11.23.09

Bennett’s ‘being, function, will’ as omnipresent triad

Posted in Science & Religion at 5:55 pm by nemo

Biocentrism vs J. G. Bennett’s Tridic Breakdown

Questions of divinity are treacherous, and I recoil from the New Atheists because they oversimplify the question and make disbelief the new version of belief.
I am not a conventional theist, atheist, or agnostic, I should add.

That means what it says. Although closer to atheism, this position can pull god out a hat in seconds, but not as an object of belief.
Thus:
I have cited J. G. Bennett several times here, along with this triad of ‘Being, Function, Will’, which is a powerful method, derived from ancient Indian (atheist) Samkhya.
The question of ‘divinity’ becomes a sideeffect of this triad, and arises by definition of terms (although the term ‘god’ should be set aside for better terminology). If something is defined from the assumptions then its belief status and certainty value are suspect, never the object of the exercise anyway. The point is that negating ‘god’ can be pointless: the basic terminology of a particular form of thought creates a cascade of entities all showing ‘being, function, and will’, as omnipresent at all levels of the universe.
Thus in Bennett the ‘cosmic individuality’ arises as a combination of being, function and will, like everything else, in projection of the terminology on all scales. This concoction is entirely apt, if nearly fictive, and more the demiruge than the divine.
Not so believable, but not so absurd as one might have thought. Moral: be wary of trying to amputate one half of total nonsense in the hopes of consistency.
I merely the cocky certainties of the New Atheists, and the way that the whole game canbe reset at the drop of a hat.

Permalink