God attempts to create a perfect universe. This perfect universe is purely spiritual in nature, it has no physical aspect, and it is identical to God itself. God, in creating the universe, is actually creating itself. The physical dimension of the universe is a result of resistance. Resistance splits the essence of God, life and existence into pluralities and dualities. The origin of everything is oneness, unity. The core of everything the same.
It follows that the spiritual dimension in which our souls, our consciousness and will, lives, is in fact part of God. Our souls are part of God. However, it must be noted that the mind is not analogous to the soul. The soul is our basic life force, our will to act and to exist. Our thoughts and emotions are physical manifestations of our souls, as are our bodies.
Certain psychological experiments have come up with evidence hinting that the movement of our limbs occurs before activity in the areas of the brain controlling these movements can be seen. This seems to suggest that we are not in control of our bodies, and that there is no free will. It could just as well be evidence that will is something that occurs before thought, and that thoughts are physical manifestations of the self on the exact same level as the body.
One might say that the body, thoughts and emotions included, is an anchor for the soul, holding it together and in place. The soul lives in the entire body, not just in the mind. The impression that our mind contains our consciousness is an illusion caused by the fact that this is where our senses and the interpretive organ, the brain, are. The soul receives its information about the physical world through these objects, and so gets the impression that this is where it is. In reality, it is just as much present in our limbs, causing them to move, as it is in our brains, causing them to think.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Evil
Immanuel!
In christian theology the existence of evil is usually explained as a consequence of free will. In other words, man creates evil, not God. God´s omnipotence and moral perfection are seemingly preserved. But could not God have created free will as a choice between several kinds of good? What I mean is that, even if man is responsible for evil in its manifest form, God is still responsible for evil as a possibility.
So, in my opinion, something must be sacrificed, either God´s purity or his omnipotence. The only thing that makes sense, is sacrificing omnipotence (I might argue for this later). God attempts to create the perfect universe, but there exists some inherent resistance in the basis for the universe. Everything in existence is created by God, in battle with this resistance, which is not an active agent or a force. It simply IS. It has no agenda or will, it does not seek the end of existence, rather it hinders it´s creation, passively.
It is this resistance that is responsible for all kinds of evil in the world. Every evil action, every emotion that triggers this action, is a consequence of a resistance to God´s energy within oneself. The struggle inside each individual to flow free with the positive energies of God is analogous to God´s own struggle to overcome resistance and create the perfect universe.
Everything in the universe is a manifestation of God´s power, but the inner world of the mind is a more direct manifestation of it than the physical. Our minds, our consciousness, floats in an ether which is a part of God´s own consciousness. If knowledge of the physical world can be gained by observing it, then knowledge of God can be gained by observing consciousness.
In christian theology the existence of evil is usually explained as a consequence of free will. In other words, man creates evil, not God. God´s omnipotence and moral perfection are seemingly preserved. But could not God have created free will as a choice between several kinds of good? What I mean is that, even if man is responsible for evil in its manifest form, God is still responsible for evil as a possibility.
So, in my opinion, something must be sacrificed, either God´s purity or his omnipotence. The only thing that makes sense, is sacrificing omnipotence (I might argue for this later). God attempts to create the perfect universe, but there exists some inherent resistance in the basis for the universe. Everything in existence is created by God, in battle with this resistance, which is not an active agent or a force. It simply IS. It has no agenda or will, it does not seek the end of existence, rather it hinders it´s creation, passively.
It is this resistance that is responsible for all kinds of evil in the world. Every evil action, every emotion that triggers this action, is a consequence of a resistance to God´s energy within oneself. The struggle inside each individual to flow free with the positive energies of God is analogous to God´s own struggle to overcome resistance and create the perfect universe.
Everything in the universe is a manifestation of God´s power, but the inner world of the mind is a more direct manifestation of it than the physical. Our minds, our consciousness, floats in an ether which is a part of God´s own consciousness. If knowledge of the physical world can be gained by observing it, then knowledge of God can be gained by observing consciousness.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Art
Art must be defined, not by what it is in the physical universe, but by the effect it has on the observer. Great piece of art, regardless of genre, takes you on a spiritual journey. It creates a world inside each consumers individual mind. This world or journey is hard to describe precisely because it is in its nature spiritual and as such imprecise. It is a mass of emotions and images produced by the mind from the raw material of the artwork itself.
Any descriptions of an artwork whether it be attempts to place it within a tradition, analysing its message, describing the techniques used etc. are nothing but incomplete attempts at describing this world, and can never do justice to the piece itself or the world it creates within each of us.
Plato states that art is inferior to philosophy since art is an attempt at making a copy of the physical world which again is a copy of the world of ideas which is where true reality is found, while philosophy describes the world of ideas directly. Using this terminology, my view is that true art never refers to the physical world at all. Even for paintings in the figurative tradition this is true. The artwork creates a world of ideas of its own, which is only relevant in relation to the work itself and the one experiencing it.
It is primarily the depth and complexity of this inner world that grants any work of art it´s quality, the wealth of inner experiences it has to offer. Certain musical pieces for example, when listened to can assail the mind with images it´s eyes has never seen and emotions it´s heart has never felt. It is in the uniqueness of these experiences the work´s originality lies, and though of no value in itself, originality coupled with great depth can set in motion such inner happenings as can completely numb the brain with it´s force, or tear it´s owner away from reality immersing her completely in the world of it´s making. Indeed, the perfect work of art would render anyone exposed to it completely insane!
There are many types of art that do not have the creation of inner worlds as their goal, but rather points to the outside world. I deem them completely worthless.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Morality is easy
I think there is an unspoken attitude in the protestant tradition that living a moral life is essentially easy. This may sound strange, but what I mean by it is that a protestant assumes there is no skill, no learned aspect to leading a moral existence. All that is needed is that you make the choice to live morally, and then stick by that decision, mainly through strength of character or self-oppression.
This attitude leads to some unfortunate effects in north european moral life. Firstly, it fosters arrogance on the part of the morally enlightened individual. There will be a tendency to look down upon those who live less morally conscious life, as all that would be needed to turn this practise around would be the choice to do so. Sometimes this could also lead to erroneous moral prerogatives as one would be inclined to think that ones life is eminently moral and can get no better.
Another consequence of this way of thinking is that it may result in the fear and thus loathing of morally superiour ways of life. In stead of admiring those that are capable following a better moral path, one hates him or her to guard off ones own guilty conscience. Since most people like to view themselves as moral individuals, any morality that does not concur with the way they are living must be seen as wrong, or their own life would be wrong.
This could be a way of explaining why many people in this part of the world despises vegetarians for example. There is no room for thinking that what you do yourself is wrong without it incurring guilt. The perspective of moral skill makes this way of thinking possible. Living a morally perfect life takes large amounts of positive energy, not just self-restraint. It demands that you set aside part of your life for this purpose. Morals, thinking about them and working with your personality to approach them, must be prioritized alongside such things as your job for example. This is how Jesus and Buddha became great, they devoted their entire life to morality and thought.
In other words; when you live your life in a way that is wrong according to what you see as morally good, it means that you are unable to, in this point in time, live morally better. You should still aspire to get better, thinking that shifting to a morally conscious way of life is like turning a switch is dangerous, not only in the ways described above, but also to yourself. It may lead to depression or even madness or suicide.
One can and should allways strive to get better, but this should be done in a constructive and positive manner, much like practising on an instrument for example, not through self-punishment and self-hate.
This attitude leads to some unfortunate effects in north european moral life. Firstly, it fosters arrogance on the part of the morally enlightened individual. There will be a tendency to look down upon those who live less morally conscious life, as all that would be needed to turn this practise around would be the choice to do so. Sometimes this could also lead to erroneous moral prerogatives as one would be inclined to think that ones life is eminently moral and can get no better.
Another consequence of this way of thinking is that it may result in the fear and thus loathing of morally superiour ways of life. In stead of admiring those that are capable following a better moral path, one hates him or her to guard off ones own guilty conscience. Since most people like to view themselves as moral individuals, any morality that does not concur with the way they are living must be seen as wrong, or their own life would be wrong.
This could be a way of explaining why many people in this part of the world despises vegetarians for example. There is no room for thinking that what you do yourself is wrong without it incurring guilt. The perspective of moral skill makes this way of thinking possible. Living a morally perfect life takes large amounts of positive energy, not just self-restraint. It demands that you set aside part of your life for this purpose. Morals, thinking about them and working with your personality to approach them, must be prioritized alongside such things as your job for example. This is how Jesus and Buddha became great, they devoted their entire life to morality and thought.
In other words; when you live your life in a way that is wrong according to what you see as morally good, it means that you are unable to, in this point in time, live morally better. You should still aspire to get better, thinking that shifting to a morally conscious way of life is like turning a switch is dangerous, not only in the ways described above, but also to yourself. It may lead to depression or even madness or suicide.
One can and should allways strive to get better, but this should be done in a constructive and positive manner, much like practising on an instrument for example, not through self-punishment and self-hate.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Good and evil in nature
Of all the views concerning nature and morality I have come across, the view that nature as a whole is morally neutral seems to be the most common. Some thinkers have held that nature is either good or bad. These last two views seems to antiquated today.
When it comes to individuals in nature, the dominating opinion also seems to be that animals and plants cannot be subjected to moral judgements. The argument is usually that these animals or plants are simply following their nature and thus can not be said to be either good nor evil.
I can agree with this to a certain point. As a species, you can not say that wolves are evil because they kill sheep. That makes wolves an enemy of sheep and the sheepfarmer, but not objectively evil. The wolf must kill to survive. Killing is natural to a wolf. So when a wolf kills, it is not an act of murder, but an act of necessity.
But, this does not account for individual differences between animals within the same species. For example, we have heard tales of man killing tigers in India. Tigers as a species does not hunt humans as a rule, they generally keep away from humans as most predators do. Still sometimes, for reasons unknown single tigers go amok and turn into veritable serial killers. All killings of humans performed by tigers can be ascribed to just a few individuals each killing many.
I would state that such tigers are evil, as opposed to a normal tiger that kills only to eat, and only it's natural game. These few tigers are partly responsible for the emnity between man and those beasts. Explanations abound as to why these killings may be seen as justified, like men killing tiger cubs and the like. That may well be, but such explanations are to be found about human serial killers as well, and accepting their actions on these grounds would be absurd. Having a good reason generally does not excuse murder.
When it comes to individuals in nature, the dominating opinion also seems to be that animals and plants cannot be subjected to moral judgements. The argument is usually that these animals or plants are simply following their nature and thus can not be said to be either good nor evil.
I can agree with this to a certain point. As a species, you can not say that wolves are evil because they kill sheep. That makes wolves an enemy of sheep and the sheepfarmer, but not objectively evil. The wolf must kill to survive. Killing is natural to a wolf. So when a wolf kills, it is not an act of murder, but an act of necessity.
But, this does not account for individual differences between animals within the same species. For example, we have heard tales of man killing tigers in India. Tigers as a species does not hunt humans as a rule, they generally keep away from humans as most predators do. Still sometimes, for reasons unknown single tigers go amok and turn into veritable serial killers. All killings of humans performed by tigers can be ascribed to just a few individuals each killing many.
I would state that such tigers are evil, as opposed to a normal tiger that kills only to eat, and only it's natural game. These few tigers are partly responsible for the emnity between man and those beasts. Explanations abound as to why these killings may be seen as justified, like men killing tiger cubs and the like. That may well be, but such explanations are to be found about human serial killers as well, and accepting their actions on these grounds would be absurd. Having a good reason generally does not excuse murder.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Monday, 18 May 2009
Truth and science
For most people, science represents the search for and the current body of found truth. Even many scientific theorists and philosophers who stresses the falsity of such a view in their articles and books often have a tendency to take the truth of discovered science as a given. We are so surrounded by the scientific dogma in our world today that it is difficult to remember Kant's theories when discussing topics other than the topics his theories touch in themselves.
But it seems inevitable, as Kant says, that we are always limited by our senses and our mental capacity when interpreting the world around us, the the world as it is in itself will be forever inaccessible. Science depends on sensory data as the foundation for its arguments, and thus can not be said to represent absolute truth about the world. It is limited by the filters in the human mind and sensory apparatus that will automatically and incessantly be in effect when observing anything.
Surrounded as we are by what seems like the evidence of the success of science this is, as I have stated, easily forgotten. Planes fly, thus proving the laws of aerodynamics, right? Not necessarily. What the flying plane proves about science is that it is a valid interpretation of sensory data useful for finding practical solutions. Science gives no understanding or real knowledge or truth, as people seem to think. What science brings are practical solutions, and in my opinion this is the one and only thing the scientific method can be said to do well. As a basis for a complete view of the world, it can only lead to insanity.
But it seems inevitable, as Kant says, that we are always limited by our senses and our mental capacity when interpreting the world around us, the the world as it is in itself will be forever inaccessible. Science depends on sensory data as the foundation for its arguments, and thus can not be said to represent absolute truth about the world. It is limited by the filters in the human mind and sensory apparatus that will automatically and incessantly be in effect when observing anything.
Surrounded as we are by what seems like the evidence of the success of science this is, as I have stated, easily forgotten. Planes fly, thus proving the laws of aerodynamics, right? Not necessarily. What the flying plane proves about science is that it is a valid interpretation of sensory data useful for finding practical solutions. Science gives no understanding or real knowledge or truth, as people seem to think. What science brings are practical solutions, and in my opinion this is the one and only thing the scientific method can be said to do well. As a basis for a complete view of the world, it can only lead to insanity.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Civilisation and progress
The concept of progress is something that has occupied my thoughts considerably over the years. The problem embedded in this term is that according to modern science, there is no such thing. What is called progress is nothing more than change, and it is our own chauvinistic attitude favouring our own culture that makes it seem to us that progress has taken place.
This, however, is a very counter-intuitive approach, and it is hard not to fall into the trap of thinking in terms of progress when studying both other cultures and our own. I myself am very careful in trying to avoid this primarily from a moral perspective. The dangers in trying to rank cultures in comparison to each other seems obvious in light of 20th century history. Still, intuitively, the difference between a culture basing its mobility on electricity and the combustion engines compared to one where people are still walking on their bare feet seems to be evident.
So, of what is this difference actually comprised? On the surface, you´d say more advanced technology, but what does that mean excactly? I will argue that the one basic element that can signify degrees in progress or civilisation is a term most commonly used in relation to modernity: fragmentation.
Fragmentation on every level is what makes "progress" possible, it is the division of the parts into ever smaller units, this speeds up all the particular processes within the whole, enabling it to grow in size. Please notice that there is no normative judgement in this whatsoever. Fragmentation, speed and size are not automatically better than their opposites, any advantages they offer are countered by equally strong disadvantages. For individuals in a society, this can be exemplified by the feeling of isolation and/or alienation that many in modern societies feel. From a different perspective, the destruction of the environment might be another.
So my main point might be that progress exists, but progress does not involve an increase in quality, only an increase in size (or potential size). Wandering aimlessly around in a forest, one can not be said to make progress. Progress is defined by its goal, in other words, once you decide to walk towards a particular tree, you can start making progress towards that tree, but who is to say, objectively, that this tree is any better than others?
This means, that all civilisations (not all cultures), at least the ones I have come across through my limited studies of history, try to make progress towards it´s goal of greater size. It´s means to this end is the fragmentation of social life, technology, philosophy and all other sides of existence. The citizens of any civililisation will usually pretend that their progress is a progress of morals, and will try to demonstrate this by comparing their own civilisation to other contemporary civilisations and to it´s own historical predecessors, hiding in their comparison certain facts about their own.
A good example of this is the way Athens is portrayed in most history books (or at least the ones I´ve read). The Athenians are usually given the credit for inventing democracy but, it is said, their democracy was not a true democracy, as many people where excluded from taking part in it. Women, slaves and foreigners where not allowed to participate in the democratic process. The implication here of course, is that today´s modern democracies have reached this "true" democracy that they speak of, which includes everyone.
I would argue that this is incorrect. Today, only citizens of a particular nation have the right to take part in that particular nation´s democratic process. So, even though Europeans own most factories in Africa and can run them more or less as they see fit, the people working in those factories have no vote in any organ that could control the owners of these factories. Europe and the rest of the vest through it´s superiour economic power, controls the African economy, and thus making any local democracy that might exist close to powerless.
The true democracy our haughty historians are looking for, can only exist when all national borders are erased, and that would also be a true progress in quality and morality. I will get back to this later. For now, suffice it to say that I have seen nothing that can be called progress towards a better society in the historical record, only the afforementioned increase in size.
-GD
This, however, is a very counter-intuitive approach, and it is hard not to fall into the trap of thinking in terms of progress when studying both other cultures and our own. I myself am very careful in trying to avoid this primarily from a moral perspective. The dangers in trying to rank cultures in comparison to each other seems obvious in light of 20th century history. Still, intuitively, the difference between a culture basing its mobility on electricity and the combustion engines compared to one where people are still walking on their bare feet seems to be evident.
So, of what is this difference actually comprised? On the surface, you´d say more advanced technology, but what does that mean excactly? I will argue that the one basic element that can signify degrees in progress or civilisation is a term most commonly used in relation to modernity: fragmentation.
Fragmentation on every level is what makes "progress" possible, it is the division of the parts into ever smaller units, this speeds up all the particular processes within the whole, enabling it to grow in size. Please notice that there is no normative judgement in this whatsoever. Fragmentation, speed and size are not automatically better than their opposites, any advantages they offer are countered by equally strong disadvantages. For individuals in a society, this can be exemplified by the feeling of isolation and/or alienation that many in modern societies feel. From a different perspective, the destruction of the environment might be another.
So my main point might be that progress exists, but progress does not involve an increase in quality, only an increase in size (or potential size). Wandering aimlessly around in a forest, one can not be said to make progress. Progress is defined by its goal, in other words, once you decide to walk towards a particular tree, you can start making progress towards that tree, but who is to say, objectively, that this tree is any better than others?
This means, that all civilisations (not all cultures), at least the ones I have come across through my limited studies of history, try to make progress towards it´s goal of greater size. It´s means to this end is the fragmentation of social life, technology, philosophy and all other sides of existence. The citizens of any civililisation will usually pretend that their progress is a progress of morals, and will try to demonstrate this by comparing their own civilisation to other contemporary civilisations and to it´s own historical predecessors, hiding in their comparison certain facts about their own.
A good example of this is the way Athens is portrayed in most history books (or at least the ones I´ve read). The Athenians are usually given the credit for inventing democracy but, it is said, their democracy was not a true democracy, as many people where excluded from taking part in it. Women, slaves and foreigners where not allowed to participate in the democratic process. The implication here of course, is that today´s modern democracies have reached this "true" democracy that they speak of, which includes everyone.
I would argue that this is incorrect. Today, only citizens of a particular nation have the right to take part in that particular nation´s democratic process. So, even though Europeans own most factories in Africa and can run them more or less as they see fit, the people working in those factories have no vote in any organ that could control the owners of these factories. Europe and the rest of the vest through it´s superiour economic power, controls the African economy, and thus making any local democracy that might exist close to powerless.
The true democracy our haughty historians are looking for, can only exist when all national borders are erased, and that would also be a true progress in quality and morality. I will get back to this later. For now, suffice it to say that I have seen nothing that can be called progress towards a better society in the historical record, only the afforementioned increase in size.
-GD
Saturday, 2 May 2009
God?
In this post I will attempt to clarify my views on the divine, and as a warning I will state upfront that some of this will seem far-fetched or even absurd to the more strictly scientifically oriented reader. I include this because it is the basis upon which all my other ideas are founded. That being said, I do not think it necessary to accept these concepts for the rest of my arguments to be valid, but to me it serves as a starting point to help keep things consistent. It may also serve to place my thoughts on the philosophical map, so to speak.
I believe in God. That is my first basic point. I believe, but being scientifically educated, I find it impossible to accept any of the established religions´ view of the world and the divine. Since all the prophets say different things, none of them can have brought us the absolute truth about God´s will and His nature. This may not even be possible, but my main point is that I believe that such a truth exists, and I believe that the truth about God must be the truth about everything.
In other words, philosophy is about trying to find the nature of God. This brings me to my next point, which is that I believe this to be possible. Our minds, through our souls are directly linked to the spiritual world where God “lives” (I warned you some of this would sound absurd, but I beg your patience), making them capable of finding truth. In other words, our minds are equipped with the tools necessary to find the deepest truths of existence.
I believe in God. That is my first basic point. I believe, but being scientifically educated, I find it impossible to accept any of the established religions´ view of the world and the divine. Since all the prophets say different things, none of them can have brought us the absolute truth about God´s will and His nature. This may not even be possible, but my main point is that I believe that such a truth exists, and I believe that the truth about God must be the truth about everything.
In other words, philosophy is about trying to find the nature of God. This brings me to my next point, which is that I believe this to be possible. Our minds, through our souls are directly linked to the spiritual world where God “lives” (I warned you some of this would sound absurd, but I beg your patience), making them capable of finding truth. In other words, our minds are equipped with the tools necessary to find the deepest truths of existence.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
First entry
For several years I have been plagued by bouts of depression. I think the reason for this lies in how I percieve the talents of my own mind, a mind which can easily understand most abstract thought which would be challenging or impossible for some others to grasp. But at the same time a mind incapable of forming any thoughts of true originality itself.
Furthermore, this conviction led me to ask the question: what is the purpose and value of such a mind? To a craftsman, this question is not important. The craftmans product will be just as useful regardless of its originality.
This is why I arranged for an apprenticeship with a craftsman several years ago, avoiding the troublesome question all together. But losing this apprenticeship and failing to get a new one, I once again turned to intellecual pursuits and the the question returned stronger in its force than ever.
Can the production of philosophical ideas devoid of originality have any value? This is the question (bizarre though it may seem to many) this blog seeks to answer. It is not a topic that will be discussed directly, but posting my thoughts here and observing the reaction (or lack thereof, which might be more likely) of others to them will help me answer this question to myself, hopefully enlightening both myself and others in the process too.
-GD
Furthermore, this conviction led me to ask the question: what is the purpose and value of such a mind? To a craftsman, this question is not important. The craftmans product will be just as useful regardless of its originality.
This is why I arranged for an apprenticeship with a craftsman several years ago, avoiding the troublesome question all together. But losing this apprenticeship and failing to get a new one, I once again turned to intellecual pursuits and the the question returned stronger in its force than ever.
Can the production of philosophical ideas devoid of originality have any value? This is the question (bizarre though it may seem to many) this blog seeks to answer. It is not a topic that will be discussed directly, but posting my thoughts here and observing the reaction (or lack thereof, which might be more likely) of others to them will help me answer this question to myself, hopefully enlightening both myself and others in the process too.
-GD
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
