Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent. — NOS4A2

The link does not disprove the story or prove that doubt was prudent. We were propping the Mujahidin against Soviet Russia in worse ways, and all the players around the world continue to play games like this to this day. The *only* reason the issue was a story at the time is because our POTUS was backing Putin over his own intel people. It would be funny indeed to see him now citing Biden's intel people as proof he was right. WTF?

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. — NOS4A2

Yes, dangerous indeed. To the people on the ground. But not existentially dangerous. That would be having a foreign leader's hand up your ass, moving your lips. Or putting you nukes in the other's back yard.

what good are you? — Xtrix

I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us."

And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. — Xtrix

That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. And not parading themselves around so you can see it. Who are you to see it? Who are any of us to see it? That's the ontological problem: all play things made of straw. It doesn't matter what we think.

But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't. — Xtrix

I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us.

"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”" — NOS4A2

That's interesting, because some folks I know in the community said, at the time, it was a non-issue; not because it didn't happen, but because it's been a long-standing SOP for, like, ever, and so, ho hum.

I say the Trump supporters should pick their medicine. Either no one should care because it didn't happen, or they shouldn't care because it wasn't new.

The fact I've said I think "Natural Law" is at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer, seems to me to indicate I've drawn a significant distinction between it and positive law. — Ciceronianus the White

You've entirely failed to distinguish Natural Law from law. Calling X "this", does not distinguish it from Y. Are we to make a leap from your understanding that because Natural Law is "at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer" to the notion that you hold the opposite to be the case for law? That therefor the law is the opposite, or at least not those things, or at least not as much those things? Because you have not said so. Instead, you tried to describe Natural Law, and when I told you the same descriptions are applicable the law, you have not argued otherwise. You avoided distinguishing the law from those traits you ascribe to Natural Law. I don't believe you can, because the X in the sand is more a chimera than the sand itself, or the stick that was used to draw it, or the person who wields the stick.

When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution? — Xtrix

He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either.

Hold on a minute, my last sentence reminded me of a wild thought I've had in the past: What if the world is held together, through some metaphysical-type prayer that we are not, and never will be aware of? Just a thought. Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making?

Another thought: Those who think humanity needs all hands on deck may be working at cross-purposes. Maybe we need fewer hands.

Thinking out loud.

It would be boring if we all agreed on everything or had the exact same interests. — Manuel

:100:

C'est la vie, or even better: That's life! — TaySan

:100:

"I consider that important." It is. — Manuel

I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself.

I remember the press I used to trust getting in line behind, and cowering before those who said "You don't support the troops!" and "You can't question a President in a time of war" etc. A good, liberal press, stood back and chewed their nails. They should have stood up on their hind legs. Credibility is a strange thing: hard to earn, easy to lose, and even harder to get back.

I would periodically go off into the wilderness for a month or more. No comm with another human being. While it did not happen on the occasion of 9/11, I often wonder, what if I had gone in on 9/10 and come out a month later, with the world all a-flutter? Would my absence have meant shit to anyone, including me? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO! In fact, the lack of jet trails in the sky would possibly have been the only thing I noticed, and that would have been a good thing. So natural should be such a state, that maybe I would not have even noticed that.

So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. Especially if "intelligence" gets a body all spun up on the BS of mankind. Too each his own, I reckon.

shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing? — Xtrix

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human.

I should whittle this down because I don't think I'm doing it justice, but I'm too lazy, so here's my stream of consciousness:

An Indian (American), speaking of his cultural traditions (I can't remember what tribe), told me "We are what others perceive us to be." I initially took umbrage. After all, it is normal for a Western European mentality like mine to think of ourselves, as individuals, as more than what we show the world; somehow deeper, more complex, profound, better, secret. "No one can tell me what am, damnit!"

On the other hand, there was something about the way he said it, and the context, that bespoke some wisdom that made me want to think deeper. There was some communal, tribal feel to his words.

Where I was saying "no one", he had used the word "others", which is plural. So I tried to parse that. To the extent a single person is perceiving me, I can find solace in knowing that, whether they are mistaken or correct, at least I still get to see myself as somehow more than what that one person perceives. Thus, if someone sees me as bad, then maybe that person is seeing something I am blind to. Or, if I admit that I am, indeed, and in part, bad, then the person is correct, but only to the extent of that part. I think I can live with that. Either way, the perception is part, not whole.

On the other hand, when I use the plural, where I am deemed to be an amalgamation of all the perceptions of all that perceives me, I must ask: What more can I be than what I show to all the world? If I am hiding something about myself, can I really say that what I am hiding is the real me? If I think that my thoughts somehow make me, secretly, some deeper being but I simply don't show that side of me to the world, then isn't that a form of denial?

It makes sense that I am only what I put out there. That does not mean that some individual person can't be wrong about me.

But here is where I think the genius of his tribal, or communal wisdom comes in:

To tell another person they are wrong about me is to tell them that they are not who they think they are, and they cannot trust their own perceptions. I, in a sense, steal their perception. I perceive them as wrong, and to that extent, they are. For my perceptions of them could likewise be entitled to respect. My perception of them is mine, and I perceive them as wrong.

The way to resolve differences, or come to an objective view of a truth (should I deem another person wrong), is not to steal their perceptions, but to offer them another view of me, or the situation.

Who am I to tell the person standing over there, looking back at me, that their eyes are wrong? Their ears are wrong? They are wrong? I am not over there looking back at me. I am here. I might think that entitles me to some greater authority about what is here, but I know it's hard to see myself without a mirror. Other people are that mirror. I may or may not like I see in the mirror, and I might even find the mirror to be flawed, But it is still what it is, like it or not. Maybe that's why I don't use mirrors much. Come to think of it, many a tribal people did not have mirrors, save the occasional still water. So, they served as each other's mirrors, and adjusted their actions and who they were accordingly. Hence the effective use of ostracization, where physical punishment was rarely needed; where virtue was made of necessity, and the respect for individuality, nuance, and choice.

Even if, from some clear and objective perspective, the mirror might be wrong, I don't smash the mirror, or steal it or hide it. It's not my mirror. If I don't like what it shows, then I don't have to look at it. If I think I am better than what I see, I stop perceiving myself in another person's perception of me. I don't look. I stop perceiving. I see how far that gets me. LOL!

The other person is either lying about what they perceive, they perceive it correctly, or they perceive it incorrectly, but they perceive it. I won't steal another's perception. I let them have it.

And if I want to change another's perception of me, I won't argue the point or try to steal their perception.
I will change what they see. But that is only if I care. If I don't care, then I'll do what I do anyway, and I'll be me. But part of my might be wanting to change their perception, if only to change my own perception of me. In that case, again, I will try to change.

I think we are all part of All, and we are All perceiving itself from every possible perspective, human, animal, plant, rock, whatever. Each has a perspective. I'll not try to steal that from All, lest I be perceived as a thief.

he response that folk who think natural law is something we feel it isn't don't know what the true natural law is, merely serves to establish there is no such law. — Ciceronianus the White

You fail to draw a distinction with a relevant difference between Natural Law and the law. We disagree what the law provides, and recourse to the law is too often made to justify what is mere prejudice or custom. The response that folk who think law is something we feel it isn't don't know what the true law is, merely serves to establish there is no such law.

In this light, it is the law which merely struggles to say what Natural Law would say about a given situation in dispute. It toddles along behind the Natural Law, trying to learn from it, tweak itself, explain, justify, respond to all the little nuances that Natural Law shows as necessary to justice. All those thousands of little variables that go into the consideration of what we are to do with a given homicide are just the law trying to address arguments made by a party in distinction of facts. Someone once said, in accord with Natural Law "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and reduced it to writing and the law. Then, over the course of millennia, the law ran head first into Natural Law, where vagaries were found, nuance, and reasons to not be so stupidly simplistic as the original law. Then we had all the levels of murder and all the defenses and all the different punishments etc. That is simply the law trying to catch up with Natural Law when the law realizes how stupidly simplistic it was/is.

One of the things I walked away from the law with was this: It seemed to be primarily designed to keep the peace, not through the application of justice, but through the exhaustion of the party's emotional and financial resources to the point where they would not engage in self-help. I never once saw what I thought was justice. And that was not simply a failure on my part to agree with the result. Rather, everyone, parties, counsel, the judge and all hangers-on, walked away having lost for having touched the law. Winners were still beaten and the stick had won.

The one legitimate argument for total war is it's realistic understanding of the need to deprive the enemy of the will to resist. The law is just a slow roll version of total war and, just like war, even the "winners" have to pay.

There is a daily email he sends out called Meditations. It is really short and I have no excuse for not granting 3 minutes a day to read it, but that's me. You might want to sign up for it: Center for Action and Contemplation <Meditationsatcacdotorg>

I've got 2,594 of Rohr's daily "Meditations" in my email inbox. I used to read them all the time, but then life got in the way so I started saving them every day with the promise to myself that I would start catching up after I retired. It's time I start! No excuses now. I've also got "Things Hidden" and "Falling Upward" on my book shelf, as yet unread. Anyway, I'm no Christian (except in the Universal Pantheist sense), but I like him and his angle on things. Interesting to see him mentioned here.

You write of two separate things. DEMOCRACY which is a totally awesome social organization beginning with Athens, which advances civilization, and the Military-Industrial Complex the US became after defeating it in Germany. The US was the modern Athens and Germany the modern Sparta. — Athena

I write only of what our organic documents would have us aspire to. You are correct, though. We have certainly gone off the rails.

I especially like Youngquist's book "Mineral Resources and the destiny of Nations". — Athena

I think I shall look that up, thank you. Your sentence calls to mind something I wrote a few years ago, out to Utah and Arizona:

"It’s a fur piece from the Vishnu Schist to the distal twist. Climbing from the depths of the Grand Canyon to the tip of a bison horn will cover some miles of vertical distance, and one thousand seven hundred fifty million years.

And from this are missing tens of millions of years of steps on this Grand Staircase below Escalante. It’s entirely possible that everything we know has come and gone, several times, and left no trace. Hell, there was the “Ancestral Rockies”, a mountain range arose and reduced to a sea which lay where my Rocky Mountains now stand. Again. How do you wrap your brain around that? How do you look at these granite peaks and see them melting rapidly away, like an ice cream cone on a hot summer side walk? How do you see that continental crust, that sidewalk, and the countless trillions of tons of rock above it? How do you see that as light and fluffy, floating on a magma sea? The oceanic crust is too heavy to support us. It lies beneath the waves.

How do we know there was no creature before us, better than us, smarter and more artsy? We don’t. We don’t know schist."

While I think Natural Law is at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer, — Ciceronianus the White

Having been exposed all my life to wildly disparate perceptions of single things, by different people, you’d think it would be “ho hum.” But I still get surprised. Here you see Natural Law as a chimera, where I see law as pretender to Natural Law. LOL! It’s a good thing that we disagree, I suppose.

I walk ninety miles through a physical wilderness of reality, climb atop a mountain and look back over the land I have traveled, seeing nature; seeing reality. An awesome sight it is. Beautiful. Some years later I enter a bank, or some other financial institution, and recognize there on the wall a plein-air painting rendered from the same vantage where I had stood. I recognize the place. That painting can travel, and go places, to banks and galleries, and elsewhere. And when it gets there, it can “speak” to people who have never seen the place. They recognize what the painting represents. But they know the map is not the terrain. It is merely a map. It is simply a painting. A subjective interpretation of what it real. They know nature is no chimera. They know it in the evolution of their bones. They may want to go see the place someday. But if they do, it will be familiar to them, because it is the stuff they are made of. Yet there are a few people who are satisfied with the painting alone. They think that painting is real. And it is. It is paint and canvass and frame. But it is a mere pretender to the glory we all, in our hearts, know exists out there in a reality we understand, have evolved with, but may never see.

It’s all good.

But I don't think the fact they should be changed means that they don't exist or aren't laws. — Ciceronianus the White

Now we are getting down to the nut: I'm not saying the stick does not exist. I'm not saying the X's in the sand do not exist. I'm not saying the link between the two does not exist in the mind of he who wields the stick. All three of those things exist. I don't see the link. A crazy person may see a connection between two things that are only connected because they say so. I'm not crazy.

There are people who think the U.S. Government had been illegally taken over by a Deep State. They thought they were in accord with the Constitution on January 6, 2021. They based their thoughts upon the U.S. Constitution. Had they succeeded, they would have been right, in their minds. I'm not crazy. They think I'm crazy. Any one is crazy who sees the link.

If you want to wield the stick and not be thought crazy, then you must appeal to reason. Natural Law is the reason which gives the X a stage upon which to pretend. If you pretend upon the proper stage, the audience will submit to the willing suspension of disbelief. That's not crazy.

But remember, the stage upon which the X is drawn is itself sand.

things exist — Ciceronianus the White

They do indeed. The stick that hits you most certainly exists. But the X in the sand is a pretender. The foundation of the stick's authority is, as you so eloquently put it "controlling."

controlling authorities — Ciceronianus the White

End of argument.

I think Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and rule by reason. He could have gotten out of trouble by agreeing to stop talking about the things he believed we should talk about. — Athena

I like Socrates. You compared him to Martin Luther, while a previous example was made of the difference between Gandhi and Socrates in the formers refusal to obey unjust laws. I like and respect both.

However, I place my fealty first with the land (physical) into which I was born, expanding it then to the Earth, long before I arrive at any tender feelings for the State. I was born, as some in the antinatalist thread might agree, without having been given a choice. The land into which I was born was previously occupied by a State that itself was dependent upon that land, all whilst exercising an unjust, disrespectful, inconsiderate, and brutal control over it. Rape, if you will.

When some of my fellow citizens of the State wrap themselves in it's flag, which they would deny to any who disagree with them, and suggest I leave if I don't like it, they fail to understand that for me, the name we use to describe this land "America" or the "United States" refers first to my home, which they occupy, and I have no intention of leaving.

It just so happens that when we finally move out from the land to other, much less important things like the State, I do happen to hold a grudging respect, and even love for her aspirations and ideals; as they are articulated in her organic documents, as well as in Natural Law. I happen to think she has promise, and that she is deserving of defense. And she is much better than some alternatives. But I think she would do well to remember her place in the order of things. She should remember how much of what she was and is is totally dependent upon the place over which she exercises "control" and much less on some exceptionalism imputed to her citizens. In theory she is one thing, but in practice she is often just the biggest fucking bully on the play ground. Sovereign? Yes, but in my book, might does not make right. It may be the way things are, but that doesn't make it right.

So yes, Socrates, the "State" is worthy of some consideration. But it has to earn it, prove it. And remember that there are other things in this world too.

From the Constitution, Art. 1, § 8. "To make all laws...". And Art. 6. "This Constitution.., shall be the supreme law of the land." — tim wood

As I tried to teach you before, Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

I don't know were you get a "supremacy clause" out of Aricle I, Section 8. That is the Article that sets forth the powers of Congress to make laws. Congress' power in this regard is specifically limited by the Bill of Rights, as I tried to teach you before.

I have not yet found the Riley supremacy exception clause. — tim wood

Then you failed to read the Bill of Rights.

I have looked up natural law, — tim wood

Now all you need to do is read about how natural law relates to the Constitution. Get back to me.

Or, what law do you accede to if not the law of the land? — tim wood

Who said I don't accede to the law of the land? I do, so long as I consider it the law of the land. To pass that test, it must be just. It does not become just just because the state put it in writing. LOL! It is just if it complies with Natural Law (justice).

Look, when the Constitution creates something, it says so.

"X shall have the power to . . ."

But when the Constitution says "X shall not mess with Y . . " without having first created Y, then Y exists apart from and above the Constitution. Can you show me where the Constitution creates a substantive right?

I'm going to cede the floor to you, until such time as you become a little more familiar with the Constitution and how it views substantive rights, how it did not create those rights, and how it self-limited government in relation to those rights. The Constitution speaks for itself, and the laws and judicial interpretations thereof, and the history, the Federalist Papers and a plethora of information are out there for you. Good luck.

I was impressed by what Cicero had to say about the law. This quote refers to "God" so I need to say he predates Christianity. A better word for his concept of God might be "logos". — Athena

:100: Founding fathers must have been reading Cicero.

the two supremacy clauses I referenced above: what do you think they mean? Do you suppose they mean what they say, or the opposite of what they say? — tim wood

You'll have to tell me about second supremacy clause. What are you referring to? As to the supremacy clause most people refer to as such, that is simply placing the federal law over state law that conflicts with federal law. It has nothing to do with Natural Law or substantive rights.

As a member of community I should like to think that your first considerations would be to rules, laws, and customs, for lots of reasons. — tim wood

As long as I deem those rules, laws and customs to be just. If I don't, then they are to me as the State would have my interpretation be to it.

And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it? — tim wood

I hold myself superior to it in the same way that it would pretend to be superior to me. It's not all that difficult. In fact, I don't even have to write it down. I just say so. Hell, I just think so. However, if the State submits itself to my jurisdiction and respectfully requests that I do so, I will take that request under advisement, and possibly do so at my earliest convenience. Or not.

The constitution takes that away from you and gives it back to you subject to law. — tim wood

No, it does not. The Constitution does not take away substantive rights. Rather, it imposes upon itself the burden to refrain from messing with my rights.

And what is it, exactly, that exists prior to or "in spite of them"? — tim wood

Natural Law at those substantive rights the Constitution forbids the government from messing with.

And to save you the trouble, the answer is whatever is prior or "spiteful." But all of that is taken up and subsumed under the law. — tim wood

You, like the law, appear to be talking to yourself. You ask a question and then pretend to save me the time by providing the wrong answer. Hmmm?

My understanding is that they exist exactly under the constitution and in no other way but under the constitution. — tim wood

Well, then, you'd be wrong.

I invite us back to the supremacy clauses. In what way are they equivocal? I say they're not, that they are in themselves conclusive. What do you say? — tim wood

See above.

P.S. As a side note; Treaties are the supreme law of the land. HA! Pacta sunt servanda, rebus sic stantibus.

Implicit in supposing there are rights both superior to the Constitution and at the same time under the Constitution. — tim wood

That makes no sense. If there is a right to X which pre-exists it's reduction to writing, that act of writing does not then subordinate the right to the writing. It just places it under the pen. It still exists whether it has been written or not. A deed worthy of the Medal of Honor is done whether the Medal is conferred or not. What will you honor? The deed or the Medal?

I do not argue that human/natural rights only came into being with the constitution, only that the constitution makes of them matters of and under law, and under its supremacy clauses makes them subordinate to law. — tim wood

All the supremacy clauses in the world don't mean shit to that which exists in spite of them. Nevertheless, I think you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause: It does not subordinate that which it exalts. Rather, it subordinates all else to that which it exalts.

What right would you have under the constitution to violate the constitution? — tim wood

To the extent your use of the term "under" means "subordinate", my rights don't exist under the Constitution.

It must seem you confuse license with liberty and freedom. — tim wood

I do not confuse those concepts, nor have they arisen in this argument. If you would like to go there, by all means, do so and I will engage.

You can certainly falsely yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you should not. And under the law you run the risk of criminal and civil penalties if you do. — tim wood

? I've never argued the state could not smack me with a stick. Nor have I argued that Natural Law would allow me to unnecessarily endanger others. Indeed, to the extent the Constitution or any laws promulgated pursuant thereto would infringe upon another right, it is again riding on the coat tails of Natural Law. For example, there is a First Amendment, but any limitation thereon comes from a common law qualification that is in accord with Natural Law. Hence the dangers of pretending to reduce all Natural Law to writing. You are bound to leave something out. Again, though, there is the 9th and 10th and common law and statutes that try to plug the holes in man's pretention.

So perhaps your understanding of what a right is, or entails, is relevant. For me it cannot ever mean merely an entitlement to do whatever one is able to do. — tim wood

Again, I'm not sure where such an argument was made.

Anyway, my understanding of all this is what has often been referred to as "hornbook law." So common and well established that I have not bothered to go dig up any citations in support thereof. It's just ingrained. But I went and took a look at some sources I'm embarrassed to even mention here and glommed onto an old term you might look up: Substantive rights (as compared to process rights).

The simplest reply here is to point out that neither you nor I have any such rights under the Constitution. — tim wood

We do. The rights exist, and the framers came along and created a Constitution that reduce them to writing and forbade violation thereof by government. As far as the "law is the law" is concerned, those rights exist "under" the Constitution. But that is the law talking to itself. The rights exist anyway and the framers knew it.

But it can never stand that the constitution is held to constitutionally violate itself. For how could it be that a part of the law would be superior to the law itself? — tim wood

I'm not sure where that argument is being made?

I certainly know that my perspective shifts according to my personal circumstances and degree of happiness. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. I think part of y'Gassett's point was not that hunting is a distraction, but, on the contrary, hunting is life. It is those who don't "live" who must find reasons for it. I could go on and on about his arguments about the hunt but, I think the upshot is this: Evolution has provided us with tools that we often turn our back on, to our own detriment, and loss of happiness. While it might be argued that such is part and parcel of evolution too, that doesn't mean the leaving off of what we've "earned" is going to be as enjoyable as immersing ourselves in it.

I think getting dirty is not unlike the arts, and love, and all the other areas of life where we feel "beside ourselves". Just as some writers and poets and performers often feel like they are nothing more than a conduit through which something greater, ineffable, has chosen to move; so to living in grace with the tools given, and using them, is what is meant to be. And that would include difficulty. "The floors're all sagging with boards a suffering from not being used anymore." Waylon Jennings.

Edited to add: As I've opined elsewhere, who is to say that when we feel beside ourselves that is really not ourselves? And our normal state is the aberration, the insanity, the outside or beside?

So, where do we go next? — Jack Cummins

Just keep going down the rabbit hole. While we should always go forward, as is our inclination, someone should go back and see if we didn't miss a turn somewhere. Heaven forbid we should miss a line of inquiry somewhere along the line.

Do we have to just come up with infinite questions? — Jack Cummins

Yes. Although they seem to present without a whole lot of "coming up with" on our part.

If life has any meaning at all, it is simply showing up and participating. If you are not on the field, and you sit in the stands to watch, well, I guess someone needs to hold them down so they don't float off into space. But all the fun honing takes place on the field. I assume that is why TPF is here. That, and the fact that we like to hear ourselves talk (or see ourselves type, as the case may be).

Edited to add:

"In itself life is insipid, because it is a simple "being there." So, for man, existing becomes a poetic task, like the playwright's or the novelist's: that of inventing a plot for his existence, giving it a character which will make it both suggestive and appealing. ... ... serious examination should lead us to realize how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it essential to divert himself."

Jose Ortega y'Gasset, Meditations on Hunting. [I'm a fan]

Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

Maybe. Apparently. I mean, my understanding of God is such that he must necessarily be easily capable of accounting for the the absence of himself. That, of course, runs afoul of man's desire to keep God stuck to logic, like a mouse to a glue trap. And really, what sort of God could not use logic for shit paper at his every whim, and then toss into the cosmic toilet? So, because we have made a god of logic, we call it a mystery when our god won't answer our questions. But the intuitive and counterintuitive person has long known that something may be, or is indeed true, even if he doesn't "get it."

Perhaps the whole aspect of mysteries is central to philosophy and what keeps us searching. — Jack Cummins

I love that every answer opens more questions than answers provided: It's God telling us that our march is getting us further from the truth. There is import in the march itself, though, regardless of direction. But if someone decides to march backward, to the beginning, that might provide something enlightening.

From "The Intellectual We Deserve" — Xtrix

Damn, that sounds like a lot of work. I guess that anyone would expend that kind of energy to be right is testament to their concern about the opinion which others might have of them. It's like lying. The truth is easier to remember. Or, when I was a prosecutor, I remember criminals putting effort into a crime that, had they just invested the same amount of resources and energy in a legal pursuit, they'd be rich! Like lawyers! Alas, I have been known to improve on truth! LOL!

Anyway, thanks for the quote. Windy, but nice.

And I think Marshall did not say what you have quoted him as saying, or I cannot find it. — tim wood

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury vs. Madison. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. 1803.

It establishes some as lawful, but in all cases subject to the establishing power of the constitution itself, and via that, the "people." — tim wood

To the extent it establishes powers in the Articles (taxes, make laws, etc.), those powers are expresly limited by rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights (and Amendments). The rights which predate the Constitution are those which the Bill of Rights says the governmental powers just granted in the Articles can not be exercised in derogation of. So, while it creates a right to counsel, for example, it does not create the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to freedom of speech, etc. Those rights exist regardless, and to all men, everywhere, even in China. And, because there are other rights not created by or addressed in the Constitution, there is the 9th and 10th Amendment.

Reminds me of a meme I saw: "Hey, what gives? They said there would be a handbasket!"

Anyway, you asked if we are capable of picking a leader. Yes. Some say the moment makes the man, or something like that. The times will produce a leader, and the like. Some times Ma Nature has to come down and slap us in the back of the head to get things going in the right direction. So look for some bad times. But we should be able to turn it around if the old people like me get out the way. I like the underrated movie "Tomorrowland" with George Clooney. Go kids!

I can accept your understanding of pantheism. My understanding was something more akin to polytheism, but with a twist: It's cool to have any god still be a god; whereas panentheism would be all gods being the same thing, not unlike your understanding of pantheism. I could be wrong, though.

But the mind whose values constitute moral values would also be the mind whose attitudes consititute the norms of Reason more generally, and thus would be Reason. And that mind would also, by dint of that fact, be omnipotent and omniscient. — Bartricks

That is where your reasoning is failing you. You are making the mistake of attributing moral values, attitudes constituting the norms of Reason, etc. to the omnipotent and omniscient mind, or what you are calling god. I have referred those play things to what I have called Natural Law, or the innate understanding of right and wrong that we are born with. They are not unlike love, or the arms and legs we are born with; that spring from an evolution that serves us (so far) rather well. But they are not empirical, or of God beyond being oppositional forces he has put in play. God would be above and beyond simple morality or other tools nature has given us to survive.

Once you see through your fascination with the toys, you will come down to earth, hard.

And I am not sure why you think it implies relativism....I mean, I think moral relativism is true, but I don't see why 'this' implies it — Bartricks

I think God would not disvalue or hate anything. To the extent there is any hating or disvaluing going on, it is the relative perception of something other than God that is doing it. God's got no problem with that. In other words, we can try to do some platonic construct of the pure from which all else springs as an imperfect representation or shadow or reflection, and we can try to talk about good and bad, or valued and disvalued in those terms, but from an objective 10k feet, they are not separate. Indeed, they are complementary, one to the other, just as the tooth of the wolf chisels the leg of the deer, so too the leg of the deer chisels the tooth of the wolf. In the case of Christianity, Judas would have to be a hero, for without him, Christians would not have Christianity.

I am not sure what universal pantheism — Bartricks

Universal Penentheism would have a God over gods. Compare: Universal Pantheism allows for all Gods and if any one wants to be top dog, okay. My first struggle with the distinction came from here: https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/21/49/00001/zaleha_d.pdf nd I'm not so sure I have it, but that's what I got. My lay understanding of physics dictates that it's all true, and not, at the same time (and not) and that is what brings me to Pantheism over Panentheism.

or they mean simply that we are born with a disposition to believe or sense certain acts to be right/wrong or good/bad. Which may be true, but is beside the point when the issue is what the rightness/wrongness or goodness/badness 'is'. — Bartricks

That's me, the birth disposition part. And, by definition, it would not be besides the point. It is the point. The point of relativity. If you want to talk about the essence of the "good" that makes something good, that's fine. But even that essence relies upon the bad to be good. It only exists independent of bad in the relative perspective of those who are just trying to sound deep and hope that combination of sounds might do the trick.

By what measure are we 'good at it'? How do you ascertain that? — Wayfarer

The measure would be presence. As opined elsewhere, there is agreement and disagreement and the fact that neither matters, itself does not matter, so we press on, and that is all that matters. I used "ideas" but the sentiment applies equally to the physical, the stone and the knife, etc. In short, we keep on keepin' on.

left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become. — David Bentley Hart

I would argue the uncertain resources of our will are uniquely designed and qualified to deal with an infinity of meaninglessness. God, are we good at it!

But people have been predicting the end of the world since it began. — Zophie

:up:

The death of god seems only to have changed the excuses we use to justify our excesses. — Banno

:up:

My Dad was born in 1923. What he saw us bad enough. Still living - no thanks to 2 years in a German camp. — Tom Storm

:victory:

I don't equate morality with god or religion. As argued in another thread about the law, I think Natural Law is a morality innate to man (and maybe animals, since they generally, though not always, abide a certain morality in their conduct, sometimes superior to our own) and which religion, like the law, uses to bootstrap itself into our lives; like it was their idea or some shit. :roll:

I think it is better handed from generation to generation with ostracization, consequences and cancel culture; that and other peaceful ways of social engineering. As we leave off those ways of conveying morality then sure, we are going to have "issues." The downside compounds itself when we fail to make a virtue of anything. For instance, we like to say that integrity is "doing the right thing even when no one is looking." But it sure doesn't help when some one tries to do the right thing and he's dissed, demeaned or marginalized. And it doesn't help when a whistle blower blows the whistle and gets ignored instead of honored. People then see what they perceive to be "the good guy never wins, and the bad guy gets away with it." And then bad becomes good and lies the truth and truth lies, and we exalt fascist and greed and etc.

On the other hand, I think people, especially young people, are observant. And they have natural morality in their bones. And they know an asshole when they see one. But no one wants to see another peaceful Tom Hanks dragged out of a classroom, teaching, and sent to some foreign land to kill another asshole and end up dying in the process. It's our job to head that off long before it gets to that point. And we don't need god or religion to do it. God and religion are welcome to tag along and do their part, but when they are put out front, they can be part of the problem. Look at all the bible thumpers who spit on Jesus with their conduct.

Long story short, no, I do not think we are on downward spiral without god. Remember the meme circulating some time ago about what all the person saw who was born in 1900? These are the salad days, my friend. All the arcs, including justice (MLK), are bending, albeit slowly, in the right direction. There may be a step back here and there but if the Earth itself can handle the weight of the whole human race until we check ourselves, then the death of god and the rise of All (as I've described it elsewhere) will be a good thing.

That makes more sense (singular meaning me in the first scenario, rather than the fat man in the second). But the actions of the group still comport with my morality: if the fat man means less to them than their own lives, they will kill him. Same with me. If he does not, they, like me, would not let the group or anyone in it stand in the way of blowing him up.

Now, the scenario I expected someone to raise in response to my post but did not (so I'll do it on my own) would be, what if one or more of the group were as dear to me as the fat man? What would I do then? Well, I would do the same, though I suspect my job would be even easier. For anyone I cared so deeply about would likewise sacrifice themselves for the fat man. If they would not, then they would be to me as the rest of them: secondary to the fat man.

you are a wacky head with a gun that doesn’t care about the life but probably the others do and then steal your gun, kill you and the fat man, then they run away. How the tables have turned! — javi2541997

I think that is actually my scenario. Morally. So the tables have not turned. They are doing what I would expect, morally.

The only thing that seems incongruous is your use of the words "the life". That sounds singular, in which case I'd think you were talking about the fat man, in which case they would not kill him if they cared and I didn't. Instead, I think you meant to say "their lives". Therefor: "you are a wacky head with a gun that doesn’t care about their lives but probably the others do and then steal your gun, kill you and the fat man, then they run away." That makes more sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please clarify.

If by "the life" you meant me in my first scenario, then your hypothetical is still in accord with my moral position.