Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 2:57 pm**

.

......................................................

Which is sooooo true.

I reflect upon individuals who are sent to prison who when upon reaching there are overwhelmed with a coming to god experience.

They find their faith or their faith is rejuvenated.

Often when we lose a loved one or someone close to us or when we experience a personal tragedy of another sort - we turn to god.

We immediately become faithful.

Then, on the other hand, when things are going well, or when things are exciting we generally lose our faith. When reflecting upon those time we may say we lost our way. - We gained a kingdom but lost our faith.

We turn to god to find mercy when life experience seems to become unbearable.

We turn away from god when we don't need him.

The wisdom of John Lennon...

.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:34 pm**

I'd like to understand what 'God' means to you, as I'd quite like to understand your case. Is your claim epistemic or ontological?

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:58 pm**

.

First off & most importantly WELCOME to the forum!

Number two - GREAT question.

To your point; I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor.

The men & women along with their active agreement books and the companies that are signatory to a valid, legally recognized agreement book is what I consider to be my God.

I have an ontological argument for the existence of all things as we know them. I base that argument heavily upon the writings of Ouspensky & my personal experience with a group that was known as The Pyramid Zen Society.

The epistemic argument, as I perceive it to be here at The Forum is something that develops among active members within each & every topic; or thread that I participate in.

VERY GOOD questions.

I think you're going to be a hit here.

Best wishes to you...

From wiki:

An epistemic community is a transnational network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define the problems they face, identify various policy solutions and assess the policy outcomes. The definitive conceptual framework of an epistemic community is widely accepted as that of Peter M. Haas. He describes them as -

"...a network of professionals with recognised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area."

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.

Hope that helps -

Could you share some information about your own views in relation to this thread?

What stuck-out to you within this topic?

What you conceive god to be?

.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:51 pm**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:...

The Pyramid Zen Society.

...

LMFAO and ROTFLMAO!!

And you knock NLP.

Still, now I understand where the gnu comes from.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:07 pm**

.

........................Shit! Sorry. Didn't know you were in the room. Didn't even know I was conversing with you...

Yeah. Thought I mentioned this before. Lived in an ashram, devoted my life to truth & philosophy, had an cosmic consciousness experience & whatnot ...so, there's that.

.............................................................

.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:45 pm**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
........................Shit! Sorry. Didn't know you were in the room. Didn't even know I was conversing with you...

Er!? Web forum. Bit dim aren't you.

Yeah. Thought I mentioned this before. Lived in an ashram, devoted my life to truth & philosophy, had an cosmic consciousness experience & whatnot ...so, there's that.

Nah! Got all that before just didn't know it was the Albigensians and that's what I'm laughing at given your 'thoughts' on NLP.

Although I thought you said your 'cosmic' experience was before all your western ashram stuff?

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:23 pm**

.

YES! My deep understanding WAS before I hooked-up with a group based in West Virginia.

Seriously - You impress me with your memory!

Well done.

.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:37 am**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:YES! My deep understanding WAS before I hooked-up with a group based in West Virginia. ...

Ashram, W. Virginia.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:07 am**

.

Benwood, West Virginia. The leader of the group of us scattered throughout 3 or 4 states was Richard Rose.

................................................

.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:09 am**

And you dissed NLP!!

Still, I can see why an ex-catholic would go for this guff.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:25 am**

.

Jesus...I consider myself pretty open-minded but WTF? NLP?

Before I am tempted to attack those three letters & EVERYTHING they stand for...what did you get out of that system?

.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:12 am**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:...
Before I am tempted to attack those three letters & EVERYTHING they stand for...

Apart from wiki you have no idea what they stand for.

what did you get out of that system?[/size].

Three presuppositions to use when communicating and or trying to achieve something.
A technique to still internal voice for thought and communication.
A technique to 'stop the world' for creative insight.
A meta-model of language to improve communication.
A precision model of language to clarify outcomes.
A 'logical-level' model for identifying process relationships.
A couple of techniques to state/identify and check outcome achievement.
Two techniques for internal state control.
A couple of techniques to identify limiting beliefs.
A nifty rule-of-thumb model to identify thinking strategies in others.
A couple of techniques for examining and sorting the parts of conflicted 'thoughts' into their correct places.
Three or four techniques to assist in changing beliefs, actions and situations.
An understanding of rapport and observation and the part it plays in communicating.
The role of modalities in thought, communication and how they can help with change.
An understanding of internal and external congruence, i.e. using the techniques to match internal thoughts to external words, body position and actions.
An understanding that emotion is part of a thought not separate from it and a couple of techniques to assist congruence of thought.
An understanding that others think with different representations and techniques to identify them.
Two or three techniques for phobia cures.
A model for learning and communication.
An internal 'positioning' model for improving one's communication skills.
A psycho-situational method for planning and exploring future events.
The ability to apply all the above to oneself or to others to assist their goals and aims.
Two techniques to discover one's vision and mission if so wished.
The understanding that it is not a theory of psyche or mind but a useful epistemology based upon a set of presuppositions and a grab-bag of proven techniques from psychoanalysis and therapy.
All around a greater understanding of Language, Learning, Communication and Change.
The choice to use or not use NLP as one wishes.
There's a bunch more but this is the core and I haven't yet bothered to get to the heart of NLP which is Modelling.

So what did you get from the The Albigen System?

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:58 am**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

First off & most importantly WELCOME to the forum!

Number two - GREAT question.

To your point; I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor.

The men & women along with their active agreement books and the companies that are signatory to a valid, legally recognized agreement book is what I consider to be my God.

I have an ontological argument for the existence of all things as we know them. I base that argument heavily upon the writings of Ouspensky & my personal experience with a group that was known as The Pyramid Zen Society.

The epistemic argument, as I perceive it to be here at The Forum is something that develops among active members within each & every topic; or thread that I participate in.

VERY GOOD questions.

I think you're going to be a hit here.

Best wishes to you...

From wiki:

An epistemic community is a transnational network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define the problems they face, identify various policy solutions and assess the policy outcomes. The definitive conceptual framework of an epistemic community is widely accepted as that of Peter M. Haas. He describes them as -

"...a network of professionals with recognised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area."

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.

Hope that helps -

Could you share some information about your own views in relation to this thread?

What stuck-out to you within this topic?

What you conceive god to be?

.

Bill, Thank you for your welcome and kind encouragement.

I wrote"God" , not "god" as I see is what you have written, and indeed god is more interesting than God.

Organised labour is better under some regimes than others, and any inherent good in it is a matter of fact about our species which is cooperative behaviour. Is it cooperative behaviour which you view as the inherent good? I doubt if this is the case, because you laud established rule books almost as if those are the ultimate criteria for good. Is this the case, do you?

I do agree that the old established religions originated between 800 and 200BC median, and therefore they are well-established. The rule books of those old religions have many defunct or disruptive rules in them and need reinterpretation and modernising to make the religions fit for the world today.

Christianity conceptualises god and God more than the religions that are more about praxis. From the little I know about Buddhism, praxis seems to be what it's all about. I cannot choose only one god or God. God viewed from office chair is incomplete and also risks becoming inauthentic, because god is an active process. I am eclectic which means that I oppose whatever is authoritarian in religiosity. My history leads me to view religions from the point of view of a Scottish Presbyterian liberal. I'm also an unbeliever in personal God. Naturally I would very much like to have the protection of a loving Heavenly Father, but to rely upon such a concept would be untrue to god process which is open-ended and uncertain.

Bill, is the network of professionals peer reviewed? Is the governance of it democratic? If not both of those, I'd be a little wary of it, much as I like what I know of Buddhism. What appealed to me about this topic is that I believe that god-practice is more important than god-talk, and I want to know more about god-practice, so I must contend with god-talk.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:20 am**

.

Thank you for your kind & well thought- out response.

Yes I laud established rule books widely used in Organized Labor, often known as Agreement Books. For me, they are are the ultimate criteria for good.

I respect and understand your perspective upon gods or God.

I guess, in this arena, I consider the PhilosophyNow Forums as my own personal review board? If that is what you mean.

...................................................

.

Posted: **Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:32 am**

Bill Wiltrack wrote:...

I guess, in this arena, I consider the PhilosophyNow Forums as my own personal review board?

Of whose reviews you completely ignore.

Philosophy Now Forum

God is a Concept...

God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...

Re: God is a Concept...