Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is true that words are invented. What I doubt is that language -- some sort of background to the communication of which words are one expression and a central one -- is invented.

I agree. Language is inherent in whatever species as the individuals within such a group must be able to inter-communicate. Without that ability, it could never exist. Language is part of its DNA.

The base idea I tend to work with revolves around (I guess one would say) latency -- how it happens that ordered systems, intelligence, awareness and communicability, arise out of *the manifestation*. When such terms are given the emphasis of asterisks or quotation marks I mean the term as something that should be seen in a special way. That there is a manifestation, that we are manifest, that we are here seeing, thinking about and dealing with the *sphere* into which we are incarnate. I fully admit that this way (my own way) of seeing is influenced by Eastern modes, perhaps even mysticism, which I apply to my odd apologetics around what I describe as 'the cores' within Christianity.

So in my communication effort -- the communication of meaning and values which I accept as being part of an inevitable sermonic function that we cannot avoid being part of in one way or another -- the notion of word and logos always has a special place and emphasis. When you say that language is inherent (as Noam Chomsky asserts in his linguistic theories) I agree, but I am inclined to step back from the entire picture, the specific picture, our own picture, and try to see language, logos and communicability as part-and-parcel of the kosmos: something inherent in it and something that will always manifest itself.

Curiously, RC asserts that the languages of mathematics, etc., are 'inventions' of man. This cannot be right. For let us assume that if it were to happen that all human life disappeared tomorrow and there were, literally, no more humans left to think mathematics (etc.) the fact is that, still, all of that would in fact exist, except now there'd be no beings to entertain the thoughts. Very true. Except the 'potential' of those perceptions, understandings and thoughts necessarily still exist. How is that possible? It is possible, and necessary, when the background of the manifestation is understood to exist and to be real. What 'comes to be' is manifest out of potential, and behind potential is the latency I refer to, even if the notion is simplistic.

So working with these notions as I do I certainly agree that all beings within this manifestation (loka) use all sorts of different modes of communication. They are 'latent' within the manifestation and, I assume, must appear in all worlds (and here I simply mean in other conceivable planets with biological beings). (Here I do mean literally all forms of communication: semiotics in the manifest world and certainly the worlds of biological creatures). Yet we have the awareness of what we do as humans when we get involved with vast conscious conceptions, when we theorize about all things, that we do something no other being in our world does. But I assume that what we do is done and indeed must be done in other worlds, and I accept the idea that they are infinite. And what happens here, for us, has happened and will happen forever and always. And what ultimately is that? What is it that we do? We *encounter* logos. We get involved with logos. And we plumb the depth of what logos means when it is applied in a universal perceptual act to the entire world, to the kosmos, and to everything manifest.

In my own case I am interested in the comparative perspective, that is between the different religious, mythic and theological 'vast cosmological conceptions'. It seems to me that there is no way for us (for man) not to delve into this area. We are asked questions that we have to answer. And though now and today we are at a crossroads when one *world* seems to dim and another *world* seems to come into view (oppositional metaphysical systems) this confusion must be momentary, mustn't it? It is a discord that must be resolved -- at least eventually.

It’s indeed a grand metaphor manifesting a synthesis of both poetry and philosophy as a visionary rendering of the cosmos organizing itself. It’s an ancient idea which still holds one in awe. The only thing I can say is that the Big Bang idea does not describe the beginning as usually understood but only our limitation in understanding what came before. Who knows! That could have been the long existence of the universe itself in its preparation of re-emergence.

Well, here I must reveal another *base concept* that I cannot get away from. Is it 'too simplistic'? Is it 'reductionist'? Perhaps. But here it is: logically, it seems to me -- intuitively logically I mean -- there can never be nothing. Existence is. Being is. There is no possible alternative. The Vedics have the idea of 'sat' (सत्) as:

SAT: (सत्) From Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hsánt (“being”), from Proto-Indo-European *h₁sónts (“being”, present participle of *h₁es-). Cognate with Old Avestan 𐬵𐬀𐬧𐬙‎ (haṇt), Younger Avestan 𐬀𐬌𐬡𐬌-𐬱𐬀𐬧𐬙‎ (aiβi-šaṇt), Hittite 𒀀𒊭𒀀𒀭𒍝 (ašānz(a)), Ancient Greek ὤν (ṓn), Latin prae-sēns (“present”), Old English sōþ.

So if there is a mystery to explore it is the mystery of existence and being. When one confronts it, it is there that man's mind boggles. In this sense I take what you wrote about a: "grand metaphor manifesting a synthesis of both poetry and philosophy as a visionary rendering of the cosmos organizing itself. It’s an ancient idea which still holds one in awe".

What interests me -- it has certainly driven my investigation of and immersion in 'conservatism' and 'traditionalism' -- is the return or the revisiting of 'ancient notions' and 'ancient schemes' through which understanding is organized. Is there a New Way that will rewrite or supersede what has already been discovered, defined and spoken? My present view is that this does not seem to be the case.

I have no idea how any notion of absolute truth would be necessary to any living thing. To me, it’s the most useless of concepts, incapable of being creatively applied to anything. Forgo any construct of absolute truth and nothing changes.

First, I do grasp what you are getting at. It is true that if there is an 'absolute' that we cannot arrogate that we have it, own it and have been assigned to *dole it out*. Yet at the same time, and inevitably, we have no choice really but to assign values, determine meaning, define our values and ideas and measure them against other, competing values and ideas. This implies some sort of constant.

But what interests me more is what happens when the conceptual possibility of such a 'constant' (an absolute) is no longer conceived of as possible. You say "Forgo any construct of absolute truth and nothing changes" and I am not at all sure that this is so. If we lose the possibility of a 'ground' under our feet (the "horizon" that M. Nietzsche determined was wiped away) there are definitely effects and consequences.

Applying the word Sacred to an experience merely describes its intensity which is in no way tantamount in defining it as relative to some absolute truth connotation.

I gather from this that the notion of *the sacred* is not a truth-laden notion for you. What is *sacred* is, I gather, just an assignment of a feeling of over-awe?

But in my general theory I assign a great deal of significance to what *sacred* means and what it is. At the ultimate point it can only be 'that which reveals and aligns one with Larger Truths which are -- which must be -- metaphysical and universal.

This leads to the image of the 'exploding metaphor'. It is something that burst open when it is encountered. So in this sense it is something embedded and latent within the manifest world.

Not really, though I would have described it a little bit differently. We are definitely enshrouded within an iron curtain of nihilism in a way never encountered. It’s not just belief systems which are and have been collapsing. What must be included are all the overt signals of deadly deteriorations happening across the globe. But that’s a separate subject.

I would respond by saying it is not, at all, a separate subject. It is actually the subject!

I think it is what keeps this entire conversation moving forward. There is intense interest in it. It draws like a magnet. What becomes interesting is the structured and intellectual way that those who are (so it seems to me) captured by those pesky nihilistic currents which seem to determine their ideas bring forward their absolutist assertions about *how things really are*.

[promethean75]

What's the word on the street? (a request for information)

Word to your momma.
(an exclamatory and enthusiastic agreement and/or endorsement of some thing or idea)

Write a word here. (a command to draw a collection of letters in a certain spot)

'Meaning is its use' refers to the language game in which a word functions, and the rules of understanding are different for each. Consider the literal meaning of the phrase 'word to your momma'. Am I giving a word to your momma? Did we just observe your momma receive a word from something or someone? The phrase certainly can't be literal, and to make sense if it, something more than the logical structure if it has to be what is determining how it becomes meaningful to us. That's all W wuz saying here. Different kinds of speech acts imbue the word with different meanings.

If we narrowed the possibility of meanings down to strict rules of grammar, the phrase would not only be literal nonsense, but it would be an incomplete sentence as well. And yet it's a very comprehensive statement conveying a wide range of individual, learned meanings that are combined to produce a very nuanced speech act that only culturally similar language sharers can find meaningful.

What's the equivalent example of the meaning of the phrase 'word to your momma' in taiwanese?

If there wuz one, you'd still evaluate the meaning of his utterance of it by watching how he behaved and in what context. If he shouts the phrase after he hears a politician promise to lower taxes, we know it's a non-literal exclamation of enthusiastic support, agreement, endorsement.

But you'd never get that meaning from the statement alone if you sat looking at it written out on a piece of paper.

When you want to know the meaning of a word, don't look inside yourself.... look at the uses of the word in our way of life!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually it is not that hard to enter into the mind of the dog, the lion, the house-cat and the mice living in the walls. There are so many similarities between animal-awareness and human-awareness that we can, or we could, know their language.

I just reminded myself of this, unsure if it has relevance:

Once, it was maybe 10 years ago now, I was dealing with an existential crisis and thought I'd alleviate it by having an affair with a girl I knew who seemed ripe for the experience. So finally I wound up in her (Denver) apartment one evening with the wine, etc. 'The readiness is all'.

However she was a nurse, got an emergency call and had to leave for a couple of hours and told me to wait. Fine. I'll wait.

So she left and I was alone in her apartment with her gold and blue macaw, an extraordinary creature by any measure. I knew that bird could see through me. All the while he kept his eyes on me and did not say nor mumble one word. Just meditatively took up sunflower seeds, bits of brazil nuts and fruit, one by one, peeled and munched them while never taking his eyes off me. I amused him I felt. Obviously unsettled I acted nonchalant and unconcerned -- flippant really.

Finally I walked over to him and said "So, what are you really thinking?!" and this damned bird with perfect cadence said right to my face:

"We are so much accustomed to disguise ourselves to others, that at length we disguise ourselves to ourselves."

I did not have time to follow-up though. Just a second after that the fire alarm bells for the building went off and along with everyone else I had to leave the building. I did not make it back to the apartment. I think I sent a text to the girl but didn't go back nor did I see the macaw again.

I am unsure why.

[Alexis Jacobi]

posting error

[Alexis Jacobi]

(Double post)

[RCSaunders]

But how does an accidental universe end up being rational? That's a good question. See if you can figure it out.

I do not know what you mean by rational.

That's easy. It means two things.

One is that the universe turns out to operate by predictable, mathematical regularities or "laws," rather than by some kind of unintelligible inconsistencies. (And that fact is what makes science, physics, engineering, and so on possible, of course.)

So far, you have not described anything that involves reason as an attribute of the universe. Of course scientists use reason as their method of identifying what exists and the attributes of what exists. Those attributes are only descriptions of what is. They are called, "laws," but they are not mandates or rules imposed on reality which it is obliged to obey. They are nothing more than descriptions of what is. They are principles by which existence is understood, and nothing more. There is nothing, "rational," about the attributes themselves--no reasoning is involved in either the nature of existence or any natural attributes. They simple are what they are. The only reasoning is that which human beings use to discover what exists and its nature.

The second thing is that that same predictable, mathematical, regular universe is also intelligible to one of its particular creatures, namely, to rational human beings.

Whatever nature existence had, it would have to have some attributes, and whatever those attributes were, if the universe could be perceived by conscious rational beings, it would be by means of that universe's attributes. The attributes of reality by which human beings perceive it are not, "rational," they are just what they are and happen to be all that can be known about the universe (because they are all human beings can be conscious of). Except for the fact the attributes of the universe are available to human consciousness, there is nothing about them that makes them any more amenable to reason than any other imaginable attributes might be.

The universe has a specific nature which is comprehendible by means of human reason. (I suspect that is what you really mean) If all you mean by the universe being, "rational," is that it can be identified and understood by means of human reason, where's the mystery?

Well, it's twofold: one is that some "accident" like the Big Bang somehow produced an orderly, law-governed universe balanced by very precise and minute physical laws; the second miracle is that there are living creatures within it that seem marvelously able to decode and unpack the rational order behind the universe. We should not expect either to have happened at all, if the origin of the universe itself is a mere accident.

If you want to believe in some absurd cosmology, fine, but to expect anyone else to swallow it is little much. Even cosmologists do not regard the hypothesized, "big bang," as some kind of inexplicable, "accident," (as though what was actually intended went wrong), and even if they all did, it would not make it true. And it is not true. The universe is no accident, it simply is. It's exactly like what you believe you god is. It exists without cause, has the nature it has, and is not contingent in any way on anything else.

The universe has to have some nature,

Actually, it doesn't have to have regular or law-like nature at all...and it also ought not, by chance to have creatures in it to "read" that order.

I said, "some nature," not, "regular or law-like nature."

You do this all the time. You rephrase what others say to make it something they never said then address your made up version.

Anything that exists must have some nature, some attributes that are that existence. When those attribute are discovered and identified, whatever exists must always have those same attributes as long as it exists (because if it had different attributes it would no longer be that thing).

Your mistake is in reifying the fact that anything that exists must always have the same attributes as though that logical fact had some kind of mysterious regulating or controlling power. What you call, "regular or law-like nature," is nothing more than the identification of the nature of what exists and the fact, if it were different, it would not be at all.

As for your characterization of the universe as an, accident, if by, "accident," you mean, "unintended,"

More than that.

Secular cosmology theorizes that the universe is not merely unintended, but is the product of a mere explosion. But when do you ever observe an "explosion" that issues in an extremely high level of order?

It's like if you go out into your driveway and stick a bomb in your Austin Mini...after it explodes, does it become a Mercedes? Or is it more certain to end up as a smoking heap of twisted metal? Of course, the answer is obvious: observably, accidents to not inject increased order into a situation, but increased disorder. And the same phenomenon, when applied to all things, we call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: things tend from a state of higher order into a state of lower order, right down to the genetic level.

But there was no such cosmic event except in the imaginations of those who think they must explain where everything came from without acknowledging there is no reason whatsoever to assume everything had to come from something, (because nothing can come from nothing), while denying there had to be something. What nonsense.

Entropy is a universal, measurable, scientific, observable phenomenon.

In physics, entropy only pertains to closed systems. In information theory, entropy only pertains to the integrity of stored or transmitted data. Entropy does not pertain to existence qua existence. It's a common mistake made by those who really do not understand thermodynamics and information theory.

Teleology--all purpose, meaning, and values begin and end with human consciousness...

Then there are no objective or real teleologies: just human delusions as if there are, and the actual universe has no place for such things. Because human beings believing in a teleology will not make that teleology real.

I suppose if someone has no purpose of their own and cannot imagine what they are living for without having something or someone else tell them what to live for, it would seem there is nothing teleological. Though you won't understand it, because you find no meaning or purpose for your life in yourself and depend on the dictates of some authority for what you regard as your reason for living, others regard their own life and their successful pursuit of it as the basis of all purpose, value and meaning. That which has no purpose, value, or meaning to one's own life, for them, has no purpose, value, or meaning at all. Only human beings can consciously choose their goals and objectives and all purpose and value only have meaning relative to someone's chosen goals and objectives.

So, from your perspective, there is no teleology, only some mystic dictated mandates imposed on individuals by some agency outside themselves. For the fully rational individual, it is one's own existence and life in this world that is the basis of all teleology. They do not need your agreement or approval, and certainly don't care if you choose to believe otherwise (or claim to).

[Alexis Jacobi]

The universe is no accident, it simply is.

There is a whole lot of decisiveness in this statement. It is 'declarative' to a high degree. According to your own logics I cannot imagine that you actually have a basis for your assertion. It is almost whimsical. While it is true that *the universe is*, when you say *it simply is* you actually mean a whole lot more. There is an implication that you have some special clue about this universe when I do not think you do nor can you. Again according to the logic (the structures of your presentation) that you generally present.

[Immanuel Can]

I do not know what you mean by rational.

That's easy. It means two things.

One is that the universe turns out to operate by predictable, mathematical regularities or "laws," rather than by some kind of unintelligible inconsistencies. (And that fact is what makes science, physics, engineering, and so on possible, of course.)

So far, you have not described anything that involves reason as an attribute of the universe.

See above.

The second thing is that that same predictable, mathematical, regular universe is also intelligible to one of its particular creatures, namely, to rational human beings.

Whatever nature existence had, it would have to have some attributes, and whatever those attributes were,

There didn't even have to be such a thing as "nature," in fact. There ought to have been nothing at all, or if there were anything, just disorder. Both of those eventualities are immeasurably more likely than an intelligible, law-governed, coherent universe.

If you want to believe in some absurd cosmology, fine,

Cosmology is not "absurd." The amazing thing is that it's rational.

The universe has to have some nature,

Actually, it doesn't have to have regular or law-like nature at all...and it also ought not, by chance to have creatures in it to "read" that order.

I said, "some nature," not, "regular or law-like nature."

Nevertheless, that it what it has, and observably so.

But there was no such cosmic event except in the imaginations of those who think they must explain where everything came from without acknowledging there is no reason whatsoever to assume everything had to come from something, (because nothing can come from nothing), while denying there had to be something. What nonsense.

Nobody says the universe came from "nothing."

Atheists don't know what got it started, but they know something had to; and Theists say it was God.

Entropy is a universal, measurable, scientific, observable phenomenon.

In physics, entropy only pertains to closed systems.

Well, Atheists have to think it's closed. But great, if you don't.

What force do you believe the universe is "open" to, that could produce order and intelligibility of the kind we observe?

In information theory, entropy only pertains to the integrity of stored or transmitted data.

That's only one aspect of all the things it pertains to, but it does illustrate the case, too.

Entropy does not pertain to existence qua existence.

Yes, it does.

You exist now, and judging by entropy, one day you won't. What will be left will be only residual, disordered particles of energy, in a permanent, final-entropic condition of chaos.

Teleology--all purpose, meaning, and values begin and end with human consciousness...

Then there are no objective or real teleologies: just human delusions as if there are, and the actual universe has no place for such things. Because human beings believing in a teleology will not make that teleology real.

I suppose if someone has no purpose of their own and cannot imagine what they are living for without having something or someone else tell them what to live for, it would seem there is nothing teleological.

it's not that.

What "seems" to them would then be irrelevant. Their idea that they had a teleology would not create one. As the saying goes, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

In the universe you're describing, there never was a "purpose" that human beings came into existence; so the transient "purposes" they may imagine for themselves are no more profound than any delusion.

...you find no meaning or purpose for your life...

Au contraire: of course I do.

But for anybody to "find" a purpose, the purpose itself has to pre-exist them, and be expressed by their existence. Otherwise, it's not "found" but simply "imagined." And it lasts no longer than the dream that is their life.

So, from your perspective, there is no teleology,

No, from the secular perspective there cannot be.

For the fully rational individual, it is one's own existence and life in this world that is the basis of all teleology.

All you can mean by that is that people delude themselves.

And yes, they do.

But it doesn't magically turn their imaginings into an actual teleology. If human existence itself "means nothing," as the saying goes, then whatever "meaning" the poor, dying creature that is presently alive decides to imagine for itself, it's not a teleology. His existence itself will still mean nothing in the universe, no matter what he thinks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suppose if someone has no purpose of their own and cannot imagine what they are living for without having something or someone else tell them what to live for, it would seem there is nothing teleological. Though you won't understand it, because you find no meaning or purpose for your life in yourself and depend on the dictates of some authority for what you regard as your reason for living, others regard their own life and their successful pursuit of it as the basis of all purpose, value and meaning. That which has no purpose, value, or meaning to one's own life, for them, has no purpose, value, or meaning at all. Only human beings can consciously choose their goals and objectives and all purpose and value only have meaning relative to someone's chosen goals and objectives.

This is mostly a parody of what theological thought involves itself with. Occidental theological thought is, to be fair and accurate, an amalgamation of numerous strains of thought of the ancient or pre-modern world. Everyone knows this. But those strains of thought were channeled into a larger system called Christianity. The essential questions are and always will be What is this existence? and What must we do?

To say 'living in accord with what others determine' is not an accurate way to put it. In fact it is highly charged rhetoric and mis-statement. Theology at its best examines the core problems in the core question and determines, through processes of logic, what answers are the better ones.

When you state "others regard their own life and their successful pursuit of it as the basis of all purpose, value and meaning" you make reference, of course, to the entire Occidental history of dealing with the core questions. Yet you imply some sort of break away from, or getting out from under the (negative) restraint of what has been seen, discovered, thought through, and also decided upon as solid bases for good and productive activities.

That which has no purpose, value, or meaning to one's own life, for them, has no purpose, value, or meaning at all.

Does not seem to be a very smart way of dealing with systems of knowledge and systems of understanding. The key to your phrasing is to focus on the 'at all'. It is quite possible that an intelligent and thoughtful person may encounter within some unknown and unexplored ethical or existential system a great deal that does, in fact, mean something. So it seems that in fact what you wish to accomplish is to make bold. declarative statements about your own processes and decision, and these obviously *rule* you and all your opinions.

Only human beings can consciously choose their goals and objectives and all purpose and value only have meaning relative to someone's chosen goals and objectives.

You make declarative statements that tart themselves up as truisms, yet when they are examined there is a lot more there. They seem often misunderstandings that are presented with declarative force. But on what basis?

Within the human system, and within this world, there are decisions made relative to the essential question: What is all this? and What am I to do here? Do you suppose that is an 'invented' concern? an 'invented' preoccupation? I think not. Those are the basic questions which Intelligence faces. The negation of that, of those questions, of that exploration, involves nescience. Turning off the current. Going to sleep. Forgetting. Failing to engage. Negation.

"What are you up to?" is the question that keeps coming up when I examine your discourse. What are you trying to achieve?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But for anybody to "find" a purpose, the purpose itself has to pre-exist them, and be expressed by their existence. Otherwise, it's not "found" but simply "imagined." And it lasts no longer than the dream that is their life.

There is a lot more here than meets the eye it seems to me. Within this world, and this universe, 'purpose' arises. And within conscious beings of our sort specific and chosen purpose crystallizes. If it happens here, with us, it must happen everywhere. So it is not a specific purpose that we should focus on as we examine the issue, but Purpose as something that arises and must necessarily arise. It will never not arise -- certainly in us.

The problem about *purposes* -- and here the different conceptions of different philosophical religions comes to the fore -- is that all such purposes have to be examined carefully, thoughtfully and thoroughly. We are confronted in modernity with a confrontation between different declared value-systems. So they must be thought through. Which means they have to be intelligently examined. Which implies that that person, the one qualified and interested in doing this, must be present.

The issue of imagination is often confused with spurious invention. It could have been this or it could have been that. Yet that is not right. Because even what is authentic, real and worthy must be conceived in the imagination. Indeed it all has to be imagined.

And certain a 'metaphysical dream of the world' (Richard Weaver's term) involves something imagined. But then the issue is what is the content of what is imagined. Which leads one to the project of determining what sources are the best ones.

[Immanuel Can]

Within this world, and this universe, 'purpose' arises.

Passive voice grammatical structure -- doer of action left unstated.

By means of what agency does this "purpose" arise? Who or what is the missing doer of your verb, there?

Purpose as something that arises and must necessarily arise. It will never not arise -- certainly in us.

In us? Well, all that says, again, is that people imagine things. They assign "purposes" to their activities because they fear to live in an inherently purposeless universe. But according to Physicalism or Materialism, there can be no way the universe has any objective teleology, so human "purposing" is just self-delusion.

The problem about *purposes* -- and here the different conceptions of different philosophical religions comes to the fore -- is that all such purposes have to be examined carefully, thoughtfully and thoroughly.

By what criteria? How do we "examine" to see whether or not my self-imagined "pseudo-purpose" (say, to own a Lamborgini) is better or worse than your imagined "pseudo-purpose" (say, to save orphans)?

...that person, the one qualified and interested in doing this, must be present.

In this case, who is that "qualified" person to judge between your intended pseudo-purpose and mine? Is it me, or is it you?

...even what is authentic, real and worthy must be conceived in the imagination. Indeed it all has to be imagined.

If you'll forgive me for pointing it out, that's a bit facile, Alexis.

It is true that the "authentic, real and worthy" kind of purpose has to be processed by the human imagination as well, of course. But it is not true that if something is merely processed in the human imagination it therefore becomes "authentic, real and worthy."

Many things not at all "authentic, real and worthy" are products of the imagination. But if some purpose or teleology exists that is objectively "authentic" or "real" or "worthy," then the imagination only recognizes something that already exists; it does nothing to make it exist.

And if it does not exist, then imagination will do nothing for it.

[RCSaunders]

The universe is no accident, it simply is.

There is a whole lot of decisiveness in this statement. It is 'declarative' to a high degree. According to your own logics I cannot imagine that you actually have a basis for your assertion. It is almost whimsical. While it is true that *the universe is*, when you say *it simply is* you actually mean a whole lot more. There is an implication that you have some special clue about this universe when I do not think you do nor can you. Again according to the logic (the structures of your presentation) that you generally present.

It is hardly whimsical. To deny that there is a universe in which I exist and all that I am conscious of exists, and all I can discover and learn about it exists is hardfly whimsical. It's existence is irrefutable.

To believe there is anything else that I do not or cannot know, some supposed mystical, "behind the scenes," reality that cannot be seen or discovered from what can be seen, some ineffable cause behind what I cannot deny exists would be a kind of self-induced insanity. To believe in what there is no reason to believe (no evidence and not logical reason based on that evidence) is gullibility or credulity (often called, "faith") like a belief in fairy tales or magic. That would be whimsical.

Now I don't care if you want to base what you believe on what you, "cannot imagine," I base mine solely on what I can actually consciously be aware of and examine and the fact I am conscious of it. I think believing anything that depends on imagination in any way, positive or negative, is just fiction and superstition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Within this world, and this universe, 'purpose' arises.

Passive voice grammatical structure -- doer of action left unstated.

By means of what agency does this "purpose" arise? Who or what is the missing doer of your verb, there?

Yes, that is exactly right. I present it in that way because it is neutral. So that the fact can be considered without defining, say, your specific doer.

You define your ‘doer’ through your perceptual lens. As I have said, and repeat again, the doer must operate in all worlds, not just in this, our specific one. This idea causes you to stumble. You cannot break away from your specificity.

I think it crucial to do just that — at a conceptual level. A philosophical level.

¿Capice?

I’d rather win agreement in a general sense. You want to corral them into your specific edifice.

In us? Well, all that says, again, is that people imagine things. They assign "purposes" to their activities because they fear to live in an inherently purposeless universe.

No, they view things, they view through speculative and intuitive lenses. The tool is very imperfect. They organize ideas and concepts. They do this, literally, within that faculty known as our mind, our perception.

Our imagination where everything is seen, conceived, entertained.

RC declares that you live in a world where you “assign "purposes" to [your] activities because [you] fear to live in an inherently purposeless universe”.

What I say is that we do not have a choice in the matter. But the question revolves around on what our concepts are based. There exist misconceptions. Conceptions that miss the mark. Slightly or substantially.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you'll forgive me for pointing it out, that's a bit facile, Alexis.

It is true that the "authentic, real and worthy" kind of purpose has to be processed by the human imagination as well, of course. But it is not true that if something is merely processed in the human imagination it therefore becomes "authentic, real and worthy."

If RC can extend forgiveness, I can also emulate his ethic!

You misunderstand what I refer to with imagination. Its the *place* where Weaver’s metaphysical dream forms. You operate from this place, as it were. We all do.

[Immanuel Can]

Within this world, and this universe, 'purpose' arises.

Passive voice grammatical structure -- doer of action left unstated.

By means of what agency does this "purpose" arise? Who or what is the missing doer of your verb, there?

You cannot break away from your specificity.

I'm not trying to. Why would one want to "break away" from "specificity"?

Rather, I'm trying to make your proposal clear and specific, so I can figure out if it's any good.

In us? Well, all that says, again, is that people imagine things. They assign "purposes" to their activities because they fear to live in an inherently purposeless universe.

No, they view things, they view through speculative and intuitive lenses.

That just means "they're making stuff up."