KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA 63 (Leslie / Reed)

Commentary 15 (to C1, Muller)

( ANTHROPIC DOOM )
by Glenn C Wood
29 November 2003, posted 14 December 2003

<1>
Re. H Muller's and Leslie’s and Rees’ religious comments in TA63C1

What KJ would say -- I think

What KJ has to say about man's survival is: Human kind ought not survive unconditionally in a moral and ethical sense. Rather than respond directly to a TA about evolution as though there's something objectively substantial there, the occasion to respond to HM's religious litany -- which is here but a critical response to the evolution litany -- provided the opportunity to show the significance of KJ's philosophy of psychology. That said an example of the significance might be seen in that some portion of the world's population is reacting to the survival of the technically proficient by pecking the flesh off others to maintain the aparatuses of conventional comforts. Acuteness of thought and accuracy of predictability is distributed no less among the poor who are often finding, in the absence of comfort, hope in concepts about immortality. They, these fundamentalists HM refers to, can see immediately that the world Church would usher in hell on earth to which they, the infidels, those cautious about authority, would be confined immortally, i.e. to a suffering eternally where there's no time for relief. This tendency, though, toward comforts and control seeks like water its level in all classes.

<2>
HM's leanings in moral questions relative to evolution

HM isn't all wrong in showing the logical flaws in TA63. Life beyond is implied in TA63, for there's no life without the potential ground for it (KJ's Encompassing of the encompassing and Transcendent); just as there is something greater than the speed of light because of potentiality. We look for identical life in our frontiers. It can be objectified in terms of life elsewhere, and of course this would be objected to by HM for it would admit to a Transcendental window, an Encompassing of the encompassing, an incoming from a source beyond thought and experience. Forgetting this is easier for HM and this premeditated or repressed recognition is why he declares against man's immortality in <19>. It's also objected to by L and R of TA63 because of the commitment to and dependency upon what is of general interest -- the predicament of thinking piece meal, or with beginnings and ends. HM's arguments though are limited by immanentalistic confinements too, and there's the implicite denial of potentiality, and an explicite rejection of the heavenly father and the need for a schoolmaster-like law preparatory to grace and faith (both in history at large and the history of each individual).

<3>
HM's phenomenal Moses

In <6> HM manifest a misunderstanding of the faith and teachings of Moses and a limited comprehension of the Bible in history. Moses did not teach God to be an authority that "we have created as an ideal image of ourselves." This interpretation shows HM cannot view Moses as being in an encompassing world of others' influence (Abrahamic faith) and therefore could only have conjured God. That is now an explicite HM interpretation and the result of subjecting faith to reason's zero-derivation perspective -- nothing is given to Moses, Moses only deceives the group for purposes of stability and conditional tribal survival. Moses would be violating his own traditional influence, for Abraham's faith had values reaching beyond community lines.

<4>
KJ's view of fundamental Religious movements contrasted with HM's Instututionalism

Contrasted with KJ view that the hope for the salvation of the world lies in small protestant groups, HM's agenda here is quite clear, for fundamentalists are classed as a faulty substitute for Mono-theistic established religions such as that "Church" Teilhard was trying to promote. TA63 is more of the same only without that Church -- a Church that would peck flesh to get aboard extra terrestrial colonization just like it picks the flesh off the carcasses of it's best members making "Saints" out of saints and expecting the rest of the world's religious to genuflect. The avoidance of doom is hoped for, by HM, apparently in the ecumenical union of churches, in the Omega like union of one "Holy Universal Church." The dangers of a universal Church can be seen in Theilhard efforts and commitment, but HM sees it as a sort of ecumenical-secular movement toward union, the union of a catholic or universal religion and the religion of evolution.

<5>
HM's search for papal authority

Also though hoping to fill the gap created by a misunderstanding of Moses, HM still insists on being publicly observed bowing before Anaximander as being the true source of reason's revelations. An "evolved" HM-Anaximander can teach something nearly biblical but not Moses ? Zero-derivation has to make a "Saint" of a mind for the revelational influence of the Apeiron -- and for some popularly correct reason it can't be a biblical personage. Kant is then called to witness; that the more developed Kant was the more compatible with "0-D view" -- an interpretation of Kant no less questionable than that of Moses. I came to a zero derivational like view of my "I" within the first few pages of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but only to be rejuvenated with the faith I had received within my earliest encompassing. If HM in research of normally inaccessible extant notes find otherwise might I suggest it is Kant's reaction to the influence of the Teilhard-like Church Institution (reformed or otherwise) rather than a comitment to "0-D." (Want to remind a reader that I place the abbreviations in quotes or whole words to avoid the customary use, high frequency of use, to the extent they might become considered axioms. That is why Pierre is dropped from Teilhard too. It means no disrespect for the person but a refusal to submit to hynotic bits of authority because of an institutionally conferred title of distinction.)

<6>
HM transfigures Moses

What a Mosaic spin. Moses is recognized as prior to Anaximander in giving divine respect for fundamental thinking, to finding the devine through thinking or mountain top meditation. Now that HM has revealed the real Moses, Moses too can be compatible with HM's "0-D" if he, Moses, would tell us what he really believed about God rather than what he wanted the people to believe he believed. Has Moses appeared to HM like to Christ on the mount of transfiguration ? Other than the few words attributed to Anaximander, by what extra-biblical source does he know the ontic Moses?

<7>
Institutional absorption of excess mental disturbances

One point that the TA63 author makes is that there's something he cannot identify with regarding HM. Around 50% of that is due to the religion of evolution, and the other 50% due to the immanental religion of HM. I have detected that too, a core without a normal identity, a mental bombardment in confined space impossible to pin down -- a balance retained by the absorption of energy through Institutional involvement and security. But L and R are without excuse for failing to see that the judgement toward HM is feedback data with a kickback.

<8>
The need for disclosure; relief from an editor's privileged immunity.

Perhaps now HM would share with the Forum earliest recollections such as those of the home life, parents ? We are not getting any younger. It's sometimes required that psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists be analyzed. Was this a requirement for your position ? Would sharing some of this violate or threaten a radical "0-D?"

---------------------------------------

Glenn C Wood

---------------------------------------

Regarding Moses (<3> above) : I don’t suggest this was Moses’ (or your, or Jaspers’) opinion, but from a 0-D point of view it appears that way.

Concerning your questions at the end, I would say that after the events of the 1930s and 40s in Europe it seemed to me that one cannot replace making sense on a personal level by taking shortcuts of various kinds. Rather than primarily relying on ready-made views on basic questions, as offered by various authorities, it helps to start from scratch. This does not mean re-inventing the wheel, but that all practices and concepts (including Moses’) should be available for re-testing from point zero, when needed. - This procedure may be of help also for some long-standing conceptual problems in various fields, unsolved but still urgent, and under discussion in KJF.

I would also like to ask you a question : since you often refer to evolution, it would help if you could you say what your view on evolution actually is, and why. - HFJM