On 9 Jan, 17:15, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> "It can also be applied to the justification of the
> First Crusade"
>
> outwardly, it may seem so, although, I think, in closer analysis, this
> will prove itself to be a rationalization. If Jesus is telling me
> anthing, Jesus and I are not One. And if this is the rationalization
> to do harm, doing harm is an action that is not founded in the One, as
> it requires the one who is harming and the intended target of harm as
> separate.
Seemingly, but not necessarily. The One allows this because 'The
Many' are not separate parts but distinct (at least, in our space-
time) extensions that can interact. It is this act of extension that
'causes' the appearance of 'The Many' and it is the mechanism that The
One uses to retain Oneness whilst lending the appearance of
separateness. I can easily see 'Jesus' as a different extension of The
One without any loss of Oneness TO The One. Yet, I agree that, in ANY
case of harm, it is The One who is both harmer and harmed, thus an
equal and opposite action/reaction is guaranteed in any coupling of
extensions. It's true that The One will allow no 'other', as that
would imply there would truly be more than The One and THAT breaks the
Oneness. However, the concept of extension allows all the various
multiplicities that we see (and all the more important quantum-level
multiplicities of which we are comprised) whilst allowing The One to
retain its uniqueness and Oneness. Note: I avoided using the term
'unity', as, in my opinion, that term implies a union of parts and The
One has no 'parts' (as 'parts' would imply a separateness that does
not truly exist), only extensions.
>This is a very good illustration of how a state of
> consciousness as the foundation of action can reveal more about the
> person than any rationalization they can offer in words.
>
> Do we need to outsource the divine within? I don't think so, but we
> do need to fully own and operate from this viewpoint to honestly
> consider the divine.
>
The Divine already HAS His own out-sourcing...that's what angels
are for. Angels, by Islamic definition, have no free will and do only
the will of The One. The reason that they they have no free will is
because they have access to the future, whereas men (and Jinn,
according to Islam) have 'free will', no doubt, due to their lack of
ability to know the future. There's a section in the Qur'an that
mentions that the angels advised God against creating man because they
knew that man would not always follow God's guidance. This is
(scriptural) evidence that they have access to the future.
Satan (Iblis, the leader of the Jinn) was the only one who refused
to bow to Adam when asked by God to do so. This was because of his
devout loyalty to The One. Iblis could not bring himself to bow to
anything other than God, even though it meant his condemnation for
rebelling and, thus, the basis for his office as 'The Evil One'. He's
SO loyal to God that he is happy to perform all of those things that
we humans (who don't know the full outcome of any action due to our
lack of access to the future) see as 'evil'. Whilst Iblis himself may
not know the full outcome, his trust in God is (apparently, from the
above story) greater than that of any of the angels.
> On Jan 9, 9:50 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "John Polkinghorne notes that any discussion of agency
> > requires the adoption of a metaphysical view of the nature of
> > reality.
> > He claims that there is no “deductive” way of going “from
> > epistemology
> > to ontology,”..."
>
> > This is a point Justin and I discussed in a related fashion a little
> > while ago, towards the end of the "Purpose" thread:
>
> > (http://groups.google.de/group/minds-eye/msg/07c1985e2abf6a64?hl=de).
>
> > Certainly, faith can, and does inspire actions, whole courses of
> > actions, with undoubted efficacy, Molly. In this sense, faith can
> > indeed move mountains.
>
> > In the sense in which we find meaning and direction for our own lives,
> > a belief in God is central for many. This does not, however, always
> > take the "upward" path your initial post seems to suggest, moving from
> > scientists' openness to ideas of God as the ground of meaning to the
> > ultimate mystical union with God as intimated by Bernard of Clairvaux
> > or Jan Ruysbroeck. It can also be applied to the justification of the
> > First Crusade, 'Deus le vult", to various modern problematic
> > justifications on the lines of "Jesus told me to do it." George W.
> > Bush believed that God wanted him to be president of the USA, and most
> > Islamicist terrorists also claim a divine mandate on the basis of
> > jihad.
>
> > I know this is not what you mean, Molly, but - as you know - I have
> > problems about appeals to or grounding of actions in the "Beyond",
> > even in an "immanent Beyond." My own way is to see us on a journey
> > into the depth, complexity and wonder of what is (Neil's
> > "simplexity"), be that our cosmos or our humanity, or beyond that, our
> > humanity as part of the cosmos and our perception of/understanding of/
> > action in the cosmos as part of our humanity. Do we really need to
> > "outsource" the deeper, richer circling of our development spiral in a
> > divine other?
>
> > Francis
>
> > On 8 Jan., 20:25, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Merriam-Webster defines the word “do” as ways we act, behave, get
> > > alone, fare, manage, happen, finish and serve, among others. Often
> > > our actions require our ability to rationally ascertain the context of
> > > our actions, the possible consequences of our actions and the ethics
> > > of our actions before we do anything. Or do they? Our actions, I
> > > think, like our words, are very clear indications of our state of
> > > mind. Sociopaths would act differently than saints in the same
> > > circumstances, because they bring to the moment, a different frame of
> > > reference, different viewpoint and different foundation for action.
>
> > > There are psychologies to both doing and doing nothing. Yes, there
> > > are rational-emotional models of the factors that predispose humans to
> > > do nothing. And there are theories of the psychology of action,
> > > which take into account reasoning abilities, emotion, attitude and
> > > other factors.
>
> > > When our belief system holds God and Divine Action, our state of mind
> > > is very different than states that do not hold that belief, and our
> > > actions may reflect these differences. To understand and bridge these
> > > differences, The Vatican Observatory (VO) and the Center for Theology
> > > and Natural Sciences (CTNS) jointly sponsor a series of conferences on
> > > divine action. The theme of each conference is an area of the natural
> > > sciences: quantum cosmology and the laws of nature (1992), chaos and
> > > complexity (1994), evolutionary and molecular biology (1996),
> > > neuroscience (1998), and quantum mechanics (2000). This brings
> > > specificity and precision to the discussions of divine action. In one
> > > of the papers from these conferences, along with summaries of many
> > > others, is posted on the CTNS website: In “The Metaphysics of Divine
> > > Action,” John Polkinghorne notes that any discussion of agency
> > > requires the adoption of a metaphysical view of the nature of reality.
> > > He claims that there is no “deductive” way of going “from epistemology
> > > to ontology,” but the strategy of critical realism is to maximize the
> > > connection. This leads most physicists, he claims, to interpret
> > > Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as implying an actual indeterminacy
> > > in the physical world, rather than an ignorance of its detailed
> > > workings. Polkinghorne’s summary on the nature of Divine Action
> > > includes the insight that divine agency has its own special
> > > characteristics and that God’s knowledge of the world of becoming will
> > > be truly temporal in character.
>
> > > In his book, Religion in late Modernity Robert C. Neville, suggests
> > > that these inquires “concerning divine action takes its rise from
> > > people who affirm as a supposition the belief that God is a personal
> > > being of some sort.”
>
> > > In A Search for God In Ancient Egypt, by Jan Assmann, divine action
> > > and religious experience are part of the cosmic dimension of the
> > > mystic experience. Here, divine action is implicit in all contact
> > > with the divine once transcendence into Divine Presence has been
> > > realized. In other words, our actions become Divine Action, while in
> > > the presence of the One within.
>
> > > To Bernard de Clairvaux, mysticism is the highest degree of the scale
> > > of love and “a perfect participation in the love which God has from
> > > Himself in the unity of the Spirit…to become thus is to be deified.”
> > > Our actions are naturally inspired from this unity of the Spirit that
> > > pervades our state.
>
> > > This idea is similar to the mystical divine action, our own action,
> > > taken as a result of our mystical union with the God with us. The
> > > mystic Jan Ruysbroeck suggests in mystical union God “breathes us out
> > > from Himself that we may love and do good works; and again he draws us
> > > into Himself, that we may rest in fruition.”
>
> > > Our efficacy and actions then, may be defined by whether or not we
> > > believe in God, and if we believe that God is external and personal,
> > > or a state of being within ourselves. What do YOU think?- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
