Is It Just Wordplay?

[Ouroboros]

Ahh, so do you see eternal consciousness as descending (incarnating) into our bodies (as opposed to arising from physical events in our brain)?

Both.

I can't say it better than that. Holistic views entail that the parts together produce something bigger than just the collection of parts.

I think some of these things are folded in on itself. Consciousness produce meaning and experience, but consciousness also arise from the world that is a mere illusion.

--edit

Oh, shoot. Sorry. I was answering on my phone and didn't see that it wasn't for me. Sorry!

 

[Ouroboros]

I can accept that. I would guess it depends on your background a bit? Coming from a lifetime non-believer I don't really know if saying God would be respectful.

For inspiration I've been going to Tao Teh Ching recently. Even in the first chapter the problem of language is addressed:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

From the thread I started about defining God it seems this chapter is spot on. Especially "named is the mother of myriad things" seems to be what most people take for God today.

It was the Tao that first got me going on pantheism. "God" is just a word. It signifies something that we can't really name. Just like Tao does.

 

[Ouroboros]

If "God is the universe" and "the universe is God", then it is just wordplay. You are just using God as a synonym for "the universe", right? In other words, there is no belief in any "god". The word is unnecessary.

It's synonymous in part, as a signifier points to the signified. But the term "God" also entails the connotation of what the signified means to a person, not just wordplay in other words.

By the way, this part of the forum is a DIR. I intentionally put it in the pantheist DIR to be abel to talk to fellow pantheists. Just an FYI.

 

[leibowde84]

It's synonymous in part, as a signifier points to the signified. But the term "God" also entails the connotation of what the signified means to a person, not just wordplay in other words.

By the way, this part of the forum is a DIR.

Oh, whoops. Sorry about that. My mistake.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, whoops. Sorry about that. My mistake.

Totally okay.

 

[Baladas]

Ahh, so do you see eternal consciousness as descending (incarnating) into our bodies (as opposed to arising from physical events in our brain)?

I am coming to see it as the Ground of Being. The hidden dimension to the more readily perceived parts of reality.

 

[Ouroboros]

It was the Tao that first got me going on pantheism. "God" is just a word. It signifies something that we can't really name. Just like Tao does.

Oh. And also, I think it was Plato that was talking about the Sun. You can only look close to the sun and know it's there, but you can't look straight at it. (Something like that, could've been someone else)

That analogy has stuck with me for years. God, Tao, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being, Turtles all the way down, whatever we call it, it is a pointer, a semaphore, a signifier, a word only, that points, present, directs, guides to what is talked about. It is not the thing itself. And the meaning of the word isn't even the exact signified thing either. It's like dividing by zero. The answer is infinite, both negative and positive, and undefined, yet zero exists. It's our attempt of trying to reach zero that causes problems. We can never truly, fully, (right there on the spot, the integral is undefined for that x-value) understand what makes this universe tick and us in it.

A short while ago, I read about some scientists who argue that the universe is just an illusion, and what it really is, is information. The universe is built on information. And from this, they're also testing to see if it's just a hologram. But that means... we are not real either. We are our own illusions. The hologram (the world) is having an illusion of us... or is it the other way around?

When it comes the information, perhaps that's what religion call "spirit"? The spirit gives guidance and talks to us. It gives us meaning to things that don't have meaning. The spirit of the word is more important than the letter. So, really, maybe spirit is really information and/or meaning?

 

[Jumi]

A short while ago, I read about some scientists who argue that the universe is just an illusion, and what it really is, is information. The universe is built on information. And from this, they're also testing to see if it's just a hologram. But that means... we are not real either. We are our own illusions. The hologram (the world) is having an illusion of us... or is it the other way around?

Do you mean the simulation hypothesis? I've been following it with some interest, it's been in several science news websites and magazines for years now. I think it will get more popular as time goes.

 

[Ouroboros]

The information universe: Is Information Fundamental? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

The holographic universe: There Is Growing Evidence that Our Universe Is a Giant Hologram | Motherboard

Why call the universe a hologram when the term universe works just fine? Because it's a description that points to certain aspects of it. Just as "God" is a descriptive handle for some people to reference the universe in a view that is personal to them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you mean the simulation hypothesis? I've been following it with some interest, it's been in several science news websites and magazines for years now. I think it will get more popular as time goes.

Right. I think there's some other name for it too that I saw recently. Oh, well. But yes, that's the one.

It's quite mystic and "spiritual" that research. If true, it would suggest that the hologram is having a hallucination about us, and we about it. We don't really exist. We're just data being processed... yet we find meaning in that data, as information.

Oh, I have to point out. I learned years ago the difference between data and information. Data is just bits here and there without meaning. As soon as data has meaning of some kind, that it can be used, translated, interpreted, or such, then it's information. Like the hex code 0x41 (65 decimal) doesn't mean anything, but it's the letter "A" in ASCII, and it could be something like ADD accumulator to immediate value for a CPU, and it could be just the number 65, a year of someone's birthdate, and so on.

So, is the universe just data? But is it information? If so, how can it become information from just being bits of data?

 

[George-ananda]

Yes and no.

Somehow, I was expecting that answer by now (not meant in a negative way)

There is no real physical world. It's all energy and forces, and interchange of information.

I would call those energies and forces the physical world. .....But what about Consciousness? Is it all energy and forces then? Or is it something fundamental that is not energy and forces; and could the energy and forces just be the play of this Consciousness?

It's also a wordplay when atheists force the definitions of the words to fit the purpose of debunking claims. It's also a wordplay to argue another person's opinions and views as just wordplay. We all are playing the game of words. It's called language.

Well by whatever words we choose to use I still see two significantly different types of pantheism trying to use the same word. It makes for lack of clarity.

 

[Iti oj]

I see two main types of pantheists. Those that believe Consciousness is fundamental and those that believe consciousness is the emergent process of physical interactions. The second type (physicalists) are really the wordplayers in my thinking. I don't see any significant difference between their beliefs and atheistic materialism. The first type (Consciousness is fundamental) are saying something fundamentally and profoundly different about the universe.

This is indeed to true. Are both still "sexed up atheism" though? or is only one?

 

[Ouroboros]

Somehow, I was expecting that answer by now (not meant in a negative way)

Good to hear. I've actually been in the yes-no camp for quite some time. It can't be explained just with one or the other domain, in my opinion.

I would call those energies and forces the physical world. .....But what about Consciousness? Is it all energy and forces then? Or is it something fundamental that is not energy and forces; and could the energy and forces just be the play of this Consciousness?

Or consciousness is one of the forces, like magnetism and such.

Oh, talking about magnetism. I realized a while ago how strange that force is. All we talk about all the time is "cause" as more of a push or kicking something in the direction of something, like first cause arguments etc. What if life, universe, existence, big bang, or whatnot is not "kicked" or "pushed" into existence in the beginning, but rather "pulled" from the end? Alpha, and ... Omega. (The omega God or whatever it's called. Can't remember right now the Catholic heretic view that God is something that will become, and we're part of making God real. Sometin' like that.)

Well by whatever words we choose to use I still see two significantly different types of pantheism trying to use the same word. It makes for lack of clarity.

Sure. Yes, I know the majority of pantheists don't use that word, but in my view, they do believe in this "God" but just not using the word. They have to intentionally avoid using it because of the reaction of the general population.

A few months ago, I was also very weary of using it, and I'm still, but occasionally it's not wrong to bring it out and point out that the word "theism" in "pantheism" does in fact refer to "God", and as such, pantheism does believe All Things to be God (that's the meaning of the word, after all).

---edit

Oh, sorry. I'm tired today. You were talking about the two pantheists, the physical and the metaphysical (or whatever it's called). There are more forms even. There are I think some forms of dualistic pantheists too. I have to look it up. It's in one of the books I have.

 

[George-ananda]

I am coming to see it as the Ground of Being.

I like that.

The hidden dimension to the more readily perceived parts of reality.

Yes, the cause behind the physical.

Now, do you think we continue to expand our consciousness through learning experiences beyond death until we Realize our Oneness with God/Brahman and realize that the physical which we struggled with was just a relative illusion?

 

[Ouroboros]

This is indeed to true. Are both still "sexed up atheism" though? or is only one?

I'd say it's more complex than that. There are several major groups of pantheistic thinking. Which has made it very difficult to establish "The Truth Pantheism(tm)" definition. With the introduction of panentheism, I think even more lines are blurred.

 

[George-ananda]

This is indeed to true. Are both still "sexed up atheism" though? or is only one?

I was implying only one; the physicalist type of pantheism was "sexed up atheism".

 

[Iti oj]

I'd say it's more complex than that. There are several major groups of pantheistic thinking. Which has made it very difficult to establish "The Truth Pantheism(tm)" definition. With the introduction of panentheism, I think even more lines are blurred.

Could you elaborate? I've noted the two camps George noted or at least similar.

 

[Iti oj]

I was implying only one; the physicalist type of pantheism was "sexed up atheism".

Is thinking consciousness is primary, is that a theistic thought?

 

[George-ananda]

Good to hear. I've actually been in the yes-no camp for quite some time. It can't be explained just with one or the other domain, in my opinion.


Or consciousness is one of the forces, like magnetism and such.

Oh, talking about magnetism. I realized a while ago how strange that force is. All we talk about all the time is "cause" as more of a push or kicking something in the direction of something, like first cause arguments etc. What if life, universe, existence, big bang, or whatnot is not "kicked" or "pushed" into existence in the beginning, but rather "pulled" from the end? Alpha, and ... Omega. (The omega God or whatever it's called. Can't remember right now the Catholic heretic view that God is something that will become, and we're part of making God real. Sometin' like that.)


Sure. Yes, I know the majority of pantheists don't use that word, but in my view, they do believe in this "God" but just not using the word. They have to intentionally avoid using it because of the reaction of the general population.

A few months ago, I was also very weary of using it, and I'm still, but occasionally it's not wrong to bring it out and point out that the word "theism" in "pantheism" does in fact refer to "God", and as such, pantheism does believe All Things to be God (that's the meaning of the word, after all).

---edit

Oh, sorry. I'm tired today. You were talking about the two pantheists, the physical and the metaphysical (or whatever it's called). There are more forms even. There are I think some forms of dualistic pantheists too. I have to look it up. It's in one of the books I have.

Let me ask you this. What do you believe happens to our consciousness at physical death?

 

[George-ananda]

Is thinking consciousness is primary, is that a theistic thought?

I would call it non-dual (God and creation are not-two) theism. Traditional Christianity would be dualistic theism.