tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post7565690696483704011..comments2024-03-29T06:03:45.545-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: The Morning After: The Word is Born, Now What?Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46476918504943566502009-12-27T10:26:53.981-08:002009-12-27T10:26:53.981-08:00Bob, this is where you and I agree so completely.....Bob, this is where you and I agree so completely...about the source/root of all things; I'm with Eckhart. A person's philosophy, whether consciously or unconsciously imbibed, is part and parcel with his "faith." How he reasons (or not) is part and parcel with the whole thing. It's why I come back to your blog again and again. "For many people, spiritual conception is a disaster, as it would totally interfere with their preferred manner of living, i.e., their wholly narcissism." It's funny you mention this. Just this morning, out of the blue, hubby commented on how *mean* people turned as soon as he came to the Lord. They really turned on him! Yet, at the time he was shielded from it by an inexpressible joy--the joy of God's presence... But even at the time, he thought it odd that people would be so dead set against something that, at the very least, promised to make him a better person. (Not to mention bringing the spirit to life!) The Spirit's presence is either a fragrance of life, or of death, depending on which side of the divide you're on. As Van quoted, "He's even worse than a dead man."Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-63476538171323273902009-12-26T13:07:39.293-08:002009-12-26T13:07:39.293-08:00""Basically, everybody more or less know...""Basically, everybody more or less knows this stuff. It's the wisdom and experience of the entire human race speaking here. The only people who claim to deny it are a few little fringe modernist groups (materialists, certain fundie Protestant sects, etc.).""<br /><br />I was reading <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html" rel="nofollow">Epictetus</a> last night, and chuckled at this short chapter (how long the left has been with us!), and was going to slap one of the recent omniorthoginalninnies with it, but seems fitting for today's post too, particularly Warren's observation -<br /><br />"<i>Chapter 5 <br /><br />Against the academics <br /><br />If a man, said Epictetus, opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a stone, <b>how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument?</b> <br /><br />Now there are two kinds of hardening, one of the understanding, the other of the sense of shame, when a man is resolved not to assent to what is manifest nor to desist from contradictions. Most of us are afraid of mortification of the body, and would contrive all means to avoid such a thing, but we care not about the soul's mortification. And indeed with regard to the soul, if a man be in such a state as not to apprehend anything, or understand at all, we think that he is in a bad condition: but if the sense of shame and modesty are deadened, this we call even power. <br /><br />Do you comprehend that you are awake? "I do not," the man replies, "for I do not even comprehend when in my sleep I imagine that I am awake." Does this appearance then not differ from the other? "Not at all," he replies. Shall I still argue with this man? And what fire or what iron shall I apply to him to make him feel that he is deadened? He does perceive, but he pretends that he does not. He's even worse than a dead man. He does not see the contradiction: he is in a bad condition. Another does see it, but he is not moved, and makes no improvement: he is even in a worse condition. His modesty is extirpated, and his sense of shame; and the rational faculty has not been cut off from him, but it is brutalized. Shall I name this strength of mind? Certainly not, unless we also name it such in catamites, through which they do and say in public whatever comes into their head.</i> "<br /><br />The more things change, the more the aninnies remain the same.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79886147096886382812009-12-26T12:48:46.771-08:002009-12-26T12:48:46.771-08:00... or I could have just refreshed my browser and ...... or I could have just refreshed my browser and saved myself the previous comment.<br /><br />wv:fooke<br />wordvery is developing a Scottish accentVan Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-72786772976141359812009-12-26T12:46:52.147-08:002009-12-26T12:46:52.147-08:00Hey, what's up here? Someone spike the egg nog...Hey, what's up here? Someone spike the egg nog? Who said Existence had to be equated with 'mere' Material? It is One indivisible One, there's no separating one from the other!<br /><br />We humans do have an intellectual barrier, past which we cannot proceed, and it has a threefold gate,<br />... 1-2-3-1... - Existence exists<br />... 2-3-1-2... - What exists, exists as some one thing and not another at the same time and in the same context - Identity<br />... 3-1-2-3... - Our conscious awareness comes through being aware of existence existing as something<br /><br />There is not a single thought we can have, which does not involve all three of these at the same time, trying to name one as having come into being before the other is not only not an option, but would introduce an arbitrary as a fact, and with that, an even harder fall than we normally need experience awaits those who insist upon that. <br /><br />"For example, to affirm with America's founders that our rights are derived from God, is to acknowledge that essence precedes existence."<br /><br />Which is to say Metaphysics... accidental as the name may have been, sOMthing precedes Physics, and although me may gno it, we have no way of knowing it.<br /><br />Now as for the order that <i>we</i> come into the picture, Existence comes first (again, is Existence only 'stuff'?), and as we become aware of it's identities, we experience consciousness and eventually self consciousness... if we try to insist on Descartes nipped notion (he didn't come up with it first), "I think, therefore I am", then you insist that your notions are primary, and so narcessarily all existence must jump to your toon, ivory towers can be lept in a single bound, and you're off on a life of perpetual left turns.<br /><br />"Raccoon omeritus Meister Eckhart agrees with this view, in that "throughout his life, [he] championed the... position that philosophy and theology did not contradict each other and that philosophy was a necessary tool for Christian theology.""<br /><br />Yep. A philosopher has to know his limits... Philosophy helps us to Know, but it degenerates into misophy when it attempts to tell us what we gno....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-18534190742967221402009-12-26T12:00:10.471-08:002009-12-26T12:00:10.471-08:00It would also lead to the realization that "G...It would also lead to the realization that "God is, therefore I think."Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-18241343434061843502009-12-26T11:58:42.551-08:002009-12-26T11:58:42.551-08:00Yes, that's a very fruitful way of looking at ...Yes, that's a very fruitful way of looking at it.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37975148071510173212009-12-26T11:03:54.108-08:002009-12-26T11:03:54.108-08:00On that topic, I just re read a part in MOTT (High...On that topic, I just re read a part in MOTT (High Priestess) where he describes the difference between viewing God's essence as Love vs. Being (existence). <br /><br />If God's essence is primarily Being (as opposed to a part of His substance), one has a tendency to view God as fluid, passive and depersonalized. (Deism)<br /><br />Whereas if God's essence is Love, it will be fire, active, and personalized. (Theism)Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30869392881013760002009-12-26T10:46:20.235-08:002009-12-26T10:46:20.235-08:00Bob, I agree completely, and I saw it as soon as y...Bob, I agree completely, and I saw it as soon as you pointed it out. After 2+ years of hanging-out around here, I'd like to think my thinks would be a little more clear.<br /><br />Yet there I was, toeing the Party line. First thought, worst thought, in this case.<br /><br />Implications, indeed!walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27123166349016220682009-12-26T10:41:38.287-08:002009-12-26T10:41:38.287-08:00Let it be noted that there is satanic mirror image...Let it be noted that there is satanic mirror image of the incarnation of the Word, and that existentialism and relativism are its twin children.Peteynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68074836871015061252009-12-26T10:37:37.196-08:002009-12-26T10:37:37.196-08:00That is one of the most critical metaphysical dist...That is one of the most critical metaphysical distinctions between left and right. For Marx and all of his bastard leftist children down to Obama, existence precedes essence, but for Christians, essence is anterior to existence. <br /><br />The implications of this are innumerable. For example, to affirm with America's founders that our rights are derived from God, is to acknowledge that essence precedes existence. But to affirm with the left that they derive from the state -- e.g., the "right" to healthcare -- is to say that we are nothing except what the world makes us.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11629436044391950262009-12-26T10:29:09.552-08:002009-12-26T10:29:09.552-08:00And speaking of idiotic things, the "affirmat...And speaking of idiotic things, the <i>"affirmation of blind nihilism"</i> would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it?<br /><br />Of course, if we take 'idiot' from the Latin as "ignorant person," then I reckon to have my share of <i>that,</i> as well. For instance, had you asked me, "Which comes first, existence or understanding?", I'd have said "Existence!"<br /><br />Ehh ... backassward (again). <br />So, thanks for turning my head around.walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.com