Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:37 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:07 pm
Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:19 pm
But do you reject 'your' OWN Stories?
Are we, my really
really odd friend, talking of the same thing when I use the term story and when you use it?
I am NOT sure. And, we will NEVER KNOW until CLARIFICATION of, in what way you USE the term 'story' is SOUGHT.
It was 'you', "Alexis Jacobi" who came up with the 'story' and has the concept, and claim, that 'our conceptions are not 'reality', and, our stories are not realities'.
It is not a 'claim' that needs any defense at all. It is a statement about a fact that it is hard to argue against: the concepts that we hold in our minds are not the reality itself or the realities.
I asked you, moron, if you understood my use of the term Story and the distinction I draw between a 'story' as in a religious mythology, and a
description. To say 'the moon orbits the Earth' is such a description, and is not a Story. But to say that the Moon is the ever-concealing-herself lover of the Sun is a Story and one with mythological implications. Story
laid over 'reality' if you wish.
I have written at length about an important dimension of human life and experience and I've referred to Richard Weaver and his phrase "our metaphysical dream of the world" (more
here). The sentence can be examined in the context of his various essays on the ideas he presents. While I understand what Weaver means I must assume that you do not. However you could find out. Then you'd have made some progress in understanding something important.
In my view our 'metaphysical dreams' are vastly important and may also always be part of human nature, human being and experience, but I also believe we need to see them from a 'distance'. But to have 'distance' also implies, in a sense, skepticism, or an unwillingness to give oneself over completely to *belief*. So distance as I define it is somewhat problematic to 'belief'.
You are aware, you drooling dope, that Immanuel (chief protagonist on this thread) is an absolute or true believer in his Christian mythology. He believes it so much that it is not a mythology. He actuallt believes that the god he defines underpins Reality -- indeed is associated so deeply with Reality that he (that god) is given not only being but personality. That god is hearing what I am writing and disapproves of course. In Immanuel's view were I to go on in this vein I will eventually be relegated to the shelves of a Living Hell.
There you have literalism applied, with no 'distance', to a metaphysical dream. He cannot 'stand back' from his belief. He has no 'distance' from it. He is subsumed into his belief-system as religious fanatics are.
Now, and this is odd but not really so much when you examine it, Atto has also involved himself, wilfully or unwillingly, in a True Believer platform. He does not appear to have distance from his 'belief'. He has a spirit-entity that communicates with him and. according to what he says, this entity has a 'real' or tangible and possibly a physical existence on Earth right now. Same with his (extremely personalized and non-theological) Imago of 'Jesus the Christ' (Atto's own term). Atto is offended when people read his fantasies (or the metaphysical dreams or the psychic dreams that have intruded, boldly, into his consciousness and are declared as 'real') and
can't go along with him. Meaning, they begin to wonder if he is perhaps a couple of cards short of a full deck.
The mere
insinuation that this might be true (in an age where thousands and indeed millions of people are on the verge of open mental illness and as many are actually defined as 'mentally ill' and their imagined fantasies intrude boldly into their conscious living) pushes him to react. And in this reaction, through this reaction, he has created his internet and forum personality which argues this and that, or that and some other, as the case may be (and depending on the quantity of beer in his belly).
So what I say is a) our metaphysical dreams are not irrelevant, and I am not opposed necessarily to 'spirit guides' and 'voices of counsel', but b) yet I do think that the phenomena needs to be handled carefully by a 'sober-minded practitioner'. What is
sobriety? Well, that would have to be defined, no?
In the larger frame of things a Metaphysical Dream (Christianity is such a larger dream) takes on a somewhat different form than, for example, that of the case of someone who 'hears the voice of Jesus the Christ' saying this or saying that. The metaphysical dream of Christianity is one involving a sense of justice, fairness, decent treatment of people, kindness, love in the family, and the invocation of a Spirit that is seen as *the author of all good things*. But which also takes a decided stand against what is bad, cruel, malicious, terrorizing, brutal, and given to immersion in processes of mutability (the sensual and voluptuous world).
All of these values can be, and have been, defined in theological terms. That is as canons of ethics. If I 'believe in' a canon of ethics I may do so because I declare myself 'to be a Christian' but not, necessarily, because I take all elements of the belief-system as 'absolutely true and real'. Though I admit to a fuzzy area here, and to talk about that is complex.
So, what I am talking about (most of you cannot uphold any conversational impetus on your own because you are bickering mental cases for whom the forum is a platform for the exteriorization of neurosis) is entirely germane to the ideas and views I have presented here for months. Whether you get any of it
is totally irrelevant to me. There are at least a few capable of reading and understanding.
Talking in this way involves self-analysis. Neurotic children with narcissistic tendencies have no need to engage in self-analysis. For that reason the conversations I
desire to have are for adults.
Now, since you have the floor how will you manifest yourself today?