Molly, Fran states the ' choice ' he's made : " My own way is to see us on a journey into the depth, complexity and wonder of what is (Neil's "simplexity"), be that our cosmos or our humanity, or beyond that, our humanity as part of the cosmos and our perception of/understanding of/ action in the cosmos as part of our humanity."
Only, I do not know what " depth, complexity and wonder " he's speaking of. Or, what is this " simplexity " he / Neil speaks of ? But I see that as my problem. All that seems to me is the well - known case of ' primordial inability,' whatever the causes, we all have lived through ... the inability to enter and know oneself, the ' I,' not as another, as a psychological object, but as oneself, as the propelled being we are ... and to see starkly the being domains where the I is both necessary and worthwhile, those wherein it is both unnecessary and worthless, and the remaining domains which are not even available to the I ! I do not know why I put in my observations here. Perhaps, the consequences will reveal. On Jan 9, 10:15 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > "It can also be applied to the justification of the > First Crusade" > > outwardly, it may seem so, although, I think, in closer analysis, this > will prove itself to be a rationalization. If Jesus is telling me > anthing, Jesus and I are not One. And if this is the rationalization > to do harm, doing harm is an action that is not founded in the One, as > it requires the one who is harming and the intended target of harm as > separate. This is a very good illustration of how a state of > consciousness as the foundation of action can reveal more about the > person than any rationalization they can offer in words. > > Do we need to outsource the divine within? I don't think so, but we > do need to fully own and operate from this viewpoint to honestly > consider the divine. > > On Jan 9, 9:50 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "John Polkinghorne notes that any discussion of agency > > requires the adoption of a metaphysical view of the nature of > > reality. > > He claims that there is no “deductive” way of going “from > > epistemology > > to ontology,”..." > > > This is a point Justin and I discussed in a related fashion a little > > while ago, towards the end of the "Purpose" thread: > > > (http://groups.google.de/group/minds-eye/msg/07c1985e2abf6a64?hl=de). > > > Certainly, faith can, and does inspire actions, whole courses of > > actions, with undoubted efficacy, Molly. In this sense, faith can > > indeed move mountains. > > > In the sense in which we find meaning and direction for our own lives, > > a belief in God is central for many. This does not, however, always > > take the "upward" path your initial post seems to suggest, moving from > > scientists' openness to ideas of God as the ground of meaning to the > > ultimate mystical union with God as intimated by Bernard of Clairvaux > > or Jan Ruysbroeck. It can also be applied to the justification of the > > First Crusade, 'Deus le vult", to various modern problematic > > justifications on the lines of "Jesus told me to do it." George W. > > Bush believed that God wanted him to be president of the USA, and most > > Islamicist terrorists also claim a divine mandate on the basis of > > jihad. > > > I know this is not what you mean, Molly, but - as you know - I have > > problems about appeals to or grounding of actions in the "Beyond", > > even in an "immanent Beyond." My own way is to see us on a journey > > into the depth, complexity and wonder of what is (Neil's > > "simplexity"), be that our cosmos or our humanity, or beyond that, our > > humanity as part of the cosmos and our perception of/understanding of/ > > action in the cosmos as part of our humanity. Do we really need to > > "outsource" the deeper, richer circling of our development spiral in a > > divine other? > > > Francis > > > On 8 Jan., 20:25, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Merriam-Webster defines the word “do” as ways we act, behave, get > > > alone, fare, manage, happen, finish and serve, among others. Often > > > our actions require our ability to rationally ascertain the context of > > > our actions, the possible consequences of our actions and the ethics > > > of our actions before we do anything. Or do they? Our actions, I > > > think, like our words, are very clear indications of our state of > > > mind. Sociopaths would act differently than saints in the same > > > circumstances, because they bring to the moment, a different frame of > > > reference, different viewpoint and different foundation for action. > > > > There are psychologies to both doing and doing nothing. Yes, there > > > are rational-emotional models of the factors that predispose humans to > > > do nothing. And there are theories of the psychology of action, > > > which take into account reasoning abilities, emotion, attitude and > > > other factors. > > > > When our belief system holds God and Divine Action, our state of mind > > > is very different than states that do not hold that belief, and our > > > actions may reflect these differences. To understand and bridge these > > > differences, The Vatican Observatory (VO) and the Center for Theology > > > and Natural Sciences (CTNS) jointly sponsor a series of conferences on > > > divine action. The theme of each conference is an area of the natural > > > sciences: quantum cosmology and the laws of nature (1992), chaos and > > > complexity (1994), evolutionary and molecular biology (1996), > > > neuroscience (1998), and quantum mechanics (2000). This brings > > > specificity and precision to the discussions of divine action. In one > > > of the papers from these conferences, along with summaries of many > > > others, is posted on the CTNS website: In “The Metaphysics of Divine > > > Action,” John Polkinghorne notes that any discussion of agency > > > requires the adoption of a metaphysical view of the nature of reality. > > > He claims that there is no “deductive” way of going “from epistemology > > > to ontology,” but the strategy of critical realism is to maximize the > > > connection. This leads most physicists, he claims, to interpret > > > Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as implying an actual indeterminacy > > > in the physical world, rather than an ignorance of its detailed > > > workings. Polkinghorne’s summary on the nature of Divine Action > > > includes the insight that divine agency has its own special > > > characteristics and that God’s knowledge of the world of becoming will > > > be truly temporal in character. > > > > In his book, Religion in late Modernity Robert C. Neville, suggests > > > that these inquires “concerning divine action takes its rise from > > > people who affirm as a supposition the belief that God is a personal > > > being of some sort.” > > > > In A Search for God In Ancient Egypt, by Jan Assmann, divine action > > > and religious experience are part of the cosmic dimension of the > > > mystic experience. Here, divine action is implicit in all contact > > > with the divine once transcendence into Divine Presence has been > > > realized. In other words, our actions become Divine Action, while in > > > the presence of the One within. > > > > To Bernard de Clairvaux, mysticism is the highest degree of the scale > > > of love and “a perfect participation in the love which God has from > > > Himself in the unity of the Spirit…to become thus is to be deified.” > > > Our actions are naturally inspired from this unity of the Spirit that > > > pervades our state. > > > > This idea is similar to the mystical divine action, our own action, > > > taken as a result of our mystical union with the God with us. The > > > mystic Jan Ruysbroeck suggests in mystical union God “breathes us out > > > from Himself that we may love and do good works; and again he draws us > > > into Himself, that we may rest in fruition.” > > > > Our efficacy and actions then, may be defined by whether or not we > > > believe in God, and if we believe that God is external and personal, > > > or a state of being within ourselves. What do YOU think?- Hide quoted > > > text - > > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
