1. “Reality is . . . in a realm untouched by communication, not dependent on communication – a realm that we can know directly – each for himself.”
2. “we can only know that reality we conceptualise, and conceptualising means thinking – we cannot know anything of un-thought reality, because to know is to think.
Therefore assuming God wants us to know reality, things must be set-up such that we can know reality by thinking…”
Therefore assuming God wants us to know reality, things must be set-up such that we can know reality by thinking…”
3. Reality is itself a kind of thinking; else we could not know it. Reality therefore seems to be God’s thinking, and God’s thinking is knowable creation.
4. If we ourselves are to participate-in reality, we must affect the universal divine thinking – which (I believe) implies that we ourselves need to be divine.
It’s not laid out with the rigor of analytic philosophy, which is all to the good.
I am also not a philosopher, thanks be to God. So I will only say that I have my doubts about #1–I find it hard to express, but I am pretty sure that sociality is inescapable and is part of how we know things. In fact, I think that the latter parts of the argument would entail that reality is a form of divine communication–and #3–because our own ability to participate in reality implies thoughts that are not thought by God, which implies an outside to divinity, which need not be limited to us. In other words, I reject the notion (though I don’t think this is precisely what Bruce C. intends) that our delight in the sun and the moon and the wind in the pines is solely a delight in some aspects of God. I reject it because it is not my experience. I don’t think #3 is flat wrong either, of course.
Continue reading at the original source →