KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 106 (Müller)
Commentary 20 (to C16, RA Segal
and DK Kim)
NEW AGE OR NEW PHYSICALITY ? RIGHT OR AUTHORITY ? DEFINITION OR DEDUCTION ?
by Philip Benjamin
17 April 2008, posted 26 April
2008
<1>
[RAS]
KJ FORUM TA 106 C16
The philosopher Sidney Hook once
said to the theologian Paul Tillich that Christians used to convert by the
sword but nowadays convert by the definition. For Tillich, whoever possessed what he termed
an "ultimate concern" was religious, whether or not specifically
Christian. Few persons were thereby excluded.
<2>
[PB] Definition or Deduction?
Absolutely no disagreement can be
presented here with anything, except that disambiguation is desperately needed
for the terms ‘Christians’ and ‘specifically Christian’. There are compelling reasons to distinguish
New Testament (NT) regeneration from religion. This is becoming increasingly
necessary since ‘Christ and ‘Christ Consciousness’ are synonymously used across
the board in all demography and many post modern theological treatises. Many versions of Christianity far removed from
the first century have assumed variant and many deviant characteristics totally
foreign to the apostolic writings. This
huddles up Hitler & Nazis, Stalin & Communists, Crusaders
& Inquisitionists all in the same ‘Christian’
compartment. It is doubtful if that will
help to throw any light on what HFJM reasonably expects to have: “The review
which is reproduced below fits well into the topic of recent discussions of
TA106 – [HFJM ].
<3>
[RAS]
More common today is the appeal
to a definition of "human being" as the criterion of religiosity, and
David Kyuman Kim enlists Charles Taylor's Sources of
the Self (1989) to make the case that humans are inherently religious.
<4>
[PB]
Right Or Authority?
Then why not have a basic,
common, NT definition of ‘Christian’? Common
sense demands it. For, only the New
Testament has the authority to define ‘Christian’. Others may have ‘rights’ of all kinds-
historic, royal, ecclesiastical, legal, canonical, cultural, editorial,
literary, journalistic and so on- but no genuine authority. Defining ‘Christian’ is not the same as
defining ‘Roman’, or ‘Greek’ or ‘Anglican’ or ‘Protestant’ or ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Arminian’. There is
a basic difference. What is the
authority of the philosopher Sidney Hook or the theologian Paul Tillich or the
reviewer RAS or the Times or any one in any forum to present or represent any
definition of ‘Christian’ outside the limits and specifications of the NT? That applies also to words as ‘God’, ‘Elohim’, ‘Yahweh’, ‘Messiah’ and the authority of the Old
Testament. Dawkins then will have to
rewrite his book in many volumes (with possible pecuniary benefits) to do
justice to authenticity. He has to first
understand the difference between ‘right’ and ‘authority’. He may have rights to write a book, but not
necessarily any authority to do that.
<5>
[PB]
New Age or New Physicality ?
What is the criterion of religiosity ? Is it worship ? Is it
having a label or an identity ? Is it an idol or icon or a symbol
? Is it mysticism
? Is it revelation
? Is it belief ?
Is it awareness of self
? Is it parapsychology
? Is it the sense of supernatural ? Is it
addiction to something or somebody ? Though there are many physical and biochemical
processes which are common to all forms of life, sentience exists with
“punctuated” gradations in the biosphere. A vegetative state (mechanism/mind?) exists
across the taxa in plants, animals and humans. Both vegetative and animal states
(mechanisms/minds?) exist in humans. But
a human state (mechanism/mind) exists only in humans. Nowhere else it manifests in the biosphere. One may even grant that the biosphere is
pan-sentient at the vegetative and/or animal levels. ‘Pan-psychic’ is a misnomer, if psyche
involves human mind. Recent developments
in ‘axion’ particle physics add a new dimension which
I will describe below.
<6>
[PB]
This punctuation is also
reflected in the rate of emission of biophotons from
live tissues across the taxa. That is unseemly, if all biosphere
is made only of the same three particles- electrons, protons, neutrons. Any lingering confidence in this exclusive
identity of particles dissolves by the fact that the governing agents of life-
genetic, hormonal etc- are very similar across the taxa. Confounding
further is the fact that the mental phenomena not simply emerge (or emanate) in
humans. They seem to coexist invisibly
with physical phenomena. Adding to the
enigma is the fact that the visible body and its parts are transient. There is constant flux at the cellular levels
with frequent recycling of constituent elemental particles, while the mental
phenomena persist and are intransient at least during the normal life-time. [Neither post mortem eternality, nor thanatism (disbelief in immortality) is necessarily
implied].
<7>
[PB]
Toying with the idea of an invisible homo sapiens (IHS) coupled parallel to the
visible becomes a rational necessity. What
will it take to do that ? If particles are involved, they must be
invisible and of negligible mass. They
must yield dark Chemistries following the pattern of stable configuration rules
of ordinary chemistry (Duet, Octet), spin-spin interactions and couplings. Invisibility in the electric (EM) physical
realm necessitates non-electric (non-EM) particles. Intransience will be associated with
non-entropy. Axion
type particles are probable candidates. Some
bio-dark-matter particles must fill the bill.
Decoupling of the non-entropic
invisible body from the visible, say 150-lb male/female body, will leave the
former at a very low energy state, possibly negative. Enormous energy (Cosmic), beyond the presently
known human capabilities will be needed to raise it to any functional level. Call that Resurrection Energy if you will. Thus, the claim that ‘Channeling’-
globally practiced and widely reported in professional journals and mass media-
is by disembodied spirit entities cannot be true. Conceivably, these may be perpetual sentient
entities made only of ‘dark atoms’ existing at a higher energy state than
humans and impersonating as ‘ghosts’ of deceased (decoupled) humans who’s lives are familiar to them. These may be rightfully called “familiar
spirits”. The celebrated Seth/Jane
Robert episodes may validate that postulate.
-----------------------------------------------
Philip Benjamin
e-mail <medinuclear (at) hotmail.com
>