Poll
Question:
Do you believe that there is something immortal within the human mind...(i.e. 'soul') ?
Option 1: Yes.
votes: 24
Option 2: No.
votes: 41
Do you believe that there is something immortal within the human mind ?... (i.e. 'soul')
And if so why do you feel that there is?
It cannot be simpler. When we die we go right back to where we were before we were concieved.
Wherever that is...where were you 2953 years before you were born? Or eleven months before you were born? Or 487 years ago?
Thats where we all end up. Nowhere.
Do the results of this poll directly influence your views on suicide?
I had to vote 'No', but only because you've phrased your poll question in a way that bears no relation to the 'facts' of esoteric/metaphysical teaching. I'll leave it at that ...
Quote from: JCampbell on September 11, 2008, 11:35:21 PM
Do the results of this poll directly influence your views on suicide?
No, it does not.
of course i believe it, assuming we're using soul/spirit interchangeably but it is not 'in' the mind.
we aren't bodies w/souls...we are souls w/bodies.
dj
Every time a bell rings, a sensitive aesthete gets a soul...
All levity aside, this is a great example of a belief without any support. There's only one way to find out, and, with very few exceptions, most people don't get a round-trip ticket to that particular destination. So, then, regardless of belief, the truth of the matter is somewhat elusive.
If you'd like to make an argument premised on the immortality of the soul, or purity of essence for that matter, then do so.
If, on the other hand, you're staying true to form and merely stirring the pot, this is weak sauce, man. Weak. Sauce. You gotta do better than this. I've been alarmed at your last few attempts to get everybody all riled up. What happened to the Eric we all knew? It used to be great. Man, remember that?
Who cares? ;D
Ah, well, another Eric thread. Move on, folks, nothing to see here $:)
Maybe we continue but not forever. Is there such a thing as forever?
I like to think there is more to come and, if not, at least I can't be disappointed.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2008, 08:00:17 AM
Ah, well, another Eric thread. Move on, folks, nothing to see here $:)
Give it time, man. Give it time.
lets ask Saul
Quote from: маразм1 on September 12, 2008, 11:07:17 AM
lets ask Saul
Hey, now this will get
really interesting!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 12, 2008, 08:00:17 AM
Ah, well, another Eric thread. Move on, folks, nothing to see here $:)
Oh, so
that's who Homo is! I thought he's a lot more annoying than Operahaven was, though ???
Quote from: Brian on September 12, 2008, 12:13:11 PM
Oh, so that's who Homo is! I thought he's a lot more annoying than Operahaven was, though ???
And how can this be? For he
is the Kwisatz Haderach!
Quote from: маразм1 on September 12, 2008, 11:07:17 AM
lets ask Saul
The immortality of the Saul...... :o :o :o :-\ :-\ :-\
Quote from: PSmith08 on September 12, 2008, 02:17:12 PM
And how can this be? For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/dune/images/4/4c/Paul_atreides.jpg)(http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xmlcharent/glyphs/100dpi/U003D.png)(http://everythingoldisnew.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/175-px-soul-train.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on September 12, 2008, 12:13:11 PM
Oh, so that's who Homo is! I thought he's a lot more annoying than Operahaven was, though ???
Annoying?
What exactly is annoying about asking others to share their thoughts on 'the second most' important question a human can ponder ?
So what do you consider the 'most' important topic humans can ponder? Suicide? That's what your last three Hurrahs were about. Perhaps you're writing a thesis?
Quote from: Homo Aestheticus on September 12, 2008, 07:12:59 PM
...asking others to share their thoughts on...
Why don't
you share your own thoughts on the matter?
Quote from: Wanderer on September 13, 2008, 12:40:17 AM
Why don't you share your own thoughts on the matter?
Maybe he doesn't have any well defined thoughts on the matter. Nothing wrong with asking an open forum what they think so one can fine tune ones own opinions on the matter?
Why is everyone so hostile to Homo?
Quote from: JCampbell on September 12, 2008, 11:52:54 PM
So what do you consider the 'most' important topic humans can ponder? Suicide? That's what your last three Hurrahs were about. Perhaps you're writing a thesis?
No.
The most important question I can ponder is whether or not there exists a benevolent supernatural being and what brought it into existence.
(Note: I have decided to change my name to one that more accurately describes my personality. This one is final)
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 13, 2008, 07:47:28 AM
No.
The most important question I can ponder is whether or not there exists a benevolent supernatural being and what brought it into existence.
(Note: I have decided to change my name to one that more accurately describes my personality. This one is final)
A beginning is a very delicate time. Know then, that is is the year 2008. The fora have had many such threads as the one you proposed. They do not try and fail; they try and die. Why? They are not discussions. They are a collection of people sharing and defending their own beliefs, while trying to convince people to give up their own deeply held beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster, which why a third-stage Guild Navigator has been sent here to discover your plans.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 13, 2008, 07:47:28 AM
No.
The most important question I can ponder is whether or not there exists a benevolent supernatural being and what brought it into existence.
That's really amusing. Good luck to you. :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 13, 2008, 10:50:44 AM
Wise decision, Mr. Pink ;)
Sarge
Well now we can just shorten it to Ardy. Or Pelle. Or maybe just T'ard?
Quote from: Corey on September 13, 2008, 10:58:03 AM
Well now we can just shorten it to Ardy. Or Pelle. Or maybe just T'ard?
T'ard I like ;D But no matter how many times Eric changes his user name, he'll always be Pink to me.
Sarge
Quote from: JCampbell on September 12, 2008, 11:52:54 PM
So what do you consider the 'most' important topic humans can ponder?
"Debussy's gentle revolution"? . . .
8)
Quote from: mahler10th on September 13, 2008, 04:19:07 AM
Maybe he doesn't have any well defined thoughts on the matter. Nothing wrong with asking an open forum what they think so one can fine tune ones own opinions on the matter?
Strange that you (a well-meaning bystander) answer the question on his behalf whereas he chooses to ignore it. Speaks volumes, doesn't it? :-*
Even if intentions were as innocent as you speculate them to be, why wouldn't one specify this simple fact you mention or at least try to convey an idea of his supposedly inadequately defined thoughts in order to receive more relevant answers? Wouldn't you?
Quote from: Wanderer on September 13, 2008, 01:17:48 PM
Strange that you (a well-meaning bystander) answer the question on his behalf whereas he chooses to ignore it. Speaks volumes, doesn't it? :-*
Even if intentions were as innocent as you speculate them to be, why wouldn't one specify this simple fact you mention or at least try to convey an idea of his supposedly inadequately defined thoughts in order to receive more relevant answers? Wouldn't you?
Yes Wanderer.
In retrospect, it was clearly a badly formed question - it assumes we all know what 'the soul' is and indeed that such a thing exists. I'm no 'soul man', so I guess I should not have jumped to his aid...it's the Humanitarian in me even though there was no concept to protect...so...I violently retract...what the hell do you mean OP, and why do you carry such a pretentious name "The Ardent Pelleastre"? >:( >:( >:(
John, strap on a pair, man. >:( I'm sure you still stand by your original post that defended Eric, so don't allow yourself to be swayed from that position by a single post challenging it. Have the courage of your convictions.
To return to Eric's probing OP (::)), I was contemplating 'doing a Saul' by copying and pasting a lengthy tract of esoteric thinking into this post. Then I decided that wasn't fair. So instead, and in answer to this:
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 13, 2008, 07:47:28 AM... whether or not there exists a benevolent supernatural being and what brought it into existence.
... I'll quote only the following from Alice A Bailey's book, 'A Treatise On Cosmic Fire':
Quote from: Alice A BaileyThere is one Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression.
The manifested Universe is contained within this Absolute Reality and is a conditioned symbol of it. In the totality of this manifested Universe, three aspects are to be conceived:
1. The First Cosmic Logos, impersonal and unmanifested, the precursor of the Manifested.
2. The Second Cosmic Logos, Spirit-Matter, Life, the Spirit of the Universe.
3. The Third Cosmic Logos, Cosmic Ideation, the Universal World-Soul.
From these basic creative principles, in successive gradations there issue in ordered sequence the numberless Universes comprising countless Manifesting Stars and Solar Systems.
Pearls before swine, of course, but one has to try ...
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2008, 11:38:44 AM
"Debussy's gentle revolution"? . . .
8)
Yes, that is third... :)
Quote from: Corey on September 13, 2008, 10:58:03 AM
Well now we can just shorten it to Ardy. Or Pelle. Or maybe just T'ard?
'Pelle' has a nice ring to it but I needed something similar to 'Wagner
ian'... I checked 'Pelleastrian' in the search engine but not a single entry came up... Then 'Pelleastre' and there were three...
Actually, I shall coin a new word:
'Pelleastrian' :)
Someone who continually marvels at the sincerity, sensitivity, subtlety, immense sophistication, eloquence, and exquisite beauty of
P&M and who also considers it the finest of all operas.
Quote from: mahler10th on September 13, 2008, 01:49:53 PMwhat the hell do you mean OP, and why do you carry such a pretentious name "The Ardent Pelleastre"? >:( >:( >:(
My question was put forth with the best of intentions and I apologize if you were offended somewhere.
I chose the name 'The Ardent Pelleastre' because that is exactly what I am, someone who endlessly adores the most sophisticated of all operas.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 13, 2008, 02:13:56 PM
Actually, I shall coin a new word: 'Pelleastrian'
You realise, I'm sure, Eric, that there will be those quick to satirise your new word and point out, with cruel intent, its similarity to the word, 'Pedestrian'. They might even go further, linking this 'old' word with your most cherished opera.
That's where I thought it cam from... ???
Quote from: Mark on September 13, 2008, 02:19:11 PM
You realise, I'm sure, Eric, that there will be those quick to satirise your new word and point out, with cruel intent, its similarity to the word, 'Pedestrian'. They might even go further, linking this 'old' word with your most cherished opera.
I don't know that connections need be drawn to satirize "Pelleastrian."
Quote from: Alice A BaileyQuoteThere is one Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression.
So let me explain it to you....
;D But
not beyond the reach of
Alice A Bailey, by a magical process she'll tell us about when she has the time. I suppose any aquatic tart who throws a sword at you is qualified to dispense information on the nature of the universe. Meanwhile those of us who say this is less than meaningless hot air are called arrogant for pointing out that you can't
tell what you don't
know.
You can use words to create meaning or you can use them to obscure meaning to get something like old
Alice here.
Boundless Immutable Principle is one of those "look into my eyes" phrases that should send off bullshit detectors in a six block radius. It's one of those high-calorie low-yield devices that frustrate meaning deliberately so you stop thinking and start wanting what's being sold, most often Eternal Life Insurance.
The funny thing about this pitch is it works even when you recognize that the salesperson really doesn't know anything, like for example when they say "beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression". That's like a con man saying "I'm a con artist but here's my pitch"....I'd be lost in admiration if I didn't know how easy this is!
Seriously, if L. Ron Hubbard can do it, why can't you and I and Alice and everyone here go out and do it, too. Everyone can hypnotize everyone else and play one giant game of Confuse A Cat.
Oooooh, naughty, naughty Wikipedia: Her works, written between 1919 and 1949, describe a wide-ranging system of esoteric thought covering such topics as how spirituality relates to the solar system, meditation, healing, spiritual psychology, the destiny of nations, and prescriptions for society in general. :D Especially the
destiny of nations, which deserves a
:D :D :D (I wonder if there's anything about "Hister" or, as we Pythonists know him, "Mr. Hilter". :)) OK, now we can go back to the Immutable Absolute of the Infinite Perfection of the Boundless which, for some reason, is beyond understanding.
;)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2008, 11:38:44 AM
"Debussy's gentle revolution"? . . .
8)
that would be my favorite! ;D
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 05:50:18 AM
Quote from: Alice A Bailey
So let me explain it to you.... ;D
But not beyond the reach of Alice A Bailey, by a magical process she'll tell us about when she has the time. I suppose any aquatic tart who throws a sword at you is qualified to dispense information on the nature of the universe. Meanwhile those of us who say this is less than meaningless hot air are called arrogant for pointing out that you can't tell what you don't know.
You can use words to create meaning or you can use them to obscure meaning to get something like old Alice here. Boundless Immutable Principle is one of those "look into my eyes" phrases that should send off bullshit detectors in a six block radius. It's one of those high-calorie low-yield devices that frustrate meaning deliberately so you stop thinking and start wanting what's being sold, most often Eternal Life Insurance.
The funny thing about this pitch is it works even when you recognize that the salesperson really doesn't know anything, like for example when they say "beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression". That's like a con man saying "I'm a con artist but here's my pitch"....I'd be lost in admiration if I didn't know how easy this is!
Seriously, if L. Ron Hubbard can do it, why can't you and I and Alice and everyone here go out and do it, too. Everyone can hypnotize everyone else and play one giant game of Confuse A Cat.
Oooooh, naughty, naughty Wikipedia:
Her works, written between 1919 and 1949, describe a wide-ranging system of esoteric thought covering such topics as how spirituality relates to the solar system, meditation, healing, spiritual psychology, the destiny of nations, and prescriptions for society in general.
:D Especially the destiny of nations, which deserves a :D :D :D (I wonder if there's anything about "Hister" or, as we Pythonists know him, "Mr. Hilter". :))
OK, now we can go back to the Immutable Absolute of the Infinite Perfection of the Boundless which, for some reason, is beyond understanding. ;)
Or, you could bother to investigate esoteric literature from a wide variety of sources from around the world for, say, 15 years or more, then reach an informed decision rather than immediately deriding something you so clearly know not even the first thing about. :)
Quote from: Mark on September 14, 2008, 06:44:05 AM
Or, you could bother to investigate esoteric literature from a wide variety of sources from around the world for, say, 15 years or more, then reach an informed decision rather than immediately deriding something you so clearly know not even the first thing about. :)
I am investigating it right now. What is esoteric literature? Is it beyond the range of human knowledge? Will you tell us anyway?
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 06:53:07 AM
I am investigating it right now.
Great. Be sure to keep in touch: in another decade and a half, we can have an intelligent discussion about a myriad of fascinating topics. Unless, by 'investigating', you mean using Google and Wikipedia to gain a bluffer's guide to metaphysics and initiatic science. ::)
QuoteWhat is esoteric literature? Is it beyond the range of human knowledge? Will you tell us anyway?
It's literature on topics that, for ages, were 'for the few' (or 'esoteric' ;)). The term remains, but it's no longer so exclusive, at least not intellectually, anyway. Penetrating the subjects, however (something I make no claim to have achieved) involves, as I'm given to understand it, a great deal of application: mentally, emotionally and even physically.
But then, why am I telling you this? Do I believe it will, in any way, persuade you to make even a basic study of anything you obviously already consider to be little more than charlatanism?
We both know how this game ends: someone puts forward an idea, but it's too outlandlish for someone else who thinks of himself as sane and rational. The work required by this second person to reach a rudimentary understanding of the idea advanced by the first seems either too involved or preposterous to bother with, and so (after much pointless argument between the parties) both go away, each still entrenched in their original positions and neither any wiser for the encounter. It was ever thus, because real openmindedness is in such regretably short supply in this world.
However - and to be more helpful - you might like to begin by studying the writings of Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov, Peter Deunov (the man whom even Einstein declared to be a true Master), Max Heindel, Helena Blavatsky, Swami Vivekananda, Rudolph Steiner and of course, Alice A Bailey - to name but a mere handful.
But for pity's sake, don't rely on Google and Wikipedia. Go to the organ grinders, not the monkeys ...
Esoteric, a convenient way to get around having to explain things.
No, we are having an intelligent conversation now. I asked a question about esoteric literature. You're right that I think this is hogwash, and if it is you'll give me the runaround to cover the fact that you don't know anything. But you can't cover what you proclaim: that it's "beyond human knowledge". So unless you aren't human, we have the answer.
Your frivolous response about a myriad fascinating topics is obviously inappropriate to actual knowledge. I have no need to talk about myriads of things 15 years from now unless the tank is empty: you don't have a next move. It's just deflection, and you never have to deliver, because something, anything, always prevents you:
I sense negativity, a malign spirit, your grandmother can't get through.... :D
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 09:12:04 AM
No, we are having an intelligent conversation now. I asked a question about esoteric literature. You're right that I think this is hogwash, and if it is you'll give me the runaround to cover the fact that you don't know anything. But you can't cover what you proclaim: that it's "beyond human knowledge". So unless you aren't human, we have the answer.
Your frivolous response about a myriad fascinating topics is obviously inappropriate to actual knowledge. I have no need to talk about myriads of things 15 years from now unless the tank is empty: you don't have a next move. It's just deflection, and you never have to deliver, because something, anything, always prevents you:
I sense negativity, a malign spirit, your grandmother can't get through.... :D
More than you'll ever desire to know:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/
Also, as a sidenote, his 'author' list for esotericism is quite paltry at that, and barely categorized under that heading.
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 09:17:25 AM
Also, as a sidenote, his 'author' list for esotericism is quite paltry at that, and barely categorized under that heading.
That's not a criticism that would occur to me. Detailed knowledge of just exactly how "beyond human knowledge" all this stuff is strikes me as highly optional. And then there's the occasional Polanski film to remind me of what I'm "missing".
:)
QuoteMark: John, strap on a pair, man. I'm sure you still stand by your original post that defended Eric, so don't allow yourself to be swayed from that position by a single post challenging it. Have the courage of your convictions.
Yes Mark. I am a softie really. :-[ :P
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 09:44:44 AM
That's not a criticism that would occur to me. Detailed knowledge of just exactly how "beyond human knowledge" all this stuff is strikes me as highly optional. And then there's the occasional Polanski film to remind me of what I'm "missing". :)
You're far too kind.
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 09:12:04 AM
No, we are having an intelligent conversation now. I asked a question about esoteric literature. You're right that I think this is hogwash, and if it is you'll give me the runaround to cover the fact that you don't know anything. But you can't cover what you proclaim: that it's "beyond human knowledge". So unless you aren't human, we have the answer.
Your frivolous response about a myriad fascinating topics is obviously inappropriate to actual knowledge. I have no need to talk about myriads of things 15 years from now unless the tank is empty: you don't have a next move. It's just deflection, and you never have to deliver, because something, anything, always prevents you:
I sense negativity, a malign spirit, your grandmother can't get through.... :D
Since you're ill-equipped to discourse on this topic (or any similar), and predisposed to being unwilling to find out more through your own efforts, I guess this conversation has run out of road. :(
That's a shame, actually: I had you down as intelligent and open to new ideas, even if they might seem (at first) 'hogwash' to you. I was wrong. But do let me finish by punching one enormous hole in the feeble counter-argument you're desperately clinging to because of your limited knowledge of the topic, and because you clearly missed the point of what I quoted from Bailey.
The bit about the immutable principle being beyond human knowledge is (obviously, to anyone with a shred of intelligence) referring to that which is unmanifest. No one is claiming any authority on
knowing that. However, to have adequately explained how we get from that unmanifest, unknowable principle to the many and varied topics covered by esoteric literarure - which you seem to think your tank will never be empty enough to accommodate - I'd have needed to, as I said, 'do a Saul' by quoting a substantial amount of text which, in all sincerity, you'd be better off reading and digesting for yourself, rather than relying on me to spoonfeed it to you. ::)
Like I said, each has his position, neither is willing to bend. Road closed.
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 09:17:25 AM
Also, as a sidenote, his 'author' list for esotericism is quite paltry at that, and barely categorized under that heading.
Yeah, did I not say, ' ... to
begin by studying ... '? Yes, I did. So your point is ...
(But thanks for that link. :))
In any case, you missed my point twice: I was replying to this from Eric ...
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 13, 2008, 07:47:28 AM
... whether or not there exists a benevolent supernatural being and what brought it into existence.
... and in quoting what I did, was suggesting (and no more than that) that any such supernatural being was not brought into existence but has ALWAYS existed. Was that not clear enough? If not, my apologies.
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 09:02:46 AM
Esoteric, a convenient way to get around having to explain things.
I missed this ... and I can just as easily dismiss it as plain ignorance of the subject matter.
Quote from: Mark on September 14, 2008, 10:49:14 AM
I missed this ... and I can just as easily dismiss it as plain ignorance of the subject matter.
Laughable commentary.
Quote from: Mark on September 14, 2008, 10:43:10 AM
Since you're ill-equipped to discourse on this topic (or any similar), and predisposed to being unwilling to find out more through your own efforts, I guess this conversation has run out of road. :(
That's a shame, actually: I had you down as intelligent and open to new ideas, even if they might seem (at first) 'hogwash' to you. I was wrong. But do let me finish by punching one enormous hole in the feeble counter-argument you're desperately clinging to because of your limited knowledge of the topic, and because you clearly missed the point of what I quoted from Bailey.
The bit about the immutable principle being beyond human knowledge is (obviously, to anyone with a shred of intelligence) referring to that which is unmanifest. No one is claiming any authority on knowing that. However, to have adequately explained how we get from that unmanifest, unknowable principle to the many and varied topics covered by esoteric literarure - which you seem to think your tank will never be empty enough to accommodate - I'd have needed to, as I said, 'do a Saul' by quoting a substantial amount of text which, in all sincerity, you'd be better off reading and digesting for yourself, rather than relying on me to spoonfeed it to you. ::)
Like I said, each has his position, neither is willing to bend. Road closed.
Yeah, did I not say, ' ... to begin by studying ... '? Yes, I did. So your point is ...
(But thanks for that link. :))
Except no one with any slight knowledge in this arena would suggest those as 'beginning' anything.
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 11:11:11 AM
Laughable commentary.
What's laughable, Kevin, is that people content themselves with the words of commentators, rather than referring directly to that being commentated upon. To do a quick Google or Wikipedia search and then launch into an (obviously pre-prejudiced) attack on a vast body of literature without actually having read that literature is pathetic.
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 11:11:46 AM
Except no one with any slight knowledge in this arena would suggest those as 'beginning' anything.
Further proof that you know nothing. Or at least, nothing worth knowing. Truth is a many-sided diamond, my friend. You don't get it all from one place, and everyone starts out from somewhere different. So instead of being flippant, put up or shut up - give us YOUR recommended reading list. If you can.
As an aside, I'm going to quote (almost verbatim) a PM reply I just sent to member here who asked me not to get goaded by folks in this thread. It pretty much sums up why I'm usually silent on such matters: because the ignorant are so vocal:
People are making the assumption that I'm trying to defend esotericism and all it stands for. Believe me, that vast area can well look after itself. What I'm actually defending is
ME. I post something which was intended to challenge Eric's ideas, based on what I've spent time studying. Suddenly, I'm trying to sell people snakeoil. ::)
you sell snake oil? ;)
i think i often disagree with you, but 'any such supernatural being was not brought into existence but has ALWAYS existed' is exactly right and what i believe.
dj
Quote from: david johnson on September 14, 2008, 03:22:36 PM
but 'any such supernatural being was not brought into existence but has ALWAYS existed' is exactly right and what i believe.
David,
What are the attributes of this supernatural being ? And are they constant ?
Philoctetes is like drogulus simplified to aphorisms.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 14, 2008, 05:47:31 PM
Philoctetes is like drogulus simplified to altruisms.
Altruisms ?
Don't you mean
aphorisms ?
Quote from: Mark on September 14, 2008, 07:22:43 AM
However - and to be more helpful - you might like to begin by studying the writings of Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov, Peter Deunov (the man whom even Einstein declared to be a true Master), Max Heindel, Helena Blavatsky, Swami Vivekananda, Rudolph Steiner and of course, Alice A Bailey - to name but a mere handful.
LOL!!!!! Thrilled to see a Blavatsky reference in this day and age. No Crowley?
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 14, 2008, 05:58:04 PM
Altruisms ?
Don't you mean aphorisms ?
yes...will change it now...whoops :-[
Quote from: JCampbell on September 14, 2008, 05:47:31 PM
Philoctetes is like drogulus simplified to aphorisms.
I can live with that though I have done some research into the subject, hence why I wouldn't use some halfwit's name, like Blavatsky, as a recommendation.
Scriabin believed in Blavatsky's teachings. 'Nuff said? :D
If that's what Scriabin had to believe in order to create such divine music, then I wholeheartedly endorse that! :) 0:)
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 14, 2008, 03:52:08 PM
David,
What are the attributes of this supernatural being ? And are they constant ?
ardent:
i can not adequately describe the attributes of the supernatural using the natural terms i understand.
He seems to have emotions and can feel/show agape, anger, peace and violence, creativity.
one constant is that we, in His image, are filled with various emotions.
dj
It is a bit silly.
If my soul was immortal I would have some idea what I was doing 3957BC (unless I've forgot) and indeed in 1963, two years before I was born. Unfortunately, my soul is not immortal, so I don't remember any details of my alleged soul being active at any time other than this life. Wherever I was, say 139 years before I was born, I don't know, but one thing is for sure, we're all headed back to that place where we were 139 years ago...nowehere, no immortality, no nothing.
Quote from: mahler10th on September 15, 2008, 08:16:38 AM
It is a bit silly.
If my soul was immortal I would have some idea what I was doing 3957BC (unless I've forgot) and indeed in 1963, two years before I was born. Unfortunately, my soul is not immortal, so I don't remember any details of my alleged soul being active at any time other than this life. Wherever I was, say 139 years before I was born, I don't know, but one thing is for sure, we're all headed back to that place where we were 139 years ago...nowehere, no immortality, no nothing.
I'm surprised anyone feels confident enough to say something like this. Far wiser to admit that we don't know.
Quote from: eyeresist on September 14, 2008, 07:07:39 PM
LOL!!!!! Thrilled to see a Blavatsky reference in this day and age. No Crowley?
Not read Crowley (though I know who he was). You read either?
Quote from: Mark on September 15, 2008, 08:18:57 AM
I'm surprised anyone feels confident enough to say something like this. Far wiser to admit that we don't know.
I think we do know. The seat of our personality is the brain, and when the brain deteriorates or parts of it get damaged, those parts of the personality fade or vanish, too. We can see that in a lot of people. Once we die, we are gone forever.
As Queen said, who wants to live forever?
Quote from: mahler10th on September 15, 2008, 08:16:38 AM
It is a bit silly.
If my soul was immortal I would have some idea what I was doing 3957BC (unless I've forgot) and indeed in 1963, two years before I was born. Unfortunately, my soul is not immortal, so I don't remember any details of my alleged soul being active at any time other than this life. Wherever I was, say 139 years before I was born, I don't know, but one thing is for sure, we're all headed back to that place where we were 139 years ago...nowehere, no immortality, no nothing.
i see.
i must say that immortal does not mean eternal. our soul is immortal, non-dying, but it did not pre-exist before we did, as i understand it.
that combo of spirit and body that is you did not exist before your birth.
do not be so sure as to where we are headed.
dj
We will live on in the worms that digest us and the soil that benefits from their poo!
Quote from: mn dave on September 15, 2008, 10:43:46 AM
We will live on in the worms that digest us and the soil that benefits from their poo!
undoubtedly, part of ourselves does exactly that ;)
dj
Okay, who wants a big laugh at my expense? (I really don't care at this point - world in economic meltdown, rising financial debts for me personally, sore throat, cold, headache, etc ... ) Feast your eyes on this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
And if you're even vaguely interested in trying to understand all of the foregoing 'nonsense', read this (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng00.htm) in its entirety.
But please, don't expect me to explain it all. At least, not till I feel less like shit. :(
well, that was certainly interesting :D i never met anyone who believed in the ether.
what particular religions does this propose to represent?
dj
Quote from: Mark on September 15, 2008, 11:44:10 AM
. . . At least, not till I feel less like shit. :(
I hope that is mighty soon (for
your sake,
mon ami)!
Quote from: david johnson on September 15, 2008, 11:57:37 AMi never met anyone who believed in the ether.
Never said
I believed - don't assume. ;)
Quotewhat particular religions does this propose to represent?
It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 15, 2008, 11:57:58 AM
I hope that is mighty soon (for your sake, mon ami)!
Thank you, sir. :)
'Never said I believed - don't assume.'
i did not mention that i thought you did.
'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'
that would be doubtful. they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.
catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.
dj
Quote from: Mark on September 15, 2008, 08:19:56 AM
Not read Crowley (though I know who he was). You read either?
Not his esoteric works, but Diary of a Drug Fiend is one hell of a novel. The man had plenty of literary talent. Too bad he did not write many more fiction.
Quote from: david johnson on September 15, 2008, 01:28:43 PM
'Never said I believed - don't assume.'
i did not mention that i thought you did.
'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'
that would be doubtful. they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.
catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.
dj
Which is why his 'thoughts' should be precluded as I indicated earlier. The mistake that 'newageism' is esoteric is common among the insipid.
This reincarnation stuff sounds more Vedantic than Christian.
Quote from: Mark on September 15, 2008, 08:18:57 AM
I'm surprised anyone feels confident enough to say something like this. Far wiser to admit that we don't know.
We don't know what? We don't know what we were doing 139 years ago?
Well the reason we don't know is because we didn't exist. Anything else is just theoretical wishful thinking. Of course I have confidence in saying such a thing because there is no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.
Quote from: david johnson on September 15, 2008, 01:28:43 PM
'Never said I believed - don't assume.'
i did not mention that i thought you did.
You're quite right. Please accept my apologies. :-[
Quote'It doesn't, although its basis would be the Judeao-Christian tradition.'
that would be doubtful. they don't believe in gods of other solar systems as the chart shows.
catholics do accept a purgatory, and paul did describe what he felt was a third heaven.
the charts seem to me more like a hodge-podge of religious ideas.
Without wishing to be rude, you haven't read the text I linked to, nor will you, I suspect. So whatever your doubts - and given that the charts posted are clearly without context - may I suggest you reserve judgement until you've had time to look into the matter in more depth?
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 15, 2008, 02:26:00 PM
Which is why his 'thoughts' should be precluded as I indicated earlier.
Wow! Flattery indeed, Kevin. If these 'thoughts' were, as you erroneously claim, mine, do you really think I'd waste time here trying to elucidate them to someone like you? I suspect I'd have far more interesting things to occupy my time. ::) And I note you've still not been man enough to offer us your suggested reading list on this matter. Perhaps you should sit down and be quiet.
Quote from: eyeresist on September 15, 2008, 03:59:21 PM
This reincarnation stuff sounds more Vedantic than Christian.
Correct ... and incorrect. I'm not going to try to persuade you that the idea of reincarnation existed in the original biblical texts, because I've neither the time nor the stomach to be derided for suggesting such. But again, my recommended authors list earlier in this thread will tell you everything you could want to know, should you choose to investigate their writings.
Quote from: mahler10th on September 15, 2008, 05:37:04 PM
We don't know what? We don't know what we were doing 139 years ago?
Well the reason we don't know is because we didn't exist. Anything else is just theoretical wishful thinking. Of course I have confidence in saying such a thing because there is no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.
You've missed my point, John. Not wilfully, I think, but accidentally. I'm saying that none of us can say with absolute certainty whether there really is more to life than what happens between the cradle and the grave. So again, I suggest it might be wisest to reserve judgement.
Now, with all of that out of the way, I shall retire from this thread. And indeed, this forum. Looking through my posts last night, I was horrified to note just how many of them are NOT about classical music. That isn't good - and it's a bit insulting to those who are here to discuss music. So I think I should withdraw until such time as I'm inclined to contribute more to music threads than I am to be drawn into topics which, in all honesty, have no place in this forum. :)
'Without wishing to be rude, you haven't read the text I linked to, nor will you, I suspect. So whatever your doubts - and given that the charts posted are clearly without context - may I suggest you reserve judgement until you've had time to look into the matter in more depth?'
if four charts were not enough, why post that much? i understand the material quite well, thank you.
'Now, with all of that out of the way, I shall retire from this thread. And indeed, this forum. Looking through my posts last night, I was horrified to note just how many of them are NOT about classical music. That isn't good - and it's a bit insulting to those who are here to discuss music. So I think I should withdraw until such time as I'm inclined to contribute more to music threads than I am to be drawn into topics which, in all honesty, have no place in this forum.'
one does not have to visit the threads that do not pertain to music.
dj
What a shame Mark has gone. I really did like the guy, and he was one of few who allowed his own face to be known, unlike the rest of us who keep hiding behind avatars. It was Marks example I followed by sticking my own crabbit features on this forum so people could 'see' whos ass they were either kicking or agreeing with.
QuoteMark said: I'm saying that none of us can say with absolute certainty whether there really is more to life than what happens between the cradle and the grave.
Well, yes, but the reason we can't say with certainty is because we were all unborn, say, 139 years ago - in purely biological terms, this means we were dead, lifeless, nowhere and nothing. No activity of life has been found in a body dead for more than a day, its energy dissipated...gone...stone dead. I can say with at least some credulity that we're all going that way and we only appeared through the miracle of biological unison.
Oh come on Mark, come back, this is a great discussion! :'(
M10-
This forum is split between people in it for the long haul and those who come and go, whether by deleting accounts or just not visiting. They almost always do come back, often on multiple occasions...
Quote from: david johnson on September 15, 2008, 10:41:57 AM
i see.
i must say that immortal does not mean eternal. our soul is immortal, non-dying, but it did not pre-exist before we did, as i understand it.
that combo of spirit and body that is you did not exist before your birth.
do not be so sure as to where we are headed.
dj
I don't see why not. I ate a carrot, and I'm sure it doesn't exist anymore, at least as a carrot.
:) Why, I wonder, should we not be sure about what can be verified, but treat the incomprehensible and unverifiable as certainties? Also, if we can have certainties about afterlives, souls and gods and such, why can't we have similar intuitions about their nonexistence? If the pro and con intuitions then cancel out, as they properly should, that puts the ball squarely back in the verificationist court, does it not?
:P 8) :D Of course it does, since that's how reasoning about evidence grabbed the advantage in the first place.
;DQuote from: Lethe on September 16, 2008, 05:16:58 AM
M10-
This forum is split between people in it for the long haul and those who come and go, whether by deleting accounts or just not visiting. They almost always do come back, often on multiple occasions...
That's because they're immortal.
$:)
Quote from: david johnson on September 15, 2008, 07:32:42 AM
ardent:
i can not adequately describe the attributes of the supernatural using the natural terms i understand.
He seems to have emotions and can feel/show agape, anger, peace and violence, creativity.
one constant is that we, in His image, are filled with various emotions.
dj
David,
Thanks.
I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.
I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 16, 2008, 04:47:16 PM
David,
Thanks.
I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.
I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.
You came to this via the back door! Surely this thread wasn't another attempt at a jab at Christianity?
FWIW, I remember DavidW saying he was an atheist but believed in a soul. I wonder what his thoughts towards your original question would be...
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 16, 2008, 04:47:16 PM
David,
Thanks.
I must say that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who can have and feel such emotions is difficult to accept... I know a few people who have gotten over, say anger and violence.... But o.k.
I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.
maybe you can quit being shocked and get with the program. you surely don't think all believers are fools!
what do you think the central tenets are?
dj
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 16, 2008, 04:47:16 PM
I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.
It might be better to approach this from the angle of how beliefs differ from what they are taken for. They are commonly commitments and not statements about truths. Believers exhibit confusion on this point, since they can't decide whether a fact is in question or a value they are duty bound to uphold. That's why not believing is often portrayed as a moral failing rather than an error of judgment.
People reveal what they really think in different ways, such as their lack of curiosity about the supposedly important "fact" of the existence of supernatural phenomena. If it's important it must be investigated thoroughly, you would think. But instead all investigation is invalidated preemptively due to a curious insight about the limits of understanding, which can't be questioned but only accepted.
So I'm in partial agreement with you, in that belief is really more about what one professes, not what one actually thinks is true. To
believe in something is to want to believe it, even if you can't. Daniel Dennett points out that it's actually hard to tell who among the believers believe in the god and who merely think belief is a good thing. Being in favor of the god is often taken as a belief equivalent, and there's no reason for believers to inquire too closely on the subject. Actual believers may only be a minority, and it would not be welcome news that most attempts at belief are failures.
perhaps actual disbelievers are the minority ;)
i still wonder exactly what you group under basic tenets. they'll probably be different than mine.
dj
I can't 'believe' in theories and ideas which stretch beyond our pea brained understanding. Is your idea of a 'soul' he same as mine? Is there a uniform conception of 'soul' on which we can all agree? Nope. I don't think a 'soul' has been identified through palpable evidence - I don't expect my 'soul' to be active in 462 years because it has not been tested or measured or proven to exist. Metaphysics is purely theoretical.
???
Now then. Where did I put that test tube... :P
your not expecting leads you to not preparing? isn't that dangerous?
dj
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 16, 2008, 04:47:16 PM
I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Judaism or Christianity or the other major religions.
I'm confident that even most atheists would disagree with you. Is it possible you are transferring your beliefs on to all the other Westerners?
Quote from: Bulldog on September 18, 2008, 03:07:16 PM
I'm confident that even most atheists would disagree with you. Is it possible you are transferring your beliefs on to all the other Westerners?
Maybe it's just an overstatement. I think beliefs exist but don't mean what they're purported to, so I credit Eric with at least being on the right track.
Quote from: mahler10th on September 18, 2008, 05:01:24 AM
I can't 'believe' in theories and ideas which stretch beyond our pea brained understanding.
I think believers have the same problem, unless we are different species. If we are I get to be the evolved one! I've earned it. The rest of you can be created.
:P
Quote from: david johnson on September 17, 2008, 01:38:52 AMwhat do you think the central tenets are?
David,
A few of the tenets of Christianity as I understand them:
1. The world was created by an invisible deity.
2. He later impregnated a virgin who then bore a son who was His own father.
3. That we have immortal souls and will live for ever in Heaven if we are good and love Jesus.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 18, 2008, 03:07:16 PMIs it possible you are transferring your beliefs on to all the other Westerners?
Don,
If something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it... That is my position.
There are many reasons for saying religious things other than actually believing them. Most often people are expressing their hopes rather than their beliefs, substituting "I believe" for "I wish" in the unconscious endeavour to convince themselves.
The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it... The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 18, 2008, 04:48:41 PM
David,
A few of the tenets of Christianity as I understand them:
1. The world was created by an invisible deity.
2. He later impregnated a virgin who then bore a son who was His own father.
3. That we have immortal souls and will live for ever in Heaven if we are good and love Jesus.
i would say -
God is not always invisible, but has appeared in different forms.
mary was given a miraculous pregnancy via the Holy Spirit. she didn't do the hot stuff with man nor spirit.
we can't be 'good enough', but we can be forgiven and devote our energies to doing good for others.
loving Jesus involves living out his behavioral objectives for us.
i figured we'd see it differently. :)
dj
Quote from: david johnson on September 18, 2008, 05:28:28 PM
God is not always invisible, but has appeared in different forms.
mary was given a miraculous pregnancy via the Holy Spirit. she didn't do the hot stuff with man nor spirit.
That's true, and there are a lot of other examples for humans who were descendants of gods: kings, pharaohs, heroes, religious figures, all sorts of people really. Sometimes the gods did "the hot stuff" with the mothers of these outstanding human beings, sometimes they didn't and inseminated them in other ways (like in your example). That seems to have been quite common in the past, not so much anymore more recently though.
Quote from: david johnson on September 18, 2008, 05:28:28 PM
i would say -
God is not always invisible, but has appeared in different forms.
mary was given a miraculous pregnancy via the Holy Spirit. she didn't do the hot stuff with man nor spirit.
we can't be 'good enough', but we can be forgiven and devote our energies to doing good for others.
loving Jesus involves living out his behavioral objectives for us.
i figured we'd see it differently. :)
dj
David,
I still say that genuine belief is involuntary, the result of evidence and reason founded on sound epistemology truly overwhelming healthy doubt, and it's at least in theory, tentative, open to revision based upon further sound evidence and reasoning.... Most of the time, though (at least regarding religion), "belief" is used in place of presumption or pretense.
Believers in the religious sense are really "presumers" or "pretenders."
If you really believe something you don't need to go to a narcissistic weekly ego-stroking affirmation session to maintain it.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 20, 2008, 10:29:57 AM
David,
I still say that genuine belief is involuntary, the result of evidence and reason founded on sound epistemology truly overwhelming healthy doubt, and it's at least in theory, tentative, open to revision based upon further sound evidence and reasoning.... Most of the time, though (at least regarding religion), "belief" is used in place of presumption or pretense. Believers in the religious sense are really "presumers" or "pretenders."
If you really believe something you don't need to go to a narcissistic weekly ego-stroking affirmation session to maintain it.
'If you really believe something you don't need to go to a narcissistic weekly ego-stroking affirmation session to maintain it.'
can't say i've ever been to one of those sessions :) are you talking about going to church services?
i don't believe that when the class discussion and/or sermon shovels out the fire and brimstone with an urging to get right and stay right with the Lord that it's very much on the side of 'narcissistic weekly ego-stroking affirmation session '.
we always end with an invitation for anyone to join and a plea for everyone to do right by others.
dj
David,
But all Christians fail to act on their avowed beliefs. Suppose you believed that Heaven exists and that only some of us will qualify to live in it for ever, as the vast majority of Christians claim to. How would this affect your behaviour?
It would depend on what you thought were the admission criteria for Heaven. But whatever you took these virtues to be, they would utterly dominate your life.... When everlasting bliss is on offer nothing else matters at all. People who believed in Heaven would surely act quite unlike those who do not.
Yet the expected behavioral difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioral test for belief.... Do you see that ?
That's a silly generalization, because anecdotal evidence can easily be refuted by other anecdotal evidence. Even if it were the case, it still says nothing about the validity of Christianity.
That's very ture, because it's not really about any spiritual or moral ideals or about admission to Heaven in the afterlife, it's basically just a tribal ritual and it's purpose is to keep the members of the comunity together and under control and comfort them. And that actually works pretty well. So it doesn't really matter what the cult or sect one belongs to actually says and does as long as it has these desired effects for the members of the tribal community.
Ah.
Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on September 20, 2008, 06:47:42 PM
David,
But all Christians fail to act on their avowed beliefs. Suppose you believed that Heaven exists and that only some of us will qualify to live in it for ever, as the vast majority of Christians claim to. How would this affect your behaviour?
It would depend on what you thought were the admission criteria for Heaven. But whatever you took these virtues to be, they would utterly dominate your life.... When everlasting bliss is on offer nothing else matters at all. People who believed in Heaven would surely act quite unlike those who do not.
Yet the expected behavioral difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioral test for belief.... Do you see that ?
'But all Christians fail to act on their avowed beliefs.'
ALL? impossible for you to know that, isn't it? :)
'People who believed in Heaven would surely act quite unlike those who do not.'
people act like people, that is the surety. it is a continual struggle to live up to the principals, regardless.
'they fail the behavioral test for belief.... Do you see that ?'
the test for belief is that one will not succeed alone, but one can eventually succeed with God's help. it's a bit of faith. now i return your question ... do you see that?
dj
Quote from: M forever on September 20, 2008, 08:01:08 PM
That's very ture, because it's not really about any spiritual or moral ideals or about admission to Heaven in the afterlife, it's basically just a tribal ritual and it's purpose is to keep the members of the comunity together and under control and comfort them. And that actually works pretty well. So it doesn't really matter what the cult or sect one belongs to actually says and does as long as it has these desired effects for the members of the tribal community.
do you really think many of us would try to give up skirt chasing, booze, adultery, and general immoral behavior to play at 'just a tribal ritual'? nobody has me 'under control'. if i sense a church i worship with is focusing upon non-spiritual matters, it's my duty to offer help and/or go somewhere else. that is not being controlled.
dj
Quote from: david johnson on September 21, 2008, 03:44:09 AM
do you really think many of us would try to give up skirt chasing, booze, adultery, and general immoral behavior to play at 'just a tribal ritual'? nobody has me 'under control'. if i sense a church i worship with is focusing upon non-spiritual matters, it's my duty to offer help and/or go somewhere else. that is not being controlled.
dj
I think you're right. There are serious purposes addressed by the behavior of church members. So the belief in the purported central planks doesn't have to succeed, and there's no good reason to inquire too closely into who really believes and who doesn't. The point lies elsewhere, with the vision of an attainable good life under the same kind of principles that have always guided human societies, with variations that sometimes are real improvements. However, you can't reason from the effectiveness of the strategy to the truth of the claims made. The ad says "my god is the real god" or "my interpretation is the right one" or whatever, but all this is just the outer shell. The real functional roles of these systems is the effective organization through a moral code, with transcendental assurances for those who can't do without, and internal solidarity. The gods are the packaging. Looking at it from the functional level, you can see why there's no curiosity about the gods themselves, just like when you watch a Hitchcock movie you don't worry about what the McGuffin was all about. That's just there to draw you in to the story.
;D
Quote from drogulus: "The real functional roles of these systems is the effective organization through a moral code, with transcendental assurances for those who can't do without, and internal solidarity."
This idea that people cannot do without that undertaking or promise is false. I don't know any Christian who needs it in order to hold to what they believe. For most it is more remote than suggesting that in Winter it is very cold. We know that severe cold is possible, but sitting in summer and despite the experience of over 50 winters under my belt, I cannot really conjour up what the depth of a cold winter is like; still less what eternal life could be like.
Rather this is a promise, accepted by those who believe, rather like a guarantee with a kettle, (but with a bit more significance). No one buys a kettle for its guarantee. Nor do I know of anyone who was bribed into faith by a promise of eternal life.
You are using the extension of the prop to the weak minded and it does not wash.
Mike
drogulus:
you should travel beyond the outer shell you imagine, beyond what you feel are only the transcendental assurances some need :)
dj
Quote from: knight on September 21, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from drogulus: "The real functional roles of these systems is the effective organization through a moral code, with transcendental assurances for those who can't do without, and internal solidarity."
This idea that people cannot do without that undertaking or promise is false.
I agree that many people can and therefore
should do without the most obviously bogus parts. Clearly some people want/need it and many would be happy to dispense with anything that violates rationality. By presenting a united front against the atheist and defending gods and moral codes as though they were equally vital you shift attention away from internal differences to the common foe.
Quote from: david johnson on September 21, 2008, 01:32:25 PM
drogulus:
you should travel beyond the outer shell you imagine, beyond what you feel are only the transcendental assurances some need :)
dj
That's portentious hot air. I'm accused of saying people need gods to be moral. You see what you've done? I say they don't but think they do, and constantly tell us that without gods there would be no meaning, even though humans have been in the meaning business all along. That's what we do best!
I have to laugh when your accusation against me is what you say all the time! We need our gods! Without them we'd be
baaaaadddd!!
;D ;D ;D The funny part is I'm saying no, you won't be bad because you don't want to be!
:P I have more faith in you than you do (atheists usually have a great deal of faith in people, who after all exist and behave predictably).
:D
'That's portentious hot air. I'm accused of saying people need gods to be moral. You see what you've done? I say they don't but think they do, and constantly tell us that without gods there would be no meaning, even though humans have been in the meaning business all along. That's what we do best!
I have to laugh when your accusation against me is what you say all the time! We need our gods! Without them we'd be baaaaadddd!! Grin Grin Grin
The funny part is I'm saying no, you won't be bad because you don't want to be! Tongue I have more faith in you than you do (atheists usually have a great deal of faith in people, who after all exist and behave predictably).'
er...where is an accusation? if you're content to hang around an outer shell, go ahead and do so. i am content to explore and expand. perhaps you will join me someday.
you have an accurate faithometer to measure yourself against another? neat gizmo.
dj
Quote from: drogulus on September 21, 2008, 04:54:23 PM
I agree that many people can and therefore should do without the most obviously bogus parts. Clearly some people want/need it and many would be happy to dispense with anything that violates rationality. By presenting a united front against the atheist and defending gods and moral codes as though they were equally vital you shift attention away from internal differences to the common foe.
Which people need this assurance? I don't know any. So who exactly are they; or is this just a nice generalisation you can throw around?
I am not shifting attentiona anywhere; I think you are uncomfortable in having been basically caught out in false assumption, so throw sand about.
Anyway, you have the sand box to yourself now; as I am away for a week or so.
What is the difference between spirit and soul?
Quote from: romboid on March 02, 2012, 08:42:36 PM
What is the difference between spirit and soul?
In my personal definition, they're synonymous.
At some point I came into existence (at least I believe so).
Basically, I'm a Unitarian.
The idea of existing for ever is dreadful. I can't think anything else that's so appalling.
Therefore I hope that at some point I'll cease to exist.
The act of existence (ie consciousness) has so far defeated all attempts at scientific explanation.
As far as I can see the universe will go on existing itself without me, or without anyone else for that matter.
Quote from: romboid on March 02, 2012, 08:42:36 PM
What is the difference between spirit and soul?
Quote from: Szykneij on March 03, 2012, 02:49:03 PM
In my personal definition, they're synonymous.
I agree. The words are applied to the highest functions of a conscious mind, and I don't see much disagreement about what those are, just about whether they are the result of the same natural processes that built everything else or not. I like to use the example of blood vessels or nerves. The way they are intertwined with everything else is an indication of a natural process rather than a created one. Souls are like that, too, they and their bodies "growed" together. The components of a soul, such as they are, would be like the binary code in a computer injected into the mind of a snail, or an English major at Suffolk Community College. It would have no meaning outside its instantiation in the body it "grow'd up" in. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) Some Artificial Intelligence researchers learned this the hard way, that rather than implant encyclopedias in a robot memory we'll have to learn how to
grow the robots, so they can get about the business of acquiring their own souls. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
People aren't wearing enough hats. >:(
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 04, 2012, 08:22:33 AM
The idea of existing for ever is dreadful.
Both ways, yes, a dreadful idea and a dreadful prospect in the unlucky event it described something. However, that unlucky we aren't. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on March 04, 2012, 08:22:33 AM
The idea of existing for ever is dreadful. I can't think anything else that's so appalling.
There's one show,
Baccano, that has an immortality elixir that people are desperate to have. The irony is that the people who took it ended up being punished by drowning alive forever (well, they were saved after some time, but that wasn't the intent).
Quote from: Greg on March 04, 2012, 07:14:19 PM
There's one show, Baccano, that has an immortality elixir that people are desperate to have. The irony is that the people who took it ended up being punished by drowning alive forever (well, they were saved after some time, but that wasn't the intent).
Interesting, but I wonder what could possibly
not be punishing if endured for ever. Indeed, forever is punishing enough on its own. Beauty and joy are transitory, which is tragic, of course, but most important, it's true and we all know it.
I don't understand this slightly smug-sounding mantra that immortality is bad and would be unbearable. Does existence really have a shelf-life, after which what was desirable must become anathema? If you've had enough, I'll take your extra years off you!
Quote from: eyeresist on March 11, 2012, 07:57:42 PM
I don't understand this slightly smug-sounding mantra that immortality is bad and would be unbearable. Does existence really have a shelf-life, after which what was desirable must become anathema? If you've had enough, I'll take your extra years off you!
Is there anything in your experience that would lead you to believe that existence prolonged infinitely is either possible or desirable? I wouldn't confuse that with having a few extra years.
Everything that lives must die one day, an empirical fact which also is the basis for art and philosophy. It isn't a mantra at all, but the opposite. Mantras are for eternity mongers, who need them to ward off what they prefer not to know.
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2012, 09:41:21 PMIs there anything in your experience that would lead you to believe that existence prolonged infinitely is either possible or desirable? I wouldn't confuse that with having a few extra years.
Everything that lives must die one day, an empirical fact which also is the basis for art and philosophy. It isn't a mantra at all, but the opposite. Mantras are for eternity mongers, who need them to ward off what they prefer not to know.
Is there anything IN YOUR EXPERIENCE that leads you to believe that indefinitely prolonged life is UNDESIRABLE?
Life is wonderfully interesting, even when it is horrible or boring. It's certainly more interesting than the alternative.
Mantras are for god-botherers whose retirement plans include accruing grace or karma for the afterlife. Spend it now, I say.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 11, 2012, 11:04:10 PM
Is there anything IN YOUR EXPERIENCE that leads you to believe that indefinitely prolonged life is UNDESIRABLE?
Life is wonderfully interesting, even when it is horrible or boring. It's certainly more interesting than the alternative.
Mantras are for god-botherers whose retirement plans include accruing grace or karma for the afterlife. Spend it now, I say.
Yes, not only in mine though but in the life of just about everyone who observes the life cycle of those close to them and then experiences it for themselves. Life can be extended to some extent, and I'm glad. Past a certain point extension is a form of torture. The only thing worse than a life tragically shortened is one tragically prolonged.
But that doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I think the joys of life have a utilitarian base in the life cycle and relationships of family. What gives life it's flavor is intimately related to the cycle as a whole. Death is a part of that, and though we can usefully manipulate the process to extend life it for as long as our techniques allow, we should do that only if it brings some measure of satisfaction.
Then there's the conceptual objection, which is upstream from the practical, in the sense that if something is false it can't matter much how wonderful it would be if it were true. And eternal life is a loser at the concept level. Some pre-Socratic heavy said life is change, or everything is change, or something. I'd say that existence for entities is an island of stability in a sea of flux, unless you're a proton. Even a species is not a solid thing when looked at from a geologic scale. Human beings are a temporary arrangement and what counts for membership will necessarily be arbitrary at the edges. While one might imagine infinite existence for things as a whole (or one can try, I'm not sure one can imagine much), the way things work is the deck is constantly shuffled. All the things get changed out. That's life, that's existence, at least the part we know about. We leave the rest to Wittgenstein. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg8NLBfeps70nBJ5sVTmcv1Jfp9mFt_WNxMxP8fdCGMUbLLUyM)
STFU!
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2012, 12:16:35 AM
Some pre-Socratic heavy said life is change, or everything is change, or something.
Heraclitus.
Τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει.
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2012, 12:16:35 AMYes, not only in mine though but in the life of just about everyone who observes the life cycle of those close to them and then experiences it for themselves. Life can be extended to some extent, and I'm glad. Past a certain point extension is a form of torture. The only thing worse than a life tragically shortened is one tragically prolonged.
But that doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I think the joys of life have a utilitarian base in the life cycle and relationships of family. What gives life it's flavor is intimately related to the cycle as a whole. Death is a part of that, and though we can usefully manipulate the process to extend life it for as long as our techniques allow, we should do that only if it brings some measure of satisfaction.
Then there's the conceptual objection, which is upstream from the practical, in the sense that if something is false it can't matter much how wonderful it would be if it were true. And eternal life is a loser at the concept level. Some pre-Socratic heavy said life is change, or everything is change, or something. I'd say that existence for entities is an island of stability in a sea of flux, unless you're a proton. Even a species is not a solid thing when looked at from a geologic scale. Human beings are a temporary arrangement and what counts for membership will necessarily be arbitrary at the edges. While one might imagine infinite existence for things as a whole (or one can try, I'm not sure one can imagine much), the way things work is the deck is constantly shuffled. All the things get changed out. That's life, that's existence, at least the part we know about. We leave the rest to Wittgenstein. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg8NLBfeps70nBJ5sVTmcv1Jfp9mFt_WNxMxP8fdCGMUbLLUyM)
STFU!
It is ironic to refer to Wittgenstein, when your own argument consists of truisms, mystifications and appeals to authority.
Your first para mentions the physical and mental pains the elderly suffer, but this is not an argument for death. The weariness of life of which the aged sometimes complain is mostly due to fatigue, not existential malaise. Would you tell someone with a headache to shoot themselves in the head? No! You'd tell them to take an aspirin. The pains of age are treatable; it is possible that with further developments they might be put off or eliminated.
Next - "the cycle of life" and "death is a part of life". Death may be inevitable for all things (unless you are religious), but the individual is certainly not morally required to welcome it, as part of some spiritual obligation. Unless you believe in Freud's postulated death wish (now generally discredited), surely it is most natural to "rage against the dying of the light".
Will life indefinitely prolonged lose its savour? I don't know - let's find out. Let's go back 200 hundred years to a time when, if you survived childhood, you could expect to die in your late 30s. What would they make of our suggestion that they could live twice that or more, that they could live to be over 100? Who of them would curse us and call us witches, and who would grasp at the chance? Now many people live for a century or more. Why not double that again? Why not? And why not keep going? At what point would you say "You've had too much life," and start rounding people up and sending them to mortality camps, where their consciousnesses will be snuffed out just as God intended. Or perhaps you postulate a point in time after which death is desired more than life, in which case problem solved - they can just kill themselves.
Last - some vague assertion about change being the one constant in the universe. It's basically a repetition of the previous argument, that seeking to avoid death goes against cosmic moral law. But there is no such law (except for the laws of thermodynamics); the universe goes on, and if you have the opportunity to see more of its unfolding, why not take it? Only a dullard would refuse.
I'm not trying to say, BTW, that literal immortality is possible (even the universe will end), or that the fact of mortality is any sort of affront to the individual or the race (it just is what it is).
It might be useful to point out that many ruminations on the "aferlife" think of it as a state which is not eternal, but aeviternal--which means, more or less, completely out of time, so that one experiences past present and future all at once, or with equal accessibility--every moment of time is present to the mind at once, and the sort of change we relate to the passing of time in our physical universe relates to another dimension which can not be described because we don't experience it in our current enfleshments.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 12, 2012, 07:17:28 PMIt might be useful to point out that many ruminations on the "aferlife" think of it as a state which is not eternal, but aeviternal--which means, more or less, completely out of time, so that one experiences past present and future all at once, or with equal accessibility--every moment of time is present to the mind at once, and the sort of change we relate to the passing of time in our physical universe relates to another dimension which can not be described because we don't experience it in our current enfleshments.
I was not familiar with this word. It sounds a bit like my experience of watching the Oscars ;)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 12, 2012, 07:17:28 PM
It might be useful to point out that many ruminations on the "aferlife" think of it as a state which is not eternal, but aeviternal--which means, more or less, completely out of time, so that one experiences past present and future all at once, or with equal accessibility--every moment of time is present to the mind at once, and the sort of change we relate to the passing of time in our physical universe relates to another dimension which can not be described because we don't experience it in our current enfleshments.
If I remember rightly (correct me if I'm wrong), that's the kind of thinking pursued by J.W. Dunne in his
An Experiment with Time (pub 1920s?) which I remember reading eagerly, in my teens. He ended up steering his idea mostly towards fluff and nonsense, I think - but I never quite managed to shake off the flavour of his ideas when I came to thrash my way through relativity theory a few years later. The whole issue of the nature of time is not something our imaginations can can really grapple with (at least, mine can't); the relativistic models of the universe allow us to stand outside them and regard them as mathematical abstractions. And one might regard that as a kind of analogy to your 'aeviternality', though I feel uneasy about deducing anything from that about the possible nature of our existence 'outside time'. I think that's probably where Dunne went astray.
But a thorough study of relativity certainly does shake up one's notions of the nature of time (even though I've forgotten most of it now), and makes one realise the extent to which what we see is most certainly
not what we get.
[Didn't vote in the poll, by the way. Taking the question at face value, I haven't a clue. But then, I think the question may be one of those meaningless ones that
looks like a real question but isn't, really.]
Honestly, what a lot of utter cobblers some of this is. From the elements of stars we came and to the elements of stars we shall return. In fact, we never leave the stars. Wherever I was, say, 2 years before I was concieved...do I remember being there? No. That is how immortal the soul is. When we shuffle off this mortal coil we will not exist at all. We will be where we were 148 years ago...remember that? No, didn't think so. Thats because we are not immortal. The very word immortal is a nonsense to physics. What were our 'souls' doing when the Pyramids were being built? Oh, we can't remember! That'll be because our 'souls' didn't exist, just as they will not exist ten years or three billion years after our deaths.
Grim. But thank the stars it is so.
"What were our 'souls' doing when the Pyramids were being build? "
I was building them for all the musical scores I had gathered together, I thought you knew, Geeshhh ;D
Quote from: Harry on March 13, 2012, 03:22:10 AM
"What were our 'souls' doing when the Pyramids were being build? "
I was building them for all the musical scores I had gathered together, I thought you knew, Geeshhh ;D
Oh Harry, I had no idea. Sorry! :-[ But at least you have reavealed unto the World the 'secrets' of the Pyramids!
So the soul is "within the human mind," and not vice versa? Just wonderin' aloud . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 13, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
So the soul is "within the human mind," and not vice versa? Just wonderin' aloud . . . .
Yes, its there, but it doesn't exist unless we think about it, and even when we do, it doesn't exist at all. The whole universe is a soul. Meanwhile, I am just going out to buy some soul. They sell it on discs for £2.49 in the local software store. I need some upload soul...my last one ran out. Literally. :'(
Quote from: Scots John on March 13, 2012, 02:57:30 AM
Honestly, what a lot of utter cobblers some of this is. From the elements of stars we came and to the elements of stars we shall return. In fact, we never leave the stars. Wherever I was, say, 2 years before I was concieved...do I remember being there? No. That is how immortal the soul is. When we shuffle off this mortal coil we will not exist at all. We will be where we were 148 years ago...remember that? No, didn't think so. Thats because we are not immortal. The very word immortal is a nonsense to physics.
I am myself deeply sceptical about concepts of immortality (surely evident from my post above, where I even question the meaningfulness of asking the question at all), and I do find that my non-awareness of my non-existence before I was born makes for a very compelling argument against it; but (speaking as a physicist) I quibble at the idea that physics should have the last word.
If I'm immortal . . . I need a better retirement plan! (Definitely not cross-posting this to the Greed thread . . . .)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 13, 2012, 06:59:57 AM
If I'm immortal . . . I need a better retirement plan! (Definitely not cross-posting this to the Greed thread . . . .)
It's very simple, Karl. Fake your death and your compositions will finally receive the appreciation they deserve. After that all you have to do is find some way to come 'back to life' without angering your fans and you can live out your (long) retirement composing part time... :)
Quote from: Geo Dude on March 13, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
It's very simple, Karl. Fake your death and your compositions will finally receive the appreciation they deserve.
There's a Mark Twain story on those lines . . . .
Quote from: Geo Dude on March 13, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
It's very simple, Karl. Fake your death and your compositions will finally receive the appreciation they deserve. After that all you have to do is find some way to come 'back to life' without angering your fans and you can live out your (long) retirement composing part time... :)
Friedrich Gulda already did that, you know, although I don't know how much of a composer he had in him. Karl has to find something equivalent for the 21
st Century.
A town in Italy tried to legislate immortality, but those feisty senior citizens just won't cooperate.
;D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/deaths-illegal-italy_n_1341120.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/deaths-illegal-italy_n_1341120.html)
Quote from: Elgarian on March 13, 2012, 06:56:32 AM
I am myself deeply sceptical about concepts of immortality (surely evident from my post above, where I even question the meaningfulness of asking the question at all), and I do find that my non-awareness of my non-existence before I was born makes for a very compelling argument against it; but (speaking as a physicist) I quibble at the idea that physics should have the last word.
I agree, unfortunately I drew on Physics to bolster my argument and make it sound convincing, perhaps a flawed tactic and a weak use of the subject. But still...ye canny break the laws o physics...until the Higgs is found, that is...
PS: Sorry Elgar if you thought my previous post was aimed at you, not at all. It was a sweeping generalisation, lol :D)
Quote from: Scots John on March 13, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
I agree, unfortunately I drew on Physics to bolster my argument and make it sound convincing, perhaps a flawed tactic and a weak use of the subject. But still...ye canny break the laws o physics...until the Higgs is found, that is...
PS: Sorry Elgar if you thought my previous post was aimed at you, not at all. It was a sweeping generalisation, lol :D)
Oh no apology needed, truly. I was was just chatting around the topic in semi-response to what you'd said, and wanting to establish the fact that the very methodology of physics involves deliberately seeking out ways of breaking the laws of physics we already have (not to mention the laws of Star Trek). Nothing is set in stone; everything is provisional. However, when it comes to discussion of the soul and/or its immortality, I think we're more in Wittgensteinian territory than that of physics. Of course that leads to shorter and quieter conversations, but perhaps that's as well ...
Zowie
Quote from: Elgarian on March 14, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
However, when it comes to discussion of the soul and/or its immortality, I think we're more in Wittgensteinian territory than that of physics.
If we take "The soul exists" as an axiom then we have to discover whether it is "of the universe" or "outside of the universe". If a soul exists and is of the Universe (or Multiverse, you can go down this road) then the fate of the soul becomes tied to the fate of the Universe and we are back into the realm of physics and information theory.
I'm still in The Shed. (But then: aren't we all?)
*pokes head in*
Quote from: Il Furioso on March 14, 2012, 03:54:27 AM
If we take "The soul exists" as an axiom then we have to discover whether it is "of the universe" or "outside of the universe"
I think all those various expressions are philosophically problematic (Wittgenstein would have stripped to rubble, I suspect, discussion about whether 'souls' 'exist', and are 'of' or 'outside' the universe). Before we can even begin to make headway, we'd all have to agree on the meaning (or lack thereof) of those expressions; and in so doing, I don't think we'd ever get as far as bringing information theory (or any other theory) to bear on the issue.
My point is that in contemplating 'souls' and the question of their 'immortality', we're in territory beyond what
language can deal with (let alone information theory), and so silence is the only appropriate response.
[I daresay there are those who would say the silence is about
nothing, but I'd regard that as altogether a step too far.]
Quote from: karlhenning on March 14, 2012, 03:58:20 AM
I'm still in The Shed. (But then: aren't we all?)
As we've often observed, Karl, to be outside the Shed is to be within it. There's a particular comfort in that if it looks like rain, don't you think?
This raindrop, that raindrop, and the space in between — yea, all are in The Shed.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 14, 2012, 01:22:59 PM
This raindrop, that raindrop, and the space in between — yea, all are in The Shed.
Ooh yes.
Particularly the space in between.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 13, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
So the soul is "within the human mind," and not vice versa? Just wonderin' aloud . . . .
The soul IS the human mind. The intellect is the only tie we have with the world beyond, and, like Schuon said, our intelligence is meant for the absolute, or it is nothing.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 14, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
I think all those various expressions are philosophically problematic (Wittgenstein would have stripped to rubble, I suspect, discussion about whether 'souls' 'exist', and are 'of' or 'outside' the universe). Before we can even begin to make headway, we'd all have to agree on the meaning (or lack thereof) of those expressions; and in so doing, I don't think we'd ever get as far as bringing information theory (or any other theory) to bear on the issue.
My point is that in contemplating 'souls' and the question of their 'immortality', we're in territory beyond what language can deal with (let alone information theory), and so silence is the only appropriate response.
[I daresay there are those who would say the silence is about nothing, but I'd regard that as altogether a step too far.]
Well this is a complicated issue to cover in a few sentences but...'The soul exists' as an axiom and not a nonsense preposition shouldn't fall foul of W. If we use the logical positivist idea of meaning by consensus we can get around that problem. The axiomatic soul as 'of' or 'outside' the Universe can be described by standard logic and then we can move seemlessly into information theory. Mind you, I'm not saying this is rock solid but it doesn't have a certain flair :D
Quote from: Il Furioso on March 15, 2012, 08:12:25 AM
Well this is a complicated issue to cover in a few sentences but...'The soul exists' as an axiom and not a nonsense preposition shouldn't fall foul of W. If we use the logical positivist idea of meaning by consensus we can get around that problem. The axiomatic soul as 'of' or 'outside' the Universe can be described by standard logic and then we can move seemlessly into information theory. Mind you, I'm not saying this is rock solid but it doesn't have a certain flair :D
You're right - it's impossible to tackle this satisfactorily here (even if I had time to attempt it, which I don't, and I expect you don't either). However, I'd suggest that the Logical Positivist definition of a meaningful statement is unlikely to attract the consensus you seek. This would arise partly because I believe it was effectively demolished by Popper a long time ago, who showed it to be self-refuting; partly because such a restrictive definition would lead
inevitably to a reductionist outcome (I mean, we wouldn't need to pursue the argument, because we know what the outcome would be - it's predetermined by the
a priori restrictive definition of meaning); and partly because I suspect those who would assert (or seriously wonder about) the issue of the immortality of souls would reject every aspect of the inquiry as missing the point.
One keeps coming back to Wittgenstein. We're in the territory of things that can't be said. If we insist on trying to say them, we end up either with nonsense statements (category errors); or with statements that are so reductive that they cease to be recognisable as being about the original concept at all.
Ah, the limitations of words. Must be partly why I am a composer.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 15, 2012, 09:26:38 AM
Ah, the limitations of words. Must be partly why I am a composer.
Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't
say things. You
show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)
Quote from: Elgarian on March 15, 2012, 09:24:09 AM
You're right - it's impossible to tackle this satisfactorily here (even if I had time to attempt it, which I don't, and I expect you don't either).
QFT, message sent by pm.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 15, 2012, 09:29:25 AM
Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't say things. You show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)
Yes, well, that is what writers do too. :P
Quote from: Scots John on March 15, 2012, 10:21:38 AM
Yes, well, that is what writers do too. :P
Yes of course, but to go down that road would entangle the discussion even more hopelessly, I think. I was thinking specifically in terms of Wittgenstein's distinction between things that can only be said and things that can only be shown. Music 'says' nothing but 'shows' us things. (Some might say it provided one of the ways of communicating the notion of 'soul', even.) A poem may do both, but I don't have the stamina (or maybe also the ability) to cope with that additional complication!
This is all too hard, and takes so long to think through. I'm going back to
Scheherazade.
Quote from: Elgarian on March 15, 2012, 09:29:25 AM
Spot on, Karl - as a composer you don't say things. You show them. Wittgenstein would be happy with that (as are we all!)
I have no words ....
Chanced upon that yesterday, Alan, and methought, This can be no mere coincidence…
Quote from: Elgarian on March 15, 2012, 12:55:51 PM
This is all too hard, and takes so long to think through. I'm going back to Scheherazade.
Yes, I think I will join you on that. :D
***builds a shed and goes into it with Scheherazade on ipod***
Quote from: karlhenning on March 16, 2012, 02:51:01 AM
Chanced upon that yesterday, Alan, and methought, This can be no mere coincidence...
Indeed Karl, there are no coincidences in the Shed.
Quote from: Scots John on March 16, 2012, 03:50:13 AM
Yes, I think I will join you on that. :D
***builds a shed and goes into it with Scheherazade on ipod***
Well John, we can now claim there are at least two people currently acting sensibly on GMG.
(Sorry, I can't help asking ... which version of
Scheherazade is on your ipod?)
Shed-herazade