Jeff Jacobs from Pixabay
136 Harmonious Ontology [20 May 2022]
Aggregation by inclusion
I am a "card-carrying" Humanist, Latter-day Saint, Quaker-- and an enthusiast of Socrates, Plato, the Buddha, Gandhi, Einstein, and others. To the extent that integrity is possible in any of these paths, my reality validates all of them.
There is no inconsistency in appreciation of all these thought forms. Godhood as used in Ernstraudian philosophy means comprehending, encompassing all truth. It must therefore include all the above truths in conglomeration.
Wait--does that mean all of them can be true at the same time? Well, the way I'm referring to them, yes, they can. Each is internally coherent. Cosmic reality includes all of them.
You are familiar with my expression that we create our own worlds--and by extension, our own heavens (if we use that term). The Buddhist resonates with the truth of Buddhism. Buddhism describes the world that works for the Buddhist. In living practice, Buddhism is true. That statement applies to all the systems symmetrically.
One system of truth does not make any other teaching false. Although Christianity does not include all the elements taught in Buddhism, the Buddhist reality does not annihilate or displace the Christian reality. The expressions of the paths are separate, independent-standing collections. The truth of one program for its adherents is contemporary with the truth of another program for that program's adherents. Each believer is supported and satisfied--enabled to carry on--by a unified system of thought. Godhood requires me to comprehend and encompass all of them.
Wait again--don't they require you to do different things? How can you do conflicting acts simultaneously? There are several dimensions of this question:
Knowing a system is not the same as practicing it in the moment. While I restrain self in Buddhist meditation, I am not at that instant being physically baptized by immersion. However, neither act nullifies the meaning of the other act. The operative principles all continue their validity even when they are not the immediate focus of my attention. I cannot simultaneously be my world and your world, but my being finite does not preclude the existence of both our worlds.
Being is not exclusive. My customized, unique world exists for me while yours exists for you. These worlds occur simultaneously without displacing each other in the infinite space of alternative realities. Each system is real in providing a thought framework that sustains its practitioners. Thus defined, each is self-consistently true. Unlimited comprehension accommodates unlimited constituent parts. The interconnected web of all creation is adequate to contain all of them.
Let's go back to the start. How can any form of God exist in Christianity and not exist in atheism while both are valid? We have shown that these teachings are simultaneously present and that they are both real to their own adherents. Cosmology must be bigger than the question whether God exists. That ambiguity is precisely the case!
There is comfort in thinking that all pieces of reality fit together making total existence unitary. That comfort is disturbed by thinking that opposing propositions are simultaneously true. I approach this conundrum by comparing it to wave-particle duality and other principles of physics. There are experiments in which electrons behave as particles, packing mass. In other experiments, electrons behave as waves, creating interference patterns. Failure to reconcile the particle and the wave experiments does not invalidate the existence of electrons. Concepts function appropriately in proper context.
The article QUANTUM PHYSICS, REDUCTIONISM, AND GOD'S KNOWLEDGE poses the question "Surely God knows the location and speed of each particle; after all, God knows everything!" The article next points out that loose terminology introduces a category mistake. Existence is assured; apparent conflict lies in limited categorization. Physical sciences apply to each situation the concepts that yield useful results for that situation.
This illustration from physics matches my opening assertion that seemingly contradictory thought systems are simultaneously true in the situations to which they apply.
I define prayer as nonverbal communication with absolute being. Prayer does not consist of using language. Because of my total immersion in reality, there is never a time when I am not praying.
When we remove the limitations inherent in language, philosophy-independent prayer becomes reality, and fighting over differences is unsupportable.
What you post here may also be used anywhere by Kent Busse d.b.a. Ernstraud Magazine and attributed to your pen name or "a reader." Your email address will not be published.
Being For Others Blog copyright © 2022 Kent Busse
Have you shared this with someone?