I am concerned with the practical implications of contemplating the Trinity or Triune G/d, if there are any. If there aren’t then of what possible concern can such matters be for human beings? Practical implications of G/d as Father would be either in so far as we are fathers or that we are ourselves children. Father in the broadest sense of the word has to do with creativity. Creativity is fundamental to the being and activity of G/d. Even if you don’t believe in G/d, can you not see creativity as fundamental to the universe? If we are to follow G/d as dear children as the canonical Jesus teaches, we must walk in creativity as G/d has created the universe and we ourselves. Creativity is clearly manifest in the arts. The arts have a moral function when they inspire us to live creatively. With that the goal of creative living in mind I wish you ALL [whatever your gender and whether you have children or not] a happy Father’s/Creativity day!
Oh THE FATHER? Isn’t that who Jesus taught us to follow?
I have no father or children.
What does g/d mean?
According to the New Testament Gospels, yes. To the canon I recognize I add the Gospel of Thomas.
So you are of virgin birth?
Me too … and I throw out the book of Revelation.
Nevertheless, you exhibit creativity, I’ve noticed.
G/d is a substitute for the word “God” in English based on the traditional practice in Jewish scripture of giving God’s Hebrew name the highest degree of deference, respect and reverence. It connotes the notion that “God” as ultimate reality is an ineffable mystery. I’ve also seen it written as G-d or G*d.
No, he’s just dead.
Felix, when people talk about creation, or creativity, (in the religious sense or otherwise), I ask myself, “how is that possible if there’s nothing new under the sun?”. I kinda think that we’re able to rearrange things to an extent, but to create something is more a trick of language than an actual act of causing an object to exist, abstract or otherwise. Call me crazy. I dunno man.
Everything that is real becomes and and passes away. Becoming is the ultimate fact underlying all others. Becoming isn’t not any particular thing or kind of thing. Yet it is a feature shared by all things. This ultimate fact, this ultimate character shared by all actual things is Creativity. Everything that was is recombined to become something new under the sun. When we participate in this process consciously, we are creative.
So if I try and learn some jimi hendrix song, and I fail at it, but my friends are listening, and even though they can’t identify the song I’m trying to play, they just assume I made something up, because I was butchering it so badly am I being creative? Or am I failing a copying someone? Or it is just me being creative from the point of view of the listener who doesn’t know I’m failing at copying and who instead infers that I’ve come up with a new song?
All of the above.
Whoa…I think you’re right. It’s all about understanding the indexicality of the truth value of those propositions doggggg.
“As long as I can communicate, I can create. As long as I can create, I am free.”
Lewis Hill
“Creativity is our image of God,”—Nicholas Berdyaev, Russian theologian.
…and ‘God’ is the image of creativity.
Your example is a musical analogue to how misreadings can lead to newly created literature that Harold Bloom documents.
Maybe, but I was talking about how each of those possibilities that I listed before could obtain given variances in the perspectives analyzing the whole matter. Some statements are true sometimes and not others, and others are true other times but not sometimes.
IMHO, creativity is maternal and possibly comes to males through the anima of the psyche or right brain input. And, perhaps many centuries of matriachal abuse of women could be rectified if we could have a woman pope.
I understood that and was commenting on how misunderstandings, misreading, or limitations or strengths can increase variance among the perspectives including those which are fortuitous in some way e.g. a novel way of playing a Hendrix riff say by using two hand tapping a la VanHalen. Often these things are “happy accidents.” What makes them “happy” is their fittedness to the socio-cultural context.
True. Like I might only be considering certain possibilities here, and you’re saying that even if we go past normal interpretation, we can still find meaning in creative endeavors in spite of the fact that “creativity” can be standardized in some way. There are always going to me kooks who make up their own meaning after abandoning the rules of logic and language. We call them artists.