info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The original sin according to biblical scripture
112 views
Skip to first unread message
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 2, 2021, 12:46:13 PM8/2/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Adam and Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It means Adam and Eve made what is good and evil out to be a fact. So then they didn't need God anymore for judgement of good and evil, Because they had the facts of it. So the sin of all sins, The original sin, Was a category error, Of putting good and evil in the fact category, Instead of putting it in the opinion category.
How the original sin works is, That someone defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, Instead of defining making a choice in terms of spontaneity.
To define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, Requires the knowledge of good and evil, To then evaluate the options with, Which option is the best.
So then the relation to the human spirit, As well as God the holy spirit, Is lost in making a choice. Basically choosing then becomes as like a chesscomputer calcluating a move, In a forced way. Emotionless.
You can make choices in terms of what is best, But it just has to be understood that such a choice breaks down to more fundamental spontaneous choices. It is only when making a choice in terms of what is best, Is regarded as the fundamental meaning of choice, That the problem referred to by original sin arises.
How the original sin works is, That someone defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, Instead of defining making a choice in terms of spontaneity.
To define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, Requires the knowledge of good and evil, To then evaluate the options with, Which option is the best.
So then the relation to the human spirit, As well as God the holy spirit, Is lost in making a choice. Basically choosing then becomes as like a chesscomputer calcluating a move, In a forced way. Emotionless.
You can make choices in terms of what is best, But it just has to be understood that such a choice breaks down to more fundamental spontaneous choices. It is only when making a choice in terms of what is best, Is regarded as the fundamental meaning of choice, That the problem referred to by original sin arises.
Harry Krishna
Aug 2, 2021, 1:21:13 PM8/2/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:45:09 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam and Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It means Adam and Eve made what is good and evil out to be a fact.
>So then they didn't need God anymore for judgement of good and evil, Because they had the facts of it. So the sin of all sins, The original sin, Was a category error, Of putting good and evil in the fact category, Instead of putting it in the opinion category.
Your inability to comprehend English (whether reading or writing it)
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam and Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It means Adam and Eve made what is good and evil out to be a fact.
>So then they didn't need God anymore for judgement of good and evil, Because they had the facts of it. So the sin of all sins, The original sin, Was a category error, Of putting good and evil in the fact category, Instead of putting it in the opinion category.
is truly astonishing. You really don't get that the existence of such
a tree in the story indicates that they *are* in the fact category (at
least as far as that particular mythology is concerned)? Or that you
acknowledge that yourself, by saying that they had the FACTS of it?
So why should they be considered matters of opinion, then? As usual,
your position is completely incoherent.
John Harshman
Aug 2, 2021, 1:36:13 PM8/2/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
one of us, knowing good and evil". So if Adam was making a category
error, then so was God. He's just attacked God's credibility!
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 2, 2021, 4:51:13 PM8/2/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You eat more of your own poop. What a disgrace. All you do is tell incoherent lies.
You define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option.
When you choose to eat poop, then your definition of choice says that you did what was best, merely because you chose it.
You have a complete and destructive disregard for subjectivity. All you personal opinions are total crap because of that. What a shame, what a piece of crap you are.
Op maandag 2 augustus 2021 om 19:21:13 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
You define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option.
When you choose to eat poop, then your definition of choice says that you did what was best, merely because you chose it.
You have a complete and destructive disregard for subjectivity. All you personal opinions are total crap because of that. What a shame, what a piece of crap you are.
Op maandag 2 augustus 2021 om 19:21:13 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 2, 2021, 7:26:13 PM8/2/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam and Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It means
> Adam and Eve made what is good and evil out to be a fact.
>
Who put the tree there with the omniscient foresight of what a bad idea
> Adam and Eve ate from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. It means
> Adam and Eve made what is good and evil out to be a fact.
>
such a tree would be? God set the urcouple up to fail so he could blame
them and send himself through impregnating a hapless young woman to suffer
for our sins on the cross so he could save us from the retributive
repercussions of his own terrible idea. Yeah I know it makes even less
sense when explained. I’ll pass over the entirety of the Tanakh where he
acted like an abusive stalker toward his Judaic nation bride.
>
> So then they didn't need God anymore for judgement of good and evil,
> Because they had the facts of it. So the sin of all sins, The original
> sin, Was a category error, Of putting good and evil in the fact category,
> Instead of putting it in the opinion category.
>
Actually good and evil are in the moral category perhaps inspired by
> So then they didn't need God anymore for judgement of good and evil,
> Because they had the facts of it. So the sin of all sins, The original
> sin, Was a category error, Of putting good and evil in the fact category,
> Instead of putting it in the opinion category.
>
Zarathustra or just the all too human propensity of judging right and wrong
in terms of human action (Foucault’s ethics/power division??). Good and
evil couldn’t be factual. Command morality imposed by the Torah doesn’t
suffice and objective morality seems but a pipe dream.
>
> How the original sin works is, That someone defines making a choice in
> terms of figuring out the best option, Instead of defining making a
> choice in terms of spontaneity.
>
In reality much behavior could be gut reaction followed by pseudo-factual
> How the original sin works is, That someone defines making a choice in
> terms of figuring out the best option, Instead of defining making a
> choice in terms of spontaneity.
>
rationalization. Spontaneity breaks a Buridan’s ass tie. But if facts are
evaluated in terms of experience including emotion and moral feelings that
sounds better than just shooting from the hip.
>
> To define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option,
> Requires the knowledge of good and evil, To then evaluate the options
> with, Which option is the best.
>
Good and evil are purely human constructs. Best (or better versus worse)
> To define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option,
> Requires the knowledge of good and evil, To then evaluate the options
> with, Which option is the best.
>
options are usually evaluated in terms of some goal or objective. Most
rational assessments based on empirical data don’t fall into clear
Manichaean binary oppositions.
>
> So then the relation to the human spirit, As well as God the holy spirit,
> Is lost in making a choice.
>
No great loss there.
> So then the relation to the human spirit, As well as God the holy spirit,
> Is lost in making a choice.
>
>
> Basically choosing then becomes as like a chesscomputer calcluating a
> move, In a forced way. Emotionless.
>
Not quite. Emotion slips in. Thankfully. Or one could get into an endless
> Basically choosing then becomes as like a chesscomputer calcluating a
> move, In a forced way. Emotionless.
>
loop of paralysis by analysis.
I like vanilla ice cream in lime soda as a float. I’m not going to say
that’s a chess move, but arguably it is an evolutionary mismatch in that I
get loaded with sugar and fat in a way tapping my reward systems and I know
(based on dietary facts) it’s a potential bad choice. Of course the
Catholics got this covered as gluttony.
>
> You can make choices in terms of what is best, But it just has to be
> understood that such a choice breaks down to more fundamental spontaneous
> choices. It is only when making a choice in terms of what is best, Is
> regarded as the fundamental meaning of choice, That the problem referred
> to by original sin arises.
>
Soda and ice cream floats. A spontaneous no brainer. Evaluated with facts
> You can make choices in terms of what is best, But it just has to be
> understood that such a choice breaks down to more fundamental spontaneous
> choices. It is only when making a choice in terms of what is best, Is
> regarded as the fundamental meaning of choice, That the problem referred
> to by original sin arises.
>
about dietary issues in mind or ethical concerns about treatment of dairy
cattle might change my mind. Would Jains or vegans consume ice cream?
Should diabetics? Blood sugar levels are facts.
Harry Krishna
Aug 4, 2021, 9:06:14 AM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You eat more of your own poop. What a disgrace. All you do is tell incoherent lies.
It's neither incoherent nor a lie to point out that you managed to
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You eat more of your own poop. What a disgrace. All you do is tell incoherent lies.
wildly contradict yourself in your previous post, which is included
below...
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2021, 9:16:14 AM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Is no contradiction. You have an intuitive understanding of subjectivity, but no intellectual understanding. Therefore you have a complete and destructive disregard for subjectivity, and your personal opinions are crap.
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 15:06:14 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 15:06:14 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
Harry Krishna
Aug 4, 2021, 10:01:13 AM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 06:14:09 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is no contradiction. You have an intuitive understanding of subjectivity, but no intellectual understanding. Therefore you have a complete and destructive disregard for subjectivity, and your personal opinions are crap.
This is not a matter of my opinion. You contradicted yourself, period.
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is no contradiction. You have an intuitive understanding of subjectivity, but no intellectual understanding. Therefore you have a complete and destructive disregard for subjectivity, and your personal opinions are crap.
I know you have difficulty understanding what other people are saying,
but you seem to have no idea what YOU were saying, either.
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 4, 2021, 1:01:14 PM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
sound of cricket chirps in the morning. The whole Nando evasion thingy
sounds like…victory.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2021, 5:41:13 PM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The issue was subjectivity, what are the rules of subjectivity? You did not respond to the issue.
And the rules are that a subjective opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 19:01:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
And the rules are that a subjective opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice.
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 19:01:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2021, 5:41:14 PM8/4/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Fuck off aswipe.
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 16:01:13 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 16:01:13 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 5, 2021, 5:41:14 AM8/5/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue was subjectivity, what are the rules of subjectivity? You did
> not respond to the issue.
>
Yes I did. You are intellectually incompetent so you top post.
> The issue was subjectivity, what are the rules of subjectivity? You did
> not respond to the issue.
>
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 5, 2021, 3:01:14 PM8/5/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a benefit.
But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
Making choices, is much about organizing decisionmaking. As like in a representative republic, it is complex decisionmaking processes.
As there is external organization of decisionmaking, by elections, government etc, there is also internal organization of decisionmaking. How the decisionmaking is organized in the body.
Then there is the spirit in which a decision is made. The spirit is judged, if it is judged that a decision is made in a bad spirit, then for instance, no decision is made from that place anymore.
Also decisions are made in relation. To family and friends, but mostly to God. If it is felt God would be alright with it, then it is okay.
So there are lots of things to do in making decisions, besides evaluating options according to goal based criteria.
Op donderdag 5 augustus 2021 om 11:41:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
Making choices, is much about organizing decisionmaking. As like in a representative republic, it is complex decisionmaking processes.
As there is external organization of decisionmaking, by elections, government etc, there is also internal organization of decisionmaking. How the decisionmaking is organized in the body.
Then there is the spirit in which a decision is made. The spirit is judged, if it is judged that a decision is made in a bad spirit, then for instance, no decision is made from that place anymore.
Also decisions are made in relation. To family and friends, but mostly to God. If it is felt God would be alright with it, then it is okay.
So there are lots of things to do in making decisions, besides evaluating options according to goal based criteria.
Op donderdag 5 augustus 2021 om 11:41:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 5, 2021, 3:51:13 PM8/5/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of
> knowledge of good and evil is a benefit.
>
And never literally existed. The notion of such a binary opposition is
> I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of
> knowledge of good and evil is a benefit.
>
Persian. And in Sumerian-Babylonian myth a snake steals immortality from
someone too.
>
> But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice
> in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
>
“Actually good and evil are in the moral category perhaps inspired by
> But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice
> in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
>
Zarathustra or just the all too human propensity of judging right and wrong
in terms of human action (Foucault’s ethics/power division??). Good and
evil couldn’t be factual. Command morality imposed by the Torah doesn’t
suffice and objective morality seems but a pipe dream.”
in terms of human action (Foucault’s ethics/power division??). Good and
evil couldn’t be factual. Command morality imposed by the Torah doesn’t
[…]
“Good and evil are purely human constructs. Best (or better versus worse)
options are usually evaluated in terms of some goal or objective.”
>
> Making choices, is much about organizing decisionmaking. As like in a
> representative republic, it is complex decisionmaking processes.
>
> As there is external organization of decisionmaking, by elections,
> government etc, there is also internal organization of decisionmaking.
> How the decisionmaking is organized in the body.
>
> Then there is the spirit in which a decision is made. The spirit is
> judged, if it is judged that a decision is made in a bad spirit, then for
> instance, no decision is made from that place anymore.
>
Why?
> Making choices, is much about organizing decisionmaking. As like in a
> representative republic, it is complex decisionmaking processes.
>
> As there is external organization of decisionmaking, by elections,
> government etc, there is also internal organization of decisionmaking.
> How the decisionmaking is organized in the body.
>
> Then there is the spirit in which a decision is made. The spirit is
> judged, if it is judged that a decision is made in a bad spirit, then for
> instance, no decision is made from that place anymore.
>
>
> Also decisions are made in relation. To family and friends, but mostly to
> God. If it is felt God would be alright with it, then it is okay.
>
So what do nontheistic Buddhists do then?
> Also decisions are made in relation. To family and friends, but mostly to
> God. If it is felt God would be alright with it, then it is okay.
>
>
> So there are lots of things to do in making decisions, besides evaluating
> options according to goal based criteria.
>
In deontology they can be evaluated by accord to principle or duty.
> So there are lots of things to do in making decisions, besides evaluating
> options according to goal based criteria.
>
Harry Krishna
Aug 6, 2021, 9:01:13 AM8/6/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a benefit.
>
>But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
You really still don't grasp that the phrase "knowledge of good and
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a benefit.
>
>But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be matters of fact.
evil" indicates that they are indeed matters of fact (at least as far
as this particular myth is concerned), do you? No, of course you
don't.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2021, 7:51:14 PM8/6/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Fuck off asswipe.
You know you throw out all what is subjective. You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective. And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a matter of biological fact.
Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that personal character would be material and biological.
But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism. And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because that is the only other logical option in their mind.
The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective. It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you, for being anti-science.
You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill your own emotions just as well.
Op donderdag 5 augustus 2021 om 21:51:13 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
You know you throw out all what is subjective. You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective. And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a matter of biological fact.
Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that personal character would be material and biological.
But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism. And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because that is the only other logical option in their mind.
The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective. It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you, for being anti-science.
You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill your own emotions just as well.
Op donderdag 5 augustus 2021 om 21:51:13 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 6, 2021, 8:51:14 PM8/6/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fuck off asswipe.
>
There’s a solid refutation.
> You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making
> a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
>
I like choosing what is worst, which is why I replied to you despite
realizing you are a lost cause.
vanilla and lime soda floats. So there.
college?
Are those in MBA programs typically flaming Marxists?
>And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because
> that is the only other logical option in their mind.
>
Oxymoron.
> It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is
> inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you,
> for being anti-science.
>
Subjectivity. Science. Both-and.
but aren’t as bad structurally speaking as ‘piggyback after the preamble’
Nyikos.
> Fuck off asswipe.
>
There’s a solid refutation.
>
> You know you throw out all what is subjective.
Nope because you hurt my feelings in your bullying top-post meanie head.
> You know you throw out all what is subjective.
> You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making
> a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
>
realizing you are a lost cause.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
That nonsense again.
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
>
> You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective.
>
Nope. If I experience emotion and act on it you are refuted. And I like
> You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective.
>
vanilla and lime soda floats. So there.
>
> And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes
> skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
>
And perhaps Ayn Rand or Young Republicans too. Isn’t Liberty University a
> And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes
> skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
>
college?
Are those in MBA programs typically flaming Marxists?
>
> And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't
> much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the
> holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would
> be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a
> matter of biological fact.
>
So racism is rare?
> And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't
> much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the
> holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would
> be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a
> matter of biological fact.
>
>
> Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that
> personal character would be material and biological.
>
> But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism.
One of these things is unlike the other.
> Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that
> personal character would be material and biological.
>
> But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism.
>And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because
> that is the only other logical option in their mind.
>
>
> The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no
> general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective.
Yet college sports are popular. Rah rah pep rally. Go team.
> The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no
> general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective.
> It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is
> inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you,
> for being anti-science.
>
>
> You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill
> your own emotions just as well.
>
I am against killing emotions. You kill proper thread flow with top-posting
> You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill
> your own emotions just as well.
>
but aren’t as bad structurally speaking as ‘piggyback after the preamble’
Nyikos.
Wolffan
Aug 7, 2021, 7:26:14 AM8/7/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2021 Aug 06, Harry Krishna wrote
(in article<b7cqggd32mogl9vsd...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge
> > of good and evil is a benefit.
> >
> > But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in
> > terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be
> > matters of fact.
>
> You really still don't grasp that the phrase "knowledge of good and
> evil" indicates that they are indeed matters of fact (at least as far
> as this particular myth is concerned), do you? No, of course you
> don't.
He’s just not intelligent enough and lacks the communication skills to
comprehend what he reads.
(in article<b7cqggd32mogl9vsd...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge
> > of good and evil is a benefit.
> >
> > But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in
> > terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be
> > matters of fact.
>
> You really still don't grasp that the phrase "knowledge of good and
> evil" indicates that they are indeed matters of fact (at least as far
> as this particular myth is concerned), do you? No, of course you
> don't.
comprehend what he reads.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 7, 2021, 9:06:14 AM8/7/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Supposing the acceptance and understanding of both subjectivity and objectivity in a population is measured, with some sociological research questionaires, between 0 and 100.
Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
People are taught objectivity a lot with the scientific method. People are almost never taught about subjectivity.
Now then there is evolution theory, which co-opts all subjective terminology, for objectivity, in describing the entire life cycle of organisms in regards to reproductive "success". Noting that people themselves are also organisms.
Furthermore, evolution theory stands in denial of creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
Obviously then we are going to see a downward trend in understanding and acceptance of subjectivity.
So then we are left with the subjectivity that is unavoidably engrained in the logic of common discourse, but with almost no intellectual understanding of subjectivity. So then there is only intuitive or instinctive understanding of subjectivity.
Obviously it is going to lead to the general destruction of emotional life, and bad subjective opinions. Bad marriage, bad family relations, bad friendship, bad mental health, bad religion, bad culture, bad politics.
Now for all of these things, would you say they are on an upward trend, a downward trend, or a stable trend?
I would say, quite obviously, they are all on a sharply downward trend.
There are objective measurements, in regards to sociological research that measures things relevant to loneliness. Like measuring how many people someone has, whom they can talk to about anything. The research shows that this number of people is decreasing.
The number of long time marriages is decreasing. The family relations between father and children is decreasing. The family relations to extended family like nephews and nieces, is decreasing.
Mental illness is increasing, meaning mental health is decreasing.
National feeling is down.
It is all going quite predictably on a downward trend of killing people's emotions.
Op zaterdag 7 augustus 2021 om 02:51:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
People are taught objectivity a lot with the scientific method. People are almost never taught about subjectivity.
Now then there is evolution theory, which co-opts all subjective terminology, for objectivity, in describing the entire life cycle of organisms in regards to reproductive "success". Noting that people themselves are also organisms.
Furthermore, evolution theory stands in denial of creationism, while subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
Obviously then we are going to see a downward trend in understanding and acceptance of subjectivity.
So then we are left with the subjectivity that is unavoidably engrained in the logic of common discourse, but with almost no intellectual understanding of subjectivity. So then there is only intuitive or instinctive understanding of subjectivity.
Obviously it is going to lead to the general destruction of emotional life, and bad subjective opinions. Bad marriage, bad family relations, bad friendship, bad mental health, bad religion, bad culture, bad politics.
Now for all of these things, would you say they are on an upward trend, a downward trend, or a stable trend?
I would say, quite obviously, they are all on a sharply downward trend.
There are objective measurements, in regards to sociological research that measures things relevant to loneliness. Like measuring how many people someone has, whom they can talk to about anything. The research shows that this number of people is decreasing.
The number of long time marriages is decreasing. The family relations between father and children is decreasing. The family relations to extended family like nephews and nieces, is decreasing.
Mental illness is increasing, meaning mental health is decreasing.
National feeling is down.
It is all going quite predictably on a downward trend of killing people's emotions.
Op zaterdag 7 augustus 2021 om 02:51:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
*Hemidactylus*
Aug 7, 2021, 11:01:14 AM8/7/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Supposing the acceptance and understanding of both subjectivity and
> objectivity in a population is measured, with some sociological research
> questionaires, between 0 and 100.
>
> Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
>
Just pulled out of the air. People can be both objective and subjective.
> Supposing the acceptance and understanding of both subjectivity and
> objectivity in a population is measured, with some sociological research
> questionaires, between 0 and 100.
>
> Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
>
Compartmentalization.
>
> People are taught objectivity a lot with the scientific method. People
> are almost never taught about subjectivity.
>
I guess phenomenologists never existed in your universe. Existentialists
> People are taught objectivity a lot with the scientific method. People
> are almost never taught about subjectivity.
>
pushed authenticity, which may have played a role in boomer egoism as a
“me” generation unfolded. But also there is a subjective bubble.
Subjectivity can have negative results revealed when objective reality pops
the bubble.
>
> Now then there is evolution theory, which co-opts all subjective
> terminology, for objectivity, in describing the entire life cycle of
> organisms in regards to reproductive "success". Noting that people
> themselves are also organisms.
>
Dawkins played a bit on a Kantian/Schopenhauerian dichotomy. We are short
> Now then there is evolution theory, which co-opts all subjective
> terminology, for objectivity, in describing the entire life cycle of
> organisms in regards to reproductive "success". Noting that people
> themselves are also organisms.
>
term vehicles in a proximal Mayan bubble oblivious to the machinations of
the immortal coils. But as Pinker reflected we can tell our selfish genes
to jump in a lake.
Gould realized the power of spandrels. Our big brain grants powers of
reflection. Self-reflection per Dennett may stem from neural complexity and
its degrees of freedom, hence free will worth wanting.
So yeah reproductive success is an implicit rationale for stuff we do, but
we have the gumption to instead become celibate monks or childfree
antinatalists if reflection points us there. But agency may yield to
ideology or ideas in the air. Dawkins tried to capture this ideational
agency as memes taking on lives of their own.
>
> Furthermore, evolution theory stands in denial of creationism, while
> subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
>
And existentialist too no?
> Furthermore, evolution theory stands in denial of creationism, while
> subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
>
“Subjectivity was rejected by Foucault and Derrida in favor of
constructionism,[2] but Satre embraced and continued Descartes' work in the
subject by emphasizing subjectivity in phenomenology.[2][7] Sartre believed
that, even within the material force of human society, the ego was an
essentially transcendent being -- posited, for instance, in his opus Being
and Nothingness through his arguments about the 'being-for-others' and the
'for-itself' (i.e., an objective and subjective human being).[7]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
>
> Obviously then we are going to see a downward trend in understanding and
> acceptance of subjectivity.
>
>
> So then we are left with the subjectivity that is unavoidably engrained
> in the logic of common discourse, but with almost no intellectual
> understanding of subjectivity. So then there is only intuitive or
> instinctive understanding of subjectivity.
>
Wouldn’t common discourse raise it to the level of intersubjectivity where
> So then we are left with the subjectivity that is unavoidably engrained
> in the logic of common discourse, but with almost no intellectual
> understanding of subjectivity. So then there is only intuitive or
> instinctive understanding of subjectivity.
>
people poke holes in their bubbles, compare notes, or build bridges?
>
> Obviously it is going to lead to the general destruction of emotional
> life, and bad subjective opinions. Bad marriage, bad family relations,
> bad friendship, bad mental health, bad religion, bad culture, bad politics.
>
Says every generation about the bleak future.
> Obviously it is going to lead to the general destruction of emotional
> life, and bad subjective opinions. Bad marriage, bad family relations,
> bad friendship, bad mental health, bad religion, bad culture, bad politics.
>
>
> Now for all of these things, would you say they are on an upward trend, a
> downward trend, or a stable trend?
>
Some up, down, or oscillating in cycles.
> Now for all of these things, would you say they are on an upward trend, a
> downward trend, or a stable trend?
>
>
> I would say, quite obviously, they are all on a sharply downward trend.
>
Sad for you.
> I would say, quite obviously, they are all on a sharply downward trend.
>
>
> There are objective measurements, in regards to sociological research
> that measures things relevant to loneliness. Like measuring how many
> people someone has, whom they can talk to about anything. The research
> shows that this number of people is decreasing.
>
Yeah Putnam’s bowling alone and also the tracking of unaffiliated “nones”
> There are objective measurements, in regards to sociological research
> that measures things relevant to loneliness. Like measuring how many
> people someone has, whom they can talk to about anything. The research
> shows that this number of people is decreasing.
>
who could be still spiritual but not religious, between denominations, or
outright nonbelievers. None are necessarily bad as reflecting a trend. But
the tendency to disconnect from reality into virtuality may be problematic.
>
> The number of long time marriages is decreasing. The family relations
> between father and children is decreasing. The family relations to
> extended family like nephews and nieces, is decreasing.
>
greater freedom though no? Isn’t freedom important? Why get stuck in a bad
relationship?
But alienation and disconnection are worrisome things yes. Well except that
uncle that gets hammered and rants about politics at family gatherings.
>
> Mental illness is increasing, meaning mental health is decreasing.
>
Sick people or societies? I kinda left this unexplored in Fromm. Too busy.
> Mental illness is increasing, meaning mental health is decreasing.
>
>
> National feeling is down.
>
Nationalism yet resurges. National feeling can lead to bad things no?
Desert Storm shattered the Vietnam shackles per American gunship diplomacy.
Long pointless presence in Iraq and Afghanistan kinda brought a sense of
constraint back as battle fatigue set in.
>
> It is all going quite predictably on a downward trend of killing people's emotions.
>
I don’t see this. Per Darwinism and other perceived causal agents— post hoc
> It is all going quite predictably on a downward trend of killing people's emotions.
>
ergo propter hoc. How many things were blamed for Columbine? And what did
that and other tragedies represent trend wise. A beneficial aspect of
caution I got from Pinker is differentiation of anecdotes from data or if
it bleeds it leads newsworthy items from the big picture. I don’t share his
overall optimism though.
mohammad...@gmail.com
Aug 7, 2021, 11:31:14 AM8/7/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You don't have a clear idea of the inherently subjective spirit making choices. That defines you in every way. You have no idea that people's emotions and personal character are at the agency of their decisions. You have no clue.
Obviously that makes you useless for marriage, friendship, and any pursuit where subjectivity plays a big role.
And your political opinions would neccessarily be a total piece of fascist crap, in complete disregard of the subjective human spirit making choices, which you don't accept is real.
Op zaterdag 7 augustus 2021 om 17:01:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Obviously that makes you useless for marriage, friendship, and any pursuit where subjectivity plays a big role.
And your political opinions would neccessarily be a total piece of fascist crap, in complete disregard of the subjective human spirit making choices, which you don't accept is real.
Op zaterdag 7 augustus 2021 om 17:01:14 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:
Bob Casanova
Aug 7, 2021, 12:31:14 PM8/7/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 07 Aug 2021 09:57:05 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Supposing the acceptance and understanding of both subjectivity and
>> objectivity in a population is measured, with some sociological research
>> questionaires, between 0 and 100.
>>
>> Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
>>
>Just pulled out of the air. People can be both objective and subjective.
>Compartmentalization.
>>
As in "The sun is rising", which imparts both objective fact
and subjective impression. ;-)
>
<snip the usual refutations of Nando's idiocies>
>
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Supposing the acceptance and understanding of both subjectivity and
>> objectivity in a population is measured, with some sociological research
>> questionaires, between 0 and 100.
>>
>> Then I guess objectivity would be at 82 or something, and subjectivity would be at 12.
>>
>Just pulled out of the air. People can be both objective and subjective.
>Compartmentalization.
>>
and subjective impression. ;-)
>
<snip the usual refutations of Nando's idiocies>
>
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Harry Krishna
Aug 9, 2021, 10:51:14 AM8/9/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 07 Aug 2021 07:23:54 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:
>On 2021 Aug 06, Harry Krishna wrote
>(in article<b7cqggd32mogl9vsd...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge
>> > of good and evil is a benefit.
>> >
>> > But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in
>> > terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be
>> > matters of fact.
>>
>> You really still don't grasp that the phrase "knowledge of good and
>> evil" indicates that they are indeed matters of fact (at least as far
>> as this particular myth is concerned), do you? No, of course you
>> don't.
>
>He’s just not intelligent enough and lacks the communication skills to
>comprehend what he reads.
It's far from clear that he even comprehends what he writes, either.
wrote:
>On 2021 Aug 06, Harry Krishna wrote
>(in article<b7cqggd32mogl9vsd...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:58:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I already explained, evaluating options is a benefit. The tree of knowledge
>> > of good and evil is a benefit.
>> >
>> > But it's not a benefit when someone incorrectly defines making a choice in
>> > terms of figuring out the best option, and makes good and evil to be
>> > matters of fact.
>>
>> You really still don't grasp that the phrase "knowledge of good and
>> evil" indicates that they are indeed matters of fact (at least as far
>> as this particular myth is concerned), do you? No, of course you
>> don't.
>
>He’s just not intelligent enough and lacks the communication skills to
>comprehend what he reads.
youngbl...@gmail.com
Aug 27, 2021, 4:35:05 PM8/27/21
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:51:14 PM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Fuck off asswipe.
>
> You know you throw out all what is subjective. You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
> You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective. And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
>
> And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a matter of biological fact.
>
> Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that personal character would be material and biological.
>
> But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism. And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because that is the only other logical option in their mind.
>
> The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective. It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you, for being anti-science.
>
> You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill your own emotions just as well.
>
You get no respect, Nando.
> Fuck off asswipe.
>
> You know you throw out all what is subjective. You know all what is subjective makes choices. You know to define making a choice in terms of what is best, is bullshit.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
> You're another total asshole who throws out all what is subjective. And you can just see that the rate of mental illness in colleges goes skyhigh. You can just see that socialism is popular in colleges.
>
> And it is only because we had the holocaust already, that now there isn't much nazism in universities. Because of teaching about the history of the holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't occurred, then the universities would be full of eugenicists, racists, asserting that personal character is a matter of biological fact.
>
> Because that is a totally logical idea based on materialism, that personal character would be material and biological.
>
> But now the colleges go with left wing socialism, instead of right wing socialism. And then they accuse others of going with right wing socialism, because that is the only other logical option in their mind.
>
> The intellectual climate of opinion at universities is, that there is no general acknowledgement of what is inherently subjective. It is a big problem if anyone believes the human spirit making choices is inherently subjective. Then you get the fascist materialists after you, for being anti-science.
>
> You kill the human spirit, people's emotions. It is obvious. You kill your own emotions just as well.
>
If I were you I'd leave in a huff.
That'll show em.
There are no gods unless we create them.
0 new messages