zodiac
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
2 May 2004, 7:29 AM
Here, Joe-joe, I'll argue pleasure with you. This discussion is far enough down the rabbit-hole, anyway.
"Foolish as I may seem at times, I would dare not weigh my self down with a self-concocted system of beliefs that is at odds with my flesh and blood desires."
1. See "Shame" by Joe-joe.
2. See the following line: "Oh how much nicer it would be to live the life of a hedonist, giving into my every desire without giving thought to the eternal fate of my soul. "
Conclusions: You are as foolish as you seem.
You're going off on your own on a wild rant that's not related to anything in the conversation so far.
1. Nothing about pleasure has been mentioned, or whether it's good to submit to pleasure. You've made a series of silly implications and are now ranting about what you think I would think about pleasure, even though the subject hadn't even been raised.
2. I don't think it's artificial because it can't be "captured in a test tube". I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it. What evidence would you have to see to stop believing in souls? What evidence could I see for me to start believing in souls? In both cases, there is no such thing. No evidence could have any bearing on whether souls exist, because believing in souls is a superstition that can neither be proved nor disproved.
3. "That was not my question it was yours". Well, you know, that is the topic of this argument, i.e. whether believing in "spirituality" is a wishy-washy platitude.
4. "I know the issue of God is one that you still wrestle with".
No, it actually isn't. After five years of studying philosophy and innumerable arguments with innumerable Christians, the question of whether God exists is, to me, beyond stupid. I would rather eat my own foot than have one more argument about God. Luckily, that isn't what we're talking about.
Payback is a bitch, isn't it?
What is a line break? I see nothing artificial about my "theory". Foolish as I may seem at times, I would dare not weigh my self down with a self-concocted system of beliefs that is at odds with my flesh and blood desires. Oh how much nicer it would be to live the life of a hedonist, giving into my every desire without giving thought to the eternal fate of my soul. You believe it is artificial because the spirit can not be seen through a microscope or captured in a test tube. That's fine with me. You say here that "the question is which theory better explains human nature". That was not my question it was yours. The piece I wrote was an expression of what it is I believe and what I've expereinced. There is no "question" and there is no "competition." But come on Darky admit it, there is a part of you that seeks for truth that is beyond your senses. I know the issue of God is one that you still wrestle with....admit it...it'll be our little secret.
1. Would you mind using the occasional linebreak in your bizarre rants?
2. I fear you've become terribly confused. This isn't some sort of competition to see who can have the theory of human nature that requires the most spine to accept. Whether or not one theory is more difficult to accept than another is beside the point. The question is which theory better explains human nature.
You seem determined to hold a theory which is demonstrably buncombe because it poses a "deeper challenge". You think that artificially imposing a grand cosmic structure on your life is a worthwhile thing to do. Fine. But whether it's worthwhile to do that is totally separate from whether you can explain actual human behaviour with some grand cosmic theory of "spirituality".
A good theory of X explains all of the observations about X with the fewest exceptions and special cases. But your theory is based on the principle that humans are essentially "spiritual", which means that for the 90% of human behaviour which isn't "spiritual", you have to make exceptions and call them special cases. Ergo it is a buncombe theory.
"Humans are essentially chimpanzees with over-connected brains," talk about simplistic and shallow explanations! You've taken the easy way out Darky. "Well we're animals so it's expected that we will act like animals". I think we are much more than that and that our concept of the spirit is not an illusion produced by the brain but a core element of our being. It is that spirit that yearns for answers and seeks to connect with God. Now, you can totally reject this concept of our existence. I do understand your arguments....we live in an age of science...we believe everything that occurs in the world, including the formations of thoughts, emotions and concepts is a product of a physical cause and effect. There is no plane of consciousness beyond that produced by the chemical and electrical interactions of the brain. In fact the very thought that there is such consciousness is a fantasy concocted by the brain in response to some x, y and z stimuli. Fair enough. But let me tell you this Darky, it takes much more of a spine to live life according to my way of seeing things than it does yours. To you man is a robot....an assembly of flesh, blood and prefabricated wiring. He and the world he lives in are the product of random physical events...a conglomeration of cosmic elements brought together by chance. Because he is wired for consciousness he is aware of his own existence and mortality.....from there springs his need to explain his origins and the meaning of his existence (hence religion). His life is a purely physical phenomenon...he lives, he dies...end of story. Is that how is kinda goes Darky? Life with no challenge and no purpose, no acknowledgment of that which lies beyond the physical world of our senses, denial of our innate desire to connect with and awareness of our source...this Darky is the life of the spineless coward who refuses to accept the deeper challenges of human existence but who rather chooses to say "I am but a top-of-the-shelf chimpanzee, why bother exploring the meaning of it all?â Spineless I tell youâ¦spineless!
dunce
an interesting use of the programming variety
holy crap, so long and boring i had to fast forward to the comment box... cut out about 2/3 of the poem bits, please
i feel like i already voted on this... did you modify the poem? maybe it was my imagination.
i agree with hypatia... too much telling, perhaps not enough showing or representing. cutting it down some could greatly improve it, but a solid start ;-)
I actually love when a writer can honestly talk about what they know.
Yes but I can get laid whenever I want and your poetry is still boring. And choppy.
Furthermore, this claptrap about how we're ignoring our spiritual sides is some of the most inflamed buncombe I've ever come across.
There are some people who understand that humans are essentially chimpanzees with over-connected brains. Because humans are animals, humans act like animals, which is why it's unsurprising and inevitable that humans will be "ruled by the urges and desires of our egos and flesh". To think any differently is to totally ignore the facts.
But then there are people like you, who have an utterly wrong-headed idea of what humans are. You think their essential nature is "spiritual", and therefore when humans act like animals, you're surprised and shocked. You think that when humans act like animals, they're betraying their essential spiritual nature, and failing somehow.
And, of course, you have an exceedingly difficult time reconciling that actual behaviour of humans with your crazy theory, because your theory is based on fancy and superstition and produces nothing but wishy-washy platitudes. Your theory 'explains' a few isolated traits of humans, and struggles with the other 90%, but you still cling to it because it's cosy and you're too god damned spineless to admit it's unverifiable cod.
-10-
On second thought, I think I've seen this before. Or at least parts of it
1. "I do think that we've all made life a whole lot more complicated and painful than it needs to be."
2. "A little more love, compassion, and charity would go a long long way towards making this world a better place to live in."
3. "We are in the mess we're in because we are ruled by the urges and desires of our ego and flesh and completely ignore our spirtitual nature."
I don't "disagree" with any of those. They're undisagreeable with, because they're wishy-washy platitudes with no verificiation or falsification conditions. No evidence or sensible thought process could lead you to believe them, nor could it lead you to disbelieve them.
Thanks!
Darky,
I don't think I've summed up all of the "important facts" but I do think that we've all made life a whole lot more complicated and painful than it needs to be. A little more love, compassion, and charity would go a long long way towards making this world a better place to live in. We are in the mess we're in because we are ruled by the urges and desires of our ego and flesh and completely ignore our spirtitual nature. Now if you disagree with these assertions your problem is not with me but with some of the greatest spiritual and philosophical thinkers of all time.
Um no.
Here's a REAL translation
This is a human and
Social debt owed by us all
All- even the head of state
Only with united effort and striving
Can we guard the life
And health of our nation's young generation,
And it's right to a happy childhood.
And here we need not only
Professional
and organizational aptitudes.
No less,
Being in high spirits
A true ascetiscism
Correct