Why does the Riverfolk chaplain
here describe the Didonians as "many-minded"? Each Didonian entity has three interconnected brains but the brains, when disconnected, are merely animal, not rational, minds. However, the animals containing these brains can connect in different combinations. Thus, there can be not only ABC and DEF but also BCD, EFA, ABD etc. ABC and ABD have two thirds of their memories in common. Thus, each entity is able to remember some experiences of other entities. This makes them "many-minded."
What is the "...
ch'an - understanding..." that the chaplain says the Didonians are better at?
"'Allness...Unity, harmony.'"
-
op. cit., p. 173.
I can dig it:
in meditation, we intuit allness, unity and harmony;
thus, we transcend illusory separate selfhood;
this should come easier to the Didonians who remember having been more than one self and who should therefore be less inclined to identify exclusively with the current self.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I know I've said this before, but meditation doesn't seem to make sense or have any point unless directed towards contemplation of the First Cause, God. That, I believe, is how Christian contemplatives meditate. Some vaguely defined "Allness" doesn't cut it with me.
Sean
Sean,
Not vague, concrete. Everything that exists.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the chair I'm sitting on has nothing to do with "allness," "oneness," "harmony," etc. To say it does comes close to agreeing with the ideal archetypes of Plato.
Sean
Sean,
The chair is part of the All. Everything is interconnected. Realized oneness ends experiential alienation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The chair is a part of the entire universe, but it is not God or a part of God.
Sean
Sean,
If you are theistic, then God is in the chair.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't believe that, or any kind of pantheism. God is the Creator, not the created. In fact, we see Commissioner Desai discussing that in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN.
Sean
Sean,
Do you believe in divine transcendence but not immanence or omnipresence?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe in the omnipresence of God, because that logically follows from believing He is omnipotent. But I don't believe God is immanent in the chair I'm sitting on or the table holding my computer keyboard and monitor.
Sean
Sean,
Omnipotence does not entail omnipresence but someone who is everywhere must be in the chair?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Just a quick note, I have to go to work. Omnipotence can ENCOMPASS the chair but not BE the chair.
Sean
Sean,
"God in the chair" is not "God is the chair."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But to say God is in my chair SEEMS to come close to saying my chair is either God or a part of God. I prefer to say I don't believe in any kind of pantheism.
Sean
Sean,
If my hand is in my pocket, it is neither my pocket nor part of it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That I analogy, metaphor, or example is one I can understand and agree with.
Sean
Post a Comment