"Wang Kao was hard at work when the prophet came." (p. 119)
We misunderstand "prophet," expecting another Ba'al. Instead, "guru" would have been more appropriate. Realizing that ways of thought have changed, a scholar has sought out the best ways to use these new mental abilities. It makes sense that more than intellect has been affected but also that it will take time to learn all the implications.
From the new spaceship, Peter Corinth looks at the ocean of space and remembers Helga's words:
"'Maybe you need to find God.'" (12, p. 112)
He reflects:
"Well - perhaps he had. He had at least found something more than himself." (p. 122)
Let us suppose for a moment that the ultimate reality is indeed a transcendent person as theists claim. Philosophically, I think that any self-conscious being must be only one relative part of reality. However, in philosophy, we disagree and consider alternatives. On the theistic hypothesis, God is communicating with Corinth by revealing the ocean of space to him. God certainly does not need Corinth to realize at this stage that he is dealing not only with impersonal forces of nature but also with, beyond them, a transcendent person. That, if true, can wait. After publishing this post, I will retire upstairs to meditate.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Since at least the composition of Psalm 8.1-5, men have seen God as the ultimate cause of all things, such as the stars and the universe. Anderson is not stating a new thought here.
Ad astra! Sean
No...
Not a new idea but not everyone accepts it and I have stated my reasons for disagreeing with it.
Kaor, Paul!
And I disagree with those reasons, nor do all philosophers agree with them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course you disagree and of course not all philosophers agree! That is the nature of belief and philosophy. All that any of us can do is to state what he thinks or believes and why he thinks or believes it. And we disagree. Is there some misunderstanding here to the effect that I am trying to smuggle in the assumption that what I say is really accepted and believed by everyone else - even though they deny it? Any attempt to conclude a discussion of this sort by implying that the issues in dispute have been definitively settled one way or the other is completely mistaken.
I respect disagreement. I conclude a discussion with the understanding that the disagreements continue. And that surely does not need to be said?
Paul.
Try not to regard a long term disagreement as a perpetual embattled argument.
Kaor, Paul!
Understood.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment