I said the same thing in an earlier post, whereby people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. I — TimeLine

Hmmm, we need to draw a fine line here. I'm not talking about the victim abusing their status in order to manipulate. I'm talking about when the victim cannot forgive. This is the "hard problem", if you will, of forgiveness. The irony is that forgiveness is a responsibility that lies solely on the victim; forgiveness is it's own power that lies in the hands of the weak. I mentioned taboos; this is the taboo of all taboos: Only the weak can imbue the world with forgiveness, because only the weak possess the power to forgive. This is the entire crux of the fucking gospel, people.

It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. — TimeLine

Absolutely.

More like: sharks smelling blood in the water, circling their prey, anticipating a feeding frenzy. — Galuchat

>:O Give me a break.

“It from bit”. Otherwise put, every “it” every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence (even if in some contexts indirectly) from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom a very deep bottom, in most instances an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a
participatory universe. — Galuchat

The religious ecstasy is more than palpable.

Works for me.

Is an idea physical?

Can you elaborate a little more? — MikeL

It seems simple enough; something is being transmitted reliably through various physical mediums. Something is being communicated.

Maimonides writes about making an effort to ask for forgiveness when you have wronged, a thousand times if he is your teacher, but in that effort if the victim still refuses to forgive then the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. — TimeLine

I don't know Maimonides, but that lines up pretty profoundly with the attempt at a philosophy of atonement (or whatever) that I've tried to espouse here in general. That specific idea right there seems paramount to this whole discussion: the victim becomes the sinner him/herself.

my compassion and perhaps even my strategic ability to effect change on a person who clearly has issues; — TimeLine

But again, what change can you effect on anyone other than yourself? Even self-change is a mountain that requires immense strategy in it's climbing.

it is not necessarily about forgiveness or to just say that you forgive, but rather one must always subjectively forgive, but act in a way that will enable them to recognise the wrongs in their behaviour (if possible). — TimeLine

This sounds dangerously manipulative to me.

any suffering I experienced was borne out of the failure to communicate and ultimately reconcile and not the need for forgiveness. — TimeLine

Yes.

but I believe in God (without anthropomorphic qualities) — TimeLine

Oh? :P

I think that the capacity to give love - call it unconditional, namely the capacity to give love to all - is the very moral foundation or consciousness in which we should struggle to achieve — TimeLine

So you define unconditional love as the capacity to give love to all?

Ok. I guess we can wait for the oncoming barrage.

Yep, what I said above doesn't contradict that. — Agustino

No, it does. It's not only simple grammar, but simple use of language and sentence structure. You can't say "puts blame" when it suits you, and then deny me when I point out your inconsistency. You need to either say "hey, I messed up with my language", or acknowledge that you do want to use "put" as an action that someone performs here.

Except that I'm guarding against a possible misunderstanding that I sense in you, namely that there is a separation between sin and blame, — Agustino

You're creating that on you're own; my initial critique was based off of the sentence where you said "God puts the blame solely on us". That and nothing more. Whatever you might be sensing is not what I'm trying to communicate here.

Man through his actions. But this isn't to say that the blame is something in addition to the sinful actions that is actually put on top of everything else. It's already included in the package. — Agustino

This doesn't make sense.

whenever we find information, we find it inscribed or encoded somehow in a physical medium of whatever kind.

Is this actually the gist of his argument? Clearly, even within this actual sentence, information is distinctly demarcated from physical transmission. I'm a lazy bastard and didn't read through the subsequent link, maybe there's more there? But I trust that you pulled out a quote that gave the main argument?

But you just said:

So who "puts" the blame here?
— Noble Dust
Man through his actions. — Agustino

But man puts that blame, not God?

Man's actions. — Agustino

So man is purely and solely to blame?

Ok, I'm on board. But where does sin stem from? (I'm only on board, by the way, because you appear to have rescinded your claim that "God puts the blame on us"; is that true?)

So who "puts" the blame here?

Creation as an act of love vs. God as love seem different to me, which is why I asked for clarification. I guess you can make the argument for God being "one who creates", and thus, naturally creating out of love, as love is also a way to express who/what God is? Is that what you're getting at?

When you create a piece of music; is that an act of love? — Janus

A pure creative act is a free act; love, however, is expressed between beings. So if a song is an act of love, then the song would have to have being. Does it?

Figures of speech communicate just as powerfully as logic, so you need to enunciate just exactly what you mean here. How exactly are God and blame connected in your view?

Can you elaborate?

So God doesn't "put the blame on us"?

What? I quoted a post from a day ago. Specifically, the quote upon which my response to you was based. Now you quote something you said a few minutes ago. Which is it?

God puts all the blame on us — Agustino

Ok. I can agree with the basic premise, at least in principle; at least for the sake of discussion. So how does my response to you saying that God lays all the blame on us ignore that premise? There's a difference between men "expelling God", and God "putting the blame on us". The one is an action of man, the other an action of God, and they aren't interchangeable. I still stand by my initial response and would welcome your comments.

No. Because your response ignored my basic premise and argued as if it was false. — Agustino

Can you restate the premise, then? I looked back through some posts, but I'm not clear what you mean by your basic premise.

Are you kidding? :-O NYC is literally the wine capital of the world. In terms of imports to shops/restraunts, anyway. It's an objective fact, as stuck up as it may sound. As far as NY state wine, the Finger Lakes upstate make some solid cold climate wines, and Long Island has a booming winemaking industry, but stick to the upstate wines for quality.

Now, are you going to respond to my response to you that was on topic?

>:O

I work in the wine industry, so I have a few recs: possibly a 2010 Barolo; Conterno or DeForville are a few good producers. Or, if you're more on the esoteric side, a Jura Chard; Overnoy, or if you can find a back vintage of the now retired Jaques Puffeney...anyways, carry on...

Otherwise, in a world created out of love it is a real problem for us due to our limited understanding. — Janus

What do you mean created out of love? Literally made of the stuff of love, or inspired by a metaphysical love of some sort? Or something else?

God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. — Agustino

If we're solely responsible for evil, how does that even affect God? Why does God have such a stake in the whole thing? Why would he create this soap opera where we're responsible for everything wrong that happened, and yet he throws us this bone to save us, if we retain the correct set of beliefs for our 70 year lifespans? That sounds like a human projection unto the concept of God; it represents a power-play, a form of abuse, essentially. In a world where we are solely responsible for all evil, the offer of forgiveness becomes not an act of love, but a show of power. In that scenario, our accepting God's offer becomes a fear-based action; power intimidates us, and when this power-based forgiveness is offered, we accept out of fear of the alternative; the abuser sucks the abused back into the cycle of abuse with a soft kiss to the forehead. Indeed, it's not a fear of Hell that inspires the acceptance on our part, it's a fear of an abusive God-figure. If God exists, he's not an abuser. If you're God is an abuser, he's a false God.

Just finished a collection of Lovecraft stories. Chipping away at The Gay Science as well. I've been extremely lazy lately.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing. — TimeLine

It's helpful to remember that this is a scripture where the Hebrew poetic device of intensification is being used; if he sins once, rebuke and forgive; if seven times, and he repents 7 times, forgiveness still stands. I would interpret that particular scripture as saying that the more chronic the sin, the more in need of forgiveness the perpetrator is. The intensification seems to signify how dire the need for forgiveness is, the more egregious the sin. So no, repetition of behavior doesn't necessarily always mean unwillingness to admit wrongdoing; it signifies an even more intense need for both reconciliation, and then subsequent forgiveness. Jesus seemed to prefer hanging with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers. Those at the bottom of the moral well seem to understand the heights above them the best.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

As someone else mentioned, it seems both.

So, why are you asking whether reconciliation and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, in this context, and/or in a philosophical context? Sorry, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so maybe it's been addressed. It seems clear to me that they aren't mutually exclusive; it's just that they often don't accompany one another, due to emotional problems like denial, bitterness, pride, shame... But obviously the ideal reparation would be made up of both. So on a spiritual level, true reparations means reconciliation built out of forgiveness, driven by unconditional love.

Forgiveness is a sort of taboo; it breaks the entire structure of the world. Berdyaev said "pure undistorted truth burns up the world." Forgiveness seems similar; it breaks down the structure of reality. So people's responses to it tend to be polarizing; life changing transformation on the one hand, and violent denial on the other. As much as I'm no longer a Christian, I do feel a real sense of spiritual bondage in the world. The world is literally in bondage to the cycle of oppression and dehumanizing behavior; there are moments where an action like forgiveness attempts to cut the bonds, and a spiritual power fights back and prevents the cut.

To a certain extent, but it's not that ground breaking :P — Agustino

No? How so? It was groundbreaking within my own experience, regardless of the historical context of the concept.

lol! See, that's why you should move to a chill, non-competitive place — Agustino

Yeah, like where? Can I find cheap audio gear and rent, and somehow find a way to make a living while having time to write/record music? :s

Ah, at least I remembered that... >:O — Agustino

Actually, come to think of it, it was a useful concept. The idea of our conception of God being just a representation of the real God; the "God above God". That's how he phrases it; in other words, more accurately, it would be the "God above god".

LOL, that must be quite a depressing place to live then, no wonder you were depressed! — Agustino

You mean are depressed, right? I still live here :P

I have literarily almost zero memory about what the contents of the book are anymore. I somehow remember Kierkegaard is mentioned and there's lots of talk about the ground of being? — Agustino

The ground of being is the main gist; God is above God; beyond God. The ground of being.

or watch people :-O lol — Agustino

I do that on the regular as well. I don't run though, I'm too lazy, and I'm already too skinny. >:O

Hmmm so is NYC the type of place where if you lie on the ground on the street nobody stops by to see what's happening with you? — Agustino

It's the definition of that place.

However, things like prayer, sports, and having a few close friends were all helpful to a certain extent - and just getting adjusted to feeling the emotions. — Agustino

Prayer was actually an additional determinant to my emotional health at that time; it was the time at which I "fell away". I came to the realization that prayer, clearly through my own unhealthy mode, was actually not only unhealthy, but directly affecting my spiritual health; the manner in which I was approaching prayer was simply a reification of the emotional issues I was dealing with. I still haven't been able to return to prayer as a healthy discipline because of those issues.

You know there is a point when you have emotions but you realize they can't hurt you and you don't have to react to them - — Agustino

- No, I don't know anything about that. :P

I read that when depressed too — Agustino

I guarantee you it's all in the title. A fucking misleading title, at that. >:O

Why were you reading the books in the park and not at home? — Agustino

Because reading books in the park can be profound. And no, its NYC, no one approached me. And I'm a white American young male; of course I did my best to hide my emotions. :P but even if I hadn't, no one would've offered a second glance. >:O

Did you find any books helpful in your depression? — Agustino

At that period of my life, no, as far as I can remember. But I'm still in the relative depression now that I was in then. So as far as books that have been helpful during times of depression...I've yet to discover something revelational. I remember reading Tillich's The Courage To Be, and feeling a sense of unexpected peace. I remember reading through the book, feeling this heavy load, brought on solely by the context of the text, and then suddenly feeling this unexpected release of the heavy load during literally the last two pages of the entire book. Maybe that's his style? Idk. I also distinctly remember reading through Teilhard's "The Divine Milieu", and sitting in Union Square. There's a moment where he says that, essentially, there are "reasons for structured belief", or something along those lines. That's a terrible paraphrase. But, I was crying in the park, in front of strangers, to give you a sense of the impact. >:O

Well it could be, as according to science, created out of nothing. And I agree that the problem of evil would in that case be a pseudo-problem. — Janus

Also, the problem of evil being a psuedo-problem might obtain within a scientistic view of the world, but it doesn't obtain within actual experience. I may be preaching to the choir here, but it's at least worth it to put the thought out into this thread.

it's either a pseudo-problem, or a problem that originates due to a our limited understanding of good and evil, creation and love. — Janus

But I don't understand your reasoning here; why would a "real" (assuming it's not a psuedo) problem of evil be simply because of our limited understanding? Perhaps because of my own limited understanding? :-O But really, for my views on suffering (which relates to evil), see my first post in this thread in response to the OP. EDIT: I mention it because I feel like I would be repeating myself to go into more detail here.

So much the worse for the "metrics of Western Culture", then! — Janus

Indeed.

The problems start when we demand: "either/or". We are better to think "both/ and". — Janus

But yes, I agree here; both/and is better than either/or. But not by the metrics of modern Western culture.

"Cloud of Unknowing" — Janus

Did you read that book? I bought it on a whim in a state of severe depression, and then left it on the park bench where I began reading it after it's purchase. Clearly just a result of my mental state, but...if you read it, it was worthwhile for you?

If the world is not created out of love then of course there is no problem of evil. — Janus

If the world were not created out of love, what would it be created out of? Evil? Indifference? But I see what you mean, and it looks similar to some of my arguments here: the so called "problem of evil" only exists within a context where the opposite: a world predicated on love, for instance, is the reality. Yes/no?

Ok, thanks. But I don't think that those absolutes are beyond our ken; rather, they poke through the fog of our perception as moments of clarity.

Entropy, disorder, is always increasing. Order is necessary for any moral system. — TheMadFool

Entropy is increasing in the physical world, but that doesn't mean it's increasing in a moral sphere (or system). If so, this, then, doesn't follow:

So, if science is true, disorder is the ultimate end of all things, including moral systems. — TheMadFool