Wow!
Nice to see you again, Justin.

This is a particularly interesting point:

"The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct
but whether the alternative to them is viable."

What do you mean by viable? I'm wondering, because I see no problem
whatsoever with throwing out all fundamentalist interpretations with a
healthy exhalation, and living my life completely free of them. This seems
perfectly viable to me.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the
> universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and
> unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that
> Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word.
> It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound".
>
> The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries.
> The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries".
> Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a
> special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been
> separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite
> and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre-
> topological - sense.
>
> One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is
> critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are
> things. In fact "raising the object from the background" requires that
> we establish that part of experience that "is" or at least "is
> something" from that which "is nothing". The boundary is that surface
> where being ends and nothing begins (or at least another being). That
> which is not is space - a complete vacuum. This occurs when one
> interjects nothingness into ones experience. This is why the vacuum is
> - exactly - nothing. Even though modern physics has moved beyond these
> concepts superficially it still maintains them albeit in modified
> form. After all when we proclaim the presence of the so-called vacuum
> energy we are distinguishing it from a "true" vacuum in the pre-
> quantum sense.
>
> The cessation of that interpretation, and the transcendence beyond
> space (and time) found fleetingly in mystical experience is the
> foundation of our immortality, our infinity, and our likeness to god.
> When space and time cease one experiences the truth that the universe
> is not distinct from us and in fact, in a sense we include it in us as
> much as it includes us in it, and one experiences god.
>
> Kierkegaard's reference is particularly fascinating. His cataloging of
> the various modes of despair associated with the various possible
> relationships of infinity to the finite in us presumes a kind of
> identity that unifies the infinite and the finite in a sense. As the
> proverb says: "At first I saw a tree and it was a tree, then I saw a
> tree and it was the Tao, then I saw the tree and it was a tree."
> Ultimately, we are who we are with all of the finite limitations of
> our biology. We are a particular person with particular talents and
> capabilities. Yet we have this capacity to interpret our life in a
> sacred and not profane way. Kierkegaard's analysis of despair as sin,
> especially his analysis of what he calls demonic despair, the despair
> that is lucid and deliberate is most interesting. It would have been
> interesting to be a fly on the wall of Hitler's mind to see if his
> "banality" was superficial and to find out whether in fact he was not
> completely aware but so totally in despair that he deliberately caused
> such suffering. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that he choose the
> Jews as the object of his hatred. Perhaps, at root it was hatred of
> god. Perhaps he wanted to be chosen and felt he was not. His relative
> asceticism, as compared to the orgy of indulgence in some of his
> supporters, seems to indicate that his soul was aware at some level.
> Ultimately it is not for us to judge but it would be interesting to
> know. It would  have been equally interesting to be in Martin Luther
> King's mind when he went through his own motel-room Gethsemane. I
> wonder how he overcame his own despair and went on living the life he
> did when he could have just quit and had fun with the women around him
> instead of accepting the bullet.
>
> So I think this issue is at heart the issue of an interpretation of
> our experience and when the ratio of those who have been enlightened
> to those who have not becomes high enough (if it ever does) perhaps we
> will then be able to face the real questions and not waste time
> quibbling over fundamentalist interpretations.
>
> The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct
> but whether the alternative to them is viable.
>
>
> n Feb 10, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Give me my robe, put on my crown; I have Immortal longings in me,"
> > Shakespeare instructs us.  But do we?  Is there a part of us that is
> > infinite, or is immortality just a longing?  There are at least parts
> > of our beings that are infinite, according to Shakespeare:  "What a
> > piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in
> > faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how
> > like an angel, in apprehension how like a god."
> >
> > Our infinite nature is not just fodder for the poets.  Einstein came
> > to the conclusion that "the infinite nature of man includes the
> > universe."  Kierkegaard explained our existence in this way: "Man is a
> > synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the
> > eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis.  A synthesis
> > is a relation between two factors.  So regarded, man is not yet a
> > self."
> >
> > What do YOU think?
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to