How do you understand the beingness of nonhuman creation? The idea that all creation is composed of beings rings true for me. At the same time, the actions of animals can seem very instinctual and mechanistic, rocks aren’t doing much of anything etc. Do they possess reason and will? We just can’t quite perceive it?
@AY - We are dealing with assumptions - not perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we assume, and that is affected by the nature of our consciousness.
Almost everybody who lived in history assumed, naturally and spontaneously, that animals and rocks were - to some degree - alive, aware, purposive etc. And you and I did too, when we were young children.
Probably, at least until recently, there were a small minority of people in the modern world (recent or present hunter gatherers, mainly) who saw things this way - at least for much of the time.
It's not about what we perceive, but how we interpret our perceptions - and that is affected by our development, and also by our time (and place) in history.
But there is not much doubt that we Westerners nearly-all spontaneously lose this kind of consciousness during childhood or adolescence, unless it re-emerges from psychotic illness, brain disease, intoxication or suchlike. We are alienated and inhabit a dead, purposeless, meaningless world and life - even when we are religious.
I realized this from around the late 1990s, but could see no way out. It was the work of Owen Barfield that made this clearer to me, theorized it somewhat, and pointed out a possible better future...
Although since OB believed in multiple reincarnation as instrumental and inevitable (whereas I believe in resurrection, for those who want it), I have needed to develop Barfield's ideas to make sense of post-mortal salvation.
Bruce, what is your view on "intentionality" as a key dimension of being?
My intentionality I mean that the unique being behind something makes a key difference to the effect of that thing, even if superficially it may seem identical.
A clear example being with words - the same words uttered by different pepole (or outputted by machines!) will have a different effect on creation.
For instance , w r t Simulated Reasoning Software, perhaps some of the damage done is due to the warped intentionality behind the "words" being outputted, which means that this sort of output has an effect on the world which is damaging beyond the content of the words themselves, or the fact that they may be 'true' or 'false', but just by virtue of how they were generated.
@GB - I'm not familiar with intentionality used in the way you describe; but what you say about it sounds reasonable.
But if intentionality is from the nature of unique beings, then intentionality cannot be found with software - except to the extent that software is actually "part of" an intentional being (like a tool being used by a man) - in which case the intentionality is that of the being.
Do you believe that non human animals capable of love can also be ressurected, and do you believe that they will keep of their beastly nature, that which is compatible with love?
How do you understand the beingness of nonhuman creation? The idea that all creation is composed of beings rings true for me. At the same time, the actions of animals can seem very instinctual and mechanistic, rocks aren’t doing much of anything etc. Do they possess reason and will? We just can’t quite perceive it?
ReplyDelete@AY - We are dealing with assumptions - not perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we assume, and that is affected by the nature of our consciousness.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everybody who lived in history assumed, naturally and spontaneously, that animals and rocks were - to some degree - alive, aware, purposive etc. And you and I did too, when we were young children.
Probably, at least until recently, there were a small minority of people in the modern world (recent or present hunter gatherers, mainly) who saw things this way - at least for much of the time.
It's not about what we perceive, but how we interpret our perceptions - and that is affected by our development, and also by our time (and place) in history.
But there is not much doubt that we Westerners nearly-all spontaneously lose this kind of consciousness during childhood or adolescence, unless it re-emerges from psychotic illness, brain disease, intoxication or suchlike. We are alienated and inhabit a dead, purposeless, meaningless world and life - even when we are religious.
I realized this from around the late 1990s, but could see no way out. It was the work of Owen Barfield that made this clearer to me, theorized it somewhat, and pointed out a possible better future...
Although since OB believed in multiple reincarnation as instrumental and inevitable (whereas I believe in resurrection, for those who want it), I have needed to develop Barfield's ideas to make sense of post-mortal salvation.
As I've been reading books on precognition that "question time" as commonly understood, I initially misparsed your post title as an imperative.
ReplyDeleteBruce, what is your view on "intentionality" as a key dimension of being?
ReplyDeleteMy intentionality I mean that the unique being behind something makes a key difference to the effect of that thing, even if superficially it may seem identical.
A clear example being with words - the same words uttered by different pepole (or outputted by machines!) will have a different effect on creation.
For instance , w r t Simulated Reasoning Software, perhaps some of the damage done is due to the warped intentionality behind the "words" being outputted, which means that this sort of output has an effect on the world which is damaging beyond the content of the words themselves, or the fact that they may be 'true' or 'false', but just by virtue of how they were generated.
What do you think about nostalgia? I'm not sure I can live without it.
ReplyDelete@GB - I'm not familiar with intentionality used in the way you describe; but what you say about it sounds reasonable.
ReplyDeleteBut if intentionality is from the nature of unique beings, then intentionality cannot be found with software - except to the extent that software is actually "part of" an intentional being (like a tool being used by a man) - in which case the intentionality is that of the being.
@M - I am naturally nostalgic, and this seems a trait of my family. Whether that is good or harmful depends on what we each make of it.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that non human animals capable of love can also be ressurected, and do you believe that they will keep of their beastly nature, that which is compatible with love?
ReplyDelete@Hagel. Yes. All Beings in this mortal world - including non-human animals - may choose to be resurrected.
ReplyDeleteThis is how Heaven (the second creation) is populated.