tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.comments2022-12-08T02:30:00.729-08:00Beginning Theistic ScienceIan Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-27169504242075909452016-08-02T10:58:49.328-07:002016-08-02T10:58:49.328-07:00Tillich's idea of God is the 'ground of be...Tillich's idea of God is the 'ground of being' is certainly not pantheism.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-90827463381795153672016-08-01T14:31:13.885-07:002016-08-01T14:31:13.885-07:00Tillich's idea is not pantheism, in systematic...Tillich's idea is not pantheism, in systematic Theo. 1 he states clearly and discusses why it's not. Essential;ly because pantheism defies nature and thus is a thing in creation among other things not being itself.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-18396468596644560592015-12-19T09:15:00.522-08:002015-12-19T09:15:00.522-08:00You already link to one of blogs Atheist watch. I...You already link to one of blogs Atheist watch. I'm trying to save the other one, Metacrock's blog. please link to it too.<br /><br />Joe Hinman (aka Metacrock<br /><br />http://metacrock.blogspot.com/<br /><br />also wouldn't hurt if you read the blog.<br /><br />thanks. O bte I am linked to this blog.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-22496376408741518522014-02-06T08:38:09.773-08:002014-02-06T08:38:09.773-08:00Is this good?
It depends. If genuine good is enjo...<i>Is this good?</i><br /><br />It depends. If genuine good is enjoyable to my will, then there isn't any problem with seeing as good that which is enjoyable to my will. OTOH, if evil is enjoyable to my will, then seeing as good that which is enjoyable to my will -- evil in this case -- is, to understate the matter, somewhat of a problem.<br /><br /><i>Should it be this way?</i><br /><br />The functionality itself generic and indiscriminate (i.e., it applies both in the case of a good person and in the case of an evil person).<br /><br /><i>Or should we...</i><br /><br />When I say "a person tends to see...", I am paraphrasing what I understand is being said in DP 195.2-3. If the reference is read, however, it'll be seen that the paraphrasing involves an <i>attenuation</i> of what DP 195.2-3 actually says. <br /><br />For example, while the paraphrasing is "<b>a person tends to see good as</b> being that which is enjoyable to his will", DP 195.2 actually says "<b>everyone calls that good which</b> he feels in the love of his will to be enjoyable". Clearly, DP 195.2 is stronger, and does not obviously allow for any wiggle room. <br /><br />I see this stronger view of the matter, which stronger view clearly appears to be devoid of latitude and leeway, as being inconsonant with some other things Swedenborg has something to say about. For example, in DLW 244 he writes that, "...the understanding does not lead the will...but only teaches and shows the way--teaching how a man ought to live, and showing the way in which he ought to go." <br /><br />However, to "call that good which..." is to name as good "that which...", and naming is an operation of the understanding. But if the understanding inexorably names as good that which is enjoyable to the will (as the actual wording of DP 195.2 clearly seems to imply is the case), then when what the understanding calls good is, in fact, not good, how can the understanding first know, then go on to teach and show otherwise?<br /><br />No, it must be that that which a man feels to be good, that that which he <i>tends</i> to see as being good, can be seen by the understanding for the not-good that it actually is (when such is the case); if not, then neither reformation not regeneration would be possible (and this for the reason that the person's understanding would be locked into a single, fixed and unalterable view ("it is enjoyable to the (affections of the) will; therefore, it must be good")).<br /><br />Taking into consideration that some people do actually reform and regenerate, it clearly cannot be true that "everyone calls that good which..."; thus the attenuation in the paraphrasing.<br /><br />To "tend to see good as..." is to have a tendency "to see good as...", and a tendency can be, when it is called for (and with assistance from the appropriate source), overcome, gotten around and/or not acted on or from -- which isn't possible when the understanding is locked into the hard-and-fast rule of "call[ing] that good which..."<br /><br />So, yes, we should -- indeed, need to -- as you rightly put it, <i>have a sense of good that is distinct from our enjoyment and understanding</i>. **<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />** This is true when our enjoyment (of the will) and (the pleasure of our) understanding have yet habitually to be of what is genuinely good and genuinely true; if it should happen to be that they habitually are (a big 'if', admittedly), then the distinction would be relatively seamless.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-57466255951841195302014-02-05T18:52:26.632-08:002014-02-05T18:52:26.632-08:00You say "a person tends to see good as being ...You say "a person tends to see good as being that which is enjoyable to his will, to see truth as being that which is pleasing to his understanding, to see evil ...[as the opposite]".<br />Is this good? Should it be this way? Or should we have a sense of good that is distinct from our enjoyment and understanding? Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-25975333210213927532014-02-05T17:44:20.164-08:002014-02-05T17:44:20.164-08:00Wow, that was fast; I realized I ought to have at ...Wow, that was fast; I realized I ought to have at least indicated how I see those references as relating to the quotation, so I returned, and... well, here:<br /><br />1. Opening statement of AC 129 -- everyone is governed by the principles he assumes;<br /><br />2. DP 195.2-3 -- a person tends to see good as being that which is enjoyable to his will, to see truth as being that which is pleasing to his understanding, to see evil as being that which "kills" the enjoyment of his will, and to see falsity as that which "kills" the pleasure of his understanding; also, if what is good by virtue of being enjoyable to a man's will is at odds with what is truly good in and of itself, a person may mistakenly see genuine good as evil (with similar inversions or 'reverse conceptions' applying re truth, evil and falsity); and,<br /><br />3. concluding statement of TCR 622 -- heterogeneity is torture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-67988979800447625082014-02-05T17:17:43.601-08:002014-02-05T17:17:43.601-08:00On reflection now, I conclude:
Each of us has adop...<i>On reflection now, I conclude:<br />Each of us has adopted some various ideas as unconditionally true (whether about science, or religion, or agnosticism, or whatever). And that these ideas become attached to our manner of feeling what is good and what is distasteful. We develop a feeling for those ideas as good, and 'good' becomes defined as what agrees with those ideas. Conversely, any opposing ideas give rise to distaste and unease and uncertainty and anxiety. So we fight back! That is what the pseudo-skeptics are doing. They are fighting back against ideas which (in their own minds) are upsetting.</i><br /><br />Regarding the underlying functionality, see the opening statement of AC 129, DP 195.2-3, and the concluding statement of TCR 622.3.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-21146165356792779392014-02-03T22:32:24.913-08:002014-02-03T22:32:24.913-08:00Please find an Illuminated Understanding of Truth ...Please find an Illuminated Understanding of Truth & Reality (Real God) via these references:<br />www.consciousnessitself.org<br />www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god<br />www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon <br />Have you ever noticed that Christian philosophers and so called theologians seldom, if ever, talk about Consciousness either with a capital of a lower case C. Nor do they talk about Light which is the Energy of Consciousness<br />Plus these resources on the slick-and-clever Western mind<br />www.beezone.com/whiteandorangeproject/index.html Frederick Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318304600140946026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-9945803608115263782014-02-03T22:25:57.494-08:002014-02-03T22:25:57.494-08:00Please find some essays which give a unique Illumi...Please find some essays which give a unique Illuminated Understanding of the relation between science as a method of open ended free enquiry, scientism as a dogmatic ideology, and reductionist exoteric religion which is the only kind of religion that now exists.<br />www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm <br />The Three Principles of All Truth<br />www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm <br />Space-Time IS Love-Bliss<br />http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/4068<br />Science & Religion<br />www.adidam.org/Content/teaching/print-files/religion-and-science.pdf <br />http://global.adidam.org/media/science <br />Two related essays on the cultural affects and purposes of the Western mind<br />www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/there_is_a_way.html <br />www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/mirrorandcheckerboard995.html Frederick Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318304600140946026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-66099310231345627482013-10-10T00:55:00.892-07:002013-10-10T00:55:00.892-07:00Hello Ian Thompson. I have been a long time follow...Hello Ian Thompson. I have been a long time follower of your work on your four most excellent websites generativescience.org, ianthompson.org, newdualism.org, beginningtheisticscience.com. However since a few days ago all four have been down and when trying to enter any page of the website you are presented with a default website page and no content. I was just inquiring about the status of these websites as they are a true blessing. Do you plan on bringing them back up and if not would there be any way in getting the content as I foolishly did not download it when the sites were up. Also I have sent you two emails about this to the email accounts associated to the website domains so apologizes for all the contact but I was just not too sure how to get in contact with you.<br /><br />All the best , Ashmen DasguptaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03619868535614568570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-43142364409057563322013-10-04T16:28:43.025-07:002013-10-04T16:28:43.025-07:00Found another passage:
"The spirits of the e...Found another passage:<br /><br />"The spirits of the earth Jupiter, since in the Greatest Man they have relation to the imaginative of thought, speak little and think much... at they are of a genius intermediate between spiritual and celestial; for the spiritual speak sonorously, and bring the whole of their thought into their speech; wherefore their thought, in order to be known, must be gathered from its expression. But not so the celestial; for what is of their will rolls itself by somewhat of thought into what is like a wave, and affects and moves the will of another according to the nature of the subject."<br /><br />Also there are several passages from Heavenly Arcana where false thoughts are represented by the "waves of the sea". In the previous passage he compares thoughts to wings, and the flapping of a wing by a bird would of course form a wave. I am thinking if we knew more about correspondence we could eventually come to a better understanding of physics, but in a more intuitive manner.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-38069731743858736592013-10-03T20:06:20.244-07:002013-10-03T20:06:20.244-07:00Interesting, indeed, is his use of the word "...Interesting, indeed, is his use of the word "wave". I wonder whether his explanation, "that wave was nothing else than such things as were adjoined to that subject in the memory" is like (or not) how we should view electrical waves in physics and in our bodies.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-65124957007258890282013-10-03T17:40:26.124-07:002013-10-03T17:40:26.124-07:00Hi Ian,
I left a similar comment on Lee's blog...Hi Ian,<br />I left a similar comment on Lee's blog, but check out this passage from Swedenborg:<br /><br />"While I have been thinking, the material ideas of thought have appeared as it were in the midst of a kind of wave, and it was observed that that wave was nothing else than such things as were adjoined to that subject in the memory, and that thus the full thought is apparent to spirits, but that then nothing else comes to man's apprehension than what is in the midst and which appeared as material. I have likened that surrounding wave to spiritual wings, by which the thing thought of is elevated out of the memory. Thereby man has apperception of a thing. That in that surrounding wave there were innumerable things agreeing with the thing thought of, was made evident to me from this, that the spirits who were in a more subtile sphere thereby knew all those things which I had ever known on that subject, and thus that they fully absorb and assume all things which are man's; and genii, who only attend to the lusts and affections, assume those things which are of the loves." (Heavenly Arcana, n. 6200)<br /><br />Which is interesting, because we now know thoughts are in reality waves - they manifest as electrical impulses in our body. This was not known until the 20th century. The wave is the thought, but when it becomes a particle it is the actual operation of the thought, where the potential becomes an actuality.<br />Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-54724694594879169982013-08-30T06:57:48.251-07:002013-08-30T06:57:48.251-07:00Hi Ian,
Thanks for your article, and for your com...Hi Ian,<br /><br />Thanks for your article, and for your comment on my "Wavicles of Love" post (http://leewoof.org/2013/08/10/wavicles-of-love/). I've replied to your comment there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00367727416033291841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-82288501006107957262013-08-20T10:58:32.818-07:002013-08-20T10:58:32.818-07:00I think somewhere I heard someone say "The on...I think somewhere I heard someone say "The only difference between religion and science is ignorance."Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-3695342544855265302013-06-09T10:28:54.568-07:002013-06-09T10:28:54.568-07:00Let us focus on the physics for now. I can explain...Let us focus on the physics for now. I can explain more of the ideas of the video, and they should be useful for your in your online discussions with naturalists/atheists. <br />I am a physicist by profession, and I think we know more than your 'don't knows' might suggest. <br />IanIan Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-47269622080625865632013-06-09T09:35:00.266-07:002013-06-09T09:35:00.266-07:00I feel I should add more to my comment. My minimal...I feel I should add more to my comment. My minimalist comment was not meant to imply disapproval of your fine film.I have been thinking about some of the aspects of your film and reading about them for some time. In fact the idea that we don't know what subatomic particles really are made of. I've been researching that in m armature way and received a great deal of derision form atheists and science types for saying that. When push comes to shove they have no alternative. They just say "O we can't give you a full four year university education on this message board. God take some classes."<br /><br />I am grateful to you to see that your film confirms what I've been thinking on that score. The implication is that we don't know what it means to say "matter is solid." Nor do we really know what it means to speak of energy. The standard answer I get is "it's made of charges." what are charges made of? More charges!<br /><br />I am interested in your views on Swedenborg he's very interesting but I have some theological problems with him.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-21875648165335757432013-06-09T09:34:12.900-07:002013-06-09T09:34:12.900-07:00I find very much of value in what Swedenborg has w...I find very much of value in what Swedenborg has written, and (as interested in philosophy, theology and life) find many of his ideas useful for further rational development.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-7818558920097904302013-06-09T09:29:32.657-07:002013-06-09T09:29:32.657-07:00Nice film. Does that mean you are a Swedenborgian?...Nice film. Does that mean you are a Swedenborgian?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-38037856170126061592013-05-14T13:46:24.725-07:002013-05-14T13:46:24.725-07:00I can see why you would like this author, Ian, bec...I can see why you would like this author, Ian, because he echoes what you have said about both causal closure and about credulity.<br />The part about having privileged access reminds me of stored potential energy for some reason (as if experience is a way to store that causal energy). So I agree with Swinburne on that part.<br />But I disagree with him and you about credulity - that a person should believe what things appear to be unless there is a reason not to. Because - all new ah-ha moments come from looking at things in a whole new way. To believe time is what we've always thought time is, for instance, does not really help. That's like a guarantee that it will remain not understood.<br />But, I might order the book ... I wonder if I will understand it or spend the whole time saying, "what?" Time will tell.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-24616125254072697782013-04-27T21:26:07.003-07:002013-04-27T21:26:07.003-07:00I have seen may people in the West who are attract...I have seen may people in the West who are attracted to Advaita, but without going through Hinduism. Some, indeed, without having any particular religious tradition as their background at all. Where are these people supposed to get their morality from?Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-46987877315492010172013-04-23T05:29:56.869-07:002013-04-23T05:29:56.869-07:00As I understand it the assumptions of nondualism a...As I understand it the assumptions of nondualism are:<br /><br />1) the enlightened will behave morally as a result of their state<br /><br />2) Seekers of enlightenment will have a reasonable grasp of morality as a precondition of study.<br /><br />3) Everyone else gets their morality from a variety of conventional teachings. Nondualism does not seek to *replace* other religions and philosophies at the everyday, social level.<br />Advaita is *part* of Hinduism, and so on.1Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15540342141981143876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-52971579454547797982012-12-10T22:03:01.887-08:002012-12-10T22:03:01.887-08:00This, at least, is what is predicted by quantum me...This, at least, is what is predicted by quantum mechanics. In fact, though, we have no idea whether it is instantaneous, or whether there is some possible faster-than-light propagation speed. Relativistic quantum mechanics predicts that we get the same results whatever the speed, or, in other words, whatever might be the velocity of reference frame used to describe the process. <br /><br />In order to understand the means or mechanism of this, we should have to think that the entangled state has a kind of unity, in such a way that interactions of one part have immediate effects on the other parts. Even if the meaning of 'immediate' here is not clear. Another way of saying this is that the disparate material parts are yet part of some whole, and 'together' in a way that transcends normal spatial separations. They are still *material objects*, and certainly *not* 'immaterial', even if they behave in this way as part of a single 'togetherness'. The 'togetherness', in any case, is only temporary, and we cannot have material things (as if) disappearing from the material world and appearing again some time soon afterwards.<br />Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-25892255488852035772012-12-10T21:48:47.794-08:002012-12-10T21:48:47.794-08:00Thanks for the reply Ian,
I guess where I was hea...Thanks for the reply Ian,<br /><br />I guess where I was headed with this is how can we define the 'means' whereby one electron is made aware of or discovers the new 'quantum state' of the the entangled electron. My understanding is that the discovery is instantaneous even if light years apart. <br /><br />One almost gets the impression that though they are far apart, in some respect, maybe in some different spatial extension, they are not and remain local to each other some how. It just strikes me that there should be some propensity or disposition 'to inform of state changes' operating here.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />RonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07063269885159460258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-9060754625928804482012-12-10T16:42:30.648-08:002012-12-10T16:42:30.648-08:00Dear Ron,
I agree that the long-distance correla...Dear Ron,<br /> I agree that the long-distance correlations and entanglements you describe (and which are quite within normal quantum mechanics) are not quite 'material' as we know of material things as tending to be heavy, solid and inert.<br /><br />However, quantum mechanics is just what is found necessary to describe the physical nature of exactly those material things. So, even if the correlations are not 'fully material', they are certainly completely physical. We could call them perhaps 'almost fully material' characteristics of things. I would certainly not call them 'purely non-material' as you seem to want to do.<br /><br />The correlations (and Bell's inequalities, etc) are the first hint that, as we go into causes, that something non-material might be there. But, as they stand, the correlations and entanglements are correlations and entanglements *of material things*, and so, for all practical purposes, material properties . We could well call them 'physical properties' still, if they are not strictly material as you know that term.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.com