Some notes for an essay I intended to, but probably won't, write ... but which I thought some might appreciate, anyway.

The essay would deal with why or why not, when and under what conditions, we would validate or invalidate, emphasize or deemphasize, certain epistemic capacities, describing the knowledge they yield as more versus less compelling. It would focus on making a case for 1) extraneous teleology (not the intrinsic and emergentistic, epiphenomenal variety), 2) for formative causality, and 3) for immateriality and such based on our using each/all of our epistemic capacities. It would assign weights to their different bodies of evidence and defend such assignments using rigorous criteria (criteria yet to be fully defined but certainly employing both correspondence and coherence theories).

Below are the notes. Feel free to contribute a "Do It Yourself" Essay using them Once I looked at these notes and my above-stated goals, I pretty much realized that I didn't have an essay outline but rather a book proposal.

Enjoy.

pax,
jb

1) Wilber's holons consist of the subjective (I), objective (It), intersubjective (We) and interobjective (Its').

2) Clasical epistemology consists of the rationalist (a priori) , empiricist (a posteriori), idealist and realist elements.

3) These elements combine:
a) rationalist and idealist into the kantian scheme.
b) rationalist and realist into the platonic scheme.
c) empiricist and idealist into the humean scheme.
d) empiricist and realist into the aristotelian scheme.

4) These schemes are improved:
a) kantian idealism and relativism critiqued by thomism -----------------------> mysticism (subjective)
b) cartesian dualism and platonism critiqued by thomism ----------------------> metaphysics (interobjective)
c) radical humean phenomenalism and skepticism critiqued by thomism -------> phenomenology (intersubjective)
d) aristotelian scientism critiqued by thomism ---------------------------------> science (objective)

5) These schemes are related:

Metaphysics X Epistemology = Truth + Beauty + Goodness where mysticism, metaphysics, phenomenology and science are epistemic capacities. Further, metaphysics = ontology + cosmology, where ontology = monism or dualism or pluralism.

6) Wilber relates I, We and It to beauty and goodness and truth. They thus exist on both sides of the equation and each epistemic capacity gazes at them transcendently while sharing their natures immanently. IOW, each epistemic capacity reports back its own encounters with beauty and goodness and truth. These capacities thus encounter (in art and morals and science)what they already participate in by their very nature. Very holographic, eh? Also speaks to the issue of connaturality.

7) Keep in mind Maritain's degrees of abstraction, degrees of knowledge, of the mayr/math/metaphysics mnemonic for universals/taxonomy, mathematics and metaphysics and of his dianoetic, ananoetic and perinoetic distinctions. Also, recall the epistemic holism, web of belief, Lakatosian and Popperian perspectives. Forsake the old analytic and synthetic a priori distinctions for a critical rationalism and critical realism and epistemological holism. Remember Brainard's neoplatonic triad of the analogical/anagogical/mystagogical and metaphorical/kataphasis/apophasis/unitive (Eckhart really beat Wittgenstein to the linguistic punch!). Super-reasonable and meta-rational. Natural and revealed theology. The Contemplations. Mystical/infused wisdom.

8) The other correspondences per my own categories vs Wilber:

a) mysticism (subjective) with interior/individual/intentional.
b) metaphysics (interobjective) with exterior/collective/social
c) phenomenology (intersubjective) with interior/collective/cultural
d) science (objective) with exterior/individual/behavioral

9) Wilber's "three value spheres" are:
recognized by an influential number of scholars. They are Sir Karl Popper's three worlds: subjective (I), cultural (WE), and objective (IT). They are Habermas's three validity claims: subjective sincerity (I), intersubjective justness (WE), and objective truth (IT). They are Plato's Beautiful, Good, and True. They even show up in Buddhism as Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha (the I, the It, and the We of the Real)... [And they] showed up in Kant's immensely influential trilogy: Critique of Pure Reason (objective science), Critique of Practical Reason (morals), and Critique of Judgment (aesthetic judgment and art) (Wilber 1999: 75).

10) Some Neo-Thomists actually follow a similiar line of thought regarding the so-called Intuition of Being. They distinguish a simple apprehension of the "essences of things" from an intuition of Being (namely, Actus Essendi or act of existing). The former can be explained in terms of an essential judgment that describes the essence (JB's note: concept vs act) of the object concerned, for example, "This is so-and-so", whereas the latter is to be explained in terms of an existential judgment concerning the act of existing, namely, "This IS". The former judgment presupposes the latter, for the former would be meaningless if we cannot affirm the latter a priori.
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/pe...l/abstract/A008g.htm

11) As B. Lonergan remarks , in his critique of Coreth's original German work(25) under the significant title "Metaphysics as Horizon"(26), for Coreth the basis of transcendental method, applied to any judgment, lies not in the content of the judgment but in its possibility and its functions by reductio ad absurdum;
"The main task of the metaphysician is not to reveal or prove what is new and unknown; it is to give scientific expression to what already is implicitly acknowledged without being explicitly recognized" (27).
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/pe...l/abstract/A008g.htm

Regarding the evidence for the immaterial, obviously we are dealing with indirect evidence and inference. In the domains of metaphysics and science, books like Jack Haught's The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose and Jim Arraj's The Mystery of Matter: Nonlocality, Morphic Resonance, Synchronicity and the Philosophy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas well address these issues. They could be supplemented by discussions of the implications of Godel's Theorem on consciousness (a priori) and also by considerations of nonlinear, nonalgorithmic, noncomputational consciousness and the hard problem, as they call it. There are other bodies of indirect evidence from the phenomenological and scientific/medical study of the paranormal that we have discussed here from time to time: miraculous healings and phenomena, apparitions, OBE, NDE, ADCs - After Death Communications, Energy Healings, Reiki, etc. Also, there is the realm of mysticism which has much to report, including subjective states of awareness, altered states of consciousness, subtle energy flows, kundalini, etc

So, we would take our manifold and varied epistemic capacities and critically examine the bodies of evidence they yield in favor of immateriality with all of its implications, basically making a case to the masses for a catholic and holistic epistemology that is both coherent and compelling to the modern observer, demonstrating a priori and a posteriori reasonableness for the life of faith. Far too many dwell in the a priori alone in making the case for fides et ratio; there is a whole other side to the reasonableness of faith, grounded in the a posteriori, in concrete human experience, albeit its body of evidence is indirect and inferential. This is true for so much of science. This is how we obtain so much of the practical proof that we utilize in life's activities, not empirically demonstrable but providing an indispensable explanatory adequacy (to borrow a phrase from Haught).

pax,
jb

I'll throw this out for any who are interested: Are Biology & Medicine Only Physics? by Hans Peter Durr

An evocative (provocative) excerpt that might interest the Kundalini Forum:

quote:

On the other hand, we had learned
from Amory Lovins that with some intelligence a
hypercar could be constructed that runs more than 300
miles on one gallon; this is fourfold higher than hith-
erto was believed to be the efficiency limit, and some-
thing like eightfold as compared with the mileage of an
average car. So I would be actually surprised if nature
could not performeven better than our engineers. And
there are even indications how nature probably does
achieve this high efficiency goal. A lot of energy can
be saved by the general measure to run so-to-say in a
stand-by mode, except of course during periods of ac-
tual demand and performance. Our laptop with its lim-
ited battery power is a well-known example. This anal-
ogy may appear at first unsatisfactory because it seems
to imply that bigu people should be most of the time in
a highly reduced mental state contrary to their personal
experience, which they describe as highly energetic or
full of qi. This, however, could be resolved by identifying qi not with energy at all but rather with the potentiality or spirit behind, which represents a nonenergetic/immaterial connectedness or information, as it were.
Access to the potential or spiritual "ocean" is highly boosted, as indicated earlier, in statically unstable and
hence highly sensitive states reflecting the energetic,
or better, highly inspired disposition. The inspired
state, as such, does not require any additional energy
input. But to sustain this floating disposition for a lon-
ger period of time, the unstable equilibrium has to be
dynamically stabilized, similar to how our tendency to
fall when standing on only one or the other leg is pre-
vented by our walking movements. A tightrope walker
gives us an excellent example how a long balancing
rod sliding minimally sidewise through the hands can
help maintain balance with a minimum of effort and
energy input.
Describing the example of the bigu to some extent is
not intended to offer a compelling explanation for this
phenomenon-I may be far off-but to convey a
glimpse of the much wider range and scope of ques-
tions that arise along the common borders of different
approaches in experiencing and dealing constructively
with the greater Reality. Hence this is not just an intel-
lectual game, but an attempt to help us obtain a better
orientation for ourselves, to redefine our position and
role in our society on the globe, such as to give us
health and happiness and to secure for the human spe-
cies a possible future. It may perhaps be helpful to
keep in mind that in a holistic world there exists a basic
complementarity between exactness and relevance in
the sense that absolute exactness can only be achieved for the irrelevant , because this necessitates perfect iso-
lation and hence destroys the context, which is
required to judge relevance. On the other hand search-
ing for the relevant requires the courage of openness.
By being open and staying open we sacrifice certainty
and security to some extent, but it allows us to probe
different approaches that not only enrich our experi-
ence but unfold new dimensions because the whole is
more than the sum of the parts.

Good stuff.

This quote reminds me of something: This, however, could be resolved by identifying qi not with energy at all but rather with the potentiality or spirit behind, which represents a nonenergetic/immaterial connectedness or information, as it were.

David Chalmers describes consciousness as possibly having a dual nature whereby he distinguishes awareness (the easy problem) from experience (the hard problem). These correspond to an informational and a phenomenal aspect. All of this is related to discussions of formative causation, implicate order, field theories and such. It is something to think about, especially where intentionality seems to be so very much involved, whether with Reiki, Kundalini and such. There lies a nexus. Elusive perhaps but very much real it seems?

pax,
jb

With the important role of intentionality, with the primacy of intention, such as in Reiki and Kundalini, for instance, this nonenergetic/informational/immaterial conceptualization of qi might fit better with a spirituality that is going to be relational and ultimately personal, I think. Not that there are not devotional elements in some Buddhist strains or in Bhakti Yoga and such but any paradigm that involves both information and intentionality should serve to weaken some of the radically apophatic approaches and unnuanced nondualistic accounts by Christians in their encounters with the East.

Am I making sense? Does this work for any of you?

pax,
jb

quote:

Am I making sense? Does this work for any of you?

They day you start making sense is the day that nothing makes sense.

To me the following is the highly relevant part of all this:

On the other hand searching for the relevant requires the courage of openness.
By being open and staying open we sacrifice certainty and security to some extent, but it allows us to probe different approaches that not only enrich our experience but unfold new dimensions because the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Without an acknowledgment of the unknown, and perhaps the unknowable, we are likely to miss quite a lot. We would be like marionettes who think all the world is a small cardboard stage with funny-looking puppets and Punch-and-Judy hammers that come out of nowhere. We would never see the transparent strings or the audience or that the set itself was just a paper-thin fa�ade.

Considering how people have used uncertainty (religious wars, etc.) to control other people it is no wonder we are afraid of it and tend to cast everything through the eyes of materialism (mixed metaphor, but what the hell). I think we are in danger of screwing with this healthy uncertainty when we institutionalize it too much. I think it's a highly personal thing and as long as these institutions (churches, for example) are bent in this direction of keeping it personal then all is well.

Without an acknowledgment of the unknown, and perhaps the unknowable, we are likely to miss quite a lot.

And here you have set forth the crux. This is precisely what we have under consideration. If we acknowledge that there is truth to be had from our various epistemic capacities and from different degrees of abstraction and knowledge, both a priori and a posteriori, then at what point and under what circumstances do we claim to approach the boundaries between the knowable and the unknowable?

It is this boundary-setting that makes for endless speculation and that levels the philosophical playing field for the ancients and the moderns. It is a boundary-setting exercise when given worldviews invalidate or deemphasize, validate or emphasize, this or that type of knowledge or evidence, or even an entire domain such as metaphysics, on one hand, or on the other extreme, even science. It is a boundary-setting exercise when any given individual finds this or that philosophical argument compelling or, otoh, empty.

So, it is a catholic and holistic approach that validates all of the domains and degrees of knowledge. It does not do this uncritically or without rigorous rules of logic. Any given epistemic capacity approaches or prescinds from this or that type of act or object, not in a willy-nilly fashion, but, in a reasoned manner that recognizes the degrees of abstraction and the modes of sensing, perceiving and intellection proper to each species of object, concept or act.

The philosphical journey has been described (I think by Kant) as proceeding from dogmatism, to skepticism and finally to critique. That is the trick, I believe, to discern a) what we might properly maintain as dogma, b) what we should properly regard with skepticism and c) how we should allow one epistemic capacity to properly critique another. We swim in an ocean of mystery and it can not only sink us but can also float us. If we learn how to float, our next discovery, then, is that we can drink it in without it drowning us. It is thus a good middle path you have described, Brad, I believe, between dogmatism and skepticism.

pax,
jb

JB, I think you are once again approaching a kind of opus magnus, and I'm not sure how helpful our little group here can be. Although I've read quite a bit of philosophy and theology, I don't begin to approach the familiarity with which you and Arraj have with this discipline. I'm not even well-read enough to comment intelligently on many of the points you raise.

I can comment on a few, however:

If we acknowledge that there is truth to be had from our various epistemic capacities and from different degrees of abstraction and knowledge, both a priori and a posteriori, then at what point and under what circumstances do we claim to approach the boundaries between the knowable and the unknowable?

I have thought about that one, and I think there is a limit to what reason can know and it is proscribed, to a large extent, by what the senses can perceive. Another obvious boundary is the realm of the personal; there's just no predicting what a being with freedom will do. When we put these two together, we begin to grasp something of the impossibility of fully knowing God. We can also appreciate the privileged information that is revelation--what a personal being discloses about itself--and how this is "real knowledge."

The quote you shared about chi and energy is also very interesting. I've often thought that the soul is not an energy at all, but, rather, a formative agent which channels energy. Of course, we are still left with questions concerning the kind of energy chi is; perhaps a highly refined bio-electricity.

The quote you shared about chi and energy is also very interesting. I've often thought that the soul is not an energy at all, but, rather, a formative agent which channels energy. Of course, we are still left with questions concerning the kind of energy chi is; perhaps a highly refined bio-electricity.

Since chi, itself, is undetectable, it, too, might more properly be conceived as not an energy at all, but, rather, a formative agent that channels energy. Perhaps we are dealing with some nexus between ourselves, as intergral created body-souls (matter-forms), and other created immaterial forms, like morphogenetic fields and such, when influencing chi/qi. I say "influencing" chi because, again, as with reiki, there are aspects of qigong that involve meditation, visualization and intentionality, which are all intellectual faculties that precisely involve that aspect of human consciousness that we consider immaterial (and nonlinear, nonalgorithmic, noncomputational and as distinguished from those considered material such as sensation and perception). Also, perhaps the emphasis on breathing exercises in qigong serves to bridge the gap between conscious and unconscious realms of consciousness (similar dynamic in pranayama?)? IOW, I think there are a lot of gaps being closed between the energetic and nonenergetic, material and immaterial, algorithmic consciousness and nonalgorithmic consciousness, body and soul, informational and phenomenal, etc but that they are, of course, not accessible to ordinary empirical methods, which is to say detectable or empirically demonstrable, which is not to say that phenomenologically and statistically we won't eventually get a better grasp on these dynamics. Eventually, one has to believe that the Chinese will employ the more rigorous methodologies (re: qigong) that we use in the West in our clinical trials in the field of complementary and alternative medicine. When this happens, with such an enormous body of experience and evidence as could emerge from such a huge population, our insights into the realm of the formative and informative, as it interacts with the material realm, may increase exponentially. Those energetic aspects of one's experience of chi, in the above scheme, therefore, would be epiphenomenal, not a direct experience of chi, itself, which would be nonenergetc and undetectable. Chi, a created form in the immaterial realm, would be informational and formative, certainly influencing the bio-electric (but how? well certainly highly refined begins to nuance these concepts). Precisely because chi would be immaterial and formative, we would expect some nonlocality and distance healing effects from reiki, for example.

But here is my main thrust. Because we are dealing with intentionality and information, then, radically apophatic and unnuanced nondualistic approaches need to be complemented by kataphatic modalities if we are to properly incorporate what we know about chi into our spiritualities. This places us on the threshold of relationality, which involves the recognition of otherness, though not necessarily the personal. Still, relationality does point toward the personal. So, what I am saying is that this understanding of chi, as I set forth above, if incorporated into our East-West dialogue, has metaphysical implications for spirituality that should lead folks away from any radical apophaticism or facile nondualistic interpretations of our relationship to God, which is most personal. Usually, our apologetic involves mostly western understandings of devotionality that have very few counterparts in the East, save for some Buddhist schools and some Hindu yogic approaches. So, I thought it somewhat novel (perhaps ironic) to use lessons from the East to reinforce kataphatic modalities. And that is the only novelty in my contribution. Assuredly, this is usually spun in the other direction of reinforcing immanent being so the prior hermeneutic that we bring to such considerations won't likely change, hence the weakness in my argument for easterners but maybe some strength for westerners.

Otherwise, I know this stuff is too dense for a forum thread --- but things were slow.

pax,
jb