Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  John: I agree, at some level, yes, human nature and that-which-we-don't-understand do collide. But what we piece together from that collision usually reflects more on human nature than it does on the nature of the unknown, because there is no real collision. It's a conceptual collision which manifests through thought, feeling and emotion. |
Fair enough. As long as we apply the same rules to unscientific logic, I concede that ultimately what we have is a window into the logic and curiosity of man himself, not necessarily a window onto the unknown.
Of course, this is precisely the point I was making earlier, when I spoke about man's quest to understand that which cannot be understood. It's really more about man's quest than the unknown itself. The only word of caution I will offer here is that what you and I are saying hinges upon something which cannot be proven -- so then, what we have is a logical axiom, and a spiritual counterpoint which might call you and I both fools.
So does this mean that spirituality cannot provide real answers? I suppose you and I will have to get together on the other side to talk about it over a cup of coffee to see how it all shook out when our lives are over.
I'm making an appointment in my little book, and I'll expect you there.
