Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:34 pm Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist.

As much as I'm enjoying living in your head, rent-free, it's a rather crabbed space. It's full of solipsistic self-congratulation, posing and twaddle in here.

I think I'll move out.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 5:11 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:34 pm Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist.

As much as I'm enjoying living in your head, rent-free, it's a rather crabbed space. It's full of solipsistic self-congratulation, posing and twaddle in here.

I think I'll move out.

You could send it to Chat GPT for editing :)However it is odd that you dwell among The Bible such a lot and yet you don't do poetic language.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:37 pm What theological problem? That people have them? I'm not surprised. I'd say all language is in question, as it symbolizes even more problematic thought, which is the job to be impossibly lifted, from sense. Morality = it don't feel right.

The theological problem related to the collapse of an intelligible god-picture. I am trying to be specific about belief and believers in our present. I was also thinking of what happens in people when their god-concepts are thwarted. I do not mean ended. But when ‘god’ is neither fully dead nor really alive.

Have you ever read Sartre’s No Exit (Huis Clos). Four people stuck together in an apparent afterworld that is ironically “hell” (l’infer c’est les autres). They are stuck together in an ironic similarity to those stuck on this thread. Impossible to move, but impossible to move on. No possibility of agreement, but no possibility of not struggling in absurd rehearsals that are unending replays.

(Obviously, Alexis Jacobi is the actual aware one who, as a result, is effectively the only one who can bring the denizens of the thread to The Promised Land.)

I have achieved an unprecedented solipsistic inner harmony that few in history have achieved. I am soooo happy with myself.

Love wouldn't do that either.

I think that at least we can agree that there must be a far higher level both in a non-faith or post-faith position (yours) and a faith-position.

But it really all hinges on how the idea of god is taken.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 12:44 pm It really depends on how one comes into it, but Christianity, through reading of the Gospels, and certainly the OT, is an invitation to participate in a novel. The Bible is really for Occidentals the beginning of “imaginative literature”. It enables complex, interactive visualizations in which one is an active participant. This is perhaps the main reason I am careful not to condemn too forcefully those — our dear Immanuel is surely one — who live within the possibilities of Live Action Role Playing which, I think we can face this, is what a religious mythology offers to a man.

Curiously, Immanuel presents himself as a “knower” of what Christianity really is, and thus says “I am the only one who can have a valid notion of it and therefore explain it”. Yet time and again he never succeeds in explaining anything! If some essential value is there within the religious-mythic story, what that is or should be is never conveyed! What Immanuel does succeed at, and very well, is role playing a contemptuous character who he claims is actually God’s Child and heaven bound.

But he is astoundingly immune to seeing that this is what he achieves! The critique, such as it is, is not even registered.

Now there is something astounding.

Alexis Jacobi’s God is clearly a Great King above all gods. I soar down from time to time and scatter the sparrows and then ascend to my perch above The World.

One of these days I plan to begin my World Mission!

I got the following neutral an pared down version from ChatGPT:-

Christianity functions as an invitation to enter a narrative, especially through the Gospels and Old Testament, and for Western readers it often serves as a foundational form of imaginative participation. For that reason, I don’t strongly criticize those — like Immanuel — who treat it almost as a form of role play. The problem is that although Immanuel claims a unique and authoritative understanding of Christianity, he never actually communicates what this understanding is; instead, he performs the role of a contemptuous believer convinced of his own salvation, without recognizing that this is precisely what he’s doing. In contrast, I regard “Alexis Jacobi’s God” as a supreme figure and intervene periodically, with the intention of eventually initiating what I call my World Mission.

Imaginative participation is correct, because theatre has its historical roots in religious myths.
I have been asking IC an explicit question about his notion of transcendent and immanent deity, and also a question about sources of revelation of God besides The Bible. He provided clear and explicit answers .

I don't agree with his opinion, as he did not mention the theological Problem of Evil ,nor the works of Nature as one of Muhammad's signs of God at work in the world. However IC was explicit enough.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 6:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 5:11 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:34 pm Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist.

As much as I'm enjoying living in your head, rent-free, it's a rather crabbed space. It's full of solipsistic self-congratulation, posing and twaddle in here.

I think I'll move out.

You could send it to Chat GPT for editing :)However it is odd that you dwell among The Bible such a lot and yet you don't do poetic language.

What a loser. IC, not you AJ. No answer according to faith. A disgrace. He knows I've proved God is not love, and strangely, he cares.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 6:23 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:37 pm What theological problem? That people have them? I'm not surprised. I'd say all language is in question, as it symbolizes even more problematic thought, which is the job to be impossibly lifted, from sense. Morality = it don't feel right.

The theological problem related to the collapse of an intelligible god-picture. I am trying to be specific about belief and believers in our present. I was also thinking of what happens in people when their god-concepts are thwarted. I do not mean ended. But when ‘god’ is neither fully dead nor really alive.

Have you ever read Sartre’s No Exit (Huis Clos). Four people stuck together in an apparent afterworld that is ironically “hell” (l’infer c’est les autres). They are stuck together in an ironic similarity to those stuck on this thread. Impossible to move, but impossible to move on. No possibility of agreement, but no possibility of not struggling in absurd rehearsals that are unending replays.

(Obviously, Alexis Jacobi is the actual aware one who, as a result, is effectively the only one who can bring the denizens of the thread to The Promised Land.)

I have achieved an unprecedented solipsistic inner harmony that few in history have achieved. I am soooo happy with myself.

Love wouldn't do that either.

I think that at least we can agree that there must be a far higher level both in a non-faith or post-faith position (yours) and a faith-position.

But it really all hinges on how the idea of god is taken.

You're an amusing and highly intelligent, well bred cove AJ. Like a Royalist fop in the court of Charles I. Me, I'm a Leveller, with me hat on in church. And a loaded musket. A bit of a Puritan. Not Citizen Chauvelin to the Scarlet Pimpernel. Not a fanatic. Just a purist. Purified by fire.

So your wit is no match for my brute firepower and marksmanship. I don't take prisoners.

I'm familiar with the work, but, being a pleb, haven't read it.

Are you mocking mine own 'solipsism'? It seems de rigueur for you.

I'm more sparrow hawk than sparrow. But raised with them.

There is no higher non-faith position. And that is no lack, compared with faith. Some of which I admire uncritically, for the sake of those faithful. Whom I love.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:12 pm Purified by fire.

I believe you.

You must understand that at my level of development (I will likely become an Ascended Master when I am finally called out of the incarnated state) that …

… Oh drat! I forgot what I was going to say.

Are you mocking mine own 'solipsism'? It seems de rigueur for you.

IC just dismissed me with the term solipsistic.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:37 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:12 pm Purified by fire.

I believe you.

You must understand that at my level of development (I will likely become an Ascended Master when I am finally called out of the incarnated state) that …

… Oh drat! I forgot what I was going to say.

Are you mocking mine own 'solipsism'? It seems de rigueur for you.

IC just dismissed me with the term solipsistic.

Ah, he has Van Gogh's ear for irony.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 6:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 5:11 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:34 pm Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist.

As much as I'm enjoying living in your head, rent-free, it's a rather crabbed space. It's full of solipsistic self-congratulation, posing and twaddle in here.

I think I'll move out.

You could send it to Chat GPT for editing :)However it is odd that you dwell among The Bible such a lot and yet you don't do poetic language.

You're quite wrong, actually, as you were when you guessed at my knowledge of other religions. It's possible you're one of the people who knows more than I do about figurative language than I do, but I would bet, on averages, you're not.

I think you're being fooled by the fact that whereas you want to treat All of the Bible as if it were only symbolism, and never anything else, I don't. You even want to imagine that Christ Himself is merely a sort of cosmic metaphor...and I see the absurdity of any such claim, by noting how completely incompatible it is with the language used about and by Him.

One of us recognizes the distinction between literal claims and metaphorical ones. The other one thinks everything has to be metaphor.

So which of us is really being unsubtle?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 6:38 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 12:44 pm It really depends on how one comes into it, but Christianity, through reading of the Gospels, and certainly the OT, is an invitation to participate in a novel. The Bible is really for Occidentals the beginning of “imaginative literature”. It enables complex, interactive visualizations in which one is an active participant. This is perhaps the main reason I am careful not to condemn too forcefully those — our dear Immanuel is surely one — who live within the possibilities of Live Action Role Playing which, I think we can face this, is what a religious mythology offers to a man.

Curiously, Immanuel presents himself as a “knower” of what Christianity really is, and thus says “I am the only one who can have a valid notion of it and therefore explain it”. Yet time and again he never succeeds in explaining anything! If some essential value is there within the religious-mythic story, what that is or should be is never conveyed! What Immanuel does succeed at, and very well, is role playing a contemptuous character who he claims is actually God’s Child and heaven bound.

But he is astoundingly immune to seeing that this is what he achieves! The critique, such as it is, is not even registered.

Now there is something astounding.

Alexis Jacobi’s God is clearly a Great King above all gods. I soar down from time to time and scatter the sparrows and then ascend to my perch above The World.

One of these days I plan to begin my World Mission!

I got the following neutral an pared down version from ChatGPT:-

Christianity functions as an invitation to enter a narrative, especially through the Gospels and Old Testament, and for Western readers it often serves as a foundational form of imaginative participation. For that reason, I don’t strongly criticize those — like Immanuel — who treat it almost as a form of role play. The problem is that although Immanuel claims a unique and authoritative understanding of Christianity, he never actually communicates what this understanding is; instead, he performs the role of a contemptuous believer convinced of his own salvation, without recognizing that this is precisely what he’s doing. In contrast, I regard “Alexis Jacobi’s God” as a supreme figure and intervene periodically, with the intention of eventually initiating what I call my World Mission.

Imaginative participation is correct, because theatre has its historical roots in religious myths.
I have been asking IC an explicit question about his notion of transcendent and immanent deity, and also a question about sources of revelation of God besides The Bible. He provided clear and explicit answers .

I don't agree with his opinion, as he did not mention the theological Problem of Evil ,nor the works of Nature as one of Muhammad's signs of God at work in the world. However IC was explicit enough.

In what way? What did he say? Is it worth un-Foeing him? Is there anything I should be worried about? Intellectually? Has he seen my synthesis and raised it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 5:11 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:34 pm Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist.

As much as I'm enjoying living in your head, rent-free, it's a rather crabbed space. It's full of solipsistic self-congratulation, posing and twaddle in here.
I think I'll move out.

You can't do that It would give AJ nothing to live for

Be Christian, Immanuel. Stay!

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 2:15 pm God knows how bad it is metaphysically! I'm glad I can't see that deeply. Is there metaphysical kindness that can resolve it?

Yes! Cut it from your psyche as Alexander did the Gordian Knot; strike until the deed is done until all of metaphysics becomes an empire of the mind, a multitudinous, psychic melodrama of infinite vistas where nothing further can be added or any decrement ever able to compromise its holistic completeness. Such is the nature of infinity along with its side-kick, eternity. By doing what god disallows you will have moved beyond his petty strictures to encompass what he never wanted you to see; Adam & Eve are proof of his inferiority! Such is the nature of an active, striving metanoia having partitioned into a wisdom beyond which there is no greater and all the love memes of the bygone becomes a superfluous long lost melody rarely sung.

Sorry! I had an urge to get on to the bullshit bandwagon!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 9:19 pm I think you're being fooled by the fact that whereas you want to treat All of the Bible as if it were only symbolism, and never anything else, I don't. You even want to imagine that Christ Himself is merely a sort of cosmic metaphor...and I see the absurdity of any such claim, by noting how completely incompatible it is with the language used about and by Him.

Not a very intelligent or useful critique: Belinda does not believe, at all, in a Divinity, therefore could not ‘believe in’ Christ’s divinity. She does not (seem to) deny that a man JC existed, but any aura of divinity could only be seen as a phantasy overlay.

Metaphor implies a vehicle that carries something — in this case (in Belinda’s case) it would be meanings or values but strictly ones that are human.

I would assume that she would recognize that biblical tales took shape in real history, and thus could reflect historicity, but that they are elaborated accounts with extremely exaggerated elements.

Your problem, and it is a bizarre and consequential one, is that you cannot distinguish metaphor and symbol when it is necessary to do so. All I need refer to is your freakshow level assertion that Adam & Eve, because in your mind these must have been two real people located in history, represent an “original mating pair” and not a fabulation, a mythic picture, laden with symbolic and metaphorical content. Your ‘belief-mind’ thus distorts both the metaphor and the (truer) science-picture.

You are invested in entire series of such fabulation. You cannot separate one from the other. And when you attempt triple backward flips of astounding sophistry — this is your stock in trade — you render yourself a figure of ridicule.

You’d get much more mileage out of working the metaphors rather than demented realism.

So which of us is really being unsubtle?

Since she, by her initial predicates, cannot accept any part of the Story (i.e. the myth-content) you are clearly the unsubtle one by failing to understand this.

Your entire apologetic effort thus is shown to fail all over again.

Run that through the AI language robot, Belinda. It might enlighten it!