humor and being ''WOKE''

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is something I've thought about, but not been able to figure out. I once assumed that IC believed what he said about God, but was just devious and deceitful in his arguments, but I have come to wonder if he does actually believe all he claims to. I'm not sure that he does, but he may well think it would be a good thing for society in general to believe it, because it would incline people to behave in such a way as he would like to see society behaving. This probably sounds preposterous to you, and to anyone else reading it, but I have my doubts that he actually believes in the existence of God at all.

For all intents and purposes you, and we, must believe he believes in his relationship to God.

If you ask me to make statements about the core truths of Christianity I will say that I have grappled with them and do grapple with them, however I do so through my “metaphysical” means. But I can say this: When I read the Gospels I am distinctly aware that an intelligence therein (or behind if you will) is communicating to me. This all fits in with, or I fit it in with, my understanding of a quite profound statement made by William Blake in a poem:

This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.

What did he mean? What was he seeing?

For this reason I remain involved in the (Pauline) problem of our perception capabilities as likened to darkened glass.

My view? Most — I have no choice but to include myself — see through eyes that do not render precise images. Paul’s “glass” certainly refers to our eyes but eyes (perception) more so at an internal level. Therefore, the internal sight is actually the question that matters.

My issue, or question, revolves around what we mean when we say “God”. The picture is not the thing. The representation is simply a vehicle through which what is meant is conveyed.

PS: I’ve just sent a PM to DontAskMe! I implore her to work on the 12th chapter for my exciting and transforming 11 week Email Clarify Seeing Email Course. (Obviously to be extended to 12 weeks). Please, if you have any pull, influence her through lofty rhetoric to accept! Synthesis is in the air!

[Harbal]

You are trying to present me as something you know I am not.

I don't know what you are. We've never met.

Instead, I'm asking what you are. And you're not really good at explaining it. Why you are so concerned about "the Woke" and the Left remains a mystery...and all the more, because you claim you don't even know what the Left is.

So no, the paltry shaming tactics don't work. And they're a little embarassing to you, if I might say, and smack of "Woke". You're smarter than that, I would guess; but you're also using their tactics, which are unworthy ones.

I am pretty much what I seem to be, and I think anyone here who is familiar with me will have their own opinion of whether I am "woke", and will not be influenced by your implication that I am. I sincerely think that you deserve to be shamed, and I am not in the least embarrassed about deploying any tactics at hand to bring that about.

You're smarter than that, I would guess; but you're also using their tactics, which are unworthy ones.

Well I'm at least smart enough not to let you get me worked up about being called woke, or about being presented as some sort of half wit who is simply too confused to make any sense. I think our relationship is going to be a bit acrimonious from now on, but I'll try to be civilised.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am pretty much what I seem to be

Oh dear ….

I sincerely think that you deserve to be shamed, and I am not in the least embarrassed about deploying any tactics at hand to bring that about.

Fine. But please, spread it around a bit. I am not entirely unworthy of it, am I?

about being presented as some sort of half wit who is simply too confused to make any sense.

Here, here Harbal! Here I am.

You’re mixing us up.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is just about to launch a devastating counter offensive. You can too!

Take aim. I’m sitting quite still.

[Harbal]

This is something I've thought about, but not been able to figure out. I once assumed that IC believed what he said about God, but was just devious and deceitful in his arguments, but I have come to wonder if he does actually believe all he claims to. I'm not sure that he does, but he may well think it would be a good thing for society in general to believe it, because it would incline people to behave in such a way as he would like to see society behaving. This probably sounds preposterous to you, and to anyone else reading it, but I have my doubts that he actually believes in the existence of God at all.

For all intents and purposes you, and we, must believe he believes in his relationship to God.

No, I am quite convinced that he doesn't believe at least some, if not all, of what he says about God.

If you ask me to make statements about the core truths of Christianity I will say that I have grappled with them and do grapple with them, however I do so through my “metaphysical” means. But I can say this: When I read the Gospels I am distinctly aware that an intelligence therein (or behind if you will) is communicating to me. This all fits in with, or I fit it in with, my understanding of a quite profound statement made by William Blake in a poem:

Religion has no value to me, and I don't even find Christianity interesting, so I can't relate to your impression or understanding of it. I hope I never make the mistake of letting myself be drawn into any kind of discussion or debate with you, at least not beyond the level that I have engaged with you in this post, but if I were ever foolish enough, I am not well enough informed about Christianity for it to be the subject.

[Harbal]

Take aim. I’m sitting quite still.

You're not exactly a challenge, even when you are moving.

[Dontaskme]

PS: I’ve just sent a PM to DontAskMe!

I implore her to work on the 12th chapter for my exciting and transforming

More lies from a very silly wannabe transformer.

[Immanuel Can]

I sincerely think that you deserve to be shamed,

You're free to be wrong about that...and rather unsuccessful, as well.

I think our relationship is going to be a bit acrimonious from now on, but I'll try to be civilised.

I see no necessity of that. I generally enjoy talking to you, and often find you reasonable...the present case not spoiling that general impression, despite our disagreement.

And nothing is gained for anybody by making this ad hominem. Our better judgment would instruct us to agree to disagree, and remain civil, as you suggest you are inclined to do.

[Dontaskme]

My issue, or question, revolves around what we mean when we say “God”. The picture is not the thing. The representation is simply a vehicle through which what is meant is conveyed.

Life is always a presentation, never a representation.

A representation is a descriptive thing, and a thing is not the picture/image.

So what exactly are you saying here?

[Dontaskme]

I sincerely think that you deserve to be shamed,

You're free to be wrong about that...and rather unsuccessful, as well.

I think our relationship is going to be a bit acrimonious from now on, but I'll try to be civilised.

I see no necessity of that. I generally enjoy talking to you, and often find you reasonable...the present case not spoiling that general impression, despite our disagreement.

And nothing is gained for anybody by making this ad hominem. Our better judgment would instruct us to agree to disagree, and remain civil, as you suggest you are inclined to do.

You're just plain wrong. Stop trying to play the nice guy. Nice guy's admit when they are wrong, you are just plain not nice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Religion has no value to me, and I don't even find Christianity interesting,. I hope I never make the mistake of letting myself be drawn into any kind of discussion or debate with you, at least not beyond the level that I have engaged with you in this post, but if I were ever foolish enough, I am not well enough informed about Christianity for it to be the subject.

It is a publicly performed conversation, Harbal. It doesn’t matter so much what ‘interests’ you or not. Religion exists. It must be considered and thought about.

so I can't relate to your impression or understanding of it

That’s closed-mindedness on one hand, and also a refusal to consider and engage with people who see things differently, hold to different views. You attitude is defective.

I am not well enough informed about Christianity for it to be the subject.

I’d go further: you have no qualification of any sort to discuss human religion, religiousness, and as well the origin of philosophy and possibly philosophy itself, quite deeply intertwined with concerns that arose through religious contexts.

You fail to grasp how you implicate yourself at every turn.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So what exactly are you saying here?

You tell me …

[Dontaskme]

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is just about to launch a devastating counter offensive.

If the counter offensive isn't recorded, imaged, it never happened.

You are in the land of false belief again. The image is not the thing.

Nothing is happening.

[Dontaskme]

So what exactly are you saying here?

You tell me …

I'm saying Life is always a presentation, never a representation.

A representation is a descriptive thing, and a thing is not the picture/image.

[Dontaskme]

You tell me …

You tell me why you lied.

[Harbal]

Religion has no value to me, and I don't even find Christianity interesting,. I hope I never make the mistake of letting myself be drawn into any kind of discussion or debate with you, at least not beyond the level that I have engaged with you in this post, but if I were ever foolish enough, I am not well enough informed about Christianity for it to be the subject.

It is a publicly performed conversation, Harbal. It doesn’t matter so much what ‘interests’ you or not. Religion exists. It must be considered and thought about.

I'm not suggesting that no one else should consider and think about religion, but I probably won't be joining them.

so I can't relate to your impression or understanding of it

That’s closed-mindedness on one hand, and also a refusal to consider and engage with people who see things differently, hold to different views. You attitude is defective.

Yes, my mind is quite closed to religion. I can't see how that hurts or disadvantages anyone else.

I am not well enough informed about Christianity for it to be the subject.

I’d go further: you have no qualification of any sort to discuss human religion, religiousness, and as well the origin of philosophy and possibly philosophy itself, quite deeply intertwined with concerns that arose through religious contexts.

Yes, that's fair enough.

You fail to grasp how you implicate yourself at every turn.

Oh.