Philosophy Now Forum

Sthitapragya wrote:Are you saying that the old conception is wrong and the new one is right?

Surely you must realise how terribly undefined is your question! You would have to specify an area. Also, either here or on another thread we spoke of man's 'imagined world'. Since our worlds are imagined (held in the imagination, visualised), the imagination of them is not reality but *reflects* reality, or expresses an interpretation of reality. These views and 'organisations of perception' change. But then so do those having to do with scientifically-defined or explained reality.

Why do gods need to be defined anew? Were the old definitions wrong? If the old definitions were wrong, why is it not a possibility to be considered that since the old definition is wrong, then maybe there is no god at all? why do you need to define him 'anew"? What is the need?

The nature of our reality, where we are, who we are, what we are doing here, how we came (as awarenesses, as consciousnesses) to be here, what *all this* is, and very much more, are the prime questions. They HAVE to be asked and answered. But it is possible to shut down the doors of perception, and to ask only limited questions. The questions you appear to have are those that are similar to a math problem or a science problem, or perhaps a mechanical problem. To all appearances you no longer feel you need to ask (as Inglorious has said) 'depth' questions. You seem to have narrowed your human project into very precise channels, and you do this for a host of reasons that could be explored and defined. I suggest that there is a 'new metaphysic' or Weltanschauung that dominates your mind and consciousness. It is part of a narrowing-down project, a project of elimination. In other posts I have linked it to a destructive project but *destruction* has to be carefully defined. I do not mean that you are malicious. I suggest 'turning the lens of examination around', and just as you are asking bold questions, that a group of questions be asked of you. That you be made to stare a mirror and to see your operative tenets and predicates. This is a work of metaphysical self-analysis. But, because you are so weak in history, literature, theology and numerous other areas and cannot visualise these areas and the meaning-content they contain, and because you seem to desire to focus so narrowly in your chosen and restricted domain, you are ill-equipped to undertake this analysis. And you resist it like all hell. (And so does Team Atheism that operates on PN). You must understand that this is a serious game - a game, yes, but one with serious consequences.

No I am not. I am not involved in any question like "what man is to do with himself and his present" and I definitely do not think there is any "new order of reality". Reality is reality. If you think there is a new order of reality then there is your problem. Reality has always been. Maybe your perception of reality is different now. I know what a man is to do with himself. Man has to survive and thrive and procreate so that his genes get passed along. That is it. No more. No less. Whatever else I do to make my life more "meaningful" or 'purposeful" is just misplaced ideology I indulge in. I understand that.

Not involved in questions like 'what man is to do with himself and his present' and yet you say you are involved in or interested in philosophy? What is your area of concern then?

Unless I have gotten it wrong the prime questions of philosophy are: What is this place? and What are we to do here?

You are wrong about 'new orders of reality'. It is a phenomenological question I suppose but it has been established that people define their world through their view of it. The world that Shakesepeare lived in, though materially the same, is not the same world that we live in. But I am using the word 'world' here to mean conceptual order. These are apparently new ideas for you and it is not a surprise that they may take some time to sink in.

I know what a man is to do with himself. Man has to survive and thrive and procreate so that his genes get passed along.

Well, that is one thing that man may choose to do, and is a biological imperative for the race. But there are an infinitude of other activities that man dedicates himself to and which are part of civilisation. In order to understand what is being referred to will, I reckon, involve some study on your part. And in that study you may also come to understand and appreciate the power of the Idea and also 'great ideas'.

Theists can do whatever they want, as long as they do not try to force their ideology on me or believe they are better than me. You live your way and I will live mine. They minute you insinuate that you are better than me or try to force your ideology on me, I will retaliate. That is all. I do not care for your God. It does not matter to me one whit whether he exists or not. If he does, fine. If he does not, fine. As far as I am concerned, God is as relevant to reality as Harry Potter or Santa or the abominable snowman is. But that is my opinion. I do not think your belief in God makes you a lesser man. But if you think that my lack of belief in God makes me a lesser man and you tell me to my face, I will retaliate. Otherwise, my dear, I just don't give a damn.

That is like saying that you do not believe it possible to assign a higher or a lower valuation to anything at all. In one way or another, through persuasion or coercion, we are all under the sway of ideas. If we don't serve some we serve others. The point is obviously that we have to make the effort to define our values. I argue that the project of defining values is, in fact and in reality, the project of the higher man. This is an idealistic statement, and it is also a statement about reality and politics that is troublesome and problematic. But right here on this beloved PN Forum, as everyone is very aware, the game of definitions is a acutely relevant, acutely contested. It is not so much about if a person 'believes in God' or not, and much more about what system of defining reality he subscribes to. It is a similar project. I argue that 'you' (plural) who define yourself as 'atheist' are also involved in projects of definition of reality, and recall again the vast state atheistic enterprises which established prison camps and psychiatric wards as a means of effecting control and power (and often in these areas). I propose no solution to any question of belief but rather an openness to the full dimension of the questions. And with all this, naturally, the conversation becomes more interesting, more relevant.

What you value and what you don't value, what you privilege and what you don't, is of course ultimately irrelevant. To the degree that you grasp the magnitude of the questions is the degree that you can interact with their importance. If none of this is important to you, why (I ask again) are you involved in the questions?

Me: So, are you saying that the life of a cockroach has as much value as that of a child?

Sthitapragya: Of course it does. But not to me. To the cockroach.

Sthitapragya is unwilling or unable to state without ambiguity whether the life of a child is of greater value that that of a cockroach. This is the kind of dimwitted insanity that leads to expelling a child from school for playfully pointing his forefinger and thumb at a fellow student like a gun, depriving bakers from making a living because their religious convictions forbids making a cake celebrating a homosexual marriage, a student kicked off the football team for hitting a bully who was assaulting a blind student for no reason, a restaurant denying service to a soldier in uniform because he was armed and a soldier being discharged for body-slamming a Afghan child rapist.

I wonder what will happen when the dam holding back the waters of righteous indignation bursts.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: The nature of our reality, where we are, who we are, what we are doing here, how we came (as awarenesses, as consciousnesses) to be here, what *all this* is, and very much more, are the prime questions. They HAVE to be asked and answered.

Of course. But why do people correlate these questions with the questions related to God? The two are completely independent.

But it is possible to shut down the doors of perception, and to ask only limited questions. The questions you appear to have are those that are similar to a math problem or a science problem, or perhaps a mechanical problem.

Not in the least bit. The questions of God and his relevance to the world are not math or science or even mechanical problems.

To all appearances you no longer feel you need to ask (as Inglorious has said) 'depth' questions.

Here is the main source of our difference. What you call depth questions, specially those related to God, I call pointless questions which are a waste of time. It is my opinion that the search for God is a singularly useless waste of time. Questions about the self are reasonable and essential and they need to be answered. As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied with the answers about the self. For God, I have no time.

You seem to have narrowed your human project into very precise channels, and you do this for a host of reasons that could be explored and defined. I suggest that there is a 'new metaphysic' or Weltanschauung that dominates your mind and consciousness. It is part of a narrowing-down project, a project of elimination. In other posts I have linked it to a destructive project but *destruction* has to be carefully defined. I do not mean that you are malicious.

This is one irritating habit you need to get rid of. I am talking about the arrogance and hubris which possesses you which makes you actually believe that you know what the other guy is thinking. So I will just ignore it as one of your usual rants which seem to be directed at something I said which pinched you.

I suggest 'turning the lens of examination around', and just as you are asking bold questions, that a group of questions be asked of you.

Again, you are correlating God with the self. Just because I do not believe in God does not mean I do not introspect. I think this is just your prejudice and ignorance talking again when you assume that those who do not believe in God have no depth. So I will again ignore it as a petty thought process.

That you be made to stare a mirror and to see your operative tenets and predicates. This is a work of metaphysical self-analysis. But, because you are so weak in history, literature, theology and numerous other areas and cannot visualise these areas and the meaning-content they contain, and because you seem to desire to focus so narrowly in your chosen and restricted domain, you are ill-equipped to undertake this analysis. And you resist it like all hell. (And so does Team Atheism that operates on PN). You must understand that this is a serious game - a game, yes, but one with serious consequences.

And this is just pitiful. So I will now ignore the rest of what you have to say too. We will talk again when you can stop being petty and lash out like a little girl.

It is my opinion that the search for God is a singularly useless waste of time.

It is a valid opinion, all the way round. No one can take issue with an opinion of this sort. It is what you think. However, this Conversation ('C' to indicate a culture-wide and historical conversation) is larger than both you and me, and me certainly. And the conversation on this forum, because it is based in Occidental philosophy, and because most all of us are occidentals, touches on historical and cultural precedents relevant to the Occident.

• GB: You seem to have narrowed your human project into very precise channels, and you do this for a host of reasons that could be explored and defined. I suggest that there is a 'new metaphysic' or Weltanschauung that dominates your mind and consciousness. It is part of a narrowing-down project, a project of elimination. In other posts I have linked it to a destructive project but *destruction* has to be carefully defined. I do not mean that you are malicious.
  
  S: This is one irritating habit you need to get rid of. I am talking about the arrogance and hubris which possesses you which makes you actually believe that you know what the other guy is thinking. So I will just ignore it as one of your usual rants which seem to be directed at something I said which pinched you.

I locate 'the conversation' is a wider context, and essentially I do not speak to you as an atom, but to a whole cluster of molecules and then to living bodies: cultural and social and intellectual bodies. If you grasp this, you will understand why I am interested in making larger, more inclusive statements. I mean you no offence of any sort. Offending you is not part of what I am doing here.

Also, I do not rely exclusively on 'what a person is thinking', that is, the specific reasonings. I understand that Ideas are larger than individuals and that there are currents of ideation that (as I sometimes say) 'possess' people. Most people cannot and do not think anything through. They respond to life and events through idées reçues.

Therefore, my perception of your idea structure is exactly as I have said: You have narrowed your project into specific channels. It is possible to explore how this has come about, etc. I stand behind these suppositions. Though a supposition is modifiable.

I wrote: "I suggest 'turning the lens of examination around', and just as you are asking bold questions, that a group of questions be asked of you."

You misunderstand what I mean. Instead of coming under examination by you, though I am not opposed to this, I suggest examining you. That is what turning the lens of observation around means to me.

I wrote:

That you be made to stare in the mirror and to see your operative tenets and predicates. This is a work of metaphysical self-analysis. But, because you are so weak in history, literature, theology and numerous other areas and cannot visualise these areas and the meaning-content they contain, and because you seem to desire to focus so narrowly in your chosen and restricted domain, you are ill-equipped to undertake this analysis. And you resist it like all hell. (And so does Team Atheism that operates on PN). You must understand that this is a serious game - a game, yes, but one with serious consequences.

This is what my project entails. These are the predicates I am working with: that we do not know how to fully see ourselves and the metaphysical predicates that drive us. This is the position I have established after some years of research. When I use the 'you' I mean something larger than you, but also you-singular. All of this can be defended and explained. I'd hope that you not take any of it personally, yet I cannot control your reactions or actions.

Why don't you get to the point, Gustav, instead of carping on like a supercilious pissant? Tell me what god means to YOU.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: This is what my project entails. These are the predicates I am working with: that we do not know how to fully see ourselves and the metaphysical predicates that drive us. This is the position I have established after some years of research. When I use the 'you' I mean something larger than you, but also you-singular. All of this can be defended and explained. I'd hope that you not take any of it personally, yet I cannot control your reactions or actions.

The layer to be surmised beneath the one you mention is whether too close an examination may actually undermine the 'metaphysical predicates' that supposedly drive us. It's not unlike that old Socratic chestnut the unexamined life is not worth living in which the conclusion may make one regret the examination. (That's when Nietzsche arrives but that's another story)

In the urge to get too personal with ourselves in the search for metaphysical truths, there are those who default to precisely that position upon examination: it's not worth living OR that there is really nothing in it to discover after all except that which it discovers on its own ... THAT being one of its discoveries.

As an analogy to applied metaphysics called 'physics', the more one investigates the subatomic realm the closer you get to the 'near nothing' particles and to new definitions of austerity. Science may rejoice but the spirit does not.

Dubious wrote: As an analogy to applied metaphysics called 'physics', the more one investigates the subatomic realm the closer you get to the 'near nothing' particles and to new definitions of austerity. Science may rejoice but the spirit does not.

I guess that might vary from spirit to spirit, n'est ce pas. Some of us may rejoice in the notion of a sublime austerity predicated on the principles of simplicity, elegance and beauty. Albert Einstein and John Archibald Wheeler certainly did, just to name two illuminati in the field of applied metaphysics.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

• GB: You seem to have narrowed your human project into very precise channels, and you do this for a host of reasons that could be explored and defined. I suggest that there is a 'new metaphysic' or Weltanschauung that dominates your mind and consciousness. It is part of a narrowing-down project, a project of elimination. In other posts I have linked it to a destructive project but *destruction* has to be carefully defined. I do not mean that you are malicious.
  
  S: This is one irritating habit you need to get rid of. I am talking about the arrogance and hubris which possesses you which makes you actually believe that you know what the other guy is thinking. So I will just ignore it as one of your usual rants which seem to be directed at something I said which pinched you.

I locate 'the conversation' is a wider context, and essentially I do not speak to you as an atom, but to a whole cluster of molecules and then to living bodies: cultural and social and intellectual bodies. If you grasp this, you will understand why I am interested in making larger, more inclusive statements. I mean you no offence of any sort. Offending you is not part of what I am doing here.

Well, let me tell you you are doing an extremely bad job of not offending. And you do not seem to grasp the extent of your arrogance (and ignorance) in believing you know how not only an individual but a group of people think.

Most people cannot and do not think anything through. They respond to life and events through idées reçues.

Now remember that "most" people you meet are religious. It is unavoidable because of the sheer number. And that is exactly the point we atheists make. If you thought things through you could never remain a theist. Belief in God requires the ability NOT to think things through. Because God is transcendent and therefore cannot be understood with logic. You as a theist are trained not to think things through. So it is very unfair to blame atheists for your sins.

Therefore, my perception of your idea structure is exactly as I have said: You have narrowed your project into specific channels. It is possible to explore how this has come about, etc. I stand behind these suppositions. Though a supposition is modifiable.

This is called denial. The narrow thought process is yours, brainwashed into you since your childhood and combined with the psychological need for a father figure that you cannot discard from your subconscious. So you try to hide your insecurity by calling the other thought process narrow minded because you are afraid to go there. I can understand that. It takes a lot of work to let go of the God crutch.

You misunderstand what I mean. Instead of coming under examination by you, though I am not opposed to this, I suggest examining you. That is what turning the lens of observation around means to me.

Of course it does. I am asking you to try your own advice. If you want to put me under examination start your own thread. This one is mine. I asked the questions and I am still waiting for answers.

I wrote:

That you be made to stare in the mirror and to see your operative tenets and predicates. This is a work of metaphysical self-analysis. But, because you are so weak in history, literature, theology and numerous other areas and cannot visualise these areas and the meaning-content they contain, and because you seem to desire to focus so narrowly in your chosen and restricted domain, you are ill-equipped to undertake this analysis. And you resist it like all hell. (And so does Team Atheism that operates on PN). You must understand that this is a serious game - a game, yes, but one with serious consequences.
This is what my project entails. These are the predicates I am working with: that we do not know how to fully see ourselves and the metaphysical predicates that drive us. This is the position I have established after some years of research. When I use the 'you' I mean something larger than you, but also you-singular. All of this can be defended and explained. I'd hope that you not take any of it personally, yet I cannot control your reactions or actions.

You talk like a very educated but angry little girl taunting others when the questions get uncomfortable. And you keep saying you mean no offence when you actually do. You know that and I know that and this is what makes it even more bitchy. Just come out and say it like a grown up should.

And I ask you again. Start your own bloody thread if you want to ask me or other atheists questions or to put me under the lens. No one is stopping you. But please stop with your " I am better than you" songs which you love to sing and stop hijacking other threads for your own agendas. It is just mean and small. It does not help anyone and just makes it look like you are overcompensating for something.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dubious wrote: As an analogy to applied metaphysics called 'physics', the more one investigates the subatomic realm the closer you get to the 'near nothing' particles and to new definitions of austerity. Science may rejoice but the spirit does not.

I guess that might vary from spirit to spirit, n'est ce pas. Some of us may rejoice in the notion of a sublime austerity predicated on the principles of simplicity, elegance and beauty. Albert Einstein and John Archibald Wheeler certainly did, just to name two illuminati in the field of applied metaphysics.

My analogy wasn't clear, mea culpa! I agree with your statement as applied to physics and have absolutely no objection to the notion of a sublime austerity predicated on the principles of simplicity, elegance and beauty. Unfortunately this is not what is forecast regarding any metaphysical investigation of ourselves based on the concept of austerity.

The point was that when attempting to 'examine' life or spirit too closely the conclusions that emerge may be opposite to any metaphysical laminations we apply or seek out. It may never amount to more than what it actually seems to be.

This is a kind of austerity of 'little or no meaning' in juxtaposition to the kind which encapsulates the entire Universe. The one which applies to us usually devolves to Nihilism, thus the Nietzsche mention. Put another way, the same concept 'austerity' can yield opposite results depending solely on how or to what it's applied. Either way we're usually in for a revelation of some kind.

Dubious wrote:It may never amount to more than what it actually seems to be.

I've already firmly nailed my colours to the mast, Dubious. In my philosophy the universe is exactly what is appears to be, an EVENT. In my opinion this is a truth far bigger than god because it is an event which gave rise to us. It is an event which has mandated its own comprehensibility and such an event quickly makes god pale into banality.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
The nature of our reality where we are who we are what we are doing here
how we came ( as awarenesses as consciousnesses ) to be here what all this is
very much more are the prime questions. They HAVE to be asked and answered

Actually no they do not have to be asked or answered. Since we choose to want to ask and answer
them. There is no element of compulsion to do so other than to satisfy our curiosity. And so if we
were not naturally curious then we would not have any interest in wanting to ask or answer them

surreptitious57 wrote:Actually no they do not have to be asked or answered. Since we choose to want to ask and answer
them. There is no element of compulsion to do so other than to satisfy our curiosity. And so if we
were not naturally curious then we would not have any interest in wanting to ask or answer them

It's nice to be able to agree with you about something, surreptitious. I have always been attracted to the metaphysical foundations of science but not for a moment did I ever see this as a compulsion. I was simply satisfying an ordinary human curiosity to find answers to questions which intrigued me and the fact that this is also personally fulfilling is a perfectly natural consequence of achieving such a satisfaction. Mine is an arcane field which is of interest to only very few people and neither does it need to be. We all find our personal fulfillment in whatever it is that floats are personal boat and there is no valid reason to suppose that one person's personal fulfillment is of any greater significance than another's. If my life circumstances had been different I may well have chosen to spend my life exploring the mysteries of basket-weaving in the Hindu Kush.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:
The nature of our reality where we are who we are what we are doing here
how we came ( as awarenesses as consciousnesses ) to be here what all this is
very much more are the prime questions. They HAVE to be asked and answered

Actually no they do not have to be asked or answered.

Yes, they do -- unless you're satisfied with living life at the level of an amoeba.

Inglorious by name inglorious by nature.

The Inglorious One wrote:unless you're satisfied with living life at the level of an amoeba.

Get used to it because you are.

surreptitious57 wrote:Actually no they do not have to be asked or answered. Since we choose to want to ask and answer
them. There is no element of compulsion to do so other than to satisfy our curiosity. And so if we
were not naturally curious then we would not have any interest in wanting to ask or answer them

I used the imperative in a different sense. I would say that when a man asks questions of a certain sort that he is invariably in that region which is philosophical, metaphysical, and religious. And again as my understanding goes, these are the prime questions of Occidental philosophy: What is this place? and What are we to do here?

While I understand that you may couch your views in what sounds to be an Enlightenment relationship to knowledge, to ideas, to exploration, etc., my understanding is fundamentally different. I understand that we are impelled by higher sources to gain understanding of this Realm. I sense or in any case I understand and believe that this activity is one of consciousness itself. That consciousness and awareness involve commitment and effort. True, this project can be abandoned and forgotten by some or even by many. But I assert that as an imperative it resonates through all levels of the Cosmos.

I'd also suggest that there is a negative force, that is one that operated as-against consciousness and awareness at a Cosmic level, and this force requires active resisting. I would further suggest that some aspects of our cultural systems - state enterprise, cultural enterprise, mercantile enterprise - have little or no interest in consciousness and awareness as I'd define it, and ask for and train people up in lower forms of awareness which are debasements of what we *should* attain to.

A significant part of my argument and discourse arises out of these understandings. And it is also why I take contrary positions to this sort of declaration:

Leo wrote:We all find our personal fulfillment in whatever it is that floats are personal boat and there is no valid reason to suppose that one person's personal fulfilment is of any greater significance than another's.

To understand this phrase requires 'metaphysical dissection'. It is a loaded statement despite the fact that it appears as cloaked in simple, common-sense terms. Who would take issue with it? You're free to do what you want, I'm free to do what I want.

I would necessarily take a contrary position, and naturally because my predicates about life, existence, meaning and value are established on a very different base. I hold a different philosophical and also religiously-oriented position (carefully qualified) and I define this reality differently. One of the reasons I come into conflict with people like Leo, established as they are in specific and active ideological positions, is because I hold to other, different value-sets. The nature of our disagreements are ideological and also metaphysical. I am interested in pointing out how the different platforms came to be established and what in fact it is that drives them. Predicates drive all activity.

I wish to point out that this is not light material, and also that 'my opponents' do not take it lightly and indeed can play quite viciously: If they don't like opinions and ideas they can arrange to see them wiped off the board. What recently happened, despite false-characterisations, was not an accident. Ideas have consequences.

As long as I am on this board I will make all efforts to further define and refine my views and you can count on my to clarify what I see as the metaphysical and foundational difference that produces such different views. I say that 'our present' offers us one, that it has monolithic dimension and intention, and that it requires being resisted: for moral and ethical reasons.