(November 15, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I just don't see how else to understand a 'god' in an objective sense except as a more advanced being(s). [1]
My inclination is to remove gods from the objective exterior world and put them where we feel their presence, in interior life. [2] Do you follow what Jorgy was saying about the subjective/midjective distinction? From our conscious subjective perspective, there are features of our interior life which we do not directly control. From our conscious point of view it can be difficult to distinguish between the outer-other and the inner-other. [3]
Really, it is better to think of the brain/mind as producing a number of consciousness phenomenon, some portion of which is what we call 'us'. What we claim as our personal identity is really made up of both, but we tend to be most aware of that which we experience and participate in consciously. [4]
Anyhow, I think what makes gods so popular is the brain/mind's capacity to produce them, especially if we expect to experience them. When gods are produced they really aren't just projections of repressed aspects of the conscious mind. Even when gods are not produced the mind is still a cauldron of desires, meanings and concerns. The mind has a capacity to detect and solve problems without involving the conscious mind, it's been doing it for longer than we've had one. [5]
Most of my thinking about it is from Jungian psychology, most of it through James Hillman but other sources contribute. [6]
This was a jokey reference to the star trek stories. [7]
1) Well sure, if it helps you to start there, fine. However, I would invite you to consider that this carries with it the most fundamental error that many theists (especially deists) make: God understood as just another "thing", even if more advanced/"higher"/more intelligent "thing". The moment this is imported into god, then you'd be right to reject it's meaning or its reality.
2) I think it is good to do this, but at the "interior life" of ALL things.
3) Right. There are things about ourselves that we don't directly control, even things that influence what we think and how we think. But those, on my account, are aspects of what-we-are-as-objects. In other words, knowing about those things is part of our subjective knowledge of ourselves as objects, and the struggle to approach an adequate account of objects remains.
4) Right, and the more we know about the distinctions and aspects which go into making-us-us, the fuller picture we have of what-we-are
5) Fair enough.
6) I'm not familiar, but I'm glad they have helped you.
7) Totally missed it =)
