Originally posted by Metamorphosis
It is absolutely unproved as an experiential reality, precisely because it's based on abstract (non-experiential) definitions. You cannot intellectually prove the existence of the soul, period, your technical jargon notwithstanding.
My technical jargon?
Absolute numbers are not experiential realities - no one can experience the number two in and of itself; it will always be an attribute of some other object. Integral calculus is not an experiential reality. "Courage" is not an experiential reality.
That does not mean they are not real.
Dismissing something as "technical jargon" is just hiding behind a veil of ignorance. The form of something is what it makes what it is. The form of a horse is what makes it a horse. The form of LH is what makes me LH and not Metamorphosis. If a form of LH did not exist, LH would be indistinguishable from Metamorphosis. That form is what we call "soul" for living beings.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later.
Originally posted by Metamorphosis
Who he is commenting on is irrelevant -- he could be commenting on Yogi Berra. The point is, he is passing on dogma, belief systems. In this case, Christian belief systems, yes, but all that matters is that people understand that they are belief systems.
...
So what? What has that to do with anything? You're too impressed with so-called authority figures.
All philosophy stems from some sort of belief, some sort of axioms. In Aristotle/Aquinas's case, it is the assumption that what we see and perceive around us are real (even though our senses can sometimes be unreliable). Other philosophers start from different assumptions. Plato, for instance, thought that the world around us is the shadow of a more "real" world of Forms. When you speak of "higher realities" or Absolute Being, you are using your own belief system. Everyone has to use some sort of belief system, everyone has to start with some axioms. Therefore, the fact that Aquinas/Kreeft is speaking from the perspective of a particular belief system does not automatically discredit it. The important thing is to ask whether that particular belief system/philosophy makes sense, is consistent both logically and with your own experience.
Why I mentioned Aristotle should now be clearer. Aristotle was obviously not Christian. When I say that Thomistic philosophy is built on Aristotelian philosophy I am making the point that Thomas was not merely repeating Church dogma - he was starting from a purely philosophical/metaphysical standpoint. And when he speaks of the soul as the form of the human being, this is where he is coming from.
I'm not too impressed with authority figures - but nor am I too proud to admit that greater minds than me have existed and have thought of many things I am now considering before.
The first thing any researcher does before embarking on a course of research is to do a "literature survey" - a survey of what work has already been done in a field. He doesn't have to accept it blindly, but he has to know it's been done.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisIf you did not think contemplative practice would lead to a realisation of the truth, you would not speak of it. So, admit it or not, you are talking about "truth".
I'm not talking about "truth", and I'm not talking about "thinking". I'm talking about contemplative practice.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot sure what you're asking, but if you're asking whether a person can fully explain something that cannot fundamentally be understood in its totality - then the answer is no.
Could you explain "truth that surpasses understanding"?
But what about things that can be partially, or imperfectly, comprehended? They can be spoken about and explained.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSelf-realisation is experiencing that truth.
Not sure what you're asking, but if you're asking whether a person can [b]fully explain something that cannot fundamentally be understood in its totality - then the answer is no.
But what about things that can be partially, or imperfectly, comprehended? They can be spoken about and explained.[/b]
Have you read The Cloud of Unknowing? It's a mediaval Christian work on self-realisation. I'm too, er, sinful to engage with it as yet, but you might find it instructive...Anyway, it's free:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous2/cloud.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerAbsolute numbers are not experiential realities - no one can experience the number two in and of itself; it will always be an attribute of some other object. Integral calculus is not an experiential reality. "Courage" is not an experiential reality.
Originally posted by Metamorphosis
[b]It is absolutely unproved as an experiential reality, precisely because it's based on abstract (non-experiential) definitions. You cannot intellectually prove the existence of the soul, period, your technical jargon notwithstanding.
My technical jargon?
Absolute numbers are not ex ...[text shortened]... m is what we call "soul" for living beings.
I'll get back to the rest of your post later.[/b]
Yes, but we are not talking about "numbers", and we are not talking about "courage". We have been talking about the soul.
That does not mean they are not real.
I'm not addressing whether or not numbers or courage are real. I'm addressing experiential reality only ( within the context of the discussion about "soul" ).
Dismissing something as "technical jargon" is just hiding behind a veil of ignorance.
On the contrary, I'm pointing out that attachment to words keeps you ignorant of experiential reality. And any words I use continually point toward that. You, however, appear to be using words to defend your attachment to particular concepts.
The form of something is what it makes what it is. The form of a horse is what makes it a horse.
You don't say? 😉
The form of LH is what makes me LH and not Metamorphosis. If a form of LH did not exist, LH would be indistinguishable from Metamorphosis. That form is what we call "soul" for living beings.
"We"? Who is this "we"? These are simply your intellectual viewpoints, something you learned somewhere.
All philosophy stems from some sort of belief, some sort of axioms. In Aristotle/Aquinas's case, it is the assumption that what we see and perceive around us are real (even though our senses can sometimes be unreliable). Other philosophers start from different assumptions. Plato, for instance, thought that the world around us is the shadow of a more "real" world of Forms. When you speak of "higher realities" or Absolute Being, you are using your own belief system. Everyone has to use some sort of belief system, everyone has to start with some axioms. Therefore, the fact that Aquinas/Kreeft is speaking from the perspective of a particular belief system does not automatically discredit it. The important thing is to ask whether that particular belief system/philosophy makes sense, is consistent both logically and with your own experience.
Yes, I'm aware of these things from my philosophy classes of 25 years ago. But nothing of what you are saying is addressing the very simple point that I keep hammering at, which is that without contemplative practice, without the movement from conceptual study to experiential insight, words are nothing but dry symbols, academic jargon.
Why I mentioned Aristotle should now be clearer. Aristotle was obviously not Christian. When I say that Thomistic philosophy is built on Aristotelian philosophy I am making the point that Thomas was not merely repeating Church dogma - he was starting from a purely philosophical/metaphysical standpoint. And when he speaks of the soul as the form of the human being, this is where he is coming from.
I don't care if the concepts are Christian or Islamic or Aristotelian or Rastafarian. Again, I'm not addressing this level at all. If you followed my exchanges with Vistesd you might gain some inkling. At this point it appears that you are simply not getting this basic point -- the experiential realm is not the conceptual realm, and if soul is anything, it is known in the experiential realm.
I'm not too impressed with authority figures - but nor am I too proud to admit that greater minds than me have existed and have thought of many things I am now considering before.
Certainly, great minds have existed, but the core of spiritual realization is latent in all minds. You must look to your own experience, using the words of others merely as pointers to what is already the birthright of all of us. At this level, however, these "pointers" have to be let go of. The "soul" (God/spirit) is not found in books, nor in classrooms, but in the direct pointing of one's own consciousness toward it. Jesus himself discouraged mere reliance on scripture.
As the Zen master Bodhidharma once said,
A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man:
Seeing into one's own nature and attainment of enlightenment
If you did not think contemplative practice would lead to a realisation of the truth, you would not speak of it. So, admit it or not, you are talking about "truth".
I'm certainly interested in "truth", but in the context you are talking about, I was (and am) stressing the crucial dimension of experiential spiritual practice in uncovering what "soul" is.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis reveals more of your misunderstandings.
Not sure what you're asking, but if you're asking whether a person can [b]fully explain something that cannot fundamentally be understood in its totality - then the answer is no.
But what about things that can be partially, or imperfectly, comprehended? They can be spoken about and explained.[/b]
The "truth that surpasses understanding" has nothing to do with explanations. It has to do with direct experience.
Have you ever meditated, or prayed contemplatively, LH? Ever known a silent mind?
Originally posted by MetamorphosisJust for clarity: I think in the “west,” the phrase “silent mind” often conjures the idea of an asleep mind, or a numb mind, or a blank mind, or some such—at least that was my confusion for a long time. In reality, it refers to a wide-awake, expansively aware mind that is uncluttered by the “noise” of thoughts, words, images, etc. of its own making. (I think you have said this elsewhere.)
This reveals more of your misunderstandings.
The "truth that surpasses understanding" has nothing to do with explanations. It has to do with direct experience.
Have you ever meditated, or prayed contemplatively, LH? Ever known a silent mind?
Nakagawa Soen Roshi once said, “Actually, there is no such thing as empty mind [another phrase often used, like silent mind], only present mind.” (Told to Peter Matthiesen, Nine-Headed Dragon River.) If thoughts arise, the “present mind” simply recognizes them as phenomena—like clouds against the sky—realizing that they are not it, but are manifest from it, as waves are manifest from the ocean. Then one realizes that one need not keep one’s mind compulsively busy (which I tend to do), and one can simply be in a richly alive fullness of presence. Then one can think—or work or discuss or sing or dance—as the want or need arises.
Realizing this, I realize that—for me—my compulsive “monkey mind” thinking (reading, studying, etc.) is like an addiction (in my case, largely fear-based); a habitual, “unconscious” and delusive way of distracting myself into a “false harbor,” imagining that I am “safe” if locked inside that “small i,” and spending days, even weeks, in a state of “safe” forgetfulness (forgetting what I have realized). When I remember, I usually feel a bit embarrassed, wondering (or knowing) what “mischief” I have been up to in the meantime—perhaps like an alcoholic who has “fallen off the wagon” and gone on a drunk. Sometimes my mischief shows up in these threads!
Again, though, that’s all just another way of speaking…
Originally posted by MetamorphosisA couple of observations:
[b]Absolute numbers are not experiential realities - no one can experience the number two in and of itself; it will always be an attribute of some other object. Integral calculus is not an experiential reality. "Courage" is not an experiential reality.
Yes, but we are not talking about "numbers", and we are not talking about "courage". We ...[text shortened]... the crucial dimension of experiential spiritual practice in uncovering what "soul" is.[/b]
One, ATY's question is like asking "What does St. Paul's Cathedral look like". My answer is "St. Paul's is a large, 18th century cathedral, shaped like a cross, with a huge dome etc.". Your answer seems to be "I can't relate to you the full sensory and emotional experience of being in St. Paul's, so I'm not going to tell you anything about it; instead, I'll give you the directions to get there". Which is very nice, but not what ATY asked for.
Now, I don't deny that a description of St. Paul's is not the same as being in St. Paul's; or that a description can never fully relate the experience of being in St. Paul's. However, I do not take the other extreme position of offering no description at all. If a person is to recognise St. Paul's when he finally visits it, he has to have some idea of what it looks like a priori. This is not about category errors or being attached to words - it's plain common sense.
Second, we seem to be talking apples and oranges here vis-a-vis our respective anthropologies. You seem to view man as being composed of three distinct parts - body, mind and spirit. Hence your triple view of knowledge - sensory, intellectual and experiental. You identify "soul" as being the same as spirit. Ontologically, you place body, mind and soul at the same level.
I view man as a soul that has been actualised in a body, in matter. The soul is like the "blueprint" of the person. Spirit is the class of being the soul belongs to. Mind/Intellect is a power or mode of operation of the soul. So is free will, for instance.
Just as you see something of the blueprint of a building every time you look at the building, you see and know something about the soul of a person every time you see or meet him/her. You don't comprehend the whole of his/her soul, of course, but nor are you completely ignorant of it.
Because our basic philosophical assumptions are so different, we're not even talking about the same "soul".
EDIT: There's probably going to be some rejoinder about me not "getting the point" and still thinking in terms of "philosophies" which are inadequate to deal with experiental realities. But that reflects your philosophical viewpoint, your belief system, your worldview. You can criticise me all you like for adhering to a particular philosophical viewpoint, but you're no different.
Just because your map to St. Paul's looks different from mine does not mean we are not both using maps.
Originally posted by Metamorphosis
This reveals more of your misunderstandings.
Oh gee - silly me.
The "truth that surpasses understanding" has nothing to do with explanations. It has to do with direct experience.
Actually, BdN's question does ask me to "explain" it. I'm not sure whether he was actually asking me to explain the term or asking me whether I had the capability to explain it.
Have you ever meditated, or prayed contemplatively, LH? Ever known a silent mind?
What would you say if I said "yes"? If I said "no"?
Originally posted by lucifershammer'Twas a bit of a rhetorical question really...'cos you can't, can you? Trying to jog your brain a bit...help you to understand what Metamorphosis is on about. 'Cos he's not just spouting 🙂
Actually, BdN's question does ask me to "explain" it. I'm not sure whether he was actually asking me to explain the term or asking me whether I had the capability to explain it. [/b]
Let me ask you...you say a soul is the essence of a person...what does that mean? can you describe the essence of a person? (You couldn't describe Chartres cathedral to a person who had no concept of a building...to a pre-colonial San nomad, you'd have to say "it's like an enormous tent", which would be a crap description at best...and with your concept of soul, what is there to compare it to? It's like...what?)
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Twas a bit of a rhetorical question really...'cos you can't, can you? Trying to jog your brain a bit...help you to understand what Metamorphosis is on about. 'Cos he's not just spouting 🙂
I'm not saying he is. But he seems to be taking the position that one shouldn't say anything about a subject that one does not know everything about, that one has not experienced directly and personally. According to his position, I shouldn't say anything about the Eiffel Tower because I have never seen it.
Which, IMO, is daft.
Naturally, I shouldn't pretend to know more about the Eiffel Tower than I really do; or pretend that my mere opinions about the Eiffel Tower are fact.
Let me ask you...you say a soul is the essence of a person...what does that mean? can you describe the essence of a person?
The essence of a person is, quite simply, what makes the person what he/she is. My essence is the LH-ness of me. It includes the way I look, talk, think, feel etc. It is what distinguishes me as being a distinct person from everyone else.
EDIT: Actually, I think Metamorphosis's position is that one cannot say anything about the soul because it is outside the physical and intellectual realms.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd that--your manners, physique, mind, emotions--is your soul?
The essence of a person is, quite simply, what makes the person what he/she is. My essence is the LH-ness of me. It includes the way I look, talk, think, feel etc. It is what distinguishes me as being a distinct person from everyone else.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFrom my philosophical perspective - all of that and more, yes.
And that--your manners, physique, mind, emotions--is your soul?
EDIT: Yes, you can't describe Chartres Cathedral very well to a person who has never seen a building. But you can describe it well enough for him to recognise it when he gets there. You can't describe the experience of being there perfectly even to Christopher Wren himself (the person who designed St. Paul's) if he hasn't been there. But that doesn't mean you cannot provide a sufficient description.