Jayhawker Soule

I, for one, do not question your qualifications. Nor do I insist that you are talking out of your ass. This is not about the source, but the substance, of what you say, and, to repreat, I find that substance inherently unintelligible.

• You talk about "the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism" and presume that you've said something.
• You assert that "The observable, finite world of metaphysical naturalism seems to require an infinite background.", and presume that you've said something.
• You suggest that "for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown." and presume that you've said something.

What are these mystical "things unseen and unknown", that you insist are <ol type="1">[*]inaccessible to philosophical naturalism, and yet, remarkably,[*]seen or otherwise known by you to be not 'supernatural'?[/list=a]I yield the floor to Humpty Dumpty ...

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Jobar

Actually, I prefer to think of myself as the Killer Rabbit, not Humpty Dumpty.

RD, I know you have read several of the other threads about pantheism- have you also read the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000308" target="_blank">In defense of mysticism</a> thread from 2001? I also suggest reading the Tao te Ching- it's in the Secweb library.

The two questions you ask-

"What are these mystical "things unseen and unknown", that you insist are
1) inaccessible to philosophical naturalism, and yet, remarkably,
2) seen or otherwise known by you to be not 'supernatural'?"

-indicate to me that you are not understanding things I have already posted.

"Things unseen and unknown." You do agree, don't you, that there *are* things we don't know? Not just such things as the exact number of stars in the galaxy, which don't really make a huge difference in our daily lives, but BIG things- oh, like, is there other intelligent life in the galaxy? Or, how can we predict the paths of hurricanes? Things not inherently unknowable, but *at present* unknown.

Well, sure you agree to that. There are things we don't know.

Now a somewhat different question. Do you think there are things which are inherently *unknowable*? Which, even in theory, humans can never learn? In other words, "inaccessible to philosophical naturalism"?

If you say "no" I will have to give a lecture on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, so I hope that you realize that there are things we simply cannot know.

Next. "Seen or otherwise known" by me? Where did that come from? I have specifically stated that all my knowledge is from natural sources- in fact I specifically said that what is known is natural! The supernatural is unknown. What's so hard to understand about that?

Let me repeat myself a bit. We know, scientifically, that the very elements in our bodies were produced by the processes of nucleosynthesis in supernovas. (And is this fact not in itself a marvel, and awesome?) Our world, and our bodies, are the same matter we observe to the very limits of our ability to observe. We are no different matter from the rest of the universe. Is this not a statement of science- and also a statement of pantheism?

We know that our conscious awarenesses are entirely natural processes. Marvellously complex, and not yet well understood- but they are certainly not 'supernatural'. The awareness which is "I" is intimately and inextricably part of the natural universe. (And up to this point what atheist or naturalist would disagree?)

THOU art THAT! Look, if you absolutely insist that God has to be a supernatural and separate entity, you certainly will never accept my statement that "I am God"- but for me, 'God' is the totality of reality- the known and the unknown. And I am, simply by existing, a part of that totality.

I suspect you still find that incomprehensible. I've said before that if Alan Watts can't convey the point here, then I probably can't- you did say you had read Watts, IIRC- so I can only tell you that your incomprehension is a very common thing. After all- "The tao which can be explained is not the ultimate Tao."

Jayhawker Soule

Just remember, Killer Rabbit, word trix are for kids.
I've read it, though quite some time ago. I've come to prefer Lewis Carroll.
Yes.
Yes.
So now you've stated:

• "for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown", and
• "the supernatural is unknown"

'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice. ... Oh dear, what nonsense I'm talking!' Did I mention my preference for Lewis Carroll?
It is, indeed, a statement of science.
Necessarily so.
WHOOP de DOO!
No, I find it superfluous.
There's always more to learn.

Jobar

So you have no more questions?

And as far as "superfluous" goes, that is simply a statement of opinion, not an argument or a question. Of course I disagree with your opinion here, but that was apparent from the start, not so?

Have you any substantial objection to pantheism? RD, the first post I ever made to a discussion board ended with the words "Can we be atheists and pantheists both?" It was on the old freethinkersforum board- and although some answered 'no' as you do, no one has ever given me any reasoned argument as to why not. You consider it meaningless; I say something trying to express the meaning I see, and you reply with something like "and you think you have said something." Well, YES I think I have said something! Perhaps you don't understand what I have said- fair enough. And it doesn't bother me that you don't understand- but the snide and unpleasant tone you take *does*. I pointed you to that 'defense of mysticism' thread because there were posters there who tried to present their objections to pantheism/mysticism in a substantive way, and did it politely too. I suggest you try to emulate them if you wish to continue this discussion. J.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

To begin with, there was no intent to be snide and/or unpleasant, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I wrote, for example: It would have been better had I said "... and presume that you've communicated something." Perhaps it's me - no doubt I'm not very good when it comes to mysticism - but I haven't a clue what "the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism" represents other than a clever alliteration. Nor do I think that I'm unique in this regard. If your intent was to communicate, the intent failed, and you might wish to consider the possibility that this failure was not solely a function of my understanding.

That is correct.

Yes. You've said that pantheism is naturalism plus the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism, while noting that "nature ... may require things unseen and unknown". You further assert: "what is known is natural! The supernatural is unknown."

On what basis do you contend that these "unseen and unknown" prerequisites of nature are not supernatural?

Jobar

RD: "On what basis do you contend that these "unseen and unknown" prerequisites of nature are not supernatural?"

I don't.

I mean, how can I? I can say nothing about things unknown, save that they are unknown! However- you might say that 'supernatural' and 'unknown' are synonyms. 'Super' = above or beyond; 'nature' = observed reality. So, the unknown is beyond what we observe.

Then again- given the enormous success of science and the scientific method, I might venture to say that the odds favor us being able to explain all the new facts which come into our ken using it. In which case, the unknown may well fit the pattern of things we already know, and thus cannot be said to be 'supernatural' in the sense of 'unexplainable by science'.

I guess that is one of those mu questions- 'not yes, not no'.

However, it approaches a question I have been puzzling over on this subject, and I will share it with you (or inflict it on you- it's a headspinner. )

Do you see that, to perceive something, it must have a contrasting background? You can't see a colored spot against a field the same color. You must have contrast to perceive and define anything- so we must have an opposite for any concept. Good and evil, up and down, far and near, sound and silence, light and dark. I could extend that list for pages and pages- anything posed must have something opposed. We have been discussing a particular pair- known/unknown.

One of the brainbusting aspects of pantheism (and also of quantum physics and relativity) is the notion of union of opposites. Just as it is difficult to express the unity of matter and energy in English, and to understand that unity in any language including mathematics, it is very hard to picture opposites as poles of a unity- like heads and tails of a coin.

Now apply this to our known/unknown duality. How the hell are we to conceive of the unity whose poles are known and unknown?

Frankly, it's beyond me. I have trouble even thinking about it. And yet if the pantheistic view of the universe is correct, then there must be some unity which is both.

Now I have to go take some aspirin...

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Not true at all. You also say that they are the prerequisites of nature. Specifically, you state: "for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown." [my emphasis - RD]
No, Jobar, you might say "that 'supernatural' and 'unknown' are synonyms". I would consider such a definition to be an unwarranted abuse of english.
In other words, thorough-going agnosticism with respect to naturalism.
Hegel, The Science of Logic ... Engels, Anti-Duering ... Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and Mao tells us that "one divides into two". What the hell is there in dialectics or, for that matter, in the presumption of conceivability, that warrants "the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism"?

Jobar

Friedrich Nietzsche (IIRC) was the originator of the method of philosophical analysis which can be abbreviated thesis: antithesis: synthesis. It means we take a concept and its opposite, and attempt to synthesize them into a single new concept (which then becomes the thesis for the next round of analysis.) The alliteration was simply fortuitous. Note too that this is a demonstration of the utility of the unifying of opposite concepts.

I do think that we must have a 'background' of the unknown to contrast what we know. In that sense, I consider the unknown a necessary part of reality. And, as I said, attempting to apply Nietzsche's method and synthesize the known and unknown is beyond my mental powers; as I said in an earlier thread on the subject, I do not claim to be able to answer all questions about it.

You call me a "thorough-going agnostic[] with respect to naturalism"- no. You are misinterpreting my answer to your questions (again.) I am trying to tell you that your question- "On what basis do you contend that these "unseen and unknown" prerequisites of nature are not supernatural?"- is simply indeterminate. In fact, my statement- "...given the enormous success of science and the scientific method, I might venture to say that the odds favor us being able to explain all the new facts which come into our ken using it."
- indicates my great confidence in the scientific method, and a great deal of trust in naturalism.

RD, you are barkin' up the wrong tree, trying to say that pantheism is at odds with naturalism. There are much more fruitful ways to question my philosophy than this- but I'll leave it to you to find them. After all, if I told you, I'd be carrying on both sides of this argument!

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Amos

Don't bother with the aspirin Jobar because just as the known is born out of the controversy with the unknown is the unknown born out of the controversy with the known as is evidenced by the many questions that arise after the unknown becomes known.

It is only because the answer to these questions is already known within our own subconscious mind (as scientists) that these many questions can enter our conscious mind and this most certainly means that the possibility exists that these opposites can be resolved but perhaps only in the complete convergeance of these two minds (which is obvious).

A pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other, which in itself already means that the unity of these opposites must be found in the consolation of philosophy because as finite beings can we never do the science of infinity (these two are also concepts and not indications of time as such).

If we call our conscious mind the finite mind(blank slate) and our subconscious mind the infinite mind (soul) it is easy to see that the finite mind can never do the science of the infinite mind except in bites and pieces from the many question planted there through the science performed by the conscious mind. This is exactly why "woman" of the TOL saw that the apple in the eye of TOK was good for gaining wisdom and she also promised that she would strike at the lesser serpent's head within the TOK who in turn would strike at the heel of the enterprising scientist to keep him motivated by success while supplying the "woman" (soul) with wisdom.

In my view that is exactly what science is all about and is why I hold that science extrapolates from omniscience and to unify of these poles the two must become one (sounds biblical doen't it?). Hence, no impediments in true minds and no impediments in heaven.

Jayhawker Soule

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> OK <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Anyway, thanks for the clarification concerning method. I await your clarification of "the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism". At issue is not whether it's a 'simply fortuitous alliteration', but whether it's a semantically meaningful response.
And you also said: "for nature to exist at all, it seems we may require things unseen and unknown." You conflate

• what is "necessary" and "required" for understanding with
• what is "necessary" and "required" for nature/reality.

Is this not entirely symptomatic of metaphysical idealism? Why should your prerequisite to understanding be elevated to a necessity/requirement of nature?
I apologize (again) for the misinterpretation.

Please, how, specifically, does the pantheist's 'indeterminant' differ from the agnostic's 'unknown and unknowable'?
No more, in fact, than that possessed by many theists. All you've said is render unto science that which is the domain of science, and unto God that which is God's.
I agree that this has been less than fruitful.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>