Re: [asa] Now: Law of Non-Contradiction (Was Re)

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 11:01:45 EDT

At 09:17 AM 5/11/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:

>Moreover, it might be well to ask whether the law of
>non-contradiction should be held as absolutely and foundationally as
>some want to hold it, given that it is a human construct and not an
>exact God's-eye representation of reality. ~ David O.

@ Darwin may have agreed with you:

"..Darwin expresses the sentiment that (referring to his scientisic
vision of universal Darwinism), There is grandeur in this view of
life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a
few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

".....We really only have two choices. Either this cosmos is in fact
grand -- not to mention, beautiful, awesome, sacred and numinous --
or our genes, for reasons we cannot know, randomly mutated in such a
way that we imagine that such entirely chimerical things as grandeur
and beauty exist. But in reality, we are simply prisoners of our
genes, and by extension, our nervous systems. I don't see how one can
say that it is a "grand" view of the cosmos if the grandeur is simply
an illusory side effect of our nervous system. There is _an obvious
contradiction_ at the heart of Darwin's sentimental view of his own theory.

"...Neither life nor natural selection could exist in a cosmos that
did not have a principle of wholeness woven into its very fabric. In
fact, to say "cosmos" is to say "wholeness," since a cosmos is by
definition a unified and ordered totality -- just like an organism. ..."

In an organism, no matter where or how deeply we look, we find
fractal wholeness at every level. You could even say that the essence
of pathology is an absence of integrated wholeness -- .... The
essence of mental illness is ..."

"...Is it possible that strict reductionistic Darwinism could be
"true" without contradicting its own principles? I do not see how.

As Schuon has written, human intelligence "is the perception of the
real and not the 'intellectualization' of the unreal." The
discernment of intelligence allows us to pass "from appearances to
reality, from forms to essence, and from effects to cause." No animal
can know of the reality behind appearances or intuit the essence
beneath the form.

Why is human intelligence so perfectly adapted to invisible realties
that played no role in the selection of our genes?

Why is there nothing in the world commensurate with the nature of
human intelligence, which easily transcends everything into which it
comes into contact, including our own evolution?

If we comprehend our own evolution, isn't this another way of saying
that we transcend it? And if we don't comprehend it, isn't Darwinism,
ipso facto, false?

Darwin Was Not a

~ Janice :)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 11 11:02:24 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 11 2007 - 11:02:24 EDT