Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm...so when are you going to examine it? ..and indeed, from what context and POV from which are you going to examine it?

What I would say, to you, is somewhat complex. And I feel I need to walk on eggshells because all of your opinions, your ideas, the way you see things, is directly and immediately tied to your own person and your personality. You will likely take something that seems critical as an assault.

You may also be under the influence of alcohol when you get this message and that is something else to take into consideration. That is, you may not be 'reliable' as a rational, dependable participant in a wide-ranging philosophical and sociological conversation. You seem *involved in personal battles* with others (on this forum and perhaps in the world?) who do not share your (decidedly quite odd) orientation.

And with that said I do not think I can rely on you much for cultural and social analysis since your relationship to *Jesus the Christ* and what you call *Sage'*is totally idiosyncratic. And with special emphasis on the world totally. One cannot disagree with you for that reason. One would, in effect, be disagreeing with something central to your very self, to your personality. One can only say *that is the way it is for him*.

And then look at one of the images you have created and try to puzzle out what you (I think?) imagine should be immediately intelligible. Your images are unintelligible in direct proportion to your intelligibility. Or as intelligible as you are intelligible.

I can't remember where that photograph of Trump was published -- the Times, the WSJ? I modified it of course in a Photoshop-like program. Yet it is really a phenomenal image. Exceedingly bizarre. Frightening in a way. It says so much about so many different things. And those things are social, cultural, contemporary and sociological. Not to mention political and also geo-political.

What is odd to me is that you seem to reject what all Christians have believed or do believe about god and god's interactions with man and with the world. Yet you regularly mention what 'Sage' says to you. So I assume that you regard whatever 'spirit' those people are communing with as hallucinatory. Or how would you express it? (Put another way would you express it the same way sober as you would when drunk or might the description change?)

If you see it in that negative light (crazy lunatics surrounding a powerful political figure and 'breathing the Spirit into him') as weird -- I wonder why you cannot see, or do not see, your own mystical experiences in a similar light.

You are normal and those folks are crazy? I see . . .

The context that I try to examine these things and all things is from one that I hope is rational. Who sees is also who interprets. And I think we need to face as squarely as possible that seeing and perceiving and interpreting are not neutral actions. Many levels of decisiveness have to be performed a priori before some conclusion is reached.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:46 pm ..does nuffin for me Alexis.

It is not supposed to *do* something, or anything, for you. In that sense you are irrelevant. However, I will try to understand why you feel that things, everything? and important things, must 'do' something for you. Or is it that what you can't or don't wish to understand is meaningless and irrelevant?

The reason why the image is relevant is because the image and what it pictures had been immensely relevant for Occidental civilization. So you and the many generations of people that proceeded you and indeed produced you lived through the conceptions pictured in that didactic image. What if I were to ask you to take a step out of your subjectivity and examine something objectively? I could mention a thousand different things that are amenable to being viewed objectively. Is it that you are uniquely inhibited from objective observation and understanding? Is that a benefit or might it operate as a deficit?

You asked me a week or so back about some possible material to examine on your trip to India. I suggested a version of the Bhagavad-Gita. The Bhagavad-Gita -- the doctrines in it, the metaphysics, the stance it proposes as good and necessary for man to live out of -- can also be pictured as a diagram. That diagram would be similar to but also distinct from that pictured in this ur-Catholic image I shared.

I cannot conceal from you how strange it is that you have such an inflexible and seemingly rather *closed* mind. At least that is my impression. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 am 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?

These are not, of course, new questions. I admit to being influenced by a 'Vedic' way of seeing things. But in fact, when one examines the wide range of thinking and philosophy of the Indian subcontinent, there is not one way of seeing and understanding things, but many different ways (*pictures* I call them) that share common themes.

So *they* proposed, or they *saw* in some internal state of seeing, that if a planet or loka like ours exists, which seems intermediary between hellishness and heavenliness, that there are worlds in other dimensions of being that are far more hellish and far more heavenly. The heavenly worlds are worlds of limited deathfulness, and limited painfulness, and they are not *flesh* worlds as ours is. (Any meditation on biological meat, the stuff we are made from, results in odd realization experiences). Those perceived, or imagined, worlds seem extensions of amplifications of the qualities in this our world.

But the 'why' of things is of course the problematic question. How did we wind up here? Were we ever in some other condition? Is our being here a 'rise' and an 'ascent' or a 'decline' and a 'fall'? And is there an exit?

Obviously, Christianity employs a very simplistic diagram that pictures a fall. And you may or not know that in the Medieval Christian concept the Fall of Man also affected the entire world: the world fell with man. And you may know that this is also a Hebrew concept: that man is placed in the world to 'restore' 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.

Yes, I think I see the world in similar ways. And obviously I have strong dualist tendencies.

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?"

All I can tell you is that I have no knowledge of god intervening in the surrounding world in any way that I recognize as such, but I am aware of something which I do not know how to describe intervening in my world. I can speak about that but it does not do us much good because it does not say much about the world and the general way it is and continues to be.

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.

Well, it doesn't look like that could happen. The natural world is a system which I do not think could change. So we are stuck with the knowledge that the world will go one as it is. And we are the only beings who can make different choices.

But this is, naturally, a part of Vedic concepts. We are stuck in this reality, and one false move, one mistake, and we will create 'karma' for ourselves that mires us ever more in the world's cause and effect. So in a sense we must relinquish actions and results, or find a way to surrender the fruit of efforts and then, somehow, avoid accrual of karmic debt.

I have always understood your non-harmfulness doctrines as expressing this philosophy. You are not an 'obligate predator' and of course all of us have choices about what we do and don't do.

…

If a tendency or process is intra-extreme can it still be dualistic as if it were two different entities instead of singular, operational within its own natural spectrum subject to its native diapason as far as its inner workings allow.

In effect, are dualities merely a convenient or shorthand way of thinking having no direct counterpart in nature.


Such questions remain rhetorical, ergo, no question marks.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm...so when are you going to examine it? ..and indeed, from what context and POV from which are you going to examine it?

What I would say, to you, is somewhat complex. And I feel I need to walk on eggshells because all of your opinions, your ideas, the way you see things, is directly and immediately tied to your own person and your personality. You will likely take something that seems critical as an assault.

You may also be under the influence of alcohol when you get this message and that is something else to take into consideration. That is, you may not be 'reliable' as a rational, dependable participant in a wide-ranging philosophical and sociological conversation. You seem *involved in personal battles* with others (on this forum and perhaps in the world?) who do not share your (decidedly quite odd) orientation.

And with that said I do not think I can rely on you much for cultural and social analysis since your relationship to *Jesus the Christ* and what you call *Sage'*is totally idiosyncratic. And with special emphasis on the world totally. One cannot disagree with you for that reason. One would, in effect, be disagreeing with something central to your very self, to your personality. One can only say *that is the way it is for him*.

And then look at one of the images you have created and try to puzzle out what you (I think?) imagine should be immediately intelligible. Your images are unintelligible in direct proportion to your intelligibility. Or as intelligible as you are intelligible.

..well, arn't you a cheeky little <insert applicable expletive>. Cut to the chase Jacobi!

Is this not intelligible?

JUSTICE?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:42 pmI can't remember where that photograph of Trump was published -- the Times, the WSJ? I modified it of course in a Photoshop-like program. Yet it is really a phenomenal image. Exceedingly bizarre. Frightening in a way. It says so much about so many different things. And those things are social, cultural, contemporary and sociological. Not to mention political and also geo-political.

What is odd to me is that you seem to reject what all Christians have believed or do believe about god and god's interactions with man and with the world. Yet you regularly mention what 'Sage' says to you. So I assume that you regard whatever 'spirit' those people are communing with as hallucinatory. Or how would you express it? (Put another way would you express it the same way sober as you would when drunk or might the description change?)

If you see it in that negative light (crazy lunatics surrounding a powerful political figure and 'breathing the Spirit into him') as weird -- I wonder why you cannot see, or do not see, your own mystical experiences in a similar light.

I don't see it as "weird" - I said it was a photo of people without a Christian spine among them!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:42 pm You are normal and those folks are crazy? I see . . .

The context that I try to examine these things and all things is from one that I hope is rational. Who sees is also who interprets. And I think we need to face as squarely as possible that seeing and perceiving and interpreting are not neutral actions. Many levels of decisiveness have to be performed a priori before some conclusion is reached.

Re the other image where I stated it does nuffin for me...and in a similar way any image attempting to capture the mysticism of Vedic writings would also likely do little to nothing for me...(humans with wings, people under the crust in the lava of hell bla bla...boring - an AI could create that from an evangelist teaching his contorted beliefs of sxcripture)

I do find it strange that you find what I am attempting to convey in my art as "unintelligible"..

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:19 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:21 pm

You rest your case based on something where you were an idiot for agreeing with something that everyone since has agreed with was an irrational post from Lacewing (and you have the nerve to suggest that i called you an idiot because you don't believe in my Christian God!! IDIOT!!!)

Well I'm not seeing the rationality in your post either. As far as I'm concerned Lace was right concerning your posts where you were calling people "idiots" who didn't agree with your views on spirituality.

That wasn't the point though, and it wasnt what you stated above here either - I DONT CALL PEOPLE IDIOTS FOR JUST NOT BELIEVEING IN ME OR CHRIST.

I call people idiots when they are being irrational (such as talking of a divine light from the POV of NO GOD) and when they agree with idiot statements.

COMPREHENDE? Funny at the time you failed to address my concerns ...but here you are, now that ALL context is lost. bloody pathetic Gazza, truly.

If you look back, I was responding to your response to Promethean stating that he doesn't see how one would rationally distinguish if something is God versus a powerful imposter (of whatever sort) trying to deceive you. You simply responded, "it's God". If that's your idea of a "rational" response then we have very different conceptions of what "reason" is.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:40 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:19 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:10 pm

Well I'm not seeing the rationality in your post either. As far as I'm concerned Lace was right concerning your posts where you were calling people "idiots" who didn't agree with your views on spirituality.

That wasn't the point though, and it wasnt what you stated above here either - I DONT CALL PEOPLE IDIOTS FOR JUST NOT BELIEVEING IN ME OR CHRIST.

I call people idiots when they are being irrational (such as talking of a divine light from the POV of NO GOD) and when they agree with idiot statements.

COMPREHENDE? Funny at the time you failed to address my concerns ...but here you are, now that ALL context is lost. bloody pathetic Gazza, truly.

If you look back, I was responding to your response to Promethean stating that he doesn't see how one would rationally distinguish if something is God versus a powerful imposter (of whatever sort) trying to deceive you. You simply responded, "it's God". If that's your idea of a "rational" response then we have very different conceptions of what "reason" is.

Oh, I do apologise. I did state that this entity is "PAN" to reality. That is to say that, as he suggested...I can't remember - wizard, demon, devil woteva other nonsensical entities that are NOT panXXX.
So since 1997 and many many many *countless experiences where I have come to conclude this entity is PAN to our entire reality...I believe ascribing the term GOD seems more accurate than anything Promethean suggested.

This is where I am currently sitting with my analysis of my experiences since 1997...of God\"God":-

Either:-
1. God is divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. but, then it could also be this:- God is a combination of the above.

Esteemed Atto: Sorry old chum. You are simply too loopy to be of any use in almost any spiritual, intellectual or rational endeavor that has importance to me.

I can respect quirky, introverted and subjectively ensconced positions — I place you, fairly I think, in this category. However your exposition of ideas is as muddled as those limes and mint under too many jiggers of white rum.

Forgive me therefore my retreat from efforts to reason with you on these themes.

I’ll humbly bear those insults as you deem necessary and appropriate however.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:14 am Esteemed Atto: Sorry old chum. You are simply too loopy to be of any use in almost any spiritual, intellectual or rational endeavor that has importance to me.

I can respect quirky, introverted and subjectively ensconced positions — I place you, fairly I think, in this category. However your exposition of ideas is as muddled as those limes and mint under too many jiggers of white rum.

Forgive me therefore my retreat from efforts to reason with you on these themes.

Really? In that case you have barely an intelligent rational bone in your body.

I am stating that (*and as advised by a sage many years ago) that key words within the English language have come to fruition from the overarching intelligence that is at the backbone to what we perceive as reality.

How is that loopy and too hard to follow (thus far)? (not enough by way of mystical spiritual waffle for you!?)

Sea water sloshed around in his flask and the birds did chirp, the wolves did howl, he lay down on the soft grass and fell into a deep sleep.

A few of the key words that God has seen fit to construe into their present form within the common protocol language of planet Earth - English.

LIVE -(reversed)- EVIL....from experience it is very hard to LIVE when God is doing EVIL to you.
GOD -(reversed)- DOG....a dog is a man's best friend, God is a sinners worst enemy.

KNOWLEDGE -(inner logic)- KNOW_LEDGE...careful of the LEDGE when you have eaten of the tree of knowledge.
BARK up the Tree of Knowledge...SAP...LEAVE...do you TWIG?
..........BARK from a dog, protects the tree. SAP (a fool) feeds the tree. LEAVE (leaves leave the tree)

EMPATHY -(inner logic)-.....ME_PATH_Y?....to truly empathise is to put onself in anothers path in life and consider the situation first.

HELLO --(inner logic)-....HELL OWE....the standard greeting has rather a twist don't you think?

HEAVEN -(inner logic)-...HEAVE_N - we work and strive to build our utopia, our heaven with technology as we reincarnate through time.

SUN of God SON of God

REALITY -(inner logic)-....REAL_IT_Y....why? Did we evolve into a binary system...aeons ago?
........BRITAIN........remove the IT = BRAIN.

ANARCHY -(inner logic)-...AN ARCH Y? - remove any stone from the arch, and it will collapse, as will society with ANARCHY.

SOLE - SOUL - we walk on our soles everyday, we have a HEEL on our soles, can we HEAL our SOUL?

etc..

Alexis Jacobi wrote:..atto talks irrational loopy stuff...atto is not worth.Y of conversing with on such esoteric matters...

Is the above all just coincidence Alexis? Am I loopy to present this above?

And of course Christ himself on the crucifix formed this key letter:--- Y

"listening to Frank Zappa's Inca Roads. Those who have ears to hear will hear & understand."

fun fact: the studio version on One Size Fits All is actually a live recording. the song was slightly edited, George's vocals were redone and frank did a different solo for the album version. If you're very familiar with the song you'll recognize the little differences. The before and after of the finished product on the album.

https://youtu.be/eAq85_URLJQ

-

"How would you KNOW what I have experienced since 1997"

i don't claim to, and I've also had incredibly bizarre experiences (on drugs) and I've experienced uncanny coincidences. shit I'll tell u one. you've heard me say the name 'phoneutria' here a few times. well she wuz a poster at another forum who ended up sending me care packages and letters while i wuz in prison (long story). so she's an artist too and this one time she sends a little doodle of a blue footed boobie with her letter. now check this out dude i swear to whatever this is no bullshit. not a day before i got that letter i had torn out a picture of a blue footed boobie from a old library national geographic and wuz gonna send it to her with a little stupid quote or something, can't remember exactly... but i put the page (the boobie) under my mattess to put in my outgoing letter after i received her next one, etc. but i ended up moving to another block the next day and left it there under the mattress.

the picture of the boobie i tore from the national geographic wuz IDENTICAL to the one she drew that i would receive a day later. same size, standing in the same position facing the same direction with the same proportions.

now of all the things she coulda drawn and of all the pictures i could have torn out of that mag..... wtf mate.

i think i still got that boobie doodle hold on imma go try to find it.