Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (11345)	4/30/2002 3:18:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 21057

Very good analysis. “Did I misinterpret your rather direct statement that feelings implied dependency--and, if so--then how? Or is there no essential feeling difference between love and hate, desire and indifference, caring and despising?" Well, I think it was me who failed to provide an adequate explanation. I will try to clear up some of the apparent contradictions. The key word here is “Implied.” This is very important because the use of “feeling” words typically imply (but in another context they do not) some anthropomorphic motivational associations. I don’t believe that human beings have the capacity to care without emotional dependencies associated with acts of caring. We are discussing a being who is non-anthropomorphic. That is, not “limited” by the constraints and dependencies of human emotion. It is very hard for human beings to imagine a creature without anthropomorphic qualifications. Emotions are a very defining characteristic of human beings so this is especially a sticky area. The being we are discussing by definition is beyond limitations. So a human emotion that depends on the actions of another (thus a limiting attribution) cannot be attributed to the Being of a God who is beyond limiting descriptors. However, this is also the all powerful creator and maintainer of creation(s). This being has designed creation with an order that contributes to the well being of creation(s). The design also includes provisions for, illness, pollution, corruption, destruction, etc. In the case of human creatures, free will has been assigned along with directives to choose “well being” and cautions against destructiveness. So if not a limiting dependant emotion and not detached or uncaring, how do we describe the relationship between Creator and creation in this case. The closest descriptor that I can come up with, at the moment, is “the beneficent.” This term describes a being who is kind, charitable, and considerate. The most compassionate being is the one who cares for a creature without expecting, desiring, or needing a return of any kind for the caring behavior. Notice that I have used several feeling terms here yet in a context that is non-dependant. As, I see the emotional dependencies of human creatures as a limiting descriptor (albeit a good one for us), I can also imagine a being that is beyond this limitation. I am going to risk offering an analogy. Imagine that you prepare some soil for flowers. You establish hundreds of seeds in your flower bed. Some of them rot and decay, while many germinate and grow. Some of the partially grown flowers have less than ideal circumstances and wither and die before the season is complete, while others flourish and display their beauty. The season ends, your flower garden met all your expectations. Are your feelings hurt because some of the seeds did not germinate, or because some of the plants had to be eliminated before the season was complete? Most reasonable human beings would not have felt bad if things were going generally according to plan. This is an imperfect analogy but I hope you see the point. Believers like my self, figure that things are going perfectly according to plan. So the idea of dependant feelings about how things are going do not play into the bigger picture. I offered a definition of a God who is truly Omnipotent, non-dependant, non-anthropomorphic, beyond materialistic descriptors, eternal, and infinite. I would not use the terms "incapable" or "unable" in describing God because these terms are not compatible with the description I have offered. Also it is a contradiction to portray this God as being subject to the whims of human beings: "A God separated and locked away from human beings by their insistence that He be Perfect and free of desires and emotional and intellectual longings.”