[Mind's Eye] Re: life

Rhetorical Q?

On Apr 3, 6:12 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the best way to know god is to know thy self , because hes in us all ,
> i can see a bit of me in evryone and a bit of evryone in me , in all
> there is the face of good and evil , comidy and drama ,       the
> worst example can serve as the best example ,      voo doo says god is
> not good or evil , it is man who uses the power of god[s] to create
> ether good or evil themselves ,      to consider the origin  as pure
> and that which emerges as coarse , to be one without knowledge , not
> traped in the teachings of the sage , like the earth itself , without
> knowledge , free from the tribulations of self promotion ,        evry
> creature born comes from the soil and returnes to the soil , holy
> land , holy mountains , holy caves , sacrifice of crop and animal ,
> gods of half man half animal , gods living in trees streems lightning
> volcanoes , the tiger , dragon , mloth , lion , lamb, crocidile ,
> elephant , lepord,   the stars,  god was seen as nature , the earth
> which was connected with , the heavens , connected with , god
>
> the only thing that can be proven or even supported by any evedance ,
> are those things which are of the earth , ( material  world ) how then
> can any inquiry be made on the speculation of heaven , if that inquiry
> does not originate through  the observation of the earth ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rigsy03 wrote:
> > 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 -