What do you mean by "God," anyway?
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
@dr. ski wampas said
"If you want to believe in what you believe in, then you will probably believe it without actively seeking out information that will eventually invalidate those beliefs. Instead you would probably engage in activities which reinforce those beliefs, and avoid things and conversations that challenge them."
I healthily and wholeheartedly welcome conversations that would challenge my beliefs and willfully examine them. Conversations like this provide me with ample opportunity to distinguish un-examined beliefs, assumptions and interpretations I've either inherited from others or created myself in the moment of unconsciously reacting to something. I want to be proven wrong and willfully relinquish my attachment to any belief, assumption or interpretation I hold that proves, through action and first hand experience, to be inaccurate.
@dr. ski wampas said
"That is ok if it works for you, but do not erroneously attribute the same sort of zealousness to a person who does not believe in anything in particular."
See this is where things get dicey, for you, because you DO believe in something particular and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't. I don't know exactly what it is that you believe and I'm not so foolish to expect you to openly disclose it and put it up on the mat. I do not say any of this based on an assumption. I say this based on this: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13814">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13814</a><!-- l --> and this <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13847">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13847</a><!-- l -->. It doesn't take much to discern your general point of view that is shaping, influencing and constraining your view of reality.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
Hey Doc,
Just for s#!ts and giggles, I'm going to attempt to show you where your decision to attack what you perceive to be the underlying assumptions of this thread is getting in the way of your actual understanding of the thread. I don't really expect this to be successful but... hell... anything's worth a shot, right?
A few posts back, you said:
@dr. ski wampas said
"I'm not trying to convince anyone. I can't tell someone what to believe. There is just no hard physical or scientific evidence. That is not so much my opinion, as it is the way things are.
"
Now, the fragment that is your third sentence assumes an antecedent of "God", as in, "There is just no hard physical or scientific evidence [of God]." The problem is, by not engaging in the actual topic of the thread, this sentence is fundamentally false. By assuming some generalized "dictionary definition", you are allowing for all of them. That means the definition of the pantheist is just as applicable as that of the monotheist, or the atheist, or the late-night comedian, or whichever one chooses. If we go with that of the pantheist in this instance, then there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence that God exists. In fact, there's nothing but. That's not so much my opinion, as it is the way things are.By dismissing any use of the word that doesn't fit into your barely-defined parameter of "supernatural hoax", or however you want to word it, and not acknowledging that the person with whom you are speaking might understand the term differently, you are the one with underlying, and very likely unexamined, assumptions that are controlling your thought processes. It is at least partially the goal of the early stages of the A.'.A.'. (and, by extension, Temple of Thelema) to bring the aspirant face to face with these underlying assumptions that are ruling his/her life. That process is what these boards are in service of. That is why your statement,
"If you want to believe in what you believe in, then you will probably believe it without actively seeking out information that will eventually invalidate those beliefs. Instead you would probably engage in activities which reinforce those beliefs, and avoid things and conversations that challenge them."
seems so out of place here. This assumption of yours runs contrary to the work of the A.'.A.'.. If you are here voluntarily, that is the work you are telling the rest of us that you are interested in undertaking. Are you?So, once again, and in all earnestness: What do you mean by "God" anyway?
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
You know, we've been given a variable to use: HGA. Under this label, we investigate the phenomena of what everyone has always called "God."
It's set up not to require a belief in God. But it's also set up to demonstrate that the classic phenomena do exist and that they do manifest in the experience of an intelligence greater than one's own - a an initiator into and a revealer of mysteries.
I'm not here to debate whether or not that experience really exists. I'm here to further participate in it and understand it.
So, I've already said what I mean by the word "God." But taking the above perspective, given that people experience this, I tend to let people use the word and use it however they like. Bottom line, I know the phenomena they are attempting to describe.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ..."
Such wise words Jim! thank you for this and this great question. I find myself in harmony with much of what you write here. The only exception I have is just the actual word and sound of G-O-D, separate from whatever meaning it would have. It just sounds a little too guttural of a word, more like a grunt or primitive sound to express something so elegant and infinite.
Which is what I love about liber AL and it's triune concept. G-O-D is just the vast and infinite collection of all sentient points (Nuit/Hadit) manifesting in 'us' right now (RHK).
Personally, for me the word that expresses this full 'completeness' is Allah, and specifically and thankfully and directly due to the beautiful revelation from Liber 31 - the inhalation AL and the exhalation LA - is so simple, poetic and universal.
But lately, I am also enjoying some of the 'futuristic' concepts emerging that play with the 'God' concept. One of my favorite Kurzweil quotes "People ask me if God exists and I always say 'no, not yet'". Especially with movies like Interstellar entering the mainstream, and this concept of 'Us in the future' from a sci fi perspective also being, in a sense, God is also quite harmonious in many ways I believe and we may just need a new word after all
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
I have never liked the word "God" because of its muddled etymological origins. However, based on its conventional associations in natural language, my working definition of "God" is currently: The experience of the universe. Though, in the logical metalanguage of Thelema my working definition is currently: The experience of Nuit, i.e. Heru-Ra-Ha.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
My view has varying levels, from the simplistic pantheon idea to that incomprehensible level of existence that I cannot fathom. To put it simply: for every action there is a reaction, only every action is a reaction. God is that which was the first action. At the same time, everything is God. God is, therefore, the sum.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
A further way of describing what i mean by "God" is concentration, meditation and extasis. The three gods(Nuit, Hadit, RHK) correspond to those three practices, wich correspond to actual forces(yin, yang, tao)that even manifest physicaly(electromagnetic force).
Now more and more i rise up the standard of that wich makes me think"that's God"(though all is god too...). There is the perception, then the intensity of it, then its alignement within the universe, then its actual direct effects upon the universe. If, to some significant extent(that varies, thats the idea of progress lol) all this are balanced, then i can say, whatever the God among the three basic ones(and a few others) is concerned, that the experience is genuine.
It is a fascinating path, the gradual unveiling. I think when at the same time knowledge increases, humility increases, and one is fine with whatever happens as far as one practices as willed by the great all, then it is a good sign. The great danger in the path towards God is the adversary, the black powers.
The black powers can be tempting except if one stabilises the image of HGA and practices seriously equilibration with that in mind(maintaining image, always remembering),These two, if were always remembered would avoid many mistakes and "unnecessary" wanderings in black magick and suffering. Though even such mistake is perfect ! How could it be more perfect than what actually IS...?!
There is also a possibility of falling/failing, and it would be not perfect if this was not so.
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
It's a tough one. I'm in more of a rationalist, scientific mood these days, so I tend to think of "consciousness" as a term restricted to particular usage (a property of certain animals, a behavioural precipitate of the brain's activity), and I don't see any sense in saying the Universe as a whole is Conscious (as it were, with a big 'C').
But I do see the consciousness that crops up in particular individuals as capable of being the Universe's consciousness in a metaphysical sense (i.e. in the sense that the Universe buds these things which are its organs of consciousness).
I can also see the sense in using "God" as a term projecting some label (any label) onto the fundamental mystery of things, and I can see the psychological value in personalizing that Mystery, but strictly speaking, a mystery is a mystery is a mystery, which means we can't really say anything about it.
That whereof we cannot speak, and all that ...
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
"the House of god" is mentioned in Liber Al i.e. the author of Al uses the term "God" but elsewhere also derides the use of the very same term. "There is no god where i am". Was it Krsnamurti who said that "God" is like a box that we all put our own meanings into?
-
I use the above word freely, with conviction, and without apology. Some people think I'm nuts for doing so. I find it useful to have a word for the indescribable, incomprehensible, vast beyond any framework of labeling or orientation, which underlies the totality of everything in the universe. It's a nice, short, three-letter word. Neat.
In Pearls of Wisdom, I wrote a big more extensively. Here is a relevant passage:
In its three chapters, The Book of the Law speaks through the literary device of three characters – three gods – declaring its doc-trine with three distinctive voices.
Students of Thelema naturally have different ideas about these deities. Some think of them as actual gods in the sense of any ancient pagan pantheon. Others treat them more as abstract ideas or metaphors for cosmological truths.
Personally, I do not see a practical difference. Whether I speak of “the universe” or “the goddess Nuit,” it seems much the same to me: two names for one vast thing beyond human comprehension. Any preference I have for one or the other name says more about me than it does about the cosmos.
Whether we call the universe an astrophysical construct or a goddess, we are speaking of something inconceivably vast, mysterious, and wondrous that is conscious. Everything in the universe, and the universe itself, is conscious. This is no longer a matter of belief: It is only a matter of labels. Explorers of the physical universe and of the metaphysical universe have come to many identical conclusions, separated primarily by terminology.
With the experimental findings of quantum mechanics, modern physics leaves little to distinguish the universe’s physical substance from consciousness. Scientists who still hold the view that there is no demonstration that consciousness as such even exists could, as easily, view the same data as meaning that consciousness is the ONLY thing that exists.
Centuries before E=mc2, spiritual texts described solids, liquids, and gases as varied states of one thing, differing only by the velocity (“vibration rate”) of its fundamental particles; that gases could be accelerated further (“raising the vibration rate”) to sublimate as light; and that light, accelerated further, becomes “spirit.” Only the amount of energy at atomic levels differentiates between solids, liquids, gases, light, and consciousness, which are modern rationalist terms for what the ancients termed Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit.
If the entire universe is conscious, and composed of consciousness (as seems true to me, and required by contemporary physics), then it is only a matter of convenience and preference whether we label it with terms from physics or terms from religion.
I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ...
Therefore, I happily accept the Thelemic pantheon as actual gods. Even in my conventionally religious youth, I never regarded God as separate from the infinite universe (all space, time, and dimensions). To me, there is no meaningful difference between using terms from the science of spirituality or the religion of physics.
In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story.
That's what I mean. Please feel free do discuss in terms of the subject line of the thread.
Generally, I don't use "God," but not because I have a bias against it or for it. I just enjoy clarity in conversation and will try to speak in terms that people widely accept - it's just more efficient. It is mostly because most people have a certain idea of what "God" means in my culture, and that usually means something close to the Judeo-Christian Father-god archetype. I would say, 9 times out of 10 (not a scientific poll), most people would assume that...
I'm not out to rewrite common working definitions for things. I don't correct people if they say "Kleenex" instead of "facial tissue." Regional vernacular is just that and I don't fancy myself a vocab crusader or a spiritual pundit.
That being said, I agree in a certain way that "God" could be considered a nice term for convenience that tries (in vain) to encapsulate the Absolute, albeit misleading for most people for the reasons mentioned above.
So, to answer the question, what do* I* mean by "God," I have to go with this - it is another perspective, which we create, that has meaning for us. The famous(?) Blind Webster poem is how I tend to look at what GOD TRULY IS - we make God by worship and by our creation, which is action:
It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore.
The god may be of clay: adore him; he becomes GOD.
We ignore what created us; we adore what we create. Let us create nothing but GOD!
That which causes us to create is our true father and mother; we create in our own image, which is theirs.
Let us create therefore without fear; for we can create nothing that is not GOD.At the end of the day, probably just easier to try to explain in detail what we mean, in the best way that we can.