God and time and space

[Horatio Parker]

Do you ever communicate meaningfully with another human being? If you do, that is not the world of science.

Do you ever communicate? I mean: you managed to be totally unintelligable in two short sentences.

I'll ignore the gratuitous snark. Can you answer the question?

 

[Juma]

Do you ever communicate? I mean: you managed to be totally unintelligable in two short sentences.

I'll ignore the gratuitous snark. Can you answer the question?

If you formulate a real question.

 

[Juma]

No what?

Yes concepts of beauty, justice etc. are relevant to interpersonnal relations and social life (and that's already in my previous post).

No the notion of eternal beauty is not relevant. Or could you explain how by any chance?

Unity. Clarity. Simplicity. Conceiving of all beauties as the same, universal. To recognize it visually, aurally, conceptually, or as a result of human interaction. To distinguish between an ornament and a moving experience.

Me, I don't see how it is in interpersonal relationships. There is nothing literally true about it so maybe its usefulness is the usefulness of a lie? It's basically a deception? Maybe it could be used in politics or in religious sermons? Can you help me here?
EB

What is beautiful to you? Not beauty, but the beautiful. What do you or have you experienced as beautiful. Have you ever had a moving, profound experience of beauty? Something life changing? Something that shaped or defined who you are? Is there anything in your world that creates a sense of awe in you?

Of course. But that is a feeling. An emotion. Noting universal or eternal.

Yes. A feeling that every human has and has had as long as we can look back. Ergo, they're the same or similar enough that we can consider them so.

So eternity is 100000 years? Or 10000000? Get real. That is so silly.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If you formulate a real question.

Do you ever communicate meaningfully with another human being?

 

[Juma]

If you formulate a real question.

Do you ever communicate meaningfully with another human being?

Meaningfully? You mean as in I, or the other one, gained something from it? Yes.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do you ever communicate meaningfully with another human being?

Meaningfully? You mean as in I, or the other one, gained something from it? Yes.

Suppose you felt the desire to articulate these experiences, maybe as a way of gaining or imparting understanding to another? Would you then describe it in human terms, or as neural activity governed by genetics and conditioning?

 

[Juma]

Meaningfully? You mean as in I, or the other one, gained something from it? Yes.

Suppose you felt the desire to articulate these experiences, maybe as a way of gaining or imparting understanding to another? Would you then describe it in human terms, or as neural activity governed by genetics and conditioning?

That would very much depend on what I was communicating.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sometimes I wonder if you read your own posts.
Our day to day lives is precisely where this stuff is relevant.

No. Read my post again.

No what?

Oh, so you don't understand English too good!

So let me explain it to you. My answer "No" couldn't apply to the first of your sentences so you should take it to apply to your second sentence. Go back to school.

Yes concepts of beauty, justice etc. are relevant to interpersonnal relations and social life (and that's already in my previous post).
No the notion of eternal beauty is not relevant. Or could you explain how by any chance?

Unity. Clarity. Simplicity. Conceiving of all beauties as the same, universal.

You do it if you want to but you fail at being convincing that other people should try it. Your language just looks ambiguous at the very least, possibly disingenuous, possibly even an indication of some psychological condition. It's fine if you do art, (and juma properly suggested your claims were probably essentially poetic in nature).

To recognize it visually, aurally, conceptually, or as a result of human interaction. To distinguish between an ornament and a moving experience.

I don't even know what it is you are really trying to say, let alone mean, such is the ambiguity of your language, and not just this bit, as it seems to be a constant in the way you express yourself.

Claiming to recognise beauty assumes beauty is out there in the first place. But, as I already explained, all we can say instead is that there may be something X that causes us to talk as if beauty existed out there. So far, you haven't even tried to argue against that.

However, you also claimed earlier that we "shared" the concepts of beauty, justice etc. But if beauty was out there we could share nothing of it. We also could not share any concept of it since a concept has to be either in our mind or somehow outside of it. If inside, we would each have to have our own private concept, not one we could share, or this concept would be somehow outside our minds, in which case we would not only not share it, but also not know it. Instead, we might perhaps "perceive" it but then again not share anything about it. Other than that, you would have to explain to me how it works. For now, your conception seems essentially grounded on the idea that magic is operational at some level.

Me, I don't see how it is in interpersonal relationships. There is nothing literally true about it so maybe its usefulness is the usefulness of a lie? It's basically a deception? Maybe it could be used in politics or in religious sermons? Can you help me here?
EB

What is beautiful to you? Not beauty, but the beautiful. What do you or have you experienced as beautiful. Have you ever had a moving, profound experience of beauty? Something life changing? Something that shaped or defined who you are? Is there anything in your world that creates a sense of awe in you?

So you are definitely into poetry!

Yes, I experienced a few years ago what I consider to be the epitome of poetic beauty such that most poems now look drab to me now. I was so entranced I felt I was somehow communicating with Li Bai himself, although he actually lived in the 9th century! So what?


As I said, never mind. You have zero argument. You're obviously not even interested in trying to understand what people say and your ability to understand English doesn't seem too good. You may have an emotion and perhaps you want to share it but this is all a derail. Just start your own thread and see how many people share your sense of eternal beauty.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What is beautiful to you? Not beauty, but the beautiful. What do you or have you experienced as beautiful. Have you ever had a moving, profound experience of beauty? Something life changing? Something that shaped or defined who you are? Is there anything in your world that creates a sense of awe in you?

Of course. But that is a feeling. An emotion. Noting universal or eternal.

Yes. A feeling that every human has and has had as long as we can look back. Ergo, they're the same or similar enough that we can consider them so.

The same? How could you possibly know that!? What nonsense! You know what's in my mind now? You do?!

And if you want to insist that they are somehow similar enough then they will never be so similar that we could say that there is anything "eternal" in there. Industry is making products so similar you couldn't distinguish between two products just coming out of the same production line and yet, in my experience, these things are not eternal. They don't even try to make them eternal!

Each feeling of beauty is privately construed so they are effectively different from one person to the next and therefore there is no possibility of a unique concept we could share, let alone one which would be eternal. You are just self-indulgently deluding yourself; and what's more asking us to concur!
EB

 

[Togo]

Horatio seems to be making sense to me. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Beauty is the feeling that something is attractive.
Eternal beauty is a reference to attractiveness that does not change with time, hence 'eternal'.

So in a social context, a man might refer to his wife as possessing 'eternal beauty'. This is because she looks beautiful to him irrespective of the passage of time. It's a reference to concepts of beauty and attractiveness that are partaking of an ideal of beauty that is not contingent on time and circumstance.

It's the same point I was making about mathematical concepts. Beauty is no more a fleeting emotion than E-MCsquared is. Both are abstractions, or as Horation puts it, universals. The content of a single person's head does not define or encompass the concept, because the concept is shared.

I'm really not following why this would be controvertial.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So let me explain it to you. My answer "No" couldn't apply to the first of your sentences so you should take it to apply to your second sentence. Go back to school.

Your ad hominem doesn't do you any credit.

Yes concepts of beauty, justice etc. are relevant to interpersonnal relations and social life (and that's already in my previous post).
No the notion of eternal beauty is not relevant. Or could you explain how by any chance?

Unity. Clarity. Simplicity. Conceiving of all beauties as the same, universal.

You do it if you want to but you fail at being convincing that other people should try it. Your language just looks ambiguous at the very least, possibly disingenuous, possibly even an indication of some psychological condition. It's fine if you do art, (and juma properly suggested your claims were probably essentially poetic in nature).

What do I care if you "try it"? I'm not here to convert anybody. I'm attempting to argue for a conceptual outlook where God(or an equivalent unifying principle) can exist outside of time and space. Admitting such thing is possible and accepting it as a vision for one's own life are two different things. I'm interested in the first.

Claiming to recognise beauty assumes beauty is out there in the first place. But, as I already explained, all we can say instead is that there may be something X that causes us to talk as if beauty existed out there. So far, you haven't even tried to argue against that.

Because it's pointless. The variable X is superfluous.

However, you also claimed earlier that we "shared" the concepts of beauty, justice etc. But if beauty was out there we could share nothing of it. We also could not share any concept of it since a concept has to be either in our mind or somehow outside of it. If inside, we would each have to have our own private concept, not one we could share, or this concept would be somehow outside our minds, in which case we would not only not share it, but also not know it. Instead, we might perhaps "perceive" it but then again not share anything about it. Other than that, you would have to explain to me how it works. For now, your conception seems essentially grounded on the idea that magic is operational at some level.

No magic. Communication between humans is all that's necessary. I don't see why that's such a stretch for you. Here we are, using language to explore ideas. Why is it so hard to believe that the same can't be done with profound experiences of beauty?

Me, I don't see how it is in interpersonal relationships. There is nothing literally true about it so maybe its usefulness is the usefulness of a lie? It's basically a deception? Maybe it could be used in politics or in religious sermons? Can you help me here?
EB

It contains the truth of human experience and is applicable in the course of your interaction with other humans.

Yes, I experienced a few years ago what I consider to be the epitome of poetic beauty such that most poems now look drab to me now. I was so entranced I felt I was somehow communicating with Li Bai himself, although he actually lived in the 9th century! So what?

You contradict yourself. On the one hand, you admit to a peak experience and dismiss it with the other. Isn't it obvious that such a dismissal is a choice on your part?

As I said, never mind. You have zero argument. You're obviously not even interested in trying to understand what people say and your ability to understand English doesn't seem too good. You may have an emotion and perhaps you want to share it but this is all a derail. Just start your own thread and see how many people share your sense of eternal beauty.
EB

You keep saying this and yet keep coming back for more. I'm beginning to suspect confusion.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Suppose you felt the desire to articulate these experiences, maybe as a way of gaining or imparting understanding to another? Would you then describe it in human terms, or as neural activity governed by genetics and conditioning?

That would very much depend on what I was communicating.

Of course it would.

But you are admitting that language such as we have been discussing, ie subjective abstract concepts eg beauty, love, desire, is useful in human interaction and that you use it yourself?

 

[Horatio Parker]

What is beautiful to you? Not beauty, but the beautiful. What do you or have you experienced as beautiful. Have you ever had a moving, profound experience of beauty? Something life changing? Something that shaped or defined who you are? Is there anything in your world that creates a sense of awe in you?

Of course. But that is a feeling. An emotion. Noting universal or eternal.

Yes. A feeling that every human has and has had as long as we can look back. Ergo, they're the same or similar enough that we can consider them so.

The same? How could you possibly know that!? What nonsense! You know what's in my mind now? You do?!

And if you want to insist that they are somehow similar enough then they will never be so similar that we could say that there is anything "eternal" in there. Industry is making products so similar you couldn't distinguish between two products just coming out of the same production line and yet, in my experience, these things are not eternal. They don't even try to make them eternal!

Each feeling of beauty is privately construed so they are effectively different from one person to the next and therefore there is no possibility of a unique concept we could share, let alone one which would be eternal. You are just self-indulgently deluding yourself; and what's more asking us to concur!
EB

I'll know what's in your mind if you tell me in language that I can understand and if I'm convinced of your sincerity, absolutely. Granted, the degree of precision or perfection is not quantifiable, we can only rely on feeling do I understand or does this person understand me. But if we both feel that we do, we do. End of story.

 

[Juma]

That would very much depend on what I was communicating.

Of course it would.

But you are admitting that language such as we have been discussing, ie subjective abstract concepts eg beauty, love, desire, is useful in human interaction and that you use it yourself?

Yes, as others humans are related to me I expect they are enough similar to be able to imagine what I mean.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Of course it would.

But you are admitting that language such as we have been discussing, ie subjective abstract concepts eg beauty, love, desire, is useful in human interaction and that you use it yourself?

Yes, as others humans are related to me I expect they are enough similar to be able to imagine what I mean.

Good. As I've said before, that's enough for our purposes.

Can you see that a systematic approach to such ideas could possibly facilitate, even enhance such communication?

 

[Juma]

Yes, as others humans are related to me I expect they are enough similar to be able to imagine what I mean.

Good. As I've said before, that's enough for our purposes.

Can you see that a systematic approach to such ideas could possibly facilitate, even enhance such communication?

No. That type of communication is based on our intuition and our emotions. A systematic approach is anatema to how we communicate.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Good. As I've said before, that's enough for our purposes.

Can you see that a systematic approach to such ideas could possibly facilitate, even enhance such communication?

No. That type of communication is based on our intuition and our emotions. A systematic approach is anatema to how we communicate.

Any value a psychotherapist brings to a patient depends greatly on an organized approach. Why should it be any different for an individual?

 

[Juma]

No. That type of communication is based on our intuition and our emotions. A systematic approach is anatema to how we communicate.

Any value a psychotherapist brings to a patient depends greatly on an organized approach. Why should it be any different for an individual?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly what are you trying to "organize"?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Any value a psychotherapist brings to a patient depends greatly on an organized approach. Why should it be any different for an individual?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly what are you trying to "organize"?

Your mind ie your relationship to reality.

Let me try another way. You must have an idea of yourself. Surely you know yourself and likely are aware of certain faults, weaknesses, or frustrations that might be yours in addition to your strengths and talents. You also have a vision of yourself as you would like to be. Make sense?

 

[Juma]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly what are you trying to "organize"?

Your mind ie your relationship to reality.

Let me try another way. You must have an idea of yourself. Surely you know yourself and likely are aware of certain faults, weaknesses, or frustrations that might be yours in addition to your strengths and talents. You also have a vision of yourself as you would like to be. Make sense?

Ok. Go on.