reply to post by DISRAELI
Hi Disraeli (love the moniker!), I agree with your referenced post entirely. In terms of analogical emotive interaction, I think that it is clear
that humans assign reciprocal emotions to inanimate objects (e.g. a child's relationship with a doll or 'teddy bear') and so it is no wonder that
we apply the same relationships to the natural world and certainly to the concept of God.
This is not to say that such a reciprocal relationship does not exist within the context of a deity entity, however, the relationship is not for the
benefit of mankind per se, but to the sole purpose of that deity:
That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of
the One Thing
That an action or event may be contrived to be evidence of 'love' or 'anger' (i.e. a positive or negative effect) is besides the point, as human
beings our everyday actions may have an effect on the natural world quite apart from our cognitive attempts to affect it. The fact that we have
cognition of events within the context of our own lives is not to say that events were deigned for that very purpose. I truly believe that in the
context of the deity I refer to, human kind is simply 'collateral' to further a higher objective.
Certainly, I believe that sentience is a significant aspect of the deity, however, that self-awareness is no doubt beyond the capacity of mankind to
understand - we can hardly decide whether animals are capable of sentient thought so I don't have any faith in being able to predict the capacities
of a supreme being!
Can we comprehend the sentient context of a tree, even in a reaction to the natural elements? The tree functions, it reacts to seasons and weather,
all part of the mechanics of a system that has evolved over a long period of time, however - can we simply state that a tree is a 'machine'?
A common interpretation for the definition of sentience is skewed to human cognition rather than as a universal truth and does not necessarily work
well when applied to systems. Remember that sentience is an ability to subjectively perceive, yet at this very basic level we could apply the label
of 'sentience' to a number of natural structures (i.e. plant and animal life).
You also mention the point of communication and this is very important since its interpretation is fundamental to the underlying philosophy of many
religions. The key aspect to this whether God is distinct from creation or whether creation itself is a manifestation of God.
This is important because it changes the dynamic of communication. As you read this as a distinct individual you are quite separate from me, the
author of the post and may interpret and react to my statements although disassociated from my experience in producing it. However, there was also
communication between my brain and my hands and fingers in order to type this although within the same system (i.e. my body with reference to sensory
input and muscular control).
Where God is essentially the fundamental material from which the universe is constructed, communication may occur within the 'single system' and not
necessarily between distinct bodies. This represents a more holistic approach to the definition of and interaction with a 'God'.
Thanks Disraeli for raising some interesting points.