Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
72 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,279 Year: 11,027/23,288 Month: 279/1,763 Week: 246/390 Day: 66/69 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   3 Theories Of Everything by Ellis Potter
Phat
Member
Posts: 14289
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 54 (879282)
07-14-2020 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
07-12-2020 3:40 PM


A One & A Two & A Three
PaulK writes:

I don’t think that monism or dualism can be described as worldviews and trinitarianism - presumably the belief that there are three substances - probably can’t either.

Potter plays his cards quite close to the vest. He explains his conclusions further:
3 Theories Of Everything writes:

I believe the existence of absolutes is most likely,but is inconvenient and disagreeable to our egos. People nowadays are often motivated not to believe in absolutes, because if there are true absolutes, then we are responsible to the absolute.(...)When I looked for absolutes, I discovered there weren't many. I believe it comes down to three: Monism, Dualism, and Trinitarianism.


So lets figure out what Potter means when he claims these three absolutes.
Ellis Potter writes:

If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.

Personally, the way you guys carry on around here, I see you as accepters of scientism.
ringo writes:

If Potter has any arguments of value, bring them here in your own words.

I'm finding my argument through discussion. I am not quite able to express Potters views in my own words, though I am finding quotes that he makes which I agree with. Tangle would claim that I am simply agreeing with made up mumbo jumbo that gives me comfort. Perhaps he is right. Time will tell.
Ellis Potter writes:

We have explored three absolute worldviews, each of which provides a unique hope to the problem of suffering. (Potter calls it 3 circles)

PaulK writes:

Idealism and Materialism are both forms of monism but I can’t say that they are the same worldview at all

I considered your line of reasoning enough to look outside Potters definitions.
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy writes:

There are many monisms. What they share is that they attribute oneness. Where they differ is in what they attribute oneness to (the target), and how they count (the unit).

The article gets deep, but does not address Potters insistence that there are only 3 basic absolutes:
Oneism
Twoism
Threeism.

Potter was a Buddhist before he became a Christian. The story is intriguing.

Edited by Phat, : punctuation 101


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2020 3:40 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tangle, posted 07-14-2020 3:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2020 3:31 AM Phat has responded
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 07-14-2020 4:49 AM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7806
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 17 of 54 (879284)
07-14-2020 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
07-14-2020 2:44 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
Phat writes:

I believe the existence of absolutes is most likely,but is inconvenient and disagreeable to our egos.

What does he think an 'absolute' is? It sounds like he's just substituting a pseudo-philosophical term for a god.

People nowadays are often motivated not to believe in absolutes, because if there are true absolutes, then we are responsible to the absolute.(...)

Bullshit. That's just the rationalisation of a believer. People don't believe in religious waffle because it's just dumb.

When I looked for absolutes, I discovered there weren't many. I believe it comes down to three: Monism, Dualism, and Trinitarianism.

I can't even work out what this is supposed to mean - if anything.

If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.

Science is simply a method of understanding our universe. Scientism is a slander than those believing in magic use in an attempt to dismiss it because it threatens them.

“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.”

The measure of everything? Again, he's just saying that humanists don't believe in god - wow who knew? - and being critical of then for not doing.

Tangle would claim that I am simply agreeing with made up mumbo jumbo that gives me comfort. Perhaps he is right.

That at least is true.

The story is intriguing.

The only intriguing thing about it is why anyone is fooled by a pile of incoherent twaddle.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 2:44 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 18 of 54 (879285)
07-14-2020 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
07-14-2020 2:44 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
quote:
He explains his conclusions further:
3 Theories Of Everything writes:

I believe the existence of absolutes is most likely,but is inconvenient and disagreeable to our egos. People nowadays are often motivated not to believe in absolutes, because if there are true absolutes, then we are responsible to the absolute.(...)When I looked for absolutes, I discovered there weren't many. I believe it comes down to three: Monism, Dualism, and Trinitarianism.


No, this makes no sense to me at all.

quote:
So lets figure out what Potter means when he claims these three absolutes.
Ellis Potter writes:

If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.

Personally, the way you guys carry on around here, I see you as accepters of scientism.

I don’t think that my views would be fairly classified as either. Some things should be science-centred. Others should be human-centred.

quote:
Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy writes:

There are many monisms. What they share is that they attribute oneness. Where they differ is in what they attribute oneness to (the target), and how they count (the unit).

The article gets deep, but does not address Potters insistence that there are only 3 basic absolutes:
Oneism
Twoism
Threeism.

Then it’s likely that Potter is using his own private definitions. And without those we can’t discuss his work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 2:44 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:32 AM PaulK has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5244
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 19 of 54 (879290)
07-14-2020 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
07-14-2020 2:44 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
If science is the measure of everything, you have scientism. If the human being is the measure of everything,you have humanism.

I found one of his absolutes.

This is one big absolute pile of crap.

Why so narrow minded? Why present this as some mutually exclusive dichotomy? And how could either be the "measure of all things"? What does that even mean?


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 2:44 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 07-14-2020 7:46 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:28 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32724
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 20 of 54 (879292)
07-14-2020 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
07-14-2020 4:49 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
And it absolutely sells to those who simply don't know how to think or that know how but refuse to think.

Absolutely great stuff for bobbleheads.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 07-14-2020 4:49 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14289
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 21 of 54 (879293)
07-14-2020 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
07-14-2020 4:49 AM


Re: A One & A Two & A Three
AZPaul3 writes:

Why so narrow minded? Why present this as some mutually exclusive dichotomy? And how could either be the "measure of all things"? What does that even mean?

We are in the process (in this discussion) of defining reality...as an abstract concept. jar always talks of logic, reason,l and reality.

So lets ask ourselves some questions.

  • How is reality defined? Is it defined only through that which we can quantify and verify? Is it objective or subjective?
    jar writes:

    And it absolutely sells to those who simply don't know how to think or that know how but refuse to think.

    It is so easy for you to bash and criticize other peoples arguments while being too lazy to provide one of your own. You often trip over your own ego. To be fair, you dont have the book to read as I do, thus you cannot fully understand Potters arguments and yet you immediately jump to your pet conclusion that the man must be "selling" something and that he is likely a conman. Am I right?

    Potter writes:

    The Western tradition of thought recognizes that the idea 'things were once perfect and need to be made right again' is the biblical view of history.

    You would of course disagree, claiming that the Bible is human-centric and was created solely as a product of man. Edited, redacted, compiled, yada yada yada.

    So some questions about the basic storyline.

  • Was there perfection in the beginning? Does the storyline indicate that God existed before humans thought Him up? Is the focal point of reality, in this context, focused on God as humans understand Him or is the focal point on our human understanding itself?

    Perhaps another way to phrase the question I am asking is this:

  • Is reality a concept that is defined by humans or is it a concept that is discovered by humans and pondered philosophically? If the former, you are supporting what Potter calls scientism. Feel free to throw humanism in with it. The basic question is whether we should focus on human-centric thinking in describing reality or whether we should speculate on whether there is a power/reality/ground of being that exists whether we choose to acknowledge "it" or not?

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killosophy


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 07-14-2020 4:49 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by jar, posted 07-14-2020 8:53 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 14289
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 22 of 54 (879294)
    07-14-2020 8:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
    07-14-2020 3:31 AM


    Re: A One & A Two & A Three
    PaulK writes:

    I don’t think that my views would be fairly classified as either. Some things should be science-centred. Others should be human-centred.

    Those two concepts are monastic and indistinguishable. They both are human centered. You cant have science without humans to define and quantify it.

    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killosophy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2020 3:31 AM PaulK has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2020 12:05 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 32724
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 23 of 54 (879295)
    07-14-2020 8:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
    07-14-2020 8:28 AM


    Re: A One & A Two & A Three
    When you suggest that someone makes the claim that you posted, then I most certainly can see that he is simply another carny huckster.

    Examples:

    quote:
    Lets start with The First Circle.
    Potter basically breaks the three worldviews down as
    Monism
    Dualism
    Trinitarianism

    That itself is more than enough evidence to simply laugh and walk away.

    But wait, there's more. You posted some more of his absurdities in Message 16. They are all simply meaningless word salad and quite honestly, just ******** and misrepresentation as has already been pointed out to you.


    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:28 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 18511
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    Message 24 of 54 (879296)
    07-14-2020 11:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
    07-13-2020 3:49 PM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    Phat writes:

    Long John Silver may have evolved from thoughts and experiences far deeper than his character in the book actually hinted at.


    Exactly. Thoughts and experiences. Maybe even based on a real person. But NOT living today.

    Phat writes:

    You seem to adhere to this world view...

    ... Am I close?


    Are you? Put it in your own words so we can see what YOU think it means.

    "I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Phat, posted 07-13-2020 3:49 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 1:01 PM ringo has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 16471
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 25 of 54 (879301)
    07-14-2020 12:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
    07-14-2020 8:32 AM


    Re: A One & A Two & A Three
    quote:
    Those two concepts are monastic and indistinguishable. They both are human centered. You cant have science without humans to define and quantify it.

    Oh they are distinguishable. From a scientistic viewpoint there is nothing wrong with using Mengele’s data. From a humanistic viewpoint that data is tainted by the way Mengele got it.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 8:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 14289
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 26 of 54 (879306)
    07-14-2020 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by ringo
    07-14-2020 11:39 AM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    ringo writes:

    Put it in your own words so we can see what YOU think it means.

    OK I will try. I've heard your arguments enough that I think I can mimic them to a degree.

    You essentially believe or are convinced through logic, reason, and reality that there is an essential distinction between beliefs (of any garden variety) and facts...those events,behaviors, and physical laws which can be objectively proven.

    I perused Potters notes in his questions and answers to see if he addressed your particular types of worldviews and did not specifically find it.

    I concluded on my own that you were basically Monists...if we could fit you (ringo,Tangle, and perhaps AZPaul3) into a category. In that there is a singular reality and not a dualistic cosmic battle or a Trinitarian God who brings His wayward children back into a unified fold through Holy Communion.

    You guys essentially skip belief all together---you throw it away basically. All that you embrace is objective truths through human interpretation of physical evidence and the observable behavior of how the universe around us operates.


    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killosophy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by ringo, posted 07-14-2020 11:39 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by ringo, posted 07-14-2020 5:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 28 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2020 11:43 PM Phat has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 18511
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    (1)
    Message 27 of 54 (879336)
    07-14-2020 5:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
    07-14-2020 1:01 PM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    Phat writes:

    I've heard your arguments enough that I think I can mimic them to a degree.


    I'd rather have you explain Potter's arguments like I asked.

    Phat writes:

    ... if we could fit you (ringo,Tangle, and perhaps AZPaul3) into a category. In that there is a singular reality and not a dualistic cosmic battle....


    Well of course there isn't a cosmic battle any more than there's one magic ring that rules them all. I don't see that as a worldview. It's just common sense that anybody with any worldview should be able to see.

    Phat writes:

    You guys essentially skip belief all together---


    It isn't about skipping belief. It's about realizing that belief is a last-ditch copout when you just can't bring yourself to admit that you don't know.

    "I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 1:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 16471
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 28 of 54 (879344)
    07-14-2020 11:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
    07-14-2020 1:01 PM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    I have to say the idea that the Trinity are three separate Gods is not one that orthodox Christianity accepts. But if they are really only one God isn’t that a form of what Potter calls monism ?

    (I wonder how much Potter is influenced by Hindu belief. The Hindu Trimurti is usually presented as three Gods - at least in Western material - even if they are thought to be aspects of one The Christian Trinity is far more explicit about them being one God).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by Phat, posted 07-14-2020 1:01 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:06 AM PaulK has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 14289
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 29 of 54 (879350)
    07-15-2020 10:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
    07-14-2020 11:43 PM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    PaulK writes:

    I have to say the idea that the Trinity are three separate Gods is not one that orthodox Christianity accepts. But if they are really only one God isn’t that a form of what Potter calls monism ?

    Remember how he chooses to break this stuff down as "circles"? The first circle is Monism, the second circle is Dualism and the third circle is Trinitarianism? (Don't ask me why he does it this way.,...but lets roll with it for now)

    This is how he explains it:

    quote:
    According to the third circle, when we look around at the world we see both unity and diversity. In this way we are like the people of the first circle. But whereas the people of the first circle conclude that unity is good and diversity is not, and that unity is real and diversity is illusion, people of the third circle have a different view. They regard the original perfection, which is called God, as both perfectly unified and perfectly diversified. We see a clear description of this reality in the Bible. God is perfectly unified as One God, and yet God is perfectly diversified in the three persons of the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. There is unity and diversity in absolute reality. There is not One God who chooses to reveal Himself in three ways in order to create the appearance of diversity, and there are not three persons who choose to unite and cooperate in order to create the appearance of being unified. The original reality is 100% unified and 100% diversified. Its a 200% reality that cannot be comprehended by simple logic.
    Thats what I think he meant when I quoted him in Message 1
    I actually misquoted. The correct quote he used was:
    God alone is God,and God is not alone.

    He mentions that no other God in human imagination has this attribute. You can say Buddha alone is Buddha, but thats all. (The rest is silence)
    You can say Krishna alone is Krishna, or Allah alone is Allah, but again...the rest is silence.

    quote:
    If the God of the third circle wants to talk to somebody, He talks among Himself because He is three persons. A God who wasn't diversified could not talk among Himself. He would have to create something else to talk with. He would require a creation in order to be personal, whereas (Ellis argues) the God of the third circle is intrinsically personal, independent of His creation.
    Thus Potter explains his understanding of Trinitarianism as the centrality of the third circle.
    In a sense, his concept unifies Yin and Yang(the 2nd circle) back into monism(One God) while preserving the belief in the Trinity and a subsequent explanation of his understanding of it. Which sorta makes sense in that the first Adam fell from unity into diversity and the 2nd Adam, Jesus, reunified the diversity caused by that pesky snake back into perfect unity....through acceptance of GOD in the personality of Jesus Christ and preserved eternally through the presence of the Holy Spirit. I mean, it all makes sense to me. I know Tangle insists its all made up Bushwa, but in a strict sense, any belief can be accused of being made up. Ellis Potter expanded my own understanding of Christianity in that his explanations felt intuitively sound. I suppose a critically thinking scientist would challenge the assumptions, but without throwing all belief away and relying solely on objective evidential discovery, what else can one do?

    Edited by Phat, : added clarification


    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killosophy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2020 11:43 PM PaulK has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2020 10:15 AM Phat has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 16471
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.5


    Message 30 of 54 (879352)
    07-15-2020 10:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
    07-15-2020 10:06 AM


    Re: ringoisms and jingoisms
    quote:
    This is how he explains it

    “Explains” is a bit strong. Doubling down on the contradictions of the Trinity is an interesting take but not one I can take seriously.

    quote:
    He mentions that no other God in human imagination has this attribute. You can say Buddha alone is Buddha, but thats all. (The rest is silence)

    How about the Trimurti

    The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme

    I have to say that Potter looks like another apologist with nothing of great value to say.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:06 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by Phat, posted 07-15-2020 10:21 AM PaulK has responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020