by Terry 91 Replies latest watchtower bible
No, I don't recall having said "nothing is real". I have often attempted to point to a foundational reality that is infinitely vaster and closer than all the minds interpritations and replications. So, one could confuse that with the other; I guess.
j
terry
I really like your illustration of the river
History is the river that runs through it.
Imo history too is subject to mythos depending on the perspective of the ones telling it.
I'm kinda seeing all of human knowledge as being the banks of the river and life as the river itself. So then we can allow for changing perspectives and interpretations, depending on our vantage point, while still acknowledging that our experiences/input shapes the course of the river but not the river itself.
The most enlightened people straddle the two sides of that chasm.
I want to take it further and say that that the most enlightened people stay fluid in their thinking like the river.
the most enlightened people stay fluid in their thinking
bernadette
I now read the article posted by Narkissos, about the forming of the canon. It`s very good, everyone interested in this subject should read it:
Shortly after 177 A.D. Irenaeus was asked to compose an account of the persecutions in Lyons for the churches in Asia, and this letter is preserved by Eusebius (History of the Church 5.1ff.). This text quotes or paraphrases various NT books without naming them. Some years after this he composed a mighty treatise Against All Heresies and a Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching. In these he quotes exactly almost every book of the NT, numerous times, demonstrating that the orthodox canon, though not established officially, was by this time generally accepted in practice (M 154).
The INTERNET is humanity. What is wrong (or right) is a human problem and not a technological one.I am not sure that I totally agree with this statement. I believe that the technology that has made the Internet available often reflects a distorted view of humanity that actually influences humanity. For example, the Porn industry which has actually been at the cutting edge of internet technology from day one and has led to many of its positive technologies is a multi billion dollar industry. Its exposure on the Internet, which I have seen in a report as being 30% of internet traffic in 2001 does not automatically mean that 30% of the world population is viewing pornography, only that 30% of the Internet traffic is pornographic in nature.
To know something is distorted one must have a perspective which, itself, is undistorted.
How did YOU achieve an UNdistorted view? It wasn't by being irrational or uninformed was it?
When I said what is wrong with the internet is a human problem I meant that exactly. Porn reflects something deeper than debasement; porn reveals unfulfilled lives.
Do any of us doubt that a huge part of the pornography market is mainstream, white-collar, church-going believers in the highest of human ideals? Knowing a higher ideal in no way solves the problem of human unfulfillment.
The fact that women are objects reflects not only the Christian view of them (stemming from the bible and Paul) as well as the Muslim view. Both are theological states of mind entrenched in society NOT BY THE INTERNET.
The Internet has become a safety valve that lets off steam and allows some measure of sanity to compete with the regular, everday madness.
My point? The deepest flaws in society have been placed there by irrational thinking. Neither the bible, the Koran, mother's love or spanking has had a bit of progress in dealing with actual human need and suffering.
The INTERNET allows us to compare our states of consciousness and discover (surprise! surprise!) in much the same way the Kinsey Report did, that humans singly and in tribes, families and cities all have the same needs, hopes, fears and desires that they do NOT KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH adequately.
What does this have to do with the "forged" origins of the New Testament?
This: it takes a gadfly, a critic, a loud-mouth and an apostate to stir people's consciousness to the point they'll take notice. In the jump-start which often follows (debunking your enemy) many objective facts fall out along the way which everybody in the crowd can witness and marvel at.
There are people who have joined in this discussion who now know things, think things and discovered things they did not know before it was posted. Each of us has the responsibility of looking at the fallout and examining it.
What is going to be true? What is going to be false? How do we decide?
The fact we are on a discussion group shows a willingness to be wrong as often as we are right.
The only way to learn is to be wrong sometimes. That willingness is intellectual honesty.
Hi Terry,
To know something is distorted one must have a perspective which, itself, is undistorted.
Not really Terry. What it means is that when one accepts that social conditioning sets our parameters and we then learn to judge by these parameters. It is the way we live. When I suggested that the Internet presents in many of its facets a distorted view of humanity, I judge this as so against what is accepted as a norm by our social conditioning.
I will give an example:
This Board is full of posts written by people whom I have never met, seen, or spoken to. The posters could be honest, misrepresent themselves or be a mixture of both these elements, but the absolute reality is that the posters are given dimension by written words and by no other stimuli that we normally use to gauge the personality of a person. As such we are presented by a distorted view of a person, and this is one of the reasons why nice people like you an I are often described as arrogant. It is because people are making a judgment based on a digital distortion.
How did YOU achieve an UNdistorted view? It wasn't by being irrational or uninformed was it?
I think that I could argue that my grasp of rationality was moulded by immersion in misinformation and irrationality. The reason that I do not believe in God is because I once believed in Santa Claus etc. etc. Now whether I am happier, or a more useful person in not believing in God and Santa is another matter. I would say that I have less of a feeling of purpose and hope in my disbelief than I had as a believer. I am able to handle the feelings that information brings to my life, but others are not so lucky. They may well have lived lives of purpose and contentment in their ignorance that far outway what rationality has bought them.
Remember, many of the philosophic, artistic and scientific realities have been given to us served on a tray of theology and divinity - imho irrational thinking.
HS
As an echo to the last couple of posts, I have enjoyed French philosopher Michel Serres' spin on errare humanum est: implying that erring is not an accident or an anomaly in the "normal" human cognitive process but an integral part of it. By erring we (individually and collectively) diverge from the beaten tracks and explore new possibilities, most of which prove to be impossible but occasionally we set foot on firm ground, "find" something -- which we then must leave to go further, i.e. to "err" again. That's the creative part of human culture, including science. "Censorship" and criticism are another, not less necessary in fact.
At any point of history we owe as much of what we are to those who were wrong as to those who were right, before us or around us. Our unique way of being wrong serves others, and the future, just as much as our share in the common "right". It gives more, actually, and through it we exist more, perhaps, instead of just being.
About the internet: I don't think it misrepresents people anymore than the so-called "real life". Both porn and opinion forums (a WT association!), I mean, reveal, as well as cater to, our real complexity. In a few minutes "online relationship" allows you to express, share and thereby realise thoughts, feelings, or fantasies that could have remained unknown even to yourself in decades of "real life". Of course it is artificial -- isn't it the very nature of culture?
Persona.
To know something is distorted one must have a perspective which, itself, is undistorted.Not really Terry. What it means is that when one accepts that social conditioning sets our parameters and we then learn to judge by these parameters. It is the way we live. When I suggested that the Internet presents in many of its facets a distorted view of humanity, I judge this as so against what is accepted as a norm by our social conditioning.
And that "norm" isn't an undistorted view? My point being, we measure things by means of a standard. Whatever our standard. We can't say something is "distorted" without it failing to match an undistorted standard. I still stand by that.
This Board is full of posts written by people whom I have never met, seen, or spoken to. The posters could be honest, misrepresent themselves or be a mixture of both these elements, but the absolute reality is that the posters are given dimension by written words and by no other stimuli that we normally use to gauge the personality of a person. As such we are presented by a distorted view of a person, and this is one of the reasons why nice people like you an I are often described as arrogant. It is because people are making a judgment based on a digital distortion.
I think of this differently. I, like you and everybody else, only have the words to go by. Certainly. My sense of a person largely depends on how they present their ideas and defend them. I don't go beyond merely dealing with the ideas to try and form some mental simulacrum of the "person".
I know it is pointless to do so. I do encounter lots of emotional distortion interfering with ideas, presentations and arguments. But, I think that is because people often mistake being challenged as a slight against their character.
I've little doubt some very fine people can be lousy at thinking. Or, could be great thinkers and horrible at putting ideas across. Or, wonderful at writing clearly and reasonably and yet totally lacking in character.
So.....I just try and focus on the ideas and leave the people as shadowy penumbra on my cave wall.
I think that I could argue that my grasp of rationality was moulded by immersion in misinformation and irrationality.
Now I am with you 100%! I snapped out of it when I discovered how dead wrong I was about the Truth! That was my wake-up call. My brain kicked in to high gear and the clarion call went out to my intellect to get busy. This is why I think the Internet is more boon than boondoggle. Intelligent people can get a kick in the head and wake up from stumbling across something which might well appear crazy----only to find out some aspect of that craziness is dead-on accurate!
I just think to myself: The Watchtower Society doesn't want JW's on the Internet for a reason: TESTABLE FALSIFIABILITY of their lies!
Narkissos wrote:
This is complete nonsense, but the very fact that some fairly educated people can buy into it (even for a short while) is quite revealing of the epistemological crisis that the internet age is just starting to bring about imo
and wrote:
At any point of history we owe as much of what we are to those who were wrong as to those who were right, before us or around us. Our unique way of being wrong serves others, and the future, just as much as our share in the common "right". It gives more, actually, and through it we exist more, perhaps, instead of just being.
Isn't the first quote just part of the process included in the second quote?
Terry,
Indeed, and I meant it to.
I would just make a difference between the few people who create theories (whatever their ratio of "right" and "wrong" and their own ironical distance to their work) and the masses who buy into them as "truth".
