Thursday, April 08, 2010

If Darwinism Were True, All Writers Would Be Food Critics

Well, I think I'll delve into the archive for awhile. It's not that I have nothing to say, only that I don't see any need to repeat myself. Better to take an old post and drive it a little deeper into the ground. This exercise is not without its benefits, at least for me. First, it lets me know what's down there in the arkive. Second, I can correct errors or infelicities of expression, or at least explain things more clearly, especially to myself.

This is important, since I'm (almost) never writing from the standpoint of time, but eternity. That undoubtedly sounds grandiose, but it's not, for how could it be grandiose when I am specifically not taking credit for truths that do not originate in me? In fact, one's writing should always try to partake of eternity, or why bother? It's just that in our relativistic, journalistic, now-obsessed culture, we're not used to people trying to express truths that will still be true tomorrow, next year, and even forever.

Rather, the new norm is people like Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman, whose columns are obsolete before they even write them. And yet, on the left, there's no penalty for being wrong. As Navy Seal Dennis Prager says, being on the left means never having to say you were wrong. The reason for this is that the leftist lives in an a priori abstract world that is governed by self-righteousness and good intentions (i.e., desire), not truth. And the sanctimonious are never wrong, since sanctimony concerns itself with ontological planes other than the Real. At best, one can say that the column of an aptly named Timesman has succeeded in conveying their sanctimony and superiority, which is no success at all.

If there is no intrinsic truth of man -- a Truth that doesn't come from man, but through him -- then the existentialists, Darwinists, and other relativists are correct that man is truly just freak of nature, a meaningless bridge between nowhere and nothing. That being the case, why even bother writing about it? Why not honestly enjoy one's little animal pleasures for as long as they last instead of inventing likely stories about what it all means? For if Darwinism were true, all writers would be food critics. Then we'd kill all the bad chefs.

On to the post, which is not only true, but always will be.

Man is made in such a way that he is never fully actualized within the limits of his possibilities except with the help of constraints, otherwise he would be perfect; where there is no brake there is exaggeration and unconsciousness. --F. Schuon

One of the intrinsic problems of leftism is that it confuses an absence of constraints with freedom, when the only real freedom is precisely a result of thinking, feeling, willing and even "being" within transcendent and ultimately God-given constraints.

For example, just as it isn't possible to "think mathematically" in the absence of mathematical forms or to play music in the absence of harmony, melody, and rhythm, it is not possible to "think spiritually" in the absence of authentic and timeless religious truths. These are the boundary conditions that vault one's thought into a higher vertical space which is anterior to us, even while we "co-create" it -- again, somewhat analogous to musical improvisation.

Real thought is the essence of prayer, meaning that, like all prayer, it links man's intelligence with what is timeless and eternal. Indeed, this is the sufficient reason for our thought, for if it isn't linked to the universal -- and hence timeless -- then what is it good for? How is it an improvement over the animal, who unfailingly knows what to do without having to cogitate about it?

To put it another way, the purpose of religious forms -- one of them, anyway -- is to allow us to think spiritually, and to do so in a productive way. One of the reasons why the "new age" is so empty and ultimately unfruitful is that it tries to invent or cobble together its own spiritual language, which amounts to thinking without constraints or playing music with no harmonic or melodic structure. Most self-styled "independent gurus" fall into this category, and this is the primary reason why their work dies with them (if we're lucky), since it does not arise out of any eternal tradition. They end up trying to invent their own tradition, which is analogous to the musician trying to invent music itself.

I remember Bob Dylan saying something similar with regard to his artistic development. He said something to the effect that he didn't understand how young musicians can think they'll produce anything of enduring value by simply imitating contemporary sounds, instead of immersing themselves in an authentic tradition.

In Dylan's case, one of the keys to his greatness was that he surrendered and submitted himself to the American folk tradition, as if it were a religion. Which, in a way, it was. That is, just as authentic religious revelations descend from "above" and are elaborated by no one and everyone, a genuine folk tradition arises from "below," in the collective experience of mankind. This is what gives the music its archetypally resonant power, a power that no single person could have invented (analogous to how math is powerful because it isn't invented).

Only once he had immersed himself in the folk tradition could Dylan then "legitimately" branch of into freer directions; but even so, I believe he would be the first to acknowledge that he is still working with timeless materials within a traditional framework. He is not truly an "innovator" in the way we usually think of that word. To the contrary, he is a strict traditionalist, out of which comes both his power and authority.

One other important point is that this approach ensures that music is not merely made for egoic or narcissistic reasons, but out of love -- love and respect for the tradition that is higher and greater than oneself. So much music is vile because it betrays the traditions out of which it arose. And man cannot betray tradition without betraying himself, since tradition is a repository of so much collective human wisdom and experience.

If one truly immerses oneself in a tradition and is guided by love, an alchemical transformation occurs within the soul. In this process, the lower self "dissolves," so to speak, allowing one to graft onto or merge with the tradition in a seamless, or "interior," way. The reason why this can occur is that a legitimate tradition embodies what is permanent within the self (in both its celestial and terrestrial aspects), so it is not really a discovery but a deep recollection of one's true being.

This, by the way, is one of the things that is so troubling about Obama. It is not so much that he is the spiritual disciple of an ignorant clown, but that he has surrendered himself to a tradition that is not a legitimate one at all, but one that is wholly -- or largely -- manmade. Any spiritually attuned person can listen to Jeremiah Wright and know this in an instant. That he is not radiating divine qualities is patently obvious. He has no dignity, no nobility, no sobriety; rather, he is "wild," intoxicated, incoherent, and self-glorifying. At best, he mimics certain qualities such as divine wrath and judgment, as well as a genuine fake charisma that emanates from his fascinatingly unbound mind parasites, as opposed to any celestial gift. All demagogues have this toxic gift that resonates in the susceptible.

A person of genuine spiritual attainment will radiate from the calm center, and be an image of the "motionless mover." But Wright is all periphery and no center; he has no spiritual center and therefore no intellectual center, hence, the insane conspiracy theories, which are both systematic and incoherent, just like any clinical paranoid who is invincible in his certainty of the impossible. Wright has quite literally substituted paranoia for metanoia, in that he orients himself around projected illusions instead of "turning around" and calmly orienting himself toward and around the peace and tranquility of the One.

As a commenter mentioned yesterday, this is not religion but Marxism, Marxism being the archetypal inversion of religion precisely. As I have mentioned on many occasions, this is my principal objection to the psychospiritual left, as it inverts the cosmic order, so that everything is quite literally backward and upside down. Mixed with religion, it becomes a particularly potent and destructive force, even demonic in the strict sense of the term.

Now, why is this important? Because a religion is where one's soul finds its rest. It is where one feels spiritually "at home." As such, if one finds one's home in a false religion, one is ipso facto a false person (which is no person at all). To put it another way, if one finds one's truth in lies, then one is living a lie -- or worse yet, one is a Lie.

But why would someone "fall in love" with religious lies and liars? Good question. It could just be because it is convenient to do so, or congenial with what one already wishes to believe. Thus, a person who has already committed himself to neo-Marxism finds his soul's rest in the tawdry "liberation theology" of a Jeremiah Wright, which is not theology and certainly not liberating.

Is this what has happened with Obama? Unfortunately, we just don't know, and that's the problem. Is Obama just cynical and calculating? Spiritually blind and tone deaf? Not too bright underneath his unruffled veneer? In any case, his attraction to this buffoon Wright speaks to some sort of flaw which is quite deep, and which reveals a fundamentally dis-ordered soul.

We all have flaws. But hopefully we do not glorify them and give them a divine imprimatur. It's like a sex addict joining a polygamous church, or Jeffrey Dahmer converting to the Aztec religion.

If Obama felt he needed to join a black church in order to gain some sort of "street credibility," it certainly wouldn't have been difficult to find a mainstream one. I happen to believe that the black church at its best represents an authentic sub-tradition, as it is the spontaneous merging of the gospel with an oppressed people with their own unique take on the timeless. There is so much truth and beauty in the black church, e.g., gospel music. Why get involved with this perverse, parasitic, and politicized version of it? Perhaps because the real ones tend to be socially conservative.

If we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not a malicious person, then we are left with the option that he is simply a man with no identity in search of one. Such a centerless man will grope around for his center at the periphery, and if he thinks he has found it there, it only means that his true self died somewhere along the way.

There are few greater sins than making religion look foolish or evil. Perhaps none, for it is the one sin that negates all the others and thereby legitimizes everything.

36 Comments:

Blogger black hole said...

Quote for Post: "If there is no intrinsic truth of man -- a Truth that doesn't come from man, but through him -- then the existentialists, Darwinists, and other relativists are correct that man is truly just freak of nature, a meaningless bridge between nowhere and nothing. That being the case, why even bother writing about it?"

--Why indeed. That Truth had better be there, or else. And it doesn't help matters that said Truth is so veiled, subtle, and easy to miss here.

God is partially or mostly culpable for human error, e.g. leftism as you bemoan it.

Conditions here are such as to allow it to florish, and conditions here are the responsibility of God.

We should be asking God, WTF did you have in mind here, big guy?

4/08/2010 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"We should be asking God, WTF did you have in mind here, big guy?"

Not really, since the answer is so self-evident. The creation, being that it is not God, will necessarily have the possibility of error and evil. It cannot be otherwise and still be separate from the source (and which is why there are degrees of falsehood and evil, i.e., relative distances from the Absolute; not everyone is equally lost).

4/08/2010 09:11:00 AM  
Blogger black hole said...

Well, let's not dodge the issue of culpability.

Error and evil. When people are in error, do evil, they are held responsible. That is the law.

But: for the predisposing conditions for the error or evil, and under which it was performed, a person cannot be held responsible. That these factors, which include innate drives and appetites, are motives for evil acts cannot be disuputed.

So: we must conclude, that when error or evil occurs, both the agent of the predisposing factors, and the actual agent of the act, being different entities, are yet jointly responsible.

Therefore to find a person culpable of evil, you must also find God in some degree culpable of same.

What then shall be our response to the person who does evil, and what then shall be our response to God who does evil?

I will take addtional or rebuttal statements now.

4/08/2010 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

(Ah, yes - here we see the classic pattern establishing itself yet again: the helpful suggestion, couched as a question, followed by the not-so-subtle nudge in an attempt to either get someone to agree that they've had it all wrong all this time, and that God is in fact a big jerk, or to engage in a fruitless endeavor to argue truth to someone who isn't interested in hearing or seeing it. Either way, attention is received, the anony is validated, and if the debate breaks down into a tantrum then its need for drama is met as well.

Wake me up when the pattern changes.)

4/08/2010 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger black hole said...

Julie:

You have misinterpreted.

Your statement on my motive: "get someone to agree that God is in fact a big jerk."

Quite the opposite: I intend to develop an arguement that not only is God not a big jerk, but that people also aren't "big jerks."

I am probing around the mainsprings of the tendencey to be down on people, yet up on God; when in fact the two are so linked to be down on people is to be down on God by necessity of fact.

This is a logical arguement aimed at fostering a just attitude of one person towards another.

And of a person towards herself.

4/08/2010 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Dianne said...

Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened.

But you have to seek with a heart that really cares - and not approach it with a WTF attitude.

God doesn't need your ass. It's the other way around.

God knows what the intent of His creation is. And he DOES know what we're capable of in both directions. That's why we're here instead of there. And that's why Jesus sacrificed his life to tell the truth and offer salvation for those who want it, and then asked the Father to forgive us because we don't know what we're doing.

The more you strive toward/seek God with a sincere and humble heart, the more you begin to understand and know and it becomes a part of you and transforms you into something different.

No one on this forum, even GBob can plant the knowledge in your head. You have to seek and reason it out for yourself. But the first step is an HONEST desire to know the TRUTH.

4/08/2010 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I am probing around the mainsprings of the tendencey to be down on people, yet up on God; when in fact the two are so linked to be down on people is to be down on God by necessity of fact.

*sigh* My mistake. This, then, is the point where you try to get someone to agree that I'm okay, you're okay, and we should all just get along. If god is good, then nobody is bad, yadda yadda yadda. Barring that, the ensuing drama etc.

I'm pretty sure that still falls under the category of trying to get us to argue truth to someone who isn't interested in hearing it. As you've just stated, you have an agenda. You have your conclusions all set. And you must know in advance that we won't agree.

If you were interested in truth, you'd be trying to understand Bob's first comment. Or for that matter, any of the hundreds of posts in which it should have been made pretty clear that man is not god, nor is man intrinsically good; heck, reading the news headlines on a daily basis should be your first clue in that regard.

If you were really seeking truth and found no explanation here to be helpful, you'd look elsewhere, to someone who speaks your language and at your level.

If you really wanted truth and thought you could find it here, you wouldn't be telling us what questions we should be asking. Rather, you'd be asking questions until you understood.

4/08/2010 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"And it doesn't help matters that said Truth is so veiled, subtle, and easy to miss here."

We have written revelation, we have the book of nature, we have the promptings of "that little celestial fire called conscience," we have reason, *and* if we turn to Him in humility and repentance, we can have the indwelling Spirit Himself as a comforter, teacher, and guide.

Truly, men have no excuse.

4/08/2010 01:39:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

Julie and Dianne:

You have correctly identified that I have an agenda and pre-set conclusions for which I am prepared to argue.

You have correctly identified that I am in disagreement with the blog author, Bob, and by extension, yourselves.

The extent of the disagreement is limited, however. I am dissenting from a position within the camp, not from outside of it.

Fact: After a thorough study I agree with all main points of Bob's doctrine across the board, from philosophy, to politics,to psychology and to music.

Fact: I agree with and condone Bob's motive and intent for writing the book and blog and the continued contact with commenters on the blog.

Fact: I agree that Bob is competent, mentally clear, and in fact a gifted thinker/writer.

However: I stenuously disagree with the premise, set forth implicitly by Bob, and reinforced by scripture, that people contain some kind of intrinsic fallen or evil element.
The reason I disagree is that I can find no evidence for it.
Instead I will argue, and the evidence will show, that people are burdened by each and every cause of evil by an outside force, to whit, God, and in no wise decided unto themselves by any form of volition to submit to such causes beforehand,( beforehand defined as before being born), that we know of.

Free will has some play, but not a decisive role, in evil and evildoers, and cannot be writ larger than it is.

I intend to charge that God does indeed owe us an explanation for the burden of evil which is not requested or wanted by the incarnated being. I do not give Him a free pass. It is not too much to call Him to the dock.

Why does it matter?

Would this not change the rhetoric directed at our President by Bob, if raccoons decided it was the best representation of the facts?

I'm not condoning leftism, but the branding of the leftist as choosing his own plight freely is not exactly true and should not be espoused as truth. It is an inhumane and incorrect doctrine to paint with the black brush beings who do not understand what they are doing and cannot fully control it.

Finding the correct solution for the problem posed by the leftist depends on discerning the causes of leftism correctly and that is my final motive for holding forth in this risky manner.

4/08/2010 01:50:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."

"This is the message we have heard from him [Christ] and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

4/08/2010 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad re:

"For if Darwinism were true, all writers would be food critics. Then we'd kill all the bad chefs."

Truth and humor said succinctly. Bravo!

and...

"If there is no intrinsic truth of man -- a Truth that doesn't come from man, but through him -- then the existentialists, Darwinists, and other relativists are correct that man is truly just freak of nature, a meaningless bridge between nowhere and nothing."

When I read your book I was anticipating that you would introduce a 3rd dimension to your horizontal and vertical model of man's existence. You never did and so I took it as settled. Reading the words "a meaningless bridge between nowhere and nothing" gave me the idea for a 3rd dimension; mans' gratitude to his forbearers and responsibilities to his progeny. Do you remember our discussion on epigenetics? Does this make sense as a 3rd dimension to the model or is it superfluous to your construct?

4/08/2010 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I stenuously disagree with the premise, set forth implicitly by Bob, and reinforced by scripture, that people contain some kind of intrinsic fallen or evil element.

Fact: Bob is not God.

Fact: The truth came first. Scripture simply made it more comprehensible. This scripture has been around for thousands of years, closely scrutinized by millions of great minds, and has had such staying power because it is true.

Thousands of years later, Bob simply expounds upon that truth, as revealed not only in scripture but in the wisdom of millenia of saints and sages.

Demanding explanations of Bob (or anyone else here) for God's behavior and culpability is both childish and silly. As previously noted, Bob is not God.

If you have not seen any evidence of the fallenness of man, then no argument anyone makes here will convince you.

It is an inhumane and incorrect doctrine to paint with the black brush beings who do not understand what they are doing...

No kidding? So maybe that's what Jesus was talking about when he said, "Father, forgive them, for know not what they do."

If you're serious about your position, I submit a very fine read here. It will not change your mind about god's culpability. However, it might reassure you that you're not the first to have thought of it. Also, that perhaps, just maybe, there's a tremendous amount about god and about the nature of the world that you are not yet ready to understand.

There's nothing wrong with not understanding. There's nothing abnormal about being angry at god for the state of the world. Eventually, though, you have to grow past that.

Demanding that we provide proofs, ad nauseum, which you will reject, of what is (or should be) self-evident will not make that growth happen.

4/08/2010 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To black hole re:

"However: I stenuously disagree with the premise, set forth implicitly by Bob, and reinforced by scripture, that people contain some kind of intrinsic fallen or evil element."

I agree, the Eden story was adapted by the Jews and changed to incorporate guilt for a fallen state. The original story simply represents man's discovery of his "God given ability to choose" and control his environment (be Godlike). This I find convincing since the entire Bible is nothing more than instruction on how to choose "rightly and well". We were created in the image of God, so by definition we were designed to be creative and exercise choice.

"Free will has some play, but not a decisive role, in evil and evildoers, and cannot be writ larger than it is."

Disagree, God designed us to exercise choice, therefore he provided a world of both good and bad choices for us (temptations). He also provided simple instructions (10 Commandments) on how to avoid the bad choices. With respect to your defense of the left by intimating Gods hand, I would point out that leftism is nothing more than the total immersion into "envy". These folks have chosen their path and it creates nothing but sorrow and hate for them as well as all those around them. This is why envy has always been described as the most destructive of the vices, because it hates all virture and destroys its followers and their neighbors and friends. Its infectious.

4/08/2010 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

off topic...

Greg Gutfeld on Redeye mocks Deepak

4/08/2010 03:38:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Some things are never off-topic. Mocking Deepak is one of them.

4/08/2010 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

Susannah and Tigtog:

Points well taken. Scripture seems to be a fairly good instruction manual for choice-making, with the caveat supplied by Tigtog that some kind of guilt-trip has been overlaid on the creation story that doesn't need to be in there. Removing that piece of errata would be a triumph for starters.

Moving on to a mock-hearing:

My questions to God would therefore be:

Why make sin possible at all? Of all choices on how to construct a cosmos, why go the route of free-will and choice with good and bad choices possible?

What is the motive for this schemata?

Aren't you messing with us? Some of us will come to grief. How is that justified?

Jesus tell us to "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

These words seems to reinforce the general state of ignorance down here and the apparent ineffectiveness of guidance thus far given given to mitigate the situation. Would you agree?

Do you plan any more interventions designed to clarify/instruct people? If so, when and in what form shall these take?

Addendum:

I don't think God needs to be coddled. He can speak for Himself and there is no need to avoid or mitigate direct confrontation with Him.

The general fogginess of the whole spiritual milieu here is a giant pain and I for one would like it clarified.

If it cannot be I would like an explanation of why not.

Sorry if that offends any of you, but don't you think we should seek for the truth with no fuzzy veil thrown over it? I mean come on. That's not cool.

4/08/2010 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

G'Bob: "... The creation, being that it is not God, will necessarily have the possibility of error and evil. It cannot be otherwise and still be separate from the source ..."

Not just the possibility, but the actuality. And, as you say, it cannot be otherwise, since the creation is not The Creator.

4/08/2010 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

@ black hole.

How are we supposed to "confront God" on your behalf?

4/08/2010 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

The general fogginess of the whole spiritual milieu here is a giant pain and I for one would like it clarified.

If it cannot be I would like an explanation of why not.


*Snorfle*

So, will you be using the roll on the ground yelling and screaming until you get what you want method, or do you prefer to hold your breath until your face turns blue?

***

Susannah, you misunderstand the role we're supposed to play in BH's drama.

God's on trial here, but since BH is apparently blind to the message (which is only everywhere, if you're paying attention), we are defendants by proxy. Apparently, even though god can speak for himself, the confrontation is with us. Suggesting that in fact god can't speak for himself. Or that BH is afraid to actually ask him and stick around for the answer.

No evidence we submit is sufficient proof: scripture has already been denounced as suspect at best, and given that much esoteric wisdom from which we draw is based and grounded in scripture, that is out as well. Any evidence we submit which doesn't fit BH's world view is inadmissible. Reality is right out.

The verdict has been rendered in advance: God is culpable, god is unjust, god doesn't drop trou and show everything to BH all at once, nor provide a high-speed elevator to the promised land.

The sentence for this heinous crime of existence is anybody's guess, though apparently at least in part it's that we must once again suffer (on god's behalf?) through hours of childish arguments.

I was hoping, earlier, that by focusing on the circular behavior instead of engaging the fruitless arguments perhaps some headway could be made. I can't help it; part of me always hopes that something will eventually sink in. More fool me.

Mea culpa, everyone, for just exacerbating the situation. Guess I'd better put that ass hat back in the depths of the closet where I should have left it...

4/08/2010 05:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To black hole re:

"Why make sin possible at all?"

If there were no sins, then there would be no choice, thus God would not have created you in his image. The world of no choice existed before consciousness; before the fall as they say. This is pretty simple, I don't get your circular logic. The only thing you have no choice in, is having no choice.

4/08/2010 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Julie, funny, I was just thinking about that particular headgear the other night...I guess I took my turn wearing it too. LOL!

4/08/2010 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

There is a tremendous power in the traditional African-American church, and its music. I think there was a time, in the early 20th century, when we had a great chance to come together and find the even greater power in the unity of black and white, oppressed and oppressor. Perhaps when Obama is gone and the damage begins to heal, we will have another opportunity.

4/08/2010 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"...being on the left means never having to say you were wrong..."

Which makes sense of course, having never been concerned with being true to begin with.

4/08/2010 08:17:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

black hole said "...it doesn't help matters that said Truth is so veiled, subtle, and easy to miss here.
God is partially or mostly culpable for human error, e.g. leftism as you bemoan it."

Truth would be literally meaningless without the possibility of error. You could not even have the possibility of choosing without the possibility of choosing wrong, as well as right... without that there'd be no meaning, no significance, no consciousness, nothing more than one domino tipping over another.

To blame God for that, would be no different than blaming God for your being alive.

4/08/2010 08:35:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

black hole said "Julie: You have misinterpreted."

I doubt it. I note your 'opinion' yesterday and request that 'Raccoons weigh in. Agree or disagree', another posture posed and abandoned.

4/08/2010 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

Van: "Truth would be literally meaningless without the possibility of error."

Perhaps that's not literally what you meant?

4/08/2010 08:51:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ilion said "Van: "Truth would be literally meaningless without the possibility of error."
Perhaps that's not literally what you meant?"

Or perhaps it is literally what I meant. For Human Beings, truth and meaning would not be possible, without the possibility of error - there would not only not be meaning, there would be no knowing it. Consciousness could not be, would not be, without the need for being conscious of something, and it would be unnecessary to be conscious of anything if differentiating between correct and incorrect identifications were not vital - if you were automatically correct without possibility of error, there would be no possibility of your being.

For a Human Being, Truth would be literally meaningless without the possibility of error... there would be no consciousness, no awareness of truth and no possibility of meaning whatsoever.

4/08/2010 09:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "Guess I'd better put that ass hat back in the depths of the closet where I should have left it..."

Good try Julie, but it's too easy for me to reach that top back shelf to resist grabbing it, I don't even need to get on my tippy toes - sorry. You actually already fully answered most of the points I was going to hit... but there's a couple I can't leave alone.

bh said "I'm not condoning leftism, but the branding of the leftist as choosing his own plight freely is not exactly true and should not be espoused as truth."

B.S. Choosing incorrectly is an error. To persist in an error, makes one mistaken. To persist in an error, and make further choices and deeper errors based upon that, makes one exceedingly mistaken, but it doesn't make one evil, it makes you a fool sure, but not evil. Doctors who persisted in bleeding their patients and making concoctions of mercury and putrifying lizard flesh were deeply mistaken and ignorant, and no matter their very good intentions, their errors prevented them from advancing medicine any further - but their errors were based upon honest incorrect conclusions, they were not evil.

However intentionally choosing to do what is wrong (meaning that to some extent you know what is right, but don't want it to be, and willfully evade it), is the first whiff of evil. Deliberately pursuing a course you know to be not only incorrect but wrong, is evil . There is nothing of God in such a thing, it is of your own doing, and your deliberate negligence is no excuse. Every civilized person knows that it is wrong to take what is not yours, and every civilized person knows it is wrong to condone and encourage someone else to take what is not theirs. Leftists do it, themselves or through the power of govt, because they want it to be ok. They like feeling swell about 'spreading the wealth around' for the children.

Why do they add that 'for the children' (or some equivalent)? Because they know it would be wrong to do it for themselves, but they feel they can excuse it, and get away with it, by adding something like for the children. They are wrong. Choosing to be satisfied with what they think 'should have been true', and would have been true if they'd designed the universe... if only they were asked how reality should have been designed...! That is choosing to be not just mistaken, but morally wrong - and that is not changed by whether or not you've tried to turn a blind eye to its true meaning.

I'm sure there are degrees of such evil, and degrees of capability, but it's evil all the same.

4/08/2010 10:25:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

bh said "Why make sin possible at all?"

God didn't make sin possible, you do. God made it possible for you to choose correctly and incorrectly. You, not by choosing incorrectly, but by choosing what is wrong, and choosing it while knowing it to be wrong and persisting in it anyway, and even attempting to cover for it by asserting it is ok or even 'true'; through that action you make evil possible. You bring Evil into being, by deliberately misintegrating truths, by connecting one known falsehood to another and presenting it as 'true'... in that way it is you who bring evil into being.

"Sorry if that offends any of you, but don't you think we should seek for the truth with no fuzzy veil thrown over it? I mean come on. That's not cool."

Oh... wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 'I don't like that 2+2=4, I want to get from 2 to 4 without having to add another two... I wan't it! This ain't cool! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

Whatever truths you've claimed to accept, by asserting that what is true is not true enough for you, you side with cynicism and skepticism, and whatever truths you flatter yourself to build up and hold, you do so while undermining their foundation. Persist in that and you will end only in a deepening skepticism, and those truths will crumble like sandcastles dried out by the sun, knowthing but disintegrated granules slipping through your fingers like dust.

4/08/2010 10:25:00 PM  
Blogger maurice said...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100408/twl-clinically-dead-boy-saw-granny-in-he-3fd0ae9.html

I read this in the morning and it picked me up better than any coffee.

4/09/2010 12:05:00 AM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To maurice re:

"I was with Oma (granny) Emmi in Heaven. She told me to go back really quickly.'"

Maybe Lady Necessity is Oma Emmi? Have been thinking this morning how I would paint the Myth of Er. Funny that you posted this. Always good to hear of a miracle, especially when the traveler can tell of his experience. Thanks.

BTW WV = charged

4/09/2010 03:12:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

I haven’t been able to follow the comments very closely, so please forgive me if I’m way off.

Perhaps some of BH’s difficulties are related to a saturation of some terms, such as, evil, hell, Satan, etc. These are of course related to concepts of God, good, heaven, love, etc., also very susceptible to saturation.

If we are having problems with minor degrees of what is a sin or what is an evil, and who is responsible or not, it may help (it helps me) to think them through to their extremes. For example, does evil exist? Is it possible to do an evil act? If you answer yes, then where does the evil exist? In a dog? It must exist in man as he is the only one, or at least one, who is capable of knowing it. Are there degrees of evil acts? Could you call these sins? And who is a sin against? The alternative is: there is no sin, there is no evil. I don't think it is necessary to get into why evil exists or why it was made or not. It's not helpful at this stage. It is enough to know whether it "is" or "isn't".

Maybe Bob will post today or another on Fr. Schall’s excellent chapter, “Hell”. It may shed some light on one other “thing” which is also veiled. This thing you could say is always being veiled. Even here and now. Deny it and you place a little veil over it which pleases one and not the Other.

4/09/2010 05:27:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

But why would someone "fall in love" with religious lies and liars? Good question. It could just be because it is convenient to do so, or congenial with what one already wishes to believe. Thus, a person who has already committed himself to neo-Marxism finds his soul's rest in the tawdry "liberation theology" of a Jeremiah Wright, which is not theology and certainly not liberating."

Indeed it's not. Which is why Fair0 is tryin' to smear, marginalize and destroy any and all who love truth n' liberty.

Because anyone who does love truth n' liberty are at odds with Fair0 and Fair0knows that it's very difficult to keep his minions and groupies enslaved and hoodwinked as long as we have a voice.

In short, we represent reality, which explains the intense hatred he and his followers have for truth and for those who seek out and cherish the truth.

Based on Fairy0's performance thus far, I would say it's obvious that he took what the not so rev. Wight screeched as the gospel truth...at least the intent if not the specifics.

Fair0 is not post-racist, but he is racist and he burns hot with envy, which feeds his unquenchable thirst to steal from anyone he deems as wealthy, other than himself and his friends that is.

For it's not wealth itself Fairy0 despises but the fact he can't (yet) control who has wealth.

Therefore, I believe Fairy0 and his hive doesn't even have good intentions...at least not for anyone who seeks Truth.

4/09/2010 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Point to ponder: If I, made in the image of God, post something utterly stupid, does that make God the author of stupidity?

wv: anonalp

4/09/2010 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Only if you want him to be.

4/10/2010 02:07:00 AM  
Blogger Smallish said...

BH,

You've been created in the image of God, but not as God. Still: you, also, have the power to create and choose.
In order for those gifts to weigh anything in the heft of your own soul, you have to use them: ie, create and learn from the creating, and also choose, and learn from the choices. Thus we gain wisdom. Somewhere along the wisdom trail comes a respect for truth, then a love for where that truth comes from. It isn't math, it's art. You'll get there. As Cat Stevens says, "You're on the road to find out." Good on ya, mate.

4/10/2010 03:45:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home