Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Something Supernatural
Message-ID: <353@spar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 19:51:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.353
Posted: Fri Jun 21 19:51:33 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 02:33:24 EDT
References: <238@ihnet.UUCP> <446@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <99@umcp-cs.UUCP> <449@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <1079@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.religion:7171 net.philosophy:1972

>> In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the
>> mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows
>> some unification of the natural order. [Charley]
>
>Why does that sound like a conclusion you've already presumed in order to
>reach that conclusion?  You speak of the limits of language.  "Supernatural"
>is a word, a piece of language conceived and invoked by humans.  What does
>it mean?  From the structure of the word parts, and from the nature of the
>way the word is used, "beyond the natural" sounds like the intended meaning.
>How do we define natural?  What are the limits of what is natural?  Where are
>the boundaries between "natural" and "supernatural"?  Are they anything more
>than arbitrary demarcations that facilitate the conclusions we want to draw
>about the universe and about the nature of the supernatural?  Charley is not
>alone is not having answered these questions.	[Rich Rosen]

    Consciousness, the subjective experience of existing, pure awareness, 
    is supernatural, since it is in principle not objectively verifiable.

-michael