Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 And that is the crux of this problem. The Christian mind needs God to be defined and related to as a concrete object. But as such of course, it ceases to be God. It becomes an idol of stone or wood, or mind. By speaking about God in ways that rightly breaks down hard definitions it becomes closer to the reality of its Nature. Ultimately God is not conceptual at all, and to break God free from concrete language in speaking about it rightly does what it supposed to do in language, challenge the mind to see beyond a merely concrete or mental conceptual reality. I think the word God is more of an overused word that has so many definitions and implications that it's guaranteed to create more confusions by redefining it yet again. And also, since what "God" is can't really be defined, even defining it, won't really define it, and confusion still ensues. Put it this way, would you ask the artist to quit painting expressionist paintings and please just paint pictures that represent reality that we normally see and touch? "Please just use paint the way they do in Realism so we all understand what those strokes mean"? Or is the point of such symbols to point to something beyond what is a common understanding? The point is to inspire what is inside to emerge to the conscious mind and break down the limited understandings imposed by language and culture. God as a word by its very strokes is transcendent. If it is defined as a 'common understanding', it's not God. It speaks to something in us not limited by words, or if not, it appears as pure rubbish. I don't think it's a fair allegory or comparison. It's more of having a black, completely black, painting, and everyone comes up with their own "picture" in their head, and then someone says "now, I know what the picture is and everyone should agree with me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 And that is the crux of this problem. The Christian mind needs God to be defined and related to as a concrete object. But as such of course, it ceases to be God. It becomes an idol of stone or wood, or mind. By speaking about God in ways that rightly breaks down hard definitions it becomes closer to the reality of its Nature. Ultimately God is not conceptual at all, and to break God free from concrete language in speaking about it rightly does what it supposed to do in language, challenge the mind to see beyond a merely concrete or mental conceptual reality. I think the word God is more of an overused word that has so many definitions and implications that it's guaranteed to create more confusions by redefining it yet again. And also, since what "God" is can't really be defined, even defining it, won't really define it, and confusion still ensues. You don't "get" art, do you? It's not about representing something external to us in this sense, but evoking something internal to us. By defining God in any sense makes it about some object outside of us. When someone speaks of God, they should be speaking about the transcendent in them and the world. I'm advocating undefining it, not redefining it. Put it this way, would you ask the artist to quit painting expressionist paintings and please just paint pictures that represent reality that we normally see and touch? "Please just use paint the way they do in Realism so we all understand what those strokes mean"? Or is the point of such symbols to point to something beyond what is a common understanding? The point is to inspire what is inside to emerge to the conscious mind and break down the limited understandings imposed by language and culture. God as a word by its very strokes is transcendent. If it is defined as a 'common understanding', it's not God. It speaks to something in us not limited by words, or if not, it appears as pure rubbish. I don't think it's a fair allegory or comparison. It's more of having a black, completely black, painting, and everyone comes up with their own "picture" in their head, and then someone says "now, I know what the picture is and everyone should agree with me." No, not correct. Because of who we are with symbolic minds, something has to be there initially to act as a mediator, a vehicle for the mind to transcend its boxy definitions of truth and reality, into a formless realization. That is the purpose of the transcendent in form. When the Buddhist speaks of Emptiness, it does not mean a blank, a completely black painting, rather pure Light and Dark in paradox. It is empty of defined forms, but contains everything in nothing. It is All in no-thing. What the archetypes are are symbolic expressions of that transcendent within us, reaching towards that emptiness, that All. I like to refer to God as that Face we put upon the Infinite. As far as someone claiming "now, I know what the picture is and everyone should agree with me," that is in fact not realizing its Nature. That is defining it to say their understanding is the correct one. That is a mental model using a cognitive thought - reason, and reducing it to their own thoughts. That by default negates it as Truth. It is at best, a partial truth, a shadow. This comes squarely back to what I said before about how Christians make God not God by defining it. It is conceptual. It cannot be apprehended by reason or models of the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 You don't "get" art, do you? I think I do. It's not about representing something external to us in this sense, but evoking something internal to us. Sure. By defining God in any sense makes it about some object outside of us. When someone speaks of God, they should be speaking about the transcendent in them and the world. I'm advocating undefining it, not redefining it. Well, my point is... good luck with that. It sounds to me that you're trying to redefine the term music by arguing that any sound, and even absence of sound, is all music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It's not about representing something external to us in this sense, but evoking something internal to us. Sure. Explain what it evokes. Let's see what happens to word definitions at that point, shall we? By defining God in any sense makes it about some object outside of us. When someone speaks of God, they should be speaking about the transcendent in them and the world. I'm advocating undefining it, not redefining it. Well, my point is... good luck with that. No doubt some will just not get it, like I said when I put up that painting from Jackson Pollock. Some see just rubbish. Others don't. And full circles back to what I said early on in this thread, I refuse to let those who don't get it to limit the meaning of words like this. They are good words that do work for their purpose at the transcendent level. If someone doesn't get it, they don't get to own the power of the words. It doesn't matter what words you use at that point anyway. They still won't 'get it'. It sounds to me that you're trying to redefine the term music by arguing that any sound, and even absence of sound, is all music. Ah, not a bad analogy! By all means, go ahead and try to define what is music and what is not. It'll be a fun exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It's not about representing something external to us in this sense, but evoking something internal to us. Sure. Explain what it evokes. Let's see what happens to word definitions at that point, shall we? Some things can't be explained or given words. I guess that what I feel when I listen to some music is God. When I taste really good food, that's God too. There are some TV shows that I felt were really awesome, and movies too, and they were God. I'm not sure that explains anything. No doubt some will just not get it, like I said when I put up that painting from Jackson Pollock. Some see just rubbish. Others don't. And full circles back to what I said early on in this thread, I refuse to let those who don't get it to limit the meaning of words like this. I see. You're just annoyed with those who don't "get it" that same way as you do, and want them to let you be free to redefine the words the way you want and need to. I'm okay with that, just don't expect those who don't get it to get it. If they don't get it, they don't get it. They are good words that do work for their purpose at the transcendent level. If someone doesn't get it, they don't get to own the power of the words. It doesn't matter what words you use at that point anyway. They still won't 'get it'. Got it. Ah, not a bad analogy! By all means, go ahead and try to define what is music and what is not. It'll be a fun exercise. It would have structure and system to it. It would have meaning, feelings and all that attached to it as well. But it also conforms to at least a group of people. It's not enough to just throw sounds out there and call it music and no one (at all) cares about it or consider it musical. What I'm saying is that you can't make a song, call it music, and demand all listeners to like it or agree that it is music. I have heard weird compositions that I just can't take in as music. Others would love those pieces. But it's not music to me. So even if you redefine the word God to mean something else, you can't make someone who disagree to the meaning to accept your meaning as their own. So if you only play what you call music on the radio, and I don't think it's music, I just won't listen. It all depends on your audience, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Some things can't be explained or given words. I guess that what I feel when I listen to some music is God. When I taste really good food, that's God too. There are some TV shows that I felt were really awesome, and movies too, and they were God. I'm not sure that explains anything. When you express those feelings of transcendence as experiencing God, that's appropriate. Music was that vehicle, a beautiful sunset is that vehicle, and what is experienced is something which transcends ideas. It is mind beyond emotions and thoughts. It is something within us unbounded. To say you touched God in that context is not a literal thing, some object, some entity out there somewhere, but something in us, and us in it. We call that God because it is just what we are trying to say here, undefinable. No doubt some will just not get it, like I said when I put up that painting from Jackson Pollock. Some see just rubbish. Others don't. And full circles back to what I said early on in this thread, I refuse to let those who don't get it to limit the meaning of words like this. I see. You're just annoyed with those who don't "get it" that same way as you do, and want them to let you be free to redefine the words the way you want and need to. How do you get that from what I said? No, I'm not annoyed with people who don't get it. I get that they don't get it. What I am annoyed by is saying that we must define language by the least complex understanding. Language is a vehicle for transcendence, as well as for talking about facts like a tree or a stone. I refuse to allow Christianity to own God, in the same way I refuse for them to define the natural world in their terms. This is why I say that atheism itself in the West is really about accepting that definition of God and showing why its 'wrong'. But it ends there. God doesn't exist. But is that true? In that argument Christianity is granted all the power in defining God. Modern Atheism gives them that power. I prefer not to, and justifiably so. Ah, not a bad analogy! By all means, go ahead and try to define what is music and what is not. It'll be a fun exercise. It would have structure and system to it. It would have meaning, feelings and all that attached to it as well. But it also conforms to at least a group of people. It's not enough to just throw sounds out there and call it music and no one (at all) cares about it or consider it musical. What I'm saying is that you can't make a song, call it music, and demand all listeners to like it or agree that it is music. I have heard weird compositions that I just can't take in as music. Others would love those pieces. But it's not music to me. So even if you redefine the word God to mean something else, you can't make someone who disagree to the meaning to accept your meaning as their own. So if you only play what you call music on the radio, and I don't think it's music, I just won't listen. It all depends on your audience, right? Music doesn't exist. Music is what we call these things you describe. Music is our experience of these things. The color red is an example of this, but more clearly defined. Red doesn't exist in the universe. But red is easier to agree upon because the experience of red has a fairly regular pattern for most eyes. But that is simple by comparison to music. Pretty much everyone gets the whole pattern recognition thing and sound waves, but again it is the experience of these things we call music. Some people experience the same thing hearing leaves in the trees, whereas others don't hear that. Some experience music in seeing stars. Poetry is music. I hear music in the beat of a heart and the experience of breath, and the vision of all creation in vital activity. Is this redefining words, or expressing a truth to things not commonly seen or recognized? Music is a gateway to the truly transcendent, IMO. It is expression and experience of the ineffable, not just the tunes played by some pop artist on the radio. So then God, God is the very essence of all that is. To enter within God is to swim in her depths from which all forms and experience arise. It is an expressive word of the truly transcendent. It is the Source through which "music" enters and exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Is this redefining words, or expressing a truth to things not commonly seen or recognized? Music is a gateway to the truly transcendent, IMO. It is expression and experience of the ineffable, not just the tunes played by some pop artist on the radio. So then God, God is the very essence of all that is. To enter within God is to swim in her depths from which all forms and experience arise. It is an expressive word of the truly transcendent. It is the Source through which "music" enters and exists. Hmm... I still think it would confuse people to use the word "God" when we're talking about life and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Is this redefining words, or expressing a truth to things not commonly seen or recognized? Music is a gateway to the truly transcendent, IMO. It is expression and experience of the ineffable, not just the tunes played by some pop artist on the radio. So then God, God is the very essence of all that is. To enter within God is to swim in her depths from which all forms and experience arise. It is an expressive word of the truly transcendent. It is the Source through which "music" enters and exists. Hmm... I still think it would confuse people to use the word "God" when we're talking about life and experience. It depends on the context and how you are expressing it. "I look at the stars and hear music". Clearly this doesn't mean an auditory hallucination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It depends on the context and how you are expressing it. "I look at the stars and hear music". Clearly this doesn't mean an auditory hallucination! Or is it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It depends on the context and how you are expressing it. "I look at the stars and hear music". Clearly this doesn't mean an auditory hallucination! Or is it... Life is an hallucination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Life is an hallucination. You're damn right. Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts