Conversations with Juan Part 3 Cont'd

Hey folks.

Sorry for the delay, but my Internet access at home has been down for some time now. Anyhow, here are my continued responses to your e-mail, Juan.

Juan: I'd say that our subjectivity is related to our individuality, we are always biased. So then to dissolve into God, we lose our individuality and our bias. We are no longer able to cognate. Perhaps we cognate in that we always choose not to smoke cigarettes, but to never ever falter is never to know, never to know why--becoming God is the same as resigning our will to that of God.

Patch: I would agree with that train of thought. See my thoughts on individuality and God in the previous part of this conversation.

Juan: So is God biased? (Maybe that is a more direct question, although maybe it sounds like a strange one.) Perhaps in that God favors/is biased towards good deeds, and does not look on with neutral judgement. But those other deeds, bad deeds, are still there and not disallowed though they may be punishable, perhaps we are the ones expected to use our subjectivity to reason on the side of right, and God maintains a state of objectivity.

Patch: I would say that this is entirely possible. The slightly terrifying thing about free will is that God wants us to encounter or dare I even say commit bad deeds in order to illustrate what is good.

Juan: I'm kind of glossing over a lot of the details of what has brought me to this idea, but to me, one reason I am agnostic is that if God is everything, not separable from things, but part of them, God IS these things... then God is not an "individual" (in the sense of being a member or part), and cannot see or concieve of what God is. God is trapped floating in space without a mirror to gain self-awareness, and yet the existence of a mirror, of something else, anything else, denies God from "everythingness"--from being the ultimate creator.

Patch: I can see why this would lead to your thoughts, Juan, and I confess that these thoughts often also run through my own mind; however, as I have mentioned before, I must always remember that God is beyond my cognition. While representation and the availability of a "mirror" in which to see myself are both ways that I personally understand self-awareness, I believe that these are finite forms of self-awareness; largely because I am a finite being. If God exists on an infinite level, then He may exist beyond our own understandings of self-awareness.

Juan: I'm imagining this all sounds a little strange or perhaps besides the point, as you said Patch, you're more focused on the present. Indeed, I believe I'm also focused on the present, and I'm very concerned with the way we live our lives, that there be a harmony. But to have a belief or philosophy about God and/or existence necessarily demands an opinion about the atemporal/eternal, a meaning that goes beyond our senses.

Patch: I wholeheartedly agree.

Juan: I've been thinking a lot about the idea of transcendence the last few years; it's a been recurring theme in things I've been writing. I keep coming to this conclusion that transcendence is about dissolution of the individual, but this perspective of all-seeingness or omnipresence cannot be achieved without also being blinded by it. Or blinded is not the right word, perhaps revealed the oneness that unifies everything and rejects its divisibility. I should think of an analogy for this.

Patch: I think that would be very helpful to both you and I.

Juan: I guess one kind of response for this is that God achieves precisely that which we cannot conceive. I honestly don't know, but I believe this is not about powers, or time, or energy, it is about perspective which is not something that is chosen but something that simply describes a state, it is the nature of something.But in this idea of transcendence I get confused when I try to deal with free will and the bridge between the material and immaterial-- transcendence is like crossing a mirror of that bridge.

Patch: Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

Juan: I hope this explains some of my thoughts and has kept this dialogue relevant. Ifeel like my thoughts are pretty mixed up, I've been trying to work out a way of organizing them. I've offered up more responses than questions this time, but maybe I will put forth a couple more in another message.

Patch: More questions would be much appreciated, Juan, and I also appreciate your willingness to hash out your "confused" thoughts with me. I am more than open to it. Perhaps I may present a question to you:

What do you find to be disappointing or perhaps wrong about a God who is not necessarily an individual in the way that we understand individuals?