Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh. Well, if your input is needed, then how is his word decisive?

It's either yours or his that gets done, or neither; unless you want to say that miraculously, his word always winds up being exactly the same as yours, by accident, presumably...

Oh. So your god is short of information, information it needs from you?

First, and I will repeat...

I wasn't actually addressing any of that to you, Alexis.

Your beliefs and your situation is very different from his. I can't blend them without misrpepresenting one on you two. Atto says he has his own "god" or "sage" (he's not sure which it is) actually talking to him, and deriving information from him..."learning," if you will. To my knowledge, you make no such claims, so none of this is a question I would ask to you.

If you want me to comment, you'll have to respond to the things I've addressed to you, not the things I've addressed to him.

I am speaking, always, to the larger context in which we all now live. You are just one small part of this. The way that people now, for different reasons, and as a result of different influences and also evolutions, conduct their spiritual life and also 'receive impressions' is what interests me. And I write about what interests me.

Though you may not be 'addressing me', and you can do what you wish, I was addressing you. But less a personal you and something more general.

I am sure beyond doubt that we all have an 'inner sage'. The easiest way to understand what this sage is, or how it appears and manifests itself, is through the sort of messages and teaching that come to us through our dreams. A dream can, and in so many instances does, show us things, sometimes things we don't wish to look at, that are needed. And if I refer to a dream (a message from the so-called 'unconscious' to use psychological terms) what to say of those important epiphanies that occur in crucial moments? What to say of *moral consciousness*?

So I think that what this means is that our own consciousness, our own conscious selves, that we are the field in which God manifests, or something that is like a reflection of God. It is all quite a bit mysterious. And this mystery-aspect is part-and-parcel of the human world. The mystery of our life and consciousness.

Your beliefs and your situation is very different from his.

Talk about this. What do you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

First, and I will repeat...

I wasn't actually addressing any of that to you, Alexis.

Your beliefs and your situation is very different from his. I can't blend them without misrpepresenting one on you two. Atto says he has his own "god" or "sage" (he's not sure which it is) actually talking to him, and deriving information from him..."learning," if you will. To my knowledge, you make no such claims, so none of this is a question I would ask to you.

If you want me to comment, you'll have to respond to the things I've addressed to you, not the things I've addressed to him.

I am speaking, always, to the larger context in which we all now live.

Yeah...It's not listening. That's the problem with a "context."

And no, atto is not typical of any "context" of which we are a part. He's his own kind of thing.

I am sure beyond doubt that we all have an 'inner sage'.

What are you smoking?

Your beliefs and your situation is very different from his.

Talk about this. What do you mean?

I mean you don't claim to hear "god" talking to you inside your head, and "learning" from you.

At least, up to now, I've been assuming you don't.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am curious if you will ever choose to respond to the totality of (in this case my) post? That is, the entire message taken in itself? It would be a significant sign of respect to do so. I understand though why you will not do that. Nevertheless I still think it best if you were to do so.

IC: Yeah...It's not listening. That's the problem with a "context."

And no, atto is not typical of any "context" of which we are a part. He's his own kind of thing.

I do not think you have any real understanding of what has happened in the contemporary world and of the immense changes that have taken place. Why? You are locked within a very rigid and strict Christian context. I say this not as a judgment but as a statement of fact (and about your own context). You can only see things through one lens. Others here, myself included, seem to be able to access other lenses and different ones. Because I know that this is true, and because your context and choices render you dense indeed, you have been for me a necessary point of reference in my attempt to get clear, and be able to articulate, what happened and why it happened. To get this understanding means examining a former time-period and an axial one.

If you read anything I wrote, and if you could drop your immense and determining prejudice, you'd have understood this. But as I said: Obstinacy makes us unable to hear for all that we have ears. You are perceived as, and you really are, closed-minded and obstinate. You irritate and frustrate people to no end. Except me of course and this because I find you so useful!

I believe that I could assert, with justification, that someone referring to 'an inner source of wisdom' (a 'sage' is how Appo put it) is very much contextual to our present and an evolution of certain ideas and also practices that developed out of the collapse of Christianity around the time of the fin-de-siècle. Even people who sit down to pray and meditate, and then arrive at some sort of answer or conclusion, do this through a process of seeking within themselves, or using themselves as receptors.

Some decades ago, and again this came about because of new avenues and methods of investigation possibly influenced largely by Jung and the school of European thought that produced him, they began to conceptualize an 'inner source of wisdom', as opposed to an external purveyor, and the reason this became necessary is because the idea of a god out there became untenable. The 'out there' god could not be found and so people turned, naturally, to other models. The 'god within' and of course also to spiritual guides and even 'guardian angels' (and the notion of the 'conversation of the guardian angel') developed from this. And there is another aspect to (and Promethean used this term) synchronicity: an 'acausal connecting principle' to use Jung's scientificesque term. To define a 'connecting principle' is in some sense a heretical notion. And so as well is the use of divination tools (I-Ching, Tarot, Astrology, etc.) because by using them one is stepping out of 'authorized channels'.

These are things -- ideas, possibilities -- about which you cannot even think without needing to condemn them as demoniac. But it is exactly in this sense that the recovery of the pagan modalities, the rediscovery of suppressed modes of knowledge and understanding, was seen in the early days as a necessary option. One had to become, in so many areas, a heretic. And suffer the consequences of opening up new methods of self-discovery, self-knowledge and self-understanding. It was also (and obviously so) a heretical option and one not without myriad problematic aspects.

AJ: I am sure beyond doubt that we all have an 'inner sage'.

IC: What are you smoking?

Well, if I take what you wrote as a joke you may not mean much of anything. But if I take what you mean to imply *hallucination* and *self-deception* I have to take you seriously.

I will assert that you are potentially *smoking something* in the sense that you cling to an illusionary structure. You do not, not in any sense, see it as such, but I think others do. It is then a curious exercise to reverse the accusation.

Higher self, a self that is connected to a guardian angel or spirit, a more telluric wisdom -- these are not ideas foreign to earlier Christian concept. A wise person who appears in a dream. Or a random even where one encounters a wise person who reveals some important bit of information -- these are modes of perception that are quite common.

[Immanuel Can]

I am curious if you will ever choose to respond to the totality of (in this case my) post?

Not if you get wildly off topic, as you did in the last post.

IC: Yeah...It's not listening. That's the problem with a "context."

And no, atto is not typical of any "context" of which we are a part. He's his own kind of thing.

I do not think you have any real understanding of what has happened in the contemporary world

I do not think you really had any interest in atto at all, or in what we were saying...so that makes us even, I guess.

You just wanted another opportunity to ramble off into "cultural context, cultural context...cultural context is eeeeeverything..."

No, no, it's not. And really, you know it's not. So let's not waste each other's time.

Y'know, Alexis...I had you pegged as somebody who was reasonable to talk to, somebody who had thought for himself and arrived at some insights. I'm now starting to think you're a kind of monomaniac, enslaved to a single theory of things, and hellbent on making every conversation into proof of that single theory. It's like Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. " Moreover, my estimation of your powers of philosophy is somewhat shaken by your recent tendency to fulminate at length and without regard for the "context" of the actual message in question.

I'm hoping this new impression is wrong. But I'm beginning to think it could be right. Unfortunate, if true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Y'know, Alexis...I had you pegged as somebody who was reasonable to talk to, somebody who had thought for himself and arrived at some insights.

What I am, what I think, what I do, and how I conduct myself has been and will remain just as it has been and with no modification. It is of little consequence what labels you apply. Personally, I think all this is subterfuge on your part to avoid responsible response.

With your kind permission I'll carry on just as I have been.

And as you gather it is my opinion that there are realms of ideas that you simply do not understand and therefore are not much use within. Still I have no complaint really since you are uniquely useful to me just as you are.

I'm now starting to think you're a kind of monomaniac, enslaved to a single theory of things, and hellbent on making every conversation into proof of that single theory. It's like Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity." Moreover, my estimation of your powers of philosophy is somewhat shaken by your recent tendency to fulminate at length and without regard for the "context" of the actual message in question.

This is a dishonest assessment. And because I sense it is dishonest I reject it.

What I suggest that you could do is to write out, here amidst your peers, a clear description of how the 'monomania' (single theory of things) is manifest. Can you successfully make that case?

I admire the attempt to corral me within the Chesterton quote, and I also admire Chesterton, yet I don't think it fits me (or encases me as the case may be). Maybe another one?

I'm hoping this new impression is wrong. But I'm beginning to think it could be right. Unfortunate, if true.

Fair enough.

Have you still your Big Boy pants tightly buckled? I reply thusly.

[Dubious]

"God stated to me that "I learn from you"

No 'god' would have anything to learn from an attofishpi. That's almost so obvious it could be an axiom of reasoning, a truism, a pure deductive truth, even a fifth law of thermodynamics.

Clearly attofishpi is taking the piss, for I pity he who'd believe we'd be taken for even a moment by such balderdash.

It wasnt't ME INDIVIDUALLY!!! - It was talking about MANKIND!!

..and YES - I haven't the foggiest what such an intelligence might learn from US!!

Indeed, as IC correctly pointed out, it might not have been God talking - they rarely identify - as in could just as likely been my sage.

Perhaps that's the reason IC let's the bible do the talking. One really can't trust oneself in such matters but if it's the bible which tells you so, consider yourself TOLD!

[Dubious]

Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. "

A perfect description of a rabid theist. In describing others, theists always seem to describe themselves foremost. Strange they NEVER notice but then that's what a "clean and well-lit prison of one idea" does to a brain...it's simplicity being insurmountable.

[Immanuel Can]

Y'know, Alexis...I had you pegged as somebody who was reasonable to talk to, somebody who had thought for himself and arrived at some insights.

What I am, what I think, what I do, and how I conduct myself has been and will remain just as it has been and with no modification. It is of little consequence what labels you apply. Personally, I think all this is subterfuge on your part to avoid responsible response.

Then you think wrongly. But perhaps you're getting used to it by now.

With your kind permission I'll carry on just as I have been.

With or without your kind permission, I'll continue to ignore the long-winded monologues.

That worked out well.

I'm now starting to think you're a kind of monomaniac, enslaved to a single theory of things, and hellbent on making every conversation into proof of that single theory. It's like Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity." Moreover, my estimation of your powers of philosophy is somewhat shaken by your recent tendency to fulminate at length and without regard for the "context" of the actual message in question.

This is a dishonest assessment. And because I sense it is dishonest I reject it.

Odd...I told you exactly what I'm thinking, and you call it "dishonest."

What? Do you want me to lie to you?

Sorry. You're out of luck on that.

What I suggest that you could do is to write out, here amidst your peers, a clear description of how the 'monomania' (single theory of things) is manifest. Can you successfully make that case?

In two words:

"Cultural determinism."

[Immanuel Can]

Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. "

A perfect description of a rabid theist.

One can always count on you to pick the low-hanging fruit...or just the rotten stuff off the ground.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Odd...I told you exactly what I'm thinking, and you call it "dishonest."

What? Do you want me to lie to you?

This interests me. Let me further define what I mean. I cannot say that you are deliberately dishonest in the sense of concocting lies. But I do think, and this as a result of examining what you say, how you respond to others, or don't respond which is just as revealing, and also how your prejudice and judgmentalism function, that I suspect you are in a gemeral state of dishonestly with yourself. Or perhaps I might say *with life itself*? But I would say this about many others who are locked, for necessary reasons, within their perceptual systems.

And this is what interests me. You, your *issues*, your demeanor, these are just not that interesting to me. And to understand you, though this seems to bother you, I have to contextualize you. It is a fair approach not an unfair one.

The narrow and confining modes of ideas (the models and stories that define what you think and how you perceive) I think lock you into non-truthful modes. I can refer to one example: the way that you deal with the Adam & Eve story. You did that through amazing prevarication and rhetorical gymnastics (and avoided altogether dealing with the entire issue!) That to me indicates a dishonest platform.

Is this making better sense?

So I do not doubt that you believe you are being sincere and 'honest' in your attempt to pigeonhole me in a negative way (which amounts as well to an attempt to derail me from the general critique I offer as well as the causal history that has led us to the conflicted present in which we live). I cannot ultimately assess you. But I think that what I suggest here might be getting at the mark.

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot say that you are deliberately dishonest in the sense of concocting lies.

That's what "dishonest" means.

Are you high again?

I cannot help but notice you greet every message with one four or five times the length of the one that prompted it. It reminds me of Orwell's observation:

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

Yep, that's pretty much what you're doing.

[Dubious]

Chesterton said: "He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. "

A perfect description of a rabid theist.

One can always count on you to pick the low-hanging fruit...or just the rotten stuff off the ground.

I'm only describing your location within the hierarchy of theists which is mostly the last one you mentioned.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's what "dishonest" means.

What I said was clear:

Let me further define what I mean. I cannot say that you are deliberately dishonest in the sense of concocting lies. But I do think, and this as a result of examining what you say, how you respond to others, or don't respond which is just as revealing, and also how your prejudice and judgmentalism function, that I suspect you are in a gemeral state of dishonestly with yourself. Or perhaps I might say *with life itself*? But I would say this about many others who are locked, for necessary reasons, within their perceptual systems.

[Immanuel Can]

That's what "dishonest" means.

What I said was clear.

What you said was boring. And ad hom. But I'm expecting that, now.

If you've nothing of even remote interest to say, then I guess we've run our course.

[attofishpi]

.