|
|
||||
|
Search
This Month
Month Archive
|
Tuesday, August 21
Review of Mind and Emergence by Philip Clayton
by
Dale Gillette
on Tue 21 Aug 2007 04:21 PM EDT
My interpretation of his book and especially chapter five is that a mystical experience received by an “integrated self” [Clayton’s “person as a whole”] can be authoritative in a person’s life. more »
How does entropy help us understand what life is? Part I of II
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Tue 21 Aug 2007 12:00 AM EDT
How does entropy help us understand what life is?
Part I of II
Entropy explains the means by which the universe operates. The universe operates upon the idea of heat exchange. As heat exchange takes place, change takes place. Change is the key characteristic we use to establish if something is alive. • The word alive is a complex term. If change is part of the definition for being alive, then the universe is alive because it is undergoing constant change. Many environmentalists would say our planet is alive and our universe is alive just as we are alive. If this is true, then what makes us different from earth, plants, animals, the universe itself? Atheists would say there is no basic difference. Because we are basically the same, we should show the same respect to the earth, universe, and each other as we do ourselves. Classical/traditional religions would say we humans are different because there is an extra element within us that is not found within the earth, soil, plants, and universe. Religions say we have a soul. Monday, August 20
Philosophy: What we reason: Part IV of IV
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Mon 20 Aug 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Philosophy: What we reason:
Part IV of IV ...If our essence and if the essence of the Causative Force revolves around awareness, then a portion of ourselves lies in abstraction. This is unprovable; this is religion. On the other hand, if our body/mind and if the ‘substance’ of the universe is based upon the physical, then a portion of ourselves lies in the physical. Building a model fusing the abstractness of the Causative Force with the physicalness of the universe, will take some form of glue. We, you and I, lie somewhere in the middle. A part of us seems to lie in the abstract and a part of us seems to lie in the physical. We have been torn apart many times by conflict and violence attempting to establish one over the other. One way to overcome our past history of violence and abuse may be to build a model gluing the two aspects of ourselves – abstraction and the physical – together. How do you glue abstraction and the concrete together? It would appear the only glue available to do so is reason or philosophy. Over the last 4,000 years, through 500 year cycles, religion, science, and philosophy now appear to have emerged in their own right. Since we are at the gate of the next 500 year cycle, what is the next step? Who is to say for sure? Perhaps it is the development of a new religion. Perhaps it will be a new form of gaining insight. Or perhaps it will not be the development of something new but rather the unification of what we already have. Perhaps it will be the coming to terms, the establishment of the union of religion, philosophy, and science. After all, these three have been at odds with each other throughout our history. These three have been struggling to maintain the recognition they each feel they deserve regarding their own particular contribution towards the understanding of a Causative Force. Each has been struggling to overcome the other two ever since they emerged upon the scene of human history. The struggle between religion, philosophy, and science to maintain their own unique identity and their own dominance in terms of understanding a Causative Force has been a long and, many times, very unpleasant experience for humans. Perhaps the next 500 year cycle is meant to be one of peace between the three. A union of this magnitude would no doubt benefit all of us, terrestrial and otherwise. Perhaps the next 500 year cycle is meant to bring peace to all of us through the process of bringing religion and science together by using reason.
End Sunday, August 19
Philosophy: What we reason: Part III of IV
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sun 19 Aug 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Philosophy: What we reason:
Part III of IV ...Reason would imply that religion may be correct, the Causative Force may indeed be all present, omnipresent, relative to our universe as was discussed in the religion portion of the matrix. If this is correct, the universe would have no place to be but within the Causative Force. And what then of yourself? If you are in the universe, you must be in the Causative Force, a part of the Causative Force, a piece of the Causative Force. Religion’s insistence upon the Causative Force being omnipresent is one of the pieces of the puzzle. Panentheism, the perception of size, was the first puzzle piece discussed in the matrix. But the size of the Causative Force is only half the picture; the other half is why the Causative Force needs you. Thus develops another piece of the puzzle, ‘symbiosis.’ It is science in this matrix that brings us the concept of the whole being the summation of its parts. Science also underscored the idea of the whole being less than what it is should any of its parts be missing. And thus it is science that brought us the concept of the parts interacting with and impacting the whole. It was the science section of this matrix that discussed the concept of symbiosis. Combine religion – a perception of abstraction, a perception of the size of a Causative Force, panentheism – with science – a perception of the physical, a perception of interactions, symbiosis – and one gets symbiotic panentheism. One can put the two, religion and science, side by side but they will quickly fall apart once the pressure which keeps them together is removed. Religion and science tend to repel each other because the two are so different. One deals with the unprovable, what we sense, what we believe, the abstract and the other deals with the provable, what we see, what we observe, the concrete. Saturday, August 18
Philosophy: What we reason: Part II of IV
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sat 18 Aug 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Philosophy: What we reason:
Part II of IV ...Religion deals with faith, our intuitive ability to ‘sense’ what is even if we cannot ‘see’ it or cannot find any logic to it. As such, religion would be the most difficult to prove through observation or logic. In order to remain strong and not be pushed aside, it would need to establish deep roots. History, culture, tradition, and custom would all need time to develop. They would be the means of identifying with this field and they would provide the deep roots necessary to allow religion to survive the onslaughts of science and philosophy. What area would then be the second area to develop? It should be the second most difficult area to maintain – logic. Philosophy began long before modern science established its foothold (see Science Introduction). Philosophy, using reason to understand what we are and why we exist, may seem to create a stronger foundation than faith but it is also wrapped in abstraction rather than the physical. Both needed a great deal of time to develop and establish a strong base. The third area allowing us to understand what we are and why we exist would be the easiest area to accept. And what area is so easy to understand that it took only 500 years to develop rather than the 3,500 years religion took and the 2,500 years philosophy took? It would be the realm of what we can analyze through direct observation – the arena dominated by science. We are working on a puzzle. Because this is a puzzle being solved, the sequence of putting the pieces together may not always be the same, but the end result should be. Philosophy may not have evolved last but since it deals with logic, we will use it last in order to put the religious portions of the puzzle together with the parts of the puzzle science provides. In other words, we will use logic, reason, philosophy, to put the pieces together. Friday, August 17
Philosophy: What we reason: Part I of IV
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 17 Aug 2007 12:00 AM EDT
PHILOSOPHY What We Reason
Part I of IV
We have religion, science, and philosophy to help us develop perceptions of what we are and why we exist. Why would we ever decide to throw any of the three out when they each have contributions to make? They each uniquely address the three means of perception we have available to us. We sense what appears to be through intuition, faith, religion. We see what appears to be through observation, measurement, science. We rationalize what appears to be through reason, logic, philosophy. One does not necessarily lead to another. What we sense may not be observable. What we see may not be logical. What we reason may not be sensible. We must not give up any one for another. Each is unique in their own way. Each has something special to offer. Each represents a special means by which we are able to understand ourselves and others. With religion, we use faith to tell us what we are, what the universe is, what a Causative Force is, and how the three are interrelated. With science, we use observations to tell us what we are, what the universe is, what the Causative Force is, and how the three are interrelated. With philosophy, we use reason to tell us what we are, what the universe is, what the Causative Force is, and how the three are interrelated. The order of development of each is not surprising. |
|||
