How do we explain Neanderthals?

[ArmyMatt]

maybe, I dunno. although what the Church defines as human is not the same as what modern biology says is human

 

[Radrook]

maybe, I dunno. although what the Church defines as human is not the same as what modern biology says is human

What does the church define human?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What does the church define human?

living noetically and materially at the same time

 

[Radrook]

living noetically and materially at the same time

Noetetically?

noetic
play
adjective no·et·ic \nō-ˈet-ik\
Medical Definition of noetic

1. : of, relating to, or based on the intellect

--------------------------------------------------------------

Then I guess from a church viewpoint Neanderthals were human since they did have an intellect comparable to Cro-Magnons.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Noetetically?

noetic
play
adjective no·et·ic \nō-ˈet-ik\
Medical Definition of noetic

1. : of, relating to, or based on the intellect

--------------------------------------------------------------

Then I guess from a church viewpoint Neanderthals were human since they did have an intellect comparable to Cro-Magnons.

Noetic isn't something you can understand by reading a dictionary definition, though I understand why you tried. (And I'm also a little surprised you found it at all where you did.)

It's actually a rather deep concept. I'm still struggling with the details myself, and probably always will. It gets tied up in discussions of the mind, the heart - the nous - I should also say it is the way by which we can know God.

That last bit is probably the most important for the discussion.

Biologists don't go looking for a nous though ...


I'm not going to speculate on how the Church might view Neanderthals specifically. But if they could know God, they were human persons.

 

[seekingsolace]

I read an article recently touching briefly on the "nous", hopefully it's useful for you Radrook.

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2016/11/28/saving-knowledge/

 

[ArmyMatt]

Noetetically?

noetic
play
adjective no·et·ic \nō-ˈet-ik\
Medical Definition of noetic

1. : of, relating to, or based on the intellect

--------------------------------------------------------------

Then I guess from a church viewpoint Neanderthals were human since they did have an intellect comparable to Cro-Magnons.

no, because there is no direct translation of "noetic," which is from the Greek word nous. intellect is often used, but in this case it is not a good translation. more often nous is the highest faculty of man, where he can directly experience and contemplate God. only humans are material creatures that have that capacity.

 

[Radrook]

Noetic isn't something you can understand by reading a dictionary definition, though I understand why you tried. (And I'm also a little surprised you found it at all where you did.)

It's actually a rather deep concept. I'm still struggling with the details myself, and probably always will. It gets tied up in discussions of the mind, the heart - the nous - I should also say it is the way by which we can know God.

That last bit is probably the most important for the discussion.

Biologists don't go looking for a nous though ...


I'm not going to speculate on how the Church might view Neanderthals specifically. But if they could know God, they were human persons.

Seems as if you are referring to reasoning ability. There is really no doubt that Neanderthals could reason.

Neanderthal Intelligence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/neanderthal-intelligence-modern-humans_n_5242765.html

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seems as if you are referring to reasoning ability. There is really no doubt that Neanderthals could reason.

Neanderthal Intelligence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/neanderthal-intelligence-modern-humans_n_5242765.html

No, I'm not referring to reasoning ability. I knew I wouldn't be able to explain it well. Matt gives a good description.

 

[truefiction1]

Seems as if you are referring to reasoning ability. There is really no doubt that Neanderthals could reason.

Neanderthal Intelligence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/neanderthal-intelligence-modern-humans_n_5242765.html

Nous is the name given to the spiritual eye of a person. The nous is the highest part of a person and can see God when it is healthy, but is carried away into darkness by sick/deadly (sinful) thoughts and feelings where it is weakened to such a degree as it cannot see God. The nous stands apart from thoughts (congnitions) and feelings (affects) and can observe/be aware of them. When the nous looks at God (in prayer, with thanksgiving) it feeds off of God's radiant energies and receives Life/growth from them. When the nous looks away from God in order to be carried away by improper thoughts and feelings according to one's selfish desires, the nous (and as a result the whole person) is willfully cut off from God's energies by the murkiness of the mud that it has chosen to sink into (the mud of self and demonic deception along with passionate thoughts and feelings).

Such, I believe is an example of the teachings of the Church regarding the nous.

 

[Radrook]

the interaction of

Nous is the name given to the spiritual eye of a person. The nous is the highest part of a person and can see God when it is healthy, but is carried away into darkness by sick/deadly (sinful) thoughts and feelings where it is weakened to such a degree as it cannot see God. The nous stands apart from thoughts (congnitions) and feelings (affects) and can observe/be aware of them. When the nous looks at God (in prayer, with thanksgiving) it feeds off of God's radiant energies and receives Life/growth from them. When the nous looks away from God in order to be carried away by improper thoughts and feelings according to one's selfish desires, the nous (and as a result the whole person) is willfully cut off from God's energies by the murkiness of the mud that it has chosen to sink into (the mud of self and demonic deception along with passionate thoughts and feelings).

Such, I believe is an example of the teachings of the Church regarding the nous.

First, thanks for striving to clarify the concept. Here is the impression I get:

The nous:

1. isn't reasoning ability.
2. isn't conscious
3. isn't subconscious
4. isn't ego
5. isn't id.
6. Isn't emotion generated by the interaction of all these either.

It just simply nebulously and diaphanously is.

That seems like a concept that demands blind faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

the interaction of

First, thanks for striving to clarify the concept. Here is the impression I get:

The nous:

1. isn't reasoning ability.
2. isn't conscious
3. isn't subconscious
4. isn't ego
5. isn't id.
6. Isn't emotion generated by the interaction of all these either.

It just simply nebulously and diaphanously is.

That seems like a concept that demands blind faith.

Not being argumentative, but the concept such as "id" requires just accepting what someone came up with to explain something.

The nous is actually a much better defined and understood concept. It only has the disadvantage of never having had a word created in English to represent it, and not having been widely shared in secular/western thought.

 

[Radrook]

Not being argumentative, but the concept such as "id" requires just accepting what someone came up with to explain something.

The nous is actually a much better defined and understood concept. It only has the disadvantage of never having had a word created in English to represent it, and not having been widely shared in secular/western thought.

But the id's function is explained in detail in relationship to other mental functions. The nous seems to float independently of time matter and space. That is where the difficulty in conceptualizing it comes in. Separating it totally from the brain and all the brain' functions such as the cerebral cortex's reasoning the limbic system's emotional associations, seems to place it somewhere in hyperspace. If it were described as linked to these in some unknown way then that would be more imaginable. But totally separated it detaches itself from what we perceive as reality and demands us to visualize it as existing simply because we are told that it does exist in that way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But the id's function is explained in detail in relationship to other mental functions. The nous seems to float independently of time matter and space. That is where the difficulty in conceptualizing it comes in. Separating it totally from the brain and all the brain' functions such as the cerebral cortex's reasoning the limbic system's emotional associations, seems to place it somewhere in hyperspace. If it were described as linked to these in some unknown way then that would be more imaginable. But totally separated it detaches itself from what we perceive as reality and demands us to visualize it as existing simply because we are told that it does exist in that way.

I understand.

But there are different conceptualizations of the human psyche. This is just from a different background. But agreed that it is harder to conceptualize. It is for me as well, but it may just be that it's a newer concept to me.

Where is the "id" In matter or space?

And True explained that the nous could observe thoughts and emotions, so there IS a connection.

I suppose it could fairly be placed on the level of "spirit" in terms of how much faith it requires to believe we have one. But that's just me guessing. I'm not sure if others here who know better would agree with me, or not.

I can't answer that.

But I really suspect the difficulty in accepting has more to do with familiar constructs being unlike what is presented as "nous".

 

[truefiction1]

But the id's function is explained in detail in relationship to other mental functions. The nous seems to float independently of time matter and space. That is where the difficulty in conceptualizing it comes in. Separating it totally from the brain and all the brain' functions such as the cerebral cortex's reasoning the limbic system's emotional associations, seems to place it somewhere in hyperspace. If it were described as linked to these in some unknown way then that would be more imaginable. But totally separated it detaches itself from what we perceive as reality and demands us to visualize it as existing simply because we are told that it does exist in that way.

The closest thing I have come across with regard to the nous being spoken of in other disciplines, although not called by that term, is in David J. Wallin's written works on attachment in psychotherapy. Therein Wallin discusses a part of each of us that is neither thought, nor feeling, but rather mere, raw awareness. Wallin, besides being a psychologist, is strongly familiar with far eastern religious theory and practice and relates this concept to the core eastern religious mystical experience. I've also come across speculative phrases from various contemporary affective neuroscientists and neuroscience based psychotherapists attempting to locate this raw awareness, or core consciousness, as a structure somewhere in the brain. There are some who locate it in the right cerebral cortex, in the area of the frontal lobe, I think.

The fathers did not have this approach. They knew all that they knew from experience in spiritual warfare, through which they received spiritual discernment and were illumined so that they could see all the various part of their person acting together in concert, as it were. From this powerful personal experience, they had the natural ability to detect spiritual sickness in others merely through automatic and instinctively intuitive perceptions that were unconsciously expressed through the subtle or not so subtle somatic displays (i.e. body language) of the person. Still, they knew all that was needed for the achievement of their full humanity in Godliness and in order that others could receive healing from God through them. Ironically, some practicing psychotherapists I know are aware of the value of this approach of the fathers to being healed and to being able to provide an effective avenue for healing in their patients. Some would say that there is no other way, in the end, to either be helped or to help others in any substantial and lasting way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That seems like a concept that demands blind faith.

no, just because there is not a clear English translation does not mean it is accepted only on blind faith. it just means it translates poorly into English.

 

[rusmeister]

But the id's function is explained in detail in relationship to other mental functions. The nous seems to float independently of time matter and space. That is where the difficulty in conceptualizing it comes in. Separating it totally from the brain and all the brain' functions such as the cerebral cortex's reasoning the limbic system's emotional associations, seems to place it somewhere in hyperspace. If it were described as linked to these in some unknown way then that would be more imaginable. But totally separated it detaches itself from what we perceive as reality and demands us to visualize it as existing simply because we are told that it does exist in that way.

You evidently believe in the id, ego and superego, that is, the Freudian view adopted into modern psychology, right?
I don't have such fervent faith in modern psychology, myself. If modern psychology itself is suspect on the philosophical grounds of Western thinking, then why should we be so sure of these ideas of the id, etc, relative to the nous just because they are "well-explained"? Anybody can throw complex technical terms around in popular theories and just assume that they are true. It means you believe in them, have faith (I'll leave disputable adjectives like "blind" out of it).
Some of us trust the Church fathers more, and think they had a better handle on the "psyche", which is only the Greek word for "soul", than Freud, who was an atheist in any event.

 

[isshinwhat]

Interesting development...

“...only male Neanderthals and female humans were able to produce fertile offspring."

http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=932

 

[Radrook]

You evidently believe in the id, ego and superego, that is, the Freudian view adopted into modern psychology, right?
I don't have such fervent faith in modern psychology, myself. If modern psychology itself is suspect on the philosophical grounds of Western thinking, then why should we be so sure of these ideas of the id, etc, relative to the nous just because they are "well-explained"? Anybody can throw complex technical terms around in popular theories and just assume that they are true. It means you believe in them, have faith (I'll leave disputable adjectives like "blind" out of it).
Some of us trust the Church fathers more, and think they had a better handle on the "psyche", which is only the Greek word for "soul", than Freud, who was an atheist in any event.

Some explanations do tend to be more convincing than others not merely because of their source as you point out but because of their compelling logic.

 

[rusmeister]

Some explanations do tend to be more convincing than others not merely because of their source as you point out but because of their compelling logic.

Agreed. If I didn't know what I do know about the history of public education, among other things, I might well be compelled by the consensus of the presumed experts. If I weren't so thoroughly convinced of the falsehood at the root of Freudianism as well as a good portion of what we call the "psyche-"sciences, I might feel compelled to accept their explanations as logical and probable.