The dead go into the Night.
The Night becomes the Day.
Ragan, caught in the Burning Wheel, rose to heaven but was cast down.
The Mother wept for him.
These Aspects of God mean:
the rainy season enlivening dry earth;
dreams and waking;
"'...loss-remembrance-recreation...'" (p. 576);
"'...transformations of physical energy...'" (ibid.)
All is one.
At Bale time, in the Holy City, the Gwydiona "'...are God.'" (ibid.)
"Vwi," a pronoun of the universal gender, applies to God.
Unfortunately, the Bale time experience of the Gwydiona is sub-, not supra-, rational.
Why not use a neuter pronoun? Hindu: Tat, THAT.
My Opinion
Self is recognised as such only by contrast with other. Therefore, the single reality, identified as energy by empirical science, becomes conscious of itself only by appearing to itself as many. Individual conscious organisms are "he" or "she" but the One can only be "it," "It," "THAT" or "Vwi." Human beings approach oneness with the One by contemplation, not by temporary insanity.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. If God is real He can only be Person, not an "it."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If.
Paul.
(But, meanwhile, an impersonal reality can be real. What of the argument that the self-other relationship is necessary for consciousness?)
Kaor, Paul!
Not an "if," IS.
But a mere impersonal "reality" cannot logically be GOD. A "reality," by itself (undefined), cannot be a Being. I argue that something which is God can only be a Person.
I also believe the revelation of the Trinity answers your objection about the self-other relationship.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I can say, "Not IS, if," and we can go on like that forever.
The Trinity is a rationalization of the Fourth Evangelist's deification of the Son and personification of the Spirit.
Again, I am not defending the application of the term "God" to an impersonal reality. We ought to leave the merely terminological question aside.
The reality is defined as what exists, that which is, identified as energy by physicists but conscious of itself in organisms with central nervous systems. It, THAT, is not (or not only) remote but also within us, "...closer than hands and feet."
Paul.
It's important not to mistake grammar for the things language refers to.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Now you seem to be alluding to what I vaguely recall about the Nominalist controversy.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment