[MD] What's wrong with "a personal God"?

[paul chie lixian worrall]

Oh my God , I've dropped my wine ! Insh'Ahlla 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Apr 2016, at 12:12, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Nick,
> 
> 
>> 
>> Does what you write about Genesis and the origin of the World apply to
>> what Bodvar is quoting about Gravity ??
>> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.  I think Bodvar went off the deep end quite a while ago and he
> thinks the same about me.  We don't agree on much.
> 
> 
> Pirsig didn't say gravity didn't exist "objectively".  He said the law of
> gravity didn't objectively exist, and he was using logic to confound the
> arguments of his enemy.  Because if only "objective facts" are real, then
> why is the law of gravity, "real"?  It was "merely" in your head, so
> obviously there's a root issue with your metaphysics there...
> 
> But we get most of our unspoken assumptions and connotations of "god" from
> that old book, and it's important to point out that the modern
> interpretations of that book aren't a sound basis for rational discussion.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t think I ever quite nailed the ZAMM explanation of Gravity. It
>> could be because I’m thinking that there is the concept (law ?) of Gravity
>> and the phenomenon of Gravity and maybe even Gravity itself ?!
>> 
> 
> For convenience sake, we divide the world.  It's fine.  Just don't forget
> that all this is "Just and analogy". We have a very real concept that we
> use to deal with our experience of "gravity" and when we hold that
> conceptual scheme lightly, and intelligently, we can use it without being
> trapped by it.  We can progress.  That seems to be a good thing,
> intellectual evolution toward betterness, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> My only argument for a presonal God, is if such a choice, or belief, makes
> one's life better.  Makes things cohere.  Makes things work out nicely, in
> a poetical and harmonious fashion.  For some people, it's obviously a huge
> stoppage, and they should stay away from it till they can handle it, I
> guess.  Ideas come to us in their own time.  All we can do is respond
> positively or negatively.  The only judgement that matters is the judgement
> of time, telling us whether our choice was good or bad.
> 
> Royce said if you would know what he meant by "absolute", then forget
> rhetorical argument and simply try and undo what has been done.  That's the
> only absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> So, I assume, when arguing with a SOMite that Gravity didn’t exist before
>> Newton defined it, they would say but the phenomenon of Gravity existed
>> before him. The Chinese had witnessed it and described it (not sure that
>> that is the case, by the way !)
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Short story:  I was around 12 years old and my dad had joined the Santa
> Cruz 4Wheel drive club.  We'd go down on the weekends to this place called
> Marina where there were these extensive sand dunes and we could play to our
> heart's content in Jeeps and dune buggies.  Mountains of sand, trails
> through them and no real rules.  It all got shut down pretty quick, but st
> the time it sure was fun, learning how to drive a stick, learning about
> traction and momentum and mass in the proper way, through direct
> experience.  But that's not my point.  My point is a small saying written
> on a bathroom wall, in the town of Marina, California.  Graffitti, that
> blew my mind at the time because I'd never thought of it that way before
> and I'd never seen anything profound written in a public restroom before.
> And you've probably heard it, it's not a unique or special saying, trite
> and corny, now, but at the time it seemed fresh and dynamic to me -  there
> is no gravity, the earth sucks.
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoyote at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, 1 April 2016 6:10 a.m.
>> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
>> *Cc:* John McConnell; Henry Gurr; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; Anthony;
>> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skutvik at online.no
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick/Wes,
>> 
>> The fact that we get stuck sometimes in our categories, illustrates what I
>> think of as a false problem in your question:
>> 
>> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events
>> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal
>> system did not exist ??!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and
>> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ
>> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’.
>> 
>> Objectivity is such a false category.  To bring the issue around to the
>> idea of a "personal" God, I'd like to illustrate from Ellul where the
>> problem lies:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "For the first two chapters of Genesis, everything has been distorted,
>> beginning with the infusion of Greek philosophy toward the end of the third
>> century via the theologians. The problem is that Greek philosophy asks
>> questions to which the Bible does not in the least seek to reply. The
>> Greeks were interested in the origin of the world, but I will seek to show
>> that the first two chapters of Genesis have no interest in this subject
>> whatsoever. Once theologians began to think along the lines of Greek
>> philosophy, they began to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis as an
>> answer to the origin of the world. In other words, they began to read these
>> texts as answers to philosophical or metaphysical questions, resulting in a
>> complete distortion of what these texts are all about, which has nothing to
>> do with the origin of the world. Similar problems began to occur when Greek
>> concepts, such as objective knowledge, were adopted. This concept is
>> entirely foreign to Jewish thought. Hence, we need to take certain
>> precautions. We need to know how to read a particular text. For example, it
>> is impossible to read a medieval text the way we read a contemporary novel.
>> They are rooted in completely different contexts."
>> 
>> You have to admit that Ellul was on to something there.  imho, he would
>> have made a fine MoQist.
>> 
>> Don't have much time today, I'm polishing up my presentation for tomorrow
>> in San Francisco.  Hopefully it will all go well and I'll video it so I can
>> share it with y'll.
>> 
>> JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Nick Summerhayes <nick at headway.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for all your efforts there, John,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It’s interesting reading.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I realise that using the MOQ we want to get away from the ‘concept’ of
>> objects… but feel like we need to ‘bridge the gap’ if we are ever going to
>> give SOM people a pathway to join us ?!
>> 
>> I used to think that ‘objects’ would be found in the Inorganic and
>> Biological levels but not the Social and Intellectual levels.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But then would get into heavy chats will SOMites about an idea in the
>> Intellectual level requiring ‘objects’ of some kind in the Brain to exist…
>> be it a magnetized ‘memory cell’, synapse or whatever.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It begat another thought experiment !...
>> 
>> I thought of the concept or idea of the Dewey Decimal Library system in
>> the Intellectual level (maybe the Social level ??) and it needing the
>> Brains of people in the Western world to exist/survive and be passed down
>> to generations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Say we have a perfect description of the Dewey Decimal Library system
>> written down in English on paper.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Then we have the asteroid hit which wipes out all races on Earth except
>> the Eskimos and none of them speak English or just have rudimentary English
>> (no offence to any Eskimos reading this).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So there we are with no one on Earth knowing what the heck the Dewey
>> Decimal system is.
>> 
>> Eventually the Eskimos discover the document and work out what it means in
>> detail… a bit like Westerners with the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Suddenly we
>> have Libraries again operating the Dewey Decimal System.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The question is… was there a point in time (in the MOQ’s version of events
>> and the SOM version of events) where the idea/concept of the Dewey Decimal
>> system did not exist ??!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think I’m assuming that under SOM there was a time it didn’t exist and
>> under MOQ it always existed because for something to exist under MOQ
>> doesn’t necessarily require an ‘object’.
>> 
>> Although I could see us arguing until blue in the face with entrenched SOM
>> people in the above scenario.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Confused, in New Zealand.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> a.k.a.  Wes McGuinness
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 31 March 2016 3:42 a.m.
>> 
>> 
>> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
>> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
>> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skutvik at online.no
>> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Good questions there, Nick!  I’ll have a go at some answers and let Henry
>> and others catch me where I fall.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would start by saying that a fact is an increment of “negotiated”
>> knowledge or information.  For example, it is a [verisimilitudinous] “fact”
>> that in a vacuum fall at the same rate, regardless of their masses.  The
>> Newtonian equations for gravity constitute a “theory of gravity”.  The
>> theory relates and interprets a number of related facts.  Newton’s theory
>> of gravity worked very well for a long time and still does.  But Einstein’s
>> relativistic theory of gravity works better because it relates and explains
>> a wider range of facts.  Einstein’s theory gives a more verisimilitudinous
>> explanation of the phenomenon of gravity than Newton’s does.  Using the
>> “map” analogy, a fact is a feature of the terrain; a theory is the map that
>> shows how the feature relates to the rest of the landscape.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Now about the thought experiment.  I’m not clever enough to analyze it
>> completely, but I have an instinct that says that somehow there’s something
>> wrong with the premise.  There’s a flaw somewhere in the notion that there
>> can be a totally “empty” block of space-time.  A quantum physicist would
>> probably say that the uncertainty principle excludes the possibility of an
>> “empty” portion of space-time.  There would be virtual particles in there
>> cavorting throughout the space.  The box is a stable pattern in a
>> space-time continuum, in which the “inside” is continuous and
>> indistinguishable from the “outside”.  I guess I’m saying that
>> “inside/outside” is an artificial distinction.  I have no idea if that is
>> valid at all; it’s just what came to me “dynamically”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Space/time – “I have it on good authority” [David Bohm. Menas Kafatos]
>> that space/time/matter/energy are mutually interrelated.  There isn’t a
>> space-time container that matter and energy exist in or expand into.  At
>> its origin the universe expanded, generating its space-time as it did so.
>> [I picture a tank laying down its track and running on it and picking it up
>> again.]  These authors affirm that as the universe is expanding, so is
>> space-time.  Another useful image is that of a balloon being inflated.  As
>> the balloon expands, two spots on its surface become more distant from each
>> other.  But the spots are not separating from each other in a pre-existing
>> container of a fixed size; they are separating as space-time expands.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Does any of this make sense?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Good luck!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John McConnell
>> 
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>> 
>> Cell:      407-867-2192
>> 
>> Email:   jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:nick at headway.co.nz <nick at headway.co.nz>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 6:45 PM
>> *To:* John McConnell
>> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
>> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skutvik at online.no
>> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks John,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When posting on blogs I like to ask what becomes of the previous ‘fact’.
>> Possibly a bad example (of so called facts), but is Einstein’s ‘gravity’
>> (relativity and the warping of space/time) a fact and Newton’s gravity not ?
>> 
>> I guess it comes down to Pirsig/Anthony’s “use the ‘best’ (map) one, e.g.
>> Einstein’s gravity for Mercury’s transit around the Sun.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Talking Space/Time, I also try a thought experiment whereby we remove all
>> ‘objects’ from a cubic metre of Space/Time… e.g. a lead-lined box to keep
>> out radiation and neutrinos, then suck out all matter with a vacuum, and
>> have the box coated with a substance that deflects radio waves.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What is in the box ?  Dark Matter ?  Or absolutely nothing ?   Just DQ ??
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Also, are ‘we’ generating more Space/Time for the Universe(s) to expand
>> into or is it a finite resource ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* John McConnell [mailto:jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
>> <jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 March 2016 4:57 a.m.
>> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
>> *Cc:* 'Henry Gurr'; 'John Carl'; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; 'Anthony';
>> 'Antonio Italy'; 'Andre Broersen'; skutvik at online.no
>> *Subject:* RE: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick,
>> 
>> I think the best of scientists will tell you that there is no such thing
>> as a “raw fact”.  There are *data* (from Latin for “given”), some of
>> which may be passively obtained, but “facts”  are *factus* (from the
>> Latin for “made”).  Facts are not “observed”; they are “negotiated”.  Any
>> “scientific fact” exists only in the terms of, and by virtue of, the
>> theoretical context and the empirical process of that negotiation.
>> [Henry?  Confirm?  Deny?  Correct?]
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John McConnell
>> 
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>> 
>> Cell:      407-867-2192
>> 
>> Email:   jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Nick Summerhayes [mailto:nick at headway.co.nz <nick at headway.co.nz>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 3:29 AM
>> *To:* John McConnell
>> *Cc:* Henry Gurr; John Carl; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; Anthony; Antonio
>> Italy; Andre Broersen; skutvik at online.no
>> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I've wondered about the term 'scientific fact'. Should it be 'current
>> scientific fact'. For Science to work shouldn't the most recent fact be
>> prepared to be replaced at a moments notice ?!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Should we make the term scientific fact redundant ?
>> 
>> 
>> On 28/03/2016, at 5:04 pm, John McConnell <jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Henry,
>> 
>> Your last sentence says it all:
>> 
>> “To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if
>> any of this is "true", *or scientifically provable.”*
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your positing of “scientifically provable” as the criterion of truth makes
>> me feel that you and I have little common ground for dialogue.  Most of
>> what really means anything to me in my life is beyond the scope of that
>> which is “scientifically provable”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John McConnell
>> 
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>> 
>> Cell:      407-867-2192
>> 
>> Email:   jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Henry Gurr [mailto:henrysgurr at gmail.com <henrysgurr at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2016 7:54 PM
>> *To:* Nick Summerhayes
>> *Cc:* John Carl; John McConnell; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; Anthony;
>> Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen; skutvik at online.no
>> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To Nick, John M, John Carl, Andre, Antonio, Anthony & MOQ Discuss.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John Carl said " ... but on the other hand, without an account of the
>> personal, all science;  all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as
>> "mind/body" and "Self/Other" logical problems."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Concerning this, I can see how some "thinkers", could start with trying to
>> make an account of  the personal, and get totally lost in "mind/body" and
>> "Self/Other" logical problems."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Partly because they don't have or understand band have heads full of evil
>> dualisms!! .
>> 
>> ********
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> According to Owen Barfield, there has been an evolution of consciousness,
>> which starts of NO awareness of self (time of  *Homer's Odyssey* & *Greek*
>> mythology, to our present day self awareness, which we have because we
>> have what we call consciousness.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Of course, what we call a person, including what we call our self, must
>> have a corresponding evolution:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So I agree with ", *Personality is a story - a process [of development]
>> in time.*" This story is probably  written out, by a wide collection of
>> various authors. However such stories will be VERY lacking unless they
>> include the orientation of  both of Pirsig's books, which I'll bet hasn't
>> happened.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But some authors might have done this: So challenge: Please tell all of
>> us, the best "story", you are aware of.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Both of Pirsig's books, might be a good way to make a *basis* for  many
>> persons' " notion of a
>> 
>>   “Personal God” +
>> 
>>    Why can’t God choose to be “personal”?  +
>> 
>>    What is the affirmation of a “personal God” +
>> 
>>    How can there be a “limitation” or “definition” of God?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To me, outside what these persons tell us, there is no way to know if any
>> of this is "true", or scientifically provable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Henry Gurr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Nick Summerhayes <nick at headway.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Are we living in a time of ‘imPersonalism’ ?!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I did identify with ‘The person is rooted in history but the now is
>> always a choice. ‘
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* John Carl [mailto:ridgecoyote at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 March 2016 6:53 a.m.
>> *To:* John McConnell; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> *Cc:* Anthony; Henry Gurr; Antonio Italy; Andre Broersen;
>> skutvik at online.no; Nick Summerhayes
>> *Subject:* Re: What's wrong with "a personal God"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John, I brought up the issue of Personalism a while back in MD, and
>> honestly, before we get into what you mean by "God", I think we ought to
>> talk about what we mean by "Personal".  I got interested in the discussion
>> of Personalism in the general  way through reading Auxier's commentary on
>> James's Personalism, which he (James) largely derived from Bowden Parker
>> Bowne, if Auxier's correct (and he usually is ;)   It's a fascinating
>> philosophical discussion and one that modernist-analytic philosophy (SOM)
>> tends to ignore, being that it is a form of Idealism and god knows who we
>> let in if we open THAT door....
>> 
>> but on the other hand, without an account of the personal, all science;
>> all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as "mind/body" and
>> "Self/Other" logical problems.
>> 
>> 
>> before  we can personalize God, God must personalize us, or we have no
>> basis for standing.  I believe this can be a rational process, but it MUST
>> be a process.  That is, Personality is a story - a process in time.  The
>> god of the bible is certainly that, first and foremost - IAM he that knew
>> your fathers, that brought you out of the land of bondage, etc.  The person
>> is rooted in history but the now is always a choice.
>> 
>> Thanks for continuing the conversation,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell <
>> jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Friends,
>> 
>> In a number of sources which otherwise affirm a spiritual reality or a
>> concept analogous to the way Christians conceive of God, most are vehement
>> in their denial a “personal God”, which most equate with an
>> “anthropomorphic” or “sectarian” God.  Although such may often be the case,
>> why, on the face of it, do scholars reject the notion of a “personal God”?
>> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”?  Why is the affirmation of a
>> “personal God” considered by MOQ fundamentalists to be a “limitation” or
>> “definition” of God?  How does being “personal” (not “personified”) violate
>> God’s the attributes of ineffable, indefinable, etc., ascribed to Dynamic
>> Quality?  What could be less “effable” and “definable” and “limited” than
>> the pure Essence of Being of Thomas Aquinas?  I’m really puzzled by this.
>> Can you help?
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> John McConnell
>> 
>> Home:  407-857-2004
>> 
>> Cell:      407-867-2192
>> 
>> Email:   jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> "finite players
>> play within boundaries.
>> 
>> Infinite players
>> play *with* boundaries."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> "finite players
>> play within boundaries.
>> 
>> Infinite players
>> play *with* boundaries."
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html