i've never met anyone that insisted so firmly that he knew more about what i am than i do, despite being told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that he didn't have the slightest clue.
enjoy the next 60 pages of waffle and irrelevance.
b'shalom
bananabrain
well, you've just made my point for me. when mrs bb tells me she knows more about me than i do, she's speaking from a position of knowledge - from actually living with me and observing with me over a long period of time.
*you*, on the other hand, are not.
this tactic of yours, therefore, is pure unadulterated weaselbeans. i would therefore advise you to refrain from further displaying your ignorance; normally, when one doesn't know what one is talking about, it is better not to advertise it, rather than to insist, in the face of all the evidence, that one is actually making sense.
b'shalom
bananabrain
i'm not the one claiming to understand christianity. and, frankly, there don't seem to be a lot of people here who think *you* understand it. you're the one who is making statements about judaism that you can't back up and when your ignorance is revealed, you start straw-manning? give it up, mate. you're just making yourself look ridiculous. as for humour - 62 pages on that birth certificate? you couldn't make it up.
b'shalom
bananabrain
am i not saying this in clear enough english? i did not say "there is no secular judaism". i said that secular judaism is not what you say it is. i said it here:You said there is no secular Judasim so I provide a link to secular Judaism.
you firstly failed to address this objection - and then referred to my objection as a "rant". it wasn't. it was a rebuttal of your definitions. you didn't provide an argument, but instead talked about what you'd "prefer". it's not about what you'd prefer. it's about what the definition actually means - and it doesn't mean what you say, myself being a case in point, so you all you are currently doing is being both misleading and confusing.the only thing that is obvious here is that you don't know what "secular judaism" actually is. let me be quite clear about this:
a. it is not "secular" in the way that you use the word "secular". it is secular in the way that i, wikipedia, every dictionary on the planet and uncle tom cobleigh use the word "secular". even this quote:
does not, in any way, shape or form, relate to the way you define the term. i am astonished that you still seem to think it supports your laughable excuse for an argument.Secular Jewish culture embraces several related phenomena; above all, it is the culture of secular communities of Jewish people, but it can also include the cultural contributions of individuals who identify as secular Jews, or even those of religious Jews working in cultural areas not generally considered to be connected to religion.
b. i am not a secular jew in either of these senses, or by the definition of the above quote.
as for "rejecting" Christianity - if you are here to convince anyone to "accept" it, then you are in violation of the CoC.
you are still ignoring the basic fact that nobody agrees with your DEFINITIONS - what you mean by "secular" is not what anyone else means. therefore it is nonsense to draw conclusions on, for example whether X is an apple or an orange, when there is no shared definition. you seem fundamentally resistant to the idea of building common linguistic ground with anyone else, obsessed with shoehorning some pretty elastic and pivotal words into an ideological straitjacket - and then accusing everyone else of doing precisely that! transference much?Nick A said:Regardless of how you want to phrase it, as we are as it pertains to the human condition, a person either values the sacred calling over secular expression or the secular over the sacred. If one values the secular over the sacred then their philosophy is considered secular. This is just common sense.
'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:28).
worldly: characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church"
"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates
i'm not. i'm responding to your mendacious misuse of the english language, specifically your interpretations of the terms "secular" and "transcendent" and your constant straw-manning, to say nothing of the rearranging-deckchairs-on-the-titanic argument structure using various configurations of pre-formatted cod-philosophical modules like beasts, caves, simone weil quotes and i think we're all aware of the rest.Nick A said:You are not attracted to esoteric Christianity so why bother with it?
a. judaism isn't a "secular" tradition, either by your definition or anyone else's.Unlike the secular traditions it doesn't seek to recruit but rather pushes people away so as not to prostitute its meaning through curiosity seekers.
most philosophical systems have been aware of a tension there for some time. the morality doesn't even have to be "inner" - medical ethics, for example, covers it perfectly adequately. so this, again, is another superfluous truism.The only reason now that it is becoming more known is because of the imbalance between technology and inner morality. Without a better balance we quite possibly face self destruction.
this assumes that traditions which disagree with you are either demanding proof (no bad thing) or blind belief, which pretty much covers two opposite poles of the spectrum. this also assumes that being "open" or "vulnerable" is "the" answer to overcoming the imbalance you noted above. yet it appears to be self-evident that this assertion is false, viz. medical ethics for a start, let alone other belief systems.It isn't a matter of proof or blind belief but rather how to become open or as Metropolitan Anthony said: "vulnerable."
so your point can be expressed as: traditions which, according to your definition of the word "secular", don't understand how to become "open/vulnerable". yet your own positions scarcely appear to be "open" or "vulnerable" according to your own definitions. now, seeing as your definition of "secular" is pretty much by definition neither "open" nor "vulnerable", your argument once again collapses in on itself: "secular" points of view are not "open" to "awakening". with that, i would agree, but a) i already knew that before you told me, because it is tautological and b) i and my tradition are not "secular" according to your (disputed by everyone) definition. this, unfortunately for you (and for me, considering i've just spent 10 whole minutes of my life which i'm never getting back, deconstructing it) makes your whole argument completely redundant.all the traditions initiating with a conscious source refer to [this] in one way or another as "awakening" which in the secular traditions has become justified fantasy.
here you go again. i already addressed this and pointed out yet again that:I appreciate secular as does Worldnet Dictionary
you may very well "stick with them", but you are failing to understand either, at least the OT. the NT is not part of my canon.In the NT it is the world of Caesar in contrast to God's world. You may disagree along with others but I'll stick with the dictionary and the Bible.
er.... if it's potential, it must be more than imagination in some cases. if we recognise that there is a path to tread, which i do, then surely we are already in some sense on the path. *where* we are is then a matter for personal judgement, but i will not be lectured by you as to whether i understand the concept or not. more to the point, i will not be lectured by you about my tradition as if you understood it, because you manifestly don't. you're just interested in shoehorning it into your procrustean little boxes so you can straw-man with it, so until you learn something from socrates at least and admit that you don't understand anything about judaism, any pronouncement you have to make on the subject will lack both value and validity.You want to believe you have a realistic balance between the sacred and the secular. Esoteric Christianity asserts that this is our potential but as we are, it only exists in our imagination.
hur hur hur hur hur. we can have no common linguistic grounds because you think you're talking intelligible english rather than pompous esoteric psychobabble. this sentence makes no sense. you don't know anything about my thought processes, or my variables, or my perspective and until you realise the necessity of not masquerading as competent in areas where you clearly lack knowledge, this will continue to be the case.We can have no common linguistic grounds since you are interpreting the verticality of what I'm expressing in your normal associative thought which is a horizontal perspective meaning all the variable are on the same level.
Nick A said:We can have no common linguistic grounds since you are interpreting the verticality of what I'm expressing in your normal associative thought which is a horizontal perspective meaning all the variable are on the same level.
most philosophical systems have been aware of a tension there for some time. the morality doesn't even have to be "inner" - medical ethics, for example, covers it perfectly adequately. so this, again, is another superfluous truism.
It isn't a matter of me. Regardless if I drop dead tomorrow the idea is the same. The human condition is as was said by those like Jesus, Paul, Plato, and Simone, or it is not. I've experienced it in myself so believe it to be true. It doesn't require blind belief to verify these things but only the need and the courage to experience it and admit it in oneself.this assumes that traditions which disagree with you are either demanding proof (no bad thing) or blind belief, which pretty much covers two opposite poles of the spectrum. this also assumes that being "open" or "vulnerable" is "the" answer to overcoming the imbalance you noted above. yet it appears to be self-evident that this assertion is false, viz. medical ethics for a start, let alone other belief systems.
so your point can be expressed as: traditions which, according to your definition of the word "secular", don't understand how to become "open/vulnerable".
"Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life."
"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it."
er.... if it's potential, it must be more than imagination in some cases. if we recognize that there is a path to tread, which i do, then surely we are already in some sense on the path.
As I said Judaism contains a deep esoteric side. However coming to understand it is something else. To do so requires first admitting the human condition otherwise whatever is built is done so on a faulty foundation such as the Tower of Babble.The psychology of esoteric Christianity is designed to balance our inner life so as to allow us to be open and vulnerable to the experience of metanoia and the potential with help from above for re-birth metanoia offers.
ever read "mesillat yesharim", the "path of the just"? the mussar movement, grounded in the kabbalah, understands this perfectly adequately. it just doesn't feel the need to indulge in grandstanding displays of wayne's-worldish grovelling.
Having become secularized, we've lost this ability to awaken inner morality so life is as it is."The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil
“Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles
"Hope is a state of the mind, not of the world... Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for...success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed."
no. i responded that it means other than what *YOU* say. what it says i have no problem with. how you choose to understand it is the issue. nice straw-man there.Nick A said:I wrote that I agree with the dictionary definition and you responded that it means other than what it says as concerning groups and individuals including you.
and, yet again, you make a baseless assertion with nothing more than your opinion to back it up - certainly not the english language and certainly not anything you know about judaism. so that's another straw-man.I didn't say that Judaism is a secular tradition but rather that it has become largely secular Judaism in the same way that Christianity has become secularized into Christendom and both being expressions of the "Great Beast" rather than a connection to higher consciousness.
you are against "secularism". fair enough. you attack it. fair enough. but since judaism isn't "secular" according to either the dictionary's definition, or even your definition, you cannot use the failings of "secularism" to make general assertions about judaism. so you're "baiting" with secularism and then "switching" to use judaism, but it's not a valid example and, in this part of the forum, you don't get to make assertions like that without backing them up. either put up or shut up - until then, yes, it's straw-man #3.I don't see what this possibly has to do with bait and switch.
ooh, look, another generalisation without any evidence. why not an example, nick, have you got some kind of straw-man fetish? that's four now.One of the chief characteristics of the human condition is hypocrisy. That being the case, ethics including medical ethics easily become their opposite.
but as we haven't got any agreed examples of secularism you're unable to make your point effectively - straw-man #5.Secularism doesn't admit the human condition so consequently cannot cope with it.
and in all these cases, you're committing a major fallacy; even though this might be one explanation for the human condition, it does not therefore follow that it is the only explanation in all cases.It isn't a matter of me. Regardless if I drop dead tomorrow the idea is the same. The human condition is as was said by those like Jesus, Paul, Plato, and Simone, or it is not.
your opinion of your own experience is not sufficient evidence for anyone to draw a general principle from it.I've experienced it in myself so believe it to be true. It doesn't require blind belief to verify these things but only the need and the courage to experience it and admit it in oneself.
but you haven't yet given any tangible examples of "secular" traditions.Yes, leaving me out of it for now, the secular traditions have no need to become open and prefer fantasy instead.
even if that is true (and it sounds suspiciously precise - where are the data?) it does not therefore follow that you - or simone - can tell me which quarter we are dealing in right now. however, i would certainly agree that imagination and fiction makes up about three quarters of your posts.Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life."
how about the edges of crystals? molecular lattices?We know that there are no straight lines in nature.
you still haven't provided a tangible example of this within judaism - straw-man #6.All the sacred traditions deal with this in one way or another. As they become secularized, their exoteric face becomes impotent and just part of the involutionary flow into Creation.
if you do not understand it yourself, how are you in a position to tell me about what understanding it requires? BZZZ! assumption!However coming to understand it is something else. To do so requires first admitting the human condition otherwise whatever is built is done so on a faulty foundation such as the Tower of Babble.
finally, an example. ok, let's have a post from needleman to evidence this statement, please.Jacob Needleman is Jewish and understands the Path of the Just as well as esoteric Christianity far better than me.
ooh, not a straw man, but begging the question instead.External morality only exists because we've lost the capacity to experience inner morality.
straw-man #7.Having become secularized, we've lost this ability to awaken inner morality so life is as it is.
so, for you, only people that agree with you are able to experience human meaning and purpose? weaselbeans.There is a minority not content with going with the flow and risk the growls of the "Great Beast" to become able to experience human meaning and purpose. For such a small minority, a great deal depends on them for our collective survival IMO.
no. i responded that it means other than what *YOU* say. what it says i have no problem with. how you choose to understand it is the issue. nice straw-man there.
you are against "secularism". fair enough. you attack it. fair enough. but since judaism isn't "secular" according to either the dictionary's definition, or even your definition, you cannot use the failings of "secularism" to make general assertions about judaism. so you're "baiting" with secularism and then "switching" to use judaism, but it's not a valid example and, in this part of the forum, you don't get to make assertions like that without backing them up. either put up or shut up - until then, yes, it's straw-man #3.
An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "this worldly", although from a Christian point of view, "secular" may be used as contrast to "spiritual". The root word of secular is saeculum, which in fact refers to the passage of time rather than a physical place or thing. Thus that which is secular can be more accurately thought of as taking place within time, rather than in relation to eternity.
"Purity is the power to contemplate defilement."
so, for you, only people that agree with you are able to experience human meaning and purpose? weaselbeans.
Following the ascetic tradition of his time, the Buddha described the human condition in very harsh terms:
Behold this painted body, a body full of wounds, put together, diseased, and full of many thoughts in which there is neither permanence nor stability. This body is worn out, a nest of diseases and very frail. This heap of corruption breaks in pieces, life indeed ends in death. What delight is there for him who sees these white bones like gourds cast away in the autumn? Of the bones a citadel is made, plastered over with flesh and blood, and in it dwell old age and death, pride and deceit. (Dhammapada 147-150)
no. yet again, my main objection is against your use of the word "secularism" to define what you are against, as it is misleading, vague and reductionist.Nick A said:Your main objection is with what secularism means.
well, if that's the case, then you should say so more precisely, rather than setting up secularism itself as a straw-man. i would be less inclined to drive a cart and horses through your argument.I'm not against secularism but rather the effect of the Beast perverting its societal potential.
i get it already! you're against worldliness when it, essentially, blinds us to matters of spiritual growth and appreciation of the human condition.So what do I mean by secular?
ok, this is what is confusing you, i think, whoever this quote is from is choosing to understand the word *secular* in a particular way as, essentially, a foil for "spiritual". this is, at bottom, a profoundly christian, buddhist and hindu point of view as other belief systems such as judaism and islam, to say nothing of the neopagan systems, do not indulge in this kind of dualism. judaism has a concept of separation (kedushah) which is synonomous with the concept of holiness, whereby we separate the "kodesh" (holy/separate) from the "hol" - profane. there is a concept of "sacred time" (the sabbath) which is somehow spiral as opposed to the "profane", linear time of the working week. however, this does not translate into a flesh/spirit, form/essence, law/love dualistic worldview. we are about integrating these things; even the hol can become infused with kodesh through our actions and intention; it is when they become completely separated that the "beast" perverts "societal potential", from our PoV, when we allow the power of the qelipot to envelop our societal systems. what you have unfortunately then done, however, is conflated this not unreasonable understanding (with which, however, i am in specific disagreement) of the word "secular" firstly with the term "secularism", which has very specific connotations, as well as then misapplying it as a generalised term of criticism to the various things you have set up as straw-men against which to display the shining example of simone's esoteric spirituality. and that is why you keep rubbing people here up the wrong way, not because they are somehow "in thrall to the beast", but because your thinking is rather woolly and vague.An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "this worldly", although from a Christian point of view, "secular" may be used as contrast to "spiritual". The root word of secular is saeculum, which in fact refers to the passage of time rather than a physical place or thing. Thus that which is secular can be more accurately thought of as taking place within time, rather than in relation to eternity.
i already showed that that quote displays that he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about in no uncertain terms, i really wouldn't bring that one up again, because it's the same tactic - pick the thing of which we disapprove, the separation of spiritual considerations from secular life and then associate it with an extremely broad label, in other words judaism.My previous quote by Dr. Henry Finch comparing Judaism to Christianity says roughly the same thing.
but there you go with the conflating again, plus you also end up assuming that you have somehow shown this "as it is", which you haven't.Secularism occurs in the passing time and its expression is a result of the quality of societal collective "being." So it isn't a matter of quoting examples of secularism but rather being open to secularism as it is without rose colored glasses.
if you understood anything about where i was coming from you would not make such a general statement. all spiritual traditions with a genuinely sophisticated worldview understand the nature of such "vertical" qualities, i don't know why you are so keen to assume that christianity (as you define it) is unique in this respect, because i can tell you that it really isn't, according to any of the evidence you've presented.I'm attracted to Christianity since it pertains to the vertical quality of the moment itself.
if he turned off, it was turning off what you said, because of your language. for all you know he could be experiencing it far better than you, but in your rush to condescend to everyone you appear to be missing that.Dondi didn't allow himself to experience it before turning off
i could dispute that statement on so many levels i would hardly know where to begin. you cannot possibly throw such a vaguely-worded aphorism out there and actually consider it to be in any way clarificatory. it contains four nouns, none of which we have a shared operational definition for. therefore it conveys none of the signification that you appear to ascribe to it. and, from my point of view, it sounds like typical french philosopher-speak bollocks.Simone describes it with great depth for those open to the experience. She wrote: "Purity is the power to contemplate defilement."
here a familiarity with "the path of the just" would be instructive for you - and simone.Defilement is witnessed as it occurs. We experience our inner lies and BS.
as do numerous other spiritual systems, so-called esoteric christianity is not unique in this respect.The cross and Christianity itself develops this capacity and allows for us being capable of consciously carrying our cross and the potential for re-birth and our conscious connection to eternity.
to each his own symbolism. personally, my model operates in five dimensions, not just two.Where secular life is represented by the horizontal bar of the cross, the quality of the moment is represented by the vertical bar.
so, really, in that case, you shouldn't contemplate the cross, but the letter upper-case T.The higher the secular bar intersects the vertical bar, the greater a man's "being."
i've considered it. it is only one half of the picture. there's an old mishnaic dictum which says "everyone should have two pockets, in one they should carry a piece of paper saying 'for my sake the world was created' and in the other, a piece saying 'i am dust and ashes'."Consider how Buddha describes the human condition
yet, by your own lights, simone possessed such a "painted body" and was nonetheless capable of experiencing these things - as, presumably, you can say of yourself, you are experiencing human meaning and purpose at this moment, much as i am. the same could be said of any number of people. i'd advise you to read some of the stories of the kotzker rebbe, who was of a very similar opinion to the buddha's expressed here. nonetheless, he did not counsel complete asceticism, which is the necessary concomitant of the buddha's position. neither, as far as i know, did plato. socrates certainly didn't. and it doesn't sound like you are, although simone sounds like she did. judaism is not an ascetic religion, although it has, at times, ascetic tendencies, is aware of ascetic practices and utilises their techniques, such as fasting, contemplation, self-abrogation, stillness and so on.I'm just saying that a painted body full of wounds is incapable of experiencing human meaning and purpose much less its potential.
BZZ! just when i thought you might get through a post without straw-manning... it is in no way "politically incorrect". you are not a brave iconoclast, nick, you're simply trying to understand matters that have long been understood by others.It is a politically incorrect observation but I still believe Buddha was right.
yes. one. but not, by any means, the only one. judaism has others. so does islam. so does buddhism. so does hinduism. so does, for example, the catholic church. so, nu?Esoteric Christianity is one perennial means for dealing with the human condition.
ok, this is what is confusing you, i think, whoever this quote is from is choosing to understand the word *secular* in a particular way as, essentially, a foil for "spiritual". this is, at bottom, a profoundly christian, buddhist and hindu point of view as other belief systems such as judaism and islam, to say nothing of the neopagan systems, do not indulge in this kind of dualism.
You say that you are about integrating these things but who or better "what" does the integrating? That is the essential issue and was the essence of Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees.judaism has a concept of separation (kedushah) which is synonomous with the concept of holiness, whereby we separate the "kodesh" (holy/separate) from the "hol" - profane. there is a concept of "sacred time" (the sabbath) which is somehow spiral as opposed to the "profane", linear time of the working week. however, this does not translate into a flesh/spirit, form/essence, law/love dualistic worldview. we are about integrating these things; even the hol can become infused with kodesh through our actions and intention; it is when they become completely separated that the "beast" perverts "societal potential", from our PoV, when we allow the power of the qelipot to envelop our societal systems. what you have unfortunately then done, however, is conflated this not unreasonable understanding (with which, however, i am in specific disagreement) of the word "secular" firstly with the term "secularism", which has very specific connotations, as well as then misapplying it as a generalised term of criticism to the various things you have set up as straw-men against which to display the shining example of simone's esoteric spirituality. and that is why you keep rubbing people here up the wrong way, not because they are somehow "in thrall to the beast", but because your thinking is rather woolly and vague.
but there you go with the conflating again, plus you also end up assuming that you have somehow shown this "as it is", which you haven't.
if he turned off, it was turning off what you said, because of your language. for all you know he could be experiencing it far better than you, but in your rush to condescend to everyone you appear to be missing that.
i could dispute that statement on so many levels i would hardly know where to begin. you cannot possibly throw such a vaguely-worded aphorism out there and actually consider it to be in any way clarificatory. it contains four nouns, none of which we have a shared operational definition for. therefore it conveys none of the signification that you appear to ascribe to it. and, from my point of view, it sounds like typical french philosopher-speak bollocks.
as do numerous other spiritual systems, so-called esoteric christianity is not unique in this respect.
to each his own symbolism. personally, my model operates in five dimensions, not just two.
so, really, in that case, you shouldn't contemplate the cross, but the letter upper-case T.
i've considered it. it is only one half of the picture. there's an old mishnaic dictum which says "everyone should have two pockets, in one they should carry a piece of paper saying 'for my sake the world was created' and in the other, a piece saying 'i am dust and ashes'."
yet, by your own lights, simone possessed such a "painted body" and was nonetheless capable of experiencing these things
that is an assertion again - and in direct contradiction of your other contention that we are, essentially, in denial; so our inner empiricism, by your own line of argument, cannot be trusted; unless of course you're arguing that it's actually shared experience that is congruent with inner empiricism that can't be trusted. in fact, either way it doesn't make sense. you are still arguing for a definition of "secular" that suits your inner empiricism but does not reflect the shared experience of numerous other people.Nick A said:This is the value of inner empiricism. We have the ability to verify the truth of ourselves through the experience of ourselves. We cannot truly know what the "Beast" is in ourselves without the direct experience of it.
but connotations are indicators of *shared* empirical experience. if your inner empiricism is running up against connotations, in that case, i see no particular reason (apart from the argumentum ad auctoritae simone weil) why the connotations should be wrong and your somewhat odd definitions should be correct.Without the experience our understanding becomes created by "connotations."
weaselbeans. now you're just resorting back to your old position of me being bamboozled by the beast and you being in touch via simone with some kind of super-ability to overcome this. in other words, your integration is "good" and mine is "bad" because yours is "christian" and mine isn't. and that, my friend, is simply unsupported by anything but your opinion. it's a shame, i thought we were finally getting somewhere but your ego's need for one-upmanship has caused you to snap back into the comfort zone.You say that you are about integrating these things but who or better "what" does the integrating? That is the essential issue and was the essence of Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees.
that's exactly what you've just done, characterising me as the flesh and you as the spirit - it's the oldest kind of supercessionist theological chestnut.I don't distinguish between flesh and spirit since it is misleading
but you have nothing whatsoever to back up this belief. it's just your belief - and i can't see what you possibly expect anyone else to find convincing about arguing "well, it's true for me, so it must be true for everyone".You accept that the holy and profane have already been reconciled and I agree. I also believe that this reconciliation has been created by all the distortions when taken together create the Beast.
that's the same thing - your "drive" is "holiness", mine is "worldliness" - this is just a semantic restatement of yet the same one-upmanship argument.The whole idea of Christianity is to invite the separation again and this time to allow for a greater level of reconciliation provided through the energy of the Spirit which cannot arise from the earth as does the reconciling properties of the Beast.
aaah, you're soooo hard done by. you're sooooo misunderstood. poor you. it must be that you're functioning on a higher level than us, not that you're actually indulging in woolly thinking and vague argument.My thinking will always appear wooly and vague to anyone that is governed by connotations, Unless terms like secular and Beast are understood in relation to higher wholes, a vertical relationship, they will always create animosity.
i've looked. i'm not convinced. the burden of proving your argument is for you to provide.It isn't a matter of me showing anything. I can just ask you to look.
ok. well, based on the evidence you've provided, it seems that it isn't. and that is based on *my* inner empiricism, so you can't argue, nyah nyah nyah.The human condition is either as was suggested or it isn't.
because it's condescending to believe that your being right is obvious. the fact that this isn't obvious to you yourself is evidence of your inability to get past your prejudices.How is saying the obvious condescending?
ok, well, say i have had a vertical experience, validated by my inner empiricism if you prefer - who are you to gainsay that?But for now it is impossible to contemplate a vertical idea from a horizontal perspective. It cannot be done. At some point the linear has to give way for the experience of the vertical.
namely?Well in the time honored tradition of mine is bigger than yours, I will say that I have to deal with six dimensions.
i believe it does, with your argument as an example.Does it also say that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear through the ancient process of BSing?