Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:

I'm consciously playing this GAME of life.

One of the first thing a person experiences when they participate in authentic inner work is that they lack conscious self awareness. We live in a dream with only occasional intervals of self awareness. What you wrote sounds like "A course in Miracles" which has no appeal for me.

I don't see how humanity living in Plato's cave and producing all the horrors normal for cave life could be considered a magnificent drama? I think conscious humanity when it exists would be far more capable of producing a magnificent drama. I'm not condemning the fallen human condition that deprives humanity of conscious self awareness but just intellectually acknowledging that it exists. Simone Weil wrote:

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

If people cannot consciously look, it is foolish to think anything can change. The cycles created by blind belief and blind denial just repeat.

Nick_A wrote:

Sthit wrote: Then stop making up words like blind deniers.

How else to express the idea. .

It's not an idea - it's a falsehood.
Most people here see you as the blindest one. The phrase is not only arrogant but also inaccurate. We are neither blind, nor have we failed to consider our positions. The fact that you choose to ignore our responses. The fact that you choose to deny what we say. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to address our objections face to face makes you the blind-denier.

Nick_A wrote:

Sthit wrote: Then stop making up words like blind deniers.

How else to express the idea. Of course I made up the term but why I had to do it shows how little is understood. It should be common knowledge. Virtually everyone is aware of the term blind faith or blind belief. A dictionary definition of blind faith is “belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.” Blind denial is the same. It is a “belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.” They are both emotional beliefs.

How else to express the idea.

Make up another word.

Confoolish.

(confused + foolish)

Nick_A wrote:I don't see how humanity living in Plato's cave and producing all the horrors normal for cave life could be considered a magnificent drama?

It all depends on how you're looking at it. Can you watch a 2-year-old do something disgusting or foolish and see how sweet and beautiful they are? Why wouldn't there, then, be the potential for viewing humanity's cave as a magnificent drama?

Nick_A wrote:I think conscious humanity when it exists would be far more capable of producing a magnificent drama.

Well, sure, we would think that... but how do we know that we are not conscious on some greater/broader level by choosing to "come here and do this"? If we all come from the same place -- there are no real differences -- it's just experience. Like images floating across a screen, it is not solid or permanent. You may be wrestling with it as if it were more than that (because maybe that's what you believe). Maybe that's your cave activity? Maybe "the cave" encompasses more than you realize... so even when you think you've escaped it, you're still within it... just another section of it.

Maybe there is no cave. Maybe it's all just experience of ONE playing out.

Nick_A wrote:I'm not condemning the fallen human condition that deprives humanity of conscious self awareness but just intellectually acknowledging that it exists.

The way you continually label people with this term you created, does not feel like you are just intellectually acknowledging something that exists. It feels (to me) like you are casting people in stone with your pronouncement, while you set yourself above it. Like Hobbes said, if people don't see things the way you do, you label them with it. There may be much that you are not conscious of, yourself. Surely we've all had the experience of thinking we know how things are at one point in our lives, only to discover more at another point in our lives. We have never completely "arrived"... and I'm guessing there is no ultimate, fixed destination! Why would there be... within such vast creative potential?

Nick_A wrote:If people cannot consciously look, it is foolish to think anything can change. The cycles created by blind belief and blind denial just repeat.

But nothing ever really stays the same. And I don't think any of us see everything with enough clarity to "fix" it. I'm more inclined to think that when we see with clarity, we know it doesn't need fixed. Because it is a magnificent drama and unfolding of potential. Every kind of potential! Fantastic, isn't it?! I understand, and share, your passion, Nick, in wanting people to have more awareness of themselves and all around them. Even though you and I may be coming from rather different perspectives, we want the same thing. I think it helps if one considers that we're all part of the same stuff... and it's most likely that all of this is completely natural... the glory and funk of it all. It IS POSSIBLE to view funk with love and tolerance. It IS possible to see the perfection of it. It IS possible to accept it, even while we consciously wrestle or play with it. It IS possible to love it just as it is. Do such statements make any sense to you?

Hobbes wrote: It's not an idea - it's a falsehood.
Most people here see you as the blindest one. The phrase is not only arrogant but also inaccurate. We are neither blind, nor have we failed to consider our positions. The fact that you choose to ignore our responses. The fact that you choose to deny what we say. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to address our objections face to face makes you the blind-denier.

Hobbes, this isn’t so complicated. There is no way you can deny the transcendent source beyond time and space which serves the obvious need described by Newton:

Newton's First Law of Motion: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".

Without this additional force there is no impulse for matter to change on its own. We cannot comprehend what is beyond our senses but it is foolish to deny it on principle when it is serving an essential universal need. Doing so is just blind denial.

Nick_A wrote:

Hobbes wrote: It's not an idea - it's a falsehood.
Most people here see you as the blindest one. The phrase is not only arrogant but also inaccurate. We are neither blind, nor have we failed to consider our positions. The fact that you choose to ignore our responses. The fact that you choose to deny what we say. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to address our objections face to face makes you the blind-denier.

Hobbes, this isn’t so complicated. There is no way you can deny the transcendent source beyond time and space which serves the obvious need described by Newton:

Newton's First Law of Motion: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".

Without this additional force there is no impulse for matter to change on its own. We cannot comprehend what is beyond our senses but it is foolish to deny it on principle when it is serving an essential universal need. Doing so is just blind denial.

Newton is old history. His science is moribund, and surpassed by A greater mind Einstein.
95% of what Newton wrote you would be forced to conclude was utter rubbish and superstition of the first order. The fact that you choose to focus on this one passage written as a young inexperienced mind is an indication that you are a blind denier.
Fore more information please consult the University of Sussex' Newton Project where you can browse on the most absurd theological and alchemical nonsense every written by man.

Without this additional force there is no impulse for matter to change on its own

This is the weakest and empty headed argument in existence. If you really think things need an additional force, then what is the force that drives the force that drives the force? Or is it mini metros all the way down?

So Hobbes denies Newton's first law of motion. He is on a roll. The ultimate in blind denial.

I am so fucking bored of Nick now.

FDP wrote:

I am so fucking bored of Nick now.

How can anyone take someone seriously whose pants are flashing. Be that as it may, "only the boring are bored."

Nick_A wrote:So Hobbes denies Newton's first law of motion. He is on a roll. The ultimate in blind denial.

You area just digging yourself even deeper in to your pit of despair and desperation.
I said nothing of Newton's laws.

FlashDangerpants wrote:I am so fucking bored of Nick now.

He's such a dickhead, with nothing to say.

Hobbes wrote:

You area just digging yourself even deeper in to your pit of despair and desperation.
I said nothing of Newton's laws.

You did write

"Newton is old history. His science is moribund, and surpassed by A greater mind Einstein.
95% of what Newton wrote you would be forced to conclude was utter rubbish and superstition.

If you accept Newton's law of motion what other than the Source provides the impulse for material change. If you can't do it you must accept the potential for the dreaded G word.

I could just see you reading Newton's translation of the Emerald Tablet. Talk about an explosion of blind denial. I would have to duck.

Hobbes wrote:

He's such a dickhead, with nothing to say.

This raises the interesting philosophical question. Which is the better more complete insult: "He's such a dickhead, with nothing to say" or "Yo Momma Sucks?" A difficult question but at some point great minds should be able to come to a collective conclusion.

Nick_A wrote:Hobbes wrote:

He's such a dickhead, with nothing to say.

This raises the interesting philosophical question. Which is the better more complete insult: "He's such a dickhead, with nothing to say" or "Yo Momma Sucks?" A difficult question but at some point great minds should be able to come to a collective conclusion.

The thrashing and splashing is just a little panic to distract. The pond ground starts to fall off right where it transitions from nothing-ventured-nothing-gained to “I don’t know.” No real need for concern. Even though he who hesitates is lost and fools have been known to rush in where the only personal reward is risk, cautious old-timers don’t pile up contiguous years by failing to carefully choose what they know and carelessly go picnicking beside intellectual chasms.

Walker wrote:
The thrashing and splashing is just a little panic to distract. The pond ground starts to fall off right where it transitions from nothing-ventured-nothing-gained to “I don’t know.” No real need for concern. Even though he who hesitates is lost and fools have been known to rush in where the only personal reward is risk, cautious old-timers don’t pile up contiguous years by failing to carefully choose what they know and carelessly go picnicking beside intellectual chasms.

I have been waiting to see if you ever contribute anything other than general insults, something that can be considered a genuine point which can be debated. In a way I admire you. Your ability to write so much while saying nothing is something that can be useful at times. But you are whole different level. Each sentence makes no sense. Each sentence has no correlation with the next one.Each sentence has nothing to do with whatever you claim to be addressing by putting it in quotes. But somehow, the fact that you are insulting atheists come across clear as daylight even though what the insult is could be anyone's guess. And you are relentless in your singlemindedness of purpose. Say nothing that can be construed as debatable and still insult atheists. It is quite phenomenal. Who knew? There is something to learn from you too.