by Terry 76 Replies latest watchtower bible
Low IQ individuals are not non-functioning. They are functioning, at a lower IQ level and that is my point. You are functioning at a certain level also.
"Quantized intelligence", if you will.
Okaaaaayyy.....
I think I've lost the point you are making!
Dare I say.....so?
Low IQ individuals are not non-functioning. They are functioning, at a lower IQ level and that is my point. You are functioning at a certain level also.
"Quantized intelligence", if you will.
Does
that
help
?
However, there is another side to the chess game, and that is the stalemate. Which is an unresolved situation in which further action is impossible or useless, it is a deadlock. It results in a draw.
I liken this part of the game ( the stalemate ) as the unknown factor or factors in quantum physics.
Am I guilty of primacy of consciousness in using this illustration or correctly using primacy of existence in an illustrating way
You know something? Chess is a wonderful model of Morality and Objectivity!
Naturally, the Watchtower Society completely misses that point and chooses only to see it as a game of WAR! (How many people have been killed playing it? Hmmm? :)
An actual stalemate in Chess comes from the IMPOSSIBILITY of one side having the force to checkmate the other or of a position arising in which a repetition of moves (3 I believe) repeat the same position over and over and over.
In a debate between only 2 people there can be no winner unless both parties know what winning IS when it happens and are intellectually honest enough to declare that state of being should it arise.
In a debate witnessed by others there can be a consensus as to which side scored the most points (under some accepted policy).
On JWD, however, I think any discussion or debate that deals with THINKING and REASONING is a winner no matter what.
A person just lurking may read a sentence and think a thought never before thought of and BINGO! their whole world view is suddenly malleable and they take a recursive step back and see OBJECTIVELY for the first time!
That's what happened to me when I read Mortimer J. Adler's 10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES book and Ayn Rand's LEXICON.
Bingo!
My whole paradigm shifted!!!
Discussions about thinking are powerful.
"Quantized intelligence", if you will.
A forced analogy at best.
Intelligence is as intelligence does. Quanta is an either/or state. All or nothing. "Packets" is a conceptual metaphor.
The game's premise is flawed.
Concepts are mental constructs alone. They often indeed "piont" to actual things, and they may (or may not) be accurate. But they are still mental constructs, and therefore ephemeral (not primal). When I die, my specific concepts die with my brain (unless I have taken the time to communicate them in some fashion).
Concepts, beliefs, thoughts - these are all part and aprcel of the mind. Concepts are useful for navigating the physical world and for communicating. Sometimes they are highly accurate. For arguementation's sake, though, it's easy to label any concept you personally disagree with as a "false concept". Some concepts are not resolvable, except through acknowledging their contradictory nature. They are tautological curiosities. Like Escher drawings, they cannot physically exist under the rules we apply to them. But they become conceptualized and communicated.
We work with artifical concepts all the time. Does a corporation "exist"? As legal fiction, yes - but it has no specific physical body that you can point to. It can own assets and incur debt, and is a useful concept - but as a "real entity", it is as sorely lacking as the Trinity in your position.
We talk about theoretical science. There is actually no proof that Relativity is accurate. We conclude that it is because it is a useful predictor for objects at the macro level. Is Relativity "real"? There is no proof that matter is made up of strings. Is String Theory "real"? Does it point to something "real"?
Is New Shimmer a desert topping or a floor wax? Shouldn't there be a New Shimmer concept that is unique and descriptive?
Of course not. Concepts are figments of the imagination - like Newtonian Physics, good enough for many purposes, but merely descriptive. Perhaps highly accurate in their descriptive and predictive purposes, but always once removed from reality.
As far as the Trinity goes, no specific person has to have seen this Trinity to create a concept about it. I have never seen the Prime Minister of Israel. But I get the concept. I don't even have to believe in the Trinity or the Prime Minister of Isreal in order to conceptualize them.
I guess I've lost the game!
,
.--'|}
/ /}} Nvr will you please
.=\.--'`\} stop piledriving on my posts
//` '---./` get a life will you?
|| /|
\\| |
|\_\\/
\__/\\
\\
"Packets" is a conceptual metaphor.
So is the creedal Trinity.
BTS
Concepts are mental constructs alone. They often indeed "piont" to actual things, and they may (or may not) be accurate. But they are still mental constructs, and therefore ephemeral (not primal). When I die, my specific concepts die with my brain (unless I have taken the time to communicate them in some fashion).
Concepts refer to objective characteristics which do not cease when you die. The heat of fire is perceptual and you form the concept "hot" from it. Does that concept die with you? No. YOUR brain and YOUR subjective sense of pain from what is HOT dies and not the referent which imparted the characteristic to you.
See the difference?
The Universe is objective. The characteristics of things are there. If each thing had no defining or identifying characteristic objective to itself-----we could not detect the difference between a lemon and a titmouse!
What you hold in your own mind is like your drawing of the nude lady in art class. How good of an artist are you? THAT is how accurate your drawing is. But, the nude lady is objective.
Science gives us photographs instead of drawings (to continue the analogy).
For arguementation's sake, though, it's easy to label any concept you personally disagree with as a "false concept
No.
If I call the lemon in your iced tea a titmouse it is easy enough to see whose concept is false!
Remember, concepts are connected to actually existing things!
We work with artifical concepts all the time. Does a corporation "exist"? As legal fiction, yes - but it has no specific physical body that you can point to. It can own assets and incur debt, and is a useful concept - but as a "real entity", it is as sorely lacking as the Trinity in your position.
Ahhhh, this is a secondary level of Concept. Concepts made from other Concepts! An abstraction FROM abstractions themselves.
In the case of a Corporation the "Corp" is a representative body or "body". It stands for the owners. A corporation can be sued. If the corporation did not "exist" what would be the point in suing it?
The name of a Corporation is Fiction, but, not the Corporation itself. A Corporation has assets real enough to make lawsuit worthwhile.
We talk about theoretical science. There is actually no proof that Relativity is accurate. We conclude that it is because it is a useful predictor for objects at the macro level. Is Relativity "real"? There is no proof that matter is made up of strings. Is String Theory "real"? Does it point to something "real"?
Relativity Theory describes something in the way of behavior which has, as I recall, been tested (Michaelson-Morley is what comes to mind, I'm too lazy to search.)
But---I'm afraid your departure into the rarefied atmosphere of Theoretical Physics is more a deflection than a rebuttal.
The concepts we use by the millions each day enable us to perform laser surgery on the eye, design space shuttles that travel millions of miles and deploy photographic appartus which sends back digital photos from the surface of Mars! Proof? You need more proof???
As far as the Trinity goes, no specific person has to have seen this Trinity to create a concept about it. I have never seen the Prime Minister of Israel. But I get the concept. I don't even have to believe in the Trinity or the Prime Minister of Isreal in order to conceptualize them.
Special Pleading is a fallacy, as you well know. The Trinity is as vulnerable to our analysis as any other concept and we can reserve no special Plea on its behalf.
The key element to the Concept of Trinity we can defeat immediately is the inherent self-contradiction of pleading IDENTITY for each constituency of PERSON and calling them each/all EQUAL. It is most clear from the referent (if you want to call the Bible a referent) that the Father is prior to the son. (Otherwise, the term "Father" is meaningless) The Son is inferior in knowledge to the Father. The Son begs the Father to grant that "this cup might pass" and, thus, demonstrates a difference is WILL and HIERARCHY in a power arrangement. The Holy Spirit doesn't say much......:)
KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE between conceptualizing a FICTION and a REALITY is what RATIONALITY is all about! Or, did you miss that?
:)
How good of an artist are you? THAT is how accurate your drawing is.
Was Picasso a good artist?
The key element to the Concept of Trinity we can defeat immediately is the inherent self-contradiction of pleading IDENTITY for each constituency of PERSON and calling them each/all EQUAL. It is most clear from the referent (if you want to call the Bible a referent) that the Father is prior to the son. (Otherwise, the term "Father" is meaningless) The Son is inferior in knowledge to the Father. The Son begs the Father to grant that "this cup might pass" and, thus, demonstrates a difference is WILL and HIERARCHY in a power arrangement. The Holy Spirit doesn't say much......:)
You don't understand the Trinity. The Trinity exists in eternity, where there is no before or after. The Son existed in human form when it came into the world and thus had two natures.
BTS