"both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems.

Pretty much sums it up. Might as well throw a few flat earthers in there, to get the debate going

Sure, but I’m not asking for explanations of the world or reality. I’m asking how people defend and describe more philosophical accounts of God. — Tom Storm

From the OP reference to Classical Theism*1, I assumed that you wanted to revisit Catholic Scholasticism from the 12th to 16th centuries CE --- before pragmatic Science began to encroach on church authority for "explanations of the world or reality". But, as a non-catholic, I have little knowledge or interest in those biblical theological accounts of God. Hence, I focused on more relevant modern explanations of the metaphysical ground of physical reality.

However, there was another "classical" era of non-biblical God-philosophy, when the Greek philosophers --- 5th to 6th centuries BCE --- argued in favor of functional & non-anthro-morphic notions of deity. And most modern accounts of God/Reality/Mind --- Idealism, Panpsychism, etc. --- are merely ancient notions, up-dated to include scientific support for metaphysical god/mind concepts.

But modern defenses of the God-postulate can't compete against materialistic scientific concepts of reality by using only "sophisticated" idealistic "philosophical accounts". Today, even religious defenders feel it's necessary to address the Post-Quantum worldview in order to seem knowledgeable & believable. Otherwise, even pre-Newton idealistic God arguments appear to be just more "mystical or esoteric woo"*2.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my own more up-to-date interests. :smile:


*1. Excerpt from OP :
"I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism. I suppose this might take us back to classical theism, as opposed to a more contemporary theological personalism."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15883/more-sophisticated-philosophical-accounts-of-god/p1

*2. But surely, today, idealism seems like a bit of a silly idea. Considering that we understand the material basis of reality, proposing an ontological relevance for consciousness appears like mystical or esoteric woo and certainly not a serious concept to entertain. Moreover, we suspect that the brain creates consciousness. Remarkably, however, idealism is experiencing a renaissance in science and philosophy. How can this be possible? ___ James B Glattfelder
https://medium.com/@jnode/idealism-a-consciousness-only-view-of-reality-c062fcd05091

I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my own more up-to-date interests. :smile: — Gnomon

No need to apologize, it's expected on forums that people can only respond based on their own experiences or level of understanding, so mismatches in responses are common. That's part of the charm.

But, as a non-catholic, I have little knowledge or interest in those biblical theological accounts of God. — Gnomon

I'm not a Catholic either. But I did say this in the OP -

No doubt this idea of god's infinite, unknowable and divine essence could be said to overlap with other religious traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

Whether or not these accounts are ultimately persuasive, they at least ask different questions than those usually debated in popular discourse. — Tom Storm

I expected more references to Hinduism and Buddhism, but maybe these only appeal to a select group of older people, relics of the syncretic era (like me).

And most modern accounts of God/Reality/Mind --- Idealism, Panpsychism, etc. --- are merely ancient notions, up-dated to include scientific support for metaphysical god/mind concepts. — Gnomon

I think this is fair. It's sometimes not so much about up-to-date science, but rather focusing on gaps in science and the purported inconsistencies in traditional physicalist accounts, which, naturally, open the door to more speculative metaphysics. That's certainly how the indomitable and prolific Mr Kastrup does it.

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism?

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism?

I’ve found that people on this site are guarded about what they think about such a disputed issue. Or perhaps it’s that once they have read philosophy beyond a certain point, they only ever talk, or see things in accepted philosophical terms, or only use those terms. Like a straight jacket on accepted modes of thought, academia.

Whereas I come from the opposite direction, the apophatic approach. Where I am concerned with unlearning these things, negating intellectual contamination. Putting the mind in a box to one side and contemplating the issue through different means*. So I have a kind of straight jacket in that I can’t easily insert my thinking into these accepted philosophical terms.

We are left in a Mexican stand off.

So what to do, do I now have to become fluent in philosophy so that I can become the interpreter. Or do philosophers need to learn the more apophatic mysticism in the other direction to become the interpreter?

Fortunately Wayfarer has put in some of the hard yards in addressing this divide and provides valuable context in discussions. Although I see that he often finds himself under attic from the more physicalist elements of the forum.

There shouldn’t be this divide, especially in a world which is becoming increasingly divided.


*I know it seems counter intuitive to claim to negate thought, while relying on it. To put mind to one side, while continuing to use it. But this kind of approach is common in mystical practice. In the beginning it is more a case of cancelling out conditioning, such as the idea that God is an old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne. Then at a deeper level cancelling out the egocentric thoughts driven by human desire, self importance, envy, greed, selfishness etc. To reach a point of coming to terms with yourself, learning to collaborate, to work together. Followed by a deeper point, or crisis where one reaches an accommodation with your divine self, to collaborate with an idealised version of yourself. To become a conduit for the will of the divine.


There is a whole system and philosophy based around this approach. Which was brought to the West by Madame Blavatsky in the 19th century and became the Theosophical society. Unfortunately for a myriad of reasons she and other members of the Theosophical society became mired in controversy and were ostracised and mocked extensively, even now on this forum.

To become a conduit for the will of the divine. — Punshhh

As per Schopenhauer, how can any one/thing not always already be "a conduit for the will ..."?

how can any one/thing not always already be "a conduit for the will ..."?

The person, the person conditioned by society to behave in a certain way. You know like a Follower of Donald Trump, for example.

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism? — Tom Storm

I wasn't familiar with those technical terms, so I Googled Theistic Personalism*1. And that is definitely not anything like my own god-model, which is not Classic Theism, but more like Modern Deism : World Creator whose only miracle is the creation itself. Also, Apophatic Theology*2 seems most like abstruse medieval Scholasticism, which is of little interest to me. If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? One critique of such esoteric argumentation proposed a controversial but nonsensical question about nano-scale fairy-like angels*3. Both Theism and Mysticism view their God as a ghostly sovereign-in-the-sky commanding blind faith and obedient submission to the mysterious will & wishes of an invisible potentate, who loves you unconditionally. But that ain't for me.

On the other hand, my interest in God-models is more pragmatic & scientific, and similar to the causal & functional forces of Plato & Aristotle. For example, Big Bang cosmology and Quantum mechanics raised philosophical questions about Cosmic Origins and Mind/Matter relations. The classical Greeks postulated non-humanoid forces labelled as First Cause and Prime Mover. They also theorized, in metaphorical terms, on the relationship between Soul/Mind and Body/Matter (hyle/morph). So, their god-models were more philosophical & hypothetical than fearsome sky-lords to be worshiped in fear & trembling.

Apparently, those non-theological god-models are not what you were asking about in the OP. FWIW though, my own scientifically-sophisticated G*D-model has it's own technical term : PanEnDeism*4. :halo:



*1. Classical theism and theistic personalism are two distinct views on the nature of God, with theistic personalism emphasizing God's personal attributes and classical theism focusing on God's transcendence and aseity. Classical theism portrays God as the ultimate reality, the uncaused cause, and the source of all being, while theistic personalism views God as a person, albeit one with infinite perfections.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=theistic+personalism

*2. Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a way of understanding and approaching God by emphasizing what God is not, rather than what God is. It's closely linked to mysticism, particularly in Christian traditions, and stems from the belief that God's essence is ultimately unknowable and ineffable, exceeding human comprehension and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=apophatic+theology%2Fmysticism

*3. How many angels could dance on the head of a pin : The phrase was originally used in a theological context by 17th-century Protestants to mock medieval scholastics such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. Whether medieval scholastics really discussed the topic is, however, a matter of debate. The suggestion is possibly an early modern invention that was intended to discredit scholastic philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

*4.Panendeism, a relatively new theological term, combines aspects of pantheism and deism. It proposes that God is both immanent within the universe (like pantheism) and transcendent beyond it (like deism), but that God also becomes the universe itself while remaining greater than it. Essentially, it suggests that the universe is a part, but not the whole, of God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Panendeism%2C+a+relatively+new+term%2C

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon

No one here "debates" ... "God". It's just that many folks spout fallacious apologia of their preferred, effable woo (e.g. "God", "First Cause", "Intelligent Designer" ... "Programmer / Enformer", etc) which we must call-out as, at best, unwarranted (i.e. incoherent). Expressed doubt – critique – is not "debate"; besides, I've found that woo-of-the-gapsters (like you, Gnomon & ... e.g. @Wayfarer) are too chickensh*t to actually debate (about) their "God"-idea and would rather "waste time" preaching question-begging "mysteries" to us rather than defeasibly reasoning with us.

Where did Armstrong say that all questions should be deferred to science? — Relativist

What does modern science have to say about the nature of man? There are, of course, all sorts of disagreements and divergencies in the views of individual scientists. But I think it is true to say that one view is steadily gaining ground, so that it bids fair to become established scientific doctrine. This is the view that we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms. — The Nature of Mind, p1

Doesn't leave a lot of room for equivocation.

Both Theism and Mysticism view their God as a ghostly sovereign-in-the-sky commanding blind faith and obedient submission to the mysterious will & wishes of an invisible potentate, who loves you unconditionally. — Gnomon

I think you'll find that the God of mystics doesn't conform to such a stereotype at all, which, for many, is precisely the attraction. Take the God of Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic mystic: his God defies categorization and theology and is more a presence to be encountered in silence than a figure to be obeyed or even defined.

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon

That's the standard question posed by critics (ususally materialists) of this account: at the very least, a dignified Wittgensteinian silence, is often recommended. The ineffable is, of course, to those who believe, experienced through mystical insight and contemplation, so it's not something readily put into words. But there's plenty of respectable literature on the subject.

So you interpret, "we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms" to mean "all questions should be deferred to science".

That's not the way I read it. In the next paragraph, he writes:

"For me, then, and for many philosophers who think like me, the moral is clear. We must try to work out an account of the nature of mind which is compatible with the view that man is nothing but a physico-chemical mechanism.

"And... I shall be concerned to do just this: to sketch (in barest outline) what may be called a Materialist or Physical account of the mind."

So he's not deferring to science to answer the question of what the "nature" of mind is- he's drawing the conclusion as a philosopher. And his account merely aims to show that mental activity is consistent with physicalism (a philosophical hypothesis).

By my reading, the "complete account of man" is strictly a defense of the hypothesis that everything about men is reducible to "physico-chemical mechanism". In his book, "A Materialist Theory on Mind" he even hedges on reductionism.

So he's not deferring to science to answer the question of what the "nature" of mind is- he's drawing the conclusion as a philosopher. And his account merely aims to show that mental activity is consistent with physicalism (a philosophical hypothesis). — Relativist

But all of his work is based on the presumption that science is the definitive source of knowledge for what the mind might be. It's a philosophy based on solely on science, rightly criticized as 'scientism' ' the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to understand the world and gain knowledge'.

Yes, but he does not say that science answers all questions. Scientific knowledge is a superior authority, because it's the only methodology that reaches "an intellectual consensus about controversial matters... [Armstrong] concludes that it is the scientific image of man, and not the philosophical or religious or artistic or moral vision of man, that is the best clue we have to the nature of man".

His scope is limited to outlining the "nature of man". He's not denying some use for the philosophical/religious/artistic/moral aspects of man- his only (indirect) criticism is the accurate observation that the resulting controversies will remain perpetually unsettled. So, indeed, one cannot claim to achieve knowledge in that way.

His scope is limited to outlining the "nature of man". — Relativist

But the point stands. He starts his book Materialist Philosophy of Mind with the assertion that man is an object, which is wrong on so many levels that it’s not even worth discussing.

It seems to me that everything that exists is an object, so I don't see an issue.

I think you'll find that the God of mystics doesn't conform to such a stereotype at all, which, for many, is precisely the attraction. Take the God of Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic mystic: his God defies categorization and theology and is more a presence to be encountered in silence than a figure to be obeyed or even defined. — Tom Storm

Yes. I'm aware that Mysticism has always been on the periphery of official Catholicism. But if mystics want to remain on good terms with officialdom, they must at least pay lip service to stereotyped Catholic doctrine & creeds.

All I know of mysticism comes not from personal ecstatic experiences, but from reading Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism (1911) from cover to cover. She seems to view mysticism as a practical form of philosophy, instead of a religion in itself. From that perspective, it seems closer to Tantric Buddhism than to Catholicism.

Mystics through the centuries have felt that they could communicate directly to God or Jesus or Saints without going through the political authority of the pope. So, their free-thinking & behaving sometimes got them in trouble with the church hierarchy*1. Protestant mystics, such as Pentecostals & Charismatics are already divorced from the Pope, and some may consider themselves non-creedal. But as Christians, they still have some basic (sterotyped) beliefs that form the core of their religious practice. Since I am neither Catholic nor Mystic, my view of those beliefs & practices is Objective instead of Subjective. :smile:


*1. Individualist Mystics vs collective Church :
Mystics, individuals who seek a direct, personal experience of the divine, have often faced opposition and persecution from established religious institutions, including the Christian Church. This tension arises because mystics' direct access to God can be seen as a challenge to the authority and hierarchical structures of the Church.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mystics+oppressed+by+church

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon
That's the standard question posed by critics (ususally materialists) of this account: at the very least, a dignified Wittgensteinian silence, is often recommended. The ineffable is, of course, to those who believe, experienced through mystical insight and contemplation, so it's not something readily put into words. But there's plenty of respectable literature on the subject. — Tom Storm

Yes. That may be why you seldom find Mystics posting on philosophy forums. Of course, a few mystics --- e.g. Meister Eckhart --- have attempted to translate their sublime experiences into mundane words. Unfortunately, as I have often noted on this forum, the English language is essentially Materialistic. So, the translations from abstract to concrete (metaphors, parables) are subject to variable interpretations. Ironically, some of my own posts that touch on immaterial or transcendent concepts are treated with sarcasm as mystical woo-woo. So, I can sympathize with mystics, even though I can't empathize with their sublime experiences. :cool:

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum?

The ineffable God* can be known, understood and experienced by being it, in mysticism. Just not directly, It is done by it being witnessed, known through the experience of it and one becomes it, through the mystical practice. None of these means relies on intellectual, thought, or understanding, but rather a direct knowing, or knowledge of it.

That may be why you seldom find Mystics posting on philosophy forums. Of course, a few mystics --- e.g. Meister Eckhart --- have attempted to translate their sublime experiences into mundane words.

I am happy to attempt this, but it may not bear fruit. Who knows?


*as Tom Storm says, the God of mysticism is not that described in religious teachings. It may not be an overarching demiurge, it may be something more mundane, or something else unexpected. The important thing is that it is accessed through the self, the being of the self. Not externally, although, this is not to mean it can’t be known, witnessed, or experienced, externally. But that if this were to happen it would be an external [to the self] intervention.

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum?
The ineffable God* can be known, understood and experienced by being it, in mysticism. Just not directly, It is done by it being witnessed, known through the experience of it and one becomes it, through the mystical practice. None of these means relies on intellectual, thought, or understanding, but rather a direct knowing, or knowledge of it. — Punshhh

I am aware of how Mysticism is supposed to work. But I am not a mystic, by religious training, or by natural inclination, and I've never taken Psychedelic drugs, or Entheogens. So, I am not qualified to discuss mystical experiences on this forum.

I am however, able to imagine things that are not material objects, such as abstract concepts, laws of logic, mathematical principles, moral values, and a hypothetical transcendental First Cause of our contingent reality. But, even for theoretical philosophical purposes, I prefer to stay safely on the side of common sensory experience, instead of unusual extra-sensory percepts, whether directly or indirectly known.

I find that almost all Western languages are based on concrete experiences, so discussing knowledge & notions that are "more real" than physical reality tend to bog-down quickly. And I have been accused of propagating woo-woo nonsense when I attempt to discuss the possibility of a transcendent god-like entity that I have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat, where many people can have similar experiences, and then discuss their Jaguar exploits in the spirit world with others who will understand what you are talking about? :smile:

Scientific knowledge is a superior authority, because it's the only methodology that reaches "an intellectual consensus about controversial matters... [Armstrong] concludes that it is the scientific image of man, and not the philosophical or religious or artistic or moral vision of man, that is the best clue we have to the nature of man". — Relativist

:100:

↪Wayfarer It seems to me that everything that exists is an object, so I don't see an issue. — Relativist

:up:

And I have been accused of propagating woo-woo nonsense when I attempt to discuss the possibility of a transcendent god-like entity that I have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, it’s unfortunate, we are on a site populated by people who have studied academic philosophy, wherein the current zeitgeist is critical of what has been deemed woo. Not without good reason, though, because there is a lot of woo out there. But when it comes to shooting down people who have a genuine interest and are prepared to exercise some critical analysis, I think it goes a bit too far on occasion.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat, where many people can have similar experiences, and then discuss their Jaguar exploits in the spirit world with others who will understand what you are talking about?

No, although I did have a few similar exploits in my youth, I don’t seek out people so as to discuss the finer detail of the issue, simply because they are as rare as hens teeth. Taking strong hallucinogenics isn’t a mystical experience, although it does free the self from some, or many of the constraints of an ordinary life, temporarily. However the person taking them is experiencing something akin to a rollercoaster ride. With no idea, or understanding of what’s happening. The guides administering the drugs, know little more than them, and are there to help them ride the waves, peaks and troughs of the experience.

I see the use of drugs in this as a way of helping people to begin to free themselves from their conditioning and give them an understanding of the extent of the conditioning. But after that initial experience the drugs are a hindrance and best left alone. They are destructive to the health of body and mind and can cause atrophy in the parts of of the being specifically required to make further progress.

This is interesting in that it might help to explain what is involved by contrasting what I’m describing with the experience of someone taking one of these hallucinogenic drugs. Some mystical experiences are like the drugged state, such as the experience of a higher being, or presence (fitting the preferred, spiritual teaching). Or a feeling of being outside of the body, or feelings of peace, silence, or visioning profound knowledge, or experiences. I think these are equivalent to the hallucinogenic experiences and are part of the process of freeing parts of the being from their conditioning and mental straight jacket. Rather like the opening of a flower from the tough outer casing of a bud.

However the difference being is that the person is usually following an established spiritual philosophy and ideology through which the experience can be both articulated intellectually and viewed and experienced as part of a social and cultural process of spiritual enlightenment, within a school. Surrounded by students and masters of different levels of development. This context is crucial because it provides fertile ground for a person to grow into knowledge and understanding and become one of the more advanced students sitting alongside them. This entire process is holistic and aspects of it can’t easily, or successfully be removed from it. Although I think one can beyond a certain point leave this setting and continue outside the school and in the world. Having already mastered, or developed the required skills to continue moving forward.

This context is crucial because it provides fertile ground for a person to grow into knowledge and understanding and become one of the more advanced students sitting alongside them. — Punshhh

:100: It's the essence of culture.

It's the essence of culture.

Quite. This involves direct oral communication and communication embibed by communion between people. Enabling understanding and knowledge not reliant or defined by intellectual discourse and prescription. But rather alongside it, with teaching involving experience and practice which has no intellectual content.

Some mystical experiences are like the drugged state, such as the experience of a higher being, or presence (fitting the preferred, spiritual teaching). Or a feeling of being outside of the body, or feelings of peace, silence, or visioning profound knowledge, or experiences. — Punshhh

Partly due to my austere non-mystical fundamentalist Christian religious up-bringing, and partly due to my rational pragmatic personality, I have never had any spiritual experiences, and I've never been drunk or high. Even my attempts at meditation were empty of special or sublime content. I also have no drugs to "expand" my mind, or social group or guru to "guide" my development.

However, my rational, science-based, philosophical explorations point to the possibility of some impersonal, non-miraculous, god-like power in the universe, similar to some forms of Idealism. This is not a personal experience, but merely an abstract statistical concept. So, much of this talk about "profound" experiences is outside of my first-hand range of knowledge.

Therefore, while I'm open to discussing "spiritual" notions, it's essentially a foreign language to me. I engage in philosophical threads like this, not from religious or spiritual motivations, but merely from intellectual curiosity. Hence, my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, seems alien to both materialists and spiritualists. And elicits mostly shrugs of incomprehension, or of ad hominem abuse on this forum. :cool:



Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. — Gnomon

Hasty generalization fallacy (re: "creation") derived from your poor physics (re: "beginning").

So, an infinite deity is proposed ...

Appeal to ignorance (i.e. "infinite deity"-of-the-gaps) AND THEREFORE a non-explanatory infinite regress.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat ... with others who will understand[understood] what you are talking[talked] about? — Gnomon

Yes, and that depends on what you mean by "understand". :fire:

I have no issue with Enformationism. It sounds like a useful theory and compatible with my way of seeing things. G*D being the crux of the issue, is unknown and unknowable*.
While I have an apophatic approach, I also leave wide open what a creator would entail, free from any preconceived ideas.

*while I agree that G*D, or the truths of our predicament are unknown, or unknowable. This does not mean that these things cannot be known, but only that they remain entirely unknown at this point. We don’t know if this information can, or cannot be known by humanity. So I remain open to the idea that this information could be provided at any time. Like a God imminent to us.

I have no issue with Enformationism. It sounds like a useful theory and compatible with my way of seeing things. G*D being the crux of the issue, is unknown and unknowable*.
While I have an apophatic approach, I also leave wide open what a creator would entail, free from any preconceived ideas. — Punshhh

Since my First Cause, Prime Mover, G*D is imagined as both transcendent and immanent, the only rmanifestation of G*D is the living Cosmos itself. Hence, empirical Science & theoretical Philosophy are our primary means of reading the revelation. Of course, those who "experience" G*D may prefer their holistic direct & personal knowledge over the piecemeal inferences & conjectures of the rational sciences. Unfortunately, I seem to be innately god-blind compared to the emotional & mystical sciences.

I can understand why some frustrated philosophers might turn to negative inferences when positive observations seem futile. For example, the Hindu notion of Brahman*1 is also unknowable by our mundane senses. But they seem to view the god/man relationship as a continuity, with the human soul as a "chip off the old block"*2, so to speak. And that metaphor may also apply to my own notion of a transcendent Mind who has transformed, for unknown reasons, abstract Potential into concrete Actual : our physical world. :smile:


*1. In Hindu philosophy, Brahman is often described as unknowable in the sense that it transcends human comprehension and cannot be fully grasped by the mind or described through language. While Brahman is considered the ultimate reality and the source of all existence, it is not an object that can be perceived or defined. . . .
The Upanishads use the phrase "neti neti" (not this, not this) to describe Brahman, emphasizing that it can only be understood by negating what it is not.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=brahman+unknowable

*2. "Chip off the old block" is an idiom used to describe someone who closely resembles their parent, either in character or appearance.

Unfortunately, I seem to be innately god-blind compared to the emotional & mystical sciences.

In mysticism it is accepted that one is god-blind(although some worship a subjective image, which they feel they know), but also acknowledged that one’s self is god, as, as you say the living cosmos is the manifestation of god. So one plays a game with oneself, reaffirming that one does know god, because one is god, so how could one not know it? Perhaps one is wearing blinkers, which one needs to take off. In a sense mysticism is how to do this.

But they seem to view the god/man relationship as a continuity, with the human soul as a "chip off the old block"*2, so to speak. And that metaphor may also apply to my own notion of a transcendent Mind who has transformed, for unknown reasons, abstract Potential into concrete Actual : our physical world.

Yes, I subscribe to the Hindu cosmogony, not literally, but in spirit.

acknowledged that one’s self is god, as, as you say the living cosmos is the manifestation of god. So one plays a game with oneself, reaffirming that one does know god, because one is god, so how could one not know it? — Punshhh

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, God is wholly other*1 (Holy), so to equate oneself with God would be blasphemy. Therefore, Christian Mystics have always been viewed as outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine. And, those who strive to remain on good terms with enforcers of orthodoxy, could never imagine themselves as a manifestation of God (Atman or son of God), or would hide it if they had such experiences.

Since my childhood religion was anti-catholic, I was never in the mainstream of monotheism, so didn't have to worry about being a heretic. Besides, I've never experienced the indwelling presence of God. Consequently, my philosophical notion of the human Soul/Self*3 as an instance of G*D substance (more like causal Energy than ghostly Spirit) is merely an intellectual knowing, with little or no emotional feeling. :nerd:


*1. "Wholly other" is a theological term, most notably used by Karl Barth, to describe God's radical transcendence and difference from all created things. It emphasizes God's complete otherness, beyond human comprehension and experience. This concept aims to safeguard God's transcendence against pantheistic views that might equate God with the universe or human experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=wholey+other

*2. Several Christian mystics have faced accusations of blasphemy, often stemming from their unique spiritual experiences and interpretations of Christian doctrine. Meister Eckhart, a 14th-century German mystic, was investigated for heresy, though he was never formally declared a heretic,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=christian+mystics+accused+of+blasphemy

*3. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
# This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
# In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That Algorithmic/Logical formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
# Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

both [non-immanent] and immanent — Gnomon

i.e. Y = "not-X + X" :eyes: :roll:

I've never experienced the indwelling presence of God. — Gnomon

Fwiw, we have this in common (although I do (often) feel – embody – what Schopenhauer calls "der Wille"). :smirk:

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, God is wholly other*1 (Holy), so to equate oneself with God would be blasphemy. Therefore, Christian Mystics have always been viewed as outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine. And, those who strive to remain on good terms with enforcers of orthodoxy, could never imagine themselves as a manifestation of God (Atman or son of God), or would hide it if they had such experiences.

It’s a contemplation technique, based on the idea that everything being an expression of God, and by implication is God, in essence. As to whether the person is God, or to what extent, that is not known. So when I think in this way, I’m not concluding that I am God, in that I can create things. But rather that somewhere in the self there is a connection to God, a conduit. But in order to channel that God the person would have reached the exhalted state of transfiguration like Jesus for example. So while I know I am a long way off any such stage of development, I consider that I am part of God and can allow myself to feel the comfort and communion of that realisation.

Such contemplation techniques allow one to free oneself from conditioning and enable one to mould one’s thought processes and ideas to those more condusive to spiritual development.

Consequently, my philosophical notion of the human Soul/Self*3 as an instance of G*D substance (more like causal Energy than ghostly Spirit) is merely an intellectual knowing, with little or no emotional feeling.

Yes, that’s fine, intellectual knowing is what we’re all here for (on this forum).