Atoms are logically essential, as the ultimate carriers of physical laws and chemical properties. But they cannot be objective and still allow for the strong emergence that appears in biology and psychology. This quasi-objectivity of atoms enables upward causation while, at the same time, allowing for downward causation, i.e. psycho-bio-kenesis, or freewill and vitalism. The quantum problems are a manifestation of this non-objectivity.
This is a component of the broader issue of explaining materiality within the context of immateriality. Hmmm.........
Well, there is, at the least, a somewhat separate issue of explaining the persistent identity of material objects. This goes back, at least, to Berkeley's 'tree on the quad'....... why is it still there, in the morning? Immaterialism and relationalism seem to argue against independent existence. Ionian pebbles and books in the stacks seem to argue otherwise.
A further, related issue, is the lack of temporal, spatial or scalar limits on natural processes. To put this another way, immaterialism generally implies anthropocentrism. Nature has every appearance of being decidedly non-anthropocentric. Ever since Copernicus and Darwin, we have been lost in space and time.
My basic rationale is that the self-revealing God is necessarily self-concealing, and the primary aspect of that self-concealment is to hide behind the veil of Nature. But how do I explain this ability.....? Mainly by implicating ourselves...... we are the great, albeit unwitting, (retroactive!) rationalizers. Nature is largely our own ratiocination. Thus are we the co-Creators, even to the point that God's role becomes that of our leading motivator.
IOW, it is mainly we who have managed to outwit ourselves, by drawing the veil of Nature between our creaturely selves and our Creator Self. Naturally, we are reluctant to give up this game, its being tantamount to our giving up the Ghost.
With the resource crisis, we are holding our own feet to the fire. How else could we possibly expect to wrest this blue-green pearl from our death-grip?
Why? Why not forever?
This is Forever. But, just now, and still, we are seeing Eternity..... the shining Present/Presence..... as through a glass, darkly. We need only to keep moving toward the Light...... whilst dragging our heels? But of course!
The memory of trees, rocks and books is but an aspect of our collective, eidetic, relational, memory, teleologically elicited, dreamlike, from our awakening at the Omega, at which point God, and we, are cured of our MPD syndrome, God willing!
All perception is direct, with the proviso of its being refracted through Nature, which includes our own artifacts, such as books and the Internet.
Direct perception? All perception is an artifact of the Cosmic navel-gazing, and the temporal cosmic 'dementia' that results therefrom. This is just a (clinical) restatement of the principle of Lila, which, more technically, is a form of Pandeism, which very lengthy entry I'm now perusing for the first time.......
It is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity..... Through this synergy pandeism claims to answer primary objections to deism (why would God create and then not interact with the universe?) and to pantheism (how did the universe originate and what is its purpose?).
My only proviso, if it has not already been added, is that of the necessary Resurrection of Creator/creatures.
And I'm quite put off by the very truncated metaphysics of the video found here....
It's often hard for me to understand how, seemingly sapient, individuals can become so misguided. A conspiracy of dunces? No doubt!
So, I would be a Resurrectional Pandeist, perhaps.
The primary misconception of the pandeists is their reflexive adoption of the scientific cosmology as their ontological presupposition. Can they not move beyond that posit? The pantheists have fallen into this same trap. That misapprehension precludes a spiritual telos.
That is an awfully big oversight.
Then there is this.......
The pandeistic universe is just as the universe described in naturalistic pantheism, with the distinction that the belief necessarily encompasses a sentient being that existed before the formation of the universe. Panentheism also suggests a universe designed by a sentient deity, and composed of matter derived from that deity. The belief systems part on the point that panentheism asserts that God is greater than the universe, and therefore continues a separate existence alongside it, while pandeism asserts that everything that was the Deus became incorporated into the universe.
The problem here is the Newtonian, absolute time, PoV of this contributor. Evidently, the Ouroboric time-loop is quite beyond her/his comprehension.
I'm now reading a early version Craig Dilworth's 'Simplicity', which is to be published within a couple of months by Lexington Books. Craig is well known to Sam and me. Sam and Genya will be visiting him in Sweden, at the end of the month. The book has received at least one rave review. I briefly discussed it with Craig, when he was Sam's guest, last year.
Anonymous review of Simplicity, April 2012
1. Content: Craig Dilworth has written an extraordinarily insightful book on one of the deepest and most comprehensive of philosophical subjects, metaphysical categories. And he connects explicitly with a truly amazing variety of philosophical ideas, often in binary pairs requiring subtle distinctions, including, e.g., perspective and world view, knowledge and understanding, reason and intuition, the transcendent and transcendental, the phenomenal and transcendental, primary and secondary qualities, universal and particular, objects and properties, the a priori and a posteriori, analytic and synthetic, emergence and reduction, mind and body, substance and accident, change and stasis, the abstract and the concrete, necessity and possibility, doubt and certainty, reference and intentionality, existence and being, being and nothingness, space and time, cause and effect, identity and difference, paradox and contradiction, knower and known, and, of course, at its core, simplicity and complexity. The book comprises 19 chapters, arranged in the classic style of Plato’s Republic and Kant’s Critique, with an “analytic” at the beginning, whose task is to explain the basic theory followed by a “dialectic” that demonstrates how the theory contributes to a unified understanding and resolution of a wide variety of contested issues. Dilworth’s analytic explains the “simplicity way of thinking,” a way of thinking about simplicity itself as the fundamental organizing feature of reality. Following the table of contents there is a handy listing of and index to all the principles (fundamental rules of reality) and definitions introduced and defended in the book.......
2. Scholarship: Dilworth is on intimate terms not only with much of the philosophical literature but with the relevant literature of science (especially modern physics) and religion (Buddhism and Taoism) as well. The book contains a great many deeply insightful historical remarks and analyses. All in all, in my view, Simplicity belongs in that rarified pantheon of masterpieces on fundamental metaphysics and category theory (what Dilworth calls meta-metaphysics), which includes Plato’s Sophist, Aristotle’s Categories, Aquinas’ On Being and Essence, Descartes’ Meditations, Berkeley’s Principles, Hume’s Treatise, Kant’s Critiques, Bradley’s Appearance and Reality, Russell’s Logical Atomism, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, Husserl’s Ideas, Strawson’s Individuals, and Butchvarov’s Being Qua Being, as well as foundational work in logic and mathematics by Aristotle, Euclid, Newton, Leibniz, Boole, Cantor, Frege, Russell, Gödel, Boolos, and Prior. Beside these, Dilworth’s effort is worthy indeed. Close reading is rewarded with much deeper understanding not only of how to frame metaphysical issues, but what the meaning is of various kinds of attempted solutions.