Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:11 pm Also note: I think Age has established a new record: a string of 14 posts! What, what I ask, am I missing?!?
Ya he's on one of those:-
WHILE(nobody pays attention to me) {
post again
}
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:11 pm Also note: I think Age has established a new record: a string of 14 posts! What, what I ask, am I missing?!?
Come now, you do not take yourself seriously.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:05 pm So: the barbarians aren't our problem (once we set ourselves to it, they're fertilizer) . . .
There are times when I have thought that the larger movements in the world today -- struggles between nations, struggle with technological control and the mechanisms now being installed -- may render all the concerns we have here as absurdly irrelevant. And if that is the case then all of this conversing is simply to pass the time or for sport.: no, we are our problem
I've yet to see anything workAlexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:41 pm Classic Liberalism is predicated on non-commensurate groups choosing to live together and avoiding open struggle. Under the Liberal umbrella. Not possible?
So, you're imagining/stating a division that everything you're concluding is based on.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pm I think what is helpful is to notice this division -- but what is it exactly? On what does this division stand?
Are you suggesting this potential for cooperation exists only among those who have a "definite platform of general, but not specific agreement", or can you consider potentials and conclusions that extend beyond that?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmSome of us have a definite platform of general, but not specific agreement, and what I suggest is that we see this in a larger context and one separate from this immediate conversation. We have sufficient ground for *cooperation* even where there are, potentially, 'unbridgable gaps'.
Dissolved by 'the barbarians'? Perhaps your beliefs will dissolve simply because they do not make sense in a larger light. The epic battle you imagine of heroes and monsters is serving a purpose for you and your experience. The broader 'truth' is clearly much more than that -- as evidenced by the diversity and demonstrated qualities across all perspectives.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmAnd this is part of my general thrust: we are either going to find a way to work together or we are going to be dissolved eventually.
This is your storyline... and apparently you do not know how to operate without it. Your identity/meaning/worth is tied to it.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmthe forces that oppose the very principles upon which culture and civilization have been constructed can be described as *blind*, that is true, but also as ruthless. If they have their way, where will their destructive efforts end?
Ten (or a hundred) different men could come up with different perspectives and assessments of what they're seeing, what is happening, what's important, and where it will lead. Who is right? Then what do they do with their various conclusions? Do they create enemies and make war over it? What role does the ego have in this? What role does fear have in this? There are plenty of considerations to explore without signing on to your interpretation. You want specifics of any other potential, rather than simply recognizing the limitations of your perspective. If you were trapped in a box, would you demand specifics outside of the box before you would consider stepping outside of it?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmI have left out Lacewing. I wonder where she stands? (if the dichotomy I have proposed is 'real' or is my own artificial contrivance).
Rather I am stating a realistic position within the struggle over values, and also of power, in the world in which we live. I am beginning to suppose that I am talking about a *world* about which you know very little. My suggestion? Learn more. Remember "there's always more".
The cooperation I referenced can be examined through considering this question in specific relation to those who write on this forum and in this thread.Are you suggesting this potential for cooperation exists only among those who have a "definite platform of general, but not specific agreement", or can you consider potentials and conclusions that extend beyond that?
.Dissolved by 'the barbarians'? Perhaps your beliefs will dissolve simply because they do not make sense in a larger light. The epic battle you imagine of heroes and monsters is serving a purpose for you and your experience. The broader 'truth' is clearly much more than that -- as evidenced by the diversity and demonstrated qualities across all perspectives
Our world is made up of storylines. And these are *constructed* as well as being *carved out*. Not to have a storyline would be functionally similar to what Paglia said about the building-potential of women: "If it were left up to women we'd all be living in grass huts".This is your storyline... and apparently you do not know how to operate without it. Your identity/meaning/worth is tied to it.
You do not, I do not think, have enough information and background to really understand what is at stake. The references to Dawson, and his writing, is a way to expand your *vision* of what is at stake. But you hunker down in your 'grass hut' of limited interpretation. At least you could offer me some herbal tea . . .And this is why many people are repelled by Christianity and other religions, when the 'believers' create/support divisive stories that project their own destructive human natures onto those who do not support their particular belief system, and they actually stir up the horror and demise to fulfill their own prophecies. It's fascinating, really! But so unnecessary.
But you know only theoretically about this *great wide-open*. It is a theoretical proposition for you. It is a conversational strategy that is pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-discursive. You just repeat the same post, one and then a hundred times. (If you do not mind me being direct about what seems true).It's understandable that the great wide-open is terrifying at first... but once you realize that you're safe as part of a whole, there is much more available to you. One's way of thinking changes. Stories are replaced by potential. Ego is less satisfying than love, acceptance, gratitude, etc. You get to play more, and serve less.
We don't discuss Christianity but rather argue over man made interpretations of what Kierkegaard called Christendom. What if the essence of Christianity predates pre-sand Egypt? Who discusses it?Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:23 pmOh, I don't know Nick. Seems like on Christian dominated forums, which I have never investigated, discussion of Christianity would be about details of the religion, rather than foundation and roots which is more suitable to philosophy. "Preaching to the choir," does reinforce the community sense for the like-minded, but it doesn't necessarily reach the heathen, although being reached is a complex matter that doesn't apply to all situations and methods.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:03 pm One thing for sure, Christianity cannot be discussed on a secular dominated forum. It is meaningless almost by definition. It would be like everyone here discussing the topic of women. The frightening thing is that discussing women would probably make more sense.
However, discussing Christianity on a secular forum does require some rational discussion, rather than using the forum to spew bigotry towards Christianity, and Christians.
The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception if the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones
It should be obvious how difficult it is to discuss Christianity since we associate it with Christendom. Also, it is obvious that the world struggles against it to protect its illusions.The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.
- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
--->Actually what is idiotic is taking any of it literally which can be qualified as the worst kind of interpretation.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:07 pm--->But it is ONLY the MISINTERPRETATIONS that get taught are what is IDIOTIC.Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:20 amThe most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pm
You'll find it is.
Like it or not, that's how God promises it's going to be.
***When one learns and understands FULLY what the word 'God' refers to EXACTLY, and/or what ACTUALLY happens and occurs, which the word 'God' could be labelled to, then there is NOTHING 'idiotic' AT ALL here.
Nietzsche?
I was just about to respond to your original post when I encountered this one. Not very patient are you. Since you think I need a brain scan the following won't change your mind.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:56 pm
I'm still thinking you need a brain scan since you posted this, and failed to answer:-
Nietzsche?
What did Nietzsche do in the name of giving hope and promoting love to people?