewish again), the cosmos is coeval and identical with "God", which is the one and only substance, and as such is not 'made' -- or else it would not be substance but a mode among other modes. Making God as essentially everything, makes of that concept an ontology-in-itself, one without a transcendent Mind that thinks temporally. As in Aristotle, all that this supreme concept can think is thought without thoughts (pure Nous, but in Spinoza without any Ideal reserve or 'realm'), which thereby is apparent in the rationality of truth and the eternality of physical laws.
        >
        > Using "God" in this way, as Spinoza's contemporaries knew, takes everything Godlike out of the concept, except for necessary existence. Einstein sees this as the underlying 'beauty' of physics, of the rational cohesion of a total systematicity gleanable by rational methods. Within this context, nothing can be an accident -- Einstein only begrudgingly accepted the Copenhagen solution of indeterminacy, But the cosmos itself is inexplicable. It seems just to be, but NOT designed.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 6:36 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I have read those quotes also, and certainly wasn't implying that Einstein was in anyway inline with Jesuits or other theists. He did believe that the universe was the product of some great intelligence, rather than a trillion to one accident.
        >
        > Peace,
        > 'Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:17 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > The rest of that first quote reads, " ... If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
        > The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the morecertain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does notlie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,but through striving after rational knowledge.
        > Immortality? Thereare two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and isthus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conservethe memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only onetrue immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of thecosmos itself. There is no other."
        >
        > The second quote begins with this, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist ...
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 5:07 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I think Einstein's views were somewhat akin to those in Eastern religions.
        >
        > The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > I also found this quote, which I also relate to. What I was attempting to convey to Mary is that I believe we live within a mystery.
        >
        > I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > As for as I am concerned though, nothing would suprise me. I have stated I am doubtful that existence is totally a product of random forces;however, I am not insisting that the random assumption or even the theistic ones are not possibilities,however remote.Like Knot used to say, he wasn't sure if he existed or if everything he was experiencing was an illusion. I also see that as a possibility, or maybe it is none of the above.
        >
        > Peace,
        > Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:37 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > Let us remember that Einstein believed in an eternal universe without beginning and end, like Hoyle. His "god" was math, or in any case Spinoza's singular "substance" as a totality of rational order. He did not believe in a creator, nor creation. In his more candid moods, he said that his "god" talk was for the sake of us stupid Americans who had assailed relativity as immoral.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 11:36 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom, I'm still struggling to understand how randomness can create, or conversely, how creation doesn't happen without creators. Einstein couldn't help but see what he saw, anymore than we can help how we see differently. Myths are anthropomorphic projections about the unknown, and what* do atheists assume is nonexistent?? Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
        > Fundamentalists project anthromorphic identities on the unknown; and I think atheists assume it is nonexistent.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > =
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.