I think I’ve seen you mention that idea before, but I didn’t see any reference to it in this current ongoing opus.
And no, while I think it would have been much more reasonable to just state your definitions and go from there in one OP (since you are demanding their acceptance to go forward), I had no intention of pointing it out.
Well. Okay, I think that’ll be easy enough to straighten out, especially since we already defined essence as “a pre-existing identity” We should define the terms:
Identity: the sameness of two or more things. Put formally, we would say that X is identical to Y if and only if every predicate that is true of X is also true of Y (which is the interpretation of Gottfried Leibniz).
Individuation: a perpetual and always incomplete process of emergence, both individual and collective, which is the effect of a metastable equilibrium. (which is the interpretation of Bernard Stiegler interpreting Gilbert Simondon, both modern philosophers.) Put more simply, individuation is the emergence of an “I” or a “we” that tends toward one-ness, from which new individuals or collectives emerge.
And so one difference between identity and individuation is that identity is a state, whereas indivicuation is a process. The “I” of today is not necessarily the “I” of yesterday; therefore, individuation has spawned a new “I”. And yet the identity of “I” remains the same.
Of course I’m open to a PM. (I think there’s room, but I’ll double check.)
As it is getting late here, I will post the remainder of my John commentary and interpretation tomorrow. You seem to have a better understanding, and I’ll be happy to correspond with you by PM, although my responses may be slowed by what lies immediately ahead for me.
I don’t think of this as an “opus”, but one of the places I mentioned it in this thread was in this postto Duhkecco:
And so, I thought that it would be good first to discuss aesthetics itself; then to discuss morality and ethics (since I intend to prove that Jesus brought an aesthetical message, rather than a moral or ethical one)…
That would not have been possible, since the establishment of some of my definitions were by consensus with other posters. That cannot be done by stating my defintions and going from there in one OP.
And I am not “demanding” their acceptance; I am requesting that they be accepted for the sake of argument. I have made that point many times, which you can find by searching on “sake of argument” using my username, in the Great Debates forum since, oh I don’t know, just use the past six months or something. Accepting something (especially a definition) for the sake of argument is a common practice in the debate of proofs.
In fact, a debate about a proof cannot proceed at all until everyone is on the same page with respect to definitions. Otherwise, the debate becomes about the definitions. Establishing them up front with the help of others, and asking for their acceptance for the sake of argument was intended to avoide exactly that sort of off-track discussion when the discussion should be about the proof itself.
As promised, here are my interpretations of the rest of John (pertinent portions).
John 15
Jesus repeatedly says that He is the vine, and we are the branches. He notes that some branches bear much fruit, and some bear little or none. He says that His Father is the gardener, and that He will cut off His unproductive branches, and that He will prune (the Greek word also means “clean” or “cleanse”, but “prune” is text-appropriate here) the productive branches.
So we get the idea that we, as free moral agents, will have an accounting of our own productivity (in edifying one another). Those of us who are unproductive (or more precisely, that part of us that is unproductive) is cut off, or cast aside. Those of us (or that part of us) that is productive is pruned, in order that more fruit (edification) will grow. We have spoken already of God’s intention to be infinitely good, but we really haven’t covered it much as “a process”.
And the only reason it is a process (or more precisely seems like a process) is that we are (on one level) creatures caught in a temporal universe. Time is tied to entropy. Time will reach 0 when entropy reaches 100%. And so, we (as animals) are here at some coordinate in that temporal march. It is easy, then, to see that there seems to be a process underway to us.
But spiritually, of course, the process is all three of these simultaneously: (1) not yet begun, (2) ongoing, and (3) completed. The spiritual point of view can be loosely compared to the point of view of a creature in three-dimensional space looking down at a circle drawn in “Flatland”. (Flatland is, basically, a pretend place, and the idea is used often in this context. It is a place where the creatures there are aware of only two dimensions: length and width. Flatlanders are not aware of “up” or “down”. They have no notion of things like “over” in terms of looking over the top of something. There is no top. All is of the same height: zero. The whole world.)
Anyway, just as you can see both the inside and the outside of the Flatlander’s circle, he can see only the inside (if he’s trapped on the inside) or the outside (if he’s not trapped inside it). So let’s say that Johnny Flatlander is standing inside the circle, and Mary Flatlander is standing outside the circle, then they cannot see each other. But you, the creature who lives in three dimensional space, can see both Johnny Flatlander and Jane Flatlander at the same time.
The spirit is of a similar nature with respect to our universe and man the animal. The spirit can “see” (undefined) our whole universe. And since, as Einstein claimed, our universe consists of spacetime, then spacetime is conical in shape — the apex of the cone is at the Big Bang, and the base of the cone is the present. The spirit sees the whole thing at once. And so, while we can see only one slice of the cone. the present (with memories of a paltry few past slices), the spirit sees the whole cone at once. Just as we see the whole circle drawn in Flatland, while its inhabitants cannot.
Physicalism (and materialism in general) might be tempted to refer to some hypothetical god as a being who inhabits four dimensions, and who would also see our whole spacetime at once. But that’s gonna be pretty hard to defend, since (speaking from the point of view of physicalism) there is no scientific evidence of a fourth dimension in the sense we mean it here: a super-dimension that contains all our three dimensions plus another (usually referred to as “ana” and “kata” — like “up” and “down”).
We can envision, or at least grab a glimpse of this sort of metadimension by imagining a four-dimensional object moving through our three-dimensional space, but first analogizing it to a three-dimensional object moving through two-dimensional space.
Let’s say we were to drop a sphere through flatland. What Johnny Flatlander would see first would be a point, as our sphere enters. Then, he would see an ever-widening circle, as slices of our sphere move through his space. Then, when our sphere is half-way through, Johnny Flatlander would begin to see an ever shrinking circle, until he sees only a point — as the sphere exists Flatland.
In a similar way, suppose a four-dimensional sphere were to be dropped through our three dimensional space. What we would see first is a point, as the hypersphere enters our space. Then we would see an ever larger sphere as it moves from ana to kata. Once it has gone half-way through our space, we would see an ever shrinking sphere, until it appears as a point, as it exits our space.
Now, this isn’t talking about strings. There are multiple dimensions to spacetime (according to some theorists), maybe eleven or so. But that’s not what this is talking about. Those other dimensions, those of interest to string theorists, are not places where you would go (if you could go) to see all of spacetime at once.
Just so we’re clear on that.
Jesus reiterates His commandment to love. And He says that those who do are His “friends”. He tells His disciples that they are no longer servants of His (which is how they saw themselves); they are now His friends. And they are His friends because they obey His commandment to love. And then, after His fairly lengthy speech, He ends it with yet another. “This is my command: Love each other.” (17th verse.)
Giving out or announcing this command seems to have been the raison d’etre of Jesus’s whole existence. His whole ministry is permeated with commandments to love, to convey goodness. He is saying that love is a living thing, and we are to kindle and care for It. We are, indeed, to worship It.
He says that “the world” (to be defined) will not receive Him or His message well. He warns those who would carry His message that they must be aware that they may face everything from ridicule to torture — even death, for spreading His message of love.
Definition:
The World: the physical universe, as opposed to the spiritual world
That concludes our study of John 15
John 16
Jesus continues warning His disciples (and by extension, all believers) of what they will face. They will be put out of the synagogue. They will even be killed.
But He says that the Holy Spirit will come and will expose the sins of the world. He will shine His light on the world, and will convict the obstruction of goodness of its guilt. In other words, the aesthetics of all who do not value goodness above all else will be exposed. This means that those who both believe in Jesus AND accept the Holy Spirit’s counsel will be able to discern a null aesthetic. Also implied is that those who don’t AND don’t won’t.
Jesus says that everything the Father has is His (Jesus’s), and that the Holy Spirit has everything of His (Jesus’s). He is clearly placing the Holy Spirit on a par with Himself and His Father. Those who wish to argue the existence of a Trinity could certainly use these verses as an epistemic foundation. But we won’t be talking really about any Trinity. It just so happens, for our purposes, that there is a Holy Spirit, and that He is one with God. Just like Jesus. And Just like His (Jesus’s) believers.
It is the first time, really, that Jesus tells His disciples plainly that He is returning to heaven; in other words, that He is going to die. This, of course, is much to their dismay. But Jesus tells them that a time will come when they scatter, and deny Him even though they proclaim to believe in Him now. It is the Holy Spirit, of course, who will rescue them (or more precisely, comfort, counsel, and teach them). See our previous discussions about the Holy Spirit and His role.
This concludes our study of John 16
John 17
Jesus prays. He prays first for Himself. He prays that God will glorify His Son, that He (the Son) might give eternal life. This is clearly a reference to the eternity of our spirit, which we know is one requirement of reality. Jesus defines eternal life as “that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” But it is important to note that He does not mean “know” in an epistemic sense; rather, He means “know” in an intimate sense. It isn’t enough merely to believe in God intellectually; rather, we must have an intimate relationship with God. We will therefore define “know” in this context (and only in this context):
Definition:
**Know **(in the context of knowing God) to relate with intimately.
Next, He prays for His disciples. He prays that His glory “goes through Him” to them. There is the sense of conveyance. In other words, His glory is being conveyed from Him to them by some means. And it is “through Him”. We will define glory, and we’ll see that we all are (spiritually speaking) co-equal with God.
Definition:
Glory: the acknowledgment of divinity
We (the spiritual we, not the physical we) are divine. We are molded in the image of God. He is eternal, necessary, and essential. And so are we (the spirit He breathed into us.)
Finally, Jesus prays for all believers. Please indulge the quotation from scripture. It is Jesus praying:
"My prayer is not for [the disciples] alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”
verses 20-26
And so there is the unity of all being one.
This concludes our study of John 17
This concludes, in fact, our study of John. The rest of the story is the arrest, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. It is surely familiar to us all. We have, now, all the information we need to formulate an hypothesis that Jesus brought, not a message about morality, but about aesthetics.
The proof will appear in the OP of the next thread. It will not be a formal tableau. There will be no unfamiliar technical lingo or cyptic symbology about modal possibilities and such. All pertinent terms will be defined. That will be the first thing posted. After that, I will present my hypothesis. I will state my premises. Then, I will walk step by step through expository, each statement implying the next. (Or some combination of statements implying some other statement, as in a modus ponens, for example.)
All those who accept the definitions given for the sake of argument are invited to examine both the premises and the inferences for error. That will be the nature of the debate. Since we all will know what we mean by what we say — all being on the same page, as it were — there should be very little distraction or sidebar issues. We should be able to debate the proof itself. The definitions given, having been provided herein and within other threads, often by consensus, will not be considered to be controversial. All argument about definitiions will be ignored (at least, by me.)
The point will be to determine whether the argument is valid. If so, is it sound? (A proof is valid so long as it follows the rules of its logic system, even if it is not sound. A proof is sound if it is both valid AND its premises are all true.) So the best thing to aim for, if you intend to oppose me, is the area of premises. The inferences will almost surely follow, unless I make a horrible blunder, which is within the realm of possibility. It will take me at least a week, perhaps more, to formulate my OP which, as I’ve said, will likely span multiple posts.
That presents a problem on a board that allows only one post per minute. So what I will do is end each of my non-completed posts with this phrasing: “Incomplete. To be continued in next post.” I would respectfully request that you allow me the completion of my OP before commencing with the debate. I extend my warmest thanks for that kind indulgence.
This ends our epistemological examination of Jesus through the eyes of the Beloved.
A mod may close this thread.
Correction:
The spirit is of a similar nature with respect to our universe and man the animal. The spirit can “see” (undefined) our whole universe. And since, as Einstein claimed, our universe consists of spacetime, then spacetime is conical in shape — the apex of the cone is at the Big Bang, and the base of the cone is the present.
should read as
The spirit is of a similar nature with respect to our universe and man the animal. The spirit can “see” (undefined) our whole universe. And since, as Einstein claimed, our universe consists of spacetime, then spacetime is conical in shape — the apex of the cone is at the Big Bang, and the base of the cone is at some undermined future space, while we occupy a slice of the cone called the present.