RE: Theory number 3.
October 26, 2012 at 10:03 am
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2012 at 10:17 am by Mystic.)
Heh, Apophenia, as for smell, the issue is my mental illness experiences give me a different perception of that. "Evil" to me has a certain bad taste but my mind brought that taste to over drive. Tree of Zaquum I understood as mystical, and I had a taste of it (well my idea of it was brought to life), but my idea of that was it was a manifestation of evil. Like wise, goodness feels like it has good scent. And that was brought to life.
I guess loosing my mind gave me a different perception of what people take to be mundane.
Unfortunately, we probably can't see eye to eye on this, because I see everything through a mystical lense. I have mystical interpretation of everything. To me food taste are manifestations of Ultimate Pleasure, which is complete state of peace.
Everything we praise from my understandings has a ultimate source basis that it's a descent from and takes root from, and every opposite to praise, is in God's knowledge (negative polar opposite).
Since scent of good smell is a praise, and all praise for me needs a basis, I disagree.
It's just that the greatest manifestation that is most easiest to see link to the divine, is honour/goodness. That is of a higher nature then other praise. But all praise ultimately is found in the ultimate praised being.
But I wasn't even arguing on that point. I wasn't saying how is it possible we know praise but not ultimate praiseworthy being.
I was simply stating, how do you rationally argue we have knowledge of praise, but we can not possibly have knowledge of Ultimate Praise existing. Stating that well praise is a quality of living beings or things or concepts, while God is a living being, doesn't really solve the issue.
To me, our knowledge of praise exists because we constantly need to apply it. If we didn't constantly use it, we wouldn't have a strong belief in it.
This perhaps where the Theist and Atheist diverged if you assume God is knowable. The Theist feels time to time, they must remember God, and feel an attachment to knowing him.
The Atheist felt perhaps no need to know her/it/him, and just like much knowledge you don't apply, you forget.
If we didn't have tests in school who would study and remember
We need motivation to hold on to knowledge, at least most of us do.
The case of morality is that we constantly need to apply it. However a human who was locked up in a room and never learned language, never interacted with culture and society, and was just given food, perhaps would not have a sense of morality.
I guess loosing my mind gave me a different perception of what people take to be mundane.
Unfortunately, we probably can't see eye to eye on this, because I see everything through a mystical lense. I have mystical interpretation of everything. To me food taste are manifestations of Ultimate Pleasure, which is complete state of peace.
Everything we praise from my understandings has a ultimate source basis that it's a descent from and takes root from, and every opposite to praise, is in God's knowledge (negative polar opposite).
Since scent of good smell is a praise, and all praise for me needs a basis, I disagree.
It's just that the greatest manifestation that is most easiest to see link to the divine, is honour/goodness. That is of a higher nature then other praise. But all praise ultimately is found in the ultimate praised being.
But I wasn't even arguing on that point. I wasn't saying how is it possible we know praise but not ultimate praiseworthy being.
I was simply stating, how do you rationally argue we have knowledge of praise, but we can not possibly have knowledge of Ultimate Praise existing. Stating that well praise is a quality of living beings or things or concepts, while God is a living being, doesn't really solve the issue.
To me, our knowledge of praise exists because we constantly need to apply it. If we didn't constantly use it, we wouldn't have a strong belief in it.
This perhaps where the Theist and Atheist diverged if you assume God is knowable. The Theist feels time to time, they must remember God, and feel an attachment to knowing him.
The Atheist felt perhaps no need to know her/it/him, and just like much knowledge you don't apply, you forget.
If we didn't have tests in school who would study and remember
We need motivation to hold on to knowledge, at least most of us do.
The case of morality is that we constantly need to apply it. However a human who was locked up in a room and never learned language, never interacted with culture and society, and was just given food, perhaps would not have a sense of morality.
