Rightglory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2017, 11:01 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 05:25 PM)ethos Wrote:  You survived that and you still write me? Woah. Big Grin.

Now, from what I gather, we have a difference not in mental functions, but in what we have chosen to be our aesthetic approaches to life.
I speak for something that is out of this world. How can we judge it with our means that are from this world?
...
(13-10-2017 01:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Not a problem. I'm fine with novels. Even at 3:50am (here).

But I confess that like Robvalue, I struggled to comprehend. I'll have to read your reply a few times to see how you got all that from what I wrote.

It might be a language thing. So maybe some definitions might be useful.

Did you mean "notion" as 1. or 2.?

1. a conception of or belief about something.
2. an impulse or desire, especially one of a whimsical kind.

If 1. then yes, notions (conception) will emerge (as a processing output) from direct or indirect experience (the input)
or notions (beliefs) form to become a baseline for individual ethics.
If 2. then yes if one counts 'sensory data' as 'experience'.

I didn't suggest 'lifeless'.
I don't know what you mean by 'stones', 'spirit' or 'reactionary atheistic', but I'd be interested to find out.

And I hope you don't mind a little pedantry if I correct a spelling error... I think you want to say 'through'; 'trough' is a long, narrow open container from which animals
eat or drink; or in a wave, the opposite of 'peak'.

Smile

Thanks for your reply. I understood a lot about myself from reading it. Lets fix those things with fewer words. When rereading it I get I might have seemed ignorant and offensive, sorry in advance.
I got that the conception of love you have links love with lust, right? And comparing it with the one I have trough faith, it seems less rich to me... DId you see the spoiler about "love" ?

Stones - I oversimplified. I meant the theory of an asteroid hitting Earth and carrying life on it, triggering evolution with that. Why would that possibility ever exclude God? And why people use these facts to justify their resentment of the idea of calling the Reason for the universe - God ?

Spirit - hm, I mean spirit. Dumbing down that term to something more understandable will make the conception suffer. Let me try though.

Its a bit like "The whole is more than the sum of the parts" principle.

Thank you. That does make things a whole lot clearer.

And yes, it does seem to be a case of aesthetic choices. We both recognise that "we see through a glass darkly" (or Dawkins' Middle World concept; or Kant's realms of phenomena and noumena) and it's then just a question of which intellectual/epistemological filters we find useful.

I do not see it as ignorance and I am not offended. I can make the distinction between a scientific lens and a poetic lens and will use either or both depending on my mood.

I noticed your spelling of 'through' as "trough" again. Don't worry, I'll get used to it.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:57 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:01 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I noticed your spelling of 'through' as "trough" again. Don't worry, I'll get used to it.

Don't let the errorists win! No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
14-10-2017, 12:11 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Don't let the errorists win! No

[Image: tenor.gif]

Over the last several months this gif has given me way more joy than it ever should have [Image: ashame10.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 12:12 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-10-2017 11:01 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I noticed your spelling of 'through' as "trough" again. Don't worry, I'll get used to it.

Don't let the errorists win! No

Yabut! If we banned everyone trying to enter the forum who it's their itses or its their it'ses we'd have no one left to do the dirty jobs we don't want to do.

Also, more people die every day in diving accidents on the roads or through accidental un-violence than trough errorism.

(welcome back, btw).

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:01 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Thank you. That does make things a whole lot clearer.

And yes, it does seem to be a case of aesthetic choices. We both recognise that "we see through a glass darkly" (or Dawkins' Middle World concept; or Kant's realms of phenomena and noumena) and it's then just a question of which intellectual/epistemological filters we find useful.

I do not see it as ignorance and I am not offended. I can make the distinction between a scientific lens and a poetic lens and will use either or both depending on my mood.

I noticed your spelling of 'through' as "trough" again. Don't worry, I'll get used to it.

Thumbsup


Sorry, Sorry!! Just bear with me through the thorough cleansing of this habit in which I err so stubbornly, even if you need to feed me (lexically) through a trough!
Disclaimer: That should mean nothing, that is meant to be woo, art is woo!

(Thanks, DLJ. Your response is awesome and I agree, I need to read it again though when I am not in a "zombie" state!)


Guyz, I am exhausted, having slept five hours and going to work like that, but that was due to the super-strong shot of emotional high I got from this discussion. I am like soo happy. You are awesome, really different from one another and most of you seem like trying to communicate with me. I need to sleep though, I will respond asap like in some days. Oh, if you ask on what am I... guess I am on "people's opium" ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2017 09:41 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
Hey!

Thank you again for writing everybody, I enjoy talking with you.

After some sleep, I threw a second glance at what you labeled "wall of woo". I got horrified from myself. But also thrilled from what happened in a way.

Why thrilled - because, if you think it through, you will see that you should get woo when you try to apply the human process of reasoning to Faith. This is what actually happened with my egotistical attempt. I did it only because of trying to put 'faith' on the same "plane" as yours, put the same "lens" (as DLJ put it) when observing it so we could communicate.
Btw, that also happens when you do the same with (true) Art. Like, when you try to explain a masterpiece, you destroy its value. This is very common behavior nowadays, it was very evident as well in the 19th century music, when historically music theory started to develop and many composers tried to construct pieces not lead by "inspiration", but mainly by "rational formulas" they have extracted from previous 'masterpieces' , in attempt to understand them and reproduce them. So, according to my taste, when I compare music from the e.g. Baroque era to e.g. pop music or pop art , my aesthetic feeling clearly "sees" the down curve in their aesthetic quality.
I got thrilled for other reasons too (listed if you are interested) :
- I got to understand how egotistical I am and how far from (Rightglory) Christianity. In fact I wish to go away and quit speaking for something that is outside of my capacity, for I mislead you
- I understood yet again that when explaining something to somebody else, you should always 'take every step' along your line of reasoning, and never permit yourself of doing 'a leap', as you might habitually do when you think by yourself, in order to save time for convenience.
- I got to appreciate once more the impeccable reasoning line (some of you) try to observe.
- Also got another impression for that matter I don't like to share.
- I decided that if I post here, I would quit being sarcastic just to impress you, quit with the mocking. (Of course that I, like you, am used to enjoy being sarcastic.

Lets indeed refrain from making assumptions as some of you remarked, before determining whether they are relevant. Preferably by communicating with each other.

(13-10-2017 06:27 PM)natachan Wrote:  So I was right.

Most of what I read was unintelligible nonsense that just sounded profound but meant little. If the belief is "an aesthetic choice" then I just don't understand why you would do that.
Yes, I don't understand it either and I agree that some of what I attempted to explain doesn't yield to that process. By the way, I hope I don't offend you by not putting reason as the ultimate value on my "values scale" . It is perhaps penultimate. I am happy to see that you respect that choice of mine as I respect yours.

Quote:The truth isn't always pleasant. I would like it if libertarian free will existed, but there is no reason to think it does. Should I continue to believe in it because it would make me happy? Or should I accept what is evident and make peace with it?

This is the question we answer our whole lives. However, would you agree that it is unreasonable to assume the opposite as well - that just because truth isn't pleasant, especially for those that are used of fearing it - means that only what makes you unhappy is real?

I am also curious to how would you make peace with the second choice, based on what is evident. If somebody has inclinations to e.g. extreme anger and surrenders to it, why is it that after it, especially if it caused something graver to happen, we feel remorse? Why is that, how come that we have this, additional to the other five senses, "sense" we call conscience? Would we achieve piece by dumbing it down, or would we only rid ourselves from a sense to perceive the world with?

Quote:I'm not sure why you disparage the material world or human relations. It seems odd to me.

I don't disparage them, but I don't absolutize them either.

(13-10-2017 06:52 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-10-2017 05:25 PM)ethos Wrote:  Yup, you didn't. But thats what it seemed your way of thinking implied. Am I wrong to assume you don't care a lot about the image you project about yourself to me?

I have no control over what you infer. I did not imply that. The image you project is that you don't listen to anything anybody says but just go off on whatever tangent happens to catch your stream of consciousness.

Thanks for the observation, sorry about projecting such an image.
I like you calling it "stream of consciousness". Apart from authors like Woolf, would you recommend me something to read related to this term, that seemed interesting to you?

(13-10-2017 05:25 PM)ethos Wrote:  Ok, so back to the start then? I do appreciate you do the opposite, so yay, we've found something in common.
Quote:I do the opposite so we have something in common? You make no sense at all.
I am sorry to habitually shortcut my "line of reasoning" and thus make everything that I write seem like a "metaphor". I wrongly assumed that a "leap" along that "line" could be done for that sentence. So, what I meant - we appreciate the same quality, that is - to be able to present concisely one's thought. Even so, I wasn't really able to do that while you achieved the opposite of me - you presented your thoughts concisely. . This appreciation is a common quality to us. I leaped just towards the conclusion - as this line of reasoning was obvious to me - in an attempt of being concise, wrongly assuming it would be obvious to anyone.

Quote:There's that condescension again. Why do you insist on not dealing with what people say but try to guess at their motives? It's really annoying.

Indeed. Sorry. I said it above, I am horrified from myself after having seen what I have written. I will try to be sincere and refrain from sarcasm from now on, my apologies.

Quote:
My belief that "there is no relevance in the universe"? That phrase does not have any meaning that I can determine. I have no clue what you are trying to say there.

You are familiar with the Golden ratio ? The Euclidian proportion, revived in the Renaissance in Western Europe? People observed this all around the natural world, that
a is to b as a+b is to a . This could be observed on different scales of reality, be it in galaxies or in plants , implying there is a certain relation of the whole to its parts in properties like shapes, size, arrangement in space, or other. There are similar observations in good music or Art in general, many times achieved unintentionally (in music at least).

So, when I speak about your belief there was no relevance in the universe, I imply either a reason for you to refuse accepting this and other similar observations like the Golden ratio, or simply for you not knowing about them, what I doubt.

Quote:I don't see that there is any need to assume that there is some reason for having personalities. Why would I look for a reason for something that doesn't need one beyond what we know about the evolution of social animals?

If one keeps an open mind, he would not refuse the possibility to look for something. From what I read, you base a refusal to look for something on a personal perception about "need" what I wouldn't agree with.

(13-10-2017 05:25 PM)ethos Wrote:  I don't think I am correct in my idea of God.
Quote:Then why do you believe any of it?
- As it is irrational to try using my mind for something that rationally ought be beyond it (unless you want to get woo) , I am not so concerned about what my idea about God is and whether it is correct, but rather on how He manifests Himself in my life throughout it, how I experience Him not just with my mind but also by my whole life and its events in time.
He reveals us to be bigger than one's life, than our perception of rational, of big or small, life and death, outside of time - thus I assume only through means that are out of my reach, that is, that would seem irrational to me, I could approach Him at all. So I choose not to think about Him only through my mind and establish imperfect notions about Him, thus to make a "line of reasoning"* about Him, rather - to perform the ultimate "leap" along the reasoning line - believing Him.
So, I believe in Him because I got in love with how He manifested in my "life, my mind, my thoughts, my heart, my body". And the dearest thing I could give Him in return for what He manifested as His love to me in my life - that is my faith. Why? Because He revealed to be the Reason for everything, everything that I am, I have or could ever have. So what could I give to Whom gave me everything? He provided me with that possibility with free will, as only there I could do something outside** His will, thus I could "give" something Whom doesn't need anything. And since everything is His, even my love for Him, how could I give Him anything? He provides that possibility by not manifesting to us constantly, thus giving us a possibility to either believe or not believe in Him. The possibility to transcend our gifts, our minds, our life itself by surrendering them to Him, or the possibility not to do that, to clutch to them. So, Faith is the only gift that I could give Him.

So, I believe in Him because I love Him.

*Reasoning line is what we spoke just a few paragraphs above. I don't like to explain what do I mean by that once more as it would become too long, check the second "spoiler" button.

**outside His will is figuratively speaking, He is Who is providing me the possibility to be free from His will.

Quote:Why do you call it "right glory" if you do not think it is right?
Why do you castigate other denominations as heretical when you don't know that they aren't more correct than you?
I never said I didn't believe (rightglory) Christianity was right! I trusted it because it isn't a product of my own mind, but of the reality I experience and what reality gave me in my life up to now. So I tried trusting it, and my trust is only growing from then, based on my experience when increasing the trust I give. I call it rightglory out of convenience, to distinguish it from its dead sprouts that pretend to be Christianity. I know they are wrong even by the secular version of history, something that is (still) possible for everybody to do by just tracing the origins of Christianity. The oldest places in the world that historically are tied to Christianity are orthodox. Still possible to verify.


Quote:Woo is the unsubstantiated bullshit you've been posting about infinities and needing to find a reason for personalities and finding "relevance in the universe". The evidence for it being woo is that you are linking apparently unrelated concepts without any explanation of why you believe a connection exists along with the number of people responding that they can not follow what you are saying. Its all touchy-feely new-age nonsense that has no basis in reality as far as I can tell. That's woo.

Ok.


(13-10-2017 07:08 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  ethos, for what it’s worth, and I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t have some hope of you becoming a contributing member; that wall of text and the streaming consciousness that created it is incomprehensible.

It looks like I’m not the only one who could make much sense of it or, truth be told, wanted to try.

I don’t know if it’s a language issue but please do try to be more concise and more direct. I know I, for one, would appreciate it.

Okay, Full Circle. I agree to that, as you possibly have seen. Did you follow me above on why it happened, why my attempt ended in woo?

(13-10-2017 09:11 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  @ethos

What you wrote is wall of woo and I don't see much reason to sift through it.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka


Yup, you are right. You know, I threw a glance and couldn't read more than 3 seconds of it, then I got repulsed by myself. Would you like me to attempt responding to you once more? If yes, perhaps your questions have changed a bit?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ethos's post
14-10-2017, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2017 08:28 PM by natachan.)
RE: Rightglory?
Quote:Yes, I don't understand it either and I agree that some of what I attempted to explain doesn't yield to that process. By the way, I hope I don't offend you by not putting Reason as the ultimate value on my "values scale" , I am happy to see that you respect that choice of mine as I respect yours.

It doesn't offend me. I just don't know why you would choose that. I don't value happiness if it is based on lies or irrationality. Happiness to me is a goal that results from values I have achieved. I value truth and reason, so happiness for me cannot result from their denial.

Quote:This is the question we answer our whole lives. However, would you agree that it is unreasonable to assume the opposite as well - that just because truth isn't pleasant, especially for those that are used of fearing it - means that only what makes you unhappy is real?

Why would I do that? Reality is independent of our desires or wishes. It doesn't matter if it makes you happy or unhappy. It is what it is. Blue does not cease to be blue because we would prefer it be purple.

Quote:I am also curious to how would you make peace with the second choice, based on what is evident.

I have no other choice. It is what it is. But from your next phrase it seems you seem to believe in free will in a way I don't. You point to our sense of guilt and empathy as evidence of this. I see no conflict. We evolved as a social species and it would make sense for pro-social tendencies to be selected for. I tend to view our brains as a series of algorithms. Would it not make sense for pro-social algorithms to be hard wired into us? This would allow for deviations but tend towards senses of sadness inevitably upon the completion of said deviation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 09:18 PM
RE: Rightglory?
@ethos

My questions did not changed.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2017 10:27 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
EDIT to reply to unfogged sorry, this paragraph needed editing in the last lines, but people responded in the meantime, so I couldn't do it in my original post. I got horrified from some woo in the next paragraph as well. Read it from here:

- As it is irrational to try using my mind for something that rationally ought be beyond it (unless you want to get woo) , I am not so concerned about what my idea about God is and whether it is correct, but rather on how He manifests Himself in my life throughout it, how I experience Him not just with my mind but also by my whole life and its events in time.
He reveals us to be bigger than one's life, than our perception of rational, of big or small, life and death, outside of time - thus I assume only through means that are out of my reach, that is, that would seem irrational to me, I could approach Him at all. So I choose not to think about Him only through my mind and establish imperfect notions about Him, thus to make a "line of reasoning"* about Him, rather - to perform the ultimate "leap" along the reasoning line - believing Him.

So, I believe in Him because I got in love with how He manifested in my "life, my mind, my thoughts, my heart, my body".

How can I express my love to Him? By giving Him the dearest thing I have.

How could I give something to Whom gave me everything? He provided me with that possibility with free will, as only there I could do something outside** His will, thus I could "give" something Whom doesn't need anything.
What could I give Him, since everything is His, even my love for Him? He provides us with that as well by not manifesting in our reality constantly, thus giving us a possibility to either believe or not believe in Him. The possibility to transcend our gifts, our minds, our life itself by surrendering them to Him, or the possibility not to do that, to clutch to them. So, Faith to constantly chose His will over ours in our lives - this is the only gift that we could give Him based on what He revealed us He accepts in (rightglory) Christianity.


So, I believe in Him because I love Him.

*Reasoning line is what we spoke just a few paragraphs above. I don't like to explain what do I mean by that once more as it would become too long, check the second "spoiler" button.

**outside His will is figuratively speaking, He is Who is providing me the possibility to be free from His will.

Why do you call it "right glory" if you do not think it is right?
Why do you castigate other denominations as heretical when you don't know that they aren't more correct than you?


I never said I didn't believe (rightglory) Christianity was right! I trusted it precisely because it isn't a product of my own mind, but of the reality I experience and what reality gave me in my life up to now. So I tried trusting it, and my trust is only growing from then, based on my experiences I had with it. I call it orthodox out of convenience, to distinguish it from its dead sprouts that pretend to be Christianity. I know they are wrong even by the standards of the secular version of history, thus it is something that is possible for everybody to discern just by tracing the origins of (orthodox) Christianity. The oldest places in the world that historically are tied to Christianity are orthodox. Still possible to verify.


Thanks for your replies natachan and Szuchow , I will reply to you asap, I go sleep now finally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2017, 10:16 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(14-10-2017 07:49 PM)ethos Wrote:  ...
Btw, that also happens when you do the same with (true) Art. Like, when you try to explain a masterpiece, you destroy its value.
...

I understand what you are say here but I disagree.

Certainly the reductionist approach may be destroying its mystery but not its value. Value is relative and subjective.

[Image: quote-one-of-the-problems-of-taking-thin...337073.jpg]

So yes, I can appreciate the notion of Holism but at the same time a deeper understanding of a masterpiece (art, music, architecture or scientific theory) i.e. an enlightenment, can reveal deeper layers of wonder or beauty or value.

So, the fact that I understand the chemistry of 'love' for example, does not mean that I cannot experience it.

But it might mean the reduced likelihood that love will drive me to madness.

The world is no less wondrous because we understand how it works. In fact, our appreciation may deepen.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: