[Wondergirl]

Dear...hopefully it will bring you some closer to the jest of my thinking.

Please don't address other posters with put-downs.

I think I am already close to the "jest" of your thinking.

[ItsUp2Me]

It was not my intent to put-down anyone. After reading your comment I re-read my own and I now see what you mean. Therefore, my sincere apologies are herefy offered. Still, I think there is some small merit in what I said--if nothing else, my admission to borderline insanity.

[TUT317]

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Actually, I was going to apologize to you for my Kantian response to your question. Upon re-reading my last entry it did sound a bit arrogant. If it did then I apologize; it wasn't my intention. I was becoming a bit frustrated with myself for not being able to answer the question in a satisfactory manner.

As it turn out I have misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about the nature of time and space. If that were the case then one must include Kant when talking about this type of philosophy.

[ItsUp2Me]

In a previous post I imparted that “If man is made in the image of God he can never see or understand himself. ”
He can look into a conceptual mirror and see what he perceives to be his own image and imagine that this is also the image of God. However, there's that fuzzy zone, the twilight zone if you please, between himself and the mirror. What does that space contain and what is its meaning? This would be a sort of inverse of the outside of Alpha and Omega concept. It is ungodly! Therefore, in polite society we must not think of it, and never should it be discussed. To do otherwise will label ourselves as ungodly to our fellows.

Apparently the above, along with other comments I made, suggested to other posters that my position was either frivolous, or as I said, ungodly. I would respectfully submit that my posts were neither and I offer the following explanation. With regard to that fuzzy zone to which I referred and what it contains and what it means I would suggest that the contents are images, one a projection of ourselves and the other a reflection of that image. A tremendous conflict occurs ,midway where the projection and the reflection meet. However, since neither is real, i.e. they do not represent “time or space,” they manage somehow to pass through one another. Why, one might rightly ask, is this phenomena ungodly. Because what we see contains elements of both God and Satan.. It has been long established that man is made in the image of God. This would necessarily indicate that, since we each possess some good qualities (God qualities) and some not-so-good qualities (Satan qualities). Thus, we project both good and evil.. . And this is the “made in God's image” concept–whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. What this means, and this is the ungodly part, is that God and Satan are one and the same! I have never read where Sartre said it in this way, but I think perhaps that is what he was getting at. Omar Khayyam, in The Rubaiyat, came close, toying with the concept when he wrote:
“But helpless pieces in the game He plays
Upon this chequer-board of Nights and Days
He hither and thither moves, and checks... and slays
Then one by one, back in the Closet lays”

Back to the projection/reflection idea and why I suggested that it was not a Kant thing. Since the images, projected and reflected) do not occupy time or space and together they are the inverse of eternity, i.e. they are neither in the past nor are they in the future. They are at the intersection of the past and the future, the present, the here and now. So we have opened a new can of worms. Has this concept of God and Satan being one and the same ever occurred to anyone? What would be its implications? And what about Satan? From where and when did he enter the picture? Did God create Satan, or was Satan here all along–from the beginning of time? Let me hasten to point out that it is not my purpose to put down religion. I sincerely believe it to be a valid matter worthy of consideration by all. Did God create Satan for His own amusement, a competitor with whom he could “.. . Play upon this chequered-board of Nights and Days?” As TUT317 might say, Hmmm

[Wondergirl]

Did God create Satan for His own amusement, a competitor with whom he could “. . . play upon this chequered-board of Nights and Days?”

Or did man create Satan as a scapegoat in order to avoid his own moral responsibilities? God created only good. Did man's wish to be like God, man's arrogance, also birth Satan?

[NeedKarma]

It has been long established that man is made in the image of God.

Uh no. That's not philosophy or science, that's a religious belief.

[ItsUp2Me]

Strange, when I post under philosophy I am told my question is not philosophy but religion. But when I post under religion I am told it should be posted under philosophy. Do you suppose there is such a thing as religious philosophy, or perhaps it might be called philosophical religion?
Actually I am not attempting to deal with a belief. What I propose to do is explore ideas. I have done this by posing questions and suggesting unusual concepts. And speaking of unusual concepts (religious), your tan soul cat certainly deserves some consideration along these lines. Touché.

[TUT317]

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Your ideas sound very original and interesting. I would just like to work my way through your explanations to see if am understanding them correctly.

Firstly, are you saying that the "fuzzy" side of Alpha to Omega is the,"dark side" or the "ungodly" side?

Secondly, Is this "dark fuzzy" side something we recognize in our nature?

Thirdly, are you saying that Alpha to Omega and the "fuzzy side" are both not real, or not completely knowable?

In regards to my third question. If your answer to my third question is, "yes" then I can see where your existentialist explanation comes in.

Existentialist philosophers tend to disagree with each other, but there is a basic underlying theme. Sartre in his novel "Nausea" makes his main character seriously question the nature of the world he lives in.This questioning is bought on by the complete dissatisfaction with the arbitrary way he has organized his life.

All that he is left with is complete confusion and contempt with what appears to be an inescapable existence. The act of rejecting all of this in favor of becoming a free agent turns out to be a terrifying experience because there is also a realization that he is permanently burdened with the consequences of his decision making.

As to the general existentialist question, " how are we to live in this meaningless world?' Well, that depends on the existentialist philosopher.

[ItsUp2Me]

Dear TUT317,

In my earlier conspectus the fuzzy side of Alpha and Omega, is the present. It is the point where I have suggested that perhaps God and Satan are one and the same. My reference to ungodly has shaped-up to be a description of myself, at least that seems to be the way everyone, except perhaps you, has responded to my suggestion. Everyone seems to find the very idea to be abhorrent, and none so far except you will even discuss the matter.

To your second question, is this something we recognize in our nature: I am not sure. It may be that we have somehow subconsciously know it was there but our consciousness would not allow us to bring it to the surface for examination. I need to give more thought to this.

And finally, to your third question: My existentialist explanation may be somewhat premature, for, in truth, I can not say, nor do I think I will ever be able to say with any degree of certainty that God and Satan are the same. By the same token, neither can I say with any degree of certainty that they are not. This is the reason I have come to this forum, with the hope that people who are wiser than me can be of help. I went out on that tangent, the metaphoric platform, in an attempt to draw some input from the Existentialist out there who may have some views along these lines. So far I have drawn a blank.
_______
ItsUp2Me

[TUT317]

Hi ItsUp2Me,

In regards to your theory about God and Satan being two sides of the one coin so to speak. As far as I can recall I don't think I have seen it in Western philosophy.

Nonetheless, it is possible to argue that line of reasoning. There are many other examples in philosophy of what is know as,' Identity Theory' . Basically identity theory attempts to do what you are trying to do. That is explain how two apparently distinct and completely different entities exist in the one thing or person.

If you are not familiar with identity theories then I would suggest Plato's, "Theory of Forms" is a good starting point and work your way along the different philosophies until modern times. Don't worry about, Plato's "Third Man Argument" when you come across it, you can also go back to it at a latter date.

If I can help clarify anything just let me know.

[ItsUp2Me]

Thanks, TUT317. I will take a look at Plato's, "Theory of Forms."
_______
ItsUp2Me

[TUT317]

Hello ItsUp2Me,

Curiosity has got the better of me. From your posts it seems that you are very familiar with scripture. I was wondering why you have decided to explore non-traditional theology.
This is not a criticism. Are you unhappy with traditional interpretations?

Regards
Tut

[ItsUp2Me]

Hi Tut,
An answer to your question would invovle a rather long and personal response. If we could exchange addresses, either email or snailmail, I would be happy to share my story with you. I do not wish to reveal my address on this public forum, for I do not want to receive a flood of attempts to "put me straight" on my thinking. If you will send me an address at ItsUp2Who.me_ya @yahoo.com, I will get back to you. This address is one I use but rarely and mainly for information on issues that I wish only a one-time response.
________
ItsUp2Me

[ItsUp2Me]

Hi Tut,
An answer to your question would invovle a rather long and personal response. If we could exchange addresses, either email or snailmail, I would be happy to share my story with you. I do not wish to reveal my address on this public forum, for I do not want to receive a flood of attempts to "put me straight" on my thinking. If you will send me an address at ItsUp2Who.me_ya @yahoo.com, I will get back to you. This address is one I use but rarely and mainly for information on issues that I wish only a one-time response. (I am re-sending to clearify the address I gave.
__________
ItsUp2Me

\|

[Tokugawa]

G-d, I sympathise TUT, well done for trying. O.K, alpha, omega. Define them. Beginning of what? End of what? These terms only have meaning when we apply them to something. To simply say "the beginning" has no meaning at all.

[Tokugawa]

Also, Kantain philosophy takes on a whole new meaning when viewed through the lense of current understanding. We know now that space is not infinite, a luxury that Kant did not have, nor Wittgenstein. What does this say of time? We know they are dependent, time is a measure of change, change can only happen in space. At one time the universe will stop, all change will stop, and so will time, and so will all possible experience.

[Wondergirl]

and so will all possible experience.

Or will it? Define experience. Is it bound by time?

[Tokugawa]

Define experience. Is it bound by time?

Yes, you cannot experience something, without a time during which you have experienced it.

[Tokugawa]

Someone mentioned "forms" before, this quote from Wittgenstein helped me to understand what we should like it to mean.

"Objects contain the possibilty of all situations. The possibilty of it's occuring in states of affairs is the form of an object."

[Wondergirl]

Yes, you cannot experience something, without a time during which you have experienced it.

You say that only because you have never been outside of time. Once you have been outside of time and find what you say is true, let me know and I will accept your conclusion. Meanwhile, you don't know.