Post Reply
Page 1 of 31  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next
Switch to Forum Live View -O- is and the rest is commentary.
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 1:19AM #1
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

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?

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 2:58AM #2
Namchuck
Posts: 11,871

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 3:52AM #3
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

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.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 4:04AM #4
Namchuck
Posts: 11,871

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?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 4:09AM #5
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

Jun 1, 2011 -- 4:04AM, Namchuck wrote:


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?





That could be misplaced concreteness as well.


 


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 7:53AM #6
Seefan
Posts: 3,971

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 ...


 

Today the one overriding need is unity and harmony among the beloved of the Lord, for they should have among them but one heart and soul and should, so far as in them lieth, unitedly withstand the hostility of all the peoples of the world ... (Baha'i Writings)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 1:46PM #7
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

What qualities does -o- have ?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 3:48PM #8
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

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.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 3:52PM #9
Neomonist
Posts: 2,705

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.


 

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2011 - 7:25PM #10
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 31  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook