Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:09 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:41 am

OF COURSE. BUT, previously, you wrote 'aspiring to', and NOT 'assume'. Which is the ONLY thing that I have been challenging you over.

See, to me, when one has or holds 'power', then this actually encourages "others" to 'aspire to' that same kind of power, and does NOT 'prevent' "others" to 'aspire to' that kind of power, at all.

I think there's a difference between aspiring to something in a serious sort of way, rather than just dreaming about it, which I think is more how you are using it. Though I agree we are just arguing over semantics now.

It will be DISCOVERED that EVERY 'argument' is ALWAYS just over 'semantics'.

What do you mean by every?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones, rather than political, and its political function is secondary to its true purpose, namely, to unite a nation with a shared spiritual identity. The ancients knew this, and originally, as in Egypt, kings were literally gods. Later, in the medieval period, though the kings could no longer be gods, they were nevertheless crowned by god, or god's representative, and assumed a holy aura in that way. Today, this aura survives in the mystique of monarchy. Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

- The spiritual worth is the personal, face-to-face contact with an empire.
- The spiritual benefit of the monarchy is the same spiritual benefit as a living icon.
- A shared icon aligns group attention to a shared view.
- The icon is a shared touchstone.
- Aligned group attention causes the same thoughts to occur independently to the individuals within the group, in response to events.
- Before modern technology, this glue of attention, focused by the icon of the monarchy, transcended the limitations of geography and communication. Since everyone on the planet was subject to the same limitations, the monarchy had an edge, a leg up, with that aligned group attention.
- Now in modern times, technology enables the royals' subjects to transcend those limitations.
- Technology also enables iconoclasts in the same way.

What is the spiritual value of an iconoclast?

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:09 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:52 am

I think there's a difference between aspiring to something in a serious sort of way, rather than just dreaming about it, which I think is more how you are using it. Though I agree we are just arguing over semantics now.

It will be DISCOVERED that EVERY 'argument' is ALWAYS just over 'semantics'.

What do you mean by every?

What I mean by 'every' is ALL.

What do you mean by 'every'?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:38 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:09 pm

It will be DISCOVERED that EVERY 'argument' is ALWAYS just over 'semantics'.

What do you mean by every?

What I mean by 'every' is ALL.

What do you mean by 'every'?

Every and all appear to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms. Every is used before a singular noun, while all is used before the definite article then the plural noun. For example, one would say, every day, but all the days. And those two phrases don't mean the same thing anyway, at least, they need not.

Or did you not want a lesson in grammar?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones

, .

Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

And while it is certainly true that many spiritualties think that something like aloofness is spiritual, this kind of spirituality is part of the anti-pagan, anti-body (including sex) and especially anti-emotional facet of those spiritualities. A lack of feeling. A decided stand not to express emotion, as a rule, is anti-life. A thanatos spirituality. Anti-limbic system.

As a coping mechanism and in specific situations, well that can be useful and has protected many children. But as a spiritual role model it's necrotic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:16 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones

, .

Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

And while it is certainly true that many spiritualties think that something like aloofness is spiritual, this kind of spirituality is part of the anti-pagan, anti-body (including sex) and especially anti-emotional facet of those spiritualities. A lack of feeling. A decided stand not to express emotion, as a rule, is anti-life. A thanatos spirituality. Anti-limbic system.

As a coping mechanism and in specific situations, well that can be useful and has protected many children. But as a spiritual role model it's necrotic.

There are many traditions in ancient Paganism that emphasise spiritual purity, including celibacy, for example.

But I've never associated the British monarchy with that sort of thing. The Queen, and Charles, are noted for their devout Christian beliefs.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:38 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:12 pm

What do you mean by every?

What I mean by 'every' is ALL.

What do you mean by 'every'?

Every and all appear to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms. Every is used before a singular noun, while all is used before the definite article then the plural noun.

What do you mean by 'a singular noun'?

And,

What do you mean by 'the definite article', and 'the plural noun'?

In fact, do NOT tell me, because I do NOT want to even learn what a 'noun' is, YET. This is for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON, which WILL come to light, later on.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am For example, one would say, every day, but all the days. And those two phrases don't mean the same thing anyway, at least, they need not.

Or did you not want a lesson in grammar?

Honestly, I do not even know what the 'grammar' word means, or refers to, EXACTLY.

So, what does that word mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? When you INFORM me, then I can answer your question, properly. However, and by the way, I would LOVE all the help I can OBTAIN and GATHER that will help me communicate better with 'you', human beings.

Also, and by the way, when you said and wrote; "For example, one would say, every day, but all the days", was there meant to be a 'not' in there, somewhere?

If yes, then where, EXACTLY?

But if no, then 'it' does NOT make sense to me.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:20 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:38 pm

What I mean by 'every' is ALL.

What do you mean by 'every'?

Every and all appear to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms. Every is used before a singular noun, while all is used before the definite article then the plural noun.

What do you mean by 'a singular noun'?

And,

What do you mean by 'the definite article', and 'the plural noun'?

In fact, do NOT tell me, because I do NOT want to even learn what a 'noun' is, YET. This is for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON, which WILL come to light, later on.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am For example, one would say, every day, but all the days. And those two phrases don't mean the same thing anyway, at least, they need not.

Or did you not want a lesson in grammar?

Honestly, I do not even know what the 'grammar' word means, or refers to, EXACTLY.

So, what does that word mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? When you INFORM me, then I can answer your question, properly. However, and by the way, I would LOVE all the help I can OBTAIN and GATHER that will help me communicate better with 'you', human beings.

Also, and by the way, when you said and wrote; "For example, one would say, every day, but all the days", was there meant to be a 'not' in there, somewhere?

If yes, then where, EXACTLY?

But if no, then 'it' does NOT make sense to me.

This is getting a bit tiresome now, and not a little tiring, too.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:20 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am

Every and all appear to mean the same thing, but they are not synonyms. Every is used before a singular noun, while all is used before the definite article then the plural noun.

What do you mean by 'a singular noun'?

And,

What do you mean by 'the definite article', and 'the plural noun'?

In fact, do NOT tell me, because I do NOT want to even learn what a 'noun' is, YET. This is for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON, which WILL come to light, later on.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:30 am For example, one would say, every day, but all the days. And those two phrases don't mean the same thing anyway, at least, they need not.

Or did you not want a lesson in grammar?

Honestly, I do not even know what the 'grammar' word means, or refers to, EXACTLY.

So, what does that word mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY? When you INFORM me, then I can answer your question, properly. However, and by the way, I would LOVE all the help I can OBTAIN and GATHER that will help me communicate better with 'you', human beings.

Also, and by the way, when you said and wrote; "For example, one would say, every day, but all the days", was there meant to be a 'not' in there, somewhere?

If yes, then where, EXACTLY?

But if no, then 'it' does NOT make sense to me.

This is getting a bit tiresome now, and not a little tiring, too.

So, you are ACCEPTING that what you wrote does NOT make sense, and you are TOO TIRESOME to CORRECT it, or what you said and wrote here does, somehow, make sense, but you are, AGAIN, TOO TIRESOME to EXPLAIN how it does, supposedly, make sense.

Which is all well and good. If you are a LOT TIRED, then I would NEVER ask you to just answer a question for CLARITY, as this may just put you 'over the edge', as some might say.

Oh, and by the way, if you just CONCENTRATED and FOCUSED on the ONLY issue and POINT I was making here, ONLY, which was; in regards to how people SHOWING their GIVEN power OVER "others" does ENCOURAGE and/or INFLUENCE "others" to ASPIRE to having that same power, and does NOT necessarily, like you CLAIMED, PREVENT "others" from ASPIRING to power AT ALL, and just AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED this IRREFUTABLE Fact, then we could have MOVED ALONG ALREADY, and you would NOT have resorted to making these ATTEMPTS at DEFLECTION, which is probably the ONLY REAL REASON WHY 'this' is getting just a "bit tiresome", and NOT a "little tiring", to you.

In other words, if 'YOU' just stayed with, and thus on, the same line of INQUIRY, and did NOT ATTEMPT to 'side-step' 'it', and thus 'you' got 'side-tracked', then 'you' would probably NOT feel SO TIRED now.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:29 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:16 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones

, .

Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

And while it is certainly true that many spiritualties think that something like aloofness is spiritual, this kind of spirituality is part of the anti-pagan, anti-body (including sex) and especially anti-emotional facet of those spiritualities. A lack of feeling. A decided stand not to express emotion, as a rule, is anti-life. A thanatos spirituality. Anti-limbic system.

As a coping mechanism and in specific situations, well that can be useful and has protected many children. But as a spiritual role model it's necrotic.

There are many traditions in ancient Paganism that emphasise spiritual purity, including celibacy, for example.

But I've never associated the British monarchy with that sort of thing. The Queen, and Charles, are noted for their devout Christian beliefs.

Oh, sure, given that paganism, especially when under large state systems like Rome, might have anti-body, anti-sex, anti-emotion policies or rules for certain members of society. Pagaism is an enormous set of practices. But in general, compared to the monotheisms that came, distinguished themselves from the paganisms and generally tried to root out and destroy pagan practices, paganisms had far less judgements of bodies sex and emotions.

The fact that the Royals are devout Christians or pretend to be (since we don't know their private thoughts and attitudes) goes along perfectly with aloofness. She is the head of the Anglican Church. So, a genetically arrived at position is placed in charge of a religious institution and this has nothing to do with her actual spiritual attitudes or understanding. It's just because of her parents'. So, again the spiritual message is some subset of white people are more spiritual than anyone else in the UK/Commonwealth.

And why is the King or Queen in this role? Because Henry the VIII declared it. And why did he declare it? Because the Pope refused to annul his first marriage. He wanted a male heir and his first wife hadn't provided one. And, well, he also was cheating on her with...well....

After Catherine’s ‘failure’ to produce an heir, Henry became interested in one of Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn.


Anne Boleyn, unknown artist, National Portrait Gallery, London
Anne Boleyn, by an unknown artist, (c) National Portrait Gallery, London

This loss of interest in Catherine was partly because Henry believed that his lack of heir was punishment from God for marrying his brother’s wife.

Henry wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, and believed she could produce an heir, but he was still married to Catherine.

When he discovered that Anne Boleyn was pregnant, Henry arranged to marry her in secret at Whitehall Palace - this marked the beginning of the break with Rome.

Henry had asked Pope Clement VII for his marriage to Catherine to be dissolved, but the Pope would not agree.

Part of the reason that the Pope refused was because Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, had taken control of Rome - and Charles V was Catherine’s nephew.

When Henry secretly married Anne, he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Of course he killed Anne later for not producing an heir, though he claimed he did it for adultery which is hilariously sad and hypocritical. So, we have this kind of geneticism (a highly specialized form of racism going back to the origins of this being the head of the Anglican church).

You'd think any decent leader/monarch, would have refused this role, and let a more democratic meritocratic process choose the leader of the church. That would be serving the country much better.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:14 am Recent events have brought home the fact that monarchy should primarily be judged in spiritual, or religious terms, or at least emotional ones, rather than political, and its political function is secondary to its true purpose, namely, to unite a nation with a shared spiritual identity. The ancients knew this, and originally, as in Egypt, kings were literally gods. Later, in the medieval period, though the kings could no longer be gods, they were nevertheless crowned by god, or god's representative, and assumed a holy aura in that way. Today, this aura survives in the mystique of monarchy. Those who criticise the Queen, for example, for being aloof, really have missed the point, because that's exactly what she is supposed to be.

I agree. Queen Elizabeth was a substitute for the stability , order, and reliability of God. Few people now believe in God, and it does seem that people need or often need a still centre for social order. The late Queen was well aware of the value of mystique. Same as everyone else, I loved the late Queen as a stable pseudo-presence and a benevolent presence all my life.

Only the religious instinct could have generated the Queue, a social phenomenon comparable to the central ritual of the Haj.There was even a sacred box involved.