Do you manipulate yourself in getting up out of a chair?

In a way I suppose the word works there, but I mean it in the bribe-ish kind of sense.

And in thinking that through, 'sort of' is the best I come up with on short notice.

But a more important question to me is: do you need to be manipulated to do anything?

Is our species dependent directly and indirectly on those maniacally driven few to impose their will to the point that at minimum, the repurcussion of their action indirectly manipulates our circumstance?

It occurred to me that people manipulate themselves with the god idea, to strive toward some perhaps 'paper' perhaps noble idealized self, erm. At least sometimes. But that this is the power of the tool. If embraces, it can be lots of things, but I'm thinking about the wedge. It can be used to push oneself from inaction to action.

So hmmm...

what are other common wedges? (there's probably a better term than wedge. carrots and sticks maybe.)

pleasure?

in this context is god just a form of altruism, which is really the wedge?


Crap I need to sort this out.

I just wait so long that eventually I have to get up to get it done at all.. lol

sometimes..

It occurred to me that people manipulate themselves with the god idea, to strive toward some perhaps 'paper' perhaps noble idealized self, erm. At least sometimes. But that this is the power of the tool. If embraces, it can be lots of things, but I'm thinking about the wedge. It can be used to push oneself from inaction to action.

You mean like when they like talk about God all the time ? And they can't like shut up about it ?
I think they like need to constantly like re-convince themselves of their own like religious ideas.
LOLZ :p

You could hardly class the pursuit of pleasure as a form of self-manipulation. The manipulation comes when we rein in that instinct.

Other forms? Many of them are social. Children need food and clothes, and husbands need not to be struck repeatedly around the head.

Actually I see what you mean now about pleasure, as motivation to get up out of your chair. In that case you can add stress avoidance as a factor, including that caused by boredom.

And now I need to make a phonecall. To make some arrangements. For an upcoming training day. I don't really want to, but..

They're bastards, aren't they?

You mean like when they like talk about God all the time ? And they can't like shut up about it ?
I think they like need to constantly like re-convince themselves of their own like religious ideas.
LOLZ :p


Yeah, that's one case. I avoid them for the most part. I have a neighbor kind of like that but she's nice enough and I don't see her enough for it to bother me.

Actually I see what you mean now about pleasure, as motivation to get up out of your chair.

Carrot shaped pleasure? Hmm.. I'll drop that line of thinking right here and now.

In that case you can add stress avoidance as a factor, including that caused by boredom.

Boredom causes stress and you want to avoid the stress of boredom by getting up eh? Yah, can be translated as seeking pleasure I guess even.

And now I need to make a phonecall. To make some arrangements. For an upcoming training day. I don't really want to, but..

They're bastards, aren't they?

Which bastards we talking about? Training days? The people telling you to do a training day? What kind of training? Lol, oh nevermind.

The people, Wes, the people. I mean, it's supposed to be my day off.

But a more important question to me is: do you need to be manipulated to do anything?

There needs to be some intention before a human will do something.

Whereby this doesn't mean that the human is necessarily aware of that intention at the time, and it can also be that the intention is in the form of a habit (the habit being the momentum that previously acting on intentions has created).

Left completely to themselves, the person would probably dissolve.

The people, Wes, the people. I mean, it's supposed to be my day off.

Tell them to fuck off.
You are British, you should be able to say that in a manner without saying it, right.

Tell them to fuck off.
You are British, you should be able to say that in a manner without saying it, right.
Of course I could. And I'd much rather stay in bed.

So why, I wonder, am I not going to?

Of course I could. And I'd much rather stay in bed.

So why, I wonder, am I not going to?

Because they hold some power over you. You feel you have to.

The people, Wes, the people. I mean, it's supposed to be my day off.
bass-tards indeed my friend. bass-tards indeed.

i'm starting to call them slowfish, for a retarded spin on things.

Everyone knows the slowfish are SUCH basstards.

Because they hold some power over you. You feel you have to.

well, partially it's a mode one gets in.

but more than that, it's about valuing the chosen action vs. the alternatives. what would happen if he didn't go? if it's the military, probably badness. path of least badness = go.

So why, I wonder, am I not going to?

Cuz ur a "nice fella".

Because they hold some power over you. You feel you have to.
I do feel obliged in some way, but that's only part of it. There's always the possibility that I might learn something (Pfff. As if..). And the extra money'll come in handy.
Is our species dependent directly and indirectly on those maniacally driven few to impose their will to the point that at minimum, the repurcussion of their action indirectly manipulates our circumstance?
No, because I'm perfectly free to tell them to fuck off and just stay in bed.

I probably won't though.

(I really should stop talking rubbish on here now, and make that phonecall..)

and make that phonecall..)

Putting things off doesn't make them any easier. In fact, putting something off costs more energy than actually doing it.

Do you manipulate yourself in getting up out of a chair?It has happened. I've been trying to move away from that for a long time.

In a way I suppose the word works there, but I mean it in the bribe-ish kind of sense. or threats....or the threat of finding myself defined in a certain way (by me)

And in thinking that through, 'sort of' is the best I come up with on short notice. I think you can even go so far as to simply say it. We've been split up and the pieces have relationships that mirror those outside. We've even been invaded, I believe, by a voice.

But a more important question to me is: do you need to be manipulated to do anything? No.

Is our species dependent directly and indirectly on those maniacally driven few to impose their will to the point that at minimum, the repurcussion of their action indirectly manipulates our circumstance? No. But I think it is very good you are raising the issue. I think this is one of the programs that undermines us and keeps us from having the lives we want. The idea that we must be forced to do certain things because we are lazy or bad, etc. That there must be this they out there pushing and threatening - indirectly say with homelessness after unpaid rent.

It occurred to me that people manipulate themselves with the god idea, to strive toward some perhaps 'paper' perhaps noble idealized self, erm. At least sometimes. But that this is the power of the tool. If embraces, it can be lots of things, but I'm thinking about the wedge. It can be used to push oneself from inaction to action. It's a pyramid game. And if you pay attention, all self-manipulation 1) has a cost 2) begs the issue. And you can feel the issue dragging back there and the yearning to know if it really is true. Do I really need to be treated like shit (by myself, by others) to survive, be good, succeed, get the things I want, be successful, find love, get laid, etc.?

People certainly live their entire lives carefully not paying attention to the drag of that issue and the yearning to find out if we really can live without manipulation. I don't want that any more. And once you notice and make a choice not to reinforce the self-abuse (might as well be polemical) the world seems a different place.

So hmmm...

what are other common wedges? (there's probably a better term than wedge. carrots and sticks maybe.)

pleasure? Sure, rewards for doing things. One very common reward is a sense of entitlement.

in this context is god just a form of altruism, which is really the wedge? I think most religious people install the religion program and let it rule in their heads, yes. And it is easy to see because, well, you can go and compare their brains to the manual, the Bible for example. But rationalists and everyone else have their programs of self-manipulation just like every one else. Protestants tend to be flagellators on the inside and look down on the vulgar and oh, so literal Catholics. Together the two groups of flagellators - along with other minority flagellators like the Jews and self-flagellators across the pond - the Muslims, for example - they birthed science and the Englightenment.

Refined manipulation.
Just like Thorazine seems more civilized than two guys in white scrubs holding you down on your bed.

It looks more civilized.

But a more important question to me is: do you need to be manipulated to do anything?

No.

So would you say that completely left to yourself, you would still do something?

yeah I tell myself I got as much as 20 minutes left to sleep, and than I open own of my eyes and stare at the clock every 5 seconds and than fall asleep and wake up and like lie to myself that omg so much time has passed and I still have 20 minutes left and like its been an hour since I said that ( I am asleep so I can't tell) so I believe myself and my lie thats its been an hour and wake up than.

So would you say that completely left to yourself, you would still do something?
First, I have to say that if I understand your position correctly I really wouldn't have a good way of imagining this? IOW it would be hard for me to know.

Sure, I would get up and eat, or forage for food. I suppose if I was convinced I would never see another human I might kill myself and the method would probably not be lying there and dying of thirst.

But if you meant more mundane 'left to myself' scenarios, yes. I have noticed that the less that is expected of me the more I accomplish.

Which, if I think about it, is pushing the edge of what I am willing to reveal about my personality.

First, I have to say that if I understand your position correctly I really wouldn't have a good way of imagining this? IOW it would be hard for me to know.

My question was a bit tricky. It basically implied whether a person could still act while being beyond karma; it also aimed at the "essence" that might exist to/of a human.

(I read your replies in SAM's Existence is imperfect and unsatisfactory.)


But if you meant more mundane 'left to myself' scenarios, yes. I have noticed that the less that is expected of me the more I accomplish.

Which, if I think about it, is pushing the edge of what I am willing to reveal about my personality.

I didn't mean to pry.

My question was a bit tricky. It basically implied whether a person could still act while being beyond karma; it also aimed at the "essence" that might exist to/of a human. If after the long and painful call and response of karma the way it has gone, one cannot go on and have a fun call and response, well, what's the point?



(I read your replies in SAM's Existence is imperfect and unsatisfactory.) Which was me treating it like a puzzle. Real Buddhists - not sure what that means but it certainly does not include me - can come on and improve, correct and replace.

I didn't mean to pry. Didn't take it that way at all. Just noted where I ended up. My responsibility.

Wesmorris:
It occurred to me that people manipulate themselves with the god idea,
Manipulation is the literal employment of deviance and cunning- it is required to beguile someone or thing as deviant and cunning as you.

Does one honestly believe that the man whose sole, working model of the entire universe is "God" is cunning and deviant enough to require manipulation? Lie and tell him its required he tithe 10% and he'll do it.

All he has done is taken infinity and amputated it to a three letter word; the agony of inquiry and the discipline it demands is now shrunken to a clean, simple lie he spells G-O-D.
In other words, anybody can lie and be lied to, whole empires are built on the human craving to belong.


Manipulation implies the prey is smart enough to outdo its predator.... and my sweet Christian mother snoring behind me ain't it.

pumpkin, it's late. come to bed!

See that stain on your mattress? We're already bedding, spooky.

....All he has done is taken infinity ....


perhaps not infinity but rather an arbitrary finite point or position

The maundering torture it is to normalize that which exists is infinte.
In that sense.


Pause.

Did...did the old curr actually address me decently? Absent flame or veiled insult?

So, in an odd sort of way, they've manipulated infinity to fit into something, something so simple that even a child can be fooled to understand it. Yet, it is that something that manipulates as a sort of automatic projection, regardless of the fact that it is deaf, dumb, and blind. —It manipulates the spirit like blinkers.

It has happened. I've been trying to move away from that for a long time.

the only way I seem to manage is when circumstance appears to demand action. i have a subcircuit of which I'm barely aware that negotiates the necessity, generally leaning towards slack. it's often pathetic from a certain perspective. if i've promised to do something, that works - sense of obligation. if it seems entertaining or a grim necessity, I can get up. often though I lose hours just swimming around online and in my head on weird little whatevers like the crap I discuss here.

brawndo's got what plant's crave you know.

or threats....or the threat of finding myself defined in a certain way (by me)

yeah i understand that, but find myself rather difficult to redefine at this point - lacking the necessity and all, and can't take trying to define myself in a particular way for longer than the thought persists.

I think you can even go so far as to simply say it. We've been split up and the pieces have relationships that mirror those outside. We've even been invaded, I believe, by a voice.

But isn't that basically whatever freud's offshoot dude talked about, his pet theory about social consciousness or whatever? Is it the same mental mechanism as the personification of god, in that it's basically an imaginary voice reflective of whatever value the voice represents (which (the value I mean) at some point, to have become present in mind - seemed like a proper resolution to some outstanding puzzle, alternatively I suppose it could be conditioned)?

(do you need to be manipulated to take action) No.

How can you be so sure? Are you not manipulated by society, the circumstance it creates? Are not a small percentage of people (leaders of organizaiton, companies, government stuff, etc. - the maniacally driven toward 'success') basically responsible for the manipulations of society? It's indirect for the most part, but... well, consider a supply chain. The guys at the top of each chain intentionally attempt to manipulate you, motivate you to purchase their products, use their services, vote for them - or whatever. The more driven the individual and the more pervasive their organization or whichever, the more pervasive their indirect influence on the circumstances of others. As people are generally motivated by their perception of their circumstance, they have as such been indirectly manipulated (and often directly I suppose via marketing, etc.) by the exceptionally drive few (I think of them as gifted manipulators). I'm not calling any of this bad, I just think it's interesting and it seems reasonable at the moment.

No. But I think it is very good you are raising the issue. I think this is one of the programs that undermines us and keeps us from having the lives we want.

I'm not sure most people know what lives they really want. Often when you get what you thought you wanted it turns out it wasn't what you thought eh? Happened to me, in a good way. Bah that's rather tangential pardon.

The idea that we must be forced to do certain things because we are lazy or bad, etc. That there must be this they out there pushing and threatening - indirectly say with homelessness after unpaid rent.

Or perhaps its what motivates them to pay their rent and go to church. I'm not thinking "lazy or bad" in particular, they are part of it, but also "undirected", "complacent", "cool with what I have", 'hadn't concieved of anything different", etc.

It's a pyramid game. And if you pay attention, all self-manipulation 1) has a cost 2) begs the issue. And you can feel the issue dragging back there and the yearning to know if it really is true.

It only matters if you care about the truth. I don't think the majority of folks necessarily shares the burden in the way you frame it.

Do I really need to be treated like shit (by myself, by others) to survive, be good, succeed, get the things I want, be successful, find love, get laid, etc.?

It's not just being treated like shit, it's also the carrot no? Different personalities/circumstances make carrot or stick more effective at a given time.

Sure, rewards for doing things. One very common reward is a sense of entitlement.

Ya true.

I think most religious people install the religion program and let it rule in their heads, yes. And it is easy to see because, well, you can go and compare their brains to the manual, the Bible for example. But rationalists and everyone else have their programs of self-manipulation just like every one else.

sure.

Protestants tend to be flagellators on the inside and look down on the vulgar and oh, so literal Catholics. Together the two groups of flagellators - along with other minority flagellators like the Jews and self-flagellators across the pond - the Muslims, for example - they birthed science and the Englightenment.
Interesting how it all plays out.

Refined manipulation.
Just like Thorazine seems more civilized than two guys in white scrubs holding you down on your bed.

It looks more civilized.

Yup. I wonder if it's less humiliating too though.

omg gendulation. WOW. and here i thought you vanished permanently, only to peruse your post history and realize I simply don't pay attention, apparently.

I now digust you with a lame, fake internet hug and say "cool to see you fucker". *hug*

Wesmorris:

Manipulation is the literal employment of deviance and cunning- it is required to beguile someone or thing as deviant and cunning as you.

True, but I'm thinking of it like uhm.. like a crane moves a crate from one place to another, except in terms of ideas interacting... with the potential for deviance and cunning. The guy driving the crane is manipulating the shit. Sometimes he maybe smashed toes and sniggers.


Manipulation implies the prey is smart enough to outdo its predator.... and my sweet Christian mother snoring behind me ain't it.

No I don't think it does necessarily. I mean, that is a form of it, but it's also got a fairly mechanical component i think in that perhaps, if it weren't for the needs of others - our own needs would rarely if ever be met. We are manipulated by them and manipulate them at the same time. It moves us forward.

I think small percentage of people (guessing about 5%), are just freaking more driven then the rest of us. Their drive, their will to make what's in their mind a reality - causes the rest of us to respond. Of course we're all doing it to some extent, but there are a few who do it bigger. Some become verbs. Just google it.

So, in an odd sort of way, they've manipulated infinity to fit into something, something so simple that even a child can be fooled to understand it. Yet, it is that something that manipulates as a sort of automatic projection, regardless of the fact that it is deaf, dumb, and blind. —It manipulates the spirit like blinkers.

That's very close to exactly what I was getting at with the using god to manuplate self thing. It can be basically a self-help tool or a path to self-destruction I suppose, like many things. It's just kind of a pinnacle of that group of ideas I think.

the only way I seem to manage is when circumstance appears to demand action. i have a subcircuit of which I'm barely aware that negotiates the necessity, generally leaning towards slack. it's often pathetic from a certain perspective. if i've promised to do something, that works - sense of obligation. if it seems entertaining or a grim necessity, I can get up. often though I lose hours just swimming around online and in my head on weird little whatevers like the crap I discuss here.
To me this sounds like you have been overloaded and become habituated to manipulation. Then it SEEMS like the alternative is doing nothing, because you need a lot of doing nothing the hear yourself again.


But isn't that basically whatever freud's offshoot dude talked about, his pet theory about social consciousness or whatever? Is it the same mental mechanism as the personification of god, in that it's basically an imaginary voice reflective of whatever value the voice represents (which (the value I mean) at some point, to have become present in mind - seemed like a proper resolution to some outstanding puzzle, alternatively I suppose it could be conditioned)?
You are so used to the scientific model of the mind and us that this seems obvious.

How can you be so sure? Because I have felt what it is like to not be forced into action, by myself, by the voice, by others. I have allowed an incredible amount of nothing to occur. I have also spent a lot of time refinding my own momentum. None of these proclamations will be much use for you however, unless your intuition senses I might be right.


I'm not sure most people know what lives they really want. Often when you get what you thought you wanted it turns out it wasn't what you thought eh? Happened to me, in a good way. Bah that's rather tangential pardon. Most people have accepted being manipulated as inevitable and not something to examine. They think without guilt we would be murderers and rapists. Without our consciences nagging us we would do bad things or waste time. Without our own minds lashing us with images of couchpotatohood we would never accomplish a damn thing. Our normal resting state (which is hardly resting) is so used to and filled with inner and outer manipulation that I cannot concern myself with the fact that 'most people' do not know what they want. Hopefully a few of them will realize they'd like to know and that status quo feels bad.

Or perhaps its what motivates them to pay their rent and go to church. I'm not thinking "lazy or bad" in particular, they are part of it, but also "undirected", "complacent", "cool with what I have", 'hadn't concieved of anything different", etc. Yup, variations on the theme of this judgement. Notice that in this discussion this judgement and its variations will be considered innocent until proven guilty. The idea that we do not need to be manipulated will be seen as an idea needing boatloads of evidence. A jump: remember when you needed loads of evidence to prove that black people were fully human?

It only matters if you care about the truth. I don't think the majority of folks necessarily shares the burden in the way you frame it. Agreed. And I have no idea what makes them happy and I cannot make their liberation or any other word I might use a burden for me. My plate is full.

It's not just being treated like shit, it's also the carrot no? Different personalities/circumstances make carrot or stick more effective at a given time.
It is a variation on the same judgement, though a subtler one. My life will be filled with things that in and of themselves are a pain in the ass. But I can get through them with little rewards. Still begging the question. (for once I am going to go way past my usual bridge building with rationalists)


Yup. I wonder if it's less humiliating too though. Not for the part of us the thorazine crushes. And if you take thorazine as a metaphor, let me tell you recovering some of those parts of oneself that are cruched in refined ways by us, by society, by the little drugs - newspaper reading, platitudes, distraction, avoidance, denial (not so little) - is no picnic. And those pieces are in agony. You really want to gather up all the pieces of yourself, expect to be embracing and empathetically feeling agony that will definitely make you wonder if the process is worth it. And yet the desire to be myself and not to be split and fragmented and crushed into corners is still strong.

If after the long and painful call and response of karma the way it has gone, one cannot go on and have a fun call and response, well, what's the point?

I'm taking it as a challenge - Undo all conditioning and see if there's anything left. And according to Buddhism, there is.

Manipulation is the literal employment of deviance and cunning- it is required to beguile someone or thing as deviant and cunning as you.

Does one honestly believe that the man whose sole, working model of the entire universe is "God" is cunning and deviant enough to require manipulation? Lie and tell him its required he tithe 10% and he'll do it.

All he has done is taken infinity and amputated it to a three letter word; the agony of inquiry and the discipline it demands is now shrunken to a clean, simple lie he spells G-O-D.
In other words, anybody can lie and be lied to, whole empires are built on the human craving to belong.

You are oversimplifying.

Some people who believe in God the Christian way are evil, cunning, manipulative because they believe in God the Christian way.
They want to be happy, like all humans do; but with a belief in God like theirs, God is seen as standing between them and their happiness. So those people are attempting to outsmarten God, their predator, and they go far, far in that.
It's the fire and brimstone theists that are the most manipulative, lascivious, subversive, decadent, vile people I have ever met.



All he has done is taken infinity and amputated it to a three letter word; the agony of inquiry and the discipline it demands

Perhaps some are like that, but certainly not all.
God, per definition as being the One Supreme Original Cause is unassailable.
One can spend decades to come to that realization, or intuitively come to it within a moment.

I'm taking it as a challenge - Undo all conditioning and see if there's anything left. And according to Buddhism, there is.
This fits my experience. And it's interesting that one has to wonder if there is anything left. My experience is that conditioning, or what I have been calling manipulation (following Wes), acts as a container and a restricter. What is it containing? What is it dividing? What is it restricting? I can see the argument that it will be amorphous - though this is not my experience - but that it would be less seems odd. It will definitely be more.

In fact you can see the goal of many outward manipulations - manipulations by others - is to make you less. To make you small. To cut off how much you are present.

The inner is like that too.

I can here the voice saying things like

'who do you think you are?'
'why should you be allowed to take up so much space?'
'keep a low profile, it's safer'
'you are so full of yourself'
'some things must remain hidden'
and so on

And it's interesting that one has to wonder if there is anything left.

We tend to identify with the aggregates; this is why when imagining that those aggregates would be undone or disidentified with, there would be nothing left.


In fact you can see the goal of many outward manipulations - manipulations by others - is to make you less. To make you small. To cut off how much you are present.

And to take away your ways of finding happiness.

We tend to identify with the aggregates; this is why when imagining that those aggregates would be undone or disidentified with, there would be nothing left. Sometimes we identify with self-hatred and think this is the self and the rest of us is the invader.

And to take away your ways of finding happiness. Yes!

Sometimes we identify with self-hatred and think this is the self and the rest of us is the invader.

Absolutely. Moreover, such identifications seem to be the easiest and the strongest, the most reliable and persistent ones. Because if one aims for perfection, then those identifications are always true.

Absolutely. Moreover, such identifications seem to be the easiest and the strongest, the most reliable and persistent ones. Because if one aims for perfection, then those identifications are always true.

It is terrifying that moment when one wonders if one is not bad and must explain
other people's behavior
God's or the universes nature
certain past experiences

better to leave it to the experts who are only too happy to explain how you are bad and it is your fault.

and for those whose tastes are too subtle for such a blunt explanation, there are infinite variations on this theme, many of them sounding very nice and doing their work through implication.

Riply:
So, in an odd sort of way, they've manipulated infinity to fit into something, something so simple that even a child can be fooled to understand it. Yet, it is that something that manipulates as a sort of automatic projection, regardless of the fact that it is deaf, dumb, and blind. —It manipulates the spirit like blinkers.
Bingo.

We also call this 'love'.

No I don't think it does necessarily. I mean, that is a form of it, but it's also got a fairly mechanical component i think in that perhaps, if it weren't for the needs of others - our own needs would rarely if ever be met. We are manipulated by them and manipulate them at the same time. It moves us forward.

"Perhaps it’s the Christian sickness, still craving a sublime sacrifice... of the self to something
greater than itself.” - Terence Sellers, Life After Sadomasochism

Now we ask ourselves, did this actually start in the Church?
If this was a Christian'disease', then Pheidippides, a common Greek solider, would not have given his life for Athens.
No, we have to trace it back to the moment a man is taught that another's happiness should far outweigh his; he will squander his ego away til a cavity rots through his consicence.

Pheidippides filled it with the state, my mother fills it with marriage, the bulk of humanity fills that empty hole with a god. Every despot has implanted the surrogate of nationalism for a man’s ego; no man would submit to slavery for himself.
Remember Charlie, the retardate from Keyes' "Flowers for Algernon"?:

"Why was it so important for me to know what she thought? How she felt? For more than a year at teh Adult Center the only thing that mattered was pleasing her. Was that why I had agreed to the operation in the first place?"

The only thing that drove Charlie was making others happy; it motivated his work ethic, education, respect, his clumsy experiments with love. And what was Charlie but a retard who couldn't even trust himself to make bread?

I think small percentage of people (guessing about 5%), are just freaking more driven then the rest of us. Their drive, their will to make what's in their mind a reality - causes the rest of us to respond. Of course we're all doing it to some extent, but there are a few who do it bigger. Some become verbs. Just google it.
I think these "5%" never believed the agitprop of 'pride' being the moral equiavalent of 'evil.'

Greenberg:
Some people who believe in God the Christian way are evil, cunning, manipulative because they believe in God the Christian way.
Hello Water.
*grin*

They want to be happy, like all humans do; but with a belief in God like theirs, God is seen as standing between them and their happiness.
God is seen as a mealticket, no?

He's the genie that put three Jaguars in Cerullo's garage. On the contrary, this thing we call God guarantees a charlattan's happiness.

and by the way:


I now digust you with a lame, fake internet hug and say "cool to see you fucker". *hug*

you owe me a gallon of Lysol.

(Long time no see you as well, corndog. *grin*)

God is seen as a mealticket, no?

Perhaps, later on, as a means to reconcile an already existing state of mind.

The fact is that many people who believe in God:

1. have believed in God ever since they can remember - it's a given for them to believe in God, many have believed in God already before they could even spell their names because mother and father or aunt or the priest taught them to believe in God from birth on (which, however, says nothing about whether they are happy to believe in God or not);

2. believe in God because it's logically impossible not to;

3. have begun to believe in God under durress (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1776028&postcount=206).


I doubt it that many people sat down and calmly and reasonably thought to themselves "Okay, let's see what could make me happy. This, that ... how about God? Could belief in God make me happy? ... Oh, yes, I really do think believing in God is the best possible choice in this Universe!"


He's the genie that put three Jaguars in Cerullo's garage. On the contrary, this thing we call God guarantees a charlattan's happiness.

I am more inclined to think the above phenomenon is a matter of choice-supportive bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias), memory distortion for past choices (http://www.usc.edu/projects/matherlab/s/memorydistortionchoices.html), some other memory biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases) and cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias).


But - perhaps the Calvinists are right!

God, per definition as being the One Supreme Original Cause is unassailable.


how so?

how so?

The One Supreme Original Cause is unassailable:
Even if one would come up with an argument against the One Supreme Original Cause, that argument itself would still be subject to the One Supreme Original Cause.

The One Supreme Original Cause is unassailable:
Even if one would come up with an argument against the One Supreme Original Cause, that argument itself would still be subject to the One Supreme Original Cause.

Can you explain your thinking. Before one can argue about the role of One Supreme Original Cause it is necessary to show that such an entity exists or existed. Can you show that ?

Human flailings?
Bah! See how we humans flail about. Or flagellate; ourselves and others. All this in search of some thing; some meaning. And so often this thing always JUST beyond our grasp. Won't always be though will it; is it?

Shame we can't be more like the beasts? They work (find food - eat it/find shelter -build/flatten); rest (ah here looks like a good spot; I'll lie down now); play (skippedy skip); reproduce (mm fuckity fuck) and die.

And yet, yes, we do allow ourselves to be manipulated into thinking there's more..... Or is there less actually and we're just too busy busying ourselves to notice? Are we so open to manipulation because we think so much; thanks to our over evolved brain? And now is nature just trying to turn back the clock to those glory days of us just being a bit thicker? You know when we didn't have the capacity to invent so much; to destroy so effectively and to consume so; my god, aren't we relentless?!

Just hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water during the regression, eh?

Human flailings?
Bah! See how we humans flail about. Or flagellate; ourselves and others. All this in search of some thing; some meaning. And so often this thing always JUST beyond our grasp. Won't always be though will it; is it?

Shame we can't be more like the beasts? They work (find food - eat it/find shelter -build/flatten); rest (ah here looks like a good spot; I'll lie down now); play (skippedy skip); reproduce (mm fuckity fuck) and die.

And yet, yes, we do allow ourselves to be manipulated into thinking there's more..... Or is there less actually and we're just too busy busying ourselves to notice? Are we so open to manipulation because we think so much; thanks to our over evolved brain? And now is nature just trying to turn back the clock to those glory days of us just being a bit thicker? You know when we didn't have the capacity to invent so much; to destroy so effectively and to consume so; my god, aren't we relentless?!

Just hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water during the regression, eh?


Not all of us, and I suspect you are one, spend our time chasing our tails.I have long since outgrown metaphysical speculation. Life is for living. Philosophical speculation is a passtime, a bit like doing crossword puzzles when one is at a loose end.

You've probably heard of the philosopher who spent years pondering the mysteries of life. One day he got a toothache and that became the most important issue in his universe.

The One Supreme Original Cause is unassailable:
Even if one would come up with an argument against the One Supreme Original Cause, that argument itself would still be subject to the One Supreme Original Cause.

i see

a new religion
the One Supreme Original Cause

oh
dont forget the Kool-Aid® :D

Can you explain your thinking. Before one can argue about the role of One Supreme Original Cause it is necessary to show that such an entity exists or existed. Can you show that ?

I thought the Big Bang was a version of this.

Not all of us, and I suspect you are one, spend our time chasing our tails.I have long since outgrown metaphysical speculation. Life is for living.

But then you spend time challenging metaphysical speculation. Is this 'living' in some way that speculating is not?

It manipulates the spirit like blinkers.We also call this 'love'.

You deliberately put Love in quotation marks—.

They've manipulated Love to fit into "love", perhaps?

Or rather, the force of something irresistible yet unbeknownst, but is nonetheless fed with significance, morality, prospects, calculations.

Yet the force of Love itself in my opinion has its own bullheaded agenda that bewitches, transforms, inspires, seeks, hunts, —combines.

So what is it that manipulates? The primal, instinctual, spiritual force of Love? Or the deliberate and scheming force that is an inputted definition of "love"? —One force seems to be ancient and combines, the other mundane and competitive.

Mmm. Now I'm seeing two layers, two forces, each betiding us simultaneous with manipulative occurrences. No wonder it all gets so bloody confusing at times.

Riply:
Or rather, the force of something irresistible yet unbeknownst, but is nonetheless fed with significance, morality, prospects, calculations.


Yet the force of Love itself in my opinion has its own bullheaded agenda that bewitches, transforms, inspires, seeks, hunts, —combines.
That 'bullheaded agenda' is you.

There is nothing "unbeknownst" about it. Look here, Riply: when you love what do you feel?
Warmth and hot mush, yes? Who feels it? You, yes? The same 'you' that unilaterally agrees the pain of a stubbed toe is just that or that the pleasure of shitting just is.

I've yet to find a man who's deconstructed the pleasure of a turd into something wholly divorced from himself, experienced on some other plane transecended of the corporal.

Craving for the world 'love' to spring, as maggots do roadkill, from the word 'sex' is no different than this pernicious need for a 'soul'. In so many words, the ‘soul’ governs the body, is the chief arbiter between choices, and in order to do so must be able to process information.

If anyone asks you whose soul you're talking about you'd wholeheartedly agree it was yours.

The brain already does this, so why petition a soul? Like the abuse, eh?


No wonder it all gets so bloody confusing at times.
You'll never be able to read it because you enjoy holding the book upside down.

Greenberg:
2. believe in God because it's logically impossible not to;

And why is that?

And why is that?

Well, one could simply assert, with no evidence or reasoning as backup, that there is no God.

But otherwise, it is impossible to refute the notion of God as the One Supreme Original Cause, because the One Supreme Original Cause is a kind of concept that necessarily encompasses all others. So any attempt to deny it would still be subject to it, thus, not denying it.

The brain already does this, so why petition a soul?

Humans like to name things and conceptualize about them.

In some instances, this can become tricky. Naming something an "apple" and conceptualizing about it does not seem to have all that much bearing on our lives. But naming something "person", "origin of the Universe", "justice" and so on and conceptualizing about it can have great impact on how we live our lives, for good or for bad.

But otherwise, it is impossible to refute the notion of God as the One Supreme Original Cause, because the One Supreme Original Cause is a kind of concept that necessarily encompasses all others. So any attempt to deny it would still be subject to it, thus, not denying it.

Or...

One could realize that such a concept... one that would encompass all others would in and of itself - have no specific meaning and thus find it rendered - wholly irrelevant... like a gas of zero concentration.

Humans like to name things and conceptualize about them.

In some instances, this can become tricky. Naming something an "apple" and conceptualizing about it does not seem to have all that much bearing on our lives. But naming something "person", "origin of the Universe", "justice" and so on and conceptualizing about it can have great impact on how we live our lives, for good or for bad.

But you ignored the comment "like the abuse?" or whatever. To me this implies that while sure you're right - of course we like to think of stuff an conceptualize about it, but take a fucking stand when it's useless or puts you in the headlights of oncoming traffic for no good reason.

I would respond though to "like the abuse?": Many people feel they need the abuse, as it's what gets them out of bed... and it doesn't always come off as abuse.

Or...

One could realize that such a concept... one that would encompass all others would in and of itself - have no specific meaning and thus find it rendered - wholly irrelevant...

Even such a realization would still be subject to the One Supreme Original Cause.

Humans like to name things and conceptualize about them.

In some instances, this can become tricky. Naming something an "apple" and conceptualizing about it does not seem to have all that much bearing on our lives. But naming something "person", "origin of the Universe", "justice" and so on and conceptualizing about it can have great impact on how we live our lives, for good or for bad.

But you ignored the comment "like the abuse?" or whatever. To me this implies that while sure you're right - of course we like to think of stuff an conceptualize about it, but take a fucking stand when it's useless or puts you in the headlights of oncoming traffic for no good reason.

See bolded words.

Even such a realization would still be subject to the One Supreme Original Cause.

That depends on perspective idnit? Well, perhaps it's subject to it 'zero amount', if you insist on mentioning the irrelevant.

You're saying "the cause of all causes" includes every cause. I get that.

The problem I see though is, that former is unestablished in more than a vague idea and may in fact, not exist at all. As such, the irrelevance outweighs the definition. So no, it is not necessarily subject to the supreme original cause, if one does not find that such a thing can exist or could be demonstrated.

We're trapped in time, trying to imagine the timeless. The closest I can imagine is "stuff just is" - as 'cause' is a time dependent, sequential notion. It seems to me that we time-laden minds are rather limited, and that while cause is quite utilitarian to us in our sequential existence - it is not necessarily relevant to anything beyond our scope.

See bolded words.
I DID see the bolded words, thanks. The point is that you generalized a specific in a way that didn't relate to it as far as I could tell. While G said basically "useless notion" you said "people have all sorts of notions". Fine and all, but seemingly ignorant of the point. Perhaps it's me. Did I basically regurgitate your meaning in my own words while missing your meaning?

Do you manipulate yourself in getting up out of a chair?
Yeah. I do it alot.

In a way I suppose the word works there, but I mean it in the bribe-ish kind of sense.
Someone is bribing you or you need to work out some sort of a bribing exercise.

And in thinking that through, 'sort of' is the best I come up with on short notice.
Yeah. Sort of is a pretty definative term.

But a more important question to me is: do you need to be manipulated to do anything?
I don't know. Am I manipulated into getting out of a chair? Do I need to be manipulated into doing anything? Examples? I am "manipulated" into doing things that I would not have done so I would suggest that the answer to that question is a quite straight forward yes.
At times manipulation may seem so great that it is the overwhelming drive.

Is our species dependent directly and indirectly on those maniacally driven few to impose their will to the point that at minimum, the repurcussion of their action indirectly manipulates our circumstance?
Hah. Good question.
I'd say that we're in need of a good examination of such things.

It occurred to me that people manipulate themselves with the god idea, to strive toward some perhaps 'paper' perhaps noble idealized self, erm. At least sometimes. But that this is the power of the tool. If embraces, it can be lots of things, but I'm thinking about the wedge. It can be used to push oneself from inaction to action.

So hmmm...
Yes. God is a useful concept when given the right authority to "it." "He." or just simply Jesus.

what are other common wedges? (there's probably a better term than wedge. carrots and sticks maybe.)

pleasure?
A position of one of these might be a person. Manipulating somebody or some thing.


in this context is god just a form of altruism, which is really the wedge?


Crap I need to sort this out.

And in the end you let it fly.
Let's see....

What is God?
You tell me?

I personally have no idea. It is a notion which can attach itself to many conceptions of a "God"; all of which are hardly irrefuteable by anybody. You might say that I would use the term of God for my own design, you might say that I even use God to help me; but knowing what God is I attach signifigance to several things about him/her.

He is a creation which cannot exist outside of this universe. To imagine such a God is to imagine a Godless God and a God without any barriers to help our existence.

IMO this is why many people claim that God is dead, but that's just my opinion ;)

:D

Hit back.

In so many words, the ‘soul’ governs the body, is the chief arbiter between choices, and in order to do so must be able to process information.

If anyone asks you whose soul you're talking about you'd wholeheartedly agree it was yours.

The brain already does this, so why petition a soul? Like the abuse, eh?Haha. Sensible enough. Yet, I'm asking questions. And I've been feeling those questions a lot lately. When two individuals become spiritually involved and there is a link of consciousness but their unison is not consummated, a whole new story develops. When one reads life through the other's eyes and feels them through one's own body, what else might also be imparted??

You'll never be able to read it because you enjoy holding the book upside down.
Well, I landed on the ceiling.

I DID see the bolded words, thanks. The point is that you generalized a specific in a way that didn't relate to it as far as I could tell. While G said basically "useless notion" you said "people have all sorts of notions". Fine and all, but seemingly ignorant of the point. Perhaps it's me. Did I basically regurgitate your meaning in my own words while missing your meaning?

Actually, in that post, I used your kind of relativistic approach, but in/on my own terms.

That depends on perspective idnit?

Well, the thing with "perspectivism" is that it presumes anything goes. And this isn't very useful; it can make for some interesting discussion, but beyond that, it seems completely useless.


You're saying "the cause of all causes" includes every cause. I get that.

The problem I see though is, that former is unestablished in more than a vague idea and may in fact, not exist at all. As such, the irrelevance outweighs the definition. So no, it is not necessarily subject to the supreme original cause, if one does not find that such a thing can exist or could be demonstrated.

This presumes that those particular procedures to prove that something exists or that something could be demonstrated are objective, beyond question, an undisputable given.

Whereby those particular procedures to prove that something exists or that something could be demonstrated are themselves embedded in cause-and-effect reasoning.


We're trapped in time, trying to imagine the timeless. The closest I can imagine is "stuff just is" - as 'cause' is a time dependent, sequential notion. It seems to me that we time-laden minds are rather limited, and that while cause is quite utilitarian to us in our sequential existence - it is not necessarily relevant to anything beyond our scope.

How could we know whether there is anything beyond our scope? And if we would know, it would come into our scope, so it wouldn't be beyond it anymore ...

Well, the thing with "perspectivism" is that it presumes anything goes.

What do you mean, anything goes? What would you say this 'perspectivism' says goes that really doesn't?

And this isn't very useful

Perhaps not to you. Obviously however, I'd disagree and find the assertion a bit condescending and maybe trite or something.

it can make for some interesting discussion, but beyond that, it seems completely useless.

Which I'd have to see, given that you associate this with me - and that it seems to rather annoy you, I should probably just knock off posting to you so as not to pester.

This presumes that those particular procedures to prove that something exists or that something could be demonstrated are objective, beyond question, an undisputable given.

It does not. There were maybes and mostlys. I didn't argue anything but the subjective. Cause and effect seem relevant from my perspective, but that's not to say my perspective is necessarily relevant to that which actually is. To me it actually is, but to others it could be something else, and in reality it simply is unless value is applied to it from a perspective. There are only undisputable givens - given a perspective in which to house them... and they do not all necessarily agree. How does my statement contradict that?

It doesn't matter that we agree that it's "air" we're breathing, we just do it. We can use definitions and scientific analysis to greatly improve our consensus and apparently seek to maximize the utility of our environment.. but that doesn't mean any of it is relevant to anything but how we think we think. The reality of it is a matter of faith - though few admit it or I think, can even understand what the shit I'm on about.

Whereby those particular procedures to prove that something exists or that something could be demonstrated are themselves embedded in cause-and-effect reasoning.

The snake eats its tail.

How could we know whether there is anything beyond our scope? And if we would know, it would come into our scope, so it wouldn't be beyond it anymore ...


Did you not read flatland (or at least hear of and get the gist)? I think it makes a fantastic point about scope.