Location ?
#21
(02-04-2016, 11:03 PM)twinc Wrote: well then here it is - do your best to try and refute and rebut - the great mistake is to accept that our world as it  now is  as it was when it was first created as very good = spiritual not physical and material which was a result of the Fall from spiritual to material which in itself is an illusion/delusion/deception for in fact there is no matter for one of the greatest if not the greatest achievement of science was the dematerialisation of matter even though it now seems that some humpty dumpty scientists are trying to put it together again - there is no duality there is only mind for nothing can exist outside  of mind not even mind itself - twinc 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_English_sentence

[Image: jfep.gif]
Reply
#22
(02-05-2016, 10:18 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Those that scoff at or despise a Cartesian notion of location (a position can be defined relative to other objects or definable points) should never ever use a road map or GPS. ("Philosophical" fancies of Descartes do not invalidate that a position can be described relative to other things).

Those that scoff at or despise "Newtonian" physics (gravity, inertia and all that) should drop themselves off a tall building and never use a motor car with an engine or brakes and, most certainly, never believe that an aeroplane could fly.

I can hardly contain my distain for "Perennialist" Luddites.
Who would be those scoffers and Luddites that you are speaking of? I didn't see any in this thread. Are you saying twinc is one of those people?
Reply
#23
To imply that because something that is immaterial (like a soul) cannot be anywhere because it does not have an empirical (physically measureable) size, shape etc. and thus cannot have a position described with Cartesian type coordinates is an egomaniacal daydream of Materialism. That the same can be applied to sub-atomic "stuffs" (like electrons) is an egomaniacal daydream of "Perennialism".

As apparently intuitively recognised by Dominicus, the purpose of the soul is to animate the body along with its powers of intellect and will. As a spiritual thing it is where it acts. You can't have a live body without it being intimately connected to that which is its life. Death occurs when the soul "leaves" the body (ceases to animate it).

The cerebral pretensions of "learning" are no match for a speck of Understanding.

Reply
#24
(02-07-2016, 05:52 PM)Oldavid Wrote: To imply that because something that is immaterial (like a soul) cannot be anywhere because it does not have an empirical (physically measureable) size, shape etc. and thus cannot have a position described with Cartesian type coordinates is an egomaniacal daydream of Materialism. That the same can be applied to sub-atomic "stuffs" (like electrons) is an egomaniacal daydream of "Perennialism".

As apparently intuitively recognised by Dominicus, the purpose of the soul is to animate the body along with its powers of intellect and will. As a spiritual thing it is where it acts. You can't have a live body without it being intimately connected to that which is its life. Death occurs when the soul "leaves" the body (ceases to animate it).

The cerebral pretensions of "learning" are no match for a speck of Understanding.
That's all good, and I agree with it. I'm just still confused because I'm the only one in this conversation up to this point who has used the words Cartesian, Newtonian, and perennial philosophy (although by this phrase I meant it as JPII used it to refer to Thomism), so I was under the impression you were referring to me.
Reply
#25
(02-07-2016, 06:42 PM)richgr Wrote: I'm just still confused because I'm the only one in this conversation up to this point who has used the words Cartesian, Newtonian, and perennial philosophy (although by this phrase I meant it as JPII used it to refer to Thomism), so I was under the impression you were referring to me.
Fair enough. I only discovered this thread late and may have jumped to a wrong conclusion based on other conversations elsewhere.

Going on JPII's owned "philosophical" proclivities my guess is that he intended to imply that Thomism is included in the Traditionalist Perennialism of the likes of Blavatsky, Guenon, Coomeraswamy, et al ad nauseam.

I avoid calling Tom "the perennial philosopher" to avoid any such insinuation.

Anyhow, I'm glad you took umbrage at my hasty charge.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)