Interesting to see how this forum devolved into practicing cannibalism

[-1-]

The newest flame-war between Nick, Henry, and Princess Horror in another thread in this section amounts only to a little less than that.

I remember when this forum was a thriving meeting place between fertile, inquisitive minds. It is only a coincidence that the forum started to decline at the same time when the editor of PN declined my manuscripts several times, even after his suggested improvements were incorporated into it.

Hell hath no fury like a mind scorned.

[henry quirk]

"The newest flame-war between Nick, Henry, and Princess Horror in another thread in this section amounts only to a little less than that."

That ain't a flame war. That's me helpin' Nick make a point (several actually).

#

"I remember when this forum was a thriving meeting place between fertile, inquisitive minds."

No you don't cuz it never was.

#

"It is only a coincidence that the forum started to decline at the same time when the editor of PN declined my manuscripts several times, even after his suggested improvements were incorporated into it."

I ain't touchin' this one with a ten foot pole.

#

"Hell hath no fury like a mind scorned."

I ain't touchin' this one with a twenty foot pole.

[Immanuel Can]

I find two types of participants in this forum. No, it's three. No, it's four. Okay, let's go with four.

1. The egocentric arguer -- the guy or girl who thinks the game is to show oneself to be "smart" in some way, or to "zing" other people with this or that insult or one-liner, and thus to reveal oneself (or one's pseudonym) as a "clever fellah." For this person, the ideas are less important than the posturing. Completing a thought is less important than "winning" the argument, which, to them, means just getting off the last snappy line.

2. The hallucinogenic arguer -- the person who thinks philosophy is all about floating the most hallucinogenic account of reality one possibly can, or the most esoteric ideology one can invent, and others are supposed to accept, approve and say, "what an enlightened one."

3. The don't-criticize-me arguer -- Also, there are similar folks who think that philosophies are not to be discussed or contested, just accepted and praised. The mere fact that they hold a particular opinion, that it's theirs, makes it sacred and above critique, and anyone who then criticizes is just being mean.

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

I think if we could all be type 4, this would be a great forum. But some participants are always types 1-3, an all of us sometimes make a mistake and slide toward type 1-3, because that's human nature. But if we kept the focus on type 4 exchanges, we'd all be better off.

[Nick_A]

"The newest flame-war between Nick, Henry, and Princess Horror in another thread in this section amounts only to a little less than that."

That ain't a flame war. That's me helpin' Nick make a point (several actually).

#

"I remember when this forum was a thriving meeting place between fertile, inquisitive minds."

No you don't cuz it never was.

#

"It is only a coincidence that the forum started to decline at the same time when the editor of PN declined my manuscripts several times, even after his suggested improvements were incorporated into it."

I ain't touchin' this one with a ten foot pole.

#

"Hell hath no fury like a mind scorned."

I ain't touchin' this one with a twenty foot pole.

It's a lost cause. Some people cannot appreciate humor which others can enjoy in a lounge. If Mark Twain were alive today he would soon experience the wrath of the QEP and their supporters. Survival would be a struggle.

I can just imagine a philosopher worthy of the name being dragged into an institution of reeduction and given the choice of swallowing the hemlock or the dreaded PC pill. It would be tough decision.

[Nick_A]

I C

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

So why don't you try it instead of killing threads with your insistance on a personal God. Tesla wanted to discuss education. It got lost into arguing a personal God. I had a thread introducing the collective opposing the individual. It was reduced to socializing.

Whenever philosophy is reduced to secular expression it loses its purpose and begins to die. It is what you contribute to

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So. Butt-hurt because your little 'brain children' weren't accepted.

[Immanuel Can]

I C

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

So why don't you try it instead of killing threads with your insistance on a personal God.

It's very easy. I sincerely believe what I'm saying. How can I speak from another position? I'd be telling lies, and that's surely not "sincere."

Tesla wanted to discuss education.

Indeed he did. And I picked him up at that very point. I stayed right on topic. I pointed out that allegedly "non-religious" religious education is not actually a neutral practice. It's assumptively Atheistic. Methodologically, it has to act as if "religions" are simply uninvolved with questions of truth, which no religions are.

That's how the discussion went sideways: Tesla couldn't deal with that thought. And I'm not surprised at all; I've seen it many times before, in other people. They want to take for granted that their secularism is "impartial," or "fair" or "objective" as a way to view certain things, and they are not at all prepared to consider the possibility that there is buried bias in their methods.

I pointed out the Schrodinger paradox, and how it applies to studying certain things. If you study light beams as if they were waves, they look like waves; if you study them as if they were particles, they look like particles. That's a common example of the investigator bias effect. Similarly, if you study "religion" without reference to truth, you study it as if it were all nonsense. Not surprisingly, it quickly starts to look like nothing but an odd kind of mere superstition, a mere failure-to-be-secular. And then it looks roughly the same -- just another kind of odd delusion -- potato, potahto. But the fault is in the "non-religious," "truth-denying" kind of study methodology. It makes everything look that way.

I had a thread introducing the collective opposing the individual. It was reduced to socializing.

Well, I don't remember that, but perhaps we have to introduce a fifth type, then: the "just-here-to-socialize arguer," who maybe derails topics and takes them into socializing. Is that fair?

[henry quirk]

...he'd be packin' heat.

[Nick_A]

IC

It's very easy. I sincerely believe what I'm saying. How can I speak from another position? I'd be telling lies, and that's surely not "sincere."

That is precisely the trouble. There is nothing wrong in defending your position but it is wrong not to recognize the alternatives. The title of the topic in question is “Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously). The atheist and the believer in a personal God restrict themselves to these two choices. As they debate this duality in a forum they crush the third alternative of the impersonal God: the source of creation outside of time and space Plotinus defined as the ONE and Plato referred to as the GOOD.

Indeed he did. And I picked him up at that very point. I stayed right on topic. I pointed out that allegedly "non-religious" religious education is not actually a neutral practice. It's assumptively Atheistic. Methodologically, it has to act as if "religions" are simply uninvolved with questions of truth, which no religions are.

That's how the discussion went sideways: Tesla couldn't deal with that thought. And I'm not surprised at all; I've seen it many times before, in other people. They want to take for granted that their secularism is "impartial," or "fair" or "objective" as a way to view certain things, and they are not at all prepared to consider the possibility that there is buried bias in their methods.

It went sideways because blind believers and blind deniers ignored the third option of the ONE which can be taught non religiously in education. The fact that neither progressive or religious education know how isn't the issue. The point is that it is possible.

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Jacob Needleman: What Is God?

Those like you who push their own beliefs while shutting down others explains why the alternatives are less and less in philosophy forums dominated by secularism. These superficial debates between the concept of a personal God and Atheism destroy the spiritual psychology of the second breath which should be celebrated in education

“To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.

I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God–that may or may not come later.

I say: to think about God.” ~Jacob Needleman in What Is God? p. 3

A person first experiences the second breath as a relationship with a personal God. Then they can begin to grow with the help of philosophy and the esoteric religious paths into contemplation of what is meant by the GOOD and the ONE and “feel” their reality. It should be natural for education but the struggle between blind believers and blind deniers assures that only a relative few will experience what the second breath makes possible. So you have won but the question is what you have won.

[Nick_A]

...he'd be packin' heat.

I don't think so. Twain's' humor would prove that the pen is mightier than the sword

[Dontaskme]

I find two types of participants in this forum. No, it's three. No, it's four. Okay, let's go with four.

1. The egocentric arguer -- the guy or girl who thinks the game is to show oneself to be "smart" in some way, or to "zing" other people with this or that insult or one-liner, and thus to reveal oneself (or one's pseudonym) as a "clever fellah." For this person, the ideas are less important than the posturing. Completing a thought is less important than "winning" the argument, which, to them, means just getting off the last snappy line.

2. The hallucinogenic arguer -- the person who thinks philosophy is all about floating the most hallucinogenic account of reality one possibly can, or the most esoteric ideology one can invent, and others are supposed to accept, approve and say, "what an enlightened one."

3. The don't-criticize-me arguer -- Also, there are similar folks who think that philosophies are not to be discussed or contested, just accepted and praised. The mere fact that they hold a particular opinion, that it's theirs, makes it sacred and above critique, and anyone who then criticizes is just being mean.

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

I think if we could all be type 4, this would be a great forum. But some participants are always types 1-3, an all of us sometimes make a mistake and slide toward type 1-3, because that's human nature. But if we kept the focus on type 4 exchanges, we'd all be better off.

1-4 arguments are all perfect expressions of oneness.

Oneness has no argument with itself, except to make one in this CON-ception.

Can't deny some arguments in favor of your own argument. For all expressions are the free flowingness of oneness, aka no one.

Stop TRYING to be a smarty pants by making this personal, this is not just about NUMBER 4 - it's about every 1 and no 1 aka the zero point. .

.

[Dontaskme]

the pen is mightier than the sword

The sword kills whereas the penis just brings the dead back to life. So yeah, life is mightier than death.

You have never known death.

[Immanuel Can]

1-4 arguments are all perfect expressions of oneness.

All I can say to this comment is, ?????????????

[henry quirk]

...he'd be packin' heat.

I don't think so. Twain's' humor would prove that the pen is mightier than the sword

Humor is great, but doesn't mean a whole helluva lot when some nimrod is lookin' to beat your ass for usin' 'n-i-g-g-e-r' in your novel.

The pen is mighty, but, in a knife fight, it makes for a poor weapon.

Keep in mind: the opposition may be literate, but they aren't reasonable (and most of 'em lost their sense of humor a long time back).

No, Twain would carry.

[Immanuel Can]

No, Twain would carry.

Where I live, Twain's been banned from schools; he can't be taught anymore. Not only that, but "To Kill A Mockingbird," the play, has been made off limits for field trips from public schools. (Lee's book can still be taught, though that, too is under debate right now.) For both, the reason is the same: that problematic "n" word appears.

Essentially, two of the most anti-racist novels in the American canon are banned for admitting that racism ever existed and that word was ever used.