In the world of biblical studies there is the argument known as Q (and L and M) which asserts the common material to Matthew and Luke comes from oral…
Paul Hesiod, as usual, lays out a nice opening to the Gospel context in material philosophical history.
In light of the general discussion that he introduces us to by his post, A deeper discussion is opened up as to different ways to see￼￼, to view, and ultimately know what the issue of Q entails.
One so interested in a a discussion about epistemological bases of history in the context of the Gospels, might be interested in:
A philosophical method.
I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.
However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.
And here is an example:
The Problem of the Criterion: A Christian’s Thoughts – The Council — Read on spirited-tech.com/2021/06/02/the-problem-of-the-criterion-a-christians-thoughts/
The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.
This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.
And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.
So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.
And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.
At the entrance to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, stood written the words gnōthi seauton, know thyself. But anyone who’s read Dante Alighieri …
The day that Christ is born is a darkness broken only by the light of a star.
The wise men are beckoned by that star, to make a journey…
Happy awareness of the birth of knowledge.
Originally posted on PA Pundits – International: By Alexander Hall ~ Twitter is unleashing a new program to proactively protect the left’s climate …
—-…and my comment:
Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.
The fact of the climate changing is true.
Climate Change is real.
The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.
To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.
However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.
This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.
The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.
How do you bristle when you here about Truth?
It is not Becuase you are so intelligent or philosophically apt.
It is because the notion of Truth informs the core of an offense which holds up your system of sense and ability.
A logic of ideas supported by a fundamental and basic offense is called, in one instance, ideology, and in another, religion.
Ponder, great souls and great minds, how intelligence, ethics, and indeed the whole world itself, is contained by a knowledge that is nothing less than a religious theology. Less a system in which individuals of various cultures persist, than a manner which is the universe itself arising to be known.
A second part of reporting my thoughts upon reading “Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea” by C. Seidel.
Recall that my work centers upon orientation upon objects as the significant philosophical issue of our time.
The excerpt pictures above gives a manner by which to apprehend the coupling of history and idea that informs subsequent reality.
“It is hard to imagine something with no width and no height — with no substance at all — being a square.”
The statement is not axiomatic. It is not a truism either. Rather, it is a cosmological statement, A statement that reflects a view upon the world that is taken to be accurate of the actual universe.
This is to say, if I can find an instance which takes a count of the mathematical conundrum that is presented, and yet defies the conclusion that appears automatically common and sensible, then we can say that the statement is reflecting a belief rather than an actual instance of a true universe.
I propose that it is not hard to imagine something with no width and no height that is also a square: It is an idea of the square.
Likewise: the area of a rectangle with a zero height or zero width is the idea of the whole universe.
These two instances, these examples I just give are exactly the opposite of what is implicitly proposed as assumed of the mathematics drawn upon for this book.
There is an assumed coordination between the physical reality of the universe and our ability to analytically and logically come to formulations about it, but along a particular orientation as to our relationship with the world.
In the exercise just in this particular post, we can notice that there is a gap, I kind of invisible space that twists the view that we have for that we gain. We miss that there is a difference between the idea of the rectangle and an actual rectangle, and we superimpose these upon one another. But the superposition does not align, and we glaze over that, we forget about it, we set it aside for the sake of our belief. This is to say that “our idea” is not actually “our“ idea. It is an idea that arises within a particular faith in what is being given to our knowledge. And we could even go so far as to suggest that the infamous poststructuralist analysis of the situation indeed finds subjective repression. Ideology posed as absolute knowledge.
This is very similar to what the sociologist Bruno Latour calls a pass in his book An Inquiry into Modes of Existence.
Millions of Americans are getting buried in debt, literally. A shocking number are dying with unpaid mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit cards.
— Read on www.debt.org/family/people-are-dying-in-debt/
— I just found this on a random search about what happens to dad when you die.
I was thinking about this because I have no one to give anything to, whether it be assets or deficits, when I die. So I was imagining that whatever debt I accrue will just get absorbed into the system. And I was pondering how many people die in this way, such that their debt just gets absorbed by no one in particular and everyone in general?
It is interesting to me that the link that I found says that it’s “scary” that so many people will die owing a lot of money.
And I thought what a strange and somehow dangerous propaganda that kind of view supports and propagates.
Why is it scary?
Thinking about it, I think it’s scary because if you really consider what it means to die with debt that everyone gets to absorb as a society, it means that Debt doesn’t really mean very much. For a person to die with debt that no one owes or no one will be obligated to pay, calls into question the very idea of an obligation to pay debt.
And this is scary. Because our system is based in a deep kind of faith that there is some universal obligation to pay debt. Indeed it’s written into our lives, but in America anymore you can’t go to jail for not paying your debts. The only thing that happens is your credit score goes down. Or you end up homeless. And then that’s not great for Society. either because then what’s happening is everyone’s paying a ridiculous amount of money for me to live. Whether it’s that I am absorbing money for social programs, or I’m causing some sort of social issue, such that “regular people” get to deny the actuality of their existence by denying the reality of my homeless, credit list, moneyless situation. ￼￼￼￼etcetera.
What is this world religion that we are involved with? ￼
Intelligence !! That, is the question.
I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. ￼
That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.
However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.
And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.
The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy
The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.
I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol
What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense￼.lol
And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol
I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.
Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?
It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.
I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them,￼￼￼￼ Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.
It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.
I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.
The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes
This is why I say that ethics is not something that￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!
Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. ￼￼
￼￼￼If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation￼, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.
￼￼￼￼ For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. ￼￼
Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one￼.
We Have Never Been Modern
We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern. ￼￼ specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.
For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. ￼
The Two Routes, again
So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.
However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.
The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.
Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation￼,￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.
￼ Disgusting, right￼?
What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?
Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.
Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x
The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.
When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.
The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.
In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.
On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.
For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.
The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.
It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.
An object oriented journey through the Gospels.