God couldn’t be trascendent in the broadest sense, because then it couldn’t interact with the universe.
Ultimately, reality is just the set of things that interact with each other. If God could perceive the universe but not affect it in turn, from our perspective it wouldn’t be in any sense, as everything would act exactly as if it didn’t exist. If God could affect the universe, but couldn’t be changed by it, we wouldn’t exist from its perspective – and from our perspective, would simply be another aspect of universal laws.
This, of course, assumes that such one-sided interactions are even logically possible.
There is no Prime Cause, no unmoved mover. That which moves, is moved.
Any God capable of full reality (bilateral interaction with the universe) is a part of the universe, and therefore cannot be considered to define its ultimate nature.
Note: you can, if you wish, define God as that which cannot be defined, but you give up forever the capacity to make any further statements about its nature. Are you sure you’re willing to do that?
That reminds me of the transcendence objection to the coherence theory of truth, a theory in which truth is said to cohere with a set of beliefs, a la Kant or Hegel. But there are some truths that do not cohere with any set of beliefs.
Caesar Augustus ate two apples on his fifteenth birthday. How do you know whether that is a true proposition or a false one? It is certainly one or the other. If the proposition is not true, then there exists at least one proposition about how many apples Caesar Augustus ate on his fifteenth birthday that IS true. Nevertheless, there is no proposition about how many apples Caesar Augustus ate on his fifteenth birthday that coheres to any set of beliefs.
It is possible for a transcendent being to interact with the physical universe by means of a mediation (His will) that is common to both worlds, but that manifests as a noumenon in transcendent space and a phenomenon in immanent space.
Yes, I grasp that. But aren’t the atoms necessary as a medium for the spirit, much as paint is necessary as a medium for the painter?
In the Golden Lion analogy, I can recognize that the gold, which is real and permanent, can take any form (lion, penguin, ingot), and that forms are non-essential, ephemeral. Yet the gold must take some form, any form, or one would not be able to discern it as gold at all.
I’ve (perhaps mistakenly) been assuming that in your view/experience, atoms are necessary for spirit to manifest, at least for humans. If not, then what, spiritually speaking, would be the purpose of atoms in the first place?
It’s not that [a] definition is wrong or even inadequate, it’s that the medium of words and thinking is the wrong medium. It’s like trying to see a sound, or hear an apple. The medium of spirit is consciousness not its contents, and we tend to get the two mixed up; most tend to regard themselves as content, or the awareness identifies with the body and thoughts.
All we ever perceive is the thoughts of our own mind, but a transcendent self or god cannot be touched by thought because it isn’t a thought.
It is said that our continuous thinking blocks our awareness of a spiritual presence. That’s why people meditate; to stop the chatter, to get the crazy monkey to shut up.
** other-wise**
In eastern philosophies that which is transcendent in immanence is consciousness. The observer is the observed **and ** transcends it. The observer is the entity.
The one thing we cannot think of is the awareness that observes all. It has been called the hidden observer, the unobserved observer, witness, etc. We cannot turn this awareness into an object of observation because IT is the one doing the observing.
The question is not so much who is god but, Who am I?
** The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide**
An analogy is a dream. The dreamer is the cause and content of the dream and if s/he forgets that s/he is dreaming and identifies with the dream then it appears real, and s/he appears as a real entity within it. The transcendent in the dream is the awareness, as it is the dreamers.
So god can both transcend this existence and be it.
From the Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
Physical
adjective
Existing as or connected with material things that can be seen or felt; not spiritual or mental
As I’m using the term, something is physical if it has properties humans can perceive through their senses, or can infer by extrapolating data obtained from tools that extend their senses, and which obeys the currently codified laws of physics. Note that in this scenario, neither the properties nor the laws themselves are physical.
I could answer your question with the contents of Borge’s library, but that would describe the totality, not the tiny subsets of the totality that are realities. I could describe the answers that are consistent with a reality, but that would merely describe the multiverses.
My thoughts about the statement are not the statement itself, and have no bearing on its properties. The statement is not the reality, and has no bearing on its properties. The reality is not the totality, and has no bearing on its properties.
You’re very, very close to the truth. The dream is part of the mind of the dreamer, but it’s not the whole dreamer. Within the dream, one dream-thing interacts with another, and so they are real to each other. The dreamer interacts with things in its universe, and so it is real to them. The dream is part of the dreamer, and so it is real to the larger universe, but not in the same way that the dreamer is real to the universe.
Reality, like position, is a relative concept. It can be imagined as a hierarchy: different levels of reality can all be embodied in another level, which in turn is embodied by other levels, each real in a different way.
I’m not sure I understand the question. A physical “property” is an abstract representation of a (usually sensory) perception.
We can’t “perceive” things directly (if that’s what you’re implying that I’m implying): perception is an active, not passive process. It seems unlikely that anything a human could experience through their senses would “come through” direct and unalloyed.
You asked me what I meant by “true”, and then you immediately informed Iamthat that he is “very, very close to the truth”. I find that unsettling, as I am always leary of the man who is happy to place burdens upon others that he is unwilling to bear.
At any rate, the question I asked you about Caesar’s apples was rhetorical (required no answer) since the coherence theories (being among the oldest theories of truth) are very well established.
In the analogy the “dream” is the universe, (or perceivable universe), including thoughts and feelings etc., and the awareness of the dream is the consciousness of a transcendent self or god, i.e. the dreamer.
Possibly, we don’t know; one doesn’t usually know they’re dreaming until they wake up. But there are exceptions; i.e. a sage or jnani is supposed to have woken up as the [their] dream continues. And if one is not solipsistic would believe that the dream is commonly shared.
I would say a “property” is the perception, i.e. the redness of an apple is one of the properties of the apple. But where is it? Where is the experience of it? What is it an abstraction from?
I agree that all the properties of an apple constitute the apple, but that there is an apple apart from its properties is mere speculation.
I agree that we cannot perceive things directly, if [physical] things in fact exist. In others words, if matter exists and we never perceive it why infer that it exists at all? If it exists and we never perceive it who does it exist for?
If I could see an apple without getting in the way with all my bags of meanings what would I see? I don’t think I would “see” the apple as much as be it. The observation of it would disappear, and there would just be the apple. As Krishnamurti said, “The perceived and perceiver are one and the same.
Iamthat has a much better understanding of “truth” than you do; to be more precise, he understands the limitations and requirements of the concept. As far as I can determine, you still can’t formulate a description of the idea, much less apply it.
The “redness” of an apple is found neither in the apple nor in the perceiver, but in the interrelationship of the two. The experience of “redness” is in the perceiver. The property of “redness” is an abstraction referring to information; specifically, information about the experience of an (assumed) external object interacting with the perceiver.
Is it necessary to assume that something must exist for someone in order to exist at all?
If you are saying;. there is only “perceiving”, I agree.
Are you saying that the experience of “redness” and the property of “redness” are separate? If so, how can that be?
We were talking about something similar in another thread, i.e. How can something have meaning without it being meaning for someone? … Can meaning be transcendent?
Is it similar to “pain”, which can’t exist without it being someone’s pain?
I suppose that, at this point, I could point you to Stanford University’s excellent essays on theories of truth, but that would be rather like pointing them out to Jethro Clampett, so I’ll refrain.
The property of redness requires four things: An object that reflects/re-emits photons with a wavelength of around 650-700 nanometers, which are subsequently absorbed by cone receptors, converted to a electrical signals, and sent to the brain for processing.
The experience of redness is the result (or memory) of that processing.
“Property” and “experience” are words. The former assigns cause, the latter assigns effect.
Whether these assignments are sound or warranted is, I suppose, an open question. But this conventional assignment is how I’m using the words for the purposes of this conversation.
I’m not sure I understand the question. A physical “property” is an abstract representation of a (usually sensory) perception.
