Do intellectual visions have qualia?

[Ranklyfrank]

I must apologise that my contribution was not well put in relation to rarity; to which I meant rarity in the number of visionaries and not the rarity of the number of instances such a soul was in receipt of them.

I agree what you say about ‘not being specific only to members of their tradition’ - for how could I but not agree otherwise.

I do not wish to offend, but in general I do not think you understood fully all that I was saying.

Accepted, of course, I’m not mind reader by a very long shot, and being a guy often need to have it spelled out for me. Could’ve been an opportunity for you to get a bonehead like me up to speed?..

 

[4Horsemen]

Thanks, RB. I have some of her works here and read them. They are next to works by St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Assisi, Meister Echart, St. Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Sienna, and others. I read them often and weep or laugh at their beauty. I am no stranger to Catholic theology. And I am not impressed by “new age” tripe. And it is not “my way.” It is congruent with the method of the Saints mentioned and more, but not necessarily Catholic, and going back to before Jesus.

If you don’t mind my asking . . . you remarked about the works of some great saints, who are also mystics, so you must have noticed that all were Catholic. Not that God hasn’t given supernatural aid and gifts to people who do not know Him in the fullness of faith (which happens to be the Catholic faith established by God Himself).

It was very difficult and traumatic for me to leave the Church. And as I have said another places on here, I do not recommend or advise anyone to leave the Church. That would be foolish. But I do have experience over many years of some ideas that seem to be true regardless of religion. And to me it appears that they are true before one acquires a denominational faith, lacks one, or doesn’t give a hoot. And those ideas are borne out even, as I can best tell, in the Catholic mystics. That is why people of my tradition have a deep and abiding respect and veneration of them.

Would you please explain yourself a bit more? If it was difficult to leave the Church and you don’t recommend it to anyone, why would you do the very thing you don’t recommend?

 

[4Horsemen]

I was going to stay out of this one but thought that I might be able to contribute something. I’ve been given a variety of spiritual experiences but the most profound one, by far, was an intellectual vision. In that experience I was engulfed in the presence of an infinitely superior being, but one almost strangely familiar. The qualia was all around me; it was an infinitely huge, boundless, and unconditional love, along with bottomless kindness and goodness that coincided with it. I can’t explain how love can be known, but it can be-it was nearly tangible-and was exuded by the Being whose presence I was in-as if it was simply His chief attribute and to know Him was to know love. The immediate effect on me was complete and total peace and happiness on a level that cannot be conveyed.

It lasted for a fifteenth of a second or fifteen seconds or a minute or whatever but the effects haven’t dimmed in over 20 years.** I couldn’t remain standing in this presence**. Someone could object that I’ve read the experience through the lens of Christianity but, although I had sought God/Truth most of my life, I certainly wasn’t seeking any such experience-didn’t even know what it was for sure until years later- and the awareness that I had nothing to do with orchestrating it-but that a superior being was doing so- is etched in my mind as indelibly now as it was then-that was simply part of the experience, itself. It was totally a gift-a gift regarding transcendent knowledge that, as far as I know, we can seek for but have absolutely no means of obtaining on our own.

If you don’t mind my asking . . . you said this mystical experience happened over 20 years ago. Were you apart from the Catholic Church? Or did you consider yourself a Catholic? Did this experience draw you closer to the Lord? Deeper into your faith? Do you feel/think it was a calling to reach out and help others find God?

Also, the part in bold where you said you “couldn’t remain standing . . .”, so what did you do?

It sounds like a beautiful experience of God’s special love for you. When we receive such abundant gifts, I think we are called into greater service for His Majesty.

 

[fhansen]

If you don’t mind my asking . . . you said this mystical experience happened over 20 years ago. Were you apart from the Catholic Church? Or did you consider yourself a Catholic? Did this experience draw you closer to the Lord? Deeper into your faith? Do you feel/think it was a calling to reach out and help others find God?

I was apart from the Catholic Church at the time but, unknown to me, being led back to it and yes, I’ve always known that I need to help others with it. But not so much to share the experience itself, which can be problematical depending on the situation, but to share the knowledge of Gods’ love. I teach RCIA and also share my faith wherever the need arises. God has His own ways-far beyond ours. Not sure where He’ll continue to lead me but I know that others have had similar experiences and it often wasn’t until years later that they began to understand it and “use” it more fully. In any case that has been happening for me, little by little-it doesn’t need to be dramatic. I’d sought God for years before this event and it confirmed and deepened the faith I already had. It continues to have its effect on me. I discovered the Catholic mystics relatively recently and that confirmed with even more clarity that I’d found home again.

Also, the part in bold where you said you “couldn’t remain standing . . .”, so what did you do?

I dropped to the ground, hanging off of some pipes in a cattle barn!- in tears of love and joy and gratitude.

It sounds like a beautiful experience of God’s special love for you. When we receive such abundant gifts, I think we are called into greater service for His Majesty.

It wasn’t merely a an experience of His love for me-it was an experience of His LOVE-for all.

 

[JackQ]

here’s a quickie on the three types of visions;
newadvent.org/cathen/15477a.htm

I’m interested in the third kind, Intellectual visions, which are considered the most perfect and closest in kind to the Beatific vision

Say, I think I had the second kind not too long ago. I was praying the rosary one evening, and got a vivid image in my head of the blessed mother. A short time later I saw a picture of a statue of Our Lady of Lepanto that looked almost exactly like what I saw. I almost jumped out of my socks. I have no idea what it means. Is this sort of thing common?

 

[fhansen]

Do you feel/think it was a calling to reach out and help others find God?

I should add that this experience was connected to another person-and to the love I had for her-who was suffering severely from the effects of a world that often abuses its children in awful ways. God apparently wanted to touch and heal her and He did, using me and my love for her in some pretty profound ways over the course of the next several months-it’s a long story. But that was the immediate purpose while the longer-term effects on myself I alluded to in my last post.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Say, I think I had the second kind not too long ago. I was praying the rosary one evening, and got a vivid image in my head of the blessed mother. A short time later I saw a picture of a statue of Our Lady of Lepanto that looked almost exactly like what I saw. I almost jumped out of my socks. I have no idea what it means. Is this sort of thing common?

I didn’t think it was common until I started this thread, now I’m not so sure

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now, that’s a “Hard Problem” aye Mister Chalmers?

But seriously, how is an intellectual vision presented to the intellect directly without anything “seen” with the mind’s eye? Though as I understand it that is also how the Beatific Vision works. So if qualia are “evidence” of a nonmaterial element of consciousness, it sounds like that nonmaterial element will be useless in the life of heaven.

just rambling here but I think there’s a point in all this

I don’t imagine we can have a vision (real or imaginary) that does not in some sense derive from sensory data. For instance, I can have a vision of a unicorn without having ever seen a unicorn, yet the vision is derived from things which do come from sense data.

Think of an angel. What did you see?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I don’t imagine we can have a vision (real or imaginary) that does not in some sense derive from sensory data. For instance, I can have a vision of a unicorn without having ever seen a unicorn, yet the vision is derived from things which do come from sense data.

Think of an angel. What did you see?

For instance, in The Book of Her Life, Teresa of Avila discribes to her confessor an Intellectual vision of Jesus sitting right next to her she had on another occasion. the confessor asks what she saw and she says she saw nothing. Then he asks how she knew it was Jesus that was next to her and she says the vision of him was given directly to her intellect without the use of sensory images and she knew it was him with even more certainty that if she saw an actual corporeal body with her eyes.

 

[fhansen]

For instance, in The Book of Her Life, Teresa of Avila discribes to her confessor an Intellectual vision of Jesus sitting right next to her she had on another occasion. the confessor asks what she saw and she says she saw nothing. Then he asks how she knew it was Jesus that was next to her and she says the vision of him was given directly to her intellect without the use of sensory images and she knew it was him with even more certainty that if she saw an actual corporeal body with her eyes.

That’s the answer. The knowledge is simply infused, bypassing and without need of the senses. But even our sense perception is an intermediate way of knowing. We receive perceptions from the senses but the reception and understanding, itself, is still interior, subjective. Experiencing another person, for instance-the* knowledge* of them-stays with us even after they’ve left us.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For instance, in The Book of Her Life, Teresa of Avila discribes to her confessor her Intellectual vision of Jesus sitting right next to her on another occasion. the confessor asks what she saw and she says she saw nothing. Then he asks how she knew it was Jesus that was next to her and she says the vision of him was given directly to her intellect without the use of sensory images and she knew it was him with even more certainty that if she saw an actual corporeal body with her eyes.

I think what St. Teresa may be describing is the distinction between “infused knowledge” (scientia infusa) and “acquired or experimental knowledge” (sciencia acquisita/sciencia experimentalis). She did not see Jesus through her eyes, but was given a supernatural gift of infused knowledge. Yet, she saw a man (she had seen men through sense data), sitting next to her (she knows what “sitting” is and “being next to” is through sense data).

Like all beliefs, visions of the intellect can be either true or false. Her certitude, I suppose, came from prayerful discernment of the event as compared to reason, experience, and testimony.

Yet, I think that even for such scientia infusa, while it may not have sense data as the direct source, the way in which the mind believes what it sees derives from either a prior synthesis or perhaps later synthesis of sense data during the discernment process.

 

[fhansen]

I think what St. Teresa may be describing is the distinction between “infused knowledge” (scientia infusa) and “acquired or experimental knowledge” (sciencia acquisita/sciencia experimentalis). She did not see Jesus through her eyes, but was given a supernatural gift of infused knowledge. Yet, she saw a man (she had seen men through sense data), sitting next to her (she knows what “sitting” is and “being next to” is through sense data).

Like all beliefs, visions of the intellect can be either true or false. Her certitude, I suppose, came from prayerful discernment of the event as compared to reason, experience, and testimony.

Yet, I think that even for such scientia infusa, while it may not have sense data as the direct source, the way in which the mind believes what it sees derives from either a prior synthesis or perhaps later synthesis of sense data during the discernment process.

God is spirit. The Beatific Vision is “seeing” God. Those mystics who claim to been given a glimpse of God here on earth describe His essence, something that transcends physicality in any case, but to have known Him by that vision with the certainty they know the back of their hand. It cannot be explained, only experienced, because we’re not naturally equipped for it-that’s why it must be infused.

 

[4Horsemen]

I should add that this experience was connected to another person-and to the love I had for her-who was suffering severely from the effects of a world that often abuses its children in awful ways. God apparently wanted to touch and heal her and He did, using me and my love for her in some pretty profound ways over the course of the next several months-it’s a long story. But that was the immediate purpose while the longer-term effects on myself I alluded to in my last post.

Your experience alludes to how God actively works to draw us to Himself, using different circumstances for each individual. He loves each of us with an everlasting love and wants us to return that love. He cries out, "What I want is not your empty service; I want you.

Thanks for sharing. Sometimes it’s hard to express God’s actions in our lives since they are so personal.

Many blessings!

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Yet, I think that even for such scientia infusa, while it may not have sense data as the direct source, the way in which the mind believes what it sees derives from either a prior synthesis or perhaps later synthesis of sense data during the discernment process.

I don’t know that I’d agree that the Intellectual vision relies on a synthesis of previous sense data to understand it. I don’t think we’d say that about the Beatific Vision, which is where the intellect will be in direct contact with God, with no images and ideas based on those images standing between the understanding and God as is the normal way of knowledge for the soul. Maybe intellectual visions are a tiny example, while the soul is on earth, of the direct knowledge of God it will experience in the Beatific Vision.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

God is spirit. The Beatific Vision is “seeing” God. Those mystics who claim to been given a glimpse of God here on earth describe His essence, something that transcends physicality in any case, but to have known Him by that vision with the certainty they know the back of their hand. It cannot be explained, only experienced, because we’re not naturally equipped for it-that’s why it must be infused.

Wow, I swear I didn’t see your post before writing mine. Glad someone else pointed out the Beatific Vision and it’s possible connection to the Intellectual vision’s way of understanding.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

What if it’s already infused as the Soul, and we just don’t see it because we are too gulderned caught up with getting along here and juggling stuff? I mean there must be a reason it says “Be still, and know that I AM God?” And isn’t this where science and religion can hold hands? I know from experience with being hooked to an ECG machine that all my vitals change when in meditation, as do my perceptions. And same with EEG results. But while the machine can tell that something changes, it takes interpretation with the subject to discover what those changes mean. It would be fascinating to have a great deal of study on spiritual states and meditation. So far the results are quite intriguing!

 

[fhansen]

Wow, I swear I didn’t see your post before writing mine. Glad someone else pointed out the Beatific Vision and it’s possible connection to the Intellectual vision’s way of understanding.

Well, you know-great minds and all…

 

[fhansen]

What if it’s already infused as the Soul, and we just don’t see it because we are too gulderned caught up with getting along here and juggling stuff? I mean there must be a reason it says “Be still, and know that I AM God?” And isn’t this where science and religion can hold hands? I know from experience with being hooked to an ECG machine that all my vitals change when in meditation, as do my perceptions. And same with EEG results. But while the machine can tell that something changes, it takes interpretation with the subject to discover what those changes mean. It would be fascinating to have a great deal of study on spiritual states and meditation. So far the results are quite intriguing!

And St Augustine said,** I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within. **
But, although we’re emanations of God in one sense, and “in Him we live, and move, and have our being”, and we know the Spirit is intended to operate within, as Catholics we’ll never see ourselves as identical with Him, more as “partakers”, intended to be “divinized”, as the Church teaches.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

And St Augustine said,** I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within. **
But, although we’re emanations of God in one sense, and “in Him we live, and move, and have our being”, and we know the Spirit is intended to operate within, as Catholics we’ll never see ourselves as identical with Him, more as “partakers”, intended to be “divinized”, as the Church teaches.

I happen to agree with that; but just have to say that as far as I can see that is not the entire dynamic. And yes, I know it is outre, and definitly not for everyone, but “more” is consistent with what I see as “esoteric Chrisitianity.” Anyone else on here read even the introduction to Harry Benjamin’s Basic Self Knowledge?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t know that I’d agree that the Intellectual vision relies on a synthesis of previous sense data to understand it.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “Holy Writ…[puts] forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now ***it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense.” ***(Summa Theologica, I, I, 9). He is speaking here of how we know even spiritual truths in accordance with our human nature.

I don’t think we’d say that about the Beatific Vision, which is where the intellect will be in direct contact with God, with no images and ideas based on those images standing between the understanding and God as is the normal way of knowledge for the soul.

I don’t think it is possible to adequately explain, philosophically, how one can see the Beatific Vision of God. Philosophy is the study of truth through the use of unaided reason. When you begin speaking of the Beatific Vision, you are speaking of something beyond the competence of unaided reason.

In other words, I think with respect to how we will come to know the Beatific Vision of God, we must be content with the answer: “eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).

This side of heaven…

As for whether or not all our knowledge relies upon comparisons to the material world or not, I ask if you’ve ever had a vision in your mind which does not derived its understanding, its context, from the material world? If so, what was it? I’ve never been able to have such a vision. Even in my study of science, we have what is called “dark matter” which actually has no sense perception, but can only be theoretically known according to its effect upon matter. It’s like wind. You can’t visualize it unless you visualize what it does to other things.

I don’t believe human beings, this side of heaven, have the capacity to have a vision apart from the framework or context of sensible objects. We simply cannot conceive of pure “spirit” in our minds without metaphor to something material, or reference to the effect on sensible objects. This is perhaps why angels appear to men in Scripture as men or some other material entity. We don’t know how to have a vision of things non-material, as it seems contrary to our nature.

St. Thomas Aquinas elsewhere described the distinction between how a corporeal being and a non-corporeal (spiritual) being can be said to be “present” in a place. Non-corporeal (spiritual) beings are not “present” in the same manner as we speak of corporeal beings (ie. material bodies) being in a place. Non-corporeal substances are not “contained” by the place they are in, but more correctly said to virtually contain the thing or place by their power.

He then goes on to described how God is present *by the application of his power *per suum effectum (through His effect), and by the application of His power per suum essentiam (through His essence). I don’t think human beings can even visualize “his power” or “his essence” without the context of metaphor to material things, or without the context of what effect this power and essence has on sensible objects. I don’t think it is (currently) part of our nature. Perhaps after death, through the Divine power of God, our nature will also be renewed. But for now, I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas in that all our knowledge is understandable only with reference or comparison to sensible objects.