Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
considers itself a person
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Timothy Sutter
Jun 6, 2012, 5:07:25 PM6/6/12
to
it's sort of like this;
the claim being that, impersonal nature
is -forced- into producing a human being,
falls short of an appropriate explanation
simply because it suggests that an impersonal
nature which has no choice of its own,
develops a being which has choice.
the claim would be that the universe
is naturally geared towards producing
a human being in the same manner as
planetary motion is naturally geared
to fall into elliptical orbits.
so, this sort of theory must be accompanied
by a human being who has no real choice and
who simply finds itself in a universe
where the behaviors of natural forces
dictate 'its' every action.
it is not reasonable to posit an impersonal
natural universe which is able to grant, or
even allow, any part of it, a relevant
conscious decision making pattern.
and believe it or not, that is what you do see
as the entailments of this brand of theorization:
that man is dictated his behaviors -by- his
natural physical make-up, and that he has
no real choices to make,
and so, if his natural make-up dictates crime,
to jail he goes, and if his natural make-up
dictates benevolence, to 'heaven' he goes.
there is no chance nor opportunity
for any alteration of the natural =order=
where basically, according to this natural =order=
there is no chance for any flesh to transcend this
final disposition, and so altering, the -perception-
of 'right' and 'the truth' to fit this dictatorial
universal destination, must remove even the semblance
of choice, and will only serve to expose particular
sets of pigeon holes, into which each person must
simply accept his fateful destination.
according to this view;
we would have an impersonal nature which
seems to be forced into preparing for itself,
a glimpse at a process it can never realize.
an impersonal nature forces itself to catch
a glimpse at a choice it does not really have,
and cannot therefore bestow on itself in any
real manner, only to have this illusion of a
choice stripped from it as if this choice
never existed in the first place.
an insoluable paradox.
and i mean, insoluable utter confusion
inasmuch as this will run headlong -into-
and against, any aspects of Cynical Pragmatism
where "one's good is getting what one wants and
one's bad is not getting what one wants and
one must, therefore do whatever one can
to get what one wants,"
simply because we first would be forced to strip
away any veneer that man even -can- know what he
wants in order for man to accept placement in
whichever pigeon hole his physical make-up dictates.
Cynical Pragmatism itself would suggest that man -can- be
motivated -by- a personalized criterion -for- choices
only to have these 'choices' removed from him as illusory
-by- the impersonal nature of existance, and so, you are
further trapped in a dizzying decent into utter madness.
but _we_ -see- that man -can- alter
his environment and this is where
Our Savior enlivens our
perceptions of escape.
the choice is yours...
choose life.
in other words,
it wants a conscious being
to consider itself as not
a conscious being
"i think, therefore, i am not"
aside from all the criminality bit,
one area you can relate to is body metabolism.
simply put;
body metabolism can be effectively manipulated.
yes, it can,
otherwise, you would not be able to claim
that fast food is a conspiracy to make you fat,
but you will claim this, if it suits you.
and, there is no point in blaming your
great great grandparents for dumping
a truckload of work on you simply
because they aren't around
to take it from you.
anyway, this would be a more
useful way to look at things;
from the standpoint of
overall body metabolism.
it's -more- precise, not the be all end all
with definitive clinical support,
but, the 'endomorph' 'ectomorph' 'mesomorph'
bits are entirely -too- vague so as
to be very useful at all,
that's all i'm driving at here.
you can keep the 'endomorph', 'ectomorph', 'mesomorph'
distinctions around as a reference, but, what
may be more precise is something along the
lines of a body metabolism index/spectrum.
where you can assign a '2' to the morbidly obese[MO]
and a '90-100' to marathon runners[MR] and
cross country skiers.
2 50 100
|---------------------------------------------|
[MO] [MR]
the advantage to this is that it present you with
a sliding scale which takes into account the
metabolic rate from birth and thru the
generalized phases of life.
as you probably realize, the body's metabolism
naturally slows a bit after adolescence and
into middle age and on and so forth et cetera.
now all you have to see is that it is possible
to be born with a metabolism which you gained
from your parents, but which can and will
see alterations as time progresses.
say Kip Keno or Emil Zadopek
were born with a metabolism of '90,'
and they worked and ran and edged
their metabolisms up to '99.'
if they had not worked at all,
their metabolisms may have dropped
to '75' as a for instance.
now, say that you were born in the range of '50'
the natural elements, unchecked over time,
will push you down into the '40s' or even '30s,'
but checked by you, can be raised
into the '60s' or even '70s'.
true, one born in the fifty range may not be
able to raise up to the 90 range without
considerable hard work,
but over successive generations,...
if you took three cloned mice germ cells
and impregnated three different 'mothers,'
one 'mother' an 'ectomorph'
one an 'endomorph' and one
a 'mesomorph'
the chances are high that each of the three germ
cell offspring would carry the metabolic
predispositions of the 'mother' rather than
any ingrained 'genetic' predisposition
of the individual cloned germ cells.
if you can see what i'm drivng at.
and so, this is how successive generations
of offspring gather up a predisposition
towards a particular metabolic 'rate'
because successive generations of offspring
are born as '60s' then '50s' then '40s' --->...
and then natures little deal starts off
already pushing down on you, but from
a lower starting point,
and will you push back?
the main punch line is that
you shouldn't trick yourself into
suggesting that you were born with
a certain metabolic tendency that
remains with yor throughout your
life and you can have no effect
on this at all even if you tried,
because this is clearly false
as you can see that the natural
tendency itself effects and
alters the metabolic rates.
anyway,
sure, the christian will say that
not only can your metabolism
be affected
but that your personality structure
may be effected as well,
and that this is what they really look for
inasmuch as an olympic athlete trains his
whole life for a crown of laurel leaves
which fades and dies,
but we would be training our whole lives
from that Crown of Glory which would
be bestowed on us by God.
but, the two are interconnected
and so, character enhancements
and physical maturation are quite
probably related in some manner.
we just don't want to look at someone outside
and immediately draw a conclusion about the
inner person, because judging according
to the flesh is a tricky business.
not that there is absolutely -no- correlation,
but... you get the idear.
you -can- and must and -should-
seek the new creature,
in Christ.
not harping on the subject but
simply investigating any
possible exposed angle.
while yet clay, we may see this,
faintly flickering comprehension
of being alive.
for God the actual clay is our personness,
and God can be working that clay while we
are, as yet, not alive as God is alive.
if we cede ourselves entirely over
to the clay, as material object,
we fall in to the danger of losing
our personness entirely, and ending
abruptly as a disposable drinking cup.
there is no condemnation of
a disposable drinking cup,
but, neither is their
any real life, as
'it' is an object.
as we remain in the hands of God and allow
the fashioning and molding to proceed we
experience the transmission of God's life
through the clay, forging our real person
that can be presented as a Gift
to the Everlasting.
a Fired vase that holds water from which
real, living flowers perpetually blossom,
with intricate inlays of characterization
which surpass the fleeting glories of the
metalurgist's fineries.
take part
become a living Being.
"cogito ergo sum"
impersonal nature is pure mechanism
a being arises who considers itself a person
impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'
impersonal nature strips this being
of its perceived personness and replaces
it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.
the claim being that, impersonal nature
is -forced- into producing a human being,
falls short of an appropriate explanation
simply because it suggests that an impersonal
nature which has no choice of its own,
develops a being which has choice.
the claim would be that the universe
is naturally geared towards producing
a human being in the same manner as
planetary motion is naturally geared
to fall into elliptical orbits.
so, this sort of theory must be accompanied
by a human being who has no real choice and
who simply finds itself in a universe
where the behaviors of natural forces
dictate 'its' every action.
it is not reasonable to posit an impersonal
natural universe which is able to grant, or
even allow, any part of it, a relevant
conscious decision making pattern.
and believe it or not, that is what you do see
as the entailments of this brand of theorization:
that man is dictated his behaviors -by- his
natural physical make-up, and that he has
no real choices to make,
and so, if his natural make-up dictates crime,
to jail he goes, and if his natural make-up
dictates benevolence, to 'heaven' he goes.
there is no chance nor opportunity
for any alteration of the natural =order=
where basically, according to this natural =order=
there is no chance for any flesh to transcend this
final disposition, and so altering, the -perception-
of 'right' and 'the truth' to fit this dictatorial
universal destination, must remove even the semblance
of choice, and will only serve to expose particular
sets of pigeon holes, into which each person must
simply accept his fateful destination.
according to this view;
we would have an impersonal nature which
seems to be forced into preparing for itself,
a glimpse at a process it can never realize.
an impersonal nature forces itself to catch
a glimpse at a choice it does not really have,
and cannot therefore bestow on itself in any
real manner, only to have this illusion of a
choice stripped from it as if this choice
never existed in the first place.
an insoluable paradox.
and i mean, insoluable utter confusion
inasmuch as this will run headlong -into-
and against, any aspects of Cynical Pragmatism
where "one's good is getting what one wants and
one's bad is not getting what one wants and
one must, therefore do whatever one can
to get what one wants,"
simply because we first would be forced to strip
away any veneer that man even -can- know what he
wants in order for man to accept placement in
whichever pigeon hole his physical make-up dictates.
Cynical Pragmatism itself would suggest that man -can- be
motivated -by- a personalized criterion -for- choices
only to have these 'choices' removed from him as illusory
-by- the impersonal nature of existance, and so, you are
further trapped in a dizzying decent into utter madness.
but _we_ -see- that man -can- alter
his environment and this is where
Our Savior enlivens our
perceptions of escape.
the choice is yours...
choose life.
in other words,
it wants a conscious being
to consider itself as not
a conscious being
"i think, therefore, i am not"
aside from all the criminality bit,
one area you can relate to is body metabolism.
simply put;
body metabolism can be effectively manipulated.
yes, it can,
otherwise, you would not be able to claim
that fast food is a conspiracy to make you fat,
but you will claim this, if it suits you.
and, there is no point in blaming your
great great grandparents for dumping
a truckload of work on you simply
because they aren't around
to take it from you.
anyway, this would be a more
useful way to look at things;
from the standpoint of
overall body metabolism.
it's -more- precise, not the be all end all
with definitive clinical support,
but, the 'endomorph' 'ectomorph' 'mesomorph'
bits are entirely -too- vague so as
to be very useful at all,
that's all i'm driving at here.
you can keep the 'endomorph', 'ectomorph', 'mesomorph'
distinctions around as a reference, but, what
may be more precise is something along the
lines of a body metabolism index/spectrum.
where you can assign a '2' to the morbidly obese[MO]
and a '90-100' to marathon runners[MR] and
cross country skiers.
2 50 100
|---------------------------------------------|
[MO] [MR]
the advantage to this is that it present you with
a sliding scale which takes into account the
metabolic rate from birth and thru the
generalized phases of life.
as you probably realize, the body's metabolism
naturally slows a bit after adolescence and
into middle age and on and so forth et cetera.
now all you have to see is that it is possible
to be born with a metabolism which you gained
from your parents, but which can and will
see alterations as time progresses.
say Kip Keno or Emil Zadopek
were born with a metabolism of '90,'
and they worked and ran and edged
their metabolisms up to '99.'
if they had not worked at all,
their metabolisms may have dropped
to '75' as a for instance.
now, say that you were born in the range of '50'
the natural elements, unchecked over time,
will push you down into the '40s' or even '30s,'
but checked by you, can be raised
into the '60s' or even '70s'.
true, one born in the fifty range may not be
able to raise up to the 90 range without
considerable hard work,
but over successive generations,...
if you took three cloned mice germ cells
and impregnated three different 'mothers,'
one 'mother' an 'ectomorph'
one an 'endomorph' and one
a 'mesomorph'
the chances are high that each of the three germ
cell offspring would carry the metabolic
predispositions of the 'mother' rather than
any ingrained 'genetic' predisposition
of the individual cloned germ cells.
if you can see what i'm drivng at.
and so, this is how successive generations
of offspring gather up a predisposition
towards a particular metabolic 'rate'
because successive generations of offspring
are born as '60s' then '50s' then '40s' --->...
and then natures little deal starts off
already pushing down on you, but from
a lower starting point,
and will you push back?
the main punch line is that
you shouldn't trick yourself into
suggesting that you were born with
a certain metabolic tendency that
remains with yor throughout your
life and you can have no effect
on this at all even if you tried,
because this is clearly false
as you can see that the natural
tendency itself effects and
alters the metabolic rates.
anyway,
sure, the christian will say that
not only can your metabolism
be affected
but that your personality structure
may be effected as well,
and that this is what they really look for
inasmuch as an olympic athlete trains his
whole life for a crown of laurel leaves
which fades and dies,
but we would be training our whole lives
from that Crown of Glory which would
be bestowed on us by God.
but, the two are interconnected
and so, character enhancements
and physical maturation are quite
probably related in some manner.
we just don't want to look at someone outside
and immediately draw a conclusion about the
inner person, because judging according
to the flesh is a tricky business.
not that there is absolutely -no- correlation,
but... you get the idear.
you -can- and must and -should-
seek the new creature,
in Christ.
not harping on the subject but
simply investigating any
possible exposed angle.
while yet clay, we may see this,
faintly flickering comprehension
of being alive.
for God the actual clay is our personness,
and God can be working that clay while we
are, as yet, not alive as God is alive.
if we cede ourselves entirely over
to the clay, as material object,
we fall in to the danger of losing
our personness entirely, and ending
abruptly as a disposable drinking cup.
there is no condemnation of
a disposable drinking cup,
but, neither is their
any real life, as
'it' is an object.
as we remain in the hands of God and allow
the fashioning and molding to proceed we
experience the transmission of God's life
through the clay, forging our real person
that can be presented as a Gift
to the Everlasting.
a Fired vase that holds water from which
real, living flowers perpetually blossom,
with intricate inlays of characterization
which surpass the fleeting glories of the
metalurgist's fineries.
take part
become a living Being.
"cogito ergo sum"
impersonal nature is pure mechanism
a being arises who considers itself a person
impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'
impersonal nature strips this being
of its perceived personness and replaces
it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 24, 2012, 11:13:26 PM9/24/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Oct 5, 2012, 10:10:13 PM10/5/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Dec 29, 2012, 9:00:15 AM12/29/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Mar 21, 2013, 3:57:08 AM3/21/13
to
Timothy Sutter
Apr 28, 2013, 5:15:41 AM4/28/13
to
> > > take part
ghtymftnym,ksrsyumrq3534hfgmghkgykuykgkghkuykgkghgkuy
> > > become a living Being.
> > >
> > > "cogito ergo sum"
> > >
> > > impersonal nature is pure mechanism
> > >
> > > a being arises who considers itself a person
> > >
> > > impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'
> > >
> > > impersonal nature strips this being
> > > of its perceived personness and replaces
> > > it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.
> > tytykuykutkuyykuykku
> hgykuykgktykuyykuykkutykuykutgkgh
ghtymftnym,ksrsyumrq3534hfgmghkgykuykgkghkuykgkghgkuy
> > >
> > > "cogito ergo sum"
> > >
> > > impersonal nature is pure mechanism
> > >
> > > a being arises who considers itself a person
> > >
> > > impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'
> > >
> > > impersonal nature strips this being
> > > of its perceived personness and replaces
> > > it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.
> > tytykuykutkuyykuykku
> hgykuykgktykuyykuykkutykuykutgkgh
Timothy Sutter
Jul 6, 2013, 8:47:21 PM7/6/13
to
4) Jesus said: "Let the old man who is full of days not
hesitate to ask the child of seven days about the place of life;
then he will live. For many that are first will be last, and
last, first, and they will become a single one."
5) Jesus said: "Recognize what is before your face and that
which is hidden from the you will be revealed to you. For there is
nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which
shall not be raised."
6) His disciples asked him and said to him, "How do you want us
to fast? And how shall we pray? And how [shall we] give alms? And
what kind of diet shall we follow?"
Jesus said, "Do not lie, and do not do what you hate, for all
things are disclosed before truth. For there is nothing hidden
which shall not be shown forth."
hesitate to ask the child of seven days about the place of life;
then he will live. For many that are first will be last, and
last, first, and they will become a single one."
5) Jesus said: "Recognize what is before your face and that
which is hidden from the you will be revealed to you. For there is
nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which
shall not be raised."
6) His disciples asked him and said to him, "How do you want us
to fast? And how shall we pray? And how [shall we] give alms? And
what kind of diet shall we follow?"
Jesus said, "Do not lie, and do not do what you hate, for all
things are disclosed before truth. For there is nothing hidden
which shall not be shown forth."
°¤ª
Sep 11, 2013, 4:31:15 AM9/11/13
to
°¤ª
Oct 7, 2013, 11:22:42 PM10/7/13
to
“ If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols
of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
“ As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
0 new messages