Slight Zhizni 11
Love you man retort:
«Soul can happen in 14-18 years at the stage of identity formation. I think that you more. And that means that you will be hard that either overestimated. »
R.CH. Love it:
Yes, it is difficult, all the "protective" mechanisms interfere - but what do I have to live and work in such conditions is not simple. Self-understanding of the philosophical system - already involves the reevaluation of values, ie spiritual development.
Abdullah then Love and R.CH.:
What Love says about the age Rules of identity formation - in my opinion, this is a blatant naivete and misunderstanding. Identity can not, as I understand, / formed. For Person, must be believe is the one who refuses to final formation of the consciousness of his own Ya After all, what the formation looks like no zakosnevenie, adaptation, extinction samorazvitiynoy activities. When You Love, said Georgi that you think you already know what is good, because you have already formed personality, it was funny. Because logically turned out nothing but if you say: "I know what is good at somewhere 18 years of the person as it is at that age, I formed and completely entrenched views on life. " Sorry, but those sformirovyvayutsya as a person with the onset of puberty can not, as I understand, and solve issues of Genesis. Uma does not suffice. After all, for such complex fabrics need minds is not something like a collective formed personalities, but it is what continually evolving and developing personality.
And you retort man did not say that thought out of courtesy ... Love it? But I prefer honesty ... and I even, somehow, do not want to apologize for it. Because I think this is the best manner of communication.
Love R.CH.:
«vozdnystvie on consciousness by psycho could have implications even more negative than those from which you want to get rid ....»
agree and about the same and say: dangerous thing, there should be "seven times measure, cut once." You can, incidentally, is not psycho and a prayer to God, ask him to get rid of something. Although some believe that it is also a form of psycho.
Abdullah:
I tell you one clever thing, but you will not be offended. I think that getting rid of bad memories do not need. On the contrary, they need to worry and worry, chew and chew until the World of Enlightenment. You understand what I mean? It is this self-torture and there is, I think, the way to manhood.
Once in my childhood, my father expressed the idea, saying that "bad" memories are forgotten, "good" remained. I had then thought, "What cowardice! a glaring lack of creative interest! how childish .... "
Nietzsche:
Search should be guilt and misery ...
Abdullah:
Because of the continuous deepening of the jungle laws of life and peace and the absence, thus the formation of views on life, I've been in the nuthouse much as six times. And I think now my intelligence begins to beat the disease. I learned how it seems to me so well to understand what is happening in my mind that only last month returned several times to himself from the chain of thoughts that, as I know from experience / in its essence / are leading back to the clinic. How do I manage it? That's because I'm learning to understand the essence of a general nature, the symbolic nature of the signs to recognize exactly those maneuvers of my mind. And with each return from the path to disease, I feel more confident and more confident.
As Freud suggested?! Artificial self-deception to build new defensive mechanisms, more powerful old, do not resist? / It's the same idiocy /! We have to go ahead, forward to more complete truth about our soul to self!
Karen Araevich Svasyan:
(PHENOMENOLOGICAL
Propedeutics KNOWLEDGE AND CRITICISM
Chapter 4
RAID is self
§ 1. Delphic commandment)
Gnwqi seauton - Know thyself. It is the word inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi - one of the oldest words, bestowed upon the man before the end of time. It - the invisible center of a dazzling colorful circle of all human culture, from the lyrical breath of some of Catullus by smarmy cynicism of some Abbé Galiani to warped neogeometricheskih spaces and hypercomplex numbers, from the Socratic cup of poison through beaten with a stick Epictetus and Hypatia was torn with the crowd to roar posleverterovskih suicides and idiotic mutterings obsolete Baudelaire is the leitmotif of this blessed: Know thyself. Center - force gravity, a solar proton, around which rotates and is held back all the fullness of the cultural circle, depriving the center of this circle, and he immediately disintegrate into meaningless fragments, cultural symbols will turn into empty volumes and the decay products. So, when confronted with the center of the circle, facing we are the central theme of culture, and the theme this is humanitas: man as a point silyaschayasya know yourself and to expand to the circle, to fulfill the highest mission of their calling. Circle of culture is here transpariruet Imagination intelligent countenance. "Over the years, - we read in one poem, Jorge Luis Borges - a man inhabits the space of images of provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships, islands, fishes, houses, tools, stars, horses and humans. Shortly before his death, he discovers that the patient labyrinth of lines carefully composes the features of his own people "[1]. Thus saith the poet, and the truth of his words are echoed by the scientist. Werner Heisenberg, going from the other side, suddenly finds himself in the area literally microphysical shocks. And he called that, exploring the universe and looking at it objectively property, "a person meets itself" [2]. Strange roll call, all the more strange that the consent of the poet and the scientist escapes back to the earliest symbols of a mythical cosmography, where the unity of microcosm and macrocosm is perceived through the formation of man from the parts of the world and the world of the parts of human [3]. Thus, in one of the hymns of the Rigveda shows the appearance of the world torn body of the Purusha, and in later Christian Germanic mythology is revealed the reverse situation, where Adam's body is made up of eight parts on the basis of their compliance with land, sea, plants, etc. Such is the Seven-Limb map of the world Hippocrates, depicting the earth as a human body. Today, evaluating these ideas, we're talking about a naive anthropomorphism, which was destined to fall under the crushing impacts of progressive scientific knowledge. Physics thoroughly eradicated these images, replacing them with the increasing power of abstraction, until finally, the structural space of myth was not finally eliminated the functional space of mathematical science, where the dismembered body of "first man" was transformed the theory of invariants related, according to the Erlangen program "Klein certain transformational groups. The fact that naive anthropomorphism harbored in itself something more than just naive, it turned out, the visibility of children's pictures (plotinovskaya metaphor of space as a "decorated corpse" Enn. 11, 4, 8) to hide the deep meanings of unopened, in which both had a chance to glimpse one of the founders of Physics of the Microworld. In-depth mathematical formula vaunted one for the purity of abstraction and other ponosimaya for inhumanity, she turned suddenly encounter with existence, - not without "a grain of salt: Niels Abel, a brilliant young man, a mathematician, formulated the impossibility of solving algebraic equations of degree 5, could rightfully challenge kirkegorovskuyu monopoly on the mystery man.
Meanwhile mystery prokidyvalas shadow of the new Sphinx. For the big hit of growing knowledge about the world remained invisible simplest to mind the question: what is man? Analytical spring, attracted by opportunities stretching, moved, seemingly precise point at which deformation begins, and lost the elasticity of the impossibility of returning back to itself. Differential equation Rights, drawn up in the course of centuries, as if lost relationship with its integral, the person has a spice, a specialist, brilliantly mastered the "Legion of methodological aspects and thus ceased to be generalists; The universality of man was transferred from plane to plane realism nominalism. The reality remained beyond the "special": chemist, logician, poet, mathematician, postneofreydist and neopostantifreydist, "expert" was given its own without the rest, the person is taken as the integral of all these spices, was forced to take thirteenth place at the table: he became flatus vocis, pustozvuchiem, socratitas, scholastic Latin, rhetorical flourish, gongorizmom, a note to the text of the "thinking computer, "Kai school of logic, in a word, he stopped and began to be mean, doznachivshis to a record level of" theory of knowledge without a knowing subject "[4]. Who knows, if already wandering in the clear as day, "propositions" of the theory of the ghost of an ancient cynic with a lantern in his hand: in the edification of seeing?
Self was similar to the images of children's books: there, in a motley amalgam of patterns, lines and spots, it is proposed to find a figure of hidden "spot" here in the rattling information boom, you want to find (and save) "apprentice sorcerer," drowning in a new Flood own stunning achievement.
Search for a person was searching for the ark. To him, in fact, led all the way when a traveler ability to resist the temptation of stops and a final rest in the acquired specialties. It was necessary to realize the human self-knowledge in the subject, and it meant: to start from the end, with the mood of Faust, pull the cup of poison in the Easter night, with a decrepit Faust, overcome them in the culture of intelligence "spices" and found the new unheard of youth through the power of magical awareness of themselves as "poor fool" with Faust, disenchant culture-Circe in the subject of infinite loyalty to the rhythm, walks, paths. It was necessary to curb the centrifugal knowledge centripetal of-knowledge and more - with self-knowledge, so that the center has expanded to a volume and the volume has shrunk to the center, for creativity - in whatever it manifested itself - there is always samotvorchestvo; otherwise it is - nothing, cymbal rattling, an idol in the mask of the ideal, a shallow affair, sophisticated self-deception, unmasked once and for all of Tolstoy's immortal rage "Confessions." Only then can dehumanize function will turn the world anew inkarnatom anthropomorphism, is not naive, and Sophian, wise, and the measure cultural world will, in the words of Goethe, "the triumph of the purely human: all meaningful only insofar as humanity and promotes the growth of humanity. Disappear, perhaps flawed science division at the natural and human, humanitarian (and so far natural) will, without exception of science, so that the humanist future will reveal itself as clearly in a reasonably sensible and humanized scientism as a humanist past - in philology. Only then a new rise undying true maverick Greek, sealed misunderstanding of the century: "Man is the measure of all things." Measure of a blade of grass, kolyshimoy wind, and measure of the icy outer space, the measure of his own pride and a measure of their own shame. But that truth is not seduced by false consequences, should would exhaustively brighten her horizons and understand it in totality. He therefore is the measure of all things, that all things are, in turn, serve as a measure and a reminder of their own his humanity.
Abdullah:
As this brilliantly edited by an Armenian translation (M. Ontonovskogo) "Thus Spake Zarathustra" ... I am / just bastard / from this translation.
==========================
: LOVE:
I certainly had a view of creative transformation. But your response has given pause. If you discuss the theme of eternal life, then perhaps a supporter of the theory that man does not live one life and in past lives and future and the present. I am far from a world view and believe it to be unfounded, but it's close to your thoughts. Or am I not right?
Abdullah:
No, I too believe this outlook unfounded. In any particular sense I am a materialist to the core.
: LOVE:
I enter into polemics with the fact that overcoming depression - the action, and the term "bogootstavlennost" felt pronounced "depressnyak. I already wrote earlier, that the good is the way to the good. As well as knowledge of the essence of Christ - is a process. But I'm trying to understand your idea of looking common good through Christ, and the position of "bogootstavlennosti" I think that goes against your own theory.
Berdyaev:
Experience bogoostavlennosti not to deny the existence of God, it even suggests the existence of God. This is the moment of communion with God in the existential dialectic, but the moment painful. Bogoostavlennost experiencing not only individuals but entire nations and all humanity and all creation.
: AL:
Information field is for each person. And then there is the effect. The Young person is born with the "collective unconscious", there was already "navliyali" many generations of ancestors. So why same Savrasov through you to influence others, and some sort of your friend, with whom you occasionally drink coffee and walk to the exhibition - is not affected? What do you think is the difference benefits of Savrasov, the benefits of Kant's and benefit from the familiar?
Abdullah:
We all have influence. But it all seems to me, it is not the same in terms of qualitative and quantitative The difference in the parameters ... "benefits from Savrasov, the benefits of Kant's and benefit from the familiar" I think it is in these settings ...
Kant povliyatelney much, perhaps, will Savrasov ... But Christ, I think, where something as influential to Kant, in what respects this plan is the second in a familiar thread ... Nietzsche as, for example, is so influential (potentially) be Kant's, as far as the second influential on my prikidochnoy assessment Savrasov. So ... when I say for DII (spiritual and intellectual hierarchy), I just relations degree of influence in promoting non-refoulement and mean. Of course, all these are my Personalities prices purely about-intuitive, hypothetical.
:: LOVE:
: Abdullah:
: How do I ask anything of those who will live through the years thousand, and those who lived a thousand years ago?
: Love: Why so far to go! In living creatures, you can ask.
Abdullah:
How can I do this? If I had been given to the world-in microphone and offered an opportunity to ask - does anyone anything could understand? This, in my opinion, almost the same as if Michelangelo asked to have the granite boulders: "And whether you want to I'll ennobled?". And then ... You talked about the assent of mankind, rather than his contemporaries in a separate vzyatosti! Contemporaries - only a moment, a fragment of mankind (interpretation of the "living" as "humanity" - regard as an illusion of objectification). They can not be responsible for all of humanity, as not equal to all mankind. And I, at the same time, do not call to improve humanity today, but / humanity in general. I just do not see an opportunity to improve something concrete, objectified taken.
knows what this illusion of objectification, In my opinion, is connected? In my opinion it is related to the concrete setting of the human subject (nedobogochelovecheskoy) psyche to perform tasks within the duration personal life.
: AL:
In this case, we can issue - / attainment of eternal life / is a universal good ??????
Abdullah:
question refers to me as a logically unjustified. It's all about the word "achievement" with regard to "eternal life".
=========================
SB:
: But the beginning of my confusion:
: I understand the inequality of men, I understand the professional excellence of one person over another (dentist surpasses me in a doctor's art, but I may have it in prevoshozhu those abilities that God gave me), but I do not understand what it means to the superiority of the individual over the individual (where the criteria? not a profession - to be a person) and especially do not understand where the idea of inequalities, conclude the superiority of one person over another.
Abdullah:
Maybe it's not used to? Very posing question may simply be too / custom / ...
Indeed, it is impossible to understand who the best specialist, where there is no understanding of the specialty and the nature of specialization. And if there is no idea of the purpose of personal самовзаимосовершенствования, then there can be no representation on / target / congruity detection degrees of personal growth. But the fact that "there is no such profession - being a person" - does not mean after all that "and should not be! Clearly, this may not be such a profession, where for the qualification you can receive and pay compensation. It should be, I think, is something purely spiritual, where the reward is directly Increased self CHANCES.
«yourselves vagina does not wear out, a treasure unfailing in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys, For where your treasure is, there your heart will be.
Luke. X increase antientropiynogo Might of the Creator, Development, Heavenly Father. "
«who does not gather with me scatters.
Luke. XI, 1923 »
I understand that a whopping historical attempts to outside financial and objectified gathering had occurred in the earth's development of society in general. But these attempts a purely spiritual self rapidly degraded, corrupted, I think, in the conventional period (term Aurobindo) precisely because of its primitiveness nedoosoznannosti for development purposes. While there is a monetary relationship, until the inevitable spiritual smezhovyvaetsya even with mundane, illusory - indeed BE should remain in force for assault not only on legal but also on personal and qualitative equality of all people. You know what I mean? I think that as long as remains at least a grain, though the shadow of the financial relationships - not to be another kingdom of God. While even an ever remains in force the power of libido, tseleneosoznannogo (Subliminal) in H - Harmony does not come purely creative endeavors of all the children to the Development Objectives of the Heavenly Father. For where does mankind legal, and where to begin student-quality? If someone "marks in a teacher - so immediately, instinctively perceived as an infringement of a competitor for всеобщей конкурентной возни и подпольной борьбы. Каковы его мотивы? Чего он хочет? (Поэтому и был распят Учитель). Люди моментально понимают это исходя из своегО metamotivatsii level, a level of "understanding" super-task.
You know perfectly well how to treat Freud to all this. He proclaimed the principle of pleasure, as the driving force of all mental processes of ordinary people. Same creative people he considered almost as an anomaly, a deviation in nature. He was not only a theorist but also an enthusiastic practitioner, and in accordance with its weighty observations led - that nature rukovodstvovaniya in the processes of consciousness at the basis of its very nature of the unconscious. No ethical assessment of all these findings, he stubbornly refused to give than puzzled many. The clearest example of puzzled - Maslow and Frankl.
SB:
: All people are equal, but equal in their unequal, and if there is an unequal extremely unequal, then this is Yavroz superiority.
Abdullah:
Sorry, dear leader of the seminar, but do not you think that you have something too tricky bent? That means in this context, "but equal in their unequal"? They gradually unequal, a little bit? And there can be a special inequality? Ah-ah-ah! Seems to understand ... I realized that You want to say ... One of the inequality in one sphere - into each other - but in general we obtain parity with that ... I just can not agree. The truth, as they say, is more expensive. You said yourself somehow that is, they say, monsters, ferocious villains, and something like that ...
I think Sergei, what's even thinking especially not on anything. People are unequal it is as an individual human being, the degree of gracious living for its thoughts and feelings. It's so obvious and obscheponyatny fact ... even to challenge it do not want to. Another thing - how to treat this, to discuss possible zatabuirovannost our public consciousness on this issue. When
Here in Azerbaijan, it comes to someone missing the stranger, and yet they say "a good guy, made a sudden osekatsya and politely respectful slander - "Let there be no better than you (present). ... I like something, not very understanding in these subtleties, I remember, said about someone without that coveted reservation. I hostile killed with the remark: "good - for himself." I do not understand and asked again, saying "What?". Patiently repeated: "good - for himself." At the same time face was cold, alienated, "prison-conceptual"; claiming to be instructive pathos. It was formulaic odergivanie "bespontovyh. Fairly quickly realizing what was happening, I'm just like Jesus, uttered an overwhelming philosophical refutation of this "concept". The meaning of what I said in reply was as follows: "Good is not he who / discover good / but the one who is good for others." I have not found an answer to such a custom logic improvisation. Because of these ostroumstvovany me some dislike ...
I think this example illustrates that it is relevant to the issue at all. The ratio of the mass of people psychology to the issue of personal qualities is the same as the whole world, to life in general: it - / consumer /. In fact, if you treat the whole primitive-consumer - Then the equity in that all share "a brother", no one cheated. Where not vaccinated yet creative approach to themselves, their neighbors, to the universe, the historical processes - there continues to rule the herd instinct. Basic needs, basic satisfaction, contentment is elementary. They have their understanding of "good" and "bad" guys. Good - a strong, able to fight for the existence of the guy (He can be consolidated and fight together) bad - schmuck who can not defend the place under the sun (why he did need one?). Everything should be simple.
Nietzsche:
Beware also the holy easy! All for her folly, it is not easy and she likes to play with fire - the fires.
Abdullah:
among elementary revealed the good guys all should be as brothers. All are equal in their goodness. What is the hierarchy in the relationship! any complexity! Why all this nonsense heaped need? Here's how talks Innocent simple folk. After all, the good - it's so easy! This is food, shelter, more money, get married - and it all each / for yourself. What is there to think about! Why think! Fuss!
Nietzsche:
... terror is for us a degenerating sense, which says: "all for me."
Abdullah:
So what good can be only to / for myself. And they are immutable laws that can not be broken. If you hit, insulted - you must answer. But do we have here in the county joke is I ruthlessly violated this law and they go unpunished. After 2000, several times I was beaten, insulted, and I did not answer. And because / as / I did not answer, they everyone understood that I / not just / quote Christ's turning the other cheek and, but that behind all this is that kind of surreal, spiritual, all of them completely unknown force.
And you say: "... and if there is an unequal extremely unequal, then it is Yavroz superiority." I'm just that it is extremely unequal, and it is not an illusion inflamed imagination. Extremely unequal one who breaks the old tables and approves new, actively implements the presentation a new understanding of the values and rules of life. His actions, words, thoughts, feelings make trouble and embarrassment. And it does not know how to treat. The coolest kids in private are childishly naive asked me to retire again in meditation, do not go into the yard. Because they think I'm just crazy, and / without knowing /'m doing confusion curiosities in their collective consciousness and instinctive relationship that was something probably bad against their will and I will be logical to just gently ask for ... oh how my soul laughed at the same time.
But somehow they're right. I need to learn to go back to meditation. By six months, happened, I did not leave the house. And this was, I think, very helpful ... I have suffered spiritually like no other. But now this is not enough and there is no coercive power to solitude. A free to retire at their own, I still have not learned well. When I talked to Victor about amebapodobnosti my life - I may be a bit cunning in his thoughts, gave the desired for real, exaggerated.
SB:
: Regarding your advice on the assessment of H-ideals: "no ambitions of media ideals should (and could) lead the process ideology of integration, but ... fair identify objectively the potential heritage values of all cultures ... "then I think it's because of utopias. Anyway, I am personally taking part in a great number of ideological, scientific, literary, political, religious, educational, philosophical events and actions, nor seen a single person with the stated degree of impartiality. Sorry, do not watch it and you. And I'm too biased.
Abdullah:
And what do you suggest? Keep going napovodu have ambition? Do not recognize anyone's personal superiority and no one to learn from anyone?
SB:
: Getting rid of addictions, the person gets rid of I, which is absurd by definition.
Abdullah:
My research leads me to believe that all the passions of all I'm in a metaphysical principle, in the ontological basis directed to the same object. Identification of the object, the awareness of its nature must, in my opinion, lead to integrate all I, all attachments. That is not zhizneotritsayuschee I get rid of (the Buddha, Schopenhauer), but awareness of its consubstantial, life-affirming aspirations (Christ-Nietzsche-Abdullah) is offered me. And what do you suggest:
SB:
: Output is not impartial. Output - in nepokushenii on preferences of other people.
Abdullah:
... in my opinion, this is an elementary rejection of any changes at all.
SB:
: You ask: "Is there anyway to any ontological reason to teach someone else to live, to understand, to feel? ". The answer is: of course.
Abdullah:
What?
SB:
But further questions arise: what it means to teach? someone who has the right to teach? what to teach? etc.
Abdullah:
Live Learning - what else! The point is to survive, as I understand it ... and no other ontological reason, I think, can not be.
A "someone who has the right to teach?" - A question, in my estimation, is not quite correct. Teach, as I understand it - is a duty, a sacred duty, not a right. If you ask again, "someone who is obliged to teach?" Answer, so better than perfect.
As for "what it means to teach?" - My answer is: it means spiritual and intellectual improved.
SB:
And on my forum with some buddies get it.
: There once was me. Many years. He lived in everyone: good and bad, stuffed cones He got experience how to live better. Suddenly, the Internet out of nowhere appears a virtual imyarek and says: "live as I am, I am the Truth." I answered him: "I have lived so I will not do so. " And he said: "live, as I said, I am the Truth." And I told him: "Yes, you finally listen to the voice of my ego. And he told me: "I am the Truth, live in my opinion, yes you will be saved. " And this you call learning??
Abdullah:
What is your question? If only the latest to issue a proposal - it is almost the essence of what I mean by learning. That salvation (self-preservation) is understood by me as the essence of Learning in general. But to say "I am the Truth, live in my opinion - little information ... exactly how this imyarek lives? This must be considered. Otherwise I can not say.
SB:
: I do not quite appreciate, whose lifestyle is better: yours or mine. It's hopeless lesson - everyone has his own way.
Abdullah:
I do not think so. We have, I believe, can not be "everyone has his own way", when naiglobAlneyshem consideration. And just so I've only been considering for some time now my DIR (spiritual and intellectual growth). I think that in its essence - this is a truly religious attitude to the world and life in general. And in this, naiglobalneyshem respect, I do not see / miscellaneous / lifestyle, because everyone and everything is taken as a whole.
SB:
: little resemblance to our ways of life - the metaphysical thinking of the virtual forum. In this respect we could learn from each other. For example, I agree with your statement, that "inopredmetnost - nonsense for philosophy." But you sometimes confuse tactical knowledge to the strategic. Of course, I'm not opposed to discussing any topic, but here's imagine - and incidentally, that there be - I really suggest you write an article on the results of the forum pages of such things at 5-6. For publication. Well, as you can cram all there? And much to teach people? Try, and there and see.
Abdullah:
Thank you, but in the publications of philosophy Articles do not see the necessity with the advent of internet-sofilosofstvovaniya of forum.
PS
Why did you delete my posts? You are, you will, that something was wrong doing something ... uroduete, in my opinion, this wonderful forum raskromsaniem whole context of talks.
I have not found reports of George to me. Prepared a response and minutes ten sought where it should be published. Realized that it simply has no reason ...
may themselves come up with, to put this answer:
***********
: GP Let
give the definition of an ideal world.
: In my opinion this is not the world energy and material world.
: It's a world of ideas that exist objectively and purely informational, as a kind of "field of ideas."
Abdullah:
Do I understand that, do you think the world has the perfect attitude to the world of energy-material? If the wrong understand ... if / how / it, in your opinion, has to do with it? I can describe it how you see the possible relationship?
I do not think what else / Atheistic ideals / may not be relevant to the world of the ideal.
Berdyaev:
revolt against God could only be in God's name just for the sake of higher idea of God.
GP:
: Only if infoobmene we get the new without losing the old. It is clear that the highest form of infoobmena - is an exchange relationship, because the ratio You can work out in itself, as the installation.
Abdullah:
/ I / think the highest form of infoobmena - is the coordination of value (blagostnostnyh) orientations (Integration in the field of flavors, the identification and perception of more / good / mother / the will / volition).
GP:
:: Abdullah:
:: I believe that the "treat others as want to treat you "- the idea is untenable. Because it makes a difference / desire / the subconscious feeling. Should people flatter others, if he wants to flatter him?
: GP
: Here and choices. If I want to love me whether I should radiate hatred?
Abdullah:
Why did you / want / to be loved?
GP:
: Flattery - an action and I'm talking about relationships.
Abdullah:
None. You, as I understand, talking not only about relationships, but also about the alleged property relations. Relationship should be more perfect, godly ... and this criterion is put forward by you ... elementary desires. I was about will and asked a question, rather than flattery. You think rukovodstvovaniya desire self-sufficiency? I do not think so. The very desire, as I understand, it should be forever on / good / razhivat. And for that we need more fundamental slogans with claims of conversion, improvement of the will of Christ ...
:
Seek the kingdom of God.
Abdullah:
example: "Do people flatter others, if he wants / to flatter him?"?
Can / desire / be the criteria? What is the criterion measures gracious (TsELEosoznannosti in A.) of the most desires.
If I / want / to implement the eternal object of my desires hauled to contribute, whether I should contribute / Desires / other? And if these desires are not formally dock with my desire, how to define a bigger truth of desire?
I think things are not so easy to solve problems with such slogans ("slogan" in German "solution"): "Treat others as you would like them to treat you."
attitude, as I understand it, should not be just to specific individuals, but to the cosmos for all eternity the formation of matter and spirit at all.
Nietzsche:
above love of neighbor is love to the distant and the future; higher still than love to the man I love to put things and ghosts.
GP:
: GP
: Sergei free subktivizirovat any idea of making it for yourself installation.
Abdullah:
you think so?
And I think what you have, in fact, since "he was free / objectify /. The objectification of views of phenomena and noumena is, I agree with Berdyaev, the fragmentation of imperfect consciousness of perception and judgments but also individual objects in an object. Subjectivity same / all / ideas is, in my opinion, to unite all the ideas, the idea at all, to Christ, to the maximum effectivization (harmonization) of all interactions the path of salvation (by the way all the large increases in the rate of increase chances of No Return to Chaos).
GP:
: here / it is only necessary to know / that it will be at the level relations on which this installation "works."
Abdullah:
/ should / only know! A / why / it / you think / need to know?
==========================
retort H:
: Abdullah:
: And you retort man did not say that thought out of courtesy ... Love it? But I prefer honesty ... and I even, somehow, do not want to apologize for her. Because I think this is the best manner of communication.
: Retort man:
: Here is an interesting question for me. Why certainly in explicit form, in the form of objective apodiktichnoy truth, to express his thoughts? Why not take the form it is a subjective opinion (even if you are absolutely sure of the truth of his ideas)? Can you justify your choice of shapes?
Abdullah:
If you are somewhere you can see my mneniyaizyavleniya categorical terms, it is, I think, or your carelessness, or omission of mine ... but ... may be an omission not without a share of provocative intent (seriously).
retort H:
: Abdullah:
It is this self-torture и есть, думаю, путь к богочеловечеству.
: Ретортный человек:
: Согласен. И эта мысль мне близка. Когда же я говорил о уничтожении плохих воспоминаний, то это I tried to look into the distant future of mankind. And suppose that then, maybe, for improvements already made at the time of universal benefits will have to address the bad memories. Since the benefit from them will have all taken (taken all their cleansing and uplifting power of God), and they remain as the only negative facts only, already deprived of its good strength.
Abdullah:
In my opinion - is superfluous. Awareness of the metaphysical meaning of conflict consciousness is, it seems to be the solution.
==========================
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Comcast Arris Telephone Modems
slightly Zhizni 10
: RF: The answer seems to me to clarify the concept of "actual" ("Jehovah"). Something can be relevant ... or illusion. [This is from the current message].
: Sat: I agree. Then the question: what is the ideal existence, and that the illusion that the act, and what potency?
Abdullah:
«Background" and "potential" means you, Sergei, as synonymous with "essentiality" and "illusion"? And I mean the opposite. Existence = Potential. Every act of the same is an illusion / until / is not completely sopodchinen not purely put service to the Potential ought. As you approach this?
Leo Tolstoy:
In fact only that which is invisible, intangible, that the spiritual and that we are conscious of themselves and one another. Still visible, tangible is a product of our senses and therefore only apparent.
=======================
VA:
: 1. Responsible only for himself and for himself nyneshego
: 2. Only respond to my arguments and specific provisions (as well like me - your).
: 3. (Repeat do not mean to prove and therefore) is not repeated on different arguments one and the same general thesis (your concept of good).
: 4. Completely delete message (and citation).
: 5. Not to discuss the philosophy, the very conversation of people in general, me, and so on. But directly to the subject of our conversation - good.
Abdullah:
no hard follow any conditions. I philosophize freely as I philosophize. I am personally in front of anyone no conditions are posed, and put not going to ... My only "condition" - philosophize with me as you see fit, or you're wondering (and if interested - DO NOT philosophize).
What I can promise, it's trying to cater to your comments ...
VA:
: I'm not in any way DO NOT SPEAK TO THAT YOU HAVE THESE CONDITIONS never have! You give them Follow, but still less and less, and that I was not satisfied with the theoretical side.
: Do not hope you mind to such an ultimatum action, and therefore I say, that this message from me, rather, the last one.
Abdullah:
last, so the last thing ... I am personally eager to continue, I personally wonder expound my philosophy in a conversation with you.
VA:
: «Abdullah: I believe that the usefulness of (appropriate) and has one objective-anthological criterion, which determines / Degree of Values / anything. "
: VA I realized this long ago. Or do you think that the frequent repetition of the same - is his proof?
: I brought the principle of (And example), which I do not see all helpful. You're at it said nothing but "random", "per se" - not a philosophical concept. This is not an argument. (As if We agree with you a long time that is the philosophy ...).
Abdullah:
I do not philosophize "Evidence". For I believe all these attempts to "prove to each other" miserable and absurd exercise. I strive sofilosofstvovat with others not only as talking to yourself - enthusiastically razbiratelno-explanatory and without end, advocacy, uyasnitelno; with a creative approach to the mental process in mind I - like her, even as companions. It is this sofilosofstvovanie (With the methodical elimination of all competition, the opposition of "I") I understand how / spiritual / as true and promising direction. We are from the does not look away from the / other / philosopher who for one reason or another / not like / as the source. Exactly the same attitude I'm experiencing all "other" philosophers. As for himself, from which you can not turn away, you can not forget, do not accept, ignore it.
VA:
: «Abdullah: And in the minds of people think it is not clear ... »
: VA Answer me only for himself.
Abdullah:
I do not "answer" (not in the interrogation). I / teaching / and learning. And ask and answer so far to how much does it consider it necessary to самовзаимосовершенствования.
: VA
negative point: the overcoming of chaos ...
Abdullah:
Why is that? "Dealing with disease - In your opinion, there is something negative because of the fact that there appears bad word "disease"?
VA:
This may not be the goal, because you know the most important: FORM, by which Matter and spirit - not chaotic.
Abdullah:
As it is not "chaotic"?! They are, as I understand it is that chaotic. And I understand the benefit of that this randomness (this eternal problem) creatively transform into increasing ordering.
VA:
If this form is valuable in itself (ie, beautiful) I agree with you. But survival, self-preservation, the order - not in themselves valuable. See an example of the cellar.
Abdullah:
What form? What is the intrinsic value of something ...?
Example cellar. Sit conventionally taken being in the cellar. So what? You want to say that their life is meaningless, has no value, what? Aurobindo - this great, possibly because of the yogis years secluded himself from all contact with people. Just sat intently, "doing nothing". Meditated. And so, / as I understand / Survival of the general - a pastime can be a million times more expedient fireworks and other hassles thousands of ordinary people. After all, to prosperity Need revolutionary leaps in spiritual and intellectual development of mankind. And the likelihood that the next stage of this revolution will be successfully implemented, increased precisely because of this / Jewelry / individuals who selflessly turning their minds, their psyche in a pilot plant for mentality of the future. That is the type experimenters I consider myself and my life looks very boring, amebepodoben. Consider that I live "in the cellar." My motionless, absolutely neprirotehnicheskaya life seems so meaningless to many, vacuous - that I believe almost a freak, pervert. And I think freaks them, these gregarious dimwits with half convolutions in the brain and the soul of the orangutan. :))))
VA:
: Do you talk about "Global Connections with the whole universe "- You Abdullah, even one specific thing can not be linked to your notion of good.
Abdullah:
I link all the specific things with my the notion of good. But not the level at which it is possible to make you think.
your confidence does not impress me about you, as a philosopher. Philosopher, guess who is going to doubt and doubt / the rest of his days.
You asked about a symphony by Bach, I said how, in my opinion, this symphony can be understood as a service to self-preservation as the highest good. I think you are well aware, in what line in what terms I have this hypothetical reasoning formulated. But you are itching to do something ... you seem to imagine that your appeal to the fact that we just "understand" that inappropriate, / are not compatible / key issue "not blessed" sound could pass for face value. Twice I asked, repeating the question: Is it not a purely intuitive "understanding"? Why do not you answered? Maybe you did not understand the question? So I'm not going to forget anything! I will bring you to your understanding of the gist of my objection. The essence of my objections that in my humble opinion, in our aesthetic estimation of euphony is no logical understanding. What do you say to that?
If you suddenly say that Indeed, the logical argument you have just intuitive - so from the beginning I felt that perhaps fruitful sofilosofstvovanie and intuitive basis. That we should not We pull each other with claims of logic of its construction, where the opponent does not see the logic temporarily. If it is not as you think ... return. We now return to your example of our "understanding" neblagostnosti nesovmeschayuschihsya music and you, please, please explain: where do you see logic. To hell with this example - take any other. I'm not saying that you will not be able to show it. I say that, in my opinion, you are her / has / have not shown me.
: VA
Useful and beautiful - the opposite, because first there for second, and not vice versa. The first - a means, the second - the goal. Or perhaps say that means and goals are not opposites? ..
Abdullah:
I say that a sense of beauty is, as I understand it, nothing more than an intuitive sense of purposeful, useful for the purpose. We do not "just think" something beautiful for this illusion is over, so I understand, the iron law of the teleological character. (That Borchikov: correct, please, if that, but as far as I know - "teleos" - this "goal" in ancient Greek ... and do not you think that the Russian "target" is from "teleos" and is etymologically?)
: VA
your common goal - survival, self-preservation - match for the target animals in the jungle, yes I do "misunderstood" ... Bring at least one argument in defense of his concept of good.
Abdullah:
match for the animals is when they fight for self-preservation. And if for this Sotvorchestvovat? Where is the law of the jungle you see? Act of God - and only!
But the law of the jungle (the competition), I understood not only as the first manifestation of the law of Christ. The law of Christ says: "the meaning of modern life is to find prosperity Father eternal life." That is, in Christ God the meaning of life to self-perpetuating, serve the purpose of the Creator-Development. And what did the animals in the jungle for billions of years of evolution? Do not they serve the same purpose? Did their entire life from birth to death is not service to prosperity for survival? But they did primitive methods in the struggle and selection. And Christ said:
«Have you heard it was said: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But I say unto you: Resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt. V, 38-39 »
Please, please attention to the first sentence in the quotation. Where is it? Is it not out of the jungle? And is it worth not in the old Scriptures of the Will of God? Here, in my opinion, an ambitious law! And you say "not cited".
How did this fascination does not cite! Jesus said he did not cancel the Old Testament He came, but make up for it. I think he does not understand, how he was right. "An eye for eye, tooth for a tooth" - not just written a book about the Will of the Creator (Development), this is Will. But still unconscious, primitive appearance. The meaning of competition in the same, in what co-creation - in the service of Development (Creator). Paradoxical moment - meaning response and retaliation in the jaw в том же, в чём и смысл воздержания от ответной (животной) реакции с подставлением другой скулы. Смысл Дружбы в том же, в чём и смысл Вражды. Есть только качественное difference in the historically-phase aspect of review. And who shall, through whom the transition to a new era of relations - is not this the greatest of all!
: Abdullah: I do not see any reason that would spend some limited time. This, in my opinion, all exactly what NOT to live at all. Living (self-perpetuating) can only be forever. Therefore, the two proposed options seem to me equally meaningless. »
: VA Abdullah, I construct for you the specific situations where You must choose. But you can not choose. Hence, your idea of good again, you do not help ...
Abdullah:
Or do you ask a nonsensical question. You're CAN (in principle) to ask a meaningless question? Or have it not be? :)))
My attitude to your question, I expressed. It seems to me inappropriate.
VA:
I think this is the second proof showing the lack of effect (untruth) of your concept of good.
Abdullah:
And off rode ... What do you think proof of the falsity of my concept of good? The fact that you ask the question, which to me, from my understanding of the good things of life, it is meaningless? :)))))
VA:
Whatever the situation was not, but if a person knows the principle - it always will act according to it.
: Judge for yourself, you do not live forever. A live here and now. And therefore, if you're here and now can not decide to good actions, then there is nothing to refer to eternal life.
Abdullah:
Two options offer, and no one seems good to me - there is something difficult for your understanding?
VA:
It consists of just such "here and now." And if they are the same and what you have (uncertain), then imagine yourself in the end will be ...
Abdullah:
I do not live the life of the here and now. " I live for eternity. And as one I can not do it - I'm preaching this understanding of the benefits. In this preaching my methodology Survival. Why do you this talk lead to? You I still have not answered ... by the way ..
... yeah, and since I see makes sense only to live for eternity, or billions of years yogstva in the cellar, or a couple of millennia zapuskaniya Air snakes do not strike me as something meaningful in themselves.
VA:
: «Abdullah: (VA You assured me a lot of messages without any arguments that the concept of to be clear, it must be shown in its appearance.
: Immediately! Immediately on the above example, I, you know the pot and detail - ONLY AT THEIR future use, and not because of Seeing their occurrence. Which was required to show an example. )
: So it's the same / I / you harder all the time the meaning of something can not be understood simply on the basis of what is a fact of combining diverse stuff. The fact that we combine technological machine, professionalism master, the noble metal and stuff does not make a product good (useful); only designed shows, reveals the meaning. "
: VA Abdullah. You seem to have forgotten to which I gave this example.
: reminder. It was about the meaning of the history of the concept in order to understand it. Because that's what I wanted you explain: quiddity (essence, substance) does not arise.
: And you forgot it completely skipped the other tracks. Namely, the fact that both need to understand all things, things, actions. That's just I did not say and it does not follow the example of an alien, and there was no place in this matter.
Abdullah:
Nothing I did not forget. Simply, it is very difficult and confusing. I suggest that we all understand all the rest of our days, and that even without the encroachments to ensure that with something determine not only how many posts something - but ever. For truth does not seem to me something that can ultimately be achieved and enshrined in the "Self-contained statement, but what always will strive to continue the great march of all previous and all subsequent generations.
need, I suggest Another approach, a new non-competitive oprovergatelny but Sosozidatelno-savings.
What motivates you, Victor?
VA:
: The question "what is?" Not equal "good Do what is? "you are the same (Abdullah: only designed shows, reveals the meaning), which is why you can easily jumped on a completely different track.
Abdullah:
I think that there is "absolutely other rail". In order to understand the meaning of the action should be considered and then, as there is? ", And then, where does it come from?". Without having to consider the same question "why?" I is not seen possible progress toward a comprehensive understanding. You, as I currently understand it, want to do only one combination, the process of emergence.
: VA
Abdullah, your criteria - nothing justifies. You can not use them either In one example, or in one situation, which I offer to you. About what you say. From what I have to open your mouth you believe that you have there some criteria, if you can I can not show its effectiveness. Do you have a set of words. And probably enough about that moment.
Abdullah:
Can there be such an option, you can not, by virtue of / Possible / relative limitations of your thinking, not seeing what and how I justified? Because otherwise you can not put a question! I therefore propose generally reject the claims that some argue with each other.
What you or I do not see the truth of the opponent - not an argument. For it is possible that for my legality of seeing your argument I should grow and grow over each other. To do this takes years, decades, all life may not be enough. Why philosophize defeatist and sokrushayuchis! One can not a man to prove that the higher the current level of understanding! It must teach and teach, improve and raise to his mental level.
That's what I suggest Sofilosofstvovat. And not in a hurry somewhere ... fuss ...
In Soyentologii Ron Hubbard is a concept, "steadily this." The essence boils down to what the human mind can not exist without some stability constant given, what the mind believes. Then there is a person in any case live / something / ... Something is the center of the ideological pillar of the functioning of his Ya Without this constant, he simply lost in the chaos of pushing information from anywhere. Hubbard said one funny thing ...:))) it does not matter really whether it is given or illusory - the main thing that it was. He has created a powerful financial and religious sect adherents and followers, there have been many scandals ... Hubbard built a self-deception opportunism in religious doctrine.
I believe that the basis foundations Самовзаимосовершенствования should be just relentless determination greater correctness, legality, truthfulness stable data interlocutors. Mean that more true diabetes should gradually be perceived by others, should be replaced by the illusory DM, replaced Jehovah diabetes.
I think it should be very painful ... psychologically difficult. Abandon their diabetes and take diabetes another - is, in my opinion, the heroic work ... and the highest, from all that man can do in my entire life.
How many times have I asked about your diabetes, Victor? Why do not you want to identify, detect? Did you this uninteresting?
And the love I have asked this question and Sergei ... all I ask. And when I go into these glubochennye subconscious strata of people I meet resistance and nervnichanie. ... I once managed to ask about it, even my younger brother (now 19 years old, oak oak, gregarious-deterministic way of thinking and feeling in its pure form). Three or four years ago, it happened so that after midnight, watching TV alone in the kitchen went to an unexpected philosophical clue causal processes in his mind. He got a kind of hypnosis (otherwise the resistance would ruin everything) and answered my questions about the serial nature of his life motivation until ... until early as sleepwalking, he uttered something startling: "this is not to say we can not say." Me: "Why?". He: "it will ruin the whole world. " This was not a joke. He suggested that something chimerical, that he envisioned at this time. Immediately thereafter, I noticed fear, disgust and disbelief. I realized that he had decided to push it all from memory to the devil. How much I pleaded with him then do not come back to this "interesting" conversation, he strongly even I remember on the subject of the night did not want to talk ... And then not able to remember and understand what it is I ask him. You have it.
Aurobindo:
Only nude and not dealing with shame, the soul may be pure and innocent, like Adam in the original garden of humanity.
VA:
: Moreover, "there was no Return to Chaos" - is negative proposition. And therefore, it is not clear from the most important thing is how to live? Consequently, you have no meaning (purpose) of life ("go over there I do not know where, bring then I do not know why, for that purpose, which is not nothing "- can live by this principle? Your principle is precisely this).
Abdullah:
purpose and meaning of my life, as I understand it is today, is to promote Non-return to chaos. You think this is - something negative? Why not? If that's the words, terms - the higher I have already replied to you about this. "There was no return to the disease" - a negative opinion? It's the same thing as "the pursuit of health", no? :)
: VA
I have in any case, I answer the question "why?" You would be better instead of a storm of uncertain judgments specifically reacted to something, why do I say so and not otherwise.
Abdullah:
I do I can not understand what you are exactly what you say so and not otherwise, and so on, until you tell me what you're talking about at all. And this, as I understand it, is inextricably linked at all with all the deep-life motivation at all. And since I believe that this is sheer motivation of all is the same (instinctive the will to survive), then inclined to believe that you may not be a sense of speaking, mentally, feeling, doing something as something, rather than the meaning, Instinctively, that drives all others. ... Therefore, I believe that I actually understand what you're talking about. You are asserting itself. Here's how I understand it. A sense of self is to rule the world. A sense of the omnipresent desire to control the world I see is to run the world from all the lesser CHAOTIC to increasingly DECENCY matter and spirit. The meaning of this trend, you know what I have ...
: VA
If you can not "here and now - to make самостоятельный шаг, т.е. без всяких «если бы да кабы», то Ваша теория стоит быть только возможной, а я хочу действительной.
: Может согласитесь, что мужчина to love a woman should be recognized as follows: I, in my IMHO, love you as much as you help me?
Abdullah:
Well, yes. I believe that Ephraim in "Razor" very convincingly argues about whether benchmarks carnal love. All directed to the benefit of surviving family.
VA:
: «Abdullah: I already told you My opinion: I can not give a specific argument, what is wrong your notion of good, because I do not think that there is irregularity of your concept. All the concept of welfare as a right. "
: VA I do not agree. Hitler - was also his idea of good, but it was not universal. But I think the concept and general was not good nor for how long. So, what can not be all notions of welfare as a right. We must figure out - how they are generally concepts of good. After all, the benefit - Just a word of five letters.
Abdullah:
logic of fascism is quite simple and very easy to fit into the scheme of benefits, as I understand it. Best shall prosper. But their mistake is that they wanted to benefit by force and with biased, incomplete representations of the "best". I think it was successful (with a chance) be it can only free, creative, un-Christian. Hitler samooutverzhdalsya force and blind, like a beast. But I do not see any reason that would curse Fascism blindly. For the blindness of naked emotion there is no logical clarity. Expedient, I think, explain, and it is misleading from the standpoint of Solovyov:
«Any error - At least, every error, which is to say, - contains the unquestionable truth and there is only more or less profound distortion of the truth; it is kept, it is attractive, it's dangerous, and through her as it can only be properly understood, evaluated and finally refuted.
Therefore, the first it reasonable criticism with respect to some confusion - to determine the truth of which it keeps and which it distorts. »
VA:
:« Abdullah: (VA However, I can not say with regard to the arguments otherwise, except as unambiguously: "You're wrong").
: Why? Why can not you say double-valued: "You as far as I can tell, is not right "? What hinders? »
: VA Well, if my argument, because I also wrote and presented it, is it not self-evident that "as far as I know how to judge? What am I after each word must be a mention something ...
Abdullah:
seems to me that this is / very important / tactical value. Saying, "as I think "we have / will never be mistaken / and will not be in the position of claiming anything more than we have ... Passion and so it is always raging around the greater righteousness ... why annoy each other more and faux pas.
VA:
: «Abdullah: You say you do not even know why you need to understand what is good."
: VA Quote himself: "Why understand the concept of welfare? I do not know. I UNDERSTAND YOURSELF THE GOOD, THE BEAUTY, TRUTH, THE TIME, I, etc. "Moreover, I have to answer 10 of you said that I understood for the sake of truth.
: Ignore words in my judgment - is incorrect.
Abdullah:
Skip specifically - meanness inadvertent - negligence (which is not such a big sin). A properly is when instead of "I think so," say "it - the ultimate truth." In my case.
I hope to answer.
========================
: LOVE:
solution of such problems by virtue except that of Christ. I never set itself such global problems, and the more I do not know how to solve them ... and do you know?
Abdullah:
Do I know how to solve them? I think that nothing can be know / all /. Therefore, I believe the question "Did you know?" Not quite correct. I think that, perhaps, I know / to some degree, as solve them.
With regard to the forces of Christ - so we all have, as I understand it, His power through us, through us he (mostly he) governs the universal process of perpetual becoming. He is, in short, the Head of a single organism, striving for creative realization in eternity.
Love:
: Abdullah:
: If you "disappear the subject of our conversation with you, then why should this conversation lead? I think for the sake of the Creative prevent this eventual extinction. What do you think?
: LOVE: The Times did not choose, they live and die! You may shout to reincarnate and live forever in the works, in the building. If this means preventing the creative, then I agree.
Abdullah:
At first I wrote on it that's what:
«This is what is / means. Glad you agree. "
But then, the next time you open a Word document with your name for further editorial response ... I fell into some confusion, suspicion crept ... What does it mean "You can transform any number? Not about whether the reincarnation of a Buddhist you ask? Or, yet you about the creative reincarnation of his deeds?
: LOVE:
From my point of view, the notion of "bogootstavlennosti" is absurd. Even if you yourself put aside from God, then it is up to you keeping up, because it not possible.
Abdullah:
Bogoostavlennost - a term Berdyaev. Anyway, he drank it. And he says here that:
«In the world of acting not only God, not only the freedom of man, but Rock. Rock this means falling into the external sphere, meaning a mysterious bogoostavlennost. But this is only way to go. Rock avoidable to the Christian consciousness, for the religion of the Spirit. "
I had used this term only in the sense of depressive mood, bad mood, when there is no feeling meaningfulness of life, no faith in the possibility of the victory of reason at all. ... I think this sense is not so far from being in any talks about "bogoostavlennosti" Berdyaev.
But your objection, I think, enter into polemics with it berdyaevskim statement. It is, in my opinion, denies freedom of will and freedom of choice. This, in I think something deterministically-Spinoza.
Love:
: Abdullah:
: Why is the "BUT share this blessing with all of it is hardly worth? What are you doing?
: LOVE: You know, I was always depressed situation, that I should share received my emotions with people who do not need it. And in this case not all of it will be necessary and clear "benefit by Savrasov. And you are invited to share this blessing with all of humanity. Why?
Abdullah:
I'm not going to tell people about the picture Savrasov, or the novels of Dostoevsky, or even about something as gracious a particular object. I ask you, do not get this perception-and-then-transfer effect of all I objectified past. This is how I understand it, conservatism thinking. Every profound creative influence - the symbolic and mystical. As the energy of nature - it Influence of transition from form to form and complexity of its manifestation.
Just to illustrate how a deeper understanding of nature:
Albert Schweitzer:
Kant and Hegel held sway over the minds of millions of people who in my life have not read a single line of their works and were not even aware that they obey them.
Abdullah:
But here I see the error of objectification! Not "ruled", but dominate. For what they navliyali in kulturatvorcheskom plan - will not be vanish, to cease its action, but going from display to display, develops further.
: LOVE:
And you do not forget to ask the human race - He wants you to do it ennobled?
Abdullah:
How do I ask anything of those who will live a thousand years, and those who lived a thousand years ago?
Love:
and eternal life in general .... This is a social problem ..
Abdullah:
I do not think that eternal life - "this is a problem of social". In my opinion it can not be / some / problem. I think this is a problem in general. And all the other problems, IMHO, is the only privately owned, objectified in the minds of the manifestations of this Problems.
Love:
from any point let me ask you're counting eternal life?
Abdullah:
From the Big Bang.
Love
and then, as if all they want live forever ... It seems these questions should be asked before setting a global goal ..
Abdullah:
I think that nothing else in the deep essence, nobody wants / can not / want. This is, I think the basic essence of all desires, That Is wanting. And this global objective can not, I think, "put". It was originally directs, seems to me that all life processes spokon centuries, from the beginning of the universe. It can only be deeper grasp all effective (with more increasing chances) to implement.
=======================
: GP
materialization of the ideal differs from the idealization of the material and if I ideal only one - Christ, how can I agree with atheistic ideals of Margarita, which in an ideal world no relation.
Abdullah:
I do not think there was not and never can be, in principle, nothing that would have no relationship to the world perfect. The denial of the relationship between any of the phenomena and noumena, to deny the essential reducibility of anything to anything is inclined to consider the spiritual and intellectual myopia.
: GP then SB:
So you think that Christ Jesus - selfish? Christ - the perfect idea: to what you eat but it was not bad - Treat others the way you want them to treat you. This idea is carried out by Him in the incarnation. What other idea may be worthwhile in the field of human relations?
Abdullah:
I believe that the "Treat to others the way you want them to treat you "- the idea is untenable. Because it makes a difference / desire / the subconscious feeling. Should people flatter others if he wants to flatter him?
SB:
:: Yes, I call it a spiritual self-interest - to consider true only his ideal, and to ignore the ideals of others.
: GP
You are free to consider the way you want, but do not assume that your opinion right just because it is you think so.
Abdullah:
I do not think that Sergei free to take as he pleases. If we assume that the way we want, then no opinion can not be correct. Considered necessary, as I understand it, trying to Regulation (rather than madness).
=========================
: RF: The answer seems to me to clarify the concept of "actual" ("Jehovah"). Something can be relevant ... or illusion. [This is from the current message].
: Sat: I agree. Then the question: what is the ideal existence, and that the illusion that the act, and what potency?
Abdullah:
«Background" and "potential" means you, Sergei, as synonymous with "essentiality" and "illusion"? And I mean the opposite. Existence = Potential. Every act of the same is an illusion / until / is not completely sopodchinen not purely put service to the Potential ought. As you approach this?
Leo Tolstoy:
In fact only that which is invisible, intangible, that the spiritual and that we are conscious of themselves and one another. Still visible, tangible is a product of our senses and therefore only apparent.
=======================
VA:
: 1. Responsible only for himself and for himself nyneshego
: 2. Only respond to my arguments and specific provisions (as well like me - your).
: 3. (Repeat do not mean to prove and therefore) is not repeated on different arguments one and the same general thesis (your concept of good).
: 4. Completely delete message (and citation).
: 5. Not to discuss the philosophy, the very conversation of people in general, me, and so on. But directly to the subject of our conversation - good.
Abdullah:
no hard follow any conditions. I philosophize freely as I philosophize. I am personally in front of anyone no conditions are posed, and put not going to ... My only "condition" - philosophize with me as you see fit, or you're wondering (and if interested - DO NOT philosophize).
What I can promise, it's trying to cater to your comments ...
VA:
: I'm not in any way DO NOT SPEAK TO THAT YOU HAVE THESE CONDITIONS never have! You give them Follow, but still less and less, and that I was not satisfied with the theoretical side.
: Do not hope you mind to such an ultimatum action, and therefore I say, that this message from me, rather, the last one.
Abdullah:
last, so the last thing ... I am personally eager to continue, I personally wonder expound my philosophy in a conversation with you.
VA:
: «Abdullah: I believe that the usefulness of (appropriate) and has one objective-anthological criterion, which determines / Degree of Values / anything. "
: VA I realized this long ago. Or do you think that the frequent repetition of the same - is his proof?
: I brought the principle of (And example), which I do not see all helpful. You're at it said nothing but "random", "per se" - not a philosophical concept. This is not an argument. (As if We agree with you a long time that is the philosophy ...).
Abdullah:
I do not philosophize "Evidence". For I believe all these attempts to "prove to each other" miserable and absurd exercise. I strive sofilosofstvovat with others not only as talking to yourself - enthusiastically razbiratelno-explanatory and without end, advocacy, uyasnitelno; with a creative approach to the mental process in mind I - like her, even as companions. It is this sofilosofstvovanie (With the methodical elimination of all competition, the opposition of "I") I understand how / spiritual / as true and promising direction. We are from the does not look away from the / other / philosopher who for one reason or another / not like / as the source. Exactly the same attitude I'm experiencing all "other" philosophers. As for himself, from which you can not turn away, you can not forget, do not accept, ignore it.
VA:
: «Abdullah: And in the minds of people think it is not clear ... »
: VA Answer me only for himself.
Abdullah:
I do not "answer" (not in the interrogation). I / teaching / and learning. And ask and answer so far to how much does it consider it necessary to самовзаимосовершенствования.
: VA
negative point: the overcoming of chaos ...
Abdullah:
Why is that? "Dealing with disease - In your opinion, there is something negative because of the fact that there appears bad word "disease"?
VA:
This may not be the goal, because you know the most important: FORM, by which Matter and spirit - not chaotic.
Abdullah:
As it is not "chaotic"?! They are, as I understand it is that chaotic. And I understand the benefit of that this randomness (this eternal problem) creatively transform into increasing ordering.
VA:
If this form is valuable in itself (ie, beautiful) I agree with you. But survival, self-preservation, the order - not in themselves valuable. See an example of the cellar.
Abdullah:
What form? What is the intrinsic value of something ...?
Example cellar. Sit conventionally taken being in the cellar. So what? You want to say that their life is meaningless, has no value, what? Aurobindo - this great, possibly because of the yogis years secluded himself from all contact with people. Just sat intently, "doing nothing". Meditated. And so, / as I understand / Survival of the general - a pastime can be a million times more expedient fireworks and other hassles thousands of ordinary people. After all, to prosperity Need revolutionary leaps in spiritual and intellectual development of mankind. And the likelihood that the next stage of this revolution will be successfully implemented, increased precisely because of this / Jewelry / individuals who selflessly turning their minds, their psyche in a pilot plant for mentality of the future. That is the type experimenters I consider myself and my life looks very boring, amebepodoben. Consider that I live "in the cellar." My motionless, absolutely neprirotehnicheskaya life seems so meaningless to many, vacuous - that I believe almost a freak, pervert. And I think freaks them, these gregarious dimwits with half convolutions in the brain and the soul of the orangutan. :))))
VA:
: Do you talk about "Global Connections with the whole universe "- You Abdullah, even one specific thing can not be linked to your notion of good.
Abdullah:
I link all the specific things with my the notion of good. But not the level at which it is possible to make you think.
your confidence does not impress me about you, as a philosopher. Philosopher, guess who is going to doubt and doubt / the rest of his days.
You asked about a symphony by Bach, I said how, in my opinion, this symphony can be understood as a service to self-preservation as the highest good. I think you are well aware, in what line in what terms I have this hypothetical reasoning formulated. But you are itching to do something ... you seem to imagine that your appeal to the fact that we just "understand" that inappropriate, / are not compatible / key issue "not blessed" sound could pass for face value. Twice I asked, repeating the question: Is it not a purely intuitive "understanding"? Why do not you answered? Maybe you did not understand the question? So I'm not going to forget anything! I will bring you to your understanding of the gist of my objection. The essence of my objections that in my humble opinion, in our aesthetic estimation of euphony is no logical understanding. What do you say to that?
If you suddenly say that Indeed, the logical argument you have just intuitive - so from the beginning I felt that perhaps fruitful sofilosofstvovanie and intuitive basis. That we should not We pull each other with claims of logic of its construction, where the opponent does not see the logic temporarily. If it is not as you think ... return. We now return to your example of our "understanding" neblagostnosti nesovmeschayuschihsya music and you, please, please explain: where do you see logic. To hell with this example - take any other. I'm not saying that you will not be able to show it. I say that, in my opinion, you are her / has / have not shown me.
: VA
Useful and beautiful - the opposite, because first there for second, and not vice versa. The first - a means, the second - the goal. Or perhaps say that means and goals are not opposites? ..
Abdullah:
I say that a sense of beauty is, as I understand it, nothing more than an intuitive sense of purposeful, useful for the purpose. We do not "just think" something beautiful for this illusion is over, so I understand, the iron law of the teleological character. (That Borchikov: correct, please, if that, but as far as I know - "teleos" - this "goal" in ancient Greek ... and do not you think that the Russian "target" is from "teleos" and is etymologically?)
: VA
your common goal - survival, self-preservation - match for the target animals in the jungle, yes I do "misunderstood" ... Bring at least one argument in defense of his concept of good.
Abdullah:
match for the animals is when they fight for self-preservation. And if for this Sotvorchestvovat? Where is the law of the jungle you see? Act of God - and only!
But the law of the jungle (the competition), I understood not only as the first manifestation of the law of Christ. The law of Christ says: "the meaning of modern life is to find prosperity Father eternal life." That is, in Christ God the meaning of life to self-perpetuating, serve the purpose of the Creator-Development. And what did the animals in the jungle for billions of years of evolution? Do not they serve the same purpose? Did their entire life from birth to death is not service to prosperity for survival? But they did primitive methods in the struggle and selection. And Christ said:
«Have you heard it was said: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But I say unto you: Resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt. V, 38-39 »
Please, please attention to the first sentence in the quotation. Where is it? Is it not out of the jungle? And is it worth not in the old Scriptures of the Will of God? Here, in my opinion, an ambitious law! And you say "not cited".
How did this fascination does not cite! Jesus said he did not cancel the Old Testament He came, but make up for it. I think he does not understand, how he was right. "An eye for eye, tooth for a tooth" - not just written a book about the Will of the Creator (Development), this is Will. But still unconscious, primitive appearance. The meaning of competition in the same, in what co-creation - in the service of Development (Creator). Paradoxical moment - meaning response and retaliation in the jaw в том же, в чём и смысл воздержания от ответной (животной) реакции с подставлением другой скулы. Смысл Дружбы в том же, в чём и смысл Вражды. Есть только качественное difference in the historically-phase aspect of review. And who shall, through whom the transition to a new era of relations - is not this the greatest of all!
: Abdullah: I do not see any reason that would spend some limited time. This, in my opinion, all exactly what NOT to live at all. Living (self-perpetuating) can only be forever. Therefore, the two proposed options seem to me equally meaningless. »
: VA Abdullah, I construct for you the specific situations where You must choose. But you can not choose. Hence, your idea of good again, you do not help ...
Abdullah:
Or do you ask a nonsensical question. You're CAN (in principle) to ask a meaningless question? Or have it not be? :)))
My attitude to your question, I expressed. It seems to me inappropriate.
VA:
I think this is the second proof showing the lack of effect (untruth) of your concept of good.
Abdullah:
And off rode ... What do you think proof of the falsity of my concept of good? The fact that you ask the question, which to me, from my understanding of the good things of life, it is meaningless? :)))))
VA:
Whatever the situation was not, but if a person knows the principle - it always will act according to it.
: Judge for yourself, you do not live forever. A live here and now. And therefore, if you're here and now can not decide to good actions, then there is nothing to refer to eternal life.
Abdullah:
Two options offer, and no one seems good to me - there is something difficult for your understanding?
VA:
It consists of just such "here and now." And if they are the same and what you have (uncertain), then imagine yourself in the end will be ...
Abdullah:
I do not live the life of the here and now. " I live for eternity. And as one I can not do it - I'm preaching this understanding of the benefits. In this preaching my methodology Survival. Why do you this talk lead to? You I still have not answered ... by the way ..
... yeah, and since I see makes sense only to live for eternity, or billions of years yogstva in the cellar, or a couple of millennia zapuskaniya Air snakes do not strike me as something meaningful in themselves.
VA:
: «Abdullah: (VA You assured me a lot of messages without any arguments that the concept of to be clear, it must be shown in its appearance.
: Immediately! Immediately on the above example, I, you know the pot and detail - ONLY AT THEIR future use, and not because of Seeing their occurrence. Which was required to show an example. )
: So it's the same / I / you harder all the time the meaning of something can not be understood simply on the basis of what is a fact of combining diverse stuff. The fact that we combine technological machine, professionalism master, the noble metal and stuff does not make a product good (useful); only designed shows, reveals the meaning. "
: VA Abdullah. You seem to have forgotten to which I gave this example.
: reminder. It was about the meaning of the history of the concept in order to understand it. Because that's what I wanted you explain: quiddity (essence, substance) does not arise.
: And you forgot it completely skipped the other tracks. Namely, the fact that both need to understand all things, things, actions. That's just I did not say and it does not follow the example of an alien, and there was no place in this matter.
Abdullah:
Nothing I did not forget. Simply, it is very difficult and confusing. I suggest that we all understand all the rest of our days, and that even without the encroachments to ensure that with something determine not only how many posts something - but ever. For truth does not seem to me something that can ultimately be achieved and enshrined in the "Self-contained statement, but what always will strive to continue the great march of all previous and all subsequent generations.
need, I suggest Another approach, a new non-competitive oprovergatelny but Sosozidatelno-savings.
What motivates you, Victor?
VA:
: The question "what is?" Not equal "good Do what is? "you are the same (Abdullah: only designed shows, reveals the meaning), which is why you can easily jumped on a completely different track.
Abdullah:
I think that there is "absolutely other rail". In order to understand the meaning of the action should be considered and then, as there is? ", And then, where does it come from?". Without having to consider the same question "why?" I is not seen possible progress toward a comprehensive understanding. You, as I currently understand it, want to do only one combination, the process of emergence.
: VA
Abdullah, your criteria - nothing justifies. You can not use them either In one example, or in one situation, which I offer to you. About what you say. From what I have to open your mouth you believe that you have there some criteria, if you can I can not show its effectiveness. Do you have a set of words. And probably enough about that moment.
Abdullah:
Can there be such an option, you can not, by virtue of / Possible / relative limitations of your thinking, not seeing what and how I justified? Because otherwise you can not put a question! I therefore propose generally reject the claims that some argue with each other.
What you or I do not see the truth of the opponent - not an argument. For it is possible that for my legality of seeing your argument I should grow and grow over each other. To do this takes years, decades, all life may not be enough. Why philosophize defeatist and sokrushayuchis! One can not a man to prove that the higher the current level of understanding! It must teach and teach, improve and raise to his mental level.
That's what I suggest Sofilosofstvovat. And not in a hurry somewhere ... fuss ...
In Soyentologii Ron Hubbard is a concept, "steadily this." The essence boils down to what the human mind can not exist without some stability constant given, what the mind believes. Then there is a person in any case live / something / ... Something is the center of the ideological pillar of the functioning of his Ya Without this constant, he simply lost in the chaos of pushing information from anywhere. Hubbard said one funny thing ...:))) it does not matter really whether it is given or illusory - the main thing that it was. He has created a powerful financial and religious sect adherents and followers, there have been many scandals ... Hubbard built a self-deception opportunism in religious doctrine.
I believe that the basis foundations Самовзаимосовершенствования should be just relentless determination greater correctness, legality, truthfulness stable data interlocutors. Mean that more true diabetes should gradually be perceived by others, should be replaced by the illusory DM, replaced Jehovah diabetes.
I think it should be very painful ... psychologically difficult. Abandon their diabetes and take diabetes another - is, in my opinion, the heroic work ... and the highest, from all that man can do in my entire life.
How many times have I asked about your diabetes, Victor? Why do not you want to identify, detect? Did you this uninteresting?
And the love I have asked this question and Sergei ... all I ask. And when I go into these glubochennye subconscious strata of people I meet resistance and nervnichanie. ... I once managed to ask about it, even my younger brother (now 19 years old, oak oak, gregarious-deterministic way of thinking and feeling in its pure form). Three or four years ago, it happened so that after midnight, watching TV alone in the kitchen went to an unexpected philosophical clue causal processes in his mind. He got a kind of hypnosis (otherwise the resistance would ruin everything) and answered my questions about the serial nature of his life motivation until ... until early as sleepwalking, he uttered something startling: "this is not to say we can not say." Me: "Why?". He: "it will ruin the whole world. " This was not a joke. He suggested that something chimerical, that he envisioned at this time. Immediately thereafter, I noticed fear, disgust and disbelief. I realized that he had decided to push it all from memory to the devil. How much I pleaded with him then do not come back to this "interesting" conversation, he strongly even I remember on the subject of the night did not want to talk ... And then not able to remember and understand what it is I ask him. You have it.
Aurobindo:
Only nude and not dealing with shame, the soul may be pure and innocent, like Adam in the original garden of humanity.
VA:
: Moreover, "there was no Return to Chaos" - is negative proposition. And therefore, it is not clear from the most important thing is how to live? Consequently, you have no meaning (purpose) of life ("go over there I do not know where, bring then I do not know why, for that purpose, which is not nothing "- can live by this principle? Your principle is precisely this).
Abdullah:
purpose and meaning of my life, as I understand it is today, is to promote Non-return to chaos. You think this is - something negative? Why not? If that's the words, terms - the higher I have already replied to you about this. "There was no return to the disease" - a negative opinion? It's the same thing as "the pursuit of health", no? :)
: VA
I have in any case, I answer the question "why?" You would be better instead of a storm of uncertain judgments specifically reacted to something, why do I say so and not otherwise.
Abdullah:
I do I can not understand what you are exactly what you say so and not otherwise, and so on, until you tell me what you're talking about at all. And this, as I understand it, is inextricably linked at all with all the deep-life motivation at all. And since I believe that this is sheer motivation of all is the same (instinctive the will to survive), then inclined to believe that you may not be a sense of speaking, mentally, feeling, doing something as something, rather than the meaning, Instinctively, that drives all others. ... Therefore, I believe that I actually understand what you're talking about. You are asserting itself. Here's how I understand it. A sense of self is to rule the world. A sense of the omnipresent desire to control the world I see is to run the world from all the lesser CHAOTIC to increasingly DECENCY matter and spirit. The meaning of this trend, you know what I have ...
: VA
If you can not "here and now - to make самостоятельный шаг, т.е. без всяких «если бы да кабы», то Ваша теория стоит быть только возможной, а я хочу действительной.
: Может согласитесь, что мужчина to love a woman should be recognized as follows: I, in my IMHO, love you as much as you help me?
Abdullah:
Well, yes. I believe that Ephraim in "Razor" very convincingly argues about whether benchmarks carnal love. All directed to the benefit of surviving family.
VA:
: «Abdullah: I already told you My opinion: I can not give a specific argument, what is wrong your notion of good, because I do not think that there is irregularity of your concept. All the concept of welfare as a right. "
: VA I do not agree. Hitler - was also his idea of good, but it was not universal. But I think the concept and general was not good nor for how long. So, what can not be all notions of welfare as a right. We must figure out - how they are generally concepts of good. After all, the benefit - Just a word of five letters.
Abdullah:
logic of fascism is quite simple and very easy to fit into the scheme of benefits, as I understand it. Best shall prosper. But their mistake is that they wanted to benefit by force and with biased, incomplete representations of the "best". I think it was successful (with a chance) be it can only free, creative, un-Christian. Hitler samooutverzhdalsya force and blind, like a beast. But I do not see any reason that would curse Fascism blindly. For the blindness of naked emotion there is no logical clarity. Expedient, I think, explain, and it is misleading from the standpoint of Solovyov:
«Any error - At least, every error, which is to say, - contains the unquestionable truth and there is only more or less profound distortion of the truth; it is kept, it is attractive, it's dangerous, and through her as it can only be properly understood, evaluated and finally refuted.
Therefore, the first it reasonable criticism with respect to some confusion - to determine the truth of which it keeps and which it distorts. »
VA:
:« Abdullah: (VA However, I can not say with regard to the arguments otherwise, except as unambiguously: "You're wrong").
: Why? Why can not you say double-valued: "You as far as I can tell, is not right "? What hinders? »
: VA Well, if my argument, because I also wrote and presented it, is it not self-evident that "as far as I know how to judge? What am I after each word must be a mention something ...
Abdullah:
seems to me that this is / very important / tactical value. Saying, "as I think "we have / will never be mistaken / and will not be in the position of claiming anything more than we have ... Passion and so it is always raging around the greater righteousness ... why annoy each other more and faux pas.
VA:
: «Abdullah: You say you do not even know why you need to understand what is good."
: VA Quote himself: "Why understand the concept of welfare? I do not know. I UNDERSTAND YOURSELF THE GOOD, THE BEAUTY, TRUTH, THE TIME, I, etc. "Moreover, I have to answer 10 of you said that I understood for the sake of truth.
: Ignore words in my judgment - is incorrect.
Abdullah:
Skip specifically - meanness inadvertent - negligence (which is not such a big sin). A properly is when instead of "I think so," say "it - the ultimate truth." In my case.
I hope to answer.
========================
: LOVE:
solution of such problems by virtue except that of Christ. I never set itself such global problems, and the more I do not know how to solve them ... and do you know?
Abdullah:
Do I know how to solve them? I think that nothing can be know / all /. Therefore, I believe the question "Did you know?" Not quite correct. I think that, perhaps, I know / to some degree, as solve them.
With regard to the forces of Christ - so we all have, as I understand it, His power through us, through us he (mostly he) governs the universal process of perpetual becoming. He is, in short, the Head of a single organism, striving for creative realization in eternity.
Love:
: Abdullah:
: If you "disappear the subject of our conversation with you, then why should this conversation lead? I think for the sake of the Creative prevent this eventual extinction. What do you think?
: LOVE: The Times did not choose, they live and die! You may shout to reincarnate and live forever in the works, in the building. If this means preventing the creative, then I agree.
Abdullah:
At first I wrote on it that's what:
«This is what is / means. Glad you agree. "
But then, the next time you open a Word document with your name for further editorial response ... I fell into some confusion, suspicion crept ... What does it mean "You can transform any number? Not about whether the reincarnation of a Buddhist you ask? Or, yet you about the creative reincarnation of his deeds?
: LOVE:
From my point of view, the notion of "bogootstavlennosti" is absurd. Even if you yourself put aside from God, then it is up to you keeping up, because it not possible.
Abdullah:
Bogoostavlennost - a term Berdyaev. Anyway, he drank it. And he says here that:
«In the world of acting not only God, not only the freedom of man, but Rock. Rock this means falling into the external sphere, meaning a mysterious bogoostavlennost. But this is only way to go. Rock avoidable to the Christian consciousness, for the religion of the Spirit. "
I had used this term only in the sense of depressive mood, bad mood, when there is no feeling meaningfulness of life, no faith in the possibility of the victory of reason at all. ... I think this sense is not so far from being in any talks about "bogoostavlennosti" Berdyaev.
But your objection, I think, enter into polemics with it berdyaevskim statement. It is, in my opinion, denies freedom of will and freedom of choice. This, in I think something deterministically-Spinoza.
Love:
: Abdullah:
: Why is the "BUT share this blessing with all of it is hardly worth? What are you doing?
: LOVE: You know, I was always depressed situation, that I should share received my emotions with people who do not need it. And in this case not all of it will be necessary and clear "benefit by Savrasov. And you are invited to share this blessing with all of humanity. Why?
Abdullah:
I'm not going to tell people about the picture Savrasov, or the novels of Dostoevsky, or even about something as gracious a particular object. I ask you, do not get this perception-and-then-transfer effect of all I objectified past. This is how I understand it, conservatism thinking. Every profound creative influence - the symbolic and mystical. As the energy of nature - it Influence of transition from form to form and complexity of its manifestation.
Just to illustrate how a deeper understanding of nature:
Albert Schweitzer:
Kant and Hegel held sway over the minds of millions of people who in my life have not read a single line of their works and were not even aware that they obey them.
Abdullah:
But here I see the error of objectification! Not "ruled", but dominate. For what they navliyali in kulturatvorcheskom plan - will not be vanish, to cease its action, but going from display to display, develops further.
: LOVE:
And you do not forget to ask the human race - He wants you to do it ennobled?
Abdullah:
How do I ask anything of those who will live a thousand years, and those who lived a thousand years ago?
Love:
and eternal life in general .... This is a social problem ..
Abdullah:
I do not think that eternal life - "this is a problem of social". In my opinion it can not be / some / problem. I think this is a problem in general. And all the other problems, IMHO, is the only privately owned, objectified in the minds of the manifestations of this Problems.
Love:
from any point let me ask you're counting eternal life?
Abdullah:
From the Big Bang.
Love
and then, as if all they want live forever ... It seems these questions should be asked before setting a global goal ..
Abdullah:
I think that nothing else in the deep essence, nobody wants / can not / want. This is, I think the basic essence of all desires, That Is wanting. And this global objective can not, I think, "put". It was originally directs, seems to me that all life processes spokon centuries, from the beginning of the universe. It can only be deeper grasp all effective (with more increasing chances) to implement.
=======================
: GP
materialization of the ideal differs from the idealization of the material and if I ideal only one - Christ, how can I agree with atheistic ideals of Margarita, which in an ideal world no relation.
Abdullah:
I do not think there was not and never can be, in principle, nothing that would have no relationship to the world perfect. The denial of the relationship between any of the phenomena and noumena, to deny the essential reducibility of anything to anything is inclined to consider the spiritual and intellectual myopia.
: GP then SB:
So you think that Christ Jesus - selfish? Christ - the perfect idea: to what you eat but it was not bad - Treat others the way you want them to treat you. This idea is carried out by Him in the incarnation. What other idea may be worthwhile in the field of human relations?
Abdullah:
I believe that the "Treat to others the way you want them to treat you "- the idea is untenable. Because it makes a difference / desire / the subconscious feeling. Should people flatter others if he wants to flatter him?
SB:
:: Yes, I call it a spiritual self-interest - to consider true only his ideal, and to ignore the ideals of others.
: GP
You are free to consider the way you want, but do not assume that your opinion right just because it is you think so.
Abdullah:
I do not think that Sergei free to take as he pleases. If we assume that the way we want, then no opinion can not be correct. Considered necessary, as I understand it, trying to Regulation (rather than madness).
=========================
Sebi Real Estate Mutual Funds
slightly Zhizni 9
: VA
I find that it all deserves to be camim on its own, without a goal.
: however. It is worth noting that there is no contradictions to be still useful (ie to be under your printsipop good). For example, the "Mona Lisa" may be a hole in the wall to cover up or sell and to feed all those who need a couple godkov.
: But here I stand on the following principle: if a thing, cause, etc. - Can be themselves without the need to be useful for other things, cause, etc., hence it is necessary to value in themselves and only by chance - it is useful.
: example. Painting "La Gioconda" contains no need to cover up a hole in the wall, or be sold for big money, or serve as a self-preservation of the universe, etc. Hence, on putting principle: she in itself is valuable, but helpful - by accident.
Abdullah:
And I believe that the usefulness of (appropriate) and has one objective-anthological criterion, which determines / Degree of Values / anything. And in the minds of people, I think there is no clarity about the nature of values in the area of high / mother / of the historical gaps, that have not yet taken into account the nature of this criterion.
whether to close the picture of a hole in the wall, or to harmonize their attitude contemplation of creation Artist - are, I think the same. Overcoming CHAOS in matter and in spirit.
I do not understand how something can be in itself valuable, but helpful - by accident. In my opinion if something is valuable and useful (which, as I understand, the same thing) - is, in strict accordance with the metaphysical laws of Genesis and the global linkages with the entire universe (and not itself). A child may answer that the ball falls to the floor by itself, and bounce off the floor by accident, but that does not mean that all it's really not going according to immutable laws of physics.
terms "accident" and "itself" does not seem to me ... particularly philosophical (intentionally I do not use some / vulgar / expression). I propose to think about it thoroughly.
VA:
: So the question to the beautiful (as opposed to useful) things, affairs, careers, etc. "WHY" to carry them out? - Has the answer: for their own sake.
Abdullah:
As between "beautiful" and "useful" not in my understanding opposites, and since all that was done in the world, is carried out (in my opinion) for a common goal - I can not treat your "exercise for themselves "what else except eydosnym misunderstanding need to be corrected, a challenge for the successful survival. "For the sake of ourselves" and "self- per se "and the" accidental "- it reminds me something.
Nietzsche:
I walk among men as among fragments of the future - that
future, I see.
And in my work and the desire to collect and
connect together all that is a fragment, a riddle and
terrible accident.
VA:
Why be a traveler? Then, to them to be, ie go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, without any other goals acre contemplation of this combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence.
Abdullah:
This attitude, as measured me as a typically-human, seems to me to "fragment, a mystery and a terrible accident," the way of genuine concern to return.
: VA
well. And as an example (not personal).
: Whether you choose to all of humanity lived 1000 000 000 years are guaranteed a safe and sound in the cellar, or that it survived a couple of thousand years, but in the set realities (arts, sciences, relations (play, friendship, love ...), etc.)?
Abdullah:
I do not see any reason that would spend some limited time. This, in my opinion, all exactly what NOT to live at all. Living (self-perpetuating) can only be forever. Therefore, the two proposed options seem to me equally meaningless.
VA:
: «Abdullah: And if I take this pot, pour in the milk and he'll drink - the alien will understand what it is (how to promote life)?
: (on your the eyes of the milled paste complex parts in the mechanism and you can see exactly how it contributes to the functioning of the mechanism - you have has developed a greater understanding of the purpose of this part itself (that etotakoe), is not it?) »
: VA That's you, Abdullah I, and caught in their "network" (as the saying I guess).
: See what happens. You assured me a lot of messages without any arguments that the concept to be understood, must be shown in his appearance.
: Immediately! Immediately on the above example, I, you know the pot and detail - only at their further use, rather than through Seeing their occurrence. Which was required to show an example.
Abdullah:
So it's the same / I / you harder all the time, meaning that something can not be understood on the basis simply from the fact that there is a fact of combining diverse stuff. The fact that we combine technological machine, professional wizard, precious metals and other does not make a product good (useful); only designed shows, reveals the meaning. The fact that pot is the result of combining - is not the cause of estimation. Beethoven's Symphony, a masterpiece of Da Vinci and all, all that is good in virtue of the correspondence, the degree of service to his / destination. So it must be idea of predestination. Do not see the destination, it is unclear what it is - you can not understand the meaning. Not understand the meaning - is unclear and the situation with the good.
Purpose (смысл) газонокосилки предельно ясно. Ибо это почти как треугольность крыши – всё очевидно и просто. Отсюда простота в понимании благостности фрезерного lathe and milling-machine specialization. But everything depends on the meaning of mowing the lawn. If you find that sense of bringing in a neat appearance lawn in front of their homes is not clear - everything hangs in the air. The belief that the purpose of mowing machine, milling clear to us - evaporates. But I explain the meaning of caring for foreign culture of life that these are just attributes / living in general. Under this sauce can be cut, by the way, everything, and Bach, and Da Vinci and Diogo Maradona and everything you want. I do not need to justify all gracious individually my criteria. For my evaluation criterion justifies the meaning of life itself in general. To live in order to avoid was a return to chaos. Accordingly - everything else you need to do the same. And you say:
«Why be a traveler? Then, to make them be, ie, go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, with no other purpose acre contemplation of the combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence. »
your philosophy does not know the general purpose and, as I understand, not Maybe for this reason, propose a universal sense of all that happened, is happening and will happen. To the question "why?" You answer "just so". It seems there is no consistency, there ought, positive vseistoricheskogo accumulation Goals / Destination. Hence, there can be, I think, and perceptions of value (good and evil, the good and Antiblage).
VA:
: Ie Of course, pouring milk and become thirsty, the alien will understand that such a pot. (Or I begin to understand the detail of when uzryu how and where it will operate).
: Well, take and drink of milk, "my concept of good. Take it and paste it into a well-known You a "mechanism" of my concept of good. And then you have instead of the bare "not to understand" there will be specific questions to my notion of good.
Abdullah:
I have already said, I understand that this example only as in "their favor."
VA:
: Because I did exactly that with your concept. Take your concept of good and use it. For example, determining their specific (judge for yourself: his notion of the good I define any specific, so if you have - the good, then I must also define them all specific).
: And if not, then I run to you and make claims, for example, one of them: "a Mona Lisa - may be useless ...". And do not beg you have a history of occurrence, from which no good there and you are now shown themselves.
Abdullah:
How Gioconda is useless, so as I think she is NOT a good thing. Do you want a "yes" or "no", "black" or "white", "definitely something" or "specifically is? Or do you want to be an expert good for all eternity ahead? I do not think so. Like all of science - philosophy will evolve forever, and the idea of good, too. Consequently, no one had ever can not be a connoisseur of good; only / as a /, to some extent, on some level, to some extent. And nobody's formula can not claim infallibility. All our theories about the good / defective by definition / imperfect, always flawed.
VA:
: «Abdullah: ... How can you claim that you have some logical idea of good? If it is not logical then what? Intuitive? Empirically contemplative?
: That you have something at random, and inquired of the combined - Why not be good? ", And not finding the answer to that and decided to do - it does not seem correct to me by looking."
: VA I beg your pardon, Abdullah, Do not think for being rude, but you never know what you do not. Give a specific argument, what is wrong my concept of good. And all business.
Abdullah:
I have already said my opinion: I can not give a specific argument, what is wrong your notion of good, because I do not think that there is irregularity of your concept. All notions of welfare as a right. The eagle can not fly because of the diametrically opposite side of the production! In the same way with our concepts, ideas. How is it that they would have to be false? But in contrast to the simplicity of the mechanism of predator hunting for their specific good - we have an incredible complexity. Therefore, if the two wolves almost exactly the same maneuver for their own benefit kinky, between thinkers may be qualitative differences in the abyss! This assumption gives hope that the hierarchical order may be installed in our relationship.
specific arguments in the proof of my philosophy superiority over you I can not give. Maybe all of life, we do not have enough to deal with insubordination. So it all seems to me difficult triangularity roof. But what would we have done on this road Proceedings - our work is not wasted. We have at least laid the groundwork, create a precedent for the right move to the right Sofilosofstvovaniyu ...
VA:
: Also no logic at all, but there is a formal, transcendental, speculative, or take the "Logical research "Husserl's ... etc. So I could not say that my concept of logical. (Unless it was crucial in any one place).
Abdullah:
What do you mean "no logic at all? You want to say that is not open yet, not found? After all, "was not yet understood" does not mean that "will never be understood? And if you can come to understand that earlier had not yet understood, we can not exclude the possibility that Abdullah might already be aware that Victor More is known about the logic at all.
: VA Why
understand the concept of welfare? I do not know. I understand the benefit of ourselves, beauty, truth, time, etc. I
Abdullah:
And I, I think, I know why / should get better and better / understand the concept of welfare? In order to effectively carry out all of his (to increase their chances). The deepening of this understanding and refers to me as the spiritual and intellectual growth. And ... I do not think that, without understanding the meaning of understanding of the concepts of the good can be any significant move in terms of "good, beauty, truth, time, etc. I» ...
: VA
However, I can not say with regard to the arguments otherwise, except as unambiguously: "You not right. "
Abdullah:
Why? Why can not you say double-valued: "You are, as far as I can tell, is not right"? What hinders?
: VA
Looks Nietzsche on Bazaar did not go anywhere ... and security more important to him swiftness ...
: To each his own. I deal with you.
Abdullah:
And I, as I understand it, I was dealing with / all / ever lived, living, and all those that ever will live (co-creation to increase the CHANCE of salvation).
VA:
: «Abdullah: The question, in fact, must, I believe, be reduced to the philosophical subordination. "
: VA The question of the nature of benefits must be reduced to anything that is inherent in the entity. Why fuss about some philosophical subordination? I do not understand what you mean, because when I think about the good, then I do not think the philosophical subordination.
Abdullah:
And I - I think. For, as / I / I understand Good - Its successful implementation requires more understanding samovzaimosozidanii and in the universal co-creation at all. And all this is not me as something that is possible without increasing the effective consolidation of the spiritual and hierarchical relationships.
for successful implementation of our philosophical descendants should rule the world. All the philosophers of the future, as I understand it, should philosophize as a single brain (for a common goal of a single organism). A single brain can not function without a certain hierarchy, subordinativnosti its structure.
Who we are today? Ridicule and something totally uninteresting for the masses! But such is not to be ever public opinion about us. The world has to manage the people's will? Excellent! And we must become a force control formation of the will of the people.
VA:
: Maybe this: if a little knowledge, but it effectively and the other lot (although, in comparison with infinity both the same) and it is only possible, it is from these first two - MORE knowledge than the second.
Abdullah:
you think so? And I think that your idea about what it means to "effectively" not even close to my idea is this. What it means to be effective? What is / useful action /? (I hope you understand where I'm going)
VA:
And then the winner of the first - takes pride of first place in the hierarchy of these two Wisdom. You are satisfied with my understanding of this "subordination", you speak of? Or not? If yes, to me it - makes no difference because knowledge whose first place of any increases or decreases my learning very good.
Abdullah:
If knowledge is an empty word and is not aimed at the creation of the psyche and the world in general ... then really, what does it exactly to learn whether who is right or not (although I can not imagine - as it can lay claim to greater right, without having to qualify for the role of the Teacher). But my understanding of the benefits requires action creative intervention into all spheres of the universe, the constant and relentless spiritual and intellectual feat of ALL. It requires power and control. My understanding is expansive. I'm not just philosophize about the good - I preach Him. My attitude to our communion ideologically-integration, but not idly, abstract, posidelochnoe.
you said that did not even know why you need to understand what is good. You said yourself that you can not understand anything without understanding its purpose! Not making a sense of understanding of the benefits of options - how you can qualify for substantial knowledge about the subject?
======================
Love:
:: Abdullah:
:: For example? With what you can not identify, and why? What do you not accept?
: LOVE:
pain, evil and violence, so much more. And why You took what if it is on Earth, then this is not in the universe?
Abdullah:
What on earth is just it, I think, in the universe, for the earth into the composition of the universe, as part of it and makes their movement ...
How can you not accept any negative elements of existence! After all, it must be creatively RESCHAT. And to to solve - you need not trying to distance itself, but to accept, is identified with himself, with his life challenges and problems.
: LOVE:
but you expect that in the distant prospects for all will be harmony and there will be disharmony. Hard to believe. Let me explain why. The fact is that when a person is in complete harmony with the surrounding world, he's already dead ... But chaos is not harmony.
Abdullah:
«is in complete harmony with the surrounding world", and "do not have any problems, life tasks" - in my opinion different things. For, as / I / understand the problem, it can not be definitively made any degree of effectiveness of interactions of all the creative forces. Most in perfect harmony in all spheres of life will always be a even greater chance, but not the "final solution". So zakosnevanie because even the highest degree of harmonization of relations, as I understand it, is not threatened.
: LOVE:
There is a hypothesis that life on Earth will last for quite not for long. And with her disappearance will disappear the subject of our conversation with you. Perhaps it will be some form of mind and consciousness and the concept of welfare as we understand them will generally be alien.
Abdullah:
If "disappear the subject of our conversation with you, then why should this conversation lead? I think it is for Creativity Prevent this, the possibility of extinction. What do you think?
: LOVE:
Remember the moment when, after communication with the beautiful you go out into the street. Or when You are leaving the church and go down into the subway. Here it is - an imperfect world. You are pushing, name-calling, pulled ... And you affect all the benefits Savrasov ??????
: Of course not.
Abdullah:
two times are not necessary. Sometimes the world crushes his obstructive problematic, sometimes affects Stanovlencheskim impulse ever living (including Savrasov). But it is not specifically about how I behave exactly when you exit the museum! Impression of something will not go anywhere! Suppose when you exit from the museum, I do not navliyal, but potentially influence Savrasov developed in me in the context of my entire worldview of growth in general and ever necessarily affect the other command. Here it is not about the size of the influence of ... question here about / principles / my creative interaction with all who lived, living and with all those who will live in the future ... No matter how much I give of Savrasov and all the rest (modified and updated) information to samovzaimosozidaniya future generations. I seems to me, showing you the very possibility in principle and purpose of the Eternal Cooperation. And if it is possible in principle, then possibly an arbitrarily large increase in quantitative and qualitative level of this cooperation in a single, universal Ya
Love:
you are trying to save, to deliver the state of your soul to the place or time where you would be comfortable to continue to live at ease and in harmony.
Abdullah:
In the days of gloom and bogoostavlennosti so maybe ... but not when I set Zhizneutverzhdayusche.
Love:
: I completely agree that Savrasov through his painting influenced the formation of Your and my Ya
: BUT share this blessing with all hardly.
Abdullah:
Why is this "BUT share this blessing with all of it is hardly worth? What are you doing?
Love:
Yes, and whether they want pieces of your benefit from Savrasov? In these times to someone closer to the green piece of paper in your wallet.
Abdullah:
We have been in the army is a saying "do not know how - to teach, do not want - will force»:)
... But seriously ... You never know who does not want, or that someone closer to you! Man is not perfect and may so that there may be doomed to poor orientation in the values of life. We must, I understand, ennoble the human race. It is necessary to gain eternal life ... like I understand.
And if life is condemned to death, then I am not only in our dialogue - I am in no way see the point. I was just as inspiring to the vital functions serving the will of the creator-development, which, as I understand it, to increase the CHANCE of No Return ... And what inspires you to this our conversations, do you think?
=========================
SB:
: Abdullah:
According to the degree of loyalty to my understanding of "I" - not "someone something "mentality, but there is a general mentality of the" ideal self "in the Person of Christ Savior, who ... etc.
: Sat: I can not judge about you personally, but the phrase deeply yavrotichna as unduly exalts your personal H:
Abdullah:
Why unnecessarily! Why / surely / unreasonable? Maybe there's some reason?
proposes an approach to this "scrupulous" moment with Statements about a possible personal excellence with scientific, dispassionate conceptually. Nobody interrupts a consultant dentist or a lawyer with the wrangling: "what are you actually perform, get smart - smarter than everyone else what?" Similarly, many centuries people with respect and understanding attitude to specialists in spiritual matters. Why the practice of the relationship very quickly withered, turned aside their course - on that score I could have diluted whole theory ...
Yes, I consider myself to those who most zapravskim way specializes in the mental processes of man in general. As far as my self esteem in this plan is adequate - a separate issue. But I want first to clarify your position regarding most of the question this way ... How do you think, so ... uh ... a bold approach is consistent with objectives of the forum? Is relevant to these problems? I personally think that the most direct, and perhaps even paramount. After all, how you can argue about the good, without disassembling the question of the degree qualifications in these cases, each participant? Those considerations, that the best expert gracious way of thinking and feeling is, in theory, more pious, more spiritual and intellectual development of individuals - is it really can be a problem ... nepreodalImoy in relations scholars?
«Kawabata thought for a moment, and the wrinkles on his forehead smoothed out.
- you're right - he said. - Me, in fact, not move
desire to show that I'm in something you understand better, and compassion fatigue
animal. There really is no shame - if I happened to say
stupidity, I did not lose face.
He put the sword back in its sheath, he staggered and fell again to the bottle.
- If two men of noble and there is some
small misunderstanding, perhaps there is not crumble to dust if they are both directed to a
him the tip of their minds? - He asked, handing the bottle Serdyuk.
Serdyuk finished tire.
- of course fall to pieces - he said. - Clear business. »
Viktor Pelevin," Chapaev and void. "
(by the way - Funny Philosophical Fiction! Recommend all the lucky ones, still have not read.
http://lib.ru/PELEWIN/pelev04.txt
) SB:
: - what is the role of the I-ideal content of a part of humanity is raised Jesus Christ, this is not your opening, and the value of the entire Christian tradition-long 2000 years,
: - and that's just the way you continue to set out for the mission and goals of Christ, I think I recognized would be really, only your understanding.
Abdullah:
Thanks ... But I think I have not yet fully clear your estimate to do with how I treat mission and goals of Christ, who understand and his / personal problems, and even tasks and missions in general.
: Sat:
remark is true, but do not include objectives of the forum. This forum is intended as METAPHYSICS GOOD, so you have to leave aside questions of psychology, sociology, theology, theosophy, etc. Elsewhere я с удовольствием пофилософствовал бы на эти темы. А пока, действительно, приходится сдерживаться от распыления на инопредметности.
Абдулла:
Видите ли… Sergei ... I consider our dialogue as something much more promising, global and inclusive, rather than just an interview for a specific, limited subject.
Inopredmetnost - is in my opinion is nonsense for philosophy. I think the idea that there are other, not reducible to each other subjects - is a temporary misunderstanding in philosophical outlook. All the great philosophers have sought specifically to wholeness, inclusiveness of his vision. And only "Philosophical workers" all the time breaks up the great heritage of the individual currents, individual consideration, fragmented research. Maybe it happened because they just could not cover that too, for myself, broadly? I personally would not rush to consider anything apart. Moreover, I / organically unable / to such a review. This seems ridiculous and absurd to try to philosophize SO.
Nietzsche:
When they give themselves for the wise, I am shivering from small
sayings and truths of them often comes from the wisdom of their smell, as
if she comes out of the swamp, and, indeed, I had heard how
frog croaked it!
Nimble they are, and skillful fingers at them - that my identity
with the variety of them! Every line of threading and weaving and knitting
know their fingers: so they knit stockings spirit!
They are good timers, you need only right
start them! Then they show unmistakable
time and produce a slight noise at the same time.
Like mills, they work and knock:
just threw them their grain! - They too will be able to crush them and
make white dust out of them.
They vigilantly monitor the fingers each other and not too
trust one another. Ingenious tricks,
they await those who have knowledge of lame - like spiders,
lurk they are.
I saw how they were always carefully prepare the poison, and
always put them in this glass gloves on her fingers.
also fake bones are able to they play, and I caught them
game with such fervor that they have been sweating.
We are strangers to each other, and their virtues
disgusted me even more than guile and fake dice them.
And when I lived with them, I lived on them. That's why they disliked
me.
they hear and do not want anyone to go over their heads
; and because they have imposed a tree, land, and Copy between me and
their heads.
So they drowned the sound of my footsteps, and worst of all listening
I still have most scientists among them.
All errors and weaknesses of the people they heaped between themselves and
me: "black sex" they call it in their homes.
And yet I go with my thoughts / Over /
their heads, and even if I wanted to walk on his own
mistakes, still I would have been over them and their heads.
For men / not / are equal - so says the justice. And
what I want / they / would not have the right to choose! -
Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Abdullah:
Yes ... in these words a lot of genuine contempt. I understand ... And a lot of Yavroz. But no more Yavroz, I think, than our Lord Jesus.
«Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except through Me. »
Io. X with objectivity Ya But here we must remember that egologiya - it's not psychological, and metaphysical science, ie She examines the universal forms of H. However, your desire to make these forms a particular (Christian), I is the ideal content reduces the rank of the metaphysical debate, coming into conflict with other I-ideals (Eg, Buddhist, daosiyskim, atheist, etc. to the variety of cultural traditions).
Abdullah:
I understand ... that the democratic principles of good (Like everything else) in its place. And it is not good in such a case, as knowledge.
Margaret Hamm suggested that somehow absurd in my opinion, the system sofilosofstvovaniya on the principle of voting. What she said then President, I fully supported. I understand philosophy as an activity exclusively / aristocratic / character. There should guarantee quality dominate. No matter from whom exactly it goes. Same thing with the world I-ideals. No ambitions carriers should ideally (and can) lead the process of ideological integration, but it is that the functional significance; impartial identify objectively the potential heritage values of all cultures, not a "political compromise". In my case. If Christ is "cooler" of the Buddha and Muhammad - Then the truth requires the identification and recognition of this fact, rather than covering up of "respect" to the narrow-minded ethnic selfishness of the masses. The question may be raised In either scenario, any relation intended significance of these and other individuals. I'm talking about the importance of / against Targets /, for an increase in CHANCES self ...
SB:
: This would be easy to recognize a misunderstanding, if it does not lead to a fundamental yavroticheskomu belittling others I people.
Abdullah:
I think that there is no (neither light nor heavy) misunderstandings. Here is how I see the desire to herd egalitarianism. "People are not exactly" - Nietzsche says ... Why should it be perceived as blasphemy, or as an attack on the interests, as an insult? Is it - is not the true state of affairs, not the objective? Or do you say that you think all I do all men the same small, or the equally great? And then "I'm belittling other people? I say that I consider it necessary elucidation of the relation of these same quantities of all personalities. What other way to be true, free, sotvorcheskim relationships, both through / overcome the herd Prejudice on the qualitative equality of people do not see. I'm not talking about legal inequality!
I understand that as long as the question of student-quality Rank will not be accepted by philosophers put openly and honestly - all conversations will invariably deteriorate, slipping to a hidden, underground proving friend of a friend of his mental superiority. That is what I see, I think, across the Internet, where trying to conduct "constructive dialogue".
SB:
: Abdullah: But as we argue ... we have a temporary lack of understanding within this single becoming beings with a clear unity of Life Problem. That is - Tseleedinstvo / should be / I say ... in the sense that it needs to be creatively carried out from generation to generation ... etc
: SB: It turns out that if my or someone I "misunderstood" and even more so "do not realize" what you have said, we are diminished, and I need to be improved in accordance with the proposed Your recipes goals and objectives.
: So, your worldview is through the installation yavrotichnoy. And this fits perfectly Yavroz a symbol of a Mobius strip. On one side of a Mobius strip - I, for other goods, coupled with his egologicheskim substitute - I-ideal. You, praising your own I'm up to identification with the I-ideal, symbolically immediately carry themselves on the ideal side of a Mobius strip, and others, or otherwise I leave here on this side, with their allegedly deficient H-ideals, still needs to develop and move along the path to your H. Thus you provoke in others I imperfection and complexes the blame for the chaos. As a result, the metaphysical thinking of you degenerates into a sermon I direct identities and the Good / God (with which we are with you even in the first messages are defined) and mental-intellectual work on the lapped different I-ideals is all derived out of the brackets.
Abdullah:
And what follows from all this? No should not be anyone to teach, so it does not look so that people may samovozgordilsya and idealizes her I'm from some morbid ambitions, and at the expense of "other I?
put the question differently, from a distance: Is there, in your opinion, do any ontological reason to teach someone else to live, to understand, to feel? Fits whether such a statement of the problem in your idea of good?
As painful as possible the nature of my assumptions about the possible superiority my spiritual and intellectual level ... so I'm not only that - I do everything possible anything with a willingness to tolerate and / principle / willing to expose question any provision of all the things that I have ever been said or will ever be told.
:)))) And ... .. when I'm talking about the spiritual and intellectual hierarchies in the relationship - I did not mean myself some place! The question of a purely abstract and theoretical as well as ... - eschatological. I'm talking about the principle it seems to me, in my IMHO.
=======================
: VA
I find that it all deserves to be camim on its own, without a goal.
: however. It is worth noting that there is no contradictions to be still useful (ie to be under your printsipop good). For example, the "Mona Lisa" may be a hole in the wall to cover up or sell and to feed all those who need a couple godkov.
: But here I stand on the following principle: if a thing, cause, etc. - Can be themselves without the need to be useful for other things, cause, etc., hence it is necessary to value in themselves and only by chance - it is useful.
: example. Painting "La Gioconda" contains no need to cover up a hole in the wall, or be sold for big money, or serve as a self-preservation of the universe, etc. Hence, on putting principle: she in itself is valuable, but helpful - by accident.
Abdullah:
And I believe that the usefulness of (appropriate) and has one objective-anthological criterion, which determines / Degree of Values / anything. And in the minds of people, I think there is no clarity about the nature of values in the area of high / mother / of the historical gaps, that have not yet taken into account the nature of this criterion.
whether to close the picture of a hole in the wall, or to harmonize their attitude contemplation of creation Artist - are, I think the same. Overcoming CHAOS in matter and in spirit.
I do not understand how something can be in itself valuable, but helpful - by accident. In my opinion if something is valuable and useful (which, as I understand, the same thing) - is, in strict accordance with the metaphysical laws of Genesis and the global linkages with the entire universe (and not itself). A child may answer that the ball falls to the floor by itself, and bounce off the floor by accident, but that does not mean that all it's really not going according to immutable laws of physics.
terms "accident" and "itself" does not seem to me ... particularly philosophical (intentionally I do not use some / vulgar / expression). I propose to think about it thoroughly.
VA:
: So the question to the beautiful (as opposed to useful) things, affairs, careers, etc. "WHY" to carry them out? - Has the answer: for their own sake.
Abdullah:
As between "beautiful" and "useful" not in my understanding opposites, and since all that was done in the world, is carried out (in my opinion) for a common goal - I can not treat your "exercise for themselves "what else except eydosnym misunderstanding need to be corrected, a challenge for the successful survival. "For the sake of ourselves" and "self- per se "and the" accidental "- it reminds me something.
Nietzsche:
I walk among men as among fragments of the future - that
future, I see.
And in my work and the desire to collect and
connect together all that is a fragment, a riddle and
terrible accident.
VA:
Why be a traveler? Then, to them to be, ie go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, without any other goals acre contemplation of this combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence.
Abdullah:
This attitude, as measured me as a typically-human, seems to me to "fragment, a mystery and a terrible accident," the way of genuine concern to return.
: VA
well. And as an example (not personal).
: Whether you choose to all of humanity lived 1000 000 000 years are guaranteed a safe and sound in the cellar, or that it survived a couple of thousand years, but in the set realities (arts, sciences, relations (play, friendship, love ...), etc.)?
Abdullah:
I do not see any reason that would spend some limited time. This, in my opinion, all exactly what NOT to live at all. Living (self-perpetuating) can only be forever. Therefore, the two proposed options seem to me equally meaningless.
VA:
: «Abdullah: And if I take this pot, pour in the milk and he'll drink - the alien will understand what it is (how to promote life)?
: (on your the eyes of the milled paste complex parts in the mechanism and you can see exactly how it contributes to the functioning of the mechanism - you have has developed a greater understanding of the purpose of this part itself (that etotakoe), is not it?) »
: VA That's you, Abdullah I, and caught in their "network" (as the saying I guess).
: See what happens. You assured me a lot of messages without any arguments that the concept to be understood, must be shown in his appearance.
: Immediately! Immediately on the above example, I, you know the pot and detail - only at their further use, rather than through Seeing their occurrence. Which was required to show an example.
Abdullah:
So it's the same / I / you harder all the time, meaning that something can not be understood on the basis simply from the fact that there is a fact of combining diverse stuff. The fact that we combine technological machine, professional wizard, precious metals and other does not make a product good (useful); only designed shows, reveals the meaning. The fact that pot is the result of combining - is not the cause of estimation. Beethoven's Symphony, a masterpiece of Da Vinci and all, all that is good in virtue of the correspondence, the degree of service to his / destination. So it must be idea of predestination. Do not see the destination, it is unclear what it is - you can not understand the meaning. Not understand the meaning - is unclear and the situation with the good.
Purpose (смысл) газонокосилки предельно ясно. Ибо это почти как треугольность крыши – всё очевидно и просто. Отсюда простота в понимании благостности фрезерного lathe and milling-machine specialization. But everything depends on the meaning of mowing the lawn. If you find that sense of bringing in a neat appearance lawn in front of their homes is not clear - everything hangs in the air. The belief that the purpose of mowing machine, milling clear to us - evaporates. But I explain the meaning of caring for foreign culture of life that these are just attributes / living in general. Under this sauce can be cut, by the way, everything, and Bach, and Da Vinci and Diogo Maradona and everything you want. I do not need to justify all gracious individually my criteria. For my evaluation criterion justifies the meaning of life itself in general. To live in order to avoid was a return to chaos. Accordingly - everything else you need to do the same. And you say:
«Why be a traveler? Then, to make them be, ie, go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, with no other purpose acre contemplation of the combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence. »
your philosophy does not know the general purpose and, as I understand, not Maybe for this reason, propose a universal sense of all that happened, is happening and will happen. To the question "why?" You answer "just so". It seems there is no consistency, there ought, positive vseistoricheskogo accumulation Goals / Destination. Hence, there can be, I think, and perceptions of value (good and evil, the good and Antiblage).
VA:
: Ie Of course, pouring milk and become thirsty, the alien will understand that such a pot. (Or I begin to understand the detail of when uzryu how and where it will operate).
: Well, take and drink of milk, "my concept of good. Take it and paste it into a well-known You a "mechanism" of my concept of good. And then you have instead of the bare "not to understand" there will be specific questions to my notion of good.
Abdullah:
I have already said, I understand that this example only as in "their favor."
VA:
: Because I did exactly that with your concept. Take your concept of good and use it. For example, determining their specific (judge for yourself: his notion of the good I define any specific, so if you have - the good, then I must also define them all specific).
: And if not, then I run to you and make claims, for example, one of them: "a Mona Lisa - may be useless ...". And do not beg you have a history of occurrence, from which no good there and you are now shown themselves.
Abdullah:
How Gioconda is useless, so as I think she is NOT a good thing. Do you want a "yes" or "no", "black" or "white", "definitely something" or "specifically is? Or do you want to be an expert good for all eternity ahead? I do not think so. Like all of science - philosophy will evolve forever, and the idea of good, too. Consequently, no one had ever can not be a connoisseur of good; only / as a /, to some extent, on some level, to some extent. And nobody's formula can not claim infallibility. All our theories about the good / defective by definition / imperfect, always flawed.
VA:
: «Abdullah: ... How can you claim that you have some logical idea of good? If it is not logical then what? Intuitive? Empirically contemplative?
: That you have something at random, and inquired of the combined - Why not be good? ", And not finding the answer to that and decided to do - it does not seem correct to me by looking."
: VA I beg your pardon, Abdullah, Do not think for being rude, but you never know what you do not. Give a specific argument, what is wrong my concept of good. And all business.
Abdullah:
I have already said my opinion: I can not give a specific argument, what is wrong your notion of good, because I do not think that there is irregularity of your concept. All notions of welfare as a right. The eagle can not fly because of the diametrically opposite side of the production! In the same way with our concepts, ideas. How is it that they would have to be false? But in contrast to the simplicity of the mechanism of predator hunting for their specific good - we have an incredible complexity. Therefore, if the two wolves almost exactly the same maneuver for their own benefit kinky, between thinkers may be qualitative differences in the abyss! This assumption gives hope that the hierarchical order may be installed in our relationship.
specific arguments in the proof of my philosophy superiority over you I can not give. Maybe all of life, we do not have enough to deal with insubordination. So it all seems to me difficult triangularity roof. But what would we have done on this road Proceedings - our work is not wasted. We have at least laid the groundwork, create a precedent for the right move to the right Sofilosofstvovaniyu ...
VA:
: Also no logic at all, but there is a formal, transcendental, speculative, or take the "Logical research "Husserl's ... etc. So I could not say that my concept of logical. (Unless it was crucial in any one place).
Abdullah:
What do you mean "no logic at all? You want to say that is not open yet, not found? After all, "was not yet understood" does not mean that "will never be understood? And if you can come to understand that earlier had not yet understood, we can not exclude the possibility that Abdullah might already be aware that Victor More is known about the logic at all.
: VA Why
understand the concept of welfare? I do not know. I understand the benefit of ourselves, beauty, truth, time, etc. I
Abdullah:
And I, I think, I know why / should get better and better / understand the concept of welfare? In order to effectively carry out all of his (to increase their chances). The deepening of this understanding and refers to me as the spiritual and intellectual growth. And ... I do not think that, without understanding the meaning of understanding of the concepts of the good can be any significant move in terms of "good, beauty, truth, time, etc. I» ...
: VA
However, I can not say with regard to the arguments otherwise, except as unambiguously: "You not right. "
Abdullah:
Why? Why can not you say double-valued: "You are, as far as I can tell, is not right"? What hinders?
: VA
Looks Nietzsche on Bazaar did not go anywhere ... and security more important to him swiftness ...
: To each his own. I deal with you.
Abdullah:
And I, as I understand it, I was dealing with / all / ever lived, living, and all those that ever will live (co-creation to increase the CHANCE of salvation).
VA:
: «Abdullah: The question, in fact, must, I believe, be reduced to the philosophical subordination. "
: VA The question of the nature of benefits must be reduced to anything that is inherent in the entity. Why fuss about some philosophical subordination? I do not understand what you mean, because when I think about the good, then I do not think the philosophical subordination.
Abdullah:
And I - I think. For, as / I / I understand Good - Its successful implementation requires more understanding samovzaimosozidanii and in the universal co-creation at all. And all this is not me as something that is possible without increasing the effective consolidation of the spiritual and hierarchical relationships.
for successful implementation of our philosophical descendants should rule the world. All the philosophers of the future, as I understand it, should philosophize as a single brain (for a common goal of a single organism). A single brain can not function without a certain hierarchy, subordinativnosti its structure.
Who we are today? Ridicule and something totally uninteresting for the masses! But such is not to be ever public opinion about us. The world has to manage the people's will? Excellent! And we must become a force control formation of the will of the people.
VA:
: Maybe this: if a little knowledge, but it effectively and the other lot (although, in comparison with infinity both the same) and it is only possible, it is from these first two - MORE knowledge than the second.
Abdullah:
you think so? And I think that your idea about what it means to "effectively" not even close to my idea is this. What it means to be effective? What is / useful action /? (I hope you understand where I'm going)
VA:
And then the winner of the first - takes pride of first place in the hierarchy of these two Wisdom. You are satisfied with my understanding of this "subordination", you speak of? Or not? If yes, to me it - makes no difference because knowledge whose first place of any increases or decreases my learning very good.
Abdullah:
If knowledge is an empty word and is not aimed at the creation of the psyche and the world in general ... then really, what does it exactly to learn whether who is right or not (although I can not imagine - as it can lay claim to greater right, without having to qualify for the role of the Teacher). But my understanding of the benefits requires action creative intervention into all spheres of the universe, the constant and relentless spiritual and intellectual feat of ALL. It requires power and control. My understanding is expansive. I'm not just philosophize about the good - I preach Him. My attitude to our communion ideologically-integration, but not idly, abstract, posidelochnoe.
you said that did not even know why you need to understand what is good. You said yourself that you can not understand anything without understanding its purpose! Not making a sense of understanding of the benefits of options - how you can qualify for substantial knowledge about the subject?
======================
Love:
:: Abdullah:
:: For example? With what you can not identify, and why? What do you not accept?
: LOVE:
pain, evil and violence, so much more. And why You took what if it is on Earth, then this is not in the universe?
Abdullah:
What on earth is just it, I think, in the universe, for the earth into the composition of the universe, as part of it and makes their movement ...
How can you not accept any negative elements of existence! After all, it must be creatively RESCHAT. And to to solve - you need not trying to distance itself, but to accept, is identified with himself, with his life challenges and problems.
: LOVE:
but you expect that in the distant prospects for all will be harmony and there will be disharmony. Hard to believe. Let me explain why. The fact is that when a person is in complete harmony with the surrounding world, he's already dead ... But chaos is not harmony.
Abdullah:
«is in complete harmony with the surrounding world", and "do not have any problems, life tasks" - in my opinion different things. For, as / I / understand the problem, it can not be definitively made any degree of effectiveness of interactions of all the creative forces. Most in perfect harmony in all spheres of life will always be a even greater chance, but not the "final solution". So zakosnevanie because even the highest degree of harmonization of relations, as I understand it, is not threatened.
: LOVE:
There is a hypothesis that life on Earth will last for quite not for long. And with her disappearance will disappear the subject of our conversation with you. Perhaps it will be some form of mind and consciousness and the concept of welfare as we understand them will generally be alien.
Abdullah:
If "disappear the subject of our conversation with you, then why should this conversation lead? I think it is for Creativity Prevent this, the possibility of extinction. What do you think?
: LOVE:
Remember the moment when, after communication with the beautiful you go out into the street. Or when You are leaving the church and go down into the subway. Here it is - an imperfect world. You are pushing, name-calling, pulled ... And you affect all the benefits Savrasov ??????
: Of course not.
Abdullah:
two times are not necessary. Sometimes the world crushes his obstructive problematic, sometimes affects Stanovlencheskim impulse ever living (including Savrasov). But it is not specifically about how I behave exactly when you exit the museum! Impression of something will not go anywhere! Suppose when you exit from the museum, I do not navliyal, but potentially influence Savrasov developed in me in the context of my entire worldview of growth in general and ever necessarily affect the other command. Here it is not about the size of the influence of ... question here about / principles / my creative interaction with all who lived, living and with all those who will live in the future ... No matter how much I give of Savrasov and all the rest (modified and updated) information to samovzaimosozidaniya future generations. I seems to me, showing you the very possibility in principle and purpose of the Eternal Cooperation. And if it is possible in principle, then possibly an arbitrarily large increase in quantitative and qualitative level of this cooperation in a single, universal Ya
Love:
you are trying to save, to deliver the state of your soul to the place or time where you would be comfortable to continue to live at ease and in harmony.
Abdullah:
In the days of gloom and bogoostavlennosti so maybe ... but not when I set Zhizneutverzhdayusche.
Love:
: I completely agree that Savrasov through his painting influenced the formation of Your and my Ya
: BUT share this blessing with all hardly.
Abdullah:
Why is this "BUT share this blessing with all of it is hardly worth? What are you doing?
Love:
Yes, and whether they want pieces of your benefit from Savrasov? In these times to someone closer to the green piece of paper in your wallet.
Abdullah:
We have been in the army is a saying "do not know how - to teach, do not want - will force»:)
... But seriously ... You never know who does not want, or that someone closer to you! Man is not perfect and may so that there may be doomed to poor orientation in the values of life. We must, I understand, ennoble the human race. It is necessary to gain eternal life ... like I understand.
And if life is condemned to death, then I am not only in our dialogue - I am in no way see the point. I was just as inspiring to the vital functions serving the will of the creator-development, which, as I understand it, to increase the CHANCE of No Return ... And what inspires you to this our conversations, do you think?
=========================
SB:
: Abdullah:
According to the degree of loyalty to my understanding of "I" - not "someone something "mentality, but there is a general mentality of the" ideal self "in the Person of Christ Savior, who ... etc.
: Sat: I can not judge about you personally, but the phrase deeply yavrotichna as unduly exalts your personal H:
Abdullah:
Why unnecessarily! Why / surely / unreasonable? Maybe there's some reason?
proposes an approach to this "scrupulous" moment with Statements about a possible personal excellence with scientific, dispassionate conceptually. Nobody interrupts a consultant dentist or a lawyer with the wrangling: "what are you actually perform, get smart - smarter than everyone else what?" Similarly, many centuries people with respect and understanding attitude to specialists in spiritual matters. Why the practice of the relationship very quickly withered, turned aside their course - on that score I could have diluted whole theory ...
Yes, I consider myself to those who most zapravskim way specializes in the mental processes of man in general. As far as my self esteem in this plan is adequate - a separate issue. But I want first to clarify your position regarding most of the question this way ... How do you think, so ... uh ... a bold approach is consistent with objectives of the forum? Is relevant to these problems? I personally think that the most direct, and perhaps even paramount. After all, how you can argue about the good, without disassembling the question of the degree qualifications in these cases, each participant? Those considerations, that the best expert gracious way of thinking and feeling is, in theory, more pious, more spiritual and intellectual development of individuals - is it really can be a problem ... nepreodalImoy in relations scholars?
«Kawabata thought for a moment, and the wrinkles on his forehead smoothed out.
- you're right - he said. - Me, in fact, not move
desire to show that I'm in something you understand better, and compassion fatigue
animal. There really is no shame - if I happened to say
stupidity, I did not lose face.
He put the sword back in its sheath, he staggered and fell again to the bottle.
- If two men of noble and there is some
small misunderstanding, perhaps there is not crumble to dust if they are both directed to a
him the tip of their minds? - He asked, handing the bottle Serdyuk.
Serdyuk finished tire.
- of course fall to pieces - he said. - Clear business. »
Viktor Pelevin," Chapaev and void. "
(by the way - Funny Philosophical Fiction! Recommend all the lucky ones, still have not read.
http://lib.ru/PELEWIN/pelev04.txt
) SB:
: - what is the role of the I-ideal content of a part of humanity is raised Jesus Christ, this is not your opening, and the value of the entire Christian tradition-long 2000 years,
: - and that's just the way you continue to set out for the mission and goals of Christ, I think I recognized would be really, only your understanding.
Abdullah:
Thanks ... But I think I have not yet fully clear your estimate to do with how I treat mission and goals of Christ, who understand and his / personal problems, and even tasks and missions in general.
: Sat:
remark is true, but do not include objectives of the forum. This forum is intended as METAPHYSICS GOOD, so you have to leave aside questions of psychology, sociology, theology, theosophy, etc. Elsewhere я с удовольствием пофилософствовал бы на эти темы. А пока, действительно, приходится сдерживаться от распыления на инопредметности.
Абдулла:
Видите ли… Sergei ... I consider our dialogue as something much more promising, global and inclusive, rather than just an interview for a specific, limited subject.
Inopredmetnost - is in my opinion is nonsense for philosophy. I think the idea that there are other, not reducible to each other subjects - is a temporary misunderstanding in philosophical outlook. All the great philosophers have sought specifically to wholeness, inclusiveness of his vision. And only "Philosophical workers" all the time breaks up the great heritage of the individual currents, individual consideration, fragmented research. Maybe it happened because they just could not cover that too, for myself, broadly? I personally would not rush to consider anything apart. Moreover, I / organically unable / to such a review. This seems ridiculous and absurd to try to philosophize SO.
Nietzsche:
When they give themselves for the wise, I am shivering from small
sayings and truths of them often comes from the wisdom of their smell, as
if she comes out of the swamp, and, indeed, I had heard how
frog croaked it!
Nimble they are, and skillful fingers at them - that my identity
with the variety of them! Every line of threading and weaving and knitting
know their fingers: so they knit stockings spirit!
They are good timers, you need only right
start them! Then they show unmistakable
time and produce a slight noise at the same time.
Like mills, they work and knock:
just threw them their grain! - They too will be able to crush them and
make white dust out of them.
They vigilantly monitor the fingers each other and not too
trust one another. Ingenious tricks,
they await those who have knowledge of lame - like spiders,
lurk they are.
I saw how they were always carefully prepare the poison, and
always put them in this glass gloves on her fingers.
also fake bones are able to they play, and I caught them
game with such fervor that they have been sweating.
We are strangers to each other, and their virtues
disgusted me even more than guile and fake dice them.
And when I lived with them, I lived on them. That's why they disliked
me.
they hear and do not want anyone to go over their heads
; and because they have imposed a tree, land, and Copy between me and
their heads.
So they drowned the sound of my footsteps, and worst of all listening
I still have most scientists among them.
All errors and weaknesses of the people they heaped between themselves and
me: "black sex" they call it in their homes.
And yet I go with my thoughts / Over /
their heads, and even if I wanted to walk on his own
mistakes, still I would have been over them and their heads.
For men / not / are equal - so says the justice. And
what I want / they / would not have the right to choose! -
Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Abdullah:
Yes ... in these words a lot of genuine contempt. I understand ... And a lot of Yavroz. But no more Yavroz, I think, than our Lord Jesus.
«Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except through Me. »
Io. X with objectivity Ya But here we must remember that egologiya - it's not psychological, and metaphysical science, ie She examines the universal forms of H. However, your desire to make these forms a particular (Christian), I is the ideal content reduces the rank of the metaphysical debate, coming into conflict with other I-ideals (Eg, Buddhist, daosiyskim, atheist, etc. to the variety of cultural traditions).
Abdullah:
I understand ... that the democratic principles of good (Like everything else) in its place. And it is not good in such a case, as knowledge.
Margaret Hamm suggested that somehow absurd in my opinion, the system sofilosofstvovaniya on the principle of voting. What she said then President, I fully supported. I understand philosophy as an activity exclusively / aristocratic / character. There should guarantee quality dominate. No matter from whom exactly it goes. Same thing with the world I-ideals. No ambitions carriers should ideally (and can) lead the process of ideological integration, but it is that the functional significance; impartial identify objectively the potential heritage values of all cultures, not a "political compromise". In my case. If Christ is "cooler" of the Buddha and Muhammad - Then the truth requires the identification and recognition of this fact, rather than covering up of "respect" to the narrow-minded ethnic selfishness of the masses. The question may be raised In either scenario, any relation intended significance of these and other individuals. I'm talking about the importance of / against Targets /, for an increase in CHANCES self ...
SB:
: This would be easy to recognize a misunderstanding, if it does not lead to a fundamental yavroticheskomu belittling others I people.
Abdullah:
I think that there is no (neither light nor heavy) misunderstandings. Here is how I see the desire to herd egalitarianism. "People are not exactly" - Nietzsche says ... Why should it be perceived as blasphemy, or as an attack on the interests, as an insult? Is it - is not the true state of affairs, not the objective? Or do you say that you think all I do all men the same small, or the equally great? And then "I'm belittling other people? I say that I consider it necessary elucidation of the relation of these same quantities of all personalities. What other way to be true, free, sotvorcheskim relationships, both through / overcome the herd Prejudice on the qualitative equality of people do not see. I'm not talking about legal inequality!
I understand that as long as the question of student-quality Rank will not be accepted by philosophers put openly and honestly - all conversations will invariably deteriorate, slipping to a hidden, underground proving friend of a friend of his mental superiority. That is what I see, I think, across the Internet, where trying to conduct "constructive dialogue".
SB:
: Abdullah: But as we argue ... we have a temporary lack of understanding within this single becoming beings with a clear unity of Life Problem. That is - Tseleedinstvo / should be / I say ... in the sense that it needs to be creatively carried out from generation to generation ... etc
: SB: It turns out that if my or someone I "misunderstood" and even more so "do not realize" what you have said, we are diminished, and I need to be improved in accordance with the proposed Your recipes goals and objectives.
: So, your worldview is through the installation yavrotichnoy. And this fits perfectly Yavroz a symbol of a Mobius strip. On one side of a Mobius strip - I, for other goods, coupled with his egologicheskim substitute - I-ideal. You, praising your own I'm up to identification with the I-ideal, symbolically immediately carry themselves on the ideal side of a Mobius strip, and others, or otherwise I leave here on this side, with their allegedly deficient H-ideals, still needs to develop and move along the path to your H. Thus you provoke in others I imperfection and complexes the blame for the chaos. As a result, the metaphysical thinking of you degenerates into a sermon I direct identities and the Good / God (with which we are with you even in the first messages are defined) and mental-intellectual work on the lapped different I-ideals is all derived out of the brackets.
Abdullah:
And what follows from all this? No should not be anyone to teach, so it does not look so that people may samovozgordilsya and idealizes her I'm from some morbid ambitions, and at the expense of "other I?
put the question differently, from a distance: Is there, in your opinion, do any ontological reason to teach someone else to live, to understand, to feel? Fits whether such a statement of the problem in your idea of good?
As painful as possible the nature of my assumptions about the possible superiority my spiritual and intellectual level ... so I'm not only that - I do everything possible anything with a willingness to tolerate and / principle / willing to expose question any provision of all the things that I have ever been said or will ever be told.
:)))) And ... .. when I'm talking about the spiritual and intellectual hierarchies in the relationship - I did not mean myself some place! The question of a purely abstract and theoretical as well as ... - eschatological. I'm talking about the principle it seems to me, in my IMHO.
=======================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)