I don’t see the idea of God as the “All-Inclusive-Whole” discussed here. I’ve read quite a bit of Ken Wilbur’s ideas in the past, and appreciate his concept of a “holonic universe” or a universe consisting of holons that are both wholes and included as parts within a whole, emerging from a hierarchy of transcending and including wholes. At least that’s what I remember. 🤔 I think this concept also makes sense of the idea that “God is love” where love is defined as the inclusion of the other in one’s self.
Excellent! A post that seems to give life to, and represent “That-Which-It-Discusses”! It could be easy to get lost in “the Universe-like” infinite depth of thoughts this creates. However, it didn’t make me fearful, or lost. Instead, I feel somewhat energized by the “amipotent nature(Thank you Thomas Ord) of that which we seek to inspire us to great goodness and joy! Thank you!
While intrigued and moved by what I understand of Spinoza’s ideas, I resonated with your reservations around his usage of “God or Nature” and for the same reasons. This seems the classic ontological issue of confounding a term for whatever it is intended to identify. The term God has all the anthropomorphic and even gender associations you describe, at least for those of us raised in the Abrahamic faiths.
It is simple math to identify the set of All That Is as One. Any personal God, however powerful, could only be a subset. Knowing its grievous limitations, reasoning is still the best tool I possess for figuring this out. This leaves me in the camp of Lao Tsu, who does not refer to God, tells us words are inadequate to describe the Way Things Are (then uses many words to try), Plotinus who maybe uses too many words, but who seems to have a handle on things, and hero Spinoza, though every time he refers to God, I say Tao, or All That Is, or actively dissociate it from the big fellow with the book and the beard, busily consigning people to eternal suffering.
When reading the Torah, there is a Jewish sect that does not speak the word “Yahweh” out loud, because just to speak the word would make God to small.
I like that. Anything we speak can only be a projection, a hope or wish, a story or dogma. As human beings we always seem to need to fill the void. The void of possibility, only experienced within silence.
I personally fall in the pantheistic,universal consciousness camp. I resonate most with the Taoists or people who say god is nature. I really like the idea that god is a verb as well, it makes sense. The universe is god experiencing itself, humans are just one of the many ways in which its will manifests on this material plane.
I don’t see the idea of God as the “All-Inclusive-Whole” discussed here. I’ve read quite a bit of Ken Wilbur’s ideas in the past, and appreciate his concept of a “holonic universe” or a universe consisting of holons that are both wholes and included as parts within a whole, emerging from a hierarchy of transcending and including wholes. At least that’s what I remember. 🤔 I think this concept also makes sense of the idea that “God is love” where love is defined as the inclusion of the other in one’s self.
Thanks for this good essay, Jim!
I explored a similar question in an essay recently if you are interested :) ttps://ahlamk.substack.com/p/faith-without-a-framework-a-framework
Excellent! A post that seems to give life to, and represent “That-Which-It-Discusses”! It could be easy to get lost in “the Universe-like” infinite depth of thoughts this creates. However, it didn’t make me fearful, or lost. Instead, I feel somewhat energized by the “amipotent nature(Thank you Thomas Ord) of that which we seek to inspire us to great goodness and joy! Thank you!
Thomas Oord (sorry)
One of your best!!!
While intrigued and moved by what I understand of Spinoza’s ideas, I resonated with your reservations around his usage of “God or Nature” and for the same reasons. This seems the classic ontological issue of confounding a term for whatever it is intended to identify. The term God has all the anthropomorphic and even gender associations you describe, at least for those of us raised in the Abrahamic faiths.
It is simple math to identify the set of All That Is as One. Any personal God, however powerful, could only be a subset. Knowing its grievous limitations, reasoning is still the best tool I possess for figuring this out. This leaves me in the camp of Lao Tsu, who does not refer to God, tells us words are inadequate to describe the Way Things Are (then uses many words to try), Plotinus who maybe uses too many words, but who seems to have a handle on things, and hero Spinoza, though every time he refers to God, I say Tao, or All That Is, or actively dissociate it from the big fellow with the book and the beard, busily consigning people to eternal suffering.
When reading the Torah, there is a Jewish sect that does not speak the word “Yahweh” out loud, because just to speak the word would make God to small.
I like that. Anything we speak can only be a projection, a hope or wish, a story or dogma. As human beings we always seem to need to fill the void. The void of possibility, only experienced within silence.
I personally fall in the pantheistic,universal consciousness camp. I resonate most with the Taoists or people who say god is nature. I really like the idea that god is a verb as well, it makes sense. The universe is god experiencing itself, humans are just one of the many ways in which its will manifests on this material plane.
After the tsunami in 2004, this TED talk addressed the issue. https://youtu.be/2wdkxdiOFJA?si=QDGS_lwQLkmWsesi