God???

[paco]

Genius is simply a mindframe; an inadvertent mindset that directs one to the nitty universe.

Totality is already fixed in that something called God is apprenhensible and geniunly friendly. One cannot deny there is a God unless it is in their nature to deny it. One could say[by all christian belief] " I have seen or been touched by God..." Which in turn, will only create friction between the believer and the nihilist.

God, in turn, only is debatable.

[Carl G]

God is apprenhensible and geniunly friendly

How do you ascertain this, how do you know it?

God, in turn, only is debatable.

In what sense? How do you define God? Obviously as an entity which can be friendly, which is a personal god, a person of sorts, right?

If God is apprehensible, what is there to debate?

Is God apprehensible? Is Totality apprehensible?

[brokenhead]

If God is apprehensible, what is there to debate?

Is God apprehensible? Is Totality apprehensible?

That God is apprehensible is open to debate. This can be seen time and again at this very website. I think God is apprehensible, and Totality is not. For me, this is a, maybe the, key distinction.

Totality in the strict philosophical sense cannot be said to exist and nor does it not exist. This is a description of the inapprehensible.

Yet God does not seem, to me at least, to be equally inapprehensible. This leads me to the logical conclusion that God and the Totality are not synonymous.

This does not take one closer to the concept of a definition for God. In a sense, if I pick a person I know and attempt to define that person, I find it impossible. I can describe but not define. Likewise, God may be described but not defined. This, if nothing else, leads to the notion that God is a person. If one believes, as I do, in a basic and unbiased way that there is a God as opposed to there not being a God (an ultimate source and center of all, including time and space itself), then the concept of God as a person is a convenience for relating to that God. Person-hood is the highest quality a thing can possess; a cat does not have it, nor does a pebble. Assuming that God possesses at least this quality makes sense in that regard; it also paves the way for developing a possible relationship with that God.

Immediately it will be argued that such a God is purely imaginary, much like a child's imaginary friend. Such an argument does not take into consideration that an adult mind is capable of distinguishing between the puerile and the non-puerile.

[Carl G]

My understanding is that here at Genius we define and describe God and Totality as the same.

[Robert]

My understanding is that here at Genius we define and describe God and Totality as the same.

So is my understanding also.

Totality in the strict philosophical sense cannot be said to exist and nor does it not exist. This is a description of the inapprehensible.

Yet God does not seem, to me at least, to be equally inapprehensible. This leads me to the logical conclusion that God and the Totality are not synonymous.

I don't see how you can't apprehend the Totality. Isn't that the point? Isn't that the whole exercise of trying to attain an apprehension of ultimate reality? Making this synonymous with God is wholly logical in my view. Anything less, and you divide God into something finite and lacking, or not deserving of the name God.

[paco]

My understanding is that here at Genius we define and describe God and Totality as the same.

So is my understanding also.

Totality in the strict philosophical sense cannot be said to exist and nor does it not exist. This is a description of the inapprehensible.

Yet God does not seem, to me at least, to be equally inapprehensible. This leads me to the logical conclusion that God and the Totality are not synonymous.

I don't see how you can't apprehend the Totality. Isn't that the point? Isn't that the whole exercise of trying to attain an apprehension of ultimate reality? Making this synonymous with God is wholly logical in my view. Anything less, and you divide God into something finite and lacking, or not deserving of the name God.

Ah! but, this ultimately deserves more understanding. Don't you see? You place yourself or are correlated into perfection by will. Please explain!

[Robert]

Explain what?

[brokenhead]

I don't see how you can't apprehend the Totality. Isn't that the point? Isn't that the whole exercise of trying to attain an apprehension of ultimate reality? Making this synonymous with God is wholly logical in my view. Anything less, and you divide God into something finite and lacking, or not deserving of the name God

I think the point of most exercise is trying to attain something you cannot, that is, having a goal that is beyond your reach and trying repeatedly to attain it. How can one apprehend something that does not exists, and yet does not not exist?

[Robert]

I think the point of most exercise is trying to attain something you cannot, that is, having a goal that is beyond your reach and trying repeatedly to attain it.

Hmm, that sounds a little fishy to me. Isn't that a definition of faith in something purely based on the ego? Where the actual object of your faith's direction is secondary (a God, a woman, a machine, a thing, whatever)?

How can one apprehend something that does not exists, and yet does not not exist?

The same way you can or can't apprehend how anything has ultimate existence.

[paco]

Explain what?

God creates man.

Man hurts God.

God deals with man.

Man questions God. Genesis, exodus, leviticus, etc.

[Robert]

Explain what?

God creates man.

Man hurts God.

God deals with man.

Man questions God. Genesis, exodus, leviticus, etc.

Man becomes God.

[brokenhead]

I think the point of most exercise is trying to attain something you cannot, that is, having a goal that is beyond your reach and trying repeatedly to attain it.

Hmm, that sounds a little fishy to me. Isn't that a definition of faith in something purely based on the ego? Where the actual object of your faith's direction is secondary (a God, a woman, a machine, a thing, whatever)?

How can one apprehend something that does not exists, and yet does not not exist?

The same way you can or can't apprehend how anything has ultimate existence.

Not fishy at all.

The totality is not something one can apprehend. You cannot perceive it directly, and you cannot form a concept of it because if you do, it must be at the expense of some other concept, which the totality would logically include, so therefore your concept of it must always logically be lacking, i.e., partial and therefore faulty.

This does not prevent you from trying, and the trying produces results. This is like exercise, physical training, as I tried to point out. A miler may train with a three-minute mile as his goal, but he will not achieve it. Yet the training makes him stronger and capable of producing his personal best result. It is not illogical to strive for what is beyond your grasp, as that may serve to lengthen your reach.

But more to the point, suppose I were to divide the totality in half. Each half would not be the totality, yet would be equally inapprehensible, as neither half could be perceived, nor could a conception be formed of either half.

Here the Forum Gods may say it is impossible to divide the totality in half. This would of course be nonsense. The Totality is not a thing, as it does not exist nor does it not. While not a thing, these philosophers have seen fit to assign it a definition: it is defined to be utterly everything. I am merely defining two equally non-things - let us call them Pretotality1 and Pretotality2 - that may be considered sets, the union of which is the Totality. For the union to be infinite, at least one of P1 and P2 must also be infinite. Logically, they both could be.

The question is begged: Do we now have two Gods?

The answer lies in trying to keep thinks logically consistent. The only way I can see to do this is to dispense with the notion that the Totality and God are one and the same.

As soon as God first created, he created that which was not God and imbued the Creation at his discretion.

Let Pretotality2 (P2) be a photon. Pretotality1 (P1) is no longer the Totality, but in what way is it different? It is equally infinite, equally inapprehensible (or more precisely, incomprehensible because it is all-comprehensive). Yet if one insists on equating the Totality with God, this P1 cannot be God because, and only because, it lacks a single photon.

To me, it is sloppy reasoning that leads one to conclude God and the Totality are one and the same. The reasoning is that one cannot come up with a conception of God, and one cannot come up with a conception of the Totality. Therefore, one is tempted to equate them.

But if we take our P1 and P2 both to be infinite, what is to stop us from identifying P1 with God and P2 with that which is not God? Such as to be able to view the Totality as consisting of that which is God and that which God has created to be not God?

If we do this, immediately the question arises as to the nature of our division. How have we decided what constitutes P1 and P2?

The answer is we cannot. But we need not. We need not know what God is to know what he is not. Our lives then become the exercise mentioned above, a constant striving with a goal in mind, a striving which may be for something always out of our reach but not our sights, a striving which makes us ever stronger.

[Robert]

The totality is not something one can apprehend. You cannot perceive it directly, and you cannot form a concept of it because if you do, it must be at the expense of some other concept, which the totality would logically include, so therefore your concept of it must always logically be lacking, i.e., partial and therefore faulty.

This does not prevent you from trying, and the trying produces results. This is like exercise, physical training, as I tried to point out. A miler may train with a three-minute mile as his goal, but he will not achieve it. Yet the training makes him stronger and capable of producing his personal best result. It is not illogical to strive for what is beyond your grasp, as that may serve to lengthen your reach.

Maybe it's a language difference. My use of the verb apprehend in this context of the Totality, in apprehending "it", means in understanding - or grasping the meaning of it - as a concept, a recognition of the idea of the All as a mental construction that we can make sense of. Obviously, we can't fully experience it in it's entirety, that isn't possible, but then can we fully experience anything in it's entirety? Could you say with absolute certainty that you experienced something to it's fullest? Would you say that the apprehension of A=A is an example of this, since it is perfectly logical and without fault?

To me, it is sloppy reasoning that leads one to conclude God and the Totality are one and the same. The reasoning is that one cannot come up with a conception of God, and one cannot come up with a conception of the Totality. Therefore, one is tempted to equate them.

Yet despite all the conceptions of both God and the Totality, equating them seems like the most radical thing that's ever been done! To me at least, only this apprehension of the two concepts makes any sense.

We need not know what God is to know what he is not. Our lives then become the exercise mentioned above, a constant striving with a goal in mind, a striving which may be for something always out of our reach but not our sights, a striving which makes us ever stronger.

I disagree. I need to know what God is, and what he's not. My ego demands it, it wants certainty. Now that I have an answer, I can let God live my life.

[brokenhead]

Obviously, we can't fully experience it in it's entirety, that isn't possible, but then can we fully experience anything in it's entirety? Could you say with absolute certainty that you experienced something to it's fullest? Would you say that the apprehension of A=A is an example of this, since it is perfectly logical and without fault?

The example of A=A is a good one. Yet because it is without fault, it has ramifications which make it dubious that one could experience it in its entirety. I just meant that the uniqueness of the Totality renders discourse about it suspect. The Totality includes every possible thing AND every possible negation of every possible thing. Therefore to arrive at any truth about the Totality in itself is absurd, including this sentence. The Totality must include every truth AND its negation as well.

[Robert]

Obviously, we can't fully experience it in it's entirety, that isn't possible, but then can we fully experience anything in it's entirety? Could you say with absolute certainty that you experienced something to it's fullest? Would you say that the apprehension of A=A is an example of this, since it is perfectly logical and without fault?

The example of A=A is a good one. Yet because it is without fault, it has ramifications which make it dubious that one could experience it in its entirety. I just meant that the uniqueness of the Totality renders discourse about it suspect. The Totality includes every possible thing AND every possible negation of every possible thing. Therefore to arrive at any truth about the Totality in itself is absurd, including this sentence. The Totality must include every truth AND its negation as well.

But surely through truthful reasoning about the nature of (the uniqueness of) the Totality we can reach meaningful conclusions? A=A being one of them, no? Are you saying that your understanding of God as being different from Nature (I'm not sure this is your understanding, is it?) is exempt and/or immune from this kind of circular argument that "the Totality includes every possible thing AND every possible negation of every possible thing"?

[brokenhead]

But surely through truthful reasoning about the nature of (the uniqueness of) the Totality we can reach meaningful conclusions? A=A being one of them, no?

I do not understand how A=A is a meaningful conclusion about the Totality.

Are you saying that your understanding of God as being different from Nature (I'm not sure this is your understanding, is it?)

I do not have an understanding of God that is a fixed thing in any sense. Yet my understanding of the notion of Nature and the of notion of God, such as it is, leads me to conclude that the two notions are not the same. Nature would be a manifestation of God's creation. I would be tempted to consider it as synonymous with God's creation, yet I feel there must be aspects of God's creation with which I am not familiar and cannot ever hope to be. So I would say that Nature is that portion of God's creation which I do or may come to know.

[Talking Ass]

I do not understand how A=A is a meaningful conclusion about the Totality.

In my case, I don't get how A=A is relevant to anything at all. Did I miss this somewhere along the line?

What can A=A do for me? I want one, short, direct paragraph.

What can A=A do for me? Here, now?

[Carl G]

I do not understand how A=A is a meaningful conclusion about the Totality.

In my case, I don't get how A=A is relevant to anything at all. Did I miss this somewhere along the line?

What can A=A do for me? I want one, short, direct paragraph.

What can A=A do for me? Here, now?

Oats are oats. There's no question about it. Hay is hay, there's another one. That's rock solid knowledge upon which one can build an accurate picture of reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's more a matter of understanding one is already operating from it at the most fundamental level of reasoning or truth-telling, here and now. For example how you're defining "me" or anything else you want "it" to be relevant to. This will never change unless awareness stops altogether. Therefore it's a fundamental, never-changing truth for our consciousness that cannot be doubted without ending in serious contradiction.

[Robert]

I do not understand how A=A is a meaningful conclusion about the Totality.

It's more a matter of understanding one is already operating from it at the most fundamental level of reasoning or truth-telling, here and now. For example how you're defining "me" or anything else you want "it" to be relevant to. This will never change unless awareness stops altogether. Therefore it's a fundamental, never-changing truth for our consciousness that cannot be doubted without ending in serious contradiction.

Yeah, I mean how when we reason about anything (which must by defintion be part of the Totality), we're automatically doing A=A. From this basis, we can learn what's true and what's false.

Yet my understanding of the notion of Nature and the of notion of God, such as it is, leads me to conclude that the two notions are not the same. Nature would be a manifestation of God's creation. I would be tempted to consider it as synonymous with God's creation, yet I feel there must be aspects of God's creation with which I am not familiar and cannot ever hope to be. So I would say that Nature is that portion of God's creation which I do or may come to know.

So if there's a portion of God's creation that is outside our experience in the here and now, and excluding any notions of a post-death heaven or hell type scenario, is seems fair to say it's basically wishful thinking to imagine that a God has made available only this portion of reality to us through our own physicality and consciousness. You may be right, but in that case it's just as possible that any number of competing Gods could be at it, creating whole universes at will, all blissfully ignorant of each other.

It just raises too many unanswerable questions to be any real use, and even if it were the case, Totality would still be Totality. By definition, Nature would still be beyond it all.

[brokenhead]

Yeah, I mean how when we reason about anything (which must by definition be part of the Totality), we're automatically doing A=A. From this basis, we can learn what's true and what's false.

No argument there. But that is not saying anything about the Totality as the Totality.

The way I see it A=A means A is A AND A is not anything else.
To apply A=A to the Totality is the epitome of trivial. If A is the Totality, then we are saying the Totality is the Totality AND not anything else. But by definition, the Totality could not be anything else because there is nothing else, so in this case A=A is moot. I guess I am still trying to point out that A=A is not a meaningful conclusion about the Totality as the Totality. It offers no meaning, insight, or anything else about the Totality, because to be useful, it logically must be applied to things, and the Totality is not a thing.

So if there's a portion of God's creation that is outside our experience in the here and now, and excluding any notions of a post-death heaven or hell type scenario, is seems fair to say it's basically wishful thinking to imagine that a God has made available only this portion of reality to us through our own physicality and consciousness.

Why is it wishful? I know I didn't wish it. On the contrary, I wish our portion of reality as you put it were not so limited, or not limited at all.

You may be right, but in that case it's just as possible that any number of competing Gods could be at it, creating whole universes at will, all blissfully ignorant of each other.

Or there could be millions of them working together, creating universes at will, and entirely aware of each other.

Totality would still be Totality. By definition, Nature would still be beyond it all.

Totality and Nature are both nouns. In what way are you using them differently? Are they synonyms? In my own head, they are not.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To apply A=A to the Totality is the epitome of trivial.... I guess I am still trying to point out that A=A is not a meaningful conclusion about the Totality as the Totality. It offers no meaning, insight, or anything else about the Totality, because to be useful, it logically must be applied to things, and the Totality is not a thing

The supreme triviality is exactly where the usefulness lies. A=A is not just about this or that thing: it's about the process, the birthing of things. Therefore it's crucial for better grasping [the idea of] totality - being the opposite of thingness.

Of course one could say it's better to just wash ones bowl, this whole Zen practice of focusing on trivial, actual being. But why not go with the most trivial, the most mundane, the most elemental grain of sand instead? Surely, if such a stupefying simple, obvious matter-of-fact like A=A is not seen for what it is, how could anything else be seen clearly?

[Blair]

The entirety of creation is conspiring to convince you at every moment that it is rendered, that A is not A. That's the whole point of it.

It's a profoundly complex trick, the reasons for which are beyond anything the human brain can well grasp, but it is still a trick.

[Robert]

Why is it wishful? I know I didn't wish it.

Any reasoning on the nature of these Gods we're imagining will be wishful by definition, since we have no evidence (empirical or metaphysical) that they nothing more than fantasy and delusion. Housing a psychological framework on such porous foundations isn't something I'm interested in. How can certainty have holes?

Totality and Nature are both nouns. In what way are you using them differently? Are they synonyms? In my own head, they are not.

Totality = non-divided, undivisible Nature.

[paco]

I think the point of most exercise is trying to attain something you cannot, that is, having a goal that is beyond your reach and trying repeatedly to attain it.

Hmm, that sounds a little fishy to me. Isn't that a definition of faith in something purely based on the ego? Where the actual object of your faith's direction is secondary (a God, a woman, a machine, a thing, whatever)?

How can one apprehend something that does not exists, and yet does not not exist?

The same way you can or can't apprehend how anything has ultimate existence.

Not fishy at all.

The totality is not something one can apprehend. You cannot perceive it directly, and you cannot form a concept of it because if you do, it must be at the expense of some other concept, which the totality would logically include, so therefore your concept of it must always logically be lacking, i.e., partial and therefore faulty.

This does not prevent you from trying, and the trying produces results. This is like exercise, physical training, as I tried to point out. A miler may train with a three-minute mile as his goal, but he will not achieve it. Yet the training makes him stronger and capable of producing his personal best result. It is not illogical to strive for what is beyond your grasp, as that may serve to lengthen your reach.

But more to the point, suppose I were to divide the totality in half. Each half would not be the totality, yet would be equally inapprehensible, as neither half could be perceived, nor could a conception be formed of either half.

Here the Forum Gods may say it is impossible to divide the totality in half. This would of course be nonsense. The Totality is not a thing, as it does not exist nor does it not. While not a thing, these philosophers have seen fit to assign it a definition: it is defined to be utterly everything. I am merely defining two equally non-things - let us call them Pretotality1 and Pretotality2 - that may be considered sets, the union of which is the Totality. For the union to be infinite, at least one of P1 and P2 must also be infinite. Logically, they both could be.

The question is begged: Do we now have two Gods?

The answer lies in trying to keep thinks logically consistent. The only way I can see to do this is to dispense with the notion that the Totality and God are one and the same.

As soon as God first created, he created that which was not God and imbued the Creation at his discretion.

Let Pretotality2 (P2) be a photon. Pretotality1 (P1) is no longer the Totality, but in what way is it different? It is equally infinite, equally inapprehensible (or more precisely, incomprehensible because it is all-comprehensive). Yet if one insists on equating the Totality with God, this P1 cannot be God because, and only because, it lacks a single photon.

To me, it is sloppy reasoning that leads one to conclude God and the Totality are one and the same. The reasoning is that one cannot come up with a conception of God, and one cannot come up with a conception of the Totality. Therefore, one is tempted to equate them.

But if we take our P1 and P2 both to be infinite, what is to stop us from identifying P1 with God and P2 with that which is not God? Such as to be able to view the Totality as consisting of that which is God and that which God has created to be not God?

If we do this, immediately the question arises as to the nature of our division. How have we decided what constitutes P1 and P2?

The answer is we cannot. But we need not. We need not know what God is to know what he is not. Our lives then become the exercise mentioned above, a constant striving with a goal in mind, a striving which may be for something always out of our reach but not our sights, a striving which makes us ever stronger.