You know (or should know) that is not true because I reference Steiner so often, who founded "spiritual science" of Anthroposophy. Clearly I think we have not yet reached the limits of our perception-cognition and, in fact, no such limits can truly exist independent of our own self-imposed limitations. That holds true for each individual and humanity at large. That is basically the core of nearly all contention on this forum - self-imposed limitations to knowledge (your position) vs. no such limitations.Simon Adams wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:28 pmYou choose to limit the totality of reality effectively to what can be studied by psychology, then you argue that there can't be anything more than that which is accessible to psychology. We can indeed create meaning, but the deepest meaning is only ever discovered or revealed.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:58 pm
In addition to what Cleric responded, I will add - all meaning, not only the "deeper" meaning, is in the ideal content (which all perspectives share). How could it be any other way?? When something appears meaningful to you, whether it's a feeling within you or an image from without, it is because you are Thinking about it. That is such a transparent and undeniable given of our experience that we really should not still be arguing about it... it is so transparent that the reasons for questioning it can only reside within one's personal prejudices.
You can argue that dualism between mind and matter is the same as dualism between god and mind, but that is based on your assumed conclusion. The dualism between mind and matter only really got started about 400 years ago. There have always been parallel streams of dualism / monism between mind and god. Perhaps the pantheist view was the majority, but the Judeo-Christian tradition changed that for the west. Interestingly, as the dualism between mind and matter grew, at the same time, among those who didn't see a duality between mind and matter, the duality between god and creation collapsed. So the whole thing turned upside down. This is why the church has generally just stuck with philosophy up to Aquinas. Even though the science from these earlier philosophers is obviously far out of date, the rest of philosophy since has gone down inevitably fissile paths by making one of these two fundamental errors.Also, the presupposition that people prior to "some point between Aquinas and Spinoza" held to a more dualistic view of God than we do now is the exact opposite of the actual metamorphic progression we can easily discern from the history of art, philosophy, science, etc. And your view is admittedly dualistic in an absolute sense.
re: dualism - you only assume that hard dualism existed in the early Church because, as you correctly point out, the mind-matter dualism got started around 400 years ago. You are a product of that recent Western tradition, as am I, as are most people on this forum, and so you project it back onto all earlier traditions. I am not sure what you mean by "the duality between god and creation collapsed". Clearly that duality is by far the mainstream modern position of the Western church and has been for centuries now.