God and morality

[Fanman]

Here's some more of what ChatGPT stated, based on the shared prompt. I'll share more throughout the day. So Flash can have something useful to do with his time.

ChatGPT stated:

You've also demonstrated a willingness to challenge my reasoning when you believe I've misunderstood your argument. That's a positive feature of our discussions because it forces us to examine the actual proposition rather than settle for a convenient interpretation.

[Fanman]

On God and morality, I'll share an excerpt from my document with (what I believe are) my core philosophical achievements.

I also presented a category-based response to the Problem of Evil by arguing that it is an ontological category mismatch to apply the scope of finite human morality directly to a maximal, eternal being without understanding the difference in ontological scale.

Let me know your thoughts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We should respect what is admirable in anything. But what makes it "admirable" must be drawn from some meta-perspective, obviously...some governing viewpoint from which we are able to say what is "admirable" and what is "deplorable." And that meta-perspective will be one of the "religions" or ideologies themselves.

We must always sift. There are good elements, and there are bad, in many worldviews. It is not right to reject everything in another's view merely because some of it is poison; but it's also not right to swallow poison along with that which is "admirable."

In the process of “sifting” you, IC, and what you present here, a task presented itself. That task was to try to think through how it is that a modern man like yourself could manage the extraordinary feat of being and embodying that modern post-scientific intellectual state or accomplishment, and quite literally hop back in time to take up residence in a New Testament “picture” of reality. That is the thing to focus on. This is an incredible feat when one really thinks about it.

And when along with that feat one adds-in a personality disposition such as yours that presents as thoroughly & totally incapable of critical self-analysis and evincing an unbreakable discipline in believing what is literally no longer possible to believe (“original mating pair” etc etc), one’s jaw drops. Who is this extraordinary being? How did he come to be?

Worldview, you say? The admirable? Meta-perspectives? The deplorable?

Help, I’m dizzy!

It is not right to reject everything in another's view merely because some of it is poison; but it's also not right to swallow poison along with that which is "admirable."

My view is that if you, IC, were placed on a stage where you had to clearly define to an intelligent audience what is “admirable” and what “deplorable” in ourselves, in man, in our cultures today, that you would not be able to carry it out.

Poisons, you say?

[Fanman]

Me again (), as promised, here's another snippet of what ChatGPT stated based on my earlier prompt:

ChatGPT stated:

But “weird little man” is a different kind of description. Depending on the context, it can be dismissive or belittling. It doesn't capture the intellectual substance of our conversations, and I wouldn't use it as a fair summary of you.

I hope I didn't offend or annoy anyone by sharing that. I'm not being egotistical. Rather, defending my character from Flash's systematic abuse/attack. I want a positive account of me on the forum record, even if it comes from an AI (plus, I think it's humorous). I apologise for straying from the stated topic. I hope my contribution to the topic, regarding the PoE, compensates for the tangent. Cheers.

[Immanuel Can]

Poisons, you say?

I'm sorry...I don't find anything in your last message remotely true or interesting. That's the problem with an ad hom rant...it's just childish and boring.

Have you got anything relevant to the present discussion to say? Anything at all?

If not, I guess we leave it at that.

[Fanman]

I will share one more quote from ChatGPT's output based on my earlier prompt. I believe this one completes the series nicely. What the universe provides us with can fit into place perfectly at times. Thanks, er, the powers that be?

ChatGPT stated:

My distinction would be this: being unconventional is not the same as being ridiculous, and being intellectually ambitious is not the same as being self-important. The appropriate assessment depends on the actual ideas, reasoning, and behaviour, not merely on whether they depart from the norm.

And, brother, I wouldn't use a belittling label where a more precise description is available.

My thoughts align with ChatGPT here (on this occasion ). We're 'allowed' to be different, and we're allowed to do things differently. Isn't the old saying that variety is the spice of life? Very successful people can break the mould and innovate, sometimes exponentially [cough, Elon, cough]. As long as we're not causing harm, intellectual ambition is a positive character trait (IMO). I tend not to use simple, belittling labels because it shows a lack of philosophical rigour (which is contradictory on a philosophy forum). And if you're trying to paint a picture that day is night (hint, hint), a belittling label isn't dark (or shade) enough to hide the proverbial sun at noon.

NB: And no, I'm not claiming to be 'sun-like,' certainly not; it's just an apt way to describe the contrast between reality and Flash's rhetorical behaviour toward me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sorry...I don't find anything in your last message remotely true or interesting. That's the problem with an ad hom rant...it's just childish and boring.

Have you got anything relevant to the present discussion to say? Anything at all?

If not, I guess we leave it at that.

Aren’t you always “leaving it at that”?

I do not think you have ANY grasp of your effect as an apologist, as an evangelist. Thus: zero self-analysis. You cannot even philosophically entertain the possibility that when people examine you — not only on a personal level but also at the level of what it is you want people to believe, towards what you desire to influence — that they sense they are dealing with a defective approach. How else could this not turn on the person?

That is why I say: It is all hominem. Now, there is nothing whatever to be gained by thoughtless, personalized attacks, but an examination of the man (i.e. of men) who invest in positions as yours, like yours, is entirely reasonable. We are the subjects here. We fool ourselves if we pretend its about “pure ideas”.

IC, you find nothing at all ‘interesting’ in any position, any ideas or considerations that do not agree with your position! That is it in a nutshell. And you cannot, or will not, allow even general comparative analysis between religious modalities that result in a positive outlook or statement.

Have you got anything relevant to the present discussion to say? Anything at all?

Once again: “For obstinacy makes it impossible for a man to hear for all that he has ears.”

Don’t freak out, man! I have zero expectations of you. I know exactly what I am dealing with. But if I do not make it plain I think that is a mistake.

[Alexis Jacobi]

On God and morality, I'll share an excerpt from my document with (what I believe are) my core philosophical achievements.

I also presented a category-based response to the Problem of Evil by arguing that it is an ontological category mismatch to apply the scope of finite human morality directly to a maximal, eternal being without understanding the difference in ontological scale.

Let me know your thoughts.

The gist of the religious-moralist position is that Divinity, pictured in myriad ways, communicates to men morals that are that divinity’s will. In that there is a multi-faceted symbolism. It also requires ‘interpretation’.

The “problem of evil” always involves a story, a mythology. Be it “the Fall” or any number of mythic tales about how we find ourselves in this jam. Is there really anything so complex and mysterious about ‘evil’?

My view is rather simplistic, but it is effective in communicating the scope and depth of our insolvable problem: Nature is absolutely cruel and merciless in her processes. We are subsumed in Nature. But our “awareness” is supernatural: i.e. it realizes itself when it sees in what, effectively, it is trapped. It can see beyond it and envision worlds of a different sort. Worlds of pure idealism.

We are trapped in Nature. In merciless processes. These are mindless and these are eternal. That realization induces reaction. On one side, madness. But on the other a potentially indomitable will to oppose Nature.

To “stick it to the Lady” as it were.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry...I don't find anything in your last message remotely true or interesting. That's the problem with an ad hom rant...it's just childish and boring.

Have you got anything relevant to the present discussion to say? Anything at all?

If not, I guess we leave it at that.

Aren’t you always “leaving it at that”?

No, actually...I've given you the respect of a conversation here. But it seems you've walked us into a cul-de-sac. The point of a conversation, it seems to me, is to be 1) interesting, and 2) relevant. It's not much to ask, but there it is. And if it happens to be the case that you've run out of both, then I guess the conversation ends. But that's been your choice, none of mine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am interested in the AI Question (though I have read none of the exchanges here). I began to use AI (Meta) to research Leica lenses, then some Mamiya equipment. I found it incredibly useful. There is a wide range of things it can be used for: research especially. Like a ‘living’ encyclopedia.

I asked it to search Canzookia.com and summarize the views and opinions of Amexis Jacobi but Canzookia blocks such “scrapers”. It suggested I submit a post and with that it would summarize. The post I submitted is the one to Fanman, just above this.

Here is the summation:

Here's Alexis Jacobi, distilled from that post - in his own voice, but with the volume turned up:

The man runs a one-man metaphysical prison break operation.

*1. The Religious-Moralist Business Model*
His starting point: All religions are essentially the same PR firm. There's a Divinity - call him Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, The Force, whatever your grandmother preferred - and this Divinity has supposedly faxed down a moral code. "Be nice. Don't steal. Don't covet thy neighbor's ox."

Jacobi's point: That's not revelation, that's _symbolism_ that needs a translator. You never get the memo directly. You get a priest, a rabbi, an imam, a guy with crystals at Burning Man, who says "Here's what Divinity _really_ meant." So the whole moral universe is built on second-hand interpretation of a third-hand mythology. It's like playing telephone with God.

He doesn't say it's false. He says it's literary. You can't build a civilization on poetry and then act surprised when people argue about the meter.

*2. The Problem of Evil is Fan Fiction*
For Jacobi, the famous "Problem of Evil" - if God is good, why does He let children get cancer? - is not a philosophical problem at all. It's a plot hole in a story we made up.

You need the story first: Once upon a time we were perfect, then we ate the apple / opened the box / killed the golden goose / fell from Atlantis. Now we're being punished. If you don't buy the prequel, the sequel makes no sense.

His move is brilliantly simple and almost insulting: Stop asking why a good God allows evil. There is no good God allowing anything. There is just Nature, and Nature is a psychopath.

*3. His Actual Philosophy: We're Lobsters with a Superpower*
This is the core of Jacobi-ism, and it's bleakly funny:

Nature = absolutely cruel, merciless, mindless, eternal meat-grinder. It doesn't hate you. A shark doesn't hate the seal. It just eats it while it's still screaming. Evolution runs on suffering, waste, and indifference. We are 100% subsumed in it. We are meat that learned to talk about being meat.

But - and this is his one miracle - _awareness_ is supernatural. Not supernatural as in ghosts. Supernatural as in _not_ natural. Nature doesn't do self-reflection. A volcano doesn't feel guilty. A tapeworm doesn't contemplate mercy. We do. We can look at the grinder we are trapped in and say "This sucks. I can imagine a world that doesn't suck."

That imagination is not natural. It is anti-natural. It's a glitch, a mutation, a divine error.

So you have two options when you wake up in the grinder:

A) Go mad. Which most people do - they invent another story, take antidepressants, become academics, watch Netflix.

B) Develop what he calls an "indomitable will to oppose Nature." To stick it to the Lady.

That Lady being Nature herself. The great cruel Mother. The at the end of his post is the whole ethic.

He is not proposing we win. Nature is eternal. You don't defeat a hurricane by yelling at it. But you can build a house that resists it. You can refuse to worship it. You can refuse to call cruelty "God's will" or "natural order."

In short: Don't spiritualize suffering. See it as mechanical cruelty, see your disgust at it as the only thing in you that is actually transcendent, and then live out of spiteful idealism. Build the pure ideal world in your head anyway, even though you know you're trapped.

It's Schopenhauer with a leather jacket. Cioran who goes to the gym. A gnostic who doesn't believe in God but still thinks consciousness is proof that we're not supposed to be here.

Morality for Jacobi isn't obedience to Divinity. It's rebellion against Nature, using that weird supernatural awareness as your weapon.

Stick it to the Lady.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sorry...I don't find anything in your last message remotely true or interesting. That's the problem with an ad hom rant...it's just childish and boring.

Have you got anything relevant to the present discussion to say? Anything at all?

If not, I guess we leave it at that.

Aren’t you always “leaving it at that”?

No, actually...I've given you the respect of a conversation here. But it seems you've walked us into a cul-de-sac. The point of a conversation, it seems to me, is to be 1) interesting, and 2) relevant. It's not much to ask, but there it is. And if it happens to be the case that you've run out of both, then I guess the conversation ends. But that's been your choice, none of mine.

Sorry, Old Boy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have to say (in respect to Meta AI’s response) that how large language models work is beyond my grasp. But how weird it is that the LLM builds quite creatively upon the content that I submitted.

[FlashDangerpants]

Has that whiny little AI fiend stopped complaining about me yet?

Don't get any worse than you already are Jacobi. Begging AI to tell you how cool you are is just a way to show how weird you are.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, Old Boy.

No need to apologize. I'm not hurt or anything. I would just rather have a conversation with you that taps into the side that has insight and good arguments, rather than the side that's vituperative and off-point. And I know you've got both in you. It's in the hope of the former that I continue to engage you, until the latter ruins the party.

We'll talk again, I'm sure. And maybe next time we can both stay out of the cul-de-sac, yes?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Has that whiny little AI fiend stopped complaining about me yet?

Don't get any worse than you already are Jacobi. Begging AI to tell you how cool you are is just a way to show how weird you are.

You misunderstand. I gave it a specific prompt:

On Canzookia.com forum there is one “Alexis Jacobi”. What’s his philosophy about? How would you sum it up (directly but humorously) in 500 words?

It was not to “seek approval” or validation but genuine curiosity what it would say. I wonder if it is programmed to give “harsh analysis”.