I wonder if the top-down paradigm of emergence, when melded with a concept of god, doesn't provide a tidy answer for consciousness. One can imagine that complex systems (once they acquire the necessary state of complexity) somehow plug into energy or essences that are already there. . .

That's actually kind of Thomistic, certainly in a sense that Teilhard de Chardin and Karl Rahner would applaud. There is even in Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 8, a remark about creation groaning in one giant act of giving birth. In Teilhard's mind, this is evolution striving to produce creatures of increasingly greater complexity so they can experience greater consciousness. The dynamism in the midst of the process he called the Omega Point, which is conceptually close to the Greek idea of Logos and the Christian idea of the Word. So what you have is God striving to be born in the creation, using the lawfulness of created things to explore all the possibilities, but with a trajectory moving through time to greater complexity and consciousness. There are threshholds along the way, breakings-through to qualitatively new modes of consciousness. In Teilhard's view, the Omega Point itself became incarnate in the person of Jesus, and in the risen Christ, now works through the human race and indeed the whold creation to more fully integrate creation into God.

I will say right here that I think consciousness is really God. That would be Pure Consciousness, which would include pure love and pure intelligence. Any defilement of intention and intelligence would diminish consciousness, as we in fact experience all the time. But just think: if our experience of consciousness is, in fact, God, then how true the saying that God is closer to us than we (soul form with intellect and will) are to ourselves. Consciousness is the Sea in which we live and move and have our being. What is disordered is not our consciousness, but the means by which we open to and manifest consciousness--i.e., our intellect and will. Hence, consciousness is refracted by our woundedness and sinfulness to the extent, at times, that some people don't seem very conscious at all. Perhaps that's the "darkness" of which the Gospels speak, and Christ as Light is One in Whom the Awareness that God Is shines forth freely because his will and intellect are perfectly attuned to God--not in an Arian sense (that he somehow developed this through his own effort), but by virtue of his incarnation as the pure Awareness/Omega Point/Word at the heart of creation.

I think of the brain as a kind of "hard drive" with a few instinctual routines hard-wired into its structure. So what's rewriting the programs is the soul, which is inseparable from the brain and is even formed by the lawfulness of the brain and our sensory system. IOW, it's the soul that's the agent of freedom and intelligence, not the brain. The brain just makes the manifestation of soul in space and time possible like a TV makes television waves manifest. That's my very simplified view of this metaphysical situation.

Hey, this gives me an idea. Let's collaborate on a cyber-allegory using computers as a metaphor for consciousness. The setting could even be an Internet discussion board with various personalities and perspectives represented The focal point could be on theosis and how the Incarnation changed things ontologically and such.

Brad: I wonder if the top-down paradigm of emergence, when melded with a concept of god, doesn't provide a tidy answer for consciousness. One can imagine that complex systems (once they acquire the necessary state of complexity) somehow plug into energy or essences that are already there. . .

Phil: That's actually kind of Thomistic

jb: Phil, you beat me to the punch. I was just getting around to the task of posting that that was actually kind of Arrajian Same thing.

That's actually kind of Thomistic, certainly in a sense that Teilhard de Chardin and Karl Rahner would applaud.

Coming from a different angle, where Arraj may be concerned, he'd take us to a consideration of the Mystical Body a la Emile Mersch, which I highly recommend, an approach that is more philosophically rigorous than Teilhard's but certainly analogous to it. One can read Mersch, Teilhard de Chardin & Creation Spirituality here. And, while you're over there, check out: An Interview with Karl Rahner on the State of Catholic Theology Today (and to think that some questioned whether Rahner was truly a Thomist).

I will say right here that I think consciousness is really God. That would be Pure Consciousness, which would include pure love and pure intelligence. Any defilement of intention and intelligence would diminish consciousness, as we in fact experience all the time. But just think: if our experience of consciousness is, in fact, God, then how true the saying that God is closer to us than we (soul form with intellect and will) are to ourselves. Consciousness is the Sea in which we live and move and have our being. What is disordered is not our consciousness, but the means by which we open to and manifest consciousness--i.e., our intellect and will. Hence, consciousness is refracted by our woundedness and sinfulness to the extent, at times, that some people don't seem very conscious at all. Perhaps that's the "darkness" of which the Gospels speak, and Christ as Light is One in Whom the Awareness that God Is shines forth freely because his will and intellect are perfectly attuned to God--not in an Arian sense (that he somehow developed this through his own effort), but by virtue of his incarnation as the pure Awareness/Omega Point/Word at the heart of creation.

This can all make for a very sticky widget, physically, psychologically, metaphysically and theologically. How do we maintain the distinction between immanent being and transcendent being? What about the form of the human soul vs trinitarian life? What about Jesus' human form vs His divine nature? What a conundrum!

Alas, if only we could borrow from Maritain's thomistic metaphysics and jungian psychology and Mersch's theology and even a teilhardian phenomenal vision of human evolution, integrating these concepts and building bridges between the ideas of these spiritual giants

You want an interdisciplinarily consilient and hypothetically consonant and externally congruent take from these thinkers that is logically consistent and internally coherent, that is far more comprehensive than anything else we have discussed regarding the journey from Biology to Consciousness to Morality? that goes a step further to Theistic Spirituality, even a la John of the Cross?

Well, that's just too darned bad

Wait! Wait! Well, won't ya just lookee here, at Arraj's Mind Aflame: The Theological Vision of One of the World'sGreat Theologians: Emile Mersch :

quote:

Chapter 3: The Unity of the Human Race
The Unity of the Universe in Man
Mersch, Teilhard de Chardin and Creation Spirituality
Conclusion 1
All of Humanity is Realized in Every Man
Conclusion 2
Unity of Mankind in the Future
Conclusion 3

Chapter 4: The Human Consciousness of Jesus
Unity: The Human Consciousness of Jesus and the Consciousness of Christians
The Human Consciousness of Jesus in the Rest of The Theology of the Mystical Body
The Human Consciousness of Jesus and the Trinity
The Dynamism of the Human Consciousness of Jesus

Part III: Applications

Chapter 5: Mersch, Maritain and Mystical Theology

What a fortuitous turn of events! (except for poor Brad, who won't finish clicking on all of today's links 'til Valentine's Day)

Seriously, no one needs to read all of this stuff to keep up with this thread but if and when you decide to go deeper, I wanted to give you some place to go.

JB, I don't see the problem of the "sticky widget." I'll acknowledge, however, that my God=Awareness is not derived from a process of reflection--no more, I'm sure than is God=Love/Being/Existence, etc. Same kind of thing, here, only I'm adding Consciousness/Awareness, which mean the same thing to me. I have a very definite sense that this is so, at times, as the awareness I experience does not really "belong" to me. Rather, it seems to be a medium or field in and through which I am "known," and which somehow wants to "see" and experience through me. What I'm calling "me" here is not simply the empirical ego, but my sense of an individual agent of intellect and will. That's what our spiritual form consists of, and it's thus a capacity for imaging/revealing Divine Awareness/Love/Wisdom/Existence. There's no pantheism, here, and I don't think there's anything that goes against what Merch has written.

Sometimes it's just so obvious to me that the Awareness by means of which I see (e.g., am conscious of anything) is transcendent and is looking out at the world through all creatures, seeing itself everywhere it looks. Arraj has called this an enlightenment state, and we know how he treats of that. I also experience a contemplative aspect in that this awareness is definitely benevolent as well. Everything--just everything!--is completely known and cared for in its gaze. If we do not know this as experiential fact, it's because our minds and wills have become recoiled and twisted so that we do not image the Light and Love of God that is everywhere and in all things.

I also see nothing that damages the doctrine of the Trinity in what I'm saying. Christ is the perfect form/medium in and through which our humanity is transformed so we can come to see as he sees and love as he loves. That Love is received and it Flows. There is Christ standing with us, the Transcendent aspect of Awareness/Love/etc. which comes from the unmanifest Father/Creator, and the interior flow of Spirit, joining Father and Son. We stand in this Trinity with Christ; that is our place.

I could go on, but have already written about this at length in many places. I'm not suggesting, here, that what I affirm is beyond fault, only that what I'm sharing comes out of my experience and my intuition about what's happening. I wouldn't be the first to suggest that God = Awareness, as you know. The great religions of the East take this as fact and have developed spiritualities to grow in this direction, giving love and morality their due as concommitant values. We have never developed this very far in Christianity, but there's no reason why we shouldn't. I see the mentions of God as Light and Christ as Light of this World as possibilities, here, even though that's been interpreted to mean wisdom and truth in the past.

Goodenough:

quote:

Mutations leading to a loss of function occur on a regular basis � most changes in information systems result in information loss, as per the second law of thermodynamics. As long as the trait is under selection, degradative changes are winnowed out, but when selection backs off, they persist and accumulate.

Phil said: �but with a trajectory moving through time to greater complexity and consciousness.

My instinct (and perhaps this is a result of my misunderstanding or ignorance) tells me that there needs to be some kind of driving force in order for evolution to produce more complex systems. Maybe there's more than enough energy supplied by the sun to account for this in our closed system on Earth. That's my main question right now. I know I'm prone to all kinds of errors by invoking unseen forces and such, but life is just so damn fragile and it's so damn complex. And it's all just so ravenously clinging and clawing for every conceivable niche on the planet. Major catastrophes can't stop it. Life is just so amazingly all-consuming and voracious that one wonders if something extra isn't going on. Maybe some kind of unseen emergence accounts for this.

And we've certainly talked here in the past about all kinds of "spooky" anomolies that are connected with life such as plants communicating with each other even though totally isolated from each other. The next 100 years of science should be full of all kinds of surprises.

What is disordered is not our consciousness, but the means by which we open to and manifest consciousness--i.e., our intellect and will. Hence, consciousness is refracted by our woundedness and sinfulness to the extent, at times, that some people don't seem very conscious at all.

Well, there's much happening in our daily lives that is congruent with this notion. When we're kind and loving we tend to be lighter and more at ease. When we are being evil bastards we are constantly racked by guilt and are ill at ease. What throws a monkey wrench into the works and makes this more complex is that even good people have evil things happen to them.

That's actually kind of Thomistic

I realize, JB and Phil, that I'm probably, unconsciously or otherwise, regurgitating some of the concepts that y'all have linked me to in the past. Sometimes this whole interaction feels like "The Education of Brad" and I do appreciate that.

JB, I don't see the problem of the "sticky widget."

Phil, clarification. I didn't mean to imply that those issues were not sufficiently nuanced in the views that you indeed share (in fact, with both Jim and me), as we already are aware from our depthful engagements, in person and through correspondence. I wasn't speaking of your version, in particular, just all such considerations, in general. As you are well aware, others could easily misconstruct what you said (and what I write, too), those who are naive to what I already happen to know about your true position, and extrapolate to the very same, what shall I call them? --- aha --- heresies, that you and Jim & Tyra addressed in your Christianity in the Crucible presentation last summer.

I clearly saw what you were doing in listing Awareness as a Divine Attribute like any other: Truth, Beauty, Person, Goodness, Love, Intelligence. This implies that awareness (Pure, as you say, of God) is an analogue and that its "unreceived essence = existence" state is unlike our "essence receiving existence" state, even as our human form has been radically lifted up by the Incarnation, which is to say our soul .

It really takes something the full length of Arraj's Inner Explorations: The Collected Works to properly nuance such a well-integrated treatment! Eh? But, felix culpa, I am glad I teased out an additional substantive comment from you!

pax,
jb

I see the mentions of God as Light and Christ as Light of this World as possibilities, here, even though that's been interpreted to mean wisdom and truth in the past.

Sounds like Lawrence Fagg on electromagnetism and God --- analogically, of course. However, let us not denigrate analogies as just, mere or only

These are selected quotes from the Goodenough essay. In my mind, each one could fuel a discussion for weeks. But jump in where you will.

It follows that morality is not something that humans acquire by means of cultural instruction, although, as we discuss later, culture serves to complement the process in important ways. Rather, we are led to moral experience and insight. Real morality can't be forced on people, nor can they be fooled into having it, nor do they just act on their moral instincts. Real morality does not simply bubble up from beneath, nor is it imposed from the outside. I each one of us, it must be discovered anew.

[In regards to a psychopath] Morality without empathy is by definition oxmoronic.

The commodification of morality is, to our minds, one of the most dangerous things that we do, quite as dangerous as embracing fundamentalism or moral relativism.

But if moral motivation is not to be provided by punishment/reward systems, then where should it come from?

That's a fascinating viewpoint, that true morality isn't so much a product of punishment/reward as it is an innate appreciation for moral beauty. I'm not entirely convinced of this, although I will grant that there is an appreciation for moral beauty. But is this appreciation influenced more by our punishment/reward upbringings or by some innate sense of the beauty of morality?

But we do know that we seek such experiences [moral beauty] and find them meaningful, and to our minds there is much to explore along these lines, particularly from the perspective of helping our children to access morality for its attendant sense of beauty rather than because it promises a full stocking.

I wonder if the "full stocking" concept is muddled just a bit. It's interesting that later on they say that asocial behavior is heavily influenced by stress and such and that we should, I guess, ameliorate hardships. But what is that if not providing full stockings?

But we would suggest that the core contribution of culture along this axis [morality from revealed premises] is that it encodes and presents to us moral ideals that guide our moral maturation and stimulate our moral motivation.

I love the idea of moral ideals. Bingo.

And although religious institutions, like all institutions, are vulnerable to being hijacked under stressful circumstances into advocating the likes of violence and cruelty, they return to their prosocial narratives once the stressful circumstances abate.

Really? I'd like W.C.'s opinion on this in particular. Why do some people, under horrendous circumstances, still act morally while others, even though their basic needs of life are being met, act malevolently?

There are many ways that communities are held together by straight kin altruism, hierarchy, and strategic reciprocity; indeed, these are robustly operant in our political and economic forms of social stabilization. But our shared moral experiences generate as well a thirst for moral communities. Humaneness, fairmindedness, care, and reverence can be considered cardinal virtues in the sense that a human community mindfully infused with these qualities can be described as a moral community � within which, we believe, our emergent and most astonishing minds and selves can best flourish.

I realize that there's a passing reference to "political and economic forms" but the emphasis clearly seems to be on other factors that make for a just, compassionate, fair and moral society. But when one looks around the world, what seems to be most influential in establishing this? What system or organizational concept crosses all boundaries such as ethnicity, religion, race, etc.? Right � democracy and capitalism. I think such systems give aid and comfort for humaneness and fairmindedness to develop and flourish. Moral concepts and yearnings may be innate but I'm not sure that without rational and fair larger structures in which to operate that their innateness alone leads to their greatest expression.

We can recall that primates, both nonhuman and human, most often engage in asocial behaviors when they are subjected to stress, and particularly to prolonged stress. Under these circumstances, we hunker down and engage in self-interested survival patterns, the default behavior of all creatures, and these often take forms that are antithetical to prosociality.

One way to stack the deck in favor of morality, therefore, is to ameliorate the conditions wherein humans find themselves physically or emotionally impoverished, threatened, defeated, abused, humiliated, lonely, or insecure.

Wow. That's a stunning conclusion � and quite controversial, at least in my mind. In my view, we humans are always under a bit of stress. I don't know that it's so important to remove the causes of stress in order to create a moral people as it is to change their attitudes toward life so that, when under stress, they act in moral ways. Removing the negative aspects of life (as delineated above) is no guarantee of moral behavior. Remember: Bin Laden was (is?) a rich, privileged kid. And I'm not sure that we can ever remove all the negative features of reality � and when this is tried (via excess socialism, communism, Marxism) it often leads to far worse things.

These are selected quotes from the Goodenough essay. In my mind, each one could fuel a discussion for weeks. But jump in where you will.

Yes, I've been in dialogue with that cohort for several years now. I deeply respect and honor Ursula's intellect and heart and integrity. She certainly helped me to tighten up my own arguments inasmuch as we profoundly disagree about the value of metaphysics and our ability to speak coherently about anything supernatural. Her line to me has typically been: I am not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't know how to go there. Now, that is much nicer than Richard Dawkins, eh?

Here is her bottmomline:

quote:

My personal response is that to regard our undeniable spiritual experiences as materially based � that is, generated as wondrous mental phenomena � does not in any way diminish their importance nor their centrality to our religious lives. The concept of an independent "spiritual realm" does not augment, for me, the magic of the mystical dimension, whereas to think of this dimension as emergent from our minds makes it all the more wondrous to be a human. from Science & Spirit article

This position has profound implications for doing morality, basically denying any deontological approach, which is foundational , and leaving us to rely on teleological approaches, which are consequentialistic, and also some on virtue ethics. Interestingly, because a thomistic outlook affirms the natural law and thereby supplements the deontological approach to morality (think of the authoritative approaches of the major traditions & religions) with a teleological perspective (see that both/and operating here), catholicism can have a fruitful dialogue with naturalism and especially with religious naturalism. Aquinas would deeply appreciate the insights (and put same to good use) of such great thinkers as Deacon & Goodenough but wouldn't accept their philosophical interpretations of their anthropological speculations. Certainly, for instance, she would buy into the so-called naturalistic fallacy, the is/ought chasm, while I support the view that we indeed can get to ought from is, though not unproblematically.

pax,
jb

Well, JB, you're doing a good job holding your own. When the ad hominems start, you know you're getting to some people and that they're not too secure in their own positions. Only, as you know, one pays a price for slogging along and railing against the night. Careful now! I have a distinct impression that some of those folks are more interested in prevailing than in dialoguing.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
When the ad hominems start, you know you're getting to some people and that they're not too secure in their own positions.

That makes for great reading, JB. I hate to admit that I'm sitting here getting pleasure from attacks made on you, but I am.

Phil, JB has just encountered the trip wire effect. Ad hominems can indeed mean that some people aren't secure in there positions, but it can also mean that you just revealed a real emotional attachment that someone has to an idea. That doesn't mean the idea is necessarily wrong just because it comes equipped with some good ol' fashioned emotion, but it does mean you're on the verge of some very interesting revelations if the conversation keeps going.

re: I hate to admit that I'm sitting here getting pleasure from attacks made on you, but I am

In that case, if only the other forums I participated in over the past few years were not private I could provide you with enough positive Mood Altering Experiences too replace all the other addictions in your life (this life AND the next). Come to think of it, I've caught the most ad hominem grief from those who not only deny an afterlife but who assert that a materialist view is actually more exciting and appealing to them anyway, aesthetically. Not enough bran in their muffins or metamucil in their orange juice?

One might surmise that I am getting some type of pleasure from such attacks, too, inasmuch as I keep going back for more? Not so. Not so. I am very much into deferred gratification and am planting seeds in those philosophical rice paddies under heavy fire from materialist helicopter gunships, trying to rescue those young men and women they'd cart off and imprison with their dis-eased hermeneutics, looking only for a reward in heaven: a Sacred Purple Heart. I am pretty thick-skinned having been schooled in corporate board rooms and too many courtrooms, too, that attacks on ideas are not to be confused with attacks on persons, but, not too sledom, I must admit, I leave some of those forums feeling sad --- not just for me but for much of the world of ideas.

pax,
jb

Come to think of it, I've caught the most ad hominem grief from those who not only deny an afterlife but who assert that a materialist view is actually more exciting and appealing to them anyway, aesthetically.

There ain�t much aesthetically pleasing about pointlessness, no matter how you justify it. Now I�ll grant you that it might be more aesthetically pleasing if you put yourself in the shoes of the people who suffer and cringe at the idea that this place is the best God could do. I understand that perspective.

I look forward to future foul-tempered arguments with you, JB, if only to make you feel at home.

re: I look forward to future foul-tempered arguments with you, JB, if only to make you feel at home.

I just noticed I am only running 15-16 posts behind you, though you'll never catch-up in bandwidth consumption (unless you post a nice big mpeg of an early Sandra Bullock movie)

Feel at home ... yes ... as they say: A man's home is his hassle.

JB said: I just noticed I am only running 15-16 posts behind you�

I'll try to talk slower so you can keep up.

Yes, I've been in dialogue with that cohort for several years now. I deeply respect and honor Ursula's intellect and heart and integrity.

I laughed when I read that even if I'm way off base. Let me translate JB's words for those who haven't been keeping up on our conversations over the past year or so:

"Brad! For heaven's sake, I know[ this person. Icks-nay on the over-the-top aming-flay."

Next installment.

quote:

That's like a mason showing up at a house made of siding and declaring it doesn't exist because he can't provide any results as a bricklayer or like a painter showing up at a brick house and claiming it doesn't even exist because it doesn't require painting.

There. Was that so damn hard? Nice analogy, JB.

There. Was that so damn hard?

Actually, it was damned hard. All the other electrons were flung off my keyboard into cyberspace with such great facility that I can't remember even composing that stuff. I do vividly remember staring at the monitor and trying several analogies ... backspacing ... starting over ... etc and thinking to myself ... "What I need to do now is to go back through all of my philosophical, metaphysical, theological and spiritual treatises and insert analogies, metaphors, allegories and stories and, where possible, synonyms that would not create ambiguity or fail to properly capture critical nuances."

I forget where I read it, but it has been said that the task of teaching philosophy only really involves drawing truths out of folks that are already inside 'em. That takes some doing and a great deal of audience awareness. It is not that I necessarily lack those skills but that I have been about a very different task ... learning through processing. My writings haven't so much been for an audience (understatement) but rather have been for me and, if by chance, anyone was stretched or touched, that was somewhat of a by-product. Now that I know everything though the parables are sure to follow?

pax,
jb

. . .Invoking the non-physical (by you or anyone else) doesn't explain anything about the real world.

Right! Like non-physical thoughts and ideas have had nothing to do with shaping culture or giving rise to technology.

JB, where do you find the patience to respond to some of this?

Actually, it was damned hard.

I believe you, JB. You have both a mind and a motivation for exactness. I, on the other hand, practically belch analogies. It's my mode of thinking. Sometimes simple math problems leave me stumped. It's not that I'm stupid (well, there is that) but that my brain ain't wired that way.

My writings haven't so much been for an audience (understatement) but rather have been for me and, if by chance, anyone was stretched or touched, that was somewhat of a by-product.

Due to the rather impersonal and ambiguous nature of the internet, we'd surely better be doing this stuff for ourselves. But as with any human interaction there is a spill-over effect. And believe me, many a time I have been the guy who unwittingly came through a door and had a bucket of water spill on his head. Written on the side of that bucket is often "Metaphysical Water", so I know who must have rigged it.

Similar to another place I haunt, the opinions and ideas expressed here are things I can't easily find anywhere else, and JB, you're a big part of that.