Random Thoughts, strictly Text

leomoon

Well-known member
Ref: Paradigms - HUMAN souls created:


Descartes: ‘I Think Therefore I Am’. René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher and mathematician, credited as a foundational thinker in the development of Western notions of reason and science.


https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-7/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am


https://www.the-philosophy.com/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am



"Are there any of that that is not also true that it is I am certain that I exist and that, even if I could sleep forever, and that gave me being would use his entire industry to deceive? there is also none of those attributes that can be distinguished from my thought, or that can be said to be separated from myself? Because it is self-evident that if it is I who doubt, hear that and wishes that he not need anything here Add to explain it. And I certainly also the power to imagine, for, although it may be (as I assumed before) I imagine that things are not true



In both methods, active or passive, the certainty of the cogito is acquired. The Subjectivity, sure of his existence, can act as the home of the Truth" (Descartes)






This statement, now considered as obvious, revolutionised philosophy and served as the premise of modern philosophy. Kant, Spinoza, or Sartre and Husserl never questioned this philosophical achievement: "I think therefore I am."



note: we can check out his Stellium TRINE to Neptune (which incudes, Jupiter (higher spirit) harmoniously trine to Neptune, and marvel at it.

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Descartes,_René
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
Rene' Descartes - "I think therefore, I AM"
(isn't this similar to what is reported by Moses as to the greater "I AM" or is that just a myth - played by Charlton Heston, lol :unsure:


Jehovah: - WHEN Moses in the desert beheld the burning bush God answered his question by the revelation of His name as the "I Am." "And God said unto Moses, I am, that I am: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exod. iii:14).



Neptune trine Sun Jupiter - Uranus Sextile to Mars - Trine Pluto, trine NN -
:w00t:




We made Jehovah up guys!! The rest is history.:whistling:
 

petosiris

Banned
The name of God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn't mean I am, but he who will be, is and was. You exist only from the 20th century and your future existence is not certain given your blasphemies against the Creator of the universe.

The Lord Jesus and the prophets may speak from the name of the Creator without ontologically being him according to the principle of shaliah. For the Father didn't appear to Moses, but his Word or Son who is given the name did.

Descartes was a devout Christian, whose saying is entirely misappropriated by enemies of monotheism.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
God doesn't live in a physical paradigm. There's no reason God would create such a paradigm for us.

Are you refuting your own argument about illusory immaterialism, which is hardly distinguishable from physicalism? I argue that very existence necessitates a supreme being who can't be deceived to become a soul of the universe, since then nothing will be able to maintain the universe. It is a sheer nonsense to say that God can be deceived and made to dream. I also argue that our existence is certain and our experiences not always illusory, even though we may be deceived by the spirits of error if our will inclines us to sin.
 

leomoon

Well-known member
For being of God's Creation.


Good point. ....Jehovah is also a creation, but more likely from the collective unconscious of which "God" ultimately gave to us. IF we stumble & fall because of it, well no one to blame but ourselves for creating a meanie for a god. "A jealous god" "a vengeful god"....and gave him "human traits" to endear himself to those who find likeness to themselves.



Anyway, that's how I see it. :kissing:


From Yahoo Answers, sharon said:
You know this is a very good question. The God of the Hebrews Yahweh (tetragrammaton) was actually a borrowed God from the caananite pantheon of Gods, so was El Shaddai and Elhoim. Look up the Ugarit archeological discoveries and see the references and connections between the Gods of the Hebrews and Israelits and Cannanites.
It seems to me that the concept of God changes as mankind evolves and learns more about the universe, ourselves and the world in which we live. I belive that 30 years from now the concept of God will be completely different and much of what we think of God today will be obsolete and disproven. If you stick to your own personal experinces with God you will have the truth of who God really is and no one can take away your personal experience of God.
I'm parking sharon's interpretation of what God is, so that I can reference it later as to the various gods she mentioned.

I'm sure you don't mine folks! :unsure: I'm a rather open-minded soul. :lol:
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
GOD AS A VERB (NOT A NOUN) makes the most sense to me and has ever since I was in my 20s and I first heard this postulated. - Still makes sense to me more then anything else we can conceptualize.
Excellent thoughts here on the entire subject:


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761247



s.gif



Aquinas wrote that God is "ipsum esse subsistens," translated by Bishop Robert Barron as "the shear act of 'to be' itself." So the idea of God not simply as a noun but as an action (i.e., verb) can be found at least as early as the 13th century.


s.gif

danielam on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

I'm glad you brought this up. The so-called existential Thomists are strong on this point. Frederick Wilhelmsen's "The Paradoxical Structure of Existence" [0] was my first encounter with this understanding of God. I strongly recommend this book for those whose interest was piqued by God-as-verb (in place of the God-as-teapot canard). The book offers a great interpretation of Parmenides and Heraclitus as having been closer to one another than the way in which they are typically presented in philosophical texts. For example, Parmenides correctly intuited Be-ing but failed as soon as he attempted to conceptualize and crystalize it into a noun (and also accounts for this curious silence on the plurality of beings in this regard). It is only then that he and Heraclitus part ways. The book continues with Avicenna's discovery of existence as something distinct from essence, then onto Averroes' error of demoting existence to the accidental order (understandable once to understand that the epistemic order is the reverse of the metaphysical order). Ultimately, we come to the understanding of God as the very act of existence, an act that precedes the essential order of things and cannot itself be conceptualized because it is not a thing, but precedes all things and causes them to be at every instant. That is a far more satisfying account of God than the caricaturish and anemic view of some ghastly thing floating about the universe performing magic tricks. It also makes God impossible to ignore as an unnecessary being-among-many.Another book that touches on this subject is Etienne Gilson's "God and Philosophy"[1]. One of the most interesting bits for me is where he draws attention to the Old Testament where God reveals himself to Moses as "I am He who is". I always thought that was a rather curiously mysterious way of revealing oneself. But on this understanding of God as the act of existence, it makes perfect sense. God is, or God is Is, so to speak. So really, we trace this understanding of God -- albeit not a philosophical one -- to at least the second millenium BC.
[0] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351477703 [1] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300092998/god-and-philos...



s.gif

psyc on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Wikipedia has a bunch of interesting notes about the interpretation of the ‘being verb’ name of God:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am



s.gif

igammarays on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Ghazali and Ibn al-Arabi asserted a related concept known as "wahdat al-Wujud" in Sufi literature. Often translated as "unity of Being" and confused with pantheism (which it is not), it could encompass what Aquinas said, "the sheer act of 'to be' itself", but with the additional restrictive clause that "nothing else 'is' itself". Which is a significantly more precise predicate than "God is a verb".


s.gif

danharaj on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

There is a similar thought in the Dao De Jing


s.gif

igammarays on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Interesting. In my reading of the Dao De Jing and other Taoist texts I've only seen the affirmative side "the unity of being" which has sometimes been dismissed as "monism", but not necessarily the negative side: "nothing else truly 'is'". These might sound like logically equivalent statements but there is a subtle rhetorical and practical difference.Monism: https://meaningness.com/monism



s.gif

danharaj on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

There's the idea that everything is defined in relation to something else, except the Dao, which is itself. As a corollary, anything you can name, i.e. define, isn't the Dao. In the ddj it's not said explicitly like this but it's something that can be pieced together from various chapters.


s.gif

09bjb on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Might you need both? From what I've seen, dig deep enough in a particular hole, be it theoretical physics, statements about God, etc. and you get the paradox that two different things imply each other mutually. You can't have one without the concept of none, and you can't have none without the concept of one. See Godel's incompleteness theorem, the particle vs. wave situation, etc.Are you saying that this concept is mostly absent from the Taoist texts you've read?
 
Last edited:

leomoon

Well-known member
FROM MY PRIOR POST:
background of people mentioned:


My fav-



Parmenides of Elea (Greek:early 5th century BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy. The single known work of Parmenides is a poem, On Nature, which has survived only in fragmentary form. In this poem, Parmenides describes two views of reality. In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful. These ideas strongly influenced the whole of Western philosophy, perhaps most notably through its effect on Plato.


https://www.austincc.edu/adechene/Parmenides

Influenced by​

Influenced​


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna#Astronomy_and_astrology


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Wilhelmsen
 

Opal

Premium Member
Good point. ....Jehovah is also a creation, but more likely from the collective unconscious of which "God" ultimately gave to us. IF we stumble & fall because of it, well no one to blame but ourselves for creating a meanie for a god. "A jealous god" "a vengeful god"....and gave him "human traits" to endear himself to those who find likeness to themselves.



Anyway, that's how I see it. :kissing:


From Yahoo Answers, sharon said:
I'm parking sharon's interpretation of what God is, so that I can reference it later as to the various gods she mentioned.

I'm sure you don't mine folks! :unsure: I'm a rather open-minded soul. :lol:

Don't know who Sharon is, but good answer! thanks!
 

Opal

Premium Member
GOD AS A VERB (NOT A NOUN) makes the most sense to me and has ever since I was in my 20s and I first heard this postulated. - Still makes sense to me more then anything else we can conceptualize.
Excellent thoughts here on the entire subject:


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761247



s.gif



Aquinas wrote that God is "ipsum esse subsistens," translated by Bishop Robert Barron as "the shear act of 'to be' itself." So the idea of God not simply as a noun but as an action (i.e., verb) can be found at least as early as the 13th century.


s.gif

danielam on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

I'm glad you brought this up. The so-called existential Thomists are strong on this point. Frederick Wilhelmsen's "The Paradoxical Structure of Existence" [0] was my first encounter with this understanding of God. I strongly recommend this book for those whose interest was piqued by God-as-verb (in place of the God-as-teapot canard). The book offers a great interpretation of Parmenides and Heraclitus as having been closer to one another than the way in which they are typically presented in philosophical texts. For example, Parmenides correctly intuited Be-ing but failed as soon as he attempted to conceptualize and crystalize it into a noun (and also accounts for this curious silence on the plurality of beings in this regard). It is only then that he and Heraclitus part ways. The book continues with Avicenna's discovery of existence as something distinct from essence, then onto Averroes' error of demoting existence to the accidental order (understandable once to understand that the epistemic order is the reverse of the metaphysical order). Ultimately, we come to the understanding of God as the very act of existence, an act that precedes the essential order of things and cannot itself be conceptualized because it is not a thing, but precedes all things and causes them to be at every instant. That is a far more satisfying account of God than the caricaturish and anemic view of some ghastly thing floating about the universe performing magic tricks. It also makes God impossible to ignore as an unnecessary being-among-many.Another book that touches on this subject is Etienne Gilson's "God and Philosophy"[1]. One of the most interesting bits for me is where he draws attention to the Old Testament where God reveals himself to Moses as "I am He who is". I always thought that was a rather curiously mysterious way of revealing oneself. But on this understanding of God as the act of existence, it makes perfect sense. God is, or God is Is, so to speak. So really, we trace this understanding of God -- albeit not a philosophical one -- to at least the second millenium BC.
[0] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351477703 [1] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300092998/god-and-philos...



s.gif

psyc on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Wikipedia has a bunch of interesting notes about the interpretation of the ‘being verb’ name of God:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am



s.gif

igammarays on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Ghazali and Ibn al-Arabi asserted a related concept known as "wahdat al-Wujud" in Sufi literature. Often translated as "unity of Being" and confused with pantheism (which it is not), it could encompass what Aquinas said, "the sheer act of 'to be' itself", but with the additional restrictive clause that "nothing else 'is' itself". Which is a significantly more precise predicate than "God is a verb".


s.gif

danharaj on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

There is a similar thought in the Dao De Jing


s.gif

igammarays on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Interesting. In my reading of the Dao De Jing and other Taoist texts I've only seen the affirmative side "the unity of being" which has sometimes been dismissed as "monism", but not necessarily the negative side: "nothing else truly 'is'". These might sound like logically equivalent statements but there is a subtle rhetorical and practical difference.Monism: https://meaningness.com/monism



s.gif

danharaj on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

There's the idea that everything is defined in relation to something else, except the Dao, which is itself. As a corollary, anything you can name, i.e. define, isn't the Dao. In the ddj it's not said explicitly like this but it's something that can be pieced together from various chapters.


s.gif

09bjb on Apr 5, 2018 [–]

Might you need both? From what I've seen, dig deep enough in a particular hole, be it theoretical physics, statements about God, etc. and you get the paradox that two different things imply each other mutually. You can't have one without the concept of none, and you can't have none without the concept of one. See Godel's incompleteness theorem, the particle vs. wave situation, etc.Are you saying that this concept is mostly absent from the Taoist texts you've read?

:biggrin: I like this "God is, Is"

Thanks man!
 
Top