 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 71 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613722 Today 3 Topics 127517 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So … let’s accept that human reason is not able to comprehend ultimate reality. --> Modern argument: Human reason is bound to to the human perspective. It can show the world as it reveals itself to a human subject, but not as it is in itself. I can understand the sun as it presents itself as an object of knowledge to a reasonable human subject equipped with the knowledge of astrophysics, but never as it is in itself. (Kant and so on.) --> Medieval argument: Human reason can understand the objects of the world as they are. But it cannot understand God. God, however, is the ultimate reality (Moses Maimonides, bin Arabi and so on). How can we go on from here? Both the modern and medieval perspective agree that if reason is used rigorously it leads to the limits of reasons and we have to accept that there are some things we do not and cannot reasonably know. Solution a: Pragmatism. You stop caring about ultimate reality and just figure out “what works” and helps your interest. Problem with this view: I am “paradoxically” not interested in “what works”, I am not interested in my interests being the centre of my life, but I want my interests to be shaped by what is true. So pragmatism fails as soon as you desire ultimate knowledge. Solution b: Revelation. You accept that reason is not giving you insights about ultimate reality (other than that it cannot be reasonably known) but assume that revelation – revealed Holy Scripture – can give you some insight. Problem: It is not perfectly clear which revelation you should trust and how you should understand it, so this solution pushes the question back further: Based on what criteria can you trust reports about that which surpasses human reason? Solution c: Deconstruction. You still care about ultimate reality but never settle on a specific position because you acknowledge the inherent tensions within it. You just deconstruct and reconstruct ad infinitum. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Solution d: Mysticism. You are convinced that either spontaneously or in the context of spiritual practices you can receive crystal clear knowledge about ultimate reality which surpasses reason and cannot be clearly stated in language. Solution e, f, g …. !? What solution do YOU opt for!? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What about a Hegelian approach in which our truth reveals its flaws and those flaws become the foundation for a new truth which subsumes the previous truth? As I understand Hegel so far anyhow. A spiraling movement. A growth process. This has the virtues of being optimistic, and also closely correlating with the particulars of intellectual history. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Welt!!!!! Hi Tony! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Welt, didn’t you make music years ago? Don’t be shy and post brah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
quite firmly "Solution a: Pragmatism." Not at all bothered by not knowing some ultimate truth, the mystery makes it interesting. If ultimate truth was genuinely offered to me I wouldn't take it. It'd just make my life worse and I probably couldn't enjoy the next season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's funny to think it but it's true. The last season of curb is worth more to me than the meaning of life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if I'm being REALLY sappy and corny the meaning of life to me is to experience other people's minds, preferably in an abstract way. I enjoy the discourse more than the answer. happy to share being alive w/ you all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So I made it sound like I'd take no answers. That's probably not true. For just a few seconds I'd like to see the world the way a bug sees it. Mb a millipede. And I'd like just a glimpse, just a taste, of an advanced alien culture. Their music, their entertainment, their daily routine-- I would take those small things if offered. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Solution B. I can't justify my choice but we talked about this in my philosophy class sometime ago. D*construction is a terrible solution and I'm ambivalent about the others |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you have to die to understand it all |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
probably closest to C. when i was floridly psychotic D fit my experience but the revelations i received were temporary and largely garbage |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Queen Elizabeth II ordered me and my family to be tortured |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It could be a while before the Messiah reveals himself to all, a year away? 10 years? 20 years? Does he reveal himself after he conquers death or is it during the war of Gog and Magog? He exists today, is 60 years old, lives in England, and runs the government there. He is the king of love, truth, and justice according to divine law and every legal system. He is the anti-Putin. His existence is proof of God's existence. And Putin is proof of God's existence, because Putin is the main antagonist of the Messiah in the world. After Putin and his armies are destroyed by God, there will be peace in the world and the dead will be revived. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Deuteronomy 17:14 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
HERE FOLLOWS SOME PSYCHO-METAPHYSICS. If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it. The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making. With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle. Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other. DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose i am arguably agnostic, but in a much more narrow way than i used to be. i never bought into the idea that an angry patriarch lives in the sky, that i believe in evolution... big bang; i'm not qualified to do better. but who put that there? in the end, i feel the question "why do things exist at all" is pretty thoroughly unanswerable. so that's where i agnosticate and say "it just does, ok?" but then you get to... oh, it's TLDR, but when god speaks to someone, i know what that is, i'm pretty sure. and it's actually more than what's just in your individual head, even if god doesn't exist (unless he made the big bang etc. and then absconded; let it play out however). i've tried the theory out on a few of the more thoughtful christians i know, and it's kind of like... "well..." *furrowed brow* "...i dunnnnooo" and then after a moment they're kind of like, "...but i'll allow it" i'm very happy i feel like i've found a compromise for both sides there. but tldr i guess i'll just go with the time i posted a photo of lewis's desk on xltronic, and there is just such. weird. shit. on his desk. that, like i knew someone would -- i think it was umbro -- someone freaked out, and was all, OMG!?!?! is that HEROIN on the desk? are you on heroin no, it was actually a pile of cocoa powder just sitting on his desk. at that time, he was brushing cocoa powder into his hair to darken the color a bit. knowing that it was cocoa powder for brushing into his hair, and not heroin -- that's already past, like "we may never know." but then i'm tight enough with him that i know, and i still wind up at the same place: i still have no idea why the fuck he decided to use cocoa powder to darken his hair there's always another question. i would actually lean towards "we're not answering questions, we're accumulating data" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science never "proves" anything -- you can "disprove" a theory with the right "evidence" but then someone can come back later and prove the right evidence, was the wrong evidence, thus un-disproving the theory. while this may sound like a set-up to tear down science, you can't very well say, "the physics properties my smartphone works on, was designed based on, are all just theories, none of this is proven they could be totally wrong" ...but your phone works, doesn't it? and stfu. i can't prove that gravity won't shut off tomorrow, but i'm not making any contingency plans for that scenario either that we "answer" a question with science -- oh, look, the higgs boson does seem to exist -- and it immediately asks plenty more, like "why is the mass of the higgs boson weird? this breaks the symmetry of the universe" and on we go i guess it's more like a tree growing. we chase questions, the questions lead to more questions, we never reach answers, but humanity acquires more and more communal information and i suspect we're not really intended to answer anything; we're supposed to generate information |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that going on about dad stuff is a warning to check myself that i'm not a half-dozen tangents deep; lost the plot. but some are relevant i never got a solid answer out of my dad as to whether he believed in god. he definitely believed in science; understood more about physics than i probably ever will when i was 14 and my sister was 12, he sat us down, and said, there's this thing called the bible, and here's a bit about it, and if you want to go to church, your mom and i will take you. i decided i wasn't interested. my sister, however, was. she decided it was crap after two or three years, but until then, my parents reliably drove her to church like soccer practice that i was 14 and he was dad and i just assumed this was how everyone got raised, somewhat, but part of why i don't really want kids is... now that i look back on it, that took some fucking iron will. to present christianity as an option and does his best not to influence us either way. most parents, no matter what they believe, couldn't fathom just... leaving it alone years later, the topic kind of came up somehow, or close to it, and he spoke of pascal's wager, in which pascal all "since i can't prove whether or not god exists, i'm going to hedge my bets and go to church." the older i get, the more sure i am: he wasn't sure. in fact, he thought it was crap -- but since he couldn't be sure, i think he decided to show a little deference to god. not just in his life, but in how he raised his kids myself ~ i'll raise. and call pascal's bluff. heaven and hell are just emotional tentpoles because without that carrot and stick no one would follow the rules ...even though i still allow, "well maybe he just set it up with the big bang and then left, there might be a god if that's how it went down" but heaven, hell? nah |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm sorry welt, i didn't really address your letters. i think i have all of them at once in varying proportions. modern/medieval mix of A-C |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, you need this part: just because "god" didn't create the universe, doesn't mean he isn't still a conscious entity. more that we created him through planet-scale cooperation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
umbro have you ever fallen through a crack in reality and spent a few hours in the serial experiments: lain universe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh there was a D) myst/riven/etc but i would say you'd bin me in C) probably to which i counter: what there's not particularly much deconstructing these days? like, #02626647 above is sort of like the "abstract" if this were some science paper and not my jfdgkdg ramble yeah, though -- formally stating it would be a mess. proving it is [formally, theoretically, mathematically, practically, ...] impossible. personally, though, i feel... satisfied with my general conclusion, here? like, whew, that's a relief, i've cracked it. and i haven't gotten that feeling before |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you pull back and look at the answers in this thread it's like a "party" scene in a David Lynch movie. All disconnected, everyone just doing their one thing that they do. One guy untying a horribly tangled knot, another just bouncing a ball. A fat woman sitting idly in the shadows. And no one is ever having any fun! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think it's something you have to reason in your own mind, that there's a creator. nobody can show you the truth, you have to see it for yourself, but when you become seeing, you can't become unseeing. actually it seems preposterous that there's a king of israel who is psychic, but thats how it is. there is evidence, thousands of years old, and prophecies that i put at the bottom of that atheism thread. it's not some dickhead who is going to anoint himself, he will be recognised as the king because he protects, loves, supports, enables goodness, advises truth, and brings justice as a law abiding man. everything he does is through the law and 100% legal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
epic i did freak out when i found out you were gay/bisexual i think i kept asking you about it, but you didnt say anything it's none of my beeswax though, im sorry for that i dont remember anything about heroin but that reminds of a picture of the former chancellor of the exchequer george osborne, there was cocaine on the table in the picture, when i used to argue with him online he was under the name jack stone. nobody believes that i helped force the tories to concede a referendum on leaving the EU, but it's true. i put a lot of pressure on them, all through my laptop, i didnt know the blooming messiah was in their party at the time, running things. i thought he was just a regular guy, but in fact he's the king of israel. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thing is, the tory party was supposed to be destroyed from the inside by entryists from the sdp party. that was their plan. the tories are an evil anachronism in society, holding back progress. when cameron came in, he humiliated the conservative members who are old fashioned toads. in 2010 their good scheme to merge with the liberal democrats and kick out all racists, sexists, homophobes, and make a new liberal party based on social democracy without the right wing rascals fell apart, all because of me. i saved the conservative party from oblivion, which was a massive error of judgement. just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. everyone associated with brexit is being locked up or put down or destroyed, according to the law. the messiah has amazing political skills, beyond imagination, i only know because ive been fighting him for years, which means game over for me. only a fool would knowingly take on the messiah. i didnt know he was the messiah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if hes not the real king of israel, and i made it up, then putin can become messiah, then uncle xi can become ruler of the earth? i dont think so. the world was created and designed for a reason. one day it will all be on tv, oh there's a king of israel now? and half the world wont believe it's true. but zilty will believe because you heard it here first. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, I guess Hegel could be seen as someone who attempts to integrate aspects of all the options a-d into his position. Absolute knowledge, Hegel seems to think, would not be ultimate knowledge in the sense that now everything is known but an ever self-correcting practice of knowledge which is aware of what it is doing and can question itself without thereby destroying itself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm surprised someone remembers. I haven't recorded anything in ages. These days I mostly play Persian Setar (not to be confused with the Indian Sitar) since I love the quarter-tones of classical Persian music. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It doesn't sound that corny. But close to Zen-Buddhist philosophers like Nishitani or even to Martin Buber, even though they would prioritize the concrete rather than the abstract. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think the description is accurate with the exception that I feel the fun running trough everything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
still not hearing any criticism of my conclusion that god may actually be a composite entity existing as a gestalt created by the shared cooperation of hundreds of millions of believers on a planet-wide scale. people praying for each other, for what the pope suggests to pray for. that's quite a firehose you have there, whatever you feel the actual results are the believers are like small clusters of neurons in the brain of god regarding being gay/bisexual -- very definitely bisexual, though i do prefer men. overall, i like asses, irrespective of gender. i remember being like seven years old and staring at all the butts in some educational history book, the page of the cave man era, that page had lots of nice butts. but i was seven and i didn't even understand why i was so fascinated. so if there is a god he made me this way; no one led me down the garden path or corrupted me or molested me or whatever what makes me weirder is, like... it's always felt everyone is a lot more urgent about getting laid than i am? i care about my music gear more |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as a brain is many interconnected neurons, a god is many interconnected believers. this is a conclusion arising out of a long and rambling thread trying to chase down what consciousness is, i suppose, and i wasn't even looking for it. as such -- like i said -- it's hard to state formally [tldr] but personally, i feel satisfied with it. that i also feel it is a charming compromise: jettison all the stuff clashing with science -- did you know a man once sent a boat full of animals over niagra falls for no discernible reason? all died but a goose ...jettison all the stuff clashing with science, that old nutter site of jesus partying with dinosaurs. but then perhaps god is an actual conscious entity. that as a believer, you form part of his brain. you are a part of him. inherent in all this is the idea that prayer is a form of meditation, a form of mental focus that subconsciously guides your actions towards a particular result... so the power of prayer, particularly at scale, we're accepting this as well. the idea that god may be a conscious entity -- if you buy all this acidhed nonsense -- actually makes me inclined to follow the prime directive on some levels. that perhaps god has a right to exist. that believers acknowledging they are small clusters of neurons, a small part of god, may actually be what's needed to turn the switch on whether god is conscious or not. it's a fascinating train of thought. but, point is, i think you can keep a lot of this while ditching the stuff that's causing everyone pain |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
previous post, that was mad succinct [for me] just go with that but, continuing implications: all the Ahl al-kitāb arguably timeshare god, and that's quite a number. ...what about, like, hinduism, though? split up into many gods? that perhaps this would wind up more like the consciousness of an |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
> there's always another question. i would actually lean towards "we're not answering questions, we're accumulating data" "But to a select few, the fact that the best-understood theory in modern physics technically yields infinite answers to any question you might care to ask remains deeply disturbing. “We do not know how to simulate the world, even in principle, even with unlimited computational resources,” said Emanuel Katz, a physicist at Boston University who studies new methods for going beyond Feynman diagrams." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im a closeted D. in public im C because i reckon my own mystical experience cant have real meaning to any other than me. actually thinking about it i find they are quite compatible as you need some C with your D so as not to have the problems in B basically you should accept and try to understand all experience as it presents to you, if theres something to know about ultimate reality you should be able to learn it from whatever there is in front of you, feed your experience until maybe your intuition can synthesize an insight? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if theres something to know about ultimate reality you should be able to learn it from whatever there is in front of you is this what tiktok is for? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you know... lots of other people have written lots about ultimate reality, and some of it isn't bad. that burning through some of that stuff like a netflix series, mining it for the choice morsels, but not getting sucked into the gravity of any one paradigm... that this is catch-up; you're merely trying to catch up to the the bleeding edge. and mining the old codgers is faster than re-inventing it all on your own wait what were we talking about again |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
> im a closeted D Closet D cool band name. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ultimate reality, such a nice place to hide. actual reality like: this guy i was -- or maybe still am? -- friends with, just hardcore blocks me about ayear ago. that i was depressed and i wanted someone to come over and hang out and i was being pushy but it absolutely did not match the scale of, like, the level he exploded on me. it's one of those stupid human things, where, like... this isn't me. or it is me, but not because of anything that actually has to do with me. and just now i'm stewing on it that he and i went on a date or two before it became clear he was into fetish stuff i just utterly refuse to do and nevermind let's just be friends. we did mess around sometimes, but... long-term, no. a few weeks before it blew up last year he was said: "you are just _so _good-looking." this genuinely blew my mind -- is that weird? like: really? i am? i'd never quite thought about it anyways, he found a boyfriend with compatible deviances, and we all got along great for a bit, even lewis getting involved in bunging around the used vinyl store with us. then i'm a bit moody one day and being a pain saying come over and jam synths and i'm banned forever? no. this isn't me. or it is me, but not because of anything that actually has to do with me. or me being a pain was part of it, but that certainly can't be all of it. simply out of proportion i actually fear it's because his boyfriend quite likes me too -- once, suddenly, i got tackled onto a bed, and oh, it's fine. but i was like, are you sure? oh, he's sure maybe he's not sure, though. and that would be so fucking stupid. because i could never be in a relationship with either of them because... nevermind, you really don't want to know. and if it's jealously there, dhjfg or maybe i'm just annoying. that's also possible. i guess i'm good looking, too. this is bloody irritating. i'm going back to thinking about consciousness now that's not as batshit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Coincidentally, was listening to on Schelling, Whitehead and process philosophy yesterday. If I understand correctly, the idea is that humans and ultimate reality or "the absolute" are essentially continuous, bridging Kant's gap between the noumenal and the phenomenal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it gets a bit hippy dippy at some points lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"[that sounds] close to Zen-Buddhist philosophers like Nishitani or even to Martin Buber, even though they would prioritize the concrete rather than the abstract." should look up those guys you mentioned. The abstract is way, way cooler than the concrete though. Everyone's opinions are total shite. YOU reading this? your opinion is gay. and you're probably a self righteous fucking asshole to boot. I don't care to peek inside your head on a concrete level. I'd much rather "feel what Richard D. James has to say" through Yellow Calx than some telepathic-like stream of consciousness, if given the choice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
weaselpedia has a php error. how dreadful! i'll link it later, after... whatever that needs, is done. but, effectively, i was so incredibly frustrated with my own difficult brain that i created a crappy recursive sci-fi plot in which i am injected into my own brain, fantastic voyage style. and it's a vast city of weasels. that it would be as simple as "bits of poetry mixed up with mathematical formulas" like in the scott/henson "organized mind" is, well, let's just say it's harder than that what richard d. james has to say depends on the moment, the mood, and how much he's being paid. by treating him as a cartoon character with mathematical inputs, i can generate far more reasonable approximations of what he might say than your average fanboy that maybe there was something in the windowlicker vid; i'm not sure i even do want to get too close. i've heard he takes chemtrails seriously |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is rather bizarre. probably at least fifteen years ago i started debating with myself: if you very thoughtfully imagine someone, are they temporarily borrowing your existence? your consciousness? and i found this a very charming thot. i'm not really sure of the answer, really, i was more like: that sounds freaking great. i think i'll do it like that so i have what is, i suppose, somewhere between an abstract mental machine and a private joke, and now microsoft has scraped the whole internet to create a genuine abomination, and it's like... i'm okay if something else is good at this too; it's just strange to have any company at all |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the zend engine decided it was no longer going to identify by its old pathname. i've updated the rolodex |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
