I agree that supernatural is typically a canard, insofar as it is often taken to mean 'cannot be understood' or 'in violation of understandable laws' - neither of which seem to be the case. Of course, esoteric schools throughout time have offered the entire scope of hermeneutic theory on the so-called supernatual.
In The Conscious Mind (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195117891/qid=1088486676/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0510415-4280928?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), Chalmers puts forth a theory called naturalistic dualism, which has some similarities to what you've offered. He agrees that there is no theoretical barrier before the supernatural (mind and consciousness, anyway), preventing it from being understood - that we just do not have a complete account yet.
However, he feels that the 'extra stuff' needed for a complete account cannot be physical stuff (cannot have mass/spatio-temporal extension). This does not mean it's spooky - he offers the example of discovering a new fundamental (irreducible) property of stuff that is the building block of consciousness (such that 'fundamental ontological stuff' would have 'mass', 'spatio-temporal extension' and 'proto-consciousness' as irreducible properties). (Note: such an account may not actually be 'dualist' in the formal sense, nomenclature aside)
Is this the direction you're going in? Do you reject the idea of non-corporeal [post-]human existence? I think most models of this sort cannot easily accomodate such things as afterlives.
"I fear that drawing any sort of distinction between 'spirit' and 'matter' leads inevitably to dualism"
Definitely. It gets very tough to really talk about holism though. :p
"Rather a strange statement from someone who self-labels as a Gnostic, eh?"
Hehe... yes and no. I think it takes a careful reading of Gnostic texts to discern if the original darkness indeed has an existence of its own or is rather some derivitive of (ie. or mere absence of) fullness. I think at least some Gnostic texts can be argued to be ultimately monistic metaphysics, following this approach.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-06-28 10:36 pm (UTC)In The Conscious Mind (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195117891/qid=1088486676/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0510415-4280928?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), Chalmers puts forth a theory called naturalistic dualism, which has some similarities to what you've offered. He agrees that there is no theoretical barrier before the supernatural (mind and consciousness, anyway), preventing it from being understood - that we just do not have a complete account yet.
However, he feels that the 'extra stuff' needed for a complete account cannot be physical stuff (cannot have mass/spatio-temporal extension). This does not mean it's spooky - he offers the example of discovering a new fundamental (irreducible) property of stuff that is the building block of consciousness (such that 'fundamental ontological stuff' would have 'mass', 'spatio-temporal extension' and 'proto-consciousness' as irreducible properties). (Note: such an account may not actually be 'dualist' in the formal sense, nomenclature aside)
Is this the direction you're going in? Do you reject the idea of non-corporeal [post-]human existence? I think most models of this sort cannot easily accomodate such things as afterlives.
"I fear that drawing any sort of distinction between 'spirit' and 'matter' leads inevitably to dualism"
Definitely. It gets very tough to really talk about holism though. :p
"Rather a strange statement from someone who self-labels as a Gnostic, eh?"
Hehe... yes and no. I think it takes a careful reading of Gnostic texts to discern if the original darkness indeed has an existence of its own or is rather some derivitive of (ie. or mere absence of) fullness. I think at least some Gnostic texts can be argued to be ultimately monistic metaphysics, following this approach.