September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Challenge Response: You're a Higher Source Than the Bible | Main | If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths? »

July 18, 2013


In addition to the Biblical text, the relevant passage from the Cyrus cylinder also deserves quoting. This is from wikipedia.

From [?] to Aššur and [from] Susa, Agade, Ešnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der, as far as the region of Gutium, the sacred centers on the other side of the Tigris, whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time, I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings.

Also worth noting is the political history of the cylinder in modern times. Since the 1970s or earlier, Ashraf Pahlavi and others have misrepresented it as some kind of Iranian human rights tradition. People really do love to misuse history when it suits their political agenda.


Misrepresented Truth? Misused Truth?

This is confusing, given your definition of The-Self’s good experiences as the End of all things and of all else as but Means to that End. We find in the End-Points of Materialism or Immaterialism no solid rational reason to avoid employing Truth, Person, or Love as but Means to some End which The-Self finds to be a very good experience. We can rationally withhold love from truth for reason is not found to be indebted to truth in that sense where a peculiar flavor of worship is found in effervescence.

Given that you have yet to show us a change in category in your circular reasoning, the Moral Landscape of Immaterialism is one and the same with that of Materialism. [Contents of Thought] (your seemingly final regress) are ever mutable against no hard stop at all as the volition-less inclinations and reverberations within Mind are pushed around for they are at the end of the day but the slave of some ill-defined autocratic tyrant which is its precursor void of will, void of immutable love. We find in Immaterialism no categorical difference from that of simple Materialism.

Before we go further, let me clarify that last paragraph:

In “February 15, 2013 Our Sense of Moral Obligation Proves Materialism Is False” it becomes readily apparent in a discussion between Wisdomlover and yourself that there just is no such thing as a physical system free of physical systems as guilt nuanced beneath ought-not-have wrapped up inside accountable all die the death of inexplicable axiom and philosophical incoherence at best or intentional auto-hypnosis at worst. More plausibly it is simply (obviously) a lot of both. This (obviously) has implications on what we are to make of our conscience (of course) and of your undertone here of shame in the misuse of Truth when it suits one’s own ends. If Mind in general and, just as necessary, Mind of a Peculiar Nature is not our Final Regress then it becomes unavoidable: that faintest of echoes coming up from the worm’s eye view, as Dr. Alexander would perhaps reference, of guilt swathed within the mesh of bothers-me merely speaks another of irrationality’s lies. In that thread you feign a motion toward a regress out of the Physical as the Primary, the Un-Derived, yet there, as in anything else I’ve read of yours (beautiful writing it is BTW), you never do give us a reason to think the [content of thoughts] (which you appeal to in your attempt to avoid a regress to thinking-mind it seems) are in themselves not also pushed around by some ill-defined and equally volition-less precursor which is nothing short of their Taskmaster, and herein the Circle is found complete for the move to free the automaton is a move into nothing more than a volition-less despot made of some other “stuff” that just is not “matter” and so in this Circle nothing changes category. Unless and until we change Category we have not arrived at a Necessary End, but have only made a Circle.

And what of valuing Truth for its own sake?

In another thread you noted this: "….that doesn't mean the truth is inherently good, or good in and of itself. It just means my love is not contingent upon causal properties of truth. i.e., my valuing of truth is non-instrumental. But me valuing truth non-instrumental does not make truth inherently good…."

You went on to reduce the value of Truth to something less than the value of “good experiences” in the sense that error, should it bring about good experiences, is of more value, and so on. And of course the definition of good experiences was left to mutable semantics and changing goal posts.

Wisdomlover (apologies, again, WL) summed up the thread with this:

1. I think that the truth is good for its own sake and that it is, for that reason, rationally required that we love it for its own sake. If I understand you correctly, you deny that truth is good for its own sake, but that it is still rationally permissible to love it for its own sake, but it might also be rationally permitted to withhold that love.

2. I think that enjoyable experiences arrived at through wicked means cannot be good, no matter how pleasant and no matter how few miserable experiences result. You believe that they can be good.

Now here in this thread you employ terms such as “misrepresented” and “misuse” with regard to truth. Well, we must remember that in your (Immaterialism/Materialism have no difference here) philosophy truth has no “ought” attached to it where “value” is concerned. It seems to me your philosophy is all over the map as it suits your particular agenda for the day. First to devalue truth, as it suits some particular thread, then, as here in this particular thread, to attach an “ought-not” undertone to those who devalue truth as it suits them, and so on as it suits you.

You discourse on the ought-less of just everything under the sun, except, that is, one’s on very fun experience. We write here “very fun…” while you used “good experiences” only to leave that definition open (elsewhere) to slavery should we all decide to define it (good) that way. Good, Fun Experiences, and, if error is the means to that end, then, well, such is your prior commitment on ontological end points. Yet you chastise those who, here, are, well, you. Moral Skeptics must be willing to believe their own sermons, it seems to me. But then, the Ontological End of the Immaterialist remains undefined. Except, that is, to employ All-Things as but Means to the only End that defines Actuality: very satisfying (good? Slavery?) experiences.

As it turns out, when Personhood (you’ve defined slavery as good in other threads so long as we all vote on it and make it thus) is devalued, and when Truth (the thread mentioned above) is devalued, we end at a place in which Personhood and Truth are found expunged and there in that Actuality which we have joyfully sought after and joyfully obtained we discover a place void of Love’s Self-Sacrifice, for The-Self has ascended to the Throne and every entity that can be called The-Other, that can be called Non-Self, lies dead at one’s feet.

Worship entails a necessary Death of Self and such is wholly missing in the philosophy of both the Materialist and the Immaterialist. And that is the rub which no mutable god nor god of immutable malfeasance can overcome. Therein one finds the Isolated-Self, and this can by definition house just no Love at all, for Love just is that delightful dance amid Self/Other, amid the Lover and the Beloved wherein the shout is (there are other shouts too), “Thin and not Mine! Other and not Self!” and, these Two Distinct-s by embrace beget that Third Distinct, Love’s necessarily Begotten E Pluribus Unum that just is the Singular-We.

It seems both Immaterialism and Materialism offer us your philosophy of Self-Reference and here, ultimately, we find just no fun or good experiences at all. None, for nothing remains of Love, of Embrace, of Self-Other, and we find instead the cold, naked Self standing in isolation in the Alone that is by definition the Love-less. It is said no one in his right mind would choose such a final amalgamation, but it seems we do after all thirst after such. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way Volition stands un-coerced for the only autocratic tyrants enslaving their automatons in this game are the Materialist’s and Immaterialist’s ontological categorical endpoints void of Immutable Love.

Love teaches us of Love’s Eternally-Sacrificed-Self, and here we find a Necessary flavor of Worship of something that is wholly Other, wholly Non-Self. Love spreads His arms wide, and He pours Himself out, and this for the Beloved-Other. And He tells us this: “This is what I-AM. This is the Way to Life.”

All the hope of achieving a very fun experience by making of it (The Self’s Experience) the End and all other actualities but Means to that end can only achieve a Self in utter Isolation for such a Self embraces just no thing that is Other, that is Non-Self, and this we mean by a death of Self, and such entails that wonder that can only be called a kind of praise of the beloved, a kind of worship of the Non-Self. Void of all these things we find that “fun” and “good” become what Love defines as “the cold” and “the dark” and “the outside” out there in the Non Self-Other. If we make of Self a god we actually lose, ultimately, the very thing we thought such a religion would obtain for us: good experiences. On definition there can be no Created-Self who can stand in Sufficiency should it will to stand Isolated. For any Created Self there is but One-Way to Joy: to will that motion into love’s Self-Other and there In-Sufficiency finds itself surrounded by, filled by, All-Sufficiency.

The way we experience love and the way we experience know-ing just “are experienced” inside of a topography comprised of the In/Self, and, the Out/Other, and, the In-Out / Self-Other of the necessarily Begotten E Pluribus Unum. Know-Ing and Love-Ing are necessarily comprised of a topography that just is both one and three and herein all of our brutally repeatable experiences testify of Ultimate Actuality’s triune topography.

Because the End of all things is Immutable Love, such just is the Truth of the matter, and the terms therein are found to be comprised of Immutable Semantics. Enter: Worship

The comments to this entry are closed.