Being an American, not irish really (except a little Mc-Murray blood) I should say considering the temperament and history, first england then the US, no wonder they drink.
We are conscious, and self aware but what are the boundaries of this? I agree with Slip that our conceptions of God are very anthropocentric, if we encountered a super-intelligence would it be so alien that we disregard it? Would it be discernable from what we call 'nature'? The line of a circle looks very straight at a narrow focus. And if we are a part, perhaps we are the manifestation of volition, motive and choice in a grand evolving process. In creation and discovery, manifesting potentials in that process of ascension we descend to the infinitesimal unit from which will spring gods seeking supergods. Just a narrative, no offense to anyone but I do think someday all this atheism vs theism will become obsolete one indiscernible from the other. -Ash On Mar 27, 12:38 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > You are probably right about the Killian's Slip. I read that; When > asked, 'what seperated a drunk from an Irishman?' Eriugena replied, > 'Only a table.' > > On Mar 26, 11:12 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Maybe he was drinking a bit of Killians Red when he wrote that. It > > is very contradictory because he believed all things were a reflection > > of God, a part of God and that sooner or later all will find a way to > > the promised land. He doesn't start out contradictory in saying we > > don't know "What" God is, which more so seems to be an admission. > > Also I think he is stating that on account that he thinks God is not a > > consciousness it would be improbable that God would even know what he > > is because he is not aware of himself. As a result of that state of > > existence God transcends being and so he draws the conclusion that > > only beings can be, therefore God is not. This basically points to > > the saying "I think therefore I am" which conversely implies "I don't > > think therefore I am not" to which I would add a question mark. I > > think therefore I am and I don't think therefore I am not? This is > > the enigma in that train of thought. However, I would conclude that > > there are things that don't think that exist. Much exists without > > consciousness but of course there are those who would argue that those > > things only exist through consciousness to which I would insist that > > we are only conscious of their prior and independent existence. I > > would think that those arguments are based upon anthropocentric views > > which ultimately don't hold the water because no one can prove that > > the universe is dependent on consciousness or that it only exists due > > to consciousness. > > > On Mar 26, 2:46 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is > > > because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He > > > transcends being."-Johanness Scottus Eriugena > > > > I find this statement very contradictory in my puny finite brain > > > especialy coming from Eriugena. It seems to me that God would > > > exemplify or epidamize being. Perhaps this is one for the athiest?- 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.
