Kevin's Watch

Desire is a lacking.

Well, heh, my point was that in omni being would not be omni if it lacked anything. Even desire. But yes, I suppose desire can only be for something that is absent.

Exnihilo2 wrote:Desire is a lacking.

I hate that statement. It is as reductive, simplistic, and absurd as the Freudian "everything is sublimated sex drive."
[in fact, they're pretty much the same statement....I call shennanigans on both].

I didn't take it that way. I thought he meant you can only desire what is lacking; what is absent. You can't desire to be at your computer right now, because you are at your computer right now.

Vraith wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Desire is a lacking.

I hate that statement. It is as reductive, simplistic, and absurd as the Freudian "everything is sublimated sex drive."
[in fact, they're pretty much the same statement....I call shennanigans on both].

Vraith, since you reject my definition of desire, could you proffer one of your own or must we remain suspended in idle ignorance?

BTW I like Jung's definition of libido as psychic energy much better.

Exnihilo2 wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Exnihilo2 wrote:Desire is a lacking.

I hate that statement. It is as reductive, simplistic, and absurd as the Freudian "everything is sublimated sex drive."
[in fact, they're pretty much the same statement....I call shennanigans on both].

Vraith, since you reject my definition of desire, could you proffer one of your own or must we remain suspended in idle ignorance?

BTW I like Jung's definition of libido as psychic energy much better.

Didn't mean to leave anyone hanging, really, I'm just pretty sure I can't. But there are also a multitude of things I can't necessarily [due to my own lack of knowledge] define, while still being absolutely certain that whatever they are, they are not cats.
I too, think Jung is, if not comprehensively correct, on a better path than Freud, on this particular thing especially.
But part of the problem is that, contrary to what Fist just said, it is definitely possible to desire what you already have...in fact I'd say that a significant part "being happy" isn't that one has what one desires, and has therefore "met the need" or "filled the lack," but that one continues to desire that thing even while one possesses it.
That also, btw, is in part why so many rich people can't simply be happy, why no amount of money/power is sufficient to make them so.

It's not just rich people, Vraith. You've pretty much defined consumer culture right there -- a desire to have things in order to be happy, but upon acquiring them, still not being happy.

I've certainly acquired things that I thought I wanted, only to realize once I had them that I didn't really want them, after all.

But I have also acquired things that I was happy about having and wanted to keep.

A lack of something *may* trigger desire, but not always.

aliantha wrote:It's not just rich people, Vraith. You've pretty much defined consumer culture right there --

Yea...but I emphasized the rich because [especially from the view of the not rich] they literally and easily can get almost anything they "desire." And yet it STILL doesn't work for a great many.
[off-topic rant I wrote here deleted before posting.]

WF: I wouldn't argue that, either. BUT, if there were an afterlife and we were limited while alive as we are limited, the only "good for everyone in the end" outcome is if we were to discover that our living evils weren't in fact that big a deal after all.
Again, I don't believe that is the actual case, only that in an Omni-god universe anything else is unjust...even evil...in its own right.

Material is not the be-all of desire or completeness.

Exnihilo2 wrote:Material is not the be-all of desire or completeness.

That's true, and I didn't mean to make it sound like it was.

...we make excuses for god, and point fingers at each other.

So far, I haven't seen anything to contradict that statement in the responses to my comments here.

wayfriend wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:If it's *virtuous* for god to allow evil acts (because freewill is necessary), why do we even bother getting in the way of his intentions by trying to stop or punish them?

... or, it's virtuous for God to allow evil acts BECAUSE it leaves us to try to stop or punish them.

If the virtue in God allowing evil is dependent upon the fact that this leaves us to stop or punish it, then it follows that if we don't try to stop or punish, the virtue in God allowing this is undermined. The virtue of God's actions can't be dependent upon what we do. It must be absolutely virtuous on its own.

Wayfriend wrote:God's not working on the same basis of morality as we are. NOT because morality is relative. Because God's role is not our role.

But (assuming God exists) shouldn't we try to model ourselves after God? If He's the source of morality, then shouldn't we use Him as our example, our exemplar of perfect behavior and thus our model as we strive to be more "holy" or "godly" rather than less so?

Or is God telling us, "Do as I say, not as I do"??

Wayfriend wrote:You can't say [x,y,z] ... not until you identify what God's role is. Something we probably can only imagine but never know.

... We *cant* understand what motivates a god. Never mind God.

And, as we will always fall short in that department, "allows" represents a judgement we aren't qualified to make.

This is exactly what I meant when I said:

...the reason we think of God as infinite is because otherwise he wouldn't be able to hold up to all the contradictory ways we conceive Him. If he were less than infinite, we could judge him just as strongly as we judge each other.

And:

God HAS to be OMNI- because no one else could get away with such cruelty and contradiction.

And:

...we make excuses for god, and point fingers at each other.

Ali wrote:Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

Absolutely. I agree. But then take it one step further: why suppose a god at all? Isn't that the greatest anthropomorphizing of all that *is*?

Fist and Faith wrote:I bother if my morality insists that those acts are evil, and should not be. I don't bother if my morality doesn't have a problem with them. This is true whether or not there is any sort of creator or higher being.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. If there is a creator, then how can there be such a thing as "my morality?" How can we make our own rules if we are subject to the judgment of a higher being? Once you take an afterlife and criteria for getting there into account, you have to abandon the idea of relative morality.

Wayfriend wrote:As a father, I sometimes "allow" my children to do something that they would be better off not doing. (Presuming I see no serious harm coming from it, of course!) Sometimes experience is the best teacher. It's part of the way a parent can guide.

I actually like this example. I've used similar reasoning many times to point out how much better society would be if we treat people with the same level of "you're on your own, kid," as we do our own children. If it's good enough for god, and it's valuable to people, then why isn't it good enough for us? Well, obviously, it is good enough when we're talking about those people who are actually dependent upon us and whom we love the most (our kids). But we often have trouble extending this reasoning to others whom we don't love as much and who aren't dependent upon us.

This is why I was serious when I said:

If "leaving people to their own devices" is okay for an omnibenevolent God, why isn't it good enough for us finitely benevolent mortals? Is it because we don't have enough benevolence to leave people to the consequences of their own free choices? (I'm serious.)

Zarathustra wrote:

Ali wrote:Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

Absolutely. I agree. But then take it one step further: why suppose a god at all? Isn't that the greatest anthropomorphizing of all that *is*?

And this is how god can be omni-. The complete abandonment of the concept of divine will, purpose, and the anthropomorphism of god. God realised to be nothing more than reality itself. Reality is omnipotent, because reality is all. Reality is omniscient, because reality is all. Reality is omnipresent, because reality is all.

Omnibenevolence we've already established as a meaningless concept.

Zarathustra wrote:

Ali wrote:Good and evil are human constructs, guys. Ascribing so-called moral behavior to the Divine is like portraying God with a flowing white beard. You're just anthromorphizing what *is*.

Absolutely. I agree. But then take it one step further: why suppose a god at all? Isn't that the greatest anthropomorphizing of all that *is*?

A god, yes, I agree with you. But multiple gods, none of whom claim, or even pretend, to be omni-anything -- not so much.

It's a logical fallacy to set up the argument as an either-or: Either there's a single omni-whatever God, or there's none at all. Infinite other options are possible -- including the possibility that there are multiple gods/goddesses, all presiding over their little corner of "what is," not professing to be anything other than the Being In Charge (and who might, in fact, take human form on occasion ).

When you get to that point, then it's not too far a leap to see Jehovah as one among *many* gods -- one who's ambitious but, y'know, kind of cruel and capricious, and who wants to set himself up as the Only One. And then you can see how, when he wasn't able to take over the planet as the sole god of the Jews, maybe he rebooted by offering up his (half-human) son and giving himself a "kinder, gentler" makeover. Or maybe there really *are* two of them -- the OT god and the NT god.

A lot of stuff starts to make sense once you give up the idea that either there's Only One God or there's none at all.

And it also underlines why I rarely participate in the Good v. Evil discussions around here. The premise is based on black-and-white thinking, just as Omnipotent God v. no god is black-and-white thinking. Clearly the world-that-is isn't built to black-and-white specifications -- so why the insistence on ultimate this or ultimate that? (My partial answer: it's a guy thing. )

That kind of polytheism is pretty much the epitome of anthropomorphisation of deities.

I like polytheism, by the way. I think it makes for a better metaphor for the truth (and thus escaping the anthropomorphism charge only in as much as it's not literal). So let's run with that idea for a moment, explore the metaphor.

What if "god" meant this: a sentient being who exists by virtue of Order spontaneously arising from Chaos, so that each god comes into being "self-caused," in a way. Like any Creator, they don't need to be created by a "higher" agent. They simply coalesce out of the "collision" of nothingness and somethingness. Being itself produces them spontaneously in virtue of its own self-organizing nature. [This would imply that Being isn't something that is Created, rather it is the "realm where creation spontaneously happens."]

So these gods, as they come into being, populate an area of Being which brought them into Being. They have a world, a realm where they can live and exist and act and choose. Being a God, they can each make up their own morality, and hold themselves to self-ordained standards, and even seek a consensus among views in order to promote peaceful coexistence.

There is no need to anthropomorphize--to project gods upon the world in terms of human characteristics--when you realize that by "gods" we actually mean ourselves in the first place. We are the only (or highest) gods we know of ... so far.

Zarathustra wrote:...we make excuses for god, and point fingers at each other.

I didn't make any excuses for God. I was invited to wonder how he could be, and I wondered aloud.

Zarathustra wrote:If the virtue in God allowing evil is dependent upon the fact that this leaves us to stop or punish it, then it follows that if we don't try to stop or punish, the virtue in God allowing this is undermined.

Not if the virtue is in granting the opportunity, not in what we make of it.

Zarathustra wrote:But (assuming God exists) shouldn't we try to model ourselves after God?

I would say absolutely not.

Zarathustra wrote:Or is God telling us, "Do as I say, not as I do"??

We can't do what God does. So why would God expect us to do what he does?

Zarathustra wrote:I've used similar reasoning many times to point out how much better society would be if we treat people with the same level of "you're on your own, kid," as we do our own children.

If I am alive, my kids will never be on their own.

Zarathustra wrote:If "leaving people to their own devices" is okay for an omnibenevolent God, why isn't it good enough for us finitely benevolent mortals?

Perhaps because God has nothing to learn about compassion, committment, or unification. Yes, there are some suppositions underlying that notion, but I am only trying to suggest that reasons are possible.

Murrin wrote:That kind of polytheism is pretty much the epitome of anthropomorphisation of deities.

Hey, it worked for the Greeks.

Zarathustra wrote:I like polytheism, by the way. I think it makes for a better metaphor for the truth (and thus escaping the anthropomorphism charge only in as much as it's not literal). So let's run with that idea for a moment, explore the metaphor.

What if "god" meant this: a sentient being who exists by virtue of Order spontaneously arising from Chaos, so that each god comes into being "self-caused," in a way. Like any Creator, they don't need to be created by a "higher" agent. They simply coalesce out of the "collision" of nothingness and somethingness. Being itself produces them spontaneously in virtue of its own self-organizing nature. [This would imply that Being isn't something that is Created, rather it is the "realm where creation spontaneously happens."]

So these gods, as they come into being, populate an area of Being which brought them into Being. They have a world, a realm where they can live and exist and act and choose. Being a God, they can each make up their own morality, and hold themselves to self-ordained standards, and even seek a consensus among views in order to promote peaceful coexistence.

There is no need to anthropomorphize--to project gods upon the world in terms of human characteristics--when you realize that by "gods" we actually mean ourselves in the first place. We are the only (or highest) gods we know of ... so far.

I was with you until the last paragraph.

If you've never had any brush with something inexplicable -- one that wasn't chemically induced, I mean -- then I can understand your insistence on atheism. And I get agnosticism -- I considered myself agnostic for many years. But then some stuff happened to me that made me unable to deny that there's something else out there. For me, that "something else" is "multiple someone elses" -- partly because of the kinds of omni-whatever arguments you guys are wrestling with in this thread. It just seems to me like Christianity has to work too hard to justify itself within its self-imposed parameters, and the final answer too often comes down to, "No human can understand why God does what He does."

Anyway, that's just me. YMMV.

aliantha wrote:If you've never had any brush with something inexplicable -- one that wasn't chemically induced, I mean

(Whatever happened to Mystikan anyway? )

aliantha wrote:I was with you until the last paragraph.

That's a start. In fact, that's almost the whole thing. The only thing separating us is that I think your view is a metaphor and you think it's the literal truth.

What I think is cool about my view is that even though it sounds mythological and mystical, it's actually the literal truth. Every single word describes what actually happens in the universe where we have found ourselves coming into Being. The fact that reality is this amazing makes anything more just redundant and superfluous , imo.

Aliantha wrote:If you've never had any brush with something inexplicable -- one that wasn't chemically induced, I mean

I don't get how you think the world can be literally filled with gods, but you scoff at the idea of chemicals producing a "spiritual" experience. If the earth is literally populated by gods, then why can't some of them take the form of in shrooms? You seem to simultaneously believe that reality is both more wonderful than it is, and more mundane than it is. This is the problem with confusing the symbol with the signified, imo. Level confusion.

(Or maybe I'm confusing your view with pantheism. Actually, that's a lot closer to what I'm talking about than polytheism.)

aliantha wrote:some stuff happened to me that made me unable to deny that there's something else out there. For me, that "something else" is "multiple someone elses" -- partly because of the kinds of omni-whatever arguments you guys are wrestling with in this thread.

Then how you do know they're not just aliens? Why gods? What distinguishes this experience you've had from a Close Encounter?

Wayfriend, maybe "excuse," isn't the right word. Perhaps "justify" would be less contentious? People are trying to justify actions that god commits which they wouldn't tolerate in each other. Is that a fair point?

Wayfriend wrote:

I wrote:Or is God telling us, "Do as I say, not as I do"??

We can't do what God does. So why would God expect us to do what he does?

True, I can't create a universe, and stuff like that, but that's not what we're talking about. In this context, we very easily could do what god does: stop trying to control people. That takes inaction, not action.

I didn't think your example about children implied a total denial of support. I thought I was using "you're on your own" in the same way you were using it: as a tool for self-improvement. As long as my child (or my neighbor) can do something for himself, I'm taking away a little bit of his power and individualism by doing it for him. Much the same as if god was doing everything for us.