Philosophical Speculations

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:26 pmsure, I agree

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:47 pm OK. Then do you also agree there are scientific models of plant behavior-development which are more accurate than other models?

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:54 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:47 pm OK. Then do you also agree there are scientific models of plant behavior-development which are more accurate than other models?

Of course. That does not mean that the most accurate model we have at the moment is the absolute-true model. We have never witnesses any absolutely true and absolutely accurate models in science, all of them have been always approximate to certain degree, but some more accurate than others.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:59 pm Agreed. And I am not looking for absolute certainty of any spiritual model. So we are agreed that some spiritual models can be more complete given the empirical data we have at any given time than other ones?

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:15 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:59 pm Agreed. And I am not looking for absolute certainty of any spiritual model. So we are agreed that some spiritual models can be more complete given the empirical data we have at any given time than other ones?

Here is the problem: what is the empirical data for such measurement of completeness if we are talking about spiritual realms beyond our perceived world? Such empirical data is different from scientific one because it is not reproducible and not consistent, it varies from person to person, from one tradition and age to another. It is also biased and much determined by the very tradition it is supposed to confirm: the empirical spiritual and extra-sensory data is different between those traditions, which we can easily see when we study those traditions and compare them. So, how would we know which tradition is more accurate and complete with the lack of a reliable and reproducible data? For example how do we know if there is one single creator-Deity supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within monotheistic traditions, or multiple Deities supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within indigenous or Eastern traditions?

Of course if you can present a bullet proof empirical evidence that there is a single Deity, than yes, in that case all monotheistic traditions could be said to be more complete and accurate based on that data. The problem is - we do not have such data.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 10:27 pm We are now at the beginning stages of what Gebser called "aperspectival", Barfield called "final participation", Teilhard de Chardin called "Omega Point", and others called various other names. This stage involves the Spirit (thinking activity) becoming an organ of our perception of ideal relations just as our other five senses perceive their respective content.

Of course, none of that will make sense if you simply reject the metamorphic progression of Spirit, hence the essays. If you have philosophical-scientific reasons to reject the metamorphic argument, then I am all eyes to read them.

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 11:58 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 10:27 pm We are now at the beginning stages of what Gebser called "aperspectival", Barfield called "final participation", Teilhard de Chardin called "Omega Point", and others called various other names. This stage involves the Spirit (thinking activity) becoming an organ of our perception of ideal relations just as our other five senses perceive their respective content.

Of course, none of that will make sense if you simply reject the metamorphic progression of Spirit, hence the essays. If you have philosophical-scientific reasons to reject the metamorphic argument, then I am all eyes to read them.

Sorry to but in, but I have a specific question for Ashvin. One of the big issues I have with the “metamorphic progression of Spirit” being applied to the words of Christ is that they seem to me very specifically directed at the level of the individual. I won’t go quoting loads, but it applies right from those you quote, such as “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit…”, to “ …because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me” etc. They all see seem to suggest a conditional requirement, at the level if the individual. Then those individuals form one body.

In fact when he uses the shepherd analogy he explicitly includes an exception; “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd”. I find this intriguing, but it doesn’t seem to suggest the whole of mankind to me (although of course universalists would disagree on that).

I do get the evolution of consciousness, but to me that just changes the conscious reality, not necessarily how people respond to that reality. Do you really see that it makes no difference what an individual does, how they treat others, how kind versus violent/cruel, how much responsibility they take for their own actions etc? Is all that matters in your view really a vague hope that you can set a good example that others will follow, with the aim of leading the whole to an omega point?

Also if there is life on other planets, as seems likely, does that need to be part of this evolution?

[BK is now saying that subject combination problem makes panpsychism fundamentally incoherent. Which means he does accept that the subject combination problem is an argument/criterium that can make an ontology incoherent.