Extension of Objectivism discussion regarding the soul

Various | Various | Various

[r9etb]

That is, intuition is mind in pre-analytical mode, simply, spontaneously taking in the sense of what it is that surrounds it in the “exterior” world without “constituting” what is received according to pre-existing premises or categories.

I tend to dislike this sort of distinction, which somehow implies that "it" (the mind, in this case) can't be doing both things at the same time -- that the intuitive and geometric can't operate simultaneously and cooperatively.

The first thing I thought of when I saw this, was doing math proofs. It's all very well to have a bunch of axioms and theorems lying around; the next step is to figure out how to arrange them into a proof. I think these correspond to what you've called intutive and geometric, respectively.

The trick to doing proofs, BTW, is to learn to "think math" for the particular branch of math (or logic, or whatever) that you happen to be working on. In essence, it's learning how to marry the intuitive and geometric aspects of the problem.

Now, it's true that "knowing" and "knowing about" are sometimes separable. ("Knowing" in the Biblical sense being a good example.... ;-) But in the case of the Christian experience, I think it's fair to claim that we "know" God even before we "know about" Him. In that sense, we can treat "thinking about God" in the same manner as a mathematical proof -- we're trying to assemble the things we see around us, so that they logically support what we already "know".

[betty boop]

I tend to dislike this sort of distinction, which somehow implies that "it" (the mind, in this case) can't be doing both things at the same time -- that the intuitive and geometric can't operate simultaneously and cooperatively.

I didn't mean to imply this, r9etb. These are Pascal's distinctions; and he says that both coexist in a single mind. In effect, they're just two "operating modes," so to speak, that in a healthy mind operate cooperatively, if not always exactly simultaneously. (That depends on the type of mental work being done.) For Eric Voegelin, this cooperative functioning constitutes the balance of consciousness. In his language, the "finesse mind" is what he calls luminosity; the "geometric mind," intentionality. One gets into trouble by "fixating" on either mode, to the exclusion of the other.

This is so perceptive, r9etb:

...in the case of the Christian experience, I think it's fair to claim that we "know" God even before we "know about" Him. In that sense, we can treat "thinking about God" in the same manner as a mathematical proof -- we're trying to assemble the things we see around us, so that they logically support what we already "know".

I think this is so true. Which has gotten me to wondering whether there really are such things as innate or "seminal ideas," which Plato seemed to believe -- that the mind at birth is not a content-free zone. In Timaeus he suggests that we come into the world knowing all kinds of things; yet at physical birth, the "circuits" of the mind are deranged or disordered, such that we "forget" what we already know. Then we have to spend the rest of our lives trying to recover what has been lost. It's still all "there," although latent. Pretty weird, huh?

Anyhoot, it seems to me that "knowing God" (in contradistinction to knowing "about" God) is virtually instinctive in human nature. But many folks try to repress this knowledge. Or so it seems to me.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the explanation!

Anyhoot, it seems to me that "knowing God" (in contradistinction to knowing "about" God) is virtually instinctive in human nature. But many folks try to repress this knowledge. Or so it seems to me.

It seems that way to me also. Hugs!!!

[betty boop]

Thank you so much for the scriptural passages on perfection, Alamo-Girl. I think what they make clear is that Christ, as divine mediator, is necessary to the perfection of the soul. Perfection isn't given by anything in the natural world, nor can we achieve perfection by means of our own unaided efforts. I don't know whether it is something that can be accomplished while we are in an "incarnated state" -- though perhaps certain saints accomplished it "in this life," by the grace of God. What do you think?

[unspun]

Yes, how we will be granted {complete livability with God}* is a mystery for us indeed, in our present state.
__________________________________________
* I suppose we tend to call that "perfection," which is yet another imperfect and somewhat unfortunate term, since it would misreport itself as something "standalone" and easily seen wrongly, from an egocentric attitude.

[unspun]

And even then, I'd prefer to call it, complete relatability.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your views!

I don't know whether [perfection] is something that can be accomplished while we are in an "incarnated state" -- though perhaps certain saints accomplished it "in this life," by the grace of God. What do you think?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ commands us to be perfect:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:48

He didn’t say to do perfect things or to say perfect things or to think perfect things. That would not even be possible: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. – Romans 3:10-11

I therefore conclude that being perfect, as Christ commands, is something that man cannot do. It is however something that God is, i.e. God is perfect.

Therefore, I conclude that a man can only be perfect by abiding in Him.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. – John 15:4

This brings us back to the debate about willfulness (and is why I pinged unspun.) IMHO, a person cannot abide in Christ without surrendering self-will to His will.

[unspun]

I agree, and it seems when we do, we immediately find that He effectively says, "Thank you, but do keep your will; I have given you what I have given you and want you to allways bring your will to all things along with mine."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I agree, and it seems when we do, we immediately find that He effectively says, "Thank you, but do keep your will; I have given you what I have given you and want you to allways bring your will to all things along with mine."

We each have such marvelous direct experiences in our walk with the Lord and it is always a delight to share them. I do not doubt you at all, but my experience has not been like yours.

With me it has been a dividing of spirit between the new me who never feels apart from Him and is where I (my consciousness) reside - and the old me, the carnal me (the “her” in my previous posts.) I can see her, spiritually speaking, and she is an annoyance and sometimes goads me into doing or saying things I loathe. But usually I can just rebuke her and she withdraws.

So, in my experience, the new me is never outside of Him. Perhaps I am a weaker person than you and He wishes to keep me here for my protection, or perhaps you have a different job to do, a Paul type job, that requires a strong self-will.

Whatever the reason, I know I am where I am supposed to be, I am exceedingly happy - and I do not doubt that you are also born-again and in service to Him in your own arena.

[unspun]

I haven't found the time and concentration to respond yet in the way I've promised. When I do, though, I'll probably talk about the "child in the playground" which is a picture that is brought up by a good pastor, maybe Ted Haggard or Dallas Willard... and I've got to do my work. :-)

I mentioned consequences. Among them good and bad, I'll also try to talk about the spinning of wheels that can be done by seeking and seeking and seeking the Lord, which can lead to passivity and one way or another become idolatrous. All the time, the Lord may be showing us things in which we may become engaged if we only motivated ourselves to in God's approving grace. Henry Blackaby has written about this, in Experiencing God.

I'll try to cite sources or at least refer to the teachers, and of course the Scriptures --but be brief. (Maybe that will even stem a thread in the stodgy "Religion Forum" ;-) And how does one stem a thread, anyway? Is that what happens when you put it into the needle?

[unspun]

Thanks, blessings, likewise. It's the "new me" that we need to apply, since we're the only thing we ever really have to manage (thank God! that's definitely enough!). ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! I look forward to reading it when you have it ready. Hugs!!!

(I don't know what it means to "stem a thread.")

[betty boop]

I suppose we tend to call that "perfection," which is yet another imperfect and somewhat unfortunate term, since it would misreport itself as something "standalone" and easily seen wrongly, from an egocentric attitude.

Very perceptive, brother Arlen. For we are not "standalone egos." We are participants in the community of being: God, man, nature, society. We are in the world, yet not completely of it. And the idea that man or the world is capable of being perfected by man is the very idea that has spawned innumerable inhuman and bloody ideologies.

[unspun]

Yeah, I think I picked up that word "standalone" from you.

[kkindt]

"awareness of our souls leads to an awareness of God's existence"

A young man who was thinking of following Jesus but the young man said he had to go bury his father and Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead" and that the young man should come and follow Him.

WHat think ye of that passage regarding our discussion? Is it possible He meant that there are those who are aware of their souls but are dead to God since they are in need of a new birth and new heart?

[Alamo-Girl]

If you are of a mood to do so, I’d be interested in exploring the body and soul, in death and in the resurrection.

[cornelis]

Lost, yes. Lost in the very garden of Eden, having recognized the voice of God for walking so close. If there was ever an outer court for Gentiles, Nietzsche gained access to the inner sanctum and was near enough to the holy of holies so that he could spit. In other words, he was a Saul never become a Paul. May God have mercy.

[unspun]

A correction, with apologies:

I refered to Dallas Willard as a "pastor." He's actually a Professor of Philosophy at USC and former Director of the School of Philosophy. For all I know though, from the Lord's point of view, he may be a pastor. I haven't read but a snippet by him (a couple of you know me a little by now and are likely unsurprised ;-) but have heard of some his views, which I've found refreshing.

Before long, I may just post an article by him that I've just seen entitled, "The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language.'" Anyone interested?

BTW, have some of you been pinged by Hank Kerchief, to Two Types of People

Please ping me if you post there.

[William Terrell]

Possibly Jesus was refering to tendency in humans to hang back with the old when faced with a new path, to be afraid to go the new way and stay in the comfort of the familiar ways. In other words, let those who have not twigged on the importance of the Christ, stay and bury the old man.

I would think that the young man was gaining awareness of his soul and the expansion in consciousness that came with it, which is why he was pondering following Jesus. I don't think anyone aware of their souls can possibly be dead to God, but I'm no master or messiah.

[unspun]

Have you read Blaise Pascal's Pensées? I'll bet you'd love Pascal.

Well, you can probably guess the answer to that question. I did audit a short class in Pascal once, but I didn't do the lab work (in that computer language). I'm confident I love the guy, though. Thank you for this illuminating post.

Waiting for you to post the Notre Dame's article, and I'd like to post Notable Dallas' piece before long (though I hardly rate as one who should post something "read to... the Boston 1972 meeting of the American Philosophical Association.") Hadn't even taken Algebra by that time. Pretty good at baseball in the back lot, though.