Jobar

". But I think the innate human need to understand, the innate human discomfort with the truth of the matter, which is that we don't know anything significant about the nature and origin of existence, and probably never will, is the driving force behind all ontological thought."

Very concisely put! I have to disagree, though, Marz- perhaps we will never know *all* about the nature and origin of existence, but as a longtime student of physics and philosophy, I contend that we are certainly learning more about these things. Our increasing knowledge of science is, I think, abundant proof that we know more about the universe than did our ancestors.

I say that there *is* new knowledge under the sun, and that our curiousity is *not* just vanity. The driving force behind our search for knowledge is the fact that we CAN learn new and deeper truths, if we closely examine the truths we think we know.

Marz Blak

I don't think we have a disagreement, so much as a different perspective. Certainly we learn more every day, and the level of understanding we have about how our universe might have come to be and how it works, when compared to what we knew at almost any arbitrary time in the past (five years, or fifty, or five hundred) is astounding, mind-boggling. Nor did I intend to imply that the seeking of knowledge and/or understanding (not always the same thing at all) is nothing more than vanity or some exercise without any real significance or importance.

What I was talking about really was more the drive to apply or derive some intelligible, objective sense of reason, in the sense of purpose or motive, to our understanding of the big hows and whys. It is this metaphysical endeavor, which leads people to things like theologies or pantheism, which I think we have made, and will continue to make, little or no real headway.

In fact, I would go one step further. I would say--and this is of course only a belief, a personal opinion--that it is only when we as a species grow in wisdom enough to understand that looking for gods or some other externality to give meaning to it all is an ultimately fruitless path, and that we have to, we have no choice but to, find our meaning amongst ourselves, together--it is only then that we will begin to put our differences and prejudices aside and begin to fulfill our real potential as a species.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

garthoverman

IMHO, I think this is where a lot of people misconstrue pantheistic worldviews.

I don't speak for other pantheists, but personally I am not searching for any singular objective reason for existing, any sort of objective meaning for life, in fact I don't believe one exists. It seems many people assume any "discovery of God" equates to finding that one special something outside themselves to tell them what to do with their lives. They then must conform their own purposes and intents to that of the deity they imagine is somewhere out there setting the rules and calling the shots. In my pantheistic outlook, I realize that my own - and our own - purposes and intents literally are those of "god" because I am, as we all are, Its agent(s). Likewise, every other bit of matter/energy is infused with its own purposes and intent as agents of All That Is also. Our existence is the cooperative dance of creative experience for all matter/energy/consciousness - for All That Is. Subjective value judgements against the apparent purposes and intents of other people are pointless, because in everyway that other humans may manifest their own purposes and intent, they are doing their best to represent the will of All That Is. However, many people get confused by the dogmas of religion that tell them to focus their purposes and intents in one specific fashion, to conform or die, to have purposes that aren't necessarily originally their own. It's these distortions that a pantheistic worldview can alleviate by revealing the inherent sovereignty and divinity within every person, animal, plant and even mineral; and furthermore, the connections that bind all of those together in birth, life, and death.

So I agree with your philosophy on finding meaning, but I think I know why it has to be that way as well.

&lt;/hippie-new-ager-crystal-hugging-soapbox-speech&gt;

Yours,

Garth

"Today young men on acid realized that matter is really only energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're an imagination of ourselves......here's Tom with the weather....." --Maynard James Keenan

Jayhawker Soule

On the contrary, I would sugest that this "driving force" is discomfort with the unknown. The difference being that this "driving force" results in both knowledge and superstition.

Marz Blak

Garth--

If, as you suggest, your attraction to pantheism is in its descriptivity rather than because you think it might lead to some precriptive system, then I certainly have no problem with it, other than my original one that it--all such thinking, in fact--seems to me to be inherently unfalsifiable, and therefore, personally, I don't quite see the point of "even going there."

On the other hand, given that people seem to be driven to answer what seem to me to be inherently unfathomable questions, developing a pantheistic ontological model is certainly preferable to various theologies based on personal deity or deities. In comparing pantheism to such approaches, I find it to be quite benign in terms of its macroscopic effect on society at large and more locally, the tendency of particular adherents to try to involve themselves in my business.

(It is hard to imagine, for example, someone concluding that such things as 'blue laws' are necessary starting from a set of pantheistic presuppositions. )

I would say, then, if you find pantheism a comforting or personally useful way of looking at the universe, by all means go ahead...it'll certainly keep you out of that sort of trouble.