P.S. to my post 231
Thank you!
Regarding granny’s magical mystery tour mentioned above (post 224) – there is no rejection of biological evolutionary theories as applied to plants and non-human species. The dinosaur theories are great.
Please note that there is no denial of science. Instead, there is sincere appreciation for all that science has done in the material and physical realm. -You and your family have my sympathy for the passing of your cousin. All will be in my prayers during my hour of Adoration of the Eucharist on Friday.
Regarding granny’s magical mystery tour mentioned above (post 224) – there is no rejection of biological evolutionary theories as applied to plants and non-human species. The dinosaur theories are great.
Please note that there is no denial of science. Instead, there is sincere appreciation for all that science has done in the material and physical realm. -Granny, thank you for your kind words and your prayers! Barbara was in her eighties (she’s my father’s cousin) and was suffering from dementia, so her death into the life of the new creation was in a sense a blessing, although our extended family is of course sad at her passing. She was a brilliant artist (oils and watercolours) and a convert to Catholicism. I’ll be cantoring for Barbara’s funeral; much to do between now and Friday. Back to the discussions eventually!
Since I can’t seem to send my response to your PM, I’ll just let you know here that I was very interested in hearing your theory explained more fully, and if this forum is not appropriate for it, any other of your choosing would work for me, if you were interested.
HelenaMT, I’ll get back in the swing of things, and send you something. Must spend the day on research and writing!
I really like that anaology. I haven’t come across a better rebuttle to the request for proof in regards of spiritual realities. It’s a keeper. Thank you.
The experience of beauty is very subjective. Some see a beautiful mountain, others see something high to be climbed, dying forests, a place to hunt. I don’t think that the subjective experience of beauty is much of an argument for religion or the soul.
While the experience of beauty is notably subjective, as reflected in the saying "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’. However, there is an objective basis in reality for that which makes a thing beautiful. That basis is the form (eidos) of things. In addition, a philosophical demonstration for the existence of God can be made from the consideration of beauty.
Reincarnation does not appeal to the West because the West’s notion of history differs. Most ancient cultures, east and west, held to a cyclical view of history. With the advent of Christianity history became viewed as linear, that is, Christianity brought in the linear view of history.
Are you saying people today are more demented than their ancestors?
Most people who believe in a soul don’t believe it can override all the body’s physical limitations, and that includes damage to the brain. Unless you identify soul solely as a product of brain activity (in which case, it doesn’t seem to fit most ideas of what a soul is anyway and doesn’t require proof -it’s pretty obvious that brain activity is real), dementia and mental deterioration wouldn’t seem to undermine belief.
But beauty isn’t defined by the response of those who observe it or by things that require a certain intellectual or cultural refinement to see it . It seems like you deny the external objecive reality of beauty but recognize the observers subjective experience of internal similitude. That we respond to it subjectively isn’t as amazing as that it is intelligible. Beauty is a perfection of order. That order is intuited and intelligible. We aren’t able to see the essence of beauty. We see it indirectly in things that are ordered in such a way that make it visible or patterned in such a way that it is recognized.
Pythagoras believed in and taught metempsychosis or reincarnation.
He did. And what would be your point?
Beauty is your idea of ‘perfection’ which you superimpose on the external world. it has nothing to do with what’s really out there. “Beauty” does not exist out there like something waiting until a sufficiently high intelligence or sensibility comes along to appreciate it. Beauty is totally subjective. We hear Bach as the archtype of ordered beauty; others perceive Bach as a cacophony of sound. We endow ‘beauty’ in nature. We see an eagle slowly circling in the sky; it is beautiful–to us. Its prey on the ground don’t see it as beautiful, and the eagle isn’t interested in beauty–it is looking for its dinner. Very few people will agree on what is “beautiful”–one poster, in some discussion on the mass, posted a picture of a very elaborate orthodox altar, which he thought was beautiful. I didn’t see it that way. Telescopic photos of the universe often are thought of as beautiful; i see them as swirling clouds of noxious gases either being swallowed up or swallowing entire galaxies in a icy black universe of unimaginable age and size. A ‘beautiful’ picture but the processes aren’t so pretty.
reincarnation is not alien to western thought.
The point is moot. If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that I spoke of ancient cultures, both east and west, as having cyclical views of history.