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

Re: Existential Dreaming

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Mary, My knowledge of Dawkins arguments in the philosophical arena do not inspire me with confidence, and my awareness of his debate with Mary Midgley is nil.
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 27, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      My knowledge of Dawkins' arguments in the philosophical arena do not inspire me with confidence, and my awareness of his debate with Mary Midgley is nil. Just a statement of subjective fact, in order to indicate my reluctance to comment on your own interpretations. As to what I place my faith in, it does not amount to a confidence in my individual consciousness. Even when transported in mystical awareness toward the transcendent, my own self is neither divine nor transcendent, and these two qualities are essential in regard to any object for faith in the sense I mean. The inward life of another will always remain mysterious. Within that mystery lies any relation to the divine that pertains. Respect goes very deep, or it is not worth much. My own quest is in such radical re-formation that I wish in general to read and listen rather than to discuss. However harsh my irony may seem to those who discern its point, its origins are to be found in gentleness experienced. Language itself stutters, another factor which reassures me, that all is not lost. We simply cannot understand everything which we hear, read, or find happening to us, and it is not an unequivocal good to be faced with plain English. Some truths may not be expressed that way. You encounter the uncertainty principle, you say, and I have no idea what you are talking about. This is how communication is, some of the time.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
      > Louise,
      > It is a philosophical impasse, this Richard Dawkins-Mary Midgley debate, wherein people choose according to their affinities. I no longer feel it necessary to criticize your spirituality or defend my scientism. I remain confused as to what you place your faith in. If it is simply a confidence in your individual consciousness (mind-body), there is no objection or argument from me. I respect your erudition, but I can't wear your mantle. No one would want mine.
      > Existentialism is vague enough to accommodate the uncategorizable.
      > Mary
      > For non-Brits unfamiliar with Mary Midgley here's a start:
      > http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/13/philosophy
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > In fact, I think I may be proposing a more full development of what Wil has insisted upon - namely, that science should replace God in providing an adequate account of the human experience. The neglect of philosophical considerations, however, leaves science at a most primitive level, in some respects more about superstition and magic than verifiable knowledge. A credible science of the human mind, that does not omit some of the most crucial contextual factors for
      > understanding, would be a good beginning.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.