 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Who Are We? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | | And the only reason I even went here in the first place is because I don't understand how a non-material, non-local, non-essentially-conscious "stuff"--that is obviously autonomously self-sustaining having it's OWN being, I guess--can be the locus capacities for self-relationality? I wanted to find the ontological ground for this.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: And Asher. I'm saying that our "free will" is GIFTED TO US CONTINUALLY by God. It is NOT ours inherently by some self-sustaining created existence inherent to some ontologically autonomous human nature. We are RADICALLY, UTTERLY dependent on God for our ability to self-dispose. Surely, you do not disagree with that.
J: Alan has already claimed he disagrees with CC as you conceive of it precisely because he can't make sense of volition that way. And I understand his point. It's the same problem of CONSCIOUS choice in ZERO time. How is that possible? To choose is to choose CONSCIOUSLY. But that takes some positive amount of time. And staunch CC seems to rule out any period of time for this to occur BY the human chooser.
D: What is Creation's method of ontologically sustaining itself without God's activity, then? Please describe this for me. If it's not God whofor keeps it in existence at every moment, HOW is Creation doing it by and for itself.
J: Again, what is God's "method of ontologically sustaining" Himself? "Please describe this for me." If you don't have to explain that, neither do I have to explain what I don't even believe in. IOW, if describing a method for ontologically sustaining something is a prerequisite for knowing such sustaining occurs, then you have still failed by your own criteria. It does no good to prove God can't exist by your own criteria. This is what I mean by proving too much.
D: The only thing I'm trying to convey the the EM fieldelectricity analogy is radical dependence, I suppose. I'm trying to say that Creation is RADICALLY, UTTERLY dependent on God's willed activity for it's existence...such that it cannot "stand" on it's own apart from that willed activity at any time.
J: I believe in radical dependence on God's willed activity. I just don't posit the kind of activity you do. I say creation depends on true interventional PROVIDENCE to attain its purpose and therefore to be able to COME INTO and CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE. God's providential interaction in the world was ALWAYS a teleological necessity. But what is providential interaction but "willed activity?"
Post Edited (Similitude) : 5/27/2012 4:06:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Alan has already claimed he disagrees with CC as you conceive of it precisely because he can't make sense of volition that way. And I understand his point. It's the same problem of CONSCIOUS choice in ZERO time. How is that possible? To choose is to choose CONSCIOUSLY. But that takes some positive amount of time. And staunch CC seems to rule out any period of time for this to occur BY the human chooser.
I'm glad you brought that up. I was just thinking about that. As I recall, Alan never described what the alternative would be, with respect to Creation's relationship to God. THAT'S what I'd like to hear SOMEONE say.
************************************
Jeff:
[1]Again, what is God's "method of ontologically sustaining" Himself? "Please describe this for me." If you don't have to explain that, neither do I have to explain what I don't even believe in. IOW, if describing a method for ontologically sustaining something is a prerequisite for knowing such sustaining occurs, then you have still failed by your own criteria. It does no good to prove God can't exist by your own criteria. This is what I mean by proving too much.[/1]
Dude, have you even read T&P? I'm asking seriously.
Now, I don't know at all. Some of the things I'm talking about are right in there...and you're acting like you've never heard some of this stuff.
*****************************************
Jeff:
[1]I believe in radical dependence on God's willed activity. I just don't posit the kind of activity you do. I say creation depends on true interventional PROVIDENCE to attain its purpose and therefore to be able to COME INTO and CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE. God's providential interaction in the world was ALWAYS a teleological necessity. But what is providential interaction but "willed activity?"[/1]
I ask AGAIN...have you read T&P fully?
SERIOUSLY.
If you haven't, just say no.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/27/2012 3:40:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: And the only reason I even went here in the first place is because I don't understand how a non-material, non-local, non-essentially-conscious "stuff"--that is obviously autonomously self-sustaining having it's OWN being, I guess--can be the locus capacities for self-relationality? I wanted to find the ontological ground for this.
J: But you also haven't explained HOW any being whatsoever grounds its own continued existence, including God. So what difference does it make? You need to demonstrate HOW at least one being (use God if you want) sustains its own continued existence. I'm not seeing THAT! That's why I say continued existence doesn't REQUIRE a ground/cause. Only changes of STATE do. This still leaves the principle of causality intact without creating mystery that buys us nothing practical.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2012 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | I have not read all of T&P. So much of it is nebulous compared to his other works, I doubt I'll ever justify the time. If you can explain, since you supposedly understand this, HOW any being whatsoever sustains itself in continued existence, we'll be getting somewhere.
You've already admitted that humans HAVE causal capacity--i.e., free-will. If God can "give" a causal capacity to a being, how, even by your view, do you know that, say, material beings don't have the capacity to sustain themselves in continued existence by divine GIFT? You're still not explaining HOW you know what you claim to know.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 5/27/2012 3:58:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/27/2012 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
You seem to think that the specific KIND of radical dependence of creation you posit makes some practical difference. It doesn't.
Not an argument. But something interesting. For what it's worth, the CC variation of reality...is a favorite among pretty much all the mystics. Christian, Sufi, Jewish (Kabbalah, etc), Hindu. For real. Serious as a heart attack.
Example...Bitul.
Bitul is the spiritual state associated with the inner experience of chochmah, whereby one's consciousness opens up to a continuous flow of Divine wisdom and new insight through one's nullifying his sense of autonomous and self-sustained being. Bitul is the experience of ayin, of being nothing within the omnipresent radiance of God's infinite light. In general, there are two identified levels of bitul:
Bitul b'metziut ("existential nullification" ) constitutes the absolute form of bitul whereby one loses all sense of independent existence. This is the state of bitul in the world of Atzilut, whose consciousness, permeated by the supernal level of chochmah (Abba mekanen b'Atzilut), is solely that of God's omnipresence.
Bitul hayesh ("nullification of [one's] somethingness" constitutes a lower form of bitul whereby one is consciously involved in the process of nullifying the outer layer of self (ego). This is accomplished by the concentrated effort to experience the continual recreation of all reality, including oneself, as "something from nothing." This impresses upon one's consciousness that there is no independent reality attached to one's sense of "somethingness." This is the state of bitul present within the three lower worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, while its conscious experience is dependent upon one's Divine service. Divine consciousness in the three lower worlds derives from the chochmah of malchut d'Atzilut, referred to as the lower chochmah, thus giving rise to the lower level of bitul.
Just something interesting.
To the mystics, it makes a significant practical difference.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/27/2012 4:06:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2012 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | We can't make a HUMAN argument for our views EXCEPT in terms of stuff like parsimony or by showing that the denial of one prevents us from explaining what NEEDS to be explained. I'm not the least bit interested in arguing on a forum for non-communal beliefs. Mystics can interpret their experience just like the rest of us. But there are HUMAN modes of inference, etc, and there are sectarian modes of interpretation that the sects find useful for themselves. I'm interested in what we can believe, with warrant, COMMUNALLY.
D: And my choices are about ALIGNING my thoughts and actions WITH THAT WILL!
"Who" said this, "Jeff"? The "I" that says "I did" in your brain?
Get it?
J: No, I don't get it. I've already said that immaterial beings seem, to me, to be non-local (that includes God and angels). And my brain doesn't say things. My vocal chords, etc. do. So I'm not following what you're getting at. Does a "who" equate to a "being" in your mind? You would say no because of your belief about the divine persons. But I can't say that. We're at an impasse. I'm only here to show that SCIENTISTS and PHILOSOPHERS, using HUMAN modes of argumentation, haven't even BEGUN to prove the dualist view false. They're utterly confused. They don't assume CC or even theism in their explanations in all cases. They can't get where they're trying to go starting with an epistemology that can't even account for warranted belief. The problem with academe is that it can only argue persuasively to large audiences INCLUSIVELY. By doing so, they dispose of NECESSARY epistemological elements from the get-go. But it's great for generating income-producing books in the Mars Hill "market."
D: It was Alan who came up with the EM field/electromagnet analogy describing CC...in that same thread you mentioned, Jeff.
J: I disagree with Alan on stuff, too. E.g., he doesn't believe in UR last I remember. I've read stuff by physicists like the late Tom Van Flandern. He made me think about how loose the connection between mathematical equations and substance/attribute explantion can be. There's utility in math equations, but they are not the equivalent of full explanation. There's an interpretation of the equations to make the connection between equations and actual events. And even then, how the events relate to actual beings and causality is another layer of interpretaion. There is a strong movement to assume that variables in equations can be accurately attributed to non-thinkable dimensions, etc. No such thing is knowable. We have to constantly remember how fast and loose physicists are willing to talk to the public. This on top of the fact that physicists aren't in agreement on all these things, either, in the first place.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 5/27/2012 4:49:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2012 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Here's a good example from one of the opening articles:
For example, there is no Cartesian dualistic person, with a mind separate from and independent of the body, sharing exactly the same disembodied transcendent reason with everyone else, and capable of knowing everything about his or her mind simply by self-reflection. Rather, the mind is inherently embodied, reason is shaped by the body, and since most thought is unconscious, the mind cannot be known simply by self-reflection. Empirical study is necessary.
This makes no sense at all.
the mind is inherently embodied
Is my foot embodied? What, vs. dualism, does he mean by "embodied?" Is the mind a subset of the fundamental particles that make up the body? If not, what could he mean by EMbodied?
reason is shaped by the body
No doubt the raw experience that we reason about occurs because our body is a necessary condition OF that experience. But if he means that deduction and analogical reasoning PER SE are different based on body type, then all our logic books are bogus. And if so, there's no way to communicate ANYTHING coherently and intelligibly.
since most thought is unconscious
The data we process inferentially is, without a doubt conditioned by the body. And much of our inferring is done habitually rather than intentionally. But since when is that news to the human race? That has nothing to do with dualism. There's no way to prove that thought occurs unconsciously. Material motion is not thought.
the mind cannot be known simply by self-reflection. Empirical study is necessary
Empirical study can tell us something about more specific brain states that condition certain conscious states. But until we can associate every detail of every conscious state with exactly ONE brain state, empiricism doesn't touch the question of dualism. Can we prove that brain states are sufficient conditions for every kind of mental processing, or do we only know that brain states condition which stored sense data is "presented" to another non-material "processor," IOW? Once you allow, as they do, that thought can be unconscious, they can't possibly prove what they're saying. They can only assert it.
More:
Since reason is shaped by the body, it is not radically free, because the possible human conceptual systems and the possible forms of reason are limited. In addition, once we have learned a conceptual system, it is neurally instantiated in our brains and we are not free to think just anything. Hence, we have no absolute freedom in Kant's sense, no full autonomy. There is no a priori, purely philosophical basis for a universal concept of morality and no transcendent, universal pure reason that could give rise to universal moral laws.
OK:
Since reason is shaped by the body, it is not radically free ...
What dualist ever said it was?
There is no a priori, purely philosophical basis for a universal concept of morality and no transcendent, universal pure reason that could give rise to universal moral laws.
Again, what thoughtful dualist ever thought there was any univeral law for volition other than LOVE others as we love ourself.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 5/28/2012 3:06:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|