IC please clarify for us

[promethean75]

Metaphysics proper are as old as the Mississippi scrub, going all the way back to the boss Aristotle. But then there was Hume, and not even Kant could get away from Hume... and that's without Hume having to respond to Kant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I believe you're referring to the "metaphysical principles" which have long been understood before the gospels arrived pretending to be original.

Well, if there is such a thing as “metaphysical principles” that emerge along with living beings in all the possible worlds, and in our present world, it stands to reason (if foxy reason can be trusted to deliver up answers) that such ‘principles’ have existed and will always exist, prior to and succeeding any particular manifestation of intelligent biological beings …

I am uncertain why, dearest Dubious, you have such antipathy against Christianity. Well, that is not entirely true since I believe I have sone insight into that issue. In my own case I do not because in our civilization those “metaphysical principles” have been carried along and protected, as in a container, by sincere Christian practitioners. Like it or not …

Once again I recommend getting hold of the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought and (if you can) putting aside your bitter antagonism. Especially the MUSIC that you love could never have come to exist without the metaphysical focus we are attempting to discuss.

[phyllo]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

[Impenitent]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

someone has to run the schools regardless of the teacher's success...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

The best examples of cultures and civilizations that have intensified that awareness and realization are those of the ancient East.

But they contradict one another on basic points. Which of these "cultures and civilizations" is actually achieving what you say, since they don't agree? Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Islamism? Zoroastrianism? Judaism? Paganism? Their disagreements are so profound that there's no way you can suppose they all do.

[Immanuel Can]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

someone has to run the schools regardless of the teacher's success...

-Imp

If they fire the Head of School, then the school is simply unprincipaled.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, IC believes that the universe "is" exactly as he "imagines" it to be.

Well, imagination can be right or wrong. Your statement above also assumes this, because it accuses me of only "imagining," rather than seeing things aright.

But how did you make such an assessment? It can only be by assuming that the way somebody else -- perhaps yourself -- sees the world is not "imaginary" but truthful or accurate.

So it seems you and I are in the same situation. And we all are. We all have some hypothesis or perspective on how the universe is, and we work from it. Thus, the objection turns out to be trite: everybody always has to start from the assumption that the universe might be as they perceive it to be, and only doubt that if they are given good reason to do so.

[MikeNovack]

Just letting folks know I have neither died nor lost interest in these arguments. May be absent a while.

As you should know, I am in the Ecocentric Alliance group and one of the people has a new book "in galley" made available for the entire group to read/comment. This isn't the earlier "peer review" reading during the editing stage when changes can be suggested. Quite reasonably the author did not ask either Penny or myself to be in that group (he knows we would be strongly opposed to lots) However it will be interesting to see how he makes the case that strong materialism is not necessarily nihilistic. << he''s not just atheist but against any form of spirituality/mysticism ---------- and we don't judge theism or spirituality/mysticism in terms of whether true but in terms of usefulness >>

This I Don’t Believe: A Fulfilling Life without Meaning By Robert Jensen will be out some time in the Fall. Not academic philosophy but popular philosophy like here.

[Dubious]

Well, if there is such a thing as “metaphysical principles” that emerge along with living beings in all the possible worlds, and in our present world, it stands to reason (if foxy reason can be trusted to deliver up answers) that such ‘principles’ have existed and will always exist, prior to and succeeding any particular manifestation of intelligent biological beings …

For metaphysics to proceed and reveal itself there must be a source which is itself metaphysical...or at least can be described as such. That source is the sponge in your cranium called the human brain. If, as you say "such ‘principles’ have existed and will always exist", that may be true but only in the sense that the possibility of intelligence - being itself a kind of metaphysical phenomena - creates the possibility for metaphysics, as we devise it, to follow in its wake.

...another conversation and not one about to take place.

I am uncertain why you have such antipathy against Christianity. Well, that is not entirely true since I believe I have sone insight into that issue. In my own case I do not because in our civilization those “metaphysical principles” have been carried along and protected, as in a container, by sincere Christian practitioners. Like it or not …

Christianity is unique in having been purposely created to function as an open market selling salvation if you subscribe to and obey all of its rules and teachings. Otherwise...!!

It's a Frankensteinian entity created through many borrowings, additions and subtractions to finally give it the gloss of final authority functioning more often as a monopolistic secular entity with the Pope being its super CEO. It's an intentionally designed system made numinous by myths imported from elsewhere.

The four gospels themselves, when taken literally, while noticing not inconsiderable discrepancies between them, come across as absurd and unhistorical. However, when read as a Morality Play in four Acts the perspective changes through its depiction of human suffering and injustice forcing its so-called inconsistencies into insignificance.

Albert Schweitzer understood this and believed without believing in the actual existence of Jesus as a Nicene presence but as an exceptional instance of human morality which had nothing to do with the obscenity of dying for our sins as engineered to illuminate the crucifixion as an ecumenical dispensation from sin.

The KJV with its Shakespearean and Miltonic style gives these gospels a metaphysical grandeur which the Gnostic gospels never received because they were not included or burnt by the Catholic authorities as anathema to their purposes. So much for Christian metaphysics!

Overall, these are subjects you are more likely to discuss with IC from whom no doubt, you still have more to learn.

[Walker]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

A reaction to your sincere enquiry:

Hands can hold a mind detector, but they can’t hold what a mind does.

Platonic forms are placed into mind to be discovered by consciousness that co-arises with material form. They are placed there by God, or an authorized representative.

Not all forms are discovered at once.

Some are to be discovered in the future by need, congruancing with a designed device grown from organic material.

The devise is called a brain.

In addition to processing sensory data from organic receptors (and at times amplifiers such as cameras, sound recorders, and other devices), the brain also has the capacity and function to access portions of the one mind, portions of which are accessed according to the capacity of the brain.

For example, through parables Jesus placed forms into mind for consciousness to discover … via brain. The truth of parables is self-protected by limitations to conscious(ness) comprehension caused by trauma, biological differences, lack of development, or corrupted capacity.

The big question for made-in-the-image-of-creators is whether or not humans can create an inorganic brain to access portions of mind that can be detected within the range of human brain capacity, and perhaps even discover portions of mind that are beyond the range of human capacity, keeping in mind the human capacity to discover, and also human-range capacity that has yet to be discovered.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

A question serves a marvelous function, doesn’t it? It opens the door to an ‘answer’. It should be obvious that I cannot answer your questions (the last one being merely silly). Your question can answer itself I think.

Everything that arises in the Universe, from the perspective that makes sense to me, ‘existed’ prior to its manifestation in potential. It is impossible to deny that even the most intangible and non-quantifiable things’ have realness, existence, reality. But as far as I can intuit I just cannot see them ‘floating’.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For metaphysics to proceed and reveal itself there must be a source which is itself metaphysical...or at least can be described as such. That source is the sponge in your cranium called the human brain. If, as you say "such ‘principles’ have existed and will always exist", that may be true but only in the sense that the possibility of intelligence - being itself a kind of metaphysical phenomena - creates the possibility for metaphysics, as we devise it, to follow in its wake.

What I notice most in what you are saying is in its “declarative” force. You are going to set things straight and set them right on the line. You are repeating conclusions that flow from your cherished, but I think limited predicates. I think that the statement that you make here — a sort of conversational absolutism — has informed everything that you have ever said or will ever be able to say. It is in this sense that I notice your limitations. You simply cannot go beyond the point that you have yourself established and are committed to. And, unfortunately, there is an unpleasant bitterness in your absurd, sophomoric finality.

...another conversation and not one about to take place.

That’s always the case with you: great things are intimated but never revealed.

Christianity is unique in having been purposely created to function as an open market selling salvation if you subscribe to and obey all of its rules and teachings. Otherwise...!!

Everyone has been made acutely aware of the ways those doctrines are wielded, Dubious. And it seems to me that you, like an overgrown angry child, are stuck in rebellion against what a lower-order individual does with their doctrinal hammer. I suggest it is entirely possible to simply step over them and make an effort to get to the kernel of meaning that is certainly there. For you though it is that which is the conversation that will never happen.

Do you want to talk about the lower and the higher functions of the concept of ‘salvation’? That conversation could be had but it does require participants.

It's a Frankensteinian entity created through many borrowings, additions and subtractions to finally give it the gloss of final authority functioning more often as a monopolistic secular entity with the Pope being its super CEO. It's an intentionally designed system made numinous by myths imported from elsewhere.

There is no doubt that what became Christianity was formed in the early centuries by borrowings, amalgamations, a process of pastiche. And we all know that Catholicism is Platonism for the common man and for the masses. That’s old hat, Dubious. And if you want to rail against all of that, fine, carry on. But in my view you will do yourself and everyone a disservice.

Every form that is created, be it a religion a philosophy or an institution, has a higher dimension than the pedestrian and generally contaminated mass-form. It takes a discriminating mind, and likely a mature mind, to see through the static on the lower planes so that the higher intimation is grasped.

The bottom line, Dubious, is that you open your mouth and vomit out material that is of such little use that it is boring. You cement for yourself what are in the end a smallish set of limited ideas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The best examples of cultures and civilizations that have intensified that awareness and realization are those of the ancient East.

But they contradict one another on basic points. Which of these "cultures and civilizations" is actually achieving what you say, since they don't agree? Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Islamism? Zoroastrianism? Judaism? Paganism? Their disagreements are so profound that there's no way you can suppose they all do.

Well, all that I could say in response is to propose, again, that Christian metaphysics, in my view of course, are better explained when expressed through the far more developed metaphysical system of Vedanta.

There is one thing about you that must be pointed out. You will take a reference to a religious system (Vedanta for example) as a negation of that system which you are committed to. But that is not a path I choose to go down. Simply because my focus, my internal spiritual need and my philosophical endeavor, is to get clear about the most salient and necessary metaphysical principles and, to the degree possible, not to get sidetracked by the inferior aspects of given forms.

I think you — as ‘Evangelical fanatic’ — do not have other options except singular fanaticism. What I try to point out to you is that the Hebrew and the later Christian systems suffer from a highly prejudicial tendency to condemn and undermine the validity of other, competing formulations. This is such a strong tendency of the Levantine religions generally. It is not entirely destructive however. Fanaticism is a form of intense focus, right? To achieve nearly anything in life requires rejecting everything that takes you from your objective.

As I have said a number of times I myself focus one primary defining idea or principle as it is coherently expressed in the Sixteenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. It is fairly simple at least conceptually but is there expressed starkly: In this life one will either make efforts to ascend or one will make efforts to descend. To ‘ascend’ requires all sorts of definitions. And so too does ‘to descend’. It requires a basis in defined metaphysics to subsequently define both ascent and descent. In my view, it is this ‘absolutism’ that cannot be side-stepped. It is literally that way.

To ‘ascend’ involves assent. Your will has to coincide with an upward-tending current. This also implies that if that is not the case, the will is responsible for aligning itself with downward-tending currents.

In the Bhagavad Gita these tendencies are defined as either Divine or Demonic. It is a harsh dichotomy but one that cannot be avoided. It is easy to note these tendencies in operation in our world when they are directly and crudely manifested. It is harder to distinguish the contrast in more subtle domains.

[phyllo]

"Principles" exist without "intelligent biological beings"?

Platonic forms?

Are they floating around in the vacuum of space?

A question serves a marvelous function, doesn’t it? It opens the door to an ‘answer’. It should be obvious that I cannot answer your questions (the last one being merely silly). Your question can answer itself I think.

Everything that arises in the Universe, from the perspective that makes sense to me, ‘existed’ prior to its manifestation in potential. It is impossible to deny that even the most intangible and non-quantifiable things’ have realness, existence, reality. But as far as I can intuit I just cannot see them ‘floating’.

There is potential for all sorts of patterns to manifest in the universe. And the thinking beings can recognize patterns and assign special meanings to some of them.

But these patterns only exist when they have a physical manifestation.

The special patterns stand along with a multitude of others which have been mentally discarded or denigrated.

A "principle" is not some prefect absolute, but rather that something in a range which includes the 'anti-principle'.

[Dubious]

For metaphysics to proceed and reveal itself there must be a source which is itself metaphysical...or at least can be described as such. That source is the sponge in your cranium called the human brain. If, as you say "such ‘principles’ have existed and will always exist", that may be true but only in the sense that the possibility of intelligence - being itself a kind of metaphysical phenomena - creates the possibility for metaphysics, as we devise it, to follow in its wake.

What I notice most in what you are saying is in its “declarative” force. You are going to set things straight and set them right on the line. You are repeating conclusions that flow from your cherished, but I think limited predicates. I think that the statement that you make here — a sort of conversational absolutism — has informed everything that you have ever said or will ever be able to say. It is in this sense that I notice your limitations. You simply cannot go beyond the point that you have yourself established and are committed to. And, unfortunately, there is an unpleasant bitterness in your absurd, sophomoric finality.

...another conversation and not one about to take place.

That’s always the case with you: great things are intimated but never revealed.

Christianity is unique in having been purposely created to function as an open market selling salvation if you subscribe to and obey all of its rules and teachings. Otherwise...!!

Everyone has been made acutely aware of the ways those doctrines are wielded, Dubious. And it seems to me that you, like an overgrown angry child, are stuck in rebellion against what a lower-order individual does with their doctrinal hammer. I suggest it is entirely possible to simply step over them and make an effort to get to the kernel of meaning that is certainly there. For you though it is that which is the conversation that will never happen.

Do you want to talk about the lower and the higher functions of the concept of ‘salvation’? That conversation could be had but it does require participants.

It's a Frankensteinian entity created through many borrowings, additions and subtractions to finally give it the gloss of final authority functioning more often as a monopolistic secular entity with the Pope being its super CEO. It's an intentionally designed system made numinous by myths imported from elsewhere.

There is no doubt that what became Christianity was formed in the early centuries by borrowings, amalgamations, a process of pastiche. And we all know that Catholicism is Platonism for the common man and for the masses. That’s old hat, Dubious. And if you want to rail against all of that, fine, carry on. But in my view you will do yourself and everyone a disservice.

Every form that is created, be it a religion a philosophy or an institution, has a higher dimension than the pedestrian and generally contaminated mass-form. It takes a discriminating mind, and likely a mature mind, to see through the static on the lower planes so that the higher intimation is grasped.

The bottom line, Dubious, is that you open your mouth and vomit out material that is of such little use that it is boring. You cement for yourself what are in the end a smallish set of limited ideas.

Fine! I'll leave you to communicate with the main person who's far more intellectually capable than me. Oh yes, and far less boring.