As has happened from time to time on the Tree of Woe (see in particular "The Problem of Evil, parts I and II), the commenters on my article have led me to greater insights than I offered in the original article.
In this case, @SAUVAGEPEN suggested I check out the work of Wolfgang Smith, with whom I was previously unacquainted. Smith does exactly what I thought no one else was doing, which is to integrate Aristotelianism, Christianity, quantum physics, and post-physical and paranormal phenomenon. He even integrates Traditionalism *and* Direct Realism/Anti-Skepticism.
I'll probably make a Part II to this essay to discuss Smith's work, once I've had a chance to read and digest more of it.
* Deriving the universe is hard. You cannot get from A is A to Pop Tarts and Pickleball.
* The universe is what it is. While we can rule out some contradictions, that is because contradictions are meaningless verbiage. But we cannot rule out a preexistant omnipotent God, a preexistent merely powerful God, an emergent God, no God, many gods, etc. by mere logic and shuffling around words.
* Solipsism is extremely unlikely. I cannot even keep track of my reading glasses. I doubt my imagination is up to the task of generating the experiences I experience.
*Assuming away paranormal activity is anti scientific. But, then again, so is believing magicians of the con artist variety.
* Assuming that a passage in the Bible was written later than advertised just because it contains a prophecy which came true is anti scientific. Then again, such assumptions *could* be true in some cases. Additional data needed. (The REALLY interesting question to me is: how far back can we trace the book of Daniel. It contains an awful lot of reasonably clear prophecies which came true, including the fact that the Roman Empire would break in two, crumble, but never completely go away.)
* Pride Month gives us evidence of the non-physical. All this faggotry runs afoul of the theory of evolution, but it is completely compatible with believing in Satan.
Materialism or physicalism if they are the same thing are a modern rejection of and proposed alternative to what came before it. Since physicalism is simply wrong, why bother reforming it somehow or try to create a “post”physicalism? Doesn’t it make more sense to reject it entirely? Where does that leave us? Really, since all modern errors come from or are reactions to the errors of nominalism and Cartesian dualism, where it really leaves us is back at the highly and well developed, logical, consistent and to those who understand it, obviously good and true Thomistic metaphysics that was widely accepted before the west was seduced by the “physicalist” and other modern errors. Thomism does not err in any of the ways that Taylor listed; there is no mind-body problem in thomism; mind-body problems come from Cartesianism or semi-Cartesianism. Thomism was never abandoned by everyone, it has been studied and developed by a few throughout the modern era, there is a thomistic interpretation of quantum physics which I think is the best of the many proposed interpretations; I don’t know which if any “findings of parapsychology” contradict Thomism but If parapsychology is real I’m sure Thomism will help us understand it and account for it. Thomistic metaphysics is a living philosophy, if somewhat dormant from lack of disciples, but if we abandon modern errors, Thomism will flourish and become vibrant and productive.
I’m not convinced that Thomistic metaphysics could not account for reincarnation. Even though Aquinas does write dogmatic theology his metaphysics is just metaphysics. It is true that Christian theology rejects reincarnation but it seems to me that in this post you are talking about metaphysics per se and that Taylor is here talking about metaphysics per se.
This is tangential but the traditional Christian explanation of the phenomenon of reincarnation is a good one: it’s the human imagination and spiritual deception by fallen angels --who of course have knowledge that we don’t have.
This is a great read. You lay everything out so clearly and carry a reader, who may not be as up to speed with all these topics (like me), along through this idea in an easily digestible way. So thank you for that.
As for the 10 tenets of post physicalism - I tend to agree with these tenets, for a few different reasons, but mainly because I just feel the physicalist view of things is not only incredibly reductionist, but also just leaves far to many things not sufficiently answered.
I think Taylor is trying too hard to reject every aspect of physicalism. In so doing often falls into the opposite error. For example:
> The world does not exist “out there” in separation to us. Our own consciousness is deeply interconnected with it. We share the same essence as all things, and are therefore one with all things.
sounds a lot like the Gnostic "we are actually gods, we just need to become aware of this fact".
Yup. That’s what “universe” means. How about this: “God is that Being whose nature is to be” or “God is being (existence) himself” or “I AM THAT AM”
One day when I was a dumb teenage atheist, I realized that what a thing is is different than that a thing is--that existence and essence are not the same thing--and that existence is real, is important, and is different than nature or essence. I understood that saying “existence itself is real and is important” is logically the same thing as saying “God is real and important” since in western thought that is the most basic and essential definition of “God” so I thought “well I guess I am not an atheist after all.” It didn’t make me a Christian and it wasn’t a big deal, atheism wasn’t a religion to me so I could easily abandon it. I started telling my friends “I am a theist but I don’t believe in a PERSONAL God.” Then I started thinking about it more and reading...
But in just a few years I was baptized, so it really was a big deal I just didn’t know it.
It's definitely his own spin on things, which I find rather irritating - we already have a lot of very solid writing on the spiritual side of reality, so please stop reinventing the wheel (especially when your version happens to be square) already...
Nice post. Personally I think the biggest problem the west faces is its Christian-derived core belief in egalitarianism. Only a Nietzschian transvaluation of values back at least partially into warrior values has a chance of righting the ship, imo... I delve into it and a discussion of the historian Tom Holland here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-ratchet-effect-why
Jun 23, 2023·edited Jun 23, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
Back in the heyday of Anglo-American Academia, "close readings" were used on Great Books (and related works) to do a few different things; one of which was to look at a Narrative and 'go backwards' a la piecing together the atomics and concepts that gave rise to it.
If you read Aristotle (which you, My Friend most definitely have... so just go back and do some "Close Readings" ;-) ) and just slow down the Tempo, you'll notice something interesting. The "Universe is Eternal"... that notion comes from atomics that have one thing in common:
Ascribing to the Universe more Causal, Essential, properties, etc than it ought to be having.
Once you do so, the "skeleton" which you get yields philosophical + theological argument, debate, etc that inevitably gets you to the Aristotelean "Eternal Universe". And this in turn... generates organically those atomics + concepts which naturally (overtime) yield a Dharmic worldview.
Said worldview (of which Hinduism and Buddhism are the primary vehicles today) reject the existence of the external world (as "Maya"/illusion), ascribe cyclicality to Life (a la Reincarnation) and finally ascribe different values to human souls with regard to their "experiences" reincarnating.
(Not really a worldview that is conducive to most of the other stuff you choose to pursue!)
This however did not happen in the West, precisely because Christianity's rise "killed" the "Eternal Universe"- derivatives. Christianity however did not succeed to stop the "Eternal Universe"-notion to hibernate in Academia, and then awaken with a vengeance in the "Idealistic Turn".
So now we are back again... starting off with "Eternal Universe"-precursors. The Doom Funnel is as follows: "ET" precursors -> "ET" is respectable -> "ET" derivatives -> "ET" derivates respectable -> Dharmic precursors -> Dharma respectable -> Dharma derivatives -> Death of the West.
Civilization (as opposed to "Character") Game Over My friend ;-)
... At least if these sorts of Tenets are fleshed out in their entirety.
Post physical ism: While these are not my precise conclusions, most are clearer expressions of what I have been grinding towards for some years. They are also what I derived from Edward Feser’s blog, which I am sure our host is aware of, and which I strongly recommend.
"Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and when once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Logos, they [men] are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is; but the rest of men fail to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep." Heraclitus, a beautiful essay, I always wanted to merge stoicism, Platonism, and dualism.......thank you for wise words, ushta te my friend
Seems to be on the right track. Have you looked into Whitehead and his followers? It's a non-dualistic picture which provides some details as to how "we are all connected" might work. A great book about it is David Ray-Griffin's "God exists but Gawd does not".
I think Whiteheadian philosophy provides some crucial insights and a complementary perspective to the Platonism of Smith or the supernaturalism implicit in much of theism and Christian theology. As for Stapp, I'm not entirely convinced of the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as individual humans "collapsing wave functions" (if I remember correctly), there seems to be missing a higher horizon that holds reality stable (the collapse might be thought of as mitigated by a higher form of consciousness of which we are nonetheless part of).
Then again, I'm a bit of a relativist/postmodernist when it comes to "grand ontologies", in that I think each perspective can bring something valuable to the table, unless we assume it's the whole truth.
I too was an ardent admirer of scientism but also feel there is something more. I mean with modern science, quantum physics and relativity, there always has been something more tapping the physicalist on the shoulder.
The question for many people I suspect, at least it is for me, is how to leave the security and take the next step into something different. Anything positing teleology or some unknown aether that connects us feels risky in that it's hard to know whether we're slipping into bed with the woo-mongers.
But there's lots of bridging material out there for new ideas. For me now the subjective/objective divide does feel dated, explaining the universe as quarks and gluons is transparently bereft, and the ignoring the scientist that does the science an obvious performative contradiction, ie science creates a system that fails to account for our 'being in the world'.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The only weak point I can think of is that this doesn’t offer the promise of reuniting with lost loved ones, which is an important aspect of Christianity and something many of us increasingly hope for as we grow old.
As a Christian and an Engineer, squaring the circle between the dead materialistic philosophy of post modernism and my faith seemed a useless endeavor. Philosophy was for those who couldn’t do math or build something useful.
As I have aged the burdens of military service, regrets and weight of life demands a more robust answer to my common and shallow understanding of our Christian faith and our reality. Thank you for showing where and why I was wrong in my youth.
As has happened from time to time on the Tree of Woe (see in particular "The Problem of Evil, parts I and II), the commenters on my article have led me to greater insights than I offered in the original article.
In this case, @SAUVAGEPEN suggested I check out the work of Wolfgang Smith, with whom I was previously unacquainted. Smith does exactly what I thought no one else was doing, which is to integrate Aristotelianism, Christianity, quantum physics, and post-physical and paranormal phenomenon. He even integrates Traditionalism *and* Direct Realism/Anti-Skepticism.
I'll probably make a Part II to this essay to discuss Smith's work, once I've had a chance to read and digest more of it.
* Deriving the universe is hard. You cannot get from A is A to Pop Tarts and Pickleball.
* The universe is what it is. While we can rule out some contradictions, that is because contradictions are meaningless verbiage. But we cannot rule out a preexistant omnipotent God, a preexistent merely powerful God, an emergent God, no God, many gods, etc. by mere logic and shuffling around words.
* Solipsism is extremely unlikely. I cannot even keep track of my reading glasses. I doubt my imagination is up to the task of generating the experiences I experience.
*Assuming away paranormal activity is anti scientific. But, then again, so is believing magicians of the con artist variety.
* Assuming that a passage in the Bible was written later than advertised just because it contains a prophecy which came true is anti scientific. Then again, such assumptions *could* be true in some cases. Additional data needed. (The REALLY interesting question to me is: how far back can we trace the book of Daniel. It contains an awful lot of reasonably clear prophecies which came true, including the fact that the Roman Empire would break in two, crumble, but never completely go away.)
* Pride Month gives us evidence of the non-physical. All this faggotry runs afoul of the theory of evolution, but it is completely compatible with believing in Satan.
Materialism or physicalism if they are the same thing are a modern rejection of and proposed alternative to what came before it. Since physicalism is simply wrong, why bother reforming it somehow or try to create a “post”physicalism? Doesn’t it make more sense to reject it entirely? Where does that leave us? Really, since all modern errors come from or are reactions to the errors of nominalism and Cartesian dualism, where it really leaves us is back at the highly and well developed, logical, consistent and to those who understand it, obviously good and true Thomistic metaphysics that was widely accepted before the west was seduced by the “physicalist” and other modern errors. Thomism does not err in any of the ways that Taylor listed; there is no mind-body problem in thomism; mind-body problems come from Cartesianism or semi-Cartesianism. Thomism was never abandoned by everyone, it has been studied and developed by a few throughout the modern era, there is a thomistic interpretation of quantum physics which I think is the best of the many proposed interpretations; I don’t know which if any “findings of parapsychology” contradict Thomism but If parapsychology is real I’m sure Thomism will help us understand it and account for it. Thomistic metaphysics is a living philosophy, if somewhat dormant from lack of disciples, but if we abandon modern errors, Thomism will flourish and become vibrant and productive.
I’m not convinced that Thomistic metaphysics could not account for reincarnation. Even though Aquinas does write dogmatic theology his metaphysics is just metaphysics. It is true that Christian theology rejects reincarnation but it seems to me that in this post you are talking about metaphysics per se and that Taylor is here talking about metaphysics per se.
This is tangential but the traditional Christian explanation of the phenomenon of reincarnation is a good one: it’s the human imagination and spiritual deception by fallen angels --who of course have knowledge that we don’t have.
This is a great read. You lay everything out so clearly and carry a reader, who may not be as up to speed with all these topics (like me), along through this idea in an easily digestible way. So thank you for that.
As for the 10 tenets of post physicalism - I tend to agree with these tenets, for a few different reasons, but mainly because I just feel the physicalist view of things is not only incredibly reductionist, but also just leaves far to many things not sufficiently answered.
"post-physicalism" sounds alot like, no EXACTLY like, yoga.
We have come full circle. Embrace tradition, frens
I think Taylor is trying too hard to reject every aspect of physicalism. In so doing often falls into the opposite error. For example:
> The world does not exist “out there” in separation to us. Our own consciousness is deeply interconnected with it. We share the same essence as all things, and are therefore one with all things.
sounds a lot like the Gnostic "we are actually gods, we just need to become aware of this fact".
Fabius: “The universe is what it is.”
Yup. That’s what “universe” means. How about this: “God is that Being whose nature is to be” or “God is being (existence) himself” or “I AM THAT AM”
One day when I was a dumb teenage atheist, I realized that what a thing is is different than that a thing is--that existence and essence are not the same thing--and that existence is real, is important, and is different than nature or essence. I understood that saying “existence itself is real and is important” is logically the same thing as saying “God is real and important” since in western thought that is the most basic and essential definition of “God” so I thought “well I guess I am not an atheist after all.” It didn’t make me a Christian and it wasn’t a big deal, atheism wasn’t a religion to me so I could easily abandon it. I started telling my friends “I am a theist but I don’t believe in a PERSONAL God.” Then I started thinking about it more and reading...
But in just a few years I was baptized, so it really was a big deal I just didn’t know it.
It's definitely his own spin on things, which I find rather irritating - we already have a lot of very solid writing on the spiritual side of reality, so please stop reinventing the wheel (especially when your version happens to be square) already...
Nice post. Personally I think the biggest problem the west faces is its Christian-derived core belief in egalitarianism. Only a Nietzschian transvaluation of values back at least partially into warrior values has a chance of righting the ship, imo... I delve into it and a discussion of the historian Tom Holland here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-ratchet-effect-why
Back in the heyday of Anglo-American Academia, "close readings" were used on Great Books (and related works) to do a few different things; one of which was to look at a Narrative and 'go backwards' a la piecing together the atomics and concepts that gave rise to it.
If you read Aristotle (which you, My Friend most definitely have... so just go back and do some "Close Readings" ;-) ) and just slow down the Tempo, you'll notice something interesting. The "Universe is Eternal"... that notion comes from atomics that have one thing in common:
Ascribing to the Universe more Causal, Essential, properties, etc than it ought to be having.
Once you do so, the "skeleton" which you get yields philosophical + theological argument, debate, etc that inevitably gets you to the Aristotelean "Eternal Universe". And this in turn... generates organically those atomics + concepts which naturally (overtime) yield a Dharmic worldview.
Said worldview (of which Hinduism and Buddhism are the primary vehicles today) reject the existence of the external world (as "Maya"/illusion), ascribe cyclicality to Life (a la Reincarnation) and finally ascribe different values to human souls with regard to their "experiences" reincarnating.
(Not really a worldview that is conducive to most of the other stuff you choose to pursue!)
This however did not happen in the West, precisely because Christianity's rise "killed" the "Eternal Universe"- derivatives. Christianity however did not succeed to stop the "Eternal Universe"-notion to hibernate in Academia, and then awaken with a vengeance in the "Idealistic Turn".
So now we are back again... starting off with "Eternal Universe"-precursors. The Doom Funnel is as follows: "ET" precursors -> "ET" is respectable -> "ET" derivatives -> "ET" derivates respectable -> Dharmic precursors -> Dharma respectable -> Dharma derivatives -> Death of the West.
Civilization (as opposed to "Character") Game Over My friend ;-)
... At least if these sorts of Tenets are fleshed out in their entirety.
Post physical ism: While these are not my precise conclusions, most are clearer expressions of what I have been grinding towards for some years. They are also what I derived from Edward Feser’s blog, which I am sure our host is aware of, and which I strongly recommend.
"Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and when once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Logos, they [men] are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is; but the rest of men fail to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep." Heraclitus, a beautiful essay, I always wanted to merge stoicism, Platonism, and dualism.......thank you for wise words, ushta te my friend
Seems to be on the right track. Have you looked into Whitehead and his followers? It's a non-dualistic picture which provides some details as to how "we are all connected" might work. A great book about it is David Ray-Griffin's "God exists but Gawd does not".
I think Whiteheadian philosophy provides some crucial insights and a complementary perspective to the Platonism of Smith or the supernaturalism implicit in much of theism and Christian theology. As for Stapp, I'm not entirely convinced of the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as individual humans "collapsing wave functions" (if I remember correctly), there seems to be missing a higher horizon that holds reality stable (the collapse might be thought of as mitigated by a higher form of consciousness of which we are nonetheless part of).
Then again, I'm a bit of a relativist/postmodernist when it comes to "grand ontologies", in that I think each perspective can bring something valuable to the table, unless we assume it's the whole truth.
I too was an ardent admirer of scientism but also feel there is something more. I mean with modern science, quantum physics and relativity, there always has been something more tapping the physicalist on the shoulder.
The question for many people I suspect, at least it is for me, is how to leave the security and take the next step into something different. Anything positing teleology or some unknown aether that connects us feels risky in that it's hard to know whether we're slipping into bed with the woo-mongers.
But there's lots of bridging material out there for new ideas. For me now the subjective/objective divide does feel dated, explaining the universe as quarks and gluons is transparently bereft, and the ignoring the scientist that does the science an obvious performative contradiction, ie science creates a system that fails to account for our 'being in the world'.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The only weak point I can think of is that this doesn’t offer the promise of reuniting with lost loved ones, which is an important aspect of Christianity and something many of us increasingly hope for as we grow old.
As a Christian and an Engineer, squaring the circle between the dead materialistic philosophy of post modernism and my faith seemed a useless endeavor. Philosophy was for those who couldn’t do math or build something useful.
As I have aged the burdens of military service, regrets and weight of life demands a more robust answer to my common and shallow understanding of our Christian faith and our reality. Thank you for showing where and why I was wrong in my youth.
WP class ‘02