The Builder, and the Plan

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:14 pm

The Builder and the Plan isn't a dominating line of thought.

cousinbasil · Post by **cousinbasil** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:01 am

Kelly Jones wrote:I think Diebert is reasonably familiar with the dominating angles of thought, of the likes of Kant, Sartre, Mills, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Damasio, Metzinger, Churchland, Fromm, Hobbes, Locke, Augustine, and Aquinas. While an author may have some secret private unpublished works that are completely at odds with his public face, it is highly unlikely, so one seems justified in coming to a conclusion based on what they've generally given their intellectual efforts to forming an understanding of. I don't think his response was necessarily snide, but it was clearly dismissive. But one has to dismiss a lot of human outpourings if one has a particular goal, not shared by all, and is discerning about how it is expressed, and wants to promote the clearest expressions of it. It doesn't mean that the dismissed are necessarily inferior. It only means that one's intellectual efforts are focussed in a different area.

.

In other words, you don't think he has read much of them, either.

cousinbasil · Post by **cousinbasil** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:32 am

For anyone interested, The Builder and the Plan is also available at Google Books and is down-loadable as a PDF. (I found it a bit easier to look through as the PDF.)

In one of the forwards, Ursula states:

Some of the fundamental propositions of "The Science of Being" are not original with myself. I first read of them in 1884 in the book "Science and Health." The following month I entered one of Mrs. Eddy's classes and received her personal instruction.

That would be Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Scientist movement.

From what I have read of TBATP, it is remarkable in that not every sentient being feels compelled to write a textbook on the science of being itself. In doing so, Gestefeld makes it necessary for her reader to accept her terminology for facets of the human experience the reader may already know by other terms. I suspect that few of the fundamental propositions in her "Science of Being" are original with her, or with Mrs. Eddy, though their presentation may have been at the time.

From that same forward, we can see where a problem might arise:

The sometimes unsparing criticism that Christian Science and its text book have met has been due, largely, to the lack of logic and submergence of cause and effect. This hiatus between fundamentals and ultimates has been bridged by the chain of "direct revelation" from God to the author of the book as His specially chosen instrument; a momentous fact that renders so small a thing as logical coherence unnecessary.

Ursula's "Science of Being" is an attempt to bridge this gap or "hiatus" and she sees it as a necessary successor to Christian Science.

Then we have the following:

The efforts, open and concealed, made by leading Christian Scientists to nullify teachings, to break down and destroy teachers of which and of whom they do not approve, is due, mainly, to their honest belief that all such teaching is error which it is their bounden duty to destroy if possible. This effort is also the accompaniment of the belief that Mrs. Eddy is the Christ, is a higher manifestation of God than was Jesus of Nazareth.

So far I am about halfway through TBATP and find myself skimming rather than reading. It doesn't seem likely I will make the necessary effort to fully assimilate this "teaching," since it is like trying to squirm into clothes that don't fit, and even if they did, they would be hopelessly out of date.

My overall take is that Ursula main premise is that God is Principle and not Person. The reason she insists on this is pretty self-evident: Principle cannot change, whereas a Person can. One can rely on the former largely without faith, but not so the latter, who can become "wrathful."

Yet it strikes me that this sidesteps the traditional Christian experience, which can be summed up that God is both Principle and Person.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:47 am

Animus wrote: You are right, all books are boring and stupid.

I just went and wasted some money on Dante's Divine Comedy, The Perennial Philosophy, the Baghivad Gita, Tao Te Ching and a few other books. Suppose I should take 'em all back, seeing as there are bound to be better books out there.

Considering how you're posting of late, pretty emotional and defensive, I do think it's a waste of time for you right now to rub shoulders with all those names. It reads like you're overdosing. It won't help, you'll only get confused or possibly unbearable arrogant for the wrong reasons. You're listing all those names as damn trophies. It has nothing to do with the idea behind the forum.

Absorb all you can if you feel the need but do not use your bookshelf as ammunition to prove you're having intellect and knowledge. I've read several libraries and it didn't bring me anything at the time, apart from introducing more conflict and questions: it took something away: the idea I could actually know something in that manner.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:51 am

I think you guys are missing the point. You can say it isn't clear and concise, but there will always be faults with every authorship. A few great books I read lately that are not very clear or concise:

Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals by Robert M. Pirsig
Kim by Rudyard Kipling
The Odyssey by Homer
Undine by Friedrich de la Motte Fouque

Whatever, they are good enough for me, I'm not looking for perfection where perfection is impossible. I enjoyed all those books whether I agreed with them or not. And no they are not trophies, just trying to make a rather valid counter-point to your dismissing Gestefeld. But if you want to continue to make up egoic explications of peoples' behavior, then.. forget it. You can believe whatever you want and limit yourself to acceptable writing and I'll enjoy a wider variety of texts and a wider variety of view points.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:54 am

You can just say, we only accept books that say "A=A" because to our minds that is the clearest expression of truth, nothing compares to it, so we just don't bother with any writing that doesn't immediately express everything in the exact manner which we are comfortable with. We'll set you up a church and have printed copies of "Wisdom of the Infinite" and "Poison For the Heart" in the back of all the pews and no other blasphemous texts will enter there.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:58 am

cousinbasil wrote:
Yet it strikes me that this sidesteps the traditional Christian experience, which can be summed up that God is both Principle and Person.

I don't think that is the traditional view, I think that is just the modern view.

It really goes back to Tertullian c. 160-c. 225

(From Christian Theology by Alister McGrath)
Persona
Tertullian introduced this Latin term to translate the Greek word hypostasis, which had begun to gain acceptance in the Greek-speaking church. Scholars have debated at length over what Tertullian meant by this lating term, which is invariably translated into English as "person"... The term persona literally means "a mask." such as that worn by an actor in a Roman drama. At this time, actors wore masks to allow the audiences to understand which of the different characters in the drama they were playing. The term persona thus came to have a devleoped meaning, along the lines of "the role that someone is playing." It is quite possible that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of "one substance, three persons" to mean that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption...Behind the plurality of roles lay a single actor. The complexity of the process of creation and redemption did not imply that there were many gods; simply that there was one God, who acted in a multiplicity of manners within the "economy of salvation".

cousinbasil · Post by **cousinbasil** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:06 am

If it goes back to Tertullian, that's pretty close to the first ages of Christianity, so to me, that's traditional Christianity. The selling point of Christianity is that it is a religion about Christ as opposed to his teachings. Yet it seems to me as if he discouraged this, even refusing for years to assume the role of Jewish Messiah being pushed on him. It is my belief that Christ's more inner circle had access to his more in depth teachings, and that he espoused the triune nature of the Godhead, which while not unknown in his time, certainly was not the prevailing view of his contemporary rabbis. There are many theories which attempt to explain how Christ himself was conflated into being identical with one of the three aspects of the triune Logos. No gospel, canonical or otherwise, which I have read supports this identification.

If an historical personage is held to be an incarnation of an aspect of the Divine Logos, that's as close as a "personal god" as it gets. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion that Mary Baker Eddy is spiritually even more divine.

Gestefeld has every reason to hold this view, or at least refrain from contravening it, considering she was Eddy's pupil at one time. I am impressed with the doggedness she displays in emphasizing the scientific nature of her work. As she says, if God is Principle and not person, one need not try to understand how God could be angry or vengeful or wrathful. She makes a good point that the term "divine wrath" is an oxymoron, as anyone who has witnessed wrath would hesitate to call it divine. Yet she seems to ignore the fact that it is possible for a human to be utterly free of these seemingly subhuman manifestations. In other words, one need not abandon the personhood of his god in order to be assured his god does not act on whim, and will not arbitrarily send his creatures down rabbit holes or through looking-glasses where previously established principles fail to hold.

Her doggedness notwithstanding, if she had been more learned in any of many disciplines contemporary with her writing, the scientific nature of TBATP might be more evident. A work can be internally consistent - which this might be - yet lack empirical import - which this appears to. Personally, I need more persuasion than mere assertion.

Synergetics by Buckminster Fuller gave me a similar impression. I believe Fuller had a life long battle trying to get his ideas across - get them noticed, published, and above all, patented - simply because he sidestepped much traditional engineering and/or architecture schooling and introduced his own terminology for everything. In a sense, he left it to others to ascertain what he was talking about. I remember attending a lecture given by a rather contemptuous physics professor on the ideas underlying Fuller's concept of a tensegrity. The gist was that it was a smoke-and-mirrors avoidance of rigorous engineering methods.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 am

Animus wrote:You can just say, we only accept books that say "A=A" because to our minds that is the clearest expression of truth, nothing compares to it, so we just don't bother with any writing that doesn't immediately express everything in the exact manner which we are comfortable with. We'll set you up a church and have printed copies of "Wisdom of the Infinite" and "Poison For the Heart" in the back of all the pews and no other blasphemous texts will enter there.

Ryan, there are so many ways of expressing emptiness, and many ways to garner a greater understanding of it. A person who wants the clearest, plainest expression will be ready and thirsty for the purest - such as Zen. But most of us are still trying to create enough love for truth, so we often need psychologically pleasing, aesthetic works. So, for instance, some science fiction, or other works like you mention above - Homer, etc - can, through their idealism and imagination, generate a more logical state of mind. These works aren't so pure, but that's all one can cope with at the time. They're not despicable, but they're not the highest --- and that's what I think I ought to be aiming for.

.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:46 pm

cousinbasil wrote:If it goes back to Tertullian, that's pretty close to the first ages of Christianity, so to me, that's traditional Christianity. The selling point of Christianity is that it is a religion about Christ as opposed to his teachings. Yet it seems to me as if he discouraged this, even refusing for years to assume the role of Jewish Messiah being pushed on him. It is my belief that Christ's more inner circle had access to his more in depth teachings, and that he espoused the triune nature of the Godhead, which while not unknown in his time, certainly was not the prevailing view of his contemporary rabbis. There are many theories which attempt to explain how Christ himself was conflated into being identical with one of the three aspects of the triune Logos. No gospel, canonical or otherwise, which I have read supports this identification.

That's just it though, the "persona" the "person" is a mask, a front for something else. "One substance, three persons" the person is the face of the substance. Not like humans are any different, our egos are really personas, and we are substance. In that way, I would agree that God is a Personal God, but we are also Impersonal Persons.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:44 pm

Listen here, and don't go getting all combative.

I have something to say that is a great insight. I have said already.

There is no "person" apart from the appearance of them. Apart from the phenomenal person, there is no definitive noumenal person. This you already submit as the "ego is false." So then, the impersonal is false, if there is fundamentally no personal, then there is no impersonal as impersonal implies a negation of personal. There is simply no such distinguishing between personal and impersonal. Perhaps that is the way it was prior to Tertullian. Perhaps not, but the point remains that the impersonal is false.

In that way, to say that impersonal dialog is better, is equally as false as saying the opposite. That you choose the impersonal, believing it to be clearer, is a matter of taste only, and perhaps you are wrong. That you exclude the personal or cordon-off the sections of your mind where you think the truth is, poses a big obstacle to insight. Now you are at the mercy of explanations that are rare if existent. Maybe you find one or two and bury yourself in them, but then you've limited your range of explanation. And, you are making the assumption that reality is impersonal or personal, which it is not.

cousinbasil · Post by **cousinbasil** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:03 am

Animus wrote:Apart from the phenomenal person, there is no definitive noumenal person.

The definitive noumenal person appears to exist more in others - the illusion is much stronger, especially in some people. I have often been aware that I am likewise creating this illusion in others, sometimes unwittingly, but often with full intent as it is to my benefit, just as with an organization when it tries to keep its internal debates private and employs a point-person to be its public, unified face.

In that way, to say that impersonal dialog is better, is equally as false as saying the opposite.

I am not convinced the opposite is as false, though.

I am saying this in light of what we have been discussing, namely a dialog with what or whom one sees as one's god.

Ouspensky and Gurdjieff among others referred to the multiplicity of I's which constitute a person, and that person's ignorance, when existing in (or as) any one of those I's, of the existence of all the others. Enlightenment involves unifying these I's, which is a never-ending struggle, and which begins by frankly identifying each and every one.

This notion is quite consistent with your statement that "there is no definitive noumenal person." But bear in mind the special usage of noumenal your assertion implies. It usually applies to all external things. The phenomena are what we most often (mistakenly) believe to be those things, because the noumena - the things in themselves - we cannot know, by definition. We live exclusively in a world made of internal ideas, which are impressions of things and thoughts about them, and never the things as they really are, the external reality. To say there is a noumenal person behind what we conceive ourselves to be means there exists an external reality of which we are merely forming internal impressions which can only map approximately to what is the more "real" external self.

This obviously cannot be true. There can be no noumenal "version" of our persons that are more real. There can only be our selves as the world sees us and which we can never see quite as others do. But in no sense can this noumenon of the phenomenal self we experience be more real than the phenomenon. There is no independent external "version" as there would be with a rock or a chair, for example.

I am contending that having a dialog with one's god is holding a mirror up to oneself. The extent to which one bares one's soul is the extent one is willing to look into this mirror. If one's god is impersonal, what gets held before that mirror are one's ideas rather than one's self in one's entirety. Thus one's ideas might develop, while the rest of oneself lags, for we are not merely our ideas.

Why, if one's god is impersonal, one may end up with the ridiculous notion that one has become an instant genius, suddenly understanding Ultimate Reality in all its flowering.

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:42 am

Animus wrote: "There is simply no such distinguishing between personal and impersonal. Perhaps that is the way it was prior to Tertullian. Perhaps not, but the point remains that the impersonal is false. / In that way, to say that impersonal dialog is better, is equally as false as saying the opposite. That you choose the impersonal, believing it to be clearer, is a matter of taste only, and perhaps you are wrong. That you exclude the personal or cordon-off the sections of your mind where you think the truth is, poses a big obstacle to insight. Now you are at the mercy of explanations that are rare if existent. Maybe you find one or two and bury yourself in them, but then you've limited your range of explanation. And, you are making the assumption that reality is impersonal or personal, which it is not."

My own thought? Once one sees through a single part of the contrived and false doctrines that are insisted upon here, which are the basis of an entire, and possessive, 'structure of thought' performance, the whole edifice becomes challengable, and indeed one proceeds from the QRS first assertions, upon which the individual is sacrificed, right on down the line. One goes, then, from a 'death-structure', a mental death-exercize, back toward a living pulse.

It is like a thread that one pulls and suddenly the weakness of the garment (costume) begins to unravel. One might not even have wanted it to, but once it starts it unravels by its own self.

Now, the 'menders' MUST of course appear, like white corpuscles, to repair the rent fabric, to mend the breach. This is very serious (mental) business. Indeed, if it gets too serious Papa David will come and sit himself down for awhile, straighten out the disarrayed rhetoric, wipe the smiles off the irreverant faces, offer a fraternal kiss to Master Rhetorician Diebert and sub-Master Rhetorician Kelly before he resettles himself back in the Fog of the Void, like a frog on a lily-pad.

And on and on it goes....

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:12 am

cousinbasil wrote:I am contending that having a dialog with one's god is holding a mirror up to oneself. The extent to which one bares one's soul is the extent one is willing to look into this mirror. If one's god is impersonal, what gets held before that mirror are one's ideas rather than one's self in one's entirety. Thus one's ideas might develop, while the rest of oneself lags, for we are not merely our ideas.

Well exactly, if I am a person, I can't interact with things impersonally without disowning portions of myself. The word "disowning" is incorrect, because one cannot not simply let go of a good chunk of personality.

cousinbasil · Post by **cousinbasil** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:21 am

TBATP is after all a work of Christian Science, at least it extends from this tradition more than any other, and Gestefeld admits as much.

I am only marginally acquainted with the ideas of Christian Science, mostly through osmosis as I nosed around the vast Romanesque/Byzantine Mother Church when I lived in Boston.

I find it interesting that Christian Scientists recognize no pastor, save the Bible and Mrs. Eddy's Science and Health. Here Gestefeld describes what can be taken as the Christian Scientist attitude toward the Bible:

The system of thought named "the Science of Being " does not rest upon the Bible as its authority. If true, its truth is independent of the Bible as of all other authority and must be self-evident to be seen and known. But the Bible affords confirmation of the argument, for its meaning as illustrated by the history and imagery employed is the same deductive continuity. The premise of this system, is identical with the first chapter of Genesis, the conclusions step by step are the same even to the ultimate, for the Bible is an orderly presentation of abstract truth, of what Principle compels.

The teaching can be given from beginning to end as argument solely, or it can be accompanied by a constant parallelism in the Bible. It does not view the Bible as something too sacred to be critically examined, or so old-fashioned as to be obsolete, but as an illustration of the nature of the human soul and the order of its development according to the law governing the development.

The reason I find this interesting is that God as Principle as opposed to God as Person is central to TBATP. The Builder cannot be a human-like Person since humans do not behave as principles, as it were.

Yet anyone even remotely acquainted with Judeo-Christian scripture (OT and NT) cannot fail to see the personal nature of the God therein. It is therefore not surprising one does not see personalities like this guy arising from the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:46 am

Well, let's take another look at McGrath's account of the origin of personhood. I've only pasted a small fragment of a much much larger work. I strongly recommend reading the whole book, but I've only read through the whole google preview, still have to get my hands on a full print.

A PERSONAL GOD

Down the ages, theologians and ordinary Christian believers alike
have had no hesitation in speaking about God in personal terms. For
example, Christianity has ascribed to God a whole series of
attributes such as love, trustworthiness, and purpose which have
strongly personal associations. Many writers have pointed out that
the Christian practice of prayer seems to be modeled on the
relationship between a child and a parent. Prayer expresses a
gracious relationship which "is simply trust in a person whose whole
dealing with us proves him worthy of trust" (John Oman).

One of Paul's leading soteriological images, "reconciliation" (see 2
Corinthians 5: 19) is clearly modeled on human personal
relationships. It implies that the transformation through faith of
the relationship between God and sinful human beings is like the
reconciliation of two persons - perhaps an alienated husband and
wife.

There are thus powerful reasons for suggesting the idea of a
"personal God" is integral to the Christian understanding of God.
But such a suggestion raises a number of difficulties, which require
careful consideration. The following problems are particularly
important.

1. It might be taken to imply that God is human being. To speak of
God as "a person" is to reduce God to our level. Paul Tillich points
to "difficulties of location" in speaking of God in personal terms.
To refer to God as a person is to imply that God, in common with
human beings, is located at some definite place. Given the modern
understanding of the universe, this assumption seems very out of
place.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity speaks of God as "three persons." To
speak of God as "a person" thus amounts to a denial of the Trinity.
Historically, this objection is well justified. In the sixteenth
century, those writers who spoke of God as "a person" were
generally denying that God was three persons. Thus, in his
Philosophical Commentaries, the famous English empiricist
philosopher Bishop Berkley (1685-1753) made a note not to speak of
God as "a person" for this very reason.

These difficulties can, however, be mitigated. In response to the
first, it may be pointed out that talking of God as "a person" is
analogical. To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine
ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply
that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe.
All analogies break down at some point. These aspects of the analogy
are not intended to be taken up.

In response to the trinitarian difficulty, it will be noticed that
the word "person" has changed its meaning significantly over the
centuries. The word "person" does not have the same meaning in the
two sentences which follow:

1 God is three persons.
2 God is a person.

We shall explore this point further in dealing with the doctrine of
the Trinity itself (see pp. 234-64). Our attention now turns to
further exploration of the term "person."

Defining "person"

In everyday English the word "person" has come to mean little more
than "an individual human being." This makes it somewhat problematic
to speak of a "personal God." However, as might be expected, there
are hidden depths to the idea of personhood, which are too easily
overlooked. The English word "person" derives from Latin
persona, which originally had the sense of a "mask."

The development of the meaning of persona is a fascinating
subject in its own right. There may be an etymological connection
between this Latin word and the Etruscan word for the goddess
Persephone. (Etruscan was the language of a region of ancient Italy,
near Rome.) Masks were worn by those participating in her festivals,
which tended, by all reports, to degenerate into orgies. By the time
of Cicero, the word had acquired a range of meanings. Although the
sense of "mask" still predominated. Important overtones had
developed. Masks were used much in Roman theaters, being worn by
actors to indicate the parts they were playing in dramas.
Persona thus came to mean both "a theatrical mask" and "a
theatrical character" or "a role in a play."

The early development of this idea in Christian theology is due to
Tertullian, who was active in the third century. For Tertullian, a
person is a being who speaks and acts. (The theatrical origins of
the word can be seen clearly.) The final development of this
definition is due to Boethius (c.480-524). Writing at the beginning
of the sixth century, he offered the following definition: "a person
is the individual substance of a rational nature."

For early Christian writers, the word "person" is an expression of
the individuality of a human being, as seen in his or her words and
actions. Above all, there is an emphasis upon the idea of social
relationships. A person is someone who plays a role in a social
drama, who relates to others. A person has a part to play within a
network of social relationships. "Individuality" does not imply
social relationships, whereas "pesonality" relates to the part
played by an individual in a web of relationships, by which that
person is perceived to be distinctive by others. The basic idea
exrpessed by the concept of "a personal God" is thus a God with whom
we can stand in a relationship which is analogous to that which we
could have with another human person.

It is helpful to consider what overtones the phrase "an impersonal
God" would convey. The phrase suggests a God who is distant or
aloof, who deals with humanity (if God deals with us at all) in
general terms which take no account of human individuality. The idea
of a personal relationship, such as love, suggests a reciprocal
character to God's dealings with us. This idea is incorporated into
the notion of a personal God, but not into impersonal conceptions of
the nature of God. There are strongly negative overtones to the idea
of "impersonal," which have passed into Christian thinking about the
nature of God.

This point can be more fully appreciated by considering the
impersonal concepts of God associated with the classical Greek
philosopher Aristotle and the seventeeth-century philosopher Baruch
Spinoza (1632-77). The English philosopher of religion C.C.J. Webb
(1865-1954) pointed out the limitations of Aristotle's notion of God
as follows:

Aristotle does not and could not speak of a love of God for us in
any sense. God, according to the principles of Aristotle's theology,
can known and love nothing less than himself. [...] He is utterly
transcendent, and beyond the reach of personal communion. It is very
instructive to study the modifications which Aristotle's faithful
follower, St. Thomas Aquinas, has to introduce into his mater's
notion of God, in order to make room for the providence of God for
man, and the communion of man with God which his religious faith and
religious experience demanded.

Spinoza experienced the same difficulty in constructing his
rationalist notion of God. He affirmed that human beings should love
God, yet he could not see how this love could be in any way
reciprocated by God. It is a one-way street. Spinoza did not permit
the two-way relationship implied by a personal God who loves, and is
loved by, individual human beings. For Spinoza, any passion on the
part of God involves a change in his being. Either he moves to a
greater perfection, or to a lesser. In either case, the perfection
of God is compromised, in that God either becomes more perfect (in
which case, God was not perfect to start with), or less perfect (in
which case, suffering leads to God ceasing to be perfect). As a
result, Spinoza argues, it is not possible to speak of God loving
anyone, as this proves to be inconsistent with the idea of a perfect
God. This point is made clearly in his Ethics (1677):

Proposition 17. God is without passions, nor is God affected
with any experience of joy or sadness. Demonstration. All
ideas, in so far as they have reference to God, are true, that is,
they are adequate: and therefore God is without passions. Again, God
cannot pass to a higher or lower perfection: and therefore God is
affected with no emotion of joy or sadness. Q.E.D. Corollary:
God, strictly speaking, loves no one nor hates anyone. For God is
affected with no emotion of joy or sadness, and consequently loves
no one nor hates anyone.

So what does it mean to be a "person"? Our attention now turns to a
modern philosophical analysis of the idea of a "person" which is of
considerable interest to Christian theology.
Dialogical personalism: Martin Buber
In his major work I and You (1927; the German original is
Ich und Du, which is often translated as "I and Thou" to
bring out the fact that the "you" is the singular, familiar form),
the Jewish writer Martin Buber (1878-1965) drew a fundamental
distinction between two categories of relations:I-You
relations, which are "personal," and I-It relations, which
are impersonal. We shall explore these basic distinctions further,
before considering their theological importance.

1 I-It relations: Buber uses this category to refer to the
relation between subjects and objects; for example, between a human
being and a pencil. The human being is active, whereas the pencil is
passive. This distinction is often referred to in more philosophical
language as a subject-object relation. In which an active
subject (in this case, the human being) relates to an inactive
object (in this case, the pencil). According to Buber, the subject
acts as an I, and the object as an It. The relation
between the human being and pencil could thus be describes as an
I-It relation.

2 I-You relations: At this point, we come to the heart of
Buber's philosophy. An I-You relation exists between two active
subjects, between two persons. It is something which is

[Page 202 is not part of this book preview.]

includes knowledge of God as both It and You. Revelation is about
God making it possible for human beings to know God and to know
about God. Buber's framework thus makes it possible to place these
ideas about revelation in a supportive and more rigorous structure.

3 Buber's "dialogical personalism" also allows criticism of the idea
that God is a passive object, perhaps the weakest and most heavily
criticized aspect of some forms of nineteenth-century liberal
theology. The characteristic noninclusive ninetheenth-century phrase
"man's quest for God" summed up the basic premise of this approach:
God is an "It," a passive object, waiting to be discovered by (male)
theologians, who are viewed as active subjects. Writers within the
dialectical school, especially Emil Brunner (1889-1966) in his
Truth as Encounter (1937), argued that God had to be viewed
as a You, an active subject. As such, God could take the initiative
away from humans, through self-revelation and a willingness to be
known in an historical and personal form, namely Jesus Christ.
Theology is thust to be thought of as a human response to God's
self-disclosure, rather than the human quest for God.

This emphasis upon a "personal God" raises a number of questions,
one of which concerns the extent to which human experiences can be
said to be shared by God. If God is personal, one can speak of God
"loving" people. But how far can this be taken? Can, for example,
one speak of God "suffering"?

[Christian Theology by Alister McGrath, pp 199-203]

Google book preview:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=bus5Tyj ... tcover&dq=

christian+theology+alister+mcgrath&source=bl&ots=yD7YmcvWoO&sig=MDbc

PwmMZ_u_a0zZ7fJmiv_bcdw&hl=en&ei=nbUTTcTZGoL_nAfbtODbDQ&sa=X&oi=book

_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=personal%20go

d&f=false

It continues on with the question "Can God Suffer?" and other "human" properties. But what seems to get lost even in McGrath's account is the fact that "personhood" is ascribed to humans and not something inherent in them. There is a distinction made, of a subject apart from an object, as if a subject were not the object of any determinacy. Love, can be defined as the connection, respecting individuality, between disparate individuals. And Love, as such, can occur between two objects. A time-piece, with all of it's intricate internal workings, all of its fine parts connecting, operating together, while retaining their own individuality, that can be called "love" by subverting the distinction between "personal" and "impersonal". But, I suspect a modicum of human pride compels us to regard the dynamics of interrelating objects as fundamentally different from human love.

Animus · Post by **Animus** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:20 am

Sie is the formal/plural "You" in German.

Du bist die schönste Frau von aller.
You are the most beautiful woman of all. (Informal/familiar, singular)

Sie sind das schönsten Frauen von allen
You are the most beautiful women of all. (Plural, Formal)

Sie sind die schönste Frau von aller
You are the most beautiful woman of all. (Formal, Singular)

Grammer may be a bit wrong, but I think the part in question is right. I'm pretty sure the singular Frau is feminine, and the plural Frauen is neuter (die/das). Interestingly, "das Ich" literally translated as "The (neuter) I" is the German expression for "Ego". Hope that gives some context to the significance of "Ich und Du".

Dennis Mahar · Post by **Dennis Mahar** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:29 am

Alex,

My own thought?

Dear Alex,
It's the same old thought repetitively put out there month after month, like a needle stuck in a groove, like an attachment.
It's what you are accusing QRS of.

It's costing too much.

Dennis Mahar · Post by **Dennis Mahar** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:28 am

I think I see your 'sticking point' Alex.
Is this it?
The QRS charter is:
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

You may have a conception that the QRS charter is:
That QRS is really a hidden agenda to brainwash people about the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Would you be happier if you could notice it as an inquiry into the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment?

If so a positive move could be that you request QRS to restate it's charter to:
An Inquiry into the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment?

Would that accomodate your intelligence and fix it up?

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:41 am

Dennis proposes: "...that QRS is really a hidden agenda to brainwash people about the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment."

The main players here, those who present, defend, sell this position, do not have the slightest idea what 'enlightenment' is. Or, if they have a notion, it is 'skewed'; a partial notion, a partial picture. Because (I assume) you buy into the possibility of 'enlightenment' through this presentation (image-management as I call it) and in these terms, you seem to feel personally affronted that I am here, taking pot-shots at it, which I of course am. That is understandable I suppose. It is also true that my 'sticking points' ('talking points') are somewhat streamlined, but I would not call them simplistic.

It is almost part-and-parcel of all narrative-generation, which is lorded-over by the tendentious individual, that it misleads. I note misleading all the time here. Misleading is a peculiar activity, don't you think? It is so ubiquitous in our mental, intellectual, personal and spiritual world. Who carries The Truth? Is it possible that as The Truth (comparable to a clear light) enters our atmosphere, that our atmosphere itself alters it, contaminates it? (Just a way of describing).

Please also consider this simple situation fact: I am 'using' some of Animus's expressions as a vehicle for some of my own ideas: the ideas I too wish to 'present, defend, sell'. Into this tank of thought, and of persons, I am just one more.

May I ask you the following: Why do you constantly dog my steps? Do you expect to influence me? To your understanding? Or do you think that perhaps I have a tasty tid-bit in my pocket you'd like to nibble on?

My days here are numbered: I come and go like a devil-comet. I am waiting for the switch to be thrown (at my request) and it may happen any moment now. I shall head back to my 'Columba Noachi' (to the south of Canis Major) and there cool my heels.

Dennis Mahar · Post by **Dennis Mahar** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 am

May I ask you the following: Why do you constantly dog my steps? Do you expect to influence me? To your understanding? Or do you think that perhaps I have a tasty tid-bit in my pocket you'd like to nibble on?

May I ask you the following:
Why do you constantly dog QRS steps?
Do you expect to influence QRS?
To your understanding?
Or do you think that perhaps QRS has a tasty tid-bit in their pocket you'd like to nibble on?

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:18 pm

QRS, et al, have no tasty morsels for me to nibble on! Check their pockets yourself!
QRS, et al, are uninfluencable! UNINFLUENCABLE! But, some who read here are not.
You can gather from the above the answer to your remaining question.

Now, what else may I do for you?

Dennis Mahar · Post by **Dennis Mahar** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:12 pm

But, some who read here are not.

Are you protecting somebody, like a protection racket?

Now, what else may I do for you?

What are you afraid of?

Alex Jacob · Post by **Alex Jacob** » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:58 pm

With ideas we build so many things. We can end up building cages for ourselves and for others, or we can construct pathways that lead to freedom, a free-flow of energy within the human energy system. Most people in this world do not have the preparation and strength to 'think their own thoughts' and so they live, or die I suppose you'd have to say, in the conceptual orders dreamed up, worked out, insisted upon, by others. If it happens (and it clearly has not in your case) that a person gains some skill and power in 'handling ideas', that person takes for himself a role in the world of conceptualization, which is the most powerful tool for manipulation of human beings. Ideas therefor lead to freedom or they lead to bondage, this must be understood as a First Principal. There is a great deal that could be said about this, and much that clearly needs to be thought through. Now, along comes Dennis Mahar who, from the look of it, is nothing more than an ass-licker. That's right: you appear here and you ever-so-gently slide your perverse tongue right up into the butt-crack of some people who you wish to ingratiate yourself with. You have not yet, as far as I have been able to tell, contributed ONE original idea or useful idea of your own. Your writing is complete trash and valueless in essence. And what you have to defend is not your own thinking, or your own processes in this Grand Process, but a sycophantic coddling of the established opinionators. This gives evidence of a man who cannot and does not think for himself. For this reason you are completely irrelevant as a presence here, which is a shame in my view.

In the world of ideas and ideation, it is crucial that we know what we are talking about before we start influencing other people to 'follow' us. You may have an absolutely limited notion of what sort of karma ('sin') one can rack-up for oneself through guiding people to bondage, or, more properly, away from 'avenues of freedom', but that is not of any concern to me. Your whole presentation since the day you dropped in here, has been that of a fool. A fool doesn't have the sense to pour piss out of a boot. A fool has 'no idea what is going on here'. A fool has no idea of the consequences of leading in those directions that do not conduce to spiritual freedom.

What kind of a fucking dumb-ass question was that, Dennis? "Are you protecting someone, like in a protection racket?" The metaphor doesn't even function. But the notion of 'protecting' is a very important one, and if you had 3/4ths of the intelligence of a cockroach you would have seen this. It wouldn't have been a question to me but your own answer!

Ideas are used here, predominantly, to construct mental prisons that produce an afflicted, impotent individual. Those who establish these 'prisons' for themselves believe, sincerely I assume, they are 'liberating' themselves. They get themselves into a fix they can't get out of and a principal goal is to get others into the same fix. Misery loves company perhaps? But what it hinges into is a way that intellectual power (because there is little emotive power here) is used to bind an individual in such a way that, after he has bound himself, he 'naturally' maintains his bondage all on his own. It becomes something like the junkyard dog: a miserable little pooch who yet defends his territory, his domain. It is a shrinking circle of domain, that is true, but this seems not to matter. And every individual has the 'right' to tie himself up in any sort of structure of knots as he sees fit. But when it comes to presenting those 'ideas' to others as the Path to Enlightenment and Path to Freedom, and especially to the mentally weak and lopsided (like yourself Dennis) who do not have the preparation or the strength, or sufficient life-experience, required to sort things through---at that point, dear Dennis, it becomes a path of darkness and not of light. Clearly, I am speaking generally and not specifically, mind you. The view I have pertains to 'the world' out there and the way that man uses his intelligence and rational powers.

But listen you ass-licker: in your careless stupidity you framed a question without yourself understanding its import: It is absolutely necessary to construct defenses against ideas that bind and ideas that darken. How shamefully ignorant of you that you don't see this. This is not the playing-field for your boyish ego, you fool.

Russell Parr · Post by **Russell Parr** » Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:49 am

Your post only proves Dennis' point, Alex.

Your stance here on this forum is that of a judgmental observer, as you group almost everyone into bubbles and stand over them with pride, slinging ad hominem after ad hominem where you see fit. And as soon as one of your victims addresses you and your own ideas, you slyly remove yourself out of the equation and then focus your attacks on them.

Indeed you are very creative (and quite often perverted) in your analysis of the individuals. There is an immense jester-like and colorful manner to your words. I think it's safe to assume that you take great pride in this skill, yet it is also clear that its primary function is to serve as a tool of protecting your own ideas from true discussion. You're quite convinced that you "have us all figured out," and therefore choose to not engage in unbiased discussion. As a result, you prefer to critique the "person" (an act you admit), which shows that you feel that you do not have to put your own ideas out in the open to be debated. This is your downfall, and is the definition of closed-mindedness.

The extent of your discussion of "ideas" is the functions they serve. "Ideas have consequences" is about as deep as you get into it. You spend most of your time painting out these imagined "consequences." Interestingly, you never allow the debate to reach into and dismantle your own ideas. When another forum member dives into the functions of your own ideas, shining the light of truthful critique on them, you jump back in fright, and slander the person for "killing" the liveliness of the (undoubtedly intense) emotions attached to your ideas. Deep and truthful observation destroys feelings and emotions, and leaves only bare, raw information (knowledge). Indeed, this must feel very "darkening" and "deadening" to you.

GENIUS FORUMS

The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Re: The Builder, and the Plan

Planning & Building

Re: The Builder, and the Plan