Representative Governments

[Harbal]

So that’s the one. That was in fact in reference to a statement, which was initially quoted. To separate a statement intended to reference, from what it references, for the purpose of criticizing said referential statement, or for the simple uncritical labeling as crap if crap is a separate expulsion, is called “taking out of context.”

You should know, if your objective is in fact clarity, that removing from context in such a manner opens a greater possibility for less understanding of that statement. Not more. In fact, this dynamic version of ignorance is how aspects of the past get condemned as unnecessary.

Misinterpretation can be willful, in which case it is likely motivated by some sort of agenda, which could be as simple as a haha. If not willful, then misinterpretation based on omission is simply sloppy, which could be a reflection of the attitude that this is just a philosophy forum after all, and who really cares.

There are antidotes and balancing actions available for coordinating action when the uncaring begins to persist into sloppiness. For instance, in the non-discriminatory elevation of all that grabs attentions via equanimity, whatever one does is worthy of doing. The sloppiness of course can extend to include understanding. Sloppiness of understanding. Suggested contemplation: call off the divorce, marry the referential and referenced back together, consider in context as the third entity of knowing.

However, there are limits even to silliness, so you’re on your own if the contemplation should yield any conclusive insights, since that would be a personal matter only loosely related to the origins of the contemplation and therefore, a fresh topic.

Well I can't argue with that.

[Walker]

Ben Franklin was a great man.

“I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?”
Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 (Motion was defeated for lack of funds to pay a minister.)
- Benjamin Franklin

If 'God governs in the Affairs of Men' then if you changed the Constitution then that must be God's will too.

Amendments. Part of the deal.

In a Venn diagram similar to "God's will", choice resides wholly within choiceless, no overlap of borders.

[Londoner]

Amendments. Part of the deal.

Is there anything that wouldn't be part of the deal? If the USA reverted to being a British colony? Or became part of Islamic State? If God governs in the affairs of men, then we are free to do anything, since by definition our actions must have been approved by God. So, since we can do no wrong, why do we need a Constitution?

In a Venn diagram similar to "God's will", choice resides wholly within choiceless, no overlap of borders.

Then choice would not reside anywhere.

[Walker]

Amendments. Part of the deal.

Is there anything that wouldn't be part of the deal? If the USA reverted to being a British colony? Or became part of Islamic State? If God governs in the affairs of men, then we are free to do anything, since by definition our actions must have been approved by God. So, since we can do no wrong, why do we need a Constitution?
Not everyone agrees with that, so there’s a legislative process and associated wrangling by which things get changed.

In a Venn diagram similar to "God's will", choice resides wholly within choiceless, no overlap of borders.

Then choice would not reside anywhere.

Depends on the altitude. In the daily grind one chooses all the time. Elevate to a broader tableau and what choice do you really have? A bigger canvas and you choose to time the end so the last check bounces. As the picture gets larger still the options are fewer until there’s only one choiceless move left, and that’s to take the next breath, which may or may not happen though the odds always seem good.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Looks like a simple sentence, as sentences go.
Tips to improve comprehension.
Slow down, read slowly, focus, think.

I wasn't talking about that sentence. If I remember correctly, this was the offending passage, as pointed out by VT: "A whiff of religious fervor wafts from the irrational emotionalism of loss, faux-loss, and alertness for omens and portents, though birds of a feather do flock together".

So that’s the one. That was in fact in reference to a statement, which was initially quoted. To separate a statement intended to reference, from what it references, for the purpose of criticizing said referential statement, or for the simple uncritical labeling as crap if crap is a separate expulsion, is called “taking out of context.”

You should know, if your objective is in fact clarity, that removing from context in such a manner opens a greater possibility for less understanding of that statement. Not more. In fact, this dynamic version of ignorance is how aspects of the past get condemned as unnecessary.

Misinterpretation can be willful, in which case it is likely motivated by some sort of agenda, which could be as simple as a haha. If not willful, then misinterpretation based on omission is simply sloppy, which could be a reflection of the attitude that this is just a philosophy forum after all, and who really cares.

There are antidotes and balancing actions available for coordinating action when the uncaring begins to persist into sloppiness. For instance, in the non-discriminatory elevation of all that grabs attentions via equanimity, whatever one does is worthy of doing. The sloppiness of course can extend to include understanding. Sloppiness of understanding. Suggested contemplation: call off the divorce, marry the referential and referenced back together, consider in context as the third entity of knowing.

However, there are limits even to silliness, so you’re on your own if the contemplation should yield any conclusive insights, since that would be a personal matter only loosely related to the origins of the contemplation and therefore, a fresh topic.

Aaaaaagh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Londoner]

Is there anything that wouldn't be part of the deal? If the USA reverted to being a British colony? Or became part of Islamic State? If God governs in the affairs of men, then we are free to do anything, since by definition our actions must have been approved by God. So, since we can do no wrong, why do we need a Constitution?
Not everyone agrees with that, so there’s a legislative process and associated wrangling by which things get changed.

So are those who believe things should change always ungodly? After all, if God was responsible for the way things are at any moment, then to try to change them would be to go against God.

Or are the changers the ones inspired by God, since unless God had willed it they would not have been inspired to demand change? Thus it is always ungodly to oppose change.

Although the observation that 'God governs in the affairs of men' can never be disproved, it doesn't seem to be of any use!

In a Venn diagram similar to "God's will", choice resides wholly within choiceless, no overlap of borders.

Me: Then choice would not reside anywhere.

Depends on the altitude. In the daily grind one chooses all the time. Elevate to a broader tableau and what choice do you really have? A bigger canvas and you choose to time the end so the last check bounces. As the picture gets larger still the options are fewer until there’s only one choiceless move left, and that’s to take the next breath, which may or may not happen though the odds always seem good.

What does altitude represent in this metaphor? And how would 'God's will' be represented in that metaphor?

[Walker]

Is there anything that wouldn't be part of the deal? If the USA reverted to being a British colony? Or became part of Islamic State? If God governs in the affairs of men, then we are free to do anything, since by definition our actions must have been approved by God. So, since we can do no wrong, why do we need a Constitution?
Not everyone agrees with that, so there’s a legislative process and associated wrangling by which things get changed.

So are those who believe things should change always ungodly? After all, if God was responsible for the way things are at any moment, then to try to change them would be to go against God.

Or are the changers the ones inspired by God, since unless God had willed it they would not have been inspired to demand change? Thus it is always ungodly to oppose change.

Although the observation that 'God governs in the affairs of men' can never be disproved, it doesn't seem to be of any use!

In a Venn diagram similar to "God's will", choice resides wholly within choiceless, no overlap of borders.

Me: Then choice would not reside anywhere.

Depends on the altitude. In the daily grind one chooses all the time. Elevate to a broader tableau and what choice do you really have? A bigger canvas and you choose to time the end so the last check bounces. As the picture gets larger still the options are fewer until there’s only one choiceless move left, and that’s to take the next breath, which may or may not happen though the odds always seem good.

What does altitude represent in this metaphor? And how would 'God's will' be represented in that metaphor?

The legislative process allows for those who believe in God to compromise with those who don’t believe, and with those who know. The compromise is for governance of the society formed by those three, and any others.

Re choice: Not to diminish man, but consider a mouse in a maze, trained to find the treat. First time, Mickey wanders down hallways, closed in by walls, no real purpose in mind other than just living and moving.

He stumbles upon some food, eats, then his senses are suddenly disoriented. His body is gripped by an irresistible force, he is removed from contact with the earth and transported through space, only to find himself alone again, and able to direct his own motions. He again has choice after the disorientation. Déjà vu, the walls look familiar. Mickey remembers the food when he sees the walls and begins to wander with purpose.

His choice to wander, if he should think about choice, only comes from his mouse altitude. From the higher altitude above the maze can be seen the laboratory and the observing scientists, which Mickey may glimpse during future disorientations when he is transported back to the beginning. If he can keep from squeezing his eyes shut in fear he will naturally put a little order to the chaos that links periods of wandering between walls. Likely he will never rise above the walls surrounding the laboratory to in turn see the scientists with a perspective more encompassing than theirs.

[creativesoul]

Anthropomorphism at it's finest... We're Gods little lab rats...



As if the greatest imaginable omnipotent entity would behave as humans do. That would be to say that that entity was like us in all the ways necessary to indulge in animal testing...

When one knows all the need to test is absent.