What can we know: a brief examination of Immanuel Kant's maps.

Been wondering where you were Gary. Welcome back (I hope that I was not seen as one of those hecklers, never intended to be).

I cannot say that I completely follow your premise here as regards the 'mind', but I do as regards the map/territory analogy.

To my way of thinking the mind is very subjective. Our mind can be a very limited perception around our body ego concept ... extending in compassion and empathy to others near us ... OR ... it can extend into less 'limited' realms of the spiritual as in the mind of God (so to speak). In other words, there are no 'boundaries' to mind other than the ones we 'put' upon our concepts of such.

As such, WE each ARE our mind (subjective perspective) at the same time we are our body (objective perspective) ... territory/map relationship !

Thus where we place 'that' emphasis will determine how we 'see' ourselves and that relationship to all other/s.

People that see themselves as ego prioritised, will usually be dualistic in thought, always choosing between one or another, either people or ideas. (+/-)

People that are more in touch with the mind in it's larger context, will 'see' themselves more as 'that' mind, as the 'third' aspect of trinity "=' in (+=-) ... thus knowing (Gnosis) that God is the extreme definition of "+" and the ego 'body' is that of the 'other' the "-".

Of course I have never read Kant, so I will allow you to see if there is any relevance between my and his ideas.

Gary,
"This point is that we have an intimate connection with a very specific 'Thing-In-Itself' which we call our human body."

How intimate is that connection? We could be brain dead while our hearts continue to pump, our lungs to breath, and our stomachs to digest. An "I" is not necessary for these functions.

Further, various types of mind damage can affect our perceptions -- even our personality. This may appear to be an argument for an intimate connection, but, instead, merely indicates that our most direct perceptions can be deeply flawed.

In fact, it requires a leap of faith to presume anythig other than "I" exists.

In fact, it is impossble to prove an "I" exists.

The fervency of our belief that an "I" exists depends upon our culture. It is possible to nearly lose any such concept for example in the midst of a mob or in the heat of battle. The greater the concentration on the thing at hand, the less there is a sense of self. There was a great "Stargate" episode where the team burst out into this man made world and there is this kind of shift. Then the team is battling with the guy that tends to the world and they go back through the gate and are discovered to have mechanical bodies. They go back in order to get their biological bodies back the caretaker says it is impossible, they think it is impossible because he has destroyed them -- the truth turns out that what he has done is downloaded the memories into the mechanical facisimiles and they are the facsimiles and the biological ones are still alive. Assuming this was possible, which would be the "I"

Hi all.
First off - Kant begins that there is a difference between our ability to preceive and the resulting formulation into phenomenon and the actual thing-in-itself. Everything we say about the world, the territory, is of our own construction and is a product of our own mind processes. Kant beleives we can say nothing about the things-in-themselves. For Kant, the Territory is forever a realm of silence and mystery. We build in ourselves our ideas of the territory, we devise maps, we describe the things-in-themselves as appearances.

The split between the two is a permanent and lasting divide for Kant. We can never have direct knowledge of the territory, those things-in-themselves, for Kant.

We first off, utilizing the a-priori ideas which include Space, Time and Casuality, build up a world within the stuff of our minds. Our map making is of our own construction and it relates only to what we humans think and does not tell us at all about the things-in-themselves. Thus says Kant.

Now I added that we have indirect knowledge of the territory due to the fact that we are made up of the territory. That indirect knowledge comes out of the structure and order that is found in the territory and is the reason for the a-priori ideas.

Kevin - the I exists otherwise you could not think, read or write. The I is the most possible thing to prove - go read Descartes. You are a being who thinks thougths and thus you are an 'I'. The interaction and impact of the body and the I is well noted by you. We are an embodied I, we are a embodied mind and thus always influenced by the bodies expereinces. But there is no leap of faith to the idea of an I - there is a complete opposite, without the I, the mind, you would remain forever silent and existed only in silence and sensations. You think therefore you are an I - a being with a mind.

George- yes we can lost our sense of individuality in a mob or the heat of war and love - moments of ecstacy. This is describing the sphere of conscious awareness and thus our sense of self. It is a flexible thing, we can expand it to the infinite in those mystical moments and reduce it to the focus of a single breath in moments of perfect meditation. The I is our being, our continued sense of self, the collection of memories and experiences. The I is real but there is for all things-in-themselves a map and territory difference. We expereince the I, that experience of it is the territory, how we describe it is the map and map making has influences from culture.

We are shaped by the ideas of our culture.

The existence of our minds and that sense of self is real, again without it, you would not be able to think, speak, write, or read. You do all these because you have a mind and you are an I. How you describe that I is your own act of map making and map reading.

But George, try to differentiate the layers of the mind, to use a map. We have the uppermost layer, our conscious awareness. This awareness is flexible and can be expanded to take in a wide range of things - we can focus on the full field of battle or we can focus on just the combatant that is directly in front of us. We can also in the heat of such a battle, disassociate - become a point of consciousness that pulls back from the body and its actions and just 'views it from outside'. This is a trick of shifting from what is usually our conscious mind level into the lower levels of our mind - our unconscius. We shift out of our mind and into the processed sensations of our body and thus appearing like we are viewing ourselves from the outside. This is one map of that expereince, another map says we actually can move the mind out of the body.

Our unconscious is where we do all the mind/body translations. Where we process the stuff that comes into our body - the sense data and use that data. This is the place where feeling and experience is translated from sensations into a verbalization of those silent reactions.

Anyway George you need to differentiate our experence of awareness from our expereince of our individual existence - the sense of self, the I.

Jerry, no I did not take you, nor George and Kevin, as hecklers. You all are here dealing with the substance of what I wrote, trying to work through to find a form and a partial description of what is true and real.

Now, Jerry- you are right that and agreeing with Kant that who we are - our sense of self is a product of our own creation. We can limit our identity and become self-centered and egotistical - even to the extreme states that a serial killer who has no feelings of connection with anyone; and we can expand our sense of self through empathy and compassion to relate to all humanity.

You are also describing our expansive sensations in mystical union with the Divine Infinite.

Now, Kant would say we are always our maps. Even our mind is a thing-in-itself a terrirtory. When we go to describe how we think, how the mind works, we are making a map of the territory, this time the territory is our inner realm and not the outer realm. Kant is correct. We are always making maps of territories, to continue to use Korzybski's metaphors.

Our ideas are the product of our map making. They are and always will be maps, they are never the territory. They have a relation to the territory in that they are a guiding tool to get around in the territory, but they are never equivalent.

Much of what you write is your map of the territory. Your creation out of your mystical experience. Kant's insight is very correct that this is your creation and not the thing-it-itself. The territory is forever silent, pre-verbal and beyond verbal. Once you go from experinece to the act of understanding and describing the pre-verbal/beyond verbal experience you have left the territory and entered into maps and map making.

You can not with certainty say much of anything about the things-in-themselves. Kant would say you can say nothing. I am saying you can say that the territory is mapable - there does exist those a-priori ideas of Space, Time and Causality - the sense of Order and Structure that is our own indirect information about the reality of the territory, those things-in-themselves.

I have no disagreement with that :-)

This is an interesting article, Gary. A thing exists for an observer for all practical purposes because the observer is able to map the territory of observable and experienceable phenomenon according to the inbuilt concepts of the observer. The observer, which by another name is the phenomenon of sentience, is a property of things in themselves. It may vary in degrees and may also be represented as individuality or a collection of individualities diffused over time and space, though interconnected by some means. It is quite possible that the maps are not the real territory; they are black lines on a white paper and are not the real rivers and mountains. However, the maps, of whatever form they may be, are usable guides to the territory for the phenomenon of sentience. There seems to be clear separation between knowability and that which is to be known; the oservability and that which is to be observed; and experienceability and that which is to be experienced.

You got it Dolphi D! Although we can known that the territory is orderly - since we innately have order, we can not be certain beyond that. Everything else is a map we make to understand the 'things-in-themselves', the noumenon aka the territory.

value is personal and cultural contextual - and it is paradoxal because it is out of our subjective constructs that we build "objective reality".

Community is an abstract term that in reality is made up of actual living individual humans. Each person has to choose - consciously or unconsciously by inaction to support the ideas and values offered up by individuals within the community.

The Community is not a real entity that can take action - individuals take action or inaction in the name of the common good - which can be for business/corporate monitary values or for religious values, political values, etc.

It is always a individual who has to power to act - though most just passively take inaction and allow themselves to be manipulate or coerced.

Gary:

Your article (and subsequent comments) treat Kant's explanation of knowledge obtained a'priori (before experience - or more correctly without experience obtained through the senses) as some mystery that you feel it necessary to solve.

There is no mystery here. I see that your source for Kant's Critque of Pure Reason is actually a Guidebook about Kant's book written by Gardner in 1999. Gardner may not have mentioned this in his "Guidebook", but it is very clear in Kant's actual work "Critique of Pure Reason" - especially in light to other comments by Kant in his other works (especially the "Critique's" sequel, "The Critique of Practical Reason") that Kant believes that a'priori knowledge is knowledge directly imparted by God into the mind of man. God is sometimes very passionate in his writings about this point (passionate in a Kantian way of course).

Kant's writing are very clear that he believes that the only source that could be possible for this information that we receive without no sensory experience must come from his "divine intelligence". Kant's idea of God is very similar to the Greek "Logos" - his explanation of God mirrors Artistotle in many ways, but with greater psychological insight as to how we actually experience God in our minds and how we conceive of God.

Kant would argue with much of your article (and I suspect with many of the comments in the "Guidebook" that you cite). He would definitely not concur with the notion that we somehow gain knowledge subjectively, through some mysterious means, about the universe because we have a material body (composed of the same substance as the rest of the universe).

You are taking part of Kant's comments and drawing very different conclusions that Kant himself drew. Kant's premise that we obtain non-sensory knowledge from a divine intelligence is much more logical than this notion that we gain insight from some mysterious effluent connection with the rest of the universe (that premise is used in several science fiction stories, but anyone with a true understanding and appreciation of Kant would never accept such a ridiculous idea).

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I feel that in someway you are attempting to convince some uninformed souls that a mental giant like Kant subscribes to your mystic view of the universe.

I encourage you (and others) to go to the source and actually read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason directly (not some watered-down, inaccurate summary of it that changes its meaning). I realize that the "Critique" appears intimidating - at over 400 pages in most translations (and the fact that you have to learn Kant's entirely different vocabulary to understand the "Critique"), but the knowledge gained is well worth it. After reading the "Critique of Pure Reason", a next logical read (and much shorter & easier to follow) is his "Critique of Practical Reason" - Kant is euphoric at times about the knowledge that God bestows to us a'priori (and indirectly a'posteriori). Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals" and other writings are also very good.

Please don't try to publish an article claiming Kant is included in your long list of "great mystics in history" - I'll just have to cut and paste my comments to the article you published claiming Augustine was a mystic to refute that article as well.

I appreciate your search for deeper knowledge by wanting to review classic philosophy, but your goal seems quite "agenda-laden" and it is distorting any attempt to obtain an objective view of the thoughts of these great thinkers of the past.

Hi Ron,
some brief remarks - I hope to come back to this on the week end...I'm on lunch break now.

- I am not claiming Kant as any such mystic - that is your own imagination at work - go back and check.

My essay is all about science. My idea that we are built out of the very stuff that we are trying to understand is not mystical at all - its called science. Science studies the inherent order of the universe and all the stuff contained therein. We, our bodies are some of that stuff. Science can work because the universe has structure. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that Kant reached my conclusions I am saying I started with his ideas and took off from there. I did go and read the original, in English of the Critique. I wasn't saying that Kant would reach my conclusions I said I did. Yes, Kant beleived in God, so - I do also, but I wasn't using that beleif in trying to understand the nature of reality. I tend to rely on science as much as I can - as the Rabbis would say - we were given intellegence by God to understand the workings of Gods creation. They did not & do not fear science they embrace(d) it.

As for Augustine, I called him a mystic not because I picked his name out of a hat - the scholar whose book I referenced called him a mystic. I just don't have that book with me to give you page references.

You have some very mis-guided ideas about who and what are mystics if I recall your prior comment correctly. You really need to check out Evelyn Underhill's book or any good scholarly book on the subject.

I grabbed an entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia for their list of Christian mystics:

St. Gregory I the Great (b. at Rome, c. 540; d. there, 604): "Commentaries on Job"; this book is called the Ethics of St. Gregory. The writings of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite did not reach the West until about 824, when they were sent to Louis the Pious by Michael the Stammerer, Emperor ofConstantinople: "Opera". Hugh of St. Victor, canon regular at Paris (b. in Saxony, 1096; d. at Paris, 1141): passim, St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (b. near Dijon, 1090; d. at Clairvaux, 1153): "On the Canticle of Canticles". Richard of St. Victor, canon regular at Paris (d. at Paris, 1173): "De contemplatione". St. Bonaventure, Minister General of the Friars Minor (b. at Bagnorea, 1221; d. at Lyons, 1274): "Journey of the Soul towards God". The "Seven Roads of Eternity", which has sometimes been attributed to him, is the work of a Friar Minor, Rudolph of Bibrach, of the fourteenth century. St. Gertrude, a Benedictine (b. at Eisleben, 1256; d. at Helfta, Saxony, 1302): Revelations. Blessed Angela of Foligno (b. at Foligno, 1248; d. there, 1309): "Life and Revelations" in "Acta SS.", I, January, 186-234; this work is one of the masterpieces of mysticism. Tauler, a Dominican (b. at Strasburg, c. 1300; d. there, 1361): "Sermons" (Leipzig, 1498). Blessed Henry Suso, a Dominican (b. at Constance, c. 1295; d. at Ulm, 1366): "Exemplar" (Augsburg, 1482). "The Book of the Nine Rocks" is not by him but by a merchant of Strasburg, the somewhat unorthodox Rulman Merswin. St. Bridget of Sweden (b. c. 1303; d. at Rome, 1373): "Revelations" (Nuremberg, 1500). Blessed Ruysbroeck, surnamed the Admirable (b. at Ruysbroeck, 1293; d. at Groenendael, 1381): "Opera omnia", Latin tr. by the Carthusian Surius (Cologne, 1692). François-Louis Blosius (de Blois), Benedictlne Abbot of Liessies (b. near Liège, 1506; d. at Liessies, 1566): "Opera" (Ingolstadt, 1631).

St. Teresa (b. at Avila, 1515; d. at Aba de Tormes, 1582): "Opera" (Salamanca, 1588). St. John of the Cross, founder of the Discalced Carmelites (b. at Hontiveros, 1542; d. at Ubeda, 1591): "Opera" (Seville, 1702). Venerable Luis de Lapuente (b. at Valladolid, 1554; d. there, 1624): "Life of Father Baltasár Alvarez", confessor of St. Teresa (Madrid, 1615); "Spiritual Guide" (Valladolid, 1609); "Life of Marina de Escobar" (2 vols., Madrid, 1665-73). St. Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva (b. at Thorens, near Annecy, 1567; d. at Lyons, 1622): "Treatise on the Love of God" (Lyons, 1616). Alvarez de Paz, S.J. (b. at Toledo 1560; d. at Potosi, 1620): "De inquisitione pacis" in "Opera", III (Lyons, 1647). Philip of the Blessed Trinity, General of the Discalced Carmelites (b. at Malancène, near Avignon, 1603; d. at Naples, 1671): "Summa theologiæ mysticæ" (Lyons, 1656). Jean-Joseph Surin. Venerable Marie de l'Incarnation (b. at Tours, 1599; d. at Quebec, 1672): "Life and Letters", published by her son Dom Claude Martin, O. S. B. (Paris, 1677). Bossuet called her the "Teresa of the New World". Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux (b. at Dijon, 1627; d. at Paris, 1704): "Instruction sur les états d'oraison" (Paris, 1697). Joseph of the Holy Ghost, Definitor General of the Discalced Carmelites (d. 1639): "Cursus theologiæ mystico-scholasticæ" (6 vols., Seville, 1710-40). Emmanuel de la Reguera, S.J. (b. at Aguilàr del Campo, 1668; d. at Rome, 1747): "Praxis theologiæ mysticæ" (2 vols., Rome, 1740-45), a development of the mystical theology of Wadding (Father Godinez). Scaramelli, S.J. (b. at Rome, 1687; d. at Macerata, 1752): "Direttorio mistico" (Venice, 1754). As a description, this is the best treatise of the eighteenth century despite its too complicated classification; Voss has published a compendium of it, entitled "Directorium Mysticum" (Louvain, 1857). Schram, O.S.B. (b. at Bamberg, 1722; d. at Bainz, 1797): "Institutiones theologiæ mysticæ (Augsburg, 1777), chiefly an abridgment of la Reguera. More complete lists (176 names) will be found in Poulain, "Graces d'Oraison" (7th ed., Paris, 1911); tr., "The Graces of Interior Prayer" (London, 1910); and in Underhill, "Mysticism" (New York, 1912).

[ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14621a.htm]

Ron,
just for the fun of it I went to wikipedia and looked up mystics. Here is there list of Christian mystics - note St. Augustine is included.

Christian mystics

* St. John the Apostle (? -101) (Apostle and disciple of Jesus himself)
* Clement of Alexandria (? -216) (Church Father, especially the Eastern Church)
* St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) (Church Father, especially the Western Church)
* St. Gregory I (590-604) (Church Father)
* Saint Anselm (1033-1109) (Catholic)
* Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) (Catholic)
* Hugh of Saint Victor (1096–1141) (Catholic)
* St. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) (Catholic)
* Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) (Catholic)
* Albertus Magnus (1206-1280) (Catholic)
* Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210-1279) (Catholic)
* St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1275) (Catholic)
* Angela of Foligno - (c.1248-1309) ) (Catholic)
* Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 - 1327/8) (Catholic)
* Richard Rolle (c. 1290 - 1349) (Catholic)
* St. Gregory Palamas (1296 - 1359) (Eastern Orthodox)
* St. Bridget of Sweden (1302-1373) (Catholic)
* Julian of Norwich (1342-c.1416) (Catholic)
* St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) (Catholic)
* Margery Kempe (c.1373-1438) (Lollard)
* Marguerite Porete /Porette /Marguerite of Hainaut (d.1310) (Hainaut, Belgium)
* Paracelsus (1493-1541) (Esoteric)
* St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) (Catholic)
* St. John of the Cross (1542-1591) (Catholic)
* Pierre de Bérulle (1575-1629) (Catholic)
* Jakob Boehme (1575-1624) (Non-denominational)
* Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682) (Non-denominational)
* Michael de Molinos (1628-1696) (Catholic)
* Sarah Wight (1632-?)
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) (Swedenborgism)
* William Blake (1757-1827) (Esoteric)
* Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) (Catholic)
* Jakob Lorber (1800-1864) (Non-denominational)
* Rufus Jones (1863-1948) (Quaker)
* Max Heindel (1865-1919) (Esoteric)
* Saint Therese of Lisieux (1873-1897) (Catholic)
* Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968) (Catholic)
* Aiden Wilson Tozer (1897-1963)
* Daniil Andreev (1906-1959) (Eastern Orthodox)
* Simone Weil (1909-1943) (Catholic)
* Thomas Merton (1915-1968) (Catholic)
* Anthony de Mello (priest) (1931-1987) (Catholic)

Gary:

Your article proposes a mystical cause for a'priori knowledge, even if you did not use the word "mystical". It is clear from articles you've posted in the past and comments that you've made, that you believe that the way to obtain true knowledge is through this "mystical" way of seeking (and you've erroneously categoried many learned scholars of the past as "mystics").

If you purport that your article focuses on the material universe only, then you completely missed Kant's point as to a'priori knowledge. By a'priori knowledge, Kant is referring to knowledge that is not obtained through our experience of the material universe through our senses. If you meant to discuss knowledge gained about exterior matter by studying our own matter, then at best you should have referred to Kant's explanation of "a'posteriori knowledge (because that is how that knowledge is formed into concepts in our mind - according to Kant).

At the very least your title and subsequent comments are misleading because you imply that your conclusions are building on something that Kant began but did not finish.

If you have read Kant's "Critique", then why in your article did you say that "Kant never discusses the origin or nature of a'priori ideas" - this is false, he literally devotes hundreds of pages to these "ideas".

Regarding Underhill's ideas on "mystics", I understand that she (and others categorize many Early Christian scholors as "mystics" - and that's fine; however one should not be confused or misled into thinking that these persons were not primarily "Christian scholors". Underhill calls these historical figures mystics primarily because they do not entirely conform to church dogma at the time (but then no one really does because church dogma is constantly changing - Augustine himself essentially established many of the ideas which would be used as church dogma for at least the next 800 years. But Augustine was certainly no outsider, he was a respected bishop who worked within the system - he used to debating skills to soundly thrash ideas that were heretical at his time (many ideas held by other "mystics" listed by Underhill and others). If a person attempts to group persons into one category and call them "mystics" (indicating that they have some common ground or are members of the same club) these persons should not be diamettrically opposed doctrinally as the persons on her mystic list.

As for your Catholic list of mystics, these are persons (nearly all of him are either Catholic Christian scholors and/or Catholic saints) who are being classified thus for an entirely different reason - they are not being separated from their main position of "Christian".

As for your wikipedia list...I would hardly consider anything in wikipedia to be considered a "peer-reviewed" scholarly journal. There are so many errors in their listings, it is embarassing. Besides, anyone could go to wikipedia and add anyone's name - I could add our names and they would probably remain - now that's quality control.

I think your long list of mystics is simply an attempt to distract readers of our comments away from the errors in your article.

Hi Ron,

You wrote: "Your article proposes a mystical cause for a'priori knowledge, even if you did not use the word "mystical". It is clear from articles you've posted in the past and comments that you've made, that you believe that the way to obtain true knowledge is through this "mystical" way of seeking (and you've erroneously categoried many learned scholars of the past as "mystics")."

I do not consider mystics and the knowedge they ascertain as being superior to anything. I consider mystics important if one wants to understand the process of communications between humans and the divine. They have insight on that topic alone. A slight misreading of my varying posts.

My article does not suppose any mystical cause for 'a priori' ideas. I in fact state that there reasons we can derive 'a priori' ideas from something other than sensory experience is that we are biologically built with an internal system of order that matches with the structure of order that is inherent in the physical make up of all things in the universe. It is a scientific grounding of 'a priori' concepts such as 'space', 'time' and 'causality'.

Kant spends enormous time explaining how reason comes to 'a priori' ideas but he never grounds it in any tangibles. I did. I state that we have a sense of space, time and causality because we are built out of stuff that has structure, order, and casuality built into the way our bodies work. My idea goes beyond Kant's discussion of reason and moves it into science and the exploration of the workings of the physical universe. That is the point of my essay.

It is a 'brief' examination of Kant's maps - his ideas in a very general way and then it says how we can know things in ways that Kant did not consider.

It is true the Wikipedia is not a professional peer reiview system. I just thought it was interesting to see Augustine's name there.

Mystics are people who had mystical connections to the divine. They were priests, nuns, lay people, and all sorts of people. Many of those people who had mystical insights were sainted by the church. Mystics are not neccesarily outsiders to a community of beleivers.

Most are not, and most become respected members of the community for their insights, scholarship, and acts of compassion. Mystics don't just spend all day in a trance. They go about their normal life of prayer and other activities only at certain times do they delve deep into prayer and mediation to encounter that deep connection with the divine. Many afterwards wrote down their encounters and taught what they learned - hence the lists of scholars amongst that groupl

Mystics are not oddities. They are only people who have had extra-ordinary connection to the Divine.

Gary:

The idea that "mystics" or any other group of persons have any special insight into communicating with God is completely contrary to Kantian Philosophy. Kant's main point is that the divine mind (God) is constantly communicating to all us of through a'priori and a'posteriori means - Kant's main point is that God is communicating with all of us and does not play favorities. Kant believed that all could gain knowledge of this process with an understanding of the "ways" that we all experience God, but Kant would not agree with your mystical philosophical point of view that one needs to adopt the mystical way in order to gain greater understanding of God.

This view is present in various groups that attempt to set themselves apart from others by insinuating that they alone (as you suggested in your last comment) can understand God (or communicate with him) - this idea is hedenism gone wild. It is attractive to the "self" because it makes the self feel special at the expense of others (if one considers oneself part of this exclusive club).

I don't believe any one of us has found the special key to have a closer, more meaninful or secret relationship with God (because we have jumped through the mystical hoops or joined the club or approach him in some special way) - it is God himself who reaches out to all of us, our understanding of him and his ways is the big difference and he is not trying to be aloof or extremely complex, so that only the asthetical mystic can "discover" him. The smallest, untained child understands God probably better than most of us because they can experience his love more directly without all of the baggage that we pile on ourselves.

Gary...you suggest that your article acknowledges that "we can obtain a'priori ideas from something other than sensory perception" - you've just made my point. Kant writes that ONLY those ideas we "experience" WITHOUT any sensory input are classified as a'priori; therefore your statement that we can obtain a'priori ideas from "something" other than sensory perception implies that we may experience a'priori ideas in some instances through the senses only - and this is in complete contrast to Kant's philosophy.

Gary, I am just trying to point out to your readers (because I presume you are already fully aware of this and that you purposely intend this) that your title and article are misleading because you expressly state and strongly imply that your article accurately depicts Kant and his philosophy (and that you are coming to Kant's rescue by explaining something that you claim he does not - which is absolutely false, Kant explains this idea is laborious detail).

We DO NOT experience the concepts of space, time & causality because we are made of the same "stuff" as the rest of the material universe. This also does not represent (and is actually in direct contradiction) to Kant's ideas as well. Kant believes that the very reason we can even consider these concepts is due to the a'priori conveyence of the "divine mind" - because we could not "discover" these ideas if all we had at our mind's disposal was a'posteriori knowledge (or knowledge obtained through experience through the senses). David Hume does an even better job that Kant to explain this difference.

You state that your idea "goes beyond Kant's discussion of reason and moves it into science.." I must point out that you are completely misunderstanding Kant. Kant does go into great detail as to how we obtain knowledge of scientific principles (physical science in particular), he expounds on this in his sequel to the "Critique of Pure Reason", the "Critique of Practical Reason". So you see, Kant did not need for mankind to wait more than 200 years for you to post this article and finally address what "you claim" he did not address.

Gary, I think if you took the time to read both of Kant's Critiques, you would understand this. I know it is easier to simply make erroneous statements about Kant and hope that most people believe that you are smarter than one of histories intellectual giants, but you know what they say...you can fool some of the people....

I appreciate your statement that you acknowledge that "mystics are not outsiders to a community of believers" - the people listed by the Catholic Church as mystics were very much "Christians" and did not drift into a pagan practice of mysticism (as many modern day "mystical" writers are trying to make them out to be).

My quarrel is not with all classifications of persons as "mystics", it is with this revisionist movement to de-Christianize many true Christian scholors of the past. If you are using a definition of "mystics" different than those folks, then here here; however, in the past you have quoted some of the modern day "de-Christianizing revisionists", thus it certainly seems as if you are in agreement with this view. In fact, I am still a bit suspicious that you may be - or perhaps you are still searching as to exactly what your views are on God (I'm sure you have before to some degree, but please refresh my memory so that I can gain a better understanding and be in a better position to put some of your comments in their proper context).

Thanks.

Hi Ron,
I'll deal with the whole 'who are mystics' aspect of your reply.

You wrote: "I appreciate your statement that you acknowledge that "mystics are not outsiders to a community of believers" - I haven't done anything extraordinary here - if you had done any reading into actual people who have been classified as mystics you would have noticed that the scholars that study such people have always acknowledge that these were insiders of the community - It is only when the official leaders of the community have problems with the ideas and insights that the mystics present that the official leaders brand these mystics as outsiders to be shunned or as heretics. Not often the case but it is a possibility.

I am not interested in so-called 'mystics' of the new-age variety, I am interested and my sources all reference those who have been so classified historically. I am not interested in those who proclaim themselves to be mystics - modern 'gurus', 'masters', etc.

As for the claim that mystics have insights different from the average beleiver - yes that is a fact as documented by many scholars and in the examing of the writings of those who have been classified as mystics. Once you read the writtings of mystics you can clearly see that what they have experienced is beyond the ordinary. Not that they are superior to the average person it is just that they have undergone a life that yeilds such extraordinary results.

It is like almost anyone could theortically become a quantum physicist all they need do is learn the math and the science. The reason why most people aren't quantom physicist is that have not taked the time to devote so intensly to learn such a deep and detailed collection of information. That is the difference between a mystic and the average person. The mystic is just a person who has taken the time to get a "Phd" in divine interactions & communion. Anyone could become a mystic but in general it is only full time monks, nuns, priests, or others who have devoted their life full time to prayer and meditation.

Now it is true that there have been 'average' or 'ordinary' people who have had msytical experiences - they come to them out without them trying for it. These people have been blessed by the Divine by an act and gift. But in general the mystics are those who persue the religious life full time.

Mystics usually give new life and new insights to the community of beleivers that they are a part of. Augustine, who had mystic visions and is thus classified as a mystic, is an example of a such a mystic who has had an enormous impact on the community.

My interest in mystics is to try to understand the means and process of communication between humans and the Divine. The writtings of the mystics left behind great insights into this process.

I have very clear views on what is the nature on God or to use the term I prefer "the Divine'. I just don't bring those up since I am more interested in discussing human/divine communion and interaction from the widest possible perspective - thus drawing on the history of all religions.

Gary:

What is your own personal relationship with the Divine?

How frequently are you in communication (direct or indirect) with the Divine?

I am also interested in reading about other's insights and experiences regarding the Divine; however the most meaningful insights I have received are from the Divine directly (not second hand).

What percentage of your insights about the divine would you conclude are directly from the Divine (a'priori by Kant's definition)?