Friday, March 17, 2006

Above and Beyond, the Call of Buddhi

One of the central influences on my thinking, the psychoanalyst W. R. Bion, wrote a book entitled Second Thoughts, published in 1968. In it, he republished various early essays he had written in the 1950's, but included extended commentary on them from the point of view of the mature Bion. In other words, the book consisted of a dialectic between two Bions, as he meditated on what he thought he knew at the time, what was implicit in what he had written, what was no longer valid, etc.

Every once in a while I am going to try reworking and editing something I've previously written on this blog. For one thing, as any writer knows, writing is not writing, Rather, writing is editing. Writing a blog does not afford you much of an opportunity for the latter, so it's not necessarily writing at all, but first-drafting, or thinking in public.

As an evolutionary traditionalist, I look at the various authentic revelations--in my case, I especially focus on Orthodox Christianity, neo-Vedanta, and Judaism--as vertical axes around which our minds may spiral and ascend. We need those immobile axes to serve as the fixed stars that provide both a space and a trajectory in which we may "reason" about divine things. Tradition is the space of the spaceless God.

Another important point is that a religious practice does not so much involve discovering new truths as it does rediscovering the old ones time and again. Because our consciousness is perpetually drawn down and out into the world of maya, we generally must counter that force by re-membering oursophs. Rhythm is a spiritual force-multiplier, which is why we must dwell daily on certain primordial truths and ideas that will deepen as we ascend the axis of tradition.

When we last entered the no-Spinoza zone, we were discussing the culmination of rationalism in the pivotal figure of Immanuel "Manny" Kant, who placed a bright line between the worlds of phenomena (the small world we pretend to know) and noumena (the larger world we can never know). For Kant, there was no way to escape our nervous system and "get at" the world, so to speak. As a result, to paraphrase Alfred North Whitehead, we end up with conjecture on one side (science), a dream on the other (religion and various post-Kantian idealistic philosophies). Or you could say that we are bequeathed an unavoidably divided and irrational world. On one side is that parallel looniverse known as the academic left, on the other side various atavistic religious systems that try to interpret the world as if the Enlightenment never happened.

But in truth, any such "bifurcationist" strategy that tries to horizontally divide one part of the world over and against another part will end in paradox and absurdity. For example, Whitehead noted that the Cartesian dualism of "thinking" vs. "extensive" substances--AKA, mind vs. matter--had resulted in "a complete muddle in scientific thought, in philosophic cosmology, and in epistemology." Not for nothing has philosophy been called "error on a grandiose scale," or "a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing." It begins with false premises and therefore cannot help but end with false conclusions.

As the Jesuit philosopher of science Stanley Jaki explains it, philosophers are forever trying to get to second base before they have touched first. They start their analysis at second, but have no philosophy that can justify or explain how they have gotten there. For the presupposition of any philosophy is the belief that man can know truth, that he can encode this truth and place it in an object (for example, a book), and that this object can in turn cause a wondrous thing called understanding in the consciousness of another. Therefore, the first duty of a philosopher is to endorse the idea that knowledge may be embodied in objects and cause understanding in subjects. A miracle! True human knowing is a genuine miracle, but outside the explanatory paradigm of traditional metaphysics, it is an impossible miracle that no postmodern philosophy can explain. It is only because God expectorated a mirrorcle that we can be his spittin' image and know truth.

One may well ask, "What in the philosophy of deconstruction justifies such a process?" For speaking and writing the nonsense of deconstruction presupposes a reality that, whatever else it may be, is capable of encoding information and transmitting (mis)understanding--which is still a kind of understanding--from one mind to another. How is this possible? No purely materialistic philosophy can explain why objects are intelligible, any more than purely idealist philosophies can explain how ideas are embodied in objects.

Rather than beginning with the horizontal division of the world into phenomena and noumena or mind and matter, traditional metaphysics begins with the division between vertical and horizontal: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It affirms a hierarchical order of the cosmos, in which the corporeal domain is considered only the lowest tier, outer shell, or "epidermis." The cosmos is regarded as a theophany infused with a logos, so that the visible and tangible things that unfold in time are a reflection of the atemporal realm above it. This is captured in the adage, "as above, so below."

Following this line of reasoning, human beings are not considered ancillary to a hostile or indifferent cosmos, but central to its structure and purpose. Man is a microcosmos that contains the same blueprint as the macrocosmos. It is because we are a microcosm that we are able to so unproblematically know--we are able to know the cosmos because it preexists in us. As the great third century Greek Father, Origen, put it, "Understand that you have within yourself, upon a small scale, a second universe: within you there is a sun, there is a moon, and there are also stars."

In the traditional view, the horizontal division of mind and matter (or phenomena/noumena) that results in paradox and absurdity is eliminated. However, there are vertical divisions that reveal a hierarchy of ontological degrees of reality, and corresponding ways to know them. There is not a tiny phenomenal island that we can know, surrounded by a limitless noumenal ocean that we can never know. Rather, we begin with the lowest level of being, material reality, which corresponds to our empirical, rational, scientific methods of exploring and describing it. True, there are degrees of understanding, but the process is much more analogous to comprehending a great work of art, say, one of Beethoven's symphonies. While the symphony will yield much deeper insights to the trained ear, that doesn't mean that the symphony available to our senses is simply the audible aspect of a noumenal symphony that we can never hear. The cosmos has degrees of withinness that only yield their secrets as we spiral up the axis of traditional metaphysics.

For what Kant called the noumena--the greater unKnown reality--is not behind but above. It is accessible to humans, but only through the proper means. Because the human intellect derives its light from the divine intellect, truth is bonded and underwritten by our nonlocal Sponsor. While it is true that all knowledge is in some sense participatory, that doesn't mean that knowledge is merely subjective--again, ours is an objective, hierarchical world susceptible to degrees of knowing. Knower and known are not divided but unified in the act of participatory knowing, so that the known universe is the universe. (Interestingly, Descartes obviously formulated his ideas at the peak of classical physics, since which time that paradigm has been toppled by quantum theory, which shows how thoroughly entangled consciousness is with the world, i.e., that it is impossible to draw an unambiguous line between knower and known in the probabilistic quantum world. And yet, no science describes the world more accurately and objectively than quantum physics.)

By ridding ourselves of horizontal dualism and returning to the real world of hierarchical oneness, the cosmos is no longer reduced to an incomprehensible and absurd material flatland devoid of intrinsic meaning. Truth may be known because man was made to know it. In fact, if someone tells you otherwise, you might ask them exactly what in their philosophy permits them to doubt that assertion? For their philosophy presupposes what it cannot justify: knowledge of truth and reality.

And if you really want to irritate them, you can tell them that, In the Chronological, Ontological, and Epistemological Beginning was (and is) the Word. That is, antecedent to anything else that might be said about the cosmos, it must fundamentally be composed of things capable of referring to other things, of things that point beyond themselves and convey messages and meanings. Even on a strictly mathematical basis, the fact is, quality must inhere in quantity, because ordering anything means that there must be a system whereby something can stand for, or refer to, something else. What are the beautiful equations that govern the Big Bang but words dwelling in matter, words spoken 13 billion years ago that we can unpack from matter and clearly hear today? Ah, quantum cosmology, the celestial song supreme!

Postmodernism offers only a factitious liberation from traditional ways of knowing the world. There is no way to get around the principle that the world is intelligible and that the mind is capable of knowing it. And once this is understood, it becomes clear that human consciousness is intrinsically related to the totality of being in a way that belies any postmodern superstition. There is a source of truth antecedent to man that is perceived not by the senses, but by the intellect. No, not that intellect, that horribly twisted and partial thing that is present in mere intellectuals. Rather, that miraculous capacity which lies a few degrees above the worldly intellect and within the heart: the nous, the buddhi, the psychic being.

27 Comments:

Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

Wow Bob, it amazes me how you can churn out such good blogging after all ya been through the last couple of days! I have to say, you gave me alot to work and reuse in this one today! The number one stump for so many is that age old reply,"If I can't see it or if science can't explain any proof of it, then I must be true to myself and not believe it" and I always sigh...because I try hard to give them some kind of visual, which is hard to do and I have to thank you for the horizontal and vertical thingy, because I have used it recently and then did the plus sign and cross analogy. It's really cool when you explain things like that and if you watch close you can actually see their pupils in their eyes expand! Ha Ha, but really, I have told a few friends and one of my friends actually used it in her Sunday School class! Soooooooo see how you are affecting us?

*Hope the little guy is having a good day!

3/17/2006 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

Oh BTW...

Happy St Patrick's Day everyone!!!!

Since I can't actually sit down in a pub and share a pint with ya, crank up your speakers and sing alot to Finnegan's Wake

3/17/2006 09:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Rorschach said...

Postmodernist hypocrisy in one sentence:

"The truth is, there is no truth."

3/17/2006 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Bryan said...

Concerning postmodernism and deconstruction, I recall that even the redoubtable Jacques Derrida eventually admitted that the transcendental signified does exist.

3/17/2006 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

"Understand that you have within yourself, upon a small scale, a second universe: within you there is a sun, there is a moon, and there are also stars."

Yes, as it is without, so it is within. In other words, we are shaped in the image of God - our definition of Deity being that which is the sum total of everything that exists.

It has occurred to me that modern theoretical scientists are now, by way of what is essentially a mind/matter rationalism, touching upon things that are meta-rational. You know, 12 dimensions, curled up inside one another, etc. In other words, left brain thinking producing a right brain result. There are some who would hail modern physicists as the "new priests". I think there's some danger here because, as far as I can discern, modern physicists, with perhaps some notable exceptions, have no real *intuitional* hold on what their math results seems to suggest.

Edgar Allen Poe, though a lush, was something of a mystic genius, believe it or not - his prose-poem EUREKA, which concerns the birth and death of the universe actually contains a few insights into the nature of time and space that only recently have physicists confirmed through math. Edgar was a poet - he intuited it. As have the great mystical geniuses down through the ages. Only a few a capable of the math-reasoning that produces meta-rational results. On the other hand, everybody is capable of intuiting the Greater Truth.

3/17/2006 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger Bro. Bartleby said...

The Gospel of Thomas

Saying 17
Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

Saying 113
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

3/17/2006 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Kahntheroad said...

Will,

I believe that's where our 'information age' is going to bring these things together. No longer are we isolated in our intellectual niches.

Ideas are being thrown out there; on blogs, in song, in film - often bubbling up from the ether through some oblivious consciousness.

In the past all of us - Bob and his commenters - would have no outlet to engage these ideas, and the sparks would likely fizzle out in day to day reality.

At no other time in history could a former slacker bagboy turned humble Gagdad shrink have the opportunity to somehow apply his life experience, odd talents and insight to fan the intuitive flames of a growing handful of like minds.

Before the internet, most of us would have simply conformed or gone mad.

Something very interesting is going on...

3/17/2006 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Bro. Bartleby said...

Augustine spoke of the arrow of time, and that is how most of us think:

the past/creation/arrow released,

the flight, and we moving with the arrow on our trajectory to the future,

the future, the target, the finale.

In that illustration, past Creation 'pushes us' (in the present) through time to an unknown future.

Now if instead of being pushed toward the future, what if God is drawing up to the future?

The timeless God, God outside of time and space and matter, the God that views "our" past and present and future as one, what if that God is "drawing" us to the fulfillment of the "ongoing" Creation?

3/17/2006 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

"New NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang, physicists sais yesterday!"

READ ABOUT THE COSMIC AFTERGLOW HERE

3/17/2006 01:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Rorschach said...

Bryan:

Where Derrida went wrong is that he dismissed ALL "signifieds" as "signifiers" in disguise. As you say, he realized the error of his total rejection.

Imagine it was something like realization of First Cause - in order for signs and signifiers to exist, they must be meaningful, must signify something. Don't exist without a reason - cold logic dictates that all signifiers originate from attempts to explain the signified. At bottom of that pile of representations must be the Something represented.

Talking out of ass here, but think I have a grip on Derrida anyhow. Perhaps little influence from Wittgenstein: "If a proposition is not necessary it is meaningless." But then, Wittgenstein also said that That which language is not adequate to describe is not capable of being meaningfully discussed - and so should be passed over in silence.

3/17/2006 01:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Will said...

Kahn - yes, something interesting is definitely going on. (hmm, that rhymes)

What concerns me, for the moment anyway, is that due to the vast dispensation and availability of internet info - the globalization of ideas - there might be a tendency of some to mistake this One-ness-of-the-word-via-the- internet for that of which it is merely a material manifestation. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet. But it is obviously not the One-ness itself, nor is it the trasscendent consciousness thereof. There's always a danger in dealing with mere represntations of mystical concepts.

I think that, in some sense, there always has been something of a "psychic internet". That is, there have always been pockets of gnosis here and there, passing on the flame of mystical awareness. Enlightened Teachers have always attracted to themselves students, chelas, those who were ready for the Mysteries and who, riding an invisible current, were drawn, perhaps unconciously so, toward the right Teachers. Not many, to be sure, but they have always been present in every day and age.

Nowadays, what had once been available to a student only through the most arcane Mystery Schools can now be had by anyone at a Barnes and Noble. Seriously. Has the collective mind spiritually progressed that much so that everyone and his grandmom can safely partake of and comprehend the Mysteries? Well . . I doubt it. But maybe that's the way things are supposed to be at this juncture in time and space. If there is a universal quickening going on at present - and the internet would certainly facilitates, in many ways, such a quickening - then it's make-it-or-break-time for everybody. Either one assimilates and integrates the "higher vibes" or one goes bonkers, no middle ground here. Well, a good portion of the world is obviously going bonkers at present.

3/17/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Sal said...

Bob-
Hope little man is doing well today. Thanks for the "ghost dance" link; it is highly pertinent to the behavior of a group I had to deal with. This info would have been hugely useful a year or so ago, still very helpful now, in hindsight.

3/17/2006 03:00:00 PM  
Anonymous John Hinds said...

Bran said: "....Wittgenstein also said that That which language is not adequate to describe is not capable of being meaningfully discussed - and so should be passed over in silence."

I would submit that though Wittgenstein didn't intend it, there is perhaps an "esoteric" meaning to this statement. At least I see one there. It is in silence, after cessation of the "grinding" of the minds' grist mill, in which illumination by encounter with the spiritual truth shines it's refulgent light into our soul.

Of course, Wittgenstein of all philosophers, is thought to have played a part in engendering the misguided and confusing tendencies of what passes for modern academic philosophy. But to me philosophy simply means love of wisdom and is certainly compatible with true seekers of the Real, of God, no matter their stripe. It is cliche but true that love of knowledge is love of God.

Robert's words again leave my soul resonating with the sacred "Aum", the "Word", that he so exquisitely crafts and, so to speak, makes a "gift" to his public of his gifted talent. Gagdad doesn't "hide his light under a bushel". (Bro. Bartleby would know where that is in the bible.)

John Hinds

3/17/2006 03:49:00 PM  
Anonymous dilys said...

"...the Word... [thing] capable of referring to other things, of things that point beyond themselves and convey messages and meanings." --Gagdad

cf.

"To name is to call." -- Derrida, Lecture on Prayer

3/17/2006 04:40:00 PM  
Anonymous John Hinds said...

Bro. B., I would rather be pulled than pushed; the difference, perhaps in part, between the application of Christ's teachings from the esoteric standpoint versus the exoteric, in a way. And...., I couldn't agree more. As easily, as naturally, as plants grow towards the light of the sun, whom some think of even today as the reigning diety of the solar system, so the soul of man is drawn inexorably towards the devine presence. And...,by the way, I first encountered the august Augustine in an undergraduate philosophy class at the University of Texas, Austin where I immediately recognized him as a kindred spirit.

Speaking to another tack this conversation has taken, I think that it has been shown time and again that like minds are drawn to one another. My finding this cyberplace is testimony to that. Again, speaking of God adds to the resorvoir of devinity itself, increases Godliness, and makes it easier next time to tap into the same substratum.

And again, Finnegan! I am happy to take communion here though at some point the "eye tests" are going to do me in.

John Hinds

3/17/2006 05:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Kahntheroad said...

Will,

"What concerns me, for the moment anyway, is that due to the vast dispensation and availability of internet info - the globalization of ideas - there might be a tendency of some to mistake this One-ness-of-the-word-via-the- internet for that of which it is merely a material manifestation."

And often the messages are transmitted by the unknowing. On my path I've gleaned nuggets from
Priests, Rabbis and New Age Gurus who, for all I know, have no idea of what they speak. Songs, books, movies that are the works of clueless, yet talented, moonbats can carry wisdom beyond anything their authors intended. Hell, I'll look back at stuff I've jotted down years ago (a scribbled word, line or lyric) and realize it meant more than I imagined at the time.

"it's make-it-or-break-time for everybody. Either one assimilates and integrates the "higher vibes" or one goes bonkers, no middle ground here. Well, a good portion of the world is obviously going bonkers at present."

You got it.

The world is dividing into blacks and whites and it's time to choose sides.

It's like an individual in the process assimilating to a new level of self-awareness. The psyche splits, projections fly and there's an internal battle between the old and new self.

The world crisis we are in now has allowed many to grow by offering up a huge and valid screen on which to project our own deeper inadequacies.

Of course, those who chose the wrong side, and project their anger inward (i.e. towards the core values of their own society) will start to go nuts. However, those who project onto the enemies of enlightenment will be rewarded with greater clarity.

Hmm, maybe this is too cumbersome a point to attempt in 2
paragraphs...oh well.

3/17/2006 05:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Will said...

Kahn - >>"Songs, books, movies that are the works of clueless, yet talented, moonbats can carry wisdom beyond anything their authors intended.<<

Absolutely. Artists, many of 'em, are notorious for being able to convey the transcendent while not being able to manage their own lives in any reasonable manner. It's as if they become temporarily possessed with the divine fire, unload it, then go right back to their quotidian existence. I sometimes have the feeling that Divine Nature selects, at random, a number of individuals through which to communicate a certain message or two, this in an age where there simply aren't enough spiritually advanced people to fully manifest the Light. I recall Yeats commenting on art even of the highest order, something to the effect that artists were "failed spiritual sages", perhaps not all being drunken, unconscious louts like Jackson Pollock, but failed sages nonetheless. Yeats thought of himself that way, as a spiritual man but nevertheless, a failed sage.

I like to think this is going to change, is changing. Perhaps we'll be seeing artists who consciously create, who themselves are their own art, who manifest in their own being the transcendent message their art conveys. Then perhaps there won't be any more need for the message, and our concept of art will change completely.

3/17/2006 06:57:00 PM  
Anonymous DigDug said...

Wow. Since I found you a week ago, I have enjoyed reading your posts because of your metaphysical leanings and your delightfully buoyant treatment of the search for self. It is easy to get dragged into seriousness, as you prove often, but your wordplay makes it bearable work. I am fascinated that you have created a link between spiritual insight and fear-based political action, and a large part of my enjoyment of your blog is this difference in perspectives. That said, your Spike Lee piece carries a shrill tone, bringing to mind Franken or Limbaugh or Cruise on Oprah. I can't remember any shrill teachers when it comes to spiritual insights. Help me out?

3/17/2006 09:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Will said...

digdug - shrill implies semi-hysterical, which implies illogic and a lot of wild, from the hips, swinging. None of these imply Bob.

Think of Bob as being "stern" when he needs to be. Forget the "let's-gentle-it-down-the-river" stuff. Hour's gettin' late. This is a time like no other. Strong coffee is needed.

Come to think of it, Jesus was being pretty "shrill" when dealing with the money-changers.

Added note - zen masters beat the crap out of you with little bamboo sticks if your attention wavers.

3/18/2006 12:10:00 AM  
Blogger LiquidLifeHacker said...

Will--"Perhaps we'll be seeing artists who consciously create, who themselves are their own art, who manifest in their own being the transcendent message their art conveys. Then perhaps there won't be any more need for the message, and our concept of art will change completely_

I know exactly what you are talking about and I see this artist/message ever time I see some awesome work and find out it's done by a person without arms or paralyzed from the neck down. (Hours of work done with a brush held by their teeth)

I have seen paintings that touch me from all angles of perspective and am futher overwhelmed when I find out it's done by someone with some type of disability. It's so inspiring because not only is their art incredible but the soul that it's channeled through becomes part of the beauty their efforts have shared. I am moved by what my eye can see and what my inner eye absorbs. The two merge into one and I am always left with a blessing.

SEE some of it HERE

3/18/2006 12:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

That's some very inspirational stuff indeed, thanks, Liquid.

3/18/2006 02:22:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Digdug--

Without a specific example, it's hard to respond to your complaint. Opportunistic knaves like Splke Lee who falsely accuse the government of deliberately murdering black people must be condemned in the most unequivocal way.

3/18/2006 05:23:00 AM  
Anonymous DigDug said...

Thanks for responding, Bob.

The following comments could be excerpted from any number of lesser blogs. Just change the nouns/subjects:

Do you see the chain of illogic? Some blacks believe the levees were bombed; ... it is an insult to suggest that people are crazy just because they believe their own delusions

It is wrong to call liberalism an ideology. That would be a compliment.

But really, what could Al Sharpton actually do for a living?...These are deeply dysfunctional people.



Mind you I agree that you serve up tough ideas. It takes balls to agree when one spends hard hours learning from children to be color blind. Nevertheless I mostly agree w/your ideas in the "Lies" piece.

However my original point was that your political musings seem out of character w/a search for self. How/when did that particular journey become politicized? While there is certainly a movement underfoot today to equate religious values with political values, I have discovered that those who speak loudest (read "shrill") actually have the least to say. You on the other hand seem hugely adept at self-examination. Does your 'hi' yerself ever ask you to cut any of the unwashed some slack? Are you pointing out who's dirty or are you handing out soap? Hopefully this won't degenerate into a flame. I respect your spirit-driven posts, but I'm having trouble with the political ones. I don't find it useful to tar myself with either brush. I swing both ways, depending on the issue, and work hard to stay limber. You, as it happens, are my "down, dogma" exercise this AM.

3/18/2006 06:33:00 AM  
Blogger Benedict S. said...

Digdug

I attributed Bob's left-right dichotomy to his relative youth . . . and was eventually asked to leave. You put it much more politely, and -- if I am any judge -- rightly fear the flames.

3/18/2006 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Digdug--

--You apparently object to my conclusions that it is indeed crazy to believe things that cannot possibly be true, or that contemporary liberalism (ie, leftism) is based primarily on feeling rather than thinking, and that Al Sharpton is a dysfunctional person.

--I guess I can't help you there. The first and third are what I would call self-evident, while I have written at length about the second. You'd have to go back and dig up about a dozen previous posts that go into a considerable amount of philosophical, ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological detail.

"However my original point was that your political musings seem out of character w/a search for self.'

--No, they are of a piece, and follow directly from my understanding of the whole of things. First, spirituality can only proceed on the basis of Truth, and leftism in all its forms is rooted in a primordial Lie. Secondly, spiritual evolution on a mass scale depends upon the proper cultural conditions. The deep structure of Leftism is anathema to these conditions.

"While there is certainly a movement underfoot today to equate religious values with political values, I have discovered that those who speak loudest (read "shrill") actually have the least to say."

--Who do you mean? Jimmy Carter? Deepak Chopra? The Reverend Jesse Jackson? Muslim leaders? I guess I'd have to agree.

"Does your 'hi' yerself ever ask you to cut any of the unwashed some slack? Are you pointing out who's dirty or are you handing out soap?"

--You'll have to be a little less cryptic. Who are the unwashed? What's a "hi yerself?" Are dirty people good? Please explain.

"I respect your spirit-driven posts, but I'm having trouble with the political ones. I don't find it useful to tar myself with either brush. I swing both ways, depending on the issue, and work hard to stay limber."

--I can only re-emphasize that my philosophy is all of a piece. It is an integral and consistent philosophy that embraces psychology, anthropology, metaphysics, political science, and various other fields. Everything in it implies and entails everything else.

3/18/2006 08:32:00 AM  
Anonymous digdug said...

You use the term "self-evident". Perhaps. I use the term "name-calling". Perhaps. And that's where a meeting of the minds either does or does not occur. In our case it does not, and as I said earlier, our differences is part of my delight in reading you. I hope you and I do agree that no matter what one calls that language, it seems designed to open wounds, not close them. Again, fine. Time for every purpose, and all that. As Disciple Will says, Time for strong coffee. Especially if you're just waking up.

Re: 'hi' yerself, well hey. I gotta admit I'm disappointed. I thought you'd appreciate some wordplay. My own cosmology renders self-evident that God is within, as I believe does yours? The higher self is within. Higher self. Greetings, friend, and all that? "Hi" yourself? 'hi' yerself?
Ah, I tried Bob. And don't be surprised if I try again. I think I was on the mark, and that you were simply busy at the time, head perhaps underwater, bobbing for apples. Cheers.

3/19/2006 05:42:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"You use the term "self-evident". Perhaps. I use the term "name-calling".

--Name calling is the essence of thought, so long as the the thing so named fits the definition of the word being used. To the extent Spike Lee is suggesting that the levees were bombed, he is a liar. To the extent that Al Sharpton tried to ruin a good man by falsely accusing him of rape, he is worse than a liar. And to the extent that Sharpton incited a race riot that resulted in the deaths of innocent people, he is even worse than that.

" I hope you and I do agree that no matter what one calls that language, it seems designed to open wounds, not close them.

--I want to open wounds in bad people. God hates evil.

"My own cosmology renders self-evident that God is within, as I believe does yours?

--Certainly not. God is "within," but not "only within," the latter of which is either narcissism or spiritual inflation.

3/19/2006 07:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home