I've just read the first chapter of your book, you nutcase.

I'm fairly interested in these kind of things, but find that there are so many variations which all support each other that it's futile to try and determine which is true.

You appear to be giving an account of the development of human religious consciousness, in the way our thinking about God has developed throughout history.

Unfortunately, like many other writers on the subject, you over emphasise the mysticism and symbolism of this development, neglecting, again like most writers, to accept the open conceptualisation of this development in self knowledge, instead adopting this symbolism and occult red herrings.

Throughout history our thinking about and understanding of God has developed in a foundational way, with each stage building upon the last. This is to be expected. It is therefore not surprising that Greece was a fertile breeding ground for Christianity. This is not to suggest that there is some occult, pagan remnants under the surface of Christianity. Rather, Christians accept the insights of past religons, but view them as being subsumed under the affirmation of Christ.

There may well be further development in our thinking of God. But it is strange to suggest that there has already been furter development, of which most of us, who aren't blessed with to t revelations, are unaware. I do agree with you, that the key.

I agree with some of the understanding of God which you ascribe to the Swedenborg Church. The crucial thing in life is the development of ones understanding, the culmination of which is judgement and action. A full understanding of ones own understanding is the key to understanding, affirming and deciding to love God. However, you cloud all of these valid insights by talking about vessels, and some symbolism associated with the number of churches.

The idea that human understanding is the crucial developmental point in existence is one which has now become quite well known. Bernard Lonergan, a twentieth century philosopher, economist, mathematician and theologian, gives a guide to the entire process of self-appropriation and the heuristical and metaphysical implications in his work Insight. If indeed Swedenborg had all of these Insights almost two hundred years earlier, that is some achievement. But more likely than not, Swedenborg has been unclear on the matter, perhaps having the beginnings of an understanding, but failing to conceptualise and, importantly, make concrete these insights, instead chossing to veil them in mysticism and occult initiations.

The Self-enlightenment which you seem to suggest is the next stage of human development is already in progress. Through rational self-reflection, people are coming to know themselves in more concrete, objective terms, and to understand their relationship with God and the world. The need for mystic symbolism is long gone, and people can now take a cool clear-headed look at themselves and rationally affirm the intelligibility and inherent goodness of creation and its sustainer.

The development of human understanding, and the religious implications of this, have, throughout history, been shrouded by occult symbolism and mystical ritualism, even by some of the greatest thinkers on the subject.This arose due to an underdevelopment of ideas simply inevitable at that stage of human existence. However, due to the foundational of developmental nature of human knowledge, many thinkers in the post-modern era and before have been tempted to emphasise the associations between all of this occult mumbo jumbo, and to trace some kind of esoteric development hidden from the general populace.

However, this post-modern paranoia, whilst on the rise, also contains the seeds of its own destruction. The constant striving to find rational development in those aspects of human understanding which are specifically irrational, ( like the historical development of symbolism and esotericism because of a lack of full, concrete understanding), is doomed to failure, but will itself develop our human rationality. Once we rationally accept that these associations and mystical connections which run through history are simply unintelligible residue, arising from underdeveloped rationality, we can begin to rationally examine ourselve, our own understanding, and to constantly revise and develop it.

Christ stands for the full use of our human rationality in order to engage in a constant process of self criticism and dialectic.

I do, of course, realise that to say all this having only read your fist chapter is extremely presumptious, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. The very fact that you're striving to bring conceive an intelligible order to historical development is a great thing, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

There is an order to human development. It's that we've gradually built up an understanding of God based on an objective and rational self-appropriation. We've done this by building on the insights of previous thinkers, but rejecting those vague symbolistic cop outs which were inevitable at the time, even for such practical reasons as lack of terminology, and technology. It was impossible for past thinkers to view the world the way we do today, so it is only natural that they invent symbolism and "secret meanings" to disguise their underdevelopment. By attempting to construct an intelligible order into these misdevelopments, you're using your intelligence towards the wrong end. I hope it may cause in you the counterpositional insight and move you in the other direction, but these things have a tendency to overwhelm you in sheer volume and detail. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

Good Luck - Bernard's Insight.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

Nutcase huh? Hey, it all has to start somewhere doesn't it?

Greetings, and welcome to the Dionysus Forums!

If it makes you feel any better, chapters 1-3 were more of an afterthought, which I deemed necessary in order to back up what I say in chapters 4-5, specifically chapter 5. In which case chapters 1-3 stand, regardless.

I agree.

Are you at all familiar with Swedenborg's work?

But then again maybe I'm not so clear on the matter of Swedenborg, because I'm not Swedenborg.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ach come on.......think about it and answer, that's the way you do things.

Don't just say, "well I'm not Swedenborg", or "Well, you don't know his work".

I think that Swedenborg was an astute thinker for his time, but, like everyone else, shielded his shortcomings behind a lot of figurative speech. Now, either you can take what he says figuratively, and open to interpretation, in which case I believe we have by now reached a fuller interpretation, or you can take it all literally, in which case you're just taking his word for it.

You haven't answered any of the points I made about tracing rational development in the irrational residue. Perhaps you should go read some Lonergan.

Oh, and thank's for the welcome.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

Oh, and yes, I am quite familiar with Swedenborg. His theology is basically thomistic, especially in it's neo-platonic/Aristotelian synthesised metaphysics, of all beings participating in God's being. If you'd read my point you might see that this notion was implicit. His disagreements with traditional thomist church teaching have all been ironed out by neo thomist scholars.

The God as three parts of one person argument is precisely what I said in my other post, specifically about the trinity, when I argues that Christ as expression is one part of a dynamc process of knowing.

Anyway, try and reply with something a bit more constructive would you?

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

Swedenborg was the man dude, at least temporarily.

The truth has a way of revealing itself, when the time comes ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hey, did you know that Science represents the Bridegroom and coincides with the Age of Enlightenment or, Reason?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Oh right......
just as I expected, you're obviously just some half-head who, when faced with rational criticism, prefers to bullshit with mysticism and bullshit about bridegrooms and an age of enlightenment.


Science may well "represent" the bridegroom in some sort of arbitrary symbolism, but concretely and objectively, it's nothing of the sort. The only purpose for speaking in this way is to veil underdeveloped concepts and expressions.

And yes, there is an age of enlightenment. It is simply the fact that humanity is at a higher developmental stage than previously, owing to the systematic nature of our knowledge seeking. But that's all there is to it.

So Yes, the truth will reveal itself, but not at some prophetically appointed time, but at that stage when humanity reaches it's full consciousness, recognising both itself and others, and rationally affirms its place in the neccessary development of reason and understanding.

People like you, however, set back the objective of coming to clear, open and concrete understanding by, oh, I'd say at least a couple of centuries.

Still, this is the way things go. You could quite easily reach the opposite view by simply examining your own knowing, not the content, but the act. When you do that you might come to affirm that the real is what is intelligently grasped and reasonably affirmed. The real has no relation to hidden occult symbolism or figurative mysticism. The first step is to affirm that this is how you in fact come to know anything. First by experiencing something which gives rise to questions, then by grasping an intelligibility, and finally by rationally judging and acting accordingly. Start to wonder if this is actually how you do in fact understand, and you'll realise that your very wondering and understanding about this subject is an answer to its own question.

Good luck.
Bernard's Insight.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

No doubt. And yet life is a mystery, don't you think? Especially when it seems contingent upon the fact that we don't exist. While even at that rate our days are numbered. Hmm ...

So, would you venture to say that there were four sides to a square?

Not possible to be an Age of Enlightenment with respect to God though? Which is to say, all we have is human seeking, right?

Why? What makes the human experience so important? Is that to say the Universe is incapable of getting along without us?

And when we're dead and gone? What purpose will our understanding serve then?

The truth has a way of revealing itself, when the time comes ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Any chance of a detailed reply?

Life is a mystery, and existence is the all-encompassing mystery, but its what we're trying to understand through rational process, not through bullshit metaphors and shady, one line statements.

Yes, there are four sides to a square.


All we originally have is our irresistible urge to know, and as our urge is unlimited, it must be towards an unlimited knowledge, which is God. An Age of Enlightement is possible because, from the basis of our inbuilt desire to know, humanity has built up a body of knowledge structurally. We are, therefore, more enlightened now than before. That's all the age of enlightement means. In the future there'll be a new age of enlightenemt, when we're even more enlightened.


Human experience is important because it is the only instance of full rational self-consciousness on earth, and in this way participates in God's infinite rational self-consciousness.

When we die our understanding will live on, not just as a basis for future progress, but as an aspect of infinite understanding (at the right hand of God).

I hope you read that last paragraph of mine that's quoted, because it's the key to the whole thing

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

PS, I notice, as this post has gone on, that you've quickly degenerated from the enlightened mystic with lots of pseudo-profound statements, to saying things like.

"Yeah, Swedenborg's the man, dude".

I'm goading you into giving a proper detailed reply to some of my points, of course, but I'm probably more likely to get more shit about Bridegrooms and the established fact of mathematics that there are four sides to a square.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

Why argue with a nutcase?

What is the rational unless set against the backdrop of the irrational? You can't have one without the other I'm afraid. Perhaps what you fail to realize that they're both one and the same? Indeed, how can you have form, without the space which exists between form? While here, what may seem totally rational to one person, may seem totally irrational to the next. Why? Because they haven't shared the same experience. In which case we have two distinct sets of understandings taking on two separate forms.

So, if somebody wishes to label me as irrational, that's fine by me. However, that does not mean that I'm the one who's behaving irrationally.

Fair enough.

We all go through different stages of development, and experience different things at different times.

What is so rational about the beauty of a flower? What is so rational about the sweet taste of wine?

So tell me, what gives you the right to profess in such tripe?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Good luck, B.I. If you find a way to get a straight answer out of Iacchus, send up a flare.


I won't be holding my breath.

My phd in Scholastic Metaphysics and Epistemology.

Now, how about you?

Oh, wait, something happened to you, didn't it?

Grow up.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

So which came first? The actual experience? Or, the knowledge of the actual experience? Indeed, which would be more palatable? The actual plate of spaghetti? Or, the recipe card which lists the ingredients (i.e., knowledge) of the spaghetti?

So, if you think you're going to argue with me from standpoint knowing more than I do (while I'm sure you think you do), without having the actual experience, then go take a hike, nutcase.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hey, did you know that the moment was made of spaghetti? Oddly enough, though, the experience of the moment is made of Iacchus's used question marks.I fully admit I know less about your experience than you do. So what? Nothing you have written here convinces me that your experience is worth knowing about. You could have used it as a springboard for a good, thorough investigation of your belief system...but no, you uncritically write about it, with eyes wide shut to any view which challenges your special status.

I get the feeling I would agree with Bernard's Insight about virtually nothing at all, but for perhaps one thing:

Grow up.

This stuff has already been thoroughly investigated by the way. All you need do is look into the works of Emanuel Swedenborg which, would be my recommendation to you.

Also, this stuff isn't always easy to talk about. It's not a matter of learning by rote and memorizing things. So quite often when someone asks a question as if I should know the answer right off the top of my head, that's very likely the kind of answer they're going to get. Otherwise it's requires me to dredge something up which, I'm afraid I have little time or patience for. Neither does it seem to make much difference in terms of the answer I provide.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wow.

We have extremely different definitions of "thoroughly investigated".

The man died in 1772. Please, Iacchus, take any area of science and compare what is known now to what was known in 1772. Let us suppose that Swedenborg did thoroughly investigate this stuff (although at least one site suggests his empirical work was not his strong area--oh, and if you suggest that a proper investigation need not be empirical, you are deluded) properly, and that it was absolute state-of-the-art in 1772. It would, today, still be hopelessly out of date and completely irrelevant to any understanding of human experience.

Perhaps you think it is better because it has not changed in centuries. I doubt that, honestly; you would have to be even more ignorant of science than you appear to be.

If this is the best you have, then no, it has not been thoroughly investigated. If you are serious about it, and truly believe it to be worthwhile, then do your best (and invite others to do their best as well) to tear it to pieces. If it can't stand the scrutiny, take their comments and revise, or admit that it is not what you think it is.

God has always existed, and so has the spiritual world. While Swedenborg is the only one that I'm aware of (in recent history) to do a noteworthy job of examining it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Belief in a god of some sort, the characteristics of which vary tremendously from culture to culture, has existed for some time, though not "always". Spiritual explanations for some experiences have also existed for some time, although fewer and fewer such explanations remain as we understand more and more about the world around us. The gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, and with them the need for spiritual explanations.

Swedenborg's explanations predate much of modern science--he would not even have been aware of conservation of energy. His examinations of science (this from my brief look at some of your recommended site) were always at the service of his spiritual beliefs, and never critical of them. (Note, this does not make his spiritual beliefs wrong, but it makes them untested, and it casts a big shadow over his scientific work as well. I note that his supporters give him credit for scientific ideas which other historians of science credit to others.)

Swedenborg is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only person researching our "spiritual world". The fact that you have to stretch back over 2 centuries to find someone whose beliefs are in line with yours ought to tell you something. Perhaps you reject more modern research because it finds things you are uncomfortable with. You have shown that you are willing to reject things that disagree with your a priori beliefs; there is every reason to suspect that there is a great deal of research addressing such ideas which you are either ignorant of or are actively denying.

However, if you understood that there were a succession of churches throughout history called the Church of Man, beginning with the Church of Adam, the Church of Noah, the Israelite Church, the Christian Church which, culminated with the Swedenborg Church (signified by the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation), then you have to ask, does the succession end here? Or, was there any succession at all? Which, is one of the main parts Swedenborg brings to the table. In which case it brings the lineage of the Western Church up to date, up until 1757 which, is when the Last Judgment was supposed to be held on the spiritual world. So, if you would like to at least glean some understanding about the nature of this lineage, whether it's been validated by empirical evidence or not, then it's worth looking into on these merits alone.

Thus, if you can accept the fact that this lineage has occurred or, at least consider it, then the next obvious question becomes, what happens after Swedenborg? Whereas if it wasn't for what happened in chapter 5 of my book, in accord with my understanding that this lingeage does exist (again, thanks to Swedenborg), I wouldn't even dare propose that my work represents the advent of the Sixth Church. Are you beginning to get the picture now?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?