tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34221771590369842022007-11-20T22:44:00.000-08:002007-11-20T22:44:00.000-08:00I think this is basically pretty good. I also have no idea what brain/mind problem Loftus is talking about, unless he's trying to make a point about the relation of the physical brain processes to the existential experience of the conscious mind.<BR/><BR/>I must admit to still being somewhat unsure of how exactly the positive effects of mystical experience demonstrate the work of the divine in the world. I really like the reference to the Derridean trace above and I tend to use the same sort of expression to refer to God in the world, and I think it's a good analogy. I'm just not sure how to make the jump between analogy and reality. I have visions of Deleuze's views on language dancing in my head but can't quite put it together - basically it has to do with the idea that language delimits and points to a particular shaping of difference, but does not exhaust the possibility of difference - in the same way the trace points to God, but does not define or delimit God in a way that would allow us to more definitively "put our finger" on him.<BR/><BR/>Would you say the brain chemistry explanation can be put in terms of being a trace, or perhaps a co- or subordinate cause? The way I read Genesis 1 the creation participates in its own making, and so I would see such a formulation as coherent with that.<BR/><BR/>And I could use a bit more explanation of this:<BR/><BR/><I>at that level questions of causation do come into it but as ex post facto argument on counter causality.</I><BR/><BR/>But overall, I'm pretty impressed.Jason Barrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09351713443189464171noreply@blogger.com