Getting to know people?

[Dawid Dahl]

Hello, everyone! Thanks Bruce for inviting me.

 

I'm Dawid, from Sweden, with a passion for abstruse truth, pensive art, well-rounded morality, daring transhumanism, and integral cognition.

 

It would be awesome to get to know a few of you people here. (James, e, Bruce and Irmeli I am fortunate enough to know a little already, even back from the ol' Zaads days.) So I thought that perhaps the easiest way of making that happen would be to start with a premeditatedly terse - perhaps annoyingly so? - question! I'd really appreciate any answers, be they elaborate or concise, 0-tier or 4th-tier. So here goes:

 

Does God exist?

 

Kindly,

Dawid

 

:)

[Philip Wootton]

Marilyn said:

"I agree with most everything Philip said.  What I am not clear about is if he maintains that any knowledge of god we may have is limited to some type of bodily activity such as thoughts in our brains or some bodily sensations caused by these thoughts. I cannot go along with that if that is the case."

 

I think I would agree with you that there are other ways to know about God, and some of these would be indirect or inferred from experience as the form and patter of experience points to aspects of God.  Structural analysis and historical analysis reveal patterns, cycles, and structures that were not apparent to direct sensory perception.  These reveal new aspects about nature or god as indirect or extended experience.  These are known presumably through the operation of the brain, but are not in the brain, at least unless there is a transformation into coded memory.

 

Knowing God through creation is the same as knowing a language by its sentences or the mind from behaivors.  There is a simultaneous operating system that interacts in a context to produce interactional extended behaviors.  Somehting exists simultaneous, like out of space-time and extended into space-time.  It seems to me these structural metaphors are a road to deep wide ranging structure truths and wider and deeper realities.  These metaphors reflect the simplicity of a fractal universe where the same laws are at all levels and the below has much or all of the above.  We are God in "miniature" and know God this way.  What ever we know at one level, applies to all levels.

 

It seems like being in or out of space-time would be related to this question.  It is always confusing to me when people use physical spatial concepts of up-down, in-out, above-beloow, higher-lower to explain something like God that is in part out of space-time. Space-time concepts don't directly apply to something out of space-time.  If I understand Einstein right, light is out of space-time and travels across the universe in no time, but to us observing it from our frame of reference, light takes a very long time for this trip.  If light can exist in and out of space-time, thenso does god and part of God cannot be in the brain.  Part of our knowledge may be out of space-time and maybe this is revelation.  The Akashic field, David Bohm"s impicate-explicate order, and Sheldrake"s morphic fields are possible examples of this out of space-time knowledge.  Some think quantum physics is telling us that matter does not exist until and in the manner we observe it.  So maybe none of our knowledge is in matter.  The television has a visual field, the screen, but it is  a machine where the information is stored and somes from somewhere else.  Karl Lashley found memories are stored all over the brain, suggesting the holographic model.  But it might also suggest the possiblity memories are not stored in the brain.  Maybe this is how our brain  works and our knowledge is stored somewhere else, maybe  out of spaace-time in the God Field.  So there are ways we might be connected to God out of space-time and not through the brain.

 

This type of natural or atheistic God in comparison the the mean man sitting on a cloud with a machine gun to mow down those not totally obedient, is a much broader and less simply anthropomorphic God.  Maybe still anthropomorphic, but more raising us up to God than bringing him down to us.

There might be one center, and every center is the same center.  If our self becomes centered to all existence, the opposite of narcissism or self-centered, we are in the same centrer as God and more open to being.

 

I have come a long way from my prior scientism, indoctrination in behaviorist psychology, wondering about atheism, and then finding through wondering about what the heck consciousness is that God or spirituality is not such a bad dieaa and helps form our soul.

[Dawid Dahl]

Christophe: "God? I heard he died some time ago."

 

:(

 

She wasn't by any chance cryogenically preserved? Then perhaps we could unfreeze Him upon the arrival of the Postmetaphysical Singularity.

 

"Furthermore, I like the psychoanalytic (Lacanian) notion that there is no such thing as an allmighty, allperfect, allknowing Superior Being."

 

Yep, me too. I'd gladly label myself an atheist. Even an adeist. But probably not an apantheist, though this should not contradict what you said.

 

"How are things going?"

 

Quite well, thanks! I remember you too, Christophe. Everything all right your end? :)

[Christophe]

 Everything all right your end? :)

 

Ah, well, I'm quite alright I guess. I have not as much time as back then unfortunately, even now between the years I have to work, my workplace, a mental clinic, does not close its doors over the holidays, and insanity won't just stop either. Au contraire, I'm tempted to say, there is usually even more trouble than usual. It seems to have been a rather quite year this time, though. Let's hope the best for new years eve.

 

best wishes to you,

 

chris

[marilyn milam]

Oh Well,  I jumped in but as I am new I might say why so I can see if I can learn or contribute.  I got here from Lynne McTaggert's blog on The Intention Project.  Someone asked "Whats with the Trivedi effect?".  This led to a discussion about Ken Wilbur  who"s work I have read but not enjoyed much.  Too dry for me.  Too much in the head.   My entry into this vein of thought was born of misery that led me to a Sufi Master back in the 70's.  In his camp I experienced a shattering break with ordinary reality.  With no background in Theology or study of any mind sciences or even much philosophy I had no idea what it all meant.  However, it changed me completely in a multitude of ways.  I began to read and attempt to put things together so I could fully understand it.  I read all the usual writers popular in the 60's.  Eventually I took the EST training (since wrongly discredited) as well as followup seminars which finally  put it together for me.  The details I feel I have mostly covered with the help of lots of contemporary writers, too many to mention here.  I believe "the field" and "All that is" are the most descriptive expressions and I also believe that Jesus was fully God in the sense that we all are fully God or The Field or All that is or Hu or Allah, etc.  OUR father who art in heaven - right?  I have little disagreement with most of what I understand being written on this site but I am curious as to whether this is mostly theoretical or if some of you have had similar experience.  I do have a problem with some of the language used as difficult for any layman interested.  But perhaps you intend that.

 

Marilyn

[Seth]

Welcome to the group everyone who is anyone new. :) 

I can't say I'm too fond of the term God in representing my beliefs, but I could put it to use.  For me there is really no difference between God and existence.  A part of existence is a part of God.  God is not something other than anything.  It's too partial to segment a part of existence to represent the full reaches of what God represents.  God is as deep as shallow, as timeless as time bound, as singular as multiple...

Is there a term to categorize this belief?

[Dawid Dahl]

"For me there is really no difference between God and existence."

 

Hey, Seth!

 

As you know, people interpret the concept "existence" in various ways. As one example we have the Buddhist distinction between ultimate existence and conventional existence. (In which conventional existence is separated into two sub-distinctions: valid conventional existence (cars, consciousness) and invalid conventional existence (Smurfs, round circles). These categories themselves can then be separated into endless numbers of sub-categories. For instance, Smurfs do exist conventionally as part of fiction, but not as part of the scientifically observable world.)

 

So, when you say there is no difference between God and existence, what do you mean by existence? For example, do Smurfs exist? And if so, is God of the same nature as Smurfs?

 

Just throwing out some ideas for philosophical fun, I don't mean to lecture. :)

 

 

Cristophe: "I have not as much time as back then unfortunately, even now between the years I have to work, my workplace, a mental clinic, does not close its doors over the holidays, and insanity won't just stop either."

 

Oh. What kind of people do you work with? Folk suffering from all kinds of psychosis, or anything in particular? Do you like your work?

[Seth]

David, you're just categorizing existence... it's all existence.  I'm talking about it all.  A smurf exists in the terms that it exists and that makes it a part of existence.  It would not define the nature of God because it is just an extremly fragmented part rather than the whole.  Acceptance would be a defining characteristic of the nature of God because in order for something to exist it has naturally, unconditionally, been accepted by existence itself.

No worries, it didn't seem like you were lecturing me.

[marilyn milam]

I believe in Islam you have something like "The 100 names of God"  basically implying that ,   you name it, its God (The Field, All that is, etc).  I am that I am.  Just saying.

[Dawid Dahl]

Seth: "David, you're just categorizing existence... it's all existence.  I'm talking about it all.  A smurf exists in the terms that it exists and that makes it a part of existence."

 

So to you there is absolutely no difference in terms of "modes of existence" between a Smurf and, say, the computer screen you're looking at right now? I'd just like to know if I'm understanding you correctly, because that would be quite a fascinating view.

 

I would agree that there's absolutely no difference between them from the perspective that they're both equally empty of an intrinsic, metaphysical essence. Yet, I think its useful to highlight a valid conventional difference for purposes of day-to-day communication. But since God is suppose to be not conventional but (the) real, this shouldn't be disharmonious with what you said.

 

Or what do you think? Thanks.

[Seth]

I didn't say there were no differences in "modes of existence", all I'm saying is despite whatever "mode" something may be categorized under it still exists.  You can fragment, segment, separate things all you want, but that makes no difference to my stated belief that the whole of existence is the whole of God.  In the terms of AQAL I don't call one quadrant real while calling the other quadrants fake, under their own terms they are all as real as the rest... they all exist.  I see no other way to see a God.

[Dawid Dahl]

All right. May I ask how you define "existence"?

 

Also, does your name read "Seth" or "Seta"? :)

 

 

[Christophe]

Dawid: is God of the same nature as Smurfs?

 

The Smurfs are an artistic product by a belgish comic artist, and have become part of the cultural canon of european comic books. Every child knows them, there are video games, bed-linen, plastic figurines and all kind of stuff. I'd say they belong to the imaginary realm of fantasy, with a cultural echo in the LowerLeftQuadrant. 

So yes, the Smurfs and God belong to the same category: they are both imaginary, with very real implications for culture, business and education.

 

 

D: Oh. What kind of people do you work with? Folk suffering from all kinds of psychosis, or anything in particular? Do you like your work?

 

We work with families including kids from age 4, youth and grown ups, with psychosomatic disorders of all kind, mostly of the depressive neurotic kind. But also Personality disorders, attachment disorders, anxiety, panic and trauma. We do not treat people with psychosis, since they do not respond well to psychotherapy, but we have some post-psychotic patients, and also some people with near-psychotic elements in their personality, which belong to the trauma-type patients usually.

 

I work with Parents, Young Adults and children from age 4 to 8. Yes, I like my job, it's challenging at times, but in a positive way. I feel that I have grown a lot in the past year, and learned mucho mucho both personally and job-related. Our clinic works with lots of hugging and body contact, things I would have run away from and considered "mean green" not so long ago lolol. But hey, it's really not so bad to feel close to your colleagues and yes, also to your patients.

 

cheers,