on (certifiable) non-Determinism and our apriori relational world(s) Fwd: unassailable (academic) defense of Jesus' metaphysics (1901). (Link: a must read)
raps...@fastmail.fm
Mr. Hugh,
I just saw you yesterday on
the John Ankerberg Show, and I thought maybe I’d take one more (last?) shot at
one of these “cold calls.” I don’t
expect anything - but to be able to walk away saying, “at least I tried.” If I do convince you to follow through and
look into me you will see my “qualifications.”
I (claim to) have a unique perspective into the future of
science. I see why physics has been
floundering for (more than a couple) decades. There isn’t a single person on the planet in a position to judge me (nor
my insights) – at this point, it would take a team. I mean, there are plenty of people more “intelligent” than me,
and perhaps with the right motivation one could put himself in the position to
engulf and overtake me, but it was my morality (and wisdom) to take the
(abnormal) path I took to put myself in the position to “judge the world.” I stand alone (with Jesus). But, I can’t convince anyone to take me
seriously. It would take a team. Caroline? Jonathan?
Anyway, the people who have thought about the deep questions
of life seem to be content to let normal people go about their lives unaware of
the “fallacy latent in the Natural Dualism of uncritical common-sense.” The people who have thought about the deep
questions of life tend (all-but exclusively) to (ignore certain evidences in
order to) uphold their hopes for (an eventual) hard, scientific,
physicalism. Despite the fact that even
they admit that their hopes remain a work-in-progress, idealism is (all but)
never seriously entertained. Worse,
while there is literal philosophic Proof that idealism is True, it’s not even
permitted “in the ring!” Normal people
are not (allowed to be made) aware that there is a (eminently valid) challenge
to materialism. By force of history
they have only the same materialist worldview of (our contemporary)
pseudo-Christianity.
“Of course, the theory of Personal Idealism, in common with
every other that detects the fallacy latent in the Natural Dualism of
uncritical common-sense, has to face the wonder-waking question. What in truth
does objectivity then mean, since "existence," per se and apart from
being apprehended by intelligence, is not really thinkable?”
https://archive.org/details/limitsevolution00howigoog/page/n36/mode/2up?q=dualism
https://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&pg=PR33#v=snippet&q=dualism&f=false (search seems to work again!)
Howiosn’s book is a collection of seven essays, but the
title essay (“The Limits of Evolution”) alone would change the world (if only
it received the proper recommendation.)
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=3524275#Philosophy
It is beyond crazy how far the world will go to suppress
idealism in favor of materialism. Materialism would rule out all that makes life valuable, but it would
also rule out responsibility and duty. Hence the preference. Materialism would rule out freedom; it would render creativity
inauthentic. Those who push materialism
are effectively telling every inventor and artist that “they” had no real
contribution to the matter – it’s all stuff doing what stuff must do. But it soothes their common sense notion of
“stuff.” For my part, I have a short
argument based on the invention of the refrigerator which highlights both the
Impossibility of Determinism and also (highlights) the outlines of the (future)
relational physics (if you’re doing your own homework, at least).
https://groups.google.com/g/cxmplxplura/c/yPOmwLfwtZI
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herbert_Callen&oldid=3525075
Dad, I know that it has been more than 8 years since we
interacted, but I can’t remember how much longer than that it has been. I didn’t imagine our last interaction would
be our last at the time, and didn’t make a point of locking it into my
memory. I had thought that I had
satisfied myself in my obligation to honor you before that, so I have felt no
need (over these years) to break our silence. I had been thinking all these years, pleased that it was (not quite) the
only thing I thought of you, that I would not be the first to do so, even if
that meant the death of one of us came first. I haven’t felt any need to ever interact with you (directly) again. And that felt like relief. (I liked you when I was a kid, to be
sure.) Only because my recent pitch is
so refined (and since Wendy might (be in the position to) tip Mom off?) do I
feel the moral obligation to give you (too) one last invitation. I know God hopes you repent, and that should
be enough for you. “Got it back in blood, they just don’t know that’s how it
‘posed to be”-Lil Durk, “Who want smoke?”(?) For my part, I hope you do too; but, that doesn’t mean I’ll have any
interest in interacting with you directly even if you do. Jonathan, you testify that morality is (at
least when done well) synchronisities upon synchronisities. God says I am the way, the truth, and the
life; philosophy talks about the true, the beautiful, and the Good. Please
help!:
[=](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/cxmplxplura)[x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUmKUWzbDxg&si=Paula+Cole+–+Where+Have+All+the+Cowboys+Gone?+Official+Music+Video)[=](https://groups.google.com/g/cxmplxplura/c/8Elrlman8Ws)
Vibin, (Mac?),
(If) reality is non-deterministic, … we freely co-create
precisely not ~~it~~ as we go.
Thanks you Tim for your e-mail, brief explanation and book reference. I have forwarded it to Dr Leaf. I cannot promise a speedy response because of Dr Leafs’ travel, publishing and TV taping schedules.Blessings
macThere is this, too (of course):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=630576886
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM, btallnight <btall...@gmail.com> wrote:Mrs. Dr. Leaf,
I just saw you on TBN. Not that I hadn't seen you earlier as well. I want to share with you a very strong recommendation, but first, a little about me.
I myself have a very strong background in science. I went to grad school in chemical engineering at Cal after graduating top of my class from RPI (2001). I was raised Roman Catholic, at least superficially, but had given that up by the time our class was being confirmed (8th grade). I won't belabor the details here, but I've come to understand that Jesus is - who he claimed to be - much more than I understood when I was younger. The Jesus I know now is, *inter alia*, one of the few thoroughly successful metaphysicians of human history. The book which I will recommend presently provided me the last great key I needed to get me past my own "thick (science) head". Not only that, but there is none other quite like it (I am all *but* assured). I wonder what you think of it? If **your** audience could be motivated to take an interest? To be sure, I imagine that for honest seekers, those who "play the game 'right'", but who, like I myself was at the time, are "too smart" for the evangelists, "too smart" for religion --- I imagine that this reference could work wonders. At least, I rest assured that no great scientist, no vociferous atheist/agnostic, and no other metaphysician, can (ever) put me to shame (in this regard). You could do yourself a great favor by taking this to heart as well.
The core of the argument is that experience cannot be the efficient cause for the capacity to experience. Certain knowledge must be *a priori* (p.17, p.308). The implications of this unassailable certainty are profound, to say the least; though I'm quite sure it doesn't come across here. Perhaps it's too much to dream, but I would love to see this message brought to the masses of lay Christians; it might instantly elevate their standing with respect to the "challenge" non-believers (supposedly) pose against the faith - and what's more, give to those of the younger generation who, like I, demand Reason, everything they request.
The underappreciated author is (a Christian named) George Holmes Howison. The book takes it's title from the first essay, "The Limits of Evolution". Here is a link to the second edition, 1905, "free" from google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . The title essay is a must read!
If you take an interest, and have questions, or comments, or, God forbid!, a *catastrophic* argument against us, please do feel free to email me.
Tim (Rappl)
Grace,