Introduction to TSK

[Balder]

It has been quite awhile since I've referenced the Time-Space-Knowledge vision (TSK) in my discussions here, but I plan to return to this topic eventually, since I do believe (as I argued in my thesis years ago) that this approach is compatible with a "postmetaphysical" orientation.  I'm posting this now because a friend of mine, Dr. Steve Randall, has recently created a webinar-style introduction to the TSK vision, which I wanted to share with interested members:

 

Introduction to TSK

 

.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Would Faber's in/difference qualify for TSK's 4th stage and MOA-3? Also see the post following it quoting Faber. The link is to Keller on Faber. Several posts following that there is a discussion of its implications.

[Edward theurj Berge]

From Lane's IW article "Reflections on unknowingness":

"Perhaps deep within our own hearts and minds we intuit that Reality is indeed greater than we can conceive; that God—and I am using the term to denote Absoluteness—is not something to be talked about, or theorized about, or even proven. God is that which begins and ends in the Unknowable, and thus agnosticism is closer to our own bone than we might wish to admit. We really don't know, do we? Maybe what makes Faqir Chand 's confession of ignorance so appealing and so believable is that he is stating a universal fact—a fact which is evident to every human being who has ever lived: we simply don't know the why of our own existence, much less the reason behind the universe. And this unknowingness may not be a cultural product at all, but rather an inherent, even biological, response to the very wonder of the cosmos."

"Faqir Chand can be regarded as an enlightened being in the sense that he came to grips with the Unknowable. Not by super­ imposing order or meaning upon that Mystery, but rather by surrendering to its transformative implications: Transcendental Unknowingness creates natural humility and an inherent openness to the vagaries of Being."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Also see Balder's blog post on some of this here, as well as some links in the comments.

[andrew]

It depends: if one is using this line of thinking to utterly deny the existence of God, then Houston, we have a problem . If one is using this line of thinking to hold an open space for God, then this is quite acceptable, IMO! But that open space can only really be filled with love ( Agape). But in the Noah thread that love allows for the limited human choice of wrong action leading to what is called in that thread: The Left Hand Protocols. Will there ever be a resolution to The Left Hand Protocols I think I hear you ask! I don't know! lol But I sure hope so. 

[Layman Pascal]

If this "line of thinking" is followed far enough it does not matter whether it gets called "denial of God" or "open space for God".  Both are true Names of God.  Our concern must be to make sure people get as deep as possible in as healthy a manner as possible.  Then Divinity looks after itself.

andrew said:

It depends: if one is using this line of thinking to utterly deny the existence of God, then Houston, we have a problem . If one is using this line of thinking to hold an open space for God, then this is quite acceptable, IMO! But that open space can only really be filled with love ( Agape). But in the Noah thread that love allows for the limited human choice of wrong action leading to what is called in that thread: The Left Hand Protocols. Will there ever be a resolution to The Left Hand Protocols I think I hear you ask! I don't know! lol But I sure hope so. 

[Balder]

A new summary overview of the TSK vision has just been published:  Inside Knowledge.  The six primary books of the TSK series can be a bit difficult to get into for some, so this looks like it might be a good general introduction.