Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Enlightenment and Christian SpiritualityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality | Login/Join |
Replying to a few notes by JB . . . Apophasis and kataphasis are moreso laws like gravity. We all do both either consciously or unconsciously. We can try to resist or assist their movements, to be sure, but our brains will inexorably alternate between these modes of consciousness inasmuch as that is how we are wired. Would you say some more about this wiring? I'm not sure what you mean, here: attentiveness through the cerebral cortex versus the deeper parts of the brain? One mode can predominate and that depends mostly on our formative cultural milieus and sometimes on severe asceticisms. I would add grace as well . . . e.g., infused contemplation. Also, personality types seems more disposed to one or the other. Those who experience changes in their predominant mode of consciousness via the ascetical route are usually in for quite a bit of psychological vertigo, which definitely will affect one's spiritual inclinations and temperament. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but am profoundly grateful to those who have made the journey, however awares or unawares, purposeful or inadvertent! Ditto. Even those who move from kataphatic Christian prayer to infused contemplation can expect to undergo significant psychological re-adjustments. I don't think Christianity is the only normative route to an authentic devotional* apophaticism. I think one can get there via philosophical contemplation and natural theology, or via certain Eastern pathways. In saying that Christian spirituality is essentially relational, I wasn't meaning to suggest that it's the only relational spirituality. I was noting this in the context of the four questions/points I had reflected on briefly. So, yes, it's worth noting that there are other devotional pathways that also move into apophatic experiences, at times. Hinduism, in particular, shows an abundance of examples. JB, could you give us an example of this from philosophical/natural theology traditions? It has seemed to me that natural theology most often finds its way to affirming the divine as Personal and relational when it is undertaken in the light of divine revelation. Without this context, how often do philosophers or natural theologians really come to an affirmation of the divine that moves them to devotional expression? I think this must be rare, as they would probably be suspicious of worshiping an entity projected from their own conceptualization. We do enough of this kind of thing already within a revelation tradition anyway!  What, then, is truly distinctive, both normatively and ontologically, about Christianity? Well, for starters ... . . . Jesus!  | ||||
|
Rich discussion, but I don't understand a lot of the terms being used. I do know from my experience that zen practice took me in a different direction from centering prayer so that I became more interested in what zen masters said than the bible. I think some of these meditation practices are more suited for Buddhism and others more suited for Christianity. I had to get straight with myself about where I stood with Jesus and it was my beliefs in the truth of Christianity that moved me from zen and eastern paths. It was my mind's attunement with what I come to understand as truth that set me straight. Phil's wonderful Daily Spiritual Seed newsletter had a great quote about this from CS Lewis yesterday: "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods." I think that also applies to changing experiences as well. Without the conviction of reason, I don't see how faith is possible. | ||||
|
I see we (I and Phil) cross-posted yesterday and my post left at the end of page 2 unseen. I re-post it again. Phil, you raised very important questions. For those of us who have Christian background is not difficult to understand the teachings intellectually. These questions are basics and I learned them when I was a kid in Church. Nevertheless, I didn�t have the insight to understand the essence of the teaching and their deep meanings prior to the mystical process I�m in today. God is beyond our conditioned mind. In several of your posts you alluded God can enter in this closed conditioned mind, right? I don�t really understand how it is possible. In my understanding it is normal that the conditioned mind creates its image of God and believe it is real God. This belief makes the mind limited to its own image. It is my belief that an open and receptive mind is a necessary condition to reach God. My question is how can closed and conditioned mind reach God? Another important question I have in my mind is if exoteric tradition provides an instrument to unclose the mind? I know principally exoteric is aimed to "unclose mind" implicitly. But when we see practically, not principally, many people are lagging behind despite many years exoteric practise. Why? is it because exoteric lacks explicit instruction? | ||||
|
This can be more broadly understood in terms of the distinction between our two major autonomic subsystems, which your biological training labeled as sympathetic and parasympathetic, which is also better described nowadays in terms of ergotrophic and trophotropic. More specifically, though, the locus is the brain's amygdala, which is translating sensory experiences into emotions. Newberg says that his two-year study of the brains of people engaged in Buddhist meditation provides "mounting evidence" that sensations of calm, unity, and transcendence correspond to increased activity in the brain's frontal lobes (behind the forehead) and decreased activity in the parietal lobes at the top-rear of the head. Andy is a very decent chap according to acquaintences we have in common, though I've not met him. This all relates directly to OBE's, bliss, visions, deja vu as well as more directly to our topic at hand: "the abolition of any discrete boundaries between beings, by the absence of a sense of time-flow, and by the elimination of the self-other dichotomy." See Neurosciences International Network re: the work of Andy Newberg for more info. For a most extensive treatment of these two modes of consciousness, see my analysis of prayer and consciousness from the OLD Shalomplace discussion boards. It's really good pax, jb | ||||
|
A few years ago I saw brainscans of monks in Newsweek showing the different areas lit up from meditation. They ran them right from meditation into the machine. I know I have experienced this myself and it is wonderful  My question is, "Is this in all cases wise?" I have had the experience of being all blissed out and having my guard down and people coming in through my boundaries and hurting me  There have also been times when violent persons have been calmed in my presence, so it can work in both ways, but sometimes I would like to have my guard up when I need it, or the People's Liberation Army might scoop me up and relocate me somewhere outside Tibet. caritas, mm <*))))>< | ||||
|
Douglas Groothuis provides the following criteria necessary for any classical montheism, which can also be affirmed by natural theology: 1. There is only one God (not many) who is 2. Knowable through some means (not ineffable) 3. Personal, possessing a moral disposition, reflective self-awareness, and capacity for volitional agency (not impersonal) 4. Worthy of adoration, devotion, and worship (not indifferent) 5. Distinct from the world (not pantheistically or monistically identical with it) and 6. Continuously involved in it (not deistically detached). Groothuis writes of Pascal: Such a God may be a divine mathematician, but not much more. Pascal goes on to say: "The Christian's God does not consist merely of a God who is the author of mathematical truths and the order of the elements."[iii] This "God," Pascal avers, is too abstract and too impersonal to be a compelling object of spiritual consecration. . Groothuis goes on, however, in an interesting discussion here to claim: "A close scrutiny of Pascal's arguments will, I believe, help disclose the inadequacies of his objection." For those interested in this from an interreligious dialogical perspective, I recommend: The Real and It's Personae and Impersonae, where John Hick writes: I would think that, since few people are brought up with no formal religious formation, a philosophical contemplation, alone, leading to devotional expression would indeed be rare. Of course, you have baited me into revealing my love for Jacques Maritain and Raissa Oumansoff Maritain, the story of their journey told by Jim Arraj at Mysticism, Metaphysics and Maritain - Chapter One - Philosophical Contemplation. Simone Weil would be another example. She writes: How can we distinguish the imaginary from the real in the spiritual realm? We must prefer real hell to an imaginary paradise. �Simone Weil (Gravity and Grace, p. 47) Thomas J. McFarlane comments, in Love & Knowledge: Two Paths to the One : And this comes full circle back to what I think y'all are trying to focus on, despite my divergences and peripatetics: The paths are many, but the goal is one. -Rumi Other examples would be found chiefly among the existential philosophers and others who were theistic but with no formal tradition. Perhaps this is becoming more common nowadays in certain New Age approaches, those that grow more out of a philosophy of nature vs other more cultic approaches. There was a fairly sizable strain of belief systems that were moreso philosophically grounded that came up in 19th Century America, including the transcendentalists (Emerson & Thoreau) and universalists and unitarians. I'd imagine that those in the West who didn't get fully indoctrinated or inculturated into the Abrahamic denominations or who grew up in secular humanistic households but who then embraced some of the nontheistic forms of the Eastern traditions, especially the apophatic, might also eventually come to a devotional stance toward the Divine of some sort moreso, so to speak, philosophically. The closer such adherents move toward a deism, the less relational and personal their God concept, which I suppose brings out a good distinction insofar as their expressions are not necessarily, by virtue of that alone, any less devotional or devoid of great affectivity. In my personal experience, in the same way that I alternate between apophasis and kataphasis, I experience a very strong sense of devotional-relational-affective leaning toward the personal God of my natural theology that, however colored by my prior cultural and religious conditioning, is very much buoyed by my philosophical ruminations and wonderment and with no clear conscious connection to the devotional elements of the distinctly Catholic aspect of my prayer life. In times of existential angst or doubt over the years, much akin to what the Little Flower describes in her latter years albeit within the faith, philosophical contemplation and an intuition of being have led me back to relational-devotional-affective experience of God sans any benefit of the explicit orientation to the revealed aspect of my faith, not to discount unconscious and early formative influences. How robust a devotional approach might be can surely vary even for believers within the revealed traditions but I personally sense a real false dichotomizing between love, on one hand, and knowledge, otoh, that just doesn't wash at all in my experience. These are distinctions, sometimes, that only serve toward the end of uniting and not, rather, setting apart. pax, jb p.s. RE: All that one can say is that these concepts, which have their use in relation to human experience, do not apply, even analogically, to the Real an sich. I'd have to think about that. It doesn't square w/ my natural theology re: analogy of being, but I think he must be talking strictly about the Divine Essence here. p.p.s. RE: Love and Knowledge are not only compatible with each other, but are in essence inseparable Sound familiar? Aquinas or To know me is to love me.  | ||||
|
mlk212, welcome, and thanks for your sharing. I very much relate to that quote by C.S. Lewis, as there have been many times when my intellectual convictions were what held the rudder of faith in place. May we hear more from you. ---- Grace, I think that the experiences and reflections you've shared during the past few weeks indicate a very apophatic approach to spirituality, with considerable influence from Krishnamurti (I'm reading between the lines, here). Nevertheless, as you've also shared, you had a solid Christian upbringing, so it's quite likely that the conceptual form of Christianity was internalized by you from a very early age; iow, you did have some mythical and intellectual formation in Christianity. That your experience of God is no longer mediated through these symbols, concepts and teachings isn't too surprising, for apophatic Christian contemplatives would say the same. It seems that once one moves into the apophatic realm, the intellect becomes more passive and attention operates from a more intuitive level. Nevertheless, the Christian conceptual infrastructure of consciousness remains, albeit on a more unconscious level, providing a significant influence to the receptivity one brings to prayer and meditation. I think that's probably operative in your situation, to some extent; I wonder if you'd agree? You wrote: In my understanding it is normal that the conditioned mind creates its image of God and believe it is real God. This belief makes the mind limited to its own image. It is my belief that an open and receptive mind is a necessary condition to reach God. My question is how can closed and conditioned mind reach God? It can't reach God, but God can reach it. The movement in the Judeo-Christian tradition is God encountering people in their sinfulness and delusions, and leading them to awakening. There are many, many examples of this in Scripture. So in Christianity, we do not have to raise ourselves to God, we have only to respond to God's constant call to raise us. God encounters us just as we are and where we are, and leads us to the next step, then the next, through people, circumstances, songs, books, and, yes, through the stimulation of thought, imagination, feeling, memory--just anything in our consciousness. There is just nothing in us that is an obstacle to God's self-communication except the closed mind and heart, and even these the Spirit works to open. Responding further, it's true that many believe that their image or concept of God is God. But that's no reason to dismiss theology, as so many Eastern teachers do--as though theology only reinforces this kind of delusional state. I daresy that even as a grade school kid, the good sisters in the Catholic school I attended had made it clear that our ideas of God were not the same as God. Common sense also showed me that my ideas of my mom and dad weren't the real people; that's just common sense. Yet we do relate through a medium of ideas and memories, and would be totally insane without them (which is why certain Eastern practices that de-value the intellect open the door to psycho-pathologies, imo). That's just the way the mind works, so the challenge is not to distrust concepts, but to see them for what they are, and to refine them so that the image on a mental level reality as closely as we can comprehend it. Good theological teaching, then, provides both kataphatic content (for we believe that God has revealed something of GodSelf) while maintaining apophatic qualifications. Johnboy has elaborated about this on this and other threads. There is a zen story about a finger pointing to the moon, and how only the fool keeps looking at the finger once the moon is seen. So true! The problem is that many who hear this story reach the wrong conclusions, imo, going on to devalue concepts as well as those who trade in them. But, consider . . . 1. If the finger wasn't pointing to the moon, we wouldn't know where to look. The mind does have an essential role to play in directing attention. 2. After one sees the moon, the finger doesn't go away. There will be times when, for a wide range of reasons, we quit looking at the moon, or the moon goes behind the clouds, etc. Without a finger or fingers to help us understand this and to help direct our ongoing searching, we will be lost. 3. Even as we look at the moon, the finger of concepts supports our attentiveness by helping the mind consent to our ongoing efforts to attend. The long and short of it is that the mind and its conceptualizing capacity is part of our human nature, is good, and can be of assistance in helping us to find our way to God and to continue in faithfulness to God once we have found Him. Christian spirituality does not denigrate the intellect and concepts the way many eastern pathways do. Many of those eastern pathways are attempting to lead one to a non-dual state, the obstacle to which is the conceptualizing intellect. It seems odd, however, to view the intellect, which is such a basic part of our human nature, as an obstacle to God, which should tell us something about those pathways. In Christian spirituality, we do not view the intellect and concepts as obstacles to God, but we do say that these need to be properly formed and integrated. Obviously, the intellect is over-inflated in some, but I'm afraid its inadequate development is a far greater problem than not, especially in the spiritual life. ---- Whew! JB, I'll reply to your posts later today. Got to get on to a couple of appointments. | ||||
|
re: There is a zen story about a finger pointing to the moon There is also the Buddhist concept of the raft and indeed it makes no sense to either confuse it with the shore or to carry it on one's back through the woods. It would also be folly, however, to think one might not come to another river or two or three ... which is to suggest that you'd better at least recall the tricks of the trade of raft-building and learn how to improve upon your design in preparation for the rapids. If you meet the Buddha on the road, however .... Also, there is C.S. Lewis' concept of bulverism whereby we climb out on an epistemological branch and then saw it off along with our ontological eggs, which are nested in its leaves, which is further akin to climbing onto a hermeneutical roof and then kicking down one's epistemological ladder, something most of us prefer to use upon our return to the ground. Point is, all metaphors eventually collapse and their application requires much qualifying and high nuancing. Good post, Phil. pax, jb | ||||
|
jb, Thank You! I read your posts and follow all the links. Got scrambled eggs 4 brains but somehow through shear brute force + ego + pride I will make you a proud uncle someday 1) have read Maritain's Metaphysics 2) reread chap 1 of Arraj's book 3) got through the preface of Intro to Aquinas 4) e-mailed this whole thread to a leading philosophy professor in Colorado Moses Miamonides -have the book Groothius is the grooviest- been reading him at least 15 years now (jb is an aka and you are published-right?) thought so ! got to go and brush the 29 teeth I have left caritas, (and again, thank you !) mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
Thanks, Phil. There are good, clarifying exchanges here. I've lurked for a long time and will probably go back again since I'm not really comfortable sharing much on a public board. I like your point about God pursuing us. That's very comforting. When I think of eastern practices to become enlightened, I'm reminded of the bible story of the tower of Babylon (it's in Genesis 11: 1-9). The people were trying to work their way up to heaven but were scattered in confusion as a result. That almost happened to me in the eastern practices I pursued. I remember one day at a zen retreat sitting on a cushion, counting my breaths. It was our third sit of the day and the fourth day of the retreat. I felt like I was losing my mind, when I told this to the zen master, he only smiled and nodded, almost like he was glad about it. During this sit, the zen master was making the rounds and he poked me in the back with his stick to remind me to sit up straight. I remember asking myself what any of this had to do with Jesus Christ? It seemed the more I did zazen, the less I wanted to read the bible, pray to Christ, go to Church, or even relate with people. A moment of clarity came and I realized I had taken a wrong turn on my journey, no thanks to Thomas Merton. Merton's writings seemed very positive about zen, so I thought I'd give it a try. Maybe it was helpful to him but it definately wasn't for me. I don't know why any Christian would go that route when we have our own mystical tradition that is much more in line with Christs' message. Just my views on this coming out of my experience. Have you ever seen any Christian turn to an eastern practice and claim it brought them closer to Christ, Phil? I haven't, but I don't know many people who have tried this. | ||||
|
Some of my most pleasurable reading has been that of Stanley Jaki re: the history of science, as well as re: the interface of science and religion, especially re: theoretical physics. Jaki well makes his point that it is no accident that science was stillborn in other great civilizations. Walker Percy similarly writes of Whitehead's assessment:�So much for the relationship between Christianity and science and that fact that, as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West ..." From another angle, we know that even parts of the Eastern traditions draw distinctions between God's immanence and transcendence, between God's ad extra activities (voluntary acts such as creation) and ad intra activities (internal works of the Divine Essence). For those who do accept an analogy of being, while it is true that, in any analogy, the dissimilarities far outnumber any similarities and our kataphatic and metaphorical knowledge of God is minuscule compared to our apophatic affirmations of Her Unknowability, my apologetic has always been that, since God is SO VERY LARGE, our analogical knowledge of His attributes can be quite substantial, greatly significant, to us Its creatures, by way of having tremendous existential import. Still, in recommending the holistic approach, the both-and-ness of Catholic metaphysics and theology, both systematic and mystical, how can we avoid a spiritual jingoism, so to speak, even as we seek to avoid a false irenicism or facile syncretism between otherwise disparate views. Getting science and metaphysics right, as best one can, however fallibilistically, does not guarantee that the Incarnation will not also be, to use Jaki's term, stillborn as doctrines have a tendency to decay into dogmatism , liturgies into ritualism and moral codes into legalism ? Yes, we must be careful in lifting up our values and ascetical approaches as normative for all to follow, for man does not live on bread alone, which can be conceived of in this context as technology and science. The East has a wealth, a veritable abundance, of spiritual technology that can be incorporated into our Western asceticisms and used to enrich and nurture our spiritual transformations in a Christian context. The Middle Path, here, possibly would require us to remain ever faithful to the essentials of Christianity, so to speak, not jettisoning the doctrinal truths (orthodoxies) and metaphysical insights that are time-honored and have proven true in the crucible of long-established practices (orthopraxis), while earnestly and well making use of the spiritual technologies of the East, which needn't be encumbered by any particular doctrinal content. After all, much of Buddhism is doctrine-neutral anyway and more about ascetical disciplines and spiritual living skills. Both the East and West, as civilizations, when taken as wholes, have much to offer one another about the True, the Beautiful and the Good, especially at the level of ascetical practice and spiritual living skills. Apophatacism is an absolutely indispensable critique of kataphaticism and vice versa. from Balthasar and Eckhart: Theological Principles and Catholicity by Cyril O'Regan in thomist.org. pax, jb | ||||
|
Have you ever seen any Christian turn to an eastern practice and claim it brought them closer to Christ Yes, I have (and legions of others) and I would elaborate but I must be off now to chop wood and carry water! However, consider this in the context of my immediately preceding post re: the distinction between spiritual technology and spiritual doctrine. pax, jb | ||||
|
jb is an aka and you are published-right?) johnboy is an endearment gifted me by my late mother-in-law long ago and jb by my children I'm published --- but only at Shalomplace. Phil pays me, though, by allowing me to peel sweet potatoes when I go to Wichita. It gives me that peels-full easy feeling ... | ||||
|
Ugh! Can't believe that last post. He really *should* be published, Michael. You're right about that. ----- mlk, thanks for visiting again, and for sharing your experience. I can see how it would be easy to conclude that zen practice contributes nothing to the Christian journey and have pretty much come to the same conclusion in my own life. Zazen, in particular, seems to be one of those practices that is inherently oriented toward enlightenment and so is very difficult to transplant into a Christian spiritual framework. Yogic asanas are an example of a much smoother transplant, imo. In all fairness to Merton, perhaps we should note, here, that he never did advocate zazen as a practice for Christians and he also carefully distinguished between the kind of consciousness it led to and the Christian contemplative experiences he also knew. His dialogues with D. T. Suzuki make this quite clear. Also, he would have strongly recommended that any Christian becoming involved in an Eastern pathway know their own tradition first and be firmly grounded therein. It sounds like you had enough of the latter to recognize that you were being pulled in a different direction. --- JB, I'm still back up on brain function, wondering if there's much significance in this issue. It's one thing to note how the brain is stimulated in various experiences, but I'm not sure of the spiritual significance. It seems to me that these various patterns of brain stimulation provide the physical grounding for different states of attention, rather than causing them. This means that brain stimulation patterns will probably change as one re-focuses attention in different ways. So I'm still not clear on the significance of all this, unless you're saying that some people are genetically disposed to operate out of a certain part of the brain more than others. --- I'm not sure where Groothius' six points for monotheism (which I like very much) have ever arisen as a development of natural theology independent of illumination by an authentic monotheistic tradition. Maritain and others saw the possibilities and reasonableness of such a theology, but it's hard to ignore the shadow of St. Thomas and others, looming over their shoulders as they pursued their philosophical work. As you know from your dialogues with philosophers, reason often leads people to very different conclusions than the ones reached by Groothius, often monistic ones. And when it comes to the Trinity (which was a pivotal point in one of my posts for anchoring a relational spirituality), you can forget it: natural theology has never found its way there. Anyhow . . . a good wealth of substantive reflection for anyone with more than an uncommonly strong interest in these matters! | ||||
|
Newberg notes the problematic in discerning what is correlative vs what is causative. My own take is that, as would be with the soul, for instance, the interaction is two-way. Certainly, genetic AND epigenetic influences are important, too. The significance, to me, is that, through ascetism, one can partially rewire oneself to a more or less perduring nondual state of awareness, either accidentally or on purpose. The Maritains didn't just see the possibilities, they experienced them --- coming back from the brink of suicide, even. The problem with revealed theologies is that there are SO many of them and a well reasoned natural theology can really help one normatively sort through and eliminate many of them. Besides, most of humanity just adopts whatever religion they were born with, never self-critiquing or deliberating through critical thinking. Then, so many that do bolt their religion of origin are engaing in reactionary theology, not good critical thinking there either. Revealed theology thus has no particular epistemic virtue over natural theology in leading people to the right conclusions for, as you know, faith and reason are partnered. Revealed theology is clearly not coterminus with natural theology, of course, especially on the Trinity, about Whom one lies when one speaks. I certainly agree that revealed religion precisely gifts us with a more robust relationality in the form of a personal encounter, an intimacy. Further, I only point to the path of philosophical contemplation and natural theology as very real possibilities even if they are not perhaps the best probabilities for engendering devotion. One wonders, however, if philsophical contemplation, like Christianity, has not so much been tried and found wanting rather than not really tried much at all? I've been railing, elsewhere, for two weeks, about the dearth of good critical thinking in politics and religion and moralization.Also, did you catch my nuancing of the words relational vs personal vs devotional and the authentic affectivity that can arise on manifold and diverse pathways? Well, you know I am a champion and defender of implicit faith and transcendental thomism (with corrective critique by Gelpi). I see devoted pathways coupled to dialectical imaginations (apophatic approaches) in places angels fear to tread  I do take your points and accept them as good general norms even as I elaborate on the outliers (I love those people -- you know, if you aren't LIVING on the EDGE, you're probably taking up too much space! pax, jb | ||||
|
Below are my contributions to some exchanges this Spring with some cognitive scientists that I admire (one who spent a week or so w/ the Dalai Lama to teach him evolution). I thought I would have posted that here at SPlace already but cannot see where I did. You don't need to read the whole thing (unless you are registered for credit as a matriculated stooduhnt) but will likely be very interested in what I placed below in BOLD TYPE --- especially on 1) why we don't report back from nondual awareness with much success and 2) how awareness likely evolved such that the nondual state was adapted to "deep puzzle solving" of major life issues and the dual state to ordinary puzzle-solving. *(&^%$ gives us an emergentist account for the inherently dualistic human. It sounds very right-headed to me, especially with its focus on the experience of self. If one task of the human brain is to model reality, and if a complete model of reality includes the brain doing the modeling , then it is to be expected that paradox will be generated, both of the self-referential type and of the infinite set type. The Cartesian Baby is born, who will soon enough open a Cartesian Theater. This infinite loop of self-referentiality is analogous to what different folks call self-nesting. In the plastic container and storage bin business, self-nesting is a feature designed to conserve space, one container fitting neatly inside the next like so many tupperware containers. In mathematics and logic, the property of self-nesting is known as the Dedekind infinite. In the modeling of physical and chemical systems, also in the modeling of atmospheric conditions, models can be made to self-nest, one-way or two-way, for the purpose of enhancing resolution. This can be thought of as a nesting of different electronic sieves that are variously coarser or finer, much like the self-nesting sieves that are used in mining to separate different types of particles. In computer programming, such as in designing webpage counters, self-nesting finds its way into html code. Self-nesting in all of the above situations is deeply analogous to the way our brains model reality, which includes treating ourselves, semantically, both transitively (as objects) and self-reflexively (transitiveness being the logical consequence of self-reflexivity). In The Grammar of Consciousness, Milton Dawes doesn't use the term self-nesting, but he describes such nesting as "words about words, feelings about feelings, ideas about ideas, beliefs about beliefs, interpretations of interpretations, opinions about opinions." Sounds like "critical thinking" to me. He points out that this "nesting" that results from self-reflexivity, that further results in transitiveness (which, again, means treating ourselves as objects), is common both to human consciousness and to human language. In other words, consciousness and language share a grammar. Hmmm. I wonder why? This is not at all counterintuitive for anyone who has trained their "thinking about thinking" by following *&^%$ and %^$#@'s emergentist accounts of human brain evolution. What is counterintuitive, however, and very much so, is a nondualistic account of the human experience of self. How can one best train one's intuition, or should I say re-train, away from Cartesian dualism? The best place to begin, I believe, is to recognize that, while self-nesting may contradict our intuitions, it need not contradict itself, given the proper axioms, whether of math or of logic. A great essay, which I will quote from, can be found at Peter Suber's website at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/infinity.htm Suber writes: Properly understood, the idea of a completed infinity is no longer a problem in mathematics or philosophy. It is perfectly intelligible and coherent. Perhaps it cannot be imagined but it can be conceived; it is not reserved for infinite omniscience, but knowable by finite humanity; it may contradict intuition, but it does not contradict itself. To conceive it adequately we need not enumerate or visualize infinitely many objects, but merely understand self-nesting. We have an actual, positive idea of it, or at least with training we can have one; we are not limited to the idea of finitude and its negation. In fact, it is at least as plausible to think that we understand finitude as the negation of infinitude as the other way around. The world of the infinite is not barred to exploration by the equivalent of sea monsters and tempests; it is barred by the equivalent of motion sickness. The world of the infinite is already open for exploration, but to embark we must unlearn our finitistic intuitions which instill fear and confusion by making some consistent and demonstrable results about the infinite literally counter-intuitive. Exploration itself will create an alternative set of intuitions which make us more susceptible to the feeling which Kant called the sublime. Longer acquaintance will confirm Spinoza's conclusion that the secret of joy is to love something infinite." end of Suber quote It is precisely because of the way that our brains evolved that I cannot prove to you a nondualistic account of consciousness over against a dualistic account (or even an eliminativist accout). For the same reason, I cannot prove that other brains exist (over against solipsism), that my brain can indeed map reality (with varying degrees of resolution and over against a radical skepticism), or that reality presents in such a way that it can even be partially mapped (over against an unmitigated nihilism). However, as I discussed with a good friend, recently, one doesn't need to proceed halfway through the first volume of Principia Mathematica with Whitehead and Russell in order to KNOW that 1+1 = 2; one need only do that in order to PROVE that 1 + 1 =2 (using the proper axioms of course). Our brains are open-ended processors that proceed fallibilistically through alternating conjecture and criticism and thus proceed with ever-increasing logical consistency, internal coherence, external congruence, interdisciplinary consilience and hypothetical consonance, longing for an ever-elusive correspondence with reality. Do we thereby approach, even asymptotically, correspondence with reality? On this issue, we tend to fall out into two camps, one with Chesterton who said that we don't know enough about reality to say that it is unknowable , the other with Haldane who said that reality is not stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine . I suppose there may be some types of dualism that are coherent and consistent enough. There are others, however, that render the realities they are trying to relate unintelligible. It might be useful to abandon those by retraining our intuitions and more vigorously exercising our imaginations. In the study of consciousness, this won't inevitably lead to a radical reductionism even if we positively eschew an ontological dualism. I thus commend &*^%$ and *&^%$'s emergentist account(s) for their creative imaginativeness and well-trained intuitions about our novel semiotic capacities that could well have come from nothing but ... ... all the way up, all the way down, all the way back to Drees' "open space" and Ursula's "sacred depths." Hope I fared better on clarity than brevity. pax, johnboy sylvest JBOY wrote: *&^%$, as always that was well said. The nature of subjectivity is no less of a deep question, neither for this laddie's philosophy of mind nor the next lassie's. For me, what would keep it from being a deux ex machina would not be this or that cognitive scientist's apodictic conclusion; rather, it will be this or that individual's root metaphor, by which I mean metaphysics, however implicit or explicit, tacit or expressed. It thus pretty much depends on whether or not one has exited the metaphysical expressway at the turn to the subject, at the turn to experience, at the turn to community, at the critical turn (the turn to praxis), at the linguistic turn, at the hermeneutical turn (the interpretive turn), at the turn to history and so on and so forth. And I would say that these foundational stances are deeply analogous even if not completely identical with what you are calling higher order abstracted syntheses. And I would agree that their explanatory adequacy waxes and wanes from one discipline to the next and simply observe that all metaphors, however extendable, eventually collapse. I mentioned the nondual experiences of self that have been reported primarily in the Eastern traditions, but which also have deep roots such as in the apophatic mysticism of my own Catholicism and which are becoming much more common in the West. I noted how these experiences of self get variously interpreted, ontologically, quite often transcending metaphysical categories and defying articulation due to their ineffability. I just want to point out that those of us who have experienced nonduality are not being coy in our faltering descriptions of same. Instead, what is happening is that, in the nondualistic experience, the "reality mapper" is not being represented in the brain's model. Without self-awareness, an experiencer of no-self cannot render a paradigmatic account of the ontological puzzle the brain has "solved" in the nondual state. With self-awareness (what we were calling self-reflexivity, which begets transitiveness) there is at least a partial return to duality, by definition, and with that a leaving behind of the experience to be reported on, or, at least, it gets reported on with a weak grammar that should not be unexpected for a nondiscursive brain state. Of course, returning to second order abstractions regarding duality from the nonconceptual realm I discussed, we can still move beyond philosophies of substance, even though Don Gelpi properly criticizes even the Whiteheadian process approach as still too immersed in dualism, essentialism, nominalism and in need of correction by a further turn from experience to community (employing a triadic Piercian metaphysics that amounts to a semiotic realism). My point is that people are making various turns in various ways that transcend the experience of self and, hence, of duality, and that while some of these turns are "only" second order abstractions, some are quite experiential, however ineffable. Well, let me not oversell my critique, but let me offer some food for thought from Jordi Pigem's The Marriage of Science and Sense : We don�t have details about how the cosmos was perceived at the very dawn of human consciousness, but good clues are provided by L�vy-Bruhl�s notion of participation mystique, by our understanding of the participatory nature of perception (Abram 1996) and by our knowledge of the child�s progressive differentiation from the environment (Piaget 1929, Wilber 1986a). From them, we can attribute to a primeval perception of the cosmos very little dualism and very little puzzle-solving capacity. On the other hand, we could argue that if there ever emerges a paradigm that comes as close as possible to solving the really deep puzzles ("what is life?", "what is consciousness?", "how do matter and mind interact?", "what is it all about?") it would also be as close as possible to nonduality (see Loy 1988). It may not be possible to have a paradigm 100% puzzle-solving (there may always be some room for mystery) nor 100% nondualistic (if there is to remain some self-awareness) but we could tentatively situate this "ideal" paradigm around x=95, y=5. Happy Father's Day to all the Dads. I'm off to festivities and then on a camping trip for a few days. My very best, johnboy Jboy wrote: I really like the Dalai Lama's pithy observation inasmuch as I find much value in many of the various metaphysics of consciousness, as different root metaphors that highlight different aspects of the phenomenon. I have thus issued forth with similar applause, as I did for ^*%$ and *(&^%$, for David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, John Searle, Ayn Rand & Peikoff, and even others representing perspectives across the spectrum from Dennett to Dembski. I'm not certain, myself, as to whether or not it is mechanics all the way down but remain wide open to all other possibilities that can be compelling in their own right due to their own consistency and coherence, given their own axioms and premises. This is not to deny that some metaphors collapse sooner than others, depending on the task at hand. While in my own approach, metaphysics doesn't enter in to any formulation of such theological arguments as pertaining to the existence of God, for instance, they can provide some useful analogues for the God-concepts formulated by natural theology and they do foundationally affect the way I approach the normative sciences of logic, aesthetics and ethics, such sciences mediating between phenomenology and metaphysics. [Hence, while I reject any God of the Gaps approach, I have no problem with a Metaphysics of the Gaps approaches.] Still, what one might do with a soul, however it is conceived, from a pragmatic perspective, I agree is very important. And I go further, in agreeing with Don Gelpi (following Peirce), believing that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, which is to say that, if a doctrine when put into practice, operationally, does not lead to both individual and socio-political transformation (Lonergan's conversions, both secular and religious), then the doctrine is inauthentic. At the same time, following the Buddha's path, Right Speech is critically important and so I highly value the struggle to attain the most nearly perfect articulation of truth available. Further, to the extent that I also reject the so-called naturalistic fallacy, to me, it is a false dichotomy to elevate the ought over the is, the normative over the given. For me, to hold both truths would involve the deeper level of being open to the self as maybe physical or maybe nonphysical, even though the second case would require the mounting of indirect evidence. So, overcoming the Cartesian dualism may not be necessary but it may be useful, for interideological dialogue, for at least some of us to earnestly attempt to walk a mile in someone's else's hermeneutical moccasins. Also, for some, it may not be possible. However, for many, many others, by their own reports (bolstered by Andy Newberg's scans?), the nondual experience is commonplace, also perduring. To be sure, the experience may be variously interpreted ontologically (or even considered ineffable and transcending metaphysical categories) but the experience of nonduality is reported as indubitable (by millions over the millenia). Ergo, I'm not willing to extrapolate my experiences to make general claims in this regard. In the meantime, our perspectives remain immersed in paradox, however one chooses to categorize life's contradictions (whether veridical, falsidical, conditional or antinomial), but we hold firmly, nonetheless, to the principle of noncontradiction (along with our rejections of solipsism, radical skepticism and unmitigated nihilism), not because we can prove these positions through formal logic/rational demonstration, but, rather, because pragmatically and empirically our best intuitions re: epistemology work. Problem with intuitions, however, is that our worst ones don't work, sometimes even when run through our best reductio ad absurdum analyses. Moving on can then become a rush to closure, the viral meme that produces both fideism and scientism and other rampant and insidious fundamentalisms. I thus eschew any doctrinal indifferentism or facile syncretisms or false irenicisms between alternate worldviews because both their descriptive and prescriptive takes on reality inform the important things that we do with our hypothetical souls. pax, jb | ||||
|
JB, allow me to pick out only one short sentence out of your prolific contributions above to ask for further clarification. You wrote, The problem with revealed theologies is that there are SO many of them and a well reasoned natural theology can really help one normatively sort through and eliminate many of them. That's really one of the most significant justifications of natural theology that I've ever heard. It almost sounds like if you can do what you're suggesting--basically evaluate the worthiness of religious traditions?--then natural theology holds itself as somehow beyond the fray, functioning in a realm approaching certitude while religious traditions always require a certain amount of faith and doubt. As I'm no nearly so well versed in this discipline as you are, I'm wondering if you could give us an example how natural theology could do what you're suggesting. Also, can you point us to a thread somewhere that summarizes what natural theology affirms with such confidence. The biology I studied years ago certainly didn't leave me inclined to much confidence in theological assertions. | ||||
|
NOTE: Where I have quoted, below, one likely need only look at the BOLD PRINTED TEXT to grab the gist, although others may be interested in a more complete development of certain trains of thought. Most natural theologians approach their "proofs" from a fallibilistic perspective, with their arguments for God's existence demonstrating the reasonableness of belief in this or that God with these or those attributes but not yielding an indubitable rational proof, which ain't to be had. These arguments are then more or less compelling to their audience based on various prephilosophical and philosophical presuppositions of the audience, just like with the apologetics of revealed theologies of the major traditions. Philosophy can thus provide the preambles to faith demonstrating its reasonableness. It can also serve to clarify theological ambiguities. Revealed Theology can provide philosophers with expanded horizons, taking them in directions the unaided human mind could never travel. There is a reciprocity, neither with a singularly privileged epistemic capacity and both in need of normative epistemic virtues. Of course, you already know the place of philosophy and natural law in moral theology and how it complements and clarifies the moral propositions of revealed theology. Think complementary. Philosophy is indeed an autonomous discipline but it is not self sufficient. Theology is also an autonomous discipline. Revealed theology and philosophy differ in their starting points, dealing with different data. Revealed theology, taken as a whole, cannot be self sufficient either; after all, there are too many revealed theologies set over against one another. Faith and reason are not set over against one another, though. They are autonomous but not self-sufficient. 1) Philosophy and natural theology are within the very same fray and not beyond it. 2) Philosophy is not functioning in a realm approaching certitude. As I mentioned elsewhere, ALL metaphysics are fatally flawed and we are always discerning which seems the least pregnant with paradox. 3) Consider this: 4) Consider this from Philosophy and Christian Theology : 5) Consider this, again, from Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. : Finally, consider JPII:
| ||||
|
This Intro to Aquinas is a fun read -- well written by Ralph McInerny : When we looked at the order of learning the philosophical sciences we mentioned that in order to be wise one would have to spend a lot of time acquiring these preliminary sciences in order to do anything like philosophical theology. An enormous background of knowledge in the other disciplines is required. One is growing old as he pursues all those disciplines. But if God exists, that is the truth so important for the lives that we lead that it is a tremendous indication of the divine mercy that we, by way of faith, immediately have that settled for us along with the specific truths of Christianity. The believer doesn't worry about that; he has the conviction of faith. Yes, of course God exists. This enables him to lead his life in the light of that conviction. Whereas Thomas imagined someone saying, maybe when I get to be fifty or some other enormously old age, and I study metaphysics, maybe then I will be able to determine whether or not God exists. What are you supposed to be doing in the meantime? There will be a lot of sociological answers to that. But you can see the problem that Thomas is putting, so to speak, and he is saying: isn't it marvelous that God should have told us not only things that we could not have known about Him apart from His telling us, but also things that we could have known and can know apart from his telling us . What Thomas then suggests is this. If we look at the package, the revelation, we can say generally that it's made up of truths that are mysteries for us. We accept them not because we comprehend them but because their truth is vouched for by God as revealer. But now Thomas is aware of the fact that included in this package of revelations are those truths about God which philosophers once and now and in the future can establish about God . Thomas says although these are believed by the believer, they are unlike the Trinity and the Incarnation. It's not necessary that they be believed. It's wonderful that we've been told these truths as well as the others. But Thomas said: let's distinguish these from the mysteries of faith proper and call these preambles of faith. This enables him to mouth one of his most powerful arguments for the reasonableness of believing the mysteries of faith. That is, the reasonableness of accepting as true what God has told us about himself what we cannot comprehend or determine the truth of those things independently of accepting them on God's word. The reasonableness of this, Thomas argues, can be seen in the fact that some of the things that have been revealed, these preambles of faith, can be known to be true. That God exists, that's there is only one God, that he is intelligent and so forth. And from that we can conclude what? If some of the things that have been revealed can be understood and comprehended and proved, it's reasonable then to think that the other revealed truths, the mysteries, are intelligible in themselves. That doesn't prove they are true, but it shows the reasonableness of accepting them as true. And this for Thomas is an extremely important point, because if there is anything he would dread it is the suggestion that there is something irrational about Christian belief. | ||||
|
From Thomas J. McFarlane's site on the Transcendental Philosophy of Franklin Merrell Wolff, and tying into Asher's comments on a separate but still much-related thread: It occurs to me that what you are grappling with, Asher, re: the distinctions between intuition and other intellectual faculties is maybe moreso related to what Merrell-Wolff calls introception , which is at least analogous to what Maritain called connaturality I recommend reading the entire page as my inclination would be to copy and paste it all here, unable as I am to choose my favorite paragraphs. The answer is connaturality. The answer is Love. The answer is Wisdom. We had a great thread on this earlier this year, called No intuition, no metaphysician , but it really came down to No Love? No faith. . pax, amor jb | ||||
|
You're quite right, Phil, and I didn't mean to come across as blaming Fr. Merton for my pursuit of zen. When I wrote, "no thanks to Thomas Merton," I meant it as a kind of a joke. But it did seem that he found something good in zen so I didn't want to get left out. Maybe I was guilty of spiritual greed, if there's such a thing? In reading through this and some of the other discussions going on about enlightenment and the soul, it's made me wonder if some people are looking to escape from themselves with Eastern practices. If you don't like your self and a teacher claims that no-self is blissful, then you can see the attraction. There's something about all that which seems to be a rejection of our human nature in favor of being an angel, or even of trying to be God. I notice no one commented on my tower of Babel remark, so I guess that didn't click. Maybe I should just shut up now and realize that my experience was just my experience and doesn't say much about what others are doing and what they find. | ||||
|
There is just nothing in us that is an obstacle to God's self-communication except the closed mind and heart, and even these the Spirit works to open. Yes Phil, I agree. Since I have contact with the images of Christ I wouldn't claim I'm 100% in apophatic. Regarding Krishnamurti and his influense in me I don't see K has profound influence in me. When I started my spiritual journey back in 1998 I had already those teachings of K in me before I read him. I was surprised by the similarity of his teachings and my understanding of spirituality when I accedintaly came across to K. However, I differ with him in one basic point . While I believe some kind of help is necessary to unclose the mind he totally negate any help. I don't see exoteric tradition is an obstacle if it is used correctly. There is just nothing in us that is an obstacle to God's self-communication except the closed mind and heart, and even these the Spirit works to open. I totally agree with you here. Closed mind is the main obstacle to reach God or viseversa. | ||||
|
Despite the limitations delineated above, if natural theology could establish 1-6 it would at least narrow the theological field considerably because these divine attributes, if proved, would eliminate pantheism, polytheism, deism, and dualism as metaphysical challengers to theism--even though it would still permit a variety of monotheisms. . . Most promising indeed! They have their work cut out for them, however. But now Thomas is aware of the fact that included in this package of revelations are those truths about God which philosophers once and now and in the future can establish about God. That's also very optimistic. One need only look at the history of philosophy to see that there is nothing close to a consensus among them on these matters, however. While I very much appreciate the work done by those exploring possibilities in the realm of natural theology, what I've been most helped by from them is their affirmation of the reasonableness of religious faith. I say this without wanting to reduce the discipline to a matter of apologetics, however. (We're going a bit astray from the thread topic, methinks. )------- mlk, I think you've probably got a point about some people pursuing no-self because they don't like the self they have. I can see the attraction: "Ah, so that's an illusion anyway! No wonder I'm so miserable! I even think I have a wounded self!" Don't know about the tower of Babel. Maybe it fits for some pursuing enlightenment. I asked a zen master on a retreat I was attending once if Buddhism was a system of self-salvation, and he very enthusiastically answered that it was . . . that there was no savior in Buddhism to deal with my sins . . . that I alone was responsible for removing the shackles binding my spirit. OTOH, the way Christian theology has been used at times--as a piling on of concepts to arrive at a kind of intellectual gnosis of God--well, that can be a kind of Babel as well. What do you think? ------ Grace, it seems that once we work through some of the semantical differences, we're in close accord on how we see things. | ||||
|
One need only look at the history of philosophy to see that there is nothing close to a consensus among them on these matters ah, yes, we are but a pilgrim people for consensus we must turn rather to ... Brad, take it away --------------------> | ||||
|
I really don't know if I am hung up on a myth or not. Thomas Merton seemed to believe the "myth" right up until the end. Thomas Keating seems to have demythologized his faith to a large extent and goes a bit further with this than I am comfortable with. Ken Wilber's growth pattern shows "formless mysticism" a bit further out on the tip of his "x" in development, beyond "diety mysticism" and "nature mysticism." Perhaps I'm not ready to let go of my diety yet. My Wiccan and Indiginous American freinds are a bit "hung up" on their "nature mysticism" from my POV. caritas, mm <*))))>< | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality
] Maritain and others saw the possibilities and reasonableness of such a theology, but it's hard to ignore the shadow of St. Thomas and others, looming over their shoulders as they pursued their philosophical work. As you know from your dialogues with philosophers, reason often leads people to very different conclusions than the ones reached by Groothius, often monistic ones. And when it comes to the Trinity (which was a pivotal point in one of my posts for anchoring a relational spirituality), you can forget it: natural theology has never found its way there.[/qb]