 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Maximus on "particular" (for Tom, and the rest of us too) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/28/2008 9:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Was think'n about this at work a couple of days ago. First we have the Daniel Chopin analogy. I would say that there is considerable influence of Chopin on Daniel, though I don't think Daniel will be an exact replica of Chopin no matter the influence. Think about this in terms of voice recognition applied to the analogy. You've seen the graphs. No matter how much we think we hear "Chopin" there is still some of Daniel there. However, there is another analogy that could possibly be used. Maybe you've seen the movie "Tropic Thunder" this summer in which Robert Downey Jr. plays the part of a black man only Downey goes overboard and really gets into his character such that he cannot tell the difference between himself and the character he is portraying. I'm OK with the Daniel/Chopin analogy as far as that goes in terms of synergy and influence. However, I think I would find the Downey portrayal problematic in terms of what we are talking about here.
A while back, on another thread I said something about loss of identity and awareness of creation. I said something like if all I thought about was God, that is, every thought in my mind was about God in which it consumed my thinking such that I couldn’t think about anything else including myself, I would have a loss of identity. Tom corrected me by saying that we are aware of other things in creation and actually see creation as it truly is when we are aware of God’s presence permeating creation. In other words, we don’t see creation in a materialistic way which is really only half the picture. Yet being consumed by God doesn’t mean that we are conscious of ONLY God. As Dwayne said, it can be like you are in a room with another person, though you are not directly looking at the person, you are aware of their presence. So, yes, you can be conscious of other things other than God while being “consumed” by his presence.
However, I wonder how the Robert Downey Jr. analogy would work into this. It seems that Downey has a couple of different levels of consciousness going on here. He is aware of his surroundings while having some sense of self, but at the same time his sense self is so distorted such that his view of the world is also distorted because of the way he sees it--the lens he is looking through--the self that he sees the world through. In this sense, though there is an appreciation of his surroundings (such that he is not thinking of one thing and one thing only), at the same time his sense of self is so consumed by another identity that one could say that there is a corresponding loss of identity of his genuinely real self, thus his viewing of the world is thru this ONE PORTAL of consciousness. This is ALL he “sees.” So his thoughts in this sense are not genuinely his but are that of his alter ego.
When I think of what Tom says in terms of God being the determiner of our movements, I think about it at this level. What does it mean for God to be the determiner of our movements? This would seem to reach down to this level of consciousness. God would be determining everything minutia of thinking on our part (only there would be no “our part” because it really is God). Everything would past through this “ego grid”, this “ego frame of reference” so to speak such that one is ultimately determined because of its occasion. See my point? Does any of this make sense or am I speaking out of my butt? 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 8/28/2008 9:40:21 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2008 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
However, I wonder how the Robert Downey Jr. analogy would work into this. It seems that Downey has a couple of different levels of consciousness going on here. He is aware of his surroundings while having some sense of self, but at the same time his sense self is so distorted such that his view of the world is also distorted because of the way he sees it--the lens he is looking through--the self that he sees the world through. In this sense, though there is an appreciation of his surroundings (such that he is not thinking of one thing and one thing only), at the same time his sense of self is so consumed by another identity that one could say that there is a corresponding loss of identity of his genuinely real self, thus his viewing of the world is thru this ONE PORTAL of consciousness. This is ALL he “sees.” So his thoughts in this sense are not genuinely his but are that of his alter ego.
So...just making sure...
If a human person so "indwelled" Christ-the-Logos (via the Holy Spirit), such that the essential "lens he is looking through" would be Christ Himself via the Holy Spirit within the human person...
...this would be a BAD thing?
Um... "theophanic transparency"
A mass email from a friend. He won't mind...
---------------------------------
22th Sunday Ordinary Time Year A
Aug 31, 2008
Jeremiah 20: 7-9
Psalm 63
Romans 12: 1-2
Matt 16: 21-27
There is a saying in recovery circles that goes like this: "Religion is for those who are trying to avoid hell and Spirituality is for those who have already been there." I believe that Jesus’ strong rebuke of Peter was not a condemnation of him, but rather an expression of his disappointment in Peter’s lack of understanding that faith is a journey of self negation.
Spiritual masters have understood this for centuries. From the Hindu concept of "no self" to the Buddhist tradition of "liberation" to the Christian tradition of "self-denial" they all point to the fundamental truth that our lives are not about "Ego" but they are about "God." Suffering or "the Cross", is the great human equalizer. We all suffer, we all experience the pain associated with suffering, but how we perceive that reality in a very real way determines our reaction to it.
Our ego temptation is to have the things of our lives point to us, the call of the Christian life is to have the things of our lives, in fact our lives themselves, point to God. Eckhart Tolle, the author of A New Earth put it like this: "The underlying emotion that governs all the activity of the ego is fear.-pg80"
When we encounter "fear" I believe that we are touching an area of our lives that we might want to explore where our "ego" needs to be checked against the Gospel. "Is this experience about me, or is it about God?" It’s not an easy question to ask, or to answer, but I do believe it is essential to our growth in holiness.
©Rev. Martin Shanahan 2008
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2008 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | For your concern, Brandon...reposting...
---------------------------------
James Loder. The Transforming Moment. 106-107. Talking about "I, not I, but Christ" idea...
Here the distinction between the "I" in its integrity as the spiritual self and Christ as the Holy One is all important. Christ is still the one to whom the process belongs, but the consequence for the subject is not absorption; rather, it is a personal interrelatedness with Christ. The self relates to Christ in such a way that the "world" it composes is recognizably created in response to his having "gone before." It is Christ's World that the self creates out of the freedom that Christ's grace has made possible. Thus, while the self, world, void, and the Holy are reconstellated by his nature, the self is freed within that very context---the context of his nature--to choose for or against him. That one can actually choose to manifest in his or her own particularity Christ's own nature--a nature that preserves all the dimensions of human being in their interdependence--this is the impossible Christian possibility. Yet, absorption in Christ is a contradiction in terms, because "in Christ" one is never absorbed but is heightened in personal particularity and uniqueness.
The issue here is not this-worldliness versus other-worldliness but simply the nature of the relationship between the self and the Holy into which tranformation leads. In Jesus Christ, the two sides of the self's relationship to the Holy are revealed. In Jesus' intimate relationship to the Father, who he called Abba ( "Papa" ), he epitomized the transcendent movement of the self; through this relationship, he did only what he saw the Father doing. In effect, he composed the "world" after the Father and in accordance with the Father's composition of the World. In this, Jesus revealed what it means to be truly human.
On the other hand, by doing what the Father was doing, he revealed the nature of God as one who loves the World sacrificially. Thus for the self, the consequence of transformation at the hands of the Mediating Christ is to be led into conflict with all other "worlds" and into a sacrifical love for the World which the Father composes and sustains. The self, therefore, while being thoroughly grounded in Christ's nature, must remain both free and distinct from Christ so that love can be truly self-giving. If love is not given consciously and freely and as an expression of one's own being, then either the sacrifice is puppetlike and means nothing, or it aggravates self-alienation and heightens the dizziness of freedom.
****************************************
Another quote. Page 167.
As indicated in the previous chapter, ego transformation should be understood not as destruction to the ego, but as decisive recentering of the personality around a transcendental reality that points to the invisible God. The net effect actually enhances ego functioning, because the ego has less need to control or limit perceptions or understandings of the self, world, or others. The ego-as-center constricts its vision lest the underlying existential negation come into view and the centripetal force of nostalgia for the true center draw it back into nothingness. However, once the center is invested with God's Presence, the ego's anguish at absence and abandonment is dissipated, and its defensive energies can be poured into its compentencies. As described earlier in reference to "mundane ecstasy", decentering the ego liberates and empowers its functioning even though and precisely because it is no longer the presumed center of the personality.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2008 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | Do you see how this misses the potential problem you see, Brandon?
I know you understand this... 
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/28/2008 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | OL: ...this would be a BAD thing?
Brandon: The self--the I--is what it is. I'm not the one placing some moral status on the self (though I do believe it does have moral status from a Christian perspective. God made you unique and that's a good thing). You seem to be the one doing that via your reference to the both Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of self-denial and it seems to be more negative. For me the question is not if this is a bad thing, as important as that question is, it is again as Tommy asks, "What does God want?" God so desires for that personal uniqueness. I've no doubt that the "you" or the "I" is ultimately grounded in God (as far as substance--ontology is concerned) but if we are action or a verb we will be shaped in unique ways toward certain ends and it seems to me that those ends--false identities are bad things. Gotta go to work.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/28/2008 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
The self--the I--is what it is. I'm not the one placing some moral status on the self (though I do believe it does have moral status from a Christian perspective. God made you unique and that's a good thing). You seem to be the one doing that via your reference to the both Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of self-denial and it seems to be more negative. For me the question is not if this is a bad thing, as important as that question is, it is again as Tommy asks, "What does God want?" God so desires for that personal uniqueness. I've no doubt that the "you" or the "I" is ultimately grounded in God (as far as substance--ontology is concerned) but if we are action or a verb we will be shaped in unique ways toward certain ends and it seems to me that those ends--false identities are bad things.
1) Um...via negativa? 
2) That email was not created by me, but by a friend (Rev. Martin Shanahan, a former Roman Catholic priest whom I've had the pleasure to know since working at St. Joseph's Home for Children.) Are you denying the truth of what's being said because he see similarities of the kenotic reality of "self-negation" in other spiritual traditions?
3) "Yet, absorption in Christ is a contradiction in terms, because "in Christ" one is never absorbed but is heightened in personal particularity and uniqueness." (How many ways can one say this and not be understood? Man..)
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 8/28/2008 12:48:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/29/2008 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Did y'all know you can get a coffee and muffin everyday for $1.39 at McDonalds right now? OK...just play'n...that's Canadian $ by the way.
OL: 1) Um...via negativa?
2) That email was not created by me, but by a friend (Rev. Martin Shanahan, a former Roman Catholic priest whom I've had the pleasure to know since working at St. Joseph's Home for Children.) Are you denying the truth of what's being said because he see similarities of the kenotic reality of "self-negation" in other spiritual traditions?
Brandon: I'll put it like this. In my opinion, self-negation within the Christian tradition has long history of being misguided and misleading. Now, I don't deny that there are truths in other religions that correspond with Christian truth so I would not deny truth just because it has similarities else where. However, agape is usually deemed the highest form of love because it is so utterly other-focused while say, eros (desiring the other) is considered even by Christians to be rather selfish. Phileo is about enjoyment of one's friend. So are you going to tell me that the Christian should NEVER exhibit eros or phileo? Is it all about agape with no concern for one's self? See, my problem (and I'm certainly no expert in the field of other religions) is that those religions see self-negation as basically a denial of all desire and THAT I see as problematic.
OL: 3) "Yet, absorption in Christ is a contradiction in terms, because "in Christ" one is never absorbed but is heightened in personal particularity and uniqueness." (How many ways can one say this and not be understood? Man..)
Brandon: I'm simply saying that absorption in Christ would mean something along the lines of the Robert Downey Jr analogy from the movie Tropic Thunder. All of his thoughts were, down to the nth minutia, determined by and through the portal of consciousness or ego grid or ego frame of reference, such that personal particularity and uniqueness is an assertion on the part of Loder as well as yourself. Maybe it just needs better articulation, I dunno. I understand your frustration. But if every thought is "taken captive" through this consciousness, then it really seems as if there is a genuine loss of identity.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/29/2008 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
See, my problem (and I'm certainly no expert in the field of other religions) is that those religions see self-negation as basically a denial of all desire and THAT I see as problematic.
It's not a outright denial of desire. It's a freedom from desire and "clinging" (like personhood is freedom from nature) such that desire can be "transfigured" or reapplied in a different way. For example, Metta (lovingkindness, wishing good upon all) is one of the 4 Immeasurables in Buddhism that only the person in clear freedom from illusory desires (the sin that so easily besets us?) can experience to see their "true nature" as loving, compassionate beings who transcend the world of "dependent origination". For many Buddhists, Metta (Love) is the Ultimate Reality.
The self-negation brings about the affect of the "dispassionate benevolence" or "benevolent detachment" of the emergency room doctor or nurse.
Capice?
****************************************
Brandon:
I'm simply saying that absorption in Christ would mean something along the lines of the Robert Downey Jr analogy from the movie Tropic Thunder. All of his thoughts were, down to the nth minutia, determined by and through the portal of consciousness or ego grid or ego frame of reference, such that personal particularity and uniqueness is an assertion on the part of Loder as well as yourself. Maybe it just needs better articulation, I dunno. I understand your frustration. But if every thought is "taken captive" through this consciousness, then it really seems as if there is a genuine loss of identity.
I'm glad you can understand, man. For real. Honestly, to me, Loder's ideas really preserve the sense of the "self" in the midst of the indwelling of Christ-the-Logos via the Holy Spirit. There is true COMPLEMENTARITY (like the wave/particle idea) such that neither "self" nor "Holy" are conflated, even though the Holy is reproduced in the life of the "self"
I guess that's why I keep talking the "I, not I, but Christ-the-Logos" thing. I can understand why Paul (an obvious mystic) would be saying what he would about the Grace of God upon him "in Christ".
This is MY growing personal self-understanding right now. "I" the historical personal "self" who is constantly being indwelt by Christ-the-Logos and constantly recreated in His Image by the Holy Spirit.
That's why I talk about it. I try to live this every moment I can.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 8/29/2008 8:19:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 183 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:33 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|