On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:39:18 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: > > > > But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was > referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value > system. > > > I think monotheism is only the "personal" view of the monism of the > parmenides one. > I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of > those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical > popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with > politics. > > > But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political > because the "unifying truths" are the cultural proscriptions about behavior > and values. >
Not according to the writing. If there is one clear thing from Parmenides to Enneads, it is the separation between appearance of world affairs and divine reality, with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze. Divine reality is not some political stance, nor is it set of cultural traits. Political stance, behavior, laws, and rules we can talk/argue about, but by antique definition, "one" is the simplest of all ideas. So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization, or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to break something, which is the ultimate simple, down further), so simple as to elude people, try as they might to capture it or make it fit some personal agenda. The "unifying truth" is "one" and it is nameless and without graspable attributes and properties. And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave of forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc. > God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all, > and rewards and punishes all. The truths of mathematics and physics and > biology are of little relevance. His "truths" are about procreation and > war and ethics and loyalty to the tribe. > You seem to be treating some projection of yours, as what Bruno references is pretty standard Greek mythology. > > > > > > >>Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend. > Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some important relation. > Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism. > > Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth > kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet > cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… > that is without form or definition yet which fills and animates all > things…. The divine spark so to speak. > > > I think so. > > > A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral > and considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who > do not fear god; > > > But this "fearing of God" is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only > the devil should be feared. (between us). > > > Unless you are the devil. Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to > stone adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests. > > Brent > "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns > out that God hates all the same people you do." > - Anne Lamott > The very idea of "people's relation to god => who we should hate, superiority, politics etc." is already too low and worldly to start with, that it itself cannot be divine. So those comments and the quote don't seem relevant. Concerning the devil, I think the Yazidis have a noteworthy take on who they see as Peacock Angel. It makes one ask whether the vain Peacock Angel's tears of remorse would soften the harsh truths or not: e.g. will some benevolent future Star Trek force defrost Clark's awesome ice cube head or judge that he spammed too much and is taking too much disk space for the money he spent? And thanks Brent for the Castaneda article to show how mystical types are all the same. I would say that our naive theological attitude, equating all theological questioning with some fear-based cartoon in our heads (instead of sincerely trying to parse and test them rationally), is what made the western reader ideal prey for this kind of manipulation. Your anti-mystical posts, in this regard, repeatedly make this rather irrational point, when all it needs is reason: if the western reader had had sufficient mystical experience with techniques of trance and ecstasy, that book would have never made the bestseller list. People would have thrown it into the trash, ridiculing the inept and naive consumption of poisons, as well as the experiential results that the book points towards. Prohibition helps the false shaman get rich, for never even taking the medicine he himself appears to advocate, and people just lack the experience to parse that. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
