Re: Glenn's departure.

Adam Crowl (
Sat, 28 Nov 1998 03:16:53 PST

>Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:30:47 -0500 (EST)
>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Glenn's departure.

[snipped, my initial post and John's statement of this worldly
frustration of understanding]
Moorad wrote...

>The Book of Nature (the Works of God) and the Bible (the Word of God)
>the whole of the human experience. Both are given to us but our
>understanding of them changes with time. The subject matter of science
>limited. A good reductionist would say that the subject matter of
>entails only matter/energy. Note that the essence of the Bible is the
>spiritual aspect of reality--that which man senses but goes undetected
>machines. The difference in kind between the two books is astronomical.
>that even in science we have degrees of complexity which are presently
>unsurmountable to our understanding. Who are we then to demand absolute
>understanding when it comes to the spiritual? It is the result of pride
>which gives us that pretense. It is also maddening to expect that the
>description of the spiritual would be as simple as the mathematical
>we use in science. We simplify in order that our brains can conceive.
>are we to simplify that which conceives so that we can understand how
>conceives? It is OK to speculate but do not take yourself too
>Let us love ourselves a little bit more and not torture ourselves with
>lies clearly beyond us.
Much lies beyond us, yet we have encompassed the very Void with our
minds and models. I don't see any "wall" that we might encounter when
trying to understand "spirit" - Moorad seems to be talking about
consciousness and mind. I think neither is utterly beyond science, even
if they can't be wholly grasped by its methods. Various schools of
Buddhism give up on rational discourse because such is constituted by
"mind", and it's mind that the Buddhists seek to grasp. Their solution:
not to grasp. Weary mind until it lies still and then, maybe, all
becomes clear - Zen's essence.

However I disagree. Words and models can describe, and that's their
value. They don't grasp and can't grasp - instead that's the role of
spirit [as St. Paul puts it "a man's spirit knows his mind".] Since they
don't and can't they lie outside of the trap of self-referential
situations like mind trying to grasp mind. A ruler can't measure itself
you might say. So I haven't given up on words and discussion when trying
to understand mystery. If we want to know it, however, then we must
cease speaking and seeking. Words just get in the way.


On a more scientific note, who here believes in human evolution and who
has good reason not to? Doubtless this has been discussed before, but I
want to take a different approach. Just tell me your views and I'll post
mine, then we'll see.


Get Your Private, Free Email at