U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2010, 01:21 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,208,227 times
Reputation: 151

Advertisements

Well, I think I will comment on my comment before the last of my comments. There is a thing called the existential axiom. This is philosophy, so bringing in the existential should be fine, and speculating should be fine, after all, philosophy is about "wonder" in both senses of the word-or it used to be. As with all things there are several ways to look at something, each structure or system has its own view of what goes by the term reality, and for a person to carry a few of these that oppose each other when working with the same category that concerns them all, and still function as a human being, well that is the human's rise to greatness and worthy of one's being-few can do it. Usually, the idea is when one realizes the nature of the system one is operating in, or from with, one then is free of the system's constraints. The problem then is what to do next-enough of axioms. Existentially one is always enmeshed in the crisis of decision because one doesn't have access to all possibilities one has to contend with in order to make a decision. Time constrains a lot of experiments to see how a decision will play out. We can abort a kid but then we can't also keep it alive under various conditions to see the out come of all possibilities. The decision is made with a lot of ambiguity (I only used abortion as an occasion for the thought, not as a statement of ideology). Generally the woman screams that that his her right, or another screams that it ain't, and then this concept of "right" is used to absorb all the uncertainty-then both can operate or decide with out all the fuss of an investigation-the process is streamlined then. Both should investigate the whole concept of "right", or the structure of the concept they are using-it is indeed a structure, as no one can find the pickle jar that contains "right" on the absolute porch steps of the transcendent. After a decision is made, one finds that the decision one makes further constrains the next decision. A pro-abortion (again, the opposed is in the same boat) lady's further decisions are indeed made from the first "leap" into the pro-abortion decision (if not then the pro-abortion decision would be error from her point of view, but the constraint of the initial decision generally prevents that from happening so one is trapped within one's decision/s-most think they have "free will," but of course free will is a mere construction, a technique of power deployed to manage populations). Let us assume, this is philosophy and one should not be afraid to assume, in order to work out a thought. Let us assume that on the absolute porch of the transendent (either a god or the realm of ideal forms, or in the space of absolute "truth," it doesn't matter) that in the pickle jar it is carved in all time (with the authority of who ever owns the porch), that abortion is wrong. The decisions that are constrained by the pro-abortionist then are in conflict with the jar. But, the structure still constrains further decisions-what a fix. Since the uncertainty of the decision is absorbed by making the decision (one could also say that the possibilities that existed at the time are now annulled), then one is now free from not proving the "elements" or content of the decision, it would be difficult to regurgitate all the evidence (or embarrassing as to how easily one accepted an idea) that went into the first decision in all subsequent decisions, so what one gets are mere assertions-ideological (a hot system where a lot is left out in the assertion), and one finds one believing one's own ideology, or being a nihilist-it is fast and tidy, little work after the initial labor (well, except to keep it in place as others always oppose one's ideology). Humans observe the world through their senses was the old line and it still holds if one is using that structure, but it seems to me to no longer have the theoretical complexity that it should. This idea seems to imply that humans have a direct access to reality, to by pass the mind, so to speak, and have the "truth" unquestionably and directly; a lot of what goes by common sense thinks this. That seems no longer true. I see a chair and obviously the "truth" of what I "see" guarantees the reality-fine for chairs (although one needs to admit that chairs come with a lot of meaning, and meaning for different people who observe them). To admit, what was contained in this old idea, of course, was that the senses really did not give reality directly and the mind was implied. Let us use the term perceptions and raise the complexity a tad. Each event, and I will tie this to decision making (but other ways are possible of observations) of decision making, each decision, is the result of perceptions and is in the habit of furthering the perception (autopoieces-the continued existence of the system). Each structure that one uses, one uses to perceive the "world" that that structure makes possible and available-but, and this should always be remembered, what that structure provides and each structure provides a different "world" that is perceived. If one assumes that these structures are decision making structures (to stay with the decision), these decisions come about or are necessitated by contact with other structures outside of the one one is using (the environment to the structure, so to speak), or by the need to modify the existing structure-if it has the ability, of course, if it does not, it is a stagnant structure and just repeats itself or "dies" (one could wonder here if this is not a problem of the individual rather than the structure one is using). Structures then, from what I put above, are obviously closed to their own processes, but obviously open to collisions with their environments or other structures-these collisions (one could use contradiction, paradox, etc, depending how one was observing {theoretically} this process-collisions is a good existential system term) requires the further constitution of the system and guarantees life (autopoieces). So, as to proofs for or against god, one......did I say proofs, haha? I mean, for assertions for or against god (because god is represented as a concept and not a material "thing," as those first cosmonauts into space said there was no god because they didn't literally see him {so much for USSR education}, I guess they thought the unaided eye would tell the truth rather than its use in conjunction with all those telescopes the herd was using), one has to rely on perceptions, whether of the physical or metaphysical (I mean the world of ideas here not the tarot card stuff), to construct one's assertion of the god or of the no god. One then is left to construct systems of either position, and live with ambiguity, or one has assumed one has left the human condition or herd and has risen to the heights of a "beyond human."

 
Old 02-25-2010, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,205 posts, read 10,276,560 times
Reputation: 2587
My eyes have gone funny!!
 
Old 02-25-2010, 09:54 AM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,208,227 times
Reputation: 151
Yes,your eyes are definitely funny-sorta exceeds the top of your cranium, but I think I will write something on ideology in relation to my last post, as ideology is dominate and generally latent in one's thought and has a lot to do with establishing one's initial authoritative statements as to the construct of reality while attempting to sideline competing thought as deviant or irrelevant-something that impacts all these proof constructions one reads at this philosophy site-if the thread keeps going, otherwise I will have to find some other hole to put it in.
 
Old 02-25-2010, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,205 posts, read 10,276,560 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
Yes,your eyes are definitely funny-sorta exceeds the top of your cranium, but I think I will write something on ideology in relation to my last post, ........
Well whatever you write, would you please break it up into paragraphs. Those 'wall of words' you post are so hard to read.
 
Old 02-25-2010, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Somewhere on Earth
1,052 posts, read 1,445,765 times
Reputation: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Well whatever you write, would you please break it up into paragraphs. Those 'wall of words' you post are so hard to read.
Sounds like he only took a few seconds to use the rant generator Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator and just copy pasta all those words

His writing teachers would be shaking their heads in disapproval
 
Old 02-25-2010, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,205 posts, read 10,276,560 times
Reputation: 2587
We had 'Phil Spectre's Wall of Sound'. Now we have 'Allen Antrim's Wall of Words'.
 
Old 02-25-2010, 11:23 AM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,208,227 times
Reputation: 151
Thanks one and all. I really write for myself and the threads are only occasions for my own interests of things I am trying to understand. I type it in and then read it back critically, as if someone else wrote it-sorta double reflective and very interesting to me as I like what I think about(!), (this is philosophy after all, isn't it?; and if one bothers looking into it one finds much more dense "wall of words" than my amateurish attempts-try reading Luhmann's, Religious Dogmatics and the Evolution of Society, and get back to me, only 100 pages if I remember right-how complex the world of thought really is in all its simplicity, but then that is the beauty of existing), and as Nietzsche wrote an author is in charge of his own writing and style. From the theory I am using it should be obvious that one can not control or alter another's thought-the mind is a closed system open to environmental disturbances-so I don't write, generally,to move someone out of their own thought or to clarify a position. That is not my problem-if the syntactical structure is to irritating just don't trouble yourself in reading it or if your curious break it up yourself as you think it should be, what else are you doing with your time? There is plenty else to read at this blog or whatever it is. As far as copy and paste-well, that I didn't do, and its the last act of desperation to attempt to predicates one writing by attacking the person rather than the argument. It is not a rant and comes out of structuralist, linguistics, communications theory, cybernetics, and functionalist social theory-I may have it wrong but you obviously have nothing, and obviously you have no business attempting to read my "rant" anyway or philosophy.
 
Old 02-25-2010, 12:02 PM
 
Location: missouri
1,179 posts, read 1,208,227 times
Reputation: 151
The Scott Pakin deal was great! I will send these out as Xmas cards
 
Old 02-25-2010, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 21,928,197 times
Reputation: 5074
Quote:
Originally Posted by allen antrim View Post
...and obviously you have no business attempting to read my "rant" anyway or philosophy.
If we have no business trying to read it, why post it? I don't understand that.
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:24 PM
 
7,807 posts, read 10,680,292 times
Reputation: 3438
Alas, we've once again 'gone astray.'

Trans: OFF TOPIC


Hence:

THREAD CLOSED.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top