Let me ask this.  It seems to be more intuitive to you that something created by God can be self-subsisting once initially created by God to have an enduring nature.  I'm wondering where that comes from.

Here's an analogy for my intuition.  An sustained creative thought I have as a thinker that takes awareness, concentration, and intention.  The thought stays in existence as long as my awareness, concentration, and intention keeps it in existence as thinker.  Whenever I take those things away, the newly created thought would cease to exist and, without some form of memory or other sustaining method, would just cease to exist.

This is the way I see God creating.  God as immaterial, infinite, eternal conscious Person "thinking" the "Thought" of Creation, sustained at all points by the omnipresent Logos of God.

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/22/2009 1:58:03 PM (GMT-5)

I've asked Aki about this stuff enough to know these are seen as realities in the psychology world.

So...

What's wrong with saying that we are self-referential, self-aware "thoughts" of God that have an analogous kind of relative independence from Divine Consciousness?

What's wrong with saying that we are "thought-words" of God within the One Eternal Logos/Word of God.

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 11:47:59 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 12:10:05 PM (GMT-5)

Now, Tom...

Also, reposting some ideas...

Posted By : One Love - 1/5/2009 9:15 AM

Brief thought. T.A.  gave us Dr. Deddo's paper on Torrence earlier in this thread...The Holy Spirit in the Theology of T. F. Torrance A quote... In the West, Torrance suggests, there has been a growing tendency to identify the Spirit with the human spirit and creativity. He insists that the Holy Spirit can in no way be identified with the human spirit or its experiences. The Spirit, although united to human subjectivity, can never be confused with it. The Spirit retains its sovereign lordship over and independent personhood within humanity. So while the Spirit may indeed indwell our subjectivity, the Spirit cannot be identified with our subjectivity. Tom agreed with this. What's interesting is this: This has to mean that the one person of Jesus of Nazareth had to have two dimensions of subjectivity. The Incarnate Word's divine Person naturally possesses the Holy Spirit (The Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son)...and took on human nature, meaning naturally possessing a human spirit. If it makes sense to say, with Torrence, that the consciousness (subjectivity assumes consciousness) of the Holy Spirit is NEVER to be confused or "identified" with that of "the human spirit or it's experiences"... then we have to say that the one person of the Incarnate Word naturally had two "unities of consciousness" that are corresponsive to the Holy Spirit (divine nature) and the human spirit (non-divine nature) in their assymetrical relationship in Christ's hypostatic union. Two ontologically distinct "unities of consciousness" in constant union (not fusion or confusion) in one divine person (God the Son), with one unity of consciousness always "freely obedient" to the Other. Jesus did this NATURALLY as the Incarnate Word...but demonstrates that deified human beings can participate in Christ's  theandric energy BY GRACE.  The Spirit-indwelled, Spirit-lead, Spirit-borne human being.   God took on human life...so that humanity could take on God's life. Make sense? PS: This is the difference between the Incarnate Word and all other humans: Only the Only Begotten, Jesus of Nazareth, naturally "owned" the Holy Spirit as his own, through him being the Only Begotten.  No other human being has the Holy Spirit in this personal, natural way.  We have the Spirit by faith through Grace.  No matter how unified we become with Christ, we CAN'T change that.  Hence an eternal distinction between Creator (Christ) and Creation (Church)...even as the two are inseparably united by the One Holy Spirit. ********************************************************* Posted By : One Love - 1/5/2009 1:41 PM POW: i'll try ----- two dimensions of subjectivities without having two subjectivities. In other words, there are not two "subjects" in the Incarnate Word. There is one Subject (one divine person) with two dimensions of subjectivity (two spirits, two wills, two natures, etc). This means that there are two loci of self-reflective consciousness that naturally dwell within the one person of the Incarnate Word: His Holy Spirit and His human spirit. "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit within? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Jesus knows himself as God AND human...because he "owns" both spiritual realms of consciousness in his single Person.   All this would seem to fit with the "two minds" view...where the Incarnate Word has the Uncreated Divine Mind and a created human mind (nous).  In MY OWN MIND, the analogy is the single lucid dreamer who obviously relates with two distinct levels of consciousness in his lucid dream.     Level 1: the level of consciousness creating the whole dream world from "without"   Level 2: the level of consciousness experiencing the dream as an individualized form from "within" the dream world.    In this framework, the lucid dreamer experiences herself both as creator (level 1) and creation (level 2) in one unique, personal experience.  I can see the Christ-the-Logos' experience as Uncreated Creator and Incarnation as being something LIKE this.   "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."   I know some people don't like the lucid dreamer thing...but it helps things work in my mind.   **********************************************************   As for the "lucid dreamer" analogy, check THIS out... Alexei Nesteruk Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition Page 232 "The human nature in Christ was operating within the reality of empirical space and historical time, whereas Christ's divine nature was always beyond the empirical and intelligible aeons, in the uncreated realm of the kingdom of God, which can be expressed symbolically in terms of the boundaries of the created if these boundaries are seen from the vertical (divine) dimension. It is from this "outside" that Christ the Logos of God coordinated the empirical space where he indwelled in the body with the rest of the created universe. This helps us to understand the space-time of the physical universe as the manifestation of the hypostatic mode of the relationship between God and the world." Ok, now...Reposting...   All this would seem to fit with the "two minds" view...where the Incarnate Word has the Uncreated Divine Mind and a created human mind (nous).  In MY OWN MIND, the analogy is the single lucid dreamer who obviously relates with two distinct levels of consciousness in his lucid dream.     Level 1: the level of consciousness creating the whole dream world from "without"   Level 2: the level of consciousness experiencing the dream as an individualized form from "within" the dream world.    In this framework, the lucid dreamer experiences herself both as creator (level 1) and creation (level 2) in one unique, personal experience.  I can see the Christ-the-Logos' experience as Uncreated Creator and Incarnation as being something LIKE this.   If I may... Christ's divine nature operation from "without" <=> Level 1 lucid dreamer perspective. Christ's human nature operating within "empirical space and historical time <=> Level 2 lucid dreamer perspective. ********************************************** Something else... Aham, a concept of Kashmir Shaivism, is defined as the supreme heart (hṛdayam) , transcendent Self, supreme I awareness or infinite consciousness. (OL's Note: Before Abraham was, 'I Am' ? )The space of Aham is where kechari mudra (free movement in the space of the heart) is realised. Kechari mudra is considered the supreme state of spiritual evolution. Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (acintya bhedābheda in IAST) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference, in relation to the power [of] creation and creator, and also between God and his energies within the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition. In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable', bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'one-ness'. It is believed that this philosophy was taught by the movement's theological founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu(1486 - 1534) and differentiates the Gaudiya tradition from the other Vaishnava Sampradayas. It can be best understood as integral monism (OL's Note: Mentalism/PanENtheism: Divine Thinker-Thought relationality of Uncreated Consciousness), as a position between polar opposites of absolute monism (OL's Note: Pantheism) of Advaita, and the dualist monism (OL's Note: Variation of "two storey" view)  of Dvaita.

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 12:24:56 PM (GMT-5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypne21A0R4

Even deeper.  What if we ceased identifying exclusively with the illusion of solidity (ie. this object, that object)...and more with the EMPTY SPACE filled with energy that permeates in ALL THINGS.

What would happen then?   Hmmm...

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 1:56:19 PM (GMT-5)

TOM: I don't know dude. But to say that we are JUST "thoughts of God" or "thoughts God is having," dudn't cut it for me. I don't think of "thoughts" as "doing" anything, as self-determining entities. Thoughts don't do that.

D: You may need to rethink that. What you are basically saying is that you cannot conceive of self-referential, self-aware thought processes in an individual person's consciousness that can exhibit independent memory or RWE capabilities such that there is relative autonomy/independence of said thought process with respect to the person's consciousness.

TOM: Right.

D: But we have analogies for this in human psychology.

TOM: Really? Show me…

D: First, humans experience thoughts within us that seem to have a "mind" of their own…

TOM: “Seem” dudn’t get it. We know that they DON’T have a mind “of their own.”

D: Fragments of personality that exhibit self-reflectivity, intentionality, and even a sense of otherness with the other selve within the one person.  This is how you can know multiple personalities in one person…

TOM: That’s the problem. The best you get is multiple personalities within one person. You don’t get multiple persons, REAL persons, i.e., PERSONS.

Then, there's the split-brain reasearch that talks about how one conciousness of one mind/brain can house two implicitly self-referential thought processes such that it's literally the case of one hand working against the other.

D: In each case, you have thought processes going on that are GROUNDED in a person's consciousness but are, at the same time, RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT of direct control of person's consciousness, each trying to do its OWN thing.

TOM: Dude, I just can’t imagine that we are all just God having a brain fart or something, like God is suffering from split personality disorder (but because it’s God it’s not a DISorder).

D: Remember how you talked about a human being becoming a full person when the "ego has landed?" Let's say that the ego periphery is an EMERGENT ENERGY from the human mind/brain relational unity, which itself is the non-divine actualization of God's divine "logos" or "intentions" for that human being. In other words, the human ego energy is an EMERGENT EFFECT of the non-divine concresence of God's energies.

TOM: That sounds better, but the problem is that when you say this concrescence just IS a “thought” God is having, I don’t know how to call it “non-divine,” because as far as I can see God’s “thoughts” ARE “divine.” They’re divine thoughts. As soon as we succeed in securing their “non-divine” status I don’t know how to continuing calling them “thoughts God is having.”

D: This is why the human ego is NOT reducible to Divine Presence…

TOM: How is it not reducible to the God’s presence if it’s “God’s thought”? God’s “thoughts” aren’t reducible to his Presence? What else are they reducible to?

D: The human ego never becomes the Holy Spirit (obviously)...and the Holy Spirit doesn't eliminate the human ego. The transformed ego is NOT Divine Presence, even though it can participate in Divine Presence and be a self-referential, self-aware, self-directive expression of that Divine Presence.

TOM: So long as you keep saying this I’ll let you buy me Long Island Ice Tea at TGIF’s! But I just don’t see how IF THIS is true it’s ALSO TRUE that this alllllll is “just a thought God is having.”

D: He [Torrance] insists that the Holy Spirit can in no way be identified with the human spirit or its experiences.

TOM: Right. OK, so tell me. The human spirit isn’t to be identified with God’s Spirit. But the human spirit IS to be identified with the “thought” of God, a “thought God is having.” So now the Spirit of God (the God who has ONE mind) is not to be identified in any way with the thoughts of that mind? What else IS that mind but the thoughts it has?

I can’t wrap my head around it.

D: [Torrance] The Spirit, although united to human subjectivity, can never be confused with it. The Spirit retains its sovereign lordship over and independent personhood within humanity. So while the Spirit may indeed indwell our subjectivity, the Spirit cannot be identified with our subjectivity. Tom agreed with this.

TOM: Yeah, because I don’t see how it equals idealism. Was Torrance known to be an idealist? He’d probably offer this same argument in evidence AGAINST idealism.

D: What's interesting is this: This has to mean that the one person of Jesus of Nazareth had to have two dimensions of subjectivity.

TOM: Tread carefully. Don’t say two subjects.

D: Two ontologically distinct "unities of consciousness" in constant union (not fusion or confusion) in one divine person (God the Son), with one unity of consciousness always "freely obedient" to the Other.

TOM: I’m getting nervous again. Cyril is setting next to me and he just started shaking, screaming something; sounded like “Nestorius! Nestorius!” If you JUST mean the faculty of “mind,” OK. But you seem to mean something more than just the “stuff” of nature, i.e., the “faculty” (parts is parts). You seem to want a certain “operation” of the faculty (characteristic of the sort of thing that constitutes ‘personal’ becoming in us) to be there in Jesus.

I can’t redo all this again!!

D: This is the difference between the Incarnate Word and all other humans: Only the Only Begotten, Jesus of Nazareth, naturally "owned" the Holy Spirit as his own, through him being the Only Begotten.  No other human being has the Holy Spirit in this personal, natural way.  We have the Spirit by faith through Grace.  No matter how unified we become with Christ, we CAN'T change that.  Hence an eternal distinction between Creator (Christ) and Creation (Church)...even as the two are inseparably united by the One Holy Spirit.

TOM: How about this? The difference between the Word and us is that we’re different ‘persons’, but where he dudn’t need to relate to us to be the person he is, we DO need to relate to him to be the persons we are.

Tom

********************************

D: This is the difference between the Incarnate Word and all other humans: Only the Only Begotten, Jesus of Nazareth, naturally "owned" the Holy Spirit as his own, through him being the Only Begotten.  No other human being has the Holy Spirit in this personal, natural way.  We have the Spirit by faith through Grace.  No matter how unified we become with Christ, we CAN'T change that.  Hence an eternal distinction between Creator (Christ) and Creation (Church)...even as the two are inseparably united by the One Holy Spirit.

TOM: How about this? The difference between the Word and us is that we’re different ‘persons’, but where he dudn’t need to relate to us to be the person he is, we DO need to relate to him to be the persons we are.

This is just a different aspect of the same reality.  We need to relate to the Son to be "personalized" because we need HIS Holy Spirit.  We do not personally "own" the Holy Spirit, though He is part of our composition as human beings, as Creator Spiritus.

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 2:20:11 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/23/2009 2:28:41 PM (GMT-5)