marmalade

What do you think of the various 'pan-' philosophies?

The ones that come to my mind are pantheism/panentheism, pandeism/panendeism, panpsychism(/panenpsychism?). These views are outside of many traditional interpretations of a monotheistic God. All of these philosophies fit in with various types of mystical experiences of nondualism and monism.

I like panentheism(or even panendeism) because it fits in with a Taoist perspective; there is an intelligent order to reality that is simultaneously immanent(The Many, dualism, yin/yang) and transcendent(The One, nondualism, the Tao that can't be spoken)... the whole being greater than its parts. And I like panpsychism because its a commonsense explanation of consciousness; we can't experience nor think about reality outside of our consciousness... so why assume that reality exists outside of consciousness, and why assume consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter.

harleylove

Don't really have any input on how I feel about them but I consider myself a pantheist.

Nature is awe inspiring to me and I feel a strong spiritual connection to it. We are all in heaven(so to speak) and connected to each other.

__________________
If the day and night are such that you greet them with joy, and life emits a fragrance like flowers and sweet-scented herbs--that is your success. All nature is your congratulation.
Henry David Thoreau 1817-1862

AB517

Reading about Tao completed my transformation.
With all spiritual understanding there is associated a common underlying theme. When I speak to true spiritual people, the rituals (religion) they follow is unimportant.

I think western religions should incorporate the notions that people are the center of reality as spoken by the eastern ones. What we perceive of the universe starts with us and within us. To remove all boundaries is foolish and misguided, but we are more connected than we are separate.

Good post again Marm, I am going to refresh my memory on them.

marmalade

I don't think pantheism and panentheism are all that different. Pantheism says that the everything is part of the whole. Panentheism says that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It seems to me that panentheism explicity emphasizes what is already implicit to pantheism.

I agree. I find extreme interpretations of monistic non-dualism to be unhelpful.

romansh

Hi marmalade .......... I feel like I have to reach for the dictionary, google things, and search Wiki every time I read one of your posts...... but unfortunately (or fortunately) I am lazy.

As a devout agnostic .... for me ... theistic gods are out. Not exactly sure putting "pan" in front of something, how it changes the meaning. pan - "all of the parts or relating to the whole"?

Nevertheless, the only deistic god that makes sense regarding the evidence and rationale (for me) would be a god as part of the universe (in us all etc). Not necessarily intelligent, but ordered (sort of; and if not, intelligent and not ordered). Oh what the hell...I don't really know. If you have a label for this type of belief I would appreciate it.

in the mean time, yours faithfully, a panagnostic

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

That is why you need a handy dandy electronic dictionary like the one I carry around with me in my backpack. I'm lazy too and if it wasn't for this I'd look up a lot less words. I also like the various dictionary websites... when I'm at the computer and too lazy to reach over to my backpack. And I don't need to mention my love of wikipedia.

Your definition sounds fine. Philosophically, 'pan-' seems to be a way of referring to the whole world as included in whatever term its a prefix to. I've never seen it used in any other way, and its not a prefix that I can remember ever seeing outside of philsophical terms.

That is a nice god you got there. It can be either intelligent or ordered, but not both. Just one question... can it be both just not simultaneously? That'd be cool!

http://www.originalfaith.com/blog/20...rium_9111.html

romansh

Marmalade .... you made me do it again .... just had to go to the dictionary. You are right most of the pans are worldly or theological but there are a few technical ones such panchromatic and panoptic. ....of course pancake ..

Of course this is just a hypothetical god..... being a good little devout agnostic I'm not supposed to know about such things. The short answer is I don't know ... I just can't help thinking intelligent and ordered .... verging on the theistic?
"not simultaneously?".... I suppose it would be cool....certainly explain a lot. What time frame did you have in mind .... a few generations?

So what label would you give to this colection of suppositions?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

Gosh darnit! You got me with the pan-cake. I'm a believer in Pan-cakeism. Have you ever tried buckwheat pancakes?

...mmm... delicious!

My definition of intelligence would be a combination of consciousness and order. So, in my mind, I'd translate your statement into consciousness and order not being able to simultaneously exist without it verging on the theistic... is this true?

Panpsychism comes to mind. This philosophy says that there is a fundamental consciousness in everything... meaning matter can't exist without consciousness, and I think it also would include consciousness not being able to exist without matter. To me, this seems a rational and commonsense assumption to make because it fits our direct experience and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Now, how about order? I'd imagine that most people(religious and/or scientific) believe in some form of fundamental order the universe. This also seems a fair assumption to make.

Okay, lets assume that order and consciousness both exist... simultaneously even. Does this imply a theistic God? I don't think so. There may be a fundamental intelligence(Telos) to the world and yet this doesn't have to include a willful deity that interferes. Telos is an intelligence that is inseparable from that which it informs. At its most basic, this can be interpreted as a tendency of the universe to seek out greater complexity through evolution.

I didn't have anything exactly in mind. If it was a deistic God, you could place the intelligence of God at the beginning of Creation and place the principle of order after the event of Creation. This way God's intelligence can't interfere with the order once its set in place.

With the "not simultaneously" scenario, deism could work probably in any of its varieties.

duck

Big believer in pan-cakeism myself. :P

Swedish and buttermilk are my favorites. Woo Hoo.

__________________
Religion: The ultimate definition of verisimilitude

duck

And as far as the universe is concerned, why isn't is possible to accept it for what it is on a face basis?

__________________
Religion: The ultimate definition of verisimilitude