(September 5, 2019 at 12:38 am)EgoDeath Wrote:

(September 4, 2019 at 4:02 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Secondly interpreting the text, and following whatever the text dictates are not the same thing.

Sure it is. If you know what all of the rules are, but then choose to not follow certain rules, you're cherry-picking which rules to follow and which to ignore.

Read what i said again.

The argument/accusation was over cherry picking what’s literal and non-literal. This is the accusation I’ve been addressing.

To try and change it to cherry picking what I follow and don’t follow, is moving the goal posts.

Quote: There you go, being disingenuous again. I actually never accused you of cherry-picking. I asked you what made you so sure that you weren't?

And I’ve responded multiple times to this, by being consistent, pointing out that I no more cherry pick what’s meant as literal vs non-literal, then I do when recognizing what’s sarcasm and not sarcasm. I even outlined this consistent methodology.

A methodology that doesn’t treat the Bible any different than any other text. One that doesn’t require a different approach to reading the Koran, or Buddhist scriptures, or Plato etc....

Now, you can say that’s not a good or valid approach to avoid cherry picking what literal or not in the Bible, and indicate why, or say that seem to be reasonable way to avoid it, etc..

Quote:

(September 5, 2019 at 12:38 am)EgoDeath Wrote: What do you mean by unanimous interpretation?

An interpretation that all Christians can agree on.

Not even churches, require their parishioners to agree on a single interpretation of every passage of the Bible. Most of them like mine understand that people can have reasonable disagreements, and that it okay to have such disagreements. Churches may have sets of core non-negotiable beliefs, like the Niccean creed, but an agreement in interpretation of the entire Bible isn’t one of them.

I care less about how other Christians interpret the Bible, and more about what motivates and drives that interpretation, if it’s driven by a desire to appease the current culture, out of selfishness, hatred, resentment, etc... or just honest disagreement.

I remember people use to try and say that when Jesus spoke of the impossibly of the rich entering the kingdom of Heaven, likening to a camel going through the eye of a needle, would try to suggest that eye of the needle was a gate in Jerusalem where the camel just had to stoop. But no such gate exists, and it was made up around the 15th century.

Several other attempts have been made to soften this passage. But the motivation for any this doesn’t seem to be reasonableness, an alternative interpretation with the parameters of the text, and it’s context, but rather to be more palatable for the wealthy.

Another example of when slave owners started becoming interested in converting their slaves to Christianity, by giving them censored versions of the Bible, to exclude stories like Exodus, by monitoring their services and religious gathering, sermons, etc...

What motivates such attempts, wasn’t out of concern for the souls of the slaves, but quell any desire for uprising.

I don’t care that us 2 billions Christians don’t share a single interpretation of the entire Bible, but rather what motivates these interpretations, whether it’s honest disagreement, or bad intentions, etc..

---

(September 4, 2019 at 10:50 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The inward knowledge is ultimately only of any value whatsoever if it enables the individual to better gain and leverage knowledge of the reality outside for his survival.

Without ever enlarging knowledge of the outside world, inner knowledge is a sterile masturbation. Inner knowledge by itself can not offer any possibility whatsoever of forestalling extinction, it can only accelerate extinction by creating the delusion of forestalling extinction and thus prevent measures that can be taken from being recognized as necessary.  Inner knowledge that does not dovetail with acquisition of outside knowledge is truely pure escapism with no redeeming value whatsoever.

Outside knowledge by itself can only forestall extinction for so long.  But it can.   What is more it can contribute to forestalling extinction for longer  because it directly contributes to further acquisition of further outside knowledge that can forestall extinction beyond that point.

"The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for" - Dosteovsky

People, the human creature, isn't ultimately looking for ways to survive and forestall extinction. Our evolutionary brothers have managed to survive and reproduce for a long time absent of the sort of contemplate minds, and the knowledge acquired by them we possess. Foolish people as a whole, are no less likely to survive and have offspring as the wise. If you live a life absent of love, you probably wouldn't want to live very long, even if you had all the tools for survival at your disposal. You just might choose a gun to your head, over them.

What we ultimately seek is meaning and purpose, which isn't reducible to survival and forestalling extinction. We seek something to live for, then to merely just live.

What a peculiar desire? That causes people even when they seem to materially have everything, to speak of a void, an absence in their life.
What is it seeking? What is to fill it? Not bread alone.

Here we are staring into another universe, a near infinite uncharted territory not out there, but in here. A profound and terrible place, that we fear looking into, and seeing the reflection staring back at us. No wonder we prefer to occupy ourselves with the world out there instead. "Tell us about what you see out there, what objective truths lay out in front of it, rather than tell us what you see in us". "Tell me about you oh God, in a way that doesn't tell me about myself"

(August 28, 2019 at 6:59 am)Belaqua Wrote: A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements. 

Though it's of historical interest, the original intention of the authors isn't important. We don't need Derrida to explain that for socially important books, the text is the text PLUS all the influential readings that have been made of it. No one can read like a first century Palestinian anymore -- we all read through the lens of our own time, which includes a history. It's doubtful that the authors of the Genesis creation story meant it literally, but even if they did it's of no interest to us, because things have moved on.

It's common to refer to the opposite of literal as "metaphorical" but this is, in itself, a kind of metaphor (actually synecdoche, I think). A metaphor is a specific trope, and there are a hundred other non-literal tropes that can be used as well. 

Some kinds of tropes have a single unambiguous meaning. For example, the ineffability topos is when you say something by saying you can't say it. "She is so beautiful that no one can put it into words." This means, pretty clearly, that she's really beautiful.

But other kinds of tropes are intentionally open-ended. For example, a real metaphor, like Baudelaire's famous "Nature is a temple," can't be restated in a non-metaphorical way. It is intended to open up ideas that aren't otherwise sayable. (Or at least, would require a hell of a lot more words to say.) Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants. The lack of precision is part why they are important. This is important for holy texts because they are often not intended to be precise, science-like statements, but open-ended provocations. 

There is some similarity in the visual arts. For example, the Japanese Post Office logo is not all that different in appearance from the Christian cross. (Just rotate the top line until it goes vertical, and it will be a cross.) But the Post Office logo has a single clear meaning, "here is a Post Office," while the cross has a whole range of meanings, variable and personal to whoever uses it. 

Holy texts use tropes intentionally, to enrich the meaning, sometimes to make it more difficult, personal, and intentionally ambiguous.

such as?

(September 5, 2019 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 28, 2019 at 6:59 am)Belaqua Wrote: A purely literal reading of the Bible is the compliment that poorly-educated believers pay to science. They think that the only way to get important meaning from a book is to read it like a science text, so they read it that way. In this they ignore the history of their own religion and unknowingly agree that scientific statements -- ideally unambiguous, requiring no interpretation, and either true or false -- are the only good kind of statements. 

Though it's of historical interest, the original intention of the authors isn't important. We don't need Derrida to explain that for socially important books, the text is the text PLUS all the influential readings that have been made of it. No one can read like a first century Palestinian anymore -- we all read through the lens of our own time, which includes a history. It's doubtful that the authors of the Genesis creation story meant it literally, but even if they did it's of no interest to us, because things have moved on.

It's common to refer to the opposite of literal as "metaphorical" but this is, in itself, a kind of metaphor (actually synecdoche, I think). A metaphor is a specific trope, and there are a hundred other non-literal tropes that can be used as well. 

Some kinds of tropes have a single unambiguous meaning. For example, the ineffability topos is when you say something by saying you can't say it. "She is so beautiful that no one can put it into words." This means, pretty clearly, that she's really beautiful.

But other kinds of tropes are intentionally open-ended. For example, a real metaphor, like Baudelaire's famous "Nature is a temple," can't be restated in a non-metaphorical way. It is intended to open up ideas that aren't otherwise sayable. (Or at least, would require a hell of a lot more words to say.) Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants. The lack of precision is part why they are important. This is important for holy texts because they are often not intended to be precise, science-like statements, but open-ended provocations. 

There is some similarity in the visual arts. For example, the Japanese Post Office logo is not all that different in appearance from the Christian cross. (Just rotate the top line until it goes vertical, and it will be a cross.) But the Post Office logo has a single clear meaning, "here is a Post Office," while the cross has a whole range of meanings, variable and personal to whoever uses it. 

Holy texts use tropes intentionally, to enrich the meaning, sometimes to make it more difficult, personal, and intentionally ambiguous.

such as?

Such all of Jesus’s parables, that confused even his disciples.

Your loquacious bullshit is nothing more than effete justification of avoidance by the complacently idle.

How many people trouble themselves with meaning when survival is convincingly imperiled but can still plausibly be fought for and maintained?   The dominant priority becomes clear when only one of the two two can sought.  People are largely distinguish not by their first priority, but by their relative indolence or enterprise in meeting it when it appears there could still be slack or that others would bear the burden. 

Other than creating a behavioral framework, Meaning fundamentally has no real meaning whatsoever.    At basic level of reality effecting humans the search for meaning is the idle indulgence  in a set of tertiary urges ultimately implanted by the quirk of the genetics of neurological circuitry whose dominant shaping factor had always been adaptation to the need for survival.

(September 5, 2019 at 10:36 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Your loquacious bullshit is nothing more than effete justification of avoidance by the complacently idle.

How many people trouble themselves with meaning when survival is convincingly imperiled but can still plausibly be fought for and maintained?   The dominant priority becomes clear when only one of the two two can sought.

Meaning fundamentally has no real meaning whatsoever.   The search for meaning is the search for illusion by those temporarily not on the verge of extinction who imagine they are not lessened by avoidance of reality, indulging in a set of urges ultimately implanted by the quirk of genetics of neurological circuitry whose dominant shaping factor had always been adaptation to the need for survival.

People are plagued by the idea of meaning. 

Imagine I could take your life without feeling any pain whatsoever. Perhaps in your sleep so you wouldn't even know the moment it was coming.

Would you take this offer? Probably not. If I asked you why not, why would you want to be in this world, rather than not be at all? 

If you're honest, the answer wouldn't be survival, survival would just be a means for some other end, some other purpose that's not survival itself. 

Imagine if I offered it to someone who finds his life meaningless, without purpose, or even the hope of ever acquiring it.  Such a person will likely take me up on it. Prefer the idea of not being, to being

My dog may not be able to contemplate the question of being and not being. But we can, and that question plagues the human condition, often subtlety and in the background.

No, I would not let you take my life because that ends my survival.  

Had only meaning been involved I would be indifferent to your taking my life.

People are indeed plagued by the idea of meaning.  The operative word is plague.  It is a widespread affliction to which we are susceptible, but for whose ill effects remedies and cures of various effectiveness are available. A particularly good one is a effective method for deducing and understanding how reality operates and interacts with us.   Just as being diseased is not the goal in life, nor is meaning the goal in life.   Just as disease is deemed so because it is often a barrier to more fundamental goals of life, so often is the idea of meaning.

(September 5, 2019 at 11:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, I would not let you take my life because that ends my survival.  

Had only meaning been involved I would be indifferent to your taking my life.

People are indeed plagued by the idea of meaning.  The operative word is plague.  It is a widespread affliction to which we are susceptible, but for whose ill effects remedies and cures of various effectiveness are available. A particularly good one is a effective method for deducing and understanding how reality operates and interacts with us.   Just as being diseased is not the goal in life, nor is meaning the goal in life.   Just as disease is deemed so because it is often a barrier to more fundamental goals of life, so often is the idea of meaning.

Why do you want to survive?

(September 5, 2019 at 11:18 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 11:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: No, I would not let you take my life because that ends my survival.  

Had only meaning been involved I would be indifferent to your taking my life.

People are indeed plagued by the idea of meaning.  The operative word is plague.  It is a widespread affliction to which we are susceptible, but for whose ill effects remedies and cures of various effectiveness are available. A particularly good one is a effective method for deducing and understanding how reality operates and interacts with us.   Just as being diseased is not the goal in life, nor is meaning the goal in life.   Just as disease is deemed so because it is often a barrier to more fundamental goals of life, so often is the idea of meaning.

Why do you want to survive?

Because I do.  I need no justification to want to survive in the same way organism with no capacity whatsoever of forming any idea of justification would want to survive.

So any justification sought in meaning is twaddle.   Base instinct dressed up with outfits in the style of the hour to enable the wearer to compensate for some other perceived short coming with affectation

(September 5, 2019 at 11:25 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 11:18 am)Acrobat Wrote: Why do you want to survive?

Because I do.

Now, you're just not being truthful, or forthcoming. Clearly there are things in your life that keep your feet planted on the ground, rather than jumping onto the train tracks, the sort of things that make suicide not an attractive option, like it is for many people, and increasingly many people. The fact that you don't want to share what those things are doesn't mean that you don't have them.

Quote: I need no justification to want to survive in the same way organism with no capacity whatsoever of forming any idea of justification would want to survive.

Such organism are not able to contemplate the idea of not being, the idea of suicide. If they could, perhaps many of them would take their own lives too.

Because the human creature is able to contemplate and recognize the idea of not being, we require a further substructure to live, from not wanting to die, or disappear completely.

(September 5, 2019 at 11:48 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 11:25 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Because I do.  

Now, you're just not being truthful, or forthcoming. Clearly there are things in your life that keep your feet planted on the ground, rather than jumping onto the train tracks, the sort of things that make suicide not an attractive option, like it is for many people, and increasingly many people. The fact that you don't want to share what those things are doesn't mean that you don't have them.

Quote: I need no justification to want to survive in the same way organism with no capacity whatsoever of forming any idea of justification would want to survive.

Such organism are not able to contemplate the idea of not being, the idea of suicide. If they could, perhaps many of them would take their own lives too.

Because the human creature is able to contemplate and recognize the idea of not being, we require a further substructure to live, from not wanting to die, or disappear completely.

Your condescension about my truthfulness from a position on top of thin ice is touching. 

There are all sorts of elegant, noble or base sounding reasons I can come up with for not wanting to die.   But would I be ok with dying if none of these reasons are sound?   No.

So reason is just a vanity.   If I have no meaning in my life, assurance of extended survival as a surfacial layer to underlying urges formed by what had hitherto preserved my genetic lineage would almost assuredly prove to be meaning enough nonetheless.

You may think it is somehow a higher form of being to not be this way.  But I assure you such make belief loftiness is futile affectation because too strong a tendency to pursue it will be selected out of the gene pool.