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

Ill-equipped World Views

Expand Messages
  • Jim Stuart
    If a thinker is developing a world-view which cannot, is essentially not equipped to, include himself; then he is piling up confusion ahead of this
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      "If a thinker is developing a world-view which cannot, is essentially not equipped to, include himself; then he is piling up confusion ahead of this understanding." (Een Enkelte, "A Further Contribution", 5-12-2004)
      Dear Kierkegaardians,

      As Willy has commented on this sentence of Een's, I'll post my response to it as well.

      I suspect Een might well have been thinking of me when he wrote this sentence. (Een, please correct me if I am wrong about this, or, indeed if I am wrong about any of the thoughts and ideas I attribute to you in this post.)

      My own world-view includes the following beliefs:

      1.. My brain is part of the natural world;
      2.. My brain conforms to the same natural laws that apply to the rest of the universe;
      3.. My brain is the seat of my mental life - my thoughts and feelings and other mental states.
      I would describe my world-view as 'naturalist', as opposed to a supernaturalist world-view which would reject at least one of the three propositions listed.

      My guess is that Een thinks that my world-view as described here is one of those world-views which is 'essentially not equipped' to include the thinker ( the self / the individual / the ethical subject). In other words, according to Een, unless I give up my current world-view I have no hope of travelling along the road to greater and greater subjectivity as described by SK in his "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" and other works.

      In message 347, I tried to elicit an answer from Een as to which alternative world-view he himself holds. I wrote:

      "Let me conclude by throwing two questions back at you:

      1 - Do you agree with my claim that either naturalism is true or supernaturalism is true?

      2 - If your answer to question one is 'yes', which of these alternative do you think is true?"


      Een might, of course, want to claim that it is not a question of either naturalism or supernaturalism, but rather that my question is to be rejected as ill-formed. Thus Een might say: 'If we reject the objective way of thinking about such things, the question 'naturalism or supernaturalism?' will not arise'*

      I am interested in the possibility of rejecting the naturalism vs. supernaturalism choice, especially as I don't want to be the sort of individual who 'puts up the shutters' to fruitful new ways of thinking, as described in Part II of Een's "A Further Contribution".

      Yours,

      Jim

      * As I say, Een has not responded to my direct questions of message 347. I suspect that Een's refusal (so far) to answer my questions is due to his dislike for direct communication. (See especially Part III of his "A Further Contribution")





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Anngeister
      Jim, Een Enkelte has been concerned to expose the inherent self- contradiction of dogmatic naturalism since #238 A First Contribution, see the Foreword.
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim,


        "Een Enkelte" has been concerned to expose the inherent self-
        contradiction of dogmatic naturalism since #238 "A First
        Contribution," see the "Foreword." That was before you started
        trolling the list, so it is not all about you. Which is not to
        say you do not "present" a robust example of the type.


        Lately you have adopted the pose of one whose points have
        gone unanswered. In fact your latest is close to being an
        outright appeal to the list in general, almost a demand
        for "satisfaction." By what right, I do not know; perhaps your
        interlocutor will see some extraordinary obligation; in my
        opinion, he has already (and utterly tactfully) met every point
        of his duty to you.


        About your worldview; I doubt anyone is suggesting it spoils the
        moral value of your existence and the ultimate responsibility you
        have for your actions. So your current "equipage" seems perfectly
        adequate for encompassing everything you have expressed as a
        value or aim in your life (including the type of "love" which you say
        determines your endeavor). If someone has called it inadequate,
        (have they?) that must be in reference to a relation of self-
        consciousness that cannot be discriminated either by "the aesthetic"
        or "the ethical."

        Jim, nobody doubts that their brain is a physical object. Or that
        the electric impulses in brains are physical objects. Even
        "memories" may have a strictly physical residence in brain
        tissue. These points constitute the "porch" or introduction
        to every modern world-view. Including by now, I would hope, any
        respectable religious world view. But how credulous you appear
        (to me) when you step so blithely from your points 1 and 2 into the
        thin air of point 3: "the seat of my mental life - my thoughts and
        feelings," without so much as a hint that you smell fish.

        What your brain seems unable to *see* (what no brain could see)
        is the problem involved in doing justice to both (a) the causality
        under which it is itself physically bound by perfect necessity (which
        makes all brain science possible) and, (b) a "seat" of moral freedom
        and creativity functioning relatively free of that same physical
        causality. It won't do to simply dismiss, to collapse, the
        distinction between the two, to assert a kind of experiential
        evidence for their uncomplicated physical unity ("I can feel it in my
        bones" - your #347). Reading that, I could not help thinking, "How
        convenient for his mental economy - he doesn't see the issue!"
        or: "He is content that it shall remain a matter of aesthetic
        judgment, a matter of personal conviction!"

        I hope you do not mean to imply that a thing is "naturalized" or
        de-mystified simply by the fact that is given in experience?
        Philosophy recognizes no meaningful set which consists simply
        of ALL the things that can be experienced.

        Forgive me for being so direct; although it is in the nature of things
        that I must take you as an "opponent" in debate, I do appreciate the
        presence on this list of a writer who manifests so genuine an example
        of dogmatic naturalism, such aesthetic vigor, and such unabashed
        metaphysical swagger.


        -Anngeister


        PS: Don't expect that an individual will rise to defend your
        concept of the supernatural, which you earlier characterized
        as "fairy tales." Your equally facile concept of "the natural" -
        which you obviously feel accounts for everything - appears to me to
        be something of a bed-time story in itself.



        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@n...>
        wrote:
        > "If a thinker is developing a world-view which cannot, is
        essentially not equipped to, include himself; then he is piling up
        confusion ahead of this understanding." (Een Enkelte, "A Further
        Contribution", 5-12-2004)
        > Dear Kierkegaardians,
        >
        > As Willy has commented on this sentence of Een's, I'll post my
        response to it as well.
        >
        > I suspect Een might well have been thinking of me when he wrote
        this sentence. (Een, please correct me if I am wrong about this, or,
        indeed if I am wrong about any of the thoughts and ideas I attribute
        to you in this post.)
        >
        > My own world-view includes the following beliefs:
        >
        > 1.. My brain is part of the natural world;
        > 2.. My brain conforms to the same natural laws that apply to the
        rest of the universe;
        > 3.. My brain is the seat of my mental life - my thoughts and
        feelings and other mental states.
        > I would describe my world-view as 'naturalist', as opposed to a
        supernaturalist world-view which would reject at least one of the
        three propositions listed.
        >
        > My guess is that Een thinks that my world-view as described here is
        one of those world-views which is 'essentially not equipped' to
        include the thinker ( the self / the individual / the ethical
        subject). In other words, according to Een, unless I give up my
        current world-view I have no hope of travelling along the road to
        greater and greater subjectivity as described by SK in
        his "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" and other works.
        >
        > In message 347, I tried to elicit an answer from Een as to which
        alternative world-view he himself holds. I wrote:
        >
        > "Let me conclude by throwing two questions back at you:
        >
        > 1 - Do you agree with my claim that either naturalism is true or
        supernaturalism is true?
        >
        > 2 - If your answer to question one is 'yes', which of these
        alternative do you think is true?"
        >
        >
        > Een might, of course, want to claim that it is not a question of
        either naturalism or supernaturalism, but rather that my question is
        to be rejected as ill-formed. Thus Een might say: 'If we reject the
        objective way of thinking about such things, the question 'naturalism
        or supernaturalism?' will not arise'*
        >
        > I am interested in the possibility of rejecting the naturalism vs.
        supernaturalism choice, especially as I don't want to be the sort of
        individual who 'puts up the shutters' to fruitful new ways of
        thinking, as described in Part II of Een's "A Further Contribution".
        >
        > Yours,
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > * As I say, Een has not responded to my direct questions of message
        347. I suspect that Een's refusal (so far) to answer my questions is
        due to his dislike for direct communication. (See especially Part III
        of his "A Further Contribution")
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jim Stuart
        Dear John, Thank you for your response to my posting on Ill-equipped world-views . It is good to hear from you again. I have missed your clear and forthright
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 17, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear John,

          Thank you for your response to my posting on "Ill-equipped world-views". It is good to hear from you again. I have missed your clear and forthright contributions to the group. Further it is helpful to get an "outside" perspective on my conversations with "Een Enkelte". (I realize "Een Enkelte" is not a real name, and I enjoy the element of absurdity in starting postings with "Dear Een".)

          I didn't intend my posting to be an "outright appeal to the list in general". Rather, I felt that Willy's posting had not done justice to Een's sentence on ill-equipped world-views, so I wanted to offer an alternative take on the sentence, which fitted better with Een's intention.

          You make a number of criticisms of my recent postings in your post, and I would like to respond to some of them.

          Firstly, with regard to the "thin air" of my point 3, your remarks suggest that I didn't express what I wanted to communicate in a satisfactory manner. I intended my point 3 to be as uncontroversial as my points 1 and 2. Perhaps the use of the word "seat" was a mistake. What I wanted communicate was something like this: "Just as the stomach is the organ for digestion, the brain is the organ for thinking and feeling." Or again: "The brain is the organ responsible for consciousness and self-consciousness in the same way that the heart is the organ responsible for circulating the blood."

          As for my "not seeing the issue" of doing justice to both (a) natural necessity and (b) moral freedom, I do think there is a serious issue here, which I don't claim to have a satisfactory solution to. I tried to express my own lack of a solution when making my remarks about the problem of free will in message 347.

          Secondly, you suggest that my pair of opposing concepts "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are "facile". In your post you seem to argue against both concepts - you imply that a careful and serious thinker would embrace neither "dogmatic naturalism" nor "supernaturalism".

          As against this, my aim is to present a dichotomy, such that one of the pairs of opposing concepts must be true. (It's like I'm saying that either it is raining or it is not raining, one of these alternatives must be true.) Agreed I'm trying to define my terms such that everyone with a "modern world-view" would say that naturalism was true. I'm looking for a weak notion of naturalism such that you would agree with it. I don't mean to define my concept of supernaturalism such that no intelligent thinker would opt for it. Dualists like Descartes would qualify as supernaturalists on my use of the term. Whilst I would expect hardly any members of the Kierkegaardians group to count themselves as supernaturalists, I would expect most fundamentalist evangelical Christians to claim to be supernaturalists.

          Like yourself, I am keen to develop a coherent and true world-view that does justice to both the discoveries of modern science and the insights of the best ethical and spiritual thinkers. In fact, I think of you as more an ally in this quest, rather than an opponent. My pressing of Een to communicate his thoughts on the question (or possible non-question) of naturalism vs. supernaturalism is a genuine wish to understand his view, and it is not a desire to score points off him. You feel Een has done sufficient to respond to my arguments and questions. Perhaps you are right, but I myself don't feel I fully understand his outlook on the world. I suspect that he is not fully sympathetic to your own "modern view".

          Finally, I think you misrepresent me as some sort of hard-headed robust naturalist. I think of myself as a "weak naturalist" or even a "minimal naturalist". Just like there are many varieties of capitalism, so there are many varieties of naturalism. One can oppose the U.S. Republican Party's "rampant corporate-consumer capitalism" without being anti-capitalist. Just as one may favour a more "social democratic" variety of capitalism, one may also favour a minimal version of naturalism which opposes scientism.

          I certainly wish to oppose supernaturalism, but I am no Quine, Dennett or Churchland.

          Yours,

          Jim



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John Anngeister
          Jim, WHATever It is obvious to me that I could not possibly make you understand or care about the frustrating gaps I find in our philosophical understandings.
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 18, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim,

            WHATever


            It is obvious to me that I could not possibly make you
            understand or care about the frustrating gaps I find in our
            philosophical understandings. Obviously your authors are
            not my authors. My problems are not your problems. Your
            problems are not even genuine problems, as far as I am
            concerned. I am really astonished by the whole thing.

            It is my intention occasionally to use an inspiration from
            Kierkegaard to write against atheism, rank materialism, and
            the philosophical and religious naivete of our "present
            time." But I write for and enjoy the work of list writers
            who feel the oppression of these "pinched" times from the
            perspective of the religious consciousness. I see no common
            ground for debate between theism and materialism.
            Jim, write in your own defense if you will, but you must
            allow it may go unanswered. Feel free to continue
            disregarding my ground and my "points," as I must disregard
            yours.

            I have an impression there is some other list on which your
            writing is in its best light and is perhaps well-received.
            No matter, please. If I indicated an appreciation for your
            presence here, I hope you understood that I see you only as a
            convenient foil or troll, a fisherman on holiday far from
            home, and myself, a fish that you will never play very long,
            but who only takes your bait from time to time to reveal the
            hook in it.



            Now it's my turn to make an appeal to the list. I usually sweat my
            responses for hours, but I feel life is too short to be spent giving
            extra writing opportunities to Jim. However, if another list member
            were to urge upon me the need to counter some "point" he/she feels
            Jim has made (below) with any analogy or insinuation or example he
            has used, I would in this indirect manner conceive it to be a duty
            which I would gladly fulfill ... a duty to the truth, and to that
            other member's relation to truth.


            -Anngeister





            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@n...>
            wrote:
            > Dear John,
            >
            > Thank you for your response to my posting on "Ill-equipped world-
            views". It is good to hear from you again. I have missed your clear
            and forthright contributions to the group. Further it is helpful to
            get an "outside" perspective on my conversations with "Een Enkelte".
            (I realize "Een Enkelte" is not a real name, and I enjoy the element
            of absurdity in starting postings with "Dear Een".)
            >
            > I didn't intend my posting to be an "outright appeal to the list in
            general". Rather, I felt that Willy's posting had not done justice to
            Een's sentence on ill-equipped world-views, so I wanted to offer an
            alternative take on the sentence, which fitted better with Een's
            intention.
            >
            > You make a number of criticisms of my recent postings in your post,
            and I would like to respond to some of them.
            >
            > Firstly, with regard to the "thin air" of my point 3, your remarks
            suggest that I didn't express what I wanted to communicate in a
            satisfactory manner. I intended my point 3 to be as uncontroversial
            as my points 1 and 2. Perhaps the use of the word "seat" was a
            mistake. What I wanted communicate was something like this: "Just as
            the stomach is the organ for digestion, the brain is the organ for
            thinking and feeling." Or again: "The brain is the organ responsible
            for consciousness and self-consciousness in the same way that the
            heart is the organ responsible for circulating the blood."
            >
            > As for my "not seeing the issue" of doing justice to both (a)
            natural necessity and (b) moral freedom, I do think there is a
            serious issue here, which I don't claim to have a satisfactory
            solution to. I tried to express my own lack of a solution when making
            my remarks about the problem of free will in message 347.
            >
            > Secondly, you suggest that my pair of opposing
            concepts "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are "facile". In your
            post you seem to argue against both concepts - you imply that a
            careful and serious thinker would embrace neither "dogmatic
            naturalism" nor "supernaturalism".
            >
            > As against this, my aim is to present a dichotomy, such that one of
            the pairs of opposing concepts must be true. (It's like I'm saying
            that either it is raining or it is not raining, one of these
            alternatives must be true.) Agreed I'm trying to define my terms such
            that everyone with a "modern world-view" would say that naturalism
            was true. I'm looking for a weak notion of naturalism such that you
            would agree with it. I don't mean to define my concept of
            supernaturalism such that no intelligent thinker would opt for it.
            Dualists like Descartes would qualify as supernaturalists on my use
            of the term. Whilst I would expect hardly any members of the
            Kierkegaardians group to count themselves as supernaturalists, I
            would expect most fundamentalist evangelical Christians to claim to
            be supernaturalists.
            >
            > Like yourself, I am keen to develop a coherent and true world-view
            that does justice to both the discoveries of modern science and the
            insights of the best ethical and spiritual thinkers. In fact, I think
            of you as more an ally in this quest, rather than an opponent. My
            pressing of Een to communicate his thoughts on the question (or
            possible non-question) of naturalism vs. supernaturalism is a genuine
            wish to understand his view, and it is not a desire to score points
            off him. You feel Een has done sufficient to respond to my arguments
            and questions. Perhaps you are right, but I myself don't feel I fully
            understand his outlook on the world. I suspect that he is not fully
            sympathetic to your own "modern view".
            >
            > Finally, I think you misrepresent me as some sort of hard-headed
            robust naturalist. I think of myself as a "weak naturalist" or even
            a "minimal naturalist". Just like there are many varieties of
            capitalism, so there are many varieties of naturalism. One can oppose
            the U.S. Republican Party's "rampant corporate-consumer capitalism"
            without being anti-capitalist. Just as one may favour a more "social
            democratic" variety of capitalism, one may also favour a minimal
            version of naturalism which opposes scientism.
            >
            > I certainly wish to oppose supernaturalism, but I am no Quine,
            Dennett or Churchland.
            >
            > Yours,
            >
            > Jim
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • j15300
            ... of the pairs of opposing concepts must be true. (It s like I m saying ... naturalism such that you would agree with it. I don t mean to define my concept
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 19, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "John Anngeister"
              <reader@v...> wrote:
              >
              > Jim,
              >
              > WHATever

              > Now it's my turn to make an appeal to the list. I usually sweat my
              > responses for hours, but I feel life is too short to be spent giving
              > extra writing opportunities to Jim. However, if another list member
              > were to urge upon me the need to counter some "point" he/she feels
              > Jim has made (below) with any analogy or insinuation or example he
              > has used, I would in this indirect manner conceive it to be a duty
              > which I would gladly fulfill ... a duty to the truth, and to that
              > other member's relation to truth.
              >
              >
              > -Anngeister
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@n...>
              > wrote:
              > > Dear John,

              > > As against this, my aim is to present a dichotomy, such that one
              of the pairs of opposing concepts must be true. (It's like I'm saying
              > that either it is raining or it is not raining, one of these
              > alternatives must be true.) I'm looking for a weak notion of
              naturalism such that you would agree with it. I don't mean to define
              my concept of supernaturalism such that no intelligent thinker would
              opt for it.

              > > Like yourself, I am keen to develop a coherent and true world-view
              > that does justice to both the discoveries of modern science and the
              > insights of the best ethical and spiritual thinkers.



              John, if you are interested in state-specific theory, whereby a denser
              state is modulated to a less dense state of perception, by recognized
              methods (prayer, meditation, purification of personality), perhaps
              comment to Jim's "either/or" logic?

              Am thinking along the lines of what is true for one person may not be
              perceptibly evident for the next. Not all logical dichotomies are
              self-evident, if incomplete, i.e., the grosser or more naturalistic
              surround of being of the perceiver may be assumed as standard, with
              regard to sensing any spiritual qualia, etc.

              A honeybee perceives ultraviolet em; a human does not consciously
              register the frequency range. For those whose spiritual sensibility
              or soul-field coherency focus is "weak naturalistic," reductionist,
              materialist, objectivist, etc., the currently presented truth of a
              Fatima miracle or being in the Presence of a living Saint is often the
              only current way to experience the numinous.

              If not present, and therewith convicted by the field energies present,
              the sceptic/agnostic may tend to dismiss such unique events, along the
              lines of non-manipulatable, non-controllable, non-repeatable. Such
              scientism is reductionism, much as Kant reduced the categories of
              understanding, for the constituency he perceived: most scientists
              being unable/willing to perceive the numinous in the
              laboratory--Husserl, Bose, Swedenborg, et al. being the exceptional,
              creative minority.

              When the Fatima miracle was ongoing, sceptics dichotomized that yes,
              the sun was locally enhanced, preternaturally drying garments, etc.,
              and later research confirms such large crowds are unable to experience
              mass hysteria phenomena, particularly with confirmed sceptics, news
              reporters, etc.

              Kierkegaard pointed to "subjective" and "objective" madnesses,
              superstitious mystification and scientism in the extremes, as the two
              off-genuine tendencies in man, vis a vis what is true.

              There is a small--when compared with the many bogus claims--body of
              genuine spiritual demonstration. The methods for perceiving the
              numinous or transcendent are classically well-known. They have a
              general qualification level of purification, purity as willing one
              thing, a genuine humility, openness, care, etc. These tend to involve
              much time and effort, confronting self, instead of e.g. an airy
              theoretic balancing fine nuances onto the head of a pin, which may
              become a form of thinking tending to avoid the e-motion of divine
              Love, connection with the Living God, being the Word, etc.

              Truth-claims thus begin with the realization that not all definitions
              and methods are the same, and additionally that the efforts spent in
              many a paradigm assuredly circularize or pre-limit the possible range
              of observations/data. The observer is key in this process; if
              unwilling, a la Kant's scientific majority, to perform
              Plotinean/Husserlian/Whiteheadian methods leading to Self-Realization,
              or unwilling to bring to the laboratory the sensitivity of a Burbank
              or a Bose, or the early religiosity of an Einstein or a Newton, the
              naturalism persists, in a manner Jesus or Gautama could likely term
              gross, dense, ignorant, unMindful.

              Thus it might be worth a few minutes' time and effort to point to the
              role of the particular observer and the soul-field
              coherency/attunement of same, regarding what is the nature of true,
              coherent observing of "the world," which, for some is on occasion a
              new earth, seen in a grain of sand or rose blossom. Jim's approach is
              intuitively correct: seeking truth, using the best insights of modern
              science, genuine spirituality, and ethical persons, and becoming that
              truth, being that Word, as it were, when received and recognized. It
              is the "foul rag-and-bone shop of the heart, where all ladders start,"
              (to paraphrase the final verses of Yeats' "The Circus Animals'
              Desertion") which asks of the airy Kantian/breezy reductionist some
              further, personal effort.

              The heart is now known to be composed about equally of muscular and
              neurological cells, according to http://www.heartmath.org/research/,
              referred to in Joseph Chilton Pearce's "The Biology of Transcendence:
              A Blueprint of the Human Spirit," pointed to in Lynne McTaggart's
              "The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe," and in
              David Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D.'s "Force vs Power: The Hidden Determinants
              of Human Behavior"....

              Classical composer Kurt Leland has "Music and the Soul: A Guide to
              Achieving Transcendent Musical Experiences," and Arthur Abell, M.D.
              has "Talks with Great Composers," recording his conversations with his
              friend Johannes Brahms and others; both trace the development of
              inspiration and creativity, as does Helen Greaves' "Testimony of
              Light," C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce," and Patricia Kirmond's
              "Messages from Heaven."

              "Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton, "The Masters and Their Retreats,"
              Mark L. Prophet, and "The Living Book of Nature," Omraam Mikhael
              Aivanhov, are esoteric contributions by three respected authors and
              teachers of the higher life.

              "Entering the Circle" and "The Master of Lucid Dreams," both by
              Russian psychiatrist Olga Kharitidi, describe a somewhat darker or
              more mechanized perspective of e.g. inducing state-specific changes in
              awareness (she helped develop this apparatus at a leading "science
              city" physics institute), and of tracking state-specific consciousnes
              (she worked with a computer program able to display various states of
              awareness).

              An American counterpart to Kharitidi's work is found in Russell Targ's
              (physicist) and Jane Katra's (his psychiatrist daughter) "The Heart of
              the Mind: How to Experience God without Belief," perhaps bringing to
              mind, and likely unfairly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's phrase, "cheap
              grace." For those who prefer to include
              non-traditional/non-Christian/science-based sources, such as found in
              some of the above, Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D.'s "The Hidden Face of
              God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth," is a former Weizmann
              Institute physicist's perceptive look at the universe.

              These readings are at least provocative, are generally lesser-known,
              and a sampling of any three or four would provide "weak naturalism,"
              etc., with additional understanding, if not internalized demonstration
              of the Living God, Plotinus' One.

              For the latter, for spiritualized sensibility, one may point to e.g.
              the inspiring "Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer," Yvonne von
              Fettweis, "Seeing with the Eyes of Love," Eknath Easwaran, Ph.D.,
              "Autobiography of a Yogi," Paramahansa Yogananda (with chapters on
              science and spirituality), and Saints such as Teresa of Avila's major
              writings (which, in fact show forth the Holy Christ Mind on every
              page), and even Saint Edith Stein's last book, on Saint John of the
              Cross, which continues from her God-realization training (via
              phenomenological reduction) under Husserl.

              Onkelos' and George M. Lamsa's translations from the Aramaic of Judaic
              and Christian scripture are also inspiring, if the King James version
              has not yet brought the living keeping of the Word, for one.

              Would suggest that a sampling of and understanding of any three titles
              of interest would contribute to awareness of genuine truth. The
              ranges of information, and the manners in which presented, include the
              popular, the scientific, and the spiritual.

              cordially,

              j.
            • John Anngeister
              Jim2 Greetings, Thanks for your thoughts. Except I was not seeking advice for new or old angles to pursue with Jim1. I offered only to pick up the argument
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 20, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim2 Greetings,

                Thanks for your thoughts.

                Except I was not seeking advice for new or old angles to
                pursue with Jim1. I offered only to pick up the argument
                with any list member who felt that some particular point
                Jim has made appeared worthy of response or continued
                discussion from the standpoint of the religious consciousness.

                You re-posted Jim's appeal to an absolute dichotomy. The
                idea is that a metaphysical conclusion regarding the Absolute
                must be unitary (either it is raining or not raining).
                I think the short-answer of the religious consciousness is
                that, in regard to the whole "history of time," it remains
                the case that the Eternal must be its absolute ground. Just
                as the Infinite must be the source and destiny of every
                finite having real existence "in time." By "real existence"
                I mean the characteristic quality of a part that is a whole
                in itself, ie., capable of being a cause rather than a
                material "piece" describing a lawful trajectory.


                Regarding some of your own points:

                1. I don't believe Kierkegaard's quest of a valid "proof" for
                valid "faith" descends to the level of modulated states of
                perception, or to measurement or tests of validity for
                specific "showings." Discussion?

                2. I think the real benefit of prayer, for example, is realized
                purely subjectively by one who attempts that relation of oneself to
                truth in earnest. And it is that subjective result which is the one
                thing alone that can be critical for faith. But this is not the
                subjective or objective evaluation of outward results.

                3. I believe there is a large difference between (a) An ill-equipped
                worldview (characterized by conceptual and attitudinal blocks to
                faith) and (b) the notion of a faulty equipment for sensing
                the "things" of the spirit (the notion that there may be
                physiological blocks to faith). I would not postulate a circumstance
                in which an individual can be deprived of the highest good (the good
                of faith) simply because he/she was born with a deficient spiritual
                sense-apparatus (if such a physiological apparatus exists). Did you
                mean to imply such a physiology with your reference to bees,
                frequencies, adepts, etc.? I think it is a distraction from the
                trend of Kierkegaard's faith-problem. Discussion?


                I leave to you the task of engaging Jim1 with the aid of any or all
                of the ammunition you recommend in your post.


                -John.



                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "j15300" <retired153@y...>
                wrote:
                >
                > John, if you are interested in state-specific theory, whereby a
                denser
                > state is modulated to a less dense state of perception, by
                recognized
                > methods (prayer, meditation, purification of personality), perhaps
                > comment to Jim's "either/or" logic?
                >
                > Am thinking along the lines of what is true for one person may not
                be
                > perceptibly evident for the next. Not all logical dichotomies are
                > self-evident, if incomplete, i.e., the grosser or more naturalistic
                > surround of being of the perceiver may be assumed as standard, with
                > regard to sensing any spiritual qualia, etc.
                >
                > A honeybee perceives ultraviolet em; a human does not consciously
                > register the frequency range. For those whose spiritual sensibility
                > or soul-field coherency focus is "weak naturalistic," reductionist,
                > materialist, objectivist, etc., the currently presented truth of a
                > Fatima miracle or being in the Presence of a living Saint is often
                the
                > only current way to experience the numinous.
                >
                > If not present, and therewith convicted by the field energies
                present,
                > the sceptic/agnostic may tend to dismiss such unique events, along
                the
                > lines of non-manipulatable, non-controllable, non-repeatable. Such
                > scientism is reductionism, much as Kant reduced the categories of
                > understanding, for the constituency he perceived: most scientists
                > being unable/willing to perceive the numinous in the
                > laboratory--Husserl, Bose, Swedenborg, et al. being the exceptional,
                > creative minority.
                >
                > When the Fatima miracle was ongoing, sceptics dichotomized that yes,
                > the sun was locally enhanced, preternaturally drying garments, etc.,
                > and later research confirms such large crowds are unable to
                experience
                > mass hysteria phenomena, particularly with confirmed sceptics, news
                > reporters, etc.
                >
                > Kierkegaard pointed to "subjective" and "objective" madnesses,
                > superstitious mystification and scientism in the extremes, as the
                two
                > off-genuine tendencies in man, vis a vis what is true.
                >
                > There is a small--when compared with the many bogus claims--body of
                > genuine spiritual demonstration. The methods for perceiving the
                > numinous or transcendent are classically well-known. They have a
                > general qualification level of purification, purity as willing one
                > thing, a genuine humility, openness, care, etc. These tend to
                involve
                > much time and effort, confronting self, instead of e.g. an airy
                > theoretic balancing fine nuances onto the head of a pin, which may
                > become a form of thinking tending to avoid the e-motion of divine
                > Love, connection with the Living God, being the Word, etc.
                >
                > Truth-claims thus begin with the realization that not all
                definitions
                > and methods are the same, and additionally that the efforts spent in
                > many a paradigm assuredly circularize or pre-limit the possible
                range
                > of observations/data.

                ............


                > cordially,
                >
                > j.
              • j15300
                John, am agreeing with your points, to wit: the Eternal precedes universe; Kierkegaard does, in my opinion, attempt to uphold the banner of such Being, as
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 21, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  John, am agreeing with your points, to wit:

                  the Eternal precedes universe;

                  Kierkegaard does, in my opinion, attempt to uphold the banner of such
                  Being, as necessary and sufficient existential demonstration;

                  however, given today's surround, he might find avenues of interest in
                  state-specific science and/or Fatima-type demonstrations (or,
                  possibly, condemn such interest as presenting more of the same
                  diverting/superficial conditions as those he remonstrated against in
                  19th century Copenhagen);

                  "subjective" when understood as self and Truth as tending to/being at
                  One is no longer merely subjective, but the Oneness of e.g. the Son
                  and the Father, or the One Ego;

                  as Saints and Sages demonstrate that field, others may light their
                  candles by it, and healings and signs follow; by those fruits have the
                  followers of Christ, Truth, been known;

                  the question of physiological receptors is a distraction, to be sure,
                  re faith-problem; however, the "faith" or strength and purity of
                  soul-field coherency is modulated by e.g. grossness, e.g., alcohol
                  does tend to cut anyone off from the higher cortical functions, which
                  in turn are a key aspect of oneness with the God Presence. The PET
                  and MRI-type scans of human spirituality states, when combined with
                  the illogical reduction of spirituality merely to brainological
                  centers, tend to present a problem in faith for those whose
                  soul-fields have not encountered the Living God/Oneness--i.e., the
                  short-stopping of focus energy onto the material and/or unproductive
                  religious practice. This could likely be a subject of Kierkegaard in
                  the 21st century, if only as a mechanization of perception within the
                  practice of science/materialism, similar in effect to uninspired rote
                  prayer, which in effect parallels 19th century christendom with 21st
                  century scientism. Would Kierkegaard care at all about the trend, or
                  prefer to continue discussing authenticity with the diminished,
                  still-interested churchly remnant? The enculturation of the many into
                  a more gross materialism might be of concern to him...or he might side
                  with Saint Paul, letting such go to blazes, that some might perceive
                  their error after a time.

                  If Jim1 prefers to pick up and read some of the authors whose works
                  tend toward bridging natural and spiritual, and he decides to raise
                  issues regarding same, I would be happy to continue that topic;
                  however, the concluding unscientific postscript or bottom line to such
                  a discussion would likely be, have those readings (held to be true)
                  become demonstrations of faith, charity, insight?

                  cordially,

                  j.

                  --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "John Anngeister"
                  <reader@v...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Jim2 Greetings,
                  >
                  > Thanks for your thoughts.
                  >
                  > Except I was not seeking advice for new or old angles to
                  > pursue with Jim1. I offered only to pick up the argument
                  > with any list member who felt that some particular point
                  > Jim has made appeared worthy of response or continued
                  > discussion from the standpoint of the religious consciousness.
                  >
                  > You re-posted Jim's appeal to an absolute dichotomy. The
                  > idea is that a metaphysical conclusion regarding the Absolute
                  > must be unitary (either it is raining or not raining).
                  > I think the short-answer of the religious consciousness is
                  > that, in regard to the whole "history of time," it remains
                  > the case that the Eternal must be its absolute ground. Just
                  > as the Infinite must be the source and destiny of every
                  > finite having real existence "in time." By "real existence"
                  > I mean the characteristic quality of a part that is a whole
                  > in itself, ie., capable of being a cause rather than a
                  > material "piece" describing a lawful trajectory.
                  >
                  >
                  > Regarding some of your own points:
                  >
                  > 1. I don't believe Kierkegaard's quest of a valid "proof" for
                  > valid "faith" descends to the level of modulated states of
                  > perception, or to measurement or tests of validity for
                  > specific "showings." Discussion?
                  >
                  > 2. I think the real benefit of prayer, for example, is realized
                  > purely subjectively by one who attempts that relation of oneself to
                  > truth in earnest. And it is that subjective result which is the one
                  > thing alone that can be critical for faith. But this is not the
                  > subjective or objective evaluation of outward results.
                  >
                  > 3. I believe there is a large difference between (a) An ill-equipped
                  > worldview (characterized by conceptual and attitudinal blocks to
                  > faith) and (b) the notion of a faulty equipment for sensing
                  > the "things" of the spirit (the notion that there may be
                  > physiological blocks to faith). I would not postulate a circumstance
                  > in which an individual can be deprived of the highest good (the good
                  > of faith) simply because he/she was born with a deficient spiritual
                  > sense-apparatus (if such a physiological apparatus exists). Did you
                  > mean to imply such a physiology with your reference to bees,
                  > frequencies, adepts, etc.? I think it is a distraction from the
                  > trend of Kierkegaard's faith-problem. Discussion?
                  >
                  >
                  > I leave to you the task of engaging Jim1 with the aid of any or all
                  > of the ammunition you recommend in your post.
                  >
                  >
                  > -John.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "j15300" <retired153@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > John, if you are interested in state-specific theory, whereby a
                  > denser
                  > > state is modulated to a less dense state of perception, by
                  > recognized
                  > > methods (prayer, meditation, purification of personality), perhaps
                  > > comment to Jim's "either/or" logic?
                  > >
                  > > Am thinking along the lines of what is true for one person may not
                  > be
                  > > perceptibly evident for the next. Not all logical dichotomies are
                  > > self-evident, if incomplete, i.e., the grosser or more naturalistic
                  > > surround of being of the perceiver may be assumed as standard, with
                  > > regard to sensing any spiritual qualia, etc.
                  > >
                  > > A honeybee perceives ultraviolet em; a human does not consciously
                  > > register the frequency range. For those whose spiritual sensibility
                  > > or soul-field coherency focus is "weak naturalistic," reductionist,
                  > > materialist, objectivist, etc., the currently presented truth of a
                  > > Fatima miracle or being in the Presence of a living Saint is often
                  > the
                  > > only current way to experience the numinous.
                  > >
                  > > If not present, and therewith convicted by the field energies
                  > present,
                  > > the sceptic/agnostic may tend to dismiss such unique events, along
                  > the
                  > > lines of non-manipulatable, non-controllable, non-repeatable. Such
                  > > scientism is reductionism, much as Kant reduced the categories of
                  > > understanding, for the constituency he perceived: most scientists
                  > > being unable/willing to perceive the numinous in the
                  > > laboratory--Husserl, Bose, Swedenborg, et al. being the exceptional,
                  > > creative minority.
                  > >
                  > > When the Fatima miracle was ongoing, sceptics dichotomized that yes,
                  > > the sun was locally enhanced, preternaturally drying garments, etc.,
                  > > and later research confirms such large crowds are unable to
                  > experience
                  > > mass hysteria phenomena, particularly with confirmed sceptics, news
                  > > reporters, etc.
                  > >
                  > > Kierkegaard pointed to "subjective" and "objective" madnesses,
                  > > superstitious mystification and scientism in the extremes, as the
                  > two
                  > > off-genuine tendencies in man, vis a vis what is true.
                  > >
                  > > There is a small--when compared with the many bogus claims--body of
                  > > genuine spiritual demonstration. The methods for perceiving the
                  > > numinous or transcendent are classically well-known. They have a
                  > > general qualification level of purification, purity as willing one
                  > > thing, a genuine humility, openness, care, etc. These tend to
                  > involve
                  > > much time and effort, confronting self, instead of e.g. an airy
                  > > theoretic balancing fine nuances onto the head of a pin, which may
                  > > become a form of thinking tending to avoid the e-motion of divine
                  > > Love, connection with the Living God, being the Word, etc.
                  > >
                  > > Truth-claims thus begin with the realization that not all
                  > definitions
                  > > and methods are the same, and additionally that the efforts spent in
                  > > many a paradigm assuredly circularize or pre-limit the possible
                  > range
                  > > of observations/data.
                  >
                  > ............
                  >
                  >
                  > > cordially,
                  > >
                  > > j.
                • John Anngeister
                  Dear Jim2, It is clearly the case, at least from the historical record, that the power of healing is a prerogative of the Eternal when manifest in time (as in
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 30, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jim2,


                    It is clearly the case, at least from the historical
                    record, that the power of healing is a prerogative of the
                    Eternal when manifest in time (as in "the Life").


                    Still, I have also noticed that "the God," in speaking to
                    those whose faith had combined with his Presence to effect
                    a physical healing, never once said the words "Follow me."


                    More often His words to the recipients of this side-
                    ministry were something like, "Now keep quiet and get outta here."

                    ie., "Go in peace." "Tell no one."


                    On the one hand, "Go in peace."

                    The *faith* of these people was already manifest (and acknowledged)
                    in the fact that it had healed them in the presence of the Eternal.

                    If faith is the key, what need, then, of the God's physical presence
                    and voice?


                    On the other hand, "Tell no one."

                    As if to say, "What has transpired for you in my Presence could not
                    be hindered, in view of the intersection of my power with your
                    faith, - but this is NOT the substance of my Gospel. And your
                    testimony to it will not secure a like faith in others, but will only
                    bring a "crowd" desirous that I shall do their bidding."

                    If faith is the key, what use, then, in testifying to a "wonder"?


                    -John.


                    PS: You spoke of "healings and signs" as *fruits* of the spirit, but
                    I don't see either of these at Gal. 5:22. You meant *gifts*? There
                    is a difference between spirit fruit and spirit gifts, no?



                    you wrote:

                    >
                    > given today's surround, he [K] might find avenues of interest in
                    > state-specific science and/or Fatima-type demonstrations (or,
                    > possibly, condemn such interest as presenting more of the same
                    > diverting/superficial conditions as those he remonstrated against in
                    > 19th century Copenhagen);
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    > as Saints and Sages demonstrate that field, others may light their
                    > candles by it, and healings and signs follow; by those fruits have
                    the
                    > followers of Christ, Truth, been known;
                  • j15300
                    Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD?...He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart.... Ps. 24:3-4 Hi, John; The Son, the Christed One, does nothing of
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD?...He that hath clean
                      hands, and a pure heart...." Ps. 24:3-4

                      Hi, John;

                      The Son, the Christed One, does nothing "of himself," but what he
                      seeth the Father do; as Above, so below.

                      The Father, omniscient perfection, works precisely; insofar as the
                      Son of God worketh hitherto, the work is complete, well-done,
                      faithful.

                      Jesus, being a perfect example of the Christ (Rabbi Ezekiel and
                      Saint John the Beloved being lesser examples), demonstrates the
                      loving care of the Father-Mother God in all aspects of ministry.

                      For each application of the Truth in Love, Christ's ministry was
                      tailored for the individual, often applicable to a wider teaching.
                      When, in Saint Mark 5:18-19, a formerly bedeviled individual "prayed
                      [Jesus]...that he might be with him," "Jesus suffered him not, but
                      saith unto him, 'Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great
                      things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on
                      thee.'"

                      By the timing of Ezekiel, "...the house of Israel will not hearken
                      unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of
                      Israel are impudent and hardhearted." (Ezek. 3:7) The impudence is
                      as Kierkegaard's "subjective madness" (cf SK's earlier lifestyle),
                      the hardheartedness is as Kierkegaard's "objective madness" (cf
                      Saint Paul's earlier lifestyle). Speaking the Word to His
                      disciples, who "reasoned" among themselves re Jesus' admonition
                      to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod,"
                      Jesus marveled, saying, "Why reason ye, because ye have no bread?
                      perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet
                      hardened? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how
                      many baskets full of fragments took ye up?...and when the seven
                      among four thousand, how many baskets...? How is it that ye do not
                      understand?" (Mark 8:15-21)

                      The Father and Son use various fruits of the Spirit, such as healing
                      and prospering, to move the disciples and others of the people from
                      their objective/subjective madnesses of rigid and human
                      willfulness/licentiousness. Gifts of the Spirit are in fact
                      empowerments, obtained via meritorious grace, of the vine of the
                      Comforter, unto much fruit. "Healings" and "signs following" are
                      fruits of the Spirit, evidence of things not seen; what are
                      typically not seen are the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, e.g.,
                      the gift of healing (the fruit of which is wholeness, wellness, and
                      the like) and the gift of prophecy (the fruit of which are
                      the "signs following" of confirmation, e.g. confirmational events
                      after the prophecies of Fatima, of Kibeho (in Rwanda), and of
                      Hrushiv (in Ukraine)).

                      [Galatians 5:22-23 is not an exhaustively explicit listing of
                      the "fruit of the Spirit." Your preference for ensuring the sifting
                      of peepings and mutterings, avoiding cheap grace, etc., is validly
                      part of the picture. However, consider as well Jesus' teaching
                      given in Mark 9:38-40, and the accompanying need for discernment,
                      one of the gifts (and fruits) of the Spirit.]

                      "Faith" is "the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1)

                      For those who would profit by telling their friends of Jesus'
                      healing ministry, He instructed them to do so; for those whose
                      subjective madness would likely increase same (qua thronging crowds
                      for the next "fix"), He bade them shew themselves to the priests for
                      a testimony, conforming to ritual and witness, etc.

                      When Saint John the Baptist asks for public confirmation of Jesus'
                      authenticity, Jesus answers his emissaries, saying, "Go your way,
                      and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind
                      see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead
                      are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached." (Luke 7:22)

                      Reverend Mary Baker Eddy, whose words and works are of the same
                      Source as Jesus ("Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer," Yvonne von
                      Fettweis, is well worth reading), and who rediscovered much of the
                      Divine Science in-Forming early Christian healing, essentially
                      advised her students never to attempt healing with any whose
                      desirings arose from other than real and true faith. This may
                      indicate the reason Jesus could not or would not heal some, and why
                      He often stated, "Be it unto you, according to your faith." It is
                      well to note, for purposes of the Holy Christ Self, Reverend Eddy's
                      statement, "One's aim, a point beyond faith, should be to find the
                      footsteps of Truth, the way to health and holiness." ("Science and
                      Health with Key to the Scriptures")

                      So, we have, for those whose faith is appreciable unto
                      healing/prospering/preaching, "Go in peace;" for various subgroups
                      of that already-narrowed group: "Tell everyone; tell the priests;
                      tell no one."

                      Testifying to all, to some, or to none, is a function of the
                      exercise, or memorable re-calling, of the Word made flesh. Faith is
                      a function of transcendental belief (be-love), unto the Holy Christ
                      Truth, the Way. Hebrew society was formed by the Godhead unto
                      faithful stewardship, until such time as the Messiah should come,
                      and show the Way, which is Christ, Truth, the Living Light of the
                      world, Mind's reflection and demonstration.

                      Human will, misappropriating the Word and Work of the Lord, may
                      become objectively maddened "synagogue of satan," aka self-ish,
                      willful frowardness, and/or subjectively maddened grossness,
                      licentiousness, inanity, slothfulness. By the timing of Rabbi
                      Ezekiel, the die was fairly cast, and the people majorly would not
                      change, albeit in the living Presence of the Holy One of Israel.
                      Taking up one's vertical Father charge into the horizon of the
                      world, going into Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the
                      world, preaching the commandments Love God with all your heart,
                      mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself, was not a
                      very present help to Jesus, insofar as Pharisee and publican felt
                      inclined to do otherwise.

                      Godly faith is the correct, correlative exercise of "free will," in
                      the Oneness of Holy demonstration of that One. It permits the
                      living Light of Truth to manifest. Faith vocalized is the fohat or
                      Sound Ray of Spirit's vibration, an instauration of wholeness,
                      blueprint, order, design...the Word of the Prophets and others who
                      serve the living God, the holy One of Israel. Faith is a key, not
                      the key; Light is an alchemical key, divine Love is a key, Truth is
                      a key, etc. These keys, often least among the traditions/energy
                      patterns of the world, unlock the biggest doors.

                      It is interesting to note that when the lifestream which brought
                      forth the soul-field initiative known as Saint Paul, and to which
                      Saint Paul was gathered, brought forth its final incarnation, known
                      as Saint Hilarion the Great, that Saint regularly attempted to avoid
                      the maddening crowds of earnest seekers of healing, which gift and
                      fruits Saint Hilarion (the Great) manifested in such abundance.
                      Hilarion now maintains a school of Light over the island of Crete,
                      wherein the "Brotherhood of Truth" especially ministers to those
                      whose soul-fields are drawn there/elect to travel there, and who
                      have entangled earthly misrepresentations of Truth in religions and
                      elsewise, and especially have fallen into atheism, agnosticism, and
                      skepticism. If one's soul-field is not attuned with that (Edenic,
                      etheric) level/sphere of awareness, at least to the degree of being
                      able to mount, after one's physical body temple is resting, a
                      Jacobean ladder of angelic Light prompts unto its halls, then one
                      qualifies as "sick," according to the stated mission of Jesus and
                      many other such intercessors, who have come to minister to
                      the "sick," i.e., those who are not functioning in that Edenic plane.

                      cordially,

                      j.


                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "John Anngeister"
                      <reader@v...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Dear Jim2,
                      >
                      >
                      > It is clearly the case, at least from the historical
                      > record, that the power of healing is a prerogative of the
                      > Eternal when manifest in time (as in "the Life").
                      >
                      >
                      > Still, I have also noticed that "the God," in speaking to
                      > those whose faith had combined with his Presence to effect
                      > a physical healing, never once said the words "Follow me."
                      >
                      >
                      > More often His words to the recipients of this side-
                      > ministry were something like, "Now keep quiet and get outta here."
                      >
                      > ie., "Go in peace." "Tell no one."
                      >
                      >
                      > On the one hand, "Go in peace."
                      >
                      > The *faith* of these people was already manifest (and
                      acknowledged)
                      > in the fact that it had healed them in the presence of the Eternal.
                      >
                      > If faith is the key, what need, then, of the God's physical
                      presence
                      > and voice?
                      >
                      >
                      > On the other hand, "Tell no one."
                      >
                      > As if to say, "What has transpired for you in my Presence could
                      not
                      > be hindered, in view of the intersection of my power with your
                      > faith, - but this is NOT the substance of my Gospel. And your
                      > testimony to it will not secure a like faith in others, but will
                      only
                      > bring a "crowd" desirous that I shall do their bidding."
                      >
                      > If faith is the key, what use, then, in testifying to a "wonder"?
                      >
                      >
                      > -John.
                      >
                      >
                      > PS: You spoke of "healings and signs" as *fruits* of the spirit,
                      but
                      > I don't see either of these at Gal. 5:22. You meant *gifts*?
                      There
                      > is a difference between spirit fruit and spirit gifts, no?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > you wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > given today's surround, he [K] might find avenues of interest in
                      > > state-specific science and/or Fatima-type demonstrations (or,
                      > > possibly, condemn such interest as presenting more of the same
                      > > diverting/superficial conditions as those he remonstrated
                      against in
                      > > 19th century Copenhagen);
                      > .
                      > .
                      > .
                      > > as Saints and Sages demonstrate that field, others may light
                      their
                      > > candles by it, and healings and signs follow; by those fruits
                      have
                      > the
                      > > followers of Christ, Truth, been known;
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.