Also the-metaphysical-Albert-Einstein
Words
are intended to empower communication. Yet some words establish& maintain
bemusement. When I hear “truth”, “God” or “metaphysical” I must ask the
speaker’s definition. Usually, the speaker offers rationalization to either discovery or invention. Invention is either personal or institutional opinion. For
example, primitive humans observed the Sun’s power, invented God, and introduced
fear. Modern humans discovered the Sun is a nuclear reactor, yet some people
maintain& promote the fear.
It
seems plain that something constrains the consequences of human choice. I think
choices invoke actions that affect how the laws of physics proceed. For
example, the 1861 decision to fire on Fort Sumter caused the Civil War. It took
U.S. lives in proportion to 8 million at today’s population. Action founded on
erroneous beliefs excited military power.
Everything,
including mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, fiction, and
speculation seems a progeny of physics, hereafter, PHYSICS. Fiction is made
possible by the absence of discovery. I suggest that PHYSICS constrains human
choice. Humankind slowly learns to gage choice according to probable PHYSICS.
Acceptance comes hard. Truth is often hard to accept, and I try to express a
way, below.
Herein,
I use “metaphysical” to evaluate/speculate impacts of apparent events. Thus,
metaphysics comes afterwards. For example, the life of Jesus seems an event
that impacts evaluation of history before he was born, invention about his
actions, metaphysical-projections until now, and consequences into the future. It
seems both Jesus and Einstein were political philosophers with world-wide
impacts. Comprehending their impacts is ongoing metaphysics. I’ll first consider
the-metaphysical-Jesus.
Jesus left no writing, so metaphysics is all we have
Western
thought is bound by 1,300 years of literature started 3,000 years ago. The
literature that is canonized in diverse Bibles has captured the attention of
humankind for the recent 1700 years and continues to impact civilization. Most
canon include the Old Testament plus the New Testament, spanning 1000 years’ beliefs
in a messiah’s kingdom, then competitive claims that Jesus is that king. Human
thought before these 2 monotheisms, some 300,000 years’ homo sapiens progress, seems neglected by the Bible canon.
Some non-believers appreciate Jesus
as a prophet. Since no one can prove the PHYSICS of Jesus, I consider him metaphysical
by invention rather than by discovery, yet reserve humility to
PHYSICS. Humankind may eventually discover that Jesus was divine or God. I
doubt it but don’t know.
About Jesus, Ralph Waldo Emerson
wrote, “the language that
describes Christ to Europe and America, is not the style of friendship and
enthusiasm to a good and noble heart, but is appropriated and formal,—paints a
demigod, as the Orientals or the Greeks would describe Osiris or Apollo.”[1]
I think Jesus offered beneficial
suggestions, but cannot prove they were novel, so can& may consider them independently.
For example, I have no idea what Jesus may have meant by “my peace” and
certainly would not attempt to impose my definition. I perceive the-metaphysical-Jesus
influencing humankind in four perspectives: at the beginning of time, in what
was thought or reported about him by his contemporaries, in the impact on the
generations since then, and in the ultimate development by posterity; briefly, that’s
origins, Jesus-contemporary-reports, impact, and destiny.
First, writers inform us that Jesus implied he existed “before
Abraham was born” -- many generations prior to Jesus’s birth. I doubt this is
so but do not know. Nevertheless, we can consider the impact if he was present in the beginning.
Sargon, who conquered Sumerian
city-states, lived before Abraham was born. Perhaps either Sargon’s or Sumer’s
political philosophy is expressed by Hebrew scholars in Genesis 1. Genesis
1 suggests that humankind is solely responsible for order& prosperity on
earth. In other words, humankind can& may practice
responsible-human-independence (RHI). I think Jesus affirmed Genesis
1.
The-metaphysical-Jesus may have
been expressed nearly 400 years before his birth. Agathon’s speech in Plato’s
“Symposium” (370 BC)[2],
seems like peace-suggestions attributed to Jesus if not a description of Jesus.
I perceive 3 possibilities about that observation. First, Bible writers may
have mimicked earlier Greek writing. Second, Bible literature examines standard
human concerns, like thou shall no kill. I think the Bible illustrates the
personal& collective consequences of not appreciating human being (verb).
Third, Jesus appeared to Agathon either physically or spiritually. I doubt it.
(My 3 speculations are metaphysical consequences of Agathon’s speech.)
Quotes from Agathon’s speech may
express Jesus-messages, like: Genesis-1-RHI pursues justice. Quoting, “For
all men in all things serve [Jesus] of their own free will, and where there is voluntary agreement, there . . . is justice.” And
“[Jesus] walks not upon the earth . . . but in the hearts and souls
of both god, and men, which are of all things the softest:
in them he walks and dwells and makes his home. Not in every soul
without exception, for Where there is hardness he departs”.
And “his greatest glory is that he can neither do nor
suffer wrong to or from any god or any man; for he suffers
not by force if he suffers; force comes not near him,
neither when he acts does he act by force.” Again, “he
whom [Jesus] touches not walks in darkness”. If New
Testament writers borrowed thoughts from Agathon, we are served well to consider
Agathon’s appreciation to Eros. Thereby, we may increase our appreciation to
Jesus. (That is a metaphysical practice.)
Second, we understand the Jesus-writers
began 3 decades to 8 decades after Jesus’ death. We know not intentions -- either
of the writers or of their sponsors. The summation of the writings constitutes the-metaphysical-Jesus
of the New Testament. It addresses competitive audiences and often
quotes/interprets the Old Testament. Jesus-literature encourages each person to
choose to behave reliably in God’s image.[3]
It pits the poor vs the wealthy, the Jews vs the Rabbi’s, the people vs
priests, law vs justice, and fear vs hope. The literature encourages support to
political leaders and fidelity to both women and children.
Jesus
did not write, so we have no idea what he said. We have no idea what or if he read. We have scholarly analysis that suggests that he was a
historical entity, whether man or divinity. However, rationalization without evidence
does not constitute the-ineluctable-truth. “Ineluctable” means not to
be avoided, changed, neglected, or resisted. About Jesus, we have only
metaphysical expressions – not the-ineluctable-truth.
Third, subsequent generations pondered metaphysical-Jesus’
impact on their experiences& observations. The consequences to human cultures
came after Bible canonization. For example, scholars constructed “The Trinity”
in the 4th century AD.[4]
The Protestant canon came in 1560. The consequences remain competitive, with
churches projecting their doctrine onto Jesus without regard to Jesus. Many
extol Jesus but pray to their doctrinal-God, with similar neglect to God. What
if Jesus alone is God? I don’t think
so but don’t know. And no one knows either God’s truth or Jesus’ truth; God’s
grace or Jesus’ peace.
Nevertheless,
the-metaphysical-Jesus has a positive impact on many people in every
generation. Some of those people are among the fellow-citizens who, during
every decade of their lives, behave for the-good. Whatever the-good may be,
the-good sustains each generation’s interest in Jesus’ influence. It is the-good derived by humankind from
the-metaphysical-Jesus that I seek to comprehend, practice, facilitate, and
encourage.
Fourth, “ourselves and our Posterity”[5]
continue to ponder Jesus’ impact and might approach comprehending the-metaphysical-Jesus.
If humankind adopts the civic-integrity to effect RHI, the impact of
the-metaphysical-Jesus may survive with or without invoking his name, but the
appreciation need not dissipate.
Einstein-comprehension can only be metaphysical, because
he wrote in his audience’s words
Albert Einstein expressed that
experiences& observations were sufficient for discovering
the-ineluctable-truth: “Truth is what stands the test of experience”.[6]
Yet he failed to directly communicate with fellow-citizens, the public, because
he tried to apply vague, standard advice: “write for your audience”. His
audience was the 1940s science& religion crowd.
Allowing “science” and “religion”
to usurp “research” and “integrity”, Einstein spoke the crowd-bemusing nonsense:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He
missed the PHYSICS he worked to comprehend:
Research without integrity is ruinous; integrity without research is
ineffectual. Of course, I only express my opinion. We’ll never know the
actually-real Einstein message. We know that some people assume a truth and
endeavor to prove it: That is neither
research nor integrity nor science.
Considering these ideas in order to improve
communications toward human being (verb)
For me, “write for the audience”
means this: write your message in your vernacular, defining words and phrases
the audience does not expect. Carefully listen to audience questions&
concerns, so as to clarify& learn. On major points, restate your message
hoping to connect with as many fellow-citizens as possible. By all means, do
not allow the hope to assuage every reader’s misapprehensions cause you to
express nonsense. I choose to write in language I think empowers collaborative discovery
through expressing research-results then listening to the audience.
There may be an achievable better
future to human-being (noun), predicated on accepting God in God’s view,
leaving soul-mystery to its origins, accepting “my peace” as defined by Jesus, and
enjoying motivation& inspiration to pursue comprehensive-safety&
security to life on earth. Each human-being can& may comprehend&
benefit-from both the-metaphysical-Einstein respecting research& integrity to
PHYSICS and the-metaphysical-Jesus to
appreciate human being (verb).
I write to learn and would
appreciate comments on this essay and improvements that might result.
PRB, September 30, 2022, revised on October 1, 2022 after
conversation with Phillip Chialastry.
[1]
Online at emersoncentral.com/texts/nature-addresses-lectures/addresses/divinity-school-address/.
[3]
Genesis 1:26-28.
[4]
Online at plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#325381AriCon.
[5]
Applying a phrase from the preamble to the U.S. constitution to all people who
consider Jesus.
[6]
Online at scribd.com/document/470335224/The-Laws-of-Science-and-the-Laws-of-Ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.