Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I'll bet he thought that was really, really, really clever!

Clever? Not so much really. But illustrative. In that myth, which deeply informs Christianity (more perhaps Catholicism) Isis gathered all the fractured pieces of Osiris who had been torn asunder by Seth (who corresponds to the Christian Satan). She puts him back together again and what results from that is a child, Horus.

I take these symbols as being highly relevant, but more so when understood as psychological processes.

All you talk about, you nut! is how fractured and divided you are! How you cannot put yourself together because you are psychically divided. So you present to me a problem, and a serious one, and it requires not an intellectual but a psycho-spiritual resolution.

Sure — totally irrational! The last thing you’d ever bother to think about! I admit it.

But the symbols actually have a strange potency. They contain many levels of meaning.

The terrifying, solitary, psychopathological god Yahweh is a symbol of something that possessed us. We’ve been talking about this for months!

Restoration is what ultimately interests me. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you understand any of this or not.

Obviously, Yahweh requires the re-integration of the feminine element. These are things that have become salient for me as I deal with the topic that has dominated all of our concern for so long.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So in addition to being a objective witness on a project of psychological inquiry, you're also a misunderstood prophet?

Yes! But do I complain?

The rôle has to be assumed by someone here. You totally fail at it.

I’m also the long-suffering servant!

[attofishpi]

What I try to do -- standing as *witness* to the personal conflict...

Sorry, AJ...nobody's buying you as an objective observer of anything.

Actually, I am. Keep up the good work Jacobi!

[Immanuel Can]

I’m also the long-suffering servat!

Then be a servat. The world needs servats.

What's a servat?

[attofishpi]

savant? serval?

[Gary Childress]

I’m also the long-suffering servat!

Then be a servat. The world needs servats.

What's a servat?

Must be this.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/servat

[Alexis Jacobi]

[attofishpi]

wow, it's amazing what AI can generate.

[Lacewing]

I challenge the things that I.C. claims because they are ridiculous and he is dishonest in his discussions. You have said, as much, yourself.

I can accept that he may show certain untoward traits, but the larger point -- the most important thing -- does not really have to do with Immanuel.

Are you suggesting that 'the larger point' and 'the most important thing' is something based on your shallow perspective from your imagination, which you decided to drag me into for your lame, inaccurate analysis? Or did you actually have another idea for a point?

[Lacewing]

Personally, I have resolved a great deal of the conflict and contradiction in everything we have been discussing as religious and Christian by a sort of intellectual manoeuvre of *ascent* to a level or layer above the fray.

What I try to do -- standing as *witness*

Get over yourself.

Lacewing because she too, in her strange way, holds to a contrarian absolutism.

What is the contrarian absolutism I hold to?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you suggesting that 'the larger point' and 'the most important thing' is something based on your shallow perspective from your imagination, which you decided to drag me into for your lame, inaccurate analysis? Or did you actually have another idea for a point?

It’s hard, I know, to gain the self-consciousness to make ourselves the object of our analysis and not someone else; and it is challenging to make the effort to move from a micro-analysis to a macro-analysis, yet these endeavors broaden the conversation.

While I respect your offended opposition, Lacewing, the show must go on!

I have begun work on an Opera with starring rôles for two metaphysically star-crossed adversaries — in the key of D-major like Le nozze di Figaro — that will eventuate in a Sacred Marriage of opposites and the mysterious flowering of the landscape in the dead of winter!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel wrote: “Well, if they [moral beliefs, our morality, a culture’s moral system] are subjective and totally individual, then they have no force at all. Only one person even thinks they are "right" -- but because they are also totally "subjective," he is not correct with reference to any external or shared standard. In other words, such a person is a solipsist, and has no actual understanding of what the word "ethic" implies -- for any ethic is inevitably a guideline for relationships among people: it has no meaning at all, if used as an entirely individual term.

Your flaw of reasoning is here expressed. Moral beliefs are never exclusively personal, hence moral systems are not solipsistic systems, but shared systems.

To imply a contrived reasoning and to apply a priori the judgment of solipsism reveals your hand. You will say that even a widely culturally defined morality is solipsistic since, obviously, your view is that God gives unquestionable moral commands.

Thus your assertions in this paragraph are flawed through and through. One need only see this, and point it out, and your intellectually vapid pseudo-argument falls ignominiously to the ground.

I regret that this is so. But there you have it.

Unrelatedly: can you hold a tune?!? and are you comfortable with a codpiece?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Lo! I have been reborn!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Lacewing because she too, in her strange way, holds to a contrarian absolutism.

What is the contrarian absolutism I hold to?

What does the term "contrarian absolutism" mean to you? Let's start there.

[Immanuel Can]

Lo! I have been reborn!

Ah yes...I recognize the famed Eye of Servat.