Thanks, Xeno, the bird example is helpful and percolating just below the threshold of my conscious awareness. Will share if anything seemingly worthwhile arises...
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:47 AM, "anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Share, anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. So the world 'simpleton' is anthropomorphic, but the terms 'simplicity' and 'complexity' would not seem to be, even though these words are from human minds. The term 'creator' might be considered anthropomorphic in that it mirrors our own creativity. It is only in the environment of our human complexity that we come up with these terms, that is, the idea of simplicity is almost as if we reduced the perception of the complexity of our lives by concatenating the details in more inclusive general categories based on similarities. For example the word bird covers both pigeons and seagulls etc., but that does not mean the word 'bird' anthropomorphic, it is just a category name. If we call a pigeon 'Sam' and say it experiences love and hate, then we are anthropomorphising, projecting our experienced characteristics onto it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Xeno, I think the conundrum is that as soon as we use human language, such as ultimate simpleton, simplicity and complexity, we are anthropomorphizing whatever we are talking about. The scientists say that matter is mostly empty space. But what's in that empty space? Simplicity? Complexity? Both? On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:10 AM, "anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: So the question is, in terms of classical theism: 1. (assuming people believe in a personal god) How does the ultimate simpleton create complexity? 2. (assuming people believe in an impersonal god) How does ultimate simplicity create complexity? 3. (assuming people do not believe in a god or God) Not necessary to ask this particular question. But it could be rephrased to something like, how does complexity arise from the conditions that preceded it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Judy, if the nature of God of classical theism is absolutely simple, then how can one speak about the nature of God, which implies 2 parts, God and His nature? Which actually is how Maharishi talks about it: Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, silence and dynamism, etc. If the quote of classical theism refers to the impersonal God, then I agree with it.
