A Cosmology
Dec. 19th, 2004 10:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The Universe is One Big Thing.
It breaks itself into lots and lots and lots of little things.
The little things interact with one another. They learn all sorts of interesting stuff.
The Unity persists in spite of the break-up. The little things remain dimly aware of it even as they prey on one another and squabble and fight.
Another word for the Unity is Love.
The little things are of temporary duration. They die and return to the Unity, taking their knowledge with them.
This is how the Universe learns about itself.
It breaks itself into lots and lots and lots of little things.
The little things interact with one another. They learn all sorts of interesting stuff.
The Unity persists in spite of the break-up. The little things remain dimly aware of it even as they prey on one another and squabble and fight.
Another word for the Unity is Love.
The little things are of temporary duration. They die and return to the Unity, taking their knowledge with them.
This is how the Universe learns about itself.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 12:28 pm (UTC)Taken from this very long view, everything we do is of interest, neutral, neither good or wicked. Our life experience is nourishment that is digested and used by the Unity.
You're not talking about process theology, wherein God evolves, are you? This is about being cut off, about needing communication.
There is too much here to just fire off a post. I need to think about this.
Perhaps this is what you are meant to write about.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 12:47 pm (UTC)I like Jung's idea- elaborated in his book about Job- that human beings are always one step ahead of God in their philosophy and morality.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 01:12 pm (UTC)When I communicate with my inner Self, which I believe is far wiser than I am as Jackie (a most forgettable and unremarkable person on the surface), I feel that the Self I greet is God, Who lives out my life with me, Who finds my single small life valuable.
Jung's God is frightfully "disinterested." I guess I yearn for a loving parent instead. I don't want to be a little experiment, which is what Job was.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 01:52 pm (UTC)We make them out of the stuff of the Universe. And more precisely out of our own particular inner needs and quirks and wisdom.
And every God is a true God insofar as the universe contains all possibilities.
God can look like Jesus or like Buddha, or like Aphrodite, or like Inanna.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 02:01 pm (UTC)But isn't there Something behind even all those true gods? Something that can't be made by us?
Is that my own need, for a First Cause that is not made?
It's hard to let go of what I want. I don't want to make a god that will be little and venal, like Job's God. I want God to make me, and I want to love Something.
I can't love Job's god.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 02:17 pm (UTC)How does this God of theirs differ from Saddam Hussein?
But yes, I do believe there is a First Cause- "in light inaccessible hid from our eyes"- and so far from our comprehension that is wisest to say nothing about Him/Her/It.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 06:47 pm (UTC)As we sang this morning, "O magnum mysterium."
Thanks for talking about all this.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 03:38 pm (UTC)But except for the minor quibble, I REALLY REALLY REALLY like this post A LOT. Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-19 04:49 pm (UTC)The word "unity" is, of course a stab in the dark.
And like you I agree that separation is a good thing. Unity is sublime, but not very interesting- which could be why the separation happened in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 01:36 pm (UTC)Maybe it's a neural net!:)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 09:14 am (UTC)Religious stories- like that of the crucifixion- are simply that- stories. They are true in the way any story is true- in the way Anna Karenina or Kill Bill is true. They are objects for meditation, about which we should be allowed to form our own, free-floating ideas. The fundamentalist insistence that a certain story is literally and historically true and subject to only one approved interpretation is the death of true religion.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:25 pm (UTC)http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html
Yours
HePo
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:39 pm (UTC)Flew has the right attitude. We should follow where the evidence leads.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 07:55 am (UTC)I think you've hit it right on the head though--that's exactly what I've felt. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 09:39 am (UTC)If it's true, it puts a huge responsibility on our shoulders; we're no longer sad little orphans in a meaningless universe, but the advance guard in Nature's grand project to find out about Herself.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 02:51 am (UTC)