Satanical
Because in the search for ‘god’, ‘Being’ was found. It’s like you are looking for something and you have a name for it but you don’t know what it is.
EZ$
But why redefine the word god just to give it meaning? God is already defined as a patron creator deity. It seems pointless to redefine the word just to give it a place in our lives.
I feel the same about people that say ‘god is the universe’ or ‘god is a can of spagetti sauce under the sink’
Dr. S.
“But why redefine the word god just to give it meaning?”
Why redefine “Satanism”, when it has very little to do with Satan, the “patron evil-doer deity”?
Dunamis
Nonsense…the word Satanism had never been defined per-se before 1966.
Andf Satanism has EVERYTHING to do with the ORIGINAL meaning of Satan…do try to pay attention
Dr.,
“Nonsense…the word Satanism had never been defined per-se before 1966.”
I don’t know what you mean by defined. It has been in use since 1565 and all uses had to do with the devil. In 1966 (after 400 years of use) they certainly tried to redefine and appropriate a word with heavy cultural meanings. The attempt to borrow on those meanings for weight and shock value is clear. To not see this obvious point is more telling of your bias rather than mine. 
“Andf Satanism has EVERYTHING to do with the ORIGINAL meaning of Satan…do try to pay attention”
Besides the curious etymology that might translate the original ancient Hebrew word as “very watered-down Nietzsche”, one can also say that to equate God with Nature would have everything to do the ORIGINAL meaning to the word “God”. I do pay attention. Your movement redescribed “Satanism”, just as another would redescribe “God”.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
Agreed. The Greek legacy implies the perfect order behind apparent reality, that man can discover through the application of mind. Little wonder we end up with the ‘big guy in the sky’. Still, there are those lines of thought that suggest a cadenced order of process that is at once ‘particularness’ or focus, and the field of temporal flow together at the same time. We can ‘name’ this process, (God or whatever) but the naming is not the process. There is a bit more to it than this, but in the spirit of brevity…
JT
JT,
“cadenced order of process that is at once ‘particularness’ or focus, and the field of temporal flow together at the same time”
I like this description, but looking at your terms, “cadenced” implies an extra-temporal order that lies outside this process, a governing metre. The mind’s ability to grasp this cadence returns us back to the Greek Nous.
Dunamis
I both love and hate the extra-dimensionality that you point towards for Being. [Being] as outside of our dimension of Time. While inside of the dimension of Time we have [Becoming] of which we are a part. The integrity of [Becoming] is mysterious because of the limitation of Time. We see in part, so our vision is flawed.
All knowledge in this dimension is bound to Time. All knowledge here is temporary. Any static knowing of [Becoming] is perfect only for a moment. A static knowing of [Becoming] is insufficient to the [Becoming]. Only a fluid, open, changing, and adapting knowing can hope to match the [Becoming].
Yet the Supreme must encompass all of these [Being & Notbeing & Becoming & Notbecoming]
Xander,
“Yet the Supreme must encompass all of these [Being & Notbeing & Becoming & Notbecoming]”
I suppose this is what Spinoza was trying to say when he described “God” as a single substance with an infinity of attributes, only two of which - thought and extension - the Intellect perceives as the essence of that single substance, implying that there are countless other attributes which our Intellect does not perceive.
Dunamis
Hi Dunamis,
I knew that ‘cadenced’ was going to create a problem, I just couldn’t come up with a single word to carry the concept. So, on with the epistle. 
A cadenced flow is really attached to the notion of harmony, the observed balance of inherent opposites, and the cyclic nature of coming into being and returning to. It’s hard to hold transitory transformation in our heads because the illusion is to see the world as static ‘pieces’. A rock is a rock, right? And it’s going to be a rock for a looooong time. And whether it’s a rock for eons, or the nanosecond flash of the splitting of an atom, becoming-being-returning is still part of the temporal flow. The temporal flow (not sure I like that term, but…) is the sum of the foci, which in turn, is the flow, or field. Separate and together at once. That it all seems to go on in an orderly way is noted, but we also see variety -ie- We see the cyclic nature of the four seasons and their orderly procession, but we also see that no two ‘Springs’ are alike.
And so, The notion of anything ‘behind the scenes’ becomes either irrelevant, or incapable of being known. (past language or concept) That there is spontaneity and/or novelty in a processual universe is a given (again, observation of that which can be sensed)
All of this is counter-intuitive to our ‘western’ minds. (those Greeks!)
I hope some of this makes sense. I hate language! 
JT
JT,
“And so, The notion of anything ‘behind the scenes’ becomes either irrelevant, or incapable of being known. (past language or concept) That there is spontaneity and/or novelty in a processual universe is a given (again, observation of that which can be sensed)”
One really doesn’t have to go “behind the scene”. The question only is, are there qualities, structures, principles that do not change over time. The Taoist Yin and Yang could be a such a principle. It does not operate behind the scene, it operates through the scene. But the mind (or even better the mind/body) can grasp it and understand better the nature of the diachrony that is occurring around him or her. The “wholeness” implied by a harmony that lies within and without change, is what is meant by Being.
“All of this is counter-intuitive to our ‘western’ minds. (those Greeks!)”
Not so fast on “those Greeks”. Heraclitus seemed to have a pretty good read on this. His sense of harmony and coherence amid change was central to his philosophy.
“They do not understand how, while differing from (or being at variance), [it] is in agreement with itself. [There is] a backwards-turning connection [harmonia], like that of a bow or a lyre.”
fragment 51
“[As] they step into the same rivers, different and [still] different waters flow on.”
fragment 12
Heraclitus was very influential with the Stoics and even Plotinus and Neo-Platonism. It is a bit dangerous to lump “the west” or even “the Greeks” into a single conception, just as it is to fantasize about the “the East” or “the Chinese”. There are heritages of thought in both hemispheres that reach a similar understanding.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
True. One shouldn’t generalize. I wasn’t thinking about the pre-platonic greek thinkers. Heraclitus, the Thalian school, all shared a commonality with what I understand of Eastern thought. I was perhaps looking at the concretized notion of logos used (misused?) by western religion and philosophy that created the dominance of a causal explanation of the world.
Interesting that the early thinkers, regardless their cultures, had such a convergence of understanding.
The ‘behind the scenes’ comment was only meant to be comparative. The processual world view ‘sees’ no behind the scenes. Quite different than the predominate view of western thinking.
JT
JT,
“I was perhaps looking at the concretized notion of logos used (misused?) by western religion and philosophy that created the dominance of a causal explanation of the world.”
Concretized is a very good word. I think in Plotinus, the acme of Platonic thought, the full integration of the Logos with the world in a system of thinking is present in a non-concretized sense. What is interesting in his thinking is that Being is not defined by what-is, but by what-is-in-relation-to-each-other. In this way, that which is in relation to something else as greater Being than same thing that does not have this relation. It creates an interesting universe wherein all things are simulateously in constant relation to everything else and therefore a “wholeness” of Being, and things are also in “partial” relation to each other. It is the mind that has divided and fragmented things, but also the mind that can comprehend the whole, the harmony through “seminal ideas”. I would think that for instance Yin and Yang would be such “seminal ideas”, as would perhaps the idea of “maya” is.
Interesting that the early thinkers, regardless their cultures, had such a convergence of understanding.
Yes a very strange thing was happening upon the earth around the year 600 B.C. The Buddha walked, Lao Tzu walked, Thales and Heraclitus walked.
Dunamis
Hi Dunamis,
Thanks for mentioning Plotinus. Absolutely. ‘Particularness’ is that which is in relation to all else. Constant transformation. In such a universe instead of “being is”, it arrives at “becoming is”. A subtle but perhaps watershed distinction.
I’m interested in your understanding of ‘seminal ideas’. I have some thoughts on this, but they’re too fuzzy to say anything at the moment. It would be interesting to explore the common understanding of such concepts, as they appeared about the same time in both eastern and western thinking.
At first glance, it would seem that the commonality of thought fell victim to cultural reductionism, but I am probably missing something - as usual.
JT
JT,
“I’m interested in your understanding of ‘seminal ideas’. I have some thoughts on this, but they’re too fuzzy to say anything at the moment.”
Yes Plotinus’ is far-reaching (particularly through Augustine, minus the dogma) and incredibly ignored. As to seminal ideas, I have not spent much time attempting to define these myself. In Plotinus though the Mind, being responsible for the fragmentation of the world, is also responsible for “seminal ideas”, literality ideas that give life, which draw the fragmented whole back into relation as the One. I think that there is something about these ideas the literally seem to bring things into being by fostering new and completing connections. In a manner they seek to sew back together the that which is parted, bringing it into greater Being and harmony. In some manner all ideas that find harmony are seminal.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
Excuse my tardiness in replying. State of affairs…
Just a couple of thoughts. My understanding of Taoist thinking suggests that “being is” is mind illusion and that reality suggests “becoming is”, and in the strictest sense, “events are”. In a processual universe, there is no ‘thing’(s), only ‘events’ coming into being and returning to in the constant ebb and flow. These events are relational. Defining and being defined by the totality of all events - the "ten thousand things’.
If alllowed, the mind will ‘forget’ particularness as an event and attempt to see being. (with boundaries and limitations) As you have noted, the mind is the tool by which being is dissolved and returned to the flow. But as I understand it, the mind does not initiate, but is used by qi which is loosely translated as the field(?) of energy, or force of that which animates an event and its co-relationship with all. If I have it correctly, we all posess qi and our ability to focus this energy (our animation) allows the transcending of mind illusions.
I’ve probably used the wrong words to describe the term qi , but I think I have the concept right. The sublety is the mind as tool, not mind as master. A potential seminal idea?
JT
JT,
“The sublety is the mind as tool, not mind as master. A potential seminal idea?”
I think that this is a compelling ‘seminal idea’ and actually has some resonance with Spinoza, even as “rational” as he might seem, in the sense that in Spinoza there is no “free will” because everything is determined, but there is a sense of relative freedom to the degree that the mind understands the nature of things. Either way one is driven by forces larger than you, but to the degree that you understand the nature of things, you become an expressive, active tool of those larger things, and therefore more blissful. To the degree that you do not, imagining yourself to be “free” and a master, you become a passive tool of forces and subject to sadness.
Dunamis
Dunamis writes regarding seminal ideas:
This is my attraction to cosmology. One can find a harmonious relationship in one cosmos in the color wheel or perhaps a C chord on the piano for example. However ideas that are cosmological in nature cannont be fully comprehended by the literal mind so a person truly pondering them temporarily opens up to a higher quality of mind and harmony opening the door to consciousness.
Such ideas had a conscious origin that was forgotten and scattered. They are an aid in its re-membering
These forces that are larger than you, could you elaborate please?
A
Dunamis,
It’s been a while (long while) since I read Spinoza, but although he obviously grasped ‘particularness’ as an interactive participation among all other particularness, his notion of determinism -ie- a range of options within a predetermined totality is quite different than my understanding of the Tao.
I am struck by the Taoist viewpoint that all that is (the flow, field of…?) simply holds the potential of particularness. There is no attempt to describe or assign attributes to what is, ‘coming into being’. Nor is this coming of an event or particularness determined. That which is, remains ‘just so’.
"We look at it but do not see it;
We name this “the minute.”
We listen to it but do not hear it;
We name this “the rarified.”
We touch it but do not hold it;
We name this “the level and smooth.”
These three cannot be examined to the limit.
Thus they merge together as one.
“One” - there is nothing more encompassing above it,
And nothing smaller below it.
Boundless, formless! It cannot be named,
And returns to the state of no-thing."
This passage from ch 14 of the Tao emphasizes that the is no ‘knowing’ of that which is.
More interesting is the “state of no-thing”, an implied notion that the flow or field is indeterminate (no-thing) and that particularness arises from novelty and spontaneity. This would be entirely in keeping with the idea of on-going, tranforming events, rather than ‘things’.
JT