Corporation Socialism

[Alexis Jacobi]

…but how is it that humanity still hasn't figured out whatsoever what this "meaning" coming from higher levels is supposed to be?

At the least you do recognize that a whole lot hinges on that issue and question. That is part of the point (if I understand correctly) of what Nagel brings out: c.f. his chapter on Consciousness.

[Atla]

…but how is it that humanity still hasn't figured out whatsoever what this "meaning" coming from higher levels is supposed to be?

At the least you do recognize that a whole lot hinges on that issue and question. That is part of the point (if I understand correctly) of what Nagel brings out: c.f. his chapter on Consciousness.

Why wouldn't I recognize it, here in Europe we've already grappled with such issues for many centuries, nothing new.

I'll show something funny, I'm an atheist and yet I can experience the sensation of "divine essence" and "meaning from above" or whatever, any time I want, too. I can kinda turn it on at will and feel it.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll show something funny, I'm an atheist and yet I can experience the sensation of "divine essence" and "meaning from above" or whatever, any time I want, too. I can kinda turn it on at will and feel it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

One of the things Nagel points out is that as much as we might imagine we are experiencing some things ("qualia"), we are not. Nobody knows what it is like to be a bat. Bats travel by echolocation, and no human being has ever done that. But by the same token, how does one human know what another human has experienced, so as to say with confidence, "I've experienced that."

It's possible the experience is relevantly similar. It's possible it's not. There isn't any way of testing, since qualia depend on those faculties Mike says don't even really tell us anything, since they don't issue in physical phenomena. So if one has experienced "divine essence," how does one know?

This is why feelings just don't give us anything to go on, at least so far as veracity is concerned. May I suggest, therefore, that any certification of divine experience would have to come from the other side -- that is, from a revelation of the divine itself, such as a genuine spoken or written revelation, actually centered and launched from the divine itself, that provided guidelines for recognition of genuine divine experience. It couldn't come from us, whether we are Atheists or Theists, because feelings are so variable, so personal, and so untestable.

So there are several ways we could understand your experience. It could be a genuine "intimation of immortality," as Wordsworth would have put it, or "intuition of divine essence." That's possible, even for an Atheists, because as Romans 1 says, all of us intuitively know that God exists (though Atheists would, of course, deny that). Or it could be a different feeling, but one that, because of its peculiar ecstatic or transcendental "feel," was being interpreted as a feeling of the divine, but was really the sensation of ginning up one's own emotions. Or it could be that the Atheist, having no experience of the divine at all, is merely inclined to transpose some other feeling -- an aesthetic, or elational, dream-like or giddy feeling -- for a feeling of contact with the divine, while it was really nothing of the sort. In fact, the Romantic poets (not only Wordsworth, but the whole bunch) often rhapsodized about the "transcendent" feeling of standing on a mountain, or hearing a stream, or taking laundinum...and we know now that this led to much ecstacy, but very little clarity among them.

So it won't be clear from the Atheist's mere experience of what he/she takes to be "divine essence" that he/she is having an experience that is comparable to that of others, nor whether the fact that he/she does makes any difference at all, will we?

So I'm not trying to denigrate your subjective experience. Far from it. Maybe it's genuine. Heck, maybe it's even God, telling you that you ought to be paying attention to things an Atheist doesn't like to think about -- and why would I wish to stop that? But what does it mean? Who knows? And is it really "divine essence"? Who knows? So even if genuine, it wouldn't really tell us much that you have it.

[Atla]

I'll show something funny, I'm an atheist and yet I can experience the sensation of "divine essence" and "meaning from above" or whatever, any time I want, too. I can kinda turn it on at will and feel it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

One of the things Nagel points out is that as much as we might imagine we are experiencing some things ("qualia"), we are not. Nobody knows what it is like to be a bat. Bats travel by echolocation, and no human being has ever done that. But by the same token, how does one human know what another human has experienced, so as to say with confidence, "I've experienced that."

It's possible the experience is relevantly similar. It's possible it's not. There isn't any way of testing, since qualia depend on those faculties Mike says don't even really tell us anything, since they don't issue in physical phenomena. So if one has experienced "divine essence," how does one know?

This is why feelings just don't give us anything to go on, at least so far as veracity is concerned. May I suggest, therefore, that any certification of divine experience would have to come from the other side -- that is, from a revelation of the divine itself, such as a genuine spoken or written revelation, actually centered and launched from the divine itself, that provided guidelines for recognition of genuine divine experience. It couldn't come from us, whether we are Atheists or Theists, because feelings are so variable, so personal, and so untestable.

So there are several ways we could understand your experience. It could be a genuine "intimation of immortality," as Wordsworth would have put it, or "intuition of divine essence." That's possible, even for an Atheists, because as Romans 1 says, all of us intuitively know that God exists (though Atheists would, of course, deny that). Or it could be a different feeling, but one that, because of its peculiar ecstatic or transcendental "feel," was being interpreted as a feeling of the divine, but was really the sensation of ginning up one's own emotions. Or it could be that the Atheist, having no experience of the divine at all, is merely inclined to transpose some other feeling -- an aesthetic, or elational, dream-like or giddy feeling -- for a feeling of contact with the divine, while it was really nothing of the sort. In fact, the Romantic poets (not only Wordsworth, but the whole bunch) often rhapsodized about the "transcendent" feeling of standing on a mountain, or hearing a stream, or taking laundinum...and we know now that this led to much ecstacy, but very little clarity among them.

So it won't be clear from the Atheist's mere experience of what he/she takes to be "divine essence" that he/she is having an experience that is comparable to that of others, nor whether the fact that he/she does makes any difference at all, will we?

So I'm not trying to denigrate your subjective experience. Far from it. Maybe it's genuine. Heck, maybe it's even God, telling you that you ought to be paying attention to things an Atheist doesn't like to think about -- and why would I wish to stop that? But what does it mean? Who knows? And is it really "divine essence"? Who knows? So even if genuine, it wouldn't really tell us much that you have it.

Is this really what your life mounts up to, repeating profoundly idiotic stuff like the above?

[Immanuel Can]

…but how is it that humanity still hasn't figured out whatsoever what this "meaning" coming from higher levels is supposed to be?

At the least you do recognize that a whole lot hinges on that issue and question. That is part of the point (if I understand correctly) of what Nagel brings out: c.f. his chapter on Consciousness.

Yes, very much so.

And this is where Mike's restorting to "emergence" is obviously so unhelpful. As Nagel writes, in that same chapter, those who do this are"...postulating the brute fact of emergence, not explainable in terms of anything more basic, and therefore essentially mysterious." But Mike's desperate to banish all of "the mysterious" from the universe: so resorting to "emergence" as an explanation simply renders the Materialist explanations empty. Clearly, they don't tell us what the actual process involved is. Even if believed, they don't even achieve what Mike hopes they'll achieve.

In short, his "explanation" is a total non-explanation.

[Immanuel Can]

I'll show something funny, I'm an atheist and yet I can experience the sensation of "divine essence" and "meaning from above" or whatever, any time I want, too. I can kinda turn it on at will and feel it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

One of the things Nagel points out is that as much as we might imagine we are experiencing some things ("qualia"), we are not. Nobody knows what it is like to be a bat. Bats travel by echolocation, and no human being has ever done that. But by the same token, how does one human know what another human has experienced, so as to say with confidence, "I've experienced that."

It's possible the experience is relevantly similar. It's possible it's not. There isn't any way of testing, since qualia depend on those faculties Mike says don't even really tell us anything, since they don't issue in physical phenomena. So if one has experienced "divine essence," how does one know?

This is why feelings just don't give us anything to go on, at least so far as veracity is concerned. May I suggest, therefore, that any certification of divine experience would have to come from the other side -- that is, from a revelation of the divine itself, such as a genuine spoken or written revelation, actually centered and launched from the divine itself, that provided guidelines for recognition of genuine divine experience. It couldn't come from us, whether we are Atheists or Theists, because feelings are so variable, so personal, and so untestable.

So there are several ways we could understand your experience. It could be a genuine "intimation of immortality," as Wordsworth would have put it, or "intuition of divine essence." That's possible, even for an Atheists, because as Romans 1 says, all of us intuitively know that God exists (though Atheists would, of course, deny that). Or it could be a different feeling, but one that, because of its peculiar ecstatic or transcendental "feel," was being interpreted as a feeling of the divine, but was really the sensation of ginning up one's own emotions. Or it could be that the Atheist, having no experience of the divine at all, is merely inclined to transpose some other feeling -- an aesthetic, or elational, dream-like or giddy feeling -- for a feeling of contact with the divine, while it was really nothing of the sort. In fact, the Romantic poets (not only Wordsworth, but the whole bunch) often rhapsodized about the "transcendent" feeling of standing on a mountain, or hearing a stream, or taking laundinum...and we know now that this led to much ecstacy, but very little clarity among them.

So it won't be clear from the Atheist's mere experience of what he/she takes to be "divine essence" that he/she is having an experience that is comparable to that of others, nor whether the fact that he/she does makes any difference at all, will we?

So I'm not trying to denigrate your subjective experience. Far from it. Maybe it's genuine. Heck, maybe it's even God, telling you that you ought to be paying attention to things an Atheist doesn't like to think about -- and why would I wish to stop that? But what does it mean? Who knows? And is it really "divine essence"? Who knows? So even if genuine, it wouldn't really tell us much that you have it.

Is this really what your life mounts up to, repeating profoundly idiotic stuff like the above?

Idiotic? Not at all. It's not even contentious. I gave you full credit for the truth of your claim. I only pointed out that it can't be used to conclude anything. And that's perfectly fair.

[Atla]

Someone else?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why wouldn't I recognize it, here in Europe we've already grappled with such issues for many centuries, nothing new.

No shit? So, people still believe in leprechauns?! That’s great, Atla! You’ve made my day!

[Atla]

Why wouldn't I recognize it, here in Europe we've already grappled with such issues for many centuries, nothing new.

No shit? So, people still believe in leprechauns?! That’s great, Atla! You’ve made my day!

What?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is this really what your life mounts up to, repeating profoundly idiotic stuff like the above?

See, this is what really interests me. The issue or the issues really are here, in this area.

So, with your statement, you reveal where you truly stand — intellectually. It is a position of intellectual contempt.

In this sense your perspective is non-different to that of BigMike. The essence is actually in this essential felt position.

TE Hulme said: “Doctrines felt as facts can only be seen to be doctrines, and not facts, after great efforts of thought, and usually with the aid of a first-rate metaphysician.”

You dismiss what IC communicated, which is a perspective, a position of understanding , indeed part of a co-existent epistemology that you must interpret as lunacy. It is all a waste of time and therefore you imply that you know what the better use of time is. Or where truly to focus energy.

However, in our culture, in our civilization, an entire realm of important and valid ideas (issues pertinent to issues of value snd meaning) have been forged, amplified and protected by those with a connection to what is supernatural to material experience.

I would not want to initiate an argument with you on this topic, you understand, I just want, for my own purposes, to clarify what is really going on and why.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What?

A pathetic attempt at humor. Pass it by …

[Atla]

Is this really what your life mounts up to, repeating profoundly idiotic stuff like the above?

See, this is what really interests me. The issue or the issues really are here, in this area.

So, with your statement, you reveal where you truly stand — intellectually. It is a position of intellectual contempt.

In this sense your perspective is non-different to that of BigMike. The essence is actually in this essential felt position.

TE Hulme said: “Doctrines felt as facts can only be seen to be doctrines, and not facts, after great efforts of thought, and usually with the aid of a first-rate metaphysician.”

You dismiss what IC communicated, which is a perspective, a position of understanding , indeed part of a co-existent epistemology that you must interpret as lunacy. It is all a waste of time and therefore you imply that you know what the better use of time is. Or where truly to focus energy.

However, in our culture, in our civilization, an entire realm of important and valid ideas (issues pertinent to issues of value snd meaning) have been forged, amplified and protected by those with a connection to what is supernatural to material experience.

I would not want to initiate an argument with you on this topic, you understand, I just want, for my own purposes, to clarify what is really going on and why.

Sorry not buying it, I don't think you're that dumb and clueless. Although I guess you really don't perceive how transparent you are. You just want to force your irrational delusions on the world, on other people, like billions before you, and pretend that you're only interested in the dynamics of the situation, or that my position is felt etc., or that you want to clarify things to yourself lol.

Of course there hasn't been anything supernatural in all of history that left any evidence behind, so most likely people had no connection to it because it didn't happen, they just thought they did. There was no sign of the divine ever. A conscience-less, pathological liar sociopath such as IC shouldn't even exist in a world under some benevolent divinity. He himself is the best refutation of the divine.

Unless you really are that dumb and clueless. Are you an American who just recently heard of religion and faith for the first time in his life? Do you also have no idea about the illusions of the human mind? Are you for real?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course there hasn't been anything supernatural in all of history that left any evidence behind,...

Lots of people think otherwise. The Jews, for example, put down the survival and existence of their whole nation as the product of a miracle. And Christians certainly would call the life, death and resurrection of Christ a miracle. And both are certainly impressive facts that have made a deep imprint on current history -- even you would have to concede that.

So it must be your determination not to accept their evidence...

[BigMike]

Of course there hasn't been anything supernatural in all of history that left any evidence behind,...

Lots of people think otherwise. The Jews, for example, put down the survival and existence of their whole nation as the product of a miracle. And Christians certainly would call the life, death and resurrection of Christ a miracle. And both are certainly impressive facts that have made a deep imprint on current history -- even you would have to concede that.

So it must be your determination not to accept their evidence...

Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, you’ve done it again—taking grand leaps and landing squarely in the puddle of your own wishful thinking. Let’s break this down as gently as possible, though your insistence on equating anecdotes with evidence is starting to wear thin.

The Jews attributing their survival to miracles? Lovely story, but attributing events to the supernatural doesn’t constitute evidence. It’s a cultural narrative, no different than countless other societies explaining their histories through myth and divine intervention. If survival is proof of a miracle, are we to believe every culture that claims divine favor? By that logic, the gods must be having quite the cosmic tug-of-war.

And then, the resurrection of Christ—yes, I know it’s your favorite card to play. But, darling, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and none has emerged to meet the burden. Stories, however deeply held or widely spread, are not evidence; they’re stories. The imprint of these narratives on history reflects their social power, not their factual basis. The fact that people believe something doesn’t make it true—if it did, Santa Claus would be making headlines every December.

So, Immanuel, before accusing others of being “determined” not to accept evidence, maybe pause and ask yourself if you’ve ever seen any that doesn’t rely on circular reasoning or faith. Spoiler: you haven’t. Now, run along and find something tangible—like a well-substantiated fossil record or a repeatable scientific observation—and we can talk about evidence. Until then, keep your miracles where they belong: in bedtime stories.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course there hasn't been anything supernatural in all of history that left any evidence behind,...

Lots of people think otherwise. The Jews, for example, put down the survival and existence of their whole nation as the product of a miracle. And Christians certainly would call the life, death and resurrection of Christ a miracle. And both are certainly impressive facts that have made a deep imprint on current history -- even you would have to concede that.

So it must be your determination not to accept their evidence...

Oh, Immanuel...

Sorry: not talking to you until you read one slim book. And that book, as Henry has posted, is available to you for free. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself, I can't be bothered with you.