Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Love and Compassion...Justice...Integrity...Forgiveness and Grace...Service and Sacrifice

(i) I think, mebbe, we all spend too much time worryin' about doin' right and not enough about not doin' wrong.

Seems to me: we need to get the friggin' plank out of our own eyes before we start messin' about with the splinters in our neighbor's eye.

Where does he fit in your deism?

(ii) He doesn't. I can read my Jefferson Bible and admire his moxie, but I'd be a lousy Christian even by that Book's minimal standard. I won't turn the other cheek, you see.

Don't get old.

(iii) Too late. 62. Not ancient but not youthful and dewy either.

How is that dishonest?

(iv) Mebbe not dishonest, but certainly biased.

You helplessly feel faith.

(v) No, not helplessly.

perichoretic

(vi) All-encompassing? If so: yeah.

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

(iii) A mere boy.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

[Belinda]

Love and Compassion...Justice...Integrity...Forgiveness and Grace...Service and Sacrifice

(i) I think, mebbe, we all spend too much time worryin' about doin' right and not enough about not doin' wrong.

Seems to me: we need to get the friggin' plank out of our own eyes before we start messin' about with the splinters in our neighbor's eye.

Where does he fit in your deism?

(ii) He doesn't. I can read my Jefferson Bible and admire his moxie, but I'd be a lousy Christian even by that Book's minimal standard. I won't turn the other cheek, you see.

Don't get old.

(iii) Too late. 62. Not ancient but not youthful and dewy either.

How is that dishonest?

(iv) Mebbe not dishonest, but certainly biased.

You helplessly feel faith.

(v) No, not helplessly.

perichoretic

(vi) All-encompassing? If so: yeah.

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

(iii) A mere boy.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

We are all biased, true: we are each of us Dasein. However don't you think we may become less biased when we know we are biased. When we know we are each of us Dasein? (I don't know if Germans still use capital letters for nouns)

Unfortunately, as I was told a year or three ago by an experienced psycho therapist, some people simply don't 'get' the idea of Dasein

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(i) I think, mebbe, we all spend too much time worryin' about doin' right and not enough about not doin' wrong.

Seems to me: we need to get the friggin' plank out of our own eyes before we start messin' about with the splinters in our neighbor's eye.

(ii) He doesn't. I can read my Jefferson Bible and admire his moxie, but I'd be a lousy Christian even by that Book's minimal standard. I won't turn the other cheek, you see.

(iii) Too late. 62. Not ancient but not youthful and dewy either.

(iv) Mebbe not dishonest, but certainly biased.

(v) No, not helplessly.

(vi) All-encompassing? If so: yeah.

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

(iii) A mere boy.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

We are all biased, true: we are each of us Dasein. However don't you think we may become less biased when we know we are biased. When we know we are each of us Dasein? (I don't know if Germans still use capital letters for nouns)

Unfortunately, as I was told a year or three ago by an experienced psycho therapist, some people simply don't 'get' the idea of Dasein

That must have been scary. Having a psycho therapist. Even Hannibal Lector wasn't a psycho.

To be is (sein, squared) to be biased. And When I became aware that my knowledge of God was baseless, my penchant - bias - to be significant was of no avail. It remains with nowhere to go. The bias of logos trumps all other rhetorical devices. Including pathos, no matter how bad it feels. I therefore struggle to be significantly ethical, at least in my own unsparing eye. Which gets mercifully distracted.

Choose your bias.

[Belinda]

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

(iii) A mere boy.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

We are all biased, true: we are each of us Dasein. However don't you think we may become less biased when we know we are biased. When we know we are each of us Dasein? (I don't know if Germans still use capital letters for nouns)

Unfortunately, as I was told a year or three ago by an experienced psycho therapist, some people simply don't 'get' the idea of Dasein

That must have been scary. Having a psycho therapist. Even Hannibal Lector wasn't a psycho.

To be is (sein, squared) to be biased. And When I became aware that my knowledge of God was baseless, my penchant - bias - to be significant was of no avail. It remains with nowhere to go. The bias of logos trumps all other rhetorical devices. Including pathos, no matter how bad it feels. I therefore struggle to be significantly ethical, at least in my own unsparing eye. Which gets mercifully distracted.

Choose your bias.

Yes, but you have to be aware you are biased before you can change your bias.It's not as if a person starts from tabula rasa.

Thanks for the sympathy but i was not a client, The psychotherapist is my son's friend who was at my son's house when I visited there. He likes Heidegger and asked what I thought of Heidegger. I replied that I had heard Heidegger was difficult and perhaps I did not understand him as I found Dasein to be so obvious. He replied that Dasein is obvious but that some people cannot understand at all.

You are significant, and if you are a determinist, you know it. Because each event was a necessary event.
How can you trust logos and not God ; The alternative to logos is chaos . Creator God is logos.

[henry quirk]

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

Doin' right often doesn't work. Unintended consequence & that road paved with good intent come to mind. Workin' hard to not do wrong, though, kinda hard to screw that up.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

Oh, there's an imperative, and I could drone on about natural rights and morality (stuff of persons, not nature) but it can be summed up thusly: mind your own damn business and keep your friggin' hands to yourself...or else. That or else part is important in a lynchpin kinda way.

(iii) A mere boy.

A wrinkly, gray, tired one.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

We're not just neuronic complexes. And bias (slant, a leaning toward, a road chosen, etc.), if it's the right bias, never renders a person helpless.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We are all biased, true: we are each of us Dasein. However don't you think we may become less biased when we know we are biased. When we know we are each of us Dasein? (I don't know if Germans still use capital letters for nouns)

Unfortunately, as I was told a year or three ago by an experienced psycho therapist, some people simply don't 'get' the idea of Dasein

That must have been scary. Having a psycho therapist. Even Hannibal Lector wasn't a psycho.

To be is (sein, squared) to be biased. And When I became aware that my knowledge of God was baseless, my penchant - bias - to be significant was of no avail. It remains with nowhere to go. The bias of logos trumps all other rhetorical devices. Including pathos, no matter how bad it feels. I therefore struggle to be significantly ethical, at least in my own unsparing eye. Which gets mercifully distracted.

Choose your bias.

(i) Yes, but you have to be aware you are biased before you can change your bias.It's not as if a person starts from tabula rasa.

(ii) Thanks for the sympathy but i was not a client, The psychotherapist is my son's friend who was at my son's house when I visited there. He likes Heidegger and asked what I thought of Heidegger. I replied that I had heard Heidegger was difficult and perhaps I did not understand him as I found Dasein to be so obvious. He replied that Dasein is obvious but that some people cannot understand at all.

(iii) You are significant, and if you are a determinist, you know it. Because each event was a necessary event.
How can you trust logos and not God ; The alternative to logos is chaos . Creator God is logos.

(i) Absolutely. I still think choice is involved, against feeling. An inexorable choice. What do I do now that I know there is no God? I must struggle to be kind. I fail on this site up against the afflicted. Even saying that is brutal. Why must I reach to be kind? To use my extroversion so? Because it's clean. I have to live with myself. And I'm spared serious addiction. And no, we certainly aren't tabulae rasae from the neural tube on.

(ii) I beg you pardon! I am a client. I dig Heidegger of course.

(iii) I have no significance whatsoever apart from relative to my own Dasein (and yes, German still capitalizes nouns), in the rapidly attenuating circles of separation. Each event is deterministically by chance and necessity. I have warrant for logos and not God. Chaos is according to logos us according to chaos. Nature is logos chaos.

Warrant me God, Love grounding being, or give me death.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(i) An interesting response. Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither, i.e. being orthogonal? I'll assume orthogonal from agreement as all of those ethics are about personally not doing wrong, not expecting anyone else not to.

Doin' right often doesn't work. Unintended consequence & that road paved with good intent come to mind. Workin' hard to not do wrong, though, kinda hard to screw that up.

(ii) So is there any religious imperative, axiom to your deism? I suspect not. So what in nature, not philosophy, what in physics and all that emerges from it? Again, nothing I suspect. Apart from the ultimate, mind. And that by philosophy.

Oh, there's an imperative, and I could drone on about natural rights and morality (stuff of persons, not nature) but it can be summed up thusly: mind your own damn business and keep your friggin' hands to yourself...or else. That or else part is important in a lynchpin kinda way.

(iii) A mere boy.

A wrinkly, gray, tired one.

(iv) You see? That's honest. But we are inextricably, inseparably (perichoretically (vi)), helplessly (v) biased from the neuron up. What makes your faith in intentional grounds of being not helpless? You can choose your bias? I can't.

We're not just neuronic complexes. And bias (slant, a leaning toward, a road chosen, etc.), if it's the right bias, never renders a person helpless.

Well pard, I am a huge Western fan. Looking forward to 1883. Sam Elliot! Same hat as in The Big Lebowski!!! As our Pinko Guardian said, 'The near perfect Josie Wales'. And apparently the primus inter pares True Grit is a superb read; on my list. The finest dialogue of all time between U.S. Marshall Rooster Coburn and Ned Pepper. As a friend and I say on creeping up on each other, 'Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?'. And I love American fiction. I have a yard of Michael Connelly I'm eking out.

I get the feelin' you'd fit right in that terri-tory.

And yeah, I struggle and fail not to do wrong, on this very web site, especially with those helpless afflicted with trollism.

And yeah doubled, squared. I've worked with homeless. Try too hard and it all goes to hell. Real quick.

And no, of course we aren't neuronic complexes any more than we are are fish, but we emerge wired (biased) for experience from both. My biases include relationships are more important than politics. Which is why as a card carrying Pinko I push back hard on whinging humanists and illiberal liberals who will not include those who have more than two moral taste receptors.

[Belinda]

That must have been scary. Having a psycho therapist. Even Hannibal Lector wasn't a psycho.

To be is (sein, squared) to be biased. And When I became aware that my knowledge of God was baseless, my penchant - bias - to be significant was of no avail. It remains with nowhere to go. The bias of logos trumps all other rhetorical devices. Including pathos, no matter how bad it feels. I therefore struggle to be significantly ethical, at least in my own unsparing eye. Which gets mercifully distracted.

Choose your bias.

(i) Yes, but you have to be aware you are biased before you can change your bias.It's not as if a person starts from tabula rasa.

(ii) Thanks for the sympathy but i was not a client, The psychotherapist is my son's friend who was at my son's house when I visited there. He likes Heidegger and asked what I thought of Heidegger. I replied that I had heard Heidegger was difficult and perhaps I did not understand him as I found Dasein to be so obvious. He replied that Dasein is obvious but that some people cannot understand at all.

(iii) You are significant, and if you are a determinist, you know it. Because each event was a necessary event.
How can you trust logos and not God ; The alternative to logos is chaos . Creator God is logos.

(i) Absolutely. I still think choice is involved, against feeling. An inexorable choice. What do I do now that I know there is no God? I must struggle to be kind. I fail on this site up against the afflicted. Even saying that is brutal. Why must I reach to be kind? To use my extroversion so? Because it's clean. I have to live with myself. And I'm spared serious addiction. And no, we certainly aren't tabulae rasae from the neural tube on.

(ii) I beg you pardon! I am a client. I dig Heidegger of course.

(iii) I have no significance whatsoever apart from relative to my own Dasein (and yes, German still capitalizes nouns), in the rapidly attenuating circles of separation. Each event is deterministically by chance and necessity. I have warrant for logos and not God. Chaos is according to logos us according to chaos. Nature is logos chaos.

Warrant me God, Love grounding being, or give me death.

I am not sure that to be significant one has to be significant to someone. I sometimes think of the logos as a person but that's because I was indoctrinated with belief in a personal God.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

(i) Yes, but you have to be aware you are biased before you can change your bias.It's not as if a person starts from tabula rasa.

(ii) Thanks for the sympathy but i was not a client, The psychotherapist is my son's friend who was at my son's house when I visited there. He likes Heidegger and asked what I thought of Heidegger. I replied that I had heard Heidegger was difficult and perhaps I did not understand him as I found Dasein to be so obvious. He replied that Dasein is obvious but that some people cannot understand at all.

(iii) You are significant, and if you are a determinist, you know it. Because each event was a necessary event.
How can you trust logos and not God ; The alternative to logos is chaos . Creator God is logos.

(i) Absolutely. I still think choice is involved, against feeling. An inexorable choice. What do I do now that I know there is no God? I must struggle to be kind. I fail on this site up against the afflicted. Even saying that is brutal. Why must I reach to be kind? To use my extroversion so? Because it's clean. I have to live with myself. And I'm spared serious addiction. And no, we certainly aren't tabulae rasae from the neural tube on.

(ii) I beg you pardon! I am a client. I dig Heidegger of course.

(iii) I have no significance whatsoever apart from relative to my own Dasein (and yes, German still capitalizes nouns), in the rapidly attenuating circles of separation. Each event is deterministically by chance and necessity. I have warrant for logos and not God. Chaos is according to logos us according to chaos. Nature is logos chaos.

Warrant me God, Love grounding being, or give me death.

I am not sure that to be significant one has to be significant to someone. I sometimes think of the logos as a person but that's because I was indoctrinated with belief in a personal God.

We're made by others. My significance beyond my skull is in others' skulls. It all attenuates after a lifetime for 99.999% of us.

I very much appreciate the honesty of your second sentence.

[henry quirk]

I get the feelin' you'd fit right in that terri-tory.

Yeah, I'm American, unsophisticated and unruly.

And yeah, I struggle and fail not to do wrong, on this very web site, especially with those helpless afflicted with trollism.

In a place like this -- virtual -- the only real wrong is wastin' your own time. Put another way: the net (its content, and its various public squares), as a whole, isn't particularly important. A life can't be lived here. Too many folks make all this electronic/photonic nonsense their centerpiece when it's really just arcade games.

And yeah doubled. I've worked with homeless. Try too hard and it all goes to hell. Real quick.

Doin' right is always a crap shoot. It's so damn subjective. Unless there's nearly perfect agreement among all parties as to problem and solution, doin' right, at best, ends with lackluster results (everyone vaguely dissatisfied). At its worst, doin' right makes it all worse than it was. Not doin' wrong is just the opposite. Really, how *hard is it to refrain from murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud?

And no, of course we aren't neuronic complexes any more than we are are fish, but we emerge wired (biased) for experience from both. My biases include relationships are more important than politics. Which is why as a card carrying Pinko I push back hard on whinging humanists and illiberal liberals who will not include those who have more than two moral taste receptors.

in my view we aren't just meat. We're also spirit. So the wiring isn't destiny, just influence. Politics, best I can tell, is the unholy marriage of innocently doin' right (and largely failin' at it) and intentionally doin' wrong (and spectacularly succeedin' at it). I forgive you your communism (go forth and sin no more). Oh, zealots are found all across the spectrum. Can't fault just the lefties.



*apparently very considerin' murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud never seem to go away

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I get the feelin' you'd fit right in that terri-tory.

Yeah, I'm American, unsophisticated and unruly.

And yeah, I struggle and fail not to do wrong, on this very web site, especially with those helpless afflicted with trollism.

In a place like this -- virtual -- the only real wrong is wastin' your own time. Put another way: the net (its content, and its various public squares), as a whole, isn't particularly important. A life can't be lived here. Too many folks make all this electronic/photonic nonsense their centerpiece when it's really just arcade games.

And yeah doubled. I've worked with homeless. Try too hard and it all goes to hell. Real quick.

Doin' right is always a crap shoot. It's so damn subjective. Unless there's nearly perfect agreement among all parties as to problem and solution, doin' right, at best, ends with lackluster results (everyone vaguely dissatisfied). At its worst, doin' right makes it all worse than it was. Not doin' wrong is just the opposite. Really, how *hard is it to refrain from murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud?

And no, of course we aren't neuronic complexes any more than we are are fish, but we emerge wired (biased) for experience from both. My biases include relationships are more important than politics. Which is why as a card carrying Pinko I push back hard on whinging humanists and illiberal liberals who will not include those who have more than two moral taste receptors.

in my view we aren't just meat. We're also spirit. So the wiring isn't destiny, just influence. Politics, best I can tell, is the unholy marriage of innocently doin' right (and largely failin' at it) and intentionally doin' wrong (and spectacularly succeedin' at it). I forgive you your communism (go forth and sin no more). Oh, zealots are found all across the spectrum. Can't fault just the lefties.

*apparently very considerin' murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud never seem to go away

I've managed to avoid perpetrating those.

I forgive you your misattribution. Pinkos don't advocate the violent overthrow of Western pluralist capitalist democracies, by lawless Leninist Red Terror, despite their being owned by an untouchable ruling class. My ideal is equal opportunity of outcome by the liberation of all land ultimately; it can't be owned by anyone. Only rented. Since it was taken. With all back rent due. Generally by taxing wealth. It's called Georgism. Einstein believed in it. However, if you can't have post-Christian social justice, you must have law and order.

I respect your view because of its honesty. I have no warrant for it otherwise I would know it. It's far too important, the most, for belief.

Oooh, and it would be an extremely unwise Englishman to underestimate an allegedly unsophisticated American. Usin' apostrophes is a dead giveaway. And I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of unruliness whatsoever.

[promethean75]

"Thomism comes to mind. William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga. All innocently lying."

You know who else is lying but in such a way that you have to honor his intentions even though we (you and he) know he's bullshitting. Dennett. That fuckin guy will spin a yarn to try and get out of determinism. Hume was a compatibilist too but not in the same way. His whole thing was he can't experience a cause as a necessary antecedent condition so as far as an empiricist is concerned... by god there's no such thing. He was lying too (Kant sorted em out though).

[promethean75]

Peterson I'm not sure about. That dude is such a spaz he may very well believe he has freewill. In fact, sometimes he says stuff so bizarre and so fast that there might actually be some kind of quantum probability breach at the synaptic cleft when the words are halfway between his prefrontal cortex and the sylvian fissure... and then what he ends up saying has somehow avoided be caused by anything going on in his brain. It just kinda spontaneously appears as a string of words absolutely unrestrained by anything.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Thomism comes to mind. William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga. All innocently lying."

You know who else is lying but in such a way that you have to honor his intentions even though we (you and he) know he's bullshitting. Dennett. That fuckin guy will spin a yarn to try and get out of determinism. Hume was a compatibilist too but not in the same way. His whole thing was he can't experience a cause as a necessary antecedent condition so as far as an empiricist is concerned... by god there's no such thing. He was lying too (Kant sorted em out though).

Just the bloke on the bus me.

Kant and Hume on Simultaneity of Causes and Effects

It's got bugger all to do, except as an analogy, and even then, with Christian apologists claiming they know something that they don't. Even tho' I'm such a pleb I only just realised that WLC was paraphrasing Hume in his spurious and pathetically inadequate Kalam Cosmological Argument. KLM can't do infinity.

The Hume - Dennett lying isn't in the same league.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Peterson I'm not sure about. That dude is such a spaz he may very well believe he has freewill. In fact, sometimes he says stuff so bizarre and so fast that there might actually be some kind of quantum probability breach at the synaptic cleft when the words are halfway between his prefrontal cortex and the sylvian fissure... and then what he ends up saying has somehow avoided be caused by anything going on in his brain. It just kinda spontaneously appears as a string of words absolutely unrestrained by anything.

I'm sorry, but I'm disturbed by your use of an extremely offensive term. As for Peterson, well there is certainly a crisis of masculinity. But him championing it is as intellectually useful as Trump speaking for the unspeakable, of which it is a subset. Who should be spoken for by the liberal-left. The gulf is their lack.