Simon Adams wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:27 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:12 pm
As we saw from the finger in front of your eye example, realizing you are a unique perspective of God does
not inhibit your ability to function or know about the world. In fact, it gives you a much more
harmonious understanding of the world you are functioning in. You go from, "
I have two eyes redundantly showing me the same world" to "
I have one eye providing me a perspective, and another eye providing another perspective, and they both integrate to give me a more whole perspective on the world." That is what we call 'physical' knowledge
by way of the Spirit's illumination. There is no discontinuity between the two forms of knowledge, but there is also no possible way you could get from the first understanding to the second understanding from merely studying the physical components of the eye, without the Spirit's illumination (in this case our Reasoning activity).
What part of that is any different if I am a unique being, connected to and part of the cosmos, in the image of god?
That same logic applies to all physical processes. That is what your view is missing - the spiritual (Thinking) component. You are assuming there is an external world to you which is complete in itself and that your eyes-mind take that complete picture and tries to recreate it within you. That is the standard flawed assumption of nearly all post-Cartesian science and philosophy. We can dispel that assumption by reasoning through the nature of our thinking activity. All of that reasoning is provided by Steiner in his PoF and also Goethean Science. In a nutshell, our thinking activity takes incomplete percepts of the world and unites them with their proper concepts to form Unities of experience. That is why we can say we are truly co-creating the phenomenal world. Of course this will make little sense unless you actually go through the reasoning for yourself.
I don’t think the “external world is “complete in itself”. However it has a level of reality given to it by god, for a purpose. You cannot just turn the starving family you perceive in the house next door into teapots, and ignore them because you don’t fancy tea. Some cultures tend to treat animals very cruelly as they see them as not much different to tractors, does that make the reality they “co-create” real?
I know what your answer to this will be, but I actually see a danger in this because it makes the spiritual journey monotone. We are grounded and given spiritual food to sustain us by turning our
hearts and mind to god, by connecting at the deepest level into the vine through the eucharist, and by finding some silence in the storms that can rage there. We are fulfilled by then turning that inward love from god outwards into the world, by helping in small ways the people/creatures/environment in their needs. We are improved by
understanding and acknowledging or failings, our shadow, and putting effort into improving our
thoughts, words and actions. And finally we have an opportunity to enjoy life, to
appreciate and be thankful for the good things we have been given.
These are not things that happen just through a correct understanding of our perception. They are about
choices, and a journey, and as someone who has spent a big chunk of his life being selfish and foolish, these are the things that are slowly turning the ship around so that it’s path now at least has a compass.
The part that is different is you do
not acknowledge that the person Reasoning through the
meaning of these underlying 'physical' processes is engaged in the
shared essence of Spirit which illuminates the phenomenal world. You seem to think the human who does that without explicit declaration of faith in Christ is
not engaged in anything we can rightly call spiritual activity. You use words like "hearts and minds", " understanding", "thoughts", "appreciate", "thankful", without acknowledging their true import for the
essence of our spiritual (Thinking) activity as a co-creative force. Therefore, you ignore that our true knowledge of the ideal world is exactly what
allows us to make proper
choices on our spiritual journey. That is why you downgrade participatory Thinking to "understanding how the stage lights work".
Simon wrote:Ashvin wrote:
You are making Reality two by claiming God's essence creates another essence when creating us (and presumably all other creatures).
Yes I am, it’s only when we are “born again in the spirit” that we take on participation in god’s spirit. This is how we become children rather than creations. He did not create us as his essence.
It is a very simple thing I am pointing out to you, so simple that it easily goes unnoticed. The thing is, I am not interested in convincing you my view is more "sacred" than yours. If you get a feeling of more sacredness by thinking of God as other than man, or by whatever mystical experience you have had in the context of your faith, then that is just the way it is and I cannot write anything to change that. But, ideally, that would be stated upfront - that the separation of God from man is based only on faith and/or mystical experience and not on reasoning - so that I do not assume you are looking for reasoned arguments.
It’s based on several ways of knowing, including experience, reason and faith. There must be a balance in these things to understand where things fit correctly.
Then you are holding to substance dualism in the exact same manner as the Cartesian-Kantian dualist, dividing Mind from matter and Essence from appearance (not merely distinguishing but dividing). Although now you add a new layer of confusion by saying when we are "born again" we
do share the essence of God as his children. By thinking of it in this rigid dogmatic manner you rob death and rebirth of their true essence and relevance to our daily lives. I write about this topic some in my latest essay:
Ashvin wrote:In what way besides Thinking could we approach such an invisible yet highly specified Reality? Thinking fulfills its essential role, then, through the integration of varied human souls - "I have not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them." It takes what presents to us as differentiated appearances of willing and feeling and weaves back together the ideal constellations which make sense of those appearances as a living whole. We often refer to this process when speaking of the "spirit" of a text, especially in common law traditions. The highly differentiated rules of court decisions and statutes can only be effective when they are born of the principle (spirit) underlying them. Old rules must continuously be reborn in that spirit to remain relevant and useful.
Such realities can be spoken of so casually in conversation that we look entirely past their essential meaning, so let us dwell on it some more. Our thinking, through its rebirth, takes the most varied notes and tones of the human soul provided by willing-feeling and synthesizes them into a harmony which sounds exceptionally pleasant to the eternal Spirit. We cannot understand these distinct essential roles of W-F-T in complete isolation from one other, because all experience always consists of all three qualities in Tri-Unity. And it is only that living Trinity which provides food for our thought; which provokes the most thought within us; which eternally calls upon us to Think.
If we continue to dwell within this problematic, then it will dawn on us why the λογος has always presented itself to ancient thought as the Sun-Being. Only through that Being's living activity is the whole phenomenal world we observe illuminated. This occurrence happened only once in human history through the Passion of Christ incarnate, yet it is not a one-time event any more than the day arising from the twilight and the dusk is a one-time event. The echoes of the Cross continue to reverberate in every human soul and can find their fulfillment in every human's Thinking. They now find their fulfillment in every moment of our existence while also seeking their fulfillment in our collective human destiny.
Simon wrote:Ashvin wrote:Your OP certainly gives the impression that you are looking for such reasoned arguments to discuss the essence of what occurs in the Universe, and the only place such questions could naturally go is to the essence of spiritual Reality. Perhaps you do not expect that because you hold spiritual Reality to exist in a completely different domain of inquiry (or non-inquiry) than the workings of the Universe, an expectation which I claim is an obvious artifice of Cartesian-Kantian dualisms. When we inevitably arrive at the spiritual Reality, then it becomes entirely a matter of feeling and faith for you. I would say the sacred feeling you get in the context of Catholic faith is actually intimation of the higher spiritual Reality I am speaking of, despite the rigid Church dogma, and it should prompt you towards seeking higher resolution of the spiritual workings behind the phenomenal world.
It’s fine to try to understand these things, but go back to the analogy of us being actors on a stage. By the time you work out how the writer of the play got the script to the director, how the director got the script to you, you summarised the key themes and decided the parts of the script you wanted to change, the play will be over. The reviews will say there was this one actor who just stood there staring at a bit of paper in his hand.
Ashvin wrote:Right now it seems to me your position is summed up by Kant when he said, "I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith".
Kant was a protestant, so that’s not a surprise
Your sentiment above simply results from the lack of
appreciation for the noble role of Thinking in our spiritual life. If you downgrade it to the mere intellectual activity, then of course you will miss entirely the import of what is actually occurring through that activity and dismiss it as some personal line of inquiry which is not essential to the play at large. But in reality, the play has no
meaning to us or for us without the power of Thinking. Again, this is a very obvious thing I am pointing out - it is only our Thinking which provides ideal content (meaning) to
any story of our lives. And I mention this critical relationship between
thanking and Thinking at the beginning of Part 2 of TMT essay.
Ashvin wrote:The entire question of "what is called Thinking?" for Heidegger revolves around the essence of Memory and Time, as we began to explore at the end of Part I. There is a connection between Thinking, Memory, and Time that he wants us to mine from the depths of his mature thought. He is eager to get 'underway' on the path into Thinking, because "we are still not yet Thinking". Heidegger draws our attention to the fact that "the Old English thencan, to think, and thancian, to thank, are closely related; the Old English noun for thought is thanc or thonc - a thought, a grateful thought, and the expression of such a thought" which "today survives in the plural thanks".