Posted on 01/01/2012 5:02:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers
Isn't that a skin rash caused by stress? I think reading these threads is causing me to break out.
All communication, whether words, mathematical symbols including numbers, signs, or whatever, are abstractions representing thought. For that matter, we even think in symbols for our thoughts are either images or subvocal language. Even thoughts of nothing, as in meditation, are images of a blank screen in a soundless environment. Therefore, everything, subjective and objective, abstractions in themselves, is an abstraction.
So, that brings us back to:
The point I was trying to make earlier was that any abstraction the mind subjectively makes rests for its validity on something REAL of which it is the reflection. (Otherwise we may be dealing with psychosis.) An abstraction from or mental image of Reality is tested for its Truth in the degree it corresponds with the objectiveTruth already in-built into the world.
The mind works, according to the latest I have read, through perceiving, organizing into patterns, associating, storing, and then starting over again with new perceptions, organizations and associations, all forming an ever growing data base of "knowledge." We first remember the patterns and associations as we recall things. "New" ideas are just new associations of old ideas.
Our imaginations, just like reading fiction or seeing movies, allow us to increase our database without actually experiencing things in real life. Imagination allows us to learn, or project, vicariously. All of this was organized and set in place by the Logos.
Either we cannot directly experience the Logos, only its abstractions, or conversely, we are always experiencing the Logos because we are immersed in it. You said
It really all comes down to my belief that the LOGOS is "in" the world, and is what "structures" (but does not fully "determine!") the world — from Alpha to Omega and everything in-between.
so I suppose you believe the latter. To me, it is both. We are immersed in Truth and we interact with it in everything we do. Yet, we cannot know the essence of that with which we are interacting. It is too vast and too powerful for us to comprehend except for our right-now, earthly needs. We can comprehend the things being discussed here but there is much more than we will ever know while in this plane. We are individual rooms of ignorance which will be filled with knowledge later.
I have experienced my own mind. I have not experienced my own "soul." I have not seen anything in my human experience that is not accounted for by a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and the phsyical laws of nature. But try to understand. It doesn't mean I am a keen student of biology, chemistry, or physics. It just means that the explanations they offer seem far more likely than anything any religion has offered. But it doesn't tempt me to emerse myself in any of them, which is why I do not argue with the names of great philosophers, and try not get into intricate discussions about logical procedure, scientific method, etc.
I do my best to explain why I think the way I do. I have everything figured out to my own satisfaction. I speak up occasionally on this topic only when atheist-bashing starts, or when people keep pinging me, not when religious people are arguing amongst themselves over the details of their belief systems.
Here, let's parse this. :-)
I do not expect to be viewed as a logician. I have very little interest in science, philosophy, or logic. I am telling you what I have observed and the conclusions I have come to.
<snip>
I have experienced my own mind. I have not experienced my own "soul." I have not seen anything in my human experience that is not accounted for by a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and the phsyical laws of nature. But try to understand. It doesn't mean I am a keen student of biology, chemistry, or physics.
OK -- so without the wherewithal to be a judge of science, philosophy, or logic, you nonetheless accept the conclusions of science as being disposative.
This, without understanding the philosophical underpinnings of science, the logical thought to know when the conclusions are either warranted, or sufficient, or the knowledge of the science itself.
That leaves...belief.
And *there* is your belief system, oh shallow one.
Trivial counterexample to accepting the word of scientists on its own authority:
1) Heliobacter pylori
2) Anthropogenic Global Warming
Cheers!
FOTFLOL!!!!
Fun read ping.
You wrote: “...OK — so without the wherewithal to be a judge of science, philosophy, or logic, you nonetheless accept the conclusions of science as being disposative. This, without understanding the philosophical underpinnings of science, the logical thought to know when the conclusions are either warranted, or sufficient, or the knowledge of the science itself. That leaves...belief. And *there* is your belief system, oh shallow one. ...”
A_Perfect_Lady loves to accuse others of “circular and fallacious reasoning” while obliviously engaging in it herself:
Argument from authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism
Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.
LOL
No, I simply accept science as being a better explanation than religion. It’s rather like being presented with two pictures and being asked, “Which one is better?” You judge one as better than the other, but you don’t have to take either home.
You’ve got something there. My teens and I have heard a song on the radio with the lyrics:
“I’ll be your velcro”
Why not make your own number 1 on the hit parade....
“I’ll be your weirdo”
Here it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXevL7hvpgU
Cheers!
(and the understated vocals with throwaway visual absurdities remind me of David Byrne and "Once in A Lifetime" for some reason...)
Cheers!
Axiomatic: Evident without proof or argument, as in presumptuous sense seen in the premise of liberal elitism which knows best and would reign as if God, or gods, worthy by nature, being led by the devil who seeks God’s position but is unworthy of it.
Liberalism seeks to climb up to authority some other way than what is lawful and right, and would like to shutdown all opposing voices as unnecessary, unwarranted, and hindering their fantasy of a Garden of God without God, and without moral restraints such as the marriage for sexual relations, and their wants and lusts are provided by the government issued Trees. More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2827335/posts?page=34#34
But in reality, someone is paying the bill.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
LOLOL!
To this thread...I embrace and revel in my own weirdness/eccentricity.
And Happy New Year to you as well.
My personal philosophy...Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you've been up to! {;^) anonymous my "pale backside"
Cheers!
Snort! (chuckle)
Quite so, my grey whiskered FRiend!
Outstanding observations, dear grey_whiskers! Thank you so very much!
But if this is "all there is" to it, then it would appear that there can really be no "new ideas," and — worse — no way to avoid the problem of solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.
Without the "reality test" — comparing our subjective thoughts to objective reality — the world "outside" of us — we're just spinning our wheels. Or worse, we'd be psychotic in some degree....
I believe there is direct correspondence between mind and world. To find the correspondence is to conduct a "reality test," which consists of bringing the subjective mind and the objective world into relation. The correspondence "works" because the "objective" (relative to us) Logos is in both.
I'm NOT criticizing your analysis as "false" by any means. Just suggesting that it might be "incomplete."
Bottom line, we do not live in a world of abstractions. If we did, we'd be abstractions, too — not real flesh-and-blood human beings.
Your last paragraph is particularly admirable. And true: For we humans in our mortal existence do "see as if through a glass darkly."
I like the way you think, dear MNR, and so enjoy conversing with you!
Thank you so much for writing!
Indeed. You point to the foundational presupposition of Natural Law Theory here. (On which all of natural science is based.)
It may not take 4 billion years, though, when the random processes are saturated by intelligence. Its my view that, as you begin to see the principles involved, at some point you begin to glimpse the intelligence behind them.
What do we mean when we say that a natural process is "random?" I dunno; it seems to me that "random" is the adjective we use to describe a process that we really don't understand. (Yet.) As such, the word seems to be a kind of fig leaf to cover our ignorance.
But IMHO you are certainly right, dear brother marron, in pointing to intelligence as the source of order in the world.
The problem is, if the world displays intelligent order, then "whose" intelligence is responsible for this? I — a more or less intelligent being — certainly did not make it so. Even the consensus of the entire scientific community cannot make it so....
Of course, there is very strong agreement among many theoretical biologists these days that intelligence (which necessarily implies consciousness) is an evolutionary product of inorganic matter; and so is Life itself. (So also "morality.")
Their problem, however, is such a notion is completely undemonstrable by scientific methods. So they construct the "just-so story" of brute matter having astonishing propensities that are completely undetected upon examination by scientific means. This way, they can preserve the "randomness" of the material world so as to make it fit their presuppositions. But it seems to me the facts of the matter cannot be explained in this way without falsifying Reality itself.
Although it is unfashionable nowadays to say so, I just don't see how the world we have can possibly have come into existence, or "be the way it is" in actuality, without an original Intelligence imposing "guides to the system" according to which the system evolves over time.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your (as ever) sensitive and penetrating essay/post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.