Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 9:36:22 GMT -5
Becoming truly atheist is not so easy to do. It's not so hard to get rid of the idea of the bearded old man in the sky. But what Lacan calls "the big Other" is much more difficult to get rid of. When we say "one doesn't do it" in response to some despicable act, who is this "one"? It's the "big Other". That's the place where the idea about God comes from and it operates in almost everyone and in every culture regardless of whether it's religious or not. As they say "There are no atheists in foxholes" for those that may not know a foxhole is a old military term of making a temporary bunker . All it takes is one accurate bomb and whoof! That's my understanding of Pascal's Wager.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 8, 2013 9:42:26 GMT -5
Becoming truly atheist is not so easy to do. It's not so hard to get rid of the idea of the bearded old man in the sky. But what Lacan calls "the big Other" is much more difficult to get rid of. When we say "one doesn't do it" in response to some despicable act, who is this "one"? It's the "big Other". That's the place where the idea about God comes from and it operates in almost everyone and in every culture regardless of whether it's religious or not. When I read "one doesn't do it" I take it to mean the generic singular of "we." It's more of a reference to the social contract, a generic morality instilled and unquestioned. Is the Big Other the enforcer of that contract, lurking in the back of our minds? Of course the authority ultimately can be traced back to "us" as a collective or whatever, but the point is that it doesn't function like that within our psyche, instead it does function in a much stronger sense as an ideal/abstract authority. Language is very wise in that sense, in the case of such things language is an expression of the unconscious and so it reveals the psychological truth by way of Freudian slips. We precisely don't say " we don't it", we say precisely " one doesn't do it". In Russian we even say "it's not done (this or that way)".
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 8, 2013 9:45:30 GMT -5
As they say "There are no atheists in foxholes" for those that may not know a foxhole is a old military term of making a temporary bunker . All it takes is one accurate bomb and whoof! That's my understanding of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a rational strategy that requires lots of thinking. In the foxhole all rationality is abandoned and the unconscious takes over completely.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 8, 2013 9:45:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. As they say "There are no atheists in foxholes" for those that may not know a foxhole is a old military term of making a temporary bunker . All it takes is one accurate bomb and whoof! That's my understanding of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is dependent on the experiencer's doubt of their own clarity.. actual clarity, perceived with a still and clear mind that is unattached to beliefs has no doubt.. Pascal's Wager is a fundamental marketing tool for conditioning a 'believer', it is designed to create doubt.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 9:47:32 GMT -5
In such situations its no suprise that every true aethiest is usually very confrontational in their aetheism, and VERY firm in arguing it, because it takes a kind of fierce will and effort to be a true aethiest and continually deny the obviousness of experience. It can be hard work to set aside the cultural imprintation of a God iconography, but its even harder work to deny the obviousness of God in everthing and everyone. Avowed aethiests that hold onto aetheism tend to be a pretty fierce lot regarding aetheism as a result. wikipedia "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" My guess is that the narrow population of atheists that you hear from could be labeled confrontational, firm, fierce, etc. I bet most atheists don't really care about talking about it, unless they're concerned about what theists are doing. Still, probably most such atheists could spend all their time talking about the evildoings of theists without even touching on their own lack of beliefs in that area.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 8, 2013 10:09:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. In such situations its no suprise that every true aethiest is usually very confrontational in their aetheism, and VERY firm in arguing it, because it takes a kind of fierce will and effort to be a true aethiest and continually deny the obviousness of experience. It can be hard work to set aside the cultural imprintation of a God iconography, but its even harder work to deny the obviousness of God in everthing and everyone. Avowed aethiests that hold onto aetheism tend to be a pretty fierce lot regarding aetheism as a result. wikipedia "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" My guess is that the narrow population of atheists that you hear from could be labeled confrontational, firm, fierce, etc. I bet most atheists don't really care about talking about it, unless they're concerned about what theists are doing. Still, probably most such atheists could spend all their time talking about the evildoings of theists without even touching on their own lack of beliefs in that area. I am an agnostic, neither rejecting no accepting the existence of deities.. i am aware that the word 'God' relates to deism, and that relationship is inherent with the use of the word.. i sense/experience a collective self-aware intellect, though it has none of the traditional qualities attributed to deity beliefs.. the conflict between the agnostic perspective of just paying attention to what is happening, since there is no actual evidence of a deity, and the religious insistence that there is a deity seems to be a conflict created by the religious intention of converting non-believers to believers.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 10:26:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. wikipedia "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist" My guess is that the narrow population of atheists that you hear from could be labeled confrontational, firm, fierce, etc. I bet most atheists don't really care about talking about it, unless they're concerned about what theists are doing. Still, probably most such atheists could spend all their time talking about the evildoings of theists without even touching on their own lack of beliefs in that area. I am an agnostic, neither rejecting no accepting the existence of deities.. i am aware that the word 'God' relates to deism, and that relationship is inherent with the use of the word.. i sense/experience a collective self-aware intellect, though it has none of the traditional qualities attributed to deity beliefs.. the conflict between the agnostic perspective of just paying attention to what is happening, since there is no actual evidence of a deity, and the religious insistence that there is a deity seems to be a conflict created by the religious intention of converting non-believers to believers.. Be well.. I'm partial to agnosticism too. I understand it to mean, plainly, without experiential knowledge about deity existence or lack of existence. However, wikipedia adds a little certainty to the picture that I'm not comfortable with: "in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist." I don't claim that. I have no idea about what humanity is capable of or whether some have gained knowledge of deities or not. To me, agnosticism is just a personal view that encapsulates "I don't know." And there is openness to it. I'm open to not being an agnostic. Bring it on!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 8, 2013 10:29:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I am an agnostic, neither rejecting no accepting the existence of deities.. i am aware that the word 'God' relates to deism, and that relationship is inherent with the use of the word.. i sense/experience a collective self-aware intellect, though it has none of the traditional qualities attributed to deity beliefs.. the conflict between the agnostic perspective of just paying attention to what is happening, since there is no actual evidence of a deity, and the religious insistence that there is a deity seems to be a conflict created by the religious intention of converting non-believers to believers.. Be well.. I'm partial to agnosticism too. I understand it to mean, plainly, without experiential knowledge about deity existence or lack of existence. However, wikipedia adds a little certainty to the picture that I'm not comfortable with: "in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist." I don't claim that. I have no idea about what humanity is capable of or whether some have gained knowledge of deities or not. To me, agnosticism is just a personal view that encapsulates "I don't know." And there is openness to it. I'm open to not being an agnostic. Bring it on! Agreed.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 11:03:32 GMT -5
When I read "one doesn't do it" I take it to mean the generic singular of "we." It's more of a reference to the social contract, a generic morality instilled and unquestioned. Is the Big Other the enforcer of that contract, lurking in the back of our minds? Of course the authority ultimately can be traced back to "us" as a collective or whatever, but the point is that it doesn't function like that within our psyche, instead it does function in a much stronger sense as an ideal/abstract authority. Language is very wise in that sense, in the case of such things language is an expression of the unconscious and so it reveals the psychological truth by way of Freudian slips. We precisely don't say " we don't it", we say precisely " one doesn't do it". In Russian we even say "it's not done (this or that way)". I couldn't hear a lot of that. From plato.stanford.eduSo I think I what you're alluding to now. The unknowable 'x.' That certainly describes an element of all of my interaction here. Is the removal of the unknowable 'x,' or a belief in The Big Other, an aim of lacanian therapy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 11:22:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. That's my understanding of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is dependent on the experiencer's doubt of their own clarity.. actual clarity, perceived with a still and clear mind that is unattached to beliefs has no doubt.. Pascal's Wager is a fundamental marketing tool for conditioning a 'believer', it is designed to create doubt.. Be well.. In what form is clarity "perceived"? I mean my understanding is that we only perceive the senses, feelings and thoughts... It sounds to me that you perceive clarity within your own subjectivity/perceiving, so I'm just curious what clarity looks like?!
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Oct 8, 2013 11:26:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 8, 2013 11:36:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Pascal's Wager is dependent on the experiencer's doubt of their own clarity.. actual clarity, perceived with a still and clear mind that is unattached to beliefs has no doubt.. Pascal's Wager is a fundamental marketing tool for conditioning a 'believer', it is designed to create doubt.. Be well.. In what form is clarity "perceived"? I mean my understanding is that we only perceive the senses, feelings and thoughts... It sounds to me that you perceive clarity within your own subjectivity/perceiving, so I'm just curious what clarity looks like?! Have you ever looked through a dirty window, then cleaned it and looked again? looking through the clean window is 'clarity' perceived.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. In what form is clarity "perceived"? I mean my understanding is that we only perceive the senses, feelings and thoughts... It sounds to me that you perceive clarity within your own subjectivity/perceiving, so I'm just curious what clarity looks like?! Have you ever looked through a dirty window, then cleaned it and looked again? looking through the clean window is 'clarity' perceived.. Be well.. Sorry, I don't get it...is it a thought/perception that you've been looking through a dirty window all this time?! Or is it a feeling derived from an unconscious revelation?! Obviously it doesn't have anything to do with your analogy of the sense of sight right?! Can you elucidate further in regards to whether the clarity perceived is a perception or is it a metaphoric experience?!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 8, 2013 12:08:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Have you ever looked through a dirty window, then cleaned it and looked again? looking through the clean window is 'clarity' perceived.. Be well.. Sorry, I don't get it...is it a thought/perception that you've been looking through a dirty window all this time?! Or is it a feeling derived from an unconscious revelation?! Obviously it doesn't have anything to do with your analogy of the sense of sight right?! Can you elucidate further in regards to whether the clarity perceived is a perception or is it a metaphoric experience?! No.. clean your window.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 12:15:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Sorry, I don't get it...is it a thought/perception that you've been looking through a dirty window all this time?! Or is it a feeling derived from an unconscious revelation?! Obviously it doesn't have anything to do with your analogy of the sense of sight right?! Can you elucidate further in regards to whether the clarity perceived is a perception or is it a metaphoric experience?! No.. clean your window.. Be well.. Not the senses, not a feeling, not a thought, not metaphorical, clean my window...hmmm Sounds a lot like Enigma's 'realization'...I don't get that either...
|
|