You present the male and female aspects of God, and this image is correct. I use another image, God with two hands, one hand is mercy and the other hand is justice.
Really interesting post, thank you for sharing it and writing it.
I was particularly enjoying the part where you talked about how when people change their image of god, they feel better.
It's interesting right - if you point yourself to a different higher ideal, downstream things will also change.
I do wonder whether the monotheism/polytheism thing that Harari writes about is maybe a bit too reductive to be useful. I'm sure we've had our fair share of violent polytheistic empires (e.g. romans) and peaceful monotheistic movements (not anthropormorphised gods - but faiths like buddhism, advaita vedanta and jainism are all flavours of monotheism in a sense)
Yeah I agree Harari's quote is pretty reductive, and he doesn't really give any evidence in support. I tried and failed to find a Feyerabend quote that says something similar.
I think the important think isn't so much mono vs polytheism, as much as "my religion is the only way" vs "my religion is one of many valid expressions"--and that probably correlates with mono vs polytheism.
"Sefirot, meaning emanations, are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof (The Infinite) reveals itself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms
...
The sefirot of the left side and the sefira of Malkuth are feminine, as the female principle in Kabbalah describes a vessel that receives the outward male light, then inwardly nurtures and gives birth to the sefirot below them."
This was great. I really enjoyed the way you addressed and explored this idea - it gave me a lot to think about.
For a while now, I have been making sense of the idea that our belief (or lack there of) in God/ a mysterious and incomprehensible rhythm to the universe - can radically effect how we understand ourselves. Meaning there is a deep value to thinking about this for ourselves.
I'd argue that colloquially and formally, "ology" has a strong connotation of science, (e.g. the wiki page for "ologies"). But obviously words are squishy things. There's a good list of non-science ologies here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ologies
good breakdown there. And yeah I think one should think of "ology" in terms of logos. Technology for instance is the writing down and transmission of techne knowledge (techne being the greek we often translate as "art", and which I think of as "knowledge gained through the practiced engagement with direct experience (qualia)")
"Even if a giant face appeared in the clouds, claiming to be God and dictating the weather and the stock market, it’d take us about 10 minutes to ask: but wait, who created you? Most metaphysical questions are prone to this sort of regress."
Most, not all. The Katha Upanishad answers it. Just don't tell the Catholics, they'll hate you because their metaphysic path is lost and all they have left is blind faith.
I had a friend, a boomer, he died a few months ago. I started writing my substank because he couldn't hear what I'd been trying to say to him a few months before his death. He was nervous of dying and/but wrote a blog called 'Gornahoor'. He was the man to ask on all such questions, religious, metaphysic, historic etc. We'd been writing to each other for about a year and everything was fine until he realised I wouldn't buy back in to christianity even after all that time. It was too limited and limiting.
Catholicism had capped his belief system and even though he intellectually understood metaphysics, he couldn't put it in front of religion.
It still boggles my mind.
Religion is what we are given at the end of a huge cycle, but it's weaponised. We *need* something in that part of the brain that keeps us safe in this world so we take what we're given. We need faith like we need science.
It's the same for scientism though- it has been weaponised along with leftist education and media propaganda.
The only answer is to jump in to the abyss- completely believe in God when the time comes (it'll be towards the end of a March month/early April because it's an astrological phenomenon)- put all eggs in to the 'BELIEVE' basket. After six or so months reason will kick back in and the physiology of what happened can be hunted down.
Our idea of religious God is not what the actual experience of seeing It face to face is like. I despised church but I'm really glad I knew about 'God' regardless.
Good on my mother for forcing me as long as she could- who knew it might pay off one day. :)
If that painting is the "Creation of God", the pose of the hands needed to be swapped. That alone tells me she didn't really understand the painting she wanted to subvert — she was obviously only focused on gender and race... which is embarrassingly hacky at this point. It's a pretty decent re-creation, unfortunately, it's just a hollow virtue signal.
She copied the pose of the hands as they were, but... they are the way they are for a reason: God reaching out to touch the finger of Adam and give him the gift of life... so, logic dictates, if it's the "Creation of *God*" the person in Adam's position should be reaching out to touch the finger of God. She's a hack.
You present the male and female aspects of God, and this image is correct. I use another image, God with two hands, one hand is mercy and the other hand is justice.
Really interesting post, thank you for sharing it and writing it.
I was particularly enjoying the part where you talked about how when people change their image of god, they feel better.
It's interesting right - if you point yourself to a different higher ideal, downstream things will also change.
I do wonder whether the monotheism/polytheism thing that Harari writes about is maybe a bit too reductive to be useful. I'm sure we've had our fair share of violent polytheistic empires (e.g. romans) and peaceful monotheistic movements (not anthropormorphised gods - but faiths like buddhism, advaita vedanta and jainism are all flavours of monotheism in a sense)
what do you think?
Yeah I agree Harari's quote is pretty reductive, and he doesn't really give any evidence in support. I tried and failed to find a Feyerabend quote that says something similar.
I think the important think isn't so much mono vs polytheism, as much as "my religion is the only way" vs "my religion is one of many valid expressions"--and that probably correlates with mono vs polytheism.
Reminds me of this concept from Kabbalah: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot
"Sefirot, meaning emanations, are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which Ein Sof (The Infinite) reveals itself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms
...
The sefirot of the left side and the sefira of Malkuth are feminine, as the female principle in Kabbalah describes a vessel that receives the outward male light, then inwardly nurtures and gives birth to the sefirot below them."
This was great. I really enjoyed the way you addressed and explored this idea - it gave me a lot to think about.
For a while now, I have been making sense of the idea that our belief (or lack there of) in God/ a mysterious and incomprehensible rhythm to the universe - can radically effect how we understand ourselves. Meaning there is a deep value to thinking about this for ourselves.
Your piece helped me think about it more.
Thanks.
The suffix of "ology" doesn't mark something as a science.
Another reader gave an extended discussion about the etymology here: https://substack.com/@christianleeseibold/note/c-21915863?utm_source=activity_item
I'd argue that colloquially and formally, "ology" has a strong connotation of science, (e.g. the wiki page for "ologies"). But obviously words are squishy things. There's a good list of non-science ologies here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ologies
good breakdown there. And yeah I think one should think of "ology" in terms of logos. Technology for instance is the writing down and transmission of techne knowledge (techne being the greek we often translate as "art", and which I think of as "knowledge gained through the practiced engagement with direct experience (qualia)")
"Even if a giant face appeared in the clouds, claiming to be God and dictating the weather and the stock market, it’d take us about 10 minutes to ask: but wait, who created you? Most metaphysical questions are prone to this sort of regress."
Most, not all. The Katha Upanishad answers it. Just don't tell the Catholics, they'll hate you because their metaphysic path is lost and all they have left is blind faith.
I had a friend, a boomer, he died a few months ago. I started writing my substank because he couldn't hear what I'd been trying to say to him a few months before his death. He was nervous of dying and/but wrote a blog called 'Gornahoor'. He was the man to ask on all such questions, religious, metaphysic, historic etc. We'd been writing to each other for about a year and everything was fine until he realised I wouldn't buy back in to christianity even after all that time. It was too limited and limiting.
Catholicism had capped his belief system and even though he intellectually understood metaphysics, he couldn't put it in front of religion.
It still boggles my mind.
Religion is what we are given at the end of a huge cycle, but it's weaponised. We *need* something in that part of the brain that keeps us safe in this world so we take what we're given. We need faith like we need science.
It's the same for scientism though- it has been weaponised along with leftist education and media propaganda.
The only answer is to jump in to the abyss- completely believe in God when the time comes (it'll be towards the end of a March month/early April because it's an astrological phenomenon)- put all eggs in to the 'BELIEVE' basket. After six or so months reason will kick back in and the physiology of what happened can be hunted down.
Our idea of religious God is not what the actual experience of seeing It face to face is like. I despised church but I'm really glad I knew about 'God' regardless.
Good on my mother for forcing me as long as she could- who knew it might pay off one day. :)
If that painting is the "Creation of God", the pose of the hands needed to be swapped. That alone tells me she didn't really understand the painting she wanted to subvert — she was obviously only focused on gender and race... which is embarrassingly hacky at this point. It's a pretty decent re-creation, unfortunately, it's just a hollow virtue signal.
Could you expand on this, it sounds interesting!
She copied the pose of the hands as they were, but... they are the way they are for a reason: God reaching out to touch the finger of Adam and give him the gift of life... so, logic dictates, if it's the "Creation of *God*" the person in Adam's position should be reaching out to touch the finger of God. She's a hack.