i assume that the equation of relativity theory to matters theological operates by associations grouped around the term "energy", yes?
a autobio moment: i work in improvisational music, which is all about the focussing of what is called energy for a lack of a better term. the explanations for this kind of work tend to run toward metaphysics simply because it involves modes of functioning that otherwise have no available coherent vocabulary built around them. from the outset, this verbal slippage made me uncomfortable, for a host of reasons that started with not corresponding to how i understood what was going on to trivializing the whole undertaking by quarantining it in a peculiar social space. i do not think religious terminologies either stage or explain much of anything, either about what happens in this type of performance space, or more generally about questions pertaining to "energy"---what they do is recapitulate the extent to which these matters have been marginalized by western philosophy since the late 18th century (only to be occaisionally recuperated by fascists here and there under doctrines of vitalism, etc.)--that this happens points more to the limtiations of that phiosophical tradition than they do to the necessary link between this kind of matter and religious discourse/patterns of thought.
so my answer to something of what lebell posted at the outset:
Quote:
|
Since our thoughts are manifestations of this matter/energy in the form of electrical impulses dancing among neurons and are thus energy itself, is it unreasonable to posit a being for whom the organization and self awareness exists but without have to have been condensed to a matter state?
|
within religious discourse, it is not unreasonable.
but that discourse is itself unnecessary
so it is not necessary that thinking about this kind of question run you in this direction.