The biblical dialectic

The Torah pushes the lie that we are separate from god. It doesn’t do this by telling us to do bad things. It’s much more subtle than that.

By the very act of issuing a command god initiated the seperation. You don’t tell yourself what to do. Even if you do have a little voice saying “do so and so at such and such a time” you are projecting this from outside of yourself.

At least it appears that way. Are you that voice? Surely not because it comes and it goes and you remain. So even when you give a command to yourself you have to initiate a seperation. You need to create a distinction between the you who tells you what to do and the you who does (or often doesn’t) do what you are told.

Now then this distinction is death. It is dissolution. That is to say it is a fragmentation of a whole.

This occurs whether you are obedient or not. That is to say that obedience is irrelevant when it comes to this seperation.

So really Adam and eve died the day they were told not to eat. They just became aware of it when they and god went their seperate ways.

When their will became evidently seperated from the superficial will of god.

This is how Paul can say with one breath that “I delight in the law of god after the inward man” and with the next that “the commandment which was (apparently) ordained to life I found to be unto death”.

Now of course I’m missing out some steps. The mechanism by which the command creates the illusion of seperation or death is sin which as I have shown elsewhere (just type sin in my search bar) is failure.

So we come to feel seperate from god when we fail to do what god commands.

But that seperation was already there when god gave the command. See god pushed us away we didn’t flee from him. At least in the biblical narrative.

Now how would doing what god commands make any difference? It obviously wouldn’t. At least not to the seperation between us and god.

Really when you are under the law oneness with god is simply not on the table. You may feel he is pleased with you or displeased with you; which one is entirely dependent upon how hard on yourself you are.

But guilt or innocence do nothing to change it. In fact they both exacerbate the sense of seperation.

This is why Paul says in 1 corinthians “all things are lawful to me”. It’s really the same statement as “We are saved by Grace”. Our unity with god just is. You see it or you don’t. If you see it then no matter what you do it will still be there.

This seeing is something you either have or you don’t. It doesn’t matter how naughty or nice you are. I’m actually convinced that Charles Manson gets this… as did Ghandi.

God takes responsibility for evil. “Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it”. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Don’t try and get him off the hook. Who made you God’s lawyer? Don’t you think he can do a better job himself?

What is salvation? Eternal life right? And what is eternal life? “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent“.

Jesus said of himself “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

What Jesus was doing was showing our actual (whether we know it or not, whether we like it not) relationship to god.

Look at yourself as you think, as you act and as you experience. Everything and I mean everything; your thoughts, decisions, feelings and everything you sense have this quality of coming from nowhere and going nowhere.

What do you think that nowhere is? All because you are not aware of a thing doesn’t mean it’s not there and this thing, this place from which everything you call you comes is the ultimate invisible.

It can’t be spoken.

It can’t be touched.

It can’t be conceived.

And it’s from there that we come and we go. Not just way back then when I metastasized from my mother but right now. Right this second we are proceeding out from this unmentionable and vanishing into it.

We are the image of it. As is everything else.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

In revelations it says of Christ he was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world“. What this is saying is the exact same thing that the communion is saying.

Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

This act along with the crucifixion was pointing back to the creation.

God incarnated himself in physical form and then crucified himself. He split himself up into many parts.

This incarnation isn’t seperate from god just as the movements of a dancer aren’t seperate from the dancer.

Then hid from himself by acting out man and telling man (himself) what to do. Just as you do in your head all the time with all your pretend conversations.

Does this mean the death of Jesus 2000 years ago was just a symbol? In a way it does but it’s a symbol that points forward as well as backward.

It was the end of the hide part of the cosmic game of hide and seek god plays with himself and it’s defining feature was “all things are lawful for me”. It was the end of the command.

At least it was for the Hebrews.

Advertisements

Who told you you have to be warm?

Here am I forsaken and alone

Seeking for solace from a cold stone.

I suck at it’s pap sweet milk of oblivion

Wanting an other

to do me

For me.

I’m a cold stone seeking heat from amongst the cold stones

I don’t stop despite the blisters that come from my shaking groans.

For a bit the pain feels like warmth

But soon fades and all I’m left with is the cold and the pain.

One day a whisper will creep into my mind.

I’ll distrust it at first because it’s unfamiliar

Because all the other whispers disagree

And tell me this whisper’s seductive chant is dangerous.

But eventually I’ll be forced to turn and listen

By the endless failures

By the ceaseless cold.

The whisper says:

Who told you you have to be warm?

A shiver

exactly like all the shivers I’d shivered before

runs through me

except this time it’s different.

The wonder of life through defamiliarization

Today… well this morning I suppose. There was a storm the likes of which I haven’t seen for at least a year.

I stood out in it with my arms spread, face facing the sky as it poured out its anger in rain, flashes and deep booms. I gave myself to wetness and the wind and the violence but after a while I went back inside, closed the door, forgot the wonder and made a tea.

Now I’m sat here, dry and comfortable; faced with the familiarity of Facebook and the everyday comfort and security of home.

I’m thinking “If this situation, this mundane, run-of-the-mill, everyday situation had never occurred for me before would I not stand in awe at the very presence of a cup and a table?”

Those flashes and booms – spectacular though they were – are only special because they rarely happen; they are to all intents and purposes novel events. Sure I have experienced a storm before; but not for a long time.

So this time, standing outside with my friend Ethan as Daisy gazed down upon us from Ethan’s bedroom window was the first time.

What lesson did I hear in the flashes and bangs? Defamiliarize, defamiliarize, defamiliarize!

Casually stroll through life as if you’d never seen any of it before and you’ll see the wonder that’s just waiting there to be unlocked by a particular way of gazing, smelling, touching, tasting or listening.

Stand quietly and imagine you’d never breathed before and feel the joy that just being alive brings, that just breathing brings.

Living is a beautiful thing all the time; we just get caught up in the trivialities; in mere trifles of problems that won’t matter tomorrow or in a weeks time.

They certainly won’t matter when you’re laying on your last bed! You’re possibilities limited to whether you’re going to shit in the colostomy bag now or hold on for a bit longer; whether you’re going to ring the bell just so you can ogle the curves and breasts of the young nurse on duty.

Will anything matter to us then about what happened now?

So why not forget the trivialities and gaze upon your kingdom; see how bizarre everything really is; see how it could be any other way but it’s not; it’s the way it is.

See that wherever you are you are in a truly novel situation; you are on the cutting edge of your life; you don’t need to travel (though that would be fun) to find wonder; it’s right before you all the time almost bursting with its suppressed excitement; like a child tugging at his parents attention saying “Look at me! Look at what I can do! Look at what I am!

“See look: Red, sound of distant traffic as the human world wakes up, feel the keys on my keyboard, smell your home, taste the bitter coffee that you don’t like the taste of and delve into the taste and see that its distastefulness is a part of all the wonder that forever surrounds us but is hidden by familiarity! Live every moment of your life playing pretend that it’s the first moment of your life because then I’ll show you who I really am!”

Western Philosophy meets Eastern Philosophy through Heidegger Part. 3

Another articulation of what Tolle says that is straight from the eastern source is in the Upanishads. It is an allegory that goes something like this:

There is a tree. In this tree perch two birds. One bird eats of the berries. The other bird perches silently and watches.

In Heideggerian terms I would say that the “room within which the furniture is” is what Heidegger is disclosing in his discourse on Dasein as Being-The-There.

The bird that “perches silently and watches” is what Heidegger is disclosing in his discourse on Dasein as Being-In-The-World.

The bird that eats of the berries of the tree is what Heidegger would call the “I” or the “Here”; the berries would of course be what Heidegger calls the “Over-There” where Handy things and other Daseins dwell.

Heidegger came to this realization via a logical deconstruction of the western philosophical tradition.

The eastern mystic came to the same realization via a method of silent contemplation of phenomena. By just listening to their experience; both inner and outer (which I believe to be another construction of the internal dialogue); I mean listening in the sense Heidegger uses the term: that is heedful listening, the east realized Being-The-There 1000s of years before the western philosophical tradition did. 

finis

Problems with the Phenomenological Rebuttal of Free-Will cont….

The other way it could be is that all that you call your actions, intentions, emotions and experiences are all the actions of a kind of performer. You are just watching the performer do its thing and this performer has tricked you into thinking you are it. Much like a good movie or theatre company can make the audience forget themselves for a bit.

This would account for why we don’t know what we are going to choose before we choose it; what we will think before we think it. It would account for the opaque nature of the black box out of which all our experiences (I include intentions and decisions within that category) come.

Though both these pictures could be the case I genuinely believe we are merely passive observers in our lifes.

We have become so caught up in the drama on the stage that we have forgotten that it isn’t us up there.

Just like a play has a beginning and an end; life has a beginning and an end. Maybe at the end we’ll get to take our masks off and discover we were the same entity playing or the parts.

Or we might just go into oblivion knowing nothing forever which ain’t that bad if you think about it.

Problems with the Phenomenological Rebuttal of Free-Will

I have a number of prongs in my attack on the traditional conception of free-will (the conception that states that if two worlds were identical in every way then it would be possible for a person x in one world to make a different decision to person x in the other world).

Recently I have thought of an analogy, or model, to show the problems in the phenomenological rebuttal of free-will.

If you try to distinguish between what you have control over and what you don’t have control over you will find that the closer you look the less you have control over; until it becomes apparent that you are nothing but a passive observer.

Your thoughts just pop spontaneously into your mind. Intentions I would say are thoughts to and like thoughts they just spring up out of no-where. But it is intentionality (that is the feeling of intending to do something) that we use to distinguish between what we have control over and what we don’t have control over.

The will to act upon an intention is no different. It’s not as if you will to will to will to act upon an intention. The will just appears magically.

Now this could be the result of a necessary bifurcation in our being brought about by our self-aware nature.

It is a bit like watching your reflection in the mirror. Whilst you are aware of yourself and your reflection you know that your reflection raising its arm is caused by you raising your arm.

If all you had available was the reflection then you could be forgiven for thinking it was moving itself and not being moved by your own actions and in a phenomenological analysis we may be just looking at the mirror and nothing else.

Naughty Communication

Arbitrary expressions of affection (or any emotion for that matter) come closer to displaying the true purpose of communication than say the form I am now engaged in. We don’t really communicate to convey information; we communicate for the sheer hell of it. But because we’re silly billys we have to create elaborate justifications for communication such as “to convey information” which is a bit like the teenagers caught fucking who said they were testing what they saw in biology class as justification for engaging in their activity.

 

Both with smirks on their faces too.

New Atheism (aka that movement with a door-kin at the from)

I watched a documentary called “The Unbelievers” on netflix recently. It followed Richard Dawkins and Lauwance Krauss as they toured various auditoriums and rallies.

One thing I quickly noticed was the religious fervour of these atheists. I saw how dogmatical and evangelical they had become.

These are the signs of belief systems that have lost their kernel of belief. They are the death-throes of an ideology.

That ideology is Positivism.

Man stubbornly clings in his deluded pride to the belief that he can know everything. As he loses the faith in his pride he clutches out to others to confirm that “Yes, yes! I’m right aren’t I? We can know can’t we?”. To confirm that he is who he thought he was.

This is why the Atheist doesn’t just enter into combat with the theist but both theist and atheist join forces against philosophy.

Philosophy points to both naked emperors and says “None of you are wearing clothes you buffoons!”

Philosophy says “To answer the question “where did the universe come from?” you would need to step outside before the event and watch the fucking thing”

Philosophy says “Empiricism is your base assumption! All you can do is observe and describe. What you call an explanation is merely taking a description to a more general or specific level”

And Philosophy finally says, gritting it’s teeth and wiping the sweat off it’s brow “Atheism is a meta-physical claim. You are actually making a claim about what came before the big bang. A claim you have no means of falsifying!

“And sure Hawkins picture of how you could dig something out of nothing was pretty. The story it presented was one among many non-falsifiable stories. No different in verifiability to the God hypothesis.

“Oh begone from me you myth-mongers! All pushing your tales on me and swearing their true”

But these enlightenment fossils stamp their feet in childish tantrums; screaming at reality “YOU ARE KNOWABLE!” As if tantrums ever got ice-creams off a good mummy 😛

The Aberrant is the Monster of Society and Society is the Monster of the Aberrant; The grounds for true compassion!

 

Tis a sad thing that few realize
That all are retards or none are;

That we are all abnormalities
Born with unchosen deformities;

That to call one shameful and evil
Is to call all shameful and evil.

But

If instead

We realize the truth:
That good and bad are nothing
But ways of saying:

I don’t like this”
And “I like that”

That give the illusion

That justifies the vicious acts
the likes of which were used
As the excuse to commit the acts.


Justice is ever the cover for man’s bestiality.

Have you ever looked

Into the eyes

Of a man

As he describes

What he’d like to do to those “evil” men!

And seen the same “evil”….

stare…..

Right back out at you.

As if it’s a dog on a leash

Just raring to go.

The collar, my friend, is untied by Justice!

No-one was born,
Given a contract to sign
Then told to live accordingly!

We were born free!

We washed up on the shores of life

Through no will of our own.

We owe no-one nothing!

And guilt is ever the illusion

Of the man who believed

The man at the docks who said

Gotta give us something

To be here mate! It’s only fair!”

And if a man wishes to murder
Who are we to say he’s wrong
In any inaccessibly objective metaphysical sense;
Because all we’re really saying
When we say

Murder is wrong!”
Is
“I don’t want to die, please don’t kill me!”


We have to be honest

About the basis
Of our legal system!


It just so happens the majority
Share preferences
That the majority finds bearable.


So we

The majority

Gang up on the “Aberrant”
On the “Freak”

On the “Retard”

And the “Criminal”


And with no justification

Other than might

We deny them the
Ability for fulfilment.

And I whole-heartedly participate

Because

I don’t want to get hurt,

Because

I want to keep my stuff

Because

I want to live in a world
Where we can all dance

Our freaky dances fearlessly

But there are those whose dance

We cannot tolerate.

We cannot like

Because it stops our dance.

So we gang up
And beat up
Those who can’t step to our rhythm.

To make ourselves feel better

We create the myth of morality,
Of justice!

To cover up the brute fact
Of the brute bullies we really are!

Do you accept this truth?

I do!

But it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

I must wash it out!
But what’s the answer?

My answer? kind sir:


If the resources are sufficient
Then comfortable accommodations
Are most pertinent.


If not then we are left with the question:

A quick painless death
Or a lifetime in horrid conditions.


Which would you prefer?


Given the choice
I’d give society’s victims the choice.

Seeing as it’s his fate to be decided.

The aberrant

Is a monster to society

And society

Is a monster to the aberrant!

Just a ramble

What are words but signs that point to concepts in the mind. Concepts not images for images are a sub-set of concepts. That is they can be reduced to each other.

What is language if not a set of pictures and do not these pictures come to express concepts.

There’s a problem here! Do concepts exist as words on a page or as mental content or forms?

If concepts are nothing but words on paper then concepts can be created by pictures. But if concepts are not words on paper. The words on the page being triggers for certain mental states.

But then they both comprise the same informational content.

Making sense of concepts requires a more holistic understanding that expresses the relationship between the Dasein, concepts and images.