Rhetorical Q?
On Apr 3, 6:12 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > the best way to know god is to know thy self , because hes in us all , > i can see a bit of me in evryone and a bit of evryone in me , in all > there is the face of good and evil , comidy and drama , the > worst example can serve as the best example , voo doo says god is > not good or evil , it is man who uses the power of god[s] to create > ether good or evil themselves , to consider the origin as pure > and that which emerges as coarse , to be one without knowledge , not > traped in the teachings of the sage , like the earth itself , without > knowledge , free from the tribulations of self promotion , evry > creature born comes from the soil and returnes to the soil , holy > land , holy mountains , holy caves , sacrifice of crop and animal , > gods of half man half animal , gods living in trees streems lightning > volcanoes , the tiger , dragon , mloth , lion , lamb, crocidile , > elephant , lepord, the stars, god was seen as nature , the earth > which was connected with , the heavens , connected with , god > > the only thing that can be proven or even supported by any evedance , > are those things which are of the earth , ( material world ) how then > can any inquiry be made on the speculation of heaven , if that inquiry > does not originate through the observation of the earth ? > > > > > > > > rigsy03 wrote: > > I appreciated your response and will delve into Aristotle- surely he > > has a definition of "The Good". The trouble is that good and evil can > > be false and masquerade as one another so it takes an informed mind to > > recognise them- sometimes- although I think we can often identify them > > properly- especially in their extreme manifestations. > > > Contrary to your opinion that I am an agnostic or my sommersaults > > about faith, I do believe in God and pray to Him daily- either via > > gratitude or supplication. My beef is with religions that have been > > constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways. God is not made in > > our image. He is beyond human understanding. Why is this so hard to > > see when we must struggle to know ourselves or another? > > > On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well Ash, like all words, when applied to something it becomes a ‘lie’… > > > read: becomes something other than itself. > > > > Accepting that caveat, I use the term “The Good” in the Platonic way. > > > And, since we are talking about Divine Forms here, we move quite > > > quickly into mysticism. So, just applying ‘rational’ terms and > > > reasoning let alone simple analogies just won’t cut it for a full > > > understanding of the notion. > > > > For those who aren’t conversant with this, > > > see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good > > > > As is referenced, it (Good) exceeds being. Looking further down the > > > page, it is instructive to note that Parmenides suggests that such > > > Forms “must be seen through the mind’s eye.” Interesting, no? > > > > In the first handful of years, Mind’s Eye was all rational and > > > mysticism and religiousness was in general shouted down as being > > > worthless at best. I found this a strange and unenlightened view and > > > kept pushing the agenda of exploring beyond the 5 senses…often to > > > sharp reactions and criticism. Today, perhaps as a result, we have > > > moved in general to the other side of the dichotomy of skeptic/ > > > believer… and many posts are pure blind belief. > > > > Regardless, when first exposed to the Greek notion of ‘The Good’, I > > > found an innate resonance and have been exploring the associated Pure > > > Grounds ever since. > > > > You asked for my words on this…something quite difficult to present at > > > best. I will say that as shown above that The Good is a universal. It > > > is objective. It is innate and not of the senses. > > > > In particular, I was saying in my previous post in response to your > > > suggestion that “we seem mostly of little consequence.” that “On the > > > larger scales, our logic…” is of little or no consequence either…at > > > least in any ultimate sense. > > > > Hopefully this at least approaches a satisfactory response for you. > > > > On Apr 2, 11:42 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Could you please clarify what is meant by "The Good"? I understand some > > > > limitations and pitfalls of logic but knowing that clarifies little in > > > > this > > > > regard, it's another point agreed on. "The Good" is a term used by many > > > > but > > > > it makes little sense to me, perhaps I am uninitiated, it seems mostly > > > > arbitrary. But I would like your take on it if you please.- Hide quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
