|
tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/12/2012 10:09:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
I wish to state very clearly that I am not arguing against the use of logic and reason, nor Science, nor the scientific method, nor am I proposing any variation of a 'supernatural theory' or element, any diety, force or energy. Nor do I propose "abandoning" language. (Rather I am suggesting that we make ourselves aware of the constraints that language imposes on the investigation. It is a factor that may influence the investigation and mould any potential 'answer(s)', assuming that such answer(s) can be found, and then rendered into discourse.) I am pointing out the limits that apply, whether we like them or not, and insisting that investigators recognise these limits.
Well, of course. Seems to me that stating that human endeavors are encumbered by limitations is stating the obvious, isn't it? That's why we have debate and peer review, and that is why we are suspicious of authority. Also, maybe it is why our 'reality' keeps changing and our quest for 'truth' is never ending.
Yes, to me it is stating the obvious. Bit I feel compelled to state the obvious every time others assert that 'logic and reason' are the sole sure unerring paths to knowledge and enlightenment. The extent of resistance to my stating of the obvious was something of a surprise to me initially. On a broader level, they are routinely ignored by much of orthodox "Science".
I'm glad that we seem to have established some common ground here - that there may be many paths to understanding a "'reality' [that] keeps changing and [a] quest for 'truth' is never ending".
quote:
quote:
So what is the 'something extra' that appears to distinguish humans and the human experience(s) I suggested previously? I don't know. Nor can I recall ever encountering any one who does know.
Call me innocent or naive but I didn't know aside from the dominion granted in Genesis and eternal life offered in John 11:26 that there was a general view anywhere that humans and the human experience can be characterized with some unidentified 'something extra.' I thought that was your formulation, Tweake. If not, please clarify the etiology of the concept. Maybe that will lead to a better understanding by me. Thank you.
I'd love to be responsible for the concept of 'something extra' but I'm not. It is a common concept in post-modernist perspectives. In this instance it refers to the difference between a human being and the sum of the physical elements that humans are comprised of.
A recurrent theme in PM perspectives is that no matter how thorough or rigourous the process of classification, no matter how detailed or extensive or finely tuned it is, no matter which criteria are employed, there is always a remainder left over at the end that defies classification. Classification is arbitrary and always fails to account for this something extra that eludes classification, identification and verification.
One intriguing way it could be thought of is this: If humans are considered to be self-organising organisms/systems (a la Chaos Theory) then the something extra is roughly functionally equivalent to that element of chance that appears to intervene from time to time facilitating innovation, a new order of things and the possiblities of new forms and emergent properties ...... But please, this is a very loose analogy. Please don't take it as a blueprint.
Another very loose analogy is that it's the sum of unrealised potentials of humans (where unrealised means something closer to un-materialised, manifest at a psychic but not physical level) in a de Leuzian scheme of things. Interestingly, this perspective is generally consistent with a broader materialist approach.
I hope that helps but I have a funny feeling it's all as clear as mud. [:D]
|
|
|
|
