Us

[Miles]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

[theophile]

[theophile]

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #101]

Mind and spirit do have different attributes. By way of definition,

Matter = ephemeral material; raw energy even
Mind = consciousness most basically, but also related capabilities like reason, emotion, etc. It has energy and is itself a form of energy, and as such is inseparable from matter (like light from a lightbulb).
Spirit = a non-material being. It has no energy in itself or material that can be measured. It can manifest in and through mind and matter (this is true), but it also has a completely separate non-material existence. (Think something as basic as the number one here, which has a similar non-material existence. Or justice. Are these not things in their own right?)

There is no necessity which requires the existence of any non-material "thing".

Look at your examples. What they are - are simply ideas to describe real things...as in "1" doesn't exist as a "thing" and only exist as an idea of a thing - such as one universe. Same with "justice" - it exists as a symbol which is descriptive of a type of action.

If spirit describes any type of attitude, and attitude describes a thing (action) then both words mean the same thing.

So when one says "One God" it is speaking of an overall source creator - which is recognized as the mindfulness/consciousness in all things - so has many "parts" just as the universe is one universe with many parts.

Or, take your example of non material justice. If justice did not exist as a real thing, then one could say "there is no such thing as justice." Not "Justice exists as a non-material thing, even though there is no evidence of it existing as a thing."

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not.

This is contrary to the understanding that the Source Creator is mindful and suggests that it is not eternal, whereas you are also arguing that ideas (like "1" and "justice" and "spirit") are.

But where do such concepts come from, if not from mindfulness?

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not. I would also argue more objective, while mind is by nature individualistic and subjective. (Matter is objective as well, like spirit, but in a much more measurable way.)

All things are matter and there is no such thing as non-material. Matter is eternal. Matter organized onto functional forms is temporal (functional forms are temporal but the stuff they are made of is not). Functional form is objective but can mindfully be experienced subjectively. Mindfulness is always subjective.

So how are they not separate substances in your view?

There is no separation that is real. You and I are able to experience each other as separate from our own sense of self, because of the design of the functional form we are currently experiencing, but quintessentially, we are of the same breath - of the One God/Source Creator...essentially we are the Source Creator experience being the human beings we are experiencing being.

Or is your point more that the spirit realm I'm talking about simply doesn't exist?

According to many reports there appears to be a "Realm/Realms" that people experience after the death of their body. This is often referred to in supernaturalist terminology as "sprit", but the BNP sees every experience as "of the mind/experienced mindfully" - specifically everything which can mindfully be experienced is of The Mind of The Source Creator. There is no mind outside of said mind. What we refer to as the physical realm (this universe) is within the mind of the Source Creator.

And you'd rather just harmonize it all by positing a single, eternal being?

The idea isn't new. It makes sense, and often the disharmony we experience as humans can be traced to a lack of this fundamental knowledge. This concept dovetails with what I wrote above and have used blue font for easier referrence.

Yes, but what you provided was more a thesis than full argument.

It is just a summary, which is all I said it was. Something which can be easily read and understood.
I am working on expanding the concept with points, but as an initial broadcast, the summary is adequate enough for our purpose in this moment.

I still don't see why there needs to be an Source Mind, or what this really is or does in your view besides being one eternal being of mind and matter.

I have been working on a more comprehensive description of the main points re this Natural Philosophy. It is still a work in progress, but I have posted what I have done so far, and therein you will find the answer to that question.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #101]

Mind and spirit do have different attributes. By way of definition,

Matter = ephemeral material; raw energy even
Mind = consciousness most basically, but also related capabilities like reason, emotion, etc. It has energy and is itself a form of energy, and as such is inseparable from matter (like light from a lightbulb).
Spirit = a non-material being. It has no energy in itself or material that can be measured. It can manifest in and through mind and matter (this is true), but it also has a completely separate non-material existence. (Think something as basic as the number one here, which has a similar non-material existence. Or justice. Are these not things in their own right?)

There is no necessity which requires the existence of any non-material "thing".

Look at your examples. What they are - are simply ideas to describe real things...as in "1" doesn't exist as a "thing" and only exist as an idea of a thing - such as one universe. Same with "justice" - it exists as a symbol which is descriptive of a type of action.

If spirit describes any type of attitude, and attitude describes a thing (action) then both words mean the same thing.

So when one says "One God" it is speaking of an overall source creator - which is recognized as the mindfulness/consciousness in all things - so has many "parts" just as the universe is one universe with many parts.

Or, take your example of non material justice. If justice did not exist as a real thing, then one could say "there is no such thing as justice." Not "Justice exists as a non-material thing, even though there is no evidence of it existing as a thing."

I think we have different bars for what it takes for something to exist. To me it makes no sense to say there is justice in an action without also affirming some abstract thing called justice that we see manifested in that action and that we are ultimately referring to. Thing-hood is the bar for existence, not material presence, and the bar for thing-hood is pretty low.

And I don't mean by this the idea of justice in some mind that is thinking it. That too (I agree) would be reducible to material presence. I'm abstracting beyond this, to what all the minds across time that have ever perceived justice or formulated it in some way were ultimately referring to. Even if it went under different names or wasn't recognized as such.

So yah, I do think we can say justice exists as a non-material thing, even if it has no presence in the material world. We have named it. We can describe it. We can recognize it when we see it and trace its presence across time. It has no energy in itself, but it still has a certain power in the material world, and can move things toward it. (See Aristotle's concepts of the final cause or unmoved mover for example -- non-material things like justice have a similar ability to move matter / minds. Not through their own energy or agency, but through persuasion, and drawing mindful things towards them. They have a certain gravity that pulls us in.)

So you can dismiss such things all you want since they lack material presence in themselves (I get it), but it seems to me there is nevertheless an insubstantial existence out there with an essential nature we can describe. And these things play a meaningful role in the material world that can't just be removed from the equation.

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not.

This is contrary to the understanding that the Source Creator is mindful and suggests that it is not eternal, whereas you are also arguing that ideas (like "1" and "justice" and "spirit") are.

But where do such concepts come from, if not from mindfulness?

I've said that such things likely emerged from the deep, or from mindful beings in the deep. But that doesn't mean there needs to be one eternal mind from which they emerged. Rather they emerged from the multitude of minds that have ever existed. And once thought, they take on a life of their own and an eternal aspect. (Creation myth#1 - created by mind)

Now whether justice (for example) would have never existed even non-materially if no mind ever thought it, that's an interesting question. But I would say even if unthought, it is still thinkable... Like a treasure yet to be discovered, discovery is not a condition for that treasure's existence... (Creation myth#2 - uncreated)

(As you can imagine, either way, there's a lot of non-material things that really are inconsequential. But there are some that have real importance - like justice. These are the things I'm more focused on. The non-material things that really move us, and have an impact on the world around us whether for good or bad. These are what I would call spirits. In this case, the spirit of justice, which calls us to it, and which can cause real movements around it that we can trace across time. Think a movement like 'Me Too' which typifies such a spirit in action... Such things attain to a level of existence that is meaningful, having material effect that can't be ignored.)

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not. I would also argue more objective, while mind is by nature individualistic and subjective. (Matter is objective as well, like spirit, but in a much more measurable way.)

All things are matter and there is no such thing as non-material. Matter is eternal. Matter organized onto functional forms is temporal (functional forms are temporal but the stuff they are made of is not). Functional form is objective but can mindfully be experienced subjectively. Mindfulness is always subjective.

I don't disagree with any of that except the first sentence.

Or is your point more that the spirit realm I'm talking about simply doesn't exist?

According to many reports there appears to be a "Realm/Realms" that people experience after the death of their body. This is often referred to in supernaturalist terminology as "sprit", but the BNP sees every experience as "of the mind/experienced mindfully" - specifically everything which can mindfully be experienced is of The Mind of The Source Creator. There is no mind outside of said mind. What we refer to as the physical realm (this universe) is within the mind of the Source Creator.

That's not the kind of spirit realm I'm talking about. This is a popular co-opting of the spirit realm by mind -- turning it into something more mind-like that mind can inhabit after it dies, where all minds go as part of some after-life. I'm talking about something completely different.

I still don't see why there needs to be an Source Mind, or what this really is or does in your view besides being one eternal being of mind and matter.

I have been working on a more comprehensive description of the main points re this Natural Philosophy. It is still a work in progress, but I have posted what I have done so far, and therein you will find the answer to that question.

I'll try to take a look here later.

[William]

[onewithhim]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

The "us" in the Scripture is most probably God's Son (and perhaps the angels), certainly not a Trinity of individuals. It doesn't say anything to warrant us thinking that they are equal in power and authority. God is almighty, and He is also kind and thoughtful. Why wouldn't He allow others to make things with His power, or, also, why wouldn't He let others look on while the creation was happening (like the angels)?