I don't think that Christianity has ever been about persuasion, or reasoning to belief, or just believing things, but revelation. Paul says that there are three kinds of people, the natural man, the carnal man, and the spiritual man, and each have different capacities for and attitudes towards revealed truth. So that, there are certain truths received through the eyes, others through the ears, others through our capacity for reason, but the truths of god are received through the spirit, and only the spiritual man is privy to them.

Paul asserts then, both a capacity, and mechanism, you could say, that is a prerequisite to comprehension, and by implication, attempting to persuade a non-spiritual man of spiritual matters is like attempting to describe to a blind from birth man what you see.

Quite interesting too, is that the natural man is "unregenerate, or unchanged spiritually", whereas the "carnal man", the sensuous man, is considered to belong to the same category as the spiritual man, as one that is saved, the difference is that the carnal are "babes in christ", fed on milk, and not meat, but they are still too young and weak to bear the meat.

It's the birth of philosophy, or rather, what reigns supreme contemporaneously is sophistry, but philosophy wins the game over time, historically. Performance over substance.

I'm not a huge fan of comedy, I'm not a fun person, I think that laughter is a form of hysteria, or when a particular emotion is surrendered to. I like the idea that the ancient gods are faculties, or as Jung said, they all went inside to form psychology. So that, we worship gods, in the sense of what we surrender to emotionally, and allow to be the moving force behind our actions. Rather than a complete rejection of one over the other, I prefer the notion of an emotional caste structure, much like it was when the gods were external, and even then, Zeus, intellect, was king.

I'm not endorsing it, but just noticing it. Not being an unbiased observer as well, I have in fact become upset, and attempted to set limits to it, as well as reminded them that jokes become reality with time.

I didn't grasp that it was literally about death, and I believe this to be for tragic reasons. Allow me to give another account. We developed the language they believe all others to be rooted in not long before that, along with cloths. I think that what comes to our attention, what the unconscious puts before the minds eye is related to relevance, and proximity. Funeral burials coinciding the birth of cloths, and complex language, of tradition, so that, the dead, through tradition, through living on in our hearts and minds maintain a continued relevance to the living, they are useful even after death. Whereas they were not before.

To bring death itself to relevance suggests a proximity. This is also why, we ask how people died when they die, so as to ensure our distance from the cause, and keep dying itself as irrelevant. The hole one leaves in your life is one of absence. And would be the same if they were just gone forever but still alive, the only difference between them (and perhaps a difference we'd wish to forget) is that in the former case, we have relative certainty that they're gone forever, which requires a mourning process, or detachment. Whereas we may forgo this process, if we believe that we shall meet again. I think that an infant mourns you every time you become absent, until they learn it not to be permanent -- and then they make the opposite mistake, of not mourning you, if still too young to apprehend that your absence is indeed, permanent this time around.

So that, I think that death being some ever looming thing in the foreground is unrecognizable to me. I think of it in the relevant senses to the proximity of my concerns, but miss the literal sense. I'm not sick, or old, nor are people dying around me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Thought I'd look at wikipedia, and look at that illustration on the right. Time saving truth from falsehood and envy. All the answers in time, I think I'll reiterate.

Religion is how to live one's life. What to do. Philosophy examines one's life, so that it precisely examines these things. Religion is aesthetic, about grand transformations, rebirths, revelations, and a personal union with the universe in some sense. I don't think that philosophy is necessarily opposed to it. I don't think that most philosophers were atheistic until recently. It is like a progression of distrust, and looking to the objective, materialistic, and externally verifiable, and a discarding of testimonial first person accounts.

The problem is though, and the root cause of the issue, is that you can't see how to live from there. The dead universe is silent on that, and the living aren't to be trusted. So there is no proper way to live, it's all arbitrary, or whatever, everyone only asserts anything in this manner for dubious or flawed reasons.

We don't listen because personal experience is unreliable, and unaccountable to third person analysis, and if it can be said that meaning, comprehension has something to do with practice, living the same things, then not coming together to ritualistically engage in identical practices makes other more opque than they otherwise could be.

Because we all live in a fantasy world, of our own creation constructed by our preferences, and it is distasteful and upsetting that others should not occupy it along with us. They pose challenges to it, insult it. One behaves on the truth, on reasons. To truly believe something is to act in congruence with it.

We wish to rob everyone of their autonomy, by speaking magic words.

I would prefer not to answer personal questions on the grounds of avoiding self incrimination.

People trying to find themselves. Everyone around us is constantly telling us, but they're all wrong, aren't they? The pain of objectification. The fear of discovery. Better to submerge ourselves in the depths, holding the breath until it leaves us completely, and we die down there, all alone.

Philosophizing, I think, is always a kind of rejection, and turning away. Indeed to contemplate is to look at the past, and attempt to project the future. To attempt to derive the living from the dead. Perhaps just living yields all of the answers, with time. We hear about much more than we experience, and we come to analytical and emotional conclusions about many many things before we've ever actually encountered them. We have no basis in facts or experience to favor one authority over another, so that it comes down to other factors. Their reputation, associations and affiliates, recommendations, their appearance, smell? Perhaps anything at all, as the only thing that matters, and qualifies them for authoritative purposes is precisely what you'd require to assess their genuine authority in the first place.

How did authorities come about? The failure of parents? The failure of the village? What killed us all inside? What made us stop listening? Stop listening to the living, and begin looking to the dead?

A reality within which I can breathe fully. A reality within which I do not need to trust anyone, in order to be kind to them. A reality within which I cannot be bought, sold or intimidated. A reality within which I hold all the keys. A reality within which, I am justified, and can act freely without hesitation. I wonder what kind of reality you live in?

That is quite moving. Do you suppose that we are in captivity? We see quite readily not only are the animals more thoughtful, but they atrophy, and decay in captivity. I think most easily signified, and recognized as the curled over fins on the killer whales.

I did not ask those questions with pure curiosity, but with the insinuation that flow being a captivating concept of engagement is perhaps only so in contrast to the depths of its opposites.

Not saying that this is the same thing, but I'll give an analogous example. With respect to an object, or thing in the world, we have three necessary components which are distinct, and separate in one sense, but inseparable in another. That is, we have the word, or the symbol, or sign of it. We have the object itself, and we have a cipher, or our personal attempts to crack the code. All of which are practically inseparable, but clearly distinct.

Thank you, I appreciate your thinking so.

I wouldn't know on an individual basis, I don't think that the activity itself is relevant. I wouldn't characterize art is play, and farming as serious. One can be a serious artist, and non-serious farmer. I wouldn't categorize it by activity, but by orientation, and motivation.

As for flow... well, why aren't we always like that? Why does it require a high level of stimulation? Can one enter flow state while meditating? Time flies, loss of self-consciousness? Is our natural state to be bored, anticipatory, and self-conscious?

I don't know much about it though.

I think that what characterizes play, is its non-commitment. It isn't serious. It isn't true. I'm pretending, experimenting, trying things out. It is a precursor to seriousness, commitment, truth, and following things through. It isn't work because it isn't fun, but because it isn't significant. If it's meaningful, makes a difference, you really believe in it, and are genuinely committed, then you won't be able to stop working, and it will be much more engaging, or enthralling than fun or pleasure.

Yes, I think that we agree, I just lacked specificity in my suggestion. I was speaking more to institutions that develop to address contemporary social problems, or goals. I fully agree that not all institutions are characterized in this way, but rather are designed to meet continuing needs, with no specific vision of conclusion, or accomplishment in sight.

I appreciate your first person account, and agree that it would be a great idea to have a "sundown clause". If the institution has a specific vision of completion, then they should have a time frame within which they can accomplish this, or be replaced with something fresh.

Yes, quite right, on all points. Well put as well. Also happy to hear that there are at least some suggestions that this is the case, and I am noticing something.

I ended the OP with the suggestion that one's extremeness fuels the creation of the antithesis, so that balance, and temperance are very important qualities. To act too extremely, even when one is positive of their rightness is counter-productive to their aims. Could even make worse the thing they wish to diminish.

Indeed, I think that there is a natural wax and wane around an equilibrium.

I think that there is a natural proclivity for institutions to quickly become about their own survival and growth. They always go too far, because they don't do enough, and then all celebrate and disband. They keep on their track until they are forcibly derailed.

There is but one thing to fear, and one evil. That is God, and damnation. No amount of harm, betrayal, exploitation, defamation or disenfranchisement can damn you. Nothing can do that, only sin, only God. There certainly is a problem of evil, but it does not rest in the wickedness of the world or creation, but in all of our hearts.

Jung said that around 35 people's souls die, or the anima dies, and with it goes their youth, and kindness. He thought this to be normal for everyone with the exception of artists that maintain the connection past this point of middle age. Jesus is the truth, the life and the way... a strange claim indeed... maybe we're all is missing something not only important, but the only truly satisfactory thing that exists. The value of it, and the possible lose of it, equating to much higher stakes than the evils of creation, rendering all else mere trifles.

The question is really not very answerable without knowing the mind of God himself. There are greater authorities, perhaps greatest authorities, this is why we are to be humble, to have faith.

"3) younger cohorts who have been raised by 1)-type globalist indoctrination, but are rejecting it and looking for alternatives (and this group may actually include a fair number who formerly thought of themselves as on the Left). This is the internet-savvy group; also the group that's doing a lot of the mockery you're talking about."

This I find most interesting. Just because, it was upon talking to someone else about their kids, and how they are surprisingly political, more so than we are, and surprisingly right leaning, in the sense of a rebellion against all of the diversity, and inclusion stuff, and what not. None of them had any actual person they're following that I know of, or group they claim to belong to, but just all of the internet mockery that they were right into. Constantly joking about it, with their punctuation of "R.I.P.".

I find that surprising, and don't remember people being all that political when I was a kid. So it got me to thinking about this, and realizing the increasing amount I'm hearing about it from a number of angles, but the effects particularly on the teenagers around me is surprising, which is what drew me to these conclusions.

Drop all that mind reading. Whenever you hear yourself think, or have that sensation of "they'll think or feel this way" as an anticipation to any of your actions, and statements, deny it. Ignore it. Let the past die. Let the wounds heal.

You did not, but the link suggests that. As it is about remembering particular details necessary for passing a test in school. Memorization, repetition, mnemonic devices and such.

Understanding differs greatly to remembering specific things. What specific details do you remember about learning to talk? If you had to take a test on the details of your advancement, what you learned from one day to the next, I think you'd fail that test. Look though, fluency, like magic!

It's quite similar to what we both we talking about. As itself obscured, it is not clearly identifiable, or explicable, but like the sun, it is required to see everything else. It is that which, upon recognition, moves one from student to master.

Are you referencing Plato directly with this talk of "the good", or is it coincidental?

Yes, I think so, on both points.

As an animal, you have the simple problem of distinguishing between what's part of you and what isn't, what to approach and what to avoid, and the limits of your abilities and environment. Being the human animal though, doing this, distinguishing what's you and what isn't, what to approach and what to avoid, and the limits of your abilities and environment take on a whole new impossible complexity, which requires a whole new approach to it all.

The extension of the identity into a symbolic language. An, ancient spirit, capable of saying things through us beyond our own full comprehension. Beyond our individual intention. Live as a hero, as you're immortal in this realm, and forever resurrect. Approach what you should avoid, affront the most loved. Be everything and everyone. Absorb, wait and digest, absorb wait and digest. Take in anyone, anything, don't expect to understand it the very instant of absorption, just take it in, and let it stir. Practice your philosophy, attune your body to it. Then, some day, perhaps, the stars will align, the gods will smile upon you, and the information you've acquired, in conjunction with the practice of it, will give birth to a muse, a personification, and signification of your mastery, and you will then understand.

I mean that taboos are a go to for comedy, for the shock factor alone. Combine that with the taboo being enforced around just vices, unattractiveness, medical deformity, or some other thing to which the pity is suggested, but the problem is self, or nature caused... then you're asking for a high level of scorn. Placing a target, as they say.

I only suggest this, because it seems to me that teens don't laugh about, and mock the same things as when I was a kid.

Yes, you're alone, but not incurably. Language is public forms, that we use to express our experiences, and are universal while the experiences that they express are unique and individual, but our memory, and ego are themselves constructed and recursive representations of those unique experiences. So that, you represent your own experiences to yourself like you do anyone else's, and can be mistaken. So that, the loneliness one feels is just as much an alienation from one's self as it is others. It is the product of a drive to be different and unique, extra special, or valuable.

Want to not be alone? Stop listening to that voice in your head for a bit. Tell it to stfu, lose faith in it completely, and become entirely confused. Everything it says is meaningless, and worthless. Start listening to other people, but don't listen to immediate reactions. In one ear, and out the other. Then some time will pass, and the voice in your head will come to some amazing realizations, insights, and they'll be super amazing, and it will be so fucking awesome for having come up with those things... but then you're going to realize that this isn't true, that it has been letting you down, and you got those things by not listening to it, and absorbing, rather than rejecting others for awhile. You're going to realize how wise, strong, beautiful, insightful, and amazing those people are, and you're going to fall in love with them all, and then you won't be alone anymore.