I found his website. What he intentionally omitted here, for good reason I think, is his starting point:
He invokes the idea of people's thinking being hindered from ideas born in Jensen's Axial age. I find this amusing since his entire argument hinges on the assertion that people just seem to have a divine intuition; ignoring of course that this could very well be vestigial bias from a religious upbringing.
Dimension of depth refers to Steve's ideas of revelation. He invokes a pantheistic type deity in that all of what we observe in reality constitutes divine revelation. What baffles me is that after several pages of 'ultimate purpose' arguments his own ideas invoke subjectivity tested by intuition, literature, history, etc. Ultimate purpose has no meaning if it constitutes all of reality and does not have a decoder ring.
In the end, as far as morality is concerned, Steve is just like the rest of us in doing the best we can with the tools available to figure it all out. The difference may be that he simply cannot let go of the notion of a deity. Pity really; he seems sincere and is not totally fucking nuts. Perhaps just misguided by starting with the 'intuition of the divine' and then ignoring efforts to steer him towards other well established ethical schools of thought (virtue/consequentialism).
Quote:Now if one accepts the reasonableness of an intuition of a purposeful divine, then the question becomes, where does this come from?
He invokes the idea of people's thinking being hindered from ideas born in Jensen's Axial age. I find this amusing since his entire argument hinges on the assertion that people just seem to have a divine intuition; ignoring of course that this could very well be vestigial bias from a religious upbringing.
Quote: Morality. For those who avail themselves to the dimension of depth, glimpses of divine preferences and telos may be sensed. However, as these intuitions have a contextual and subjective element, they are best tested with every possible resource, i.e. intuitions of others, wisdom literature, history, results, etc.
Dimension of depth refers to Steve's ideas of revelation. He invokes a pantheistic type deity in that all of what we observe in reality constitutes divine revelation. What baffles me is that after several pages of 'ultimate purpose' arguments his own ideas invoke subjectivity tested by intuition, literature, history, etc. Ultimate purpose has no meaning if it constitutes all of reality and does not have a decoder ring.
In the end, as far as morality is concerned, Steve is just like the rest of us in doing the best we can with the tools available to figure it all out. The difference may be that he simply cannot let go of the notion of a deity. Pity really; he seems sincere and is not totally fucking nuts. Perhaps just misguided by starting with the 'intuition of the divine' and then ignoring efforts to steer him towards other well established ethical schools of thought (virtue/consequentialism).
