minsocal

This theory appears to have been derived from Kant. I took up reading Kant only recently and have read through his arguments several times. Kant's view is that the rules of logic do not allow for any proof that God exists. But Kant did not stop there. He argued that we might find it practical to argue that God exists and are justified in doing so. In other words, Kant divided "reason" into two parts, one being the "high plain of logic" reserved for philosophers and the other operating in the day-today arena of social beings. This provided Whitehead with one of the foundations for Process and Reality.

Yes, indeed. And that supports my thesis that Haidt is Jungian in his outlook.

Yes, but how does the timeline of evolution play out when we can make a conscious distinction between cooperation and competitiion? And, how do progressives honor both? Or, do progressives honor both? I do not know. Myron

I think 'free will" is misunderstood in relation to biology. My biological predisposition often leaves me in a state of conflict. Do I move towards cooperation or towards competition to achieve my goals? But then, we could dispose of the "free will problem" and target the conative aspect of our life as developing humans. I'm sure about this, but it might be more productive?

It is difficult to deconstruct a complex subject into simple factors without some loss. A positive mental state will interact with the human immune system in a different manner than a negative mental state. Mental states bias the system. What we are looking for are the interactive factors that bias our systems (mental and physical) in a healthy direction.

This often gets emotional, which is a much a part of our nature as anything else. The notion of condemnation has biological roots and, I suspect, early humans projected this human tendency onto God. Later thinkers found this attribution innapropriate.

A few comments, if I may. To be clear, biological predispostions are not ususally considered to be deterministic. The term indicates a tendency in the population that, at some time, might have made a difference in the survival rate of the species. The issue becomes rather difficult when we consider that fact the we appear to be social, that is we need others to survive. Predispositions do seem to exist, they are measureable. Here's the catch. Biological predispositions are "silent". That is, we find ourselves moving to the dance of biology without a concrete verbal accounting. In my mind, God wrote the Original Symphony and we sometimes alter the beat, the crescendos, and change instruments. But the Symphony is not lost.

Compassion is categorical?

For some, the category of "human being" does not sub divide into male or female. Put another way, again reversing the causal assumptions, it can be said that God and Creation are the same. Humans, perhaps, divided Creation ... not God.

As I understand the debate, eternal is the absence of time. Duration cannot coincide with this concept.

Welcome back everybody!

Confusion is the awareness that one does not know one's solution or direction, rather than the absence of all information. Knowing what one does not know is a very powerful form of knowledge, and generally one of the hardest to come by. D. M. Schnarch

Looking ahead to a second reading of Ethics Demonstrated In Geometrical Order by Spinoza. This is the first detaied prescriptive analysis of human emotion in Western thought and the foundation of contemporary positive psychology. It is also the root of my own experience of the progressive worldview in which Progressive Chrisitianity first found a home. Spinoza, Ethics, Part III

"I want to know what were the steps by which men [*] passed from barbarism to civilization." Voltaire Thread to follow ...

George, I have never met an absolute relativist in practice either. It seems that, sooner or later, some moral principles hold sway whether justified by rational operations or non-rational emotions and intuitions. That they hold is what I care most about, not so much how. Myron

Pluralism, in some forms, can be distinguished from strong forms of relativism. A typical example is that of the difference between a chair as a piece of furniture and the diversity of attributes or distinguishing properties of chairs. As far as ethics is concerned, pluralism might see both a common ethical principle (a chair) and the various styles of chairs found in different cultures. Myron

Relativism denies either: a) there are no universal truths about the world, only different ways of interpreting it or, there are no universally valid moral principles. One is a crucial claim concerning our cognitive capacities (cognitive relativism), the other concerning the source moral judgments (ethical relativism). Ethical relativism comes in two subtypes. Conventionalism contains two main assumptions: a) what is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture and, all moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. Subjectivism holds that "morality is in the eyes of the beholder". Most importantly, the fact that moral rules differ from society to socitety (cultural relativism), it shoud not be confused with the normative thesis of ethical relativism. This is noted in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy and, having lived in two cultures for much of my life, I strongly agree. As for the (conventional) thesis of ethical relativism, I strongly diagree. It places too much emphasis on the role society, and assumes humans are little more than a herd of sheep ... but that's a long story. Would Jesus have accepted a strong form of ethical relativism? Most likely not, as the Old testament is a strong form of ethical objectivism or the idea that there are (at least some) universal moral rules. I think the real test for each of us is in the nuances between extreme positions ...? Myron

Many progressive groups use the expression "there are many paths to God". This is a form of pluralism but, there is much more here. The pluaralism is in the word "paths" or the many ways of seeking but, and this is very important, there is a final unity in the goal where "the many" find their "unity" in God. Thus we have a "both-and" solution to an age old problem. Myron

As I understand it, contemporary pluralism is a movement away from traditional metaphysical and epistomological concerns towards an emphasis on the diversity of social practices and the roles of language. That said, there is the human tendency to take an issue that that begins as a degree of emphasis and turn it into dichotomous categories. So my question is, in the fashion of Jung and Whitehead, can we really tear these issues apart without loss? I would add that pluralism, in its many forms, has itself been debated for thousands of years and takes on different shades of meaning over time. Myron

I posted new information in "Personal Stories ..." Seems there was a mixup between doctor A and doctor B concerning my condition and medication. I was suppposed to be informed weeks ago. Myron

Thanks George. I decided to take myself off the medication I've been taking. I'll be working that out with my doctor today. I've been all over the emotional map lately and my doctor thinks the meds have something to do with it. It will take about four weeks to taper off. Myron

My physical health is not what it should be. My autonomic nervous system often gets of out sync and I end up with exteme phobias. Some days I cannot handle the exchanges on this board, then the next day it is "yes, I get it, now move ahead." Myron

Tonite I am at a very low ebb in my life. Things are not well and have not been for the last six months. My rational mind says to give up my faith but, something inside me refuses. Wish I could put it in better words, but words are failing me. Myron

Brent, Many here are not aware of the background conditions out of which the Urantia Papers emerged. Could you, for example, compare the Urantia Papers to Theosophy? To Gnosticism? To Whitehead and Jung? They all belong to the same era. My opinion is that Whitehead and Jung were more "grounded" in their views. Both accepted an upper and lower limit to human consciousness. Myron

Brent, Did Dr. Sadler side with Freud, Adler, or Jung? Did Dr. Sadler claim to be the author of the Urantia papers? Why did Dr. Sadler talk about transmarginal consiousness. Is this a nod towards W. James considering religious experiencec? Myron