Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story.

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story. file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story. book. Happy reading Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story. Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story. at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Unzipped: Gay Ambition Lost and Found in La La Land. My Story. Pocket Guide.

Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Unzipped by J. Cameron Goodreads Author. A gay story of addiction: sex, money, fame and drugs Coming out is hard to do. This is an erotic gay memoir of a guy using his youth and looks to go from small town to bright lights big city.

Jay was gay, young and beautiful. Out at fifteen, he discovers a new life. He is addicted to sex, drugs and money by sixteen. The sudden A gay story of addiction: sex, money, fame and drugs Coming out is hard to do. The sudden release from his small-town hell is too much for him to handle! As quickly as he rose, he comes crashing down Ready to take New York by storm, at any cost, you sense the craziness and endless whirlwind of the life he created. He loved all of it but it was too much for him to handle.

It was like being released from jail—you step outside, and the freedom and bright lights are too much after being in the dark for so long. With unlimited access to cash, sex and drugs, Jay falls prey to all of it. Jay goes from a fulfilling his dream of fame, success and money, to the nightmare of being willing to do whatever it takes to keep it. Modeling in New York is his entree to the world he always knew he belonged. Each one was important in their role, providing something Jay needed. There was really no room for friends, unless they had something to give, lovers included, everyone served a purpose.

Jay loved them for what they gave and yet hated them for having it and using it to control him. Living off your looks and youth takes it toll. You can feel the clock ticking at every turn. Jay knew that what had was perishable; it had an expiration date. Just around the corner was the next flavor of the month. You can feel his growing insecurity and pain. Vain, complex, jealous, possessive, sexual, viscous and insatiable—nothing was good enough.

There was never enough fame, money, sex, drugs, alcohol—you name it and he was addicted. In the end these feelings caused his downfall. He blames his mother but he struggle was with within. Was he person who wanted fame, money, and status versus the other Jay who wanted love, a normal life and a long-term relationship? The person who knew his destiny was to be among the rich and famous versus the person who still felt like the small-town queer. Get A Copy. Kindle Edition , pages. More Details Friend Reviews.

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Unzipped , please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. Sort order. Archaeologists and linguists have gathered evidence for the emergence and evolution of symbolic culture and language and these point towards it being an example of emergent phenomena as prescribed by the nature of complex adaptive systems. It is however only recently that statistical physicists have applied their tools towards the theoretical study of language.

Statistical mechanics was used to arrive at the conclusion that human-like communication systems can be captured in a clean formal calculus and did provide evidence that language emerges as social behaviour within artificial systems as done by Steels The evidence that artificial systems can handle the symbol grounding problem needed to arrive at the emergence of a human-like communication system like language does take many who have argued vehemently against this possibility by surprise.

Social behaviour is not the monopoly of what we call life, much less of humans. Language and symbolism is however the vehicle of our narrative and meaning creation. Through the use of language we can carry forward and communicate many abstract concepts and propagate what we call beliefs. According to Clouser a religious belief is any belief in something or other as divine, and divine is anything not depending on anything else.

We observe, often even with much emotion, that humans have a propensity to believe almost anything against all logical or rational thought. What is certain is that belief systems create sense, and that we all believe in something or other regardless of the status of its divinity. What exactly that sense is that gets created is an issue that philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists and psychologist alike like to theorize about. That is, from an evolutionary point of view the cognitive process aims at creating a viable solution — making sense and searching for causality — for whatever the circumstance at that moment in human spacetime is.

From this cognitive drive point of view, truth is either irrelevant or of inconsequence. Truth has however a claim to the absolute, that is, to that that does not depend on anything else. We thus advance the possibility that to believe is the human theoretical action model or metric that sustains life. Thus religious belief is a subset of a larger set of human beliefs. What distinguishes belief from theory is that theory never pretends to be truth; theory models observation and experience in an attempt to create an understanding of reality. Belief on the other hand often lays a claim to truth and it creates a space that can be called the breeding ground of morals.

In the food chain of evolution, belief is the precursor to theory. One can say that belief is the archaic precursor to theory analogous to Newtonian mechanics being the precursor to general relativity. The Universe or the so-called Matter is interdependent and there is no element of it that does not depend on anything else.

What is not immediately obvious is that the strength of the coupling of the interdependency could be determined by a topological relationship that has yet to be illuminated. Like identity, belief and theory are virtual abstract constructs of the mind that exist without physical embodiment. This is, whatever permits humans to construct theory is something that is ineffable, thus not necessarily amenable to representation. Our quest is thus one for a representational reality while trying to make sense of the non-representational.

In a world of information, we acquire knowledge through cognition. Knowledge is the cognitively processed information. Like theories are part of our knowledge, so is belief and evidently also all the other screens that filter our perception. Within this line of argument, perception is then both the filtered and unfiltered information that we receive. The bridge — morphism — between belief and quantum mechanics may reside in cognition if one is to define cognition as the functional relationship between information and knowledge.

Information is what matter and energy — Matter — contain. In other words one could consider the nature of information to be universally pervasive or ubiquitous. This is tantamount to saying that the Universe is closed system of information. Any observable or potentially observable phenomenon is emergent out of this complex adaptive system, which with some good fortune higher-dimensional algebras gives us some abstract access to. Within this ontology is it perhaps not too surprising that language itself is an emergent phenomenon in a dynamic adaptive complex system exhibiting local manifestation or expression.

Of all things that we do question, change may be the only reality around which there is a broad consensus, change happens. In a heuristic theory of change there is besides the general adaptive cycle, also hierarchies that are formed by nested sets of such cycles at progressively larger scales. If the demonstration of the emergence of language in both human and artificial social systems is too tenuous to be considered evidence for the universality and interdependence of our Universe, it is at least a good hint that this may be an interesting approach to explore.

Reductionism and materialism, even if presently under criticism have also revealed considerable amounts of valuable information that could be archived and processed, and should not be regarded as wrong, but could benefit from being placed within an appropriate context. That appropriate context in our view is that of these being theories that have advanced our knowledge of our surroundings and Universe.

The fragmentation into various disciplines was not only necessary but also valuable in order to transit to the next level of exploration. At that next level of exploration we bring it together heuristically in what we would like to call the process of ubification. In ubification — process and thus a dynamic — that function between the various spaces relevant to whereness spacetime those things which during the past couple of centuries disconnected from one another with minute scholarly diligence driven by our reductionist zeal propelled by our cognitive drive to make sense, are again interconnected and find themselves to be a part of the Universe again.

Calls for a rethink of our existing reductionist, referred to by Durr as materialistic-mechanistic worldview, of classical physics are progressively gathering momentum. New ways of thinking about reality and the nature of reality and the atom itself are gaining acceptance particularly as a result of the intriguing insights into the nature of reality and the atom being brought about by quantum physics. Often reductionist accounts of physics are driven by a single perspective often shaped by a physical understanding of reality.

Hence the perceived difficulty amongst physicists and philosophers about the nature of the atom being either physical or wave but not both. Clouser writes so eloquently about the conflict and contradictions often found in the theories developed by the great minds of our time into the nature of reality. Table 1 summarizes the differing views of the nature of the atom propagated by such theories:. The interaction between an entity and its observer determines which part of the duality manifests itself, i.

The recognition of the reality of the wave nature of entities is a blow to the idea of composition being fundamental to understanding reality and the atom. Such traditional reductionist frameworks of understanding reality are often engulfed in rigid structures that allow little room if any for any sort of flexibility which is so needed particularly when considering how to deal with the apparent paradox or dual nature of the atom. Furthermore, such approaches may even hinder progress into the field of enquiry itself.

Sikkema argues that the more one knows about the wave nature of a specific entity, the less one knows about its particle nature, and vice versa. At the beginning of this century Lord Rutherford and the Danish physicist Niels Bohr designed a beguilingly simple model of the atom as a miniature solar system, in which negatively charged electrons circle like planets round a positively charged nucleus.

But the model ran into one paradox after another: the electrons behaved quite unlike planets: they kept jumping from one orbit into a different orbit without passing through intervening space — as if the earth were suddenly transferred into the orbit of Mars without having to travel. The orbits themselves were not linear trajectories but wide, blurred tracks, and it was meaningless to ask for instance at what point of its orbit the electron of the hydrogen atom was at any given moment of time; it was equally everywhere.

It seems Heisenberg implicitly suggests opposition to reductionism. Philosophically, the developments of quantum mechanics were far-reaching. Like relativity, they again showed that humans could not assume that the physical laws which seem to govern a kg person moving at speeds up to several hundred kilometres per hour also applied to bodies far from this regime.

They also brought into question the assumption of the perfectly deterministic world proposed by Laplace. Clearly it was impossible to predict the position and velocity of every body for all future times if you could not even know these coordinates accurately at a single instant in time. This conclusion has even been used as the basis of the claim that humans have free will, that all is not predetermined as would seem to be the case in a purely mechanistic, deterministic world governed by the laws of physics. These ideas are still heavily debated today, as in a recent article by Roger Penrose in the book Quantum Implications.

Answers or even clarifications of these issues seems to be moving more and more towards philosophical accounts rather than so called scientifically oriented methods. This becomes evident when considering the double slit experiment; our observation of what is going on at the slits causes an irreversible change in the behavior of the electrons.

Limitations of experimental work in accounting for the very nature of reality is also discussed in Clouser This paper attempts to give an intuitive account of the apparent paradoxical nature of the atom. It does so by freeing itself from the rigidity of the reductionist viewpoint of the nature of reality and working out an account of the nature of the atom based on a non reductionist philosophy advocated by Herman Dooyeweerd.

When discussing the nature of the atom there seems to be two sets of issues to contend with: These are:. Bridging these two issues will contribute to clarifying the mystery and some of the paradoxical characteristics of the atom. To do this we will be driven by the following factors that are central to Dooyweerdian thinking and understanding:. Dooyeweerd proposed that there are a number of distinct aspects of reality which are centered on types of meaning and on modes of being. Each aspect has a distinct set of laws that guide and enable functioning. Our functioning is enabled and given meaning by these aspects, and is multi-aspectual in nature.

The aspects are fundamentally irreducible to each other. That these aspects, though irreducible, are nevertheless closely intertwined, such that in each there are echoes of each of the other. The aspects form a sequence, in which the laws of an aspect depend on those of earlier aspects for their proper functioning, even though they may not be reduced to them. It is the earlier aspects that have the more determinative laws while the later aspects have more normative laws. That almost all human activities, and almost all entities are qualified by one aspect, even though the functioning involved in the activity is in fact multi-aspectual.

This helps us understand the nature of entities with more precision. Enkapsis speaks of what individuality structures are necessary to the proper understanding of an enkaptic structural whole, rather than what individuality structures could be part of it in various circumstances. For example, the statue of Praxiteles is also an historical and an economic artifact, but these are secondary individuality structures.

The above is a general account of the framework of Aspects and their distinct meanings. The question is in what ways the above account relates to working out an analysis of the nature of the atom. This is what we will discuss in the remaining sections. A pivotal tenant of Dooyweerdian thinking is that all things including the atom function in all aspects, see Table 2. However, certain aspects play what can be considered a central role in defining the behaviour and nature of those things.

In Dooyeweerdian terms such an aspect is known as the Qualifying aspect. It is the qualifying aspect that allows us to distinguish one type of entity from another. Basden The Dooyeweerd Pages, and Clouser discuss the notion of qualifying aspect at some length. The body of the literature on the nature of the atom has consistently evolved around two aspects; namely the Physical Particle or Kinematic Wave. The question is which of these aspects is the qualifying aspect of the atom?

Whilst the block of marble is physically qualified, the work of art on the other hand is aesthetically qualified. Both are necessary to the being of the statue. This type of analysis can be mapped to discussing the nature of the atom. We can argue, based on the consistency of what the scientific literature reports, that the atom has two individuality structures:.

We can identify and distinguish the individuality structures through aspectual qualification. Mass is physically qualified and energy kinematcially qualified. Therefore, it is essential for discussing the nature of the atom to consider both aspects. This may not be a new insight for physicists themselves but it certainly is an enrichment of existing philosophical debate surrounding the nature of the atom. Clouser describes type laws as the laws that range across aspects regulating how properties of the various aspectual types can combine thus forming things of a particular type.

In the case of the atom this refers to specific and distinct combinations of certain properties of both the physical and kinematic aspects combining together in some distinct ways to form an atom. This is a term used by Clouser to distinguish active and passive functioning.

This implies that the atom has a meaning in those aspects when they become part of the active functioning of other entities or beings. So, for example, the atom has passive functioning in the sensory aspect because it does not have senses or does perceive the world but precisely because of this passive functioning it becomes possible for humans who function actively in the sensory aspect to observe the atom experimentally.

The above analysis demonstrates the comprehensibility of underpinning discussion of the atom in Dooyweerdian thinking. The dual, often controversial, nature of the atom can now be seen against the richness of the Law framework such that both the physical and the kinematic aspects are essential for the meaning of the atom. This type of analysis sits comfortably with a Dooyweerdian non reductionist philosophy in contrast with the intense rivalry and contradictions that characterise reductionist approaches. To simply talk about the atom only in terms of the two aspects of the physical and the kinematic without the stating how properties of the two aspects combine or map onto each other would not form a sound basis for discussing the meaning of the atom.

This is evident not only through experimental work but also because it would be very difficult to find something in reality that is of purely one single aspect. We see the meaning of the atom comes from both aspects simultaneously and not one or the other separately. However, this does not prohibit us from discussing certain properties of the atom that pertain to one of its essential aspects. This happens when physicists conduct experiments to learn about the atom. Such experiments show that the interaction between the atom and its observer is such that its wave nature manifests itself when wave-like questions are asked, and its particle nature manifests itself when particle-like questions are asked.

According to our suggested approach, i. So, what is the nature of the combination between the two aspects? Dooyeweerd makes use of the term Enkapsis to describe such relationships. Basden mentions five other different types of Enkapsis cited in Dooyeweerd These are listed in the table below:. However, there is a peculiarity about the nature of the relationship or enkapsis between the two aspects we have suggested physical and dynamic that comprise the atom.

We need to explain why the two aspects of the atom are not immediately available to an observer as with objects of experience at the macro level such as our Praxiteles statue discussed above. This unique feature of the micro-world of atoms points to at least three things. One is that we are dealing with a new type of enkapsis which we know little about and one which requires the active collaborations of philosophy and physics.

Recommended

Two, macro level entities, such as our statute of Praxiteles, their being is quite distinct and separate from other statutes and even other beings. This is not true of the atom. The atom as a basic building block of reality transcends all entities. Now, we are not saying that experiments with atoms are useless but what we are saying is that whilst we may get some data about certain aspects of the atom through calculations we may never really be able to account for its whole meaning.

Three, we have to be open minded about our philosophical dispositions and accept their limitations whenever the tare encountered. The duality of the atom and for that matter all other phenomenon at the sub atomic level could well point to limitations of Dooyweerdian thinking to provide intuitive explanations at this level. At this micro level entities may not be observable or perceptible with the same distinctiveness and intuitiveness as we find with macro level entities. Whilst this thesis may not be agreed by all but at least it points to the need for a more work and a better understanding of the notion of Aspects at the sub atomic level.

How are we to understand quantum humanism through the integrative philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd? The topic of this paper is to underpin the dual nature of the atom in a non reductionist philosophical framework. However, more importantly, its underlying message is an invitation to those who seek truth and wish to understand reality to recognise and appreciate a richer reality than what they previously thought.

If we view reality in its totality, material, spiritual or any other set of dimensions, then it is expected that for humans who are given the privilege or rather the burden of understanding it to need more than one system of knowledge or knowing. We have, based on scientific evidence, taken the view that the atom is an enkapsis of two such ways of knowing, known as Aspects. The paper is probably one of few attempts at taking Dooyeweerdian thinking out of its accustomed environment of social science into understanding the world of modern physics.

As anticipated the paper revealed the need for more work in this area. A first interaction with what seems to be the welding of two ends of a long strip of theories representing the evolution of human thought where on one end the ideas encapsulated within the formalism of higher-dimension algebra, topological quantum field theories and loop quantum mechanics that incorporate both the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and general relativity reside, and on the other end a narrative non reductionist philosophy of Modal Aspects stands awaiting critique, is a risky proposition as these two ends seem at first glance to have no common language in spite of their common goal.

Both aim at making sense of our Universe. Dooyeweerd H. Now published by Mellen Press. James Evans and Alan S. Thorndike, Springer, Berlin , , pp. While physicist pursue the search for the Grand Unified Theory GUT and the expedition to find the Higgs that ought to solidify the Standard Model, philosophers keep inquiring as to what the nature of matter and mind might be and propose various theories. To other than a physicist the dual nature of the atom or the so-called elementary particles may be difficult to comprehend and certainly appears unfathomable to intuit. What would the consequences be if human nature itself had a dual character?

We all know that human nature is both egoistic and altruistic, however it is not often that one considers the fact that egoism is an individual behaviour, while altruism is a collective behaviour. Likewise a particle is an individual manifestation of what we call matter, while wave nature can be considered characteristic of collective behaviour of the same matter. Recent advances in experimental physics—the queen of reductionist science—aimed at solving the mysteries of the quantum world has led to a deepening of the mystery rather than easing it, dispelling the EPR paradox and pointing out a conceptional error in this now famous gedanken experiment, while lending some authority and validation to quantum mechanics.

Such postulates seem to contradict deeply held assumptions by the deterministic and materialistically oriented world of experimental physics where everything, including the atom, can be reduced to a single aspect. There are mounting calls for newer ways of understanding reality that are capable of handling these apparently strange incomprehensible phenomena revealed through the classical observation of the microscopic quantum world.

There is also fundamental progress made in bouncing cosmology theories that bridge general relativity to quantum mechanics and provide some insight into the nature of the universe and its transition and pre-history through the big bang. The thrust of this paper evolves around two pillars. The other, is the central and special role humans have in relation to the universe. Through this approach, we will argue that the dual nature of the atom or elementary particles is, rather than being a strange phenomenon, in fact an essential characteristic of what constitutes its nature.

Should we considerer it original, and in its innovation, able to solve the conflict of interpretations on subjectivity? What can then be said about this situation when a subject confronts its proper nothing? When the subject lives these dramatic moments, he also deals with the dissolution of his descriptive marks, but at the same time still keeps the power to question himself and to provide answers. The reply can be empty, but always implies somebody that gives it. We know how the philosopher objects to this way of thinking. Behind self-idem, there is always a subjectivity that precedes all possible plots and it is their condition of possibility — a self- Ipse.

Who we are deeply depends on social customs and habits. Who we are is defined, in part, by our social morality. It urges, then, to ask, are ethics and morals opposite? It is, in this context, that we should understand the Socratic precept, according to which, only an examined life deserves to be lived by a man. When the philosopher pronounces these words it is clearly to support, on one hand, that neither all lives have the same value or deserved to be lived and, on the other hand, only thought turns life into a good one.

A life without reflection is a life where man gives up his condition, where he renounces to what best defines his own nature. In a similar way, Ricoeur also points out the importance of a reflexive and hermeneutical disposition during life, considering that only this basic exercise allows the accomplishment of a good life; only through thinking we can continually evaluate our existential project ultimate good and its connections to our particular actions relative goods. But it will be with the concept of responsibility that Ricoeur fully justifies the ethical nature of identity.

In fact, the word responsibility etymologically means the direction of an answer to give. One meaning of responsibility — to answer for — points the relation of man with himself. In fact, to answer for is to answer not only for my acts and their effects, but especially for who I am.

And when I already am nothing, I am still responsible for what I commit myself to do, because the binding to the given word is what remains in a subject totally deprived of sameness Idem. By responsibility, I maintain myself as irreplaceable and, therefore, nobody can answer for me.

Only I can do it otherwise who will do it? Being a subject is to be responsible, is to take upon oneself his existence and to answer for it, it is not to delegate this presence, this possibility of truly living in nobody. Ricoeur understands identiy as a project developed with reference to the other, and if responsibility appears now as its condition of possibility, then this concept should be object of a new thinking. It is certain that we answer, we are equally responsible for what we did as for what we failed to do or even refused to do.

What does it mean to be responsible then? It means to accept to be considered, in the present, as the same subject that acted in the past and that will act in the future. And it is this new conception of responsibility which links the past, the present and the future that defines identity. In fact, the stability of the self is only possible if the subject, being responsible, overall for itself, for his existence, is either able to accept, in the present, as much the past before which he feels indebted, as for the future he promises to carry through and to construct.

Nowadays, responsibility is not limited to the relation between individuals and their effects in the world, but it also includes the relation between agent and patient, someone who causes effects and someone who suffers it. This help never comes: Antigone walks alone and helpless to death. On the other hand, although its eminently fragile and finite nature, at no moment the waste of character, leads to selfhood dissolution, what also weakens philosophies of anti -cogito. Sharpe, Sophocles, Antigone, Trans.

pain | Power Poetry

Sharpe, , Should we considerer it original and able to solve the conflict of interpretations on identity? Following Aristotle to Ricoeur, the ethical man is the one who continuously questions his way of living, the ultimate goods of his life. In this last case, nothing remains in the subject unless somebody who wishes to identify with a new character self — idem. But in both situations, the subject should be considered as a self-creator aesthetic ipse , because imagination is always required to create personal and social views of good life.

In the book, Whatever Happened to the Soul, the authors argue in support of a view they call non-reductive physicalism. In brief, while I agree with a number of points made by authors supporting non-reductive physicalism, I disagree with their denying that we human beings have immaterial immortal souls.

Christian authors who support non-reductive physicalism generally support a number of tenets of traditional Christian faith such as that God loves us, that human beings are created in the image of God and have free will, and resurrection of the dead. They, however, disagree with the traditional Christian view that we human beings have immaterial immortal souls.

In my view the traditional Christian view of the human soul can better account for all of the related data from the Bible and human experience than can non-reductive physicalism. There are a number of biblical texts, according to some good biblical scholars and theologians, which support the view that the human soul continues to exist in an intermediate state between bodily death and resurrection. This implies that the human soul transcends the physical body, that it is incorporeal or immaterial or spiritual.

Without being exhaustive, we will consider here some of the most relevant biblical texts, as well as some related commentary by a number of biblical scholars. The ghost of Samuel then enters into a conversation with King Saul. Between the time that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written, there were some Jewish writings that are often referred to as intertestamental or Jewish apocryphal literature. Within this literature one sees some developments as well as diversity of views with regard to the afterlife. Biblical scholar Neil McEleney says that these two just men represent the law embodied in the priesthood and the prophets.

Nevertheless, a number of texts present Jesus, his disciples and the respective New Testament authors as also believing in an intermediate state between bodily death and resurrection. It is evidently to this that Jesus refers on the Cross. They are forever separated. Enoch [a pre-Christian Jewish apocryphal book] ch. Jn With regard to these and some other related New Testament passages, the Catechism of the Catholic Church , which was composed by a number of outstanding theologians and promulgated by Pope John Paul II, says in part:.

The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. In 2 Cor , the Apostle Paul speaks of a man who fourteen years before had a vision, in which he was not sure whether he was in or outside his body, who was caught up to the third heaven, into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words. In humility Paul speaks of himself here in the third person.

A number of the above biblical passages present human beings as being conscious and able to communicate after their death. And yet, according to the New Testament view the general resurrection of the dead had not yet taken place. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet.

The biblical data concerning angels and God supports the view that there is more to reality than what is physical. Such a view is compatible with the traditional Christian view, which we will consider further below, that the human person is a profound union of an invisible spiritual soul and a visible physical body. With regard to the question of consciousness which we will also consider further below, we can note here that God and angels are presented in the Bible as personal conscious beings without bodies including brains.

Although the second person of the Trinity took on a human body with the incarnation, God the Father and Holy Spirit did not. God the Son or Word was also conscious before the incarnation. Therefore, consciousness does not necessarily require having a physical body and a brain. With regard to the early Christians and Jesus believing in spirits or ghosts see, for example, Luke , which reports the Risen Jesus appearing to the disciples and speaking to them. Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself.

Full Netflix vs ShowMax South Africa Catalogues

Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. With this Jerusalem appearance, paralleled in John , Luke presents an apology for those who deny the reality of the resurrection…. This passage introduces the nature of the glorified body, a reality that goes to the heart of Christian belief.

The resurrected life that Christ initiates goes beyond spiritual existence in eternity. We certainly find this with regard to belief in bodily resurrection, which is not presented in earlier parts of the Bible, that is, in much of the Jewish scriptures, but is clearly affirmed in the New Testament. In a somewhat similar way we see signs within the Bible, which was composed over many centuries, of a developing understanding of Sheol, the abode of the dead, and the intermediate state.

With regard to Christian theological views during the Middle Ages, due to the limits of this paper, we will only consider here some of the related views of Thomas Aquinas 13 Cent. Catholic Teaching, the Fourth Lateran Council, below. Like Aristotle he spoke not only of human souls but also of plant and animal principles of life or souls. Like Plato and many Fathers of the Church Aquinas understood the human soul as incorporeal or immaterial and immortal. Combining the best in these views, Aquinas understood the human soul to be profoundly united with the human body in this life.

It is the source not only of our powers of intellect understanding and will, which do not take place in bodily organs, but also of our sense external: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch; and internal: common sense, imagination, instinct and memory and vegetative generation, growth, nutrition powers.

Join Gay Authors for Free

Intellect and will remain in the soul after death, but the sense and vegetative powers, which have the body-soul compound as their subject, do not remain in actual existence they survive in the soul in a virtual state only between bodily death and resurrection. Since Aquinas saw the human person as a compound of body and soul, he considered the human soul in the intermediate state as incomplete and requiring bodily resurrection for completion.

Aquinas also made contributions to understanding the traditional Christian belief in angels. Today Protestant theologians are divided. Some defend the traditional dichotomy and understand the human person to be a unity of body and spiritual immortal soul e. Cullman has revived the idea of death as a state of sleep or unconsciousness until the resurrection. In A.

Creator of all things visible and invisible … by his almighty power, from the very beginning of time has created both orders of creatures in the same way out of nothing, the spiritual or angelic world and the corporeal or visible universe. And afterwards he formed the creature man, who in a way belongs to both orders, as he is composed of spirit and body…. The Fifth Lateran Council, which took place from A. In Pope John Paul II, while speaking of a significant argument in favor of the theory of evolution, also speaks of Revelation telling us that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.

With regard to this he says:. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such great dignity even in his body. Pius XII [ Humani Generis, ] stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existing living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God…. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry?

Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. The Catechism also has sections on the communion of saints including the communion of the Church of heaven and earth and the intercession of the saints in heaven for us nn.

There have been many reports of near-death experiences with varying degrees of credibility. Such experiences are commonly reduced to mere by-products of certain physical brain states by neuroscientists who support materialism or physicalism. When she recovered she later reported having had an out-of-body experience and hovering above the operating table during the surgery.

For someone knowing nothing of surgical practice she accurately described the Midas Rex bone saw used to cut open her skull and what happened during the operation including what the nurses had said. Cases such as that of Pam Reynolds strongly support the view that the mind or soul and consciousness can continue when the brain is no longer functional. From that point on you and your clone would not have exactly the same experiences since you and your clone would not be in exactly the same place and may indeed travel to different places, meet different people, have different experiences, and so forth.

I think not and that this is the only logical conclusion. Although they can grow and change in many ways over time, as long as there is a real continuity of being and existence without interruption, the tree or the person remains the very same tree or person. In this paper I have presented some data from the Bible and human experience that supports the traditional Christian view that the human soul continues to exist in an intermediate state between bodily death and resurrection, that it is immaterial and immortal.

The position of non-reductive physicalism which holds that a human person is ontologically only physical can not be reconciled with this. The ways of God, who is a mystery of infinite love, are also in line with the criterion of maximum love. This has been shown to us, for example, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God incarnate. Green and Ray S. Anderson in Brown et al. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Brown, S.

Running with the Pack - 23. Chapter 23

Fitzmyer, S. Murphy, O. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. See ibid. McKenzie, S. Wright, Interview 7 Feb. Wright, as Bishop of Durham, is the fourth most senior cleric in the Church of England. He is also a theologian and biblical scholar who has taught at Cambridge. See, e. Grassi, JBC see note 8 , Heb For some scholarly biblical commentary on Acts see, e. Dillon, NJBC see note 9 , II see note 27 , Dei Verbum , Chs. For a fuller theological treatment of Tradition and traditions see Yves Congar, Tradition and traditions: an historical and a theological essay New York: Macmillan, II see note 27 , pp.

II, pp. He sees mental activity and brain activity to be complementary. Of interest, in a recent issue of Scientific American Oct. Man has only the experience of the effects which he seeks to relate with an adequate cause in his being. It is the innerness of all these moments … [which] make the vital fabric of the inner man, they inhere in his inner life, as thus experienced they are identified with the experience of the soul. Can we infer that it is the soul that is the ultimate source or, to put it differently, the transcending principle and also the principle of the integration of the person in the action?

At any rate, it seems that this line of reasoning has brought us much closer to approaching the soul….

Integration … tells us that the soul-body relation cuts across all the boundaries we find in experience and that it goes deeper and is more fundamental than they are. Meyers; and I. Molinari; and G. Re: theology and miracles see, e. Minneapolis: Fortress, , pp. Two of these miracles, which are described on the website in more detail, the healings of Maureen Digan of incurable lymphedima in and the healing of Fr.

Non-reductive physicalism, the view that ontologically we humans are not only physical but that we have real freedom, consciousness and so forth, is supported by a number of Christian authors of different specializations today. These authors generally believe that we human persons cease to exist when our bodies die but that we will be reconstituted by God in a future bodily resurrection. As a Catholic theologian, I agree with a number of points made by authors supporting non-reductive physicalism, but I disagree with their denying that we human beings have immaterial immortal souls.

Non-reductive physicalism does not adequately account for all of the related data from the Bible and human experience. There are a number of biblical texts e. The traditional Christian view that the human person is normally a profound unity of a physical body and a spiritual soul, which transcends the body, is in line with this view. Non-reductive physicalism is also not able to explain adequately some data of human experience which supports the view that a dimension of the human being i. These include qualia, subjective experiences such as consciousness and free will, some near-death experiences, miracles experienced related to requests for intercessory prayer by deceased saints, and human experience related to the continuing identity of persons.

It seems to me that the Thomist view that the human person is a unified being, a compound of a body and an immaterial immortal soul, is more in line with biblical data and is better able to explain all of human experience than is non-reductive physicalism. Having an immaterial immortal soul does not mean that we need to value less our bodies and ecosystem. It, however, provides a more solid foundation for defending the great intrinsic dignity of all human beings. El hombre es alguien que puede ser interceptado por otro.

Su historia se configura con una multiplicidad de encuentros, los que pueden ser superficiales o, en algunos casos, capaces de modificar su rumbo. En efecto, la experiencia religiosa tiende a proporcionar una perspectiva centrada en la alteridad absoluta el totalmente otro de alguien o algo que confiere un sentido definitivo al mismo sujeto y su entorno.

Para aquellas religiones que sostienen una idea personalista de la divinidad, el horizonte toma la figura de lo personal. Concordancia de la Biblia. Nuevo Testamento. The debate on the nature of knowledge today stresses knowledge itself as an objective product. Nevertheless, it would be necessary to add to it a personal perspective of knowledge. The concrete human being is the one who knows. Modern Western philosophy based its thinking on the knowing subject—Descartes grounds it on the ego cogitans, Kant on the transcendental subject. Scientific thinking and hermeneutical philosophy have more recently contributed to the dissolution of the idea of an isolated man, a tabula rasa, a blank sheet, which can receive knowledge with an absolute naivety.

On the one hand, science has shown us that we are part of an evolutionary process and that we carry in our bodies and genes the accumulation of such process. Somehow we are this process, and we watch the universe by means of the features given by our genetic structure. Moreover, the sciences of language and hermeneutic philosophy have shown us that we always learn from a given language. Obviously, language is also a result of intellectual activity, and it is modified by the acquisition of new knowledge and new techniques.

It is necessary to remember a word considered a difficult expression today: worldview. This expression, which comes from the translation of the German word Weltanschaaung, indicates the global view of the reality shaped by a man or a society. There is obviously a close relationship between them. Some authors say that, as a consequence of the present situation—generically called postmodernism—it is very difficult to achieve a worldview.

Fragmentariness seems to be included as an essential part of present time mentality. In some way, there is not a real human knowledge but within a worldview elaborated by the individual. But this man is a historic being. In fact, a human being is permanent in nature but never absolutely fulfilled. He keeps defining his personal originality in and through his story. This historicity is collective and individual. It is important to consider the originality of a person as a subject of knowledge.

This person is unique and dynamic. It implies that every reflection on interdisciplinary or transdisciplinarity should include the existential and historic way of comprehension. It is finally this person in this context and this moment who does the comprehension and integration of knowledge. The apparent conflict between science and religion is often viewed and argued with respect to the existence of God. The idea, presumably, is to show that God must exist, therefore science cannot dispense with God or theology, for that matter. Typically these demonstrations utilize causality in some form, require a certain philosophical framework, and purport to show the existence of an unmoved mover or similar entity.

The question, therefore, turns on the efficacy of the proofs offered. Because they generally rely on the notion of causality in the physical world, which has been very controversial at least since the time of Hume, their value is likewise controversial. Nonetheless, causality should not be ruled out altogether, since it may be incontrovertible under some circumstances, and therefore useful.

Causality has been a fundamental concept in the history of philosophy, theology, and of science since the time of the ancient Greeks. This is due to the role or presumed role of causality with respect to nature, knowledge, and morality. Especially important has been the notion of real production of effects associated with causes. To understand it, we begin with a brief review of development and role of the notion of causality. This may conveniently be divided into five major phases, shown in Figure 1.

The first phase, from the Pre-Socratics c. During this epoch, causality was viewed as a principle of nature, valid for all things, and therefore the base of much of our knowledge. It became the fundamental explanatory paradigm for the sciences: all true or real knowledge is of causes in the strict, deterministic sense.

Aristotle distinguished four types of cause: material, formal, efficient, and final. Of these, efficient causality, that dealing with production of effects, became the most controversial. Real production of effects means that the cause actually produces the effects that we observe; it is not simply coincident with them constant conjunction. Aristotle went beyond this, however, and made the four causes the key to all change, i. Figure 1. The Five Phases of the Development of Causality.

The knowledge Aristotle envisioned was not just any kind of knowledge. It could have no admixture of uncertainty: we know in the true sense only when we know why things are the way that they are, and why they cannot be otherwise than they are. In other words, we are looking at a strict determinism both in the world and in our knowledge of it. Likewise implied is the idea that everything which happens must have a cause—the universality of causal explanation. Causality was thus elevated to the status of a metaphysical principle with universal applicability; hence it was used to make inferences about things that cannot be directly experienced.

On this basis, causality was employed in natural theology, forming the basis for many proofs of the existence of God. As it was understood, a cause really produces its effects, not merely in a phenomenological sense such as constant conjunction, but in a metaphysical sense. During this epoch, nearly all proofs of the existence of God, with the exception of the ontological argument, utilized causality as a principle of nature, and assumed that it was a universally valid principle that could be employed to reason from things of direct experience to realms far removed from that experience.

The best-known type of such proofs is the cosmological argument , appropriately named because it utilizes causal reasoning about facts deemed incontrovertible of the cosmos to infer the existence of some type of being, such as a prime mover.