uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmThe lines that I quoted here seem to express the core meaning of the play. And I find it interesting that though you have read the play, your comment about it gave no indication that you had got a sense of its
meaning.
Gus you wally, you have leapt from words that "seem to express the core meaning of the play" to " its
meaning". That in a nutshell is the error that armchair philosophers such as you and Mr Can make with the same incontinence as real fruitloops like Age and Veritas Aequitas.
If you do NOT PROVIDE ANY examples of WHERE I have, supposedly, done said 'thing', then what you say here lays ALL within your OWN IMAGINED WORLD. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, something ONLY the INSANE do.
So, we WAIT for your EXAMPLES "uwot". Until then your OWN sanity REMAINS in question here.
Also, as I have SHOWN PREVIOUSLY, it is 'you', "uwot", who MAKES CONCLUSIONS, and then BELIEVES those "conclusions" TO BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE. But which are based on NOTHING other than your OWN INTERPRETATION, and/or your OWN MEANINGS, that you "yourself" have PUT behind those "conclusions". You LEAP FROM what COULD 'this interpretation' REALLY MEAN to 'this interpretation' MEANS 'this', and then BELIEVE 'this' TO BE TRUE. Which, REALLY IS, extremely HUMOROUS to WATCH and SEE 'play out'.
The ONLY ones faux "scientists", such as "yourself", "uwot", FOOL are, LITERALLY "your" OWN 'selves'.
You have YET to DISCREDIT absolutely ANY thing that I have SAID and WRITTEN here, whereas I have SHOWN how some of what you have SAID and WRITTEN here is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. But, you want to CLAIM that I am the "fruitloop" here.
So, WILL you back up this CLAIM of yours here with ANY supporting evidence or PROOF AT ALL?
If yes, then WHEN, EXACTLY?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pm
That you should blunder into such an error is all the more ironic given that you have previously highlighted a warning against it:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:55 pmBut the result of the ascendency of philosophy was,
that in the fourth and fifth centuries the majority of churches
insisted not only upon a unity of belief in the fundamental facts of
Christianity, but also upon a uniformity of speculations in
regard to those facts. The premises of those speculations
were assumed; the conclusions logically followed: the
propositions which were contrary or contradictory to
them were measured, not by the greater or less probability
of the premises, but by the logical certainty of the conclusions;
and symmetry became a test of truth.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmAnd this is what most interests me about the on-going conversation here: the gulf, or is it a chasm? that exists between some of us here. It should be obvious that the essence of the message in the play corresponds to the essential Christian message which need not be stated (or must it?)
YES IT MUST.
Otherwise EVERY one else is just ASSUMING.
So, until you state what 'that message' is EXACTLY, (and let us NOT FORGET that this would ONLY be from YOUR PERSPECTIVE), then what that so-called "essential message" IS, can be and WILL BE SEEN and KNOWN, from MANY DIFFERENT perspectives AND views.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:55 pmBut you and some others, when examining the same representation, do not see the same thing.
OF COURSE. Just about ANY thing can be LOOKED AT or EXAMINED and NOT the same thing is SEEN.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pm
Well, different people can look at the same representation of Jesus nailed to a cross. Some will rejoice at the torture and murder that has allegedly erased any personal consequence for whatever sins they might have committed. Others will wonder at the turpitude of people who will gleefully heap their responsibility on to an innocent third party.
And different people can look at the same 'representation', 'evidence', 'results', and/or 'outcomes' and have completely DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, and then SOME, like 'you', "uwot", start BELIEVING that some of those INTERPRETATIONS ARE TRUE, even though NO ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL exists for those INTERPRETATIONS.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmThe reason this interests me is because -- and this is my theory -- that when an entire culture falls away from the intellectual capacity to *see* the older metaphysical truths, and when these have been supplanted by other, I suppose materialistic, relativistic views, views that become so powerful they overshadow the old meaning, that these old meanings cannot any longer be perceived and understood.
Well if "christianity" did NOT DISTORT the REAL and ONLY True 'meanings', which existed PREVIOUSLY, then 'you' would NOT be living in this MESS that you are now, in the days when this is being written.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pm
You could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.
Does this ERROR apply to adult human beings who consider that "others" who think differently ARE "fruitloops" AS WELL. After all it is 'you', "uwot" who ASSUMES that those who think DIFFERENTLY think less.
Or, do you BELIEVE that you do NOT FALL into making these ERRORS "yourself" "uwot"?