We ae such stuff as dreams are made of . .

[Neoplatonist]

I was reminded the other day of a comment in Pope Benedict XVI’s homily at the inception of his papacy, that we all begin as thoughts in the mind of God.

Given that we are less real, are we not, then, in relation to God much the same as characters in our dreams are in relation to us? Actually more so, given that he is infinitely more real than we are. That, then, opens up a few questions:

1.) Are we infinitely more “real” than the characters in our own dreams? What does “infinitely more” even mean in comparing levels of mind/reality like this?

2.) In order to become incarnate, then from the Father’s perspective, how was Christ’s life more “real” than something that might happen to us in our dream?

3.) How can we make sense out of saying, for instance, that I am infinitely more good or more beautiful than a character in my dreams or a character in a novel I’ve imagined and written down on paper?

4.) Given that this character is a thousand-fold less real than I am and more than a thousand-fold less good than I am, even if I wrote/dreamed him to share certain of my features, what sense can we make of my willingness to sacrifice my son to save that character?

Bring it.

 

[GEddie]

I was reminded the other day of a comment in Pope Benedict XVI’s homily at the inception of his papacy, that we all begin as thoughts in the mind of God.

Given that we are less real, are we not, then, in relation to God much the same as characters in our dreams are in relation to us? Actually more so, given that he is infinitely more real than we are. That, then, opens up a few questions:

1.) Are we infinitely more “real” than the characters in our own dreams? What does “infinitely more” even mean in comparing levels of mind/reality like this?

2.) In order to become incarnate, then from the Father’s perspective, how was Christ’s life more “real” than something that might happen to us in our dream?

3.) How can we make sense out of saying, for instance, that I am infinitely more good or more beautiful than a character in my dreams or a character in a novel I’ve imagined and written down on paper?

4.) Given that this character is a thousand-fold less real than I am and more than a thousand-fold less good than I am, even if I wrote/dreamed him to share certain of my features, what sense can we make of my willingness to sacrifice my son to save that character?

Bring it.

Reality isn’t a matter of infinity. It is binary: something is, or isn’t.

The fact that a fictional character exists as a name, etc, does not make it real as a being.

And persons in our dreams have no being outside of our heads, but the persons of the Holy Trinity have been since eternity.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neoplatonist]

Reality isn’t a matter of infinity. It is binary: something is, or isn’t.

The fact that a fictional character exists as a name, etc, does not make it real as a being.

And persons in our dreams have no being outside of our heads, but the persons of the Holy Trinity have been since eternity.

ICXC NIKA

But we talk all through the tradition about things having more and less being. How are you distinguishing “being” from “being real.”?

Sure, the Trinity has been from all eternity, but we have not and Christ was not incarnate as a human from all eternity.

 

[Neoplatonist]

And persons in our dreams have no being outside of our heads, but the persons of the Holy Trinity have been since eternity.

ICXC NIKA

Do we have being outside of God’s head? Hence the parallel . . .

 

[GEddie]

But we talk all through the tradition about things having more and less being. How are you distinguishing “being” from “being real.”?

Sure, the Trinity has been from all eternity, but we have not and Christ was not incarnate as a human from all eternity.

Well, no, that is why I said “persons of the Trinity,” not “the human ICXC”.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Do we have being outside of God’s head? Hence the parallel . . .

Not a very useful one.

We have a solid head, which holds our mind together as well as separating our mind from the external world; and anything in our heads has no being except therein.

There is no “solid head” holding the Divine Mind together, or dividing same from the universe. If we have no being “outside His head,” neither does the entire universe!

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neoplatonist]

Well, no, that is why I said “persons of the Trinity,” not “the human ICXC”.

ICXC NIKA

So are humans (including the incarnated Christ) just as “real” and unchanging as the eternal Christ?

 

[Neoplatonist]

Not a very useful one.

We have a solid head, which holds our mind together as well as separating our mind from the external world; and anything in our heads has no being except therein.

There is no “solid head” holding the Divine Mind together, or dividing same from the universe. If we have no being “outside His head,” neither does the entire universe!

ICXC NIKA

Well enough, but we have the way of thinking down through the tradition that the less actual is created by the more actual. Right? So it would still make sense to think of the situation in terms of God’s mind having more being than our minds, right?

Not sure I understood you. You would agree that our minds have being outside our material heads. ?]

 

[GEddie]

So are humans (including the incarnated Christ) just as “real” and unchanging as the eternal Christ?

The human ICXC certainly is; He has more being than we do, because He will never again lose being to death.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neoplatonist]

The human ICXC certainly is; He has more being than we do, because He will never again lose being to death.

ICXC NIKA

Did he ever lose being to death?

Will we lose being to death?

 

[GEddie]

Well enough, but we have the way of thinking down through the tradition that the less actual is created by the more actual. Right? So it would still make sense to think of the situation in terms of God’s mind having more being than our minds, right?

Not sure I understood you. You would agree that our minds have being outside our material heads. ?]

One question at a time!

Although being is a priori binary, there is certainly a “fuller” being; for example, a mind not subject to death (the Divine mind) has a fuller being than a mind that must perish (our human mind, in its meat-headed iteration).

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Nixbits]

". . . we all begin as thoughts in the mind of God." Given that we are less real, are we not, then, in relation to God . . .

I disagree with your premise, Neoplatonist, as I think GEddie does. Just because something can be said to have begun as a thought, does not mean that later it is not as real as something else.

I made a garden gate last year. It could be said that the new gate began as a thought in my mind. But once I’d built it, it was every bit as real as I am. It exists in objective reality. The same cannot be said of things that I dream (fortunately).

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t mean to say that it’s less real because it started as a thought. I am saying something more like, Hamlet is real in a sense, but less real than you or I. Similarly, you and I are less real than God.

If it had stayed in your mind, it would not be as real as you. We stay forever in God’s mind, so we must be less real than He.

 

[Nixbits]

Neoplatonist:

We stay forever in God’s mind, so we must be less real than He.

I don’t know what this means. We’re trying to talk about objective reality and what is actually ‘real’. I don’t think we have any experience of things staying forever in a being’s mind. We have no experience of a ‘mind’ that exists without a physical brain, and we have no experience of a brain existing forever.

In any case, I still don’t see any justification for believing that anything can be ‘more’ real than something else.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know what this means. We’re trying to talk about objective reality and what is actually ‘real’. I don’t think we have any experience of things staying forever in a being’s mind. We have no experience of a ‘mind’ that exists without a physical brain, and we have no experience of a brain existing forever.

In any case, I still don’t see any justification for believing that anything can be ‘more’ real than something else.

If He is not like a mind, then shall we cast off all that traditional talk of stuff like God having a will or intentions or awareness or love (as well as the tasty Scholastic inheritance of thought thinking all things through thinking itself).

Are we to also jettison the theological tradition that involves talking about God being perfectly actual and participating more fully in ‘being’ than any other things?

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know what this means. We’re trying to talk about objective reality and what is actually ‘real’. I don’t think we have any experience of things staying forever in a being’s mind. We have no experience of a ‘mind’ that exists without a physical brain, and we have no experience of a brain existing forever.

In any case, I still don’t see any justification for believing that anything can be ‘more’ real than something else.

Angels have minds, right? And there is certainly experience of them in the tradition. Similarly, they existed from all eternity, so they would have existed in God’s mind forever.

 

[GEddie]

Angels have minds, right? And there is certainly experience of them in the tradition. Similarly, they existed from all eternity, so they would have existed in God’s mind forever.

I may be wrong, so correct me if so, but:

Angels are as created as we are, and so have not existed as beings from all eternity; every created being has a beginning.

They are however, an example of mind without head.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I may be wrong, so correct me if so, but:

Angels are as created as we are, and so have not existed as beings from all eternity; every created being has a beginning.

They are however, an example of mind without head.

ICXC NIKA.

I think you’re right. From the beginning of time, before man, but definitely had a beginning.

 

[Nixbits]

Neoplatonist:

If He is not like a mind, then shall we cast off all that traditional talk of stuff like God having a will or intentions or awareness or love . . . Are we to also jettison the theological tradition that involves talking about God being perfectly actual and participating more fully in ‘being’ than any other things?

I don’t have any problem with the notion that God has characteristics that are ‘like’ a mind. But I don’t agree with saying that God is ‘pure mind’, i.e. mind but no physical matter. We have no evidence that such a thing is even possible, much less any evidence that it exists.

As for talking about God as ‘perfectly actual’ or having the property of ‘being’ more completely than anything else, I for one would vote for getting rid of it. I don’t understand what it means in relation to physical existence.

Neoplatonist:

Angels have minds, right? And there is certainly experience of them in the tradition.

The idea of angels persisting in the ‘tradition’ of Christianity says nothing about their actual physical existence, now or ever. The idea of elves and trolls has persisted in the folklore of various peoples, but this tells us nothing about their existence.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t have any problem with the notion that God has characteristics that are ‘like’ a mind. But I don’t agree with saying that God is ‘pure mind’, i.e. mind but no physical matter. We have no evidence that such a thing is even possible, much less any evidence that it exists.

As for talking about God as ‘perfectly actual’ or having the property of ‘being’ more completely than anything else, I for one would vote for getting rid of it. I don’t understand what it means in relation to physical existence.

The idea of angels persisting in the ‘tradition’ of Christianity says nothing about their actual physical existence, now or ever. The idea of elves and trolls has persisted in the folklore of various peoples, but this tells us nothing about their existence.

To speak of the “physical existence” of angels begs the question. Angels have no physical or solid bodies.

As to getting rid of talk about God’s fullness of being, etc, you need to take it up with Thomas Aquinas.

ICXC NIKA