Wholeness

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Alright, what’s your counterpoint?


Golly, what do you know...he took me literally. 8)


Which means you never take yourself literally.

Btw... you didn’t put ‘me’ in quotes.

You’re done dude.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:18 pm

In a world in which power exists but moral meaning does not how can conflicting moral claims be resolved except by power?

What would be the basis for moderation, negotiation, or compromise, or democracy, or the rule of law in a world without moral meaning? In deed, what would be the basis of law?

In a world where all values are arbitrary why choose democracy? Why not unlimited self interest?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:26 pm

felix dakat wrote: In a world in which power exists but moral meaning does not how can conflicting moral claims be resolved except by power?


Ultimately, sure, in any relationship, personal or political, it's going to come down to who has the power to actually enforce a particular outcome. But "moral meaning" can also revolve around "right makes might". Here both sides -- all sides -- are able to agree on what consensually is said to be The Right Thing To Do. Only out in the real world something always changes and that gets thrown out of whack. Then either a new consensus or might makes right.

Also, there is the "moderation, negotiation and compromise"/"democracy and the rule of law" option. Here though there tends to be two versions:

1] Those on different sides regarding any particular issue are still moral objectivists, but they agree to allow elections to determine who has the power to legislate and enforce actual laws

2] Those on different sides accept that there is not an objective morality and that all they can do to the best of their ability is to work out a negotiated compromise so that everyone gets something but no one gets everything

Besides, name me a human community where "moral meaning" does not exist. If by morality you mean "rules of behavior" that are either rewarded or punished existentially, all human communities create meaning in the is/ought world. It only comes down to those who insist this meaning can be grasped essentially or only existentially.

felix dakat wrote: What would be the basis for moderation, negotiation, or compromise, or democracy, or the rule of law in a world without moral meaning? In deed, what would be the basis of law?


Well, here of course come the really big squabbles: is it based more or less on genes or on memes? Should it focus in more on "I" or "we"? Is it derived more from ever evolving historical and cultural sets of assumptions, or can those like philosophers devise a deontological assessment applicable to all human communities? Is there religion or a God involved?

Then, the particular contexts.

felix dakat wrote: In a world where all values are arbitrary why choose democracy? Why not unlimited self-interest?


Again, name me any human community where moral and political values are entirely arbitrary? That's preposterous. To my knowledge no such community has ever existed. Instead, values are derived from political economies precipitating particular customs, traditions, folkways, mores.

And democracy came into existence when, historically, feudalism begat mercantilism begat capitalism. Democracy and capitalism fit together organically because the market and not God or royalty or "the village" prevails. Or did so until crony capitalism and state capitalism came into existence.



Felix,

You really don't think these things through much, do you? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 44639
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:48 pm

So economic determinism then?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:32 pm

The whole is by no means static. Words themselves flow and so point to the flowing nature of the objects to which they refer. The objects are actually occasions or events in time.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:47 pm

Lorikeet wrote:Emasculated cunts, like iamretaded, but also Zoot Allures and others, worship nothingness as a way of escaping responsibility for their own life choices.
Individuals above middle-age, that have made one bad choice after another, until they've lost trust in their own judgments and those who cannot control their impulses, needing someone and something to blame, turn to nihilism for comfort. They call it "skepticism" and apply it selectively. You may have noticed that these hypocrites are not skeptical about all things and all theories. There are some which they swallow easily, and others that, no matter what, they will not dare even admit is possible.


What username does Zoot go by these days? I saw you logged in on like the 6th. Glad you’re not dead. Send me a link when you post the thing in the other place, please.
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:24 pm

A fundamental presupposition upon which almost every proposition on the ILP is based is that the structure of thought can be accurately represented as a linear sequence of written symbols. The ineffability of the mystical experience proves this is not the case. But only to people that have such experiences first hand. And only to those who integrate those experiences into their lives by reasonings from them.

Mystical experiences are statistically very common. Such experiences can be life changing events for individuals. But others live like they never happened. Their memories of the experiences become stories to be told as mere conversation pieces— anomalies in lives lived in conformity with prevailing social standards.

The integration of mystical experience into one’s mundane daily life is a means toward becoming whole. Traditionally psychic integration is sought through practices such as meditation prayer ritual and altruistic practices. This orthopraxy has more in common across the various world religions then the creeds which those denominations hold.
Last edited by felix dakat on Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:55 pm

Sigh...

Me:

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote: In a world in which power exists but moral meaning does not how can conflicting moral claims be resolved except by power?


Ultimately, sure, in any relationship, personal or political, it's going to come down to who has the power to actually enforce a particular outcome. But "moral meaning" can also revolve around "right makes might". Here both sides -- all sides -- are able to agree on what consensually is said to be The Right Thing To Do. Only out in the real world something always changes and that gets thrown out of whack. Then either a new consensus or might makes right.

Also, there is the "moderation, negotiation and compromise"/"democracy and the rule of law" option. Here though there tends to be two versions:

1] Those on different sides regarding any particular issue are still moral objectivists, but they agree to allow elections to determine who has the power to legislate and enforce actual laws

2] Those on different sides accept that there is not an objective morality and that all they can do to the best of their ability is to work out a negotiated compromise so that everyone gets something but no one gets everything

Besides, name me a human community where "moral meaning" does not exist. If by morality you mean "rules of behavior" that are either rewarded or punished existentially, all human communities create meaning in the is/ought world. It only comes down to those who insist this meaning can be grasped essentially or only existentially.

felix dakat wrote: What would be the basis for moderation, negotiation, or compromise, or democracy, or the rule of law in a world without moral meaning? In deed, what would be the basis of law?


Well, here of course come the really big squabbles: is it based more or less on genes or on memes? Should it focus in more on "I" or "we"? Is it derived more from ever evolving historical and cultural sets of assumptions, or can those like philosophers devise a deontological assessment applicable to all human communities? Is there religion or a God involved?

Then, the particular contexts.

felix dakat wrote: In a world where all values are arbitrary why choose democracy? Why not unlimited self-interest?


Again, name me any human community where moral and political values are entirely arbitrary? That's preposterous. To my knowledge no such community has ever existed. Instead, values are derived from political economies precipitating particular customs, traditions, folkways, mores.

And democracy came into existence when, historically, feudalism begat mercantilism begat capitalism. Democracy and capitalism fit together organically because the market and not God or royalty or "the village" prevails. Or did so until crony capitalism and state capitalism came into existence.




Him:

felix dakat wrote:So economic determinism then?



Then straight back up into the spiritual contraption clouds...

felix dakat wrote:A fundamental presupposition upon which almost every proposition on the ILP is based is that the structure of thought can be accurately represented as a linear sequence of written symbols. The ineffability mystical experience proves this is not the case. But only to people that have such experiences first hand. And only to those who integrate those experiences into their lives by reasonings from them.

Mystical experiences are statistically very common. Such experiences can be life changing events for individuals. But others live like they never happened. Their memories of the experiences become stories to be told as mere conversation pieces— anomalies in lives lived in conformity with prevailing social standards.

The integration of mystical experience into one’s mundane daily life is a means toward becoming whole. Traditionally psychic integration is sought through practices such as meditation prayer ritual and altruistic practices. This orthopraxy has more in common across the various world religions then the creeds which those denominations hold.


On the other hand, sure, if some here do have a "mystical experience" and it either does or does not contribute to them feeling "whole", let them provide us with as much descriptive detail as possible.

Is it an experience that others might have? Can these shared experiences be brought to a philosophy forum and used to explore what we might learn about connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then?

I'm certainly all for examining that. I just have never had such an experience myself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 44639
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:24 pm

Your ethical thinking has been influenced by Immanuel Kant. Am I right? You think in terms of the deontological and the kingdom of ends do you not? Only apparently you think Kant failed in his attempt to construct a rational universal ethical system.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:05 pm

As a thought experiment, try leaving your putatively rational linear goal-directed planning for a spell, and becoming aware of how people and things “speak” to you. Like a dish that needs washing or a friend who's need you become aware of without the person actually telling you about it. The need itself "speaks". There is so much good to do if we just pay attention to the inner light of consciousness. We can re-enchant the world by letting it unfold and speak to us.

Searles illustrates this with machines in his famous The Chinese Room thought experiment:

This vacuum cleaner can pick up the tiniest grains of sand. My new Lexus can choose the best route to the ski resort and take me there in the shortest possible time. My microwave can bake a cake in six minutes. My car refuses to start. This vending machine is a bit recalcitrant; I'd better give it a kick.


George Lakoff { Philosophy In The Flesh } points out that Searles is appropriating the "Machine As Person metaphor" which is no doubt true. But, my point is to emphasize that this way of thinking unfolds this way spontaneously if we allow ourselves to become aware of it by suspending self directed "rational" planning. The teleology of objects which come to our attention will simply present itself to us unbidden.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:59 am

Parmenides proceeded: If one is, he said, the one cannot be many?
Impossible.
Then the one cannot have parts, and cannot be a whole?
Why not?
Because every part is part of a whole; is it not?
Yes.
And what is a whole? would not that of which no part is wanting be a whole?
Certainly.
Then, in either case, the one would be made up of parts; both as being a whole, and also as having parts?
To be sure.
And in either case, the one would be many, and not one?
True.
But, surely, it ought to be one and not many?
It ought.
Then, if the one is to remain one, it will not be a whole, and will not have parts?
No.
But if it has no parts, it will have neither beginning, middle, nor end; for these would of course be parts of it.
Right.
But then, again, a beginning and an end are the limits of everything?
Certainly.
Then the one, having neither beginning nor end, is unlimited?
Yes, unlimited.

Plato. Parmenides . Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:01 am

felix dakat wrote:Parmenides proceeded: If one is, he said, the one cannot be many?
Impossible.
Then the one cannot have parts, and cannot be a whole?
Why not?
Because every part is part of a whole; is it not?
Yes.
And what is a whole? would not that of which no part is wanting be a whole?
Certainly.
Then, in either case, the one would be made up of parts; both as being a whole, and also as having parts?
To be sure.
And in either case, the one would be many, and not one?
True.
But, surely, it ought to be one and not many?
It ought.
Then, if the one is to remain one, it will not be a whole, and will not have parts?
No.
But if it has no parts, it will have neither beginning, middle, nor end; for these would of course be parts of it.
Right.
But then, again, a beginning and an end are the limits of everything?
Certainly.
Then the one, having neither beginning nor end, is unlimited?
Yes, unlimited.

Plato. Parmenides . Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.


https://youtu.be/puwoUKhZQbg
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:51 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Parmenides proceeded: If one is, he said, the one cannot be many?
Impossible.
Then the one cannot have parts, and cannot be a whole?
Why not?
Because every part is part of a whole; is it not?
Yes.
And what is a whole? would not that of which no part is wanting be a whole?
Certainly.
Then, in either case, the one would be made up of parts; both as being a whole, and also as having parts?
To be sure.
And in either case, the one would be many, and not one?
True.
But, surely, it ought to be one and not many?
It ought.
Then, if the one is to remain one, it will not be a whole, and will not have parts?
No.
But if it has no parts, it will have neither beginning, middle, nor end; for these would of course be parts of it.
Right.
But then, again, a beginning and an end are the limits of everything?
Certainly.
Then the one, having neither beginning nor end, is unlimited?
Yes, unlimited.

Plato. Parmenides . Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.


https://youtu.be/puwoUKhZQbg


Ha ha! Like the Tao, wisdom wouldn’t be wisdom if it were not mocked! Besides, you really have to read the whole dialogue to get what Parmenides is saying there.

The One transcends wholeness.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:10 pm

So who are we really? What do we mean by our “ inner life“?

Tell me if these experiences are yours. There’s the experience of trying to control our bodies which sometimes get out of control. Then there’s experience of the conflict between our conscious values and the values implicit in our behavior. And what about the experience of conflict between what we believe about ourselves and what other people believe about us? And then there’s the experience of taking another’s point of view and trying to see the world as they do. And finally there’s the inner dialogue that we’re always having with ourselves.

Are these experiences universal? Or do people have a single unified concept of their inner life that covers all these kinds of experiences? Do people describe the basics experience of themselves the same way in different cultures?

Think of the locus of consciousness subjective experience reason will and everything that makes us who we uniquely are as the subject. And think of the self as consisting of everything else about us our bodies our social roles our histories etc.

Do you have a single unified notion of your inner life? Do you experience one single subject self distinction or do you experience many? Is your experience of the relationship of the subject to self a consistent literal concept?

Is the subject that you are a person? And what does that mean exactly? What about the objective self is it always a person or can it be an object or location?

Is the way we normally conceptualize our inner lives consistent with what is known scientifically about the nature of mind? If our system for conceptualizing are inner lives always includes a subject there is the locus of reason and that has an existence independent of the body, does that contradict the findings of cognitive science?

If so it appears that the conception of such a subject arises uniformly around the world on the basis of universal and unchangeable experiences. If this is true then is our view of our inner lives mostly unconscious and our self-understanding inconsistent and incompatible with the current prevailing theories of cognitive science?
Last edited by felix dakat on Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:28 pm

I wasn’t mocking Parmenides.

Misunderstood like Socrates. Often/usually.
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:52 pm

felix dakat wrote:A fundamental presupposition upon which almost every proposition on the ILP is based is that the structure of thought can be accurately represented as a linear sequence of written symbols. The ineffability mystical experience proves this is not the case. But only to people that have such experiences first hand. And only to those who integrate those experiences into their lives by reasonings from them.

Mystical experiences are statistically very common. Such experiences can be life changing events for individuals. But others live like they never happened. Their memories of the experiences become stories to be told as mere conversation pieces— anomalies in lives lived in conformity with prevailing social standards.

The integration of mystical experience into one’s mundane daily life is a means toward becoming whole. Traditionally psychic integration is sought through practices such as meditation prayer ritual and altruistic practices. This orthopraxy has more in common across the various world religions then the creeds which those denominations hold.


iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, sure, if some here do have a "mystical experience" and it either does or does not contribute to them feeling "whole", let them provide us with as much descriptive detail as possible.

Is it an experience that others might have? Can these shared experiences be brought to a philosophy forum and used to explore what we might learn about connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then?

I'm certainly all for examining that. I just have never had such an experience myself.


felix dakat wrote:Your ethical thinking has been influenced by Immanuel Kant. Am I right? You think in terms of the deontological and the kingdom of ends do you not? Only apparently you think Kant failed in his attempt to construct a rational universal ethical system.


First of all, there are different people responding to each other's points here. But you don't address this to anyone in particular. So, I can only assume this post pertains to me.

And, if so, yeah, there are those like Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand, who argue that, philosophically, the rational human mind can "think up" moral obligations. Categorically and imperatively as it were. Same with those like Plato and Descartes. But, unlike with Rand, all the others eventually came down to arguing in turn for the necessity of a "transcendent" font. God, let's call it.

Me, I start with the assumption that we live in a No God world. And given the absence of an omniscient and omnipotent transcending font, mere mortals derive their own individual moral narratives re the arguments I make in my signature threads. The assumptions I make about dasein.

Given free will and accepting the seeming inherent impediments here re both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

Not clear what I mean about that? Okay, choose a particular conflicting good out in a particular set of circumstances and let's discuss it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 44639
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:31 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:I wasn’t mocking Parmenides.

Misunderstood like Socrates. Often/usually.


Posting the church lady video was an ambiguous act. I chose not to take it seriously. Should I have done otherwise?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:38 pm

Duplicate
Last edited by felix dakat on Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:A fundamental presupposition upon which almost every proposition on the ILP is based is that the structure of thought can be accurately represented as a linear sequence of written symbols. The ineffability mystical experience proves this is not the case. But only to people that have such experiences first hand. And only to those who integrate those experiences into their lives by reasonings from them.

Mystical experiences are statistically very common. Such experiences can be life changing events for individuals. But others live like they never happened. Their memories of the experiences become stories to be told as mere conversation pieces— anomalies in lives lived in conformity with prevailing social standards.

The integration of mystical experience into one’s mundane daily life is a means toward becoming whole. Traditionally psychic integration is sought through practices such as meditation prayer ritual and altruistic practices. This orthopraxy has more in common across the various world religions then the creeds which those denominations hold.


iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, sure, if some here do have a "mystical experience" and it either does or does not contribute to them feeling "whole", let them provide us with as much descriptive detail as possible.

Is it an experience that others might have? Can these shared experiences be brought to a philosophy forum and used to explore what we might learn about connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then?

I'm certainly all for examining that. I just have never had such an experience myself.


felix dakat wrote:Your ethical thinking has been influenced by Immanuel Kant. Am I right? You think in terms of the deontological and the kingdom of ends do you not? Only apparently you think Kant failed in his attempt to construct a rational universal ethical system.


First of all, there are different people responding to each other's points here. But you don't address this to anyone in particular. So, I can only assume this post pertains to me.

And, if so, yeah, there are those like Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand, who argue that, philosophically, the rational human mind can "think up" moral obligations. Categorically and imperatively as it were. Same with those like Plato and Descartes. But, unlike with Rand, all the others eventually came down to arguing in turn for the necessity of a "transcendent" font. God, let's call it.

Me, I start with the assumption that we live in a No God world. And given the absence of an omniscient and omnipotent transcending font, mere mortals derive their own individual moral narratives re the arguments I make in my signature threads. The assumptions I make about dasein.

Given free will and accepting the seeming inherent impediments here re both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

Not clear what I mean about that? Okay, choose a particular conflicting good out in a particular set of circumstances and let's discuss it.


Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I plan to develop my post of 11:10 AM further. I expect the moral implications of my thinking about the inner life will follow downstream from there.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:10 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:I wasn’t mocking Parmenides.

Misunderstood like Socrates. Often/usually.


Posting the church lady video was an ambiguous act. I chose not to take it seriously. Should I have done otherwise?


It was meant to say, “Hey, I recognize that” in a “not at all surprised” way… humorously.

People try to say Socrates did not have answers. He very well did. So did Parmenides. So did Kant lol.

So does iambiguous ;)

We all do. Even if we don’t see it yet. The raw material is RIGHT THERE.

It’s kinda beautiful.
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:52 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:I wasn’t mocking Parmenides.

Misunderstood like Socrates. Often/usually.


Posting the church lady video was an ambiguous act. I chose not to take it seriously. Should I have done otherwise?


It was meant to say, “Hey, I recognize that” in a “not at all surprised” way… humorously.

People try to say Socrates did not have answers. He very well did. So did Parmenides. So did Kant lol.

So does iambiguous ;)

We all do. Even if we don’t see it yet. The raw material is RIGHT THERE.

It’s kinda beautiful.


Socrates was considered wise because he knew that he knew nothing.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:03 pm

He was in contact with “the god” who surpasses full understanding. He knew but a whit.
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:03 pm

knows
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:10 pm

Morality is about well-being. All moral ideals such as goodness justice fairness virtue freedom rights and compassion stem from our fundamental concern with what is best for us. Judgments about how we are to live follow from this.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:22 pm

define well & best
An irony I just recently realized is they woo you away by whetting and feeding your Why? appetite, and then they insult you when you expect an answer that actually satisfies it. Edit: That, or they are trying to give you hints to solve the riddle because they don't want to spoil it for you. ;)
Ichthus77
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Coram Deo

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users