Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:39 pm People experience many things and most are just fantasy.

But everything YOU believe and experience is NOT fantasy, right? Can you not see how completely self-delusional, foolish, and dishonest that would be? It makes absolutely NO sense. You are just one of so very many who insist that they are uniquely right and special in what they believe and "know". Yet all of these people have varying stories and perspectives which are so real and true to themselves. So, what might these people with their incessant claims have in common? It seems they are lacking something -- there is a need to be filled -- a reality to exonerate themselves, which they work furiously to define and maintain. All the while, their need appears so great that not even a god can fill it.

It is clear that everything being said has been said many times before on the thread in different words. To save dull repetition, I thought it might be helpful to construct templates to represent each side in this thread.

First Draft Template for Nick's replies

You are a classic example of a secular intolerant and a spirit killer.

You worship the Great Beast and support the spirit killing of our children in schools.

You do not understand objective experience, whereas I do, so you can only reason from the perspective of the cave

[Space reserved for final "stinger" quote by Simone Weil]

First draft template for replies to Nick:

Your posts mistake your subjective experience for objectivity.

We object to your idea of returning to indoctrinating children with religion at school at the taxpayer's expense again.

Your posts sometimes tend towards incoherence and you make plenty of wild and rash claims.

Many of your posts come across as egotistical and solipsist, dismissing others' sentience and experience as nothing.

You have mangled Plato's idea and somehow turned Simone Weil's fierce left wing politics into your own conservative right wing version.

This is all a first draft. I'm sure I've missed a few things or perhaps they could be worded better. I invite all to help to refine this template and crystallise our positions. Thank you

Nick_A wrote:I just initiated a thread on the metaphysics board called "Panentheism" There if interested, you will learn of my god. If you can appreciate how conscious attention relates to it, IMO you will understand a great deal.

Ok.

So basically you want to introduce Theology into the curriculum and one based upon your version of 'God'. Will you be intolerant of other's theologies and 'God's'? That is will you allow the other religious -isms to be taught as well.

Also will you be allowing the Sciences and Arts to be taught without interference or will you they have to conform in some way to your belief system?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:50 amSo basically you want to introduce Theology into the curriculum ...

... and at the expense of taxpayers who don't accord with Nick's belief system.

Greta:

This is all a first draft. I'm sure I've missed a few things or perhaps they could be worded better. I invite all to help to refine this template and crystallise our positions.

Nicely done, but it fails because you are a classic example of a secular intolerant and a spirit killer. And, you worship the Great Beast and support the spirit killing of our children in schools. And, you do not understand objective experience, whereas Nicky does, so you can only reason from the perspective of the cave.

That is three strikes against you. Three is the magic number. There are three C’s on a piano keyboard (if you don’t count the five others), the “three essential forces”, three little pigs, three blind mice, the Trinity, and the trinity (Plato, Needleman, and Simone Weil).

Reason is powerless against magical thinking.

The proper template is

1. Those like Greta and F4 should never be moderators on a philosophy site since they deny the essential purpose of philosophy which is to help us remember what has been forgotten due to attachments to the continual changes within external life. Philosophy is reduced to arguments over opinions normal for life in Plato’s cave.
2. If it were just sites it wouldn’t really be a problem but this mindset which denies the purpose of philosophy is practiced in school systems causing metaphysical repression in the young of their essential questions and in their natural attraction to eros. This leads to the spirit killing of the young.
3. It serves its purpose through expressing secular intolerance; an attitude of superiority and intimidation making students embarrassed for asking essential questions.
4. Traditional concepts of God ranging from the personal to Plato’s GOOD beyond time and space are all rejected for the progressive god of the Breast Beast and its kingdom within Plato's cave.
5. The awe and wonder serving as a motive for philosophy is replaced by societal doing by secularists according to the precepts created by indoctrination into the beliefs of the Great Beast.
6.Without a healthy metaxu a functioning society valuing the voluntary obligations necessary for freedom is impossible. Dominating secular intolerance assures it will never happen.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:50 am

Nick_A wrote:I just initiated a thread on the metaphysics board called "Panentheism" There if interested, you will learn of my god. If you can appreciate how conscious attention relates to it, IMO you will understand a great deal.

Ok.

So basically you want to introduce Theology into the curriculum and one based upon your version of 'God'. Will you be intolerant of other's theologies and 'God's'? That is will you allow the other religious -isms to be taught as well.

Also will you be allowing the Sciences and Arts to be taught without interference or will you they have to conform in some way to your belief system?

The last sentence she wrote in the notebook found after her death was: "The most important part of education--to teach the meaning of to know (in the scientific sense)."
The whole of Simone Weil is contained in these few words.
- Biographical Note, Simone Weil, Waiting for God (GP Putnam's Sons 1951, Harper 1975) p xi

Yes, my theology would include exploration into the experience of conscious attention and round table discussions with students on what it means "to know" while keeping the experts out of the room. How's that for being politically incorrect?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:38 pm The proper template is

1. Those like Greta and F4 should never be moderators on a philosophy site since they deny the essential purpose of philosophy which is to help us remember what has been forgotten due to attachments to the continual changes within external life. Philosophy is reduced to arguments over opinions normal for life in Plato’s cave.

Nick thinks he has the slightest notion about philosophy or moderating, yet if he was a mod he would certainly:

- immediately ban any "secularist" who dared disagree with him (noting that I allowed him four warnings before banning)

- not permit ANY "secular" threads (noting that the argument came when his 108th new thread was not approved - the first non approval of a thread of his for years).

Nick would be a dictator, not a moderator. Despite his learning, Nick's inability to accept alternative opinions, and his lack of ability to question his subjective experiences, makes him philosophically naive and incompetent. Yet he wasn't banned for that (which is innocent) but for persistent rudeness, false accusations and a complete refusal to comply with any moderator requests (which were to stop insulting and accusing us with every post).

I can't say that any other mod would have done the same in my situation. Most would have banned him years ago. I was too soft and allowed a bad situation to fester to the point where it's now poisoned this board as well.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:11 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:38 pm The proper template is

1. Those like Greta and F4 should never be moderators on a philosophy site since they deny the essential purpose of philosophy which is to help us remember what has been forgotten due to attachments to the continual changes within external life. Philosophy is reduced to arguments over opinions normal for life in Plato’s cave.

Nick thinks he has the slightest notion about philosophy or moderating, yet if he was a mod he would certainly:

- immediately ban any "secularist" who dared disagree with him (noting that I allowed him four warnings before banning)

- not permit ANY "secular" threads (noting that the argument came when his 108th new thread was not approved - the first non approval of a thread of his for years).

Nick would be a dictator, not a moderator. Despite his learning, Nick's inability to accept alternative opinions, and his lack of ability to question his subjective experiences, makes him philosophically naive and incompetent. Yet he wasn't banned for that (which is innocent) but for persistent rudeness, false accusations and a complete refusal to comply with any moderator requests (which were to stop insulting and accusing us with every post).

I can't say that any other mod would have done the same in my situation. Most would have banned him years ago. I was too soft and allowed a bad situation to fester to the point where it's now poisoned this board as well.

Anyone reading this thread with impartiality knows that Greta has been exceedingly rude. It is in her defensive nature towards anything with a hint of what she defines as religious. I have no reason to be rude since I am not defending anything. I assert that we live in imagination as Plato described as if in a cave. Does a person have to be rude to defend this? Philosophy for them is about attacking and defending. There is no attempt at understanding Those like Greta and F4 expect people to tolerate their threats. But when the essence of philosophy as understood by those like Plato, Plotinus, Simone Weil, Jacob needleman, Basarab Nicolescu and others is threatened, then philosophy has lost its potential value. They will kill the other site for all those who appreciate philosophy as the love of wisdom and only allow for battles of secular based opinions. There is no attraction for anyone else. Panentheism for example could never be discussed there since no one is left to discuss it rather than pervert it into seculrism. They have chased them away. Greta and F4 have won but what they have won from a philosophical perspective isn't worth winning IMO.

_______

Don't you kids make me stop this car and take my belt off...

...(there might be a "flabalanche" )
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:22 am _______

Don't you kids make me stop this car and take my belt off...

...(there might be a "flabalanche" )
_______

It may seem trivial to you but I am fighting for what those like Greta and F4 seek to crush: the love of meaning and restricting it to secularism. That is a spirit killer if there ever was one.

From Jacob Needleman’s book: “The heart of Philosophy”

……………Briefly stated, then, the aim of this book is to show the place that great philosophical ideas can occupy in the life of contemporary men and women. It is my view that the weakening of authentic philosophy in our century has resulted in a form of collective and individual pathology that has far deadlier consequences than is generally imagined. We live in a time of metaphysical repression and this repression must be lifted. The various forms of psychological and sexual repression that modern psychiatry has successfully fought are as nothing compared to the stifling of the love of meaning which phrase actually is the definition of philosophy. The love of meaning, the search for meaning is the only real force for good in the life of modern man. Everything else we hope for and wish for ourselves and our children depends upon it…………………………..

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:11 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:11 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:38 pm The proper template is

1. Those like Greta and F4 should never be moderators on a philosophy site since they deny the essential purpose of philosophy which is to help us remember what has been forgotten due to attachments to the continual changes within external life. Philosophy is reduced to arguments over opinions normal for life in Plato’s cave.

Nick thinks he has the slightest notion about philosophy or moderating, yet if he was a mod he would certainly:

- immediately ban any "secularist" who dared disagree with him (noting that I allowed him four warnings before banning)

- not permit ANY "secular" threads (noting that the argument came when his 108th new thread was not approved - the first non approval of a thread of his for years).

Nick would be a dictator, not a moderator. Despite his learning, Nick's inability to accept alternative opinions, and his lack of ability to question his subjective experiences, makes him philosophically naive and incompetent. Yet he wasn't banned for that (which is innocent) but for persistent rudeness, false accusations and a complete refusal to comply with any moderator requests (which were to stop insulting and accusing us with every post).

I can't say that any other mod would have done the same in my situation. Most would have banned him years ago. I was too soft and allowed a bad situation to fester to the point where it's now poisoned this board as well.

Anyone reading this thread with impartiality knows that Greta has been exceedingly rude. It is in her defensive nature towards anything with a hint of what she defines as religious.

Typical right wing fundamentalist response from Nick, accusing me of rudeness because I finally cracked and retaliated against a relentless stream of ad hominem attacks again me and "F4".

I am very keen on spirituality. I just have problems with people on forums who are self entitled, abusive, aggressive, and make false accusations.

Now please go away and please never again utter the words "Greta" or "F4". You repeatedly broke forum rules on the other forum and then started a campaign to denigrate the moderators (me and "F4" - note that the other mods who agreed with the move are not being bothered). Basically, he got what he deserved. I think anyone can see that when you are thwarted you are simply uncontrollable.

We had a choice of sitting through an non-stop barrage of false accusations of corrupt biased moderating or banning.

We chose sanity.

Now I choose sanity again. You are amongst the worst online bullies I have ever encountered and will have nothing more to do with you. Do not speak to me or about me again.

Nick_A wrote:Yes, my theology would include exploration into the experience of conscious attention and round table discussions with students on what it means "to know" while keeping the experts out of the room. How's that for being politically incorrect?

You do understand that you are showing all the hallmarks of an internut don't you? That is, a complete inability to notice or a refusal to answer sentences ending with a question mark.

No idea what 'politically incorrect' has to do with anything as my questions were, will you be disallowing the other religious -isms a say and will you be interfering with the Sciences and the Arts if you were allowed to set the curriculum?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:48 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:11 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:11 am

Nick thinks he has the slightest notion about philosophy or moderating, yet if he was a mod he would certainly:

- immediately ban any "secularist" who dared disagree with him (noting that I allowed him four warnings before banning)

- not permit ANY "secular" threads (noting that the argument came when his 108th new thread was not approved - the first non approval of a thread of his for years).

Nick would be a dictator, not a moderator. Despite his learning, Nick's inability to accept alternative opinions, and his lack of ability to question his subjective experiences, makes him philosophically naive and incompetent. Yet he wasn't banned for that (which is innocent) but for persistent rudeness, false accusations and a complete refusal to comply with any moderator requests (which were to stop insulting and accusing us with every post).

I can't say that any other mod would have done the same in my situation. Most would have banned him years ago. I was too soft and allowed a bad situation to fester to the point where it's now poisoned this board as well.

Anyone reading this thread with impartiality knows that Greta has been exceedingly rude. It is in her defensive nature towards anything with a hint of what she defines as religious.

Typical right wing fundamentalist response from Nick, accusing me of rudeness because I finally cracked and retaliated against a relentless stream of ad hominem attacks again me and "F4".

I am very keen on spirituality. I just have problems with people on forums who are self entitled, abusive, aggressive, and make false accusations.

Now please go away and please never again utter the words "Greta" or "F4". You repeatedly broke forum rules on the other forum and then started a campaign to denigrate the moderators (me and "F4" - note that the other mods who agreed with the move are not being bothered). Basically, he got what he deserved. I think anyone can see that when you are thwarted you are simply uncontrollable.

We had a choice of sitting through an non-stop barrage of false accusations of corrupt biased moderating or banning.

We chose sanity.

Now I choose sanity again. You are amongst the worst online bullies I have ever encountered and will have nothing more to do with you. Do not speak to me or about me again.

Put your money where your keyboard is. I've openly challenged you to expose such posts. You refuse because you can't. Your attacks read like they were motivated by Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I know I am bullying Harbal. i will challenge him to a dual at dawn with his choice of pistols or knives. I know I've read it takes all types but there should be limits. Just silly.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:38 pmTraditional concepts of God ranging from the personal to Plato’s GOOD beyond time and space are all rejected for the progressive god of the Breast Beast ...

I think I'd be down with having the Breast Beast in charge of stuff, especially in a cave.