13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleYour post is intelctual as always BB 😛😵 please explain; EQ- emotional inteligence? And what is ment by a seperation of human worlds (I and II)?
Me too I have the feeling that "god" is merely a concept.
But even if it exists solely in the fantasy/ imagination of the Human, it is still a product capable to produce miscellaneous behaviours within the World II of the Human, therefore it becomes a living entity which it is capable to produce a specific social status at the World I based on the conc ...[text shortened]... a specific Human attitude (quite tell-telling for the IQ and EQ potential of the Human)
😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleThank you 😀
My dear Lady yim,
It seems to me that "god" is just an invention of the Human, just as our obnoxious brother Bosse de nage offered earlier;
And what a fine avatar this one of yours herenow 😵
You're always polite. It's always nice to chat with you BB.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by yo its meIt is You that you are the intellectual one, my dear lady yim🙂
Your post is intelctual as always BB 😛😵 please explain; EQ- emotional inteligence? And what is ment by a seperation of human worlds (I and II)?
According to the philosopher Karl Popper amongt else, World I is the physical world as we human beings we perceive it by means of our 6 senses; World II is our personal emotional/ psyche world; and World III is the world of all the human ideas and theories, which for the time being they are considered false or right, or probably false or right (religion and Arts included).
There is an interaction between those three worlds, and in fact the primal philosophic conceptual idea is that the Human is a product of his own products amongst else😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by yo its meTherefore, although these three worlds are separated and unique, the Human is able to conduct and to handle miscellaneous operations within all of them three worlds (and to readjust the very standards of each world, thus to cause the evolution of each one of these worlds and at the same time the evolution of all of them three at once!) due to the fact that these worlds are not standing alone as an "absolute truth" but they are triggered into action by means of the Human attitude amongst else😵
Your post is intelctual as always BB 😛😵 please explain; EQ- emotional inteligence? And what is ment by a seperation of human worlds (I and II)?
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleOuch my head! Like the film series the matrix?
It is You that you are the intellectual one, my dear lady yim🙂
According to the philosopher Karl Popper amongt else, World I is the physical world as we human beings we perceive it by means of our 6 senses; World II is our personal emotional/ psyche world; and World III is the world of all the human ideas and theories, which for the time being they ...[text shortened]... al philosophic conceptual idea is that the Human is a product of his own products amongst else😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleOkay I think I get it, ish- not like the Matrix.
Therefore, although these three worlds are separated and unique, the Human is able to conduct and to handle miscellaneous operations within all of them three worlds (and to readjust the very standards of each world, thus to cause the evolution of each one of these worlds and at the same time the evolution of all of them three at once!) due to the fact t ...[text shortened]... solute truth" but they are triggered into action by means of the Human attitude amongst else😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleThere are "professional philosophers" in this world who incurred a lot of debt to acquire that title. In order to justify that expenditure as being worthwhile, they must occasionally emerge from hibernation to quibble about some obscure philosophical point that has come to their attention. So if one should, say, make a passing reference to Plato, they can immediately sniff out which forum it is in, shake off their torpor, and enter into attack mode.
It sounds good because it is accurate;
Regarding your references to Plato, I hope that they are not meant to be taken as loosely as your references regarding the ...socialist nature of Jesus🙂
But anyway it is very wise of yours to avoid a discusion (or a debate) about Plato overall😵
Only a fool would knowingly tread on such a beast's home range, and only a masochistic fool would willingly stand his ground against the beast's vainglorious charge. I have attempted to circumvent this danger by making a mere comparison to Plato. My revised 21st century conception of god is 'akin' to the ideal Platonic form of humanity. It has certain 'similarities' with it. If my understanding of the finer points of Plato is said to be lacking, I readily concede the point.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleYes, but as god is a projection of our mental faculties, he is created in our image, or our conception of what our ideal image should be. Clinging doggedly to an antiquated 1st century conception of god is counter-productive. We must periodically refresh our conception of god to keep it relevant. The previous, eternal, theistic conceptions of god are shopworn and threadbare. They are no longer worth keeping around. A non-theistic, evolving conception of god is a plausible alternative. Above all, the idea that it is the 'truth' should be abandoned. Its 'usefulness' is the only relevant criteria.
Me too I have the feeling that "god" is merely a concept.
But even if it exists solely in the fantasy/ imagination of the Human, it is still a product capable to produce miscellaneous behaviours within the World II of the Human, therefore it becomes a living entity which it is capable to produce a specific social status at the World I based on the conc ...[text shortened]... a specific Human attitude (quite tell-telling for the IQ and EQ potential of the Human)
😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettNope; the philosopher must be well down to the ground, otherwise a philosopher s/he is not. And a philosopher quibbles not; a philosopher is able to understand he/ his own nature, period.
There are "professional philosophers" in this world who incurred a lot of debt to acquire that title. In order to justify that expenditure as being worthwhile, they must occasionally emerge from hibernation to quibble about some obscure philosophical point that has come to their attention. So if one should, say, make a passing reference to Plato, they can i ...[text shortened]... tanding of the finer points of Plato is said to be lacking, I readily concede the point.
An attacking mode (my mode if I understood you well, that is!) is not at all the one you appear to think it is: my mode is simply a trial of mine to attribute the proper essense to the proper given facts due to given established scientific evidence, and I did it because I know that you are intelligent. Back then, at your thread titled "Jesus was a Socialist" if I remember well, you were talking absolute nonsense; and that's all -I was just joking over your theses during that debate.
Shouldn' t I?
😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettYes, I fully agree with you that "god" is merely a projection of our mental faculties -however "god" is not created according to our supposed ideal image. And we could agree that this dated concept of "God" is a fictional creature that stands above our best image to the hilt.
Yes, but as god is a projection of our mental faculties, he is created in our image, or our conception of what our ideal image should be. Clinging doggedly to an antiquated 1st century conception of god is counter-productive. We must periodically refresh our conception of god to keep it relevant. The previous, eternal, theistic conceptions of god are shopwo ...[text shortened]... that it is the 'truth' should be abandoned. Its 'usefulness' is the only relevant criteria.
I think that "God" nowdays has to be considered as a supernatural entity able to collapse at once every possible manifested and not manifested wavefunction. According to this interpretation, there is nothing that has to be updated regarding "god" 's nature I reckon😵
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleMy 'Jesus is a Socialist' tangent is partly based in fact and partly my own invention. I think it is closer to the truth than the Pauline mythology that currently passes for Christianity, but perhaps I push the angle more than the evidence warrants.
Nope; the philosopher must be well down to the ground, otherwise a philosopher s/he is not. And a philosopher quibbles not; a philosopher is able to understand he/ his own nature, period.
An attacking mode (my mode if I understood you well, that is!) is not at all the one you appear to think it is: my mode is simply a trial of mine to attribute the p ...[text shortened]... e; and that's all -I was just joking over your theses during that debate.
Shouldn' t I?
😵
But once again, the 'truth' of it is a secondary concern. As I don't think we can ever really know what Jesus was on about, we are free within bounds to imagine him as we like. I fully acknowledge that I am engaging in a new process of myth making.
(My previous post was also intended as a joke. It seems neither of us is very funny.)