Theism

It is like Jungian psychology! it comes from within and is metaphoric of mental activities. You see gods and goddesses because your mind has created same. Do you see the implications? Your own mind, like mine is a creative process. Polytheism allows an unlimited creative vista, which would seem more constrained in monotheism.

All the Brahmas and Krishnas and Indras (and to go more Eastern) Quan Yins, are merely symbols of the multiple aspects of our own minds which we share quite deeply within.

Any thoughts on this?

Get an education. Your writing skills would benefit from it.

You're trying too hard bro :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

You're trying too hard bro :)

---

If you mean me, I disagree. I think I am barely trying hard enough. OK, there will be people on this forum who will call me a troll, and others who say I have no education. There will be people like that anywhere. Why should I let that stop me from learning and dreaming? Nobody but me can break my own barriers, don't you think? So, if this is actually true for me, it is quite likely true for everyone else as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayflow

If you mean me, I disagree. I think I am barely trying hard enough. OK, there will be people on this forum who will call me a troll, and others who say I have no education. There will be people like that anywhere. Why should I let that stop me from learning and dreaming? Nobody but me can break my own barriers, don't you think? So, if this is actually true for me, it is quite likely true for everyone else as well?

---

No, there are people like that for you specifically as your actions warrant that commentary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayflow

If you mean me, I disagree. I think I am barely trying hard enough. OK, there will be people on this forum who will call me a troll, and others who say I have no education. There will be people like that anywhere. Why should I let that stop me from learning and dreaming? Nobody but me can break my own barriers, don't you think? So, if this is actually true for me, it is quite likely true for everyone else as well?

---

Thank you for using correct grammar! Now you are on the way to being taken seriously. Take note of the fact that your reply to our criticisms is almost as long as your introductory post to this thread, and you will be even closer. Or in other words: the only way to get people to put time into considering your ideas seriously and responding to them is for you to put some time into communicating said ideas clearly and logically.

Exactly what was incorrect in my grammar in my first post here?

Grammar. meh...

It's an artificial construction that has arisen in the past 300 years or so (excluding Sanskrit). Prior to that, it is defined by the use of natural speakers. Look at the way that Newton and Jefferson spelled. The purpose of language is to in the cfontext of discusssion is to convey ideas. It may have artistic or other purposes as well but that shouldn't be a requirement.

Grammar and spelling is mostly "I r have good grammar and spell well so I r smrt". With all social conceit placed to the side, it doesn't really have any other purpose so long as the writing in question is intelligible otherwise.

You may have a point here Philosopher Stoned, but why have people attacked my linguistic abilities here ? I thought I was pretty spot on.

Honestly I didn't see any problems with your grammar May. Maybe only very slight issues... forgot to capitalize the second sentence, maybe missed a coma later on. I
say either they guy is confused by your use of the word such, or he's just trolling your thread.

And I couldn't agree more with your statements in said post! Religions and myths are from the collective unconscious.

Ps for my part, I've only accused you of trolling when you actually were trolling.

I don't see any problem with this thread, aside from the fact that it's been derailed for no good reason. :P

The "gods are reflections of your mind/creativity" is an interesting line of thought. If you're a theist, you can say "yep! that's how god talks to us, to allow us to interpret him in a way we can understand" and atheists can say "yep! that's what I believe too - that god is a figment of your imagination"

And then you'd get into an argument. But that would have happened anyway haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayflow

If you mean me, I disagree. I think I am barely trying hard enough. OK, there will be people on this forum who will call me a troll, and others who say I have no education. There will be people like that anywhere. Why should I let that stop me from learning and dreaming? Nobody but me can break my own barriers, don't you think? So, if this is actually true for me, it is quite likely true for everyone else as well?

---

Don't worry I wasn't being serious - as in.. trying to troll your thread.

The existence of subjective things is based on imagination and the ability to believe (faith). Certain subjective/imagined things are more powerful in their influence on the human experience. "God" is one of those.

If you would say that unicorns are "just our mental activities/or imagination," I could understand but "God" is a far more powerful aspect of subjectivity. People don't spend a fraction of the energy on unicorns that they do on arguing about God's existence, worrying about how the universe emerged and what their purpose in it is. People don't devote their sundays to unicorns and insist on marrying someone who shares the same unicorn beliefs that they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayflow

It is like Jungian psychology! it comes from within and is metaphoric of mental activities. You see gods and goddesses because your mind has created same. Do you see the implications? Your own mind, like mine is a creative process. Polytheism allows an unlimited creative vista, which would seem more constrained in monotheism.

All the Brahmas and Krishnas and Indras (and to go more Eastern) Quan Yins, are merely symbols of the multiple aspects of our own minds which we share quite deeply within.

Any thoughts on this?

---

I put the errors in bold.

There really weren't that many, and I could tell what you meant. I've seen much less intelligible threads in RS. I kind of like grammar and spelling and all that stuff. It makes communication easier.

As for the topic. It is like Jungian psychology. Except people take it as reality. They think the pink unicorns[meaning imagined beings] are really there, we just can't see them. But we are also blind if we can't see that they are there. Madness if you ask me. A trick to steal your money and make you feel safe even though you haven't come to terms with death. Which causes a lot of other problems. People really need to come to terms with their humanity. Instead they create some kind of loophole through which they can delude themselves, believing they will live forever, and in turn never living at all. Never really knowing the self other than for a few fleeting moments. We'd have a lot less war, a lot less suffering on the planet if they did.

In all honesty this thread made perfect sense to me and only a few sentences were erroneous. I was just bored and tired and had nothing better to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

The "gods are reflections of your mind/creativity" is an interesting line of thought. If you're a theist, you can say "yep! that's how god talks to us, to allow us to interpret him in a way we can understand" and atheists can say "yep! that's what I believe too - that god is a figment of your imagination"

---

And both of them would be missing the point.

Exactly! I agree with Jung, that both literal fundamentalism and materialist/rationalist atheism are missing the point. There are obviously powerful concepts coming to us from deep (Jungians say deep in the psyche, theists would say from God or a diety). They emerge as myths dreams and visions and have a profound shaping influence on us, as individuals and as a society.

To simply wave it off as "figments of the imagination" is to miss the numinous quality and power of the archetypal forms. The unconscious is far more than the "imagination" - it's the mysterious darkness from which we emerged and gradually became conscious - from whence come nightmares and visions. Of course early humans with their propensity for anthropomorphism would see those visions as coming from "out there" - in a sense the unconscious is "out there" when seen from the limited viewpoint of consciousness, which is after all merely a small portion of it - having grown from it.

I envision the unconscious as a vast sea of petroleum (refined for obvious reasons to follow) and consciousness as a small wick floating on it, with a little flame flickering away. It feeds off the deep stuff of the unconscious, depends entirely on it in order to remain active, and drifts almost lost on it's dark surface while monstrous and magnificent things break the surface briefly, some close to the light some far away. As we've increased the scope and power of the human consciousness and learned to use science to avoid basic mistakes that were once considered "common sense" (like the earth being flat etc) (and yes, I know, we still have lots more to dispel!) - the light has grown stronger and illuminates more of the darkness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

from deep (Jungians say deep in the psyche, theists would say from God or a diety). They emExactly! I agree with Jung, that both literal fundamentalism and materialist/rationalist atheism are missing the point. There are obviously powerful concepts coming to userge as myths dreams and visions and have a profound shaping influence on us, as individuals and as a society.

To simply wave it off as "figments of the imagination" is to miss the numinous quality and power of the archetypal forms. The unconscious is far more than the "imagination" - it's the mysterious darkness from which we emerged and gradually became conscious - from whence come nightmares and visions. Of course early humans with their propensity for anthropomorphism would see those visions as coming from "out there" - in a sense the unconscious is "out there" when seen from the limited viewpoint of consciousness, which is after all merely a small portion of it - having grown from it.

I envision the unconscious as a vast sea of petroleum (refined for obvious reasons to follow) and consciousness as a small wick floating on it, with a little flame flickering away. It feeds off the deep stuff of the unconscious, depends entirely on it in order to remain active, and drifts almost lost on it's dark surface while monstrous and magnificent things break the surface briefly, some close to the light some far away. As we've increased the scope and power of the human consciousness and learned to use science to avoid basic mistakes that were once considered "common sense" (like the earth being flat etc) (and yes, I know, we still have lots more to dispel!) - the light has grown stronger and illuminates more of the darkness.

---

Mayney interesting points here. Noumenon and phenomenon? Kantian, I presume?

Nagarjuna in Buddhist middle way philosophy.
"Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the use of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness," which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), to refute the metaphysics of Sarvastivāda and Sautrāntika (extinct non-Mahayana schools). For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being. Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true."

So, from where I sit, agree with Renee Descartes. I am that I am, or I am because I think. I think, therefor I am. From there I go on to say that the I am that I am is a creative force. I am that I am, therefore I CAN create. This is to ID with the creative force as a forever nondualistic force, and the creations of the creative force as the dualities and multiplicities of it's own creative prowess. Does anyone deduce the implications of this?

Quote:

---

Mayney interesting points here. Noumenon and phenomenon? Kantian, I presume?

---

Well, I get the term Numinous from Jung... not sure where he gets it from. Could be Kant. I'm not familiar with Kant.

Quote:

---

2nd paragraph

---

- too dense with head-hurting words. Couldn't read it.

Quote:

---

3rd paragraph

---

I dig it! Implications... that we ARE gods? Or at least that the creative power of god(s) works through us/in us?

Quote:

---

I am that I am

---

~ Descartes gets this from Popeye. I yam what I yam! ;)