BarkonDecember 26, 2024 at 14:162575 views23 comments
If reality means what's authentic, a truth value, then the face of God would be reality since the answer points to him. If his face is anywhere, it's only here.
God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness.
God can't leave the kind of sign that spoke untruth if he was ultimately good, thus God is the face of reality, because reality would be in the image of his likeness.
Perhaps it might be helpful to delve into the history of nominalism and its manifestations in theological (religious) thought.
Nominalism (the practice of human static labeling and categorization) was most likely a human cognition survival mechanism for instantaneous decision-making. Different cultures injected nominalism into their religious beliefs in various ways, ultimately defining what they saw as divine and omnipotent. Afterall, nominalism did 'provide' in many ways when it cognitively assisted in survival. However, once the system that is 'humanity' multiplied and became more complex, nominalism started revealing its house-of-cards nature, as its static applications do not apply to complex systems. We, our biosphere, and all of 'life' are a process that is constantly and autopoietically folding and unfolding as the system processes the interactions (as 'mind'). .... We are not within a digital matrix consisting of individual, static objects. Reality (existence) is analog, fluidly morphing as Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, generating more manifestations as it processes. ... This is what Charles Sanders Peirce meant when he referred to a 'Neglected Argument for God'. .... So, I think a discussion like this first needs to identify a starting point of where in this process are we beginning to investigate together. Otherwise, it just becomes a cluster of wherever various inquirers placements within the process happen to be right now.
In my opinion, the face of "God", can be warped and have future effect, I believe this understanding of it is important for human prosperity and evolution, the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness).
Mapping the MediumDecember 26, 2024 at 15:43#9557400 likes
the fact we don't have to pay any attention to reality, and can focus on something else using our consc.(Consciousness).
We each stand in placement within a morphing process and see what is available to our senses in that current placement of time and space (consider Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Once Occurrent Ought'), but it's important to remember that we each are within and manifested by what we examine and investigate. ... There is no 'I' without the 'Not I'.
There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not. Reply to Mapping the Medium
Reply to bert1 it is conclusive that God is synonymous with reality because it is an empirical footprint that leaves a trace. The face of reality is not God but it is in so much his likeness the face of reality shows God, and is a trace of God.
Mapping the MediumDecember 26, 2024 at 15:59#9557450 likes
There is perhaps a young/long matrix in that, that you would have an inner element of great potential harnessing what you are not.
Because of my understanding of the inherent analog nature of Thirdness, I cannot haphazardly abstract and apply the word 'matrix' to it. Here again, good dialogue demands that we clarify what definition of 'matrix' we are using to approach this investigation. Are we using a more embodied type of definition, such as a 'medium' or 'framework'? I can go forward in our discussion if that is the definition we agree upon. However, if we are using 'matrix' in the mathematical, digital columns and rows definition, I cannot go forward in a scenario that fragments and reduces the 'medium', slicing and dicing its analog necessity for creation.
Like any subjective entity, in this case intersubjective, gods carry whichever attributes and qualities an observer chooses to imbue them with. Which is fine but makes arguing between observers essentially meaningless.
QuestionerDecember 26, 2024 at 21:03#9557760 likes
If reality means what's authentic, a truth value, then the face of God would be reality since the answer points to him. If his face is anywhere, it's only here.
You are conflating the belief in an imaginary, supernatural being with the sum total of all cause-and-effect manifestations in existence.
That even the most maddest minds were captivated by some saintly force.
I am done with all of my holiday juggling and now back to a more 'typical' work routine. I should have a little more time to delve into some of this, if you still want to.
Will you tell me more about why you posted what I quoted from you above?
I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats.
Reply to LuckyR Amen to that. But hey, it's fun :smile:
Just like how you spend your money only shows your viewpoint on money, how you choose (or not choose) your god only shows your viewpoint on your existence.
Mapping the MediumDecember 28, 2024 at 15:47#9561310 likes
I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats.
No doubt that life is full of constraints, and we each deal with different ones from where and when we stand. ... It can be frustrating at times, but looking back on our lives might help us see why we experienced those constraints in different times and places. For me, it makes me realize that I too am influential in that my handling of those constraints encouraged or freed constraints on whatever or whomever surrounded me. ... So, I agree with you that we are personally prevented from becoming too mad or in control. What we need to worry about is how autopoiesis might set in and create a combined force that is much larger than any one person. It then becomes extremely unlikely that we can break that momentum in time for a correction.
Comments (23)
Perhaps it might be helpful to delve into the history of nominalism and its manifestations in theological (religious) thought.
Nominalism (the practice of human static labeling and categorization) was most likely a human cognition survival mechanism for instantaneous decision-making. Different cultures injected nominalism into their religious beliefs in various ways, ultimately defining what they saw as divine and omnipotent. Afterall, nominalism did 'provide' in many ways when it cognitively assisted in survival. However, once the system that is 'humanity' multiplied and became more complex, nominalism started revealing its house-of-cards nature, as its static applications do not apply to complex systems. We, our biosphere, and all of 'life' are a process that is constantly and autopoietically folding and unfolding as the system processes the interactions (as 'mind'). .... We are not within a digital matrix consisting of individual, static objects. Reality (existence) is analog, fluidly morphing as Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, generating more manifestations as it processes. ... This is what Charles Sanders Peirce meant when he referred to a 'Neglected Argument for God'. .... So, I think a discussion like this first needs to identify a starting point of where in this process are we beginning to investigate together. Otherwise, it just becomes a cluster of wherever various inquirers placements within the process happen to be right now.
We each stand in placement within a morphing process and see what is available to our senses in that current placement of time and space (consider Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Once Occurrent Ought'), but it's important to remember that we each are within and manifested by what we examine and investigate. ... There is no 'I' without the 'Not I'.
Because of my understanding of the inherent analog nature of Thirdness, I cannot haphazardly abstract and apply the word 'matrix' to it. Here again, good dialogue demands that we clarify what definition of 'matrix' we are using to approach this investigation. Are we using a more embodied type of definition, such as a 'medium' or 'framework'? I can go forward in our discussion if that is the definition we agree upon. However, if we are using 'matrix' in the mathematical, digital columns and rows definition, I cannot go forward in a scenario that fragments and reduces the 'medium', slicing and dicing its analog necessity for creation.
Then, 'framework' it is. :wink:
I cannot stay on here at the moment, but I look forward to an ongoing dialogue. Thank you.
You are conflating the belief in an imaginary, supernatural being with the sum total of all cause-and-effect manifestations in existence.
I found the science educator. :razz:
Sorry, leaving you alone now.
I am done with all of my holiday juggling and now back to a more 'typical' work routine. I should have a little more time to delve into some of this, if you still want to.
Will you tell me more about why you posted what I quoted from you above?
I suggest that we are prevented, by a force of good, from becoming too mad and in control, we cannot throw stars around nor cause a cataclysm to occur universally. There are forces which make life secure from existential threats.
Just like how you spend your money only shows your viewpoint on money, how you choose (or not choose) your god only shows your viewpoint on your existence.
No doubt that life is full of constraints, and we each deal with different ones from where and when we stand. ... It can be frustrating at times, but looking back on our lives might help us see why we experienced those constraints in different times and places. For me, it makes me realize that I too am influential in that my handling of those constraints encouraged or freed constraints on whatever or whomever surrounded me. ... So, I agree with you that we are personally prevented from becoming too mad or in control. What we need to worry about is how autopoiesis might set in and create a combined force that is much larger than any one person. It then becomes extremely unlikely that we can break that momentum in time for a correction.