Yes, indivisible, which is the principle and prerequisite for a host of overlapping entailments, among which are interiority, unity-in-diversity, intersubjectivity, personhood, intelligence, intelligibility, understanding, and more.
Each of these realkategories (a German-sounding term I just made up) is only possible because this is One Cosmos, indivisible; we could even add "with liberty and justice," and if time permits we'll explain why. Suffice it to say that only a very specific -- not to mention unlikely -- type of cosmos allows for the existence of free will.
Okay, a hint: it must be a rational cosmos: if things are fundamentally irrational, then obviously the possibility of rational choice is eliminated at the root. Is this why, everywhere and everywhere, Job One of the left is to efface primordial distinctions and to thereby sow chaos?
Yes, and because of this they never stop gaslighting us. They can scarcely yell one thing without dementedly screaming its opposite, e.g., "Our Afghan mission was an unprecedented success, and besides, it's all Trump's fault!," or "Black lives matter, and defund the police!," or "follow the science, and men can give birth!"
It is precisely this cosmic indivisibility that is a necessary condition for the writing of this post -- indeed, for saying anything about anything, AKA discovering the truth of things: in a word, affirming their isness. As mentioned a post or two back, to say something is true may be reduced to the statement that something either Is or Is Not.
But how are such statements possible unless there is a real underlying unity between knower and known? We cannot know a thing that is fundamentally unconnected to us. From our perspective such things don't exist, because we can't know what we can't know. This isn't just the inevitable domain of unknown unknowns, but of unknowable unknowns.
As G-L reminds us, "the first operation of the intellect" -- the operation we always do and can't help doing -- is "simple intellectual apprehension." This spontaneous apprehension is anterior to both reason and judgment:
The gaze of our intellect is fixed first upon the natures of sensible things.... To understand is a kind reading into the interior.... For sense knowledge is occupied with sensible, exterior qualities, whereas intellective knowledge penetrates all the way to the essence of the thing (Thomas, quoted by G-L, emphases mine).
This goes to what I meant in the first paragraph with regard to interiority, intelligence, intelligibility, and understanding being entailments of cosmic indivisibility. For ultimately -- in the first & last analysis and every one in between -- "the object of the intellect is that which is," AKA being.
I know what you're thinking: this is all a bit abstract and eggheady, Bob. You're making dryasdust medieval scholasticism sound like a party at Foucault's place. But to say that being is, and is intelligible, is probably the most profound -- and surprising -- thing one could say about the world (for the implications are literally endless).
Do things make sense? Or does sense make things? That may sound like a Sphinx-worthy antithesis, but it really comes down to that: for modern Kantians, what we call things are just consequences of our own psychic categories. But for realists such as ourselves, it is the things themselves that truly make sense, i.e., disclose their real natures to the intellect.
After all, if they don't, then to hell with it. If the world is but a projection of our own neuropsychology, that's just a step away from saying that perception is reality. But if perception is reality, then there is no reality. To even say reality is to affirm the existence of something distinct from our own perceptions, and will still be there when we look away -- for example, Americans stranded in Afghanistan. The Matrix Media will of course expend every effort to make them go away. We'll see.
In truth, to say reality is to say appearances; but this is a complementarity, not a duality, for appearances are of reality. Isn't this the point? It takes the form of, "I thought it was this, but it turned out to be that."
For example, "it sure looked like the sun circles the earth, but it turns out the earth circles the sun." Then, "it looked like the sun is stationary, but it turns out it's just one of a hundred billion stars spiraling around a galactic center many lightyears away." Etc.
However, we don't just go from one appearance to another equally unfounded one, but to a deeper understanding of the reality behind them. Just because there's no end to this fun-filled interior journey, it hardly means reality doesn't exist, or that it's just a winding road from nowhere to nothing.
I thought this post would get more deeply into the chapter, but it didn't. Oh well. More fun for future Bob!
32 comments:
What I get to comment first? The furry troll? I waited for hours and nobody commented, so I will do the honors. Sheesh.
Bob wrote in this rather abstract post on the nature of reality: "If the world is but a projection of our own neuropsychology, that's just a step away from saying that perception is reality."
You know, and this may sound like the leftist self-contradicting statements, you can have this both ways.
The fact is your reality is generated by snapping synapses. They are in fact all that we really experience directly. Not neuropsychology, but neurophysiology.
This can be tested. If you take down all of the wiring connecting neurons with retinas, tympanic membranes, scent receptors, taste receptors, and touch receptors, you have literally wiped out your personal reality. You will have only the memory of reality. Or if you were born without your hook-ups, you will never perceive reality.
So, in a sense, and this his hard to controvert, perception is reality.
That being said, there is another angle. The inputs we receive via the senses are replicable and stable. They tend to occur every day and in a similar way. There are patterns that are predictable. And we know we didn't fabricate these inputs.
If all the hook-ups are connected to your healthy brain, then viola, very strong evidence of external reality, separate from our neurophysiology, is the only explanation that fits.
This impression is strengthened greatly by communicating with other people whom we can't conclusively prove exist, however the evidence favors that conclusion.
So, perception is reality, and reality is perception.
The thing is, reality has to remain an unprovable theory. The evidence is very strong but it is not absolutely incontrovertible.
So when the leftist spouts their contradictory statements, that indicated a neuronal snafu and not something in external reality, and I think this is what bothers you about leftists. They seem to be mentally defective.
I dabbled in your ethos but ruled it out on March 4, 1985.
As I realized way back when, the fact that [x]* exists proves that my senses did not create reality; therefore, I am most certainly not God, but God most certainly exists. Why He allows [x] to exist is perhaps an even deeper mystery, but there it is...
*at the time, x was Alanis Morisette. These days you could just as easily substitute any number of other people/places/things with the same result.
I'm a Morisette fan, despite the disturbing "You Ought to Know." She sings "Thank you India" and "You Live, You Learn." She is definitely hooked up to God.
Leftists may have the leg-up on conservatives in their understanding of reality. This seems counterintuitive, but the loosy-goosy lefitst mind has grasped something the conservative won't allow; the leftist believes reality can be wished into existence (the "secret").
Bob might not countenance this. Perhaps to him, the laws of physics are impersonal and are not subject to bending; they are followed without fail to keep order in the world. However, he may suppose a heartfelt prayer request might be granted.
Be that as it may, evidence clearly shows the cosmos is responsive to intention and will conform to an intention which is strongly held without wavering. This does not work every time but it does happen. This implies a mind/matter connection which needs further study.
This responsive aspect may be a pervasive and fairly common quality of the Cosmos.
Julie, Do you know the Kevin Smith film "Dogma" where Alanis Morisette actually played God?
Don't see it for that reason. The film isn't very good.
I did see it, way back when. If memory serves, a former friend was a huge Kevin Smith fan, and thought it was hilarious. Didn't do much for me, although the "Buddy Christ" gag was actually a pretty good skewering of the tendency among some Christians to envision Jesus as a sort of touchy-feely guidance counselor. Otherwise, I don't remember much about it. thank goodness.
Not the Bee: California seeks gender neutral displays in large stores:
"California could soon force large department stores to display some child products in gender neutral ways after the state Legislature passed a bill on Wednesday aimed at getting rid of traditional pink and blue marketing schemes for items like toys and toothbrushes."
Oh well, least they've solved all the real problems in the state.
Ridiculous, and pointless as well since kids gravitate to whatever interests them, regardless of whether it's intentionally labelled for girls or boys. I think most big stores already do this, but you'd never know because items are still grouped by type. The doll aisle, the car aisle, toddler toys, board games, etc. There's no "girls" or "boys" section, officially, but the kids know where to go anyway.
The real laughs will come when we start seeing toy commercials featuring girls racing cars and battling each other, and boys playing with dolls and painting their nails. There may or may not be an outright parent revolt, but the kids will stop wanting those things in droves.
Yeah, if only those stiff necked conservatives would follow the science they wouldn't insist on believing the discredited notion there are only 2 genders when science has proven there are 57 different and distinct genders, or was it 57 different and distinct varieties, or maybe it was 57 different and distinct sovereign states, or wait - maybe it was 57 different and distinct dates of no return from climate change catastrophe ... my oh my, I'm so confused. I guess the best thing for me to do is just trust the lefties to tell me what the science says.
Science has proven that there are two sexes and 57 kinds of queer.
Not to be THAT math guy, but it would be two sexes and (57-2=) 55 kinds of queer. :=)
Dupree is correct. And now I shall add to his science.
The average percentage of the current American population estimated to be queer (closeted and not) is around 5%. Even that queerest of all cities, the notorious San Francisco, is less than 6.5% queer.
But that percentage has increased over the generations.
(I'd suggest that E/R limit the queer posts lest an unconscious latency be suspected. Hint: who cares about the queers since they're so few in number, and really, only loud in color a couple days a year. There are many more illegals than queers to be concerned about.)
In keeping with my earlier post - "the best thing for me to do is just trust the lefties to tell me what the science says" I shall pay special attention and heed anonymous advice.
REALLY enjoying Ratzinger's Intro to Christianity this third goround. I guess I first read it ten years ago, but I don't remember what I wrote about it, nor do I want to know, because I'd rather blog about it in the current now, not the old now. It's like seeing it through a new window.
Nice !!
Thank you.
I might actually have that one still around somewhere...
In other news, someone's watching the local news in the background here. I wonder what the suicide rate is amongst those who watch the news compared to those who don't? If I were on their side of things, lord knows I'd probably want to shoot myself.
Oh, and apparently Texas choosing life is orders of magnitude more evil than literally anything else happening in the world right now. The usual suspects are threatening to boycott the state; normal Texans will note doubt be delighted.
not the bee: "we resist acknowledging the power structures that oppress and join the movement that does not capitalize."
Bob: Ratzinger's "Intro" is no intro at al. Great book, and I need to re-read it also. Probably the best theology book out there on the faith.
It seems that Texas is becoming a test sample for what a conservative white Christian dominated utopia looks like.
Speaking of pro-life, the percentage of American women who’ve had abortions ranges from twice to ten times the incidence of queerness, depending on source. Seems a more important issue with all the usual potential for unintended consequences, than queerness.
(Disclaimer: I prefer to deal with the reality we have and not with the citizens we wish we had per Bob's teachings. As such, I disregard implausible nonsense like “Sharia Law is coming!” as paranoid delusion, since for one example, the American Moslem population is 0.9% while secularist Turkey has remained secular despite a 90% incidence of Moslems. Reality seems to dictate that there’s more to being reasonable than just entertaining the irrational fears being profit-peddled by a few MSM organizations.)
Anyhoo, will this hasten the Texan experiment with increasing the population of low IQ rapist and welfare children who eventually find their way to moderate climate tent cities? Or, will these children remain in Texas to eventually choose a life of rocket science with Elon Musk who’s clearly outcompeting bloated crony corporations like Boeing, to then build their tent cities on Mars?
Time will tell.
It's about equality: the left just needs a sufficient number of illegal Democrats to replace the aborted Democrats.
A sure fire way to recognize a lefty is their modus operandi is to tear down rather than build up. They may try to be clever and cloak it in niceties or intelli-talk but cutting through the fluff will reveal a tearing down of whatever target they happen to be focused on.
Take our local anonymous troll for example - he thinks himself clever and well read and can't keep himself from invading a site that clearly has no use for him. It begs the question why would he haunt this site? The initial thought would be he just wants to "hear himself talk" but when you cut through that fluff - his real objective is to tear down Bob and what Bob writes. The reason for that? Easy - he's a lefty troll and that's what lefty trolls do - they attack the things they don't agree with.
Ted:
Ratzinger makes the point that the book isn't so much an introduction to Christianity as a meditation on how to reintroduce Christianity to a world in which it seems irrelevant or no longer makes sense. It's something I often think about.
Yes, reintroducing Christianity. I wonder if Abraham were to bargain with God for this modern day Sodom how many righteous men would He find? Is that modern day brimstone we're experiencing?
It begs the question why would he haunt this site?
Curiosity. I wonder why do conservative evangelicals get so wrapped around the axles of irrelevancy, when the core of every matter should be the moral march towards eternal life and convincing others to do the same, as preached in the Bible. There are other, more practical concerns as well.
Others may have noted that I've tried to explore "the mystery" of spirituality for the sake of fun, but all ideas were soundly chastised because they were "anonymously" posted.
FTR, I'm a nationalist, a believer in strong borders, in speaking softly but carrying a big stick (having a stronger military than any atheistic rivals), in a properly maintained capitalism, separation of church and state, that a Christian can have any politics (right or wrong), and in a competitive meritocracy provided that any resulting concentrations of power are effectively kept checked and balanced against taking all the fertile economic ground.
IOW, an old school conservative with an FDR twist.
But then, if you were as intelligent as you claim to be, you'd note that there are at least two other regular anons here who I'd think can be easily discerned by clearly different presentation styles and beliefs (assuming you've outed yourself from being the fourth anon).
As far as I know you haven't been invited to this site to offer counterpoints to Bob's points, and yet here you are, and when your arguments are either ignored or disagreed with you get your panties in a twist along with your accusations.
I come to Bob's site because he insightfully explores the truth and does so in an entertaining way. I read the comment section because I find many of the regular commenters like Julie, Ted and others offer insightful comments worth considering. I make no claims on intelligence but I do know when truth rings true and I find truth here at Bob's little corner of the Cosmos.
EbonyRaptor, Bob cannot take criticism. I mean at all. Not even the slightest little thing. That is not normal. He will never be civil to you again. You will be a troll. He won't excommunicate you, but you can tell. You either agree with all, or you are a troll. That's how it works around here.
You could say "I don't like the music of _______." If Bob had mentioned he liked it, you had better like it too. Or at least state the genre was "not your cup of tea." That might pass.
Give it a whirl and see what happens.
Bob might be insightful but you best believe "his" people must toe the GDB line. Scrupulously.
If you don't mind being a lackey then that won't make any difference.
Exactly. Bob's intolerance of criticism reminds me of how the fascist Trump killed all those journalists who dared to criticize him.
And again the question is begged - why do you haunt this site? And again the answer is because you're a lefty troll who attacks whatever you disagree with or don't understand. Really quite simple. Let me tell you how this will go - I, and others who appreciate Bob's time and effort to provide insightful thought provoking truth will continue to frequent this site because we agree with Bob and enjoy the information and analysis he provides, while you, on the other hand, after being ignored and deemed irrelevant will eventually slink away to look for some other target of your hate filled heart. It's what trolls do so it's just a matter of time until you fulfill your destiny. I'll set the over/under at 6 days.
The humble Error, is both a proof that we have Free Will, and that there is no Artificial Intelligence (other than tenure). If our actions were physically determined, there would be no errors and no ability to 'recognize' one. And the one thing a computer cannot do, is make an error - every action and result is the product of physics. The fact that programs sometimes do not produce the output that their users and programmers expected, is an error on their part, and further proof of Free Will.
"I screw up, therefore I am." Or so Bob tells me.
Hey there Ebony Raptor. I enjoyed your comment. Do you drink beer by any chance?
I love beer, the taste, the smell, the carbonation, wonderful. My favorite is Sierra Hazy.
Bwa-HA-HAHahahah...Ha!
Post a Comment