BBC keeps hassling me

[Phil8659]

They call it love at first fright.

[mickthinks]

Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason.

I salute the skillful ambiguity there, Mr Pants

When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.
lol Well said, and nicely put.

[Walker]

Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason.

I salute the skillful ambiguity there, Mr Pants

He wears the corporate hat.

[Phil8659]

Talk about being hassled, I just had a run in with a bar of soap.

[iambiguous]

I think there are some things that don't have a specific definition. Paganism is one of these, as are questions about the meaning of life. With Paganism, all we can do is give a few general ideas, while always bearing in mind that these won't fit every branch of Paganism. And with regard to questions about the meaning of life, we usually don't even know the question.

From my own frame of mind, there are those who manage to convince themselves [one way or another], that it is entirely possible for mere mortals to acquire [and then to sustain] both an essential meaning of life, and an objective morality. For some, of course, it all comes back to a God, the God, my God. For others, however, [like Buddhists] it is a No God spiritual path. Then the Pantheists. Then the secularists who fall back on political ideology or biological imperatives or a deontological philosophy of life. Some will even insist that science itself can provide us with the most rational assessment of human interactions in the is/ought world.

From my own [still] more or less "fractured and fragmented" perspective, however, they generally come here and express their value judgments given one or another religious dogma, or one or another secular political ideology, or one or another school of philosophy. In other words, given different ontological/teleological fonts they champion one or another "my way or the highway" moral dogma. Which may or may not be anchored in one or another historical manifestation of "or else".

Generally, the folks above take leaps of faith spiritually or, instead, offer what they construe to be secular arguments [philosophical or otherwise] able to establish that those who do accept their own set of assumptions become "one of us" [the good guys] and those who don't become "one of them" [the bad guys].

With Pagans, however, it becomes considerably more problematic. Why? Because in regard to things like abortion, nihilism, sexuality, and BBC licensing, each Pagan, in sync with his or her own visceral "I just know" "intrinsic self", might arrive at entirely conflicting conclusions.

That's the part I [still] don't understand. It's a moral philosophy that can never really be effectively challenged. Why? Because it's predicated on the assumption that in order to think and to feel as any particular Pagan does regarding conflicting value judgments, you would "for all practical purposes" have to be them.

[iambiguous]

It doesn't really look like much philosophy was happening in that thread tbh. It seldom does when it's just iambignose going on about Donald Rumsfeld though

Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy? 

Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.

As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is not applicable?

What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?

As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true. 

As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...

"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. 

...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".

Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason. But the rest of me is wondering if you think that pile of self-indulgent self-important nonsense demonstrates some error of my reasoning?

When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.

Note to others:



Enough said?

[Phil8659]

That's the part I [still] don't understand. It's a moral philosophy that can never really be effectively challenged. Why? Because it's predicated on the assumption that in order to think and to feel as any particular Pagan does regarding conflicting value judgments, you would "for all practical purposes" have to be them.

You just exampled why you do not understand. Does a name define a person, or does an actual definition of the function of a human mind.

If you do not know what you are, why you are, and how to do your biologically defined job, you just do not understand one particular thing, you do not understand anything.

[Impenitent]

the best Pagans were featured in the movie Dragnet with Aykroyd and Hanks...

-Imp

[Phil8659]

the best Pagans were featured in the movie Dragnet with Aykroyd and Hanks...

-Imp

So, share with the world, your standard of measure for better and worse.

[Impenitent]

P. people
A. against
G. goodness
A. and
N. normalcy

(it was a hilarious movie)

-Imp

[Phil8659]

P. people
A. against
G. goodness
A. and
N. normalcy

(it was a hilarious movie)

-Imp

So, is that your next tattoo?

People
Are
Good
and
Nobel
So, where are all the people?

Plastic words, let he among you who has not put there words on plastic, making themselves hopelessly in debt, buy the first Big Mac with fries.

[Maia]

I think there are some things that don't have a specific definition. Paganism is one of these, as are questions about the meaning of life. With Paganism, all we can do is give a few general ideas, while always bearing in mind that these won't fit every branch of Paganism. And with regard to questions about the meaning of life, we usually don't even know the question.

From my own frame of mind, there are those who manage to convince themselves [one way or another], that it is entirely possible for mere mortals to acquire [and then to sustain] both an essential meaning of life, and an objective morality. For some, of course, it all comes back to a God, the God, my God. For others, however, [like Buddhists] it is a No God spiritual path. Then the Pantheists. Then the secularists who fall back on political ideology or biological imperatives or a deontological philosophy of life. Some will even insist that science itself can provide us with the most rational assessment of human interactions in the is/ought world.

From my own [still] more or less "fractured and fragmented" perspective, however, they generally come here and express their value judgments given one or another religious dogma, or one or another secular political ideology, or one or another school of philosophy. In other words, given different ontological/teleological fonts they champion one or another "my way or the highway" moral dogma. Which may or may not be anchored in one or another historical manifestation of "or else".

Generally, the folks above take leaps of faith spiritually or, instead, offer what they construe to be secular arguments [philosophical or otherwise] able to establish that those who do accept their own set of assumptions become "one of us" [the good guys] and those who don't become "one of them" [the bad guys].

With Pagans, however, it becomes considerably more problematic. Why? Because in regard to things like abortion, nihilism, sexuality, and BBC licensing, each Pagan, in sync with his or her own visceral "I just know" "intrinsic self", might arrive at entirely conflicting conclusions.

That's the part I [still] don't understand. It's a moral philosophy that can never really be effectively challenged. Why? Because it's predicated on the assumption that in order to think and to feel as any particular Pagan does regarding conflicting value judgments, you would "for all practical purposes" have to be them.

Yes, I think that's right. Paganism isn't really a religion, in the usual sense. At best, it's a collection of lots of different religious and spiritual paths, along with others that have more in common with atheism. If there's any unifying feature, it's a connection with nature, but even that can manifest in all sorts of different ways. A lot of Pagans, for example, fully embrace the climate change hysteria, but I personally think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we can affect the climate in any significant way. Which doesn't mean that I'm not an environmentalist, because I very much am.

[Phil8659]

personally think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we can affect the climate in any significant way. Which doesn't mean that I'm not an environmentalist, because I very much am.

An you call yourself a historian. LMAO.

Who else is to blame for the environment than the objects which is contained within it? The inanimate objects? Or the animate? or a combination of both?

Which one is free from physical law, that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction?
You have to be very ignorant of mountains of statistical fact to make that claim.
Not only that, but ignorant to life itself, every form of life evolves environmental life support systems in order just to live.
One of those systems, ranges over the entire environment, and its name is a functional mind.

No sir, I did not cause the extinction of all dem animals!
No sir, I did not pollute dem waters, or turn dat into a radioactive wasteland!
No sir, I ain't me babe, no, no, it ain't me babe, its de devil you looking for, babe.

We are becoming a life support system. Until we do, we destroy the ground upon which we walk. We are, in a metaphor, the Whore of Babylon.

You missed the Metaphor in the start, A woman is the Mother of all life, i.e., a life support system. The Bible is an outline of human evolution.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy? 

Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.

As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

...is not applicable?

What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?

As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true. 

As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...

"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. 

...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".

Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason. But the rest of me is wondering if you think that pile of self-indulgent self-important nonsense demonstrates some error of my reasoning?

When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.

Note to others:



Enough said?

[Phil8659]

Every form of life is composed of a number of life support systems which means every form of life has specific jobs to do in order to live.

No life support system can do that job until a cusp point in its evolution which makes it functional.

Saying something is not so, because you cannot do the work you are being made to do, does not mean we are not responsible for the deaths we cause. such statements are self referential fallacies. Evolution is afforded by motivation, not the lack of it.
Centuries before punctuated equilibrium was even thought of, you will find it in the Bible.
The Bible outright tells you, that it is a story about the making of Man.
The construction of the Bible is based on fact. A mind is an information processor, which means that in order to read and write, it has to be able to do so using both arithmetic, i.e., literal processing, and geometric, i.e., metaphorical processing. The fact that people cannot read it, the reason it tells you throughout the text, that mankind will not be able to read it until after a certain time in human history, is simply because the mind of man is not yet functional, i.e., not yet literate.

Every true prophet in history provided material to stress the mind in order to develop it into becoming generally functional. Not doctrine, not religion, not science, by psychology.
All a mind can do is read and write.
Everyone looking for truth, or a savior, is a person who is looking for themselves, that is the one person they will not find, for by fact, we have to be made, not found.
Self satisfaction is equivalent to being inanimate.