Comments on: It’s time to ditch all forms of un-embodied conscious objectivism. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/09/01/is-time-to-ditch-all-forms-of-un-embodied-conscious-objectivism/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:27:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: George Lakoff frames eco-talk | Dangerous Intersection http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/09/01/is-time-to-ditch-all-forms-of-un-embodied-conscious-objectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-39773 George Lakoff frames eco-talk | Dangerous Intersection Wed, 20 May 2009 03:33:50 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1549#comment-39773 [...] George Lakoff, who I have often discussed at this website (see here and here), has spent a lot of time discussing the power of framing.  In fact, the way we frame [...] [...] George Lakoff, who I have often discussed at this website (see here and here), has spent a lot of time discussing the power of framing.  In fact, the way we frame [...]

]]> By: Vicki Baker http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/09/01/is-time-to-ditch-all-forms-of-un-embodied-conscious-objectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-14168 Vicki Baker Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:12:47 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1549#comment-14168 I don't think objections to these theories are going to fall neatly along religious/godless lines. For example, <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=396#comment-14061" rel="nofollow"> seemed to have a lot of trouble wrapping his head around the idea that his choices were not 100% subject to his conscious, rational decision-making processes. I think a lot of advocates for "Enlightenment values" have a very naive view human rationality. On the other hand, a lot of religious people have no problem with the idea of embodied consciousness. I would argue that religious practice and ritual (though not usually systemic theology and doctrine, which attempts to rationalize religious praxis) is very effective at resolving the tensions of the subjective experience of consciousness. Also I think most theologians, on average, are much more conscious of their metaphors than most scientists are. Another recent commenter, Mike C. who is the pastor on an "Emerging Church" would have no problem with the general import of the ideas you present in this article. In fact, he has a<a href="http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2007/06/do-you-have-soul.html" rel="nofollow"> post on his blog about the soul </a>where he writes: <blockquote> What is the soul? Most people I think have this idea that the soul is some immaterial, spiritual entity that floats around somewhere in our bodies, and that continues to consciously exist after we die. This "soul" is separate from our bodies, and somehow represents our true selves apart from our physical existence. However, I want to suggest that this conception of the soul is not really a Christian idea. Rather, it is a syncretistic inflitration of ancient Greek spirit-material dualism wherein spirit is considered the "good" and the "real" while anything material (like our bodies) is evil, illusory, and ultimately to be discarded. </blockquote> Another interesting blog, Underverse, has some interesting meditations on the idea of the soul and the common metaphor of truth being "cold and hard": <a href="http://underverse.blogspot.com/2007/07/soul-is-secular-humanist.html" rel="nofollow">The Soul is a Secular Humanist</a> <a href="http://underverse.blogspot.com/2007/08/ere-i-had-learnt-that-world-was-welter_24.html" rel="nofollow"> Ere I had learnt that the world was a welter of futile doing</a> I don’t think objections to these theories are going to fall neatly along religious/godless lines. For example, seemed to have a lot of trouble wrapping his head around the idea that his choices were not 100% subject to his conscious, rational decision-making processes. I think a lot of advocates for “Enlightenment values” have a very naive view human rationality.
On the other hand, a lot of religious people have no problem with the idea of embodied consciousness. I would argue that religious practice and ritual (though not usually systemic theology and doctrine, which attempts to rationalize religious praxis) is very effective at resolving the tensions of the subjective experience of consciousness. Also I think most theologians, on average, are much more conscious of their metaphors than most scientists are.

Another recent commenter, Mike C. who is the pastor on an “Emerging Church” would have no problem with the general import of the ideas you present in this article. In fact, he has a post on his blog about the soul where he writes:

What is the soul? Most people I think have this idea that the soul is some immaterial, spiritual entity that floats around somewhere in our bodies, and that continues to consciously exist after we die. This “soul” is separate from our bodies, and somehow represents our true selves apart from our physical existence. However, I want to suggest that this conception of the soul is not really a Christian idea. Rather, it is a syncretistic inflitration of ancient Greek spirit-material dualism wherein spirit is considered the “good” and the “real” while anything material (like our bodies) is evil, illusory, and ultimately to be discarded.

Another interesting blog, Underverse, has some interesting meditations on the idea of the soul and the common metaphor of truth being “cold and hard”:

The Soul is a Secular Humanist

Ere I had learnt that the world was a welter of futile doing

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/09/01/is-time-to-ditch-all-forms-of-un-embodied-conscious-objectivism/comment-page-1/#comment-14166 Dan Klarmann Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:15:20 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1549#comment-14166 I suspect that those who argue that evolution is a mere theory would do the same to these principles. Any idea, however well proven, that disagrees with one's instinctive predisposition will find acceptance only in those with enough training to think and act beyond their God-given reflexes. I suspect that those who argue that evolution is a mere theory would do the same to these principles. Any idea, however well proven, that disagrees with one’s instinctive predisposition will find acceptance only in those with enough training to think and act beyond their God-given reflexes.

]]>