Posted on 09/17/2003 11:07:29 AM PDT by DittoJed2
That you don't speaks well of you. But 10s of millions of people minding their own business were dispassionately killed in the last century alone. And those ordering the killing claimed they were being rational.
Because that's why I object to rationalism. You can make a very rational case that's what's best for one is something that hurts a whole lot of other people.
There are no absolutes.
What I was pointing out was that the rational can be evil.
Very interesting, Alamo-Girl. I would like to think that, cosmologically speaking, the fifth dimension is something like Grandpierre's universal primary vacuum, which on my reading of him is the universal vacuum field from which all the physical fields (EM, particle, gauge) in the universe emerge and derive their particular form and functions as "daughter fields" of the primary vacuum. Similarly, consciousness, having a field nature itself, could also be a "daughter" field of the primary universal vacuum.
The very interesting issue you raise is the issue of free will, or predestination. Certainly it's clear to me that in 4D, free will is very real. And somehow I doubt this is an "illusion" caused by our living in only 4D of a 5D (or maybe even 5D+) world.
But from the standpoint of the timeless, or of eternity, (which is not how we humans see), human free will perhaps becomes problematical, seen from the human side (that is, from within time and physical nature). An entity completely outside of time, and completely outside the physical totality that we call the universe, would "see" this universe as "finished," complete. Humans simply cannot do this, for we are finite and contained within the universe -- parts of and participants in it.
IOW, God already knows how it all turns out. But we humans don't.
Contingency, time direction, and free will are the stuff of human life. And that's why the choices we make are (paradoxically) so critically important -- not only to ourselves and our families, communities, and societies; but perhaps well beyond that -- to our planet, solar system, galaxy -- perhaps even to the cosmos itself.
In a certain sense God made man His "co-creator." And humans require free will in order to be creators.
RE: the "What Is Man?" proposal: I think I'll just write an essay on Plato's thoughts on this subject for posting in a thread that recapitulates your eight "worldviews," and invite anyone who wants to comment on any one of them, including my Plato essay, to just dive in. And then just post the whole dang thing, and see what we get.
I hate to "invite" people to take on a task that they don't wish to pursue. (I've already had one person graciously decline.)
But if this were a play, and I the director, and I could cast it any way I liked, the dramatis personae would be: You on Christianity, Phaedrus on the mystic, and PatrickHenry on Aristotle. I'd pick Doc Stochastic to do the "QM Illusion" angle; and Right Wing Professor for scientific materialism. HankKerchief would take on Autonomism, OWK Objectivsm.
Well, them would be my casting picks!!! Now let us listen for the "NOs!!!" (Or the silence....) :^)
What do you think, A-G???
Naturalism. Materialism is to naturalism as atheism is to agnosticism.
Huge compliment, bb. Thank you.
Yes, it is, but you gotta do the Sufis and the Buddhists, not just Meister Eckhart.
Stifle, Perfesser.
It sounds like we have a similar sense about higher dimensional dynamics with regard to consciousness. Looking at the 4D as a block, a simple act of kindness or meanness may have a reach far into the future which cannot be known to us in the 4D worldview but is instantly apparent in the higher dimension!
I like your idea for the “What is man?” discussion! And I thank you so very much for suggesting me to field the Christian worldview. I humbly accept the challenge.
I assume we’ll wait to hear from the others to see if we have a “deal” first, but would you care to author the base article for the discussion?
I know, dear Phaedrus. So does that mean you'll take the gig?
p.s.: To Lurkers and other fair-minded people:
"Mystic" and "mysticism" today generally denote an ill-reputed line of inquiry in our society. Yet I'll bet anybody practically anything, that you will not find mysticism confined to any particular cultural tradition, or even just a few.
Culture reflects the collective psyche of real, existing, historical people. And such people are free to consider the "balance of power" that exists in their own particular society in the relations of physis (the "physical") in dynamic communion with psyche (soul, spirit).
Mystics just naturally seem to come down on the "spirit side" of that split.
So to say that mysticism is a "bad thing" is simultaneously to impugn such traditions as: the Jewish Kaballah, Platonic speculation, the Christian Dispensation, and even modern secular humanism.
The modern, "enlightened" projects seems to require that such inquiries are quite futile. Don't even try.
Thus the substance of human existence has deliberately been left without a leg to stand on.
My understanding of mysticism is as a "paradigm shift" of attention to the spiritual side of human existence -- and experience. That shift of focus does not deny the material basis of human life, nor the material world and its "just claims" in any way.
The beauty of mysticism is that it can conceptualize things in human life which are critically well worth noting that cannot be expressed in material terms. In fact, mysticism specializes in just this eternal endeavor.
Then I guess you get to compare notes with the scientists. :^)
Who aren't necessarily the clueless lot they sometimes appear to be, in my suspicion. :^P
I know, dear Phaedrus. So does that mean you'll take the gig?
p.s.: To Lurkers and other fair-minded people:
"Mystic" and "mysticism" today generally denote an ill-reputed line of inquiry in our society. Yet I'll bet anybody practically anything, that you will not find mysticism confined to any particular cultural tradition, or even just a few.
Culture reflects the collective psyche of real, existing, historical people. And such people are free to consider the "balance of power" that exists in their own particular society in the relations of physis (the "physical") in dynamic communion with psyche (soul, spirit).
Mystics just naturally seem to come down on the "spirit side" of that split.
So to say that mysticism is a "bad thing" is simultaneously to impugn such traditions as: the Jewish Kaballah, Platonic speculation, the Christian Dispensation, and even modern secular humanism.
The modern, "enlightened" project seems to require that such inquiries must be adjudged a priori (hopefully with the blessing of what passes for "peer review" these days) quite futile. So don't even go there.
Thus the substance of human existence has deliberately been left without a leg to stand on.
My understanding of mysticism is as a "paradigm shift" of attention to the spiritual side of human existence -- and experience. That shift of focus does not deny the material basis of human life, nor the material world and its "just claims" in any way.
The beauty of mysticism is that it can conceptualize things in human life which are critically well worth noting that cannot be expressed in material terms. In fact, mysticism specializes in just this eternal endeavor.
Then I guess you get to compare notes with the scientists. :^)
Who aren't necessarily the clueless lot they sometimes appear to be, in my suspicion. :^P
Granted. So Professor, does that mean you're gonna take the gig? :^X
Reason, faith, whim. All are evil when the thing a person believes based on any of them is false. Of the three, only one is able to correct its mistakes. The person whose false beliefs are based on faith or whim is doomed to their superstitions forever, unless they choose to use reason.
Hank
Faith is neither a means nor an end. It is a state of existence. It tells me the Darwinian view is false, that we have a purpose and that there is more to existence than what can be measured.
While it's true that I have grave "ozone tendencies", I do try to balance that with a very hands-on, people-oriented, daily occupation, as you know. And I do pretty well at times, it seems to me, offending Atheists and Christians alike here on FR although offending someone is not my intent.
You have paid me a huge compliment -- and have asked me to undertake a huge endeavor -- but I hesitate for several reasons, one of which is that it IS a huge endeavor. Rather than flatly decline your request, however, I will refer you to a sometime poster here on FR for whom I have very high regard: pariah. He is brilliant, eloquent, and may be willing to "fill your category" if available and so inclined.
The beauty of mysticism is that it can conceptualize things in human life which are critically well worth noting that cannot be expressed in material terms. In fact, mysticism specializes in just this eternal endeavor.
Well and beautifully said, bb. I do believe you could fill your own category if you chose to do so.
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.