Hello duality

  • Thread starter Thread starter glowingembers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aristotle said that everything is One, but everything is also Many. It seems glowingembers is emphasizing the first half to the exclusion of the latter.

The first half without the latter leads to some sort of pantheism, I suppose. The second half without the former leads to nominalism (i.e., no “types” exists, only the individual particulars).

Christians tend to hold both: God is absolute and immanent in all things (so all is One), but God is also transcendent from His creation (so there are many different things also in existence).

At least that’s what I’m getting out of this thread. I feel another poem coming on…
 
1holycatholic said:
:ehh:
Click to expand...
Some verses in the bible suggest that the Father is invisible.

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (Begotten), who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (John 1:18)

“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:16)
 
cpayne said:
Aristotle said that everything is One, but everything is also Many. It seems glowingembers is emphasizing the first half to the exclusion of the latter.

The first half without the latter leads to some sort of pantheism, I suppose. The second half without the former leads to nominalism (i.e., no “types” exists, only the individual particulars).

Christians tend to hold both: God is absolute and immanent in all things (so all is One), but God is also transcendent from His creation (so there are many different things also in existence).

At least that’s what I’m getting out of this thread. I feel another poem coming on…
Click to expand...
Well, the oneness I talk about is beyond space and time, so it transcends the world. It is the source of the world, which is what is commonly called God. But the world consists of differentiated parts of the source, so we can also say that God is also immanent in the world.
 
glowingembers said:
Some verses in the bible suggest that the Father is invisible.

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (Begotten), who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (John 1:18)

“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:16)
Click to expand...
:ehh:
 
geometer said:
Potential energy is energy. Energy is the ability to do work. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion.
Click to expand...
So, regarding the philosophy of science,
Energy is the principle of energy?
Do you believe that energy is eternal?
geometer said:
I really do not follow your remarks about potent happyness or a happyness potential.

And, the notion that God is equivalent to action, or his mind is completely active, seem to be very strange conjectures.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps,
Energy is not Happiness.
Do you believe that Happiness exists?
geometer said:
Omni-potence is about the potence of God, he is all powerful. Potential is a reference power…

…God gave us the ten commandments, and do not believe that we have been called to create a set of laws for him to follow.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that energy is God?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
So, regarding the philosophy of science,
Energy is the principle of energy?
Do you believe that energy is eternal?

Then perhaps,
Energy is not Happiness.
Do you believe that Happiness exists?

Do you believe that energy is God?
Click to expand...
Energy is the principle of energy?

No, energy is the ability to do work.

Do you believe that energy is eternal?

I do not know. It is said that it can neither be created or destroyed, but I also don’t know the fate of energy which enters black holes.

Do you believe that Happiness exists?

I believe that one can be happy…👍

Do you believe that energy is God?

I believe he is more subtle than energy. To believe that God is energy would be pantheism. Panentheism approximates the omnipresents of God…
 
geometer said:
Energy is the principle of energy?

No, energy is the ability to do work.

Do you believe that energy is eternal?

I do not know. It is said that it can neither be created or destroyed, but I also don’t know the fate of energy which enters black holes.

Do you believe that Happiness exists?

I believe that one can be happy…👍

Do you believe that energy is God?

I believe he is more subtle than energy. To believe that God is energy would be pantheism. Panentheism approximates the omnipresents of God…
Click to expand...
So,
The Principle of Perfect Happiness governs the ability to become a happier human being?
The Principle of Perfect Human Happiness governs the ability to become a happier human being?

What would be the difference between,
The Principle of Perfect Happiness,
And
A perfectly happy human being?

What would be the difference between,
The Principle of Perfect Human Happiness,
And
A perfectly happy human being?
 
glowingembers said:
Hello Duality

The undifferentiated Oneness seems to differentiate itself into things through a fundamental dualistic orientation: separation and unification of itself. In order for things to be differentiated from the whole they must become separated, yet they must also be parts of the whole so that they have something to be differentiated from, like figure and ground. As Logos divides, so Spirit unites, and both testify of the One behind them.
Click to expand...
Incorrect,
The Principle of Perfect Unity has no separation, actual or apparent (by definition).
 
glowingembers said:
Hello Duality

The undifferentiated Oneness seems to differentiate itself into things through a fundamental dualistic orientation: separation and unification of itself. In order for things to be differentiated from the whole they must become separated, yet they must also be parts of the whole so that they have something to be differentiated from, like figure and ground. As Logos divides, so Spirit unites, and both testify of the One behind them.
Click to expand...
Glowingembers,

I had some time this morning to read this entire thread and am mystified at the responses that your OP induced. Let me offer a word of encouragement by saying I think I know exactly what you mean. I can say that because I have put considerable thought into the meaning of life and arrived at the conclusion that to understand our existence that we have to break our observations down to a ground level. You know: the idea that David Bohm expressed as the implicate level. I believe that anyone that understands the difference between the implicate and the explicate does not deserve the snide comments your concise OP received.

I think understand what you mean because it is very much the same basic idea that I presented in my thread, “God Exists, But How?” What you refer to as the undifferentiated nothingness or ultimate nothingness, I refer to as the infinite nothingness, the entity that existed before the big bang and beyond the universe. I think perhaps you could avoid some of the discordance by using “possibility” instead of “potential” in describing the undifferentiated nothingness. In my complete thesis I refer to total reality as consisting of three realms: Possibility, Probability, and Actuality. Possibility is akin to your undifferentiated nothingness; Actuality is the differentiated whole; and probability is the process of actualization through the action of God and the mind of man.

You might want to read what I had to say on my thread to see if we agree.

Yppop
 
yppop said:
Glowingembers,

I had some time this morning to read this entire thread and am mystified at the responses that your OP induced. Let me offer a word of encouragement by saying I think I know exactly what you mean. I can say that because I have put considerable thought into the meaning of life and arrived at the conclusion that to understand our existence that we have to break our observations down to a ground level. You know: the idea that David Bohm expressed as the implicate level. I believe that anyone that understands the difference between the implicate and the explicate does not deserve the snide comments your concise OP received.

I think understand what you mean because it is very much the same basic idea that I presented in my thread, “God Exists, But How?” What you refer to as the undifferentiated nothingness or ultimate nothingness, I refer to as the infinite nothingness, the entity that existed before the big bang and beyond the universe. I think perhaps you could avoid some of the discordance by using “possibility” instead of “potential” in describing the undifferentiated nothingness. In my complete thesis I refer to total reality as consisting of three realms: Possibility, Probability, and Actuality. Possibility is akin to your undifferentiated nothingness; Actuality is the differentiated whole; and probability is the process of actualization through the action of God and the mind of man.

You might want to read what I had to say on my thread to see if we agree.

Yppop
Click to expand...
Hello Yppop,

How do you define implicate and explicate?

Since,
Not everything Possible is Probable,
And
Not everything Probable is Actual,
Then,
What is the principle that governs this filtration?
 
By the way, what’s the difference between nothingness and Infinite Nothingness? Is nothingness infinitely divisible? How? Is it infinite in duration? What is the “duration” of nothingness?

When mystics speak of the experience of nothingness, they are usually speaking of a spiritual condition. Is that the sense in which you mean it?

:sleep: this is me thinking of nothing.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Hello Yppop,

How do you define implicate and explicate?
Click to expand...
I use the terms implicate and explicate much in the same way as David Bohm, a highly respected Physicist and companion of Einstein’s, talked about the implicate order and the explicate order. The explicate order is the reality that we experience and science describes. It is a fragmented order in which individual units behave according to the well described relationships, often mathematical laws. The implicate order is a reality that we don’t experience, but it is reality at a deeper level, how things really are. The implicate order began to reveal itself with the invention of relativity and especially quantum mechanics. The word implicate is used in its meaning of “to enfold”, which implies a reality which is a single whole in which everything is interdependent on everything else. Bohm was one of the founders of what sometimes is called, the emerging paradigm, in which phenomena like consciousness, holograms, information, and other concepts not part of the current scientific paradigm are being discussed.

I hope this is what you were looking for.
Since,
Not everything Possible is Probable,
And
Not everything Probable is Actual,
Then,
What is the principle that governs this filtration?
Click to expand...
A full understanding of a Possibility, Probability, and Actuality, as an ongoing process, entails a need to expand the scientific definition of reality from the narrowly restricted “objective reality”, to which the materialists pay homage, to also include subjective, rational, and transcendent reality. Then we can talk about tangential and radial insight and how possibilities are actualized in the creation of the universe, the earth, life, the mind, and soul. Actualization is primarily an act of God for most of the history of the universe when only possibility and actuality existed. It wasn’t until the appearance of the human mind that probability appeared as the third realm of reality.
Tangential insight is the (name removed by moderator)ut of ideas revealed through knowledge and learning from the collective mind of humanity. Radial insight is the (name removed by moderator)ut of ideas revealed directly from the realm of possibility through revelation, creativity, and inspiration.

I imagine by now your eyes may be glazing over, as often happens when I am philosophizing with my children and grandchildren, so please accept my apology.

Best regards,
Yppop
 
cpayne said:
By the way, what’s the difference between nothingness and Infinite Nothingness? Is nothingness infinitely divisible? How? Is it infinite in duration? What is the “duration” of nothingness?
Click to expand...
cpayne,
Infinite Nothingness is that which came before and exists beyond the universe, and from which the universe emerged. Infinite nothingness is infinite in both extent and depth. Physically, in the same respect that space is physical, infinite nothingness is continuous meaning it is infinitely divisable.Infinite Nothingness is beyond time, therefore is eternal. I don’t know what you mean by “nothingness” without the modifier infinite.
When mystics speak of the experience of nothingness, they are usually speaking of a spiritual condition. Is that the sense in which you mean it?
Click to expand...
Infinite nothingness certainly is spiritual; It is the transcendent God.
:sleep: this is me thinking of nothing.
Click to expand...
As far as thinking about nothing inducing sleep, perhaps you’d might want to read a book like: " The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe" by John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences in The Department of Mathematics and theoretical Physics at Cambridge University.

Yppop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top