Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

Creation vs. Evolution: Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet? · What About Providentissimus Deus? · HGL's F.B. writings: Treason of the SSPX? I Think So. · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

As on the link, I have here, on request, changed the real name of Peter Rabbit to Peter Rabbit. I must give him, he has a good taste in pseudonyms:

Peter Rabbit - Saving Cottontail | Cartoons for Kids
Peter Rabbit | 22 April 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrcGuZxERU

Now, you decide if he's good at arguing or should stick to stealing dandelions from Mr. Shrew ...

Wed 4:25 PM

30.X

You sent

I recommend you to read this link on a computer, ideally copy it to a word document and write it out and read it calmly:

Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/10/treason-of-sspx-i-think-so.html

later Wed

Peter Rabbit

Is this your blog again

Honestly your main struggle is writing White and Strunk are helpful

http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf

From what I remember they don’t discuss how to write a well organized paper* though so you’ll have to go elsewhere for that

In general you should be making direct inferences and not making big jumps in your logic to tie in random cannons from trent. They may be relevant but you should be clearly explaining your logic. By bringing in trent xxiii you’re y

You’re implying whole discussions on secondary objects of the magisterium etc it’s better to bring up those discussions and express your opinion on how I’m violating the canon** afterwards

Trent xiii*

In my experience it’s only possible to have a productive conversation with a very precise and narrow focus

Thu 1:28 AM

31.X

You sent

well, that may be the exact same experience that makes you stylistically as challenged as the guys who'd need Luce as iconography ... Science is not the best school either for writing and reading skill or for debating skills.

later Thu

Peter Rabbit

Bruh

You haven’t studied analytic philosophy have you

Thu 12:42 PM

You sent

No, I've studied CLASSIC philosophy.

Formal Logic.

Socratic / Platonic Dialogues.

Scholasticism, mainly St. Thomas and the Syllabus Errorum of late 1276 or early 1277 (depending on whether you use the then current or now current New Year, it was 11.III ... and Laetare LD before Easter 1277).

I also know from modern historians of ideas pretty well what Nicolas Oresme considered about Heliocentrism (he finished off as bishop of Lisieux, by the way)

Correction, I did study some analytic philosophy after all, even if I try to forget it.

My philosophy teacher in High School was an admirer of Bertrand Russell, and he's anyway on the Swedish curriculum.

And to be complete, I'm also into eclectic Neo-Scholastics / Neo-Socratics like Tolkien and CSL.

Thu 4:03 PM

Peter Rabbit replied to you

Yeah analytic philosophy is very different from the continental stuff you studied. There’s much less emphasis on authors and history and much more on syllogisms and precise argument. There are certainly some analytic thomists who reject categorical logic but not all analytic thomists do. In particular I think you would like Feser who’s personally my favorite analytic thomist

If you’re willing to engage in that style of dialogue focused on syllogisms I can dialogue with you

Do you know symbolic logic at all

Thu 8:45 PM

You sent

"much more on syllogisms and precise argument."

Oh, Thomism certainly involves lots of syllogisms.

I know Venn diagrams.***

Now, if YOU had offered syllogisms, I'd have responded in kind, but you didn't.

For Venn diagrams, how about these for starters:

The circle of all occasions where sense perceptions SHOULD be reinterpreted is a smaller one inside the circle where sense perceptions purely theoretically COULD be so interpreted.

Thu 10:10 PM

Peter Rabbit

You seem to be describing something else

Euler Circles

Thu 10:39 PM

You sent

In Venn*** diagrams, two circles can :

coincide
include and be included
partially overlap
not even partially overlap

If Euler circles is another name for it, so what?

Now, here are two alternative syllogisms:

Atheist syllogism:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As God and angels don't exist) there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits.
Geocentrism is impossible.

He will place Geocentrism as in the smaller circle of things that SHOULD be reinterpreted (in this case as Heliocentrism).

Christian syllogism / truly agnostic syllogism.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As sense impressions should be taken prima facie if possible) Geocentrism is not impossible.
There is a will or are wills or both to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits. (Christianity calls them God and angels, by the way).

He will place Geocentrism in the larger circle that COULD be reinterpreted, but OUTSIDE the inner circle of those that should.

To prove the conditional or disjunctive major:

A movement pattern too complexely structured or too little based in masses cannot be taken as resulting purely from gravity and inertia.
But Tychonian orbits are too complexely structured and Geocentrism too little based in masses.
Therefore Tychonian orbits and Geocentrism cannot result purely from gravity and inertia.

Add further narrowing down and you will have:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism (and Tychonian orbits) is impossible.

Peter Rabbit

You never admit it when you are wrong do you

Venn diagrams are a subset of euler circles

1.XI.2024

All Saints

Fri 9:57 AM

You sent

Indeed.

How about my syllogism?

You know I told you "one man's modus ponens" etc "think of that" ...

And how about the Euler circle I gave?

Discussing in syllogisms does not boil down to discussing what a syllogism or premiss or presentation type of the logic is called. I can use a correct Celarent without calling it a Celarent, right?

You see, I'm 56. I was taught logic in a different school system from yours. You seem a lot younger than 56 and you seem bent on making me pay for the fact of not having used your school system and not having had Euler Circles in the book on Formal Logic I borrowed. I find that bad manners, how about returning to good ones? Answering my actual arguments?

Fri 9:22 PM

Peter Rabbit

I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism, but for the sake of argument lets just pretend it holds for now

so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary

I am interested to hear your argument concerning Providentissimus Deus in syllogistic form

Here's my interpretation

major: If scripture is inerrant then everything it says is true

minor scripture is inerrant therefore etc

From Augustine

If everything scripture says is true [and here is the disjunct] either science is false or scripture is speaking figuratively therefore etc

I'm mistaken that disjunct was from another author but the logic still stands

Fri 10:02 PM

Peter Rabbit

Leo's argument: Major: disjunct from previous arg minor: scripture is speaking figuratively, therefore not the case that science is false.

this is an exclusive or

Fri 10:34 PM

Peter Rabbit

I'm sure you'll want to be more precisely what leo says vs implications I'm making base on st leo but this is a good start

Prima Pars Q 70 art 1, ad tertiam "But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (I:67:4; I:68:3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament."°

2.XI.2024

All Souls

Sat 12:16 PM

You sent

"so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary"

But I don't need to.

Geocentrism is obvious, therefore no need to be demonstrated as necessary to be certain. You don't need to syllogise to prove grass is green. You'd need a VERY good syllogism to prove grass is not green.

If Geocentrism is at all possible, it is preferrable. It is possible everything (except growing and shrinking or cut up objects) stay the same size, and it is possible everything (including the added or subtracted parts) is every day twice the size it was yesterday, including the observer, and with constants adapting so squares and cubes don't marr the impression of constancy. As long as "everything is the same size" is possible, it is preferrable, because it is what we see. If Geocentrism is possible, it is also preferrable, because it is what we see.

INTERPRETATION OF LEO:

For any issue X, given a kind of appearance of conflict between Scripture and (by his time institutional) Science (or more generally well accepted philosophemes), it is EITHER true that the Scripture is true as taken, and if so the Science is falsely so called OR true that the Science of case X necessarily follows from experience by good logic, and if so the Scripture has been exposed to wrongful exegesis.

This is a major premiss. Disjunctive. He does not give a minor, since they would vary from X1, X2, to Xn, and therefore he does not in any general way decide between the modus ponens tollens or the modus tollens ponens.

He also does NOT decide which one is the correct one for Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.

out of condescension to popular ignorance

Bad translation. Do you know German? In German it would be "aus [condescension] an das ungebildete Volk" ... I've forgotten condescension, but Latin "rudis" means "ungebildet" and not "unwissend" ... while English colloquially uses "ignorant" for both, "rudis" or "ungebildet" would be better translated as "uneducated" or "unsubtle" ...

Why does this matter? Condescension to ignorance sounds like allowing people to not know what they do not know. Condescension to lack of subtlety is allowing people not to learn the kind of things they haven't learned the intellectual effort to be able to learn.

There is a certain point in the fact that Pope Leo took this example. By this time basically no one was considering the "higher firmament" as a solid thing one could fix stars in. And also no one, I was tempted to say even fewer, was considering the planets are fixed in crystalline spheres. In other words, to a 19th C. astronomer, what Moses omitted was what factually wasn't there in the first place.

I think Pope Leo had a point in so doing.

4.XI.2024

4:45 AM

Peter Rabbit

“Geocentrism is obvious”

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

7:13 AM

Peter Rabbit

I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true

It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology

Thomistic*

7:34 AM

Peter Rabbit

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible

PD is infallible as demonstrated above

Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)

12:19 PM

You sent

I had stated: Geocentrism is obvious

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

I did not say "obvious explanation" I said "obvious" ... Geocentrism itself a raw datum.°°

My training in epistemology would include but not be quite limited to:

C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas.

"I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas"

It's not REMOTELY difficult. It's strange to a modern, but not remotely difficult.

"but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true"

Look here.

According to Thomas and Aristotle (but I didn't read the Organon independently of St. Thomas, I quit Greek at the time I started the Organon), it is impossible for certitude to depend on an infinite regress.

Sooner or later you come to the raw data that constitute the first premisses of the first syllogisms. Some of them are first principles, but most of them are sense data.

UNLESS Geocentrism is proven impossible, it is not proven false. Unless it is proven false, it stands among these sense data. Therefore among the first premisses.

"It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology"

It seems your "Thomist epistemology" is actually Aquikantian. Thomas Aquinas nominally invoked and cosplay at his terminology, but Emmanuel Kant for the essence of it.

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

The major is faulty. An Encyclical is authentic, but not always infallible. An encyclical is ordinary magisterium and yes, there is an infallible ordinary magisterium, namely whenever the magisterium of the Pope unanimously with ALL the bishops around the world teach the same thing. However, neither Leo XIII, nor St. Pius X, nor Benedict XV intended Providentissimus Deus to teach Heliocentrism or that Scripture has nothing to say on the matter. Proof, none of them said so. None of them came out as positively believing Heliocentrism.

But because of your own or someone else's (Fr. Robinson's?) disability to actually read, you miss that, and attribute to Providentissimus Deus a scope it does not claim.

Please, may I remind you that there is a condition for the infallible magisterium, it can not go against what the Church hath held (we are forbidden to go against "what the Church hath held and holds, and also against the consensus of the Fathers"). If Providentissimus Deus were teaching what you say, it would be teaching a novum. That would rather be a reason to throw doubt on the papacy of Leo XIII, than to abandon the Fathers (who were all Geocentrics, except the few Flat Earthers).

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Movement is not essence. I do not claim or claim to be taught by Scripture that the Sun's material essence makes it go around Earth, I claim it does so move, it is moved Westward each day and night by God and Eastward over the year by an angel, both of whom are OUTSIDE the essence of the Sun.

"Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible"

Or Providentissimus Deus does not ever directly touch on the question of the Sun's orbit.

"PD is infallible as demonstrated above"

Was not demonstrated. Especially it was not demonstrated as being infallible in the case of taking the Sun's orbit as a thing Scripture has nothing to say on, since the Pope himself and his first two successors did not take it that way.

"Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)"

This is so absurd that it would be better to get East of 1054 (join Caerularius) than accept this.

That is fortunately not the alternative, but the absurdity of what you say is enormous.

When the Answers in Genesis "ministry" tries to tease out what St. Paul means in Romans 1:20, they resort to the flagellum of the bacterium, and to the well-ordered complexity of DNA. But neither of these things have been under human observation since Adam and Eve. Day and night have.

St. Paul, St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas Aquinas all hold that day and night, i e God shoving the Sun West each day, prove the existence of God. This is in St. Thomas referred to as "Prima Via" and when I see the online version of Opera omnia state "Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo," I distinctly recall having seen the phrase "utputa sol" somewhere else. That butterflies move would hardly prove God is the God of the whole Universe, would it?

1:26 PM

You sent

As you mentioned "abstraction" this words does not simply mean the discarding of individual matter from the thought, but the keeping of things that are common to the individual material things. So the abstract phrase (yes, plurals are abstracts) "red cars" discards the individual red car which is a two decked bus in London, the individual red car from the Volvo Sedan commercial, the individual red car that's a VW in Austria, the individual red car that's in a street in Paris and so on, and keep only the common ground to them all "red car" ...

Yes, there are things that can be universally said about red cars.

"A red car will be visible and go fast" (visible, because red, go fast, because a car).

You pretend to superior powers of abstraction, I challenge you to give a process of abstraction from the concrete which leads to the level you pretend I'm lacking in.

2:53 PM

You sent

Some recapitulation here:

"I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism"

It is actually the common major premise both of the Atheistic and the Christian one.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.

After that, there is ponens and tollens.

So, if you rejected that one, are you saying:

**"Even if there is no will performing Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is still possible in a purely materialistic universe"?

I think that was what you were yourself arguing against?

8:31 PM

You sent

You are aware the post I linked to is a dialogue, right?

Just to prepare for this one also becoming so.

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I never consented to you posting that

You sent

Fine, you want anonymisation (JM) or you prefer it stands (Peter Rabbit)?

Because, I get people like Fr. Robinson skirting off my rebuttals, and sending loads of small fry ...

9:26 PM

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I prefer you not to post my content without asking but if you’re going to please use a pseudonym

Peter rabbit, late for dinner I don’t care just please don’t use my name or my initials

There are three basic stances on axiology

Rahner, who as you point out is doing a “creative retrieval” of saint Thomas. Hes not a kantian but imho he doesn’t escape kants problems like he thinks he does

Von Hildebrand, who I studied in school

There was another author we studied who I’ll leave out because his theory creates problems with the dogma of vatican I

Then the third position which you’ll probably be most comfortable with is Dr Feser with his famous “revenge of Aristotle”

11:11 PM

You sent

Hope you like seeing yourself as Peter Rabbit, you have been changed to that over the published post and the next one, including the screenshot.

I'm probably closer to von Hildebrand than to Rahner. I can't tell on the third one, because you leave him out.

I'm not a disciple of von Hildebrand, what I have heard of him, he didn't go far enough.

Are you sure we are speaking of the same thing, I thought we were doing epistemology and you wrote axiology (science of moral axioms, so to speak) was it a typo?

5.XI.2024

4:45 PM & 5:15 PM

Peter Rabbit.

Autocorrect changed it. Should say axiomology not axiology

My understanding is that the study of axioms is synonymous with epistemology

But others like a lot of mathematicians disagree eg as in non-euclidean geometry

8:53 PM

You sent

"Autocorrect changed it."

Excellent reason to use an actual computer rather than a cell-phone with autocorrect and no time to correct that.

"axioms is synonymous with epistemology"

For epistemological axioms, that is correct.

One of them, in St. Thomas is "nihil est in ratione quod non prius erat in sensibus" ... from this it would follow, any discarding of specific sense data in their obvious immediate sense needs to be justified from other sense data which ARE taken in their obvious immediate sense.

If I step onto one train after speaking German, negotiate to pay later on the next train while speaking Dutch, as best as I can and with some help from English, and then later am asked to leave a train in French down in Belgium, and if next day (St. John the Baptist 2023) I step into a train in something purporting to be Lille and step out in well known city areas of Paris, where I can immediately find my way, that's an indication trains move.

If all through my childhood and again on the pilgrimage to Santiago I walk over hills and between trees and pass houses, stationed cars and lamp posts, that's an indication that cars sometimes don't move, and the other items simply don't move.

If I look out of the window of a train and see hills and trees fly by, I don't conclude it's the train moving just because that's theoretically a way to account for the appearances but rather because I have pretty solid knowledge from the context and all earlier experience that trains do move and hills don't move.

In the case of astronomy, which seems to have been the original context for Plato's later latinised "salvare apparentia" we don't have any similar experience of Earth moving or of Heavens not moving. The more conservative approach is to take the Earth and the Heavens as per prima facie, i e Earth as not moving and Heavens as moving.

If there were no things beyond the visible Heavens, this would be self defeating, since movement in Aristotle is of the contained in the container. However, if there IS something beyond, which at least theoretically it could be (Agnostic version) or which CHristianity tells us there is (Christian version) that thing beyond would be an even bigger container, Empyrean Heaven immobile like Earth is immobile, it would just be the visible Heavens between the two that moved. Earthly Jerusalem is in a fixed spot because it has a fixed spatial relation to Heavenly Jerusalem (this being the Christian version).

As Earth's stillness and the movements of the Heavens cannot be excluded like the trains stillness and the movements of the hills, it is the preferrable way to immediately take sense data.

"non-euclidean geometry"

A non-Euclidean triangle is NOT a triangle. The examples are no-where like disproving the universal validity of Euclidean axioms.

NOTES

* The post was not a "paper" it was a dialogue, organised after the different threads of discussion on the FB page and starting with Peter Rabbit's status. If he didn't note this, maybe he didn't follow my advise, but read it over an i-phone.
** Again, he read sloppily, as you can see on the other link, my point is, IF the Bible NEVER speaks about the intimate nature of visible reality, THEN this is against Trent Session XIII, which does not only say Christ is present, but the substance of bread is absent under the accidents of bread and wine RATHER THAN against the implication of the Bible in Helio- / Geo-debate. So, my point was "let's not overdo it" ... if the Church can have reason to state the Bible actually does such a statement in one case, and I think she had, she can also have a reason to state it in another case, especially since intimate nature of things is less involved there.
*** From the ensuing dialogue and checking, it seems my philosophy teacher used Euler circles when supposed to teach Venn diagrams.
° Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Ptolomaeum, luminaria non sunt fixa in sphaeris, sed habent motum seorsum a motu sphaerarum. Unde Chrysostomus dicit quod non ideo dicitur quod posuit ea in firmamento, quia ibi sint fixa; sed quia iusserit ut ibi essent; sicut posuit hominem in Paradiso, ut ibi esset. Sed secundum opinionem Aristotelis, stellae fixae sunt in orbibus, et non moventur nisi motu orbium, secundum rei veritatem. Tamen motus luminarium sensu percipitur, non autem motus sphaerarum. Moyses autem, rudi populo condescendens, secutus est quae sensibiliter apparent, ut dictum est. Si autem sit aliud firmamentum quod factum est secunda die, ab eo in quo posita sunt sidera, secundum distinctionem naturae, licet sensus non discernat, quem Moyses sequitur, ut dictum est; cessat obiectio. Nam firmamentum factum est secunda die, quantum ad inferiorem partem. In firmamento autem posita sunt sidera quarta die, quantum ad superiorem partem; ut totum pro uno accipiatur, secundum quod sensui apparet.
°° OK, a cohesive classification of raw data.