Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 I follow you track of thoughts but personally i do not find violence exciting or entertaining and peace never bores me. The rest, just thoughts. greetings caiti Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 > Dear Gary, > >> Jan's reflections demonstrate the sort of >> incoherence even bright minds get mired in >> when they start with God, Awareness, >> Subjectivity, and the like instead of the more >> obvious and humble world of ordinary human >> experience.... > > You may find his position distasteful but it > seems perfectly coherent to me. > Of course it does, if you leave out the parts that contradict each other. He begins: > How many of us would want to rent a Movie which has people living > peacefully? No violence or sex, no suffering, no tension, just boring > people moving about happily, peacefully with permanent smiles on their > faces? I don't think anybody would make such a movie! > > So why do you want God to watch such a movie? Afterall this is his movie, > his dream isn't it? > This says that God would be bored if human life were without conflict and suffering. > Even if you don't believe in non-dualism, assuming you were given a choice > of which life you wanted to lead on earth [in order to take a small holiday > from the boredom of heaven] would you not choose a life with pain, > suffering, etc.? So that when you returned to God you could appreciate the > peacefulness there! This says the life with God is peaceful. It also says that we all naturally hit ourselves on the head in order to enjoy how good it feels when we stop. Logic is not everything, but it is a necessary condition for intelligible human communication. > Perhaps Jan raised your hackles, Gary, because > his view seems immoral in the present context. I'm not interested in immoral or moral, which are very confused concepts. I am interested in clear thinking and effective action, neither of which were promoted by either Jan's ruminations or your reply. More below. > > " Murders, death in all its shapes, the capture > and sacking of towns, all must be considered > as so much stage-show, so many shiftings of > scenes, the horror and outcry of a play; for > here too, in all the changing doom of life, it > is not the true man, the inner soul that grieves > and laments but merely the phantasm of the man, > the outer man, playing his part on the boards > of the world. " (Enneads, III.2.15.) > > Perhaps Jan raised your hackles, Gary, because > his view seems immoral in the present context. But > the Plotinus quotation shows that the doctrine > stems from deeply moral impulses, the desire > to reconcile a benign God with the terrible > world we live in. In fact, Plotinus' view taken as reconciler is logically incoherent. Every attempt to reconcile a notion of a benign God with the world as we know it has been shown to be inconsistent, question-begging, or to fall into an infinite regress. Fortunately, the passage you quote is not meant to be a reconciler at all, but is an expression of the Witness function ( " the inner soul " ) in enlightened humans, who refuse to identify completely with what is happening to them. Basically, my concern here as with all my other postings is not to confuse two contexts of religious language: the psychological or esoteric and the ontological ( " objective reality " ) or exoteric. Misread as an ontological statement, Plotinus above has been repeatedly shown to be incoherent. Read correctly as a psychological statement, Plotinus expresses our Witness function, as I just explained. Best to all, Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 every perspective you mention will be still " mind " .Even " the big guy upthere " is only in the mind. " THAT " is without any value we can think of. Love, Shanti - " Jan Sultan " <swork <sworkalpha Thursday, September 13, 2001 5:46 PM God's Movie > Just a look from another perspective about the recent events in New York. > > How many of us would want to rent a Movie which has people living > peacefully? No violence or sex, no suffering, no tension, just boring > people moving about happily, peacefully with permanent smiles on their > faces? I don't think anybody would make such a movie! > > So why do you want God to watch such a movie? Afterall this is his movie, > his dream isn't it? > > Even if you don't believe in non-dualism, assuming you were given a choice > of which life you wanted to lead on earth [in order to take a small holiday > from the boredom of heaven] would you not choose a life with pain, > suffering, etc.? So that when you returned to God you could appreciate the > peacefulness there! > > Just thinking for the big guy up there!:-) > > ______________________ > With Love, > Cyber Dervish > ```````````````````````````````````````` > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.