The great beast

whatEVER! :rolleyes:






I tell you what... why don't you all go back to splitting hairs over Kierkegaard.

At least it keeps you off the streets.
 
Nick_A said:
Faith isn't and expression of dualistic rationality. Faith normal for cave life is a faith IN something. The faith OF Christ is not normal for cave life. it exists in us as a dormant natural ability that can develop beyond the infantile level it exists in us now if at all.

A perception isn't a cave. If you see a tree it isn't a cave. Habitual interpretations are the norm for cave life. If you knew how limited your perceptions are, you'd see what I mean.

Even a dog has a sense of smell and hearing far superior to yours as does a hawk have sight far superior to yours. So how good are these perceptions of yours for experiencing the external world?

A person's mind is clouded with inner talking and their emotions are filled with negativity.

So we are beings with a limited sensual contact with the external world filled with negative emotions and habitual repetitive thoughts that doesn't allow us to get beyond basic associative thought in order to have a conscious experience of ourselves and you call us rational beings that could be aware of God's will much less carry it out. I gotta get some of what you're drinking.

Rationality isn't flawed. We are just trying to use rationality to explain what can only be understood intellectually through conscious contemplation including reason beyond basic duality.

We are so used to being in the cave and a working cog of the Great Beast we don't know how to affirm it from a higher perspective. For us dual reason is the experience of yes and no and form a decision on that basis. It is a horizontal activity. Yes and no are on the same level. You don't understand what detachment means.

Have you ever thought what it means to affirm existence without denial but truly to affirm what exists without our normal inner commentary? What does it mean to consciously affirm yourself, experience yourself, from a level above yourself without concern for good and bad, right and wrong, but just to affirm reality? That would be the experience of yourself in the cave. This is what Jesus was doing carrying the cross and during the crucifixion. It is what enabled the resurrection. Accepting ourselves as part of the Great Beast and drawing meaning from it makes it psychologically impossible to witness in this way. The influence of the Beast within us doesn't want it and struggles against it. Only certain people can need to the degree necessary to keep the Beast at bay and not lose ourselves to it
Click to expand...

Hmm... I wonder if you like fishing Nick, cuz you sure have
pretty good supply of Red Herrings to pull out anytime
anyone pins you down..

You can take whatever escape route you wish now, but at
the end of the day, Kierkegaard never said what you stated.
And that bud > is > a > FACT.

Another fact is that the ideology which you are supporting here
translates into a rejection of submission to God in favor of man
creating his own code of morality. Which basically is just another
form of utilitarianism: the toolkit of the very "beast" you think
you are in opposition to.

Now you can either let go of this philosophy of yours, or stop
trying to pick fights with me (as you did here in post #70), cuz
I will just keep reminding you of this every time you try and
engage me in another pointless argument.
 
c0de said:
Hmm... I wonder if you like fishing Nick, cuz you sure have
pretty good supply of Red Herrings to pull out anytime
anyone pins you down..

You can take whatever escape route you wish now, but at
the end of the day, Kierkegaard never said what you stated.
And that bud > is > a > FACT.

Another fact is that the ideology which you are supporting here
translates into a rejection of submission to God in favor of man
creating his own code of morality. Which basically is just another
form of utilitarianism: the toolkit of the very "beast" you think
you are in opposition to.

Now you can either let go of this philosophy of yours, or stop
trying to pick fights with me (as you did here in post #70), cuz
I will just keep reminding you of this every time you try and
engage me in another pointless argument.
Click to expand...

If someone asks you if you'd like a soda you will consider it a challenge as to whether or not you can think for yourself. Do yourself a favor and get out of attack mode.

This idea of faith is really rather easy.

KANT AND KIERKEGAARD: THE SUBJECTIVIZATION OF FAITH

61 These common principles notwithstanding, Kierkegaard strenuously opposes Kant's efforts to characterize faith, and in particular Christian faith, as continuous with rational (albeit practical) thinking, arguing that in its highest expressions, the religious constitutes a sphere utterly independent of the demands of ethical universality. For Kant the autonomy of the ethical agent, manifest in the rationally self-imposed categorical imperative, means that not even the will of God can contradict the dictates of pure practical reason. Kant insists that revealed religious truths must be subordinated to principles accessible to universal human reason, i.e., I must first know that something is my duty before I accept it as a divine command:
When a politico-civil law, itself not immoral, is opposed to what is held to be a divine statutory law, there are grounds for regarding the latter as spurious, since it contradicts a plain duty, and since [the notion] that it is a divine command can never, by any empirical token, be accredited adequately enough to allow an otherwise established duty to be rejected on its account.. (Rel. p.90-91, note]
​
Revealed religious truths, or ostensible divine commands, must be compatible with the autonomy of the rational will or be dismissed as products of ignorance, superstition or fanaticism.
62 Criticising the Biblical account of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at the command of God, Kant remarks that no such direct duty to God is possible for a rational human subject. Religion he narrowly defines as "the recognition of all duties as divine commands" (Rel. p.142]; but the reverse claim, that divine commands might positively enjoin the "teleological suspension" (14) of ethical duty is utterly incompatible with our status as rational believers. Such direct divine intervention as sometimes is proclaimed by "historical and visionary religions" necessarily has a contingent historical aspect, and so can never be apodictically certain. Thus, Abraham could not know with certainty that it was indeed God's voice which ordered him to "slaughter his own son like a sheep" [Rel. p.175]; his defiance of ethical law would therefore be "unconscientious", since he would risk thereby disobedience to a human duty "which is certain in and of itself." [Rel. p.175] For Kant, any insight finite man possesses into the will of God must be mediated by and compatible with ethical reason, or be dismissed as spurious.
63 Kierkegaard's rejection of "immanentist" thought, including Kant's transcendental idealism, is based on the view that such philosophies illegitimately assume an underlying prior unity between the finite and infinite, between man and the divine, which can somehow be expressed and comprehended by human thought. This philosophical immanentism he traces as far back as Socrates and Plato, for whom finite man stands in an essential relation to the Truth, needing only to be "reminded" by a teacher of his intrinsic oneness with the Absolute:
Can the truth be learned?...Socrates thinks through the difficulty by means of the principle that all learning and seeking are but recollecting. Thus the ignorant person merely needs to be reminded in order, by himself, to call to mind what he knows. The truth is not introduced to him but was in him....If this is the case with regard to learning the truth, then the fact that I have learned from Socrates or from Prodicus or from a maidservant can concern me only historically...Neither can the fact that the teaching of Socrates or Prodicus was this or that have anything but historical interest for me, because the truth in which I rest was in me and emerged from me.(15)
​
Socrates represents for Kierkegaard an exemplary model of such a teacher, who serves as the occasion for reminding the learner of his own rational capacity for activating this implicit relation to eternal Truth. Kierkegaard's deep admiration for Socrates stems from his view that Socrates, unlike Plato and his idealist successors, modestly refused to step beyond the bounds of his own subjective existence to claim adequate knowledge of the infinite and eternal. From the Socratic standpoint, truth is subjectivity; Socratic faith consists in the confidence that authentic human thinking and acting, despite being embedded in finitude, nevertheless maintains an essential, if existentially unrealizable, intellectual relation to the infinite. Socratic ignorance is therefore the acknowledgment that although the eternal truth is not in itself a paradox, in relation to the finite human thinker it must inevitably appear as such.
Click to expand...
We develop ethical and practical views and coordinate faith with these views. As a result we have faith IN whatever. Blind faith is in the "whatever."

It is being suggested that a person must begin to remember inner morality within which faith exists as a natural attribute. External morality only exists because of having lost the ability for the direct experience of inner morality which is the faith OF Christ.

You prefer faith IN the Quran and without the experience of inner morality it can easily be corrupted to become its opposite which is normal for cave life. I prefer recognizing the human condition and its loss of inner morality and the necessity of striving for awakening as the natural extension of metanoia in the Christian tradition that leads to the faith OF Christ and the experience of human meaning and purpose within which inner morality is a conscious part.

I recognize Plato's cave and the beast within it for what it is and you prefer to deny it in favor of blind faith. To each his own.
 
Nick_A said:
If someone asks you if you'd like a soda you will consider it a challenge as to whether or not you can think for yourself. Do yourself a favor and get out of attack mode.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who "attacked" you.
Are you forgetting that I wasn't even speaking to you
when you quoted me in post #70 in a patronizing way?

Let me remind you of what you said without being addressed:

Instead of God telling you what to do in the cave, education should be more concerned with getting out of it.
Click to expand...
... are you supposed to be my spiritual guide? Did I ask for your sagely advise?
Who are you to tell anyone who they should or shouldn't submit to?
And why shoud I take the suggestions of someone who has openly stated
that he is too proud to submit to revelation i.e. God.



We develop ethical and practical views and coordinate faith with these views. As a result we have faith IN whatever. Blind faith is in the "whatever."

It is being suggested that a person must begin to remember inner morality within which faith exists as a natural attribute. External morality only exists because of having lost the ability for the direct experience of inner morality which is the faith OF Christ.

You prefer faith IN the Quran and without the experience of inner morality it can easily be corrupted to become its opposite which is normal for cave life. I prefer recognizing the human condition and its loss of inner morality and the necessity of striving for awakening as the natural extension of metanoia in the Christian tradition that leads to the faith OF Christ and the experience of human meaning and purpose within which inner morality is a conscious part.

I recognize Plato's cave and the beast within it for what it is and you prefer to deny it in favor of blind faith. To each his own.
Click to expand...
Another red herring. And completely besides the point that
Kierkegaard never said the things you are saying. His entire
thesis is against it, while your entire hypothesis is just another
version of utilitarianism. So while you think you are fighting
against the beast, you are basically just a proponent of it.

And as far as your use of Christian terminology, I will remind you
that even the Christians here disagree with your beliefs. You say
that you are a follower of the Perennial tradition, but
as Thomas made clear to me, you are not a representative
of that tradition either.... misrepresentations all around really..


To each his own.
Click to expand...
Yea I know... thats why I don't bother starting arguments with
you, do I? So instead of telling me this, repeat these words to yourself
the next time you feel the urge to engage in another hopeless argument with people.
 
We have a choice. We can either live by insult or become able to acquire impartiality in order to experience objective human meaning and purpose. You choose to justify insult. It is your choice.

It is impossible to submit to revelation while living as part of the beast in the cave. It is pride on your part that thinks you can.

There are no Christians here including me. The best one can admit to being here is a sincere pre-Christian and part of a sect.

Thomas is a Catholic which can be traced to an approximate time. A Perennial tradition dates back before our records since it awakens someone to what always was. You seem to enjoy arguing so much that it doesn't matter if it makes any sense. "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes." It may feel good but I don't see the sense in it.
 
Nick_A said:
It is impossible to submit to revelation while living as part of the beast in the cave. It is pride on your part that thinks you can.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that I could... exactly???????? In fact, how many times have
I told you that such a submission is not even possible??? Ironic isn't it that
you are accusing me of being proud while at the same time issuing such judgments?



We have a choice. We can either live by insult or become able to acquire impartiality in order to experience objective human meaning and purpose. You choose to justify insult. It is your choice.

It is impossible to submit to revelation while living as part of the beast in the cave. It is pride on your part that thinks you can.

There are no Christians here including me. The best one can admit to being here is a sincere pre-Christian and part of a sect.

Thomas is a Catholic which can be traced to an approximate time. A Perennial tradition dates back before our records since it awakens someone to what always was. You seem to enjoy arguing so much that it doesn't matter if it makes any sense. "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes." It may feel good but I don't see the sense in it.
Click to expand...
The rest of your post is just another pointless personal attack,
all of which is an attempt to distract from your failure to counter the
objection that Kierkegaard never said the things you are proposing here.
 
c0de said:
Where did I say that I could... exactly???????? In fact, how many times have
I told you that such a submission is not even possible??? Ironic isn't it that
you are accusing me of being proud while at the same time issuing such judgments?



The rest of your post is just another pointless personal attack,
all of which is an attempt to distract from your failure to counter the
objection that Kierkegaard never said the things you are proposing here.
Click to expand...

You are asserting the importance of blind belief. Of course people are capable of it. The Jonestown mass suicide was not possible without blind belief.

The purpose of revelation is to help a person to remember what has been forgotten so as to become themselves. A person as part of the Beast in the cave prefers blind belief to revelation and we get what we get.
 
Nick_A said:
A person as part of the Beast in the cave prefers blind belief to revelation and we get what we get.
Click to expand...

And of course, here you are implying that this blind person is me,
as opposed to you, who have freed yourself from the shackles
and have the right to issue such judgments...


You are asserting the importance of blind belief.
Click to expand...

And I also said that such a submission can never actually be achieved. Unlike you who is saying that it can.


Of course people are capable of it. The Jonestown mass suicide was not possible without blind belief.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you are quoting this massacre, which was committed by a group
who believed that they had achieved such a perfect faith as you hope to.
Not much different then your publicly stated goal of achieving an
"inner objective morality" and gaining equality with Jesus PBUH.

But most ironic, is the fact that this is the same tactic Kierkegaard's critics
use against him (or were you not aware of this?) This is further proof
that your views are actually in direct opposition to his.
 
c0de said:
And of course, here you are implying that this blind person is me,
as opposed to you, who have freed yourself from the shackles
and have the right to issue such judgments...




And I also said that such a submission can never actually be achieved. Unlike you who is saying that it can.


Ironic that you are quoting this massacre, which was committed by a group
who believed that they had achieved such a perfect faith as you hope to.
Not much different then your publicly stated goal of achieving an
"inner objective morality" and gaining equality with Jesus PBUH.

But most ironic, is the fact that this is the same tactic Kierkegaard's critics
use against him (or were you not aware of this?) This is further proof
that your views are actually in direct opposition to his.
Click to expand...

COde, it isn't a matter of you and me but speaking of concepts. I've already admitted that I am in the cave. Recognizing this I try and become open to help from above rather then fight over right and wrong defined by cave standards.

Blind faith is a result of external conditioning and people can be conditioned even to the point of suicide. There is nothing conscious about it. Blind faith is the absence of consciousness. It appears as perfect faith because it lacks any self awareness but a pure expression of conditioning.

The faith of Christ is exactly the opposite. it requires consciousness that doesn't exist in the cave. The more conscious one is, the less they are dominated by the Beast they are a part of.

Luke 17

5The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" 6He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
Click to expand...
Are the Apostles asking for help to increase their faith so as to have faith IN Jesus or to be able to use faith as a human attribute. The faith being referred to here is a conscious quality and not just a conditioned reaction dictated by that which one has faith IN.

People don't distinguish between qualities of faith so it is no wonder that they don't understand Kierkegaard.

Conditioned blind faith is a natural part of the Beast while the faith OF Christ that unifies the higher and lower levels of our collective being has an origin outside of the cave the beast cannot understand but an individual needing to be more than a cog in the wheel can gradually consciously acquire.
 
Nick_A said:
I've already admitted that I am in the cave.
Click to expand...


Well, there you go. If you truly admit to being in the cave, and I am
also in my cave, then what makes you think that you have the right
to lecture me about right and wrong, and about consciousness?
The fact is that you do not have any right to be judging my beliefs,
or for that matter, to tell anyone that they have sold themselves to
the beast, or that they are incapable of loving God... All you are doing
is implying your own superiority when you issue judgments such as these.

According to your own words, you are in a cave, just like everyone else.

"to each his own"... rite? It's as simple as that.


People don't distinguish between qualities of faith so it is no wonder that they don't understand Kierkegaard.
Click to expand...
And as for Kierkegaard, I have already told you that he disagrees
with you, and you have misunderstood him. He never said the
things you have implied, and you have actually said things which
his critics use against him.
 
I like caves.

I started this thread because i wanted clarification on a few topics...and now I am thoroughly confused.
But you guys, go ahead.....It will be another spectator sport for me....

Its kinda like watching one of those artsy fartsy movies (???????, eh??? I dont get it???)
 
greymare said:
I like caves.

I started this thread because i wanted clarification on a few topics...and now I am thoroughly confused.
But you guys, go ahead.....It will be another spectator sport for me....

Its kinda like watching one of those artsy fartsy movies (???????, eh??? I dont get it???)
Click to expand...

Wow, 8 pages is a lot of posts to not have any clarification whatsoever. :p

Let's see. According to my New Oxford Annotated RSVP Study Bible:

There are two beasts, the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth.

The beast from the sea is the Roman empire (not the RCC!). It is incited by the dragon (Satan) to oppress the saints. The sea is primeval chaos.

The beast from the earth is the false prophet who enforces emperor worship and produces signs to deceive the people.

Most likely the number of the beast (666/616) refers to Nero(n) Caesar.

There are probably multiple layers of meaning in all the metaphors of Revealtion.
 
lunamoth said:
Wow, 8 pages is a lot of posts to not have any clarification whatsoever. :p

Let's see. According to my New Oxford Annotated RSVP Study Bible:

There are two beasts, the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth.

The beast from the sea is the Roman empire (not the RCC!). It is incited by the dragon (Satan) to oppress the saints. The sea is primeval chaos.

The beast from the earth is the false prophet who enforces emperor worship and produces signs to deceive the people.

Most likely the number of the beast (666/616) refers to Nero(n) Caesar.

There are probably multiple layers of meaning in all the metaphors of Revealtion.
Click to expand...

Well being that Plato described the Beast and was born around 427 BC it is not surprising tht it isn't in your study Bible

As an aside, 666 may not be about any particular secular manifestation.

Revelation 13

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Click to expand...

We are cells of the Beast. Enjoy
 
citizenzen said:
I think we're cells of God. And I do.
Click to expand...

You overestimate your nothingness. Simone Weil can at least admits that she isn't God and consequently can to begin to know God.

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top