Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Immanuel Can]

What is ''conceptual knowledge'' but a story arising out of nothingness, written or spoken by nothingness, and READ by nothingness....

Sorry, DAM...I don't see a coherent idea in this either. "Nothing" does nothing. But obviously something is here, and we are obviously something. Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

There's really no getting away from that; there's only the refusal to realize it. But when one denies reality and reason, then there is no more progress in discussion. For then, there are no criteria that can make the discussion go forward.

[VVilliam]

What is ''conceptual knowledge'' but a story arising out of nothingness, written or spoken by nothingness, and READ by nothingness....

Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

Oh - so you do get the gist of simulation theory...

[Sculptor]

What is ''conceptual knowledge'' but a story arising out of nothingness, written or spoken by nothingness, and READ by nothingness....

Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

Oh - so you do get the gist of simulation theory...

It's also a passingly useful desription of ordinary perception too.
Here's what Baudrillard means by life being a simulation.

[VVilliam]

Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

Oh - so you do get the gist of simulation theory...

It's also a passingly useful desription of ordinary perception too.

Yes...that should not be surprising as the two are interlinked...

[VVilliam]

Here's what Baudrillard means by life being a simulation.

Yes. In reading on Jean Baudrillard [wikipedia Simulacra and Simulation] I get the gist of what he is pointing out regarding symbology.
Thanks for the heads up. Interesting stuff...

[Immanuel Can]

What is ''conceptual knowledge'' but a story arising out of nothingness, written or spoken by nothingness, and READ by nothingness....

Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

Oh - so you do get the gist of simulation theory...

You'll notice I started with "even were we to imagine..." In other words, I don't "imagine" it's true at all.

But yeah, I understand the idea...I just think it's an incoherent idea.

[VVilliam]

Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

Oh - so you do get the gist of simulation theory...

You'll notice I started with "even were we to imagine..." In other words, I don't "imagine" it's true at all.

But yeah, I understand the idea...I just think it's an incoherent idea.

Your oxymoron is showing...

[Dontaskme]

What is ''conceptual knowledge'' but a story arising out of nothingness, written or spoken by nothingness, and READ by nothingness....

Sorry, DAM...I don't see a coherent idea in this either. "Nothing" does nothing. But obviously something is here, and we are obviously something. Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

There's really no getting away from that; there's only the refusal to realize it. But when one denies reality and reason, then there is no more progress in discussion. For then, there are no criteria that can make the discussion go forward.

Nothing does nothing, that's all that's happening. Nothing speaks, nothing reads, nothing writes.

Or it could be something does something, and that's all that's happening. Something speaks, something reads, something writes.

Or it could be everything does everything, and that's all that's happening. Everything speaks, everything reads, everything writes.

What's the difference?

Or, can you explain who or what it is that you think is denying reality and reason here ?

[Dontaskme]

Sorry, DAM...I don't see a coherent idea in this either.

Lets talk about 'coherence' then.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

What is coherent about the bolded claim above?

Who wrote it, who is reading it, and to who does this 'eternal life' apply? - see if you can SHOW an image of this WHO? so that it can be understood to whom eternal life is given. Don't forget to notice the claim is speaking to a ''whoever''

When you have shown an IMAGE ...then we can move forward with the discussion, and see if we can all agree what is attempting to be understood.

[Immanuel Can]

Or, can you explain who or what it is that you think is denying reality and reason here ?

I think I just did. Was there a part of the following that remains unclear?

"Nothing" does nothing. But obviously something is here, and we are obviously something. Even were we to imagine it's an "illusion," something creates the illusion, and the illusion is a picture of something. So behind everything that appears must be a fixed reality, a "something" the "illusion" is an "illusion" of.

[Immanuel Can]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

What is coherent about the bolded claim above?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but your question above seems to suggest perhaps we need to establish what "incoherent" means. It doesn't mean it's a thing you do or don't believe to be so, it means that the statement cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make sense, even on its own terms. There aren't a lot of difficult words, and no contradictory concepts, in the above verse. So you'll have to point out to me what you find "incoherent" in it. It seems perfectly intelligible, on the surface.

Now, whether or not you believe it is a different question, of course; but whether you can understand it, that is, whether it's coherent, doesn't seem problematic at all.

Who wrote it,

John (immediate author)

who is reading it,

You and me.

and to who does this 'eternal life' apply?

Whoever believes in Him.

see if you can SHOW an image of this WHO?

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but basic grammar covers this.

"Whoever" is a pronoun. That means it is a word that stands in the place of a noun, and indicates a person. So you can put me, you, or any other personal pronoun or noun in its place. Pick your person (s), put him/her/them in place, and you have the image of the one(s) being spoken of.

[Dontaskme]

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

What is coherent about the bolded claim above?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but your question above seems to suggest perhaps we need to establish what "incoherent" means. It doesn't mean it's a thing you do or don't believe to be so, it means that the statement cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make sense, even on its own terms. There aren't a lot of difficult words, and no contradictory concepts, in the above verse. So you'll have to point out to me what you find "incoherent" in it. It seems perfectly intelligible, on the surface.

Why does reality have to make sense anyway. Reality is without doubt or error. It doesn't have to make sense. Again, does a tree have to make sense of it's existence in order to be a tree? There's just tree.

The scripture stating whoever believes in him will have eternal life is a STORY ... arising in the belief there is a self here to speak, write, and hear this story. And that apparent self is also a part of the story. So the only thing as I can see as having eternal life is the story.

That's all I'm pointing out to you.


.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does reality have to make sense anyway.

Well, it clearly does, for one thing. Reality seems to respond very well to reason and logic, and rather poorly to fantasy and imagination, by comparison.

But if reality didn't make sense, then neither you nor I would be capable of saying anything about it...or, indeed, of saying anything at all.

[Dontaskme]

Why does reality have to make sense anyway.

Well, it clearly does, for one thing. Reality seems to respond very well to reason and logic, and rather poorly to fantasy and imagination, by comparison.

But if reality didn't make sense, then neither you nor I would be capable of saying anything about it...or, indeed, of saying anything at all.

So what?

Whether reality makes sense or not, there is absolutely nothing that can be known about it. Except a story that this not-knowing makes up about it. Now imagine that, a not-knowing appearing to know.

And in that story, You are born - you experience sensation of pain or pleasure - then you die - game over. No one wins.

That's all there is to understand.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does reality have to make sense anyway.

Well, it clearly does, for one thing. Reality seems to respond very well to reason and logic, and rather poorly to fantasy and imagination, by comparison.

But if reality didn't make sense, then neither you nor I would be capable of saying anything about it...or, indeed, of saying anything at all.

So what?

Well, you're trying to tell me things. You are, in fact, asserting your worldview. Were the universe not a place where rationality applies, you could not do so at all.