Christianity

[Belinda]

Sure. And we can all be inspired and transformed by all kinds of ideas, people, and experiences. There are (and have been) amazing people all over this planet, throughout all time periods.

I want to make one specific comment to this because it is an idea that you work with often. I would say that it is a *core* idea that runs through your entire perspective.

You refer to something general and non-specific as a sort of counter-proposition to what is specific and definite, and also limited and, it must be said, limiting.

So when I read what you write I can say, yes, I certain grasp what you are saying. And in a sense you are right indeed. It is possible to entertain, think about, experience, come under the influence of, live in, live out of, a nearly infinite number of different possibilities. You could (I could, we could) leave our own culture and take up residence in a completely unfamiliar place, with completely different traditions, and yes, we could ‘be inspired and transformed’ by them.

Yet what you propose operates in this discussion, in a sense, like an abstraction. It is true except that in reality, and in general, no person or people live in relation to an infinite array of possibilities. They usually live within the limits and parameters of specific views.

It may be that what separates our points-of-view is that, in my case, I have decided on a particular area of focus. That is why I refer all the time to *Occidental Paideia*. The issue then becomes one of valuation, no? The assigning of values but also the assigning, or the recognition, of hierarchies. If I say to you that one thing (some one thing) is better or superior to another I assume you will question the assertion. It might be a suspicious assertion given your orientation.

So if push came to shove (as the popular saying goes) I would not say that one tradition is ‘superior’ or ‘better’ than another, but rather that I can only work with the one that has (as I say) made me me. I guess I would say that I prefer to focus within that one. But it is also true that I do not have those other abstract options (because they are abstractions).

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

-------in reality, and in general, no person or people live in relation to an infinite array of possibilities. They usually live within the limits and parameters of specific views.

That's a static view of how people live. People really live dynamically from past to future, even towards the most banal of everyday activities . Cultures evolve. True, the natal culture exerts its inertia even during the age of individualism.
Living dynamically from past to future involves learning, creativity, and ability to accept that cognitive dissonance spurs one to create; so evolves a culture that holds the hearts and minds of the people who are born into it.

Besides cultural evolution there is also revolution which is caused by some great lop-sidedness of power relations. Revolution is closely linked to reformation. Reformation including by individuals like Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther, and several scientific or technological giants

[henry quirk]

Alex,

There are ideas and experiences which are objectively superior, yeah?

An afternoon in the sun, gettin' a little exercise, is objectively superior, as experience, to spendin' an afternoon in a dark bar drinkin' oneself blind, yeah? In the former, one is inured; in the latter, one is injured.

That each man's life, liberty, and property is his own is objectively superior, as idea, to each man's life, liberty, and property belong to another, yeah? In the first, man is free; in the second, man is a slave.

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?

If so: what are the elements of these modes?

[Belinda]

Alex,

There are ideas and experiences which are objectively superior, yeah?

An afternoon in the sun, gettin' a little exercise, is objectively superior, as experience, to spendin' an afternoon in a dark bar drinkin' oneself blind, yeah? In the former, one is inured; in the latter, one is injured.

That each man's life, liberty, and property is his own is objectively superior, as idea, to each man's life, liberty, and property belong to another, yeah? In the first, man is free; in the second, man is a slave.

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?

If so: what are the elements of these modes?

Henry, your thoughts and style are to the point as usual. But you need to consider criteria. Criteria (singular: criterion) that underlie your claims include, for instance

1.Augment happiness and pleasure for self or others.
2.Diminish pain and suffering for oneself or others.
3. Following religious or secular laws.
4. Improving one's moral character.
5.Following a secular or religious leader.
6. Harmonising with nature.
7. Creating and progressing.
8. Because I say so and I have the power to dictate what is right or wrong.
9. Tending to support life.

Which criterion supports your claim that "there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?"

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that [are] objectively superior to others?

Why do you ask? What is your view on the matter?

[Immanuel Can]

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?

If we can't, then we can't say that living as a humanitarian or a cancer surgeon is any better than living as a drug abuser or a serial killer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's a static view of how people live. People really live dynamically from past to future, even towards the most banal of everyday activities. Cultures evolve. True, the natal culture exerts its inertia even during the age of individualism. Living dynamically from past to future involves learning, creativity, and ability to accept that cognitive dissonance spurs one to create; so evolves a culture that holds the hearts and minds of the people who are born into it.

Besides cultural evolution there is also revolution which is caused by some great lop-sidedness of power relations. Revolution is closely linked to reformation. Reformation including by individuals like Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther, and several scientific or technological giants

I am uncertain if a response is needed since I would not deny or negate what you have said. The core of my assertion (based in my sense of cultural paideia) is more or less simply to assert that there is such a thing as the Occidental traditions. They have a root and an origin. They can be know, and I guess identified, as such.

I’d have to think more about the question of ‘how people live’. I think that what you are saying, or noticing, is that powerful individuals can influence people’s ideas and cause them to entertain different possibilities. If ‘people’ is taken as a grand generality I am not sure if these actually do live in the dynamic manner you indicate. It might be quite the opposite. Perhaps they live non-dynamically?

I do not oppose evolution, as you put it (though some cultural conservatives or traditionalists might), I think that what concerns me is devolutions: retrogression, decadence, falling away. I have certainly noticed a great deal of that around me and also have had to deal with it personally.

[henry quirk]

1.Augment happiness and pleasure for self or others.
2.Diminish pain and suffering for oneself or others.
3. Following religious or secular laws.
4. Improving one's moral character.
5.Following a secular or religious leader.
6. Harmonising with nature.
7. Creating and progressing.
8. Because I say so and I have the power to dictate what is right or wrong.
9. Tending to support life.

Which criterion supports your claim that "there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?"

First, I have to lay out what I believe an objectively superior mode of thinkin' and livin' is (and I have to do that without generatin' another wall of text).

An objectively superior livin' and thinkin' extends out from one being, to the degree possible, self-responsible (being moral, living within the constraints of conscience and reason), self-reliant (capable of meetin' the day's trials head-on), and self-directing (choosin', thru reason and conscience, how to discharge yourself in the world; reining in impulse and appetite [self de-liberation & -restraint]).

Being moral: as I reckon it, you start with the recognition the other guy's life, liberty, and property are his just as your life, liberty, and property are yours. You ought not monkey around with his any more than he ought to yours. This recognition, as it makes certain things between and among men impermissible, encourages cooperation and a particular competition. Trade instead of tyranny, negotiation instead of thievery, and acceptin' no as the answer when no trade can be had or negotiation dead-ends. And this recognition encourages compassion. Lendin' an assist to the truly needy cuz if not for the Creator's grace, that fella could be me.

As to what of your list applies...

Probably only #9 as it's written. The others might apply too if I restructured them, but that would defeat the purpose of your question, which I don't wanna do.

[henry quirk]

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that [are] objectively superior to others?

*Why do you ask? **What is your view on the matter?

*Just makin' conversation.

**Right up-thread is where you'll find it.

[henry quirk]

Can we say there are modes of livin' and thinkin' that objectively superior to others?

If we can't, then we can't say that living as a humanitarian or a cancer surgeon is any better than living as a drug abuser or a serial killer.

I agree.

[Belinda]

That's a static view of how people live. People really live dynamically from past to future, even towards the most banal of everyday activities. Cultures evolve. True, the natal culture exerts its inertia even during the age of individualism. Living dynamically from past to future involves learning, creativity, and ability to accept that cognitive dissonance spurs one to create; so evolves a culture that holds the hearts and minds of the people who are born into it.

Besides cultural evolution there is also revolution which is caused by some great lop-sidedness of power relations. Revolution is closely linked to reformation. Reformation including by individuals like Jesus of Nazareth, Martin Luther, and several scientific or technological giants

I am uncertain if a response is needed since I would not deny or negate what you have said. The core of my assertion (based in my sense of cultural paideia) is more or less simply to assert that there is such a thing as the Occidental traditions. They have a root and an origin. They can be know, and I guess identified, as such.

I’d have to think more about the question of ‘how people live’. I think that what you are saying, or noticing, is that powerful individuals can influence people’s ideas and cause them to entertain different possibilities. If ‘people’ is taken as a grand generality I am not sure if these actually do live in the dynamic manner you indicate. It might be quite the opposite. Perhaps they live non-dynamically?

I do not oppose evolution, as you put it (though some cultural conservatives or traditionalists might), I think that what concerns me is devolutions: retrogression, decadence, falling away. I have certainly noticed a great deal of that around me and also have had to deal with it personally.

I am glad we agree that cultures evolve.
I prefer your term "cultural paideia" to my " cultural inertia". I already recognise such a thing as the Occidental traditions, and that they have a root and an origin. In this connection do you endorse the theory of the Axial age?

As regards people living forwards from past towards an unknown future, all living beings that are capable of learning do so. The only exceptions are those individuals that are moribund or about to become so because of dementia or untreated depression. Dynamism is essential to supporting an individual's life for the simple reason the individual's environment constantly changes.

I do recognise decadence, because my natal cultural paideia still feeds me my ideas of right and wrong. Durkheim hit the nail on its head when he called loss of native cultural paideia 'anomie'. Anomie affects both group and individual psyches. Apart from physical brain lesions, anomie accounts for all decadence and much crime. Nobody thrives alongside anomie, except perhaps for autistic people (???)who might be more gifted in their abilities to walk dangerously alone

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, no Jewish person and no Christian has the same view. For Jewish people, babies can be born Jewish, sure ...

Except there is something that corresponds: the idea of a Jewish soul.

There is a great deal you have brought up in your last few posts. I need to think over how to respond.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In this connection do you endorse the theory of the Axial age?

Frankly I had not thought about it much in those terms (I looked it up). An interesting assertion, with many detractors (if Wiki has informed me right).

As regards people living forwards from past towards an unknown future, all living beings that are capable of learning do so. The only exceptions are those individuals that are moribund or about to become so because of dementia or untreated depression. Dynamism is essential to supporting an individual's life for the simple reason the individual's environment constantly changes.

I do recognise decadence, because my natal cultural paideia still feeds me my ideas of right and wrong. Durkheim hit the nail on its head when he called loss of native cultural paideia 'anomie'. Anomie affects both group and individual psyches. Apart from physical brain lesions, anomie accounts for all decadence and much crime. Nobody thrives alongside anomie, except perhaps for autistic people (???) who might be more gifted in their abilities to walk dangerously alone

After I last responded I realized that you are right: all the decades and even centuries we can think of have been 'dynamic' in your sense.

[Immanuel Can]

There is a great deal you have brought up in your last few posts. I need to think over how to respond.

Take your time. I'm interested and can wait.

I can see you've got a lot going on with others, as well. A person can only type so much, right?

P.S. -- if a "Jewish soul" inhabits converts, how is it conferred by the mikveh? I guess that's where you'd tend to think that Christians must believe baptism has something to do with causing or contributing to salvation: but for Christians, it doesn't. For them, it's just an outward ceremony denoting the inward change, not something that has a dynamic of its own in salvation.

[Janoah]

It's Messiah that makes the difference.

In Judaism, of course, there is excitement around the theme of the Messiah, but there is not too much good in this, it is rather a minus than a plus, because this excitement is associated with the idealization of the figure of the Messiah, and the idealization of the material is essentially a form of idolatry.

I talked to the head of the local community center about the dominant views in Judaism. He said that there were two major camps: one regards Messianism as a sort of "Messianic Age," in which Jewish-humanist ambitions to fix the World reach a kind of critical level of success, as things like science and medicine and technology take us into a higher and more ideal state. The other looks for a personal Messiah, but can't decide how the prophecies concerning Him can be worked out. Some think there must be two "messiahs": the one Ben Josef, and the other Ben David...

But the view that Messiah has anything to do with idolatry was not one of the options he mentioned. May I ask, where are you getting it from?

Your interlocutor explained well the current approach to the subject of the Messiah.

You can ask your interlocutor how he relates to the idea of deification of the material Messiah, I wonder what he will answer?
I think, for all his delicacy, you will feel his disgust for such an idea.

But I put to you this question: why does God say to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"? (Exodus 3:6) Do you think He means that He is the God of the living or of the dead?

But if He is the God of the living, then how is He the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since all three had long before passed away? And if He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then how is it you say they are not living?

And if they are living, then how is it that you say Judaism does not believe in an afterlife?

There is a maxim in the Talmud,
"The wicked are called dead when they are still alive, the righteous are alive even when they are dead."
It is also about the forefathers who passed away long ago.
It is clear that there is a metaphor here in such sayings.
And to take it literally is to mock common sense.

You can draw a parallel, and say - 'Rambam Judaism', in contrast to the Judaism of another sage, who also passed away long ago, but had a different vision of the afterlife.
And now there are religious authorities, in whose vision there is physical life in the afterlife.
In contrast, in the view of Rambam, categorically, there is no physical life after death, and Rambam writes sarcastically about ignorant ideas about the carnal afterlife.

[Immanuel Can]

You can ask your interlocutor how he relates to the idea of deification of the material Messiah

Why would I? Christian's don't believe in "deification" at all. They believe in the opposite: "Incarnation."

Christians would agree with Jews that man can never become God. But why would we think the Almighty would not be capable of becoming a man?

But I put to you this question: why does God say to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"? (Exodus 3:6) Do you think He means that He is the God of the living or of the dead?

But if He is the God of the living, then how is He the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since all three had long before passed away? And if He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then how is it you say they are not living?

And if they are living, then how is it that you say Judaism does not believe in an afterlife?

There is a maxim in the Talmud,
"The wicked are called dead when they are still alive, the righteous are alive even when they are dead."
It is also about the forefathers who passed away long ago.
It is clear that there is a metaphor here in such sayings.
And to take it literally is to mock common sense.

But "common sense" isn't even capable of telling us whether or not there's a life after death, for the simple reason that nobody alive has that experience in "common." So we must look to something more.

Perhaps if somebody came back from the dead...

But you've still got the problem: if "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" so identifies Himself, is he speaking of the dead or of the living?