Elijah

Yea that is a barbaric understanding of what is going on there. Brunner is too focused on his spiritual/common folk divide and the inadequacies of the common folk to see the brilliance of what history’s greatest spiritual genius is doing up there. Jesus wasn’t just some simple fool who got in over his head with the people and didn’t know when it was time to shut up and move to a new town. There is intent there.

Spiritual people so focused on the divide who look poorly at the common folk and think spiritual people are somehow superior is an ugly position to hold. Jesus wasn’t killed because of the natural murderous desire of the mob but the authority was scared of the threat he posed with leading the mob.

Just guessing here but are Brunner and yourself disregarding what the gospels say about him sacrificing his life as superstitious additions by people who couldn’t imagine their god killed so turned it into a sacrifice?
Lost me.
But there had to be an idea or set of ideas that he introduced to you or explained to you that attracted you to his philosophy.
Do you have a link to a Brunner glossary?
I’m not sure what exactly I was supposed to see. A guy was crediting an all-motion concept that he applied to biology to Brunner. Yea philosophical concepts can inspire scientific breakthroughs but how does science and spirituality work together to create a new kind of community that somehow fixes the worlds’ problems? Is your unifying principle in your philosophy “motion”?
I think that’s one of the main messages of Jesus, to serve. I think focusing on the divide or reifying the spiritual community as an actual being or separate race or whatnot isn’t rational if you are trying to improve spirituality in the whole society. If you create two groups it’ll be easy enough to ignore the spiritual community with the excuse that you are common folk but if you do it from within the community then the common folk will just think it’s one of them and do what comes naturally which is imitate.

What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man's job?
If you don't understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret. Tao Te Ching

No Robots

In no way does Brunner minimize Christ. If I give that impression, it is entirely my own fault, and I apologize for it. It would probably be best if you picked up Our Christ. I can send you a copy.

But allow me to continue to talk about this in my own way, too. Christ does sacrifice himself. That is absolutely true. But he changes the meaning of sacrifice so completely that we don't even recognize it. Before Christ, sacrifice meant to take something unwillingly and helplessly to slaughter. Christ turns that around. He wills his own death. He turns the knife on himself. After him, sacrifice means to give one's life, and no longer does it mean to have it forcibly taken. It is a suicide for the cause. All the same, even if Christ uses sacrifice to serve his purpose, it must not be forgotten that the authorities, in their pride, took the bait. Socrates did exactly the same thing.

Absolutely. There is much danger in presenting this. Let's go back to The Lord of the Flies. Are Ralph and Piggy better than the others? Or are they just different? Do they have an obligation to the others, even if the others are trying to murder them? How can they help the others if they have no freedom from the threat of violence?

There are all kinds of courses on increasing creativity, but nothing on receptivity. I find that an indication of insane narcissism.

Well, it started with explaining Christ as embodying the principle of genius. This resonated perfectly with me. And things just got better from there.

Yep.

By improving our scientific understanding, we can improve living conditions for everyone.

Motion is the unifying principle of scientific understanding. You might want to look at the primer I prepared.

Beautiful. Thanks for that. It's true that I have to keep a check on my inner Magneto. Ever since I was a kid, I have been concerned about the fate of the Ralphs and Piggys.

Elijah

I’m not accusing him of minimizing him but just not understanding the point of his sacrifice. But if he’s arguing Jesus isn’t the messiah but a simple philosopher (like Spinoza) killed because of whatever reasons then it’s going to be a justified accusation. IMO

I’ll read Our Christ if it’s important to you but would much much rather talk it out than read a book about it. I’m a slow reader and would still probably have the same questions for you in regards to your understanding of it. What I have read from him was a difficult read.
How to deal with one’s own death is one of the more common philosophical questions. Jesus’ response to that question was extraordinary. How he came up with the idea is an area of great speculation for me.
Socrates doing the same thing that you say Jesus changed the understanding of kind of contradicts each other. What do you think the difference between the sacrifice of Socrates and Jesus? I’m not saying they are the same just trying to get to what made Jesus’ sacrifice so impactful.

I think the big change is in the understanding of authority that he is presenting that serves the people instead of rules over them. Sacrifices his life to help inspire the people to their freedom, similar to the story of Codrus inspiring his people to win a war by letting his enemies kill him.
Sorry. That was something we read in school which means I probably didn’t read it. I kind of remember the movie… maybe. How about a matrix analogy? Neo letting Mr. Smith kill him in order to take him over is comparable to Jesus letting the ruler of man killing him in order to infiltrate him spiritually.
I think you should take that as a sign that people feel that they need to be taught creativity because they are lacking in it. I don’t think you will find many people who think they aren’t receptive but tons and tons that don’t think they are creative. Because that takes confidence because you could be asked to prove it. Hardly anyone thinks they have a problem receiving incoming stimuli or ideas. Reception is a problem the spiritual types need to recognize they have. As in asperger’s syndrome people not being able to recognize facial cues from a lack of practice doing so.
I’m still having a hard time pinning down why you have such a strong conviction in this one particular philosopher. Usually faith comes from a person/s with faith that convinces you but yours is coming from a book so I’m guessing there had to be some ideas there that really blew your mind. First time you read a non god-man version of Christ?
I still haven’t read the primer, (which is why I took so long responding). I am probably going to have a lot of questions even just looking at the glossary and motion being the unifier. I didn’t know if the mods would be cool with turning this into straight Brunner discussion or if you wanted me to PM you the questions, but then you would lose the opportunity for others to see it talked out. Surprised we haven’t’ been moved already.
The progress of science is already in motion and doesn’t need any help from the spiritual community to make progress except for the spiritual community to create peace so they can do what they do naturally which is figure out new stuff about matter and what you can do with it.
The relationship between a spiritual person and the masses has a habit of defining the spiritual person and his intent on the world. If you fear and want to control them then they will fear you and want to control you but if you love and try to protect them then hopefully the masses will imitate.

No Robots

Brunner makes a big distinction between philosophy and mysticism, with Spinoza epitomizing the former, and Christ the latter.

No problem.

What I mean is that while Socrates and Christ both sacrificed themselves in essentially the same way, there are some differences related to the nature of the thought of the two men, and that it is specifically Christ's view of sacrifice that has established itself universally.

Socrates' self-sacrifice was essentially negative, a rejection of the popular will and of his own mere mortality. Christ's sacrifice was essentially positive, a willful embracing of the role of sacrificial offering, a decision to accede to the accusations of the authorities, and a commitment to maintain his unity with the Absolute.

I agree with this.

I think that's right. I only watched the first Matrix.

All I can say is that ever since Brunner freed me from any desire to be creative or original, I have become much happier. Nothing fills me with more joy now than improving my receptivity. I take far more satisfaction in being a good reader than I ever did in being a writer.

I'd read everything I could find on theories about Christ. None of it seemed to be sufficient to the topic. Brunner's book struck me immediately as equal to the task. I guess I would have to say that Brunner stands more or less on a par with Christ in terms of depth of thought, and so is uniquely capable of presenting him.


Let's just keep going and see where it leads.

We all are facing serious problems that require a spiritualized approach to science.

At the moment, the important thing is to develop cohesiveness among those of spiritual orientation.

By the way, there are a couple of biographical summaries around. One is on the website of the Brunner Institute. Another one was done by a fervent Brunnerian named Henri Lurié. Lurié's English is a little weak, but I think that he demonstrates the kind of ardour that Brunner inspires, especially with regard to the idea of a spiritually-oriented community. It is Lurié who prepared the glossary I linked to earlier.

Elijah

It’s not the distinction between philosophy and mysticism but from teacher and messiah. It doesn’t matter what they are teaching or the method with which they are using. Spinoza isn’t presenting an ideological messiah so there is no reason to revere him or Brunner in any extraordinary way like you would Jesus because with Jesus that is only part of the plan not because it is due him.
I think the key is him asking his followers to follow his example and martyr themselves which is the huge difference. I think there may have been some talk of some of Socrates’ followers killing themselves in honor of him as well but not sure on the facts for that one.

I think this may be what you are saying in the second part; that Jesus sacrificed himself with intent to spread a message and Socrates accepted his death because of his philosophical disposition, positive negative.
I don’t know “do whatever makes you happy” is the mom’s standard advice, “do the work that needs done” is the dad’s. If that means be creative then that’s what you have to do even if you don’t enjoy it. I probably feel about reading like you do creating but it just has to get done sometimes. It’s not like you can avoid being creative. Even now you are looking for creative ways to introduce Brunner to people and creative ways to achieve your society that you are creatively trying to construct to fit a particularly unique time.
Again I don’t think it’s correct to try to understand Christ in relation to a philosopher like Brunner because they are doing two totally different things with the people. Jesus is not there to try to teach something to the people about the universe but to get them to believe in him as the messiah in order to create a spiritual king to combat the earthly ones. They don’t even need to know why they are believing in order for the plan to work.
Ok on this Brunner stuff, needless to say I’m confused on what exactly he is saying or if he is using the words differently than normal.

What he seems like he is talking about is material monism and is wording it with spiritual/idealistic terms. I’m not sure but I just don’t see the spiritual aspect of his ontological view. Instead of atoms and void he just has a single atom that he calls the absolute.

When he speaks of spiritual and non spiritual people is he dividing them on the basis of that one “there are no things” concept? Is he dividing people up on if they view the world from a unified perspective or not? Is the reason Kant is considered superstitious is because he has “things” in his world view?

What’s the nature of the soul in his world view? Is the soul a thing or an action?

As to his three types of thinking I still don’t get how the concepts mentioned there being so encompassing of so many things that are so interrelated that I don’t see how they are being separated exactly.

Could you clarify what he means by the “infinite attributes” from the bio?

He’s going with everything is in constant state of change/motion but how does he counter the post Socratic idea of only the sensible is changing and the spiritual is constant? But I’m not sure what spiritual aspects you are working with.
You mean approach the scientific problems as if there are no things but only actions and everything is unified?
Communication sure but I don’t know about the cohesiveness part…. Some direction maybe.
I liked this line of his from the bio.

“It is true that the Jewish nation of antiquity was quite exceptional and shortly bore her ruin, gave to the world the man whose words make empires collapse.”

And his stuff on marriage was good. The relationship between you and your significant other is the only spiritual community that needs to be cohesive in my mind.

No Robots

I quite agree. And so do both Spinoza and Brunner. I’m just saying that we need thinkers of high caliber like Spinoza and Brunner to help us approach Christ.

Willingness to die for the cause is indeed a huge factor in the spread of Christianity. But this fact must not make us forget that the cause itself is the primary thing; the willingness to die for it is secondary. Sometimes, the cause is best served by willingness to continue living.

Right.

I don’t see this as creativity, but rather as technical application of general principles. All this requires is receptivity to general principles, and some measure of practical cleverness/talent/cunning to find useful applications for them.

I agree. However, some of us, for our own sake, do need to know why we believe. Philosophy helps us to climb the mountain to Christ.

Brunner assumes that his reader is already on board for the spiritual part of his doctrine. He therefore spends most of his effort elaborating on practical applications. Here is something from one of his followers, Lothar Bickel, that helps explain the approach:

[S]ince we encounter nature's inwardness only in isolated cases, our knowledge concerning it being vague and uncertain, the concept of cosmic consciousness is not suitable as a universally valid explanatory principle for all phenomena of the universe. The concept of nature as universal inwardness can never become the basis for practical sciences because it cannot aid us in distinguishing the individual real beings from each other nor in determining how they affect and change one another. We are enabled to accomplish these tasks best when we conceive nature as a unity of material motion. The mental... is that which is intrinsically our own. It is that part of our existence and of our motion complex which is in our power and almost completely belongs to us; it is that which, in contradiction to the rest of our existence, is experienced inwardly instead of outwardly. Now every specific being is composed of things different from it, and it coheres with other beings in which, and in spite of which, it exists. The consideration of these parts and of the various relationships of that specific being is hence the very thing that makes it accessible to a scientific explanation. Thus man's existence too, and even that aspect of him which is inwardly experienced, consists of other existences upon which it is continuously dependent. Hence we must endeavour to understand even the intrinsically human, i.e., man's inner existence and behaviour, as much as possible from the existence and behavior of the non-human, of those other things of which we are made up and with which we are intimately connected. But all other things are given to us only in an external, corporeal hypostasis. Hence arises our obligation to reduce even our inner life as much as is feasible to material events in our existence.— The Unity Of Body And Mind (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Lothar Bickel, p. 46-7.

Yes. The essence of folk thought is to construe things, material objects, as absolutes; whereas science has confirmed the philosophical insight that material objects are constructs of our own human thought:

Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.—Nils Bohr

Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.—Erwin Schrödinger

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.—Albert Einstein

We all have “things” in our worldview. Kant is superstitious in that he attempts to construe his worldview as philosophy, to construe things as absolutely isolated from each other, along the lines of Leibnitz's monads. Philosophy is not worldview. Philosophy is abstract and affirms the absolute oneness of reality, whereas worldview is material and concerns itself solely with the multiplicity of things. Metaphysics is the superstitious distortion of philosophy wherein the multiplicity of things is represented as absolute.

The soul is the Absolute itself. There is only one soul, and it expresses itself in infinite ways, of which we each are one.

The absolute/the soul is Power, which we experience as things in action.

The three faculties cannot be wholly separated from each other. They are in constant dynamic interaction with each other. Brunner attempts to clarify their distinctiveness by concentrating on limit cases: scientific thought for the practical understanding, Christ for spirit, and scholasticism (including Kant, the sophists, the Pharisees, the medieval schoolmen, and our own academic/media establishment) for superstition.

Each type of thing has its own infinite attribute, meaning its own unique form, its own way of expressing infinite and eternal substance. Part of Brunner's essay on the infinite attributes can be found here and here. If you are interested, I can scan and post the entire thing.

He doesn't counter it. It is the basis of his whole work.

I mean that science should be approached as an exercise in relative understanding, as an attempt to analyze the material multiplicity that we perceive within the context of our philosophical insight into the fundamental unity of all reality in thought.

That should read:

It is true that the Jewish nation of antiquity was quite exceptional and shortly before her ruin, gave to the world the man whose words make empires collapse.

Yeah. Lurié made a good translation into French. I hope to do an English translation some day.

True. But we want to help others as well. And there is strength in numbers.

No Robots

For further reading, you may want to look at Brunner's dialogue, Materialism and Idealism, translated by Lurié.

Elijah

Do you have some quotes of their agreement? I see them as viewing Christ like themselves as philosophical/mystical teachers killed not a political messiah sacrificing his life.
What’s the cause? Freeing the people?

It’s not being willing to die for it, it’s willing it because it’s part of the plan. He’s not brave in the face of his death he is a genius in using it to his advantage.
Maybe you are using creative as artistic. It doesn’t matter how mundane or worldly the activity is, given enough time and if you look carefully enough creativity eventually shows up.

Creativity is found whether you are reusing what you learned in new ways with paint or with people.
We all believe or don’t believe because of someone we met usually or in your case a book which I’m sure isn’t terribly uncommon but much much rarer I would think. It’s the sign of Jonah where conviction spreads through one man through a whole kingdom because conviction is contagious. Jesus proved his conviction/faith/confidence in his plan by being willing to sacrifice his life to accomplish the mission. This conviction/confidence/faith was passed on to his immediate followers who like him gained the confidence in a better afterlife by seeing Jesus’ conviction/confidence.

Yes Jesus needs to be understood philosophically/politically/rationally and reading other philosophers is required but you can’t understand Jesus as just as the philosophers you are reading because Jesus died for a reason.
I’m not seeing the spiritual part. The inwardness is just thinking which is just a response of the absolute to itself because that's all there is… if I’m following at all. Kind of like ripples or bubbles that form on the surface of the ocean when a wave crashes back into itself?
Ok then. When I use spiritual/common it’s in regards to people nature and the divide between people who have worldly/family existences and the ones who pursue intellectual/spiritual interests. It makes no sense in my mind to divide people up on the basis of if they subscribe to a specific unified universe theory.

Just to be clear; there are no actual spiritual types of people in this philosophy there are just people who believe in no things? Or is it if you’re a spiritual type you are going to see a unified universe, and that is the test if you’re spiritual?
So to be made clear here, materialist and superstitious have to do with having things in your understanding of the universe not with how the words are commonly used.
So soul is the act of an unified energy(?) releasing when the absolute comes in contact with itself/thinks of itself? It’s not an observer and there is not an observer of any type in this philosophy? Consciousness isn’t the awareness of the thoughts in your head but the thoughts themselves are consciousness? Page 47 of Mater/Ideal paper.

"All worlds engulfed by the One, this is the depth of recollection, speaking into my soul. My soul strains to pass through the all into the One, through relative infinity towards absolute eternity."

The soul and the One seem different here.
Yea seems super confusing.
Attributes aren’t anything actually in the universe they are just something that appears to us due to the variance in the constant change making things appear to us… correct?
I’m missing that.

'All passes and all changes before I am aware of it', and 'Nothing but change is constant' Brunner

Verses

That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Plato Timaeus

For the images which are presented to the sight in executed things are subject to dissolution; but those which are presented in the One uncreate may last for ever, being durable, eternal, and unchangeable Philo Allegorical Interpretation

2 Cor 4:18 As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

It seems more like he is still stuck in Plato’s cave staring at the wall but pointing out that it’s just a wall changing and still not looking back to see the universal constants causing the change. Is there a constant side to his universe or is what he senses (that which changes) the limit of the universe?
Basically approach scientific problems as if there are no “things” right?
I’m still not sure what kind of community you are actually trying to create. Just a bunch of people who view the cosmos unified and without things? Do you think getting a bunch of people who view the world that way will create a new type of more productive or equal society, that will then appeal to the masses and they will imitate?
Looked at some of it. Still a long to way to go but figured I would write back before I finished to help with my chances of looking stupid, but I will try to finish it sometime in the near future. Not that I’m following even half of it.

No Robots

[A] man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation.—Spinoza

It is only every thousand years, or every couple of thousand years, that a single man is born whose heart is blessed, who does not complain, does not hesitate, does not question, is unabashed in the world, entirely truthful, built firmly and unshakably on himself. Such a man is able to bless his fellows with his love, indeed, he must bless them; even if it means that he has to lose his life on that account. He must bless them, because his love is the will which springs from his power and his very nature, the holy, merciful will of his own blessedness, which desires to bring bliss even to the wretched and the enemies of bliss—for they are the enemies of their own blessedness. We have Christ and Spinoza. If not these two men, there is no one in the world who can and does speak the Truth to men, completely and with love. With ardent love they act on our behalf and search for us with all their exalted strength, that we may return their love, that we may come to them and be one will with them in their creative and loving will, so that, through them, we may attain Truth in ever more elevated forms and in ever firmer certainty.—Brunner

Spiritual truth, which is freedom.

Seems to me like you've got it. Or getting it, anyway. What makes it spiritual is that you realize that this experience of inward motion that we call thought is a universal experience. Omnia animata, everything thinks.

Most people of a spiritual bent have worldly/family existences. These are not mutually exclusive. The idea is to engage in worldly/family existence not as if it was the be-all and end-all, but as a relative expression of absolute oneness.

People are divided on this question, though. And it is a serious division that has serious consequences for what we think and do.

A spiritual person sees each thing as a manifestation of the absolute One.

Basically, yes. It is important to remember that there are infinite ways to experience the unified universe. Each type of thing has its own experience. We humans know only our own: the continuum of things in motion.

Materialist superstition is the belief that our human understanding of the universe as a continuum of things in motion is absolute, that this is the one and only true way for all beings to experience reality.

Sounds about right.

The idea is to consciously strive to identify our individual soul as what it really is: an expression of the One.

It does help to concentrate on the limit cases: science for practical understanding, Christ for spirit and scholasticism for superstition. Surely, each of these is distinct from the others?

Right. By the way, the essay on the attributes is including with Materialism and Idealism, starting on p. 131.

Plato, Philo, Paul and Brunner say the same thing: motion is part of our relative, practical understanding; the goal of spiritual (philosophical) thought is to see things under the aspect of eternity, to conceive every thing as part of a single unmoving whole.

There is only one constant, the Absolute itself.

The idea is to see things as inherently relative constructs of our imagination. Ultimately, the idea is to see all things as relative expressions of the One, all things as thinking, and thus our own thinking as but one manifestation of the general and universal attribute of thought. By understanding thought as a general property of nature, we free ourselves from the illusion that our own thought is a peculiar and utterly unprecedented phenomenon. In this way, we can strip away our illusions about ourselves as utterly unique in nature, and start to understand ourselves as of a piece with the whole of nature. Spinoza states (http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/improve1.htm#P12) that the chief good is, "the knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature" and, "that I wish to direct all sciences to one end and aim, so that we may attain to the supreme human perfection which we have named; and, therefore, whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless."

The idea is to apply spiritual insight to the solution of practical problems. This is best done in concert with others.

You may well be the first native speaker of English to give this a close reading. Remember, too, that you are reading a very Germanic work translated by a Frenchman into English.

No Robots

I think the distinction between creative genius and receptive genius is crucial. Artists create from the depths of their own thought, ex nihilo. Same with philosophers and mystics. Creativity is a rare phenomenon. Creative genius uses available materials to create something entirely new. There is a lot on this in Our Christ. P-mail me and I'll send you a copy.

Btw, I have available a good, recent introduction to Brunner in English here.