A Message to revs. Pike, Williamson, and Milroe, Mary O’Connor, and Greg Martinez
Thanks for your comments on the August 20, 2007 blog where we discussed ‘Negat
ion vs. Logic.' As our discussions progressed, the diversity of our backgrounds caused all of us to come away from this discussion believing that nothing was accomplished with respect to increasing our knowledge of God. But, I believe that new knowledge of God is possible.
In his last communication, Greg Martinez said,
You say, "In other words, if you set out to prove the existence of entity X, you can't use any alleged attributes or qualities of entity X as input in your proof. People have been trying to explain this to you for over a year now, but judging by your answers you just don't seem to get it. I guess that (and the fact that you had never heard of the basic term 'non-sequitur') is why they call your mind untrained and undisciplined." First, I ask, "Is the concept non-sequitur something real?" Google's dictionary, for instance, does not carry the word 'sequitur.'
Second, I showed Greg how my scientific mind works. I say, "To move my mind into ‘the unknown,’ I take something positive with me. How can you take nothing into the unknown? When I take 'finite' with me, my mind has a specific 'beginning.' So, my mind is seeking an end. In this end it is seeking a new positive thing. In this specific beginning, I negate finite. In this beginning, my mind is moving away from finite. To move my mind, I negate finite and reveal not-finite. Not-finite is posited as an infinite thing. This new thing is a real infinity, not a mathematical infinity. This new thing is a positive thing and an end. Now, I can search for more unknowns. This time I will take 'infinite' with me. So I make a new beginning by negating 'infinite.' When infinite is negated, my mind has revealed a new positive thing named 'not-infinite.' (Its name could also be 'not-not-finite.') "
Then, I present a popular example --- how to quit smoking. I say, "if one wants to stop smoking, one must take the concept 'smoking' into the unknown of the smoker's mind. Otherwise, the smoker cannot get his or her mind to negate smoking." A smoker thus stops smoking by creating positive goals and achieving them. As the goals are achieved, smoking dies just like a negated bud dies when the bloom of the plant opens.
Further, I have started to study Friedrich Hegel. First, I will study "Hegel: The Essential Writings"by Frederick G. Weiss ($16) first. Then, I expect to study Hegel’s four writings. Hegel’s own writings will be tough. The writings of Nicholas of Cusa were also tough for me.. But, like my readings of Nicholas, my readings of Hegel will require a triple reading because the ‘symbolic language’ used by the big thinkers are tough and must be mastered first to comprehend their writings correctly. In the Introduction of Weiss’ book, I already learned that Hegel also uses the double negation. His point of departure into the unknown is the beginning and is the ‘negativity of the finite.’ So, at least two independent double negations have been used to find God. Interestingly, Karl Marx rejected Hegel’s double negation. But, Marx used a double negative to present his atheism.
ion vs. Logic.' As our discussions progressed, the diversity of our backgrounds caused all of us to come away from this discussion believing that nothing was accomplished with respect to increasing our knowledge of God. But, I believe that new knowledge of God is possible.In his last communication, Greg Martinez said,
You say, "In other words, if you set out to prove the existence of entity X, you can't use any alleged attributes or qualities of entity X as input in your proof. People have been trying to explain this to you for over a year now, but judging by your answers you just don't seem to get it. I guess that (and the fact that you had never heard of the basic term 'non-sequitur') is why they call your mind untrained and undisciplined." First, I ask, "Is the concept non-sequitur something real?" Google's dictionary, for instance, does not carry the word 'sequitur.'
Second, I showed Greg how my scientific mind works. I say, "To move my mind into ‘the unknown,’ I take something positive with me. How can you take nothing into the unknown? When I take 'finite' with me, my mind has a specific 'beginning.' So, my mind is seeking an end. In this end it is seeking a new positive thing. In this specific beginning, I negate finite. In this beginning, my mind is moving away from finite. To move my mind, I negate finite and reveal not-finite. Not-finite is posited as an infinite thing. This new thing is a real infinity, not a mathematical infinity. This new thing is a positive thing and an end. Now, I can search for more unknowns. This time I will take 'infinite' with me. So I make a new beginning by negating 'infinite.' When infinite is negated, my mind has revealed a new positive thing named 'not-infinite.' (Its name could also be 'not-not-finite.') "
Then, I present a popular example --- how to quit smoking. I say, "if one wants to stop smoking, one must take the concept 'smoking' into the unknown of the smoker's mind. Otherwise, the smoker cannot get his or her mind to negate smoking." A smoker thus stops smoking by creating positive goals and achieving them. As the goals are achieved, smoking dies just like a negated bud dies when the bloom of the plant opens.
Further, I have started to study Friedrich Hegel. First, I will study "Hegel: The Essential Writings"by Frederick G. Weiss ($16) first. Then, I expect to study Hegel’s four writings. Hegel’s own writings will be tough. The writings of Nicholas of Cusa were also tough for me.. But, like my readings of Nicholas, my readings of Hegel will require a triple reading because the ‘symbolic language’ used by the big thinkers are tough and must be mastered first to comprehend their writings correctly. In the Introduction of Weiss’ book, I already learned that Hegel also uses the double negation. His point of departure into the unknown is the beginning and is the ‘negativity of the finite.’ So, at least two independent double negations have been used to find God. Interestingly, Karl Marx rejected Hegel’s double negation. But, Marx used a double negative to present his atheism.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 11:17 AM
4 Comments:
At 6:42 AM,
Anonymous said…
1. Don't establish your own ignorance as the norm. Many people have been telling you that the term "non-sequitur" (not "sequitur" as you keep writing stubbornly) is very common in philosophy and logic. Don't be such a child, just admit that they are right.
2. Your "dialectical thinking" is the embarrassing display of an amateur mind. You negate the word "finite", then you negate this negation and presto: God's existence has been proven!
All those years of research for such a lame "proof"? Not-infinite means finite, it has got nothing to do with the unification of "all opposites such as infinite and finite"
I don't want to sound harsh, but really, I have never before seen anyone so unashamedly and uncritically in love with their own meager findings.
At 9:38 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Michael Hennessy,
You are obviously in love with your mind and you should be because God gave it to you. But, like all minds, your mind is not perfect also as you imply.
I see that you also enter into the unknown with nothing. Have fun with your sequiturs. There is no untimate logic. But you haven't learned that yet.
Why don't you go on about your business. I, and no one else, won't miss you.
If your mit education is so good, then tell the world why all sciences are failing. Today's higher educational institutions no longer impress me. And I spoke with the poresident of my university, JHU, about these failures. Why are you hiding the truths about science?
My dialectical thinking is aligned to Platonism. So you are challenging many people other than me.
At 11:45 AM,
Anonymous said…
"I, and no one else, won't miss you."
This means: "I'll be the only one who won't miss you". I don't think that is what you meant to say, though. I guess there must be something wrong with your mindset.
By the way, what is wrong with this synopsis of your so-called proof: take the word "finite", negate it, negate this negation and you find God?
Also, I happen to know Bill Brody quite well. He told me he had never heard of you.
At 3:22 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Michael Hennessy,
I mean exactly what I am said. There is something wrong with ever person's mindset. Or, do you think that you have a perfect one?
That is the way you find God. Since you are unfamiliar with platonism, you would not understand any negations or the double or triple negation.
Brody and I never met. We had an multi-email discussion on the theory of God (theology) and the practice of God, which is defined as religion. Theology and religion are not an identity.
Brody thought that researching God is a religion and that JHU cannot do research on the theory of God because JHU is nonsectarian. At the end of our discussion, he had no answer to my question on doing research on the theory of God at JHu.
When a person does not understand the difference between the theory of God and paracice of a specific theory of God, I give up and allow thos person to think for awhile. Brody kindly told me that he had no answer to my question about why JHU does no researh on the theory God.
I believe that all higher instititions are ignorant about the difference between the theory of God and religion. So, the people who do believe in God are being cheated by our higher institutions.
Post a Comment
<< Home