Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
behavioralist

God On the Slab in the Morgue

9 posts in this topic

When we invent a sharp enough tool we can dissect with it. First we have a corpse, and then, after a little progress, we have a corpse that explains how it died. First we have a cosmos, and then we have a cosmos that begins to suggest things to us about its development and prospects. Sharp tools give us a new era of insights, be their relevance contrived to force the fit (like a puzzle that comes with a puzzle piece-hammer) or universal.

But when we dissect a man we can’t somehow become disoriented and lose sight of what he was because most men we see are very much alive (though nothing like as alive as most children are; instinct is reduced to a “simple chaos” program ---“karma”--- with loss of inspiration; it is absurd to think of the subconscious as an exception to the rule that the notion chaos is relative to processing power, and so nothing is ever actually random or incidental, but only seeing it so justifies the conscious assuming autonomy); while when we dissect the cosmos we begin to assess the findings separately, as if we never knew the cosmos as it always has been: God.

The hubris is exacerbated by the fact that with language the word God became pejorative due to association with those who claimed his favor. Since these people subjugated those learning language it was hard to contest their deflective portrayal of “God”, and language would have God in no other way; no way that made it life itself that knows God. Pejoratively God is the exclusive privilege of such species as can be subjected to tutelage and persecuted for “heresy”, heresy being to get under three point oh in the course.

An era of Godlessness has begun with a sharp instrument because we are dissecting the only specimen, and only the findings matter. The findings in a corpse do not add up to a living man either, and if we must begin by dissecting a living man we can’t make the findings live or account for living with much more definition than we can explain why a corpse is not living, except through “common sense” circumstantial associations such as “all organisms are alive at one time”.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we invent a sharp enough tool we can dissect with it. First we have a corpse, and then, after a little progress, we have a corpse that explains how it died. First we have a cosmos, and then we have a cosmos that begins to suggest things to us about its development and prospects. Sharp tools give us a new era of insights, be their relevance contrived to force the fit (like a puzzle that comes with a puzzle piece-hammer) or universal.

But when we dissect a man we can’t somehow become disoriented and lose sight of what he was because most men we see are very much alive (though nothing like as alive as most children are; instinct is reduced to a “simple chaos” program ---“karma”--- with loss of inspiration; it is absurd to think of the subconscious as an exception to the rule that the notion chaos is relative to processing power, and so nothing is ever actually random or incidental, but only seeing it so justifies the conscious assuming autonomy); while when we dissect the cosmos we begin to assess the findings separately, as if we never knew the cosmos as it always has been: God.

The hubris is exacerbated by the fact that with language the word God became pejorative due to association with those who claimed his favor. Since these people subjugated those learning language it was hard to contest their deflective portrayal of “God”, and language would have God in no other way; no way that made it life itself that knows God. Pejoratively God is the exclusive privilege of such species as can be subjected to tutelage and persecuted for “heresy”, heresy being to get under three point oh in the course.

An era of Godlessness has begun with a sharp instrument because we are dissecting the only specimen, and only the findings matter. The findings in a corpse do not add up to a living man either, and if we must begin by dissecting a living man we can’t make the findings live or account for living with much more definition than we can explain why a corpse is not living, except through “common sense” circumstantial associations such as “all organisms are alive at one time”.

I know this is not what you were getting at; but do not worry. God is alive and well. So is humanity; if showing some nasty symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Time" magazine queried about the Death of God in a cover story about 48 years ago; perhaps this is the entity upon the aforementioned slab. At the risk of sounding glib I will simply posit: "god" may be 'dead,' but God lives. As Wittgenstein insisted, theology has disintegrated into so many "language games." At the same time we have primarily language with which to approach such matters. It can lead to paradox, argument, debate--and--learning and growth.

Thanks for the post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Time" magazine queried about the Death of God in a cover story about 48 years ago; perhaps this is the entity upon the aforementioned slab. At the risk of sounding glib I will simply posit: "god" may be 'dead,' but God lives. As Wittgenstein insisted, theology has disintegrated into so many "language games." At the same time we have primarily language with which to approach such matters. It can lead to paradox, argument, debate--and--learning and growth.

Thanks for the post.

My "contention" (a Discovery actually, but not one I ask anyone to beleive, since a beleiver is a follower and a following is useless to science except as funding I no longer need) is that language is the surrogate for the perfect mental participation: emotion. Note how the conscious is private, and also the emotion. If your emotion and mine are both private, how do we find out if we are mirroring?

And if mirroring is Always the case,e ven when you are angry about a Product you got by mail (because people do hate their jobs, and hate being asked to do them better even more) will it ever "feel the same" as private emotions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember that this is a forum for discussion. We are not here to make judgments about others, to denigrate others, and basic respect for one another is what keeps this site going. Please review the forum rules if there's any uncertainty about whether your posts fall within the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "contention" (a Discovery actually, but not one I ask anyone to beleive, since a beleiver is a follower and a following is useless to science except as funding I no longer need) is that language is the surrogate for the perfect mental participation: emotion. Note how the conscious is private, and also the emotion. If your emotion and mine are both private, how do we find out if we are mirroring?

And if mirroring is Always the case,e ven when you are angry about a Product you got by mail (because people do hate their jobs, and hate being asked to do them better even more) will it ever "feel the same" as private emotions?

Mirroring only applies to the physical mannerisms etc of people. Our thoughts, as you say, are private and thus cannot be observed by others, and naturally then cannot be mirrored.

External language is an associated function of thought, which is also a form of internal language. Without the ability to think in simple and complex language forms, one cannot speak out loud either. But it is this internal process which facilitates all our abilities in cognition, including the ability to form beliefs. Because human thought/ cognition and language, is almost identical among all humans, we can communicate effectively with each other. But also, we all shape and form common beliefs archetypes etc., which are further shaped by oral and written forms of communication, sharing views and opinions between people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirroring only applies to the physical mannerisms etc of people. Our thoughts, as you say, are private and thus cannot be observed by others, and naturally then cannot be mirrored.

External language is an associated function of thought, which is also a form of internal language. Without the ability to think in simple and complex language forms, one cannot speak out loud either. But it is this internal process which facilitates all our abilities in cognition, including the ability to form beliefs. Because human thought/ cognition and language, is almost identical among all humans, we can communicate effectively with each other. But also, we all shape and form common beliefs archetypes etc., which are further shaped by oral and written forms of communication, sharing views and opinions between people.

Consider the possibility that conditioning renders something subconscious because it is not cooperating with established customs, such as privacy of thought.

When I was twenty I had a step-brother ten years my junior, and he was already capable of miseleading me with histrionic skills to keep me from finding what he had stolen from my room while I was living away from home. At twenty I was a year from doing anything resembling that effect, my bully-quotient being about the lowest on Earth and very much the lowest in an elite Community.

At ten this kid could not visit the present except with a pleasure-collecting proboscis, and at twenty I could not imagine a departure from the present. And when people revisit the present through psychotropic chemical means we call it "hallucination", which imples that the conscious can't beleive there is any such Place or natural gravitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the possibility that conditioning renders something subconscious because it is not cooperating with established customs, such as privacy of thought.

When I was twenty I had a step-brother ten years my junior, and he was already capable of miseleading me with histrionic skills to keep me from finding what he had stolen from my room while I was living away from home. At twenty I was a year from doing anything resembling that effect, my bully-quotient being about the lowest on Earth and very much the lowest in an elite Community.

At ten this kid could not visit the present except with a pleasure-collecting proboscis, and at twenty I could not imagine a departure from the present. And when people revisit the present through psychotropic chemical means we call it "hallucination", which imples that the conscious can't beleive there is any such Place or natural gravitation.

The mind tries to play tricks on us but it also gives us the ability to recognise this and act on that realisation. I cant speak for others but I made my subconscious accessible to my conscious mind over 50 years ago and use the two in conjunction. Conditioning is only effective if we remain unaware of it, and any conditioned response can be unlearned.,

I cant speak to your own experiences which have shaped your own world view, as they tend to do for all of us, but remember that any experience can be perceived and used in any one of many ways, simply by consciously putting on a different set of lenses and viewing it from another perspective.

I don't understand your last short paragraph

Are you saying that, at ten, you were only pleasure seeking? At twenty you had no other perspective but that of the present? (What on earth were your parents doing in this time? Didn't you read books or watch television?)

Do you mean when people revisit the past? The past is real and solid. It happened. We lived through it in a time we knew as our present. We can access it via many means including memory, but also photos, artefacts, videos and conversations. Personally I don't remember all my past but I do know it is real and can be verified as such . For example about 45 years ago I scratched my name onto a limestone shelf in front of our beach shack I remember doing so. It remains there today. I remember Thai I helped my father build that shack it remains there today and I have photos of us building it. One specific contextual memory I have is using some applied geometry I had learned at school to create a perfect right angle for the foundation, using nothing more than a piece of string and a pencil Not having taken any drugs or alcohol for over four decades certainly helped me both with short term memory and with longer recall. There are no periods of this life inaccessible to me due to the effects of drugs or alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am embarrassed to admit that I've lost the flow of this. . . For example: There's a lot more to a hallucination that the apparent setting-aside of the law of gravity. At least that's what the giant walking carrot said to me in Latvian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.