Infanticide

[Dubious]

Plato wrote that Man is a being in search of Meaning

Dubious apparently believes that Man’s search for meaning is “a total abstraction with NO application!”

Not so! Man's search for meaning has nothing to do with the vapid inconsequential abstractions you so obsessively espouse. Humans can only imagine what Eternal Values are because in the universe there is no such thing, only the paradigms by which it operates. Values of ANY KIND don't mean a thing to it.

Eternal values are imagined, dreamt and speculated upon by ephemeral beings creating images of eternity in negation of their transience; in that sense it has meaning to the individual as incorporated and defined in Culture...which ONLY humans create.

So if there are no eternal values it means we create our own values.

Absolutely! You know anyone who creates eternal values? If so let the world know about it!

What is wrong with a woman who has created her own value that some people especially babies lack value? How can you say she is wrong? She created her own reality that her baby lacks value so she killed it. Why not? What if anything is wrong with her reasoning?

Nothing! As far as nature is concerned and the powers that be in the universe, of no concern whatsoever...no right, no wrong! Even culturally as practiced and backed by the super intelligent Greeks, progenitors of Western Civilization in art, science and philosophy, had no problems with it either as defended by Plato in The Republic to keep it healthy and in balance. To further accomplish that, the newborn of slaves were almost invariably left to die lest their numbers becomes too great.

How bloody ignorant does one have to be not to notice the blind stupidity in your constantly repeated demented mantras! You present yourself capable of nothing else presenting the same shit over & over again with no connection to arguments presented.

How ironic that it's modern secular intolerance which finds such practice "especially" reprehensible! Instead it allows any newborn with DNS or deformed in some way, not only to live but help it survive, at its expense, in case nature had "other" plans; and amazingly it's done without any reference to "eternal values". The Greeks would immediately have put it in a jar and left it to die as justified by their philosophy for the good of their society.

[Dontaskme]

It's an odd thing about Christians I meet online - they do not believe in love. They speak as though they don't believe that love can possibly exist, whereas it's the most powerful drive we have. Education, like all tools, can be useful or harmful. Your complaints about it are ridiculous. Would you rather that the whole world of humans remain ignorant and superstitious?

So education may increase that love through greater understanding or diminish love through objectification - the former if we see another as family, friend or peer, and the latter if they are seen as competition or food.

Love implies two...two love is arbitrary love.

It's not the will of free unclaimed love which is the only real one love there is.

Claimed love is doomed for failure.

No one has love, no one can love another, no one can love you, no one needs love, or has to cultivate love....there is only love.
Claimed love is insecure love, it may feel it lacks love when it doesn't feel loved. It SEEKS FOR LOVE OUTSIDE ITSELF.

IT never realises IT IS LOVE...and that there is only LOVE

If you can claim love then you will live in fear of losing love, you create love in the claiming of it...REAL LOVE is unclaimed. It's uncreated, it cannot be lost nor can it ever lack itself. IT IS ALWAYS.

.

Claimed love is separation, and separation is someone doing something because they love doing it...it's A freewill to do what ever you so desire including murdering your own innocent children...you may have thought that killing the children was a good idea, that they would be better off dead anyway, that is just one of many forms of claimed love...everything you do is because you love doing it, else you would not do it.

All doing is done in the freewill of the immediate moment...no one has a time machine to undo what is only ever done spontaneously in the moment.

But claimed love is doomed love...this love is not real love. Real love is allowing the will of nature herself to make any decision especially when it comes to our health and the taking of life.... only nature decides when it's time to die, not you, so surrendering to that will is the only real love, not enforcing your own...although you are granted that will to choose in the first place because nature is not a psychopathic tyrannical dictator, that holds you prisoner...it does not hold a gun to your head expecting you to obey it's eternal laws and values,..neither does it take away your freedom to be, or do, or expect you to be some kind of robotic servant that serves you..rather you are the one that serves the universal law maker.....aka nature...aka God.

Even cancer has a right to live and grow on you, everything wants to live and survive...it's the will of nature, and only that will is real love. All allowing unclaimed unconditional love...that keeps on giving and giving and never expecting anything in return..for ever and ever and ever...

Every human experience is unconditional love expressing itself, as that experience, just for that particular experience, and there are as many experiences of love loving itself as there are grains of sand...and there is nothing wrong with any of them...it's how consciousness evolves from it's lower self to it's higher self, through every conceivable experience possible, what ever it takes to become wholesome and unconditional love...which is free in every single moment, and every single moment is not time bound or restricted, it's infinity experienced now as this experience.

.

[Dontaskme]

In short, a total abstraction with NO application!

You ARE the application, applying itself.

Any thought about that is the abstraction.

So yes, very short and sweet, job done.

.

[Dubious]

In short, a total abstraction with NO application!

You ARE the application, applying itself.

That's great news! Next time I make a triple decker sandwich I'll start applying myself between the layers.

You can never get too much of a good thing!

[Nick_A]

Dubious

How bloody ignorant does one have to be not to notice the blind stupidity in your constantly repeated demented mantras! You present yourself capable of nothing else presenting the same shit over & over again with no connection to arguments presented.

How ironic that it's modern secular intolerance which finds such practice "especially" reprehensible! Instead it allows any newborn with DNS or deformed in some way, not only to live but help it survive, at its expense, in case nature had "other" plans; and amazingly it's done without any reference to "eternal values". The Greeks would immediately have put it in a jar and left it to die as justified by their philosophy for the good of their society.

I have to repeat myself because you refuse to answer the question: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE THE CORRECT JUDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG? Secular society has taught us that we all have our own truths and create our own reality. Follow your bliss. Only the laws of the state can define right and wrong. Who are you to find some practices reprehensible? How can you openly express such elitism?

[Science Fan]

Nick A: You wrote, "Secular society has taught us that we all have our own truths and create our own reality," which is false. In fact, for years, before the rise of secularism, we had to experience various "truths" from various theological dictatorships. In contrast, the main thrust of secularism was to get rid of the idea that someone has to cave into a claim from a theist, simply because they say so. In contrast, secularism looks towards evidence to support claims. It's not difficult at all to figure out moral issues. We don't have to waste our time asking what an alleged God thinks is moral. Nor do we have to sit and puzzle out the wide variety of philosophical theories that people have come up with. We can accept the simple fact that morality is about getting along with others, and we can look empirically to see what works and what doesn't. This may not give us a final answer, but it is far less problematic than many people want to admit, as if keeping moral issues obscure is a good thing. It's not. It certainly wasn't when theists claimed only religious scholars could tell us what God wanted, and it is no different with any other set of moral gurus who want to cram down our throats some abstraction that is to guide us. Just look at what actually works in getting along well with others, and do that.

[seeds]

The point is that you need to consider the idea that even God requires a “mechanistic process” to achieve the manifestation of her own offspring.

And that process begins right here on earth as is depicted in the image below...

Seeds, the mystics are saying the same thing, Nick is just pointing out ..that there does appear to be a prior ''fallen condition'' aka the''animal self'' that we have inherited from our ancestors the apes which still appears to be prevalent in society today...

...I'm sure Nick will correct me if I'm wrong in what I've just said.

If you can just move past the smoke and mirrors of inspirational quotes and appeals to authority...

...then according to Nick’s own personal theory, unless you yourself, Dam, reach some sort of “cosmic man” status (ask him to explain to you what that means), then he considers you as being nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of one of the billions of acorns that failed to germinate and ended up as food or earthly compost.

Furthermore, Nick regularly complains about how secularism is leading our children astray, and that they need to be taught subjects that encourage “vertical” thinking (although when pressed, he never suggests what those subjects might be).

Yet when you look for the “proof in the pudding,” so to speak, as to what affect all of his own “vertical thinking” has had on his own worldview (in the realm of politics, for example)...

...he is alleged to be a supporter of one of the most pathological liars to have ever emerged on the world scene – someone whose lifestyle and state of mind represent the very antithesis of vertical thinking.

Now far be it from me to suggest that one cannot support (trust/believe in) whomever they wish. Nevertheless, why do you think Greta keeps bringing that particular point up so often?

It’s because it represents an enormous red flag that speaks volumes against the idea that the same type of vertical thinking that has led Nick to believe that “he who must not be named” should be trusted with nuclear codes...

...is the same type of vertical thinking that, according to Nick, should be forced upon our children via early and formalized education.

Now I truly hope that my criticisms of Nick’s “theory” are not interpreted as being a personal attack on Nick himself, because, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that Nick has a good heart and noble intentions.

However, Dam, when someone presents themself as having a lofty spiritual perspective on reality, is it not fair and prudent to take a deeper look into what that person actually believes as a result of that perspective?
_______

[Nick_A]

Nick A: You wrote, "Secular society has taught us that we all have our own truths and create our own reality," which is false. In fact, for years, before the rise of secularism, we had to experience various "truths" from various theological dictatorships. In contrast, the main thrust of secularism was to get rid of the idea that someone has to cave into a claim from a theist, simply because they say so. In contrast, secularism looks towards evidence to support claims. It's not difficult at all to figure out moral issues. We don't have to waste our time asking what an alleged God thinks is moral. Nor do we have to sit and puzzle out the wide variety of philosophical theories that people have come up with. We can accept the simple fact that morality is about getting along with others, and we can look empirically to see what works and what doesn't. This may not give us a final answer, but it is far less problematic than many people want to admit, as if keeping moral issues obscure is a good thing. It's not. It certainly wasn't when theists claimed only religious scholars could tell us what God wanted, and it is no different with any other set of moral gurus who want to cram down our throats some abstraction that is to guide us. Just look at what actually works in getting along well with others, and do that.

The mistake you are making IMO is your belief that society left to its own devices is made up of people who want to get along. IMO this is just wishful thinking. The driving force of society is the need for prestige. Getting along is secondary to to the desire to feel superior. That is why a large secular society cannot last. Conflicting needs for prestige will consume any of the good it is capable of.

[Nick_A]

Seeds

However, Dam, when someone presents themself as having a lofty spiritual perspective on reality, is it not fair and prudent to take a deeper look into what that person actually believes as a result of that perspective?

Of course you should. I’m a chess player. I appreciate the logical sequence of ideas so naturally I’m drawn to logical explanations of universal purpose and the purpose of man within it that can be inwardly verified. What is the sense of avoidance?

Furthermore, Nick regularly complains about how secularism is leading our children astray, and that they need to be taught subjects that encourage “vertical” thinking (although when pressed, he never suggests what those subjects might be).

Not subjects but techniques. The most basic technique is enabling conscious attention. But secularism will fight to the death to deny it since it prevents indoctrination and directed attention that furthers it. I know it is a lost cause for public education which is why I favor private educational institutions which know the human value of conscious attention and its potential to consciously connect above and below. I have never denied it. The idea of conscious attention as opposed to fantasy or directed attention is just too repulsive to be taken seriously by secularism.

Yet when you look for the “proof in the pudding,” so to speak, as to what affect all of his own “vertical thinking” has had on his own worldview (in the realm of politics, for example)...

Matthew 22

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Horizontal thinking which concerns you and those like Greta with a Trump obsession is concerned with what to give to Caesar. Vertical thinking which concerns me opens to what to give to God. Don’t confuse the two

Now far be it from me to suggest that one cannot support (trust/believe in) whomever they wish. Nevertheless, why do you think Greta keeps bringing that particular point up so often?

It is a political obsession. It is damaging psychologically which is one reason why Simone questioned political parties.

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

A secularist needs a scapegoat to explain why things go wrong, For Greta it is Trump. I’m simply not attracted to a thoughtless obsession.

[Greta]

Not subjects but techniques. The most basic technique is enabling conscious attention. But secularism will fight to the death to deny it since it prevents indoctrination and directed attention that furthers it.

Nick, if you used "conscious attention" to a superior degree you would not be a Fox consuming, Trump admiring irritant.

Horizontal thinking which concerns you and those like Greta with a Trump obsession is concerned with what to give to Caesar. Vertical thinking which concerns me opens to what to give to God. Don’t confuse the two...

A secularist needs a scapegoat to explain why things go wrong, For Greta it is Trump. I’m simply not attracted to a thoughtless obsession.

Since you have been so obviously deeply stung and embarrassed by your uncritical support of The Don as he blunders from mess to mess, I thought I'd add another, as above.

Basically, you most admire in public life a man whose lying is legendary. This immediately disqualifies you in your claims to possessing the tools of "higher consciousness". Can't you see that? Mentioning your admiration for Trump simply exposes your double standards without having to waste too many words on you.

[Nick_A]

Not subjects but techniques. The most basic technique is enabling conscious attention. But secularism will fight to the death to deny it since it prevents indoctrination and directed attention that furthers it.

Nick, if you used "conscious attention" to a superior degree you would not be a Fox consuming, Trump admiring irritant.

Horizontal thinking which concerns you and those like Greta with a Trump obsession is concerned with what to give to Caesar. Vertical thinking which concerns me opens to what to give to God. Don’t confuse the two...

A secularist needs a scapegoat to explain why things go wrong, For Greta it is Trump. I’m simply not attracted to a thoughtless obsession.

Since you have been so obviously deeply stung and embarrassed by your uncritical support of The Don as he blunders from mess to mess, I thought I'd add another, as above.

Basically, you most admire in public life a man whose lying is legendary. This immediately disqualifies you in your claims to possessing the tools of "higher consciousness". Can't you see that? Mentioning your admiration for Trump simply exposes your double standards without having to waste too many words on you.

You must have had some sort of traumatic experience leading to this obsession with Donald Trump. Thank goodness I don't have such an obsession with Hillary Clinton. That would truly be cruel, unusual, and inhuman punishment

[Dontaskme]

The point is that you need to consider the idea that even God requires a “mechanistic process” to achieve the manifestation of her own offspring.

And that process begins right here on earth as is depicted in the image below...

Seeds, the mystics are saying the same thing, Nick is just pointing out ..that there does appear to be a prior ''fallen condition'' aka the''animal self'' that we have inherited from our ancestors the apes which still appears to be prevalent in society today...

...I'm sure Nick will correct me if I'm wrong in what I've just said.

If you can just move past the smoke and mirrors of inspirational quotes and appeals to authority...

...then according to Nick’s own personal theory, unless you yourself, Dam, reach some sort of “cosmic man” status (ask him to explain to you what that means), then he considers you as being nothing more than the metaphorical equivalent of one of the billions of acorns that failed to germinate and ended up as food or earthly compost.

Furthermore, Nick regularly complains about how secularism is leading our children astray, and that they need to be taught subjects that encourage “vertical” thinking (although when pressed, he never suggests what those subjects might be).

Yet when you look for the “proof in the pudding,” so to speak, as to what affect all of his own “vertical thinking” has had on his own worldview (in the realm of politics, for example)...

...he is alleged to be a supporter of one of the most pathological liars to have ever emerged on the world scene – someone whose lifestyle and state of mind represent the very antithesis of vertical thinking.

Now far be it from me to suggest that one cannot support (trust/believe in) whomever they wish. Nevertheless, why do you think Greta keeps bringing that particular point up so often?

It’s because it represents an enormous red flag that speaks volumes against the idea that the same type of vertical thinking that has led Nick to believe that “he who must not be named” should be trusted with nuclear codes...

...is the same type of vertical thinking that, according to Nick, should be forced upon our children via early and formalized education.

Now I truly hope that my criticisms of Nick’s “theory” are not interpreted as being a personal attack on Nick himself, because, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that Nick has a good heart and noble intentions.

However, Dam, when someone presents themself as having a lofty spiritual perspective on reality, is it not fair and prudent to take a deeper look into what that person actually believes as a result of that perspective?
_______

Nick discusses the Plato's cave syndrome...of which I am in accordance and agreement with.

The ''Cosmic Man'' was coined by Einstein ...of which I am in accordance and agreement with.

I also agree with all of Nicks discussions here at the forum.

And that's basically it in an acorn.

The rest is up to us as self aware conscious beings with a conscience...if we have no desire to inquire into nature of Self and why it appears to be, then live in ignorance, and try to enjoy your pity party.

.

PS...I like your esoteric expressions and the illustrations that go with it, keep up the good work.

.

[uwot]

Again, if there are no eternal values and we only live by subjective values, give me a subjective intellectual reason, not legal, why a mother shouldn't kill her week old completely dependent baby for convenience if she no longer wants to be bothered with it?

That's a tricky one, Nick_A. Why don't you show us how it's done, by showing us your "subjective intellectual reason" for why you think there are "eternal values".

This is like asking the impossible.

No. What is impossible is having a meaningful conversation with someone who doesn't pay any attention to what is actually said.

I am supposed to explain the question of of universals to a person closed to the idea.

That is wrong on just about every level. It is both presumptuous and ad hominem. It also isn't true.

Plato's forms are ideas. A perfect circle is an idea but it doesn't exist for us. Eternal values are like that. Justice is a universal idea; an eternal value which doesn't exist for us since we remain unaware of what the essence of all our subjective conceptions of justice is.

I have no objection to the idea of 'justice' being an eternal value, and I am perfectly aware that a perfect circle is an "idea" that any physical circle conforms to imperfectly. What you mean is that I, and others, do not accept your belief that eternal values are only eternal because they are the ones your god happens to hold; which is how you opened this thread:

I’ve learned that many secularists on this site do not believe in objective eternal values. How can there be if there is no Source of existence within which eternal values originate?

You will continue arguing subjective conceptions of justice and other eternal values...

As a simple courtesy, could you at least wait until I say something before you decide what I will say?

...while others will try to open their minds in the direction of the forms.

Some people on this forum will actually have read Plato and have made up their own minds about his theory of forms. Your implication that the reason any of them disagree with your assessment is that they didn't try hard enough, is the perfection of narcissism. Can you really say this with a straight face...

The driving force of society is the need for prestige. Getting along is secondary to to the desire to feel superior.

...and at the same time accuse others of intellectual laziness?

I support those, especially the young, with minds trying to open but receiving the scorn of the Great Beast as its representatives continue to argue subjective interpretations.

The "Great Beast" is all the things you think people will say, that they never actually say.

[Dubious]

How bloody ignorant does one have to be not to notice the blind stupidity in your constantly repeated demented mantras! You present yourself capable of nothing else presenting the same shit over & over again with no connection to arguments presented.

How ironic that it's modern secular intolerance which finds such practice "especially" reprehensible! Instead it allows any newborn with DNS or deformed in some way, not only to live but help it survive, at its expense, in case nature had "other" plans; and amazingly it's done without any reference to "eternal values". The Greeks would immediately have put it in a jar and left it to die as justified by their philosophy for the good of their society.

I have to repeat myself because you refuse to answer the question:

You've been repeating the same bullshit mantras to ALL who bothered to respond to your demented posts from the very beginning...or haven't you noticed; everyone else has!

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE THE CORRECT JUDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG?

Who said that? Not me! though it's obvious to those not mentally deranged that being human requires one to judge what's right & wrong collectively or individually. Whether correct and unbiased is another matter. Religions in THEIR JUDGEMENTS have been a total catastrophe.

For example, infanticide was judged to be "normal" by Plato as practiced in Greek society. So who made him the judge of right and wrong? You never once addressed the issue! In his time and place, he clearly was not!

Another example, YOU denigrate everything that's secular as a great evil, denoting it as the Great Beast and suchlike drivel in spite of the very obvious evidence that it manifests much more concern with both human and animal life than the ancients in all their wisdom could ever comprehend. Another dichotomy beyond your ability to "properly" address.

Secular society has taught us that we all have our own truths and create our own reality. Follow your bliss. Only the laws of the state can define right and wrong. Who are you to find some practices reprehensible?

...because I wouldn't be human if I wouldn't find some practices reprehensible! Is that too incomprehensible for you? For example, most moderns of the secular sort, found many of the past practices repulsive...and guess what, they have long ceased to be allowed by the Great Beast!

How can you openly express such elitism?

This is hilarious coming from a guy who with such dogmatic intransigence professes eternal values, which don't exist, in the desperate attempt to highlight your borrowed wisdom...which, as everyone knows, also doesn't exist. I wonder what you see when you look in a mirror!

[Dontaskme]

I wonder what you see when you look in a mirror!

I see myself..the infallible one, the irrefutable one.

I stand in awe and gratitude at how I could even see myself in the first place.

How I AM even alive to witness this?

It's a miracle.

I cannot repeat.

Even more of a miracle...is that I cannot repeat it.

Signed, ghostwriter.



.