Tradition betrayed

[The new erato]

God is transcendent, which means God is beyond the capacities of the human mind to understand.  God is experienceable, but not comprehensible. 

.......which certainly is a great way to ensure you think you win all discussions, yet the concept of transcendence is a human concept. Which means we human defines him to be outside our perception, a definition we couldn't have made if we hadn't existed. Ergo God is defined by us, not the other way round. Circular reasoning all the way round, with no way to break the circle either way. Futile.

[Karl Henning]

You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

Artfully done, Mike.

[Karl Henning]

There is a saying: "People are idiots." 

Certainly an alarmingly large subset of the class idiots are people : )

[kishnevi]

Circular reasoning all the way round, with no way to break the circle either way. Futile.

Exactly.  God is to be experienced, not reasoned about. That's why every spiritual tradition has somewhere along the way their own equivalent of  Zen koans--things that break the cycle of "thinking about God" and "believing in God" so that you can begin experiencing God.


[Goes off to practice one-hand clapping]

[Karl Henning]

. . . Karl - you even asked a second time for the evidence. What is your response?

Guido, thanks for your entirely neighborly question.  Fact is, I've just returned from Ohio, where I gave a master class and presented (performed, is putting it more simply) a couple of my pieces.  So, I've been out of state for four days, and of course there was a period if preparation before those four days.  I am terribly sorry that my failure to respond here has been of such towering philosophical importance to you.

Thank you for all the many times you've talked to me here at GMG about my music.  I think I understand now exactly where we stand.

Best wishes!

[71 dB]

So why do you insist on wasting your time?

Best question of the week.

[ibanezmonster]

What is 2+2 in the binary numerical basis I'll leave it to you as an exercise.

2 is an invalid number in binary, so the question doesn't make sense...
but 2 + 2 = 4 in binary is 10 + 10 = 100.

[Florestan]

2 is an invalid number in binary, so the question doesn't make sense...

Exactly. You got the idea.

[Guido]

Guido, thanks for your entirely neighborly question.  Fact is, I've just returned from Ohio, where I gave a master class and presented (performed, is putting it more simply) a couple of my pieces.  So, I've been out of state for four days, and of course there was a period if preparation before those four days.  I am terribly sorry that my failure to respond here has been of such towering philosophical importance to you.

Thank you for all the many times you've talked to me here at GMG about my music.  I think I understand now exactly where we stand.

Best wishes!

Oh Karl darling! Come on, let's not be angry with each other! Joking aside, I'm just upset about the unhappy tone of this debate, point scoring etc. You might have noticed that I now rarely frequent the forum in general, though this thread piqued my interest. I've sort of lost interest in the thread now though. Don't take it as an insult that I don't post on your thread! Is this jealousy because I post on Luke's thread? Me and him have talked a lot outside of his music, and not just about other music (he has been tremendously generous in sharing his musical knowledge with me), but about non musical, "real world" matters also. I've never had this sort of relationship with you, and you've never made it clear to me that that is what you desired. I do find your constant disparagement of 71db (over the last few years) quite difficult to deal with, which is one reason for this distance I keep I guess. There's no enmity or hostility between us though, at least not from my side. Everything's cool! 

[DavidRoss]

I do find your constant disparagement of 71db (over the last few years) quite difficult to deal with,

"Constant disparagement of 71dB?" From the time Mr. dB joined (under another name) he has freely disparaged others. His obvious limitations elicit much compassion--but compassion does not mean letting his more egregious claims go uncorrected--especially when he attacks, say, the musical taste and knowledge of those so stupid (according to him) as to regard Beethoven as a significant composer of merit (we're all idiots who've been brainwashed, says Mr. dB)...or, as here, when he attacks the intellectual capacity of those who are open-minded regarding the existence and nature of God.

Karl has been forthright in responding to Mr. dB's unprovoked attacks on those who don't share his limitations, but as far as I have seen, Karl has done so with kindness and discretion, standing up for himself and others and exhibiting considerable tolerance in the process. 

[71 dB]

If I say I don't like Beethoven's style of orchestration or that I think believing in God is irrational I am not attacking anyone. I am simply telling what I think.

But, of course anyone is free to take my claims as they want.

[Karl Henning]

If I say I don't like Beethoven's style of orchestration or that I think believing in God is irrational I am not attacking anyone.

Hardly any point in trying to indicate this to you yet another time, neighbor, but there is a flaw in your thinking if you cannot see how these two statements are perfectly distinct.

And when you make muddled (and at times insulting) remarks, you can expect to be called on it.  Indeed, if you were truly a freethinker, you would embrace these occasions, and you would take a lesson from them.

[71 dB]

You are of course  entitled to take my posts as insulting (btw, it's a sign of narrow mind to be insulted easily).

I think I have been very honest about my opinions. I don't hold back my thoughts.

[Karl Henning]

You are of course entitled to take my posts as insulting (btw, it's a sign of narrow mind to be insulted easily).

You're wandering from the point.  In the first place, I do not indicate that I took this particularly post as insulting.  BTW, it's a sign of weak character to place the burden of the question of an insult on the allegedly narrow mind of another person.  Any of our neighbors reading this exchange will not hesitate to identify the party of the narrower mind.

In all events, you are such a known quantity, it is not possible to take any of your insults as an insult.  I'll repeat, just as a record of yet another instance where you read selectively:  There is a flaw in your thinking if you cannot see how your two statements are perfectly distinct.  And, no, it's not a question of opinion.

I think I have been very honest about my opinions. I don't hold back my thoughts.

Mental diarrhea is no virtue, either.

[Karl Henning]

Again:

. . .  Indeed, if you were truly a freethinker, you would embrace these occasions, and you would take a lesson from them.

[71 dB]

There is a flaw in your thinking if you cannot see how your two statements are perfectly distinct. 

I know that they are distinct. That's why I had two statements. Having two or more similar statements would have been redundant.

[Que]

I'm surprised that this dreadful thread is (was) still alive, although its content has taken a turn for the worse.

Better to forget about it, I think.

Q