tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post4584309242862342086..comments2023-06-21T06:55:20.461-05:00Comments on Logic, Sin, and Love: Speculations on the Path of Reasonscott robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11349533381354610156noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-16551248627556673732008-03-13T11:24:00.000-05:002008-03-13T11:24:00.000-05:00To the more recent "Anonymous" (I have disallowed ...To the more recent "Anonymous" (I have disallowed anonymous comments -- I prefer to be able to distinguish who is commenting):<BR/><BR/>What does this rant have to do with anything I have said? Please think about my posts before regurgitating tired old thoughts about God.scott robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349533381354610156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-34699772737660275262008-03-12T22:16:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:16:00.000-05:00"Where there is an other fear arises."What ever el..."Where there is an other fear arises."<BR/><BR/>What ever else Western mono-theistic religion pretends to say about God it is based on the presumption that we are inherently separate from Real God, the World Process altogether, and from each other and all other sentient beings.<BR/><BR/>Simultaneous with this presumption of separateness, everything is thus objectified. <BR/>Beginning, both historically and in now time, with God as the always other and objectified "great relation". <BR/><BR/>Contrary to its presumed intentions ALL of the usual "theology" effectively reduces The Divine to the mortal human meat-body scale and thereby seeks to control The Divine. <BR/><BR/>The Divine can then be used to justify all of the usual horrors of life including the INEVITABLE wars and imperial invasions.<BR/><BR/>Plus the moment you objectify anything you automatically seek to gain total power and control over everything. And even eventually destroy the thus objectified "other". <BR/><BR/>Everything "other", including The Divine, thus becomes your mortal enemy, and you are thus always at war with everything including The Divine.<BR/><BR/>Western "culture" (in particular) is thus saturated with fear and is based on the drive to total power and control over everything.<BR/><BR/>As a collective force Western "culture" has thus reached a perhaps terminal point because it has relentlessly objectified quite literally everything, and is now in the inevitable process of destroying everything.<BR/><BR/>Such a destruction process being the Inevitable outcome or manifestation of the fear saturated "cultural" script that drives it.<BR/><BR/>Strangely and grotequely enough many right wing religionists are loudly cheering this process along. All in the name of the "final victory". <BR/><BR/>Either in the form of the final HIS-story-ical "victory" over Islam or vice-versa.<BR/><BR/>Or the final "victory" of "jesus".<BR/><BR/>Or both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-84276161904595090422008-02-21T17:12:00.000-06:002008-02-21T17:12:00.000-06:00The self is undefinable, absolutely. The whole ide...The self is undefinable, absolutely. The whole idea of the saying "know thyself" is to say also, "what is the sound of one hand clapping". It is a saying who's intention is to quite the reasoning mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-42764705703660951612008-02-21T08:59:00.000-06:002008-02-21T08:59:00.000-06:00Where this leads to (see here) is that I think the...Where this leads to (see <A HREF="http://logicsinandlove.blogspot.com/2008/01/argument-for-reality-of-eternity.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>) is that I think the cause of these "logical difficulties" is that the self is not spatiotemporal. Which, if true, means that we are dealing not with logical difficulties, but with logical impossibilities -- but of course that cannot be proved. Hence, I think that the problem is not with a definition of the self being nebulous, but that the self itself is (in terms useful to Aristotelian logic) undefinable.scott robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349533381354610156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-1880242801326426682008-02-20T17:40:00.000-06:002008-02-20T17:40:00.000-06:00I'm not sure where this leads one too? That is to ...I'm not sure where this leads one too? That is to say, I'm quite comfortable with the logical difficulty this line of reasoning poses. This only mens our definition of self is, at the bottom, quite nebulous.<BR/><BR/>You seem to have some scientific underppinings here that your drawing on and/or that your considering aside from what your saying? <BR/><BR/>I'd be interested in to see you continue this subject on a much larger scale. As it stands we're just sort of hanging here... I'd give you my thoughts on this, but I'd rather not attempt to tak ethe place of anything you havn't yet said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-47974043902378939662008-02-18T16:14:00.000-06:002008-02-18T16:14:00.000-06:00Anonymous,First, I could have used the word "endur...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>First, I could have used the word "endures" and "duration" rather than "persists" and "persistence", if that's any help.<BR/><BR/>On your first question, what it means is the same as what you say at the end: <EM>I would be of the frame of mind that nothing actually persists per-se. (If persists means to continue on existing in some static form.</EM><BR/><BR/>In other words, all I was doing in this part is to give the reasoning behind saying "One cannot say that the self persists".<BR/><BR/>I just mentioned two 'I's, since I was abstracting a hypothetical situation of just one change, but of course you are right that there would be innumerable 'I's. But that really means there wouldn't be any 'I's, since none would endure long enough to say "I am". Which is why one cannot say the self does not persist.<BR/><BR/>In other words, believing that the self persists leads one into logical difficulty, and believing that the self does not persist also leads one into logical difficulty.scott robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349533381354610156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-46398171999203309462008-02-18T14:23:00.000-06:002008-02-18T14:23:00.000-06:00Scott,I'm not so sure I understand you here:And so...Scott,<BR/>I'm not so sure I understand you here:<BR/>And so, in order to persist when it observes objects, the self must not persist when it observes objects. Hence, one concludes: one cannot say that the self persists.<BR/><BR/>I also don't understand where you get two I's from? You state that one may go from not seeing a tree, to seeing a tree (with respect to persistance). But... You are always persisting with respect to the continual flow on new stimuli from second to second. This being the case, are there infinate I's?<BR/><BR/>Let me try to me more clear:<BR/>I would be of the frame of mind that nothing actually persists per-sa. (If persists means to continue on existing in some static form). And if the I you refer to is in fact a static I, then no doubt they are infinate.<BR/><BR/>I'm hung up on your usage of persistance, and cannot find a way to respond to this as a result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-28032200296684571092008-02-14T17:46:00.000-06:002008-02-14T17:46:00.000-06:00Before I get into thinking about this the first th...Before I get into thinking about this the first thing that came to mind was regarding the contrast you used between eastern and western thought.<BR/><BR/>For the west:<BR/>To idolize god, is a wrong, is sinfull. Yet the west has always idolized the self. Look to any religious institution, or the west in general. <BR/><BR/>For the east:<BR/>to idolize self, is wrong, "sinfull". However in this case the east always idolizes "god". We need only to look to hinduism, which as I may have said before has idols for many gods. We must however understand that the idols are seen as merely representations of the many ways in which "god" manifests himself and gives the eastern thinker a lanuage with which to talk about "god".<BR/><BR/>But again, this doesn't even touch upon your idea, it's simply where I started...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6961013213295784744.post-73171424343702263562008-02-14T17:34:00.000-06:002008-02-14T17:34:00.000-06:00Scott, (I love where this leads to)this is a gigan...Scott, (I love where this leads to)<BR/>this is a gigantic idea, but with vary little words. No doubt you have countless hours of thought behind this. I have some things I'd like to say about it, but I'm affraid I'll have to think about this one for a while.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com