04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYour conjecture about supernatural matters does not produce "objective" truths.
OK, well, I am sure there are people who are obtuse like that, FMF.
I think it is important to acknowledge, though, that there can be subtle distinctions within positions....
For instance, a believer might say that it is impossible to prove to someone that there is a God, and that this is not objective... And that religions of good are truly beyond such ...[text shortened]... ntradiction in the argument...
But they each dance a separate dance while dancing the same dance.
It produces subjective personal opinions about what you feel the "truth" is.
If you want to label those personal opinions as being "absolute truths", so what?
Go tell it to someone who shares your beliefs.
The addition of the adjective adds no "objectivity" to your claim.
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYou have conceded that the matters we are discussing are "unknowable". In light of that, don't use the word "know" to describe your conception of those "unknowable" things. It's just a rhetorical gimmick: it's little more than a form of bluster that seeks to disguise the fact that we are simply sharing personal opinions about supernatural notions.
Yet, also, there is the insistence that one can know in a way that is subjective in the sense that it is not publicly verifiable information.
04 Sep 19
1 edit
@philokalia saidFor someone to claim they "know" "unknowable" things ~ and then declare that their beliefs about those "unknowable" things are "objective" and "absolute truths" ~ is entirely in the domain of subjectivity. If we agree on that, all well and good.
So, these two closely intertwined dancers might make it look like there is a contradiction in the argument...
04 Sep 19
@fmf saidProposed soundtrack:
You have conceded that the matters we are discussing are "unknowable". In light of that, don't use the word "know" to describe your conception of those "unknowable" things. It's just a rhetorical gimmick: it's little more than a form of bluster that seeks to disguise the fact that we are simply sharing personal opinions about supernatural notions.
You're making a mistake.
I do not believe in enlightenment in the sense that Buddhists use it, but I understand that there are competing schools that debate fiercely whether one has sudden enlightenment, and then practice, or whether one has lots of practice, and gradual enlightenment, and I acknowledge that there are Buddhists who claim that you can feel a moment of great enlightenment, and that you know in this moment that you have somehow been illumined.
Of course, I would disagree with the Buddhists that they are actually enlightened, or that the persons or masters they claim to have become enlightened were enlightened in precisely the way that they believe they were, because I deny that such enlightenment exists...
But I understand that the language and concept of knowing one is enlightened, and I am interested in that.
I also think that some kind of event does occur when they say that they are enlightened. They do know something.
What it is they know is up for debate.
What it is, is up for debate.
This doesn't sound like a gimmick to me...
Even if it is all wrong, something is happening, something is being understood, and even if that is mistaken, it is an event, and it is a thing, and not a gimmick.
But I see your point.
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidI read this twice. I think it's waffle. I hope someone else finds it interesting.
Proposed soundtrack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djnhWU42_AY
You're making a mistake.
I do not believe in enlightenment in the sense that Buddhists use it, but I understand that there are competing schools that debate fiercely whether one has sudden enlightenment, and then practice, or whether one has lots of practice, and gradual enlightenment, and I ...[text shortened]... is mistaken, it is an event, and it is a thing, and not a gimmick.
But I see your point.
04 Sep 19
@fmf saidThat would be good but I wrote it specially for you.
I read this twice. I think it's waffle. I hope someone else finds it interesting.
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidPerhaps you should consider aiming your 'ministry' at "obtuse" fellow theists - like KellyJay and dj2becker, with whom you have much in common - who bandy about adjectives like they are viagra for their subjective assertions. Your time would be better spent doing that than your lightweight and equivocal attempts to engage me.
OK, well, I am sure there are people who are obtuse like that,
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidThen you've wasted your time. You've talked over and over and over again about ignoring me. I think you should do it.
That would be good but I wrote it specially for you.
@philokalia saidYou rock up at a thread [time and time again]. You can't be bothered to read it. You don't seem to know what KellyJay believes. You don't seem to understand what I believe.
I think I will engage you sometimes because your content is occasionally on topic and can be a good spring board.
If you choose not to respond, I won't lose any sleep.
You try a few wishy-washy partisan interventions seemingly originating, first and foremost, from the chip on your shoulder. You start to realize your laziness isn't serving you well when a few things go over your head.
Then you ignore the explanations or recapitulations ~ or kind of, little bit, sort of, teeny weeny bit agree with them ~ and then offer, instead, some spammy tangential waffle that pointedly doesn't use the "Quote" facility.
I'm not interested. Try your schtick out on chaney3, Eladar or caesar salad, the "great new guys" you said motivate you to post more.
04 Sep 19
@fmf saidThe beauty of this is that it does not matter whether you are interested or not.
You rock up at a thread [time and time again]. You can't be bothered to read it. You don't seem to know what KellyJay believes. You don't seem to understand what I believe.
You try a few wishy-washy partisan interventions seemingly originating, first and foremost, from the chip on your shoulder. You start to realize your laziness isn't serving you well when a few things go ov ...[text shortened]... ick out on chaney3, Eladar or caesar salad, the "great new guys" you said motivate you to post more.
It's a free forum, and it's a free internet -- at least, for now.
---
Would you like to back this up and debate a point?
Or would you like to run away, claiming I only serve waffle?
Either choice is fine.
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidChoose any of the ones on this thread, if you want.
Would you like to back this up and debate a point?
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidI'm not interested in your personal opinion about Buddhists knowing the "unknowable" and this means "something is happening" with regard to "objective" facts and "absolute truth" or however you think this has a bearing on the discussion that dj2becker and KellyJay and I are involved in. Try it on someone else.
Or would you like to run away, claiming I only serve waffle?
04 Sep 19
@fmf saidI think you're not interested because you don't want to engage with it in a complex way.
I'm not interested in your personal opinion about Buddhists knowing the "unknowable" and this means "something is happening" with regard to "objective" facts and "absolute truth" or however you think this has a bearing on the discussion that dj2becker and KellyJay and I are involved in. Try it on someone else.
But I don't know.
Who can know another man's soul?
Selah
None but God .
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidYou are not being complex, though. And you are not being "deep". You are being superficial. Have you even read the thread? You still don't seem to understand what the discussion has been about.
I think you're not interested because you don't want to engage with it in a complex way.