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.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (16397)	2/22/2004 7:32:37 PM
From: briskit	Respond to of 28931

Now I think you are moving in to area Becker considers under the heading of causa sui, which you correct with the philosophical categories of responsibility and will. Your concepts are quite relevant as I understand Becker's points and a concept of god as well. Now, this is not personal so please don't take it that way. Your incredible meanings, purposes, and goals are important and relevant to you and you only, no offense, and that's it. That's just as true for me. Everyone can have whatever meaning they wish for their lives and existence. Michael Jackson has his, Charles Manson had his, Hitler, Mother Theresa, St. Francis.....We are all free to choose and assign any meaning and story we wish to ourselves. We all do it, and it means a great deal, indeed everything, to us personally. This is true in the same way for us as dinosaurs' digestive rumblings and wind-breakings had meanings for them, though we can verbalize and promote ours more consciously. Those are significant meanings to each of us individually, because they are our personal constructs. They are the means by which we establish our own egos, identities, and what Becker calls "character lies." It is the indivudual's personal "lie of causa sui" that Becker is pointing to in his discussion of the human condition and freedom. But these meanings have no substance apart from our assertions or stipulation of their meaning. They are illusory constructs, disconnected from reality. The reality is we are tiny, trembling animals who are about to die and decay. There is no meaning there greater than the vapor that comes out of our mouths, or in the case of the dinosaurs, their derrieres. Now we must live for these meanings. Clearly, live for whatever you wish and construct. However, IF (big IF) there is a god, we might be wise to inquire about other meanings and purposes than those which serve us in our infinitesimally insignificant appearance as a creature on this stage. Those are the levels of meaning I am interested in. Rahner is concerned about a couple things. One, we cannot presume direct knowledge or apprehension of god. God always remains entirely beyond our rational, imaginary and sensory capacities. Some make claims which sound like they have special insider information about god, and that god is really explainable and "capturable" by our concepts, if you will. Rahner says no. God remains eternally a mystery, beyond the control of our language or concepts. However, Christianity claims, which you deny, that god has also wished to communicate a nearness to us in the midst of this finite "emptiness." In the context of our discussion, this emptiness might refer to the emptiness of a "real" meaning that we did not invent for ourselves to get us through our 70 years, which then dies and decays with us. This is the kind of emptiness to which I think he is referring, the emptiness we face when we admit the "lie of the causa sui" as Becker uses the term.

To: Solon who wrote (16397)	2/23/2004 9:49:54 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

meaning flows from accountability and consequence. To deny either is to deny all. What "deeper" meaning are you talking about? These are great points and questions, and I'd like to address them directly a bit differently than I first did. Before, I was thinking about meaning abstractly, in a sense, as the story most people have about themselves. I agree that a significant meaning must flow from accountability and consequence. Consequences are, of course, not only important to you in the way that your story about yourself might be. Consequences are also important to the people and environment impacted by them. I didn't think of it at first, but those are actually quite spiritual concepts, as I understand spirituality. I associate them quite closely with, if I can say it simply, god's interest in the greatest good for all concerned. Meanings, as most people express them, detached from accountability and consequence, are closer to dinosaur derrieres than what you were talking about. That was not well-expressed on my part as I went first back to Becker's formulation of causa sui issues. I think Rahner's comment about "the mystery of God remaining eternally a mystery" helps us avoid the dead-end of god being an immutable ego-self. You are right to resist god being made in the image of mass group transference on the part of humans. We know god can't be reduced to an ego-self as we understand it, because a true god must undoubtedly be beyond our conceptions and formulations. We do the best we can, but in the end we must admit we are only offering our analogies with grave weaknesses and fatal flaws. It is small consolation in some ways, but better I believe than pretending god is readily accessible and at our disposal. To consider your question about deeper meaning will take a bit more thought. I could say the obvious, and may end up saying it anyway. But I prefer to sit with it a bit and see if I actually have a conviction or conception of it inside somewhere.