Try to
UNDERSTAND, because if you try to COMPREHEND everything, you’ll be lost...
From the
Mary Magdalene apocryphal Gospels (last precepts):
Vision of Mariamne: She said, «I saw the Lord
in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision». He
answered and said to me: «Blessed you are that you did not waver at the
sight of Me. For where the intellect is, there is the treasure». I said to
Him, «Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or
through the spirit? » The Savior answered and said, «He does not see
through the soul nor through the spirit, but the intellect that is
between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]»
Eduardo Yvorra argentine scholar who wrote "Quantum
Physics: A Personal Approach, Conceptual and Historical, though not Math"
in the introduction to his magnificent work, says:
<<… just as there are people who enjoy reading poetry or fiction, or like
painting, I enjoy reading scientific issues, although after
repeating the reading several times do not reach fully understand about the
meaning of what is written, at least in the words of the German philosopher
Josef Pieper not with the reason as "ratio" (rationally), but more
with the reason as "intellectus" (intuitively). This idea of the two
aspects or faculties of the reason seems very attractive to me; nothing better
than reading what Pieper says about it in his book "The Leisure and Intellectual
Life":
The
ratio is the power of discursive thought, of search and investigation,
of abstracting and then of being precise and concluding. The intellectus
however, is the name of reason as it is the power of the "simplex intuitus"
from the simple vision, to which is offered the true as being the host of
landscape. However the man's spiritual cognitive faculty -as the ancients
understood- is both things: ratio and intellectus, and the knowledge results a
joint action by both. The way of discursive thinking is woven together by the
tester vision and effortless intellectus, which is a faculty of the soul
no active but passive, or rather receptive, a faculty whose activity is to
receive ... the performance of the ratio, the discursive thinking is
work, strenuous activity; while the mere sight of the intellectus, the
intuition, is effortless.
I would add that intellect is the facet or
inexplicable faculty of reason that makes us feel that we are before something
important, I would say glorious. And here I wish to dwell a bit more about the
relationship I find between this abstract and scientific subject and the faith.
Many times I have gone into interesting discussions but hardly reached
conclusions about religious issues and faith. Among them it is common to find
two extreme positions, the dogmatists who try by all means and with some force
to demonstrate the logic of faith in the existence of a Creator God and the
rational skeptics that not seeing the logic (reason as ratio according to Pieper) support the impossibility of the existence of God.
Well in this area of Quantum Physics, I found
explanations or facts that are real and proven performance of certain events,
despite the crashing with the common sense (again, with the reason as ratio). So it made me wonder: if all
this is as such and scientists cannot give satisfactory explanations for human
logic, why should not be the same with the existence of God? Could it be that
while we cannot grasp all this with the reason as ratio, many times it shows-up before us through the reason as intellectus? Would not it be a matter of
giving more importance to that that many depose because it is particularly
women's intuition? ... >>
…or perhaps it may be a third dimension: the reason as the "perception
of love"...
Josef Pieper
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario