Is it possible, in principle, to know the mind (for want of a better word) of God? By which I mean: Is it, strictly speaking, technically possible to 'agree' with God about a given proposition?
To unpack the question: Adam likes Star Wars because he enjoys simple stories of good versus evil and thinks spaceships and lightsabres are cool. Bob likes Star Wars because he really enjoys swordplay and is a big fan of Alec Guinness. Carl likes Star Wars because he fetishises m=>f transsexuals and therefore finds Carrie Fisher attactive.
All three agree *that Star Wars is good*, but for vastly differing reasons. I claim that, technically speaking, they do not in fact 'agree' about Star Wars in any robust sense. But I do not claim that it is impossible, in principle, for them to agree about Star Wars.
Whereas I suspect that the perspective of an entity rightly called 'godlike' would in fact be impossible to agree with in a robust sense.
Thoughts?
You'd have to define God.
>>466658
in the three examples you listed, there are differing levels of consciousness, the highest being awareness of archtype and art of storytelling and the lowest the sole awareness of animal sexuality. these are different ways of percieving the world.
when you elevate your consciousness beyond simple reductionism, basal animality, essentially materialism
moving into the realm of implicit meaning in natural order, non-domestic (selfless) thought, seeing phenom as symbolic for higher principles and concepts, etc.
you begin to think like God. That's all it is. You have to look at things from the perspective of an entity that is basically the grandest architect; an artist, philosopher, and scientist all in one. the point of origin, in which there can be no division. AΩ
that is the crux of the matter. God is absolute. He is Prime and absolute Union. All paradox and all impossibilities mean nothing in the face of God's absoluteness.
so as it was said in the corpus, make the haunt of every creature your home, all sea and air and land, and every living thing a lart of you. if you say "i cannot mount the heavens, i am afraid of earth and sea and night, i am small and human alone... what business have you in contemplating GOD?"
>>466772
>moving into the realm of implicit meaning in natural order, non-domestic (selfless) thought, seeing phenom as symbolic for higher principles and concepts, etc.
>you begin to think like God. That's all it is. You have to look at things from the perspective of an entity that is basically the grandest architect; an artist, philosopher, and scientist all in one.
That's the thing, though - I'm skeptical that it is in fact possible to 'think like God'.
Imagine, as an example, if I attempt to 'think like Bill Gates'. I can project myself into an imagined space where I am very rich, where I founded Microsoft, where I married a woman named Melinda, where I co-founded a charitable foundation concerned with philanthropy and so on. I then begin to engage with issues from an imagined perspective of being extremely wealthy, somewhat famous etc.
I do not believe that the above actually represents "thinking like Bill Gates". I think it is much more aptly termed "Pretending to think like Bill Gates". Bill Gates is an actual entity whose full nature is not known to me. All that I can do is extrapolate from the impressions of him that I possess, which are in fact unique to me, and which ultimately reflect on me, rather than on Bill Gates.
So in effect, I begin to think like me pretending to be Bill Gates. And the obstacle I've described is, presumably, so much the greater when it comes to God.
>>466746
An omnimax entity which is the cause of the universe.
>>466772
This family. To see like God is to intuit the eternal ideas in then world around you. A degenerate sees and object and doesn't even see it, he's just thinking of how it reminds him of his fetish or whatever. The materialist sees an object and can only interface with it as an abstraction, as only a bundle of properties isolated from the system that influences it and is influenced by it - as, essentially, an unreal, dead thing, a variable in an equation.
The person with a higher awareness sees the essence of the object, recognizes it as an integral part of a larger whole, and is able to contextualize everything he sees into a holistic, objective picture of reality. This is the mind of one who knows on a level beyond rote mental or physiological processes.
>>466799
short answer. you can't pretend to think like god even if you wanted to. like i said earlier your consciousness is on too narrow a bandwidth, too constricted, too small ultimately. it's not developes enough nor is it purified of distortion. you aren't aware of all that god is aware of. you can't begin to know the mind of god without first being able to see gods signature in the world, most of all within yourself. within your own mind (and body)
so logically it would follow that you have to know your own mind before approaching the thoughts of the greater mind. at the essence of things is god, you arent excluded
>>466838
>you can't pretend to think like god even if you wanted to.
I don't understand what this means. So far as I understand the term, I can 'pretend' to think like literally anything. What I'm saying is that pretending to think like an entity and actually succeeding in thinking like that entity are very different. And they remain different even if the pretender loses sight of the fact that pretense is all it is.
>like i said earlier your consciousness is on too narrow a bandwidth, too constricted, too small ultimately.
But this is exactly why I suspect that what you go on to describe is in fact impossible, and merely another form of pretense.
>>466802
Let me put it this way. How much can an ape understand a 6 year old child? How much can a 6 year old child understand a well educated adult?
But wait that's easy mode. We are talking about a being that isn't human, it's not even a primate, it wouldn't even view the world the same way you and I would. Our interpretation of sensory input is made by some evoltuonary proccess.
A non-evolved being would have completely different types of sensory input and interpreter it in a completely different way. So even basic terms like "good" "smart" "loving" could not apply to in away we could relate. It might not even perceive human being as being alive, it might have a totally different idea about what 'alive' means.
It's a bit like asking "how would an alien feel?" without knowing anything about where the alien came from.
>>466955
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying.
>>466907
i'm not going to try to force anything here so i have some parting words according to my learning on the subject of mysticism, which is at the very heart of our exchange
>so I can pretend to think like literally anything
not an omnimax being. you'd be pretending to be a projection of your own conception of an omnimax being. besides, there are more direct ways to experiencing divinity
>pretending =/= thinking like the entity
i agree. but
>impossible and merely another form of pretense
this isn't true. if we're talking about an Absolute omnimax being, we're referring to boundlessness itself. the source of all things, yet beyond all things simultaenously. it's absurd to place any kind of boundary or limitation upon this principle.
god can be likened to a dimension. a level of awareness that atomized and divided individuates of consciousness eventually reach. this is because for a boundless entity, nothing is impossible, and because everything is an emanation of this boundless entity, there is nothing separate from it. rays of light from a luminous source.
in my education, and to be completely honest based upon my contemplation on life and living life, i see everything is constantly transforming. human consciousness is no different. human beings merge with a thing through experience, and it enriches the consciousness depending on how well it was integrated into the persons Being. a boundless Being has boundless experience to draw from. do you see what i'm getting at?
read mystic-spiritual literature and apply your OP to the truths in them. hermeticism, kabbalah, gnosticism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, buddhism, even christianity - esoteric not exoteric.
>>466658
>All three agree *that Star Wars is good*, but for vastly differing reasons.
While they might believe that, and they might be right, when they enjoy Star Wars together, they are ACTUALLY making a claim about their preferences.
>>467006
>not an omnimax being. you'd be pretending to be a projection of your own conception of an omnimax being.
Yes, but this is exactly how I described the earlier, hypothetical failure to think like Bill Gates.
I think that we must be using different definitions of 'pretense' here. I don't think that it's really possible to *fail* to pretend that something is the case. Your pretense can vary in quality, in accuracy, in persuasive power etc.
As a parallel, I don't consider that someone who unsuccessfully tries to deceive me has "failed to lie to me". They have, in fact, lied to me, and the fact that I have not believed them does not change that.
>it's absurd to place any kind of boundary or limitation upon this principle.
I don't see how I'm placing any kind of boundary or limitation on god by suggesting that we can't think like him. Just as my inability to think like Bill Gates does not say anything about Bill Gates.
I won't be able to reply for a while because I'm celebrating my cultural heritage by going out and getting shit-faced, fall-down drunk even though I'd rather not.
>>467030
OK? I don't really understand what significance that has.
>>466907
You try embody God the best you can, that's what's beautiful about it
