Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GaryLouisSmith]

But a polytheist worships (worthships) many gods. A polytheist does not worship(worthship) one god. If you worship one god you are not polytheist but monotheist.

Gary some of your posts are confusing.It's really your responsibility to make yourself clear whoever you choose to write for.

If you worship one god i.e. if you identify as monotheist your god is either yourself or other than yourself. If your god is other than yourself your god will not be male or anything else you can identify.

Maybe you worship maleness and call maleness 'god'. This would make sense. However if you do call maleness 'god' this is not the Judeo Christian god. The traditional Judeo Christian god has other attributes than maleness. Now that I have thought more about all this it begins to seem to me that each person has their god unique to them. Maybe Gary is right after all and I am wrong to suggest he's solipsistic.

The mistake you are making is, historically or anthropologically speaking, to think that there is such a thing as the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic religion. You seem to think that there is one, well-defined thing there. There isn’t. There never has been. Therefore, your question as to whether or not my idea of God and the gods matches that is unanswerable.

Take European vs. American Christianity. They are really two very different religions. Historically and anthropologically speaking, the American religion must trace its roots to Africa, through the slave trade, and to Native Americans more than to Europe. It’s only white nationalistic racism that prevents people from seeing that. And as for European Christianity, the roots of that are multiple. There is no such thing as the Jewish or European People. That too is not one thing. And the so-called Jewish religion is as multiple as the people who go by the name Jews. When you trace back any people and institution you quickly lose the thread and it becomes a jumble.

So who is the Jesus I pray to? Historically speaking, it’s impossible to say. One has to take off one’s historical, anthropological hat and think differently. I look to the act of prayer itself and the object of that praying in order to do my theologizing. In the meantime I use the words I have been given to speak my ideas. I was raised an American Christian, not a Hindu or Buddhist (two other jumbled up things). We all are pretty much what we were raised to be. On the lonely, wind-swept American Prairie, I was not raised to be European.. I use the wild, fiery words I have been given. And the meaning of those words is as unsettled as the history they come from. Everything trembles.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: Just because I don't fit into your nice, neat categories doesn't mean that it is I who am confused.

Funny because you said earlier that you love to categorize. Where I see a contradiction is in your affirmation that you are both a Christian, which is a monotheist religion, and a polytheist. Kind of like like a disciple of Christ declaring they believe in him but also in the Roman gods too - but that might prevent them from being thrown to the lions.... how do you feel about being devoured by lions?

I think I am just stymied by your conception of "god." It seems to be, as Belindi suggested, a personification of your ideals, but you don't believe in mental filters so you presume your ideals have literal existence.

Here's what I sent to Belindi, but I might as well send it to you too.

The mistake you are making is, historically or anthropologically speaking, to think that there is such a thing as the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic religion. You seem to think that there is one, well-defined thing there. There isn’t. There never has been. Therefore, your question as to whether or not my idea of God and the gods matches that is unanswerable.

Take European vs. American Christianity. They are really two very different religions. Historically and anthropologically speaking, the American religion must trace its roots to Africa, through the slave trade, and to Native Americans more than to Europe. It’s only white nationalistic racism that prevents people from seeing that. And as for European Christianity, the roots of that are multiple. There is no such thing as the Jewish or European People. That too is not one thing. And the so-called Jewish religion is as multiple as the people who go by the name Jews. When you trace back any people and institution you quickly lose the thread and it becomes a jumble.

So who is the Jesus I pray to? Historically speaking, it’s impossible to say. One has to take off one’s historical, anthropological hat and think differently. I look to the act of prayer itself and the object of that praying in order to do my theologizing. In the meantime I use the words I have been given to speak my ideas. I was raised an American Christian, not a Hindu or Buddhist (two equally jumbled up things). We all are pretty much what we were raised to be. On the lonely, wind-swept American Prairie, I was not raised to be European.. I use the wild, fiery words I have been given. And the meaning of those words is as unsettled as the history they come from. Everything trembles.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I'm curious to know what you read about Burroughs and why you "now know why". How about Genet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_hztHJCM4&t=181s

I'm not going to argue with anyone's personal preferences. It's best not to say anything and simply admit I have no use for any of the Beat poets, writers and musicians. There are some like Jean Genet who seem to be a cut above but still has no interest for me.

I also don't know what the YT video is supposed to express. Absurdity would seem to be an understatement. The whole Beat movement echoes more as a passing fad with a few enclaves still keeping it alive.

If I read novels at all, Hermann Hesse among the moderns is more my type. He also wrote some excellent poetry.

Could this be your theme song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

Is there anyone who came after 1960 whom you like?

[Jklint]

I'm not going to argue with anyone's personal preferences. It's best not to say anything and simply admit I have no use for any of the Beat poets, writers and musicians. There are some like Jean Genet who seem to be a cut above but still has no interest for me.

I also don't know what the YT video is supposed to express. Absurdity would seem to be an understatement. The whole Beat movement echoes more as a passing fad with a few enclaves still keeping it alive.

If I read novels at all, Hermann Hesse among the moderns is more my type. He also wrote some excellent poetry.

Could this be your theme song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U





Is there anyone who came after 1960 whom you like?

I wouldn't adopt boring drivel as a theme song. As for liking anyone who came after 1960 probably not. Unlike you I got taste....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTiwUTCyvA

[GaryLouisSmith]

Could this be your theme song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U





Is there anyone who came after 1960 whom you like?

I wouldn't adopt boring drivel as a theme song. As for liking anyone who came after 1960 probably not. Unlike you I got taste....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTiwUTCyvA

I hate cats. I asked a Hindu friend if he thought cats could see ghosts. He said No, but he thought dogs could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4IHB3qK1KU

[Sy Borg]

I'm just pointing out that we are complex beings and it's fantasy if one thinks they can see through the layers of a person based on an internet discussion. I'm no idealist. Just a realist.

Sure, all systems are too complex to fully understand. Hence the problems with medicine, where the complexity of a body evolved over billions of years remains difficult to work out. We see how much can happen in a century. Imagine how much can happen in a billion years.

Gods only exist in the subjective domain so, if many people imagine a gendered god, then that is a powerful meme. But it's just a shared fantasy. There is cleaner feedback loop to be gained by focusing on what is real rather than filtering reality through anthropomorphic lenses.

Rather than claiming that the rest of reality resembles humans, we should be looking at how much we humans resemble the rest of reality, especially humans en masse. Our colonies behave similarly to others found in nature. They are expansive entities, capable of being more than the sum of their parts, and especially dangerous foes for their peers. We are part of nested larger systems.

You seem to think reality is rational, and that bores you. However, the more we learn about nature, the more bizarre and esoteric we realise it is. So many assumptions we have made turned out to be wrong. Nature? Rational? Not really. The cosmos moves in mysterious ways ...

The objection I have to what I understand is your philosophy is that it is without much content. You do have natural things, things of nature. But you do not have abstractions and objects of the imagination.

Funny thing to be saying to a buddy sci-fi and fantasy author. I suspect I have dreamed up things that are even more bizarre than what appears to be your everyday state, and that's pretty darn trippy as far as I can tell :)

You tried this game before, saying I was uncreative until I referred you to my toons and music. The neat box you wish to place me in does not exist. Humans are complicated.

So one can readily embrace both analytical thinking and imagination. In fact, to suppress one or the other would seem a self-defeating act. These are attributes of mentality that work in tandem. We humans have all these capacities so why avoid using them? To stay true to some concocted ideology? Life would seem too short for strictures without a firm underlying aim.

[Jklint]

I wouldn't adopt boring drivel as a theme song. As for liking anyone who came after 1960 probably not. Unlike you I got taste....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTiwUTCyvA

I hate cats. I asked a Hindu friend if he thought cats could see ghosts. He said No, but he thought dogs could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4IHB3qK1KU

I love cats and dogs. They get along together so much more peacefully than most family members. As for seeing ghosts since neither would know what a ghost is, it's not likely they would see one. If they did they'd probably consider it not unnatural. Both are very astute though in sensing hatred.

A thousand times, I'd rather have a dog as friend than a human; ditto for cats and preferably both at the same time. Humans are the main sources of aggravation; animals have the opposite effect, they offer consolation. Dead humans don't bother me half as much as abused animals.

[GaryLouisSmith]

The objection I have to what I understand is your philosophy is that it is without much content. You do have natural things, things of nature. But you do not have abstractions and objects of the imagination.

Funny thing to be saying to a buddy sci-fi and fantasy author. I suspect I have dreamed up things that are even more bizarre than what appears to be your everyday state, and that's pretty darn trippy as far as I can tell

You tried this game before, saying I was uncreative until I referred you to my toons and music. The neat box you wish to place me in does not exist. Humans are complicated.

So one can readily embrace both analytical thinking and imagination. In fact, to suppress one or the other would seem a self-defeating act. These are attributes of mentality that work in tandem. We humans have all these capacities so why avoid using them? To stay true to some concocted ideology? Life would seem too short for strictures without a firm underlying aim.

i never said or even implied that you don't have imagination. I did say that you think the things that the imagination sees are all unreal, in the mind. You think, as far as I can tell, that the imagination is subjective. I have said that there are no subjective things, that the things the imagination sees are real and external to the mind.

[Sy Borg]

Funny thing to be saying to a buddy sci-fi and fantasy author. I suspect I have dreamed up things that are even more bizarre than what appears to be your everyday state, and that's pretty darn trippy as far as I can tell :)

You tried this game before, saying I was uncreative until I referred you to my toons and music. The neat box you wish to place me in does not exist. Humans are complicated.

So one can readily embrace both analytical thinking and imagination. In fact, to suppress one or the other would seem a self-defeating act. These are attributes of mentality that work in tandem. We humans have all these capacities so why avoid using them? To stay true to some concocted ideology? Life would seem too short for strictures without a firm underlying aim.

i never said or even implied that you don't have imagination. I did say that you think the things that the imagination sees are all unreal, in the mind. You think, as far as I can tell, that the imagination is subjective. I have said that there are no subjective things, that the things the imagination sees are real and external to the mind.

Thoughts are real phenomena. You would probably be surprised to find that I see dualism as obvious - you have the particle and the wave, the body and its emanations (including thoughts), relativity and quantum mechanics, instruments and their sounds, hardware and software.

Further, when one is dying and near the end, locked in a dying brain, then reality turns inside out. That is, with senses and most of the nervous system shut down, at that stage the outside world becomes inaccessible and their body dreams are their only reality.

So how important dreams are depends on how important the physical world is to you at the time. If you still must eat, poop and root to thrive, then your dreams may influence you, but they are powerless without the physical aspect to implement them, just as software can do nothing without hardware.

[GaryLouisSmith]

i never said or even implied that you don't have imagination. I did say that you think the things that the imagination sees are all unreal, in the mind. You think, as far as I can tell, that the imagination is subjective. I have said that there are no subjective things, that the things the imagination sees are real and external to the mind.

Thoughts are real phenomena. You would probably be surprised to find that I see dualism as obvious - you have the particle and the wave, the body and its emanations (including thoughts), relativity and quantum mechanics, instruments and their sounds, hardware and software.

Further, when one is dying and near the end, locked in a dying brain, then reality turns inside out. That is, with senses and most of the nervous system shut down, at that stage the outside world becomes inaccessible and their body dreams are their only reality.

So how important dreams are depends on how important the physical world is to you at the time. If you still must eat, poop and root to thrive, then your dreams may influence you, but they are powerless without the physical aspect to implement them, just as software can do nothing without hardware.

A bizaare object that the imagination thinks of and the act of thinking of it are two not one. Thought and its object are TWO TWO TWO. They are NOT one and the same thing.

[Sy Borg]

That's what dualism is.

[GaryLouisSmith]

That's what dualism is.

Let's say that you write about another world of non-human, but sort of huminoid, beings. And they act in a world that is sort of like our world, but the geometry is different. The question is where did those creatures and that world come from? Did you create it? Are you the one who imagined it into existence? Or was all that already in existence and it commandeered your writing in order to appear here in our world? Did they always exist outside your mind? What is the relation of the characters and objects of your writing to your mind? Does their existence depend on your creating them? If so then that is not dualism.

[Jklint]

Dualism also seems to be an incipient cosmic function starting off with an almost equal number of particles and anti-particles. Maybe a critical amount of anti-particles is required to cause inflation and what remains is the world as we know it consisting of particles left over which at the quantum level manifests as a wave-particle duality. In short, the cosmos begins by opposite charges colliding possibly creating the energy for expansion.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Dualism also seems to be an incipient cosmic function starting off with an almost equal number of particles and anti-particles. Maybe a critical amount of anti-particles is required to cause inflation and what remains is the world as we know it consisting of particles left over which at the quantum level manifests as a wave-particle duality. In short, the cosmos begins by opposite charges colliding possibly creating the energy for expansion.

The physical world might possibly be that. I have no idea.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: The mistake you are making is, historically or anthropologically speaking, to think that there is such a thing as the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic religion. You seem to think that there is one, well-defined thing there.

Well sure, it changes through cultural adaptation but its basic tenets are still recognizable.

GaryLouisSmith: Historically and anthropologically speaking, the American religion must trace its roots to Africa, through the slave trade, and to Native Americans more than to Europe.

Don't know how you figure that, the American colonizers stripped these peoples of their cultural heritage and replaced it with their Christian ideology, and the enslaved peoples adapted these foreign religious ideas to their needs.

GaryLouisSmith: So who is the Jesus I pray to? Historically speaking, it’s impossible to say. One has to take off one’s historical, anthropological hat and think differently.

Think differently about what exactly? If you take away all the historical writings about Christ, including all the statements attributed to him, where does that leave you? How do you decide what to accept and what not to?

Jklint: Dualism also seems to be an incipient cosmic function.

Absolutely, material reality is the realm of duality: light/dark, good/evil, love/fear, etc.