Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:15 pm This could be you, Harbal:

I'm not fond of fireworks.

What book, Harbal, would you mention as having influenced or inspired you? Theatre, poetry, philosophy — is there anything that comes to mind? I know you could answer ironically and evade the question. But please answer it seriously. Do you read at all? Have you read?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:36 pm I have no idea at all what position Gary has in relation to that baiting, hot-topic photo -- the submittal of which was only to elicit one, specific interpretation of it (all of Seed's presentations are of this sort)...

What? You mean this photo?...



Here's my suggestion of what a few of the mob members might be thinking (and saying), starting with the blond on the far left:

Charlene: Hmmm, that hairdo looks better on her than it does on Cindylou.

Uncle Red (in hat): Just wait 'til I get my robe and hood back from the cleaners, I'll show her a thing or two.

Cindylou: cuss...cuss..."n" word...cuss...screech...cuss...cuss

Buford: Cindylou let me get to second base last night.

Bucky: Big deal, Cindylou lets her brothers and cousins get to second base.

Big Jolene (far right): Uh-oh! Do farts come in lumps? Momma's gonna kill me if I messed up these new drawers.

Anyway, levity aside, as a refresher, Gary made his position pretty clear in the following exchange...

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 5:51 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.

Yes, Gary, it's depressing to me as well.

But just imagine how depressing (and frightening) it was for that brave young girl.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:14 am Which "brave young girl" are you talking about, I assume the black one?...There are neither heroes nor villains in that picture from what I see...

Good gawd almighty, man, you (and Gary) can try to mine this issue for all of its hidden meanings, however,...

...it is unfathomable to me that someone could look at the situation depicted in that 1957 photograph involving a lone - 15 year old - black girl, surrounded by that hostile mob on her first day at that particular high school, and then ask...

"...which brave young girl are you talking about?..."

First you acknowledge the obvious, and then you can explore the unfortunate details of how those white children were brainwashed into adopting such a horrible attitude. And it probably has to do with being a victim of this sort of parental upbringing,...



...which, of course, stretches back through the earlier generations.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:36 pm So the reaction of those white youths cannot be looked at only through lens of declared self-righteousness that both Seeds and Harry have had installed in them and which they both 'hone'. It is a question of 'lenses'. And when the questions of lenses are talked about, so many other questions and issues come to the fore, none of it simple and none of it simply resolvable. Entire sets of presuppositions emerge.

It is no doubt a result of all of my "...heroic doses of psychedelics..." that caused me to notice (as I pointed out to you earlier) that your particular "lens" appears to be hovering closer to the basement rung of the illustration I uploaded in a prior exchange...



In which case, if all of my, again, "...heroic doses of psychedelics..." have me functioning under the (perhaps delusional) impression that my particular "lens" is hovering closer to the ceiling rung, where its "ultra wide-angle" and deep "depth of field" view has allowed me to see that the lower "lenses" are functioning at narrower degrees of focus,...

...then, clearly, whatever sets of presuppositions might emerge from the perspectives of those lower and limited "lenses" are going to be called into question by those who are better able to see how and where those lower presuppositions (the proverbial trees) fit into the greater scheme of things (the proverbial forest).
_______

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:40 pm What book, Harbal, would you mention as having influenced or inspired you? Theatre, poetry, philosophy — is there anything that comes to mind? I know you could answer ironically and evade the question. But please answer it seriously. Do you read at all? Have you read?

I'm not sure what you mean by "inspired", but I don't remember ever reading anything that I would call inspiring. I've probably read stuff in the past that influenced me in some way or other, but nothing much influences me these days. Whenever I've tried to read what might be called higher literature, I've usually closed the book after a few pages. The only reading I do now is about 20 minutes per night, to get me off to sleep, and even for that simple purpose I find it very difficult to find books I can stick with. So, as you can probably tell, I'm not much of a reader.

You’re toooooo weird got me, Seeds. You are captured and driven by ultra-idealism and a set of predicates you associate with righteousness. I fully understand your orientation, and what I think motivates you. Myself, I see farther (into and through the image) to things that are beyond your capacity to understand. I explained (briefly) what those things are. It is simply more complex than you want it to be.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:57 pm You’re toooooo weird got me, Seeds. You are captured and driven by ultra-idealism and a set of predicates you associate with righteousness. I fully understand your orientation, and what I think motivates you. Myself, I see farther (into and through the image) to things that are beyond your capacity to understand. I explained (briefly) what those things are. It is simply more complex than you want it to be.

Okay, Han...


_______

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:04 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:04 pmIt's reasonable to view reality as an ordered affair like as if some super-intelligence/super-goodness had created nature and all its laws That is to say "God the Creator" is a reasonable belief.

But it's not reasonable to conclude that God the Creator intervenes to change His own laws of nature that He Himself set in place.

Very interesting statement and observation. Much to think about there.

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:04 am
Very interesting statement and observation. Much to think about there.

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Sucks to NOT be one of Yahweh's chosen, I guess. Apparently, the chosen can get away with murder and genocide. I can barely get away from helping an impoverished person financially without getting shit after doing so. Fuck me already. And screw Yahweh. Fucking piece of shit god. Considering the shit universe he created he should be the one repenting to us. Though, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Sucks to NOT be one of Yahweh's chosen, I guess. Apparently, the chosen can get away with murder and genocide. I can barely get away from helping an impoverished person financially without getting shit after doing so. Fuck me already. And screw Yahweh. Fucking piece of shit god. Considering the shit universe he created he should be the one repenting to us. Though, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

...well, I guess I am the one that has to step up and say. Gary, that 'imporverished person' that you helped financially - was a woman that you were either getting blow jobs from or were hoping to get blow jobs from.

Ya, you gave your life savings away because your dick had other ideas - so what? ...blame everyone but the Gary? BOO HOO it's all Gods fault

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Sucks to NOT be one of Yahweh's chosen, I guess. Apparently, the chosen can get away with murder and genocide. I can barely get away from helping an impoverished person financially without getting shit after doing so. Fuck me already. And screw Yahweh. Fucking piece of shit god. Considering the shit universe he created he should be the one repenting to us. Though, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

There's no use complaining about Jahweh when you don't like Him, or even believe Jahweh exists. It's for you to think of and feel a better set of principles and values. Learning new ideas and sympathies is why some people use philosophy forums.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm It must have been a mistake of your understanding if you now say that I reject every significant element of Christian metaphysics. I would never say such a thing.

I allowed for the possibility that you would disagree in my parenthetical comment "in my assessment". I stand by that assessment.

You offer an example of an element of Christian metaphysics that you do *not* reject: the notion of "intellectus". I don't consider this to be a significant enough element to count.

I had ChatGPT quickly generate me a synopsis of René Guénon's and Julius Evola's definition/conception of metaphysics. It seems like a plausible synopsis but you can tell me if you think the bot's gotten it wrong - I've included it as a sort of appendix at the bottom of this post.

As it is, it doesn't change my assessment.

You seem to want to make a distinction between (1) the elements of the Story and (2) metaphysics (in the form of metaphysical principles that can be abstracted from the Story). I do not make this distinction: the Story *is* a metaphysical one already.

I am skeptical in any case of your supposed project to abstract metaphysical principles from the Story that then (you seem to want to claim) remain Christian. For example, you seem to want to abstract from (1) the Christian metaphysical concept of the divine avatar Jesus Christ, who incarnated into the world as its sole saviour (2) some sort of generic metaphysical "principle of incarnation". This abstract metaphysical principle, however, is too generic to any longer be truly called "Christian". "Compatible with Christianity" - sure. But "Christian" in itself - nope.

There are in any case other religions with which it is compatible too - a while back in this thread you even offered an example yourself: Hinduism. If I remember correctly, your example more specifically was that the Vedas (or at least their textual contents) are considered in themselves to be a sort of "incarnation" of the divinity embedded in reality - but that recollection-description is probably mangled.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm What am I trying to achieve for myself through some devotional religious practice? Escape for this world at some future point? Or power and attainment in this world?

Good questions. They're relevant to me too, although I don't practice religious devotion. I wonder whether the two answers are really mutually exclusive though. Maybe devotional practices can give one power and attainment in this world which, when used wisely and for the benefit of others, contribute to the possibility of eventual escape to which one's devotional practices also already lead.

[The editing dots in the below indicate my snippage - for brevity - of that which you quoted of me, not yours]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm

Here's another peculiar thing: you bemoan the disinterest of others (including participants in this thread) in metaphysics [...]

I am not sure who you are referring to.

I find that very hard to believe, and I very much expect that Harbal in particular does too.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm So, you are taking me to task

Yes. Gary has prompted me. I do want a whipping post after all. Thus, it is Gary who is to blame for all of your suffering! Rail against him! Curse him for ever creating your misbegotten soul in the first place!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm

rejection, uncertainty, ignorance, doubt, and inability to answer the most basic of questions or even to make sense of that upon which those most basic of questions is predicated

You are looking superficially at a position (my own) which I think you do not understand sufficiently. If you understood it better I do not think you would say what you have said.

Well, in that case, I'd welcome an outline or clarification of your position.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:40 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:45 am As I've pointed out to you in the past, this is an incomplete oversimplification. It is true in part, but there is also much in nature that is cooperative and kind rather than cruel and uncaring.

Perhaps if you describe what you are referring to I will better be able to understand. Where is the 'kindness' and where the 'cooperation'?

Really? You can't answer that question for yourself? Very well then: open wide, 'cos here comes the choo-choo train.

Intra-species, the kindness and cooperation are obvious. Many animals - especially mammals like us - love, take care of, and teach their young for a significant period before parting ways (if they ever do). Many even live together in packs, herds, flocks, swarms, etc, and cooperate and take care of one another in those collectives (just as for humans, there are, of course, sometimes antagonistic and harmful relationships in those collectives too, as well as fights for dominance).

Inter-species, consider the examples I've already provided in this post: "[the] win-win-cooperation-and-symbiosis [...] 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". I expect that if you dig around on the web you'll find plenty of other examples - and you can probably think of others already for yourself.

[Earlier quotes reinserted into the below:]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:45 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:23 pm The way things are [...] cannot change in a way given that the nature of the world is as it is.

This is really bad, fallacious reasoning, (potentially) unless you mean that there is something about the specific nature of the world that entails its immutability, in which case, what is that specific nature and how does it entail immutability?

I refer to the natural and the biological world perhaps best visualized without men. That world can do nothing else but carry on as it has for millions and billions of years. What has defined life on this planet for billions of years prior, is what can be expected for billions of years going forward.

OK, so, no, you can't point to anything specific about the world's nature that entails its immutability, and thus, as I suspected, this really is just bad, fallacious reasoning on your part. It amounts to:

If the nature of an entity (in this case, the world) is as it is, then it is immutable.

Do you recognise that this is a non sequitur?

If not, then here's a simple counter-example: the nature of a desk that you've built for yourself is as it is, but, were you to take out your hammer and nails and build a set of drawers into it, and extensible legs such that it could be used as a stand-up desk, and to take out your paintbrush and give it a good coating, it would change.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:55 pm Let me say that I am uncertain, and also *confused*, about what proper morality is and what it should be.

That's beside the point of that to which you were responding, but I've buttressed that point enough already, so I won't return to it.

I get that you're uncertain and confused about proper morality. For me, there are cases and areas in which - for various reasons which could be explicated - the moral choice genuinely is unclear, but I'm personally pretty clear on moral principles (and how to justify them) at a higher level.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:55 pm I am not sure you have had much of an encounter with F, Nietzsche.

Here's surety then: other than reading various quotes and summaries here and there that others have shared or linked to, I haven't, and nor do I have any intention to, although, as you know, I do very little book reading anyway.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:55 pm I had just been reading Cymbeline:

Plenty and peace breeds cowards; hardness ever
Of hardiness is mother.

I get the sentiments there, and there's a certain sense to them, but here's the frame through which I view it: plenty and peace are the goal, and hardiness is only of such value as it realises that goal (allowing though that valuing hardiness for its own sake is valid at least to an extent). The quote then takes on a somewhat paradoxical and circular sense - referring to a sort of feedback loop which we'd want to reach an optimal stasis. That accepted, it would then remain only to establish (in any given situation to which this quote applied) what the optimal stasis is and how to reach it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:05 pm The logic of your emphatic statement is, I think, your attempt to convince yourself that it is true.

Nah, I already know that intervention into external reality from "beyond" occurs - and I've already pointed out to you how I know that based on empirical evidence, but you ignored me.

And now, a caveat: I am going to try (again) to limit my involvement in this thread so that I can achieve some tasks I've set myself, so I might not respond to anything you might yourself respond with, at least - potentially - not for some time. (I have drafted some other responses to others though that I'll post shortly. This same caveat applies to those responses).

Appendix: ChatGPT on Guénon-Evola metaphysics

My prompt: Explain how René Guénon and Julius Evola define metaphysics.

The ChatGPT response:

René Guénon and Julius Evola were two influential thinkers of the 20th century who are often associated with the traditionalist school of thought. They both offered unique definitions of metaphysics, which I will outline below:

1. René Guénon:

Guénon defined metaphysics as the "science of the transcendent." For him, metaphysics was concerned with the study of ultimate reality or the "absolute," which he believed was beyond the realm of empirical knowledge. Guénon argued that metaphysics provided the framework for understanding the deeper meaning of human existence and the cosmos. He believed that metaphysics was the foundation of all spiritual traditions and that it offered a way of transcending the limitations of the physical world.

2. Julius Evola:

Evola's definition of metaphysics was similar to Guénon's, but with some key differences. For Evola, metaphysics was the study of the "supernatural," which he defined as the realm of being beyond the physical world. However, Evola believed that metaphysics should be approached from a more active and individualistic perspective than Guénon. He argued that metaphysics was not only a theoretical inquiry but also a practical discipline that could be used to achieve spiritual transformation and liberation. According to Evola, metaphysics provided a way to transcend the limitations of human nature and to access a higher realm of consciousness.

Overall, both Guénon and Evola saw metaphysics as a way of understanding the deeper nature of reality and human existence. However, while Guénon emphasized the theoretical and intellectual aspects of metaphysics, Evola saw it as a more practical and active pursuit.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:38 pm The burden of explanation always seems to be put on science, but no one ever seems to feel it necessary to explain exactly how God does what he does.

In some cases (including the one you brought up), the burden [ETA: of explaining how God does what he does] might equally be on science there too...

In others, we simply wouldn't expect to be able to explain, 'cos - well, we're not gods ourselves, and for better or worse simply lack access (while down here, at least) to divinity's understanding of divine power.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:47 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:04 am
Very interesting statement and observation. Much to think about there.

There's not really that much thinking necessary to realise that the statement is wrong - or, at least, conditional on the qualities and properties that one ascribes to God.

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Great - an actual argument, stated clearly enough to be able to semi-formalise:

1. God is just (premise).
2. Whimsical intervention is unjust (premise).
3. If God intervenes in this world, God intervenes whimsically (premise).
4. If God intervenes in this world, God is unjust (inference from #2 and #3).
5. God does not intervene in this world (conclusion, from #4 and #1 by modus tollens).

Please correct me if you don't think that that's an accurate rendering.

It seems valid to me. I don't think that it's sound for all conceptions of God and reality though. Here are a couple of examples, starting with the Christian conception of God, to which you refer:

On this conception of God, premise one is only nominally true, but actually false. That is, God is said to be just on Christianity, but actually isn't. Two examples of His actual injustice are (1) damning to eternal, unimaginable torment those people who, despite otherwise committing only minor, finite wrongs, fail to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour prior to their deaths, and (2) wreaking ghastly, totally undeserved torment, suffering, and punishment upon Job simply to prove some point that He didn't even need to prove to some wicked entity who didn't deserve any demonstrations from God anyhow.

Premise one, then, is actually false on the Christian conception of God, and, given that it is an essential premise in the argument, on this conception the argument then is unsound.

I think that the Christian conception of God is indefensible anyhow, so that example isn't especially relevant to my own views. Here's an example that's much more relevant, riffing off the idea I briefly alluded to in a recent post:

For this example, God is conceived of as very powerful but not omnipotent, and very knowledgeable and prescient but not omniscient. God on this conception lacks omniscience to the extent that God is not capable prior to Creation of seeing all possible worlds so as to be capable of actualising one of the perfect possible worlds in which all beings freely choose to do good, and thus of actualising a world in which there is no suffering.

In this example, God is also conceived of as being capable only of creating conscious beings who have radical free will - radical in the sense that it supports the choice of both good and evil to any degree (that is, God is incapable of creating conscious automatons aka puppets aka subjects of hard determinism). Too, God is moral to the extent of refusing to simply kill (which in God's view would be murder) any being who desires to continue living, even when that being is choosing evil. Thus, on this conception, God must devise a way to minimise suffering and evil in a reality the inhabitants of which can choose it without being liable to being destroyed for that choice.

Here's one such (reasonable, in my view) way that God might devise:

God separates reality as a whole into a hierarchy of component realities. At the highest level is the preferred reality: one in which all of its inhabitants universally love and care for one another; there is generally no harm, suffering, or evil at this level. However, if any inhabitant at this level of reality does begin to make choices which harm others, then God offers that inhabitant a choice between various alternatives, including (others are possible):

1. Annihilation (final, ultimate death).
2. Entry into a virtual reality in which there are no others to harm, just mindless automatons which realistically mimic conscious beings. God might further offer the sub-choice of having one's memory erased to the extent that one forgets that this reality is only virtual, and believes that the avatars in it are real people, optionally offering for one to be reminded at various intervals in case one wants the opportunity of changing one's choice after experiencing this reality.
3. Descent into a lower reality in which others who had also begun to make other-harming choices had also descended, the point of which is to experience how bad it is to live in such a reality, and thus to learn by experience the need to love others. Should this lesson not be learnt, further descent might occur, up to a point: God doesn't want suffering to exist, God only tolerates the presence of (consented-to) suffering for didactic purposes, so God would limit the extent to which a lower reality could become evil (perhaps by limiting the next choice to one between #1 and #2 above).

Now, given that the purpose of lower levels of reality is to teach souls - who have freely chosen to subject themselves to this teaching by this method as opposed to choosing annihilation or some other option - to reject harmful choices and to become unvaryingly loving, God might intervene into such a reality to help to facilitate that learning. God would not intervene in controlling ways that abrogated free will, not least because that would risk the target resenting and rebelling against the obvious intervention, delaying the learning of the lesson, but in (often subtle) careful, respectful ways which genuinely contributed, without force, to the being's learning.

Having set the scene, here's why I think that your argument fails in this scenario: because premise three is false. The justification that you've offered for premise three is that only universal, unconditional alleviation of suffering by intervention is just, and since suffering has not been universally eradicated in this reality, then any interventions that God has made have been exceptional and thus unjust.

In the scenario I've outlined, though, we don't expect suffering to be universally alleviated, and nor do we expect to be able to understand precisely why God selectively intervenes in any given case, because God has a much, much better, and fuller understanding than us of which beings are in a position to learn based on that selective, carefully-calibrated intervention (and so God intervenes wherever this is possible, for all beings in this lower reality, not just in isolated exceptional cases).

Because on this conception of God, premise three is false, and because premise three, too, is an essential premise in the argument, on this conception the argument is again unsound.

Finally, your argument seems for the most part to be intended to apply to minor rule-bending by God, rather than changing wholesale the laws governing reality or at least radically remodelling that reality - but in scenarios like the above, it might be perfectly reasonable for God to intervene to that more extreme extent. For example, God might offer "descending" souls the choice to enter a lower reality in which the overall rule is "Once the collective reaches - without exception - a sufficiently loving state, the world and its natural systems will be reformed and remodelled such that it is not just *feasible* but *natural* for 'the lamb to lie with the lion', because in that case it would have *become* a (new) highest-level reality, and its natural laws and systems would need to reflect that."

All of this is expressed off the top of my head, and there might be the odd mistake or oversight in it, but I think that at the least it shows that plausible conceptions of God in which your argument is successfully defeated are *possible*.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:38 pm

It's normal to ascribe justice to God. Whimsical intervention in lives is unjust. All miraculous supposed interventions are unjust for the simple reason that that miracles are not to be relied upon. The God of Abraham is 100% reliable, and therefore He is not whimsical and so He will alleviate all suffering or none.

The God of Abraham clearly does not intervene to alleviate all suffering, therefore He does not intervene.

Sucks to NOT be one of Yahweh's chosen, I guess. Apparently, the chosen can get away with murder and genocide. I can barely get away from helping an impoverished person financially without getting shit after doing so. Fuck me already. And screw Yahweh. Fucking piece of shit god. Considering the shit universe he created he should be the one repenting to us. Though, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

...well, I guess I am the one that has to step up and say. Gary, that 'imporverished person' that you helped financially - was a woman that you were either getting blow jobs from or were hoping to get blow jobs from.

Ya, you gave your life savings away because your dick had other ideas - so what? ...blame everyone but the Gary? BOO HOO it's all Gods fault

All you want is brownie points with God. So you'll defend the likes of Yahweh. Sell me out. Why not? I can't do anything for you. That's fine. Feel free to go shove a crucifix up your ass. Or don't. Either way, get lost.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:29 pm ...

It may interest you to know that this is the first intrusion of ChatGPT into my world -- a mindless robot offering a definition of Guénon's and Evola's metaphysical conceptions! I am unsure what to think of it. Not so much what the robot mined information -- it is sufficient as a very basic outline -- but that more and more the ideas we share and out modes of thinking will become robot-like.

You offer an example of an element of Christian metaphysics that you do *not* reject: the notion of "intellectus". I don't consider this to be a significant enough element to count.

I wouldn't have organized my sentence in quite the same way. The blurb I offered on the topic of intellectus shows me a profoundly metaphysical way of describing our own being within Being (the ontological picture). The beginning of all thought, and all valuation that arises from thinking, is recognized as arising in the function we are calling *intellectus*. Thus the inference is that it is there, in that, where our efforts (to put it blandly) need to be directed. In my view that is one of the principle essences of the Christian philosophy that I can relate to and admire. The extensive definition of the term 'intellectus' was developed shall I say by those in our own traditions. That is, through the amalgamation of thought that I refer to as arising out of 'Alexandria' (and I refer to this place both as a real place in historical time as well as a symbol of amalgamation generally).

I think that it is not only the 'significan't point to start from but as I say the essential point. But I have no problem if, as a result of this or anything I say, you recognize that I am not Christian -- not truly so. I make no claims in that regard.

You seem to want to make a distinction between (1) the elements of the Story and (2) metaphysics (in the form of metaphysical principles that can be abstracted from the Story). I do not make this distinction: the Story *is* a metaphysical one already.

Not only do I 'make a distinction' I say that it is imperative to make the distinction because it is logically as well as intuitively necessary. The Story about some principle or other is designed as and functions as the vehicle through which the meaning-message is conveyed. The meaning and the message could just as well have come from another Story (i.e. another cultural or historical context).

If you do not make distinctions I do not have a problem with that. However, in my case making them is key to my sense that metaphysical principles are non-tangible and they arrive in our world from what I could describe as 'another dimension'. Are they part-and-parcel of the world (the world of Nature without man)? Perhaps since they (principles) arose with the Manifestation and therefore (in my mind) were latent in it.

Yet they only seem to be brought into our world through man. So once again Man is the focus and what in man is the field for that coming-through? My answer is intellectus. A unique faculty in man.

I am skeptical in any case of your supposed project to abstract metaphysical principles from the Story that then (you seem to want to claim) remain Christian.

You seem disturbed that I propose transcending the specificity of Christianity but I can only say that I have no other options. To have been interested by or to have accepted the assertions, say, of Evola and Guénon is to *believe in* that order of transcendental metaphysics. I do believe in that order. But I have no way to explain it so I simply refer to it intuitionally.

I would encourage those who are Christian to remain within that *pool*. The Christian pool that I can most relate to is that of Catholicism and the traditional variety. I have, in previous posts lo the many months indicated sources which I find highly relevant. Yet I am not a Catholic. The reason I went into all of this was, oddly enough, because of something Guénon mentioned in The Crisis of the Modern World. Simply put it was that in Catholicism that 'traces' of the transcendental metaphysical tradition could still be found (that had not been overswamped by *modernity*) I found this to be true.

Remain Christian? How can I possible remain Christian when I never have chosen to be one nor imagined myself as one? I am a researcher and if I am, also, a practitioner I cannot give you a definition of what it is that I practice.

If I remember correctly, your example more specifically was that the Vedas (or at least their textual contents) are considered in themselves to be a sort of "incarnation" of the divinity embedded in reality

What most interests me is the notion, the 'picture', the symbol of a god or of divinity that 'descends' into our realm.

Maybe the Wiki blurb was also written by a mindless word-crafting bot?

Avatar is a concept within Hinduism that in Sanskrit literally means "descent". It signifies the material appearance or incarnation of a powerful deity, goddess or spirit on Earth. The relative verb to "alight, to make one's appearance" is sometimes used to refer to any guru or revered human being.

So if I start with the notion of intellectus as something, somehow, innate in man, and then continue with the idea of conception, stimulation, inspiration from what I have described as 'the higher world', you can through this have a better sense of my ontological conception. That through some means or machanism I do not profess to understand what seems like 'revelation' does come to man. Perhaps it is theological and ethical but it could also be musical and artistic -- or many different things. But what destroys the possibility? That plays as much a part in my *philosophy*. This is why I do refer to the 16th Chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita that deals on the demonic and the angelic nature. Certain things -- actions I suppose -- enable us to ascend. Others bind us to descent. Above, the heavenly world. Below the world of hells.

It is a metaphor with very useful function. It helps a man to envision himself within this world.

Intra-species, the kindness and cooperation are obvious. Many animals - especially mammals like us - love, take care of, and teach their young for a significant period before parting ways (if they ever do). Many even live together in packs, herds, flocks, swarms, etc, and cooperate and take care of one another in those collectives (just as for humans, there are, of course, sometimes antagonistic and harmful relationships in those collectives too, as well as fights for dominance).

Just as there is intra-species cooperation you forget that a mother bird with two chicks when she notices one who gets stronger, whose will and basic power is greater, cuts off the weaker from nourishment. And stronger brother mercilessly bites and wounds his weak brother saying *I survived! I must survive! And you must DIE!"

You are seeing things through an interposed lens of natural idealism. At core of all life is extreme brutality. And all creatures are composted back into the organic order where beings feed on other beings in an endless cycle that will not end because it cannot.

I recognize play, affection, care, and even enjoyment within the natural world. But the essential underpinning is about power, force, assertion, violence and will.

My suggestion? Modify the perceptual lens that you (seem to me) to interpose. Or don't!

OK, so, no, you can't point to anything specific about the world's nature that entails its immutability

You are going off on a track that I do not understand, possibly because there is some *predicate* you are working with that I do not see, understand or agree with.

The world of nature -- our world, the world as a planet-system -- has been going on as it has for billions of years. I assume it will go on in the same way, generally speaking, for billions more. Is that a fallacious assumption? I do not think it is. You would have to point to some instance where some other eventuality has shown itself.

I do admit that the advent of Man (and also by extension of intellectus) is an intrusion of 'something else' into our world. But I never asserted anything differently.