Jun 1, 2011 -- 1:19AM, Neomonist wrote:

Namchuck made a comment that I felt deserves its own thread.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

Jun 1, 2011 -- 3:52AM, Neomonist wrote:

Jun 1, 2011 -- 2:58AM, Namchuck wrote:

Jun 1, 2011 -- 1:19AM, Neomonist wrote:

Namchuck made a comment that I felt deserves its own thread.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

 

Because it could be imaginary and you might be deceiving yourself. But it seems harmless enough.

The images are imaginary. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness comes to mind.

 

Maybe -O- is not?

Jun 1, 2011 -- 1:19AM, Neomonist wrote:

Namchuck made a comment that I felt deserves its own thread.

Fair enough, but, although you appear committed to the concept, you don't outline what you think God, or -O-, amounts to.

One of my favorite saying is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that -O- is; I could care less about what -O- is. When you start talking about the whatness of -O-, you reduce -O- to thingness.

I’m not saying the commentary is useless. We humans use symbolic language to get our ideas across and we forget that the symbol is not the symbolized.

My question is this:

Why do we need to know what -O- is with the same precision we know 1+1=2?

If you didn't seek knowledge concerning God you would not be where you are now in your understanding, even if that understanding is that you don't understand much and much of what you do understand is very undeveloped and is very limited ...

Jun 1, 2011 -- 7:53AM, Seefan wrote:

If you didn't seek knowledge concerning God you would not be where you are now in your understanding, even if that understanding is that you don't understand much and much of what you do understand is very undeveloped and is very limited ...

My knowledge of -O- is limited to what -O- is like, I know nothing about what -O- is.

Jun 1, 2011 -- 3:52PM, Neomonist wrote:

Jun 1, 2011 -- 1:46PM, williejhonlo wrote:

What qualities does -o- have ?

"have" seems to me to be the wrong way of looking at it. -O- is compassion rather than having compassion.

 

The way i see it, compassion is not something impersonal.