Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: What the eye cannot see (grammer corrected)

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Hello Jerry, I am intrigued by the way our dialogue is going. I m not sure it will ever be resolved. Experiencially, I m committed to an expression of faith,
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 16, 2005
      Hello Jerry,

      I am intrigued by the way our dialogue is going. I'm not sure it
      will ever be resolved. Experiencially, I'm committed to an
      expression of faith, but not to the exclusion of thought.
      Apparently, we seek different satisfactions in the privately chosen
      ends we pursue.

      I am in search of the miraculous, not that it could not be explained
      in various terms, I understand that, but I have tried to avoid
      specific religious orientations, although I am guilty of having
      claimed one (mayby even several orientations), but in these days of
      my life, I try to generalize my theism in a hard-core group like
      this one, although specifically, I am attracted to the historical
      Christian faith.>

      > Jerry: Faith, IN ESSENCE does reject science, because faith
      is "the evidence of things not seen." To be precise, one should not
      speak of "science": there isn't a singular practice
      called "science," there are the scientific disciplines, each with
      their own methodlogical procedures, theoretical paradigms, and the

      Joe: Good point. I suppose I meant 'scientia', which to clarify my
      idea, is in general 'the pursuit of knowledge'; the active human
      endeavor of 'knowing', regardless of the method or the field, etc.
      Scientia might refer to all branches of knowledge, including all
      interdisciplinary projects.

      Jerry: Faith, as an eidetic object and a eidetic consciousness, is
      clearly different. It cannot accept science in the main, because
      faith and "science," in my view, cut in different directions. I
      agree with you that those who overvalue scientific reasoning are
      engaged in the "God-project." But, for Sartre, those who make
      absolute claims for faith are also similarly engaged...

      Joe: That is to say, according to Sartre description, the desire to
      be God or godlike is alway central within the existential free
      project, however much an impossibility it might be to strive for
      such a lofty aim.

      Jerry: When Sartre described man as "the useless passion" he meant
      two things: our projects towards the impossible ideal of "the for-
      itself/in-itself" will always fail; and man is "use-less" in that he
      cannot be employed by GOD

      Joe: And this of course both implicates and denies the claims of
      Jesus Christ, who seems in the Gosple stories to have been employed
      by God. However, I do not think that Sartre used the
      terms 'employed' as you have here. I could be wrong, but I think
      Sartre meant that human beings had the 'desire' to be God. And from
      my take, in the quest for knowledge, power and our own aims, we
      express that desire. But in the end, I do not think that human
      knowledge need be juxtaposed to faith, as if 'knowledge' is in any
      way evil, but rather that the-use-of-knowledge-to-negate-god, has
      already set itself up as that desire to 'play god', since it lacks
      either faith or surrender. Generally speaking, intelligent atheism
      places mortal human beings at a high point, as the autonomous and
      highest source of meaning, denying of course that God in anyway has
      anything to offer, since the pursuit of God is regarded as a
      fictitous and fruitless enterprise. However, I do not find this
      enterprise to be fruitless in the 'private sense', within my
      subjectivity and direct encounters with faith. That is why I keep
      on with it, and bring into question your stand on the godless view
      of Being.

      Jerry: Our essence is freedom and freedom is "no-thing." We can
      only actively take up our freedom in bad faith or authenticity. Your
      argument for surrending to one's being is rejected by Sartre, but is
      powerfully developed in the work of Gabriel Marcel, who regarded
      himself as critic of Sartre.

      Joe: Our freedom is a "no-thing" in pursuit of a "some-thing", we
      merely need nothing to stand in the way of our something. Also, the
      freedom to be or do 'as one pleases' in the free project may end up
      running into a thousand deadends, and is different than a
      freedom 'from' any force that binds. We need authentic freedom from
      badfaith, we need freedom from 'the they' and mass mindedness, we
      need freedom from our uselessness, we need freedom from the
      overshawdowing left brain / highly exalted human wisdom programs,
      that must constantly 'know' in order to be served and satisfied.
      Knowledge has usurped the ineffable, the unsearchable, the
      unspeakable and the mystical. Every reason I hear that justifies
      the superiority of human achievement drives me a little more to my
      knees. I am not saying that knowledge does not have a role to play,
      but it has become the usurping-know-it-all and demand-all of this
      world that has denied the transcendent in favor of it's precious
      techonology, information, profit, pleasure, culture, and war. It's
      not that any of these are 'evil', but rather powerful
      preoccupations, distractions, in that we succumb to them in a
      psychic-fettish that drive human consciousness towards a feverish
      and contangious state of mind; into a 'worldliness of the world'
      that the Buddha, the Christ and even Heidegger refered to. Just try
      to live authentically around a collective cow-like herd of human
      beings, all happy with their human trivia, triumps and tributes,
      casting their downward self-satisfied look to the earth and earthly
      attainments, indifferent to heaven, indifferent to God. I will not
      be such a person.

      Jerry: But in fact we are not "lost" school children, because we are
      always already at "home."

      Joe: This world is not my home. To die is gain. I am a foreigner
      in a strange land. Jerry, I give the world to you, you can have it.

      Cheers - Joe
    • Tommy Beavitt
      Thank you very much, Jerry, for this brilliant exposition (highlight quoted below). Tommy
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 17, 2005
        Thank you very much, Jerry, for this brilliant exposition (highlight
        quoted below).


        On 15 Jan 2005, at 03:23, Jerry Phillips wrote:

        > Jerry's reply: When Husserl described the natural attitude as "naive"
        > he meant that term in a philosophical sense. Specifically, he meant
        > that a scientist or an ordinary person knows certain things, but they
        > do not know how exactly they know the thing in question. The natural
        > attitude has a tendency to shade off into common sense: "I know the
        > chair is over there because I can see it." Husserl's point is not that
        > the individual is wrong in asserting the existence of said chair, but
        > that the individual has not thought through what it really means to
        > assert a natural fact. Phenomenology clarifies that in order to say "I
        > know the chair is over there," the subject must already have intuited
        > the essential meaning of "I," the act of the knowing, the predication
        > of "is-ness," and the concept of "thereness." In other words,
        > consciousness must intend these objects in an apodictic fashion even
        > before I grasp the reality of that thing we agree to call "chair." A
        > phenomenologist is not concerned
        > to get rid of "common sense" or scientific naturalism; it aims to
        > ground these epistemologies in the intentional framework that
        > necessarily precedes them. So it is quite incorrect to say that a
        > quark cannot be known in the natural attitude. Just as one can know a
        > chair without exactly knowing how one knows it, so a quark can be
        > known (by physicists) in the natural attitude. Phenomenology does not
        > tell us how quarks are known in a naturalistic sense (one needs
        > microscopes and the like for that); phenomenology tells us how quarks
        > are known in a philosophical sense. And the philosophical sense of
        > knowing (which is phenomenology's domain) applies to all objects, from
        > quarks to chairs to my memories of yesteryear....
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.