I think - as someone like Urbie would say -- there may be a difference between the essential qualities of 'Being' and it's accidental qualities (ie whether Jesus and/or Krishna embodied it as people ). Meta's "ground of being' args aim to establish only those essential qualities. ... The subtler thing. ... The essense. ... The gist ot it. (Therefore, sensibly leaves questions like whether Mohamed, Buddha or Jesus best represent it aside until the thing itself - the ground of Being -is established.)Kane Augustus wrote:No. Seeking clarification on whose God we're talking about doesn't require that I demonstrate the incompatibility between competing metanarratives. Your first question -- "What exactly distinguishes those different envisionings of God...?" -- is exactly what I was asking. It may be a matter of semantics, yes. However, semantics are necessary for understanding and parsing information. As I'm fond of defining it to my children: semantics let us know we're up to the same antics.met wrote:What exactly distinguishes those different envisionings of God, KA? How compatible/incompatible are they? (before u critique Meta for imposing HIS version of God, i think u have to demonstrate why it's incompatible, in its core essence, with those others...)
Coulsd that be like asking "why does 2+2= 4?"Kane Augustus wrote:If the real thing is beyond our understanding, how do you point to it even in metaphor? My experience could simply be that the all-pervading Inclacle made me feel warm and fuzzy. The difference between what I felt in that experience and what I state motivated that experience (the all-pervading Inclacle) is quite vast. There has to be some kind of information objective to myself that links my experience to the all-pervading Inclacle, doesn't there? If not, how does one distinguish between the subjective claims of one individual from the next?
If Being really does have depth, then it does.