Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fresh Air
#31
Quote: "Where your focus goes, your energy flows..."
Don't forget the festivity.....
Focus, Festivity, and Flow
"Well if I were You-Know-Who, I'd want you to feel cut off from everyone else. Because if it's just you alone you're not as much of a threat." -Luna Lovegood
Reply
#32
(04-06-2016, 05:27 PM)navswar Wrote: INTP's are problem solvers. I see a lot of good things here and I suppose most people don't go to places like this until they feel they need help, but what if we tried to use a thread here to discuss some abstract and more forward thinking?? Instead of trying to resolve the past try and resolve the now. Like reconciling science and religion to a single truth, or defining the over-arching purpose of relationships/marriage?

Here's one: Define God...

God is the superego. God is the information that comes from words, not the information that is passed down through genes. Only humans have gods because only humans speak. God intervenes in the human animal and allows it to transcend its biological determinants by replacing instinct with intellect and reason and information gathered over millennia. God is immortal because he is pure spirit (language). He is a father because he constructs our subjectivity. We are an instance of him, made in his image. Monotheism is globalization - or the anticipation of a unity of all mankind. Atheism mistakes a poetic reference to the human condition for a scientific hypothesis about the material universe. The constructs we make use of to understand the material universe are created, even if what they refer to is not. "Earth", for instance, is a human construct that points to something unknowable directly. But we synchronize our experience by creating ideal forms and relating them to other forms and in so doing, contribute to speaking out a superordinate subjectivity, that people call "God". At some point in human evolution, people made names for everything. Or, "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth".

Santa is also real, in the sense that there is a knowable, testable effect in society so that, if one is unpleasant and poorly behaved, one tends not to receive the cooperation and love of other people. That there is not a literal jolly old fat man is so irrelevant as to be laughable when mentioned.

In short, disbelief in God because there is no proof of God is like avoiding fiction because the stories didn't happen. Only fundamentalists and atheists think this way.
Reply
#33
Superb. This is certainly more along the lines of what I've observed... The acknowledgement that the "things" we reference in our languages are really just our awkward attempts to label the conceptual and make the intangible tangible. Through labels (language) we construct subjective "truths" by which we unavoidably navigate our lives. We have the power to decide of our own accord and act. Ask a rock to act like a tree and it will forever be a rock. Unyielding in its basic self. It cannot disobey itself, and so it never suffers. God is is truth. The observable which, when pressed, does not move. When moving, does not stop. Truth is the source of all knowledge. Math is a perfect example: where can we go and not find mathematical principles at work? And what's the governor of those principles but the principles of mathematics? Math wasn't created by humanity, math is an expression of the observable but ultimately 'unknowable'. Imperceptible, unyielding, and present in everything observable. Including our own "selves".

All philosophical and abstract. Looking forward to more...
Reply
#34
Is the concept of a deity truth, though? I always considered it to be a substitute for the truth...

When my ancestors heard thunder and declared the gods to be fighting, or angry, or smithing lightning; today we'd say to ourselves, "oh, some lightning has just struck the earth a distance from me that is related to the flash of light that I must have just missed seeing (or perhaps it was too far away for how bright it is today for me to have seen it)," because that is what we understand to be the "truth." If I choose to tell my children that when the thunder rumbles it is because the Thunder God is a giant cat who is pleased and purring that wouldn't be the truth, but it would make thunder less frightening to them, and it would make natural phenomena approachable on a more human level. It would not help them navigate the physical world, but it would spark empathy for inanimate objects and the unknowable facets of life. In our world of Feelers explaining things to Feelers, this is a reasonable way to convince humans you're a Feeler (read: human) too and establish a system of morality. The Thunder Cat (no relation) watches over all cats, after all, and will rain down lightning (no pun intended) if he (third person generic) sees you pulling tails or petting the wrong direction.

Interestingly semi-related note, the word "cult" and the word "culture" come from the same Latin root verb, colere, "to tend or cultivate."
"Well if I were You-Know-Who, I'd want you to feel cut off from everyone else. Because if it's just you alone you're not as much of a threat." -Luna Lovegood
Reply
#35
I don't mean that God is truth in the sense of being a deity, rather "God" is the term given to an unknowable source of all things. "Superego". "Alpha and Omega". "Energy". "Spirit". References to it are simply dressed up according the culture of those who label it. Your description of Feelers helps me make sense of the way a lot of people perceive the world... And why the world is the way it is: so many things being so sensory-based. I'd never thought of it that way. I know my own emotions drive me to seek stability and trust, but I largely avoid acting on them. So I can imagine that someone who makes most decisions based on feelings would seek a larger degree of stability and comfort through dressing up the heavier issues of life with simpler analogies (at least that's what I see in your statement). People have to be able to relate on an emotional level to establish a 'real' connection. If they personify the unknowable then they have something to relate to... Thank you for the insight...
Reply
#36
(04-06-2016, 05:27 PM)navswar Wrote: INTP's are problem solvers. I see a lot of good things here and I suppose most people don't go to places like this until they feel they need help, but what if we tried to use a thread here to discuss some abstract and more forward thinking?? Instead of trying to resolve the past try and resolve the now. Like reconciling science and religion to a single truth, or defining the over-arching purpose of relationships/marriage?

Here's one: Define God...

Affective love. Love being specifically defined (not by me, and not here). And affective, as in having an effect, and not limited to feelings alone. Just another lens through which to see the same information.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)