Well said. And all that is why I rail against the idea that the Universe is known by reason alone, or that reason is even an adequate tool for comprehending those more subtle dimensions, while that same reason is essential in parsing the experience of what might be called “beyond the discursive mind” states. One author even postulates “knowledge by Identity” as a way of comprehension, and makes an excellent case for it.
Very nice. When we limit ourselves to only those experiences we can describe and analyze with words and reason, it’s easy to disregard or try to ignore things too subtle or complex or undefinable. But that only gives us a tiny part of the puzzle to look at. And on a vast order. Perhaps the ratio of what we can comprehend with our “focused-mind” tools, to what we can’t – is roughly the ratio of how much volume is taken up by an electron, to the space between them. Oh yeah, of course I mean as measured in their context as particles.
I also like that a lot Alan.
Yes, that is kind of how awareness works. How did that pair of glasses or scissors materialize where they weren’t before? Or how could I not see the solution that is making faces at me trying to get my attention? Or how could I not see what she meant when she said that?
Oh, I see - it’s mentioned half way down as a part of one of the articles… I realise you don’t have the time to concede my point, which the main article, as far as I can see, along with all the others (and your own quoted article, lest we forget) support…
An insinuation so subtle, even I didn’t get it
No, you appear to be interested in winning a point when you can, then getting insulting, misinterpreting replies, and essentially avoiding the point entirely whenever you don’t have an effective argument… not very sportsmanlike, sir! :tsktsk:
Convenient get-out clause but confused, a moving target can’t constitute a definition.
You forgot to answer this. I’m trying to get at why you think your private definition of spiritual beings is relevant to a Christian, or indeed to the thread topic, reality.Who gets to decide on this list, and what does it have to do with Christ or the thread?
Most confused, you used the word empirical then post definitions of science, a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Did you mean science or empirical?
Confused, for instance psychologists deal with personal experiences all the time.
Really. Are you another poster trying to tell this non-Catholic which boxes I must tick to be religious?
Quoting a document doesn’t tell me what you meant, but I’ll assume you agree with it and so by spiritual beings mean people and not supernatural creatures. Which is exactly my view too, for once we agree on something, we are as one, hallelujah.
This is an interesting point, since many are convinced that determinism=fatalism, that is, only one possible outcome from any given set of circumstances. Causality is not a fixed series of events, but mutable, and susceptible to random interference. We don’t - and perhaps can’t - know all the possible variables involved. Our lives are not entirely mapped out from the time of our conception. How many people can look back to a time ten, twenty or thirty years ago and say that they are presently in the position that, back then, they thought they would be? I certainly can’t.We all know we have free will, the whole system of law is founded on it. Only those who confuse determinism with fatalism argue against free will, and it’s never a good idea to listen to the confused.
Complicated, difficult to calculate variables in the end would all each be determined by previous conditions, and even if individuals are part of chains of events affected by random factors, they themselves would only be doing that which they are ‘programmed’ to do, according to determinist philosophy, even if some external factors are random - the impossibility of taking all causes into account would make no difference, would it? Or are *we *presently believed to involve ‘random’ response as part of our decision making processes, which is then interpreted as free will? Or maybe it’s a rather liberally weak determinism you’re advocating, which, if it is, probably isn’t a bad thing!
You are assuming that reality can always be observed by the senses…
… or that these things aren’t part of reality.
Part of the problem with notions of “hard” determinism is that we tend to invest it with the kind of foresight and intention that we exercise (or feel that we exercise). Hence the notion that everything that happens in the future has been determined - as in planned, with knowledge of the outcome - right from the beginning, and the related notion that if we could somehow know all the causes, we could know, without a shadow of doubt, all the outcomes, ruling out possibilities as we go. Not only does this notion erroneously anthropomorphise unconscious natural causation, but it fails to account for both randomness and competing causes. Moreover, superimposing this view upon the concept of human free will invariably excludes entirely human-related causes from the web of events, leading to the insane notion that “we” are simply being carried along on a river of causes over which “we” have no control. As Daniel Dennett said (and I’ve quoted before) if you make yourself small enough, you can externalise almost everything.Complicated, difficult to calculate variables in the end would all each be determined by previous conditions, and even if individuals are part of chains of events affected by random factors, they themselves would only be doing that which they are ‘programmed’ to do, according to determinist philosophy, even if some external factors are random - the impossibility of taking all causes into account would make no difference, would it? Or are *we *presently believed to involve ‘random’ response as part of our decision making processes, which is then interpreted as free will? Or maybe it’s a rather liberally weak determinism you’re advocating, which, if it is, probably isn’t a bad thing!