Absolute thought

[No Robots]

Absolute thought is the basis of the whole of reality. This has been understood for millennia by all true thinkers. Unfortunately, the concept of absolute thought is easily distorted. This distortion results from the fact that absolute thought is not a thing, but is wholly abstract. The vast majority of people are unable to think abstractly, but must instead correlate all abstractions to a material thing. Thus absolute thought is historically distorted into a god-thing. In our own time, absolute thought is replaced by absolute materialism.

The principle of absolute thought has been developed by a number of thinkers. One such thinker is Harry Waton, who developed the concept of absolute thought in his A True monistic philosophy. He writes:

The Absolute is substance, and substance is absolute thought—thought without form. The Absolute, then, is absolute thought without form. Spinoza tells us that substance by its nature is prior to its affections, or modifications. What is the affection or modification of substance? Since substance is absolute thought without form, the primordial affection or modification of substance is the assumption of form. This means that absolute thought assumes a form. When absolute thought assumes a form, then it becomes an idea. An idea, then, is the form of thought. It may be said that the definition of the Absolute as absolute thought without form is a contradiction in terms, for a definition already implies form. This is true: the Absolute implies form. Notice this. Spinoza tells us that substance by its nature is prior to its affections or modifications (which are forms); but Spinoza does not say that substance is prior to its affections or modification. The Absolute, as absolute thought, never was without form; but by its nature it was prior to its forms. Form already presupposes substance, for only substance can assume a form. We can conceive substance without form, although this will be a vague and abstract conception; but without substance form cannot be conceived. Hence we start out with the idea that the Absolute started out as absolute thought without form. How did the Absolute assume form? Thought by its nature thinks, and thinking requires an object of thought. The Absolute by its nature thinks, and the Absolute required an object for its thought. Since, however, besides the Absolute there is nothing else in existence, the Absolute thinks of itself, it comprehends itself in its own thought. This self-reflexion of the Absolute gave the Absolute an idea of itself, and an idea is a form of thought. Thus the Absolute, by acquiring of an idea of itself, comprehended itself in a form. This primordial idea, which comprehended the Absolute in a primordial form, Spinoza calls the Infinite Intellect, and the Kabbalah call the Kether, the Crown. Just as the crown comprehends the head, so the Kether comprehends the Absolute, or as the Kabbalah calls it, the Ain-Sof—the Absolute, Infinite and Eternal. Thus the Absolute clothed itself in form; substance assumed a form.

The principle of Absolute thought provides the ground of unity for atheism and Christianity. This Christian/atheist unity on the basis of absolute thought stands opposed to the superstitious distortions of traditional religion and of today’s absolute materialism.

 

[steve_bank]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

 

[No Robots]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

Christianity, authentic Christianity, is atheist. The Father of the New Testament is absolute thought.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is this one of those, we are using made up definitions to arbitrary words type arguments?

 

[No Robots]

Is this one of those, we are using made up definitions to arbitrary words type arguments?

Please specify the term(s) to which you refer.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is this one of those, we are using made up definitions to arbitrary words type arguments?

I could be. I thought it was maybe another "brain in a jar" thread.

 

[lostone]

Matter/energy may be a lot more complex than it is usually given credit for being. The three pans - pantheism, panentheism, and panpsychism offer a monistic and materialistic form of theism. In any case, matter/energy, material things, are all we can directly experience and whose properties we can test.

 

[steve_bank]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

Christianity, authentic Christianity, is atheist. The Father of the New Testament is absolute thought.

More fun than a barrel of monkeys, as the old saying goes.

Back in the 79s some claimed Jesus was gay.

Given the sparse information and lack of any extended writing from Jesus people make Jesus into the image that suits them. The gispels are very simple to read and absorb. No complex philopshy or morality. A handful of sound bites like love your neigbor as yourself.

Jesus was a Jew. The original 'true Christians' were Jews. A fact that escp[es anti Jew Chrsitian racists.
t

 

[No Robots]

And Judaism is essentially atheism. There is just the One [echad], which is Being itself [Jahveh].

 

[steve_bank]

And Judaism is essentially atheism. There is just the One [echad], which is Being itself [Jahveh].

A new twist I have not seen before on Jews. Like I said, pople invent their own beliefs. that suit them.

. An evangelical atheist, you don't see that everyday.

If you are gay and see a gay Jesus, good for you.
If you are atheist and see an atheist Jesus, good for you too.

If you are a white racist and see a blue eyed blonde haired whte skinned Jesus, then bad for a lot of other people.

People craft views of Jesus with oith good and bad consequences. It all come down to how you relate to people around you. Exclusionary beliefs of any kind IMO are harmful.

 

[No Robots]

And Judaism is essentially atheism. There is just the One [echad], which is Being itself [Jahveh].

A new twist I have not seen before on Jews.

It is actually quite a commonplace. The Romans considered the Jews to be atheists. The association of Jahveh with Being is of long date. It can be found with Maimonides and of course with Spinoza. Harry Waton and Constantin Brunner fully develop the significance of the notion.

People craft views of Jesus with oith good and bad consequences. It all come down to how you relate to people around you. Exclusionary beliefs of any kind IMO are harmful.

In order to make any kind of progress, we need an accurate understanding of cultural markers, particularly ones that have the impact of the New Testament.

 

[steve_bank]

And Judaism is essentially atheism. There is just the One [echad], which is Being itself [Jahveh].

A new twist I have not seen before on Jews.

It is actually quite a commonplace. The Romans considered the Jews to be atheists. The association of Jahveh with Being is of long date. It can be found with Maimonides and of course with Spinoza. Harry Waton and Constantin Brunner fully develop the significance of the notion.

People craft views of Jesus with oith good and bad consequences. It all come down to how you relate to people around you. Exclusionary beliefs of any kind IMO are harmful.

In order to make any kind of progress, we need an accurate understanding of cultural markers, particularly ones that have the impact of the New Testament.

Christian atheist is yet another variation, one of many. Like all variants there is a logical reasoing and claims. One can interet history to support a wide range of claims. Gnostic Christian Bishop no longer around made his set of claims about true Christianity. In his view you woiud not be true Christian. Evangelicals do not consider Mormons and Catholics true Christians. Catholic theology says the RCC is the one true Christian church.

Go with Christian Atheist if it works for you.

My motto, neither an atheist nor a theist be. I identify as atheist because it is convenient to s do so. Arguing atheism and making it into an ideology is the flip side of theism. I need neither.

 

[No Robots]

Christian atheist is yet another variation, one of many. Like all variants there is a logical reasoing and claims. One can interet history to support a wide range of claims. Gnostic Christian Bishop no longer around made his set of claims about true Christianity. In his view you woiud not be true Christian. Evangelicals do not consider Mormons and Catholics true Christians. Catholic theology says the RCC is the one true Christian church.

Go with Christian Atheist if it works for you.

My motto, neither an atheist nor a theist be. I identify as atheist because it is convenient to s do so. Arguing atheism and making it into an ideology is the flip side of theism. I need neither.

Your position strikes me as reasonable. For myself, I am driven to find healthy outlets for my enthusiasm. This is the best I can find. L'chaim--to life!

 

[steve_bank]

The point of our modern western liberal domiciles is we are free to choose our own beliefs and paths.

The problem with aggressive Christians is they do not accept that principle. Same with Muslims and Hindus elsewhere in the world.

Beilieve what you will, just leave room for other beliefs. It is of course easier said then done.

 

[No Robots]

I agree with you completely. When I push my ideas, I don't expect you to agree. I just want to get the ideas out in the wild. Much of what I am putting forward has been buried, and I am just trying to bring it to light so that those who have an affinity for it will have an easier time finding it than I did.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Thought, mind, consciense, is a process. The only examples of mind we know of are processes reliant on material brains. Cells, synapses, and underlying chemistry and brajn anatomy. The idea that somehow mind can exist seperate without matter is fantasy. Aristotle, in his De Anima, claimed that inteligence, as a form, could exist immortal and infinite seperate from a physical body. Not having a microscope, no knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, or much of anything, Aristotle and other ancients knew nothing about any of this.

The idea that mind could exist seperate from matter is a zombie idea of old times of great ignorance that will not die. Ask theologians to demonstrate such things like disembodied minds actually exist, with hard evidence and all you will get is equally ignorant word salads.

 

[No Robots]

I agree that mind without matter is absurd. My point is that matter without mind is equally absurd.

 

[No Robots]

The main issue is that absolute matter is a self-evident absurdity, confirmed by science. There remains only absolute thought as a logical and consistent foundation for the real. To deny the reality of absolute thought is to sacrifice reason to mere observation in a way that is no different than declaring that the Earth is flat.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree that mind without matter is absurd. My point is that matter without mind is equally absurd.

Do you have something against water, rocks, etc.?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I agree that mind without matter is absurd. My point is that matter without mind is equally absurd.

Matter gets on very well without mind. Mind is a phenomena based on matter and biological life. The vast Universe is mostly matter without biology which will be cofined to small planets that can support life. Which will be rare.