This is again another partial disconnect from the current thread, but it does do much to lead into the next part – and since it took up my available non present wrapping un-wrapping time today, I am putting my full reply here to a discussion begun on One Cosmos. The original comment by Integralist can be seen towards the bottom of the comments on Gagdad Bob’s One Cosmos.
In response to my negative reply to his earlier comment regarding the desirability of integrating Postmodernism with Classical Liberalism, Integralist said...
“OK, so let's drop the formal, historical postmodern schools of contextualism and hermeneutics and go back to that basic Greek idea (“… if horses had Gods, they’d undoubtedly be very Horse-like…”). That's much simpler and I prefer simplicity, especially when my understanding of hermeneutics is more of the "gist" rather than the ins and outs.”
I’m with you on wanting to keep it simple, but attempting to separate a discussion such as this from an historical perspective, is to cut yourself off from the lessons available in the history of ideas, and condemn yourself to repeating them. And I gotta warn you, that the intellectual path you’ve put yourself on is in my judgment repeating a doozy of an error. I predict that it guarantees an ever increasing complexity in your thought, by way of an increasing separation from reality, and a resulting need to paper over, or overlook ‘details’ in order to preserve appearances. This is so, because the implications inherent in “Absolute Truth vs relative truth” (similar to what Kant put across as necessary and contingent truth), foretells a course doomed towards making particular assertions over principled applications.
I read in your comment:
“We cannot speak Absolute Truth. We can only speak our highest vision of Absolute Truth, which is--and forever will be--relative. Relative to who we are at the time we experience and express it. Our relationship to Absolute Truth, to God or Spirit or the Mystery or simply Life, changes. Just as everyone reveres some kind or aspect of God, they just have a different name and conception for it.”
This idea of Absolute Truth, and relative truth – it is what raises my alarm bells right from the start. To my mind it mistakes the nature of truth. While I think I understand the intent behind it, intention is not enough, application and action are necessary, and there you must shall fall short. What I think that you don’t realize is, that by the very nature of accepting the idea of an “Absolute Truth”, that is in itself an assertion of the existence of static unchanging, and ultimately disintegrated truths.
To say something is true is to say it is true in relation to a multitude of attributes.
“The I-ness, as I see it, is Absolute Truth: it is the only aspect of experience that is without a doubt: I am.”That was the starting point of Descartes as well, which not surprisingly was also the starting point of the stream of thought that led to PostModernism. But think about what you use to even express that statement “I Am.”.
From my earlier post“Spreading the Flames” :
“The first false trail began with the false start made by Descartes, who in trying to find a foundation from which thought could begin thinking from, thought that by resurrecting the Cogito Ergo Sum, “I think, therefore I Am” that it would be just such a position. What he didn’t see, was that a mind that held itself to be the root of reality, in actuality pulled its very roots out of reality, and set them floating about in a haze of its own creation. You can’t get to “I Think…” you can’t even get to “I”, to the idea of Identity – something unique and differentiated from other Stuff, without first having had experience of a larger reality from which to begin differentiating entities, and yourself, from.
But as the history of Modern Philosophy demonstrates, thought cut free from reality must rapidly lose the ability to Reason with a capital “R” ... These floating thoughts must, and did, tilt into a method which was no longer self correcting, a method which asserted whims and increasingly erratic emotional and irrational systems and declarations, through thoughts wholly unmoored from reality."
All of which is to say that by starting with your own thinking as the foundation for all of your thoughts, is to disconnect your thoughts from the Reality you are seeking. Thinking is relating perceptions and concepts at every level, it is a massively integrated continuum, and the basis for how our conceptual minds function – our modern notion that we can compartmentalize our thoughts, our actions, our desires – is a conceit of huge proportions.
Coming from your starting point, “I Am”, or “Cogito Ergo Sum” you will soon find yourself coming to the point of accepting or repeating Kant’s categorical imperatives – an attempt to declare certain invariable, never changing Absolutes. But the very nature of reality, down to the sub-atomic level, is relational. Truths are only true in relational to the surrounding reality, and the desire to fix a truth in stone and port it about to where ever it might be fun to trot it out, would make it separate from reality (an impossibility), and no longer true.
Because you are then disconnected from the context of reality, which is the only proper starting point, until you grasp that the world does not begin with you, but you with the world – until you realize (“make real” in your mind) this – all of your thought will be cut off from reality. I do realize that the intent of your statements is not this, but it reaches no further than intent, and intent isn’t enough – it needs to manifest itself in the actual action of your thoughts, in order to be… well, true.
"it is the only aspect of experience that is without a doubt: I am.”
Perhaps, but it is a result of a process, not a point to claim to begin from. It is based on prior actions and integrations of reality from which the very ideas & words used to assert it are derived from, and which lead a sentient being to be able to grasp that they are “I AM” (that I am), and only in relation to what you are not , and that both and all do exist.
“We cannot speak Absolute Truth. We can only speak our highest vision ofAnd
Absolute Truth, which is--and forever will be--relative.”
“With hermeneutics I don't think we need to go as far as extreme postmodernism does: there is no reality, only interpretations; all cultures and ideas are equal because all are based on nothing.”,,unfortunately they, the portion you like, and the portion you shun, are both direct and inevitable results of thoughts flowing from the starting point in thought from which they began.
And here is where you give an example of this:
“But are either ideas--that the stapler dropped on your toe hurts or that property rights are a necessity of freedom--truly absolute? That is, are the true in any time, any place?...”
Here is set up the unattainable goal, with the implication therefore that we can only trust in Absolute Truths which exist only in some higher realm unattainable to us, and also the implication that we are only able to deal in it’s poor relation, the knock-off ‘relative truth’.
“(For would that not define absolute truth: that which is true always and
everywhere?). I would say no. It is easy to think of situations where neither is
true. Of course that doesn't take away their contextual validity.”
Here you have an interesting take on attempting to have your cake and eat it too, appealing to both absolutes and contextual validity, but both serve to establish the inadequacy of any appeal to ‘real’ truth, leaving us only with approximations and compromises. In effect, you contextually discard reality!
To speak of truth, is to speak of something being true in relation to something else (many something’s), all of which is related within a wider context. But here, relation and context, do not diminish Truth – making it less than some revered “Absolute”, but instead serve to energize it through proper identification of what exactly it is, what truth refers to, what the process of identifying something, anything as true – Is.
Bear with me for a (long) moment as I grab a relevant quote from another post "Would you trust the liar who tole you he was going to lie to you"
“One way Kant attempts ..." (this) "... is with his extensive use of “necessary" and "contingent" statements or truths. The classic example of "2+2 equals Four is a necessary truth", and that there can not be round squares - because we cannot imagine (hear Descartes echoing through here?) it otherwise. TheirThe point is that to exist, is to exist in reality, which is to exist within reality wherein all things are contextual. A small glimpse of the contextual implications in the statement of a stapler falling on my toe will hurt, is to say by implication that an object released here on earth’s surface from a stationary position whose surroundings are not themselves falling through the air, with no intervening or restraining obstructions to impede its velocity, from a height of 3 feet to fall upon my bare toe, which is also stationary upon a solid surface, un-numbed by any medications and while the owner of the toe is wide awake, will cause sufficient discomfort to be described as pain.
purpose is to trick you into looking so closely at the particulars, that you
miss the sleight of hand removal of the wider context within which they both
reside - all issues of the molecular structure of water and your experiences of
life here on earth, in reality, are removed from your consideration by the
Kantian 3 card monty player who says "But Ice sinking in water, is merely a
contingent truth, because we can easily imagine ice sinking to the bottom of a
glass of water.", as he whisks reality, unseen and out of your attention, off of
the table without your even relaizing it.
It is as if they are stymied by anything deeper than the perceptual level concept. Circles & Squares are too two dimensionally defined by their appearance for even them to deny. But anything whose conceptual depth is deeper than those 2 dimensions, and their conceptual grasp is strained, their mental gripping power too weak (Hume suffered from the same lack of conceptual gripping power 'Principle'? Too darn heavey) like an Ostrich, they seem to think “If I can’t see it’s properties, it
must not be important”.
What that actually means, is that they've divorced their thoughts from having any connection to the real world. They've lost the understanding that reality IS. Things are. Squares are 4 sided objects where each side is of equal length - in that the length of the sides are all properties of a square, in the same way as the properties of Ice are just as integral to it. Just as they like to rip the meaning out of a word, while cherry picking it's desirable connotations to be used regardless of it's actual meaning - they do the same thing when having you imagine Ice as having the "look" of Ice, maybe being cold also, but then scrapping away all the other properties of ice such as being lighter than water. Ice is Ice - it is defined by all of its properties, you can’t separate its buoyancy from its temperature, its essential properties are reflective of what it IS, you cannot pick and choose them.
Whenever you hear them talking about whether something "could be true or false in some other universe", you should reject it outright as the worst of hypothetical garbage designed to divorce truth from that which makes it true, divorcing mind from body, thought from reality. Whenever you hear them start “Imagine a universe where…” they are not only going to play “lets pretend”, but then try to convince you that their conclusions formulated in their pretend world should take precedence over yours, and then even that their pretend world is more real than the real real one we live in. It is the source of all of their 'errors', and their disappointment in, and neurotic rejection of Life, and which can be seen in their art, literature and failed
lives.”
Notions of Absolute Truth can’t cover even a simple situation as this, because it would attempt to cover every conceivable detail, which is always alterable, and so invalidated, by adding or subtracting just one detail – that is the brittleness of Absolute Truth, at best it can be no more than a detailed description of one partial & isolated incident.
This is not the stuff our minds are designed to work with. What our minds are designed to do – is to operate by reference to concept and principle primarily, adorned with as many perceptual details are necessary to the present purpose. Any seeking after, or even worse, attaining to “Absolute Truth” would not be a blessing to the human mind, but a hindrance. Absolute Truth rooted in massive amounts of detail, with no measure of what is essential vs non-essential would be less than a thought, it would represent a state of unthinking.
Thinking, grasping truths, consists in relating essentials only, and discarding the non-essentials as extraneous ballast. If you don't toss them overboard, you'll never get off the ground.
38 comments:
Here is the full text of Integralists comment to an earlier one of mine on One Cosmos:
integralist said...
OK, so let's drop the formal, historical postmodern schools of contextualism and hermeneutics and go back to that basic Greek idea (“… if horses had Gods, they’d undoubtedly be very Horse-like…”). That's much simpler and I prefer simplicity, especially when my understanding of hermeneutics is more of the "gist" rather than the ins and outs.
This highlights an important aspect of the relationship between absolute and relative truth. Any vision we have Absolute Truth is "Me-like." Who am I? I am composed of at least two aspects: everything that I have ever experienced, said and done--my personality that has been shaped by genetics, karma, upbringing, and everything that has happened within my life; the other aspect is the "I-ness," or pure consciousness itself. The I-ness, as I see it, is Absolute Truth: it is the only aspect of experience that is without a doubt: I am. Everything else is disputable, or at least subject to...well, interpretation.
We cannot speak Absolute Truth. We can only speak our highest vision of Absolute Truth, which is--and forever will be--relative. Relative to who we are at the time we experience and express it. Our relationship to Absolute Truth, to God or Spirit or the Mystery or simply Life, changes. Just as everyone revers some kind or aspect of God, they just have a different name and conception for it.
With hermeneutics I don't think we need to go as far as extreme postmodernism does: there is no reality, only interpretations; all cultures and ideas are equal because all are based on nothing. To say this is to not understand that every situation has a context, so that at the very least we can determine what culture or idea is "best" for that specific situation. We may be able to go further, but I don't think we need to in order to negate extreme postmodernism.
I do believe that the idea that if I drop this stapler on my bare toe it will hurt (ulmph… proven factual and true) is every bit as valid, and grounded in reality as the idea that all men are created equal, and that Property Rights are a necessity of Freedom. I’ve spent a lot of time, couple of decades, seeing if that is in fact, fact – and my conclusion, in no way formed prior to the hunt, is that it is True – contextually and absolutely.
But are either ideas--that the stapler dropped on your toe hurts or that property rights are a necessity of freedom--truly absolute? That is, are the true in any time, any place? (For would that not define absolute truth: that which is true always and everywhere?). I would say no. It is easy to think of situations where neither is true. Of course that doesn't take away their contextual validity.
Merry Christmas!
Wow, that's a big one Van! A lot to digest there...
For the sake of brevity (and time) I will try to stick to a few key areas, at least until I feel I get a better idea what you are saying (which I am not entirely sure about).
All of which is to say that by starting with your own thinking as the foundation for all of your thoughts, is to disconnect your thoughts from the Reality you are seeking. Thinking is relating perceptions and concepts at every level, it is a massively integrated continuum, and the basis for how our conceptual minds function – our modern notion that we can compartmentalize our thoughts, our actions, our desires – is a conceit of huge proportions.
But where else can we start, except with our own awareness? That is what I am saying: all we truly "know" is that something is going on, and "I" am present or part of what is going on.
I would even switch what you say above around and say that if you don't start with one's own thinking (or more accurately, one's own awareness--which includes thinking, but is not limited to it), then we are disconnecting ourselves from Reality. In other words, if we are part of reality, why not start with ourselves? (And again, where else can we start?).
To put it another way, Reality has become self-aware in the form of humans. Certainly, there is a context--and a sequence of events--that led to where we are now, and more importantly to the emergence of I-ness; but it is only through the the human self-aware vehicle, as far as we know, that Reality can contemplate itself. Thus by starting with our own awareness, our present experience--far from disconnecting with Reality--we are recognizing that we are Reality.
(Let us also remember that Descartes later amended "I think therefore I am" to "I am, I exist." In other words, existence is not dependent upon thinking, but on am-ness, on the sense of being).
As for the rest, I am not entirely sure what your bottom line is. Could you give me a more succinct version?
But I think what you are saying--that Reality is the context, it isn't simply a hypothetical realm that we can make do what we want simply by virtue of "make believe"--is important. We have to relate with this reality, with the perceivable laws and truths (like stapler + toe = pain).
But it is all too easy to think that our current way of seeing is "how things are," rather than "how things seem to be now, according to my personality, culture, and time period."
My point here is to point to the everpresent uncertainty, that there is always a gap in our knowledge, which is thus forever relative (and contextual). Absolute Truth is not something that the mind can grasp or define, only intuit, only sense beyond its own limits; an intuition that it (the mind) rests within--and emerges from (and as!)--a larger, infinite and undefinable context. Any idea or expression of Absolute Truth is relative; but the facticity of Being is irrefutable (Absolute).
Or to put it as Kashmir Shaivism would have it, there is only Shiva dancing. There is only God. Everything else is...subject to the whims of Shiva, and thus subject to change.
Or as Nagarjuna said, all Dharmas (teachings) are empty, including that one.
Hi VAN!
I'm debating whether to put this reply on G-BOBs post or on yours? I'll go with yours first since its more to You.
It seems Integralist comes in to "discuss" HIS PM/Rel Ideology, thought he refuses to call it such - hence his tendency to coercion vs true discussion, as he clearly does not know much about "our" side. I find he is quite unprepared, no presuppositional preps, has not focused doing his homework regarding Absolute Truth principles, philosophers, book studies, etc.
This is evident in his replies. i surmise he relies upon us (You more precisely) to actually "outline" things in detail for him since he does not provide it for himself, that you will name names & give details that give flesh to his a Relativists "concerns", such as Spinozas problems, Kantian issues, etc. He doesnt delve into any of these issues, that I've seen; G-BOB even asked Inty to delineate "problems" he has with Absolute Truth, and all that I saw was a Phil 101 rhetorical reply from Integralist instead of a scholarly reply.
This gave me a clue that Inty is here more for "attention" and due to ego-needs (validation for his phil) rather than here to truly understand "our" way of Truth, and I am onto the suspected coverup/counterfeit-quality "I" instinctively sense (more from the HS than from myself).
These insights, if they be true, may reasonably explain why Inty not been detailed even per G-Bobs request to actually debate the real intricacies BETWEEN the "two subjects" - which, as you know are really not "two" but are one, when seen from Absolute Truth perspective.
Relativists, classically "stuck" in their Flatland prisons, much like Mr. Square, just KANT conceive of the Spherical (Vertical). Its very mysterious and mythical to them - one feels "threatened by it" and does not understand it all-at-once. Some reason thru the fear and approach and relate; others never manage to get out of the fear, hence, they rage n rant in their prison.
The verticality of a skyscraper makes one look UP in wonder and say, "Wow!" at the perspective, and at first its hard for people to grasp mentally (mind/perspective boggling). Not true if one is an Architect or Builder and knows the lovingly constructed details behind the Visual impact/Verticality.
I guess in this example you'd definitely be the Foreman, eh? GBob is the Expressive Architect of the idea - (though he is not the Creator of the Idea/Ideology.) Me? Why Princess is the Interior and Exterior Designer!
HEHEH: Now look at that: There I've just described Complementarianism - the classic "Men give structure; Women fill them in" concept! Altho both at their best integrate aspects of each.
Though Vertical/Truth/God seems "myth" to ones like Inty (who claims to be a Christian Believer - all kinds of them these days!) they usually are missing the fact that while its no "myth," Absolute Truth/God/Verticality IS certainly Mystical. They confuse the two terms, becuz their reference point is "looking up" vs. BEING Up, Looking Down from the Top (Gods View). The integration of BOTH aspects is what is Mystical/GOD and, I think, the zenith of expression/viewpoint in humans.
There is no putting nor keeping God in a Box; Yet He and His Truths absolutely do not change and can be "contained" - as GBOB speaks of containment. God is not Chaos. Even Chaos is limited/contained by God, hence also by His Followers (to a much lesser degree since we arent God).
I can trust such facts and yet still relate with Him bottom up & at glorious times also top-down thru experiences - visions, dreams, prophecy, enlightenment of mind, and thru what I can only call BEING IN the Spirit - not the way the Pentecostals assert "being filled" - no - I am already filled with the HS; but in a way that more closely matches what GBOB describes - this "balance" and integration we speak of. I call it "Being IN Spirit" - the Cruxpoint.
Inty calls THIS "my worldview." HAHA! My neg-ego might wish I'd been the Founder of Christianity, but no, I am content to be the eternal student of Christ and occasionally be the Teacher/Tutor/Discipler of others.
As I hope You yourself have come to know experientially, God can be Known & Experienced in ways where Absolute Truths are more than apparent. Integral doesnt seem to understand the dynamic relationship that occurs between God & Believer; doesnt seem to understand true meaning of "paradox" - the "at once knowing & unKnowing" which produces a unique phenomenon I can only, in my limited way, quantify or label as Holy Spirit or Balanced dynamic relationship (cruxpoint).
Seems like Inty stays more in the realm of "mind" instead of "Spirit." Yet I can see he rages internally against what he fears (God/AT). Hence the compassion I feel for his "plight". But his "predicament" (where he thinks hes a Victim) is as obtuse to me as the Truth is plain - nameley that ones Prison Gates have already been flung wide open by the Lord; all you have to do is cross the Threshold into HIM and you're not in prison anymore! Yet, Inty is the type to argue the open gate whilst not crossing over it into Being.
I like to tell philosopher-types There IS No Paradox - That cathches their "interests" becuz they are convinced ALL is paradoxical & pride themselves on delineating & debating the details of paradox. They stay on the horizontal & think themselves wise. Luke BW is one such who does this and you can note it in his writings. Then he claims to not understand why he is never given the "respect" he feels he deserves in according himself to be "intellectual."
Big Diff between Intellectual and Wise, eh?
There is no true paradox when seen from the TopDown perspective - GBOB seems to know this and I've learned it too, as have many other Believers. Hope you do, also (?)
Paradox/Absolute Truth is NOT the blending of evil and truth as Inty thinks. (Arrrrggghhhh!!) I believe Inty gets his objects mixed up when hes "cooking" in his mind so all his recipes turn out flat instead of "fluffy" the way cake should be vertical instead of compacted & constipated (Pan-caked).
BTW, your example of the "scattered rings" vs the "Rings in a pyramid" in another post was a GREAT visual aid!! See what you glean when you have kids? Wiminz know this (smart aware ones, anyway!)
I would like to strongly advise Integralist to actually get busy and DO the actual homework he has evidenced he has NOT done - namely, reading and studying:
1. The major philosophical theories of Truth: Substantive theories, Correspondence, Constructivist, Coherence and Consensus in particular..
2. Performance theory & Redundancies (et al) all of the Minimalist theories.
3. Formal theories of Truth (Mathematics, Kripke, Semantic theories.)
4. Classical philosophers: Aquinas and Hippo et al.
5. Continential philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Fromm, et al.
Onward to Spinoza, et al, then into Classical Apologetics with Francis Schaeffer, et al, and into Theology.
THEN perhaps when Inty has done the reading & study required before making the assertions he makes of "relativistic truth is all there is" - maybe when his blinders are off, then we can actually "discuss" appropriately. Until then, I say we're stuck with teaching him instead of true discussion as Hoarhey commented.
Maybe you can advise Inty on what to read - succinct reading material.
As it stands now, given the severe deficits from this side that Inty evidences, I feel it would be cruel for me to address Inty any further. I tend to "give" from the place where I am, and can also "go lower" to where Pupa is; but to me, Inty is near Elementary level - and I'm not saying someone shouldnt try to enlighten and share w/him - it just isnt my cup of tea at this point & not a productive use of my personal time. So I think it wiser to opt out for now. No snideness or arrogance here; its not I have less interest in defending my views or even going to bat for Absolute Truth against a Relativist (its too easy in this case); rather, I deem it wiser to focus time I have upon other areas & people/issues I've already committed with rather than accept responsibility to tutor Inty along a lengthy road so he can approach where we are.
I tend to get greater productiveness w/people who are a bit further up the Vertical. Just personal preference, since everyone is entitled to be where they are - but Inty is HARDLY approaching "genius" level he seems to badly want to convince others he has. His counterfeit truth-claims also give me a problem and heads-up to the fact hes not careful nor finely discerning.
Besides, he probably wouldn't want to afford my fees, either! :D
I will be watching & reading Your exchanges with mild interest as I study your technique & contexts; but I came to OC to absorb/learn other things, to just BE for once "among my own kind", not to rehash what I've already studied with a Newbie as if doing Sword training. Maybe laterz, just not now. I seriously need to regroup after the path I've walked among the Trolls & Orcs & Evil.
I'm still on R & R coming off the Academic Battlefield, the Seminary Battlefield and the Churchianity-ad-nauseam battlefields - all Spiritual Battlefields in this Spiritual War. Princess DEFINITELY needs a WELL EARNED REST!! :D I fully intend to spend my time at OC Wisely, more in a personal-relational aspect instead of formal teaching/tutoring/debating. I've developed a taste for Gourmet-training, anyway!
A more willing student such as PUPA has recently become is more my style. I've about had all my fill of Narcissism in & around my life as one Princess can possibly take, as one of my subspecialties in Counseling is with Narcissists and I've answered that call of duty for 6 yrs now. I've learned the hard way not to take on counseling or personally involving with ANY more than 2-3 of them in 1yr!
And NO DATING One, either! Ugh! Wolves in Sheeps clothing have been quite unpleasant (slight Flashbacks!) :D
VAN, more power to You, though, if you are up to the task of teaching Inty. I would much rather support YOU rather than a Troll, or even a Newbie, becuz I admire Your work & Your evident finely tuned skill concerning careful thought & Discernment. I realized quickly you have the patience & Wisdom for teaching; reading it "spelled out" in the unique way you take time to do is not lost on other readers who come here to find out & learn such things!
My problem w/Inty is that instead of being like them (to come and learn) he takes the moral high ground like a Leftie does and DEMANDS he be seen on our level! Which to me is ludicrous - not becuz it cant happen - but becuz its not true, hence the need for the counterfeit claims he makes which are exposed anyway. The uncontained aspects of his ego shows thru loud & clear and is distasteful to many of us.
Thanks for all you add, here on your own blog & at OneCosmos! You seem to have a love for the teaching of it, as a True philosopher loves. But me, I'm in "grasp it and grow forward" mode right now and dont wish to slow down the pace, a "goal" I feel the need to keep pursuing. Rest-stopping too much along the Way deters me from reaching "it" (the next destination) sooner.
Hope that makes sense as to why I decline and leave it in your more-than-capable hands. And brain :D
Only one thing I've noticed about you - but before I assert it as being "true" - I'd rather politely ask first: Whats the deal with your personal experience of God and the Mystical path? ;) I noticed...
~PsychoPrincess ~
PS: Found out doing a search on Blogspot today there is ANOTHER PsychoPrincess!! (Smaks head!) DUH! The nerve...LOL! AsianPrincess aint Moi! :D
VAN: I see INTY is already here and no doubt will read my post. Fine, but I will not reply to him about my opinions. I'm finished talking & "debating" w/him. These are my "truths" I speak and I stand by them - they arent open to debate, in case he laments of them.
- PsychoPrincess -
(An email addy to contact you on would be appreciated. You are free to contact me on mine.)
PsychoPrincess, just two words for you:
No comment.
Thanks God! It was NOT addressed to you, Inty, so No Comment is necessary from you.
VAN: Made the typos on poipose so you wont feel alone or bear the shame of 2AM Typo-Syndrom by yourself any longer. Hey, after all, arent we to bear ye one anothers burdens?
~ PsychoPrincess ~
"But where else can we start, except with our own awareness? That is what I am saying: all we truly "know" is that something is going on, and "I" am present or part of what is going on."
Part of, most definitely, but not a source of, or even a starting point for theorizing about reality. The Object must come first.
"As for the rest, I am not entirely sure what your bottom line is. Could you give me a more succinct version?"
! ;-). Are you implying that while EggNog and Blog may rhyme, that they may not necessarily go together? Sadly, as I've noted before, if brevity is the soul of wit... I'm rather long winded.
"Reality is the context, it isn't simply a hypothetical realm that we can make do what we want simply by virtue of "make believe"--is important. We have to relate with this reality, with the perceivable laws and truths (like stapler + toe = pain). "
-Yes
"But it is all too easy to think that our current way of seeing is "how things are," rather than "how things seem to be now, according to my personality, culture, and time period."
-Which is where the necessity of continually referencing back to reality comes in, and it is important to not let our concepts begin to edge reality out, in favor of our more attractive want-it-to-be's, which is where Descartes rationalism led to. Descartes really did theorize an entire physics based on how he thought reality should be, not on how it was. You might say that's a bit extreme, but it was consistent with taking yourself as not just an experience of reality, but a source of it.
Reality is. Truth is. To say absolute truth and relative truth, is to fracture its nature, and distance your thoughts from it.
"Any idea or expression of Absolute Truth is relative; but the facticity of Being is irrefutable (Absolute)."
Not relative, but contextual - that may seem a quibble, but it's an important one. Contextual truth is one that is undisturbed with more detail, it is perhaps surprised by but not offended with seemingly new expressions and interpretations of the Truth of Reality, such as I described Aristotle's impression of the Sun going round the Earth - he would have been astounded with Galileo’s evidence and conclusions, but thrilled. It was notions of absolute and relative truth that Galileo came up against with Cardinal Belarmine (sp?) - it is one that leads to assertions backed by power, and is not amenable to Reason.
Notions of Absolute Truth and relative truth would take Beethoven as heard through a portable radio's fidelity, as absolute truth, and command that we attempt to play it as best we can relative to our abilities. Such static impressions of absolute truth would be utterly shattered by the revelatory music coming through a high fidelity system with its deeper harmonies and aural structure, not to mention a front row live performance.
"I would even switch what you say above around and say that if you don't start with one's own thinking (or more accurately, one's own awareness--which includes thinking, but is not limited to it), then we are disconnecting ourselves from Reality. In other words, if we are part of reality, why not start with ourselves? (And again, where else can we start?)."
Obviously we can't leave ourselves out of the equation, but neither can we presume to start with our impressions of what is, as if they were what is. I think Ayn Rand put it the most succinctly that I've ever heard. Words to the effect of Existence exists, it is an axiom, and the process of grasping that implies to corollaries, that something (the Object) exists which we perceive, and that the act of perceiving it is what consciousness is.
It is through the process of our grasping the object of reality, of how it is and what it is, and conforming our thoughts to reality, that we are able to order our own thinking. The Greeks were the first to discover this necessity, and Western Civilization began with them and because of them. By concerning our thoughts with reality, with the ultimately orderly and principled laws of nature, that our thoughts themselves become orderly and principled, quite different than those thoughts that live by the poetic passions alone. This process also, by revealing how completely integrated (what we perceive as the ) Laws of Reality are, that we are able to rise with them and perceive a wholeness not only out there, but in here, inside us that unites it all(this is something I'm developing in the previous 2 and coming 2 posts here, which is why I thought this subject fit in well).
It is no accident that the English branch of the Enlightenment produced the principles of Freedom of Speech, of Individual Rights depending on Property Rights, the Pursuit of Happiness and the brief document of the Constitution of the United States of America, nor that the French branch led to notions of Absolute and relative Truth and such 'regulatory law' that a single snippet of tax law is many times longer than the constitution itself, and no one can fully understand or apply.
The same process and effect can be seen playing out in the contradictory claims and vast details of Postmodernism. It is thoroughly anti-principle at root, and so unprincipled in practice – and is Principle that is our method of grasping, realizing and understanding Reality and Truth.
PsychoPrincess,
I understand what you’re saying, but I do love the debate – debate, and teaching are the finest ways to improve your own understanding of what it is you think you know. That is also the most significant feature of schooling missing from modern schools, which was a central feature in schools of the Founders era. Sigh.
I love the argument, and don’t mind the fiery speech either, it’s just the attitudinal manners that set me off, and since I’m not noting them in Integralist’s last couple comments, … onwards!
Hi Van. I think I'm getting a sense of a fundamental difference in our underlying perspectives.
It seems that you believe there is an objective reality "out there" that we need to learn to see objectively (that is, without our own subjective filters and conditioning). The implication being that it is possible to perceive objectively; the subject can be "cleared out" or purified of any lenses or filters that mute and taint Reality. You might say it differently, but is that basically correct to your view? This seems to be along the line's of Ayn Rand.
Now what I question is whether there is such an objective Reality; or rather, whether there is a static objective reality, and even if there is whether we can actually ever perceive it objectively (for the act of perception always includes a subject). Modern physics holds that physical laws have remained unchanged since the Big Bang. Now I am not a physicist nor have I read the proof on that, but I don't necessarily agree--especially when we take in a view that doesn't reduce consciousness to matter, one that includes what Godwin calls Verticality (or what was called the Great Chain of Being by Arthur Lovejoy).
I see the physical world as the concrete, most solid, aspect of reality; or you could say that it is what is most deeply ingrained and habitual. Going on up the ladder, you have subtler and subtler dimensions: the vital etheric, the emotional astral, the lower mental, higher mental, psychic, subtle, and causal (or Godhead). The higher/deeper, the less "set in stone."
Now the laws of the physical world may or may not be set in stone. Even if they are, our understanding of them is contextual and subject to change. For example, modern science holds that the Sun is a ball of gas and plasma; this may adequately describe its physical attributes, but it doesn't take into account any deeper, subtler aspects. If we begin to see those deeper aspects, the physical laws may seem to change by adding depth to them.
Furthermore, if we take into account the deeper realms of being and see how the physical is the densification of subtler realms, as those subtler realms change and evolve, so too will the physical. It is just that the physical laws change more slowly.
The point being, there is no static objective world, and no perspective of the world that is dependent from a subject, from subjectivity. Any viewpoint is contextual, includes both subject and object, is located within the time-space-dimensional matrix. In truth, there is no subject and object--but subject-objects (that is, any subject is also an object; any object is also a subject...they are the exterior and interior aspects of the same thing).
To put it another way, who perceives the object of reality but the subject of reality? We are perceiving ourselves, and we are perceiving from a place, a situation, a context. This doesn't negate Absolute Truth, but it points out how it is not a perspective, not a viewpoint, not a worldview.
"It seems that you believe there is an objective reality "out there" that we need to learn to see objectively "
An objective reality ‘out there’?
Sigh.
By way of my senses, I see, feel, hear, smell, taste, and recognize that we are in Reality and that it, and we, exist. I do not presume my senses & faculties to be defective because they work. Do I think that we somehow learn to see objectively? A bit of a stretch, but I suppose you could say that we learn to see objectively in the same way that we learn to yelp when the stapler falls on our toe. Reality is. Only with enough wealth stowed away, having been created by those who deal directly with reality, can someone afford to assert that it isn't there, or is only partly there.
I don't reduce consciousness to matter, neither do I place it outside reality. I consider materialist's and determinists to be utterly and hopelessly lost within their own discounted minds. There is one universe, containing mater that I can touch, light that I can see, and consciousness with which I am aware I am doing so.
I believe that attuning your mind to reality through Reason, fosters the heirarchical nature of our conceptual minds, and allows us to experience the Verticality of our nature. I don't see us as separate from Reality, or only able to acheive higher states of consciousness by somehow stepping outside of reality. It isn't necessary, all IS One Cosmos. As it is without, so it is within.
"Now what I question is whether there is such an objective Reality; or rather, whether there is a static objective reality, and even if there is whether we can actually ever perceive it objectively (for the act of perception always includes a subject)."
And again, here you split the world in two - both the world without, and within, and it will entrap you in circularity.
You mention subtler realms of reality:
"Now the laws of the physical world may or may not be set in stone. Even if they are, our understanding of them is contextual and subject to change. For example, modern science holds that the Sun is a ball of gas and plasma; this may adequately describe its physical attributes, but it doesn't take into account any deeper, subtler aspects. If we begin to see those deeper aspects, the physical laws may seem to change by adding depth to them."
How do you arrive at their existence? What evidence do you have to postulate them? Do they have substance anywhere other that some glittering whim you would like to believe were true? I don't intend that insultingly, but as a serious question - can you answer it without retreating into some rationalistic theory of subjectivism?
This is where, and why you were categorized as being leftist in thought. Every statement you made and question you asked stated it very clearly to those with eyes and mind to see. It is the very nature of subjective, rationalistic thought to create what amount to elitist realms of airy philosophies, which express themselves most readily in the political thought of Rousseau, Godwin, Kant, Hegel, Humboldt, Marx, Dewey… and so on and so on.
I fear that your adopted philosophy is irreconcilably divorced from the reality we perceive and embrace. You seek to integrate it with ours, only because from within the worldview you uphold, you do not see the wall you have erected between us.
Only you can tear it down. It isn't that difficult, being constructed of mental paper mache, all you have to do is recognize the world we all see, but it is still an effective wall keeping you apart from the one reality we all inhabit.
I don’t see where to go from here.
Van, I don't know why you're getting peeved. If I'm misreading you, tell me how. If I am not understanding, illuminate me. If you and the others on One Cosmos really are privy to such profound wisdom as you claim to be, then it is your responsibility to share that. To offer it freely, even, for does not wisdom have a co-arising compassion? (This is why I have a hard time taking Psycho Princess seriously, because her sheer nastiness tends to invalidate her self-proclaimed position of spiritual grandeur: she isn't interested in opening to me, or even in illuminating me; she is only interested in tearing me down...how spiritual is that? Unless, of course, I submit to her wisdom).
And again, here you split the world in two - both the world without, and within, and it will entrap you in circularity.
The world certainly appears in both interior and exterior forms, even if they are two aspects of the same, One Cosmos (even Bob says as much). I don't see how I am being "entrapped in circularity" by recognizing that Reality is comprised of both interiors and exteriors, even if they are not-two.
Or to put it in the words of Inayat Khan: the body is the visible part of the soul; the soul is the invisible part of the body.
How do you arrive at their existence? What evidence do you have to postulate them? Do they have substance anywhere other that some glittering whim you would like to believe were true? I don't intend that insultingly, but as a serious question - can you answer it without retreating into some rationalistic theory of subjectivism?
Because I experience them daily, as do you. I experience vital energy, emotion, thought, even spiritual experiences. These cannot be reduced to physicality, as you yourself say. This is not theory, this is experiential.
This is where, and why you were categorized as being leftist in thought. Every statement you made and question you asked stated it very clearly to those with eyes and mind to see.
Van, do you see a problem with this kind of dialogue? Is there any point other than to put up walls? Can you see have the demonization of Leftism on One Cosmos creates a bifurcation between the Righteous and the Sinful that smacks more of fundamentalist religion than it does spiritual awareness? From a truly spiritual perspective it is self-evident that all expressions have some validity, some truth--for all expressions are movements of "God." Not equal truth, but some truth, for all is God, all is One Cosmos, yes? No part of this One Cosmos is "apart from God".
I fear that your adopted philosophy is irreconcilably divorced from the reality we perceive and embrace. You seek to integrate it with ours, only because from within the worldview you uphold, you do not see the wall you have erected between us.
That I have erected? How so? How is castigating Leftism--your own version of Otherness (and Shadow)--not erecting a wall?
Only you can tear it down. It isn't that difficult, being constructed of mental paper mache, all you have to do is recognize the world we all see, but it is still an effective wall keeping you apart from the one reality we all inhabit.
I can agree that only I can tear down my own illusions. The mistake I see you making here is akin to this: Any who don't have the same worldview and philosophy as you and those of a similar ilk (One Cosmos) are in error, are deluded. In other words, convert or be forever in self-delusion.
But in this vast and infinite cosmos is there a way of perception that is without error? That is objectively true? You seem to claim yours is, but how can it be?
I don’t see where to go from here.
What would happen if you stopped relating to me as someone to teach, someone to offer learning to, but rather someone to explore with? To teach AND learn from, and moreso, learn with? Do you see what I am saying? From the get go, the folks on One Cosmos act as if they are in the Know and anyone who doesn't believe what they believe simply don't get it. This is where I see tinges of cultism; in truth, we are all cultists to some degree, even if cults of one. But we all subscribe to different beliefs, all of which are ultimately wrong, or at least incomplete and partial. No belief can encapsulate Reality--none (not even that belief!). Just as no part is the whole--especially a whole that is without boundary; yet all parts are microcosms of the whole, and to varying degrees can adequately symolize the whole (thus some ideologies are "more integral" than others--they integrate more truths).
In this context, my "quest" is two-fold: continue to forever evolve my philosophical outlook so that it integrates as much truths as possible, and deepen my relationship to Reality.
On the other hand, it is also possible that I am completely deluded, even infected with a dreadful "soul pathology" of Leftism. I am open to that possibility, but I am not going to believe that simply because you and a small group of like-minded folks on an internet blog say so. Or as writers say, show don't tell. Show me how I am deluded, don't simply tell me so.
"Mr Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS (manmade) WALL!!"
The only way is down in order to go Up.
When one comes to the end of self, and surrenders self and its precious notions of "truth" on Gods altar, then one is ready to make contact, to learn HIS Truth instead of imposing selfs truths on God. One enters that stillness where, exhausted from surrender of self/sins, one MUST hear God and attach with Him, for it is them we most Need His Strength in order to make sense of things...
God then, in Infinite Grace - once ones self is surrendered, submitted on His altar, with no more "objections" and ploys at controlling Him with your truths and petty will set against Him - when the dross of ego/self is burned away in His Refiners Fire, your self finally stands, new, clean and purified in a way you had not much to do with.
Then the hammering and annealing process begins - Gods Spirit shapes your spirit, His Mind teaches your mind, His Heart touches your heart, His Will guides your will...until the umpteenth time He brings You, the Sword You are becoming, up out of the Fire and out of the Water, and You actually See Him with New Eyes & Sight, perceive Him with a New Mind, Love Him with a New Heart, and serve Him with a New Will, that finally knows beyond doubt You are not god, and He Is the Great I AM - so that you never get it wrong in narcissism again.
Then Your walls are down, the Spirit in Him Flows within You, and You run and leap (mentally, emotionally, psychologically, etc.) as you never had the Empowerment to do before - becuz now HE is the Source of your power and strength, no longer limited to the self's prison/box of "reason."'
The self freed of its jail, contained in God, where there is Liberty (not freedom ad-nauseam) and boundaries.
VAN: JUST FOR YOU:
"Reason is the Whore, the Greatest Enemy that Faith has." and
"Reason is the enemy of faith."
- Martin Luther
Luther understood how endless reasonings can seduce one away from God, make one unfaithful of mind to mind the things of God, calling to people just like Proverbs speaks of the Harlot on the street calling out to passersby.
This isnt to say we should not think or reason, but to surrender reason to Him, for He is the Master of any mans reason who surrenders to the Lord, as it is for the man to do his Masters bidding, not always to know or reason it thru until its possible or Insight/Wisdom is gained...
The unKnowing many a Saint speaks of...the spiritual disciplines are well-known to keep one centered in God, not in self, the flesh, the world, or the devil.
Luther was a man of reason; and he chose Absolute Truth - and surrendered his reason to Gods care & molding...thereby he learned how to walk in God each day, even moment by moment when necessary, so that he would complete the battle set before him...
He entered a tower and refused to come out for many days; he wrestled with his self (flesh/soul/guilty conscience), the devil and guilt over sins that haunted him. He wanted to find the answer from God - needed it even before he could accomplish the mighy work he would be sent shortly to do against monstrous evil.
Finally, after 3 days (I think, tho I could be wrong) he comes out, and has "the key." He learned how to face ALL his guilt & sins with God, and make peace thru Submission of soul therein, so that the devil had "nothing" on the inside of Luther to claim or gain or use to fling back on him and distract him from the target.
Luther had come thru the trial, refined purer than ever, sharpened, with a key he never forgot once it was in his possession: He wrote it down in a book called "The Bondage of the Will"; but he lived it out that time in the tower where he learned to walk the walk IN Spirit, not just Word.
He wrestled and won the key to understand how to "be able to be stable" in God so that he could well complete the mission he'd been born to do. Thus started the 30-40 yrs he battled the Church.
Luthers vision, Faith and trust in God and His Absolute Truth had to BE real-time in order for it to work. Faith the goes thru flames & death - Faith that sees and trusts much more than just a humans relative truths - Faith that saw to the heart of He Who IS Absolute Being - and Luther gave of that wellspring in waging the war so we could be free from the evil & spiritual tyranny of that time & place & religion.
Hope it helps Inspire You!
I had noticed sumfink, about your "verticality"...but will only share if I'm invited...My blog has an Email addy on it you can clik, if you'd like to share yours with me.
As you wish, Van. GBU!
- PsychoPrincess -
PS: The Prophets of God KNEW Absolute Truth - certainly they Spoke It - and were never liars or false - they musta known something many have now lost (which many here are regaining.) This seems very foreign to Inty, I'm sure - but it is Absolute Truth nonetheless and God/Truth Exists, whether we touch and know Him/It or not.
I pray Inty has the courage to go down before he goes up, to face self on Gods altar, and really surrender everything he is and is not, so that he may know Gods Will, Mind & Heart; then no more arguments about Absolute Truth not being real, eh? LOL! I am praying for him.
Again, WRONG INTY:
Its not MY wisdom you must submit to - its GODS which you refuse to face!
Real projection problems every time you type anything - and if I am nasty to you - it is becuz you are nasty yourself and ignore the fact repeatedly, peeving people off so they dont have patience w/you anymore - as I recall it was your arrogance and narcissism that believed YOU were the self-proclaimed "genius" that earned you alot of dumpings on OC? Remember?
You earned it, now live with it. Still I pray for your conversion and for GODS LIGHT (not mine) to illumine your mind.
You did not come here in the guise of one seeking to learn! You alienated people from he get-go with your haughty attitude & disdain - now you cry foul? Then think about not acting that way next time, as I told you - such arrogance wins you no friends and does not get you to your goal here.
Try again. And be a bit humbler.
You just dont get us. We only claim God - nothing more, and nothing less!!
- PsychoPrincess -
You dont even know me Inty: But I Am, in Him: Firm & Assertive where I need to be; tender and graceful when I need to be; battling the enemy, within and without of all kinds when needed; and caring for the wounded and others I counsel & nurse back to sanity from their "engagements" and brain-washings from the enemy.
You just hate that I wont capitulate to you. The only contempt I see here is yours.
My duty is to Hate what God hates; and Love what God Loves. I pray you also to learn to hate what God hates within your self - the arrogance, pride & narcissism you evidence that surely indicates the truth of your souls condition...why? So that thru it all YOU will connect with Him, in Real Truth, not just your version of it.
If this be what you want, why didnt you say so in the first place and not try to strongarm us into your side? We know better than to follow where your types lead us...been there, done that, we werent born yesterday and many of us are old-timers in this Spiritual war...You'd think you'd know that if you've been around battle enuf.
Still, you must "Go down in order to Go up." So, as you wish, then.
- PsychoPrincess -
Reading the Bible you claim to believe in and "follow" would help guide you immensely, I'm sure. Chewing our heads more about it when we've already given you alot of food for thought is a bit uncharitable and lazy on your part.
It is HIS Wisdom you must follow - not your own, not mine, not G-BOBS, not Vans, for the relationship between you and your Maker is personal, on the first level, and must be established so you know how to act around us/others...as we have learned to act around one another.
But do not think we are constrained by your Egalitarian Beliefs to treat all people the same - for Enemies, we "Matt18" them - excommunicate when they refuse to repent of their sins after being warned again and again - hey, thats GODS LAW not mine or anyone else for you to blame it on.
Either you Love and Know the God & His Truth you claim to serve, or your claims have no merit & are as good as chaff - chaff is not Wheat, and Wheat is not chaff (tho it may have been once but God Himself changed it and caused Wheat to grow) and the chaff gets burnt up while the Wheat is Harvested unto God to enter into His House. The chaff DO NOT Enter.
Read your Bible. Do what it says.
James 4:7-10 is as great a place to start as any - if you really want to know "what we know" and change your self & advance up the Vertical & know God, then go for it - no one is stopping you but You.
Dont say someone didnt tell you or share in Good Faith with you the Good News of what you must do - yes its from the Bible, not from PsychoPrincess' ideology. I'm just helping point you where to read, how to open your eyes, and submit to Him in You since you are so alienated from Him.
BTW: I also offered compassion to you which you snubbed and rejected, remember? I sense your alienation from him, and therefore, from us. So dont cast aspersions where none are True about how we dont care for you. Evil in self and others is a terrible thing to deal with, and is often best dealt with ruthlessly when its clear it refuses to repent of its sins!
If instead, self/sin submits to God, cocoons, heals In Spirit - then love your enemy and love them into God and Truth deeper and deeper...that is what most of us Believers do...you can complain all you want...But the responsibility for YOUR Spiritual walk is upon your own head, and your head alone - Not OneC, not Bob, not Van, not me.
That responsibility is your key to your freedom from the tower you've imprisoned yourself within. If you wish to "break out" then use the key; if not, stay inside. But dont think we must do the same. Nor are you right to envy us for having what you do not possess. It is open to all to have, not just for a few; but only a few who pass thru the Eye of the Needle will See thru His Eyes, and Know Truth/God, as the Bible testifies & witnesses the Truth.
This is your challenge to meet and match. Do or do not; there is no waffling & whining. :D
As you sow, so shall you reap. Means you reap the Fruit you choose, sour and bitter and staying on the outside; or soft, tender, Fruit molded to HolySpirit on the inside, connected with God, and therefore, with us.
The choice is clearly yours, no one can make it for you, Inty.
Choose Well & Wisely this day whom you will serve and submit to.
I dont think God has much time for you tellin Him "how it all is" - hence, neither did we since we know His Mind.
I shall pray for your soul, even if you curse me. Its a Princess-thing! :D
-PsychoPrincess-
"...show dont tell... Show me how I am deluded - dont simply tell me so." Inty said.
Re-read the posts we all wrote to you - therein is the showing of your delusions to yourself - allow it to reflect to you your "true" condition.
And if you are not going to listen consider what we say, why bother us anymore then?
Face God on the Altar of Self. Look up all the verses in Scripture that speak of dying to self - Paul should know he learned it for 7 yrs before he went out to preach n teach! Begin with what he says on it then. The Bible is Gods Mind to You, Inty.
Read it if you want it "shown" to you, dont just talk & say you want it without doing the work to get to know God and growing in HIS Wisdom.
We told you all this before. Open your eyes and read it, see it. Now walk it. Then we can celebrate for You!
- P2 -
Integralist said "Van, I don't know why you're getting peeved."
Peeved? no... frustrated? Yep, definitely - I've been down this road before, and it doesn't seem to make any real progress, still... walking's good for you.
I'm not demonizing you, merely pointing out that there is a divide here, and I suspect unbridgable. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Recognizing an interior and exterior doesn't imply realms populated with Plato's forms or any number of other constructs.
"If you and the others on One Cosmos really are privy to such profound wisdom as you claim to be, then it is your responsibility to share that."
That's the frustrating part - I'm not privy to anything hidden and mysterious, or claim that such exists! And it's not all that profound, it's just reality. It's here right in front of your face and everyone elses! There is no need to theorize up arbitrary realities to support it! It's here! (I may have mentioned that I tend to get loud. Smiling, but loud)
I too experience something more than the clearly visible, but again, that doesn't require separate realities to be experienced. Those are theories based on theory based on th....
Integralist, you really can't keep trying to identify disagreement as demonization. Disagreement is not a bad thing. And how is naming leftist thought as leftist thought castigation? Come on, that's kind of silly.
Anything stated with "X said it, I believe it, that settles it" de-conceptualizes and kills thought, Fundamentalists and rabid Atheists are identical in this way. I don't see that from Gagdad Bob at all. Restating by way of reference to what you've explained in depth many times before is not only sensible and valid, continually providing all the definitions and ramifications for every concept mentioned would be not only tedious, but anti-conceptual.
"From a truly spiritual perspective it is self-evident that all expressions have some validity, some truth--for all expressions are movements of "God." Not equal truth, but some truth, for all is God, all is One Cosmos, yes? No part of this One Cosmos is "apart from God"."
Nope. I don't grant that phony compassion and empathy a grain of value.
It is not castigating or erecting a way to say you are in error, it's only stating the obvious.
"But in this vast and infinite cosmos is there a way of perception that is without error? That is objectively true? You seem to claim yours is, but how can it be?"
Gauranteed to be without error? This is the standard technique of the skeptic - "can you be certain you are without error?" I can be certain that I have not ignored evidence to the contrary, and without such, I can say I'm certain. Want me to question that? Bring me some evidence, not arbitrary doubt.
"From the get go, the folks on One Cosmos act as if they are in the Know and anyone who doesn't believe what they believe simply don't get it. "
...well... if they don't understand what we're saying... then... they... don't... get it. Get it?
"This is where I see tinges of cultism; in truth, we are all cultists to some degree, even if cults of one."
Really, that is just such a juvenile tactic of attempting to tar anyone who disagrees with you. 2 + 2 = 4 Ah! MATH CULTIST!!!
"But we all subscribe to different beliefs, all of which are ultimately wrong, or at least incomplete and partial. "
Sorry, pure B.S. Again, how can I put this more clearly. THIS BELIEF, MULTI-CULTI EVERYTHING IS OF VALUE AND ALL ARE INCOMPLETE IS THE VERY ROOT OF RATIONALISTIC THOUGHT AND IS ULTIMATELY EXPRESSED AS LEFTIST THOUGHT!!! (If you can't be clearer, be louder)
" but I am not going to believe that simply because you and a small group of like-minded folks on an internet blog say so."
And you should not. But you should be asking yourself if there is anything in reality, not the one you get all warm and fuzzy imagining, but the one here and now, to back your beliefs up. If not, you should begin questioning your own beliefs, not others.
(note: still smiling. I just can't stomach papering the page with smileys everywhere. But trust me, still smiling)
PsychoPrincess,
I think you need a new set of brakes on your keyboard. While it is nice to have someone else make my lack of brevity seem monosyllabic... come on. The gems you do have are being scattered across continents of text - we can't all be lewis and clark. The internet only has so much html available you know.
;-)
PsychoPrincess, is this you?
You said..."VAN: JUST FOR YOU:
"Reason is the Whore, the Greatest Enemy that Faith has." and
"Reason is the enemy of faith."
- Martin Luther
I believe he also compared Aristotle to lice & vermin, which is not particularly endearing to me.
I try to give a 16th century pass to Martin Luther by assuming he meant that practice which hadn't fully come out into a separate light yet in his time (but marks much of the popular leftist (sorry Integralist) thought, and many of the rest in popular culture (there) as well, the practice of attempting to "Mr. Spock-ify" Reason. Trying to remove it from the full context of experience and focus it exclusively on quantifiable, visible, tangible things, and excluding the full range of human experience from its realm.
This practice would have struck Aristotle, and most intellectuals up through the 18th century as bizarre, and only came to the fore with the Germaniac Phd-icrats following in Hegel's wake.
You may have noticed that I am probably one of the least traditionally 'religous' among the One Cosmos bobbleheads... but am humored by them. I am more reverent... or I suppose spiritual (like the word, hate the modern overdose usage of it), than religous. The best summation of where I stand internally on the subject is probably summed up in this earlier post.
Integralist, it may be worth noting that I originally posted on One Cosmos in disagreement with Gagdad Bob and was met with discussion, not vitriol. The practice continues with many posters who might have issues with posts or comments there. Most recently I disagreed with Mikez, there have been confirmed atheists as well who are met with interested discussion, not derision or vitriol, often even without even any recreational slamming involved. The ‘pack’ only unleashes themselves on attitude and insult, not content (within reason).
Oh VAN!
Did Luther REALLY say that? Egads! Well he wasnt called the Bull for nothing!
Sorry about that - I love Aristotle myself, I just posted the quotes and thought you'd find them mildly funny in light of your convo w/Inty.
Have to apologize to you for the wee hours this morning - Inty got on my nerves and I let fly. I apologize!
Thats what happens when I try to "be nice" for the Troll and he goes and does what he did this morning. I'm not amused and rather peeved right now, but I'll get over it & learn to deal better with his type.
Forgive me.
I will never ever sling has on Aristotle! Luther does have his detractive points at times - the lice n vermin thing is definitely one of them! :(
Thanks! I'll be reading your lengthy post today, however, I'm completely finished all interaction with %*#% Integralist after his immature behaviors this morning. Have a great day! :D Good work! I'm impressed! :)
- PsychoPrincess -
PS: I'm checking on that "link" you provided about me, but its probably not me - I saw there was some AsianPrincess calling herself Psycho Princess but not its not me - I dont even know my way around Blogville yet.
Van, yes, thats "me" but I dont like it much. Confused on whether to make it a "personal site" or a psych info site - I'll probably end up makin two blogs? I dunno what I'm doing, dunno how to get "pages" linked to it...cant seem to do with it what I have in mind using drop down boxes/menus, etc.
Am trying to getta Geek-friend to help me but hes outta town right now, so will have to wait til January. In the meantime I'll just type some stuff up and study Bobs blog & a few of you guys blogs. This is all new to me. (The forum idea is a good one, I'm a little more familiar w/that format.) I used to do MSN and let me tell you they are mostly hardcore Atheists. It feels like I'm at Club Med to be here! Too bad the Trolls still infiltrate.
I'll probably strip the blog down and redo it - take out the stained glass pics & make it minimalist. I like minimalist; quicker to read. But I also love Color and hate bland boring pages.
This web stuff is hard on me cause I used to be a Graphic Artist years ago and "nothing works like it did back then" and the tools I know how to use are useless for Html code. Nothing worse than being a frustrated designer (well maybe a frustrated writer!) :D
- P2 -
I'm still covering my eyes over the Luther quote! I had noooo idea he thought that about Ari....egads! (blushing) so sowwy. My bad! :o
PsychoPrincess, whether you believe me or not I agree with a lot of the gist or essence of what you are saying. However, I think you are under at least a few major false assumptions:
1) I NEVER said I was a "genius." As I said, someone aped my moniker at least two instances that I'm aware of--one in which they proclaimed "I am a genius" or some such. You may disbelieve me, but putting it in your terms, if you do so you are disbelieving Truth (and this gives me a simple test of how aware you aware...if you believe me then you are at least somewhat open to Truth).
2) I never proclaimed myself as a Christian. I'm not sure where you read this. I am not part of any formal religion, although I respect all religions, and am I student of various spiritual teachers that may or may not be associated with a particular religion.
3) The biggest delusion I see on your part is not that I don't think you have connection to God, for I read a certain degree of experiential wisdom in what you say--but that you think that your connection to God is not filtered through your own personality. As if you can see and speak objectively for God. Is this not the height of hubris and egoity?
No matter how deeply profound your connection to God, you are still there. PsychoPrincess is still talking. So when you continually occuse me of projection you are in truth projecting your own projection onto me!
The truth of the matter is that we all project. We all see the world as we are, not as it is. Only God sees the world as it is and, as you say, we are not God. We are within God, our essence is divine, but none of us can claim to see as God sees.
4) Which leads me to perhaps your most egregious delusion: GOD DOES NOT HATE ANYONE OR ANYTHING. I thoroughly disagree with this aspect of your ideology, which you are conflating and basically saying "God hates what I hate." This allows you to believe that your ire towards me is something righteous, as if you are a soldier of God chastising the heathens. This has already been done, PP, and it was called the INQUISITION.
This is related to the problem with One Cosmos in general: their own specific (and shared) worldview is conflated, so that they (you) actually believe that your ideology is God's ideology (who has no specific ideology!).
This is probably why postmodernism is outright rejected, for a deep understanding of its core tenets utterly transforms this fallacy: one is able to see one's own worldview for what it is, rather than arrogantly believing it to be God's.
I mean PP, this is how religious wars occur: my way is Right, yours is Wrong. This is what Specter was pointing out (who wasn't me, btw): the Leftist view at least allows for your view to be a valid expression; yours separates everything into Right or Wrong, Good or Evil.
In summary, I think the best thing you could do for the world, for yourself, and perhaps even for God, is to START OWNING YOUR PROJECTIONS. Practice what you preach. Good advice for all of us, no?
Okay last comment -
I agree with you - Luther, while being a superior Theologian, was NOT nearly on that same level as a philosopher, and I dont see him as such. However, to give him credit where its due, he was the superior Theologian (mostly) becuz all the other reformers who followed him actually had more heresies built into their theologies than his did - his is actually still one of the purist ones to this day, so I respect him for careful discernment in his chosen craft - but he was surely no philosopher on par or even 1/2 par with Aristotle! Aristotle still rocks. :D
Yes thanks for the heads up to confirm what I saw, namely that you are "spiritual" moreso than dynamically religious. I have to check out observations at times just to be sure I'm getting it right - I dont just read but would like to get to know the person behind the writing at least a little. Thanks Van!
The Troll is blathering on your blog Van. I dont speak to Trolls. They lie & twist.
-P2-
Van, I still think part of the problem is that you are assuming that your position is higher and trying to teach/convert me. We all do this to some extent, but the key is in always--and I mean always--keeping some degree of openness, even vigilance for one's own self-delusions and limitations. We all have boundaries and it is awfully difficult to recognize them as such when we encounter them.
You're right, you aren't demonizing me. I was more referring to One Cosmos demonizing leftism, postmodernism, and everything related. This is a kind of big collective blindspot there, imo.
Recognizing an interior and exterior doesn't imply realms populated with Plato's forms or any number of other constructs.
Right. But Plato's forms and other interior experiences cannot be proved in the way you are asking them to be proved; I cannot prove Love, can I? It must be personally experienced.
That's the frustrating part - I'm not privy to anything hidden and mysterious, or claim that such exists! And it's not all that profound, it's just reality. It's here right in front of your face and everyone elses! There is no need to theorize up arbitrary realities to support it! It's here! (I may have mentioned that I tend to get loud. Smiling, but loud)
OK, but what "arbitrary realities" am I summoning up? I am merely pointing out that reality is multi-faceted and that none of us can see all of it. This includes both deeper realms of existence that are experientially verifiable through meditative practice, and mental-ideologies, which can forever be evolved.
When I say that you and One Cosmos act like you are privy to profound wisdom, this is exemplified by when you claim to see reality. It isn't so simple. Who is it that is seeing? And what hidden assumptions are seeing through? As I've said, we see the world as we are, not as it is--which is why is important to evolve oneself, one's seeing so that it becomes more expansive, subtle, and, well, integral.
I too experience something more than the clearly visible, but again, that doesn't require separate realities to be experienced. Those are theories based on theory based on th....
I agree, it doesn't require separate realities. When did I say otherwise?
Integralist, you really can't keep trying to identify disagreement as demonization. Disagreement is not a bad thing. And how is naming leftist thought as leftist thought castigation? Come on, that's kind of silly.
I'd agree if that is all that occurs at One Cosmos, but come on Van. Bob describes leftism as a "soul pathology," and others even as EVIL. How is that not demonization? When I say "castigation" I mean seeing no value whatsoever.
Anything stated with "X said it, I believe it, that settles it" de-conceptualizes and kills thought, Fundamentalists and rabid Atheists are identical in this way. I don't see that from Gagdad Bob at all. Restating by way of reference to what you've explained in depth many times before is not only sensible and valid, continually providing all the definitions and ramifications for every concept mentioned would be not only tedious, but anti-conceptual.
Sure.
"From a truly spiritual perspective it is self-evident that all expressions have some validity, some truth--for all expressions are movements of "God." Not equal truth, but some truth, for all is God, all is One Cosmos, yes? No part of this One Cosmos is "apart from God"."
Nope. I don't grant that phony compassion and empathy a grain of value.
OK, we disagree. But why call it phony? Maybe you don't understand what I am saying. Maybe you haven't truly experienced it from within?
What I said above is similar to the Hindu term "Namaste," which literally means "I bow to the divine in you." Is recognizing that everyone has some divinity "phony compassion?"
It is not castigating or erecting a way to say you are in error, it's only stating the obvious.
Talk about bad logic, Van. You equate "the obvious" with what you believe.
Gauranteed to be without error? This is the standard technique of the skeptic - "can you be certain you are without error?" I can be certain that I have not ignored evidence to the contrary, and without such, I can say I'm certain. Want me to question that? Bring me some evidence, not arbitrary doubt.
What are we talking about here? Certain about what? I am saying that you cannot ever see or know the whole truth.
...well... if they don't understand what we're saying... then... they... don't... get it. Get it?
And I can claim the same and so we find ourselves at an impasse. Which is fine, you have your clan and I'll have mine--but if we ever want to really communicate, there has to be some give and take, some surrender, some generosity of spirit. I mean Van, I've repeatedly said that I agree with a lot of what is said on One Cosmos, and cited examples--but never have I experienced anyone reciprocating.
"This is where I see tinges of cultism; in truth, we are all cultists to some degree, even if cults of one."
Really, that is just such a juvenile tactic of attempting to tar anyone who disagrees with you. 2 + 2 = 4 Ah! MATH CULTIST!!!
Not at all. Once again you miss the finer points of what I'm saying.
Sorry, pure B.S. Again, how can I put this more clearly. THIS BELIEF, MULTI-CULTI EVERYTHING IS OF VALUE AND ALL ARE INCOMPLETE IS THE VERY ROOT OF RATIONALISTIC THOUGHT AND IS ULTIMATELY EXPRESSED AS LEFTIST THOUGHT!!! (If you can't be clearer, be louder)
Well, from your perspective I can see how you'd think that. But what I don't think you understand is that it is actually a more advanced form of thinking than you are espousing here. Randian thought is modernistic; leftist thought is postmodern; and integral thought is post-postmodern. I am saying that integral thinking includes (but transcends) elements of modern and postmodern thinking. You are continually waging the war of modern vs. postmodern.
And you should not. But you should be asking yourself if there is anything in reality, not the one you get all warm and fuzzy imagining, but the one here and now, to back your beliefs up. If not, you should begin questioning your own beliefs, not others.
I always question both, Van. Always. Well...most of the time. Even I can be blind.
;)
A troll = anyone who questions PsychoPrincess's omniscience.
"Van, I still think part of the problem is that you are assuming that your position is higher and trying to teach/convert me."
I am fully aware that I am trying to make an argument for what I see to be true as being true, which naturally does contain elements of teaching and selling - and in one sense of "higher" refelecting true and false, of course I hold to that - but in the other sense, the more rhetorically holier than thou sense, nope, it don't stick. Also, doing your best to convince, teach a point you beleive to be true is not the same as being unaware of such an intent, or that self-delusions and limitations are inherent in the task.
I've spent quite awhile looking into the boundaries, the false paths, the over corrections, and I am continually looking for flaws in what I believe - that to me is not only fun, but positively beneficial. If you or someone else leads me to see something from a perspective that I haven't examined before, I will examine it - enthusiastically. That's ingrained in me. If it proves to be true, I'll toss off my error's like bags of offal. I got the the convictions I have now, through such a process - many previous convictions, partial truths burdened with unseen errors lie in my wake - yours (in my estimation) is laying in the road a ways back. Which is another reason I'm not much open to what I say, not because I refuse to consider it, but because you haven't brought anything to my attention which I haven't considered before (and in some cases accepted for a time) and found wanting. Which brings me to your comment:
"...which is why is important to evolve oneself, one's seeing so that it becomes more expansive, subtle, and, well, integral" who's accusing who of what? Talk about your self-elevating blind spots... tsk, tsk.
"...I agree, it doesn't require separate realities. When did I say otherwise?" Maybe I misunderstood, but in "For example, modern science holds that the Sun is a ball of gas and plasma; this may adequately describe its physical attributes, but it doesn't take into account any deeper, subtler aspects." I took 'deeper, subtler aspects' as claims to some form of knowledge outside the scientific realm, not to mention "...on up the ladder, you have subtler and subtler dimensions: the vital etheric, the emotional astral, the lower mental, higher mental, psychic, subtle, and causal". If not, then as Emily Lattella would say "nevermind".
"...when you claim to see reality. It isn't so simple." Really, that is nonsense. Yes I'm very aware that unexamined beliefs can cloud the vision, but they are among the simplest things to rid yourself of - it requires little more than developing the habit of continually questioning what you hold to be true - seeking those cracks and chinks, those assumptions which seem to be floating at the third floor level without benefit of a 1st or 2nd floor supporting it. There is much (nearly all, actually) I have come to disagree with Socrates about, but he's still my favorite for that very lesson in reasoning.
There was a series awhile back, very good, very interesting, called "Connections" (Burke was his name?), which made some really amazing connections, integrations even, between the most seemingly unrelated things... something like billiard balls and dynamite for instance. He would trace how people used to think "X" wasn't possible for the longest time, then Mr. Y came along, and noticed Z and U, and his friend Mr. W said "AHA!" and put the unobviously (because of beleifs blinders) obviously together, and viola, we're all better off for it. The point he always tried to put forward though, was "Look! People don't Look! THey Don't see, because they believe otherwise! We're all trappped by our delusions!", but he never really dealt with the most interesting part of his presentation, being that eventually someone comes along who's eyes are open and questioning, and we advance.
"Bob describes leftism as a "soul pathology," and others even as EVIL. How is that not demonization? When I say "castigation" I mean seeing no value whatsoever." You do engage in a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, you know - what about the charges of Cultism and that we're all wearing blinders... lucky we've got you to help out. COme on Integralist... see it... I know you can ;-).
"OK, we disagree. But why call it phony?" I'm making no claims to diplomacy here, if you want to, that's up to you, I see no value in making it easy to overlook shortcomings and errors.
Where I said "It is not castigating or erecting a way to say you are in error, it's only stating the obvious." you said "Talk about bad logic, Van. You equate "the obvious" with what you believe." NO, I equate the obvious with the obvious - what I can see plainly to be so - if I am in error, point it out, otherwise I'll let that stand.
"to really communicate, there has to be some give and take, some surrender" not on principles, never. They are correct, or at worst their context is delimited, but beyond that it's true or false.
"Not at all. Once again you miss the finer points of what I'm saying." Not at all, I get the finer points of what you're saying... I've MADE the finer points of what your are saying. One day I realized that behind the theories... they had no true foundation. So I tossed them and moved on.
"I am saying that integral thinking includes (but transcends) elements of modern and postmodern thinking. You are continually waging the war of modern vs. postmodern."
No I am continually waging the war of Reality vs imitation.
Integralist, if we are going to get anywhere, I think it is in this that we need to explore:
"It isn't so simple. Who is it that is seeing? And what hidden assumptions are seeing through? As I've said, we see the world as we are, not as it is--which is why is important to evolve oneself, one's seeing so that it becomes more expansive, subtle, and, well, integral."
It is here where the unbridegable splitting of the ways occurs... and crud... I was suppose to leave and pick up dinner on the way home 20 min ago... no spell checks or 2nd drafts... ah well...
Have at me (I'm havieng a blast here).
Ah, I recognize a fellow truth-seeker in your, Van :)
And yes, you are right: I am not foolproof, nor do I claim to be. Accusing everyone on One Cosmos of being blind and cultic is un-called for, especially when I engage one on one with folks and begin to realize that there is more depth there than I initially thought. Funny how that is...
On the other hand, you side-stepped my comment about the demonization and castigation of Leftism by Bob and One Cosmos. In my opinion, this is the elephant in the room no one sees, the glaring thorn in the side of an otherwise quite insightful community.
But I think my main mistake was in assuming that everyone on One Cosmos was the same. Stupid of me. It is sort of like hearing a genre of music, like rap, and thinking "it all sounds the same." But the more you listen to it, the more you start hearing differences--as well as gradations of quality.
I'm going to put aside my previous arguments and act as if you are correct when you say you understand the finer points of what I am saying (even if I see more telling than showing, more statement of opinion than revelation of proof). So I'm going to ask you a few questions to better understand what you are saying:
1) What do you mean by Reality vs. imitation? What is Reality?
2) What philosophers, spiritual teachers, etc, best represent the view of Reality?
3) Please elucidate on this:
Integralist, if we are going to get anywhere, I think it is in this that we need to explore:
"It isn't so simple. Who is it that is seeing? And what hidden assumptions are seeing through? As I've said, we see the world as we are, not as it is--which is why is important to evolve oneself, one's seeing so that it becomes more expansive, subtle, and, well, integral."
It is here where the unbridegable splitting of the ways occurs...
OK, what is the "unbridgeable splitting of the ways" on what I said above?
And yeah, I too am enjoying this...
Excellent questions which I definitly want to get into, but I'm late for work and I'm going to have to hedge on the Reality question because that's the current Post I'm working on & don't want to repeat or dilute myself. I didn't mean to go light on the Demonizing question... how about this:
A short example, a bit heavy on the hyperbole, yes, but...
Suppose you meet a doctor, seems a decent guy, dislikes disease, likes to cure people, all well and good. As you get talking he starts to mention things like incisions & razors in the midst of discussing something such as the common cold or strep throat.
Finally you ask him what they have to do with treating such things, and he looks at you oddly, and slowly states that "obviously it has to do with the correct method of bleeding the patient, what did you think it had to do with, you slow or something?"
You shake your head a moment, then stammer "Bleeding? You mean cutting the patient to let their blood run out? You bleed patients to cure colds and diseases?"
He looks at you in consternation as if you're thick "Well...Duh!"
"WHAT?!!! Seriously?! You BLEED YOUR PATIENTS?"
He's shocked at your being shocked, he's offended "Honestly, you medicine oriented types are just so hidebound. You refuse to even consider alternate methods of treatment..."
"But BLEEDING?! B-L-E-E-D-I-N-G!!!"
"Stop saying it as if there's something inherently wrong in it, it's a practice that's been around for centuries, and it's not like we use jagged chunks of metal, look at this fine razor, it's curved design is especially useful for getting behind the..."
"STOP! I don't want to hear it!"
You explain that the idea of humors and excess fluid and biles were shown to be fundamentally in error over a century ago, that except in the most accidental of situations, bleeding actually harms the patient and does nothing at all to cure disease - in fact modern physicians today think that the doctors bleeding George Washington probably ensured his sickbed became a deathbed.
"Oh! Well, they would say that wouldn't they?! Anything to discredit the practice!"
Outlandish, yeah a bit. But the persons exasperation and shock with the 'doctor' is something most of us on the classical liberal side can relate to when talking to, or about leftists.
The oceans of blood it has spilt, starting with the French Revolution on up through Stalin, Mao, etc... the absolutely failed and foolish economic policies that do nothing but exacerbate and extend not only the economic situations, but also serve to wrap Government in ever deepening layers of bureaucracy and corruption, the social programs which are the psychological equivalents of the economic policies, disintegrate society, raise up victimhood as an ideal, ensure mediocrity. And leftists still adhere to it, and call those who refuse to go along with it anti-progress, crude, mean and shallow thinkers, greedy racists, homophobes!
Like my person above, it is a bit much to take - you clearly see that what they preach and practice will cause nothing but harm and destruction, and you are ridiculed and attacked for daring to say so.
How should the person above respond? Patiently explain to the doctor ("I AM a Doctor you know, I have a DEGREE!") how history and science can prove that he's wrong?
We've gone through the history umpteen times, compare and contrast the American & French revolutions, the Governments that followed.
Compare and contrast the ideas and results of Locke and Rousseau,
Compare and contrast Bastiat, Von Mises, Friedman and Sowell with Marx, Veblen, Keynes and Sweezy,
Compare and contrast the United States of America with France, USSR, Red China, Cambodia, Cuba.... you can make it 50 to 1, the result is success with failures.
Demonizing? Taking a wide meaning of the term, perhaps, but how are you supposed to respond to something which you can see and prove consistently recreates the most earthly reflections of Evil this side of Dante?
With sweetly calm politeness and diplomacy? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Yikes – Way Late for work, more later.
OK, so you're the more modern, up-to-date doctor, and I'm the guy who insists on bleeding, right?
The problem with that is obvious: what if you are wrong? What if you are the "bleeder"? I mean, that is how it looks from my perspective ;) How so? Because you continue to take a one-sided view of Left vs. Right, where anything not "Right" is Left (even when I'm saying BOTH...which neither Righties nor Lefties want to hear).
So we're at an impasse and the only way forward is to either "agree to disagree" or continue to discuss.
Pssst!!! Van!!
I think it's safe to come out now and post on your blog again. Van?
Yoo hoo!!? Yo! Van!
Some of us are still waiting...
(Joan...sshhhh!!! you might wake me)
Although it's worth noting that my psychic membership was suddenly, and very rudely, revoked, I do predict a shiny new post will be up here tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure that my wife isn't going to surprise me with another not-quite-new-years-eve-party-because-she-has-to-work-of-new-years-eve like last night("Honey, I know it's been a tough week, and you said you were beat, and looking forward to relaxing, but by the time you get home there's going to be a bunch of people here, ok?")
Even while I was pretending to listen to people, I was mentally typing, so it'll be here tomorrow.
Integralist said "...I mean, that is how it looks from my perspective ;) How so? Because you continue to take a one-sided view of Left vs. Right, where anything not "Right" is Left ..."
The problem with that is to equate historic fact with a personal view. There are many things you can take a personal view on as regards to (the remnants of Classical Liberal govt's) America, Britain, Canada, Post WWII Japan, Pre-China handover Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, etc, but even with the most leftist take on the American Indians, you can't say that they have enslaved and slaughtered millions of their own people.
Can you say the same about Nazi Germany, USSR, Red China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Baathis Iraq... etc?
You can view their history from as many points of view you'd like to straddle, but you're not going to be able to ignore the difference in the history of each groups root philosophies as expressed on the ground.
You also can not legitimately say that "these are just isolated examples, our variant plan of socialism is to do it this way, and because with our plan we've altered X, that won't happen".
Whichever way it's skewed, it's still socialism, which is still a plan based on the nature some theorist wished people had, played out in a reality of cause and effect that they wished didn't exist, and wish can only be considered by pretending that principles either don't exist, or can be bypassed by ignoring their existence.
They don't, it does, and they do apply whether or not you open your eyes.
Again, you have the notion that you can pick and choose between aspects of philosophy as if you were in a metaphysical cafeteria line. That notion can only be entertained by ignoring reality, pretending truth is malleable and of two natures, and that principles can be pragmatically applied now and then without any detrimental affects.
That very notion is a critical component of the philosophy underlying leftist thought. It is not something that can be mixed "just a little dab will do ya" with principled Classical Liberal thought. As soon as you do, you no longer have Classical Liberal thought, you have leftism in a new sheep’s clothing, which only someone sympathetic to leftist thought could entertain. To go a little bit left, is to become a leftist. That's what you aren't getting, you aren't asking us to entertain a little liberality with our ideas, you are asking us to abandon them in total.
I know you don't like things stated in black and white fashion, but it is what it is. Hopefully my next two posts (which I'm getting back to working on Joan, I'm doing it now, I am) will illustrate a bit more how reality, our consciousness of it, and the words we use to deal with it will explain this more clearly for you.
Good things are worth waiting for...
...and waiting for...
and ...
Hmm. You've got a quality blog here, Van. Thanks.
Thanks Anna
Post a Comment