Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Coco

Regulars
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Coco

  • Birthday 06/21/1949

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oregon
  • Gender
    Female

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views

Coco's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. The pantheism that I am familiar with does not attribute personality or consiousness to the universe, except as the sentient beings that nature has evolved. What it does say is that the universe evokes feelings of awe and reverence toward nature, similar to what religious believers feel toward a god. Scientists, including Einstein and Carl Sagan who were atheists, often have spoken of nature in that way. Do Objectivists experience nature with such feelings also?
  2. I see what you mean. Now, isn't the universe that is "everything that ever was, is and ever will be" what pantheists mean by the term god? Is there something wrong with that concept? Please understand that this is a sincere question on my part, not a challenge. Coco
  3. Science tells us that galaxies are coming into and going out of existence all the time. Creation and dissolution are continuous. As for existence alsways existing, don't you exist? Didn't you come into being and won't you cease to exist when you die? Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by exisitence.
  4. I think that the myth of god is meant to illustrate how universes cyclically come into and out of existence. In one myth, the one that works best for me, god "becomes" a universe, plays, and then "rests" when the universe dissolves. So god doesn't exist as a conscousness apart from the exisitence of the world. Duality is necessary for creation to exist. Non-being and Being. God is a term that is meant to indicate the totality of Being, which is indeed awesome. Coco God as the creator of the universe, remember, has to be a conciousness which existed prior to the existence of the physical world. So he was a conciousness unconnected to a physical brain, so there are literally no inputs. No protein in the petry dish, no temporature fluctuation, not even the cold of a vacuum, just conciousness completely ungrounded in any way. There are no sense organs, nothing to sense if there were, no memories, no differentiations, no identifications, no random electrochemical cellular fluctuations caused by some genetic variable, nothing in the fullest sense of the word. It isn't something that can be tested because, in short, we can't make a something from a nothing. Only mysticism can do that...well, they believe they can.
  5. Thank you, David. However,what you have written is different from the ideas of Alan Watts. The idea is to look at things with fresh perspective, not with the preconceived notions we tend to have, in other words, being able to look outside the box. And he said that we must fully enjoy our lives, enjoying each moment, and not to live for any so-called future life after death. The caution is to beware of getting trapped in becoming attached to the past, which is like trying to grasp the wind with your hand. He saw no sense in sitting and emptying the mind either. He called that being a stone buddha. We are to be fully awake and engaged in life. That, to me, is very exciting. He said that Zen changed a great deal over time. What you said speaks more of later ideas. I would enjoy reading what you have to say about the above. Coco
  6. Hello everyone, I have been wondering how Objectivists view Zen teachings. Zen isn't about anything supernatural or about personal survival. I would like some feedback about this. Also, I look forward to getting to know many of you in this forum. Thanks, Coco
×
×
  • Create New...