|
Post by hollandr on Jul 17, 2008 23:48:49 GMT
>Repeat after me: There are no straw men. There are no straw men. There are no straw men.
Does this conclude the case for rationalism?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 18, 2008 0:01:33 GMT
Looks like it, Bro Russell. Try this explanation of the concept. www.answers.com/topic/straw-manIt's the sort of thing that those who are involved with High School Debating Societies use or look for.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 18, 2008 1:51:44 GMT
6... Jesus said, "..... When they find, they will be disturbed. Been disturbed lately? Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 18, 2008 4:20:08 GMT
>Being symbolic, they can only convey what the conveyor perceives to be occurring.
In another view of reality, a symbol is a bit like a TV antenna - designed to resonate with a signal that exists in the greater environment.
And when the symbol resonates then a suitable amplifier can bring the signal to useable levels.
Hence the symbol is defined by its resonance not the understanding of the observer.
Thus Masonic ritual is able to work upon all receptive brethren regardless of understanding
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 18, 2008 4:28:02 GMT
It's the sort of thing that those who are involved with High School Debating Societies use or look for. This is not a High School debating society, but a rational (one would hope) discussion between grown men and women. We have two viewpoints: objectivism and subjectivism. The only way we have to determine which view is correct is through the application of rational, logical thought. Any other method is nothing but a false trail, leading nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 18, 2008 4:55:18 GMT
Masons profess to believe in a supreme Being, who is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. Nothing can exist outside of this supreme Being. Therefore there can be no objective or subjective view of the ultimate reality ??
If life on earth be explained in rational, logical thought why do the perennial questions continue to be asked in every age - where do I come from, what an I doing here, where am I going.
Or if you prefer "What's it all about Alfie?"
Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 18, 2008 5:10:49 GMT
>The only way we have to determine which view is correct is through the application of rational, logical thought.
That is of course a rational statement of the rational position
If we knew what assumptions were implicit in the rationalist position we might be able to formulate alternate assumptions and hence generate another position
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 18, 2008 5:16:26 GMT
What is the nature of reality? Nature = that which is not man made. The essential character of something not man made is governed by the forces at play. Some we can see, experience, name. Some we can't and haven't.
So my best shot is that the nature of reality is Force, be it of the nuclear type, thought type etc.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 18, 2008 5:18:05 GMT
Russell - loved your resonant symbol/antenna post. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 18, 2008 5:21:17 GMT
What is the nature of reality? Nature = that which is not man made. The essential character of something not man made is governed by the forces at play. Some we can see, experience, name. Some we can't and haven't. So my best shot is that the nature of reality is Force, be it of the nuclear type, thought type etc. Maat Force kinda fits with this Jesus saying - don'tcha think? 6... Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. (And after they have reigned they will rest.)" Maat
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 18, 2008 9:30:37 GMT
Bro Russell. Working as I do in Electronics, albeit as a "bench jockey" not a Design Engineer or anything as lofty as that, I can see the analogy with the antenna and the tuned circuit. To those without the knowledge it is only a construction of metal rods, plates and wire, capacitors and inductors, to those who understand it it is designed to receive transmissions of a certain frequency or band. Nevertheless it will work for both the ignorant and the wise. the same could no doubt be said of preternatural forces and those symbols and rituals which activate them.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 18, 2008 9:55:31 GMT
>the same could no doubt be said of preternatural forces and those symbols and rituals which activate them. I have posted the following before but I dare say it needs some further pondering "The language, a term I am still using very loosely, is a system of symbols ..... along with geometric forms and patterns that fit together to form diagrams that are themselves functional. Once they are drawn, so to speak, on a suitable surface made of a suitable material and in the presence of a certain type of field, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks. It really did seem like magic to us, even after we began to understand the principles behind it." isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/Here the symbols are evidently self active and operate sponteanously when in the right field and relationship with other symbols. Could this be how real lodges work?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 9:55:47 GMT
Looks like it, Bro Russell. Try this explanation of the concept. www.answers.com/topic/straw-manIt's the sort of thing that those who are involved with High School Debating Societies use or look for. OK Bro. Steve, since you apparently both invoke and revoke the rules of civil debate as and when it suits you: From your link we get the following definition: " To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold." How has a straw man been established in this instance? Or, to put it another way, please specify whether or not the particular subjectivist position you defend holds that there is an objective subject (noumenon) of their subjective perception (phenomenon) or not?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 9:59:53 GMT
A few words on the nature of reality from the acknowledged Master - Jesus. These are the sayings 'that the living Jesus spoke' an that Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. From the "Scholar's Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas. 1... Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so." 2... Jesus said, "Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: The dog neither eats nor lets the cattle eat." 3... Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy." 4... Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." 5... Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels." 6... Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. (And after they have reigned they will rest.)" Maat Sounds like a pretty clear exhortation for us to look for the objective reality (noumenon) underlying subjective appearances (phenomenon).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 10:01:49 GMT
Is it true that if you repeat something often enough, it becomes your reality?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 18, 2008 15:45:55 GMT
"Could this be how real lodges work?"
I never experienced this in 18 years in UGLE but have most assuredly done so in LDH Lodges.
Once attending a particular LDH Lodge I could feel the edifice being built as we opened and a most definite benign presence over and above those men and women in attendance during the Meeting. After the Lodge had closed and we had processed out I had reason to return to the Temple. Apart from the normal serenity of that room there was then nothing else present , the guests, corporeal and spiritual had gone.
Sorry Russell, I couldn't find a silly cartoon to illustrate this event. I will leave you to visualise matters as I know you are well able to do.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 17:53:13 GMT
In case you missed it: Looks like it, Bro Russell. Try this explanation of the concept. www.answers.com/topic/straw-manIt's the sort of thing that those who are involved with High School Debating Societies use or look for. OK Bro. Steve, since you apparently both invoke and revoke the rules of civil debate as and when it suits you: From your link we get the following definition: "To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold." How has a straw man been established in this instance? Or, to put it another way, please specify whether or not the particular subjectivist position you defend holds that there is an objective subject (noumenon) of their subjective perception (phenomenon) or not?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 18:45:35 GMT
Perhaps we should bear-in-mind that this further, excruciating episode in Russell's, "What is the B****ing Obvious?" series and the like, began with the, Explanation of the Apron? thread; moved to his, " What is Imagination?" thread; and is now being played out here. So, what is the nature of this particular reality? The oldest Masonic apron I saw was in a display of ancient egyptian artefacts.
The apron was an oblong - a little longer than is used in some lodges - with long ties and a gold braid border. The central fabric (linen?) was missing but otherwise it was easily recognisable and almost identical to the 1918 apron used for my raising Russell has an overactive imagination which he is inclined to confuse with reality.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 18, 2008 21:34:31 GMT
>excruciating episode in Russell's, "What is the B****ing Obvious?" series
The subject does seem painful to you. Why is that?
Perhaps this thread would be more useful if it were labeled: Red pill reality discussions
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 18, 2008 22:02:41 GMT
The subject does seem painful to you. Why is that? Not this subject alone, but all those in your tedious, "What is the B****ing Obvious?" series, which you raise in a Socratic, seemingly condescending manner, which usually lead nowhere and where, as in this instance, you ignore valid points and questions: " So, what is the nature of this particular [apron] reality?"
|
|