Absolute perception Pt. I

Immanuel Kant this morning before work. In a book I am currently reading there is a particular statement in which Kant declares [with great conviction]; 'if we think something is beautiful then we want everyone to agree with us.'1 Since then it has been running through my mind all day. Would the world be better off if everyone agreed on what is beautiful? It is incontrovertible the world would not be better off because what we discover as being beautiful is surely a reflection of our personality/individuality. With this in mind, we can actually distinguish more about our disposition, and more importantly our character by what we perceive as being beautiful. Is 'inherent beauty' ever better than constructed beauty, like in art or music? Are beauty and happiness harmonious to one another? What is the relation between beauty and the sublime? The sublime is our reaction in the face of something so overpowering that it consumes or obliterates us. There is a saying that truth is beauty and beauty is truth, but is this saying correct? Regrettably We have been taught what is beautiful, and we are buying this lesson. It is constructed for us and forms paradigms of beauty. This constructed beauty makes a boundary between us and our own intrinsic nature, separates us from appreciating the special qualities that are not reflecting the standards of these paradigms. Through placing constructed beauty outside, the completed embrace of one’s own nature is possible. Acceptance of this intrinsic nature allows creative partnership, creativity opens the potential of life......

1. The Kantain Sublime and the Revelation of Freedom, R. Clewis pp.255-256

Free will.

Having had a second glance at my previous thoughts regarding the apparent congruent and co-extensiveness between spinozian philosophy and Open-theistic theology, I have pondered on the affects of the issue of 'free will'. The unpredictability implied by quantum mechanics has done away with the Newtonian world view, in which all future events are predetermined. From a Darwinian world-view, there always is a choice: a variety of possibilities, some of which are retained by selection. The defining characteristic of a cybernetic agent is some degree of control over that selection. Because of their capacity for thought, people, moreover, are not only free to choose between given possibilities, but able to conceive novel possibilities and explore their consequences. However still restricted by this particular 'selective science'. A theistic-evolutionary perspective on the other hand could quite dexterously state that despite an individual still possessing the inevitable physical advancement in humanity [via natural selective evolution], one still does also still possess the quality of [a conscious] 'free will' with the benefits of a deeper purpose in life... Just thinking out loud.

Regressive and Progressive Theos.

Recently I have been reflecting on the views of Benedict de Spinoza, and attempting to understand his particular views concerning pantheistic monism. Essentially Spinoza was of the belief that there is no dualism between God and the world. Automatically I assumed this would contradict God's sovereign control, although having thought about it, it may possibly be the opposite. With this philosophy as merely inspired (rhetorical) thought, it has provoked me into thinking perhaps God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. For example, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time. Granted this does defy the laws of 'time' and our human perceptions/measurements of it, but this 'open-theistic' theology does surprisingly run congruent with Spinozian thought if we are to say that "the present" does not exist, or exists only as an imaginary or theoretical point. The present moment is always in dissolution, ever divided between the past (into which it is always disappearing) and the future (which it has not yet achieved). That God is in complete control of a regressive and progressive state of 'the present'.