And as the wind again breathes, I return to this thread, perhaps to breathe some life back through
it.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
It may interest you to know that this is the first
intrusion of ChatGPT into my world
I am honoured (!?) to have facilitated this intrusion - or, shall we say, this
imposition?
[Reordering quotes a little]
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
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.
There might have been some misunderstanding here. I
do make the distinction between a story and any principles that might be abstracted from it,
but I also contend that both stories
and principles can qualify as metaphysical - insofar as they satisfy the criterion of "pertaining to that which transcends physical reality".
In the case of Christianity,
the Story
does meet this criterion and thus
is metaphysical, even
before any (also metaphysical) principle(s) that can be abstracted from it. Do you agree?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
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.
I am not saying that you claim to be Christian: I am saying that you claim to value Christian metaphysics, and that you have claimed as much for a long time, but that despite this claim of yours,
you reject every essential element of the Christian Story-with-a-capital-S.
I am, then, prompting you to reflect on whether or not you
continue to claim to value Christian metaphysics. I don't see how you can, because the only "Christian" metaphysics that you endorse are those principles which you have abstracted from the Story, but (in my opinion), they are
so much abstracted that they no longer genuinely qualify as "Christian".
Does that make sense now? If so, does it prompt any reflections?
You might wonder why any of this matters to me: it is because I also claim to value aspects of Christian metaphysics, but by this I mean aspects which
are specific enough to continue to be considered "Christian", and it is perplexing to me that you make the same claim without (the same) justification.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
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.
It's not true that I forget that: I have never denied that there are aspects of the natural world that are cruel and even brutal. I have simply pointed out that there are
also kindness, love, and pleasure in the natural world. You acknowledge that these exist, but go on to claim that "the essential underpinning [of the natural world --HB] is about power, force, assertion, violence and will". I have made no such similarly declarative statement; I have not even attempted to roughly estimate the ratio of kindness/satisfaction to cruelty/suffering in the natural world. How ironic then that
you accuse
me of "seeing things through [a lens]"!
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
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.
I just value logic, and, as I pointed out, you misused it, engaging in fallacious reasoning (albeit that you
did qualify your reasoning with "in a way"). That's all. It was a sidetrack.
In a way, our whole conversation has been sidetracked from the broad questions underlying it: Who or What is behind the design of this reality in which we find ourselves, and where is God in all of this - inside us, outside us, or somewhere (if anywhere) else - and can we coherently align our answers to those questions?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:34 pm
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?
There are reasonable grounds for making it, so I don't think it's fallacious
as an assumption per se. There are also, though, reasonable grounds for doubting it.
