Yes, I agree that distinction is quite important, and one I deliberately left it out of my definition (because, inclusiveness and all).
1. When "Megatheism" goes from being mere philosophy and gets intermingled with religion, we know the common habit is for the religious sect in question to equate their god with the abstract, impersonal concept of Godhead. JMG likes to call this habit "metaphysical flattery". The human ego seems to have this tendency to want to personalize the impersonal; the human ego also likes to believe they are actually speaking to the manager whenever they make some sort of "important" skyward request or airing of grievances. Galaxy-brain philosophers know better, but once their ideas distill down to regular folk...well, we know what happens. So in practice, the Hypsistarians (like the Abrahamics) were venerating a god even if they believed it was the God they were directing their attention towards. Some inscriptions have shown the name "Zeus Hypsistos" and others have shown invocations to Helios, suggesting Him as a proxy for their big-G. So maybe we get an idea of where exactly their devotional energies were being directed. In sectarian forms of Hinduism we see one version equating Vishnu with Brahman, and other doing the same with Shiva. And then there's even some who do this with Devi. So yeah, in the same of feelgood ecumenism, I'm keeping my "Megatheism" a bit loosey-goosey.
2. I have read several parts of the "Physiocratic Curriculum" series. Very fascinating insights. Tree of Woe has assembled quite the arsenal of ideas and arguments that seem capable of swaying even the most hardened of rationalists toward entertaining the possibility that there is indeed something more out there. I do also relate quite well to his metaphysical eclecticism. I'm going to have to reread Plutarch; I do remember enjoying Moralia quite a bit. Tree of Woe recommended a book on Middle Platonists, which draws a lot from Plutarch; this has become yet another item on my reading list.
no subject
1. When "Megatheism" goes from being mere philosophy and gets intermingled with religion, we know the common habit is for the religious sect in question to equate their god with the abstract, impersonal concept of Godhead. JMG likes to call this habit "metaphysical flattery". The human ego seems to have this tendency to want to personalize the impersonal; the human ego also likes to believe they are actually speaking to the manager whenever they make some sort of "important" skyward request or airing of grievances. Galaxy-brain philosophers know better, but once their ideas distill down to regular folk...well, we know what happens. So in practice, the Hypsistarians (like the Abrahamics) were venerating a god even if they believed it was the God they were directing their attention towards. Some inscriptions have shown the name "Zeus Hypsistos" and others have shown invocations to Helios, suggesting Him as a proxy for their big-G. So maybe we get an idea of where exactly their devotional energies were being directed. In sectarian forms of Hinduism we see one version equating Vishnu with Brahman, and other doing the same with Shiva. And then there's even some who do this with Devi. So yeah, in the same of feelgood ecumenism, I'm keeping my "Megatheism" a bit loosey-goosey.
2. I have read several parts of the "Physiocratic Curriculum" series. Very fascinating insights. Tree of Woe has assembled quite the arsenal of ideas and arguments that seem capable of swaying even the most hardened of rationalists toward entertaining the possibility that there is indeed something more out there. I do also relate quite well to his metaphysical eclecticism. I'm going to have to reread Plutarch; I do remember enjoying Moralia quite a bit. Tree of Woe recommended a book on Middle Platonists, which draws a lot from Plutarch; this has become yet another item on my reading list.