For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window
— TheMadFool

Again, knowing and doing are two separate things. A paralyzed Olympian knows how but can't do. A marginally competent god is the same way. Omniscience is not the problem with what I am saying, it is omnipotence. Can there be a constraint on god and it still be omnipotent? You'll find that people have historically argued that god can do anything logically possible. What I have done is suggest that the Peter Principle is a necessary logical constraint on god. Random Wiki on Omnipotence — Ennui Elucidator

I most certainly agree that there's a difference between knowing and doing - the former is pure thought while the latter is action. There's a causal gap indeed between the two as many thoughts aren't acted upon and sometimes what happens is a far cry from what was intended. The latter situation (italicized) is where incompetence enters into the picture.

There seems to be something off about the Peter principle. Let's take an example from the military, it seems the most obvious choice for studying how promotions work.

The Peter principle claims that, say, a brigadier (2nd highest rank), Jack, is promoted to general (highest office in the military) because Jack is a competent brigadier and second, in the same breath, asserts that Jack is an incompetent general.

How then can Jack ever be given a promotion to the rank of general? Jack's an incompetent general. That competent brigadiers are promoted to general indicates that the logic of promotion in this case is, good brigadier = good general or competent brigadier = competent general. The same principle applies to all cases of promotions.

Similarly, imagine a being's been promoted to God. This can only be the case if this being's level of competence at the next lower level is at par with that of a God. In other words, God's competent.

Go Wittgenstein: a word can be used in any way one wishes - the sky's the limit.
— TheMadFool

That was not Wittgenstein; that was Humpty Dumpty. — Banno

Banno uses the words "Humpty Dumpty" to express his displeasure at TheMadFool for having misrepresented Wittgenstein. There!

Yeah, but there's a world of difference between 24/7 solitary confinement and working on the prison farm (or so I've been told). — 180 Proof

Yeah, yeah!

:ok: :up:

patriarchy and with matriarchy — Athena

You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke:

And, given the composition of the court, that such decisions are likely to be repeated whenever a law that is constitutionally questionable but politically or socially agreeable to the Justices is before them. — Ciceronianus

Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge. — Horace Mann

It would be wrong for the pro-life movement to ban abortions if they knew souls didn't exist and it would also be wrong for the pro-choice camp to make abortion legal if they knew there were souls. Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself.

Those that can do, those that can’t teach. — Ennui Elucidator

Relevance?

While not a universal principle in the same way as the Peter Principle, it is well known that that one can know the particulars and yet be unable to execute. This is intimated in the tension between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how”. In an uncritical view of god’s omniscience, one might simply accept that god’s omniscience includes all forms knowledge and of necessity, knowledge how includes the ability to execute that knowledge. Consider the person that knows how to add and when presented with all of the relevant figures still comes to the wrong sum. This person, engaged purely in intellectual endeavor, didn’t know something and is clearly not god. But now imagine that an invisible being, who knows both everything about strutting down a runway (knowledge that and knowledge how) and has the desire to do so, struts down the runway. In some abstract way, it is probably the best runway strutting anyone would be able to do, but no one saw it - indeed no one was capable of seeing. In this way, necessary features of god can preclude the meaningful manifestation of god’s knowledge. Though far afield, perhaps this accounts for “god the teacher” who provides instruction on how to make the world a better place. Remember, though, if knowledge how is actually not knowledge, and god is imbued with only knowledge that (acquaintance knowledge is taken for granted because god knows everyone), it may be that god’s incompetence is has additional explanations. — Ennui Elucidator

I do respect your call for a critical examination of omniscience; it, for sure, counts as one of the best advice I've received. However, omniscience in re God is an attribute specifically crafted by theists to leave not even a tiny sliver of doubt as to what it means and what it implies - absolute knowledge that is perfect in every sense of perfect. To give you an idea of what it means, even if it were that there's nothing to know, god would know something - that, in my opinion, is the scope, if that's even the right word for it, of God's knowledge.

In any event, given enough time (which an infinite god has surely had) god will reach god’s maximum level of competence and thereafter function at least at god’s lowest level of incompetence (which may or may not be the most god can get away with and keep the job). At this level of incompetence, god can be unable to do despite complete knowledge of what to do, how to do it, and the consequences of the incompetence god will manifest in attempting to do so. The Peter Principle does not preclude god functioning at the highest possible level of potency, it merely highlights that superlatives are of necessity ordinal and being number one (in spirit, character, or count) for god says nothing about god’s invariant competence. — Ennui Elucidator

You have failed to make your case even though your attempt is commendably novel in its approach to the issue of the problem of evil. Why? For your argument to work, God's omniscience must go out the window but if that, you would be arguing against not God but something else entirely, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, non-omniscient being - that's not God.

"Since, as per Wittgenstein, we can have our way with words, there's no point measuring utility - every word (idea) would be of equal utility, only the limits of imagination getting in the way of infinite utility." "Equal utility" because they can all be used in a worthy structure/syntax? I wonder what an idea without any utility would look like? Bringing up any idea kind of engages the idea with some kind of importance/utility.

I think Chomsky's famous non-grammatical sentence is a case when words with out "proper syntax" lack utility. WIKI - "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical."

Its cool to think that the structure of a sentence/idea can add to its utility. Is there any reading you might suggest that works with the this and/or the main thesis? — Josh Alfred

As far as I can tell, you've answered your own question, The Chomsky sentence, "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", is being used to elucidate the point that grammatically correct sentences may lack any meaning whatsoever. All such sentences would thus possess this specific purpose of illustrating Chomsky's views. Whether Chomsky's correct or not is another story.

The OP's viewpoint that God worked his way up the hackordnung or hackliste in a manner described in the Peter Principle ignores the fact that God's omniscient which, among other things, includes complete knowledge on how to discharge his duties as God to perfection. The flaws in creation we perceive is either our failure to comprehend its transcendental logic or our own doing. Let's not blame God for our own mistakes, shall we?

It deals with many philosophical issues.
— TheMadFool

Badly — Banno

As best as a layman could, no?

What about :point:

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job. — TheMadFool

If you don't like poetry if you see it as merely "spin" then that's your right. But if you don't like it, why talk about it? Surely if it is all spin for you, then it should have no interest for you? — Janus

I do enjoy poetry, I have a very poetic personality, sometimes but, that doesn't mean I should allow myself to be led down the garden path without even a modicum of resistance.

But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right?
— TheMadFool

Evolution is not teleological. No higher or lower. The premise is muddled. Like in that silly film. — Banno

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about evolution. Let's keep this simple. Yes, a person who's acquired a PhD in some field can lose everything that the PhD stands for e.g. if he suffers a stroke, brain trauma in an accident, and so on but we're here talking about a being that has achieved omniscience - there's nothing this being (God) doesn't know - and I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being can be bad at anything let alone his job.

The movie's not silly. :smile: It deals with many philosophical issues.

t's not a "spin" though, it is an aesthethic response. — Janus

...said the PRO for poets. Good one!

Apparently. If he evolves, he's not omnipotent, necessary, and all those other divine thingies.

Bit of a failure, it seems. — Banno

But, you couldn't devolve into something lower in rank than yourself, right? unless, of course, God shares the same human frailties but then we're looking at a being that's all too human, not God God.



time stamp 1:38

You see, he's just a man. — The Merovingian (to his thugs when he sees Neo bleeding)

Notice that the "being" concerned is not The Being Formerly Known As God? — Banno

Demoted? :chin:

I'm not saying there are no dark poems; would anyone read them, though if there were no beauty in them? My point was that they do not conceal, by glossing over or sugar-coating, the ugly side of life; instead they reveal the beauty that hides in the darkness. — Janus

I'm only surprised by the fact that dark poems (thanks for updating my vocab) can be considered good. The "beauty" that "hides in the darkness"; exactly what I was trying to get at - poetry has managed to, like a good PRO, put a positive spin (beautify) on even the most horrifying and disgusting side to reality. It's a form of self-delusion involving the poet and faer audience.

I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be but brains are generic in their pattern recognition ability i.e. they can detect patterns in all sensory modalities (sight, touch, smell, sound, taste) but neural networks seem sense-specific i.e. each neural network can analyze patterns in only one of the five sensory modalities and from what I know most neural networks developed till date are visually-oriented. Ordinary computers are not designed to run pattern recognition software/programs and so fail in this regard.

Thus we see a gradation in pattern recognition ability: Ordinary computer (can't recognize patterns) -> Neural networks (can sense patterns but sense-specific) -> Brains (can perceive all kinds of patterns).
w
Perhaps it's got do with the architecture of a computer/neural network/brain that makes pattern recongition software compatible/incompatible.

How might the utility of an idea be measured? I would consider applying Hedonic Calculus. Does that seem like the right direction? What about memetics and the principles behind MEME success? Such memes of today's techno-culture have very little utility, wouldn't you agree? — Josh Alfred

Go Wittgenstein: a word can be used in any way one wishes - the sky's the limit. Words, all said and done, are ideas, no?

Since, as per Wittgenstein, we can have our way with words, there's no point measuring utility - every word (idea) would be of equal utility, only the limits of imagination getting in the way of infinite utility. Perhaps your question isn't about words (ideas) then but about imagination, is it infinite or not?

I'd call it a good poem if not a great one. I wouldn't say it romanticizes death; I'd say it describes the death of the young man and the indifference of the living dispassionately.

How about this poem by Robinson Jeffers:

SALMON-FISHING
The days shorten, the south blows wide for showers now,
The south wind shouts to the rivers,
The rivers open their mouths and the salt salmon
Race up into the freshet.
In Christmas month against the smoulder and menace
Of a long angry sundown,
Red ash of the dark solstice, you see the anglers,
Pitiful, cruel, primeval,
Like the priests of the people that built Stonehenge,
Dark silent forms, performing
Remote solemnities in the red shallows
Of the river’s mouth at the year’s turn,
Drawing landward their live bullion, the bloody mouths
And scales full of the sunset
Twitch on the rocks, no more to wander at will
The wild Pacific pasture nor wanton and spawning
Race up into fresh water. — Janus

Poems about the dark side of reality are oxymorons: they're good poems about bad stuff that happen to life. The question is, if poetry doesn't do what I said it does - beautify the ugly - why are poems good even though their contents may be explicit on the horrors of life? How is that a good peom can be written about the bad?

An interesting point of view this. So, a being rose through the ranks, excelling at all levels of the hierarchy, but once this being was promoted to the rank of God, fae's performance dwindled precipitously and that manifests in our world as evil. Basically, the accusation is God's an inept bloke and that furnishes, inter alia, a very good reason for why the world and the universe at large are so flawed, so imperfect. We can, now, finally point the finger of blame at God for all our problems. Moreover, God's stuck at God level in the pecking order, fae will be passed over for promotion because, as the OP puts it, God sucks at his job. :lol:

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Except, God's reportedly omniscient - impossible for a know-it-all to be bad at anything, right? An incompetent, all-knowing being is an oxymoron, like a "bitter-sweet", self-contradictory - something doesn't add up.

So, you're suggesting that we look for a good philosopher and make faer king instead of trying to teach philosophy to a king already in power.

If Socrates thought the same then a philosopher-king is, as I suspected, an impossible object, a square circle. Kings, by definition, are hereditary rulers. Since there's no guarantee, as per your analysis, that the heir apparent will be as philosophically inclined as the father, the philosopher-king, we have a problem because then there would have to be an election system in place to decide which philosopher, not child/relative of the king, should be next in line for the throne but that's what democracy is, like the US federation of states except the highest office can be held for a lot longer than 4 years. In short, Socrates' philosopher-king system of government is actually a democracy with a philosopher as the most powerful person for as long as said philosopher is able to rule wisely.

In summary,

1. Either kings have to be made philosophers

OR

2. Philosophers have to be made kings

3. Making kings into philosophers is, first, not going to be easy if the king is not interested and second, is no assurance that the heir, the next in line to the throne, will want to learn philosophy.


So,

4. Philosophers have to be made kings. However, such a philosopher-king can't establish a hereditary monarchy for the reasons given in 3 above. Ergo, the next king would have to be selected among worthy philosopher candidates and that invariably involves a vote, a selection process which is precisely what democracy is. Perhaps Socrates would prefer voting rights to be restricted to philosophers; after all he believes only philosophers know how to govern. Even so, the fact remains that the philosopher-king isn't actually a king with hereditary privileges. Au contraire, the philosopher-king is simply a person given the responsibility of running the government for as long as possible, physically and mentally. That means the word "king" in philosopher-king is equivalent to what in US democracy is "president."

You are the first person to actually address the original question. — TiredThinker

:ok:

Wikipedia has a fairly detailed account of Near-Death Experiences. Scroll down to common elements.

You wouldn't be asking for examples if you had read much good poetry. — Janus

I wouldn't say the poem you posted is great but it does get your point across. I read only one poem by Robert Frost - Stopping by woods on a snowy evening - and it really resonated with me at a deep level, I can still recall, albeit only vaguely now, the vivid images of evergreen pines and whitest snow it used to evoke in my young mind.

I stand corrected!

That said, the poem you were so kind to post romanticizes death, no? Its words tend to soften the blow of quietus and makes it more bearable i.e. Robert Frost beautifies grim death and makes it more palatable to our sensibilities. Hence, my statement that poetry is like cosmetics - it, whatever else it does, gives ugliness (here death) a makeover, the horrific becomes less horrific.

I reckon the link between metaphysics and poetry can be found in the urge to be, well, poetic. Under what circumstances, sensing which emotions, thinking which thoughts, being in whose presence or sensing whose absence, and so on, does one feel an urgent need to compose poems? The answer to this question might furnish vital clues as to which metaphysical concern is poetic in quality.

From the few poems I've read - quite a long time ago I'm afraid - there doesn't seem to be any domain of human experience that strongly correlates with the wish to pen poems, long or short. Any topic is game for a bard.

Ergo, likely that poets don't have an agenda i.e. they aren't confined to a specific topic, metaphysical or otherwise.

Nevertheless, though the metaphysics of poetry is not to be found in its contents, it can be found in the irresistable desire to poeticize. To want to express oneself in verse rather than prose, in a certain sense, at some level, is actually a sign that the person (the poet) wishes to break free from the shackles of reason, its unforgiving rigor, and enter a world of fuzzy and yet relatable imagery, a world where the goal is to make you feel (heart) the truth rather than comprehend (mind) it.

It's obvious then that as the subject of interest is as fundamental and obscure as metaphysics, the poetic instinct should peak/max out. Is it that metaphysics is poetry?

Is God a mathematician?

Is God a poet?

I'll leave you to connect the dots.

I don't really write poetry but do play around writing with a magnetic poetry kit — Jack Cummins

You have so many toys Jack, I'm green with envy.

I used to illustrate a poetry magazine — Jack Cummins

Jack, a man of many talents. We're lucky you're not on some other planet.

Wittgenstein — Jack Cummins

I don't get him but that's because I haven't read him according to @Banno & @180 Proof. There's still hope for me it seems. :smile:

playing with language is central to poetry — Jack Cummins

A man's maturity is to have rediscovered the seriousness he possessed as a child at play. — Friedrich Nietzsche

"Play" is too frivolous; "Study" is too sedate. What's the right word, in your esteemed opinion, for playful study? "Experiment"? I dunno.

1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.

This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.

2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.

This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.

3. Build on commonality.

Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix

It looks good on paper, like all things I suppose but when the rubber meets the road, all hell breaks loose. I commend you for the effort but I fear your noble project is doomed from the start. Good luck to all, we'll need it.

I studied those clues and found them strong and consistent, not 'barely discernible' at all. The scientific case for anthropic climate change is extremely strong, and by now as close to absolute certainty as it will ever get. — Olivier5

By "...barely discernible..." I was referring to how very sensitive the instruments must be to detect CO2 concentrations in ice tens of and even hundreds of thousands of years ago and then to plot all those data points that differ by only tiny fractions to abstract a pattern is no mean feat.

Not to toot my own horn but I seem to have been quite the climatologist myself when I was young - I remember smelling snow at two different locations in my country many decades ago and the snow in the city reeked of smoke but not the snow in the outlying rural areas. People should've picked up this early sign of air pollution with ease.

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

Christianity succeeded Buddhism. Is the conspicuous exclusion of animals in Christianity an improvement in or a deterioration of moral standards in re Buddhism? I ask not because I believe animals shouldn't be included in ethics but simply because it is a question that can be asked.

Before I forget, a top-notch OP. I give it an 11 out of 10 - you're off the charts. I hope we all can remember your valuable advice:

An sit = Does it exist?

Quid sit = What is it?

Quale sit = What kind is it?

:fire: :up:

These exist. They are called "poetry slams", to be found within most conurbations of any significant size. Generally, most of the poetry is original, and poor (a subjective estimation, if there ever was one), but occasionally something inspiring happens.

Indeed, "rap" can be viewed as a type of poetry, albeit exceedingly simple in it's metrical schemata, and exceedingly monotonous by endless repetition. In this, rap has always seemed to myself the application of poetic device to the shamanistic enterprise, the latter-day repetitious use of rhyme and meter in the pursuit of ecstatic states of mind. Rap music is only "good" for those seeking such a state. For others, such as myself, it's essential qualities remain ineffective. — Michael Zwingli

"Poetry slams"! Noted for future reference. Thanks!

The OP is about trash, not mess. — tim wood

Climatology is a science in terms of methodology but because it operates in geologic time scales, it's difficult to get a clear picture of patterns, if any, in the climate of the earth. All that's available are a few, barely discernible clues left behind in ice, tree rings, etc. and, from where I stand, merely as a curious spectator, it looks very much like trying to solve a murder with a strand of hair as the only piece of evidence to work on. I dunno.

The Buddha does something similar. I'd argue that Siddhartha Gautama very much opted to live on in maya as well.

In terms of enlightenment, there is a distinction to be made between Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddha) and Samyaksambuddhas (perfect Buddha).

The first one finds truth and keeps it to themselves. It is a sort of blissful ignorance that disregards everything that goes on within the illusion of existence.

The Samyaksambuddha on the other hand comes to the conclusion that while blissful ignorance is blissful indeed, this is not true liberation. They opt to live on still entangled in maya, teaching their way to others entangled in maya. They are similar in that way to the Beautician, attempting to make the illusion as nice as it can be.

Only, the principle idea here is different from the Beautician: While the nicest version of illusion for them is one that conceals the truth, for a Samyaksambuddha, the nicest version of illusion is one where everyone can see the truth despite living in an illusion. — Hermeticus

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. I've been looking at the issue from a XOR instead of an OR standpoint. We may, there seems no logical contradiction therein, have the best of both worlds - know the truth, enjoy the illusion. That maya translates as magic is telling indeed - we all know a magician is employing trickery, deception, misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. but yet we still applaud their performance as if it was real. The point of it all seems to become a cross between Neo and Cypher, a Neo-Cypher.

Sweet dreams. — Cypher (to Neo)

Easier said than done...

I didn't say good poets focus on the ugliness of life; that would be to enhance ugliness and conceal beauty. Good poets neither enhance nor conceal either beauty or ugliness, they reveal both and allow both to stand. — Janus

Life is both ugly and beautiful, both heaven and hell and the good poets tell it like it is. — Janus

:chin: Give me an example of "life is [both] ugly...good poets tell it like it is"

Two people thinking different things is not a paradox. — khaled

:ok:

Buddha Gautama, as far as I am aware, speaks very little of Maya. — Hermeticus

He does speak of maya, just very little, huh?

Anyway, indeed I agree the illusion (maya) is nothing more than our misconceptions of reality out of which stems unrealistic expectations and when these don't materialize, dukkha. It's a simple formula for generating suffering of all shapes and sizes. Buddha's aim/goal was to do an exposé on this formula of misery and he achieves that by focusing sharply on misconceptions aka maya (illusion).



The beautician, in contrast, realizes that, yes, we're under all and sundry misconceptions about reality but then has an epiphany - reality is more unbearable than maya - and ergo, opts to live on in maya.



This is the paradox.

A poet is a beautician - enhances beauty and conceals ugliness.
— TheMadFool

You've been reading the wrong poets, mate. — Janus


Why? Show me a right poet and a wrong poet and maybe there's something worth discussing.
— TheMadFool
The best poets do not "conceal ugliness" or 'enhance beauty". Life is both ugly and beautiful, both heaven and hell and the good poets tell it like it is. — Janus

Can you give me an instance of poetry on the ugliness of life? Thanks in advance.

What is metaphysics in this context? If the discussion is to be whether poetry have it or not, then we - I - need to know. Anyone? — tim wood

I suppose the metaphysics of poetry is any topic of metaphysical concern that poetry deals with or is implied in its structure, form, or essence.

The most popular view of poetry has always been, as far as I can tell, rhymes, the use of homphones, usually at the end of sentences/phrases but that it seems is incidental to what poetry really is; poetry is about, first and foremost, rhythm, phonic rhythm as it were. Rhythm boils down to time, keeping time to be precise and thus, my intuitive reaction to the metaphysics of poetry is that it (poetry) is about time, and poems are simply linguistic clocks.

I'm a poet. — Noble Dust

You know what I'd like to see. Poetry battles like Rap battles unless the former is what the latter is.

Blank verse is incredible. The rhythm of words freed from the distraction of rhyme allows the poet to explore overlooked corners of language. — Noble Dust

Poets are clockmakers but their clocks are, let's just say, of a different kind.

I think that the way in which you describe poetry is connected to the way in which we are becoming accustomed to think and, how indeed philosophy itself has become more concerned with language. — Jack Cummins

One of my biggest fears: "...becoming accustomed to think..." There are many ways to think, false that one is any better than the other, and I'd like to check them all out, keep an open mind you know. I don't want the baggage that comes with adopting any particular "ism", becoming a this-ist or that-ist is not my idea of good philosoply; if forced, however, I'd choose to be an "ic" - skeptic/agnostic.

That was an aside; picking up where we left off, I wonder what the deal is with blank verse. This particular strain of poetry is about rhythm and not rhyme. Rhythm is, bottom line, just another way of keeping time, no? So, metaphysically speaking, poems, whether rhythm/rhyme, are clocks, linguistic clocks. :chin: What say you?