>>24826855
>>24826947
>>24826996
Interesting, thanks for the great explanations. Especially the conclusion of the first post,
>That said, the CTMU really is unfalsifiable no matter how much Langan believes it.
Which plays into my belief that, ultimately, mystical experience transcends intellectual reasoning and debates, even as intellectual reasoning can be regarded a higher human endeavor than complete non-intellectualism or anti-intellectualism.
I say this because, just as Langan formally came to these conclusions with lots of thought and study, so it seems mystics across history came to the same or similar insights through direct intuition and mystical experience.
On the side of your argument with some other anon(s) about whether “language” is integral to reality, I’d come down on your/Langan’s side, and say that, as reality is inextricably bound up with perception of it, which suggests cognition/mind and the apprehension of information (one of the premises/tautologies here), so this information necessarily implies a “language”, taken in a broader sense as intelligibility, things being intelligible at all.
It’s interesting that the Ancient Greek conception of Logos becomes very relevant here. Literally/variously “Word”, “Reason”, “Discourse”, also the root of the word “logic.” It’s a guiding principle that informs the entire universe according to Presocratics like Heraclitus, and then also takes on a spiritual sense in Christianity, as the Word (of God), Christ also being the Word (Logos), famously in the opening of the Book of John:
>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (1:1)
So I see why Langan makes much of his CTMU as also, in a major sense, a deeper explication of Christian theology, and not only that but also offering a meta-religious framework or chance for interreligious discourse, inasmuch as any legitimate religion has had concourse with or genuine inspiration by the Logos at any point. I think you could call the Logos, in its ancient transcendental sense, equivalent to Langan’s idea of “language” (taken in a broader sense) being integral to reality.
