Discussion:
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
(too old to reply)
matt001
2011-01-16 21:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica

Kiev, January 14, Interfax - Church-chapel of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church will be built in Antarctica this spring.

"When we send polar explorers to the South Pole we don't ask about
their confession. But every person can have a wish to stay alone, to
pray. Why don't we build a church?" Director of the National Antarctic
Scientific Center Valery Litvinov was quoted as saying on Friday by
the Ukrainian Segodnya.ua website.

It is not the first Orthodox church on the ice continent: Russian
carpenters built a 15-meter Orthodox church from Siberian cedar in
2004 that is dedicated to the Holy Trinity.

"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.

The chapel is made in Chili and is much smaller than the Russian
church. It will be sent to Antarctica late in March with a new group
of polar explorers. Works on building and installing the chapel will
be paid by philanthropists. Byelorussians intend to erect the similar
chapel on the continent as they plan to open their base in Antarctica
this year.

Besides, Ukrainians will present Russian church of the Holy Trinity a
bell cast by the Donetsk metallurgical plant. According to the polar
expedition head, Chili customs officers were perplexed to find the
bell in their luggage. Besides, they found salo (traditional Ukrainian
lard - IF) in their luggage while bringing food in the country is
subjected to $300 fine. Customs officers appeared to be believers and
turned a blind eye to salo and the bell.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=8088
++
2011-01-18 16:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
Kiev, January 14, Interfax - Church-chapel of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church will be built in Antarctica this spring.
"When we send polar explorers to the South Pole we don't ask about
their confession. But every person can have a wish to stay alone, to
pray. Why don't we build a church?" Director of the National Antarctic
Scientific Center Valery Litvinov was quoted as saying on Friday by
the Ukrainian Segodnya.ua website.
It is not the first Orthodox church on the ice continent: Russian
carpenters built a 15-meter Orthodox church from Siberian cedar in
2004 that is dedicated to the Holy Trinity.
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
The chapel is made in Chili and is much smaller than the Russian
church. It will be sent to Antarctica late in March with a new group
of polar explorers. Works on building and installing the chapel will
be paid by philanthropists. Byelorussians intend to erect the similar
chapel on the continent as they plan to open their base in Antarctica
this year.
Besides, Ukrainians will present Russian church of the Holy Trinity a
bell cast by the Donetsk metallurgical plant. According to the polar
expedition head, Chili customs officers were perplexed to find the
bell in their luggage. Besides, they found salo (traditional Ukrainian
lard - IF) in their luggage while bringing food in the country is
subjected to $300 fine. Customs officers appeared to be believers and
turned a blind eye to salo and the bell.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=8088
Well, I guess that's one way to assert that the Ukrainians aren't
Russians. Is this holy work?
matt001
2011-01-18 19:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ++
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
Kiev, January 14, Interfax - Church-chapel of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church will be built in Antarctica this spring.
"When we send polar explorers to the South Pole we don't ask about
their confession. But every person can have a wish to stay alone, to
pray. Why don't we build a church?" Director of the National Antarctic
Scientific Center Valery Litvinov was quoted as saying on Friday by
the Ukrainian Segodnya.ua website.
It is not the first Orthodox church on the ice continent: Russian
carpenters built a 15-meter Orthodox church from Siberian cedar in
2004 that is dedicated to the Holy Trinity.
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
The chapel is made in Chili and is much smaller than the Russian
church. It will be sent to Antarctica late in March with a new group
of polar explorers. Works on building and installing the chapel will
be paid by philanthropists. Byelorussians intend to erect the similar
chapel on the continent as they plan to open their base in Antarctica
this year.
Besides, Ukrainians will present Russian church of the Holy Trinity a
bell cast by the Donetsk metallurgical plant. According to the polar
expedition head, Chili customs officers were perplexed to find the
bell in their luggage. Besides, they found salo (traditional Ukrainian
lard - IF) in their luggage while bringing food in the country is
subjected to $300 fine. Customs officers appeared to be believers and
turned a blind eye to salo and the bell.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=8088
Well, I guess that's one way to assert that the Ukrainians aren't
Russians.  Is this holy work?
Probably not.
RVG
2011-01-19 16:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-19 17:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Alexander Arnakis
2011-01-19 18:12:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:12:33 -0800 (PST), matt001
Post by matt001
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Slash the Gordian Knot and abandon religion altogether. Religion, in
general, creates more problems than it solves (both on an individual
and societal level). I suppose some people need the crutch of
superstition.
matt001
2011-01-19 20:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Arnakis
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:12:33 -0800 (PST), matt001
Post by matt001
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best”    C.S.Lewis
Slash the Gordian Knot and abandon religion altogether. Religion, in
general, creates more problems than it solves (both on an individual
and societal level). I suppose some people need the crutch of
superstition.
Personally, I have little interest in "religion in general", nor do I
find utilitarian arguments for or against it particularly persuasive.
RVG
2011-01-19 18:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-19 19:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best”    C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
RVG
2011-01-19 20:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort of) by
gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
RVG
2011-01-19 21:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort of) by
gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Loading Image...
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-20 13:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best”    C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort of) by
gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Albert Einstein said that two things are infinite--the universe and
human stupidity. He added that he wasn't sure about the universe.

"Melech Ha 'Olam" and "Kyrios" are anthropomorphisms, condescending to
our noetic frailty.
RVG
2011-01-20 16:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best” C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort of) by
gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Albert Einstein said that two things are infinite--the universe and
human stupidity. He added that he wasn't sure about the universe.
"Melech Ha 'Olam" and "Kyrios" are anthropomorphisms, condescending to
our noetic frailty.
No, they mean a personal (ie noetic) creator and ruler of the universe.
The reality is that noumen and phenomena "create" each other:
consciousness emerges through separation ("On pense comme on se heurte"
said Paul Valéry, "We think as we bump."), ie individuation, and in
return this consciousness constitutes the world of life (Lebenswelt) as
a world (ie different from the undifferentiated flow or process of
universal becoming that is experienced in deep sleep) through both
sensory and categorial intuition.

That individuation would predate the beginning of the universe is highly
unlikely. Before there were phenomena, there was no awareness, let alone
self-awareness that comes at the end of the process of individuation.
I like Shankara's image of one Reality that folds on itself as both
consciousness (chit) and universe.

Biblical theology made uselessly complicated (and this became much worse
with the dogmas edicted by the ecumenical councils) the simple message
and life of Jesus-Christ as this one Reality being the Father, common to
all the beings, human in inhuman alike, so that I can give up my life
without losing anything.
As Ramana Maharshi used to say about action and non-action:
"Whatever happens by itself is done by myself - since there is but one
Self."
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-20 19:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions. It is zero
altitude, but you have such a feeling that the church almost fly above
Earth," Archbishop Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is going to consecrate
the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the
greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself
is best”    C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort of) by
gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Albert Einstein said that two things are infinite--the universe and
human stupidity. He added that he wasn't sure about the universe.
"Melech Ha 'Olam" and "Kyrios" are anthropomorphisms, condescending to
our noetic frailty.
No, they mean a personal (ie noetic) creator and ruler of the universe.
consciousness emerges through separation ("On pense comme on se heurte"
said Paul Valéry, "We think as we bump."), ie individuation, and in
return this consciousness constitutes the world of life (Lebenswelt) as
a world (ie different from the undifferentiated flow or process of
universal becoming that is experienced in deep sleep) through both
sensory and categorial intuition.
That individuation would predate the beginning of the universe is highly
unlikely. Before there were phenomena, there was no awareness, let alone
self-awareness that comes at the end of the process of individuation.
I like Shankara's image of one Reality that folds on itself as both
consciousness (chit) and universe.
Biblical theology made uselessly complicated (and this became much worse
with the dogmas edicted by the ecumenical councils) the simple message
and life of Jesus-Christ as this one Reality being the Father, common to
all the beings, human in inhuman alike, so that I can give up my life
without losing anything.
"Whatever happens by itself is done by myself - since there is but one
Self."
I disagree with your interpretation of the Christian understanding of
God. We make use of concepts and categories drawn from our experience
to speak of that which is beyond experience. In the end, all positive
assertions about God are of limited value.

I find your ideas about individuation interesting. Unlike you, I am
not entirely sure what consiousness is and means, nor am I convinced
that anyone fully grasps the meaning of the life of Jesus. One is
taken captive by that life without holding it captive.
RVG
2011-01-21 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions.
It is zero altitude, but you have such a feeling that
the church almost fly above Earth," Archbishop
Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is
going to consecrate the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and
feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its
followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the
religion of worshiping oneself is best” C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort
of) by gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Albert Einstein said that two things are infinite--the universe
and human stupidity. He added that he wasn't sure about the
universe.
"Melech Ha 'Olam" and "Kyrios" are anthropomorphisms,
condescending to our noetic frailty.
No, they mean a personal (ie noetic) creator and ruler of the
universe. The reality is that noumen and phenomena "create" each
other: consciousness emerges through separation ("On pense comme on
se heurte" said Paul Valéry, "We think as we bump."), ie
individuation, and in return this consciousness constitutes the
world of life (Lebenswelt) as a world (ie different from the
undifferentiated flow or process of universal becoming that is
experienced in deep sleep) through both sensory and categorial
intuition.
That individuation would predate the beginning of the universe is
highly unlikely. Before there were phenomena, there was no
awareness, let alone self-awareness that comes at the end of the
process of individuation. I like Shankara's image of one Reality
that folds on itself as both consciousness (chit) and universe.
Biblical theology made uselessly complicated (and this became much
worse with the dogmas edicted by the ecumenical councils) the
simple message and life of Jesus-Christ as this one Reality being
the Father, common to all the beings, human in inhuman alike, so
that I can give up my life without losing anything. As Ramana
Maharshi used to say about action and non-action: "Whatever happens
by itself is done by myself - since there is but one Self."
I disagree with your interpretation of the Christian understanding
of God. We make use of concepts and categories drawn from our
experience to speak of that which is beyond experience. In the end,
all positive assertions about God are of limited value.
The problem is, as Bertrand Russell remarked it, that all the mystical
experiences are sensory, therefore physical and not spiritual or
metaphysical.
Starting from that, he thought that mystical experiences, though
genuine, had a purely physical, ie natural, origin.

So inducing from personal *physical* experiences (such as inner peace,
feeling of peaceful joy, calming of sexual desire, etc.) are merely a
matter of sublimation caused by the exercise of turning our attention
away from thoughts of desire (sex) and anxiety (death). Jesus-Christ
being, according to the book, born of a virgin and risen after death,
focusing on him through prayer (if you believe the book, that is) will
automatically displace your charge of energy from the sex to the other
main neural centres, ie the solar plexus (the "heart") and the brain.

That the Hindu (and therefore Buddhist) monks had known this for
centuries before christianity is not stranger to the fact that Christian
practice is globally foreign to anything Jewish.

The Navajo healers know that too: if you heal the patient's dreams,
you'll heal the dreamer. The Gospel provides such dreams of healing.
Post by matt001
I find your ideas about individuation interesting. Unlike you, I am
not entirely sure what consiousness is and means, nor am I convinced
that anyone fully grasps the meaning of the life of Jesus. One is
taken captive by that life without holding it captive.
What consciousness is: nothing. Litterally! It is this essential void
and emptyness that allows the perception (or more accurately: the
intuition) of all phenomenality, or in other words: of all the beings
(including God) as a world of phenomena.

In his late writings, Husserl wrote about the question of God from a
phenomenological point of view, seing him, after all, as a being and
therefore as contingent. To the point that we can deny his existence or
claim his death and nothing changes.
From that, Merleau-Ponty noted that realizing the nature of
consciousness makes the question of God and even his existence useless,
moot, and as contingent as God himself.

Something that six centuries before Meister Eckhart had realized (that
the soul and the godhead are a pure nothing) by which everything comes
to existence.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-21 14:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Ukrainians to build an Orthodox church in Antarctica
"When you pray there you get unspeakable impressions.
It is zero altitude, but you have such a feeling that
the church almost fly above Earth," Archbishop
Augustine of Lvov and Galicia and said as he had
celebrated a Liturgy in the church in 2007 and is
going to consecrate the Ukrainian chapel in spring.
That's what religion is all about: impressions and
feelings.
“Which of the religions of the world gives to its
followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the
religion of worshiping oneself is best”    C.S.Lewis
Worshipping is for retards.
No, name-calling is for retards.
The universe is not a monarchy, it's only self-governed (sort
of) by gravity. So no lord or king to rule it.
Albert Einstein said that two things are infinite--the universe
and human stupidity. He added that he wasn't sure about the
universe.
"Melech Ha 'Olam" and "Kyrios" are anthropomorphisms,
condescending to our noetic frailty.
No, they mean a personal (ie noetic) creator and ruler of the
universe. The reality is that noumen and phenomena "create" each
other: consciousness emerges through separation ("On pense comme on
se heurte" said Paul Valéry, "We think as we bump."), ie
individuation, and in return this consciousness constitutes the
world of life (Lebenswelt) as a world (ie different from the
undifferentiated flow or process of universal becoming that is
experienced in deep sleep) through both sensory and categorial
intuition.
That individuation would predate the beginning of the universe is
highly unlikely. Before there were phenomena, there was no
awareness, let alone self-awareness that comes at the end of the
process of individuation. I like Shankara's image of one Reality
that folds on itself as both consciousness (chit) and universe.
Biblical theology made uselessly complicated (and this became much
worse with the dogmas edicted by the ecumenical councils) the
simple message and life of Jesus-Christ as this one Reality being
the Father, common to all the beings, human in inhuman alike, so
that I can give up my life without losing anything. As Ramana
Maharshi used to say about action and non-action: "Whatever happens
by itself is done by myself - since there is but one Self."
I disagree with your interpretation of the Christian understanding
of God. We make use of concepts and categories drawn from our
experience to speak of that which is beyond experience. In the end,
all positive assertions about God are of limited value.
The problem is, as Bertrand Russell remarked it, that all the mystical
experiences are sensory, therefore physical and not spiritual or
metaphysical.
Starting from that, he thought that mystical experiences, though
genuine, had a purely physical, ie natural, origin.
So inducing from personal *physical* experiences (such as inner peace,
feeling of peaceful joy, calming of sexual desire, etc.) are merely a
matter of sublimation caused by the exercise of turning our attention
away from thoughts of desire (sex) and anxiety (death). Jesus-Christ
being, according to the book, born of a virgin and risen after death,
focusing on him through prayer (if you believe the book, that is) will
automatically displace your charge of energy from the sex to the other
main neural centres, ie the solar plexus (the "heart") and the brain.
That the Hindu (and therefore Buddhist) monks had known this for
centuries before christianity is not stranger to the fact that Christian
practice is globally foreign to anything Jewish.
I am not convinced of this. Judaism, at the time of the origin of the
Church, was far more multidimensional than it became after it
developed into the rabbinic Judaism of later periods. It was also the
product of many influences, among them Zoroastrianism and Egyptian
religion.
Post by RVG
The Navajo healers know that too: if you heal the patient's dreams,
you'll heal the dreamer. The Gospel provides such dreams of healing.
Post by matt001
I find your ideas about individuation interesting. Unlike you, I am
not entirely sure what consiousness is and means, nor am I convinced
that anyone fully grasps the meaning of the life of Jesus. One is
taken captive by that life without holding it captive.
What consciousness is: nothing. Litterally! It is this essential void
and emptyness that allows the perception (or more accurately: the
intuition) of all phenomenality, or in other words: of all the beings
(including God) as a world of phenomena.
In his late writings, Husserl wrote about the question of God from a
phenomenological point of view, seing him, after all, as a being and
therefore as contingent. To the point that we can deny his existence or
claim his death and nothing changes.
 From that, Merleau-Ponty noted that realizing the nature of
consciousness makes the question of God and even his existence useless,
moot, and as contingent as God himself.
Merleau Ponty also said that there is no sphere of immanence, no realm
in which consciousness is fully at home and secure against all risk of
error.
Post by RVG
Something that six centuries before Meister Eckhart had realized (that
the soul and the godhead are a pure nothing) by which everything comes
to existence.
RVG
2011-01-26 11:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Merleau Ponty also said that there is no sphere of immanence, no realm
in which consciousness is fully at home and secure against all risk of
error.
The only certainty is "I am". The rest is subject to aproximations and a
part of belief.
MP's reflection was based on Husserl's famous inkpot experiment.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
nickk - not the imposter
2011-01-29 15:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Even penguins & walrus' need a place to pray!
RVG
2011-01-30 00:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Even penguins& walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-30 22:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Even penguins&  walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Alexander Arnakis
2011-01-31 02:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:01:09 -0800 (PST), matt001
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
The whole concept of God is Man putting his own face on the
supernatural. These sorts of speculations are the result of the excess
brainpower and leisure time that Man achieved because of physical and
social evolution. Animals have neither the luxury nor the ability to
indulge in such thinking.
matt001
2011-01-31 15:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Arnakis
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:01:09 -0800 (PST), matt001
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
The whole concept of God is Man putting his own face on the
supernatural. These sorts of speculations are the result of the excess
brainpower and leisure time that Man achieved because of physical and
social evolution.
There are many different concepts of God/gods. Some of them--e.g. the
pantheistic ones--can hardly be described as putting a human face on
the supernatural.
Post by Alexander Arnakis
Animals have neither the luxury nor the ability to
indulge in such thinking.
Exactly. They are neither theists nor atheists.
RVG
2011-01-31 18:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins& walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.

Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-01-31 19:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&    walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
My dictionary translates "athée" as "atheistic", as opposed to
"atheist". Personally, I would tend to use the word "godless" without
the pejorative connotations.
RVG
2011-01-31 22:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins& walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
My dictionary translates "athée" as "atheistic", as opposed to
"atheist". Personally, I would tend to use the word "godless" without
the pejorative connotations.
Then again, an athée doesn't reject some sort of transcendance. The
obvious example is the difference between ego and ipse, from which the
Bible (by this I don't only mean the collection of sacred books of
Israel and christianity, but also the faith they involve) pulled the
idea of a divinity that would be an absolute ipse (in three egoes in the
christian dogma).

The main problem for me is the way the church fathers used platonician
concepts and tweaked them into a mess of antinomic dogmas. One of them,
not the least, is essentialism, ie the idea that different classes of
beings are of various essences.

This is a view that has been completely rejected in modern philosophy,
and to be honest was already severely hurt by Aristotles' notion of
form. What Plato considered as absolute reality, the Idea (eidos) or
essence (ousia) was rethought (rethinking has been the philosophers'
main occupation since Plato) by Aristotles as just being formal. In this
perspective, God himself is just a pure form void of substance. And yet
Aristotles never completely cut himself from some of Plato's idea, and
he didn't draw all the conclusions of his own discoveries, falling back
into religious notions of causality such as the immobile motor, somehow
confusing the form with energy.

Similarly, he blended the notions of ousia and intellect (nous) in the
concept of hypokeimenon, the subject or substance. Although he had
previously made clear, through the creation of logic, that the intellect
has only access to formal concepts like classes of objects (words and
numbers) and operations between them in mathematics and logic.

So if we stick to what was truly original in Aristotles' thought - and
which forms the basic elements of scientific method and well as its
tools - there's no way the christian dogma can survive the
investigation. Just one example: Aristotles demonstrated that any
contradictory (antinomic) proposition is not only void of meaning, but
also void of object. Yet antinomy is the basis of christian dogma (see
Paul Florensky: The Pillar and Support of the Truth) . Therefore is it
not only void of content, but in order to be enforced the church and its
secular arm have to make a mortal war against reason and science. In
this respect, Hypatia's murder by christian monks is no accident.

There is a transcendance, there is a before and beyond, but nothing
allows us to induce that it is a talking bush, a grasshoper eater of the
desert or a carpenter rabbi of Nazareth. It can just be our most
intimate reality, so deep that whatever we call "me" is just peripheral
of this Reality, and so obvious we have no effort to make to reach it:
as it is real, it is here, has always been, will always be - and I am
this, have always been, will always be, whatever the name and the body
that calls itself "me".
--
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake

http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
matt001
2011-02-01 13:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&      walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
My dictionary translates "athée" as "atheistic", as opposed to
"atheist". Personally, I would tend to use the word "godless" without
the pejorative connotations.
Then again, an athée doesn't reject some sort of transcendance. The
obvious example is the difference between ego and ipse, from which the
Bible (by this I don't only mean the collection of sacred books of
Israel and christianity, but also the faith they involve) pulled the
idea of a divinity that would be an absolute ipse (in three egoes in the
christian dogma).
The main problem for me is the way the church fathers used platonician
concepts and tweaked them into a mess of antinomic dogmas. One of them,
not the least, is essentialism, ie the idea that different classes of
beings are of various essences.
This is a view that has been completely rejected in modern philosophy,
and to be honest was already severely hurt by Aristotles' notion of
form. What Plato considered as absolute reality, the Idea (eidos) or
essence (ousia) was rethought (rethinking has been the philosophers'
main occupation since Plato) by Aristotles as just being formal. In this
perspective, God himself is just a pure form void of substance. And yet
Aristotles never completely cut himself from some of Plato's idea, and
he didn't draw all the conclusions of his own discoveries, falling back
into religious notions of causality such as the immobile motor, somehow
confusing the form with energy.
Similarly, he blended the notions of ousia and intellect (nous) in the
concept of hypokeimenon, the subject or substance. Although he had
previously made clear, through the creation of logic, that the intellect
has only access to formal concepts like classes of objects (words and
numbers) and operations between them in mathematics and logic.
So if we stick to what was truly original in Aristotles' thought - and
which forms the basic elements of scientific method and well as its
tools - there's no way the christian dogma can survive the
investigation. Just one example: Aristotles demonstrated that any
contradictory (antinomic) proposition is not only void of meaning, but
also void of object. Yet antinomy is the basis of christian dogma (see
Paul Florensky: The Pillar and Support of the Truth) . Therefore is it
not only void of content, but in order to be enforced the church and its
secular arm have to make a mortal war against reason and science. In
this respect, Hypatia's murder by christian monks is no accident.
There is a transcendance, there is a before and beyond, but nothing
allows us to induce that it is a talking bush, a grasshoper eater of the
desert or a carpenter rabbi of Nazareth. It can just be our most
intimate reality, so deep that whatever we call "me" is just peripheral
as it is real, it is here, has always been, will always be - and I am
this, have always been, will always be, whatever the name and the body
that calls itself "me".
Western philosophy strikes me as something of a winding path with many
wrong turns and cul-de-sacs. We must avoid the Darwinian error of
assuming that what comes later must be superior to whatever preceded
it.

In your final paragraph, you say that "nothing allows us to induce..."
Here you apear to take for granted the methodology of western
theology. Orthodox theoology begins with an experience of the
transcendent. It does not arrive at this via a process of induction.
Also, its use of platonic concepts is far more discriminating than you
appear to allow.

Having said this, I do not reject the transcendance that is deep
within...

Steve Hayes
2011-02-01 03:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&    walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
My dictionary translates "athée" as "atheistic", as opposed to
"atheist". Personally, I would tend to use the word "godless" without
the pejorative connotations.
In English "theist" is a back-formation from "atheist", as "gruntled" is a
back-formation from "disgruntled".

And "atheist" means "godless".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com

"She believed in nothing. Only her scepticism kept her from being an atheist."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
matt001
2011-02-01 13:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins& walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is ath e (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "ath e" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "ath iste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "th iste".
My dictionary translates "ath e" as "atheistic", as opposed to
"atheist". Personally, I would tend to use the word "godless" without
the pejorative connotations.
In English "theist" is a back-formation from "atheist", as "gruntled" is a
back-formation from "disgruntled".
And "atheist" means "godless".
Literally, yes.

As I noted in my follow-up post below, my Larousse lexicon gives
"nullifidian" as the English equivalent of "athée".
matt001
2011-01-31 20:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&    walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
Just in the way of an addendum: I checked my Larousse. It translates
"athée" as "nullifidian". This word is rarely used, but would probably
serve as well as "godless" as a translation of "athée".
++
2011-01-31 21:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&    walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
Just in the way of an addendum: I checked my Larousse. It translates
"athée" as "nullifidian". This word is rarely used, but would probably
serve as well as "godless" as a translation of "athée".
but neither of your definitions, Matt, seems to express never yet
having encountered God and having no God by design, i.e. godless
matt001
2011-01-31 21:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ++
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Post by matt001
Post by RVG
Even penguins&    walrus' need a place to pray!
The animals are natural atheists.
Not so. There is no such thing as a "natural atheist".
Yes, there is: all being that comes into the world has no notion of God
or any supernatural beings. Including human babies.
Nature is athée (not atheIST, but then again English is awfully weak
when it comes to serious thinking). In French "athée" is just a state of
mind (the simple fact of never encountering the notion of divinity or
supernatural in general in one's sphere of intellectual representations)
whereas "athéiste" is a deliberate intellectual position (thesis), the
antithesis of "théiste".
Just in the way of an addendum: I checked my Larousse. It translates
"athée" as "nullifidian". This word is rarely used, but would probably
serve as well as "godless" as a translation of "athée".
but neither of your definitions, Matt, seems to express never yet
having encountered God and having no God by design, i.e. godless
I disagree. I was careful to say that I was using the word "godless"
without its pejorative connotations. I think this is justifiable.

As to the word "nullifidian", I think that Larousse has it right.It
can properly be used to describe a state of mind void of any
supernatural ideas or faith.
Loading...