PIRATE wrote
This panders to my Naturalistic Pantheist roots http://kopimistsamfundet.se/english/
ME: um, can you please define what you mean by "naturalist" and "pantheist?" Isn't that sort of like a square circle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Pantheism
ME: Sorry to annoy you. I was taking "pantheism" to mean that the universe and God are identical, as in the broad definition offered in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy below in (1) and (2): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
"Pantheism
is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the
view that (1) “God is everything and everything is God … the world is
either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his
nature” (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything
that exists constitutes a “unity” and this all-inclusive unity is in
some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34).
But it seems that you do not accept those definitions. Would you also disgree with this one? (also from SEP)
"A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3)“‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.” Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H.Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work—if not pantheists" .
J:ust trying to figure out your position...sorry, the Wikipedia Pantheistic naturalism article is confusing.
But it seems that you do not accept those definitions. Would you also disgree with this one? (also from SEP)
"A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3)“‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.” Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H.Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work—if not pantheists" .
J:ust trying to figure out your position...sorry, the Wikipedia Pantheistic naturalism article is confusing.
PIRATE: Well to some it up in 4 words.
NO GOD, JUST STUFF
Is my understanding of the Wiki definition.
Being an English Native I accept that your [different since 2006 legally ] language may lack some of the understandings on mine.
But, I do accept it is a slightly strange type of Theism and that my understanding of the world may be so disparate from your own that I would have to try and be magnanimous in such an encounter.
How can we agree on something, and work from there?
NO GOD, JUST STUFF
Is my understanding of the Wiki definition.
Being an English Native I accept that your [different since 2006 legally ] language may lack some of the understandings on mine.
But, I do accept it is a slightly strange type of Theism and that my understanding of the world may be so disparate from your own that I would have to try and be magnanimous in such an encounter.
How can we agree on something, and work from there?
ME: um, again, I'm not being judgmental, just curious! : ) I agree we are speaking different languages! That's why I need to understand what you mean when you use the word "God" and what you mean by the word "theism."
P.S. Thanks for your magnaminity toward me, sir.
Oh,
and what does "sacred" mean, for a pantheistic naturalist or kopimist?
From what I can figure, it must mean "what I approve of" or "what a
certain group approves of." Would that be incorrect? Please advise.
PIRATE: It's nice to be right, but, it's righter to be nice :-)
In this case you take the former and I'll take the latter.
I misunderstand theism, the actual definition.
I'm a Naturalistic Pandeist.
I can ramble, I checked, it's my thread, lol
So, a little bit of back-story.
Bulletpoints (I hope you don't mind)
+ Born to Irish Roman-Catholics (lapsed but pious til I was 8) in England.
+ Told to say C of E (protestant) when asked.
+ Confirmed Atheist until 5 years ago.
+ Have read 6 different ver. of Christianity
+ Can quote some Koran.
+ Is mostly pro planet over in-human people.
+ Has adopted the stance that there is an absence during prayer/meditation (a scientific stance)
Only adopted the NP position 3 weeks ago, I'm,hunting for a position on spirituality, so I can get on with the rest of my life, but, have questions, and I need to talk to Humans
ME- Isn't it a shame that we can't talk face to face? I'd like to be right AND nice... I fear that text makes you think I am an ogre, and smileys don't seem to be helping. Sigh. Maybe the only way to be nice to you is to agree with you? : o
Oh well, I'm still confused...(not unusual, I admit!) I hate to try your patience, but as an American, having been schooled in Anglo-American analytic philosophy, when I hear the word "naturalism" or "naturalist" what immediately comes to mind is what one reads here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
I know I'm thick....but hang in there with me...so when you call yourself a Naturalistic Pandeist, are you saying you believe that there is nothing supernatural/spiritual, that everything that is real is material/physical, and that what is material/physical is god/worthy of worship/sacred? Or what?
You see, in these parts, naturalists tend to be atheists or agnostics, so that's why I made the "square circle" remark.
PIRATE: I type all this with a gentle note. My language may seem sharp, I wasn't schooled at all so schooling means little to me, this is brand new area to me.
I am nearly 42 and went to school (they made me) and listened to what interested me and sometimes knitted at the back off class when I wasn't (nice hat and scarf 1 term of geography).
Now, accepting that I am a man I think why?
NB I have worked with Horses, and they get schooled if you know horses, schooling is mostly forcibly trainied.
I do indulge in polemics at times. But, your picture endeared me to you, and my usual harsh treatment of racially tender subject material with me was allayed.
Here, have a pirate to lighten the mood =]:¬_)
I am nearly 42 and went to school (they made me) and listened to what interested me and sometimes knitted at the back off class when I wasn't (nice hat and scarf 1 term of geography).
Now, accepting that I am a man I think why?
NB I have worked with Horses, and they get schooled if you know horses, schooling is mostly forcibly trainied.
I do indulge in polemics at times. But, your picture endeared me to you, and my usual harsh treatment of racially tender subject material with me was allayed.
Here, have a pirate to lighten the mood =]:¬_)
ME: Ahoy,
and I appreciate yer kindness and patience! Ye can see how me mind's
been twisted. : ) I be needin' to get back to our conversation, though.
Can ye see where I be comin' from? Why I say it be a matter of a square
circle?
As I have said before...
I'm never wrong, only misinformed
Thx 4 t info :-D
No comments:
Post a Comment