måndagen den 26:e januari 2009

Panentheism or Pantheism-plus

Dear Friends

I agree with Ron and I do believe that the "soft panentheism" that he (and Dina before him) have proposed makes sense, both with Zoroastrianism and with modern science. Classic pantheism leaves too many question marks that somehow have to be filled with a faith and as long as this faith is compatible with science it is fine with me. I do however tend to go more with Arthur's "pantheism-plus" myself, which allows for form to predate the "substance" of the universe (time, space and matter), as both origin and art of the universe itself. Form as the laws of the universe, the laws that condition physical existence, may be seen as primordial (form as asha). Many scientists would agree with me and we would then get closer to what we might want to label "soft-soft panentheism". Please recall here that scientists now disagree on the big bang as the origin of the universe (merely as the origin of OUR particular universe), the universe may always have existed (outside of time to begin with), creation merely being seen as an eternal loop and pulse. This would both remove Mehran's need for a creator predating the creation (with no time, there can be no cause and affect anymore) and tie the not between the physical universe and its fundamental condition.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/26 ztheist

Ushta Dino

Aha but I do not separate the creator from the creation. At least not
after he created . He obviously was other than and separate from
before he created, of course. I see the Creator as Panentheistic . The
very fact he created what obviously could not have existed before,
means that he transcends it. But I also see that in the Gathas several
of his essences and attributes are present, indeed integrated with,
creation

So I can perhaps put it in another way and see if you see it the way I
do, or at least see the validity of what I am saying
The Creator includes the creation but its bigger than the creation
(where big does not necessarily ,mean size)

As to the danger of using science to justify any theology, I would
agree but I am not justifying it and if you want to justify yours
(whatever that is , the warning would apply as well) I merely set
examples of why you cannot possibly be dogmatic one way or the other
when you approach the question of Creator or non, or whatever stands
for such in whatever system any one professes.

If you were delving into the occult, that my friend , with all due
respect is your problem. Quanta and multi dimensionality merely
emphasize the fact that reality cannot be explained away not encased
within and by easily defined reductionist formulas or theories.

As to Asha being the only Order in all planes of existence . It seems
, ftom Z 's VP , that it might well be, and thyt does not clash at all
whith what I am saying. (although we truly have no idea of how
anything would work on a different dimension or universe)

Actually, see my last post to Osred and I thoink you will find out
that we are very close in beliefs.

As to your fear that I will compare, imitate, make into, kneel, or
whatever, MA to an illusory Abrahamic deity - I think I, as opposed to
those that try to define me, have given you no grounds to think I
would do or believe any such thing.

On the contrary having fled Abrahamism I am, if anything, far more
unlikely to fall in any kind of the same trap than those who consider
all theologies and conceptions of god or reality 'good'.

Ushta te
Ron

,


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> You're making some very clever points!
> I agree that each one of us is a part of god, although I don't
believe that there's an uncreated creator the way you see it. To say
so means that you have to draw a distinction and remove the creator
from his/her/its creation and place him/her/it somewhere outside.
> Also it's a bit dangerous to use quantum phenomena to build a
semi-esoteric theory. That's called quantum theology and some
esotericists and occultists that I used to spend (sometimes waste) my
time with bought into it, usually for the worse, because they wanted
to add the scent of science to their metaphysical beliefs in order to
make them more convincing. So they felt equally credible and,
paradoxically, superior to scientists at the same time. Actually, it's
perfectly unscientific and indicative of having misunderstood those
theories and discoveries. There's no reason to believe that quantum
effects were explaining any semi-religious mysteries (see the Law of
Large Numbers for further explanations).
> Reality doesn't need an observer in order to exist. That's not even
constructivism, it's solipsism, and solipsism didn't really make it
big in philosophy or science. And it's perfectly OK not to be a
monist, although Asha applies to all which is. And Asha is the one and
only principle (or the one and only set of principles and laws). So
there's no ontological difference between the physical, material world
and any other world that may or may not exist. There's only one Asha
and not a multitude of Ashas.
> But please avoid confusing Ahura Mazda with the much younger
Jehovah, Allah and the like. If you choose to believe in Ahura Mazda
as that uncreated creator mentioned above, please don't forget the
difference between Ahura Mazda and the Almighty Creators of other
religious faiths. Ahura Mazda doesn't want us to kneel down in front
of him and humbly await our oh, so tragic fate, since our mysterious
god is severely suffering from mood swings.
>
> Ushta,
> Dino
>
> --- ztheist schrieb am Mo, 26.1.2009:
> Von: ztheist
> Betreff: [Ushta] Re: MODERATE -- osred90@... posted to

zoroastrianacceptance2
> An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Datum: Montag, 26. Januar 2009, 4:34
>
> Ushta Osred
>
>
>
> It is true that a paradigm based on spirit beings might not seem
>
> acceptable. Z does not seem to teach that however. He instead talks of
>
> a mental world and a corporeal one.
>
>
>
> Mow, if we see that there is the obvious possibility that such a
>
> world, (or rather dimension of the same world or Cosmos, because I
>
> believe that there is only one reality, but a multi-faceted one) I
>
> think we do ourselves harm by not being open to the possibility of an
>
> entity that is not corporeal, but mental (I know that many thinj that
>
> corporeal and mental are the same thing BUt I agree with Eccles and
>
> others that there is a difference between
>
> mind and body .
>
>
>
> I mean we have science positing many dimensions (mathematicians seem
>
> to believe that these dimensions are a certainty) and even
>
> multiverses. If we have Quantum postulating the non-locality of some
>
> events and the need for an Observer for reality to exist or, more
>
> correctly, to manifest, then I believe that is very short sighted to
>
> shut our minds to this.
>
>
>
> I think that we are still trapped by the static Newtownian physics
>
> paradigm and that we have to do a lot of educating. But I believe that
>
> it is fully rational to belive there is an entity that has created
>
> what exists. As it is fully rational to doubt such a thing.
>
>
>
> In that sense tolerant Ziism can have both schools co-habitate the
>
> same belief system and even commune with each other and co-operate in
>
> some ways. This is something religions cannot truly do(although
>
> religiosities can some times temporally do so)
>
>
>
> Lest I confuse you. There are some points I must make. IMO
>
>
>
> Daena Vanguhi, not a religion. Its not just a philosphy either, so its
>
> very hard to quantify it. In fact like many things in Ziism its a
>
> veritable rainbow of things
>
>
>
> For example I believe that one of its many meanings is the Conception
>
> or Gnosis that God is Benevolent, in fact, All Good.
>
>
>
> Alex, for example (and I am not inputting him beliefs, I am just
>
> making a generalization) might believe that it is a paradigm that
>
> exalts and studies the human mind and how to apply it to human
>
> problems and has nothing to do with deities and creators.
>
>
>
> From a strictly logical vantage point both beliefs are valid although
>
> they are not necessarily both true (in fact both could be wrong)
>
> However, we do not yet have proof that either is wrong. Thus as
>
> tolerant Zs we must co-exist and work together where is possible,
>
> without breaking our principles.
>
>
>
> Another belief that I hold is that what we call religions today are
>
> ossified institutions that have no 'elan vital', no vital force, and
>
> are bound by the chains of Dogmatic doctrine , intractable traditions
>
> and manipulative authorities which basically zap most of the life out
>
> of them , they are in fact not religions but religiosities.
>
>
>
> Further, I believe that a Creator would not have a religion , in any
>
> case, because he does not need to bind himself or re-bind him or
>
> herself to creation He is already intricately bound to it and has
>
> never separated from it. ("Yes Virginia man did not "Fall" and in
>
> fact cannot fall ") in fact it is impossible for the Creator and life
>
> to be separate
>
>
>
> Just to give one example of this; let's take our very breaths. In
>
> order for us to live we must have oxygen and the chemical reactions
>
> it can cause. Further we must have this oxygen enter our blood streams
>
> and that happens through osmosis. All these processes are Asha and in
>
> fact they ARE the Creator. So we are not using a metaphora when we say
>
> that the Creator is in every breath we take. Even Paul, (who,
>
> incidentally, was very Zarathushtrian when he wasn't talking about sex
>
> and sin ) said of god : " In him we move,live and have our being. "
>
>
>
> Finally I believe that it is not the religions of the world that are
>
> wrongful but the aforementioned religiosities AND their wrongful
>
> theologies. In fact there is but one Creator , you believe its a
>
> force, Alex a mind and I an entity which dwells in and transcends all
>
> forces minds and more, the Xian calls him Father, Lord, & Jesus, the
>
> Islamist calls him Allah, the Jew Yahweh or technically YWWH and Adonai
>
>
>
> But this entity mind or force IS ONE and the same by any and all names
>
> it might be called.
>
>
>
> It is THE PERCEPTION (IMHO DAENA) BY MEN of this entity, that is
>
> different. And is that what Zarathushtra addressed when he defines the
>
> 'daena of the wrongful", and dissed the illusory deities (daevas)
>
>
>
> Because all of the above, I sincerely believe that we Zs of all
>
> persuasions ( well true Zs not cultists that believe that they have a
>
> racial monopoly on the religion)could get alone, if they can the hate
>
> speech and personal attacks AND show tolerance and respect for the
>
> opinions of brother Zs; while agreeing on certain central points,
>
> allowing liberty on others and showing love and tolerance over all.
>
>
>
> I mean while I am no monist, in the sense that a Hindu, a Buddhist, an
>
> Alex or even a Dina is a monist, I am awfully close because, after
>
> all, I do believe there is ONE reality , I just believe that it has
>
> more than this component. And while I do not believe that the
>
> immanence of MA is limited to this dimension and its not a possesion,
>
> that is I believe he does not fully in all His aspects and attributes
>
> abide in every creation, I do believe he is immanent in his energy,
>
> his asha and his conceptions , in everything that exists.
>
>
>
> So if we are this close, can we just put aside our egos and
>
> differences and be civil and cooperate where we can and respect each
>
> other where we can't?
>
>
>
> That is the question , isn't it?
>
>
>
> Ushta te
>
> Ron

Inga kommentarer: