Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • The Way of Zen - Alan Watts

    He's a good place to start....not too heavy of a read.
    Hey, thanks for answering on the TOL Experience thread, but if you would, go back and edit it. The way you copied and answered it's showing as if it was my answers. :chuckle:
    Quip! Merry Christmas. It's good to see you again. I'm in for the holiday break then probably out for the better part of the semester. Seems a better life balance, don't you think? :cheers:
    I was reflecting on my daily topic. Today was dedicated to communication, thought you might like this excerpt from it:

    "Followers of Tao assert that we know no absolute truth in the world, only varying degrees of ambiguity."

    Not very familiar with the Buddhist tradition myself, what is your take?
    Me? I'm packing a bag and hitting the road, metaphorically speaking. The place kept shrinking on me. I was afraid that if I stayed much longer I'd lose things I haven't written yet. :eek: Be good. I enjoyed butting heads with you. I'll miss the fun of that. :cheers:
    I usually use them all up every time i'm online - did so even when i was maxed and other people were maxed too just to leave little messages.
    I'd have guessed that about you, given the background I had on hand. The thing a good many people have a problem with here is internalizing the realization that one can have a number of completely rational contextual differences, that it isn't always about an error here or there, at least in the demonstrable sense.

    A bit like...when I was an atheist and someone trotted out the, "Do you realize how utterly improbable the conditions for sustaining our life are as an operation of mathematical possibility?" And I'd say, "And yet here we are." :)

    And of course I'd say we're all bound together by a quantum level connection from the subsuming source of our being and the existence of all things. The rest is argument from utility to one extent or another, empiricism failing to do much for anyone on the count.
    Couldn't disagree more. Love acts as an expression of its nature. I use desire instead of whim or necessity because it seems the closest thing to the idea. And perfection is just a pin on a map relative to our "you are here". :) But it's a better way to approach an understanding of what we must mean by God.

    As to the competing notions, I side with Lewis and Tolkien on the true Christian myth, if you're familiar.
    What can perfection itself desire? To express itself, apparently. God doesn't need purpose. He is purpose. We need it, but it really reduces to our recognizing the hole in our nature, the imperfection. Ultimately all we can know of God is what He chooses to reveal or we can speak to as an extension of that logical necessity.
    Perfection is the implication of scale found in limited example. What does it mean to be wholly good? To be without moral flaw. To be perfect in reason? To be without the capacity for error in reason. When a Christian speaks to God he is speaking of perfection's root, the intersection of it in all particulars. Anselm took a decent swing at it, but ultimately it's an article of faith, not a logical necessity. There are things (accepting the context) God must be and things He is by inference and revelation. . . of course, it's complicated. :)
    I'm saying that man is somewhere between necessity and whim. That he makes sense as a manifestation of desire to relate to an object outside of the perfect, to do that which cannot be done for the perfect. It doesn't follow that God must, only that it is equally mistaken to suggest there's no reason for man, only reason given to man.
    Well, man needs God for existence itself, so I don't think that has legs, but it does lead to an interesting question. If God is perfect it goes for some that He cannot need anything, being complete. But if love in perfection is a thing that gives and does, how could He be complete in the manifestation of His nature, which love would appear to compel, without an object upon which to move?
    It needed the late "to" I was reading in and not seeing the omission of, which comes from having too many conversations at once, I suppose. :eek:
    Any man who tells me he hasn't had at least one serious moral failing is only illustrating what that failing likely remains. :)
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…