Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:07 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:27 pm What would we be without revolutionary impulses?
Respectfully, I say that this is a vain and somewhat empty line of (rhetorical) questioning. When I referred to revolutionary activities I set them within a context: the undermining of established hierarchies; the invalidation of authority by impetuous youth; and destructive trends set in motion which in a host of areas many people agree resulted in questionable and negative consequences. I've referred to specific sources, named specific people and philosophers as well as their works.

The following seems to me an example of your theoretical presentation:
"Maybe the material was pushed aside for good reasons, such as: its convoluted claims and dogma are toxic. We can gain value from all sorts of things in all sorts of areas. It would not make sense that value can only be found and represented and expressed in a certain way, or within certain boundaries. Why would the Universe be as small as that? Why would man try to shrink it down to that?"
Your argumentation takes the same general form. It is true that you could say basically the same thing about any specific structure.

I hope that you will be able to understand that I cannot take your line of argument seriously. What are you up to? It is not clear to me. (And I wonder if you are really clear about what you are really after).
Besides your words "alexis jacobi" revealing just how deceptive you try to be, ALL "established hierarchies" and "authorities" will always 'try to' defend "themselves", from those, usually younger, POINTING OUT the FAULTS and FLAWS within those "hierarchies" and "authorities".

But, then there also those, usually older, who will 'try to' make out that there are "faults" and "flaws" of those who are just SHOWING and EXPOSING the FAULTS and FLAWS within "hierarchies" and "authorities", like 'religions'.

What is ALL VERY CLEAR is that there is absolutely NOTHING Wrong AT ALL with just 'revolutionizing' those completely out-dated and ABSURD FAULTY and FLAWED MISINTERPRETATIONS, which "lacewing" is just referring to, that lay just about everywhere in 'things' like the bible and "christianity" teachings.

Now, if you would like to "once more" refer to those specific sources, name those specific people and philosophers as well as their works, again, then I will show you the FAULTS and FLAWS in your comments and/or in those "established hierarchies" and "authority", and then I will SHOW WHY 'revolutionary activities' to undermine those "established hierarchies" and to invalidate that "authority" is ACTUALLY NEEDED, and is a VERY POSITIVE 'thing'.

That is; if you are at all able to take up this CHALLENGE?

If you are NOT, then you will NOT reply.

So, we will have to wait and see.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15178
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:01 am
I'm trying to help you. But if you don't want to be helped, you won't be.
You are trying to HELP ME in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Go back and read my message with the five points. That will lay out exactly what you need to know. At least, at the start.
And, have you EVER considered that 'what' you are trying to help me for is NOT what I WANT NOR DESIRE?
It's what you need. It's what a compassionate person would do for somebody who keeps messing up, making everybody not talk to him, and doesn't know how to fix it.

But if you don't want to know it, I can't make you.

Have a nice day, I guess.
Dubious
Posts: 3105
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmOne way to approach this question, which seems an important one for you, is to examine those things, or those areas, where the *truth* of something is not and cannot be in any doubt. You could list thousands of them and you would question the perception, and perhaps the motive, of someone who argued against your truth-facts.
Not as significant to me as you imagine. I usually state things in terms of probability, which is the reason I use the word so much. But there is a difference between what is true and truth per se, which is not unlike the difference between sea & land. Also, I never stated any "truth-facts". Though there may be very few, it's not in my nature or philosophy to state anything in those terms. Nevertheless, if something is a fact, it should be stated as such.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmI was thinking about the issue of truth, of what is true, when I thought of the message in Macbeth and again in Othello. I assume you have read both. We know, beyond doubt, that the play of Macbeth is invented through-and-through and we might measure someone's ability to grasp what is true from what is false to the degree that they, too, agreed with us.
Except for some minor plays, I read all of Shakespeare. I also read Milton. Regarding Macbeth, it's not true that it was invented "through-and-through". The real story was distorted "through-and-through", in Shakespeare's play having almost nothing in common except a few names. The history plays suffer the same calamity regarding facts; Richard III is a very egregious example of that. Grasping what is true in most cases amounts to nothing more than an acknowledgement of one's opinion
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmYet it is I would say *undeniable* that the meanings so pertinent to truth and which express truth, weave in and out of what is represented in the play. So then how do we talk about those *truths*? What happened to this man Macbeth? Why does it make so much sense to us how he was destroyed -- led to destruction and then involved directly in choices that resulted in destruction?
The causes of that are already contained in the play, none of it unusual. What and how it happened is not exactly a mystery!
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmOr what about the issue of what is true and what is a lie when one considers Othello's falling into the lie-traps that Iago set for him? That is, Iago's consciously-concocted lies with which he infected the mind and spirit of Othello? What would have been the *antidote* to the poisons that Iago injected into Othello's mind? More lies? Or truth?
The antidote would have been Othello's own mind had he not succumbed to "the green-eyed monster" and his own hubris. It would be normal to have held Iago in suspicion as being resentful after preferring Casio as lieutenant instead. Infected with a surfeit of hubris and jealousy, the lies would have been, and were, more potent than any truth attempting to annul his diseased suspicions. There's nothing mysterious about it. Shakespeare main tragedies are depictions of main human flaws that eventually destroy its host...with the usual collateral damage.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmSo can you really say that in considering these matters that the interpretations that are made are merely inventions laid over 'reality'?
I never once stated nor could I imagine interpretations as being inventions. Where have I implied it? Based on the mental alchemy of the individual, experiences, to be effective, are automatically interpreted as received. They certainly are not inventions, neither, therefore, are its interpretations.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmThe closer someone -- Shakespeare in this case -- pins down a Truth and perhaps I can say understands the difference between truth and falsity, as well as the consequence of a lie, the more likely it is that the truth revealed, if it is revealed, will seem constant, even eternal, and in this sense as a Truth of the sort we are referring to.
Well, when it comes down to Truth with a capital T, the consistency of that remains relative to the individual or on a grander scale, the society in which they live. Truth, as mentioned, is a label, a seal of veracity, of what's inside the envelope.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re asking for regarding an “active or propositional” side!
It is not so hard to grasp. I make the suggestion that what you are saying, what you are trying to present, must have an *active* side or aspect. What are you attempting when you make the declarations you do? What result do you desire? I would ask this of Lacewing as well.
...the same as anyone who philosophizes. To forge a conception, a perspective...or to use the most comprehensive term, a Weltanschauung as a reflection of the world at large however different they may be from individual to individual...and especially those differences between its Eastern and Western versions. One can therefore ask you the same question. What are your declarations on the subject!
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pmIn your case, and I cannot be sure why this seems so, I think the core of what you wish to present remains shadowed or obscured. It occurs to me that you may not even be al that clear about what your *intentions* are. Yet you are active in your assertions and I do not think it could be fairly said that your activity has no desired result. What do you have in mind? What am I to take away from your assertions? What are you up to?
I think it reveals something that you say "I have no idea" what I am asking you. Is the question a bad one? Does your answer mean you are asleep in some sense? Unaware of the *active* aspect you your own propositions? What do you think?
If you're asking for some academic certainty, forget it! It doesn't exist. If you're a theist, certainty, purpose, meaning, etc. are mostly provided for and pre-affirmed. The existential world in which we now live doesn't provide any of these historical securities. In the more alien world we now inhabit, propositions are merely glow-worms that flicker on and off. We face all kinds of "propositions" but none, or hardly any, are fixed in their place to establish a new order...whatever that will be.

Note these very simple few words from Yeats; I'm certain you'll get the meaning of the metaphor....

Now that my ladder's gone,
I must lie down where all ladders start,
In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.


----> Do you want to continue or should we end it?
Dubious
Posts: 3105
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:12 pm
Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?

...is very much an organic expression of life’s usual dynamic. Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Wait, this brings into question why it is that either of you, and you in this case, even bother to engage. *You* are not 'Nature'. And you are, right now, performing and enacting a Truth Waltz when you make decided declarations; when you question some assertion about what is true (and what must necessarily be false).

When you bring up "life’s usual dynamic" you do not seem to be talking about yourself!

So what are you talking about?

How would you be able to broach the topic of 'the possible' if it did not also involve your own grasp of what is true? Do you propose that you are some sort of kaleidoscope? That everything you look at is made to appear 'an infinity of patterns'? It is an odd assertion and it seems that (if this were so) you contradict yourself.
Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Oh yeah? 😂
I don't understand ANY of your references in context with what I wrote. It seems too disjointed. Frankly, I'm at a loss here. Confusion being opposite to stimulation, I take my leave.
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:27 pm Clarity is finding out and carefully editing the most useful questions to ask.

Seeing more broadly involves learning arts and sciences including social sciences and history. Some people disapprove of the more spread out approach to ideas and prefer to focus on a narrow area of interest.
What you say sounds *fair enough*. Yet it occurs to me that we can and perhaps we should consider what could be a subtext here, and I think is more than a subtext when it comes to the sort of declarative, essentially metaphysical stance, that IC (and Christianity generally) takes.

I know that this will amount to inciting more contention, but it has to be talked-through.

I mentioned Macbeth because the tragic figure of Macbeth -- an emblem of Man I take it --
But how 'you' take 'it' does not matter, (nor how you take ANY thing for that matter is of any actual real importance here), what really mattesr is what was the ACTUAL intent or meaning behind what was being written.

So, what was the ACTUAL 'intended' 'figure of "macbeth"?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm the undermining of established hierarchies; the invalidation of authority the undermining of established hierarchies; the invalidation of authority though he might have sought clarity (I bend Lacewing's assertion to a degree to fit my example) he deluded himself. He was tricked. He was set-up. Therefore, he lacked what we can all likely agree was an essential element in his seeing and his discernment.

He made bad choices. And in his case they were tragic and consequential choices.
So what? It was just a made-up fictional story anyway, correct?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm So now let us turn to the process of gaining clarity. What if we do not have enough information to make the *proper choice*?
Then you just do what you always intend to do, and that is just make the 'best' choice you can, under the circumstances.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm What if that 'leaping spark' (Plato's metaphor) does not ignite enough?

Seeing I would suggest also involves other elements of the psyche. I am unsure how to define them. I am also unsure how to cultivate them.

In Christianity -- traditional Christianity -- there is an imperative expressed. One could suggest here that if 'clarity' is sought that it might not be found though one has those declared intentions -- if some obstructive factor intervenes or interposes itself.

We all know -- acutely -- the cost of self-deception because we have all, in one situation or another, tricked ourselves and suffered the consequences.
Yes we can SEE a great example here of this here with the "christians" tricking and fooling themselves.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm The essence of the Christian message, also a metaphysics, is that there is something that actively seeks to trick us -- the agent of trickery.
And, who AND what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY KNOWN.

It is 'you', the 'thoughts' and 'feelings', within that body.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm It would be interesting to discuss Iago in this capacity, and the larger metaphor of Othello.
WHY?
Age
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am
Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:01 am
I'm trying to help you. But if you don't want to be helped, you won't be.
You are trying to HELP ME in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Go back and read my message with the five points. That will lay out exactly what you need to know. At least, at the start.
I KNOW what you want to help me with. I WROTE it ALREADY. If you had READ MY WORDS you would KNOW this ALREADY.

I just wanted you to SHOW us that you would NOT be Honest here.

See, 'what' you want to "help" me with is NOT what I want but what YOU WANT. Which are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

And, in case you are STILL UNAWARE I am trying to help you. But because you will NOT be Honest, then NO one can help you, INCLUDING YOU.

So, until you REALLY want to HELP "yourself", then you will NOT be able to CHANGE from WHERE you are now.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am
And, have you EVER considered that 'what' you are trying to help me for is NOT what I WANT NOR DESIRE?
It's what you need.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Your CONDESCENDING MANNER speaks VERY LOUD and VERY CLEAR here.

Seriously, 'you' NEED HELP, LOTS OF IT, and VERY QUICKLY, "immanuel can".

Oh, and by the way, when you LEARN and UNDERSTAND FULLY the ACTUAL 'needs' in Life, then you WILL be ABLE TO SEE just how RIDICULOUS and ABSURD your CLAIM is here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am It's what a compassionate person would do for somebody who keeps messing up, making everybody not talk to him, and doesn't know how to fix it.
When will you EVER GET IT.

I do NOT WANT, do NOT NEED, and do NOT SEEK, for ANY one 'you', posters, to talk to me here. So, there is, LITERALLY, NOTHING AT ALL to "fix" here.

In fact, the LESS RESPONSE I GET, the MORE THIS ACTUALLY SAYS, sometimes.

Also, a lot of the time I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING the FAULTS and FLAWS in what 'you', adult human beings, MAKE and SAY here. So, NO response is sought NOR needed, AT ALL.

And, if I "mess up" in the ACTUAL WORDS I use, then I suggest you just concentrate on that "mess" and HIGHLIGHT THOSE WORDS only, instead of LOOKING AT the "person" and trying to ASSUME that I am WANTING some thing here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am But if you don't want to know it, I can't make you.

Have a nice day, I guess.
And if you do NOT want to KNOW WHERE you are Truly messing up, then I can NOT make you, ALSO.
Belinda
Posts: 6407
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:12 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:27 pm Clarity is finding out and carefully editing the most useful questions to ask.

Seeing more broadly involves learning arts and sciences including social sciences and history. Some people disapprove of the more spread out approach to ideas and prefer to focus on a narrow area of interest.
What you say sounds *fair enough*. Yet it occurs to me that we can and perhaps we should consider what could be a subtext here, and I think is more than a subtext when it comes to the sort of declarative, essentially metaphysical stance, that IC (and Christianity generally) takes.

I know that this will amount to inciting more contention, but it has to be talked-through.

I mentioned Macbeth because the tragic figure of Macbeth -- an emblem of Man I take it -- though he might have sought clarity (I bend Lacewing's assertion to a degree to fit my example) he deluded himself. He was tricked. He was set-up. Therefore, he lacked what we can all likely agree was an essential element in his seeing and his discernment.

He made bad choices. And in his case they were tragic and consequential choices.

So now let us turn to the process of gaining clarity. What if we do not have enough information to make the *proper choice*? What if that 'leaping spark' (Plato's metaphor) does not ignite enough?

Seeing I would suggest also involves other elements of the psyche. I am unsure how to define them. I am also unsure how to cultivate them.

In Christianity -- traditional Christianity -- there is an imperative expressed. One could suggest here that if 'clarity' is sought that it might not be found though one has those declared intentions -- if some obstructive factor intervenes or interposes itself.

We all know -- acutely -- the cost of self-deception because we have all, in one situation or another, tricked ourselves and suffered the consequences.

The essence of the Christian message, also a metaphysics, is that there is something that actively seeks to trick us -- the agent of trickery.

It would be interesting to discuss Iago in this capacity, and the larger metaphor of Othello.
Insight into our own motives is a subset of reasoning. Macbeth tried to reason but his obsession with his particular ambition overlept his reasoning. Macbeth basically was unbalanced. Unbalance is the cause of all tragedies. Unbalance is , ontologically, how life changes. Without unbalance we would all still inhabit Eden. Poor us!

Jesus shows how balance may be at least partially restored in this life.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:50 am Except for some minor plays, I read all of Shakespeare. I also read Milton. Regarding Macbeth, it's not true that it was invented "through-and-through". The real story was distorted "through-and-through", in Shakespeare's play having almost nothing in common except a few names. The history plays suffer the same calamity regarding facts; Richard III is a very egregious example of that. Grasping what is true in most cases amounts to nothing more than an acknowledgement of one's opinion.
Macbeth
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?

Doctor
Therein the patient
Must minister to himself.
In your comment you missed my point, though perhaps I did not express it directly enough. When I said 'invented through and through' I did not mean that there was not some existent story that Shakespeare drew on, I meant that the entire play is an invented, fictional creation.

The lines that I quoted here seem to express the core meaning of the play. And I find it interesting that though you have read the play, your comment about it gave no indication that you had got a sense of its meaning.

And this is what most interests me about the on-going conversation here: the gulf, or is it a chasm? that exists between some of us here. It should be obvious that the essence of the message in the play corresponds to the essential Christian message which need not be stated (or must it?) But you and some others, when examining the same representation, do not see the same thing.

The reason this interests me is because -- and this is my theory -- that when an entire culture falls away from the intellectual capacity to *see* the older metaphysical truths, and when these have been supplanted by other, I suppose materialistic, relativistic views, views that become so powerful they overshadow the old meaning, that these old meanings cannot any longer be perceived and understood.

And I would not refrain again from bringing up the question of Truth with a capital 't'. And the reason is because a) when I examine those words given to Macbeth I recognize statements about fundamentally true things. Things that were true then and things that are still true now. These are fundamental and enduring truths that transcend mutable circumstance. If this is so, I would assert, what is being spoken of are metaphysical truths.

But what are these? Where do they reside? Are they part of *the world* in the sense of Nature? I do not think so. No, they arise in an invisible yet determining territory that is outside of time & space, outside of the manifest world. They *enter* the world though and they have their effect.

The entire idea then is the *incarnation of meaning*.
If you're asking for some academic certainty, forget it! It doesn't exist. If you're a theist, certainty, purpose, meaning, etc. are mostly provided for and pre-affirmed. The existential world in which we now live doesn't provide any of these historical securities. In the more alien world we now inhabit, propositions are merely glow-worms that flicker on and off. We face all kinds of "propositions" but none, or hardly any, are fixed in their place to establish a new order...whatever that will be.
You have a unique capability of explaining things away.

Again I simply focus on the *internal content* and the activist message in what you say: "Propositions are merely glow-worms that flicker on and off".

While I do grasp that you are stating something true about *our general situation* it is just as true that you are stating something about your own situation.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Othello:

"One whose hand
Like the base Judean threw a pearl away
Richer than all his tribe."
______________________________
_____________
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:50 am The antidote would have been Othello's own mind had he not succumbed to "the green-eyed monster" and his own hubris. It would be normal to have held Iago in suspicion as being resentful after preferring Casio as lieutenant instead. Infected with a surfeit of hubris and jealousy, the lies would have been, and were, more potent than any truth attempting to annul his diseased suspicions. There's nothing mysterious about it. Shakespeare main tragedies are depictions of main human flaws that eventually destroy its host...with the usual collateral damage.
There is another, a deeper, way to see the play of Othello. It has to do with the notion of 'sacred marriage'. You know, Christ as the bridegroom and the body of the Church as the bride.
"Then came the beguiler, the hellish fiend, full of envy, in the shape of a subtle serpent. And the fiend seduced the bride of God with false councel; and she was driven into a strange country, poor and miserable and captive and oppressed, and beset by her enemies: so that it seemed as though she might never attain reconciliation and return again to her native land." (Jan van Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage).
The way you seem to look at the play seems to me to, literally, result in non-seeing.

But in so many ways this is what occurs in this thread and in this entire discussion! It is a far larger issue though. It is the larger issue that interests me.

Finally, you ask:
----> Do you want to continue or should we end it?
End what?
uwot
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmThe lines that I quoted here seem to express the core meaning of the play. And I find it interesting that though you have read the play, your comment about it gave no indication that you had got a sense of its meaning.
Gus you wally, you have leapt from words that "seem to express the core meaning of the play" to " its meaning". That in a nutshell is the error that armchair philosophers such as you and Mr Can make with the same incontinence as real fruitloops like Age and Veritas Aequitas. That you should blunder into such an error is all the more ironic given that you have previously highlighted a warning against it:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:55 pmBut the result of the ascendency of philosophy was,
that in the fourth and fifth centuries the majority of churches
insisted not only upon a unity of belief in the fundamental facts of
Christianity, but also upon a uniformity of speculations in
regard to those facts.
The premises of those speculations
were assumed; the conclusions logically followed: the
propositions which were contrary or contradictory to
them were measured, not by the greater or less probability
of the premises, but by the logical certainty of the conclusions;
and symmetry became a test of truth.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmAnd this is what most interests me about the on-going conversation here: the gulf, or is it a chasm? that exists between some of us here. It should be obvious that the essence of the message in the play corresponds to the essential Christian message which need not be stated (or must it?) But you and some others, when examining the same representation, do not see the same thing.
Well, different people can look at the same representation of Jesus nailed to a cross. Some will rejoice at the torture and murder that has allegedly erased any personal consequence for whatever sins they might have committed. Others will wonder at the turpitude of people who will gleefully heap their responsibility on to an innocent third party.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmThe reason this interests me is because -- and this is my theory -- that when an entire culture falls away from the intellectual capacity to *see* the older metaphysical truths, and when these have been supplanted by other, I suppose materialistic, relativistic views, views that become so powerful they overshadow the old meaning, that these old meanings cannot any longer be perceived and understood.
You could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13380
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:43 am
another basilisk hack: my brain is bleedin' from it
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

uwot wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pmYou could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.
Except that it is my experience, not as you say that those who oppose some of the *truths* I attempt to highlight are thinking less, but often through a rejection of that or those truths for other reasons. The interesting question, in my case, is in trying to define fairly why this is.

I fully admit that there are some highly intelligent people who succeed in cobbling together their reasonings (of the sort that may be employed to undermine or discredit the sense of meaning I refer to) and do influence others. In this we can refer to influential elites and intellectual leaders. I fully admit that these people exist and I fully acknowledge their influential power.

What I am interested in is discerning my way through their assertions, their declarations. I think that it is fair to say, my dear Willy, that you make clear what your relationship is to this entire issue of metaphysics -- you are totally contemptuous of those who hold to these understandings. All that you say drips with your scathing contempt. Now, what I say is that you, in the sense of your mood, the activism in your proposals, can be and should be examined. You are a clever person and no one could say differently, but you also show signs of being something of a dolt (if you will permit this term) -- in relation to the subtle meanings that I focus on.

The connection I am making, let us say, between Iago and Othello and what I perceive of your discourse in relation to those you influence, should not be hidden or concealed. I do not attempt to hide it but I do try to be somewhat subtle! This is the area that interests me -- intellectually, personally, but also philosophically and culturally.

And this is taking place within this long on-going thread which in its essence deals with these core questions. Different people reveal their connection to the issues here in very different ways. Questions of 'degrees'.

What you quoted back to me is not something I wrote, it is something I am considering. And all things can be considered as part of this puzzle.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15178
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:41 am
Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:01 am You are trying to HELP ME in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Go back and read my message with the five points. That will lay out exactly what you need to know. At least, at the start.
I KNOW what you want to help me with.
Well, then...if you have any self-awareness, you'll fix it. And if you don't, you won't.

Either way, I've told you what you need to know. Whether or not you decide to know it is up to you.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm what I am able to understand of what you are trying to establish and where you'd like to receive affirmation (as I assume you seek?)
Suggesting and describing how/why there is more than what you are talking about or considering is simply a suggestion for further consideration. You seem to need/want that to be defined or established in a certain way. It's a little bit like (for example), as if you were intently and singularly focusing on the ground as someone suggested noticing the sky -- they have different characteristics and ways of being described and understood. You may have no interest or use for anything other than your methodology and what you've been focusing on and 'establishing'. You may indicate that you want to explore the truth of it further, but that's only within your established parameters. Mr. Can does not step/explore beyond his established parameters either.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm So a) if stories that you can refer to are made up then b) they must all be made up.
That's not my reasoning at all. I simply see the vast potential that is available to all and each of us, and we choose what to make of it... as is evidenced by the endless diversity and perspectives throughout humankind's history and by people, themselves. One man's claim that he is somehow uniquely aligned with some kind of greater truth is his limited story that will die with him. There can be as many of these stories as there are people or perspectives. What does that tell us?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm I would have to suppose that you can refer to nothing certain about *this life*, about your existence in it, and for you (again based on what you write and the function of what you write, if it can be condensed out) there is only stories that are made up.
I am certain of there always being greater potential than specific limited notions or rules we might believe in. :) I am certain that there are many paths from every position. I am certain that we are very creative. I am certain of the ability to experience unconditional love. Is that enough?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm But you also always say "there must be more". That the definitions that people, some people, do work with, seem to you *limiting* and you desire to expand the parameters -- but you never offer them you just refer, rather abstractly, to them.
The point/suggestion I try to make is to not get stuck, lost, blinded, or rigid by certain views. It is ineffective and untrue to 'pick a side' or be extreme. Without the balance and truth that comes from acknowledging and considering that there is more that's possible and/or valid than one's favored position, then there is more story than truth.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pmit seems to me you are in a prolonged battle against specific people, people out of your part and your context who constrained you. All of this is intelligible to me.
So, you think that because I see/consider beyond singular positions, I am being rebellious? :lol: How can you NOT see beyond singular positions -- are you in a prolonged battle with your past?
Dontaskme
Posts: 12708
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:03 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:43 am
another basilisk hack: my brain is bleedin' from it
Free yourself from bleeding then, your a free being remember.
Post Reply