That comes across as having to confirm your own credentials of belief by opposing them to a monolithic one devoid of any moving parts.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amYou miss the point, Dubious. I am not concerned about IC and what he believes or doesn’t. I am here exclusively for my own purposes. That is, to achieve my own results by sorting out things relevant to me, for me.
I'm concluded on the fundamentals of that we call reality even if that reality were an illusion but not in its details which contains more mystery than anything your imagination can come up with.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amNothing was ‘exposed’ for you (though you seem to have stuck around) because it seems you had already concluded things.
Any conclusion, including yours contains limitations otherwise nothing can be concluded. My conclusions may seem less expansive to you only because yours are more metaphysically oriented having the means to formalize anything. But the question remains; are these actually your perceptibilities or ones gleaned and accepted as encountered in all your studies? Is there anything vaguely original about it?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amYet your conclusions seemed rather limited. No work was undertaken that you could respect so you only expressed dissatisfaction that any conversation was going on at all.
Bluntly, I'm not into your or Seed's advanced specifications of ultra-reality being the sum total of all meaning and purpose within the cosmos...that, by some egregious strain of logic, since WE exist, THAT must also exist. To slightly paraphrase, that to me expresses a diseased ego extending into other imaginary domains searching feverishly for a higher reality. The here & now ain't good enough; there must be a beyond or what are we!
I don't get that. Unless you believe what he believes what does it have to do with you except as debate brought forth on a philosophy forum? What others believe has nothing to do with you unless there's something in it which forces you to question your credences. I doubt anything so simplistic as complete renunciation to old scripture could cause that...certainly not in your case but somehow you think it essential!Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amMy intentions were never to demolish IC’s fortifications. It only had to do with myself (which is what I said all along).
Yes, that would make an interesting subject preeminently because such an investigation must focus on its historical development including how Christian metaphysics became more secular in the process. In short, it took perhaps only a few hundred years for Christianity as depicted in the gospels to recede from view once it became officially established under Constantine. Christianity, in essence, became formulaic instead of eschatological which is what created it.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amWhat you say about Judaism for the Gentiles is true but there is another dimension too and that is that Occidental Europe took hold of otherworldly Christianity and adapted it to its purposes. So there is the aspect of the emergence of Indo-European sensibility despite the Christian damper. That has hardly been talked about but it is relevant.
But why would it need to be discussed? Your inquiry here really pertains to how fundamentalism in all its guises comes about; the kind of mental distortions that cause a fixed unchanging world-view completely contrary to any semblance of reality...like looking in a mirror and never seeing the image move. Why would people after having their predictions negated, double-down affirming even more the truth of what they assert. What remains interesting and important to know are the brain malfunctions which cause it; the imagined motives and absurdities which restrict the orbits of reality, each group seeing something entirely different within the same field of perception.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amImmanuel plays a ruthless game which at bottom is ultra-manipulative and no one here has ever spoken about how this expresses a diseased element that extends into other domains. That too has not been discussed.
Not on the side of what is doomed to remain convoluted and slip[/quote]pery in every detail. But there is no reason why we can't enjoy a feast of mysticisms provided it doesn't become the main meal.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:51 amThere is a great deal of mystery if that is taken as convoluted details needing to be sorted through. Where were you?