Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:21 pm I'm not going to give you money

Gary, you really should reconsider. When he came on board, Renaud Camus managed to negotiate a 50% course discount for white Northern Europeans, and, what's more, those of them who take The Pledge of Demographic Dominance get a further 25% off, not to mention - and this is really special - a physical copy of the charmingly illustrated picture book It's So Great To Assimilate, perfect for the indigenous child in your life.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:21 pm I'm not going to give you money

Gary, you really should reconsider. When he came on board, Renaud Camus managed to negotiate a 50% course discount for white Northern Europeans, and, what's more, those of them who take The Pledge of Demographic Dominance get a further 25% off, not to mention - and this is really special - a physical copy of the charmingly illustrated picture book It's So Great To Assimilate, perfect for the indigenous child in your life.

OK.

Hello Harry, nice to see you.

I am beginning to think, a dawning but tentative realization, that Gary might not do irony.

More when I know more ….

AJ, nice to see you too. You've got a promising hypothesis there, and, in a sort of very, very curious synchronicity, that self-same hypothesis had occurred to me. Now isn't that odd and peculiar? I do think that the hypothesis is worth exploring, however, I also think that we first need to rule out the possibility of double-bluffing. Can you suggest any experiments that we might conduct so as to falsify this double-bluff conjecture?

Looks more like sarcasm to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:07 pm Looks more like sarcasm to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's cover all bases and just call it satire.

I also think that we first need to rule out the possibility of double-bluffing.

Oooooh, yes! Remember Trevor S at that other forum? I walked into not a few of his snares.

Gary, you devil! Are you reverse-leading-me-by-the-nose?!?

Sarcasm though: not the right term.

If you've ever been hurt by a remark full of cutting sarcasm, you have some insight into the origins of the word. "Sarcasm" can be traced back to the Greek verb "sarkazein," which initially meant "to tear flesh like a dog." "Sarkazein" eventually developed extended senses of "to bite one's lips in rage," "to gnash one's teeth," and eventually "to sneer." "Sarkazein" led to the Greek noun "sarkasmos," ("a sneering or hurtful remark"), iterations of which passed through French and Late Latin before arriving in English as "sarcasm" in the mid-16th century. Even today sarcasm is often described as sharp, cutting, or wounding, reminiscent of the original meaning of the Greek verb.

Remember: All I Want To Do …..

I am Californian you know so I sort of *get* where she's coming from.

May I illustrate with a car wash image?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:06 pm Can you suggest any experiments that we might conduct so as to falsify this double-bluff conjecture?

How about engaging me in straightforward conversation? Or are you two peacocks not yet done strutting around?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 am Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.

In what way can a country "refer to itself"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 am Or are you two peacocks not yet done strutting around?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:06 pm Can you suggest any experiments that we might conduct so as to falsify this double-bluff conjecture?

How about engaging me in straightforward conversation? Or are you two peacocks not yet done strutting around?

With me nothing is straightforward.

You’ll find Harry a horse of a different color.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:06 pm Can you suggest any experiments that we might conduct so as to falsify this double-bluff conjecture?

How about engaging me in straightforward conversation? Or are you two peacocks not yet done strutting around?

With me nothing is straightforward.

I've noticed. I can understand some reasons why that might be, none of which seem entirely legitimate. Perhaps I'm missing a possibility?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:29 pm So if Jesus the Christ is of God, where is he Jacobi?

Not on Earth having company with sages? Popping out for a meal at a restaurant? Being challenged for a game of pool?

Where is the lunacy in that if his existence was real..surely it still is?

Most Esteemed Atto. I will try to provide an answer however I am pretty sure you are not in the *get an answer* frame of mind.

My less esteemed Jacobi (ps u r more esteemed than I among the people of the forum, me morseo among sages), there is more chance that smurfs will land from planet Zorg and take over the planet than the day you have an answer for me that is not a wangled pile of waffle.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:I doubt you have read anything I have written.

Naaw, don't be sad..I've read plenty and actually have enjoyed more than you obviously think.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:Still, what I say is that Jesus, Krishna, any image of god, and all concepts about god, are simply conceptual organizations that we (conceptualizing humans) interpose between ourselves (extremely limited beings reasoning through a flesh instrument) and something that is utterly beyond explication: Existence. I use the Sanskrit term (*sat*: being, existence) to refer to that.

Our conceptions are not 'reality'. Our stories are not realities. One has to determine what the story means in order to understand why the portrayal, the picture, has been fabricated.

My friend that is nonsense. Anything we perceive is our reality, even if we are mere brains in a VAT. I don't like the term 'stories' as it suggest fiction.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:So, your next question may be: "OK, but how do you explain all the experiences I have had which to me are undeniably real?!"

That is a complex question. It is tough to begin an answer. And to do so I have to start with metaphors. The metaphor most of use is Plato's Cave. What we *see* is a subjective projection. So what Atto has seen, and experienced, is a subjective view, story, interpretation of mysterious (but not unreal and not unimportant) inner experiences.

What you perceive, and what I perceive (having had my own experiences) is something very hard to define. But it arises in us and is a part of us.

What took you on all those strange and painful journeys? Call it what you will. Give it whatever name you will. But I call it The Self.

Through such a concept I am enabled to understand the experiences of so many people and also to discern 'value & meaning' as it is manifest between different traditions. In a sense I reject all Stories -- they are all ridiculous embellishments -- and yet won't dismiss any one of them nor necessarily set one up against another.

Sure. But you didn't even come close answering the question(s).

Sage\God have advised me directly more than once that Jesus the Christ did do, the crucifiction\resurrection. Thus, I believe Christ to exist as man here on Earth, as does the sage who advised me, that he (sage) lives in California.

So. (and again)

Why do you see it as lunacy that I believe Christ exists right now, here on Earth and that one day ol' atto might get to have a game of pool with the dude?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:37 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:07 pm
Are we, my really really odd friend, talking of the same thing when I use the term story and when you use it?

I am NOT sure. And, we will NEVER KNOW until CLARIFICATION of, in what way you USE the term 'story' is SOUGHT.

It was 'you', "Alexis Jacobi" who came up with the 'story' and has the concept, and claim, that 'our conceptions are not 'reality', and, our stories are not realities'.

It is not a 'claim' that needs any defense at all. It is a statement about a fact that it is hard to argue against: the concepts that we hold in our minds are not the reality itself or the realities.

1. Therefore, what what you say just here and now is ALSO NOT 'reality', and thus MUST BE NOT 'real', and therefore 'it' IS False. So, by you very OWN "logic" what you are saying here IS a self-contradiction AND a self-refutation. This, TOTALLY ILLOGICAL, AS WELL

2. There is NO such a 'thing' as 'our minds'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm I asked you, moron, if you understood my use of the term Story and the distinction I draw between a 'story' as in a religious mythology, and a description. To say 'the moon orbits the Earth' is such a description, and is not a Story. But to say that the Moon is the ever-concealing-herself lover of the Sun is a Story and one with mythological implications. Story laid over 'reality' if you wish.

So what?

you have OBVIOUSLY MISSED what I have SAID and POINTED OUT here.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm I have written at length about an important dimension of human life and experience and I've referred to Richard Weaver and his phrase "our metaphysical dream of the world" (more here). The sentence can be examined in the context of his various essays on the ideas he presents. While I understand what Weaver means I must assume that you do not. However you could find out. Then you'd have made some progress in understanding something important.

LOL "alexis jacobi" 'you' can NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND that what you call 'facts' can also be just 'your' OWN made up 'Stories', which can ACTUALLY BE NOT True NOR REAL.

BUT, BECAUSE 'you' keep TELLING "your" OWN 'self' that 'they' ARE REAL and TRUE 'you' come to BELIEVE 'them' to BE TRUE.

What you are just doing here is 'TRYING TO' SAY and CLAIM that "others" have 'Stories', which are NOT 'real', but that 'you' NEVER DO.

Which is just ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD.

you are also appearing to be a True BELIEVER and FOLLOWER of some one ELSE, just like those so-called "Christians" ARE.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm In my view our 'metaphysical dreams' are vastly important and may also always be part of human nature, human being and experience, but I also believe we need to see them from a 'distance'. But to have 'distance' also implies, in a sense, skepticism, or an unwillingness to give oneself over completely to *belief*. So distance as I define it is somewhat problematic to 'belief'.

My POINT has been that 'you', "yourself", "alexis jacobi" are ALSO NOT IMMUNE to being TRICKED and FOOLED by 'your' VERY OWN BELIEFS.

SEE, what 'you' BELIEVE is true here, and elsewhere, is NOT necessarily true NOR real AT ALL.

AND, what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN is that 'you' CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE 'distance' AT ALL here from what 'you' are BELIEVING is true and real here

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm You are aware, you drooling dope, that Immanuel (chief protagonist on this thread) is an absolute or true believer in his Christian mythology. He believes it so much that it is not a mythology. He actuallt believes that the god he defines underpins Reality -- indeed is associated so deeply with Reality that he (that god) is given not only being but personality.

AND, are 'you' even AWARE that 'you', "alexis jacobi" are ALSO an absolute and true "BELIEVER", in 'your' OWN 'mytholigies'?

What we have here is a PRIME example of 'confirmation biases' AT WORK. This one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that it is ONLY "others" who BELIEVE their OWN 'Stories' and that those 'Stories' are NOT a mythology.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm That god is hearing what I am writing and disapproves of course. In Immanuel's view were I to go on in this vein I will eventually be relegated to the shelves of a Living Hell.

WHY just LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT "other's" BELIEFS and, made up, STORIES?

WHY do we NOT LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT 'your' OWN BELIEFS and, made up, STORIES?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm There you have literalism applied, with no 'distance', to a metaphysical dream. He cannot 'stand back' from his belief. He has no 'distance' from it. He is subsumed into his belief-system as religious fanatics are.

And 'you', "alexis jacobi", are Doing the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm Now, and this is odd but not really so much when you examine it, Atto has also involved himself, wilfully or unwillingly, in a True Believer platform.

AND, CONTRARY to 'your' OWN BELIEF and STORY, 'you' TOO "alexis jacobi" are STANDING VERY HIGH on the so-called True BELIEVER platform.

you can NOT YET seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that NONE of 'you' here are IMMUNE to this phenomena. AND, the reason WHY you can NOT YET COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact is BECAUSE you are, literally, BELIEVING otherwise.

Do you REALLY think it is WISE to LOOK AT "others" while NEVER REALLY, standing back', from a 'distance', as some might say, and taking a GOOD, HARD LOOK AT "your" OWN 'self'?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm He does not appear to have distance from his 'belief'.

And 'you', " alexis jacobi", OBVIOUSLY, DO NOT have ANY 'distance' EITHER from 'your' OWN BELIEFS here.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm He has a spirit-entity that communicates with him and. according to what he says, this entity has a 'real' or tangible and possibly a physical existence on Earth right now. Same with his (extremely personalized and non-theological) Imago of 'Jesus the Christ' (Atto's own term). Atto is offended when people read his fantasies (or the metaphysical dreams or the psychic dreams that have intruded, boldly, into his consciousness and are declared as 'real') and can't go along with him. Meaning, they begin to wonder if he is perhaps a couple of cards short of a full deck.

Well what the ACTUAL Truth of 'this' IS, EXACTLY, is ALREADY OBVIOUSLY CLEAR and KNOWN, well by some of us anyway.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm The mere insinuation that this might be true (in an age where thousands and indeed millions of people are on the verge of open mental illness and as many are actually defined as 'mentally ill' and their imagined fantasies intrude boldly into their conscious living) pushes him to react.

But 'you' are CERTAINLY NOW one of these ones are 'you', "alexis jacobi", right?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm And in this reaction, through this reaction, he has created his internet and forum personality which argues this and that, or that and some other, as the case may be (and depending on the quantity of beer in his belly).

Have 'you' NOT created a so-called 'internet and forum personality' here as well, which argues this and that, as is the case may be, (and depending on some 'thing)? Or are 'you' DIFFERENT in this regard?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm So what I say is a) our metaphysical dreams are not irrelevant, and I am not opposed necessarily to 'spirit guides' and 'voices of counsel', but b) yet I do think that the phenomena needs to be handled carefully by a 'sober-minded practitioner'. What is sobriety? Well, that would have to be defined, no?

What are ALL 'words'? Well, they ALal have to be defined, no?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm In the larger frame of things a Metaphysical Dream (Christianity is such a larger dream) takes on a somewhat different form than, for example, that of the case of someone who 'hears the voice of Jesus the Christ' saying this or saying that.

But it could be said, and argued, that ALL 'dreams' could take on a somewhat different form.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pmThe metaphysical dream of Christianity is one involving a sense of justice, fairness, decent treatment of people, kindness, love in the family, and the invocation of a Spirit that is seen as *the author of all good things*. But which also takes a decided stand against what is bad, cruel, malicious, terrorizing, brutal, and given to immersion in processes of mutability (the sensual and voluptuous world).

This is YOUR 'take' on 'it', correct?

If yes, then "others" could have different forms of 'it' also, right?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm All of these values can be, and have been, defined in theological terms. That is as canons of ethics. If I 'believe in' a canon of ethics I may do so because I declare myself 'to be a Christian' but not, necessarily, because I take all elements of the belief-system as 'absolutely true and real'. Though I admit to a fuzzy area here, and to talk about that is complex.

WHY is just talking about some 'thing' 'complex', to you?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm So, what I am talking about (most of you cannot uphold any conversational impetus on your own because you are bickering mental cases for whom the forum is a platform for the exteriorization of neurosis) is entirely germane to the ideas and views I have presented here for months. Whether you get any of it is totally irrelevant to me. There are at least a few capable of reading and understanding.

Talk about an example of self-righteousness and grandiose.

you have NOT really talked about and shown ANY 'thing' other than that what you, personally, BELIEVE is true, is true, but to that what "other's" BELIEVE is true, but which you do NOT BELIEVE is true. is just a FALSE 'Story', which they can NOT distance "themselves" from.

And you SAY all of this WITHOUT EVER once talking about and showing how you can distance "your" OWN 'self' FROM your OWN made up False 'stories'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm Talking in this way involves self-analysis. Neurotic children with narcissistic tendencies have no need to engage in self-analysis. For that reason the conversations I desire to have are for adults.

YET here you are SHOWING us ALL here just how NARCISSISTIC and CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

OBVIOUSLY you have NOT done much 'self'-analysis here, "yourself".

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:26 pm Now, since you have the floor how will you manifest yourself today?

Do you think it would be WISE to:

1 Instead of name calling or labelling 'me', based solely upon your OWN ASSUMPTIONS here, you JUST SEEKED ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, FIRST?

And,

2.Started 'distancing' "your" OWN 'self' from 'your' OWN BELIEFS, "your self"?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:25 am My friend that is nonsense. Anything we perceive is our reality, even if we are mere brains in a VAT. I don't like the term 'stories' as it suggest fiction.

I do not care what you like or don't like -- the importance of the issue does not hinge on that -- and if you cannot understand how Story intrudes so boldly into human life, and indeed is what stands behind both religious idealism and religious fanaticism, then at that point I cannot help you or counsel you.

But I insist that what the term Story implies must be understood. I use it both critically and constructively. And if you do not understand why critique is relevant -- there I cannot help you either. My position is not entirely critical though. It is constructive. And if you cannot understand the constructive element, and take it as a package along with the critical, again I cannot help you (meaning my discursive position will be unintelligible to you and you will take it as 'negative' and react as if your 'self' is being assaulted).

But if you can NOT UNDERSTAND our POSITIONS, then by'your' OWN "logic", "alexis jacobi", then we can NOT help 'you', (meaning our discursive position will be unintelligible to you and you WILL take it as ' negative' and react as "your" 'self' is being assaulted. As you have been SHOWING us here).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm By saying "anything we perceive is our reality" is to assert that whatever a person perceives is reality. Sure, I will grant you that a raving lunatic, whether in a body or in a vat, is indeed perceiving something. But I will not, and indeed cannot, agree with you that it is realness.

LOL The MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST of 'things' here appear to be Truly UNINTELLIGIBLE to 'you', "alexis jacobi".

The saying, 'anything we perceive is our reality", (although incorrect in and of itself), is referring to 'that' what 'one' perceives to be true, IS 'their reality', ALONE. (AND Correct me if that was NOT what you have been meaning here "attofishpi").

Now, although 'that' is A 'reality' to that 'one', 'that' does NOT necessarily have ANY relation to what IS 'Reality', Itself, which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm So, in my view, your incapacity to make this distinction is part of the reason your discourse comes across as potentially deranged. Or simply deranged. You seem to believe that what you perceive is reality. But I suggest to you that your perception, however compelling (to you), is not reality. It is a perceptual interface.

OF COURSE what 'one' PERCEIVES or even BELIEFS is true or real is NOT necessarily true NOR real, AT ALL. But, just as OBVIOUS, is the Fact to that 'one' 'it' IS true AND real, to 'them', ALONE.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm Our 'subjective perceptual interface' must not be seen as 'absolutely real'.

NO one here even THINKS this, let alone BELIEFS this, correct?

Well HOPEFULLY there is absolutely I one here that is this DELUDED.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm If you grant that then someone involved in active and overpowering delusions (or psychosis) is capable of giving us a real picture of things.

IF and WHEN one IS Truly OPEN, then they CLEARLY KNOW that what might appear to be the 'DELUSIONS' of "another" may well be what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True. And, it is ONLY through Truly Honest, OPEN, and Wanting to LEARN and DISCOVER MORE or ANEW will the ACTUAL Truth be found.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm And that is obviously false.

OBVIOUSLY. So, there was NO need to SAY 'it', AT ALL.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm They give us pictures though, with greater or lesser degrees of connection to 'the real world'. I've listened to the jibber-jabber of those caught in such psychological manifestations and they sometimes say things with poetic value, if you understand what I mean. They make all sorts of allusive connections between things much as poets do. But these are not 'reality'.

This one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that it KNOWS what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, and so also BELIEVES 'it' can DISTINGUISH, IRREFUTABLY, WHEN "others" ARE DELUSIONAL. Which MEANS that 'it', 'itself', IS NOT 'delusional'. Which is OBVIOUSLY DELUSIONAL in and of itself.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:53 pm So it requires a sober individual to sort these things through. And you, Atto, are quite far from giving evidence of being 'sober'. You seem startlingly careless with your own consciousness.

You also present yourself on a philosophy forum where your presentation will be examined carefully and analytically and yet at times you react as a religious fanatic would -- when of course you are not reacting 'tipsily' which might be something different. This is peculiar and requires critical examination.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the damned kitchen.

Here, here is a Primer Course I think it relevant we all study . . .

Are 'you' OPEN to EXAMINING 'your' OWN VIEWS, BELIEFS, and CLAIMS? Or, do 'you' BELIEVE that NONE of 'them' are DELUSIONAL?