(Part 2) Top products from r/pantheism

> So I'm actually writing a book that contains a chapter on pantheism. Can you point me towards the sources that include those quotes about open individualism or other porminent pantheist sources you think I should know about? But I do love that open individualism thing and I agree that it is inherently an idea of spiritual connection. I'll look more into that.

Well, here's his book. And another book that's super expensive and so i don't own but which is the main textbook for open individualism. Schrodinger's book is pretty good though, even though he admits tat his book is more of an explanation than an argument. And then the third link is a link to schopenhauer's works, edited by the person who made the main open individualism textbook. Schopenhauer was apparently an open individualist too.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918024307?keywords=schrodinger&qid=1450233393&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Am-You-Metaphysical-Foundations-Synthese/dp/1402029993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454939417&sr=8-1&keywords=I+Am+You%3A+The+Metaphysical+Foundations+for+Global+Ethics

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=kolak+world+will

And if you want other good books here's the best process theism book and an encycopedia page that sums up some of its basic themes.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/

http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Relativity-Social-Conception-Lectures/dp/0300028806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457655151&sr=8-1&keywords=a+social+conception+of+god

And if you want another slightly different book there's paul tillich's book. Which is basically a christian pantheism. Though the system isn't inherently christian. But it shows you how he made it christian. Since it involves symbols to make sense of things you necessarily can only use symbols for.

http://www.amazon.com/Tillich-Guide-Perplexed-Guides/dp/0567032914/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457598040&sr=8-1&keywords=Tillich%3A+A+Guide+for+the+Perplexed

And here's a book by fechner, who while he did mention pantheism a bit its more about life and death and identity. But still definitely worth reading. He's considered the anti-schopenhauer, since he has a super positive mentality, whereas Schopenhauer was super depressed.

http://www.amazon.com/little-book-life-after-death-ebook/dp/B00N52L19Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454362314&sr=8-1&keywords=fechner+life+death#reader_B00N52L19Y

And one more. A book I haven't read, but its an anthology from a lot of the big names.

http://www.amazon.com/Whom-Live-Move-Have-Being/dp/0802809782/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454026430&sr=1-6&keywords=panentheism

panpsychism is also useful. This book details how prevalent it was in history up to modern day.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262693518/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1PA5HM0MRCFT0

And this last paper isn't necessarily pantheist per say, but its related, being about group minds.

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140721.htm

>I would say that sentience isn't a requirement for meaningful god concepts,

Well, I'd say so too, but it helps to have something more coherent to express to people. I was just giving an example that helps explain to skeptics why you're not just using the word god haphazardly.

> but isn't that reasoning that I see popular on this sub especially a fallacy of composition? Or are you just saying "there exists some consciousness in the Universe"? The implication can be taken the wrong way if you aren't that specific.

The point here isn't that this makes it analogous to a person. That's why I said you need to stress that it doesn't mean its independently sentient. But that if there's no metaphysical barriers between people, then the primary "identity" "is" the social organism of the individual discrete egoes that exist in it. I mean... I'm bad at explaining. That's kind of vague. But it makes sense when you compare open individualism to closed individualism. And in fact, schrodinger went a step further than this even. He implied that the consciousness was necessarily a type of unity that was divided in the same way a crystal reflects one thing into a lot of images. And so while you're not talking about an independently sentient entity, you are arguing that consciousness in reality has a level of unity. (He may have also been a panpsychist, but he doesn't explicitly say.) Since everything is connected, not in a meaningless way, but in a tangible albeit abstract way.

I guess a good example, would be like imagine if you physically had one neuron that transferred information between your and someone else's brain. There are twins conjoined at the head who can actually read eachother's thoughts. So overlap of identity obviously exists in some sense. Here its saying that all identity exists within the same global identity. There's no barriers, but its obviously far apart enough that you aren't directly experiencing as you what goes on in someone else's brain.