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).
=========================
0 comments:
Post a Comment