Cognizance

[Iacchus]

Indeed, it's very important that we're "cognizant" to recognize the truth of anything. So, might I suggest that the key to unlocking the secrets of the Universe, plain and simple, resides within cognizance?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Indeed, it's very important that we're "cognizant" to recognize the truth of anything. So, might I suggest that the key to unlocking the secrets of the Universe, plain and simple, resides within cognizance? First, define "cognizance".

Second, go back and define it in a non-circular fashion.


I won't hold my breath.

[Z]

Apparently, "Cognizant" equals "awareness".

Isn't this kind of a stupid statement?

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, guys, really. We have to have awareness to, like, be aware. If we weren't aware, we wouldn't be aware, and we wouldn't have awareness of anything. Whoa.

Anyone else wanna hit this?

[UserGoogol]

It's also important that we "eat food" if we want to understand the truth of anything. Therefore, the key to unlocking the secret of the universe must lie with eating food.

[Iacchus]

I know that I am.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by UserGoogol

It's also important that we "eat food" if we want to understand the truth of anything. Therefore, the key to unlocking the secret of the universe must lie with eating food. Yes, in the spiritual sense, food does represent one's understanding. For example when say, we have a discerning palate.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I know that I am.

Are you sure that the "I am" feeling is not just an illusion?

[Cosmo]

Hey, look! Iacchus has a new word!

[DarkMagician]

The more itchy posts, the more I believe he gets a Word-a-day e-mail without definitions, and doesn't look it up before posting something with that word.

[Iacchus]

The truth is amazing isn't it? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

First, define "cognizance".

Second, go back and define it in a non-circular fashion.

I won't hold my breath. Is a hammer used for driving nails? Indeed, if the Universe exists, and the truth about that Universe exists and, if we have a mind by which to assess these truths, what else is there to know, outside of what the mind knows? It all pretty much comes from the same place doesn't it?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I know that I am.

How?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is a hammer used for driving nails? Indeed, if the Universe exists, and the truth about that Universe exists and, if we have a mind by which to assess these truths, what else is there to know, outside of what the mind knows? It all pretty much comes from the same place doesn't it?

The ability to assess something is not the same as total comprehension of it. You imply that because we can know something, we must know everything. A slippery slope.

The mind does not know what was never observed by it, although it can pretend knowledge of such things quite easily, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Imagination and reality are two different things.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, might I suggest that the key to unlocking the secrets of the Universe, plain and simple, resides within cognizance? The secret of understanding things is understanding things?

I hate to break it to you, Iacchus, but this is not actually a secret.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is a hammer used for driving nails? Indeed, if the Universe exists, and the truth about that Universe exists and, if we have a mind by which to assess these truths, what else is there to know, outside of what the mind knows? It all pretty much comes from the same place doesn't it? Is this the first definition I asked for, or the second?

Neither? Why not?

You can't?

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath...

Look, Iacchus, if you can't even define your new word, why should we listen to you when you use it?

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Piscivore
How?

Because I think...

therefore...

Of course we could just be living in the Matrix...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
No, guys, really. We have to have awareness to, like, be aware. If we weren't aware, we wouldn't be aware, and we wouldn't have awareness of anything. Whoa.

Anyone else wanna hit this?

Gimme some o' that pseudointellectualism, I'll take that over reality any day.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
The more itchy posts, the more I believe he gets a Word-a-day e-mail without definitions, and doesn't look it up before posting something with that word.

:roll:

I'm sorry Itch, but it sounds so true.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

The ability to assess something is not the same as total comprehension of it. You imply that because we can know something, we must know everything. A slippery slope.Well then, it's amazing that we have any comprehension at all then, huh? ;) Indeed, why should it be any more complicated than acknowledging "things" -- hence implying there's "a truth" associated with them -- exist? At the very least you're acknowledging "the truth" of their existence which, is most fundamental, correct? While from there, to the degree that you become aware of the existence of "other things" in relation to them, you begin to develop an "intimate picture" of how things work. Whoa! ... Come to find out the truth is fundamental to all things. And, that it's a very generous Universe indeed, to keep us so well informed.


The mind does not know what was never observed by it, although it can pretend knowledge of such things quite easily, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Imagination and reality are two different things. Yes, and why do you come across with so much certainty/authority here? Is it out of mimicry or, is it genuine? In other words who told you so?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

The secret of understanding things is understanding things?

I hate to break it to you, Iacchus, but this is not actually a secret. Not hardly. The key to understanding things is to have "a mind" to understand things with. And yes, apparently that must be a real "big secret" around here. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Is this the first definition I asked for, or the second?

Neither? Why not?

You can't?

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath...

Look, Iacchus, if you can't even define your new word, why should we listen to you when you use it? And, are you at all familiar with the term "correlation?"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

How? And how is it that "you" know I don't? Is it just a matter of weighing "the merits" of your existence against mine or, vice versa? Hmm ... Sounds a lot like solipsism if you ask me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

:roll:

I'm sorry Itch, but it sounds so true. Ah, but we must be careful that we don't lend ourselves over to what we call "wishful thinking."

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, but we must be careful that we don't lend ourselves over to what we call "wishful thinking." Coming from you, that statement is:
:dl:

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

Gimme some o' that pseudointellectualism, I'll take that over reality any day. The truth is experiential, therefore you have to "experience it," before you can intellectualize about it. Indeed, this could be the very problem right there.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Coming from you, that statement is:
:dl:

Hans Whereas wishful thinking usually begins with and, is asserted through, the "lack of comprehension." Comprender?

[MRC_Hans]

In your case, I suppose it is true, but generally, whishful thinking needs not spring from lack of comprehension. It is only when we assume our wishful thinking is reality that we show lack of comprenension.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

In your case, I suppose it is true, but generally, whishful thinking needs not spring from lack of comprehension. It is only when we assume our wishful thinking is reality that we show lack of comprenension.

Hans So, "whose" reality are we referring to here? Yours or mine? If someone "wishes" to assess something that's not true, doesn't that in fact not make it "wishful thinking?"

[MRC_Hans]

Yours or mine? I have news for you Iacchus: There is only one reality. Whether your perception of it or mine is the most precise, that is what we might discuss.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Yours or mine? I have news for you Iacchus: There is only one reality. Whether your perception of it or mine is the most precise, that is what we might discuss.

Hans What's the difference between the "reality" of a toe, versus the "reality" of an elbow? Wouldn't it also be fair to say that reality encompasses a whole myriad of perceptions? Is the reality of the toe any less correct than the reality of the elbow? If so, then we have to ask which is most vital and, serves the greatest "usefulness."

[Z]

No, 'reality' is the objective state of that which exists beyond your perceptions of it. And no amount of supposedly wise questions is going to change that reality.

Frankly, Iacchus, this is your most brain-dead topic yet - I mean, it's really, REALLY lame.

Anyway, why don't you start a topic addressing the issue of how a universe can exist with supposedly intelligent design supposedly for the benefit of life, when it is more than 99.9% hostile to all known forms of life?

...

Why am I even bothering to participate in this thread? It's like studying comparative biology with a Frenchman!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's the difference between the "reality" of a toe, versus the "reality" of an elbow?

Well, I, for one have no problem telling my elbow from my *ss. I don't know about you.

Wouldn't it also be fair to say that reality encompasses a whole myriad of perceptions?

It certainly does.

Is the reality of the toe any less correct than the reality of the elbow?

I think not.

If so, then we have to ask which is most vital and, serves the greatest "usefulness."



:dio:

Honestly: What are you trying to say?

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

No, 'reality' is the objective state of that which exists beyond your perceptions of it. And no amount of supposedly wise questions is going to change that reality.Are you saying reality is not interactive then? The fact is, there is nothing about it which is not.


Frankly, Iacchus, this is your most brain-dead topic yet - I mean, it's really, REALLY lame.In other words you prefer to partake of a reality which is non-interactive and, is in fact lame. Too bad.


Anyway, why don't you start a topic addressing the issue of how a universe can exist with supposedly intelligent design supposedly for the benefit of life, when it is more than 99.9% hostile to all known forms of life?The fact of the matter is that we're here. And yes, the Universe does exist to support that fact.


Why am I even bothering to participate in this thread? It's like studying comparative biology with a Frenchman! Yes, I'd prefer that you keep your bigoted opinions to yourself!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying reality is not interactive then? The fact is, there is nothing about it which is not.

I have not noticed anybody claiming that reality is not interactive. But not all of it. For instance, only the present is interactive.


In other words you prefer to partake of a reality which is non-interactive and, is in fact lame. Too bad.

Ahh, a common fallacy from believers: Skeptics, atheists, etc. do not PREFER some certain reality. We simply strive to describe the reality that is.

It is actually believers who, through wishful thinking, try to picture a reality they prefer.

The fact of the matter is that we're here. And yes, the Universe does exist to support that fact.

Does the universe exist to support the fact that we are here??? Isn't it the other way around, if you must make that connection at all?


Yes, I'd prefer that you keep you bigoted opinions to yourself!

A bit bigotted it is; for instance I could imagine that "comparative biology" with a frenchwoman could be quite inspiring ;).

Hans

[Z]

Hans covered it nicely... Including the bit about the Frenchwoman.

And whether bigotted or not, the stereotype of Frenchmen doing science backwords is very relevant here - you tend to take a conclusion and try shoehorning everything to fit that conclusion. For example, the Universe does not exist to support the fact that we are here; the Universe simply exists. It supports the incredibly small probability that life might come to exist; but, on average, and at large, the Universe's form is hostile to all known forms of life. That one tiny, insignificant part should breach the probability barrier and generate life is an anomaly, and even as such, the Universe still, in this part of the galaxy, is vastly hostile towards life. Any little thing might end all sentient life on Earth at any time, and we know it. So assuming some 'Intelligent Design' to support both Universe and mankind is silly and illogical.

And I'm not saying that reality is not interactive, nor am I saying that there's no such thing as a subjective reality - but subjective reality is a term differentiated from reality. Reality (no descriptives attached) exists with or without us, and appears to have existed long before intelligence ever arose within it. Subjective reality only exists to the mind of the subjector.

Not that there's any point in asking, but are you going to answer the challenge about life not existing prior to a lifeless physical universe?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A bit bigotted it is; for instance I could imagine that "comparative biology" with a frenchwoman could be quite inspiring ;). Hans I knew it! :D Well, actually it has more to do with his overall tone (as belittling and degrading), which smacks of bigotry towards those who don't share the same viewpoint as his.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I knew it! :D Well, actually it has more to do with his overall tone (as belittling and degrading), which smacks of bigotry towards those who don't share the same viewpoint as his. Well, my style is a little different, but it is mostly a matter of style. If you want to avoid belittling and degrading remarks from you audience, I suggest you try to generally make more sense ;).

Hans

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I knew it! :D Well, actually it has more to do with his overall tone (as belittling and degrading), which smacks of bigotry towards those who don't share the same viewpoint as his.

No, what I have is bigotry towards willful ignorance and general stupidity. You seem to have both.

Yes, I call it - I hate stupid people. And you are, quite clearly, stupid. Not for having different ideas - but for basing those ideas on moronic beliefs that dreams are somehow real; that reality is somehow slave to the mental; that the Universe somehow has a purpose or intelligent design; for not being able to simply make statements, but instead posting endless inane questions that do nothing but show your general ignorance and specific inability to use English in a reasonable way; for choosing to follow intuition and dreams rather than logic and reality. And, yeah, it's a different viewpoint, this desire to live in a fantasy world. But it's a viewpoint I feel is inherently stupid, and those who choose to live in it are fools and morons. I, too, share in these honored titles: I, too, am fool and moron, for I have my own stupid beliefs. And I'm more than willing to accept that, as well.

Besides, our viewpoints are not as different as you think; I just recognize how illogical and idiotic those viewpoints really are, and I keep hoping that, finally, some believer will be able to counter the arguments I give in an acceptable manner. You see, Iacchus, the problems I face you with, and the questions I ask, and the statements I make, are all part of the flaws I perceive within my own philosophies and beliefs. For those who will not critically analyze their beliefs are doomed to ignorance and stagnancy. "An unexamined life is not worth living."

So don't take hubris if you catch heck from me for some stinky statement of yours - just think, when I address you, in a way, I'm addressing myself.

Of course, I usually make more solid statements and use English more gooder than you does...

:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

And I'm not saying that reality is not interactive, nor am I saying that there's no such thing as a subjective reality - but subjective reality is a term differentiated from reality. Reality (no descriptives attached) exists with or without us, and appears to have existed long before intelligence ever arose within it. Subjective reality only exists to the mind of the subjector. And yet what kind of reality would exist without us? It would not be the same one. We are a piece of reality, albeit an "addended" piece perhaps at that.


Not that there's any point in asking, but are you going to answer the challenge about life not existing prior to a lifeless physical universe? And if I believe in the existence of a living God?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

No, what I have is bigotry towards willful ignorance and general stupidity. You seem to have both. And have you ever once considered that "you" could be wrong? The fact is you are a bigot, and I would be perfectly happy if you didn't participate in this thread.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, are you at all familiar with the term "correlation?" Are you at all familiar with the term "definition"? That is what has been requested, and that is what you have not delivered.

I think I might have to concur with what others have said; this is your worst attempt yet, Iacchus.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And have you ever once considered that "you" could be wrong? The fact is you are a bigot, and I would be perfectly happy if you didn't participate in this thread. please back up your accusation, your claim of "fact". If this claim of fact is like your others, the one thing we can be sure of is that it is wrong.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what kind of reality would exist without us?

Just that: A reality without us.

It would not be the same one.

Obviously not. It would only be marginally different, however.

We are a piece of reality, albeit an "addended" piece perhaps at that.

You do have a habit of stating the obvious.


And if I believe in the existence of a living God?

Then it does not change reality, except by the infinitessimal detail that: "Iacchus believes in the existence of a living God".

Hans

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what kind of reality would exist without us? It would not be the same one. We are a piece of reality, albeit an "addended" piece perhaps at that.

Of course it would be the same reality. Reality doesn't change because a rabbit dies, or because the dodo is extinct. Reality is what reality is. Observers are not required, and all things change. This is a part of reality, also.


And if I believe in the existence of a living God? [/B]

That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Only if you believe that God is the Universe does God have anything to do with my question. However, in this case, let's remove God from the statement, as God is more 'superlife' than life. In this case, I refer to life as we understand it in the biological sense, which also means mortal life. Since God is, presumably, immortal, He doesn't count in the question.

Now, how do you reconcile that question? Or do God's angels (or fellow Gods, depending on which myth you follow) count as the conscious beings whose mental states gave rise to the physical universe? In which case - where is your evidence that they exist, either?

You see, in this situation, we have what is apparently true - that the physical existed before the mental. Then we have to try to conceive of how that could be reversed, in which case we get several possibilities:

a) the pre-sentient physical universe is just an illusion - which is highly unlikely, and inconsistant with what we can observe about the reality in which we live. This theory gives rise to massive questions about why such an illusion would be generated, by whom, where, for what purpose? It needlessly complicates the issue.

b) some manner of consciousness has always existed, via sub-divine spirits, which can generate and sustain the physical realm - which, until we prove the existance of said spirits, is again, a needless complication.

c) the divine consciousness itself generates and sustains the physical realm of its own awareness. In which case, not only do we have another entity which is unknowable and undetectable, but we also have a state of universally common factor, which we can then simply ignore and carry on as if the physical gave rise to the mental anyway. After all, if all things are within/a part of the divine, then our understanding of things must begin at the level beneath the divine, lest we seek to understand nothing at all.

In any case, the general idea of mental giving rise to physical refers to those mental entities of which we are aware - which is, of course, ourselves - and so we have to address the issues of whether it's reasonable to assume that the pre-human history of the Universe is merely a mentally-generated illusion or not. Given that our understanding of this history is constantly having to be corrected on the basis of new physical findings, I'd have to say that it is not reasonable to believe that such history is a mental illusion.

I have trouble with these sorts of beliefs, because they seem pointless and meaningless. For example, I can claim that all life forms see those colors which they do because my spleen creates all colors everywhere, automatically, and that the memory some of you have of color prior to my birth is merely an illusion planted into your memory by my adrenal gland, but that I have no conscious control over the process at all. In which case, such a claim can be discarded as useless and pointless, as whether it is true or not is irrelevant (at least, if I also claim my spleen and glands to be immortal :D ). So is the case of most of these sorts of 'mental priority' arguments: you cannot demonstrate a physical occurance created from the mental alone, nor demonstrate the negation of a physical event by mental control alone; and all evidence suggests the physical is consistent regardless of mental states; so the idea ought to be tossed out as irrelevant and pointless.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Are you at all familiar with the term "definition"? That is what has been requested, and that is what you have not delivered.

I think I might have to concur with what others have said; this is your worst attempt yet, Iacchus. And, do you understand that a hammer is used to drive nails? And you don't see the correlation when I say a mind is used (as a means) to assess truth? Obviously I'm referring to the nature of their functionality, don't you think?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And have you ever once considered that "you" could be wrong? The fact is you are a bigot, and I would be perfectly happy if you didn't participate in this thread.

Actually, I'm more than happy to admit when I am wrong. I take it to heart if someone demonstrates the errors in my logic or reasoning or knowledge, and I try to correct myself as a result.

Something you might learn from, by the way.

As to me being a 'bigot' - how do you define the term? Because I chose to use the stereotype of French scientists?? Does taking a coffee bean at the grocery store make you a kleptomaniac? Does having sex once make you a nympho? Or is it your opinion that those with little tolerance for ignorance are bigots? If so, I'll take that title and wear it proudly.

And, frankly, I don't give a rat's rear what would make you perfectly happy. I'm sure you'd also be perfectly happy to sit in your momma's basement for the rest of your life, discussing the relevance of your dreams with other ignorant wanna-be Christians, without ever hearing an opposing point of view. Of course, if that were true, why would you post your tripe to a skeptic board?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, do you understand that a hammer is used to drive nails? And you don't see the correlation when I say a mind is used (as a means) to assess truth? Obviously I'm referring to the nature of their functionality, don't you think? I did not ask for a metaphor, I asked for something considerably simpler, in theory. If you cannot provide a simple definition, please admit it.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, do you understand that a hammer is used to drive nails? And you don't see the correlation when I say a mind is used (as a means) to assess truth? Obviously I'm referring to the nature of their functionality, don't you think?

A rock may also drive nails, or a wrench, or a ladies' shoe; a hammer can also be used for other purposes as well - which works OK for the mental analogy. But what other tool than the mind can assess truth? Bad analogy, from that angle. However, truth exists without a mind to assess it. So you've only been stating the blatantly obvious from the start. Very weak thread.

Oh, and yes, we do. You clearly do, too - but not in any useful or meaningful way.

:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Of course it would be the same reality. Reality doesn't change because a rabbit dies, or because the dodo is extinct. Reality is what reality is. Observers are not required, and all things change. This is a part of reality, also.Reality is all about things that are identifiable and do exist, not about things which are unidentifiable and don't. Or tell me, which of these do you think would affect you the most?


That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Only if you believe that God is the Universe does God have anything to do with my question. However, in this case, let's remove God from the statement, as God is more 'superlife' than life. In this case, I refer to life as we understand it in the biological sense, which also means mortal life. Since God is, presumably, immortal, He doesn't count in the question.If the Universe were but a "subset" of God, it still amounts to the same, obviously, as it does support life.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

I did not ask for a metaphor, I asked for something considerably simpler, in theory. If you cannot provide a simple definition, please admit it. And yet I think you know full well what I'm referring to here, and yours is just an attempt to obscure the issue ... pretty much as it has always been I might add.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Reality is all about things that are identifiable and do exist, not about things which are unidentifiable and don't. *snip*
Duh! Stating the obvious. Again.

If the Universe were but a "subset" of God, it still amounts to the same, obviously, as it does support life. [/B]Yeah, but which part of reality do you need to refer to God to explain?

So far, you have just argued that God might exist. ... Which is again just stating the obvious.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

A rock may also drive nails, or a wrench, or a ladies' shoe; a hammer can also be used for other purposes as well - which works OK for the mental analogy. But what other tool than the mind can assess truth? Bad analogy, from that angle. Would a hammer even exist, without nails to drive?


However, truth exists without a mind to assess it. So you've only been stating the blatantly obvious from the start. Very weak thread.And without the "cognizance" of mind, how would you know?


Oh, and yes, we do. You clearly do, too - but not in any useful or meaningful way.

:D Of course when we begin to speak of "use" it doesn't really exist now does it? Certainly not in a Universe which was founded upon that which is purely arbitrary (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51868), correct? So what makes your definition of use any more superior than mine? ... except perhaps to serve someone's big fat ego?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet I think you know full well what I'm referring to here, and yours is just an attempt to obscure the issue ... pretty much as it has always been I might add. I love it! Asking you to define your terms is "an attempt to obscure the issue." Hilarious!

Iacchus, you have been accused before (including on this thread) of changing definitions to suit your needs. This is not, in itself, a problem; many theories use specific definitions of words which are not the common usages. The trick is, it is imperative in such cases to define the technical uses of the terms so that everybody is on the same page. It is not an attempt to obscure; it is an attempt to clarify.

On the other hand, if you use words to hide rather than to illuminate, then being asked to define those words would indeed be a problem. If, as I suspect, you use ill-defined terms intentionally, to cover up the parts of your ideas that simply do not work, then being ask to define those words would be a problem. If you (as I hope is not the case) simply do not know what you are talking about, being asked to define your words exposes your ignorance.

You could have answered my initial post here with the definitions, and have been done with it. Aren't you glad you did not? Now, a simple definition can turn into pages of excuses...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Yeah, but which part of reality do you need to refer to God to explain?That part which is alive and well aware that is, obviously.


So far, you have just argued that God might exist. ... Which is again just stating the obvious.

Hans If it's so obvious, then how is it that we can't agree upon it? :con2:

[Z]

Hmmm... indulging in lifegazer's 'all or nothing' way of thought - So if any part of the Universe supports life, then the entire Universe supports life? Or does the entire universe exist for nought but supporting that portion that supports life?

And without cognizance of mind, I wouldn't know it, but the truth would be there, nonetheless. That's part of what separates fact from fantasy.

As for the idea of 'use' - even in an arbitrary universe, if intelligence arises, 'use' becomes relevant to the intelligence. All such concepts are relevant to the intelligence without being relevant to a mindless universe. Once intelligence ceases to be, for example, what use will the hammer OR the nail have? They will, instead, be metal and wood, pointless, just like everything else.

At any rate, discussions with you are fruitless. But unlike the mythical Jesus, I do not curse you for failure to bare fruit out of season; I suspect you are barren of such fruit, anyway. Instead, I bless you and pray you are enlightened tonight. And, as you dream tonight, see if you can spot the large, pale wolf-like face in your dreams. Probably near that large triple-window with the sheer white curtains.

:-D

Now I shall attempt (HA!) to refrain from further replies, since this is, essentially, a waste of time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Hmmm... indulging in lifegazer's 'all or nothing' way of thought - So if any part of the Universe supports life, then the entire Universe supports life? Or does the entire universe exist for nought but supporting that portion that supports life?It all came from the same place. Therefore, as a consequence, it should all be pretty homogeneous ... at least in terms of the "possibility" that it should support life. So yes, the Universe does in fact exist to support life.


And without cognizance of mind, I wouldn't know it, but the truth would be there, nonetheless. That's part of what separates fact from fantasy.Sounds rather circular according to Mercutio's definition if you ask me.


As for the idea of 'use' - even in an arbitrary universe, if intelligence arises, 'use' becomes relevant to the intelligence. All such concepts are relevant to the intelligence without being relevant to a mindless universe. Once intelligence ceases to be, for example, what use will the hammer OR the nail have? They will, instead, be metal and wood, pointless, just like everything else. Would a hammer even exist, without nails to drive?


At any rate, discussions with you are fruitless. But unlike the mythical Jesus, I do not curse you for failure to bare fruit out of season; I suspect you are barren of such fruit, anyway. Instead, I bless you and pray you are enlightened tonight. And, as you dream tonight, see if you can spot the large, pale wolf-like face in your dreams. Probably near that large triple-window with the sheer white curtains.At any rate, if I experience a wolf in my dreams, and he gets too close, I can only surmise he's looking for a confrontation. By the way, I have had experience with one or two "skin walkers" in my time.


Now I shall attempt (HA!) to refrain from further replies, since this is, essentially, a waste of time. Of course, says he who speaks from both sides of his mouth. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

I love it! Asking you to define your terms is "an attempt to obscure the issue." Hilarious! I have no idea what you're talking about. :con2: Perhaps because the moment has come and gone and you're still living in the past? It seems like all I ever do is get bogged down in my conversations with you ...

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's the difference between the "reality" of a toe, versus the "reality" of an elbow? Wouldn't it also be fair to say that reality encompasses a whole myriad of perceptions? Is the reality of the toe any less correct than the reality of the elbow? If so, then we have to ask which is most vital and, serves the greatest "usefulness."

The reality of the toe? :rolleyes:

Does a toe have a reality other than the one envisioned by teh brain? The brain can exist without the toe, but the toe cannot exist without the brain. The same can be said for the elbow, the knuckle, the nose, both eyes, an occasional ear and a fair chunk of the rest of the body.

My toe has no cognizance nor is it experiential of life...

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what kind of reality would exist without us? It would not be the same one. We are a piece of reality, albeit an "addended" piece perhaps at that.

If a star goes nova in a dark and lonely universe with no humans to perceive it, does it make a sound? No, because the vast majority of the universe is a vaccuum. But (and like mine it's a big one) it does make a darned pretty flash (from a distance) and release an incredible portion of energy and if it happens close enough to a little blue marble called Earth, it could blow off the Ozone cover protecting said little blue marble from all sorts of nasty radiation and starting a chain of mutations that could lead to humans (or some form of intelligent life) to witness a future star going nova...

The universe cares not one iota if you are here to witness it. To think otherwise is the highest form of arrogance.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And have you ever once considered that "you" could be wrong? The fact is you are a bigot, and I would be perfectly happy if you didn't participate in this thread.

This fails the sniff test. Bigot by definition is someone who dislikes a group of people for superficial reasons (prejudice). Once you know someone is stupid, you are no longer dealing with superficial reasons.

[MRC_Hans]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Yeah, but which part of reality do you need to refer to God to explain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That part which is alive and well aware that is, obviously.

Why do you need God to explain that?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far, you have just argued that God might exist. ... Which is again just stating the obvious.

Hans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's so obvious, then how is it that we can't agree upon it?

Can't we? ... Well, I suppose you could actually find the odd hard-core atheist here, but I think most would agree that God might exist.



Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It all came from the same place. Therefore, as a consequence, it should all be pretty homogeneous ... at least in terms of the "possibility" that it should support life. So yes, the Universe does in fact exist to support life.

Non sequiteur. You are implying a purpose. You have no base for that. Even if the entire universe did support life, and was indeed crawling with life, you could still not conclude that its purpse of existence was to support life.

And homogenous? Super-massive black holes at galaxy centers, the vast emptiness of intergalactic space. Methane seas on Saturn, puddles of molten lead on Mercury. Etc. Homegenous? Hardly.

*snip*

Would a hammer even exist, without nails to drive?

Hammers have been used for weapons. And a piece of iron mounted on a stick is only defined as a "hammer, driver of nails" because we mostly use it for that.

At any rate, if I experience a wolf in my dreams, and he gets too close, I can only surmise he's looking for a confrontation. By the way, I have had experience with one or two "skin walkers" in my time.

???:con2: ???




Hans

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I have no idea what you're talking about. :con2:LOL...I ask you to define a term you use, and you have no idea what I'm talking about?
Perhaps because the moment has come and gone and you're still living in the past? It seems like all I ever do is get bogged down in my conversations with you ... Perhaps because I am actually paying attention to the words you use, and you're not? It seems like all you ever do is make up something that you think sounds profound, without ever really considering what your sentences mean.

Iacchus...critical examination makes good theories even better, by sharpening them and getting rid of the stuff that does not work. Critical examination makes bad theories dissappear, because it is all stuff that does not work. If you think your theories are worthwhile, I invite you to define your terms precisely, so that we can see the utility more clearly. The fact that you avoid doing so suggests to me that you believe your theories are crap, and will not stand up to critical examination. I happen to share that belief, but am perfectly willing to be convinced I am wrong. You can start by defining your terms.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
At any rate, if I experience a wolf in my dreams, and he gets too close, I can only surmise he's looking for a confrontation. By the way, I have had experience with one or two "skin walkers" in my time.

Paranoid much? According to Native American mythology wolves are sometimes imparters of wisdom- although less so than coyotes. Maybe they are trying to tell you something.

Of course, it's all just meaningless images. Unless you think that the experience I've had with zombie vampires "means something."

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Of course, it's all just meaningless images. Unless you think that the experience I've had with zombie vampires "means something."
It meant nothing to them, at least. They were just using you for sex.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
It meant nothing to them, at least. They were just using you for sex.

Actually, the head vampire zombie was Jennifer Love Hewitt... :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Paranoid much? According to Native American mythology wolves are sometimes imparters of wisdom- although less so than coyotes. Maybe they are trying to tell you something.

Of course, it's all just meaningless images. Unless you think that the experience I've had with zombie vampires "means something." And if it happens to you don't come whining to me. However, if you're fortunate to survive the aftermath (no guarantees), then perhaps you too can write a book about "spiritual things." At least in your mind, it will be well established that "spirits" do exist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

LOL...I ask you to define a term you use, and you have no idea what I'm talking about?
Perhaps because I am actually paying attention to the words you use, and you're not? It seems like all you ever do is make up something that you think sounds profound, without ever really considering what your sentences mean.

Iacchus...critical examination makes good theories even better, by sharpening them and getting rid of the stuff that does not work. Critical examination makes bad theories dissappear, because it is all stuff that does not work. If you think your theories are worthwhile, I invite you to define your terms precisely, so that we can see the utility more clearly. The fact that you avoid doing so suggests to me that you believe your theories are crap, and will not stand up to critical examination. I happen to share that belief, but am perfectly willing to be convinced I am wrong. You can start by defining your terms. But then again maybe I'm not here to postulate a bunch of theories, but rather, tell you about something. In fact I would much rather experience the experience for what it is, than get bogged down in all the silly details in trying to explain it ... as if this had anything to do with its validation, which it doesn't. If nothing else it tends to impede the whole affair, as it puts you at odds with yourself and the very thing you're trying to examine, in that the techniques are contrived and wholly unnatural.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if it happens to you don't come whining to me. However, if you're fortunate to survive the aftermath (no guarantees), then perhaps you too can write a book about "spiritual things." At least in your mind, it will be well established that "spirits" do exist.

:D

Oh, Iacchus, share with us your wisdom of the "dangers" of your delusions. :D

I have met these "spirit guides" of yours. I had one tell me I was the messiah, I had another tell me I was the antichrist.

The difference between us being I can tell a dream from reality, while you have nothing positive in your real life so you have to create a false one out of your disjointed noctural homoerotic fantasies.

I intend to write a book about "spiritual" things; in fact the outline for my second novel concerns a Native American "spirit." Ironically, it is a creature I encountered in a dream I had shortly after my daughter died. I don't have to claim that "spirits" exist to do so though- I'm comfortable being honest that I make **** up.

The difference again being my book will admit to being fiction, while yours is nothing more that a disjointed documentary of your delusions and latent psychosis that you claim reflect reality.

Tortured any more cats to death recently?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I have met these "spirit guides" of yours. I had one tell me I was the messiah, I had another tell me I was the antichrist.


Really? Because I got both answers from the same guy...

Wait, that wasn't a spirit guide, that was just lacchus contradicting himself yet again!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

:D

Oh, Iacchus, share with us your wisdom of the "dangers" of your delusions. :D

I have met these "spirit guides" of yours. I had one tell me I was the messiah, I had another tell me I was the antichrist.

The difference between us being I can tell a dream from reality, while you have nothing positive in your real life so you have to create a false one out of your disjointed noctural homoerotic fantasies.

I intend to write a book about "spiritual" things; in fact the outline for my second novel concerns a Native American "spirit." Ironically, it is a creature I encountered in a dream I had shortly after my daughter died. I don't have to claim that "spirits" exist to do so though- I'm comfortable being honest that I make **** up.

The difference again being my book will admit to being fiction, while yours is nothing more that a disjointed documentary of your delusions and latent psychosis that you claim reflect reality. Do you know what's funny? Is my attitude was not nearly as crappy as yours is, and yet that's what got me into so much trouble. It was the fact that I was exposed to it and wasn't ready to deal with it that was the problem. It was hard to imagine that these things existed, let alone that they could be so malevolent. In fact if you have any fears or, are overly prideful (zealous), this is what they latch onto. You really should be more careful, lest you provoke these things, and they well up from inside you and pull you assunder, and twist your whole sense of reality inside out. In fact it's a lot like dying, and being exposed to the spirit that lives on the other side of it. Ever wonder what it is that drives people crazy? Just a chemical imbalance you say? LOL! :D


Tortured any more cats to death recently? And no doubt your fascination with the ugliness of things (evil) is going to get you into a lot of trouble. You're just asking it to make a home in you, and I'm not going to be there (the alleged ugliness you would instill in me) to bail you out.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you know what's funny? Is my attitude was not nearly as crappy as yours is, and yet that's what got me into so much trouble. It was the fact that I was exposed to it and wasn't ready to deal with it that was the problem. It was hard to imagine that these things existed, let alone that they could be so malevolent. In fact if you have any fears or, are overly prideful (zealous), this is what they latch onto. You really should be more careful, lest you provoke these things, and they well up from inside you and pull you assunder, and twist your whole sense of reality inside out. In fact it's a lot like dying, and being exposed to the spirit that lives on the other side of it. Ever wonder what it is that drives people crazy? Just a chemical imbalance you say? LOL! :D
Could you give me some pointers into how I go about provoking these things? I want to try that.

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, methinks we have just discovered what makes Iacchus tick. I guess it is unethical to yank his chain, then....

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Mmm, methinks we have just discovered what makes Iacchus tick. I guess it is unethical to yank his chain, then....

Hans Oh, there are different ways of going about it. It's when you begin to assault someone on a personal level (out of bias or ignorance) that it becomes a problem.

[Z]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mmm, methinks we have just discovered what makes Iacchus tick. I guess it is unethical to yank his chain, then....

Hans

Yes, Iacchus suffers from several mental disturbances. After discussing his posts with a friend of mine who is a psychotherapist, she recommended (for his benefit) that I cease discussions with Iacchus, and that I should advise all of you to do the same. His delusions are particularly indicative of someone about to attempt something dangerous - either to himself or others - and any further provocations might push him over the edge.

Or, he's pulling everyone's leg.

Anyway, Iacchus, Gods bless, may you find peace in your lifetime, and may Dionysus have forgiveness for your soul.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Donks

Could you give me some pointers into how I go about provoking these things? I want to try that. It has a lot to do with bias and bigotry and blaming your problems on other people ... and then directing this towards the imagery in your dreams and whatnot. But, unless you're already predisposed to doing such things, I wouldn't recommend picking up the habit.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Yes, Iacchus suffers from several mental disturbances. After discussing his posts with a friend of mine who is a psychotherapist, she recommended (for his benefit) that I cease discussions with Iacchus, and that I should advise all of you to do the same. His delusions are particularly indicative of someone about to attempt something dangerous - either to himself or others - and any further provocations might push him over the edge. This is what you call shifting the blame here, in the attempt to distract others from any possible ulterior motives we might have.


Or, he's pulling everyone's leg.

Anyway, Iacchus, Gods bless, may you find peace in your lifetime, and may Dionysus have forgiveness for your soul. So, which side of the mouth is this coming out of now? Do you know what duplicity is? Yes, in fact I do very much try to avoid such people of your ilk. If you wish to pursue this it's entirely up to you but, I would much rather avoid it myself.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then again maybe I'm not here to postulate a bunch of theories, but rather, tell you about something. In fact I would much rather experience the experience for what it is, than get bogged down in all the silly details in trying to explain it ... as if this had anything to do with its validation, which it doesn't. If nothing else it tends to impede the whole affair, as it puts you at odds with yourself and the very thing you're trying to examine, in that the techniques are contrived and wholly unnatural. If you want to just experience it and not get bogged down in explaining it, kindly do so. But if you want to try to "tell [us] about something", then it will help to be clear. Even if you are not postulating a bunch of theories. Unless you can tell me how being clear hurts your explanation, that is. Oh, wait. I think I already know that one.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

If you want to just experience it and not get bogged down in explaining it, kindly do so. But if you want to try to "tell [us] about something", then it will help to be clear. Even if you are not postulating a bunch of theories. Unless you can tell me how being clear hurts your explanation, that is. Oh, wait. I think I already know that one. And yet here we are speaking of that which is rather obscure in the first place. So like I say, I would much rather experience the experience -- the experience of who I am, really -- then get bogged down in all the details of trying to explain it. It's all about the experience itself in other words.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet here we are speaking of that which is rather obscure in the first place. So like I say, I would much rather experience the experience -- the experience of who I am, really -- then get bogged down in all the details of trying to explain it. It's all about the experience itself in other words. Wonderful. Please have fun experiencing your life. Don't feel you have to tell us about it, though. If you do choose to tell us about it...please use language which is less obscure. As you say, you are speaking of obscure things to begin with; to add an additional level of obscurity through your language is only going to make you completely incomprehensible. And that, of course, wastes both of our time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Wonderful. Please have fun experiencing your life. Don't feel you have to tell us about it, though. If you do choose to tell us about it...please use language which is less obscure. As you say, you are speaking of obscure things to begin with; to add an additional level of obscurity through your language is only going to make you completely incomprehensible. And that, of course, wastes both of our time. Oh, would you have me speak to you of something which doesn't exist? How can I not help but speak to you through my own experience? Or, is it all so cold and clinical as you have us believe? You see the problem here is that one of us needs to get real.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Donks
Could you give me some pointers into how I go about provoking these things? I want to try that.

I'd definitely be careful with that one. Odds are you are just going to be riling up some lunatic and unlike the fake ones that Iacchus belives in, human lunatics are quite dangerous.

Looking for good or evil in this world, look to humans. You really don't need anything else.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet here we are speaking of that which is rather obscure in the first place. So like I say, I would much rather experience the experience -- the experience of who I am, really -- then get bogged down in all the details of trying to explain it. It's all about the experience itself in other words.

Experience is an entirely subjective concept. I cannot perceive your perceptions. I cannot experience your feelings, thoughts, desires or sensations.

What if my experience is made better by learning, growing, figuring things out?

What if that is really what the world is all about - getting outside ourselves and getting in touch with the world as it really is?

What if it's about increasing knowledge so the sole form of eternal life we can actually verify and participate in - the life of our species - has a better chance of survival?

If these superpowerful demons and gods truly do exist, then this planet is screwed either way and eternal life is guaranteed. So, might as well go about my life not worrying about stuff which I cannot verify and which has to this moment in time no affected my life one wit. If I can enjoy my life - with the good and the bad and possibly make a small impact for good in this world, then maybe things will be better for the people who come after me. That would be alright.

We should have a poll...

How many people have ever met a demon?

A malevolent spirit?

A poltergeist?

A "skin walker" (what is that anyway, an animal in human flesh? Bad doggie...)?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by voodoochile
What if that is really what the world is all about - getting outside ourselves and getting in touch with the world as it really is?

This is what science attempts to do, but further than that, it is impossible. In the picture there will always be the photographer.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, would you have me speak to you of something which doesn't exist? Frankly, no, Iacchus. I would have you not speak about anything, unless you can speak about it coherently.
How can I not help but speak to you through my own experience? Or, is it all so cold and clinical as you have us believe? You see the problem here is that one of us needs to get real. Please point out any post of mine on this forum which a reasonable person would interpret as my saying that our experience is "cold and clinical".

Yes, one of us needs to get real. Have fun with your dreams.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
This is what science attempts to do, but further than that, it is impossible. In the picture there will always be the photographer.

Not on a planet shaped like a ball there won't...:p ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you know what's funny? Is my attitude was not nearly as crappy as yours is,

What are you talking about? I'm actually a pretty funny guy most of the time.

Originally posted by Iacchus
and yet that's what got me into so much trouble. It was the fact that I was exposed to it and wasn't ready to deal with it that was the problem. It was hard to imagine that these things existed, let alone that they could be so malevolent. In fact if you have any fears or, are overly prideful (zealous), this is what they latch onto. You really should be more careful, lest you provoke these things, and they well up from inside you and pull you assunder, and twist your whole sense of reality inside out. In fact it's a lot like dying, and being exposed to the spirit that lives on the other side of it.

Funny that a comic strip (http://www.wapsisquare.com/d/20050131.html) character understands it, and you don't. Know what is funnier still? That Jung, who's name you like to toss out frequently and claim to have "studied", said the same thing- that your "malevolent entities" are aspects of ourselves that we have to make peace with and re-integrate back into who we are in order to be whole and healthy.

You've taken all your fear and alienation and self-loathing and created imaginary "spiritual" scapegoats for all those icky feelings you don't want to face. Everyone else knows this. That's why you are so funny! :D

Originally posted by Iacchus
And no doubt your fascination with the ugliness of things (evil) is going to get you into a lot of trouble.

Who said I was fascinated by the ugliness of things? You wrote in your manifesto- casually, I might add, as if it were some universal rite of passage- about lynching a cat.

I do admit to not shielding myself from life's unpleasant aspects, but that hardly equates to "fascination." Such knowledge is important that I might give my stories life and meaning, but beyond that, such knowledge makes me a better, more rounded, more educated and wiser human being. In any case, such a fascination obviously worked well for Steven King.

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're just asking it to make a home in you, and I'm not going to be there (the alleged ugliness you would instill in me) to bail you out.

See the comments about Jung, above.

Anyway, you're the last person anyone would ask for help, guidance, or advice. :D

[Hardenbergh]

Originally posted by Piscivore
What are you talking about? I'm actually a pretty funny guy most of the time.



Funny that a comic strip (http://www.wapsisquare.com/d/20050131.html) character understands it, and you don't. Know what is funnier still? That Jung, who's name you like to toss out frequently and claim to have "studied", said the same thing- that your "malevolent entities" are aspects of ourselves that we have to make peace with and re-integrate back into who we are in order to be whole and healthy.

You've taken all your fear and alienation and self-loathing and created imaginary "spiritual" scapegoats for all those icky feelings you don't want to face. Everyone else knows this. That's why you are so funny! :D



Who said I was fascinated by the ugliness of things? You wrote in your manifesto- casually, I might add, as if it were some universal rite of passage- about lynching a cat.

I do admit to not shielding myself from life's unpleasant aspects, but that hardly equates to "fascination." Such knowledge is important that I might give my stories life and meaning, but beyond that, such knowledge makes me a better, more rounded, more educated and wiser human being. In any case, such a fascination obviously worked well for Steven King.



See the comments about Jung, above.

Anyway, you're the last person anyone would ask for help, guidance, or advice. :D

Oh, really? A very lovely high school senior values his opinions and ideas enough to ask Iacchus to participate in an informal interview as part of her final term paper. I know I would be flattered.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

What are you talking about? I'm actually a pretty funny guy most of the time.Let's just say I'm not amused.


Funny that a comic strip (http://www.wapsisquare.com/d/20050131.html) character understands it, and you don't. Know what is funnier still? That Jung, who's name you like to toss out frequently and claim to have "studied", said the same thing- that your "malevolent entities" are aspects of ourselves that we have to make peace with and re-integrate back into who we are in order to be whole and healthy.

You've taken all your fear and alienation and self-loathing and created imaginary "spiritual" scapegoats for all those icky feelings you don't want to face. Everyone else knows this. That's why you are so funny! :DThe only thing Jung didn't understand was that when we die we become these entities, good or bad. As for the rest of his observations they were pretty right on, and lend themselves quite well to my own understanding about said entities which, by the way, are affiliated with us through the way we think and feel -- interiorly.


Who said I was fascinated by the ugliness of things? You wrote in your manifesto- casually, I might add, as if it were some universal rite of passage- about lynching a cat.Really? Then you must have misunderstood, as you have just about everything else I have said.


I do admit to not shielding myself from life's unpleasant aspects, but that hardly equates to "fascination." Such knowledge is important that I might give my stories life and meaning, but beyond that, such knowledge makes me a better, more rounded, more educated and wiser human being. In any case, such a fascination obviously worked well for Steven King.Do you believe that evil exists? If so, then you must be willing to admit that it can be passed on from one person to the next. Yet how so? It's certainly not a physical quality is it? If not, then where does it reside? Where else could it reside, except within the non-physical realm of the human psyche?


See the comments about Jung, above. Did Jung have an explanation for the nature of evil?


Anyway, you're the last person anyone would ask for help, guidance, or advice. :D Nonetheless, I was here ... and the story behind my being here stands.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let's just say I'm not amused.

Of course not. A sense of humour requires intelligence and self-esteem.

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing Jung didn't understand was that when we die we become these entities, good or bad.

He didn't "understand" this because it is not true and is no part of his work. It is a thing you have made up out of whole cloth to further justify your attempt at divorcing yourself of these negative attributes.


Originally posted by Iacchus
As for the rest of his observations they were pretty right on,

Heh. Which ones? :)

Originally posted by Iacchus
and lend themselves quite well to my own understanding

Or, in other words, "the elaborate fantasies I have constructed to make myself feel less worthless as a human being."

Originally posted by Iacchus
about said entities which, by the way, are affiliated with us through the way we think and feel -- interiorly.

Of course, because they are nothing more than the less pleasant emotions, wholly generated and sustained by our own brains alone, that some of us have been culturally indoctrinated to devalue.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Really? Then you must have misunderstood, as you have just about everything else I have said.

I don't think so:
Originally posted by you (http://www.dionysus.org/x1111.html#407)
407
While it brings up what happened when I was a teenager and living in San Jose, California. Someone in my friend Nathan's family had picked up a stray cat, and it was his sister Adrian (there's something about that name) who bequeathed his name: Pe-nyn-theus. And while I'm not sure how it was spelled, it sounds phonetically the same as what's spelled here. Which is strange, for it's essentially the same as the name Pentheus! While his sister Adrian said it was Greek, for pain-in-the-butt. An appropriate title for Pentheus? All of which suggests an affinity to Pentheus and cats right from the start.


408
Thus having received such an epitaph, the cat's fate was pretty well sealed. And kids being kids, there were enough things being said, by Nathan and other friends, about what a royal pain-in-the-butt it really was! And I, being the tortured soul that I was, and in the spirit of one-upmanship, suggested Nathan prove how tough he were and kill the cat! Which we proceeded to do (much to Nathan's dismay). We first strung it up on the fence and tried hanging it, but that didn't work. So we took it into the gully in the brickyard (next door) and proceeded to smash it over the head with some boulders. It was a very sadistic act, and yet it epitomizes everything which had gone wrong with my life up to that point. The cat was also black and white, and so suggests an affinity with the name Dennis.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that evil exists?

No. Not the way you mean. It is a subjective label that people apply to acts, ideas, or circumstances that do not meet their personal standards or expectations.

Originally posted by Iacchus
If so, then you must be willing to admit that it can be passed on from one person to the next. Yet how so?

Nope, because it is not an entity unto itself.

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's certainly not a physical quality is it?

Nope. A label. A name. A simple word.

Originally posted by Iacchus
If not, then where does it reside? Where else could it reside, except within the non-physical realm of the human psyche?

In the dictionary.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did Jung have an explanation for the nature of evil?

Yes, he did. Don't you know what it is? :D

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nonetheless, I was here ... and the story behind my being here stands.

"Storytellers are liars, and not to be trusted."

And yes, that does apply to me as much as it does you. I'm honest aboout that. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

He didn't "understand" this because it is not true and is no part of his work. It is a thing you have made up out of whole cloth to further justify your attempt at divorcing yourself of these negative attributes. The only question here is whether these things exist or not, in which case Jung's work is clearly applicable or it's not.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only question here is whether these things exist or not, in which case Jung's work is clearly applicable or it's not. Entirely correct. And it will rain tomorrow or it will not.

Entirely correct. And absolutely useless.

It is called a tautology.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Entirely correct. And absolutely useless.

It is called a tautology.

Hans Absolutely useless to whom? Sounds a lot like solipsism if you ask me. :con2:

Hey, if we don't believe in flying saucers, that might make them absolutely useless to us but, not to the aliens that fly them. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Frankly, no, Iacchus. I would have you not speak about anything, unless you can speak about it coherently.And yet it would seem I make my ideas clear enough for most people on this board to come right out and oppose them. So, are you sure it's not just you? Once again, from the thread, Are We Here by Chance? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51868&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

If it was merely a matter of conjecture on my part and, it was all I could possibly hope to establish, simply because the genuine article doesn't exist (which is basically what I keep hearing), then yes, you might have a point.So, maybe it's not so much my ability to explain, as it is for others to understand? Indeed, I think it's entirely bogus of you to suggest I'm not trying to make myself clear. In fact this "is" the little game that you're playing with me isn't it?


Please point out any post of mine on this forum which a reasonable person would interpret as my saying that our experience is "cold and clinical".It's your analysis towards the experience that I'm referring to here.


Yes, one of us needs to get real. Have fun with your dreams. Ha ha ha! The "real world" is merely an extension of the "dream state" ... Or, shall we say, this is where it has its beginnings.

From the Dionysus Forums thread, On the Verge (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=446) ...


I had a very unusual experience the other night, where I had just laid down to go to bed, and was trying to "tune into" my thoughts, which I normally do, and I started drifting off to sleep and, became aware of it. While at the same time I felt the presence of other "beings," the likes of which I often address in my mind before going to sleep, and I said, "Wait a second, I'm not letting you pull me under that quickly," and I started groping for arms and legs (in my mind) and sure enough they were there, and it felt like they were draped in a lightly fitting fabric that women normally wear, like a gown or a robe or something. So I did the best I could to hold on, and in the next instant (two or three seconds after I fell asleep), there I was in another dimension.

I found myself standing on the grassy banks of the shore, overlooking a pond or a small lake, and it was kind of murky looking. While I tried to figure out what I needed needed to do (I was kind of hovering at this point) to keep from being pulled out into the water and getting sucked down or, make it further onto shore without being so close to the edge ... which, was posing a dilemma (the water signifying the unconscious by the way). I was also aware of being in the midst of several women (I didn't get a good look) who were the ones I initially grabbed onto. And we were all in kind of a jocular mood as I tried to orient myself.

While it's funny, because when you become aware of the water, and have a fear of being pulled under, that's exactly what draws you out in the middle. Needless to say, I couldn't work it out completely and, within half a minute of falling asleep (or less?), I was wide awake again. And yet, it would seem I may be on the verge of being able to "walk into my dreamscapes" at will.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet it would seem I make my ideas clear enough for most people on this board to come right out and oppose them. So, are you sure it's not just you? Once again, from the thread, Are We Here by Chance? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51868&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) ...
Many of them, like me, are not actively opposing your ideas, but are bemoaning your inability to express them. Take a sample of your posts, and look to see the percentage of the responses to them which speak of how those posts are logically incoherent. That is not a response to your idea; it is a response to your lack of ability to express your idea.

So, maybe it's not so much my ability to explain, as it is for others to understand? Indeed, I think it's entirely bogus of you to suggest I'm not trying to make myself clear. In fact this "is" the little game that you're playing with me isn't it?
You insist on "explaining" with bad metaphors things which you could define concretely. You answer yes or no questions...with questions. I am not the only one who thinks you are trying to avoid answering definitively for fear of exposing your ideas to critical examination. It may be wrong, but it fits the available evidence.

It's your analysis towards the experience that I'm referring to here.
By all means, cite a post which demonstrates this. "Cold and clinical"? Me?

Ha ha ha! The "real world" is merely an extension of the "dream state" ... Or, shall we say, this is where it has its beginnings.
So you assert, in complete ignorance of what science knows about dreams...

From the Dionysus Forums thread, On the Verge (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=446) ... How many times do I need to remind you, I do not click on your links any more?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

You insist on "explaining" with bad metaphors things which you could define concretely. You answer yes or no questions...with questions. I am not the only one who thinks you are trying to avoid answering definitively for fear of exposing your ideas to critical examination. It may be wrong, but it fits the available evidence. How do you know, when you don't even know what the heck I'm talking about? Or, is it that for some strange reason you do? ... aside from the fact that you would be speaking from your own bias of course. Do you understand how hard it is to talk past someone else's bias? And I don't care who the heck it is you're talking to.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How do you know, when you don't even know what the heck I'm talking about? Or, is it that for some strange reason you do? ... aside from the fact that you would be speaking from your own bias of course. Do you understand how hard it is to talk past someone else's bias? And I don't care who the heck it is you're talking to. Hmmm...do you think that might be why I keep asking you to define things in simpler term, rather than in fuzzy metaphors?

If you like, Iacchus, you can ask people here...post a poll, even...and see if people understand you, me, neither, or both...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Hmmm...do you think that might be why I keep asking you to define things in simpler term, rather than in fuzzy metaphors?

If you like, Iacchus, you can ask people here...post a poll, even...and see if people understand you, me, neither, or both... What, to a crowd whose views are 180 degrees at variance with mine? What would be the point? There's no need to take a poll, if that's what you mean. I mean how can you speak about that which is "rational" to the cannibals who are about to have your head for dinner? :D