[Mind's Eye] Re: life

I appreciated your response and will delve into Aristotle- surely he
has a definition of "The Good". The trouble is that good and evil can
be false and masquerade as one another so it takes an informed mind to
recognise them- sometimes- although I think we can often identify them
properly- especially in their extreme manifestations.

Contrary to your opinion that I am an agnostic or my sommersaults
about faith, I do believe in God and pray to Him daily- either via
gratitude or supplication. My beef is with religions that have been
constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways. God is not made in
our image. He is beyond human understanding. Why is this so hard to
see when we must struggle to know ourselves or another?

On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well Ash, like all words, when applied to something it becomes a 'lie'…
> read: becomes something other than itself.
>
> Accepting that caveat, I use the term "The Good" in the Platonic way.
> And, since we are talking about Divine Forms here, we move quite
> quickly into mysticism. So, just applying 'rational' terms and
> reasoning let alone simple analogies just won't cut it for a full
> understanding of the notion.
>
> For those who aren't conversant with this, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
>
> As is referenced, it (Good) exceeds being. Looking further down the
> page, it is instructive to note that Parmenides suggests that such
> Forms "must be seen through the mind's eye." Interesting, no?
>
> In the first handful of years, Mind's Eye was all rational and
> mysticism and religiousness was in general shouted down as being
> worthless at best. I found this a strange and unenlightened view and
> kept pushing the agenda of exploring beyond the 5 senses…often to
> sharp reactions and criticism. Today, perhaps as a result, we have
> moved in general to the other side of the dichotomy of skeptic/
> believer… and many posts are pure blind belief.
>
> Regardless, when first exposed to the Greek notion of 'The Good', I
> found an innate resonance and have been exploring the associated Pure
> Grounds ever since.
>
> You asked for my words on this…something quite difficult to present at
> best. I will say that as shown above that The Good is a universal. It
> is objective. It is innate and not of the senses.
>
> In particular, I was saying in my previous post in response to your
> suggestion that "we seem mostly of little consequence." that "On the
> larger scales, our logic…" is of little or no consequence either…at
> least in any ultimate sense.
>
> Hopefully this at least approaches a satisfactory response for you.
>
> On Apr 2, 11:42 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Could you please clarify what is meant by "The Good"? I understand some
> > limitations and pitfalls of logic but knowing that clarifies little in this
> > regard, it's another point agreed on. "The Good" is a term used by many but
> > it makes little sense to me, perhaps I am uninitiated, it seems mostly
> > arbitrary. But I would like your take on it if you please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -