Do intellectual visions have qualia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronnie_bonigli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itsjustdave1988 said:
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 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.
Click to expand...
My reply, FWIW, is that no created being, regardless of which side of heaven they’re on, has the capacity to “see” God, because He’ll always be infinitely superior to them. The vision is a gift and your quotation of 1Cor 2:9 is right on the money.
 
The question is good, but . . . may I amend it, somewhat.
  • Can intellectual visions have qualia?
  • Must intellectual visions have qualia?
Clearly, an intellectual vision can have qualia.
However, the obligation for need of it is less discernable. The answer may be in the mootness of the question, given the probability of no need not have it.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
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 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.
Click to expand...
I didn’t invent the field of “Mystical Theology”, it’s been around well over a thousand years with a definition of Intellectual Vision, see the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent newadvent.org/cathen/15477a.htm

Aquinas was a great man, but just a man and not infallible in every single word he ever wrote. Btw, here’s something interesting about Aquinas. As many know Aquinas never did finish his Summa Theologica, towards the end of his life, on December 6, 1273 while attending Mass Aquinas fell into a profound mystical rapture. Later when urged by Chrurch officials on continue his work on the Summa, Aquinas responded back while referencing that mystical experience “I can do no more; such things have been revealed to me that all I have written seems as straw”.
 
Curious_Seed said:
The question is good, but . . . may I amend it, somewhat.
  • Can intellectual visions have qualia?
  • Must intellectual visions have qualia?
Clearly, an intellectual vision can have qualia.
However, the obligation for need of it is less discernable. The answer may be in the mootness of the question, given the probability of no need not have it.
Click to expand...
violets

peace
 
Below is what St. Teresa of Avila had to say about intellectual visions:

"It may happen that, while the soul is not in the least expecting Him to be about to grant it this favour, which it has never thought it can possibly deserve, it is conscious that Jesus Christ Our Lord is near to it, though it cannot see Him either with the eyes of the body or with those of the soul. This (I do not know why) is called an intellectual vision. I saw a person to whom God had granted this favour. . . At first that person was greatly perturbed, for she could not understand what the vision was, not having seen anything. She realized with such certainty that it was Jesus Christ Our Lord Who had revealed Himself to her in that way that she could not doubt it . . .

Being frightend about this vision (for it is not like an imaginary vision, which is quickly gone, but lasts for many days–sometimes for more than a year), she went off to her confessor in a state of great perturbation.
If you see nothing," he asked her, ‘how do you know it is Our Lord?’ Then he told her to tell him what His face was like. She replied that she did not know, that she had seen no face . . . what she did know was that it was He Who was speaking to her and that it was no fancy . . . "

(taken from Interior Castle, Chapter VIII by St. Teresa of Avila, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers.

The vision presented no bodily form but a mere presence which Teresa understood to be Our Lord because there is a superior knowledge that doesn’t proceed from the senses but is infused knowledged “poured” directly into the soul by God. Therefore, qualia does not apply in intellectual visions.
 
4Horsemen said:
Below is what St. Teresa of Avila had to say about intellectual visions:

"It may happen that, while the soul is not in the least expecting Him to be about to grant it this favour, which it has never thought it can possibly deserve, it is conscious that Jesus Christ Our Lord is near to it, though it cannot see Him either with the eyes of the body or with those of the soul. This (I do not know why) is called an intellectual vision. I saw a person to whom God had granted this favour. . . At first that person was greatly perturbed, for she could not understand what the vision was, not having seen anything. She realized with such certainty that it was Jesus Christ Our Lord Who had revealed Himself to her in that way that she could not doubt it . . .

Being frightend about this vision (for it is not like an imaginary vision, which is quickly gone, but lasts for many days–sometimes for more than a year), she went off to her confessor in a state of great perturbation.
If you see nothing," he asked her, ‘how do you know it is Our Lord?’ Then he told her to tell him what His face was like. She replied that she did not know, that she had seen no face . . . what she did know was that it was He Who was speaking to her and that it was no fancy . . . "

(taken from Interior Castle, Chapter VIII by St. Teresa of Avila, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers.

The vision presented no bodily form but a mere presence which Teresa understood to be Our Lord because there is a superior knowledge that doesn’t proceed from the senses but is infused knowledged “poured” directly into the soul by God. Therefore, qualia does not apply in intellectual visions.
Click to expand...
btw, that “person to whom God had granted this favour” was herself. When she wrote *Interior Castle *it was while her earlier book The Life of Teresa of Jesus, was in the hands of the Spanish Inquisition being investigated for possible heresies, because of her discriptions of her own visions and mystical revelations. So when her superior P. Jeronimo Gracian pushed for her to write another book (which became Interior Castle), it was with the understanding that she wouldn’t say these things happened to herself and thus stay out of the wrath of the Inquisition. :cool:
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
btw, that “person to whom God had granted this favour” was herself. When she wrote *Interior Castle *it was while her earlier book The Life of Teresa of Jesus, was in the hands of the Spanish Inquisition being investigated for possible heresies, because of her discriptions of her own visions and mystical revelations. So when her superior P. Jeronimo Gracian pushed for her to write another book (which became Interior Castle), it was with the understanding that she wouldn’t say these things happened to herself and thus stay out of the wrath of the Inquisition. :cool:
Click to expand...
Also, Interior Castle is probably the most notable of St. Teresa’s books because of its elegant simplicity. It expresses her deep experiences in the spiritual life and shows her to be a gifted teacher with the task given by Our Lord to guide all of us to spiritual perfection. She exhorts us to follow this path in the search for ultimate spiritual reality and gets into concepts like self-knowledge, humility, detachment, suffering, etc . . . expressing the sublime in language we can understand. Few souls, I would think, make it to the innermost chamber where is to be found “complete transfiguration” and union with God. There is so much more to be said about this book, which I read a dozen or so years ago. 👍
 
4Horsemen said:
Below is what St. Teresa of Avila had to say about intellectual visions:

"It may happen that, while the soul is not in the least expecting Him to be about to grant it this favour, which it has never thought it can possibly deserve, it is conscious that Jesus Christ Our Lord is near to it, though it cannot see Him either with the eyes of the body or with those of the soul. This (I do not know why) is called an intellectual vision. I saw a person to whom God had granted this favour. . . At first that person was greatly perturbed, for she could not understand what the vision was, not having seen anything. She realized with such certainty that it was Jesus Christ Our Lord Who had revealed Himself to her in that way that she could not doubt it . . .

Being frightend about this vision (for it is not like an imaginary vision, which is quickly gone, but lasts for many days–sometimes for more than a year), she went off to her confessor in a state of great perturbation.
If you see nothing," he asked her, ‘how do you know it is Our Lord?’ Then he told her to tell him what His face was like. She replied that she did not know, that she had seen no face . . . what she did know was that it was He Who was speaking to her and that it was no fancy . . . "

(taken from Interior Castle, Chapter VIII by St. Teresa of Avila, translated and edited by E. Allison Peers.

The vision presented no bodily form but a mere presence which Teresa understood to be Our Lord because there is a superior knowledge that doesn’t proceed from the senses but is infused knowledged “poured” directly into the soul by God. Therefore, qualia does not apply in intellectual visions.
Click to expand...
Only in your example. There are others.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml

peace
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I didn’t invent the field of “Mystical Theology”, it’s been around well over a thousand years with a definition of Intellectual Vision, see the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent newadvent.org/cathen/15477a.htm

Aquinas was a great man, but just a man and not infallible in every single word he ever wrote. Btw, here’s something interesting about Aquinas. As many know Aquinas never did finish his Summa Theologica, towards the end of his life, on December 6, 1273 while attending Mass Aquinas fell into a profound mystical rapture. Later when urged by Chrurch officials on continue his work on the Summa, Aquinas responded back while referencing that mystical experience “I can do no more; such things have been revealed to me that all I have written seems as straw”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m familiar with that encyclopedia article, which BTW is no more infallible than the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Nonetheless, I’m not yet convinced that artilce is in conflict with St. Thomas’ philosophical explanation of how the human intellect comes to know what it knows. In fact, the article seems rather to depend upon St. Thomas’ writings.

I cite St. Thomas, a doctor of the Church, merely to give assurance that what I’ve stated on the matter is not contrary to Catholic theology or mysticism, but in fact derives from it. Many of the wonderful mystics, to include St. Teresa of Avila, were in fact Thomist in their theology. St. Thomas provides for us “a model of the right way to do theology.” (Venerable Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 43)

Also, I rely heavily on St. Thomas, not because I think he’s infallible, but because of all the theologians I’ve read, he doesn’t seem overly concerned about being “original” but instead humbly sought to think with the Church, frequently citing the Scriptures and early Church fathers. Likewise, I hope never to assert an “original” theology, but instead seek to understand and explain the teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

The Magisterium, BTW, while not canonizing or making the philosophy of St. Thomas binding upon all the faithful, has strongly indorsed his philosophy, stating that it would be difficult to understand the teachings of the magisterium without a basic understanding of chief principles of St. Thomas’ philosophy.

According to Pope St. Pius X:
“The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church” [Pope St. Pius X, *Doctoris Angelici, 29 Jun 1914)
That is not to say that everything written by St. Thomas is “foundational” toward understanding the teachings proposed by the Magisterium. But this is a pretty incredible indorsement. It is similar to saying that while God does not indorse Greek Philosophy, since the Bible was written in an era when Judaism and indeed much of the world had a stongly Hellenistic philosophical worldview, then in order to better understand Holy Writ we ought to attempt to interpret it according to the worldview and philosophical language of the early centuries before and after the advent of Christ, which was indeed Greek in its orientation.

Well before St. Pius X, Pope Innocent VI wrote of Thomas’ teaching:
“His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” [Sermo de* S. Thoma., cited by Leo XII, Aeterni Patris, 21)
Servant of God, Pope Paul VI likewise wrote:
“[St. Thomas’] works are the main foundation on which all Christian teaching in the Church, then and now, can firmly rest and safely grow.” (Paul VI, Lumen Ecclesiae, 13)
I seek to think with the Church, and so I seek to better understand the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, who presented that “perennial philosophy” derived from Scripture and Tradition, which is so foundational to understanding the teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
 
I agree with Fhansen. God is NOT an object, and therefore cannot be seen from the standpoint of subject/object awareness the state we very ordinarily walk around in and as.

@Ronnie B: I’ve often used that line from Aquinas to attempt to indicate to literalists and primarily dogmatic religious folk that there is something beyond canonical “knowledge” which in my estimation amounts to book learning, not spirituality. I also have to wonder why Thomists seem not to use his work in the light of this final standpoint of the author. He was indeed ready to burn everything! And I am currently reading Castle because my interest was so highly piqued by her poetry which as I said somewhere else, had me in tears and laughter. It grieves me that some of her magnificent work is lost to us.

@Hazcompat: Of course it is a Grace. But does not our attribute of free will aid in the direction of receptivity? Did not Avila and Aquinas delve and question deeply and with great vigor? You can’t say that they weren’t there for the experience ans were willing and cooperative. Sure, here have been spectacular awakening in those hard of heart. Absolute Grace. But why would one discount willing participation? What if Aquinas had that vision because he worked so bloody hard to form a vessel of receptivity? I know Jesus said “The Father doeth the Work,” but if we, having desire of adoring God, don’t do the do as best we know, what then? So in my book, making an effort, vision or not is an accomplishment, especially in the face of the industrial ontology of today.

And it is no small feat to go through the fear she spoke of. Talk about an attack on one’s sanity! For all my railing about the fundamental importance of reason, here’s a test that put it on the ground of trusting the Invisible and reasoning from THAT premise.

These people are my heroes and heroines. If I have a fault on here it is that I vehemently argue in favor of the evidence that shows that such visions as these are a) not specific only to Catholics, and b) that due to cultural necessity these vision have been explicated in other ways that yet on examination prove them to be astonishingly similar, even if not in a context of Catholic exegesis. A further "fault"if you will, is that I argue that these kinds and qualities of experience are in a realm well beyond that of acquired, taught, reasoned, or dogmatized practice in that they are an interior discover by whatever means, and thereby owned in a vastly different way than an intellectually catechized paradigm. And that hold whether the one graced is of the RC school or not. And there needs to be respect for that and some form of dialog about this fundamentally crucial matter.

The secular world is goring to, or is, hell in a hand basket. If there is any hope for us, it is the revival (how blessed Protestant, hahaha!) of the acknowledgment and practice of an inner transformative life. And that has to freed from the legalistics of dogma battles and seen for what it actually is: relationship with God in the most profound, deepest way possible, independen of the trappings of linguistics that foster separation, while using those same limited tools to come to agreements.

End of rant.
 
Btw, just to be clear, I’m not casting aspersions on Saint Aquinas or his writings, he was obviously a giant in catholic thought, but while he was a Doctor of the Church, so were both Teresa and John of the Cross, mainly for their contributions on mystical theology. The beauty of the Church is it’s variety in it’s saints and Doctors. 😉
 
Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988
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 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 do not believe interior intellectual visions are the BEATIFIC VISION. The soul and body would not remain united in the unveiled presence of GOD.

peace
 
Ranklyfrank said:
@Ronnie B: I’ve often used that line from Aquinas to attempt to indicate to literalists and primarily dogmatic religious folk that there is something beyond canonical “knowledge” which in my estimation amounts to book learning, not spirituality. I also have to wonder why Thomists seem not to use his work in the light of this final standpoint of the author. He was indeed ready to burn everything! And I am currently reading Castle because my interest was so highly piqued by her poetry which as I said somewhere else, had me in tears and laughter. It grieves me that some of her magnificent work is lost to us.
.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it, keep reading and keep searching.
 
Ranklyfrank said
“@Hazcompat: Of course it is a Grace. But does not our attribute of free will aid in the direction of receptivity? Did not Avila and Aquinas delve and question deeply and with great vigor? You can’t say that they weren’t there for the experience ans were willing and cooperative. Sure, here have been spectacular awakening in those hard of heart. Absolute Grace. But why would one discount willing participation? What if Aquinas had that vision because he worked so bloody hard to form a vessel of receptivity? I know Jesus said “The Father doeth the Work,” but if we, having desire of adoring God, don’t do the do as best we know, what then? So in my book, making an effort, vision or not is an accomplishment, especially in the face of the industrial ontology of today…”

NO! I can say that they did not set out to find what is inconcievable.This is so far beyond the saints merit. Even if they wished it to stop it would/could not.It is from before time began.In my book, making an effort is in the opposite direction.

peace and all good
 
can they have qulia?-yes It is up to the giver.

must they have qulia?- no worship the giver not the gift.

peace
 
hazcompat said:
NO! I can say that they did not set out to find what is inconcievable.This is so far beyond the saints merit. Even if they wished it to stop it would/could not.It is from before time began.In my book, making an effort is in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
By definition one can’t seek the inconceivable as an object, except we have a word for it: God. And God being defined as the highest all encompassing Good, Love, etc, wouldn’t someone believing that seek? And then what is free will about? I don’t see your point. While we can’t conceive what God or the Beatific Vision IS, or even an intellectual sans qualia vision, are you recommending we sit back and let God throw us posies of sainthood? I don’t get it. What you are saying sounds almost sola fide. Please explain.
 
Ranklyfrank said:
By definition one can’t seek the inconceivable as an object, except we have a word for it: God. And God being defined as the highest all encompassing Good, Love, etc, wouldn’t someone believing that seek? And then what is free will about? I don’t see your point. While we can’t conceive what God or the Beatific Vision IS, or even an intellectual sans qualia vision, are you recommending we sit back and let God throw us posies of sainthood? I don’t get it. What you are saying sounds almost sola fide. Please explain.
Click to expand...
This vision can be given to those opposed to faith. Sola Fide? Faith is perishable. Free will is about love. Insincere love? I hope you will see the Beatific Vision. I’m saying they did not strive for the gift. We are all created for(and seek) the giver not the gift. How did we get from qualia to sola fide?

peace
 
hazcompat said:
… I do not believe interior intellectual visions are the BEATIFIC VISION. The soul and body would not remain united in the unveiled presence of GOD.
Click to expand...
Nor do I.

My point was to distinguish between the operation of the intellect in this life, as distinct from the operation of the intellect in the heavenly presence of God. I don’t think that the operation remains the same.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that in the state of separation from the soul and body at death, there is a change of mode or manner in the operation of intellect (cf. Summa Theologica, I, 89). He asserted that, in this life, our intellect derives understanding through the use of what he called “phantasms” (sense-images of material things presented in the imagination).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top