Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Online Classics.

Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 09:13:51 AM
"If it is true that the notion of god actually referred to 'reality' for millennia, than someone, somewhere had that idea before you. If you cannot demonstrate that the concept existed before you mentioned it in this thread, the only remaining conclusion is that you were the first: you made it up."

This idea is common on the internet. That nobody can come up with truth unless it came from someone else.
That nobody can know anything unless it has a 'source' that is already known.
That there can be no first person to know it, unless somebody elsewhere was the first to know it.
And if you are the first to know it, then it must be crap.
This is what is known as 'logic'.
I am very happy to not be so burdened with so useless a thing.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 10:10:27 AM

You misunderstood his/her point. Without the context, it looks like you claimed people other than yourself (doing so for millennia) have been using the word God to describe reality with the implication that these people knew exactly what was meant (God=Reality). The poster you quote is asking you to provide proof of that claim.


Unless he misunderstood you and what you meant to say was that people other than yourself have been using the word God for millennia when the thing they were actually describing was reality (false attribution or comprehension on their part). If that is truly what you meant, then you should probably explain your statement to him.

Either way, there's a misunderstanding on one end, the other, or both.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 10:21:07 AM
If I had claimed anything other than the explicit truth, it was that people had long connected Reality with the Divine, automatically, before Christianity decided to call it God, and had it being an old man in the sky.
My point, here, is that we have arrived at a point where nobody can consider anything, any more, unless it comes with proof, and proof is something inapplicable to metaphysics.
Further, it appears that one may not communicate, at all, without first posting huge quantities of definitions for each word used. Followed by a quotable source.
Communication has been a major casualty of our modern age. There doesn't seem to be any.
No seer, prophet, sage or philosopher may put forward anything, any more, without it being considered 'made-up'.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 10:27:57 AM
"people had long connected Reality with the Divine, automatically, before Christianity decided to call it God, and had it being an old man in the sky."

The above quoted portion is not a metaphysical statement though it contains metaphysical positions.

While you can't provide empirical proof of metaphysics, you can provide empirical proof of how people of the past treated their metaphysics. Not absolutely of course but we have written records, historical events and the like which can inform us to some degree, how they treated their metaphysics.

 Which is all the guy was asking for. He was not, at least in the quoted portion, asking for proof of the truth of the metaphysical statement: God = Reality. Rather, he was asking for proof that people in the past really conceived of God in the manner which you claimed they did. That position within itself has to be informed by something concrete since we were not there and cannot speak with long dead humans.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 10:45:07 AM
People in the distant past tilled the land and wore beards.
Do I need to provide source material for that statement?
What sort of dummy requires such things?
Internet dummies.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 11:05:48 AM
So people who aren't privvy to facts are dummies? Are we going to deride people now for avoiding gullibility? If reality is important, then verifying the claims others make against reality is necessary. Why the hostility towards that process?

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 11:18:49 AM
People are dummies, period.
I don't know quite when and how this happened, but it certainly did.
Often, I invite people to 'consider' what follows.
But people have become unable to consider.
Consideration is not possible without prior proof, it seems.
And proof consists of quoting somebody else who provides proof of what has not yet been considered.
Clearly, this is insanity.
Only a dummy would think otherwise.
Or one so brainwashed into having a completely shut-down mind, that the difference between it, and a dummy, is negligible enough to be undetectable.

I have a sense of what is going on, although I can not know it, because I am not insane.
It is all to do with ego gone-to-seed.
Nobody seems able, any more, to perform the simple act of consideration, which entails removing one's own biases from that act. One may consider something without pre-judging it. But only if one is able to. When all one sees with is the lens of ego, then everything one sees is distorted by it.

Blah blah blah. Fuck it. I decide I no longer care.
The hidden danger of attaining enlightenment is that once one succeeds, one has effectively left the building, and no further communication is possible, simply because everybody else is still in the building.
It is a building that has no outside.
Like the human brain.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 11:39:35 AM
Were you a salesman at any point? Making people feel like an asshole for avoiding purchasing snake oil is brilliant.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 11:51:07 AM
I am at the very bottom of the salesmanship hierarchy.
I couldn't give away a treasure chest filled with treasure.
I have a feeling your comment was an amateurish attempt at humour, but I really didn't get it.
Were you a comedian at any point?

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 12:20:24 PM
No it wasn't.

Look I know you mean well with all of your contributions. I wouldn't dare ask you to provide proof of your metaphysical positions or your enlightenment. I know better and I know the limits of empiricism.

However, I do sympathize with the guy asking you to back up your claim about historical people's. If it were you and I talking, I'd ask you to provide me your source material as well. Especially since it's a topic I'm not unfamiliar with.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 12:36:06 PM
I appreciate your candour. Now appreciate mine:
Every word I write is a proxy for experience.
Experience I have had, and the reader probably hasn't.
I have no earthly reason to provide proof of what I already know.
The reader does not require proof, either. He has only to consider, try-out, and retain or discard.
Consider, then test.
To demand proof is entirely self-defeating, in that it demands a way to keep the whole exercise theoretical, in preference for actual.
I write about Reality. I have no reason whatsoever to write about theory.

I see, somewhat, the issue. I am vastly experienced, while most readers have little or no experience.
I know what I know, and the reader does not.
I, too, am equipped with the life-simulator known as a mind.
But I have stepped out of the simulator, on numerous occasions, and applied the lessons learned in simulation to Reality. For real. Not as-if.

Do you see? Do you begin to see?

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 01:32:33 PM
History is not anecdotal. None of us have actual access to the people and cultures of civilizations from over 2000 years ago. We have fragments. The entire exercise is unavoidably theoretical. The reason why proof is so important in this regard is that it is a check and balance ensuring the theory is an accurate description of reality. Abstraction is unavoidable since the configurations we are discussing are no longer around.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 01:40:29 PM
I see that you don't see. Hung up on the data.
The data is not the message. The message doesn't get through.

Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 01:53:49 PM
When you have a minute, please PM me the schematics to your time machine. I wish to travel 2500 years into the past so that I too, may have an opinion informed by experience.


Re: Online Classics.
April 14, 2014, 02:01:17 PM
It is possible to experience things, for real, and have intellectual understanding occur at a later date.
It is not possible to have intellectual understanding take the place of experience.
No experience = no life.

And don't fucking dare to demand sources.