For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
The reason they "don't know it" is simple: it isn't true.
Lovely essay, Alexis Jacobi. I admit to belief in what is variously expressed as Beauty, Truth, and Good, which is the eternal constant. The eternal constant must always transcend the phenomena of this world or else there is the danger of idolatry, a danger which is given prominence in the Koran. The eternal constant can't be diminished but it can fail to appear due to some of the many and various shadows of the world.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:40 pmPerhaps it will serve us to examine this issue more closely. I want to recall here your notion of dynamism. And I also want to recall LaceWing's belief that (I have to paraphrase which is, of course, interpretation applied) when you or I present a set idea, or attempt to define a 'truth', that it is always possible that a) there is something *more* beyond that and thus what is true cannot be considered to be absolutely true, and b) to ponder on this 'something more', and to become open to seeing things in 'new ways', is some part of the dynamism and evolution of which you speak."Inertia is the tendency of an object to continue in the state of rest or of uniform motion. The object resists any change in its state of motion or rest."
I am interested in defining certain aspects of our present time and our present situation. But simultaneously, and this has gone on for years now, instead of forging forward into territories of the ever-opening, the ever-new, the ever-shifting, the ever-evolving, I made a choice when I read certain conservative philosophers (Richard Weaver was definitely one) to consider the notion of The Eternal Constant. It is a Platonic Idea obviously that the mutability and constant-shifting nature of Reality is contradicted or opposed by something that must be eternally constant. So Being is opposed to Becoming.
So therefore, if someone proposes moving back toward things that are constant -- I use the terms of cultural renovation, renewal, re-grounding -- the idea is that there are things which are eternal and constant, and that upon those *things* (ideas, beliefs, feelings, understandings) it is possible to build. Because, logically, you cannot build on an ever-changing, no-constant, ever-shifting ground. Yet we live, obviously, in a mutable world.
So what is it that is the Constant Thing that is sought after?
But let's examine the notion of 'anomie' more closely. Let us consider what happens in the psychology of a person when, say, all the stable ground under that person has been undermined (let's take the example to the extreme). So then there is nothing solid to be *believed in*. Everything that very recently was 'solid' now becomes un-solid. Everything is doubted. At the same time the social hierarchies, and the hierarchies within knowledge, within institutions, within valuation, are confronted and doubted. The very idea of 'authority' is brought into question. And then -- it proceeds logically, doesn't it? -- the notion of 'metaphysical solidities' must necessarily also be undermined.
It seems to me that once we have noticed what is happening, if indeed we can gain the perspective to actually see it, we can then recognize that we have been acted upon by idea-forces which have, consciously though perhaps also incidentally, acted upon us in a deliberate effort to undermine the solidities within us. Now why does this happen? Or put another way what is the function or the utility of undermining the solidities on which the individual depended (or depends)?
I think the answer is to render that individual malleable. The culture of propaganda needs to do this, but so does the related social science of advertising and public relations. The role of advertising is, in a way, to weaken the individual's argument against buying the given article. The individual -- the strong and resilient individual -- is the object that must be defeated and overcome by the sophistry and rhetoric of the advertising effort, isn't that right?
Political propaganda and even of course (or perhaps especially) the distortions of religious indoctrination (as for example in the mega-churches where 'conversions' are sought through dubious means and the individual is also undermined and overcome)(as opposed to spiritual processes that transform the individual in ways we recognize as positive and necessary -- as 'good' -- which come about through social and cultural paideia).
Moving very quickly and jerkily forward -- what sort of individual remains in our present? Disjointed, separated, atomized, uncertain, in constant existential doubt, non-believing because all is 'relative' and one thing is just as valid as any other thing, we see persons whose biological sex (which must be seen as a primary solidity) cannot even be believed in any longer. So the individual, according to the narrative I attempt to present here, is thus removed from the possibility of having a foundation! No foundation remains. Not within her- or himself, not in the political world, not in the sociological world, but primarily not in the *world* of being. That individual has been knocked off his foundation -- and knocked off, so it is said, in the name of what is true! (That there are no solidities, that there should not exist hierarchies, that all values are relative, that one 'belief' is equal to any other belief and all must be accepted as equal and perhaps (somehow) equally entertained.
Now what happens to that individual? I would say that that individual 'goes crazy'. Becomes susceptible to 'hysteria'. Becomes, literally, ungrounded within her- and himself, unable to find a 'constant home'. It is within this sort of social and cultural situation that people become *suggestible* to all sorts of different ideas. Or is it more feelings?
So in my view the object of 'seeking solidities' (within Occidental paideia, my preferred term), and also within a solid spiritual/philosophical practice that is as profoundly related to our own "Occidental traditions", is not a false-object, though it may be an endeavor involving reaction -- reaction against the too-much-shifting of a world that has become unmoored.
We have to face, in my view, that the process I describe (of return, of seeking solidities, of rejecting radical trends) is similar to, say, the Interwar Period (the 1920s and 1930s) in which fascistic trends manifested themselves. Fascism is 'reactive' and, I think, usually involves similar notions of return to what is solid, return to what can be believed in, and return to what people can agree on as 'sane living'.
But it becomes highly contaminated, and ultra-dangerous, when the focus becomes the State or when the State takes over the 'reaction-process'. But consider that a well-disciplined spiritual life is, in its way, a form of self-chosen reaction. Taking oneself in hand, disciplining oneself, is sort of 'self-fascism'.
The object of 'recovery of the self' however is something uniquely personal and interior. It leads or should lead to a well-grounded individual capable of seeing and acting properly, maturely, civically, responsibly, but also to a person with the capacity and the interest in acting ethically.
Owl of Minerva wrote:
I am no expert on the topic, but I would say that the view expressed here is very similar to what comes out of the school of esoteric theosophy. I immediately thought of St. Germain the Ascended Master.The name Jesus refers to his humanity. The Christ refers to his consciousness. Similar to Krishna in the Hindu religion. As a human ego and form Jesus referred to himself as the son of man. As Christ consciousness; one with the Intelligence of God in nature and beyond; Cosmic consciousness, he referred to himself as the son of God. The son of man Jesus could be crucified, the son of God, Christ consciousness could not be. I am surprised Christians do not know that. It is elemental.
I was going to suggest St Germain . . . however I am trying to avoid my typical turns of humor which can be misunderstood.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:51 pmPsychological anomie is uncomfortable, even painful. You well describe the results of psychological anomie. For this reason, and also the reason of occidental paideia, it's important that Christianity is made a more reasonable faith for modern people in this age when the bad results of anomie are so apparent. Reasonable faith is the extent and direction to which occidental paideia should evolve. Whose responsibility is it to guide the evolution?
The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:58 pm Immanuel Can:
“Even among people who believe in one God, the "God" described in their creed is often so different from other descriptions of the Supreme Being that there is no possibility the people are even talking about the same entity. You will find, for example, that the Jewish God is not at all the "god" of the Islamists. And Krisha is a totally different concept again, and not compatible with any of the former.”
owl of Minerva:
The concept of God depends on the Age; on human understanding at the time.
There may be a warring God or a peaceful God, depending on human perception at the time.
reincarnation was the doctrine in early Christianity.
Yes. And?Belief is a matter of choice.
That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal. A problem arises as to what else defines God. What defines God eternally, and how do you avoid idolatry if you identify God with any idea, thing, or event in this world?The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.
Just because one christian might not yet be aware of this, or something else, does NOT mean that 'christians' do not know it.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:18 pmIt is a great point! And I agree with Owl of Minerva it's surprising that Christians do not know it.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:17 pmThis is a GREAT point here.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:10 pm Belinda wrote:
I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus.
Immanuel Can wrote:
That's like saying, "I did not say 'Queen Elizabeth'; I said 'Lizzie.'"
But worse.
…………………………………………………………………
Owl of Minerva response:
The name Jesus refers to his humanity. The Christ refers to his consciousness. Similar to Krishna in the Hindu religion. As a human ego and form Jesus referred to himself as the son of man. As Christ consciousness; one with the Intelligence of God in nature and beyond; Cosmic consciousness, he referred to himself as the son of God. The son of man Jesus could be crucified, the son of God, Christ consciousness could not be. I am surprised Christians do not know that. It is elemental.
If you are 'obligated' to respond to EVERY one who talk/writes in a public forum, then so much for your idea that you are "free man". 'you', "henry quirk", appear more of a 'slave' now than I first observed you are.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM!
Yes, it is. This obligates me to respond to every one who pipes in?
Could the reason WHY you do NOT provide 'it' AGAIN be partly because you NEVER provided 'it' the FIRST TIME?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am
Do you call it 'butting in' when YOU interject a comment/question into a discussion?
I do, And becuz I'm buttin' in, I have no expectations that anyone will respond. Certainly, I don't demand it.
But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up.
For a year and a half I offered links, articles, citations, all ignored or dismissed or roundly rejected (without any of the info being assessed on its merits). You, yourself, dismissed a literal warehouse of info, accessible thru one friggin' link, becuz some sketchy fact checker told you to, not becuz you assessed the info yourself. And you'd have me do it again....for you?
Nope, not bloody likely.
God is, by definition, "the self-existent One." That's the meaning of his Hebrew title, "I AM." Everything that exist was created by God and is less than He is...therefore, there are no things that "define" God. Rather, the definition of all things is whatever God knows it is.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:12 pm Immanuel Can wrote:
That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal.The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.
A problem arises as to what else defines God.
Quit throwin' your poop at me. It stinks.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:00 pmIf you are 'obligated' to respond to EVERY one who talk/writes in a public forum, then so much for your idea that you are "free man". 'you', "henry quirk", appear more of a 'slave' now than I first observed you are.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM!
Yes, it is. This obligates me to respond to every one who pipes in?Could the reason WHY you do NOT provide 'it' AGAIN be partly because you NEVER provided 'it' the FIRST TIME?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am
Do you call it 'butting in' when YOU interject a comment/question into a discussion?
I do, And becuz I'm buttin' in, I have no expectations that anyone will respond. Certainly, I don't demand it.
But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up.
For a year and a half I offered links, articles, citations, all ignored or dismissed or roundly rejected (without any of the info being assessed on its merits). You, yourself, dismissed a literal warehouse of info, accessible thru one friggin' link, becuz some sketchy fact checker told you to, not becuz you assessed the info yourself. And you'd have me do it again....for you?
Nope, not bloody likely.
WHY, to you, are ONLY 'men' free? Are 'women', to you, slaves to and/or for 'men'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:28 am I have principles, and I think they're valuable. I'm not really imagining any reason why I would choose to die for them because they do not represent the complete picture to me.
Man is free (self-directing, self-responsible, self-reliant). This is a truth about him. It is a principle (a fundamental law or truth or fact from which others are derived). This freedom is natural to him. It's part of his substance. It can't be separated out from him. It isn't granted to him by other men. We can codify it, but never create it. We can violate it, but never destroy it.
Obviously. This is like saying EVERY 'thing' is its own. Or, do you BELIEVE some 'things' are owned by 'men', like 'women', for example?
Would it be CONTRADICTORY, to you, to kill another 'man', to defend the principle that 'man' is its own?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:28 am This is a truth about him. It is a principle. This self-possession, this ownness, is natural to him. It's part of his substance. It can't be separated out from him. It isn't granted to him by other men. We can codify it, but never create it. We can violate it, but never destroy it.
Would you fight to defend these principles? If the choice was, as the expression goes, dying on your feet or living on your knees, which would you choose?
And when are you going to make sure that what you commit to is 'real'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:28 am Seen thru this lens: all things are not equal, there is no gray to hunker down in. A person can't evade committing (so he best make sure what he commits to is real).
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:28 am I think clarity is more important than principles.
By definition: a principle is unambiguous, is intrinsically clear. There's no reason to choose one over the other.
LOLhenry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:04 pmQuit throwin' your poop at me. It stinks.Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:00 pmIf you are 'obligated' to respond to EVERY one who talk/writes in a public forum, then so much for your idea that you are "free man". 'you', "henry quirk", appear more of a 'slave' now than I first observed you are.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM!
Yes, it is. This obligates me to respond to every one who pipes in?Could the reason WHY you do NOT provide 'it' AGAIN be partly because you NEVER provided 'it' the FIRST TIME?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:57 am
Do you call it 'butting in' when YOU interject a comment/question into a discussion?
I do, And becuz I'm buttin' in, I have no expectations that anyone will respond. Certainly, I don't demand it.
But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up.
For a year and a half I offered links, articles, citations, all ignored or dismissed or roundly rejected (without any of the info being assessed on its merits). You, yourself, dismissed a literal warehouse of info, accessible thru one friggin' link, becuz some sketchy fact checker told you to, not becuz you assessed the info yourself. And you'd have me do it again....for you?
Nope, not bloody likely.
When you say, "by definition", do you mean or refer to your OWN definition or to some definition, which is irrefutably True and so agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, or some thing else?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:02 pmGod is, by definition, "the self-existent One."Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:12 pm Immanuel Can wrote:
That is true. A necessary definition of God includes that God is eternal.The nature of God does not change. The "concept" is only as good as its relationship to that reality, at any point in time you choose.
A problem arises as to what else defines God.
LOL
LOLImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:02 pm Everything that exist was created by God and is less than He is...
LOL
So, when 'you' CLAIM what some 'thing' is, BY DEFINITION, then what you are really saying is, is that you KNOW what God knows, correct?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:02 pm Rather, the definition of all things is whatever God knows it is.