I've long loved the idea. And yet I have often heard people claim that a state of permanent supreme ecstasy would become boring.Could that be true if there were no sense at all of time involved? I'd be willing to do the experiment — Janus

The only possibility I've come up with is that it would be a totally different state of reality, existence, and experience; a state in which the question "wouldn't perfection get boring?" Is rendered meaningless. I've had glimpses of this possibility in dreams and feelings, and in art and creativity.

Oddly enough (or not?) this thread has not been much about Hegel! — Janus

Whoops!

Lol; we always end up agreeing more than we realize, you and I. Probably mostly because I'm not as well-read and not as experienced. So I tend to phrase things in my own way, which becomes problematic.

It's basically the Hindu conception of Brahman: Satchitananda. I have said all along that theology is worked out from imagination and experience via logic. This is obviously one of the possibilities of God's infinite eternal existence that is capable of being imagined, so calling it "nonsense" won't do unless you are a logical positivist or something like that. — Janus

Understood. I've read the Upanishads and a little of the Gita, but obviously not enough to recognize the concept; or rather, I'm still too stuck in the Western ethos to quickly notice.

None of that changes the fact that God is usually conceived to have always existed whereas the world is not. Everything said about God "sounds vague" because it is vague. If God 'actionally expresses himself in such a way to create a reality" then He must be prior to that act, logically speaking, no? — Janus

Yeah, I get your points here. But I'm honestly bored with all of the logical specifics; I really am, and I don't mean that as a cop out. Feel free to pry me more on those if you're unsure.

My aphorism is still the thing that makes the most sense, within my view: the painter is only a painter once a painting has been painted. You can take that as a white flag or a rallying charge; I don't mean it as either. I'm open to whatever response you might have.

I was merely trying to elaborate the logic of the Christian understanding of God as transcendent being. — Janus

Ok. I wasn't trying to do that; again, we've probably been talking past each other a bit; or at least, I've been talking past you to some extent.

Well, that is just what I have been trying to point out all along. Experience consists in being affected, in feeling. — Janus

I tend think that way too rather than the Christian way of imaging God as an utterly self-dependent transcendent being — Janus

See my initial comment. >:O

An infinite being absorbed in absolute ecstasy, for example. — Janus

But that's nonsensical; it doesn't apply to experience, theology, or...anything else, as far as I can see. It's purely abstract, which is to say, nonsensical. So, my question of what God could possibly be, other than a creator, still stands.

In the Christian vision God creates the world from nothing at a particular time, in the sense that the world has not always existed. — Janus

God doesn't create the world at a particular time if time itself is an aspect of the world that he created. So, in this view, God creating the world would be an emanation from eternity. I know that sounds vague, but what I mean is that God, eternally existant, would actionally express himself in such a way so as to create a reality in which time is also created as a function of said reality.

God, on the other hand, has always existed, so creating on that view cannot be all there is to God. — Janus

I think this stunts the concept of creation. Take Tielhard's view, for example. God is an ever-evolving entity; creation, in his view, is an ever-evolving process that is part and parcel to God. Creation isn't an act within time that didn't exist, and then did exist. Creation is an aspect of God; an ever-evolving process. As humans, our participation in that creative act manifests itself as precious little dips into the river. Dips into the river which are often refreshing, profound, and life-giving.

I can't see the relevance here. We finite temporal beings try to think from the 'point of view' of an eternal infinite being. — Janus

But I wasn't saying that within that specific metaphor of the painting; in that metaphor, the painting is reality (the thing which God created). I was trying to point out that we all, ultimately, think from the perspective of experience: "the painting itself".

If we simply cannot do that at all, then saying that God is either dependent upon or independent of us would be equally empty and nonsensical; as would any discourse about God at all. — Janus

Well, there I'm open more to interpretation, because it's not clear to me at all whether we are dependent on God, or whether God is dependent on us, or some other state. And all for the reasons and arguments I've laid out here. But my intuition, for what it's worth, is that God has a greater need for us than we know.

God is not necessarily merely a creator, though. — Janus

What else would God be?

So his necessary existence does not logically depend on him creating anything, whereas the existence of what he creates does so depend.. — Janus

That necessary existence in which nothing was created, then, would be something completely incomprehensible to created beings like us (or non-created if you like, atheistically). Which essentially renders that idea incomprehensible.

Again, consider the aphorism: A painter is only a painter once a painting is painted.

In other words, the existence from which you are currently discursively arguing, is the painting itself. You can't actually ask whether the painter could be a painter without the painting, because the painting is the perspective from which you're trying to apprehend the painter; the method through which you came to exist (as an member of the painting).

No, you're missing what I'm saying. A creator is not a creator unless something is created. A painter is not a painter until a painting is painted.

it is being-affected, moved. — Janus

Sorry again, but given the use of "being" in this thread, I'm not sure what this means.

Not all feeling are emotions in the ordinary sense of the emotions we categorize: fear. anxiety, love, hate, jealousy, lust, greed and so on. — Janus

I think I get the sense; would nostalgia, or the stronger feeling underneath nostalgia (almost Plato's remembering, if you know what I mean), count as a feeling, then?

No, that's not true per my view. What made you think so?
— Noble Dust

This:
Because, as I've attempted to argue many times, experience is reality. Nothing escapes the realm of experience,
— Noble Dust — Janus

Ah, right. I do tend to muddle my terms, in part because I'm a hobbyist, and in part because I'm rusty, not having posted here much recently. Let me try again.

When I say "experience is reality", I mean that nothing within our personal windshield view of life exists outside of experience. This actually seems stupid and nonsensical because of how obvious it is, but the reason I feel the need to bring this up is that, in philosophy, abstract logical arguments are bandied about with such rapier-like dexterity, that, amongst all the expert jabs and defenses, the simple reality of experience (the jousting rink itself) gets forgotten. But not only that; emotions and mental states (states of self-imposed "reality") do the same thing; they create a world. But all of these worlds, imposed and helped by various mental and spiritual faculties, all exist within experience.

So, now, in regards to God: God represents, in this metaphor, the jousting rink itself. And yes, that was not clear previously in my posts. Does that make more sense?

That is experience of the empirical

kind, about which we can have not only feelings but definite ideas that are determinably correct or incorrect.: we are not discussing that. — Janus

I meant that as a metaphor.

Because logically if we are created by a creator then we are dependent on that creator in an obvious way that the creator is not, purely logically speaking, dependent on us, and certainly not on any one of us; and not even ontologically dependent on us unless all events are absolutely necessary unfolding of God's nature, that is, determined. — Janus

I disagree. What is a creator without a creation? Certainly not a creator.

That's a virtue, you're lucky to have it. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well, I wrote that response sarcastically, but then re-read it after I posted it, and noticed that it had a sincere meaning as well. Take it as an Artist's Statement. Dare I say a metaphorical statement? Ah, the beauty of metaphor: it's interpretation depends on the interpreter.

You're asking in good faith, assuming my bad faith. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, because the majority of your response two replies ago to me was an insult.

I think I do. If you think I don't point to my misunderstanding. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right. It has to do with what the metaphor refers to. The doctor's metaphor for birth does not merely refer to a name (birth). It ultimately refers to that that the name refers to. Your metaphor instead refers to nothing specific, it just refers to a name which you use for something you can't even describe. — Πετροκότσυφας

In this paragraph, you mysteriously refer to "the doctor's metaphor"; I have no idea what that is. Then your sentences which I quoted follow. I honestly don't understand what you mean. It looks as if you don't understand what I mean by metaphor, but maybe that's not the case.

If you imply that "the etymology of words and their metaphorical changes" is related to "That means it's the structure of how we perceive the world through experience.", then feel free to clarify on it. — Πετροκότσυφας

What I'm trying to point out (and maybe haven't so far) is that much of language consists of "dead metaphors". I brought this up specifically because you seemed to be dismissing metaphor as having any philosophical weight.

If your previous answer was just a declaration of inability, then I'm content with that. It's enough to show that you just assume a whole lot of stuff. — Πετροκότσυφας

You're right; I routinely declare my inability, and do my best to show that I assume a whole lot of stuff. It's my duty as a philosophy forum member; nay, it's my duty as a student of the neurotic insanity of Western Thought.

Right, so next time a thread like this comes up, we'd better post poems, songs and paintings instead of using phrases like "A single, infinite, eternal, primordial, free, un-grounded Being which is the emanator of existence" pretending they say something that makes sense. — Πετροκότσυφας

Are you making fun of me because you sincerely think I'm an idiot, or because your logical mind can't extricate itself from it's series of logical proofs in order to entertain the possibility of a reality that exists beyond logical thought? And thus ad homs are the only defense against the gaping black hole of the possibility of your entire philosophical structure having weak foundations? I'm asking in good faith.

I don't misquote, that's what I mean by bad usage. — Πετροκότσυφας

Thank God!

The doctor's metaphor for birth does not merely refer to a name (birth). — Πετροκότσυφας

What doctor is using a metaphor for birth, and where? A doctor literally gives birth to babies; that is, a doctor who's job it is to do so.

Your metaphor instead refers to nothing specific, it just refers to a name which you use for something you can't even describe. — Πετροκότσυφας

I mean this sincerely; you seem to not understand what a metaphor is. I gave a provisional definition earlier, if you're interested.

Apropos of nothing. — Πετροκότσυφας

The etymology of words and their metaphorical changes are apropos of nothing, yes, absolutely.

Don't we all know what feeling is? — Janus

I just wanted to know what you meant. So you meant emotion, right? That's how I'm reading each instance of the world "feeling" in your subsequent post, now, given your response. The definition of "feeling" is never at all clear to me, in these discussions.

How do you think we would experience that other than as a feeling? It cannot be merely an idea, no? — Janus

Is an experience of blinding, unexpected sunlight a "feeling", or is it an "idea"? Or, is it something else entirely?

The reality of the experience is in the reality of the feeling, isn't it? — Janus

The reality of the (emotion)? No.

but we don't even know what God's independent reality could mean, any more than we know what the independent reality of anything we experience could mean. — Janus

Oh? If "feeling" just meanings "emotion", and if that's our only experiential pipeline to God, then sure...

So, for you God cannot be both in and beyond our experience? — Janus

No, that's not true per my view. What made you think so?

If God cannot "escape the realm of experience" then he cannot be an independent entity at all, but would remain confined to the human feeling of his presence. — Janus

And I didn't say that; what made you assume I meant this?

I described how experience is unescapable. Pure and simple. I made no assumptions about how this relates to God, in that specific paragraph. I'd be happy to clear up the distinction and then move on to bringing in the problem of God into that reality.

If we think of God as the origin of our experience, of our very selves, then logically in that sense we need him more than he needs us. — Janus

No; why would that follow? Why assume that "created needs creator", and yet "creator needs not created"? I see no logical series there.

You wrote "God is essence". Then you gave it other names too, Being, Being Itself, Thing In itself, Ultimate reality etc. So, I took it that you identified them. For example, a thomist would not do that, he would identify essence as that by which something is what it is, so that he could argue, among lots of other things, that the world's essence is distinct from its existence, that is to say its existence is contingent, while God's essence is identical with Its existence, that is to say, God is His act of existence, Being itself, ipsum esse subsistens. To do that, he needed not just the concept of existence but that of essence as well. An option which is not open to you if you're going to use "essence" as just another name for Being. — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not a Thomist, so...I don't know. My concept still stands against what you're saying here, as far as I can see.

Why not what? — Πετροκότσυφας

You asked "why not" originally here, so you tell me.

but the difficult thing to do is to explain in understandable language (since you express these properties in language as well) what they mean and show why they apply to A and not to B. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right, it's difficult because it's impossible, because logic isn't the correct tool to use to apprehend the concept.

Or its bad usage. — Πετροκότσυφας

No, don't misquote. You said:

Or maybe what we have is use of language in a context where it's not meant to be used. — Πετροκότσυφας

To which I said:

Right...the limits of language... — Noble Dust

Clearly that is a generality and as such is not informative in the least. A doctor can tell you the exact process of human birth. That is to say, when he uses the name "birth" there's something specific this name refers to. So, if he uses a metaphor for "birth", I know where this metaphor ultimately refers to because I know where "birth" refers to. It's not referring just to another name (i.e how babies exit the womb), it refers to a specific process. — Πετροκότσυφας

What??? A metaphor describes a concept in non-literal terms, via equating two otherwise disparate concepts or objects. You're literally describing to me right now how a doctor can literally describe birth as a literal process. That has nothing to do with metaphor.

No, it's not. Unless you were using "metaphor" metaphorically. — Πετροκότσυφας

Existence, being, and metaphor all disagree with you, and that just based on a shallow Google search.

You're right, thank you. Edited.

God is known to us only as a feeling, however faint or profound. — Janus

Ok, I hate to play this card, but, in good faith, can you define "feeling" here? It would be helpful.

We develop our ideas about God from our feelings, imagination and intuitions and they can only be assessed in terms of their logical consistency. So, I think that, for example, purported logical proofs of God's existence are hopeless. — Janus

First, I don't quite agree, because I don't rule out the possibility of actual, real, connection with and/or direct experience of God. I'm reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism" currently (thanks to 's rec), and am feeling quite at home. But of course, it's hard to make a philosophical argument for the reality of direct experience of God...

But, that's exactly the reason why I agree with your second statement; logical proofs don't do much for me either, but for the reasons stated above.

So, I am not saying that God is thought to be a "kind of human feeling", but that he is, for us, a kind of feeling. — Janus

That's the same thing still. Look at those two phrases: "a kind of human feeling" and "he is, for us, a kind of feeling".

So, you have it quite the wrong way around here, I'm not beginning from an abstract concept at all. — Janus

Ok, I see that now, yes.

A God accessible only via experience may or may not "exist" or better, be, but this is not something discursively decidable in any case; rather it is something we either feel or do not, and thus have faith in or do not. — Janus

I agree, except that I always place priority on experience. Because, as I've attempted to argue many times, experience is reality. Nothing escapes the realm of experience, not even logical proofs for or against God's existence; not even discursive reasoning to bolster an argument for or against. The strongest logical proofs from the most brilliant minds are still mere moments in the constant stream of experience.

Somehow, it doesn't seem odd to say that God loves us, but it does to say that he needs us. I think this is a bias due to our Christian heritage. — Janus

It is. It took me quite awhile to accept my nagging intuition that God has need for man.

I'm not arguing for Spinoza's conception of God, though; I think it is too much based on logic and not enough on affect. — Janus

I agree. It's murky territory, though. Viewing God as Being which emanates existence (of which we are a part), it's easier to imagine not that God needs us and us him/her (logically), but rather that we are literally a generative aspect of the divine, thus inseparable. So the concept of "need" sort of falls flat, and it's rather an inexorable teleological movement towards irresistible future Union. Love isn't so much the mechanism of that movement, then, but rather a description of that irresistible movement.

Because of the seemingly unnecessary identification of otherwise distinct concepts (essence-being), which could perform different functions in the argument. — Πετροκότσυφας

Unnecessary identification with what? I don't understand this sentence. "Essence-being" is (are?) otherwise distinct concepts, except for how I'm using them? Are you saying my usage is blurring the distinction? I honestly can't tell.

And why can't we just claim that there are multiple gods or that the universe is eternal, self-caused, necessary or some such? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't know; why not?

What does your version of God (Being) explains that can't be explained by the other options? — Πετροκότσυφας

It's robust, as ol' VagabondSpectre would say. A single, infinite, eternal, primordial, free, un-grounded Being which is the emanator of existence. It's actually a deceptively simple idea. Our Western obsession with categorization, definition, and splintering of abstract concepts gets in the way of experiencing how "omni" the concept is.

Or maybe what we have is use of language in a context where it's not meant to be used. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right...the limits of language...

But even if we accept that it's a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? — Πετροκότσυφας

For how the known universe came into existence. Clearly...

If the metaphor is all we have, we don't seem to have much. — Πετροκότσυφας

No; metaphor is the basis and structure of language itself. That means it's the structure of how we perceive the world through experience.

To be honest, I'm not sure if it's language that becomes inadequate or if it's just inadequate use of language. — Πετροκότσυφας

Can you describe why you think that?

According to you, existence emanates from being itself. Can you describe what that means? — Πετροκότσυφας

God (Being) creates (emanates) existence (the universe).

You wrote "The problem here is that we have trouble imagining existence as an emanation from essence without conceptualizing "emanation" as an action; thus something that happens within time. But if we imagine that essence gives birth to the entire physical universe as we know". — Πετροκότσυφας

Right, that wasn't consisent; "gives birth to" is a metaphor though; it can still work. What I was illustrating is that language here always presupposes a physical apparatus when trying to describe existence emanating from being. All that's needed is to acknowledge the limitation and be conscious of it; that's why "gives birth to" is a valid metaphor, but only if we're both aware that its only a metaphor. The limits of language, again.

But it doesn't seem to work. You can only find out if "it leads to "God"", if you assume the abstract concept of God in the first place. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why?

Then, there is another problem. Your last sentence, which refers to God's existence — Πετροκότσυφας

An inconsistency of terms, yes.

The only definition of "essense" that I have in the back of my mind is that of the aristotelian tradition, since that's where Wayfarer takes it from. In short, it's definition usually comes in the form of: "that by which something is what it is". — Πετροκότσυφας

Right. For my own conception, I would take it further and say that essence is Being itself. See how language becomes inadequate here? Now we're moving unto Wittgenstein's slippery ice, which is the same as the Christian Mystic's "ungrund", etc...

But what you do here is substitute "emanates from" with "gives birth to", so the problem does exist, because we conceptualise birth as action too. — Πετροκότσυφας

What? Nowhere in that quote did I substitute "emanates from" with "gives birth to".

For it to point there you have to already be aware of this metaphysical reality somehow. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right; see my comments to John about an experiential apprehension of God. I've argued nothing else.

No; the gap between philosophy and religion/mysticism needs to be bridged; tell the kids to keep off your lawn, and nothing will ever change.

I used "begs the question", not with its logical fallacy meaning, but as an idiomatic phrase which means that a specific claim leads to a specific question. I'm not a native speaker, so if that's not really an acceptable phrase, my apologies. — Πετροκότσυφας

No problem, I just assumed you meant the logical fallacy. But, what you're describing instead just sounds like a request for a definition of terms, which I tentatively offered.

This seems more like another name, not as a definition which explains the term by description. — Πετροκότσυφας

Ah, but now you seem to be "begging the question" by your own definition of that phrase. :) How would you go about defining "essence"? And if you have no definition, why critique mine? I ask that in good faith. In other words, you seem to either have a definition in mind yourself, or you have a reason for why you're interested in the question itself, despite not having a definition in mind. I'd like to hear either one, whichever it is. It would probably bring some clarity.

Surely, it seems like the category of existence can't apply to it, since it is prior to existence, but "prior" seems to be commonsensically understood in relation to existence. — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't use the word "prior" because it erroneously suggests that time is a component of the relationship between essence and existence. The problem here is that we have trouble imagining existence as an emanation from essence without conceptualizing "emanation" as an action; thus something that happens within time. But if we imagine that essence gives birth to the entire physical universe as we know it (3 dimensions, plus time as the so-called 4th dimension), then the problem doesn't exist; existence is, then, the given reality of the physical world.

So, it seems to me that, either this emanation you talk about is nonsensical (i.e. language fails) — Πετροκότσυφας

No; I don't equate the failure of language with "nonsense". The failure of language points to the metaphysical reality that I'm describing above.

or emanation is not temporal or causal in any way, but rather essence is a logical category immanent to the empirical world — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, as I argued above, emanation isn't temporal or casual; however, because I don't understand your conflation of "language failing" and "nonsense", I'm not sure how "essence" as a "logical category immanent to the empirical world" follows, although it sounds interesting.

Sure, the issue is actually that we're dealing with the most fundamental of fundamentals. But that's not begging the question; I'm not using a premise to support itself, for instance. What's actually happening is that language begins to fail here.

I'll offer a possible definition of essence: Ultimate Reality; the thing itself.

And a definition of existence: the creative emanation form essence. Our experience of existence, then, is largely an experience of the physical world, which is the creative emanation from essence.

Of course, then I would need to define "creative".

I guess it is supposed to explain the contingency of the world's existence by identifying God's existence with his essence, whereas our existence and essence are distinct. — Πετροκότσυφας

I would re-order those terms to say that: God is essence; existence emanates from God (essence). The physical world, and we humans, are existenants; emanations.

So I wouldn't assign existence and essence as separate concepts that apply to both God and us, but in apparently different ways. Rather, essence (God) -> existence (world).

Can you explain "Being" for us, then?

God then is a kind of human feeling. — Janus

God isn't so much a human feeling in this view (the experiential view), but rather the human feeling is pointing to the reality of God. By drawing the conclusion that "God is a kind of human feeling", you're beginning with the abstract concept of God and assigning it to "human feeling" instead of actually beginning with that feeling and experientially exploring whether it leads to "God". In other words, you (I think unintentionally) are setting up a straw man in which a God only accessible via experience can't actually exist in the first place.

I don't believe an orthodox Cristian would say that God needs the world. — Janus

You're correct, they wouldn't. The theology of sin, punishment, heaven and hell all prevent this concept from being acceptable.

Actually, it's fascinating to apply the concept of "need" to God. God is said to be Love itself, for instance; perfect, unconditional love. How do Love and Need interact?

being omnipotent God could end the world in a heartbeat if He so willed. — Janus

I've never understood the point of these hypotheticals about God. What's so compelling about this idea? If he did in fact end the world in a heartbeat, we wouldn't even be around to figure out what's so compelling... :-d

I think the idea that the world is a gratuitous creation is liberating, somehow. — Wayfarer

How so?

Originally from the Midwest, living in NYC. Attempting a career as a musical artist and failing royally. Interested these days mostly in mysticism, religion, ethics, aesthetics...

No; I did.

I doubt you personally would need to do so.

I wouldn't know..

Seemingly docile, secretly angry, brooding, bullshit stereotypical Scorpio over here...

:-d

Hi, I'm NB, and I have no idea what I'm talking about!

I think your missing his point.

(Y)

"How, then, may we know this [eternal] Life, this creative and original soul of things, in which we are bathed; in which, as in a river, swept along? Not, says Bergson bluntly, by any intellectual means. The mind which thinks it knows Reality because it has made a diagram of Reality, is merely the dupe of it's own categories. The intellect is a specialized aspect of the self, a form of consciousness: but specialized for very different purposes than those of metaphysical speculation. Life has evolved it in the interests of life; has made it capable of dealing with "solids", with concrete things...outside of them it becomes dazed, uncertain of itself; for it is no longer doing it's natural work, which is to /help/ life, not to /know/ it. In the interests of experience, and in order to grasp perceptions, the intellect breaks up experience, which is in reality a continuous stream, an incessant process of change and response with no separate parts, into purely conventional "moments", "periods", or psychic "states". It picks out from the flow of reality those bits which are significant for human life; which "interest" it, catch it's attention. From these it makes up a mechanical world in which it dwells, and which seems quite real until it is subjected to criticism. It does, says Bergson, the work of a cinematograph: takes snapshots of something which is always moving, and by means of these successive static representations - none of which are real, because Life, the object photographed, never was at rest - it recreates a picture of life, of motion. This rather jerky representation of divine harmony, from which innumerable moments are left out, is useful for practical purposes: but it is not reality, because it is not alive." Evelyn Underhill - Mysticism

Right, but this is precisely the fun, the challenge in business and in life. I keep thinking that if I was born a rich kid, with everything at my fingertips, what fun would life be? There would be no challenge, no iron-fisted demand upon my creativity and my intellect, nothing to apply myself to, nothing to challenge me. But having to start from literarily nothing - what an adventure. To have all forces opposed to you, and overcome them using your determination, intelligence, creativity and faith... that is truly a great life, and you discover who you really are in the process. You discover tremendous inner strength that you never knew you had before. You learn to trust in a force greater than yourself. — Agustino

I don't think fighting against all odds to be a successful businessman is analogous to the fight to free the creative impulse from worldly constraints; The one moves horizontally on the worldly plane, and the other attempts to move vertically out of it.

I agree, but even us super-methodical people need creativity. — Agustino

Yeah, a balance is probably best. I was just saying the fad of being a "creative" in the business world won't last. But creative problem-solving will always be needed, sure. As to people getting by without a methodical approach, they must just be more intuitive; they can envision the outcome and intuit the easiest way to get there. But that also probably takes experience; I doubt that ability is innate.

I think the creative approach to business is popular in Western culture thanks to the cult of Steve Jobs and his ilk; there's a whole informal movement of millenials who call themselves "creatives" (hate that word, but I guess I need to accept the constant evolution of language), who follow in his footsteps; trying to use creativity for business, and often capitalistic ends. It's actually ironic, in my view. It's essentially a bastardization of the creative impulse; it tethers that impulse to a worldly goal rather than allowing that impulse to go it's natural course. But then, the art world, music industry, etc., are all run by big money, and increasingly so. So the creative urge seems always to be "imprisoned".

Anyway, when it comes to practical business, I think a methodical approach works better. The shop I work in is run by people who are new to the wine business, and they're full of creative ideas, most of which are just bad business ideas. I've seen it before. The general sense I get is that someone like Jobs really was a unique, genius-level businessman, but now that cult of personality has made his approach mainstream in the world of young entrepreneurs. It's the same principle of a great artist like Miles Davis coming unto the scene, fearlessly changing the face of jazz (several times), and then basically leaving the art form lifeless in his wake; jazz became mainstream and died. So when it comes to making money, the creative approach to business will probably fizzle out relatively soon.

Children, children..

Finished Philip K Dick's VALIS last night. That shit is whack.

Do you guys have recs for more reading material on mysticism? I feel like I've asked you that before, Wayfarer.

Because we are already in a state of union, so yes the goal is awareness. — MysticMonist

And so the reason to strive for this awareness is because it's the "real" reality? It's a pursuit after truth?

I've also asked myself what "spiritual" means to me. Well, if it's not intellectual, emotional, perceptual, or physical, what does that leave? The answer that works for me is that "spiritual" refers to awareness. — T Clark

I think spiritual refers to the "inner"; the same principle of hidden (esoteric) knowledge. Awareness is the state of conciousness where the hidden is revealed for what it is. That sounds kind of new-agey, but I think it's consistent.

Right; esoteric (hidden) vs. exoteric (visible) knowledge.

There is just too much knowledge. Becoming proficient in a single field is the work of many years. No one sees the machine as a whole anymore. It's impossible. — t0m

Yes, this is important.

But really if I’m a true monist, everything already is united with God. So much so that something as mundane as a stroke to the correct part of the brain, taking LSD, or staring at a wall long enough will reveal this to pretty much anyone. — MysticMonist

So is conciousness of this absolute state of union the goal for you?

Is this state of union dependent on conciousness apprehending it?