tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post5668511190002594716..comments2024-03-28T12:10:26.197-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Art and Recollection: Where There's Holy Smoke, There's Divine Fire (1.10.12)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34974068136156444642008-12-21T10:16:00.000-08:002008-12-21T10:16:00.000-08:00Zoltan, I don't regard you as a nobody. Your comme...Zoltan, I don't regard you as a nobody. <BR/><BR/>Your comments to this point, though I usually feel an initial caution, usually prove to have much worthwhile in them. I suspect there are some principles we disagree upon, whether or not those are fundamental deal-breakers, I don't know.<BR/><BR/>In either case, disagreement doesn't necessarily mean opposition, and certainly doesn't mean I regard you as a nobody or that what you write is unimportant.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71451665759668739502008-12-19T10:46:00.000-08:002008-12-19T10:46:00.000-08:00Van, it were not amiss to regard me as a nobody, a...Van, it were not amiss to regard me as a nobody, and by extension, what I write as unimportant. I am and it is.David R. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416692639208634879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76777941536100159782008-12-19T08:49:00.000-08:002008-12-19T08:49:00.000-08:00Zoltan said "Ray is a theologian of high ability a...Zoltan said "Ray is a theologian of high ability and perhaps even accomplishment...That is power and power is truth."<BR/><BR/>I suspect Zoltan's inner Kantian hath been tweaked, and while the two lines above probably say all that needs to be said, but in memoriam to Ray, I'll pass the torch and ask "How would you know?"Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-52599137761715032442008-12-19T06:49:00.000-08:002008-12-19T06:49:00.000-08:00Ray is running circles around almost everyoneZolta...<I>Ray is running circles around almost everyone</I><BR/><BR/>Zoltan=almost everyoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-59549439801275663472008-12-18T21:31:00.000-08:002008-12-18T21:31:00.000-08:00Ray is running circles around almost everyone comm...Ray is running circles around almost everyone commenting on OC. He deserves to.<BR/><BR/>What cannot withstand the blast of radical skepticism, including obdurate radical skepticism, cannot be true.<BR/><BR/>Who cannot let doubt run a complete course cannot discover certainty or earn peace.<BR/><BR/>Truth is both <I>mysterium fascinosum</I> (absolutely attractive) and <I>mysterium tremendum</I> (absolutely terrifying).<BR/><BR/>Ray is answered with condescending sentimentality or irrelevant linguistic constructions. Both betray the presence of jejune ichor.<BR/><BR/>He deserves better. Or, as he says: "If I were a troll, then ignoring me would be a sure-fire means to banish me..."<BR/><BR/>Ray is a theologian of high ability and perhaps even accomplishment.<BR/><BR/>Certainly he is running the comment section of this blog whenever he wants to do so.<BR/><BR/>That is power and power is truth.David R. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416692639208634879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68807020594671696562008-12-18T13:34:00.000-08:002008-12-18T13:34:00.000-08:00Ray said "Van, of course, doesn't like th...Ray said "Van, of course, doesn't like the vocabulary I use and leaps from that to concluding things I never said and specifically repudiate."<BR/><BR/>It's not the words you use, it's the ideas behind them, and the positions you support which presuppose those same ideas, which you then try and claim to repudiate.<BR/><BR/>You tell me how you hold that some variation of gene-mechanics and algorithms is responsible for life, consciousness, personality and free will – support the views and positions of Dawkins and Dennett and Hume (you may try to hedge on Hume, but you continually express his views), and pop up a determymistical link for every statement here that endorses beauty & spirit… and then on the other hand claim that you are not at all a skeptic, revere truth, etc.<BR/><BR/>If you’re skeptical about your being a skeptic… you’ve got far more problems than just needing me to point out the meaning of the words you use to you.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-39264586098505124552008-12-18T10:20:00.000-08:002008-12-18T10:20:00.000-08:00I think it’s less a case of Ray being dishonest, a...<I>I think it’s less a case of Ray being dishonest, and more a case of him being not even honest. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes. Without going all the way there, myself, but yes. It is quite sad.<BR/><BR/>It's not even the conclusions I draw, it is Ray saying, "I never said that." Which of course, I <I>know.</I> <BR/><BR/>It is as if we all tell Ray he has a nose on his face, but he refuses to raise his hand to discover it.Joan of Argghh!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14729682908266300507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56516276463871988262008-12-18T10:00:00.000-08:002008-12-18T10:00:00.000-08:00Joan - "This place would be a bore without me."Tha...Joan - "This place would be a bore without me."<BR/><BR/>That's not anything I've <I>ever</I> said. At least one of the trolls who posts anonymously has said it, but that ain't me. (And I don't like people who troll instead of discuss, anyway.)<BR/><BR/>I don't even necessarily expect my posts to be of interest to others here - I find it interesting to see things discussed from such a divergent viewpoint. It does, like changing the lighting, bring out details that might otherwise have been missed.<BR/><BR/>If I were a troll, then ignoring me would be a sure-fire means to banish me...<BR/><BR/>Van, of course, doesn't like the vocabulary I use and leaps from that to concluding things I never said and specifically repudiate. Not accepting absolute truth is like not being able to reach absolute zero, or the speed of light. You can't get perfect in the real world, but you can get close enough for real purposes.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12081518614516766382008-12-18T09:39:00.000-08:002008-12-18T09:39:00.000-08:00Joan said "Ray is dishonest. A teeny little living...Joan said "Ray is dishonest. A teeny little living part of him knows this to be true."<BR/><BR/>I think it’s less a case of Ray being dishonest, and more a case of him being not even honest. That's the lot of skeptics, they possess (or are possessed by) an unrestrained sense of doubt, which arbitrarily doubts any and all claims to truth and certainty.<BR/><BR/>When doubt is disconnected from its legitimate sources, it delegitimizes all around it. Doubts should be raise warning flags over issues such as an unsupported assertion seemingly at odds with other information; some newly discovered lack of information (made visible by a new observation or otherwise new information); discovering that existing information has been misidentified, or the presence of something incongruous to the perceived nature of the particular whole. Those are legitimate reasons for doubt, and should be used to direct questions towards satisfying the issue, and once satisfied, then those doubts are allayed.<BR/><BR/>But as that suggests, before doubts can be raised, its is important to know what makes raising them illegitimate, to know what Knowing IS. Before you can be aware of what qualifies as doubt, you have to understand the nature and identity of what qualifies as certainty and truth. <BR/><BR/>When doubt is let off its leash, it begins to arbitrarily doubt all around it, seeking some flat 'absolute certainty' which is true in all situations regardless of context - it is context itself it attacks and resents, and anti-contextual inevitably means anti-conceptual, which puts it in opposition to the very nature and existence of human knowledge.<BR/><BR/><I>“Well how do you know that? Well how do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? How do you know a cosmic gamma Ray burst isn’t going to obliterate our solar system in the next 4 hrs?”</I><BR/><BR/>Once you give in to arbitrary doubting, as do very young children, you are lost and can have no ground to stand upon whatsoever. Children ask incessant questions out of a vast lack of information, skeptics do so out of having turned what information they once had, into disintegrated and suspect assertions. Children integrate their information to build knowledge and eventually learn that there really <I>is</I> such a thing as a stupid question. Skeptics have forgotten that or never learned it in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Truth is contextual, or rather we are able to grasp it only in context, it is ever alive, ever vibrant and resistant to any attempts to cage it with flat declarations and 'categorical imperatives'. The skeptic wants 'proof of life' that is frozen and dead.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't have a problem with Ray not 'buying into' the claims of any religion. I have a problem with Ray's skepticism, his refusal, either directly or through coy diversions and qualifications, to acknowledge that there IS truth, and that we can know it and the world within which we grasp it. He'll make various claims and assertions (he'll probably google-fu up a link where he's made one claim or another), but ultimately he will doubt it - directly or while holding to another claim which undercuts that.<BR/><BR/>The skeptic can't even be honest, because for him there is nothing True to be honest about.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75408536989631819352008-12-18T08:35:00.000-08:002008-12-18T08:35:00.000-08:00Ray - God has been known to harden the hearts of t...Ray - God has been known to harden the hearts of those whose pride (dishonesty) repeatedly determines to exclude Him from reality. Again, take care…be open. He may not make you choose, but you can make Him choose (so to speak).NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79840882785606579562008-12-18T08:14:00.000-08:002008-12-18T08:14:00.000-08:00My mindset was actually pretty close to where Ray ...<I>My mindset was actually pretty close to where Ray is now when I arrived here a few years ago. I'm just not quite so stubborn.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>James, it is not that Ray is stubborn. He would consider that a compliment. <BR/><BR/>Ray is dishonest. A teeny little living part of him knows this to be true.<BR/><BR/>Not that he's a liar, in the sense of say, [insert favorite politician here], because as far as Ray gnos, he himself is an honest man. But that's not very far, really.<BR/><BR/>It is only his dishonesty that keeps him coming back here, as well, for he seeks no knowledge but merely wishes to be significant-- a sop which is thrown to him daily by Bob's kindness and which Ray consumes greedily, without a real thought. <BR/><BR/>And that is Ray's biggest departure from being an honest man. He actively chooses to ignore so much good will around him, and placates the hounding doubt with codicils of, "This place would be a bore without me."<BR/><BR/>I bear no malice toward Ray, but his dishonesty must be addressed, not cross-dressed with some other red-herringbone veil of niceness. The only violence his dishonesty does is to his own eternal being. Toward that particular trait, mercy would be a dubious benefactor.Joan of Argghh!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14729682908266300507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79915915156355637412008-12-18T07:49:00.000-08:002008-12-18T07:49:00.000-08:00Nomo - My statement had two parts. Which half coul...Nomo - My statement had two parts. Which half <I>could</I> they all consistently be right about?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1227336872920564292008-12-18T07:46:00.000-08:002008-12-18T07:46:00.000-08:00Petey - Physicists say that chemists are wrong, an...Petey - Physicists say that chemists are wrong, and vice versa? Could you point out an example?<BR/><BR/>Nomo - <I>I</I> never called myself jester. If the title doesn't fit, talk to the guy who tries to apply it to me...Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-40111695024334055002008-12-18T07:40:00.001-08:002008-12-18T07:40:00.001-08:00No, Ray. Seriously. That's actually not true. Whil...No, Ray. Seriously. That's actually not true. While you can find (as comes to the news every other day) people who claim exclusivity on the knowledge of the truth entirely, this is not widely held outside of fundamentalist circles in any case. In Orthodoxy, for instance, our claim would be the <EM>fullness</EM> of the faith, something that is substantiatable through history and a study of liturgics and patristics. We believe that the truth is a person, i.e., the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, thus none of us can have 'exclusive' access to him, though we may be the only ones who have particular gifts or benefits, such as, we believe, the correct doctrine of the faith. (Thus the term Ortho-dox.) <BR/><BR/>However, the 'we're right and everyone else is wrong' is a strangely flat and unsophisticated argument from one who does quite a lot of thinking, as you do. It's more of a question of what a given religion is right about, and what it matters that a given religion is right about. It would be foolish for anyone to argue that Moses was right about everything, considering that he had never been exposed to nanotechnology, for one. The argument would be, or should be, 'what is sufficient for salvation is what the religion ought to be correct about.'<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, which is worldly knowledge and other esoteric pursuits, is optional in general, but may for some be an important part of the salvific work God is doing in them.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16083633530345605522008-12-18T07:40:00.000-08:002008-12-18T07:40:00.000-08:00"What if they're all half right?" Uh, Ray, wouldn'..."What if they're all half right?" Uh, Ray, wouldn't that still make you ALL WRONG?NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27551340868865980862008-12-18T07:27:00.000-08:002008-12-18T07:27:00.000-08:00Whinerbot it is then.<I>Whinerbot</I> it is then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-49571352748585437522008-12-18T06:39:00.000-08:002008-12-18T06:39:00.000-08:00Physics, biology, chemistry, neurology.... they ca...Physics, biology, chemistry, neurology.... they can't <I>all</I> be right....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50509805986023971582008-12-18T06:31:00.000-08:002008-12-18T06:31:00.000-08:00I'm cautious. The adherents of every single religi...<EM>I'm cautious. The adherents of every single religion say "We're certain, but all those other people are fooling themselves." What if they're all half right?</EM><BR/><BR/>They do? Or just at least one for each? Do you know what the 'seeds of the Logos' are?Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-14874620897178588822008-12-18T06:27:00.000-08:002008-12-18T06:27:00.000-08:00Ray (Jester) - Although you've got the "fool" part...Ray (Jester) - Although you've got the "fool" part of the job description down pat, you could kick up the entertainment aspect a couple notches.<BR/><BR/>Just sayin'.NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-89723377214490257052008-12-18T04:29:00.000-08:002008-12-18T04:29:00.000-08:00Ximeze - I'm actually a little disappointed. Why w...Ximeze - I'm actually a little disappointed. Why would you go for the cheap shot?<BR/><BR/>I mean, you <I>could</I> have lamented for my poor wife (who, a few dental fillings aside, is entirely carbon-based) being saddled with a "husbot". You could have made a joke about the artificial guy desiring real food (and there's opportunity for allegory there, too). You could have just asked, "How would <I>you</I> know?"<BR/><BR/>Instead... well, I'm used to a higher class of abuse around here. :->Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69995472962090518262008-12-18T04:20:00.000-08:002008-12-18T04:20:00.000-08:00Julie - All I said was, and I quote, "I have asked...Julie - All I said was, and I quote, <A HREF="I%20have%20asked%20for%20god(s)%20to%20manifest%20themselves%20to%20me%20(up%20to%20and%20including%20a%20Saul%20of%20Tarsus%20experience),%20but%20no%20luck%20so%20far." REL="nofollow">"I have asked for god(s) to manifest themselves to me (up to and including a Saul of Tarsus experience), but no luck so far."</A><BR/><BR/>I didn't say that that was the <I>only</I> thing that would convince me - I kinda specifically talked about a range "up to" scales falling from eyes. But it's easier, I guess, to portray that as a "demand [for] something tangible and irrefutable".<BR/><BR/>I'm cautious. The adherents of <I>every single religion</I> say "<I>We're</I> certain, but all those other people are fooling themselves." What if they're <I>all</I> half right?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70559801629532789632008-12-17T19:36:00.000-08:002008-12-17T19:36:00.000-08:00Oh yes, there was a real flowering and harvest of ...Oh yes, there was a real <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0824517431?ie=UTF8&tag=onecosmos-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0824517431" REL="nofollow">flowering</A> and <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082452490X?ie=UTF8&tag=onecosmos-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=082452490X" REL="nofollow">harvest</A> of Christian mysticism in the 13th and 14th centuries....Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79086365087501897122008-12-17T19:14:00.000-08:002008-12-17T19:14:00.000-08:00Derailing a bit, I see you're reading Meister Eckh...Derailing a bit, I see you're reading Meister Eckhart, Bob. Today I was Googling <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechthild_of_Magdeburg" REL="nofollow">Mechthild of Magdeburg</A>, which led to a comment about the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beguine" REL="nofollow">Beguines</A> (whom I had never heard of before), which led to a mention of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_of_the_Free_Spirit" REL="nofollow">Free Spirits</A> and Meister Eckhart. Interesting travel; one of the problems with picking up a thread in the Bewilderness adventure is that it's like taking a sip from a trickling faucet, only to have it cranked up to full blast unexpectedly. Every day, I realize all over again just how much I don't know, and how much less I know that I know each day...juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-74121517841435003342008-12-17T16:49:00.000-08:002008-12-17T16:49:00.000-08:00James,Bob is definitely right. They don't always m...James,<BR/><BR/>Bob is definitely right. They don't always make everything better, but I've seen no anti-depressant induced disasters, and I've been closely involved with hundreds who have used them. The side effects are usually tolerable or nonexistent. <BR/><BR/>What you may be looking for is something to take the edge off so you can get started on the work you need to do. Just avoid the trap of trying to make every little thing better with medicine, which may require you keeping your shrink in line.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, it's now clear to me that I should have been studying philosophy instead of smoking dope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56138485540869694902008-12-17T16:09:00.000-08:002008-12-17T16:09:00.000-08:00James:I have no idea what you've read about SSRIs ...James:<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what you've read about SSRIs or anxiolytics, but it sounds *kooky*. They are among the safest and most well tolerated medications out there. With many people, they work wonders. There's not a rational reason in the world to be frightened of them, although many people are, for a host of irrational and sometimes self-defeating reasons that are a symptom of the disorder. <BR/><BR/>Just remember, if you hear something "crazy" about a psychotropic medication, the story probably originated from a crazy person. Conversely, some people have died from taking aspirin, so there are always anecdotes one can cling to to justify a predetermined conclusion.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.com