>
>Frank Masingill wrote to Mark Bloss about Random values                      
                      [1]
 MB> So, are our problems of history really an intellectual problem to be
 MB> solved by consciousness?  This is what I would call a mistake.  To
 MB> understand the _meaning_ of God is an intuitive undertaking, not an
 MB> intellectual one.
 FM> I would have to ask you, Mark, to explain what it is you mean by
 FM> the above. Honestly, it is incomprehensible to me.  History is man's
 FM> understanding of what IS (including how it got that way) and there IS
 FM> no single meaning (eidos) only several configurations according to
 FM> crystalizations of various hierophanic events as experienced in
 FM> consciousness as dominating "epochs."  Of course, this occurs in
 FM> consciousness.  Where else COULD it occur.  I can't fathom what you
 
 Consciousness is not primarily involved with the intellectual - but in
 fact is primarily an intuitive process.  It is paradoxical to maintain
 an intellectual process to reveal subjective reality (or history) to us - 
 with a consciousness which must rely solely on the intuitive to convince 
 the mind of what reality really is.  It is a mistake to attempt to base
 the meaning of the divine with an intellectual paradigm.  As pedantic
 as it may seem, it may be possible to explain God as non-existent to
 to the intellectual process of the mind.  It is, however, possible
 intuitively, but only to the subjective, to refute the non-existence of
 the divine.  It is refutable, for example, to argue that "everyone is 
 here for a [cosmic] reason", but entirely irrefutable to [subjectively]
 admit to oneself "I am here for a [cosmic] reason" because the process 
 is wrapped up in the "I am".  This is the intuitive versus the 
 intellectual.  Where else _could_ it occur?  NO WHERE.  And this
 was NOT my point.  The reasoning capabilities of man are most times
 divided between an intuitive process and an intellectual one.  Whether
 this tension is a result in the mind as that between the divine and
 the human is not particularly at issue in my opinion.  But rather that
 which is called "existence" is intuitive rather than intellectual -
 because intellectually my existence has no MEANING - but intuitively 
 "I am" - therefore _meaning_ is all consuming; it is inseparable with
 my existence.  "I think, therefore I am" would be better treated in
 modern English usage as: "I intuit, therefore I am", because the 
 intellect is only valuable when intuited knowledge is involutional
 and able to be processed by the intellect to formulate a concept of
 reality which is useful for the mundane, the pragmatic.  This is why
 neither the intuitive mind nor the intellectual mind can be separated -
 yet they are two different processes of the _SAME_ consciousness.  They
 each have their job, much like the hand or the foot.  Neither wishes
 to be without the other, and each work together for the same body,
 but they are not the same thing.  This is why I asked,
 
          "are our problems of history really an intellectual 
           problem to be solved by consciousness?"
 because I don't think they are.  The problems of history are really
 an intuitive problem to be solved by consciousness.  
 FM> mean by something being "solved by consciousness."  The experience of
 
 All things are "solved by consciousness".  Whether anything is solved by
 intuition or intellect, the subjective or the objective, is the question.
 It is true that only the objective can be refuted exteriorily.  The 
 subjective must rely upon the "I am".
 FM> tension in man's existence as existence in what Plato called the metaxy
 FM> (in-between the divine and the human) is well documented as is the
 FM> differentiations of the symbols generated by such tension over epochs
 FM> of the past occuring in various parts of the world.  Attempts to
 FM> "solve" the problem of what constitutes the totality of reality is
 FM> PRECISELY what results in the various "philosophical SYSTEMS" which
 FM> have proven to be illusory and wrong. "History" only makes sense when
 
 Yet, they have also resulted in various philosophical systems which have
 proven to be right!  This is merely analogous as pronouncing that the
 advent of the automobile has proven to be dangerous and inhumane, because
 of all the bad drivers which have been produced by such an awful 
 machine.  
 FM> it INCLUDES the open course of the future but it is transacted NOT
 FM> BEFORE THAT FUTURE but before God in the sense of "before the totality
 FM> of reality, eternity, or whatever symbol seems most suitable as long as
 FM> it means the same thing.  Use the Platonic symbol of the "epikeina" if
 FM> you prefer or the Anaxamandrian symbol of the "boundless" (aperion).   
 
 I prefer the symbol infinity, but the idea is the same.  Infinity is
 both eternal and boundless, and is a more consuming term.  But if indeed the 
 "open course" of the future is already transacted in the sense of the
 "infinite", that is, before God, I would not base this premise 
 upon an intellectual process.  My intellect would reject all possible
 futures for the "now" in which it exists and has its being.  History
 makes no sense without the future, and the future has no direction 
 without the past; but this is as far as my intellect can carry me.  By
 no means do I say the intellect cannot _know_ of more, but the intuition -
 the process whereby _meaning_ is derived in the consciousness - is the
 only process available which involutes the intellect.
... Always remove the last screw first.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------