Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 09-05-2002, 12:31 PM

Garth, you remind me of myself, circa 1978. At the time I was deeply into looking for 'psychic power'- telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, evidence for reincarnation, etc. As I understood things then, the all-in-one nature of the universe seemed to make such things plausible. But after much seeking, and talking to many who claimed some sort of psychic power or wisdom- I came to the unhappy conclusion that all the ones claiming such were charlatans. I urge you to subscribe to "Skeptical Inquirer" for a year or three. (I have read the site you linked to- good stuff, except you try to 'get' something from enlightenment. Remember the words of the Buddha- "I gained not one thing from unexcelled, complete awakening- and that is why I call it unexcelled, complete awakening.")

Perchance, I'm just taking a break from work- I'll try to speak to your questions in my own way tonight. J.

garthoverman · 09-05-2002, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Garth, you remind me of myself, circa 1978. At the time I was deeply into looking for 'psychic power'- telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, evidence for reincarnation, etc. As I understood things then, the all-in-one nature of the universe seemed to make such things plausible. But after much seeking, and talking to many who claimed some sort of psychic power or wisdom- I came to the unhappy conclusion that all the ones claiming such were charlatans. I urge you to subscribe to "Skeptical Inquirer" for a year or three. (I have read the site you linked to- good stuff, except you try to 'get' something from enlightenment. Remember the words of the Buddha- "I gained not one thing from unexcelled, complete awakening- and that is why I call it unexcelled, complete awakening.")

I see your point but I think you misunderstand me. I'm not at home tossin' chicken bones or dealin' tarot cards or huggin' my power crystal (not that you were). I do enjoy reading Seth, and hoax or no I think it gives us a very workable model for the nature of existance. I'm am inclined to believe in the validity of Seth's accounts, that they're not faked, though I do know that there are plenty of other hoaxers out there supposedly "channeling" as is Seth's case.

All I try to 'get' from enlightenment is enlightenment. After that, I just try to live a productive and creative life.

Yours,

Garth

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: garthoverman ]

Perchance · 09-06-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by garthoverman:
Hello, Perchance. Thanks for your post. Now, I'd like a chance to explain my beliefs in light of your objections.

First realize that pantheism is a highly personal belief system, I do not propose that my explanations will exactly match any other pantheist's. We are loosely held together under one common theological term from which it seems we cannot escape. I will get to this near the end.

I'm a little confused here. You don't have a choice about being a pantheist, any more than you have a choice about being human?

Or is "pantheism" such a broad term that its usefulness is diluted?

Quote:

This illustrates one of my key understandings in pantheism, as Jobar also described earlier. There is an understanding of the unity existing amongst even the most seeming ly polar opposites that really cannot be expressed verbally without glaring contradiction. To feel the unity and absolutely apprehend it is to experience the divine. So everything is devine and nothing is devine = absolute true statement. No one entity is the stand-alone 'deity,' but instead is only a piece of it. Simultaneously, that entity hold within it the latent patterns of the rest of the universe - the rest of the divine. That applies from the most minute particle to the largest animal or plant.

Thank you for posting this. You've clarified another objection to pantheism that I wanted to make but didn't know how.

What is "everything that exists?"

I realize that might seem like a silly question, but I am dead serious. Does pantheism embrace only what exists outside the human mind, or does it embrace what exists inside it? Do pantheists (in general) believe in a supernatural plane? Do they think concepts like truth, justice, and conscience that they cannot see and touch are also part of the "divine?" If concepts like God and Jesus and Allah and Zeus and Aphrodite exist in the human mind, does that mean they also exist, and so pantheists would worship them?

I also think your examples above are interesting, relying as they do on the natural world. Does the "everything that exists" really embrace man-made things?

Quote:

Morality is subjective. In fact everything is subjective. Nothing exists objectively.

Not even the world outside the human head? If you think your computer doesn't exist, it doesn't exist?

I subscribe to relative concepts of morality and truth. I am extremely skeptical of the idea that "nothing exists objectively," since this in itself seems to imply an absolute.

Quote:

No, I don't perform rituals to worship the mouse that keeps nibbling at my bread in my cupboard at night. There is again an understanding that is inexpressible of the mechanics of life, the necessity of give and take, the participation by every bit of living matter - and there truly is no "dead" matter. Anger and pride are not necessarily sinful, in fact a safe expression of both emotions is quite healthy. It is the action upon those emotions that can turn ugly. However, with the perspecive of unity that comes with pantheism, I wouldn't inflict upon any other person plant or animal anything that I wouldn't inflict upon myself because I would be inflicting it on myself. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself and he wasn't kidding!

But love is not always a good idea. It can turn foolish. It can cause harm. It can blind people from doing what needs to be done.

And it has always struck me as silly to love your enemies, because:

a) They probably have done nothing to deserve this love, or they would not be your enemies.

and

b) While you're standing there with your arms wide open, they can sneak up and stab you in the back.

For me, something must do more than exist to merit my love. Why do you think existing is enough?

Quote:

Well, with that inexpressible understanding that I keep conveniently falling back on, you can understand where your values can be best assorted to maximize your experience. The wolf understands that he is one with nature, yet he also understands that he must slay the hare to make it through the winter. You don't need to try to avoid stepping on ants or not swat the flies in your house in order to honot them properly. Your values are not the best applied there. So that begs the question, "Where are they best applied?" And nobody can answer that for you but you. Masses of people flock to popular organized religions to seek that pre-packaged assortment of values mostly because they don't trust their own judgement and are deathly afraid of a world where every individual would be allowed to define that for themselves. You are not required to be democratic with your reverance, but underneath any 'favoritism' you understand that all of it is part of 'God's plan.' I use the Christian terminology only because its convenient and recognizable.

Is this 'plan' in the same sense as order? Do pantheists think the universe has a destiny?

I don't think this. In fact, I'm enough of a free-willer to reject utterly the idea that anything I do is constrained by a "divine" force. I accept that I am constrained by social norms, by the limits of my body, and by other constraints that I can do nothing about. But if pantheism (or any viewpoint) is a way of looking at the world, I see absolutely no need to drape extra chains over myself.

I understand and am intrigued by the idea that I don't need to be "democratic with my reverence." However, it's reverence at all that I have a problem with, at least in the sense that it's separate from admiration. I can feel awe, but I don't feel awe for one thing all the time, or in an uncomplicated way. I can feel awe at a spider's web and sorrow for destroying it, but that does not mean that I will allow a spider to build a web in my house.

Nor have I ever felt this unity that seems to be so basic. In fact, my prime experience with the universe is one of disconnection that I experience most of the time as thrilling freedom, but also as loneliness. Isn't the necessary "oneness" something you really must experience with your mind, and not just aspire to?

Quote:

That is all perfectly fine. If you don't like certain shades of color for reasons that you can only dance around in your mind, you are touching on that inexpressible understanding. I'll suggest you read an author in a minute but I will quote him now: "You create your reality according to your beliefs and expectations, therefore you should examine these carefully. If you do not like some aspect of your world, then examine your own expectations." --Seth. What I'm saying is your life is driven towards value-fulfillment. However without a conscious understanding of your own values, you will forever feel subject to exterior forces and drifting away in a life without meaning, or at least I did. If you don't need to call yourself a pantheist to be certain of your own values, great! Pantheism to me is a means to that end.

Pantheism is a means of realizing your own values? Hmmm, that's interesting. I take it you value that oneness and that "inexpressible understanding," then?

Quote:

Now, I suggest you read a book. This book will appear to be a load of tree-hugging, hippie new-ager psycho-babble. But everything in my experience, including my conversion away from Christianity and my experience in quantum mechanics and particle physics, and every experience I have to this day can be explained in the context of this book's material and its counterparts. Read it as a recreational read. You don't have to buy into any of it, though you may be out 12 bucks to get the book.

While I agree that it can be a useful worldview, I worry about faltering in logic and starting to believe in it as if it were a religion. I'm not sure that I have what it takes to keep my mind rigorously divided, part applying logic to the world around me and part applying this kind of view to apprehend the emotional aspects. Or was this not what you were advocating?

Quote:

I quoted the author above, his name is Seth. You may have heard of him. I used to feel hesitant about talking about him because when I explain him it sounds quite rediculous. Basically, Seth calls himself an "energy personality essence, no longer focused in physcial reality." He channeled his material through a woman named Jane Roberts in the seventies and eighties. He has about 12 books or more, I've read 5 or 6. Nothing he has ever said has ever been contradicted by science or phsychology. In fact a number of his points are only now being confirmed by science. Here's a link to the book I think you should start with:
Seth Speaks

It hasn't been contradicted by science. That doesn't mean it agrees, though. Can you give me some examples of his points that have been confirmed?

Since at the moment I hold no belief in a supernatural plane, and don't know yet if pantheism includes belief in it, I remain skeptical.

Quote:

Like I said, it sounds rediculous. You don't have to read it. But if you're really looking for some answers, or at least a very workable model, I assume that you've read a lot of books - this should be one of them. Run a Google search for "Seth Quotes" and read some of the pages you find, they're neat-o mosquito.

Questions?

Yours,

Garth

"Your world is not in dire strait because you trust yourselves, but precisely because you do not"--Seth

I am skeptical of it- and if it's one of those books that one won't really grasp the truth of except with "an open heart," then I'm afraid I won't be able to.

I do like that last quote you posted, though, because I am in such emphatic disagreement with it

. I feel the greatest damage is done to the world by people with ultimate certainty- fanatics, people certain they have been wronged, people who do not listen to opposing viewpoints, people who have "stopped searching." A great deal of my life is one big question mark, and while sometimes I regret not having answers, most of the time I prefer to keep it that way. If I do ever arrive at a "Yes" or "No," I keep attacking it and bombarding it in my mind until it breaks apart, and I distrust myself constantly.

Why is this a bad thing?

-Perchance.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]

garthoverman · 09-06-2002, 10:43 AM

Thanks again, Perchance. This post will be brief, I'm afraid. My apologies.

Quote:

I'm a little confused here. You don't have a choice about being a pantheist, any more than you have a choice about being human?

Or is "pantheism" such a broad term that its usefulness is diluted?

More that it's usefulness is diluted. I associate with the term for quick identification.

Quote:

What is "everything that exists?"

Exactly that. I don't believe in the existance of supernatural. Everything is actually quite natural, however things may be non-physical in nature. Non-physical entities and events are not bound by space and time and thus appear "supernatural."

Quote:

I also think your examples above are interesting, relying as they do on the natural world. Does the "everything that exists" really embrace man-made things?

"man-made" things are really "man-manipulated" things composed of natural material. Synthetic material is still natural, simply man applied the processes - not some other animal or plant.

Quote:

Not even the world outside the human head? If you think your computer doesn't exist, it doesn't exist?

I subscribe to relative concepts of morality and truth. I am extremely skeptical of the idea that "nothing exists objectively," since this in itself seems to imply an absolute.

Timing is inconvenient for a complete explanation. Basically the illusion of an objectively existing computer is dependant upon a multitude of interactions. The objectivity indicates independance, the dependance on interactivity renders it subjective.

Quote:

But love is not always a good idea. It can turn foolish. It can cause harm. It can blind people from doing what needs to be done.

Yeah, I know it appears that way. That's kind of a superficial application of the term 'love' IMHO. Sometimes 'tough-love' can be appropriate.

Quote:

Is this 'plan' in the same sense as order? Do pantheists think the universe has a destiny?

Not one definite destiny, if any destiny at all. In fact, all that really exists are 'probable destinies' and various gradations of validity for each. Which one gets actualized into your experience is up to each individual.

Quote:

Pantheism is a means of realizing your own values? Hmmm, that's interesting. I take it you value that oneness and that "inexpressible understanding," then?

Uhh.. yeah. but I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Quote:

I do like that last quote you posted, though, because I am in such emphatic disagreement with it . I feel the greatest damage is done to the world by people with ultimate certainty- fanatics, people certain they have been wronged, people who do not listen to opposing viewpoints, people who have "stopped searching." A great deal of my life is one big question mark, and while sometimes I regret not having answers, most of the time I prefer to keep it that way. If I do ever arrive at a "Yes" or "No," I keep attacking it and bombarding it in my mind until it breaks apart, and I distrust myself constantly.

This is also very complicated. In short words, trusting yourself requires a trust in your entire species as a whole. Fanatics don't trust human nature and thus feel that most of their avenues for value fulfillment have been closed down. This leaves them with only a few roads to chose from, generally very extreme in nature.

Yours,

Garth

Jayhawker Soule · 09-06-2002, 12:46 PM

I hate to appear dense, but what are the implications and consequences of pantheism that are not fully embodied in naturalism/atheism?

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 12:59 PM

Reasonable:

Atheism denies the existence of God. Pantheism does not.

If the universe is God, pantheists would most likely assert that human beings should worship, pay homage to, be subservient to, this God--that we should view this God as superiour (not in size alone, but in all other ways) to us.

(Basically, the same sort of anti-humanity attitude any other religion has.)

Keith.

Jayhawker Soule · 09-06-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Atheism denies the existence of God.

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
If the universe is God, pantheists would most likely assert that human beings should worship, pay homage to, be subservient to, this God ...

I suspect that Pantheists are getting a bad rap here, but I'll let them speak for themselves. For my part, I've yet to understand how "the universe is God" is a semantically meaningful statement, much less a useful one.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

garthoverman · 09-06-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

If the universe is God, pantheists would most likely assert that human beings should worship, pay homage to, be subservient to, this God--that we should view this God as superiour (not in size alone, but in all other ways) to us.

Not exactly. You appear to be associating the reverence required by the Christian God to that of the pantheist god, an easy mistake what with the connotations the word 'god' has.

The holistic mechanics of universal existance doesn't recognize any real qualitative superiority to All That Is over the individual since they are in essence one.

Yours,

Garth

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 09:59 PM

Garth:

Fair enough.

I still have to ask what is achieved by viewing 'All that is' as 'one'?

We still know that molecules which have two electrons, form different compounds than atoms with only one, or three, electrons.

And, I still get to cash my paycheck--and cannot cash yours.

If everything is 'one', nothing seems to have changed...

A is still A...

Keith.

Jayhawker Soule · 09-07-2002, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by garthoverman:
The holistic mechanics of universal existance doesn't recognize any real qualitative superiority to All That Is over the individual since they are in essence one.

If you say so, but what is contained in pantheism that are not fully embodied in naturalism/atheism? What do we get other than New Age verbiage?

It seems to me that, as science advances, we reach plateaus that challenge our comprehension. We shake our heads and, perhaps, mumble something about God playing dice. However we handle the situation, the common denominator is some level of discomfort pacified and reframed as awe. It's the same whether we're speaking of the mystical relationships between the celestial spheres, seasons, and the crops, or the mystical uncertainties of quantum physics.

Best I can tell, there exists no difference between the God-of-the-Gap and the Tao-of-Physics, or between ancient superstition and modern pantheism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-05-2002, 12:31 PM	#31
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Garth, you remind me of myself, circa 1978. At the time I was deeply into looking for 'psychic power'- telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, evidence for reincarnation, etc. As I understood things then, the all-in-one nature of the universe seemed to make such things plausible. But after much seeking, and talking to many who claimed some sort of psychic power or wisdom- I came to the unhappy conclusion that all the ones claiming such were charlatans. I urge you to subscribe to "Skeptical Inquirer" for a year or three. (I have read the site you linked to- good stuff, except you try to 'get' something from enlightenment. Remember the words of the Buddha- "I gained not one thing from unexcelled, complete awakening- and that is why I call it unexcelled, complete awakening.") Perchance, I'm just taking a break from work- I'll try to speak to your questions in my own way tonight. J.

09-06-2002, 12:46 PM	#35
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	I hate to appear dense, but what are the implications and consequences of pantheism that are not fully embodied in naturalism/atheism?

09-06-2002, 12:59 PM	#36
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Reasonable: Atheism denies the existence of God. Pantheism does not. If the universe is God, pantheists would most likely assert that human beings should worship, pay homage to, be subservient to, this God--that we should view this God as superiour (not in size alone, but in all other ways) to us. (Basically, the same sort of anti-humanity attitude any other religion has.) Keith.

09-06-2002, 09:59 PM	#39
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Garth: Fair enough. I still have to ask what is achieved by viewing 'All that is' as 'one'? We still know that molecules which have two electrons, form different compounds than atoms with only one, or three, electrons. And, I still get to cash my paycheck--and cannot cash yours. If everything is 'one', nothing seems to have changed... A is still A... Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.