Philosophy Discussion Forums

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 19th, 2019, 7:58 pmAre you being ironic?

No. Are you?

Consul, I always mean a-temporally eternal when I say 'eternal'. I say everlasting when I mean everlasting. This is mainly because there is no need to think of eternity and time as mutually exclusive. There is much practical benefit from thinking of eternity and time as alternative aspects of being.

There may be many more aspects of being other than eternity and time although we can't know them; so many, infinitely many, that GaryLouisSmith need not be be alarmed at the scientific enlightenment banishing mystery and enchantment.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 4:34 am Consul, I always mean a-temporally eternal when I say 'eternal'. I say everlasting when I mean everlasting. This is mainly because there is no need to think of eternity and time as mutually exclusive. There is much practical benefit from thinking of eternity and time as alternative aspects of being.

There may be many more aspects of being other than eternity and time although we can't know them; so many, infinitely many, that GaryLouisSmith need not be be alarmed at the scientific enlightenment banishing mystery and enchantment.

I was using the word "enchantment" in its literal sense, not metaphorical.

I was using the word "enchantment" in its literal sense, not metaphorical.

I suppose that must be enjoyable.Is it healthy?

Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 9:21 am

I was using the word "enchantment" in its literal sense, not metaphorical.

I suppose that must be enjoyable.Is it healthy?

In order for the sacrifice to be effective the victim must give his consent by shuddering when wine is poured into his ear.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 9:42 am

Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 9:21 am

I suppose that must be enjoyable.Is it healthy?

In order for the sacrifice to be effective the victim must give his consent by shuddering when wine is poured into his ear.

In order for the sacrifice to be effective the victim must give his consent by shuddering when wine is poured into his ear.

With that sentence I was trying to draw a picture of Modern Man a la Baudelaire and Symbolism. The Shudder is obviously the important thing. It sometimes takes the form of simple nervousness. It is who and what we are. And the final killing. The gods relish human flesh. But we are enchanted by it all. And the show must go on.

Will it ever stop? No, the sacrifice of God to God is eternal. Still, it is enjoyable. Especially when it is your turn to feel the knife go in.

I just came back from shopping a couple of hours ago. Bhat Bateni departmental store. Ancient deities and a modern display of oh so many things. You enter and immediately you are in a trance. Images race through your head. Buy this, buy that, you money goes. Nervousness. Joy. The knife goes in. Shear pleasure. Such intoxication.

The essence of modernity is repetition. Copies and copies and copies of only other copies. Ready-made. Machine formed. Perfection. Stamped. Out. An explosion of Divine Semen. The same, the same, the same. The Primal Form is Transcendent. The Primal Form is Eternal. The Primal Form is known only in a dream. The Trance of Shopping. The Nervous Shudder. So many things. Prajapati, the god of sacrifice. Jesus, God, on the cross.

http://www.mahavidya.ca/2010/02/06/prajapati/

http://www.rajunepal.com/photography/de ... qXxNw.dpbs

Are you saying it's unhealthy to be literally enchanted?

Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 6:27 pm Are you saying it's unhealthy to be literally enchanted?

I'm saying it's deadly, but extremely pleasurable. Please notice that I am here dealing in dreams and the trance of shopping. One cannot be precise and have exact definitions about such things. I am not a Cartesian Rationalist. If you want a clear and distinct definition of what is going on consult Consul. He will give you 36 different definitions. Also notice that because I bring in shopping I have aligned myself with Pop Art, which glorifies the commercial. It was Andy Warhol who brought all those commercial (mercurial) things into the Realm of Eternal Forms. Soup Cans, Coke Bottles, Brillo Bottles. I love Andy Warhol. Old style artists hate him. (Be aware that one cannot exactly define "eternal" in such a dream/trance vision. Everything is indeterminate, generic and artificial and above all cookie-cutter repetitious. All boys are the same Boy.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 6:27 pm Are you saying it's unhealthy to be literally enchanted?

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different. Naturalists might live in a world where Nature is the one Thing that all things are within. Atheists live in a world in which there is no God. In some worlds the laws of logic are different from what they are in others. This world I live in, the world I describe in my philosophy, is a world in which a minority of people live. A minority of a minority. No doubt a minority of a minority of a minority. The great majority of people would not want to live in my world. I have no objections. Good riddance. (Few gay people would want my world.)

It does seem that all the various worlds are now superimposed and we have to somehow manage to live together. It’s probably finally impossible and a division will have to take place soon. I hope it won’t be a bloody affair like the division was between India and Pakistan.

As for those of you who believe we all live in one world and there is one universal philosophy that describes it, think again.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.

A Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.

(Whether ontological realism about possible worlds other than the actual one is true is another question.)

Consul wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 11:06 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.

A Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.

(Whether ontological realism about possible worlds other than the actual one is true is another question.)

I think it isn't just a different worldview, but it is a different world. Or you could say that worldviews are all there is and there is no one world beyond them. This has nothing to do with physics. Still, I know that you like the idea of one substance beyond all its attributes, so that's your world.

Consul wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 11:06 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pmThere is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, universal philosophy. We do not all live in the same one world. There are many worlds and they are all ontologically different.

A Weltanschauung (worldview) isn't a Welt (world). We all live in the same one world, but we don't all have the same one worldview (world-representation) in our minds.

(Whether ontological realism about possible worlds other than the actual one is true is another question.)

There is something analogous to your substance-attribute distinction in my philosophy. I have the one generic Form beyond its many appearances. Still a Form is not a substance, at least not an Aristotelian substance. And an appearance is not an attribute.

You like to play with definitions. Let’s say you are going to look up the definition of world or beyond or boy or substance. Of course you will get a whole slew of different ways to define those things. So is there one Great Meaning beyond all those sub-meanings? I use the word “beyond”. I say that the Eternal Form is beyond its appearance as this or that. What is the Eternal Form of Beyond beyond all its many definitions? As I write about the Forms (with a capital F) they are rather dreamy and indeterminate and vague. The Boy is more of a ghost that a clear presence before you. Or He is too too too clear and determinate. Either way He is different from the ordinary thing.

I write of a world. Sometimes I call it an unworld when it is the Form of World. An unworld is rather unintelligible, just as I want it to be when I am talking about transcendent things. Likewise Transcendence and Talk are ontological dreams. A guy who wants clear and distinct entities will be disappointed. Oh well.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pm As for those of you who believe we all live in one world and there is one universal philosophy that describes it, think again.

I thought The Mists of Avalon managed to describe and intregrate a separation of worlds quite well in the narrative.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑September 21st, 2019, 6:13 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 20th, 2019, 10:49 pm As for those of you who believe we all live in one world and there is one universal philosophy that describes it, think again.

I thought The Mists of Avalon managed to describe and intregrate a separation of worlds quite well in the narrative.

Thanks for mentioning that. I really know nothing about fiction or such books as that, so I cannot comment. I am not so much interested in integration as how to live the separation.

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

So is there one Great Meaning beyond all those sub-meanings? I use the word “beyond”. I say that the Eternal Form is beyond its appearance as this or that. What is the Eternal Form of Beyond beyond all its many definitions? As I write about the Forms (with a capital F) they are rather dreamy and indeterminate and vague. The Boy is more of a ghost that a clear presence before you. Or He is too too too clear and determinate. Either way He is different from the ordinary thing.

" What is the Eternal Form of Beyond beyond all its many definitions? "

Uncaused cause?

"The Boy is more of a ghost that a clear presence before you. Or He is too too too clear and determinate. Either way He is different from the ordinary thing."

Beauty? Enchanted by beauty? Those occasions when your fingertips touch the Other?