From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: My probs with FAQ
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:06:21 GMT

ttk@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (the troglodyte killer) writes:
: >From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
: >
: >:      It doesn't?  (blink, blink)..  "If the person does not know 
: >: that you were doing these things" necessarily implies that the 
: >: universe is not pantheistic.
: >
: >It does not such thing. It simply implies that people do not know
: >everything that is going on in the universe. This should be rather
: >obvious to you. Just look around you and tell me that people are
: >aware. 
:  
:      In a pantheistic universe, all things -- you, me, that chair,
: this computer, etc -- are different faces of the same individual.  
: Not knowing, not seeing, not understanding are all illusions.  A 
: pantheistic universe necessarily implies that all things are known 
: and all things exist; it is through frustration that difference, 
: seperation, and discretion appear to exist.

Your concept of a pantheistic universe is completely different from
that of any other description I have heard.

There are several types of pantheism, of which I am aware.

Related to the first, the second is: there is no God - just the combined
forces and laws that govern the existing universe and the entities living
in it.

The third is the worship of more than one god - who may, or may not, be
omnipotent.

The fourth is simply a tolerance for the worship of any god which a person
desires to worship.

None of these imply that all the parts of the universe are aware of the
other parts of the univers, any more than my left hand has any idea what
my right foot is doing.

:      At a level of awareness, all things are known.  "All things" 
: include anything you as an individually percieved aspect of the 
: whole might do.
:      When I look around me and see people, I see facets of the 
: universe whose awareness of the whole is frustrated; they as 
: individuals do not have access to all information, but they as the 
: collective mind do have access to the information, and information 
: may be brought into their awareness if the cumulative mind makes 
: such a decision.
:      Many decisions are made on a level beyond the scope of our 
: individual consciousnesses..  The operation is quite aware of 
: everything it needs to be aware of.

If you wish to assign an consciousness to the universe. I do not,
nor have I seen any evidence that it exists.

:      'Scuze me for saying the same thing three ways, but there was 
: a misunderstanding somewhere.  If we're still not talking about 
: the same thing, let me know.

That is possible.

: >As far as gods, if they exist, it simply implies that they either
: >are 1) Not telling humans everything or 2) Not all-knowing or 
: >3) Not very interested in the actions of humanity or 4) think
: >up your own reason.
:  
:      Gods?  What gods?  Where'd you come up with this train of 
: thought?

Easy. They are part of at least two of the definitions of pantheism.

: >:      That you refer to the pantheistic model as a "link" between 
: >: things shows that you have no notion of what the pantheistic model 
: >: is.  Things are not linked; they are nondiscrete.  There is only 
: >: one "thing".
: >
: >In your opinion. 
:  
:      By the definition of pantheistic universe.

I hate to be repetitious - but it is by your definition. Do you have
some sources to show that this is the one and only accepted definition?
It certainly does not agree with my studies.

Bill