The Ten Commandments Options

[Phi]

BTW, Harvard square seems to be a great source. Do you have any others offhand?

[Lindsay]

I guess the part I didn't understand was how pantheism and panentheism contradicted.

Phi, I presume that you get it now.

ABOUT PANENTHEISM
====================
"Panentheism is a doctrine of God which attempts to combine the strengths of classical theism with those of classical pantheism. The term is particularly associated with the work of Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne contends, however, that other philosophers and theologians have elaborated panentheistic doctrines of God, especially Alfred North Whitehead but also Nikolai Berdyaev, Martin Buber, Gustaf T Fechner, Mohammad Iqbal, Charles S Peirce, Otto Pfleiderer, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Friedrich W J von Schelling, Allan Watts, and Paul Weiss. ..."
From http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/panenthe.htm

Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
http://www.panentheism.com/

Phi, long before I ever heard about panentheism and the ideas mentioned above, independently, I held similar ideas. Who knows where they came from? There are those who say that every human being has a built in mind/body radio-like receiver (MBR) and transmitter. In meditation, it is believed that we open ourselves to attract all kinds of ideas broadcast by other minds, using their transmitter function.

I soon started talking about this and the ideas in my sermons and lectures, using the overall title of pneumatology--the study of spiritual things. There was a great response.

IN MY OPINION, PNEUMATOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, WE ARE NOT JUST OUR BODIES (SOMAS), OR OUR MINDS (PSYCHES). WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS (PNEUMAS) HAVING A SOMATIC AND PSYCHOSOMATIC EXPERIENCE.
==================================================
A word of caution here: IMO, the mind/brain/radio receiver, and/or transmitter is a tool. Depending on the kind of spirit we happen to be, it can be used for good, or evil, purposes.

THE ART OF MEDITATION
Keep in mind, in saying the above I do not claim that I am any brighter than the average university graduate.

By the way, I give credit for what in received in my MBR to the fact that, in my teens (1943-1949), I was introduced to the art of meditation--I think I was about 13, or 14--by an older brother. Interestingly, he had a name which suited his personality, Ernest. I think he had a grade five education, just enough to know how to read well. But he was very curious and earnest, and imaginative. We were very close. Regularly, he bought and we both devoured a magazine called Popular Mechanics Magazine, first published in 1902.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics
Looking back, I consider what I read there an important part of my education. It gave me a deep interest in the sciences, especially chemistry and physics.

One day we noticed an add for a course called MENTALPHYSICS and the name, Edwin J. Dingle. I can't remember the cost, but in a day when mine labourers earned about 50 cents an hour, worked ten-hour days, and lived from pay day to pay day, anything over $30.00, which I think it was, was big money.

However, we sent for the course, which came in monthly installments. Looking back, what we learned from reading, and meditating about it, changed our way of thinking. Later, when I entered to university--I was 17--I took some of the lessons with me. At 18, when I began to major in philosophy/psychology, I showed the introductory part of the course to my professor, Dr. Charles (Barney) Baxter (PhD, University of Toronto). We called him 'Barney' because he had been a farmer in Ontario, and looked the part. He was also Dean of one of the men's residences known as The Barn--called this because, at time, the old wooden building was in a barn-like condition.

His comments were to the effect: "Anything which helps you to think, metaphysically, and for yourself, is useful ..." I was a little disappointed that he did not express enthusiasm and say something about it in one of his lectures, which were too often dry and dull. But at least he did not say that it was a waste my time.

BTW, Dr. Baxter was, in many ways a very fine and humble human being. For example, during WW 2, he joined the army and served as a private, until they discovered he had a PhD. He was then promoted to captain and given leadership responsibilities in keeping with his education. He was an elder of the one United Church in the relatively small university town of Sackville, NB, a beautiful part of the province, then not much larger than the university of 1200 students. Interestingly, to help the minister have a time off, now and then Dr. Baxter preached the sermon at the church. He also spoke at some of the university chapel services. He was a much better preacher than a lecturer. But he was always a good friend and tutor. He lived to be 91.

Today, at Mount Allison University there are about 3000 students . http://www.mta.ca
In the annual Report On Universities, which is published in McLeans--known as Canada's National Magazine--MTA is usually rated as first or second in the under-graduate category--its BA, BEd, BCom and BSc degrees.

BACK TO MENTALPHYSICS
BTW, just a few minutes ago, the following thought came through on my MBR--mind-brain radio: "Google on 'mentalphysics'..." This is what came up:

The Institute of Mentalphysics is a spiritual teaching and retreat center in the Southern California desert founded by Edwin John Dingle. His Science of Mentalphysics based on Tibetan and other Asian teachings was begun in 1927 in Los Angeles, CA. The Institute of Mentalphysics was incorporated in 1933 and the retreat center bought in 1941. Dingle, the author of many bookson spirituality, history and economics, incorporated Eastern spiritual notions to create a "Super Yoga of the Western World" which is still taught at the Institute. Buildings include the Preceptory of Light, the First Sanctuary of Mystic Christianity, and the Caravansary of Joy, a 700-foot long residence designed and built by Lloyd Wright, son of famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright.
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4936/

http://www.mentalphysics.net/mentalis.html
==================================
Later, as a minister, when I discovered the futility of just praying, or saying the same old traditional prayers, I began, taking a serious look again , in the 1950's and 1960's, at the art of meditation--using the power of intention and affirmation. In other words, using my radio-like mind/brain, I simply tuned in and chose to connect with GOD--the to total universe, and just listen. IMO, What came to me has been broadcast for centuries, and even in this present time, by wise thinkers. No, I did not hear voices, physically.

Here is another example: Years ago, when I wrote a weekly column in a local Toronto paper, one of my columns carried the headline: IS THERE ONE GOD, OR IS GOD THE ONE? It was about how, IMO, God and the universe are one and the same. But not just physically--that is, pantheistically--but mentally and spiritually, that is, holistically. I also pointed out that we are in God and God is in and through us--together we are like an ever-expanding holograph.

Later still, in 1997--the year I first went on line--I independently started using the word, unitheism, which as I said at the time has a similar meaning to that of panentheism.

Not long after that, a search engine led me to the site, on UNITHEISM, by Warren Farr, then a struggling young artist. Around that time he had set up a site with the same title. We started writing each other and did some posting to a forum. We are still in touch. Graciously, he credited me with using the word earlier than he, but he did mention one or two others were also in the "race". To me it does not matter who get the credit here, the more the better. Regardless of this, I feel that it is a better word than panentheism, because it avoids the confusion with pantheism. I also believe that all words have their own use and value at times.

One final point: IMO, all of the above has practical implications. The more holistic we are, the more healthy we will be--physically, mentally and spiritually. Perhaps we need a thread on this theme.

===============================
http://www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm
BRIEF EXCERPTS FROM ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD AND CHARLES HARTSHORNE
http://www.websyte.com/alan/brief.htm

[Phi]

I guess the part I didn't understand was how pantheism and panentheism contradicted.

Phi, I presume that you get it now.

ABOUT PANENTHEISM
====================
"Panentheism is a doctrine of God which attempts to combine the strengths of classical theism with those of classical pantheism. The term is particularly associated with the work of Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne contends, however, that other philosophers and theologians have elaborated panentheistic doctrines of God, especially Alfred North Whitehead but also Nikolai Berdyaev, Martin Buber, Gustaf T Fechner, Mohammad Iqbal, Charles S Peirce, Otto Pfleiderer, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Friedrich W J von Schelling, Allan Watts, and Paul Weiss. ..." from http://www.panentheism.com/

Phi, long before I heard about the ideas which are written above, independently, similar ideas came into my mind/radio receiver and I soon started talking about them in my sermons and lectures.

WE ARE NOT OUR BODIES (SOMAS), OR OUR MINDS (PSYCHES). WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS (PNEUMAS) HAVING A SOMATIC AND PSYCHOSOMATIC EXPERIENCE.
==============================================
A word of caution here: IMO, the mind/brain/radio receiver, and/or transmitter is a tool. Depending on the kind of spirit we happen to be, it can be used for good, or evil, purposes.

Keep in mind, I do not claim that I am any brighter than the average university graduate. Therefore, I give credit for what happened in my body/mind/spirit to the fact that I practice the art of meditation, which, when I discovered the futility of just praying, or saying traditional prayers, I began studying in the 1950's and 1960's. In other words, using my radio-like mind/brain, I simply tuned in and chose to connect with GOD--the to total universe, and just listen. IMO, What came to me has been broadcast for centuries, and even in this present time, by wise thinkers. No, I did not hear voices, physically.

Here is another example: Years ago, when I wrote a weekly column in a local Toronto paper, one of my columns carried the headline: IS THERE ONE GOD, OR IS GOD THE ONE? It was about how, IMO, God and the universe are one and the same. But not just physically--that is, pantheistically--but mentally and spiritually, that is, holistically. I also pointed out that we are in God and God is in and through us--together we are like an ever-expanding holograph.

Later, in 1997--the year I first went on line--I independently started using the word, unitheism, which as I said has a similar meaning to that of panentheism.

Not long after that, a search engine led me to the site, on UNITHEISM, by Warren Farr, then struggling young artist. Around that time he had set up a site with the same title. We started writing each other and did some posting to a forum. We are still in touch. Graciously, he credited me with using the word earlier than he, but he did mention one or two others were also in the "race". To me it does not matter who get the credit here, the more the better. Regardless of this, I feel that it is a better word than panentheism, because it avoids the confusion with pantheism. I also believe that all words have their own use and value at times.

One final point: IMO, all of the above has practical implications. The more holistic we are, the more healthy we will be--physically, mentally and spiritually. Perhaps we need a thread on this theme.

===============================
http://www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm
BRIEF EXCERPTS FROM ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD AND CHARLES HARTSHORNE
http://www.websyte.com/alan/brief.htm

Do you know anyone in Las Vegas Linsay?

[Lindsay]

"Do you know anyone in Las Vegas, Lindsay?"

No Phi, why do you ask? BTW, please note that I re-edited my last post and added the stuff about MENTALPHYSICS. This just came back to me, tonight.

[Phi]

"Do you know anyone in Las Vegas, Lindsay?"

No Phi, why do you ask? BTW, please note that I re-edited my last post and added the stuff about MENTALPHYSICS. This just came back to me, tonight.

oh, I ranadrom;u ddllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllll

[Lindsay]

Phi, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII think you want to make a point, right? Because I am curious, I ask ask????????????????? What is iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs iTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?

[Phi]

Phi, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII think you want to make a point, right? Because I am curious, I ask ask????????????????? What is iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs iTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?

I think I was very drunk. Well, an old friend of mine mentioned a group of people who once got together because of their common ideas which are reflected in some of yours. Just wondering if you were a part of this group that came to mind although there are probably many(even in vegas)

[Phi]

"Do you know anyone in Las Vegas, Lindsay?"

No Phi, why do you ask? BTW, please note that I re-edited my last post and added the stuff about MENTALPHYSICS. This just came back to me, tonight.

oh, I ranadrom;u ddllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllll

I think I actually have documentation of my own brain shutting off in the middle of typing, how sad

[Charity7]

No. There is no practical way to distinguish a universe with divinity in it from a universe devoid of divinity. Therefore, the simpler conceptualization is the better one.

Divinity....

Is divinity Love? If you believe that Love is real and present in the universe, then the universe is divine.

Atheism is the denial that the universe is divine. Can the atheist account for Love?

Love is an emotion just like any other, and a survival mechanism... aren't animals capable of love? Don't mothers in the animal world protect their young with their lives every day? Is this not love?

[Rick]

Love is an emotion just like any other, and a survival mechanism... aren't animals capable of love? Don't mothers in the animal world protect their young with their lives every day? Is this not love?

It is.

[Joesus]

And it isn't. Instinct of a mother to protect its week offspring is coupled with an attachment that will invariably alter its intensity as it lets go of the child when it goes off on its own to live its own life.
There is attached love and unconditional love. Attached love creates a feeling of loss or suffering if the object of desire or love is removed. Unconditional love gives without a need for something in return and keeps on giving even if the object of desire is removed.

Then there is the Love of God or the Universe which supports all aspects of reality. It is not an emotion but human emotions often attaches itself to objects of creation making Gods creation a thing of human emotion.

Love can be many things to many people. Survival is not dependent on love, creation exists because of love. Survival is more of a fear mechanism than a resplendent quality of love.

[Lindsay]

EROS, PHILIA AND AGAPE==The three LOVES, as found in the Greek Bible. They belong together, but eros and philia needs must be under the discipline of agape. If not, they can degenerate into destructive passions like jealousy and love of self--the root cause of crimes of passion.

=======================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15868&hl=

[Lindsay]

Love is an emotion just like any other, and a survival mechanism...

Survival? At what level? Physical? mental? or spiritual?

Charity asks:

aren't animals capable of love?

But are they capable of knowing that they are? :)
I speak as one who respects animal hood; one who gets no pleasure out of killing an insect.

Don't mothers in the animal world protect their young with their lives every day?

Of course!

Is this not love?

I just saw a video of a predator which had killed another animal, for food. Its hunger satisfied, it then it took on the job of raising one of the victim's offspring.
IMO, philia/love, no;
Certainly not agape/love.

I do not pretend to know, but my guess is that it was the result of programmed conditioning.

[Phi]

I just don't think there's any way to prove that animals know...what we may relay as love may come off as something totally different, even between each other as humans. I think love is effective on animals though, as it causes no breach between defense mechanisms and intention. Animals can seem to love but its only through observation that we determine that. If communication were possible we have the possibility of finding out that intention may be different(please don't eat me). Of course, we have to clarify what love is again. I don't think there was a consensus yet...although I agree with joesus on that topic.

[Lindsay]

... Of course, we have to clarify what love is again. I don't think there was a consensus yet....

Of course! Because Love (agape), being what it is, does not insist that there has to be a consensus, or else....
As Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 13 -- "Love (agape) hopes, endures and believes all things." Are you familiar with the words of Paul.

the SUMMUM BONUM
==================
Have you heard of Henry Drummond, a minister, teacher and scientist? (1851-1897) He wrote a classic essay on LOVE--"The Greatest Thing in the World" --over 100 years ago, and still in print. http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/

[Phi]

... Of course, we have to clarify what love is again. I don't think there was a consensus yet....

Of course! Because Love (agape), being what it is, does not insist that there has to be a consensus, or else....
As Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 13 -- "Love (agape) hopes, endures and believes all things." Are you familiar with the words of Paul.

the SUMMUM BONUM
==================
Have you heard of Henry Drummond, a minister, teacher and scientist? (1851-1897) He wrote a classic essay on LOVE--"The Greatest Thing in the World" --over 100 years ago, and still in print. http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/

I do agree with the words of Paul