Dear Poirot,

"As Squeers so eloquently pointed out above, the concept, the recipe and its ingestion are "all" made sense of via our immersion in the symbolic order"

Squeers is correct to say that in order for something to make sense you need some sort of a symbolic order. The concept, or the recipe, can make sense, even the concept of ingestion can make sense, but not the ingestion itself, which simply cannot make sense (with or without a symbolic order).

Obviously, each analogy has its limits. You do sense a cake, but with your tongue, not with your mind and this is made possible because you and the cake are separate. God, however, cannot be sensed even by the tongue (what a lovely idea if that were possible...).

"It's impossible to extricate yourself from this human experience while you are bound within its constraints."

Oh, don't give up: just because something is difficult, even extremely difficult, doesn't make it impossible. Being bound by the constraints of a human experience is not an external imposition, it is a result of your choice, so you can also choose to release yourself from it.

"Your experience of spiritually "eating the cake" is dependent on you first "intellectually" ascertaining that there is a cake to be eaten."

No. Ascertaining that there is a cake to be eaten can motivate me to find that cake, but some people may occasionally just stumble upon a good cake and eat it without prior ideas.

Dear Ammonite,

"If so you are more likely to see images of Jesus in a piece of toast"

What a waste of a good toast: a toast is meant to be eaten, not to be viewed.

No, I do not belong to any specific religious order, but I can and do benefit from worshiping from time to time within the framework of any of them (except perhaps Judaism, which left me scarred, and a few bad cults).

Poirot, Yuyutsu, Squeers, George, and anyone else:

This is indeed a very stimulating discussion and I thank you for your well-expressed and civilised contributions.

I want to make a few points arising from recent posts.

1 Squeers says: << We are culturally constructed, mind, body and soul. This is merely logical. >> This seems misleading. I (ego) am not simply a passive entity; will is my origin. Through exercise of will, both consciously and unconsciously, I have adopted or rejected various stories, told in various ways by others, about who and what I am. I have also taken events and perceptions from my own life and formed them into stories, both conscious and unconscious, that further construct my identity. Furthermore, I have inherited archetypal material which from birth (or maybe before that) has lived in my unconscious and continually informs my understanding of who and what I am. The ego is constructed by more than culture.

2 Yuyutsu says: << I am not after idea(s) ABOUT God, I am after union WITH God. >> I wonder if we could elaborate this as follows. The birth of the ego occurred as a seed of will from the “ground of being” (Tillich’s description of God). The normal development of the ego is towards a sense of its own viability as an individual in the world, but there is always an urge (usually unconscious) to restore the link with its origin. This primal urge is not intellectual, though we may try to couch it in intellectual terms.

3 Poirot writes: << As Squeers so eloquently pointed out above, the concept, the recipe and its ingestion are "all" made sense of via our immersion in the symbolic order. >> You seem to be taking the “symbolic order” as synonymous with language. If so, then following from my preceding point I suggest that both the urge to ingest and the ego’s awareness of that urge can operate outside of the “symbolic order”. This would apply to both biological and spiritual ingestion.

I'm doing this in a bit of a rush, so I hope it's clear.

>> What a waste of a good toast: a toast is meant to be eaten, not to be viewed. <<

Thanks for nothing, Yuyutsu. I see trying to make a point about how religion influences what we see as well as what we may believe is completely lost on you.

pureo/..""If we are God,""

this might be this symbolic symbiology to symbulls
to which you refer..but simply speaking we arnt god
anymore than my computer can claim to be electrick spirit
[which dosnt refute that it need's electicity to make it function]

symbols are like nouns
when gods essence/wholly spirit
is a facilitator..[add verb]..that makes the moun an adjective
a mexchanism that sustains reality to be precieved..as if being real

""then in our present state of material being
we have been given an awareness of that materiality
and we employ symbolism to deal with it.""

we love having symbols..[maybe im missing things looking for signs]
thus missing the ammasment..that live is able to 'live'

i suppose is we must deal with real;ity with symbols
then the un-reality will need its symbols as well

[or maybe im missing the relitive symbology..
that makes a living good into a symbolic vile
or the living essence into a symbol or a sign]

""My question is,
if you dispose of symbolism in your quest to define God
,what is the use of logic..to help one along the road of individual spiritual progress?""

we arnt here to progress
we are here to learn awarness[outside of our selves]

think of us
only knowing our own inner good
and missing the rest of all that good[god]..is

""Shouldn't we just "be"?""

there is no shouldnt or should with god

we can chose to be and let be
or chose to not be..and not let others 'be'

but either way...without god animating life to living
we are missing the cause of all causes...
judging sin as sign
or sign as sin

depending on the meaning we have given to the symbol
or accorded value to a mere sign[symptom]
beyond cause

""Poirot's point,I think,
is that symbols(language-""
words/signs abstracted values
that have been accorded relevance/meaning

Thanks Crabsy, - will get back to you later.

Ammonite,
You make a perceptive point in that what is embedded in our cultural experience of reality plays itself out in our dreams and visions.
I remember seeing a drawing of someone's idea of "UFO's" executed centuries ago - and there, sailing through the skies were galleons.

""-our symbolic order)precede all conception""

so the symbols ..ccorded to god
preceeds all conceptions..of god?

the cross...dont represent..god
it represents the christ..[the highest human incantation]
sorry..incarnation,..

but even the christ..is hardly unique
as having died..on the cross

[it only symbilises god's messengers sufferance]
as in..the xtian verson of god's will
[ie a man made replacement]..symbolised into obsurity

a fish/sign..symbolises a fish
to say a fish means god..is to get lost
in symbolic obsessive fixed definitives..[fixated absolutes.].where/as the true good..is omnipresent..infinite..*

in all..for all
not..*of all

""inner..sensory experience)
into the given..symbolic order,

i.e...that cultural system*..of symbolic meaning
which always already precedes..the individual's advent in the world.""

GOD PRECEEDS ALL

""You are not master of your conceptions
or your imaginings,or your epiphanies,""

we dont even 'create them
only chose..to give them reality..[or not]

""or even your..merely sense/perception
of this stupid,flat,objective reality so the theory goes).""

every naming thing[noun ]
has in our minds..got assosiated with it
our life experiences and mind memories of it

[ie the smell's taste's/look feel/meaning..of the 'thing'

these might be
these symbols to which your refering..
but they are hardly flat..or stupid..or objective...
or even fully subjective..

""All these "mediated" phenomena"'

i prefer meditated...[digested...conditional ceertainties]
that help define the qualities..we are symbolising

""are made sense of..via the symbolic order
into which you..are indoctrinated.""

god isnt able..to be symbolised
he is all in all..

not yesterday..not tomorrow
as much as the reality..he sustains to be..right here/now

""Whoever cares to scoff..at the the idea
are welcome to offer a cogent rebuttal-""

think of it like a quark
in two places..at the same moment
thus not specificly...a definitive one..[ie one valid quark]

""-but please no more arcane "knowledge"!

and explain the symbolism..of what symbol
symbolises egsactly/definitivly..specificly what...?

[egsactly/consistantly/definitivly]

""We are culturally constructed,
mind,body and soul...This is merely logical.""

sure
but culture obsesses..at symbolic..as hidden/secret...
but god has no secret..he is..what he allways was

[meanings accorded to symbols can change]

god is unchangably perfect..as pure/good/loving,..today
as he will be tomorrow..

as he was yesterday

[but yet even more
miss understood..by being more than any sign/symbol]