Des this mean we are starting again? Ok, let's dance.
Nothing much to be said here. You are just giving your background.
You know, you could have really made the definition of god very simple, but you chose to include fancy sounding words which seem to suggest intent at later subversion. You said god was "all" i.e. everything in the universe and beyond. Why not leave it at that?
But you put it as "unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good)", which can lead to a lot of sidetracking questions such as
1. How is ideal form different than non-ideal form and why isn't it a part of god?
2. Why is primal matter a part of god and not secondary matter?
3. Why is primal matter good? And if secondary matter comes from primal matter, how can it not be good as well?
4. Why do you refer the form to be true?
Mostly fine except for the last part. As you say here, the objective reality (corresponding to the physical) does not need a sentient being. The subjective reality (corresponding to formal) does. Now, not everything that is a part of objective reality is perceptible (even if everything perceptible is a part of objective reality) - which means, not every substance has a form. Further, subjective reality requires experience - not perception and not every experience can be perceived. So, not every form has a substance.
Okay, now it just seems like you have lost track of philosophical discourse and are simply spouting mystical mumbo-jumbo.
First of all, you simply say "The Good" and equate it to "Primal Matter". Firstly, primal matter would be substantive and "the good" or "love" would be formal. So, I guess you are trying to say that "good" and "love" are forms of the primal substance. One problem with that - for that abstraction to occur, a sentient being must perceive the primal matter. You have given no argument for or about that sentient thing (and no - it cannot be god because using god to defined primal substance and primal substance to define god would be circular).
Secondly, use of "The Good" here, bears no resemblance to meaning of the word "good". The formal property of "good" is assigned - always - according to a set of rules or the purpose.
A knife is good if it performs its purpose well (cutting).
A book is good if it meets the standards of well written literature (entertainment etc.)
A person is good if he acts according to certain predefined guidelines (the moral code).
It doesn't matter where the rules come from or how the purpose is set, there needs to be something to ascribe the property of good. You have given no such criteria for "The Good". So why do you assume that the primal matter is the same as "The Good" and that should act as the absolute standard. It seems more like you are trying to redefine
"Good". Further, since "The Good" and "love" are formal, neither can subsist in itself. To do so would require the formal to be primary and as you stated earlier, it is the substantive that is the primary.
Finally, where the hell did the essence of "love" come from?
Again, you keep using these words, but within this context, they mean nothing. Truth is the judgment of a statement's correspondence to reality (or any other contextual premises). Wisdom is about knowledge. Saying things like "The True is identified with Ideal Form" doesn't mean anything unless you first explain what an Ideal form even means and why does it have full correlation with reality and which sentient being was the source of this ideal form (again, cannot be your god)?
With your "proto-consciousness" argument, you have contradicted your earlier statements. Firstly, if it was a part of reality and perceptible (by your statement that it becomes apparent) , then it would be self-evident. It is not.
Consciousness does not equal sentience - proto-consciousness would be less so. Therefore, your problem of everything having formal attribute (which are formed due to sentience) would not be solved.
Thirdly, while the things in objective reality are always consistent and rational, those within subjective reality can be irrational and self-contradictory. If your ideal form is everything a subjective reality may contain, then it automatically includes self-contradictions, paradoxes and self-refutations - thereby making it by definition, not completely true.
Finally, since I've already criticized your reckless use of the words like good, evil, truth etc. I won't say anything with regard to your final argument unless you justify your prior concepts first.
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The “Problem of Evil” as traditionally presented:
Question: Can an all-powerful and all-good God create an all-good world?
An all-good God would try to create an all-good world.
An all-powerful God would be able to make an all-good world.
The world is all-good.
Orthodox monotheism, as commonly understood, argues that all three statements are true. Like others on AF, I find traditional appeals to free-will and the ‘best of all possible worlds’ defenses less than compelling. The inability of orthodoxy to adequately defend against the problem of evil follows from its misunderstanding of the nature of God.
In this thread I will present a preliminary attempt to acknowledge the apparent evil present in the world within a theistic framework. I believe this framework more closely reflects God as presented in the bible without the speculations of the Scholastics. I will do so from the perspective of a Panenthestic, neo-Platonic interpretation of Emanuel Swedenborg’s theology, widely considered a heretical position by the larger Christian community. I have capitalized terms associated with absolutes, ultimates and universals to distinguish them from approximates or appearances of the same.
Nothing much to be said here. You are just giving your background.
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Unlike Pantheism, which means ‘the natural world is God’, Panentheism means ‘the natural world is within god’. Panentheism considers God to be all of reality, or the All. The All includes a natural aspect, but also includes other aspects inferred from the natural. In Panentheism (or at least the kind I advocate) creation simply means the process of substance taking a particular form. This conforms to Swedenborg’s assertion that God created the natural world ‘out of Himself’, as opposed to ‘out of nothing’. (Out of nothing, nothing comes.)
God is defined as the Supreme Being, or the All, understood as the unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good).
You know, you could have really made the definition of god very simple, but you chose to include fancy sounding words which seem to suggest intent at later subversion. You said god was "all" i.e. everything in the universe and beyond. Why not leave it at that?
But you put it as "unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good)", which can lead to a lot of sidetracking questions such as
1. How is ideal form different than non-ideal form and why isn't it a part of god?
2. Why is primal matter a part of god and not secondary matter?
3. Why is primal matter good? And if secondary matter comes from primal matter, how can it not be good as well?
4. Why do you refer the form to be true?
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Reality is that which is considered self-evident and primary. Objective reality exists independent of human perception. Anything capable of apprehension by the senses of anyone falls with objective reality. Subjective reality is anything apprehensible only by the experience of a specific sentient being. Every real thing has two aspects: formal and substantial. Formal is synonymous with the conceptual, abstract and ‘spiritual’. Substantial is synonymous with physical and material. While form and substance can be thought of as distinct aspects of reality, one cannot exist independent of the other. Every substance has a form and every form has a substance.
Mostly fine except for the last part. As you say here, the objective reality (corresponding to the physical) does not need a sentient being. The subjective reality (corresponding to formal) does. Now, not everything that is a part of objective reality is perceptible (even if everything perceptible is a part of objective reality) - which means, not every substance has a form. Further, subjective reality requires experience - not perception and not every experience can be perceived. So, not every form has a substance.
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The Good is identified with Primal Matter and its essence is Love. The Good subsists in-itself and, as Love, strives for completeness and coherence. Evil is a local lack of these qualities, i.e. imperfection and corruption. The Good is the highest of all goods from which all lesser goods are derived. The goals of goods are called goodwill. The actions of goods are called good deeds. The results of goods are called virtues.
Okay, now it just seems like you have lost track of philosophical discourse and are simply spouting mystical mumbo-jumbo.
First of all, you simply say "The Good" and equate it to "Primal Matter". Firstly, primal matter would be substantive and "the good" or "love" would be formal. So, I guess you are trying to say that "good" and "love" are forms of the primal substance. One problem with that - for that abstraction to occur, a sentient being must perceive the primal matter. You have given no argument for or about that sentient thing (and no - it cannot be god because using god to defined primal substance and primal substance to define god would be circular).
Secondly, use of "The Good" here, bears no resemblance to meaning of the word "good". The formal property of "good" is assigned - always - according to a set of rules or the purpose.
A knife is good if it performs its purpose well (cutting).
A book is good if it meets the standards of well written literature (entertainment etc.)
A person is good if he acts according to certain predefined guidelines (the moral code).
It doesn't matter where the rules come from or how the purpose is set, there needs to be something to ascribe the property of good. You have given no such criteria for "The Good". So why do you assume that the primal matter is the same as "The Good" and that should act as the absolute standard. It seems more like you are trying to redefine
"Good". Further, since "The Good" and "love" are formal, neither can subsist in itself. To do so would require the formal to be primary and as you stated earlier, it is the substantive that is the primary.
Finally, where the hell did the essence of "love" come from?
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The True is identified with Ideal Form and its essence is Wisdom. The True is the manifestation of the Good’s completeness and coherence. Things that appear true can be found within and conform to the Ideal Form. What we identify as true are those things that, in our estimation and judgment, accurately embody forms taken from the True.
Again, you keep using these words, but within this context, they mean nothing. Truth is the judgment of a statement's correspondence to reality (or any other contextual premises). Wisdom is about knowledge. Saying things like "The True is identified with Ideal Form" doesn't mean anything unless you first explain what an Ideal form even means and why does it have full correlation with reality and which sentient being was the source of this ideal form (again, cannot be your god)?
(March 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Where orthodoxy sees Omniscience, I see subjective experience active at all scales of reality. As an advocate of pan-psychism, I consider proto-consciousness (‘knowing’ at the smallest scale) as a universal aspect of reality. Self-awareness becomes apparent when substance reaches the level of complexity needed to bind proto-conscious monads into higher forms that more closely approximate the Ideal Form. The soul of a sentient being is the unity of that beings highest formal attributes with the smallest necessary substantial basis. Since the All is the largest scale manifesting the highest degree of complexity, the totality has within it all consciousness. God with respect to His understanding is the ‘knowing that is within all’.
Where orthodoxy sees Omnipotence, I see the universal self-organizing power (potency) within the Good to subsist and support the subsistence of lesser goods. The All strives to create wholes that reflect its own coherence and completeness. Because the All is complete and coherent, no lack can be found within it. Thus evil cannot be ascribed to the All. Since only the All can be a perfect unity, i.e. the One, all creations within the all can only partially embody the Good of the All. Thus all creations, as partial goods, express some lack of good. These lacks are called evils. Because evils are the absence of the good that would make something a perfect unity, evils are really nothing at all, just fantasies without substance or form.
With your "proto-consciousness" argument, you have contradicted your earlier statements. Firstly, if it was a part of reality and perceptible (by your statement that it becomes apparent) , then it would be self-evident. It is not.
Consciousness does not equal sentience - proto-consciousness would be less so. Therefore, your problem of everything having formal attribute (which are formed due to sentience) would not be solved.
Thirdly, while the things in objective reality are always consistent and rational, those within subjective reality can be irrational and self-contradictory. If your ideal form is everything a subjective reality may contain, then it automatically includes self-contradictions, paradoxes and self-refutations - thereby making it by definition, not completely true.
Finally, since I've already criticized your reckless use of the words like good, evil, truth etc. I won't say anything with regard to your final argument unless you justify your prior concepts first.
