tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post1206624692649135665..comments2024-03-11T07:53:25.838-04:00Comments on Spirituality, Dreams and Prophecy: Substance and FormDoug Webberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-45151558280040545192013-01-18T17:33:57.726-05:002013-01-18T17:33:57.726-05:00Thanks. I am reading that.
In the meantime, here...Thanks. I am reading that.<br /><br /> In the meantime, <a href="http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-matter-of-substance.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> is another commentary on 'substance and form' in Swedenborg, from an interesting point of view.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-11523740687684147292013-01-17T21:19:52.027-05:002013-01-17T21:19:52.027-05:00Hello Ian - I reposted the blog on Arthur M. Young...Hello Ian - I reposted the blog on Arthur M. Young, this time with comments. You may want to take a look at it.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-83826470966939214162013-01-13T22:08:31.535-05:002013-01-13T22:08:31.535-05:00Doug,
Yes, that is me. Jim Lawrence mentioned rec...Doug,<br /> Yes, that is me. Jim Lawrence mentioned recently that he had met you, and suggested that we try to meet at some time!<br />Ian<br />Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-37608383049211643162013-01-13T21:52:15.486-05:002013-01-13T21:52:15.486-05:00Interesting web site and book Ian. I believe you m...Interesting web site and book Ian. I believe you met with the Dean of the Swedenborgian House of Studies and he dropped me a note; I was having a separate conversation with him. Was not sure if you were the same person. I am currently looking at something related to theistic science, the ideas of Arthur M. Young as related in his book, "The Reflexive Universe." I posted a blog entry on it but took it down as I need to summarize his thoughts further - it shows the potential of what can happen when philosophy and science are combined in one system. He discusses discrete degrees of order, showing a common pattern in all things that exist. He founded "Institute for the Study of Consciousness" in Berkeley, CA in 1972.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-48098100139570697002013-01-11T00:54:10.662-05:002013-01-11T00:54:10.662-05:00In these pairings, "essence" must refer ...In these pairings, "essence" must refer to substance, and "existence" must refer to form.<br /><br />When you look at something, you only see its form or structure. Its manifest 'existence' then refers to that form, which is (more or less) visible.<br /><br />Hidden within something, still, is its essence. That refers to its loves or dispositions, which describe not its present structure, but what it <i>would</i> do in the futures of various possible actions and interactions. That essence is 'hidden' and not manifest, because it is not immediately visible, but requires either experimental investigations or a (much deeper) wisdom that perceives loves. <br /><br />Look at living creature. You can see its manifest existence by means of its forms to the eye or the microscopic. To know also its essence (which a complete understanding requires), is to also to know of its motivations and desires. In a physical thing, these would be its causal powers and dispositional properties.<br /><br /><br />Note: I am talking on these matters in the second evening of my series described at http://www.beginningtheisticscience.com/talks.htm .<br />Ian<br />Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-65126597236369334502013-01-10T21:08:53.075-05:002013-01-10T21:08:53.075-05:00Yes, that is correct, love is substance and truth ...Yes, that is correct, love is substance and truth is the form, both of those make one. I did not word that quite correctly. The other terminology I have seen instead of "substance" and "form" he uses "essence" and "existence".Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-61825804043540431632013-01-03T01:54:22.074-05:002013-01-03T01:54:22.074-05:00You say "In the spiritual world, instead of p...You say "In the spiritual world, instead of physical substance and form, and instead of space and time, there is nothing but love and truth. Anything that appears in the spiritual world has a correspondence to love and truth. Moreover, love and truth are not simply abstract ideas: love and truth are spiritual substances,"<br /><br />The way I read Swedenborg is more specific than this. I take him to say that <b>Love is the substance, and truth is the form</b>. This seems to agree with everything he says about the relations between love and wisdom. <br /><br />However, it means that, strictly, it is not true that "love and truth are spiritual substances". Rather, when united, they are a <i>single</i> substance. We may receive the energy and the form of that substance in different ways, but in itself there is only one substance for each love. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.com