The Phenomenon of Man ... Wo-man

[phyllo]

Agreed … yet wouldn’t it be nice to “know”.

I can’t know and I will never know … that’s just the way it is. No point struggling against it.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@pilgrim_tom

Agreed … yet wouldn’t it be nice to “know”.

@phyllo

I can’t know and I will never know … that’s just the way it is. No point struggling against it.

I don’t know … with any degree of certainty … that I don’t know.

I don’t struggle against it … I struggle with it … I have long struggled with the decision to share my thoughts/intuitions … or not to share.

Obviously I chose to share.

Let me summarize:

1. We live in unprecedented circumstances … I wrote the following comments in Carleas’s OP “Culture Flow”

IMHO … humanity is experiencing an unprecedented convergence of tsunami like forces:

1. population explosion

2. technology explosion … particularly in the area of connectivity and communications

3. economics … a global network creating global dependency … a hiccup in one region causes indigestion in others.

4. disintegrating spiritual considerations

2. Rational and logical thought + intuition suggests … to me at least … these unique circumstances have a singular purpose.

3. Hope inspires me to believe this “purpose” is intended to help humanity and the planet.

As I mentioned in a previous post … “Place your bets folks”

a) Build an arc?

b) Eat … drink … f— … and be merry?

c) Get your ‘house’ in order?

d) (insert here)

e) (insert here)

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@phyllo

@pilgrim_tom

Agreed … yet wouldn’t it be nice if Science, Philosophy and Religion could converge … all else is subordinate to these three (insert here).

I see a benefit from having a diversity of approaches so I don’t think that convergence is necessarily good.

One could say " wouldn’t it be nice if got rid frying, sauteing, barbecuing and just boiled all food".

Well no, it wouldn’t be nice.

I don’t ‘see’ convergence of Science Philosophy and Religion leading to a homogenous, dull, bland lifestyle/culture.

Awesome edifices are built on a single foundation … eg Taj Mahal

With Science Religion and Philosophy interwoven on a single foundation the potential outcomes are unbelievably awesome.

@pilgrim_tom

Within the ILP audience … at least most of the ILP audience … the notion of “spirit as substance” is gobbly gook.

Yet within the larger community … across time and space … there are countless individuals … in all cultures and geographies … that testify … by their life or by their words … that spirit is substance … spirit is omnipresent … Spirit is God.

@phyllo

Then you have to clarify what you and those other people mean by the word ‘substance’.

the substance of spirit is undefinable … it’s very essence defies definition … to “name” something … to “define” something … is to put it in a box … to put it in chains … obviously “Spirit” will not allow such an outcome.

[phyllo]

the substance of spirit is undefinable … it’s very essence defies definition … to “name” something … to “define” something … is to put it in a box … to put it in chains … obviously “Spirit” will not allow such an outcome.

That explains why science, philosophy and religion won’t converge. Science and philosophy can’t work with undefinable concepts. Science can’t work with unmeasurable concepts.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@phyllo

the substance of spirit is undefinable … it’s very essence defies definition … to “name” something … to “define” something … is to put it in a box … to put it in chains … obviously “Spirit” will not allow such an outcome.

That explains why science, philosophy and religion won’t converge. Science and philosophy can’t work with undefinable concepts. Science can’t work with unmeasurable concepts.

Yet

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@pilgrim_tom

@phyllo

the substance of spirit is undefinable … it’s very essence defies definition … to “name” something … to “define” something … is to put it in a box … to put it in chains … obviously “Spirit” will not allow such an outcome.

That explains why science, philosophy and religion won’t converge. Science and philosophy can’t work with undefinable concepts. Science can’t work with unmeasurable concepts.

Yet

Seems I have used the word “converge” too narrowly … Teilhard words are much more eloquent …

"Like the meridians as they approach the poles, science, philosophy and
religion are bound to converge as they draw nearer to the whole.
I say ’ converge ’ advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes. Take any book about the universe written
by one of the great modern scientists, such as Poinark, Einstein or
Jeans, and you will see that it is impossible to attempt a general
scientific interpretation of the universe without giving the impression
of trying to explain it through and through. But look a little
more closely and you will see that this ’ hyperphysics ’ is still not
a metaphysic. "

[surreptitious57]

Science only investigates observable phenomena while religion makes claims which can
not be subject to potential falsification and that is why they are mutually incompatible

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@surreptitious57

Science only investigates observable phenomena

OK … is quantum science currently struggling with observable phenomena?

@surreptitious57

while religion makes claims which cannot be subject to potential falsification

OK … though your comment does not seem to render religious claims absolutely false … only that religious claims cannot be subject to potential falsification.

[phyllo]

I say ’ converge ’ advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes.

You mean that he agrees with what I wrote?

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@phyllo

I say ’ converge ’ advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes.

You mean that he agrees with what I wrote?

Perhaps more accurately … you agree with what he wrote.

Frankly … I’m astonished at how much ‘stuff’ has been posted recently that echoes Teilhard’s thoughts/opinions … detailed in his book “Philosophy of Man” … in both the philosophy forum and this forum.

I’m not aware of anyone in ILP that has actually read his book … I’ve only read the intro … preface … and a few pages.