Christianity

[Atla]

I don't have a TV.

Well how do you account then for the pool of saliva in the folds of your shirt, hmmm?!

Ah, that. The monitor/smartphone is kinda too close when I see your nickname and spit.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What holds me back is the tediousness of having to state the (what should be) obvious. Waste of time. I was wondering and debating these metaphysical-religious-spiritual issues when I was a child and an adolescent. Pretty sure I already considered everything you have to say, and could say in the foreseeable future, decades ago.

Roger that. I knew you have nothing to say on the matter.

[Dubious]

What holds me back is the tediousness of having to state the (what should be) obvious. Waste of time. I was wondering and debating these metaphysical-religious-spiritual issues when I was a child and an adolescent. Pretty sure I already considered everything you have to say, and could say in the foreseeable future, decades ago.

Roger that. I knew you have nothing to say on the matter.

That's because there really is little to nothing one can say on the matter. You're as much enthralled and saturated by all the metaphysical hogwash, and therefore hardly debatable, as much as IC is with all the bible trash, one of the most disgusting books ever written, amounting to an almost complete moral failure, right up there with books like the Malleus Maleficarum. It also took a heap of metaphysics to vote for the orange buffoon when even the least bit of common sense, based on a plethora of prior evidence, could easily have prevented the matter and all the shit that's happening now. Based on your ability to judge, what is your metaphysics really worth?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's because there really is little to nothing one can say on the matter. You're as much enthralled and saturated by all the metaphysical hogwash, and therefore hardly debatable, as much as IC is with all the bible trash, one of the most disgusting books ever written, amounting to an almost complete moral failure, right up there with books like the Malleus Maleficarum. It also took a heap of metaphysics to vote for the orange buffoon when even the least bit of common sense, based on a plethora of prior evidence, could easily have prevented the matter and all the shit that's happening now. Based on your ability to judge, what is your metaphysics really worth?

Rough day, eh?

Rosemary tea might — wait, I am having a déjà vu — didn’t you tell me you’d been making a tea infusion that controlled your emoted tirades? Did you run out?

Maybe aromatherapy?

What about meditation?

[Atla]

What holds me back is the tediousness of having to state the (what should be) obvious. Waste of time. I was wondering and debating these metaphysical-religious-spiritual issues when I was a child and an adolescent. Pretty sure I already considered everything you have to say, and could say in the foreseeable future, decades ago.

Roger that. I knew you have nothing to say on the matter.

I told you a dozen times to demonstrate the existence of your metaphysical realm, nothing. The other weirdos at least try.

Come on AJ, it's obvious to many people that you're merely a manchild who believes his own fantasies and wants to be taken seriously. But can never substantiate his fantasies, you have nothing to say and are projecting.

[Will Bouwman]

Any clothing you put on naked physics is really metaphysics.

Here is what I notice: it is possible to conceive of a position or perspective such as that of “physics” that imagines itself as free of metaphysics.

That's called instrumentalism.

But only a calculating machine (of a mind) could do that. No living man could ever conceive of himself, or the mind, or life, or values and meaning of any sort ever, without directly engaging in metaphysics.

I would establish this truth or fact as a first principle that no one could deny. That is how it is.

Thus: metaphysics is inevitable.

Man cannot live on physics alone.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Has metaphysics gained any more knowledge than religion, outside sensory experience?

(A good thread title in itself methinks.)

[Dubious]

Has metaphysics gained any more knowledge than religion, outside sensory experience?

(A good thread title in itself methinks.)

Not really, but one can play with metaphysical conceptions and ideas without having to commit to any kind of scripture being more philosophical, in effect, free-willed than religion; it has more in common with the mystery of being than with anything denoted as sacred or god given, the usual imperatives invariably invoked by some holy text.

For metaphysics to be or remain what it is means not to make a religion out of it; such would severely distort its inherent creativity to think and ponder under a free-lance banner.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Has metaphysics gained any more knowledge than religion, outside sensory experience?

(A good thread title in itself methinks.)

Not really, but one can play with metaphysical conceptions and ideas without having to commit to any kind of scripture being more philosophical, in effect, free-willed than religion; it has more in common with the mystery of being than with anything denoted as sacred or god given, the usual imperatives invariably invoked by some holy text.

Agreed, metaphysics at least nods to physics. I find it disturbing that metaphysics arrogates seniority when it comes to theories of time, and that physics is bamboozled by it. Belief always comes first. Passion enslaves reason.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

This just in

I just asked The Magic 8-Ball if “transcendental love really exists”.

Answer: “Ask again later”.

Hmmmmmmmm…

So, I asked a bit later: “Does transcendental love really exist?”

Answer: “Without a doubt”.

You’ve got to pay attention to the Signs, Martin!

SOL! (As in Snort-smile Out Loud). Yeahhhhhh. "Does intentional transcendent Love ground being?", I got the same 2 responses. As you say, a sign of the times.

Is it my imagination, or is IC repressed at this time? That'll summon him up if anything can. My money says it can't. As a combination, particularly my new, distinct, unique contribution of the multiple evils of any kind of Biblicism; all orthodox, creedal Christianity being literal, fundamentalism. Stupefying (as passion is to reason). Human.

3rd shake 'My reply is no'.
4th, 'Without a doubt'.
5th 'It is certain'
6th 'Concentrate and ask again'
7th 'As I see it, yes'.
8th 'Don't count on it'.

Unless I go to 30 samples for the Student's t-Distribution threshold, we can't establish the -1, 0, 1 pattern. Can't be arsed. The bias looks 1.

I'm sure you would never misunderestimate the bloke on the bus, Alexis.

[Belinda]

Any clothing you put on naked physics is really metaphysics.

Here is what I notice: it is possible to conceive of a position or perspective such as that of “physics” that imagines itself as free of metaphysics.

That's called instrumentalism.

But only a calculating machine (of a mind) could do that. No living man could ever conceive of himself, or the mind, or life, or values and meaning of any sort ever, without directly engaging in metaphysics.

I would establish this truth or fact as a first principle that no one could deny. That is how it is.

Thus: metaphysics is inevitable.

Man cannot live on physics alone.

A position that is free of metaphysics is a position that uses metaphysics heuristically. Pragmatic people choose the metaphysical stance that most helps us to lead good lives.
Like AI, metaphysics is a tool not a master.
True, epistemology is aided by neuroscience and psychology. Also true, ontology is aided by physics. What remains of epistemology and ontology after the best of science has been applied, is best dealt with pragmatically and with imagination applied to contemporary perils.
Immanuel Can would object that there is no authority that overarches pragmatic choices and that is the case, unfortunately; the human must make his own way. There are giants on whose shoulders Humanists can rest awhile .

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Here is what I notice: it is possible to conceive of a position or perspective such as that of “physics” that imagines itself as free of metaphysics.

That's called instrumentalism.

But only a calculating machine (of a mind) could do that. No living man could ever conceive of himself, or the mind, or life, or values and meaning of any sort ever, without directly engaging in metaphysics.

I would establish this truth or fact as a first principle that no one could deny. That is how it is.

Thus: metaphysics is inevitable.

Man cannot live on physics alone.

A position that is free of metaphysics is a position that uses metaphysics heuristically. Pragmatic people choose the metaphysical stance that most helps us to lead good lives.
Like AI, metaphysics is a tool not a master.
True, epistemology is aided by neuroscience and psychology. Also true, ontology is aided by physics. What remains of epistemology and ontology after the best of science has been applied, is best dealt with pragmatically and with imagination applied to contemporary perils.
Immanuel Can would object that there is no authority that overarches pragmatic choices and that is the case, unfortunately; the human must make his own way. There are giants on whose shoulders Humanists can rest awhile .

Nice.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What holds me back is the tediousness of having to state the (what should be) obvious. Waste of time. I was wondering and debating these metaphysical-religious-spiritual issues when I was a child and an adolescent. Pretty sure I already considered everything you have to say, and could say in the foreseeable future, decades ago.

Roger that. I knew you have nothing to say on the matter.

We play much on rogering here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's because there really is little to nothing one can say on the matter. You're as much enthralled and saturated by all the metaphysical hogwash, and therefore hardly debatable, as much as IC is with all the bible trash, one of the most disgusting books ever written, amounting to an almost complete moral failure, right up there with books like the Malleus Maleficarum. It also took a heap of metaphysics to vote for the orange buffoon when even the least bit of common sense, based on a plethora of prior evidence, could easily have prevented the matter and all the shit that's happening now. Based on your ability to judge, what is your metaphysics really worth?

There is, as is usual, something unhinged in your exposition. However, reacted to correctly, or sensibly, there are things that can be said.

You start with a blindly emoted condemnation of “metaphysics” but obviously and undeniably all men — all! — relate to their world and interact within the world metaphysically. This is a solid fact. No matter what the “metaphysical content” is (the metaphysical dream following Richard Weaver).

But thereafter you go fully unhinged. Your argument, your issue, is with IC definitely not with me. But your emotion gets the better of you. And you unhinge yourself from sensible discourse.

The Bible is then compared (or reduced to) a treatise on demonic witchcraft and witch prosecution. This is — sort of — nutty but there is some sense in it in that, in the NT, the “opposition” is the satanic figure: the ur-witch. And you are quite right that standing behind this (the religious structure generally) there is always a figure of Opposition. My view is that ultimately this figure is Nature: this terrifying entity in which we are subsumed and out of which we rise up, which is a mill where creatures feed on creatures. Seen ‘in a way’ Nature is utterly terrifying and demoralizing.

Obviously, metaphysics has something to say about this. Metaphysics is therefore ‘realization’ itself: awareness.

Then you proceed to (I have to guess here really what you are trying to say) that the notion of Trump as a metaphysical agent of order-reestablishment was exploited by population (?). There is a TON that can be said about this, since beyond any doubt there are masses of populations who project content on ‘the world’. And you are right: it is wacky stuff.

But is more evidence that metaphysical content, or structure, or projection, is the stuff of man’s world. You think, you overwrought nut, that I am similarly invested, or that my views are identical to those of IC, and there you are simply wrong. This is your own projection. And your responsibility.

Based on my ability to judge what exactly? You mean the nascent “movement” that has begun within the American polity? To say MAGA really only scratches the surface. There is a widespread movement that opposes an established order, and varying people flail against “it” in different ways. Whatever ‘it’ is, it is present throughout Europe and in all the former British colonies.

In my own way, and within my means, I study this ‘movement’ and the ideas that stand behind it. Obviously, something about this cranks you up. You went ape-shit when I merely mentioned The Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset) but you did not, and you do not, understand how prescient his essay is for our present.

You are bizarrely reactionary, you project reams of your own unsettled , paranoid content onto me, so naturally I suggest (as I always have) that you get a grip on yourself.

I’ll continue to bitch-slap you if you demand this of me and though it is fun, in its way, it does not help us to advance to the Supernal Heights. This is why I am docking your account US$3,000.00

Don’t continue to piss me off. There are limits!

[Atla]

That's because there really is little to nothing one can say on the matter. You're as much enthralled and saturated by all the metaphysical hogwash, and therefore hardly debatable, as much as IC is with all the bible trash, one of the most disgusting books ever written, amounting to an almost complete moral failure, right up there with books like the Malleus Maleficarum. It also took a heap of metaphysics to vote for the orange buffoon when even the least bit of common sense, based on a plethora of prior evidence, could easily have prevented the matter and all the shit that's happening now. Based on your ability to judge, what is your metaphysics really worth?

There is, as is usual, something unhinged in your exposition. However, reacted to correctly, or sensibly, there are things that can be said.

You start with a blindly emoted condemnation of “metaphysics” but obviously and undeniably all men — all! — relate to their world and interact within the world metaphysically. This is a solid fact. No matter what the “metaphysical content” is (the metaphysical dream following Richard Weaver).

But thereafter you go fully unhinged. Your argument, your issue, is with IC definitely not with me. But your emotion gets the better of you. And you unhinge yourself from sensible discourse.

The Bible is then compared (or reduced to) a treatise on demonic witchcraft and witch prosecution. This is — sort of — nutty but there is some sense in it in that, in the NT, the “opposition” is the satanic figure: the ur-witch. And you are quite right that standing behind this (the religious structure generally) there is always a figure of Opposition. My view is that ultimately this figure is Nature: this terrifying entity in which we are subsumed and out of which we rise up, which is a mill where creatures feed on creatures. Seen ‘in a way’ Nature is utterly terrifying and demoralizing.

Obviously, metaphysics has something to say about this. Metaphysics is therefore ‘realization’ itself: awareness.

Then you proceed to (I have to guess here really what you are trying to say) that the notion of Trump as a metaphysical agent of order-reestablishment was exploited by population (?). There is a TON that can be said about this, since beyond any doubt there are masses of populations who project content on ‘the world’. And you are right: it is wacky stuff.

But is more evidence that metaphysical content, or structure, or projection, is the stuff of man’s world. You think, you overwrought nut, that I am similarly invested, or that my views are identical to those of IC, and there you are simply wrong. This is your own projection. And your responsibility.

Based on my ability to judge what exactly? You mean the nascent “movement” that has begun within the American polity? To say MAGA really only scratches the surface. There is a widespread movement that opposes an established order, and varying people flail against “it” in different ways. Whatever ‘it’ is, it is present throughout Europe and in all the former British colonies.

In my own way, and within my means, I study this ‘movement’ and the ideas that stand behind it. Obviously, something about this cranks you up. You went ape-shit when I merely mentioned The Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset) but you did not, and you do not, understand how prescient his essay is for our present.

You are bizarrely reactionary, you project reams of your own unsettled , paranoid content onto me, so naturally I suggest (as I always have) that you get a grip on yourself.

I’ll continue to bitch-slap you if you demand this of me and though it is fun, in its way, it does not help us to advance to the Supernal Heights. This is why I am docking your account US$3,000.00

Don’t continue to piss me off. There are limits!

What insane drivel is this lol.
I'm pressing the keys on the keyboard metaphysically by the way.