The definition of spiritual is a total confusion here. In german language people at least have about 20 words for 'soul'. Everyone in yankees are taking it like " I worship the White-Bearded and no recognition of microcosmic 'non-white-bearded- ' kind of spiritualism" :( And I'm not meaning black-bearded either.
Sign In
The Aeon of Science | Forum
Cornelius Coburn
Jul 3 '21
I don't really believe you can talk about one without referring the other anyway. Just different manifestations at different stages of cosmic evolution.
Macrocosm; microcosms, at the one point in time all is one and then at some other point in time the one has become the all. It's all the same really, just different facets of the same thing.
Singende Säge
Jul 3 '21
Seele, Herzen Meer
Soul, Heart The sea comes to mind.
Hard to explain. As a microcosm word user as you are this is surprising, the lack of need for another word for inner experience. I find one word which people interpret as a belief in white beard or inner visions at whim is restricting. One of the reasons to study the language more, since I feel english restricts the expression.
It comes a restricting thing when you want to talk with a person more 'deeply'.
What's more is the structure of the language that you use to further conceptualize your philosophy. The language limits the expressions and profoundly shapes it.
Soul, Heart The sea comes to mind.
Hard to explain. As a microcosm word user as you are this is surprising, the lack of need for another word for inner experience. I find one word which people interpret as a belief in white beard or inner visions at whim is restricting. One of the reasons to study the language more, since I feel english restricts the expression.
It comes a restricting thing when you want to talk with a person more 'deeply'.
What's more is the structure of the language that you use to further conceptualize your philosophy. The language limits the expressions and profoundly shapes it.
The Forum post is edited by Singende Säge Jul 3 '21
Wolfie
Jul 3 '21
CC, I've found that most Deists, when pressed, are really only making one assertion: "The universe isn't random." For them, deity is simply that factor by which the universe avoids randomness.
Does this describe your viewpoint?
Also, what do you think of the implicate and explicate order of David Bohm?
Cornelius Coburn
Jul 3 '21
Seele, Herzen Meer
Soul, Heart The sea comes to mind.
Hard to explain. As a microcosm word user as you are this is surprising, the lack of need for another word for inner experience. I find one word which people interpret as a belief in white beard or inner visions at whim is restricting. One of the reasons to study the language more, since I feel english restricts the expression.
It comes a restricting thing when you want to talk with a person more 'deeply'.
What's more is the structure of the language that you use to further conceptualize your philosophy. The language limits the expressions and profoundly shapes it.
Language is definitely a challenge to put your thoughts down for sure. If there is a thing I believe no words can convey then I will say it is ineffable.
Edit : spacing : I'm having odd issues with this post
The Forum post is edited by Cornelius Coburn Jul 3 '21
Dark Enlightenment
Jul 3 '21
The definition of spiritual is a total confusion here. In german language people at least have about 20 words for 'soul'. Everyone in yankees are taking it like " I worship the White-Bearded and no recognition of microcosmic 'non-white-bearded- ' kind of spiritualism" :( And I'm not meaning black-bearded either.Spiritualism is spiritualism. Predisposition towards abstraction is predisposition to abstraction. Deists are every bit as spiritual as those with white-bearded dragons in the sky.
I just want to know how that ties to LHP when it's a tendency and form of attainment that unites 90% of the Western world? Ever meet an "atheist" that still believes in a "human spirit of goodwill". Very amusing.
"No it's different because we don't anthropomorphize it. Ours is a more authentic form that still relies totally on filling in the blanks with a baseless assertion".
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jul 3 '21
Singende Säge
Jul 3 '21
Thanks for answer, not blind, DE
I am thinking myself how it ties. I know what is a common opinion.
I want progress. On things of higher importance than belly button in the middle of our sweet big bump.
Just let me handle my mystics. I'm the type intuition speaks loud and clear.
I am thinking myself how it ties. I know what is a common opinion.
I want progress. On things of higher importance than belly button in the middle of our sweet big bump.
Just let me handle my mystics. I'm the type intuition speaks loud and clear.
The Forum post is edited by Singende Säge Jul 3 '21
Dark Enlightenment
Jul 3 '21
Well, don't get stuck when you're handling the mysticism for everyone.
The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Jul 3 '21
Cornelius Coburn
Jul 3 '21
CC, I've found that most Deists, when pressed, are really only making one assertion: "The universe isn't random." For them, deity is simply that factor by which the universe avoids randomness.
Does this describe your viewpoint?
Also, what do you think of the implicate and explicate order of David Bohm?
Let me just say this for now. I believe in nothing, but I also believe in something which seems plausible since I am here typing this right now.
I also believe that the 'thing' that prevents an eternal nothingness is what I would refer the 'acausal', the thing that arises from nothing without cause.
So this would be a Nietzsche esque type of eternally recurring cycle in which a primordial order arises out of this 'chaos', or, nothingness via this acausal element.
The Forum post is edited by Cornelius Coburn Jul 3 '21
Wolfie
Jul 4 '21
CC, you triggered this thought in me:
The principle of cause and effect must itself be uncaused, or else reality is an infinite recursion loop in the backward direction though not necessarily in the forward direction, time-wise. (Come to think of it, reality as an infinite recursion loop does indeed sound Nietzschean.)
The Forum post is edited by Wolfie Jul 4 '21
Cornelius Coburn
Jul 4 '21
The principle of cause and effect must itself be uncaused, or else reality is an infinite recursion loop in the backward direction though not necessarily in the forward direction, time-wise. (Come to think of it, reality as an infinite recursion loop does indeed sound Nietzschean.)
(bolded above) That's a very elegant way of putting it. As for the other, I've since done away with that proposition as I can't seem to wrap my lunatic head around the idea of time not having an initial starting point from which to proceed forward.
It basically resolves to a logical tautology of (with alternate phrasings) either "time" is/isn't eternal. The other side of the coin would be that time undergoes an infinity of periodic coming into, and out of existence. While also realizing that these 'periods' themselves would also cease to exist in the absence of time, or, be compactified.
The above would be in the tradition of Occams' Razor in that the simplest and most elegant theory would be the correct one.
Edit : it's not me that's fucked up, it's the text editor. Every time lately it takes a shit on the formatting by removing my line feeds. The last time was my fault.
The Forum post is edited by Cornelius Coburn Jul 4 '21
