Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm trying to do cosmology.  I'm not sure what you're trying to do.  

Are you trying to do this..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism ?  

You mainly quote your ancestral sources.  How is this not tribalism?  You need to look at Owen Barfield.  On his terms, I'm advocating that we move forward to our 'Final Participation'.  You seem to be advocating a return to our 'Original Participation'.

dan wrote:Cy,

Over the years, I've been privy to many snippets of your thoughts on many matters, including cosmology.

Could you possibly refer us to a more complete synopsis..... of your own or of someone's similar cosmology?  

Google dictionary wrote:cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/
noun
noun: cosmology

the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
an account or theory of the origin of the universe.

http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2015/04/whistle-blower-there-is-something-wrong-with-earths-core-2525836.html wrote:

Swarms of thousands of earth quakes happening around the world, birds dying in mass…now a reporter is telling of a government whistle-blower that is saying there is something wrong with the Earth’s Core.

magnetic-field-earth

A growing number of scientists are starting to worry the magnetic pole shift, that seems to be underway, is the real culprit behind climate change. Not man made air pollution, not the Sun, not the underground volcanic activity heating up the oceans, but the slow beginning of a pole shift that has been thought to destroy entire civilizations in the past and be one major factor in mass extinctions.

same source publication as above wrote:Around 150 dolphins were found stranded on the Hokota beach in Ibaraki prefecture, about 100 km northeast of Tokyo, Japan on April 10, 2015. Some dolphins, mostly melon-headed whales (also known as electra dolphins) or blackfish were found alive, but were extremely weak.

DeafWhale explains how submarine earthquakes can cause whales or dolphins to strand:

If a submarine EQ with the right characteristic happens under a pod of diving whales or dolphins, a series of seismic pressure waves generated by the bouncing seafloor will cause the volume of air enclosed in the sinuses and middle-ear air cavities in each animal’s head to suddenly expand and then deflate in tune with the rapidly alternating pressure.

These rapid changes in air volume tear the sinus membranes, allowing air to leak where it does not belong and blood to enter the air spaces

In toothed whales, the sinuses and air sacs serve as acoustic mirrors reflecting sound inside their heads in a fashion that allows their echo-navigation system to function properly.

A barotraumatic injury of this sort would naturally disrupts echo-navigation, causing the animals to lose their normally excellent sense of direction. Barotrauma in their cranial air spaces also prevents them from diving and feeding themselves.



Earth’s magnetic field is collapsing and it could affect the climate and wipe out power grids .”

Studies have shown that a solar storm of a massive magnitude occurring today would likely cause widespread problems for modern civilization.

dan wrote:Cy,

***But that does not mean I agree entirely with your cosmology.  I do NOT.... The universe is more complicated than your theory.  Many things are always occurring at every point/location.  There is lineal sequencing  AND non-lineal...but your neat little nutshell is too constrained and entirely too tiny in terms of time and the rest of the cosmos.  I also have an issue with your concept of beginning and ending.***

I am not opposed to complexity.  I believe that the universe is infinitely complex.  But I also believe that each of us is a microcosm of that infinite complexity, i.e. the universe is holographic.  

Furthermore, I believe that you and I are the co-Creators of this best possible universe.  And, if we are to avoid the catastrophe that appears almost inevitable, now is the optimal time for us to awaken from our slumber of 'materialism'.  

Of couse, this is exactly why we are coming together, here at your Open Minds forum.  



(cont.)

From: Paul
Date: April 12, 2015 at 9:37:31 PM EDT
To: Dan
Cc: 2 others
Subject: Barfield's "Saving the Phenomena" V: "Pre-history"

Dan and all,

Here are some excerpts from Barfield's opening remarks on pre-history (Chapter V of STA). My narrative and comments
in blue.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barfield first characterizes the "world" and the "history of the world" as a system of evolving collective representations, as
fundamentally phenomenal:

"A history of the 'world', as distinct from a history of the unrepresented, must clearly be a history of phenomena; that is, of
collective representations."

"... it will be well to consider briefly the bearing of this truth on what is sometimes called prehistory. I mean, in particular,
the history of the earth before the appearance on it of human beings."


"When dealing with times in which these conditions were present, therefore, it is quite reasonable to describe and investigate
nature scientifically, not only in the manner of physics, but also in the manner of the sciences whose field of study is the past
as well as the present, such as geology, ecology, zoology
, and to do this as if the phenomena were wholly independent of man's
sensory and psychological participation."

"It is not necessarily misleading to do so, and it has proved to be of great practical use. It is however not sufficiently realized
that different considerations apply to any description, in familiar terms, of natural events and processes deemed to have taken
place before the appearance of human life on the earth."

In other words, since the phenomenal world as we know it requires the active participation of modern man's cognitive faculties,
it is wrong to assume in any literal sense that an analogous world of collective representations existed pre-historically, i.e., at
a time before the development of human consciousness.

Can't we limit ourselves to a determination of how the world would appear to a conscious human observer with modern cognition,
were they -- hypothetically -- to be transported to such a time and place?

Barfield admits this as a reasonable interpretation of the kind of naive realism that he complains about in textbooks and in popular
articles:

"what is really being propounded by such popular writers, and, so far as I am aware, by the text-books on which they rely, is
this. That at that time the unrepresented was behaving in such a way that, if human beings with the collective representations
characteristic of the last few centuries of western civilization had been there, the things described would also have been there."

I see no difference between this situation, on the one hand, and a contemporary situation where a tree falls in a a forest and there
is no one there to hear it, on the other Does it make a sound? If "sound" is defined in terms of qualia, then the answer is "no".
However, we can still imagine that were a conscious observer with modern cognition to be present when the physical tree falls -- all
other things being held equal -- then that observer would hear a sound.

So what is Barfield's objection to this?

"This is not quite the same thing. It needs, I should have thought, to be considered in connection with another fact, namely, that
when attention is expressly directed to the history of the unrepresented (as in calculations of the age of the earth based on radio-
activity), it is invariably assumed that the behaviour of the unrepresented has remained fundamentally unchanged. Moreover
(and this is, to my mind, more important), for those hypothetical 'human beings with collective representations characteristic of
the last few centuries of western civilization' we might choose to substitute other human beings-those, for instance, who lived
one or two or three or more thousand years ago. We should then have to write a different pre-history altogether."

Thus Barfield seems to be proposing that we arrive at a true "pre-history" by reconstruct the phenomenal world (as a system of
collective representations) as perceived by those living in the period in question.

"I will, at the risk of repeating myself, put as clearly as I can the alternatives to accepting [Barfield's proposal]. If we refuse to accept
[this proposal], we can adopt one of three courses, to each of which there are, to me, insuperable objections."

"We can adopt a sort of super-naive realism, rejecting all the rigmarole of physics, physiology and psychology with the healthy
instinct of Dr. Johnson kicking his stone."

A form of naive realism.

"Or we can resort frankly to 'double-think'. We can think that what physics tells us is true, is true when we are studying physics, and
untrue when we are studying something else."

IMO this is only a problem within a reductionist framework. Otherwise what's the objection? If physics is holistic as opposed to atomistic,
this is exactly one would expect. Macroscopic properties of physical objects emerge, and cannot be reduced to the properties of the
microscopic constituents.

"Lastly we can adopt a Berkeleyan view of phenomena. For Berkeley held that, not merely the unrepresented, but the representations
as such, are sustained by God in the absence of human beings."

Bishop Berkeley's idealism. Here is Barfield's objection:

"This involves the, for me, too difficult corollary that, out of all the wide variety of collective representations which are found even to-
day over the face of the earth, and the still wider variety which history unrolls before us, God has chosen for His delight the particular
set shared by Western man in the last few centuries."

In other words, there is nothing special about modern Western Man's cognitive apparatus. Sounds like a Copernican-type thesis to me.

So Barfield is proposinbg that in order to do pre-history properly, we should attempt to immerse ourselves in the cognitive paradigm of
the conscoius inhabits of the time, rathner than imposing our own cognitive structure and imagining that the result is how the world
would look to modern Western observer who has somehow been transported back to the pre-historic period of interest.

I think Barfield is right that the phenomenal reality of a pre-historic observer would be very different from what a modern observer would
perceive, but I don't see why this invalidates per-history as normally done, since we are clearly interested in understanding the world
as it would appear through our "optics" were one of us present.

Barfield agrees, but suggests that per-history also be understood through the eyes of the contemporary observers, the collective
representations shared among such observers being constitutive of pre-historic phenomenal reality:

"Even if the usual way of recording what, in the absence of man, was going on in the unrepresented must be criticised as a dubious
extrapolation, the descriptions may still, as I have suggested, be valuable, not as actual descriptions, but as notional 'models'."

"For their nature is that of artificial imagery. And when the nature and limitations of artificial images are forgotten, they become idols."

The problem I have with this is that if all "collective representations" are symbolic, in relation to an underlying physical reality, then this
equally applies to pre-historic "collective representations". So we are no better off in terms of literal truth about reality by abandoning
our modern "optic" when dealing with pre-history. Either way were are dealing with cognitive "models" of reality as opposed to reality-
in-itself.

So what is achieved by abandoning our own cognitive faculties for the construction of a pre-historic phenomenal reality? To naively confuse
the phenomenal world as perceived by its ancient inhabitants with a human-independent reality is no less "idolatrous" than to confuse the
world as presently perceived, through a modern "optic", with a human independent reality.

So as far as I can see all Barfield has really established here is that when it comes to constructing phenomenal reality, "there's more than
one way to skin a cat". There is nothing unique about our modern Western system of collective representations, and we are therefore in
principle free to explore the pre-historic world as perceived by those living at the time -- although there is nothing to compel us to do so.

If you ask me, there is much less here than meets the eye. This kind of thing is built into Kuhnian philosophy of science. And of course we also
have Foucault's "Archaeology of Knowledge". And any number of other examples.

And again, Barfield is strictly neutral here as to metaphysical ontology. In this respect at least he is thoroughly Kantian. He argues that nothing
in his book depends on any particular theory of perception or any metaphysical thesis. There is no metaphysical commitment to found in this
book. Barfield's framework in STA is distinctly phenomenological.

On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Paul wrote:

Confuses ontology with epistemology.

On 4/13/2015 4:04 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
Paul,

More gyrations.......

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/philosophy-returns-to-the-real-world/

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 11:09:17 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Hegel

Paul,

I'm looking at Hegel as our priority target, at this point.  

My starting point was the SEP entry on him.  Then, when I googled Hegel & Eschatology, the first book to come up was 'Hegel's Grand Synthesis: a study in being, thought and history' - Daniel Berthold-Bond (SUNY 1989) .  I have downloaded it.... $16.  

If you can't find a better source, I recommend we start with this.  

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 11:56:14 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

I especially recommend pp 5-8 of the introduction.  I think you can access the intro from one of the various e-views available.  Then, obviously, the the substance of the eschatology is contained in chapters 7&8.  

Clearly, DBB is anxious to immanentize Hegel's Eschaton.  He claims that there can be no synthesis of Hegel's 'contradictory' views...... imminent vs. immanent.  

Am I being immoderate in suggesting that the BPWH/SWH/CTC provides just the unique synthesis for which Georgie was striving?  

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 12:35:09 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

I think I understand Georgie's 'Dilemma'...... referring to DB-B chapter 2..... between temporal and eternal truth.  Is he actually seeing history in the context of the newtonian absolute time?!  

Is not time a human construct, on his own view, even?  

Can he not conceive of a best possible CTC?  

cc: OM  

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 12:52:22 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty......

p.11 (DB-B).... 'Hegel's truth is historical.'  Wow, really?  Then he does see time as Absolute.  Is this possible, of Hegel?  This is no minor lacuna, IMHO.  

Danny then goes on to compare Hegel's and Frege's theories of truth.  

Hegel is quoted as referring to his theory as a 'twist' on the CorTT.  How far can this 'twist' be from the CohTT?  

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 1:45:09 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

now, on p. 16......

It's not clear whether or not DBB is reading his own absolutism wrt time, into Hegel.  I'm beginning to suspect that Georgie must be more nuanced about the relativity of time, than how Danny is representing him.  

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 2:00:03 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

p. 17......

Hegel speaks frequently of the 'closure' of the temporal dialectic.  What can this refer to, other than to a CTC?  

This is not rocket science.  All the king's physicists and philosophers have not managed to connect the (alpha/omega) dots.  Is this correct?  Even Hegel was too timid, in this regard?!  Hey, in the realm of the blind, the one-eyed person will be king.  

cc: OM

From: Dan
Date: April 14, 2015 at 3:35:16 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Hegel

p. 21 in DBB (chp 2, HTT)........

It only keeps getting better.  

The only question is to how to turn the philosophers onto the notion of a CTC.  The physicists will take extreme offense at anyone telling them how to do physics.  The philosophers will be very reluctant to touch this ontological 3rd rail.  How do we break the ice?  

From: Dan
Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:20:24 AM EDT
To: Paul 
Subject: Re: Barfield's "Saving the Phenomena" V: "Pre-history"

Come on, Paul, this is supposed to be between you and me........

[Paul responding to David....] 
***Also, why should it matter whether a human happens to be in a particular spot when a physical event occurs? Isn't it enough to note that were a human present, they would perceive a certain phenomenon?***

....we will take on David&Co, later.

Owen's and Georg's whole point is that it's just about Presence, and there can be no presence without absence, and there can be no absence without sapience.  

That's not quite right.  There can be an absolute Presence, as in Brahman, which is as far beyond sapience as sapience is beyond sentience.  

What do sentient creatures know of Presence/Brahman?  IMHO, their sense [of] presence is informed mainly by their collective unconscious, CuCs.  Ours is informed mainly by our individual eidetic memories (IEM)..... big difference.  Our IEM is then backed up by our CCs&CuCs.  It's a whole different ballgame.  

The Owl is much closer to the tree, ontologically, than we are to the Owl.  

The only 'real' problem is to explain the stars and the fossils, and, when you think about it, it's not a 'real' problem...... 

The 'real' problem is the thought that God might then be deceiving us with all those stars, atoms and fossils.  If the devil is in (all!) the details, what is left for God?  

My whole point is that God does not need to be either that smart or that industrious.  We are God's (teleological) worker bees.  We, just like the caterpillar, weave our own cosmic cocoon.  If you and I are going to be microcosms, what less are we to do about it, other than weave our own cocoon?  

I don't know, Paul.  I can't ask you [to] feign understanding.  It may just be a bridge too far.  

cc 

From: Dan
Date: April 16, 2015 at 11:45:00 PM EDT
To: Paul 
Subject: Eriugena

Note bene: JS Eriugena......... 

This is coming from DBB/HGS chap 2 footnote 5...... he makes reference to an article by K Hedwig.... CHRISTIAN NEOPLATONISM AND THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL TRADITION: THE HIDDEN INFLUENCE OF JOHN SCOTTUS ERIUGENA by DERMOT MORAN   in a volume dedicated to Eriugena....  ERIUGENA AND CREATION, 2014. 

It only gets better....... 

From: Dan
Date: April 17, 2015 at 12:08:24 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Eriugena

Ibid........

Eriugena also offered a dynamic account of the inter- action between the Creator and creation which seemed to artic- ulate the Hegelian conception of an infinite that expanded to include in itself its opposite, namely, the finite. It is indeed possi- ble to find statements in Eriugena that corroborate these themes, although, naturally, the Idealists interpreted him in terms of their own theological and systematic language and concerns. There are undoubtedly features of Eriugena's thought that invite comparison with central ideas both in Kant and, more especially, in Schellingand Hegel.

From: Dan
Date: April 17, 2015 at 12:19:18 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Eriugena

more ibid.......

One important source for twentieth-century philosophical inter- pretations of Eriugena that go beyond the Thomistic reading and indeed point towards the later phenomenological reading is Emile Brehier's (1876-1952) article, "The Idea of Nothingness and the Problem of the Radical Origin in Greek Neoplatonism" (1919) which was known to Heidegger.17 Brehier elsewhere discusses Eri- ugena in his His/ory of Philosophy.18 Brehier, a Hegelian idealist who had followed Bergson's lectures on Plotinus,19 presents Eriu-gena as a thinker of identity and difference, and of the division of the whole into parts and the dependency of the parts of the whole that is a theme in thinkers from Plotinus to Hegel and Bradley.20 Crucially, Bn\hier emphasizes Eriugena's conception of non-being, which would have a strong inflllence especially on Heidegger (who corresponded with Brehier in regard to the Descartes conference......  

From: Dan
Date: April 17, 2015 at 9:47:48 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Eriugena

And, before Eriugena (d. ~877), there was the pseudo-Dyonisius (< 530) who was particularly responsible for the influence of Neoplatonism on medieval Christianity.  

At the other end of the time-frame, we have romanticism (1800-1850), usually seen as a reaction against modernism.  Naturphilosophie and Hegel are considered key elements of this movement.   But it soon devolved into nationalism.  

Is there a clear correspondence between Neoplatonism and romanticism?  Where is that correspondence most obvious?  

From: Dan
Date: April 17, 2015 at 10:44:15 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Personalism v. romanticism v. physics


However, personalism is often taken as a reaction against romanticism.  

OTOH, existentialism is considered to be an extension of romanticism.  

NB...... there is no entry for romanticism in the SEP.  However, the SEP entry on Personalism does a good job of exploring the correspondences and tensions between personalism and romanticism.  

See, especially, the second paragraph in this section.... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personalism/#EurPer , referring particularly to the Parisian personalists under E Mounier (1905-1950).  He looks forward to the 'real revolution' wherein bourgeois 'having' gives way to christian 'being'... being in communion with others (in the context of its 'tragic [eschatological] optimism').  

This does seem to parallel Barfield's vision of alpha-thinking giving way to a final participation.  

Now, how the heck do we relate this back to Jack&Co.??  Well, there certainly is a heroic, messianic even, romanticism in any 'fringe' endeavor, especially fringe-physics.  Yes?  

From: Dan
Date: April 18, 2015 at 9:50:18 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Personalism v. romanticism v. physics

I'm glad this discussion is just between the two of us.......

You deftly represent exactly what the BPWH is up against, in modern thought.  

Personalism is all about the difference between deism and theism.  

There is a traditional name for non-personalists...... pagans.  I would characterize 99% of moderns as pagans.  The other 1% are materialists.  

IOW, Sartre is the quintessential pagan.  

In my philosophic journey, I did not immediately latch on to personalism.  Rather, it snuck in, mainly under the guise of Coherence.  

Yes, Paul, it's persons all the way down..... and up.  

And my main critique of Hegel, Leibniz, Kant and Descartes is that they were not able to get their heads around this crucial point.  And, yes, this is precisely the crux of christianity.  The monotheisms have no clue, either.  They are actually monodeists, at best.  

I ask you..... what is truth?  What is true is what we can have faith in, what we can trust.  Trust can exist only between infinite persons.  This is the truth that lies behind the idea of swearing on a bible, for instance.  If I speak falsely, then I deserve to burn in hell for infinity.  This is the only ontological basis for trust and truth.  No, not the penalty for distrust or bad faith, and not the 'reward' for good faith.  

Trust is love.  Love is its own reward.  Hate and fear are their own punishment.  This is what makes the world go 'round...... don't they say?  

Just between you, me and the lamp post (cc:)......

From: Dan
Date: April 18, 2015 at 10:44:02 AM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Personality v. physics.....!

(cont.....)

I'll wager, Paul, that, very much like me, and every other scientist that I've ever known, you were appalled/repelled by the rampant subjectivity, loose opinion and back-office politicking that comprises every social venue.

So, what did we do? We chose objectivity!

But what is at the end of objectivity?

Imagine our individual and collective dismay, when, after years of struggle with objectivity, we find only the inescapable traces of personhood.

But, no, Paul, this is not Miss Personality, now, is it? I would rather say that this is the cosmic persona. And I am saying that, in that cosmic Persona, we are seeing ourselves for the first time. This is the whole point of the BPWH. This is the whole of Barfield's final participation. Yes, this is the final Synthesis/Coherence.

Can there be an Other?

From: Dan
Date: April 19, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Theism v. Panendeism v. BPWH v. free will

Paul,

Panendeism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Panendeism , overlaps considerably with the BPWH, but first allow me to discuss theism.......

The best possible world will be structured on and around the reality of universal love.  Love can arise only between persons, so personal idealism, personalism or intersubjectivism will be the ontology of choice.  This comes close to the concept of panentheism.  

The BPWH is certainly open to criticism on the grounds of entrapping both God and humanity in the determinate logic of necessity.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds .

Yes, this is a valid point...... there seems to be a paradox between 'free' love and the logical necessity of optimization.  

Of course, the problem of free will has arisen in every attempt at metaphysical understanding, with the possible exception of 'pure' existentialism.    

I have no complete answer to this criticism.  Here is what I can say, however......

As a start, let us consider the problem of reason......

Reason, of necessity, is free.  Alvin Platinga is a chief proponent of this view.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense . The main dissenters would be the proponents of strong AI.  Reason, on all levels, is essential to the creation of the BPW.  It is essential to any creative endeavor.  

Teleology is essential as well.  Does the Telos obviate freedom?  Does omniscience obviate freedom?  

cc: & (cont.....)

From: Dan
Date: April 19, 2015 at 2:41:07 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Theism v. Panendeism v. BPWH v. free will

(cont.......)

As an aside, it should be noted, see the wiki, that pandeism may be seen as the logical concomitant of kenosis, wherein the Creator, in accord with absolute love, empties himself into Creation. This is the basic idea of our apocatastasis and our becoming the co-creators. There are species wherein the male is consumed, in the act of consummation.

Back to free-will.......

Reason is nothing, if it is not normative. After all, there are good reasons and bad reasons.

Reason is also essentially intentional. It must have a goal or an outcome.

Reason is an essential component of morality. Morality is the essence of normativity and intentionality. It is about having good intentions, at the least. It is about right and wrong.

Are we then free to be unreasonable and immoral? Evidently we are.

The best possible anything, is normative. All creative Agents, including especially ourselves, can effectively participate only as free agents. Dumbing-down Creation is not a winning strategy.

There is management by directive, and management by (mutual) objective. What are convictions, without courage?

Is love not blind? Love is trust. It is sacrifice. Without freedom, sacrifice is murder.... see kenosis.

The best possible creation is a balance of these competing motivations. None are exclusive.

Creation is of persons, by persons and about persons. What else can it be? What can persons be, other than freely self-creating, self-fulfilling, to the highest degree?

Dan wrote: Does omniscience obviate freedom?

Does not the splendidly detailed holograph we perceive of the universe speak volumes?

It's theme is not logical necessity. It's not optimization. It's nature; that character that comes from the construct created when any being makes choices within the ideas of either life and creativity, or destruction and nihilism.

dan wrote:Cy,

You speak of harmony.  Leibniz, the author of the BPWH, spoke of a preestablished harmony.  

Evil or dissonance is an essential component of harmonics, even when taken literally.  In music, as you may know, there is what is known as the wolf interval wherein we can have at most only 11 consonant tones in the twelve tone scale, leaving one of the intervals to howl like a wolf with respect to the others.  Much of classical music was invented in the elaboration of avoiding the 'wolf'.  The same might be said for societies in general.  Ernest McClain's 'Myth of Invariance' discusses how these technical seeming contrivances may also be found in the structures of our ancient cosmogonic 'myths'.  

In geometry we have the necessary existence of the irrational numbers, which drove the pythagoreans to distraction, and eventually gave rise to modern mathematics, not to mention modern music.  

Does not the splendidly detailed holograph we perceive of the universe speak volumes?

It's theme is not logical necessity. It's not optimization. It's nature; that character that comes from the construct created when any being makes choices within the ideas of either life and creativity, or destruction and nihilism.

What I'm trying to say is the Creation is a work of art, and that you and I are the artists, along with the cosmic intelligence, of course.  



(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

There is then just one thing standing between our worldviews.....

It is the question of quantity v. quality.  

The point of the BPWH is that small is beautiful, but this sentiment is way out of accord with our modern, scientific sentiments.  It is also out of accord with the biases of fundamentalist religions.  

This, Cy, is why I speak of the Mother of all paradigm shifts.  This is what I believe we are in for.  

So, let me ask you, Cy, if you were God how big would your Creation be?  This is something we might well discuss for the next several days.  No?  

Dan wrote:This is something we might well discuss for the next several days. No?

From: Dan
Date: April 21, 2015 at 12:34:25 PM EDT
To: Paul
Subject: objections......?


Would Hegel, Leibniz or Aristotle have any objections.......

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t175p945-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2#6086 ?

Could any sane person object, other than a professional materialist, who is paid to wear blinders?  

dan wrote:Cy,

We speak of quantity v. quality........

Yes, for an omnipotent Creator, there should be no trade-off.  It should be upward and ownward in perpetuity.  

How can there be a limit to omnipotence?  

If the Creator is infinite, and we are finite, then there should be an infinite number of us, creatures.  

But, wait, Cy, who says that we are finite?  Who is placing limits upon whom?  

Yes, I know that you did not say this, explicitly, but it is, nonetheless, implied in your logic of limitless omnipotence.  

So, I ask you this..... Is God growing?  Is God evolving?  This is what many of us are thinking.  We project our sense of limitation onto God, and so we suppose that omnipotence is the power to expand into perpetuity.  Hey, why not?!  

We, humans, just by self-definition, are limited beings.  It would seem that we are limited in every possible way, except, perhaps, in our fathomless propensities for stupidity and cruelty.  

And, as if in compensation, we are born with limitless imaginations and notions of transcendence.  If we are created in the image of our Creator, why can't we be omnipotent, unlimited?  Why should we be saddled with these feelings of inadequacy, in the face of endless possibility?  

Well, Cy, here is my little MoAPS......

We are not limited.  Well, yes, we are limited in space and time, but, guess what, space and time are only an illusion!  It is just that illusion which separates us from our Creator.  With the MoAPS, the illusion of space and time will fall away.  We will awaken to the fact of our unobstructed universe.  

This is a scary proposition.  We are like the sleepwalkers, walking on the edge of a precipice.  We cannot be awoken too suddenly.....  lest we make a misstep.  
------------

There is another way to look at this question, Cy.......

Which would you prefer to be......?  One of God's children, or one of God's spawn?  

To suppose that there are an infinity of ensouled beings is to suppose that we are God's spawn.  And, in supposing that there are no quantitative limitations on us creatures, we are supposing just this.  

But I can hear the objections.........

If God is omnipotent, then there would be an infinite amount of love available for an infinite number of creatures.  No?  

True, but that's not the whole story, is it.......?

If we are God's children, then we are Family.  We are all just brothers and sisters.  No?  

But how many sibblings can there be, and still be brothers and sisters?  How can we even think that 10^10 of us, humans, could ever think of ourselves as just one clan or tribe?  And what is the difference between 10^10 and infinity?  

All the difference in the world, Cy!  This is the crux of the BPWH/SWH.  

All we are family.  And it even goes further than that...... We are all soulmates.  You and I are each a reincarnation of the other.  We are all timesharing the same soul.  How can that be?  This comes straight out of relativistic quantum physics!  

Can you think of a better way to create a Creation?  

But this is not all, not by a long shot.  


The bottom line of the BPWH is apocatastasis...... we all return to, become one with, our Source.  There is a universal salvation/redemption/telos of Creation,

Every theology and metaphysic foresees some such reconciliation and empowerment, in the end.  However, these other systems either postpone any such denouement to an unforeseeable future, or they place its outworking entirely in the hands of an arbitrary Creator.  

But would this be the best possible world?  Of course not!  

The best possible world is of us, by us and for us.  Why should we suppose anything less, on the part of an omnipotent creator?  

IOW, Cy, our return to the Creator is up to us.  It will occur when and how we, individually and consensually, decide will be the best possible denouement.  

Right, now, most folks, like yourself, will say, well, Dan, thanks, but no thanks.  

Has anyone of us ever been in hurry to meet our Maker?  Heck, no!

Does anyone of us wish to participate in deciding our own ending?  Would this not be tantamount to Suicide by consensus?  

Worm your way out of that one, Danny-boy.....!  Hey, no problemo!


The decision, you see, has already been made..... by us and for us.  We have met the Creator, and the Creator is us.  

Huh......??  



(cont.)

Dan wrote:But, wait, Cy, who says that we are finite? Who is placing limits upon whom?

Yes, I know that you did not say this, explicitly, but it is, nonetheless, implied in your logic of limitless omnipotence.