Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

It won't change the problem. It's simply one of how one distinguishes ANYTHING in a realm of "voices."

But you are asking me to answer a question that is your concoction. I do not believe that I referred to “voices” and in reality you are asking a question strictly within your own framework which is not one I can say I share, or only with many caveats.

I already asked what you attend to. I simply use the word "voices," in quotations, because there's no particular synonym you've supplied. I have to use some placeholder. You can change it.

The question is still dead simple: how do you know which ___________ (supply your word) you are attending to on a given occasion? What are your criteria?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why must you direct questions to me? Why cannot you comment on all that I communicated? Why in many of your interactions do you always seem to feel you have a right to control a conversation by directing it?

I assure you: the answers to those questions when supplied will move things along nicely.

NB: There is nothing ‘simple’ in any of this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can help you a bit, I think. This is what you might have said, and I think more what you mean:

“Ah, OK, I now see better where you are ‘coming from’, Alexis. I have no comparable experience and, if I am honest, sense that you are playing with dangerous powers. But as you say, since the experiences you had were brought to you and that you did not seek, I can only see your experiences as my personal Christian lens determines. You refer to literary figures, authors and artists, but I cannot give much heed to them. After all, according to my way of organizing understanding, they are merely “hearing voices” and they are not Christian as I am, therefore they did not “test the spirit” as a Christian might and I would. They are hearing themselves, not true Spirit. And that is why I refer to “voices” as if tempting demons are approaching.

“Certainly, from my perspective, all that you are talking about is inconsiderable for me. And it is all “of the Devil”.

“I cannot even think about the experience of an imagined protagonist in a modern novel. Not only because I do not read such literature, but because it does not conform to orthodox Evangelical doctrines …”

Etc etc…

[Immanuel Can]

Why must you direct questions to me?

You're right: it seems quite pointless, since you never seem to be either willing or able to answer. Perhaps I'll stop, then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why must you direct questions to me?

You're right: it seems quite pointless, since you never seem to be either willing or able to answer. Perhaps I'll stop, then.

The impasse that you very often confront is your own contraption.

[Immanuel Can]

Why must you direct questions to me?

You're right: it seems quite pointless, since you never seem to be either willing or able to answer. Perhaps I'll stop, then.

The impasse that you very often confront is your own contraption.

Yes, fine. Have a nice day.

[Will Bouwman]

AJ: ...but do not have, and have no way even to conceive of, a “holistic frame” or an integrated picture.

Wilbur: What do you think an integrated picture entails?

But Wilbur, you are the philosopher.

Gus, what did I say about the halfwits on this forum who call themselves philosophers?
Anyway, the context:

My view is that the philosophy of today, and what I perceive and understand of those who identify as “philosophers” on this forum, operate in a manner similar to a medical specialist and may be quite adept in a given area but do not have, and have no way even to conceive of, a “holistic frame” or an integrated picture.

Without being entirely sure what you mean by either "a “holistic frame” or an integrated picture", most people have some way of seeing the world, by which they make sense of it - a frame in which to integrate their experience creating their picture. What I keep saying is that there are many different frames into which the same experiences fit equally well; anyone who has seriously studied philosophy will know this. The people trying to sell you their integrated picture as truth are the ones who don't know what they are talking about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From Hesse’s Steppenwolf:

“For man is not a fixed and enduring construction (as the classical ideal had it, despite the dissenting insights of the wise), rather he is an attempt and a transition, he is nothing other than the narrow, perilous bridge between nature and spirit. His innermost sense of purpose drives him to the spirit, to God—his inmost desire pulls him back to nature, to the mother: his life teeters, fearful and trembling between these two powers.”

“What lies at the origin of all things is not innocence and simplicity; everything that is created, even the most seemingly simple thing, is already guilty, is already rich in contradictions, it has been thrown into the dirty stream of becoming, and can never, never swim back upstream.”

“The path to innocence, to the uncreated, to God, does not lead backward, but rather forward, not to the wolf or the child, but rather deeper into sin, deeper into the human.”

Naturally, I am disappointed by IC’s incapacity to engage with certain facts about our “real existence” in this strange world. But in my view it is the contrast and the contradiction presented to us while living life that is the essence of the question. And how does or how would the Figure of Christ, or any spiritual avatar, help one out or contribute to the navigation of The World when what it is really all about is clearly seen.

And that is what it seems it comes down to: people — artists, thinkers, philosophers — who have had no choice but to enter the world as opposed, perhaps one might say, to recoiling away from it.

Poor Alexis Jacobi! who I see walking slowly up a mountain ridge backlit by an autumnal sun! Misunderstood! Slandered! Cheated out of monthly dues! The breezes of late summer still flow warmly about the scene…but there is a slight chill in the air. Do you feel it? Oh and look: a raven circles and cavorts in the sky above as far darker clouds approach from the West. What could this mean?!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Without being entirely sure what you mean by either "a “holistic frame” or an integrated picture", most people have some way of seeing the world, by which they make sense of it - a frame in which to integrate their experience creating their picture. What I keep saying is that there are many different frames into which the same experiences fit equally well; anyone who has seriously studied philosophy will know this. The people trying to sell you their integrated picture as truth are the ones who don't know what they are talking about.

Then I take it that in your view — which you declare is philosophical or the one a philosopher will come to at the end-point of reason — is that nothing in the created manifest world has established, say, the right or the ultimate interpretation of a unified philosophical and religious set of principles?

Such does not exist and could not exist, therefore attempting to define it is a ‘fool’s errand’, or an aesthetic choice, and in all cases a whimsical choice.

This is what Philosophy teaches, is that right?

The people trying to sell you their integrated picture as truth are the ones who don't know what they are talking about.

Yes! YES! That’s why I say “Instruct me for thou knowest…”

[Immanuel Can]

Naturally, I am disappointed by IC’s incapacity to engage

No you're not. You're disappointed in the thought of having to answer a straight question.

I also don't understand your love of empty rhetorical flourishes. It baffles me that you never want to really do any philosophy. I seriously can't figure out what you're getting out of it. But there's got to be something.

Whatever it is, I guess you're getting it. If you were disappointed, you'd do differently.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I also don't understand your love of empty rhetorical flourishes. It baffles me that you never want to really do any philosophy. I seriously can't figure out what you're getting out of it. But there's got to be something.

As to the flourishes: I may have been Cyrano de Bergerac in a relatively recent past life. While I lack the nose I did re-inherit the tongue …

The thing is, Brother Immanuel, what I write and try to communicate to you, does not even register in your mind. But here’s the thing: you do not even see this, it does not even register dimly. You had and you have many, many ways to engage with what I took the time to communicate to you, but you simply won’t — because you can’t. It is (as Hesse said of a certain psychologist) that you lack an ‘organ’ that others do have. But you are not aware of your deficiency.

And even this, or especially this, will arouse no response.

…that you never want to really do any philosophy

This is absolutely marvelous! Precious! Everyone here says of the others that they are imposters.

I am very interested in the topics of the day, and obviously I am interested in Occidental man (we of the West) at a very unique and extraordinarily consequential juncture. That is my topic. What in the name of Heaven is yours?

Now, please hold forth for me how the “true philosophers” are to approach thinking about said juncture and all the consequential issues and problems.

[As an unrelated aside, I genuinely like the sound of a braying jackass. Some people don’t but I find it strangely endearing. Delight is where you find it, I guess!]

Have you ever heard the expression “read between the lines”? Whatever could that mean?!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Whatever it is, I guess you're getting it. If you were disappointed, you'd do differently.

Alexis Jacobi is like unto the glint in a raven’s eye. I simply do not know how else to put it!

[Immanuel Can]

...what I write and try to communicate to you, does not even register in your mind.

Nor anyone else's. It's like "a glint in a raven's eye."

So...carrion.

[promethean75]

While homophoning may be fun, rarely does it forward the progress of an argument, sir.

[Immanuel Can]

While homophoning may be fun, rarely does it forward the progress of an argument, sir.

True: but since AJ wasn't doing anything close to an actual argument, I think it works rather well.

So stop your raven.