Philosophy Now Forum

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:45 pmI'm not sure how you square God-as-only-within-you with (God being capable of causing) external events such as the song synchronously playing on the bus.

First, a song simply played. It was this *hearer* who had an experience in which meaning & value & implication *lit up*. No one else had the experience (though since it was entirely internal for me I could not say what others experienced).

Who created the lyrics of that song? Who encased something (meaning & value) in lyricism? How did it get from her — Lauper —to me, Jacobi-Cicero?

The world went on its merry (chaotic, random, ‘divine’, catastrophic) way. If I was affected it was due to something internal. If any effect extended outward it was from the inside out.

There had to be a ‘hearer’. Who hears?

Hears what?

Jung uses the fancy term acausal connecting principle to describe an ‘omen’. Who or what stands behind the principle’s operation?

Can I exploit the principle’s operation to get the really hot chicks?

Profound questions by every measure …

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:22 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:45 pmI'm not sure how you square God-as-only-within-you with (God being capable of causing) external events such as the song synchronously playing on the bus.

First, a song simply played. It was this *hearer* who had an experience in which meaning & value & implication *lit up*. No one else had the experience (though since it was entirely internal for me I could not say what others experienced).

Who created the lyrics of that song? Who encased something (meaning & value) in lyricism? How did it get from her — Lauper —to me, Jacobi-Cicero?

The world went on its merry (chaotic, random, ‘divine’, catastrophic) way. If I was affected it was due to something internal. If any effect extended outward it was from the inside out.

There had to be a ‘hearer’. Who hears?

Hears what?

Jung uses the fancy term acausal connecting principle to describe an ‘omen’. Who or what stands behind the principle’s operation?

Can I exploit the principle’s operation to get the really hot chicks?

Profound questions by every measure …

Similarly, I drove for six hours to a small town overnight to ask a girl I used to work with (many years earlier) out for lunch (*sage stated she needs you - so off i went)

As the Sun started to rise over the beautiful calm turqoise water and I was almost at the town the cassette tape I was listening to started to play up so I ejected it. The radio automatically started and the song was at the very beginning:- https://youtu.be/AIBv2GEnXlc

Also, on the way home I stopped at the Standpipe Hotel - a beautiful old coach stop now owned by two Seihk brothers, and they do the best Indian food in SAust...as I walked into the dining room Moon River started to play.

(her name was Christie - Christ_ie)



https://www.androcies.com/Prose/Laura%2 ... Three.html

Laura, Two divided by Three


Past quaint shops,
I wandered home,
late at night,
at chess dethroned.
Something caught my eye,
there was...light.
A candle flickered,
beside a knight.
So I pushed the door,
and entered inside.
An old man asleep,
awoke in fright.
Fear leapt into his eyes,
it seemed,
glazed over,
the eyes now beamed.
"Pick a book!",
shrieked the man,
"..but make it quick,
this eternal plan!"
I looked around,
well I guess, they're
books!
The dust so thick,
disguised their look.
"Pick a book,
pick it now!",
shrieked the man,
beneath a frown.
"I'm heading home,
all in time."
"Then head there quick,
or else,
you'll die.
Pick a book, you must now!"
I looked around.
"From which side should I pick?"
A Grandfather clock,
began to tick.
My heartbeat seemed,
in sync with it.
The old man said,
"Be clock-wise and think,
are we down-under,
after all,
or is it those 'up-top',
that have been fooled?"
I began to quiz,
to fathom it out,
is to think of the East.
"Clock-wise, we are up top,"
is what I said.
To which he replied,
"Then go there instead."
The East side of the shop,
is where I looked,
and from a shelf,
I picked a book.
C.J. Dennis,
was in my hand,
The Chase of Ages,
and here I stand.
I opened a page.
The clock stopped,
and the man shrieked,
"Get out of here,
the time is weak!"
I turned to my right,
but quickly I left,
for stood there behind me,
was beyond my breath.
I crossed the street,
and across the grass,
C.J. Dennis,
came to life,
from brass.
"I can slow that ghost,
my friend,
but Baphomet,
will come to life,
in the end.
You must strike him,
and stand your ground,
upon the threshold,
of your own house.
Take this sword,
Excalibur, it is,
now my word,
its calibre denied!"
"Then I shall kill him,
and restore the Templar,
pride!"
As I took the sword,
I remembered my past life,
that evil Pope,
and all his lies.
"Don't forget the,
Song of Rain,
that the A.I.
and entropy,
art to blame!
Now run,
my friend and,
don't hesitate,
or else we are doomed,
our final fate.
This ghost of Baphomet,
it will follow you home,
and upon the threshold,
of your throne,
turn and strike that lethal blow."
"OK. Clarrie", is all I said,
to this gentle man of word,
now dead?
I swung my sword,
kill him now,
is what I thought.
But indeed,
I could not!
For Baphomet was air,
just the essence,
of a visual plot!
Come on darling,
answer the phone,
open the door,
the threshold,
the throne.
I ran,
I ran,
upon my soles,
chased by the one,
king of arseholes.
The answer came,
the sweet voice,
leapt out,
leaving no doubt,
The plan was set,
for she had dreamt,
it all about.
I felt to shout,
"Baphomet,
there is no doubt!
there is no doubt!
from which of that,
you are out!"

Excalibur!

It will slice that fence,
for its metal,
is not so dense.
I took a shortcut,
my breath so thin,
I sliced a cut,
through the,
corrugated skin.
I pushed, and,
split that fence,
right through.
It was tight of fit,
as I stumbled,
upon dew.
Now I could hear,
Baphomet's breath,
it was turning to beast,
of animal flesh.
I got back to my feet,
how shall,
or shalt not,
we,
slay this infernal,
beast?
I ran again,
I ran,
I ran,
My heart,
held out,
for this final,
plan.
Of which I knew,
of nothing more,
than to get,
to that bloody door!
I jumped the gate,
oh I hate that gate,
for from,
the tree of knowledge,
I had ate.
As I got to the porch,
and there she stood,
the most beautiful lady,
ever overlooked.
"Hand me the sword,"
is what she said,
her two soles,
upon the threshold,
spread.
This final plan,
it must be hers,
for C.J. Dennis,
knew of this curse.
I held the blade,
and upon her grasp,
she thrust Excalibur,
deep into my heart.
I fell to my knees,
and then to the floor.
I saw her tears,
whilst stood at the door.
I cried out...Christie!
Why?
Oh, why?
For long and deep,
I did strive.
There was not a word,
spoken from her.
But I knew,
deep inside,
for what she saw,
and short of sight.
I rolled my head,
as I died,
to see Baphomet,
grinning,
his usual delight.
I turned to my side,
as I awoke,
in bed and all alone,
and there I chocked.
It was just another,
dream and again,
I'm all alone.
Still alive,
but just,
an ordinary bloke.

https://www.androcies.com

Long live Chris ... Chris ... tianity!

Down with the ... er ... the ...

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:25 am Long live Chris ... Chris ... tianity!

Down with the ... er ... the ...

Christieinsanity.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:59 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:25 am Long live Chris ... Chris ... tianity!

Down with the ... er ... the ...

Christieinsanity.

Superb! You hit the nail on its head. Christieinsanity is the right piece (to move).

I got stuck here.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 12:23 pm I got stuck here.

I'm sick of being the designated Mojito maker at NY.

That poem I wrote in a writing group - the prompt was that you enter an old book shop and pick a book from a shelf then a ghost appears. The photos I took of the CJ Dennis statue when me and me dog drove to Uluru Christmas 2020. (in a town called Laura near Adelaide)

this from a discussion elsewhere about your homeboy Jesus. wanted to use this as an example in a simple point i often make. u can even call it opinion I you'd like. but i feel that no intelligent god would expect anyone in the 21rst century to believe anything about the bible but perhaps it's irreligious content, and only to some extent (historical, genealogical, geographical, etc.). certainly not that this jesus character wuz his son or physical form or whatever u wanna call it. such a thing is preposterous enough to expect a reasonable god not to count such events and reports as evidence of his existence precisely becuz of their extraordinarily dubious nature. it would be an amateur move, or mischievous and on purpose... to confuse and confound. now since god can't be an amateur or of a mischievous nature (he's gotta be a serious dude), the bible can't be evidence of god. neither can any other religious text written by men.

if there is a god - whatever that means - it would be known either by experience (a posteriori) or by reason alone (a priori). I argue that if god chose the former means, he would have to be company to an experience that couldn't be doubted. This eliminates any revelatory evidence/knowledge of god... which pretty much narrows it down to option two. And option two can be taken as far as the rationalists had taken it sans the dreaded anthropomorphic fallacy. And you know who won that one, the undisputed champion of the european rationalists.

But prophets and messiahs are a dime a dozen, so god would never send one.

anyway, how many versions of similar tales are told in the countless religious texts all over the world, and do u suppose god - the real christian one - would have let that happen... and then expect u to pick the real religion out from the fake ones? siriusly think about how silly this kind of situation is for a religious believer. how silly a god would have to be to establish a relationship with a person this way.

Nevermind. but check this out. it's like a character synopsis for someone in a LoTR movie or marvel comic book:

"He healed, etc., because it was prophesied (see his response to John the Baptist’s inquiry from prison). He didn’t heal everyone because special healing is relational (requires trust, or attention… even if only in hindsight… to higher point being communicated). That’s why he had to incarnate *and* leave (to prep for Spirit not spatially limited)."

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:00 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:45 pm I don't see a meaningful difference in this context between humans and other life forms, so, my answer has to be that the extent to which God operates in a world with humans in it is not meaningfully different to the extent to which God operates in a world without humans (but with other conscious beings) in it.

OK. So in the world without humans, and with god, how does god operate in respect to the (say) ethical choices of animals? I presented some natural history clips a few pages back. That pack of Orcas attacking, tiring out, then killing and eating the Minke Whale.

Were the Orcas wrong ethically? Surely god was there and saw what was happening. How could/should he have intervened?

God didn’t, right? So in your dual world What power in the dual pole had dominion there? Was it, is it, Satan?

What you are proposing is that god is there in our human world (somehow) but refuses to act, or is too powerless to act?

All beings are ‘conscious’ in some degree, right? but could not conceive of any other possibility for life and life’s process than that of ‘the natural world’ — so how do you conceive god would act (intervene) in the ideal world you visualize? In a world of substantial god-involvement — again — how would god act?

There are too many interrelated questions there for which I don't have clean, simple answers, so I'll simply share what I can of my perspective after first answering the one question for which I do have a clean, simple answer:

Were the Orcas wrong ethically?

No. They are obligate carnivores. They have no choice but to kill to survive. That which is necessary cannot be immoral - only genuine choices can be immoral.

The only potentially plausible argument I'm aware of that their actions were unethical is that they were not truly necessary: that orcas have the truly ethical choice to starve to death so as to save the greater number of lives that they would take were they to continue living.

Some people might find that argument convincing. I don't, not least because (1) if the orcas (or any obligate carnivore species) as a whole took this approach, their species would cease to exist, which arguably is a worse outcome, and which in any case (2) would disrupt the ecosystem in ways that would probably lead to worse harm than the kill-to-survive-as-they-must choice. Moreover, I generally am skeptical of the claim that a being is morally obliged to be so radically selfless that it must (painfully - starvation is not fun) give up its life to save others - even a greater number of others - especially in the context of an ecosystem in which this is the disruptive choice.

The genuinely valid, broader ethical question for me is "Was it ethical for Whoever (or whoever) designed our ecosystem to design it such that obligate carnivores exist in the first place; such that killing is built into the system?"

Why would a tri-omni God do that? And if God didn't, then who did, and why would a tri-omni God permit it?

Those are the questions that lead me to dualism, but I freely admit that I don't have it all worked out. I don't think it's as simple as "Satan designed this oddly cruel world of killing-to-live", because this world also has plenty of redeeming features, but, for the converse reason, I find it hard to accept the proposition, "God designed this wonderful world", because this world also has that built-in, unavoidable suffering of killing-to-live (amongst other causes of suffering which appear to have been avoidable given an omnipotent Being). Clearly, though, this world (and the ecosystems and biological life forms within it, and the universe within which it is contained) was designed.

Not having a neat and clean resolution to this conundrum, I can hardly then offer a neat and clean answer to the question, "Why does God not seem to intervene in this world as much as we'd expect, albeit that God does seem to intervene on occasion?"

You ask how I think God would act if God was to act (much more extensively), and the answer is "So as for the lamb to lie down with the lion": so as to reform the cruelty of this system of win-lose-killing-to-live into one of win-win-cooperation-and-symbiosis, as exemplified in the relationship between the bee and the flowering plant; between the fruit bat and the fig tree; between the forest tree and the mycorrhizal fungi.

My working hypothesis regarding all of this is not one in which I'm confident enough to share publicly given its... controversial... nature, so I'll leave it there.

This:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:22 am First, a song simply played.

is not compatible with this:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:22 am Jung uses the fancy term acausal connecting principle to describe an ‘omen’.

The first implies purely subjective interpretation and an absence of any objective significance to the event. The second implies an objective significance to the event given an objective principle which underlies its occurrence.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:22 am Who or what stands behind the principle’s operation?

Exactly the right question. If not an objectively-existing God, then who or what? (Sincere, direct question to you personally).

Given that you also recognise the design in nature, then my second sincere, direct question (riffing off yours above) is: Who or what (if not an objectively-existing God) stands behind the design of this world?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:50 am

Good post. Mostly agreed (strongly), and not bothered to quibble over the more minor disagreements.

Christianity's like this huge thing - it seems impossible to know a critical fact about it. What that critical fact ( ) is, everybody knows all too well.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:50 am this from a discussion elsewhere about your homeboy Jesus. wanted to use this as an example in a simple point i often make. u can even call it opinion I you'd like. but i feel that no intelligent god would expect anyone in the 21rst century to believe anything about the bible but perhaps it's irreligious content, and only to some extent (historical, genealogical, geographical, etc.).

If God exists, you think it would not expect us to believe ANTHING in the bible!?

So this God is powerless to prevent this (nonsensical) book that purports to have come from IT?

Au contraire. I've said it before and since I KNOW God to exist since 1997, it seems apparent there is great reason for bible to be phonetically identical to buy_bull, and I don't buy bull. That is to say, that from the opening statements of Genesis, it is obvious that this entity is willing intelligent minds to NOT just accept the rest of the content of this book, but to quest_ion it.

promethean75 wrote: certainly not that this jesus character wuz his son or physical form or whatever u wanna call it. such a thing is preposterous enough to expect a reasonable god not to count such events and reports as evidence of his existence precisely becuz of their extraordinarily dubious nature. it would be an amateur move, or mischievous and on purpose... to confuse and confound.

Again, to the contrary. The life of Jesus the Christ makes total sense to me. For this entity to truly get faith from people and to comprehend IT on a human level seems very reasonable and not dubious at all.

promethean75 wrote: now since god can't be an amateur or of a mischievous nature (he's gotta be a serious dude), the bible can't be evidence of god. neither can any other religious text written by men.
if there is a god - whatever that means - it would be known either by experience (a posteriori) or by reason alone (a priori). I argue that if god chose the former means, he would have to be company to an experience that couldn't be doubted. This eliminates any revelatory evidence/knowledge of god...

Non-sequitur - in fact pretty much everthything you are stating does not support the conclusions you are drawing. For example, here you state if God is known from experience he would not be doubted and then state somehow that 'eliminates any revelatory evidence/knowledge of God' ---<-- WOT? That doesn't make the slightest sense.

promethean75 wrote: which pretty much narrows it down to.....

..which pretty much rules out you drawing any rational conclusion from here on...!

promethean75 wrote:"He healed, etc., because it was prophesied (see his response to John the Baptist’s inquiry from prison). He didn’t heal everyone because special healing is relational (requires trust, or attention… even if only in hindsight… to higher point being communicated). That’s why he had to incarnate *and* leave (to prep for Spirit not spatially limited)."

wtf!!

"That doesn't make the slightest sense."

I'm sayin that becuz u couldn't ever be certain the being u experienced wuz god and not some imposter spirit, alien or wizard, revelatory knowledge of god is impossible. or rather, u might experience the real god but u wouldn't be able to know it.

neither would any abnormal natural phenomena be evidence for god's existence. no matter how funky it wuz, u couldn't ever say it didn't have a natural cause (that it had a 'supernatural' cause instead).

now what kind of a gu-ru r u, anyway?

u could make more money as a butcher.