Divine intervention? — Banno

Definitely! :rofl:

Divine enough for me that you thought to post that. :up:

Seriously though, Earnest has a bit of perfection in it. God strikes again!

“You are here.” With a clear line between them. Spot on! :lol:

ADDED: Thanks for the earnest post!

SUPERIMPOSED: Ironically, (where irony is opposite earnestness) the Frank and Earnest that you reposted was most earnest.

on multiple levels. — Banno

:lol:

Are you not entertained? — Banno

Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussion: Analytics applied to low hanging fruit.

I know there is a whole person there - not just a living truth table.

Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans. — Banno

You asked a lot of questions. I assume they were rhetorical then? For amusement. Fun.

And now I think you might need to learn more about paganism.

that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? — Banno

That is your own psychological issue - and a lot of people around here - disdain for the absolute and dogma. Despite the Spanish Inquisition, theology presupposes no such thing. I am a pretty solid Catholic - nothing, no pope, no dogma, no mystery - nothing oppresses me. I usually rely on reason, but I don’t even have to do that.

Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts. — Banno

Really?
@frank - you’ve been earnest with me? Betcha I’ve been more earnest with you..

a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate. — DifferentiatingEgg

Feel what way? What feeling am I talking about? Who is reciprocating on this thread?

I know more about Christianity than you do. — frank

Maybe. I don’t know.

One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," — Leontiskos

That’s enough. I can let someone have that. If they then want to ask about it and ask me how I believe it, and what I believe, I get the perplexity.

But if they are satisfied with that, and that “not able to be proven by natural reason” sums up the Trinity, and they have no honest question or curiosity about such believers, then it is certainly logical to assume a conversation about what the Trinity is will go nowhere. Which we have assumed from the beginning. Because we are logical.

The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation. — Leontiskos

I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions.

But unless there was an honest interest in what we are saying, they just won’t see the logic. It’s not like natural reason.

there is a difference between strict contradiction and merely apparent contradictions, or contradictions that arise through equivocation, or not making proper distinctions. And there is a difference between what is beyond human reason, or beyond the domain of logic and of univocal predication, and what is contrary to reason (contradictory). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with that 100%. And you said it well as usual.

I also do not think it contradicts any of the above for me to say this:

I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism. — Fire Ologist

But it was imprecise, and contradicts your quote above, for me to say this:

the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound. — Fire Ologist

This is said more precisely as “the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes apparent contradictions easily arise.”

I agree fully with everything C.S.Lewis said too. However, I think @Banno and @frank would say that the mere reference to three persons in one God is an occasion where “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.””

I disagree with Banno and Frank that the Trinity is meaningless and contradictory, but I grant (I think in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas) that it is very treacherous to attempt a straight logical line through it - though not impossible, but understandably difficult to speak about.

Let me digress to make a small point. It’s perfectly logical and there is no apparent contradiction to say there can only be one God. Without measuring God’s power, we can say God is the highest power, the immortal all powerful one. If there were two such beings, neither would be God, because neither would be highest or all powerful. God can have no equal nor anyone higher, and if you like a lesser God, we should just come up with a new term because anything under God is in some sense wholly and utterly unlike God. What about a lesser God makes them God at all? Makes no sense.

This is logic. Reason can conclude monotheism makes sense and non-monotheistic religions do not make sense when they use the term “God”.

If Frank and Banno were arguing against the logic of monotheism, we would need no revelation and would make no reference to mystery - it’s simple logical inference to say, if there is any God, there is only one God.

Now we Christians have been blessed to know this one God through the Son, as Father. And have come to learn the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and that the Son says he and the Father are one, and his spirit is God as he and the father are God. The church is the mystical Body of Christ, and his Bride, as when man and woman marry and become one flesh…

I see the logic in all of that. I can go on making distinctions, and correcting error (like some of the things Frank said make no sense and contradict what I said and what the Church says). And there is probably some error in what I just said, but I could be corrected, because there is a logic here.

I agree with you and @Leontiskos - the Trinity is the opposite of meaningless.

But I also see that, on its face, (from outside this milieu as Banno put it), if you did not hear the Son speak, a “Trinity” could easily appear to make little sense. It is like explaining in words how an apple tastes - the words only make sense to apple eaters. It’s sweet, but not like sugar, because it is tart but not so much as a lemon, and it crunches but not like a roasted walnut, because it is juicy, but drier than a plumb - we could go on and on but unless you ate an apple you might see only apparent contradiction.

So the OP was fairly doomed. Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curious, it is highly unlikely the detractors of Christianity will ever get a sense of how the Trinity really tastes. (God even gave us the Eucharist - he did his best to reach everyone from every angle! I have hope, which is why I keep posting…)

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask? — Fire Ologist

First of all, I think I differ a bit (slightly) from @Leontiskos and maybe @Count Timothy von Icarus.

I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism.

Like explaining why a song is beautiful - some things said will only make sense to someone who heard the song.

But we’ve heard enough of that on this thread already. Enough talking over each other’s heads.

To reset:

So what is a “self”? How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.)

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

Contradiction is a dead end, but only along one line of reasoning. We can hit the dead end, and reset to try another way.

I don’t ignore Freud because he divided the self into id, ego and superego, for instance. We can rationally consider Freud, and the difference between the superego and the id in the conscious and subconscious self, for instance, even though billions of people say the self is an illusion (including in many ways, me).

So @frank do you really wonder about the Christian narrative? Do you really wonder how some Christian can rationally discuss the “Trinity”, like Freud may have discussed a “self”?

Here is a premise: logic is like one of the senses; you can rely on it to penetrate the world, and live by it most days, but every so often it leads down a dead end (mirage/set of all sets, the infinite continuum of impossible becoming), even unto death and madness.

So maybe, sometimes, regarding some situations and certain subjects, relying ONLY on our senses and our reason will not deliver us from the dead end. Maybe beings like us have more that penetrates experience besides reason. Or our senses. We have understanding that usually follows after reason, but can understand and not know why or how just as well.

Logic isn’t God to me. It’s just a tool, like an eyeball.

Sometimes we can relate with things through our ears, but don’t see or can’t picture them at all. Other times we can relate to things that make no logical sense. That doesn’t mean those things can’t be seen; or can’t be logically explained (by me); but absent that vision or logic, it also doesn’t mean those things can’t can’t be beheld and talked about in other ways (by me).

To say “it’s a mystery” is still to logically identify an “it”. All logic isn’t lost in the notion of three persons in one God. It’s just not that simple.

Have I already abused language too much for you?

Not worthy of reply?

↪frank - I'll take that as a "no." — Leontiskos

Yep. No honest curiosity, or basic humble respect.

accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. — frank

How about, it’s not merely beyond comprehension. There are things we can say about God.

Can you accept that? It would seem you could if you were asking someone to explain the Christian narrative. But then, are you honestly asking for anything new?

There is no communication here, — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes. People “ask questions” without any sense of actual curiousity.

The reason the faithful beat this dead horse is because belief in God is attached to hope for all of us - we hope someone might be moved because we hope someone says something clarifying and true.

But yeah, I have no idea why I hope for you all, or me. I’m a mystery to myself.

Speaking to some people produces a contradiction of the word “communication”. We are all living explosions. The contradictory animal.

I just meant that where a mystery is accompanied by contradiction, you can derive anything; that's the principle of explosion. — jorndoe

I know.

So what is a “self”?
How is it that “you” and “me” are having this exchange; unless there is an identifiable “self” in each of us in which this “exchange” is taking place?

Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, like “I said to myself that there is no such thing as the ‘self’.”

Mystery abounds, and the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.

I just don’t thereby conclude from the contradiction that the subject of the mystery does not exist. I conclude I need to keep figuring out a way to talk about it.

So yes, you can derive anything if you want to hold a contradiction is not a contradiction. Or you can say that the contradiction only means the words still fail to capture the diction, and keep talking.

But there is no use talking about a mystery with someone who doesn’t believe in the mystery.

instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?" — Banno

This is off.

And I’m not judging you or your beliefs. I’m saying I, as a Catholic (if you are interested in how Catholics think) would never say it this way.

You brought the term “ought to believe” into it.

If there is a purely logical, rational accounting for the Trinity or God on a cross, we don’t ever need to ask the question “why ought?” If we could make a perfect syllogism concluding the Trinity then it’s no longer a question of “ought believe” - it’s just logical inference. It is just “must know”.

You are not really asking “why ought you believe this.”

So here is where the question “why ought I believe this” arises: you love and trust your father, he’s brought you life and raised you, and now he asks you to believe him and do something nonsensical as far as you can tell, but something he simply asked for and simply wants and that he says will help you like he helped you as a child - why ought I believe him? He defies my reason and logic? Why ought I believe him anyway?

That is where a question of “ought believe” arises.

This whole thread is about “what is the logic of Christianity” not “why ought I believe.”

Only after facing a situation where you truly ask yourself “why ought I believe” AND you choose to believe AND act in this belief accordingly, THEN you start to see the logic in it, and come up with pictures of trinities and God’s becoming human to sacrifice their own lives on a cross to rise before us and then leave us to continue our seeking….

It won’t make sense starting with a calculator set at 0. We ought not believe it if we are living in a purely rational world of IS and no real ought to choose from anyway.

But “ought” is real for us. We are like God in this way (which, in this thread, is ironic).

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible? — frank

Anything that defies logic is the definition of impossible.

Miracles are impossible, for instance. If there was an explanation, they might not be miraculous, unless the explanation was more impossibility, like a Triune God. Then they make perfect sense.

I'm just asking for a coherent account of the Trinity. — Banno

I’m sure you understand the concepts. Because you are picking them apart with logical precision.

God is one being.
But in this God, He is with Himself, because He proceeds from himself. God is gift, given, and received, at once.

So to make this easier to understand, let’s just say God is one being, in the person of the father, and the son and the Holy Spirit.

Worth any further analysis?

The next step isn’t done with a calculator (1+1+1=3 persons and/or =1God.)

The next step isn’t done with logic (because logic tells me this is nonsense so far).

The next step only occurs when you say “I don’t quite get the math or the logic yet, but what else does this mean about me and about God? What is the significance of a father and of a son? Why spirit?”

I do agree we have to get back to the logic and the math. It is important NOT to believe there two Gods, so math and reason are important there. We must use logic to see one God, and to distinguish a father from a son. So logic can’t be abandoned.

But why is God so difficult to grasp?

Maybe because God is difficult to grasp.

(Now I’m using the opposite of a contradiction, a tautology.)

why I believe in Judaism. It's because I explored all the world religions one by one and I chose it after a lifelong search — Hanover

I believe in the same God as you do. You just haven’t met the Messiah yet. You will. God promised Abraham. You will.

God bless brother.

watch out for explosions. — jorndoe

Life is full of peril. Trinity or not.

God the son told me his father and he are one God. It’s a bitch.

I think it’s everyone’s preconceived notions of what and who God is supposed to be that impede the clear meaning of his revelation, not the impossibility of it all - but that is just me, another fool Catholic.

How does that look from outside that milieu? — Banno

However it looks, I’m sure we’ve all been there on the outside of some impossible question with some subject - I’m sure there is mystery in your life for instance.

I’m not going to disrespect your curiosity or attempts to share observations about what is mysterious to you.

This thread could be about Catholicism, but it’s not.

If you think “It’s a mystery” equates to “so there is nothing anyone can say” then why ask?

I wouldn’t ask someone to explain themselves if I already thought (or knew) they had to be nonsensical.

The OP and most of what followed did not involve honest questions.

How does it work? — Banno

Some things are hard to say.

Some things work, but it is hard to say how.

That is the starting point. When talking about how Jesus on the cross is God, or how God is one while three persons. It’s going to be hard to say.

Do you think there is a step two? Honestly.

How do you think the milieu of this thread looks to someone who understands God anyway?

I don’t sense any real curiosity about Catholicism here.

A better approach might well be to accept that the Trinity is a mystery, and not to look for coherence. If that's your point, I'll agree. — Banno

Well, I agree it is impossible to simply grasp the Trinity, especially when trying to do so in a math class or a logic class.

But when two Christians are faced with what they believe Jesus said and meant when he said he and his father are one, they can make reasonable statements about it, to try to grapple with it and understand it more, and correct error about it and discover new facts. Just like two mathematicians grappling with the set of all sets. It’s incoherent, but still it is there to grapple with, to perplex, to face head on anyway.

In other words, yes it’s a mystery, but that doesn’t have to nothing more can be said. That doesn’t mean nothing can be said as true about the Trinity and no one can say other things are false about it. Ground can be covered while the mystery remains.

trinity is a mystery, then leave it as such — Banno

I think you can still reason about mysteries.

Like Frege and Russell did. “How the hell do sets collapse into impossibility?”

Do you think we can discover something new by changing the perspective in this way? — Astorre

I think we might discover a way to understand something (namely, being/becoming), that does not linguistically look rational.

Meaning, the way we normally talk follows a reasoning.

But there is no normal way to talk about “being” qua being. When we talk normally, and make our topic “being”, we impose things in the topic that obfuscate and cover up what we are trying to say.

When talking about being/becoming, it is often the case that with each word we use, we turn our attention away from being/becoming.

Like you said the question “What is being?” doesn’t even make sense in Russian. I think what we are discovering is that, while “being qua being” is mysterious, and therefore, worthy of inquiry and discussion, even if we discover some wisdom about it, it will be difficult to say or demonstrate with reasonable statements.

So short answer to your question is, yes, I do think a new perspective, or really a new eyeball, (a new logic), needs to be developed to philosophically (not metaphorically or mystically) talk about being/becoming. And your observation about what is present in some languages but not in others relating to something so basic as “is” are really good because they point to a newer method (way of looking - through linguistic analysis), and a bit of new wisdom as a result (being as a piece of Becoming, so to speak).

I think people who find themselves in opposition about God questions might actually show a bit more support for each other’s perspectives.

Set Theory is like a neutral ground to understand seeking to logically penetrate a mystery that seems impenetrable.

Sets obviously function.

But then there is the Set of all Sets - impossible and defies all logic (yet it keeps rearing its head and underpinning logical progress..)

This is a type of mystery in the face of clear evidence/logic. We sort of have to live with how simple sets clearly are useful, AND how sets are ultimately impossible. We can call this where logic meets mystery.

So we can give the believers in the mysterious Trinity a pass (letting them have their evidence AND letting them attempt to logically explain and make coherent something that seems must be a paradox and to yield contradictory statements).

I’m just saying, the emergence of mystery is not fatal and need not end the reasonable discussion.

The question is this: given enough time and computing power, can humanity eventually "discover" an interpretation that renders the text coherent? While in truth, inventing one out of whole cloth? — hypericin

That’s two totally different questions
1. Can we see the meaning in the text?
2. Would we fool ourselves that a reasoning we imposed on the text was in the text when it was not?

My answer to both is no, probably not (“definitely not for me, but Incant speak for everyone.)

Seems reasonable to assume it is language and text. But maybe it isn’t. But still seems reasonable to assume it was made by something sentient, like us, but maybe not. Until we find a Rosetta Stone, or a decryption key, confirming it is indeed a language at all, or even an artifact of a knowing being, I think most people would never get too far convincing others about the “meaning” of its “language.”

Did you see the movie “Contact” with Jodi Foster? They had a similar alien text problem. The aliens built in a decryption key to help other intelligent species learn the language. Neat movie.

There are numbers all over the place — frank

Like in order to have a single open and honest discussion, we have to first have half of such a discussion, and before that, half of that half…until we realize this goes on infinitely and a single open and honest discussion was impossible from the start. Too many numbers…

The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness. -Leontiskos — Joshs

Yes.

For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. — Joshs

Leon’s unconscious entities are neutral and just need to be brought to the fore. Leon is pointing to “what”.
Joshs unconscious entities are the “why and how” of importance.

Still yes.

how long we last until we start talking past one another. — Joshs

I admit my writing style is not the best, I go too fast, fail to edit, but I truly try to be open and honest and clear and respectful, and even grateful, and in-debted when I read some of the things you guys make so clear. My apologies. I can be a wise ass and even know I sound dismissive but I am truly not dismissive and would rather just know we all already can get along as people, like cousins, so we could hash out a good, blood soaked argument, never talking past anyone.

Calling each other out for saying something stupid is one thing. That doesn’t mean you aren’t also brilliant. At least that’s how I do it. (See, I just used a double-negative because that is how I would say it “doesn’t mean you aren’t”. Sorry! Internet is a blessing and a fickle bitch.)

“wokeness” concerns all of us. — Number2018

Yes.

the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. — Number2018

Wokeness is a reflection of the fact that precise definition and straight inquiry are challenging to come by. Wokeness embraces the challenge leaving the end, the overcoming and completion of the challenge, unfinished, without “precise definition” or “straight” lines of inquiry.

Yes.

Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. — Number2018

You could have stopped here to fix the point this makes to me: “It’s meaning shifts.”

So nothing you just said about where its meaning shifts (perspective,etc) is wrong at all. But I pause at simply the notion “woke’s meaning is a shifting thing, unfixed.” That, I think, is a perfectly neutral observation about “wokeism” - we are going to have leave some lines undefined and unclear if we are to clearly see “what is woke.” That’s what woke is - it resists to stagnant form embracing change qua change; but that is always woke. So when we draw the line and point clearly “that is woke - like trans rights are woke” - we are also pointing not to any clear lines but maybe to areas or frameworks or local systems of agreement…

Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. — Number2018

Yes, It is urgent. It is immediate, and self-evident at times, like injustice. This involved is real power that must be managed, and judged, and in support of calls to action, a morality.

Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness. — Number2018

This speaks to how it is undefined again. What is unconscious is the same qua unconscious for the woke and the anti-woke (qua unconscious). But this unconscious for the woke is a comfort level with ambiguity and undefined things. So it’s influence may be subtle but that is not intrinsic to wokeness - its influence could be dramatic and loud.

The term unconscious is often overused and should not be understood here in a purely psychological sense. Rather, it refers to a regime that operates across heterogeneous domains and builds a cumulative strategic resonance. — Number2018

Yes, that is part of the “how” Joshs was relating/contrasting with Deluze and the other writers.

[this produces] specific expressions — Number2018

Yes - there is a particular character, nevertheless, to the woke. (Like with anything, there is its particular character and how this blends in with its context…)

not as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts. — Number2018

Yes. The character of wokeness involves its context more than its own defined “in-itself” and this “affective and social” context IS where woke finds it clearest definition in its struggling self.

There is a lot more to say..

We now seem to be discussing how to discuss “How to develop methods of discussion” with a sub-topic “methods of discussing wokeness” (and a hope that we will eventually discuss wokeness itself).

Relativity tells us spacetime can be stretched, — flannel jesus

Ok - so invisible gravity has been replaced by space which stretch and compressed etc can be measured. Like things can be measured. Ok, I sit corrected. :up:

The arena — flannel jesus

But “arena” has to be analogy - it’s not an actual arena. It’s not like “space” can be a “thing-in-itself” like an arena is a thing.

So I’m not trying to argue against Einstein, or Newton, or you. I’m just saying it is all still, in my mind, “full of holes” (if holes can be used to fill something).

but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch — Fire Ologist

You forgot:

5. Pretty white girl who talks about her genes.
6. Someone who is having a seizure because they saw the ad.

Totally interesting video and great teacher. Will watch more videos.

So now that gravity isn’t a force, what the hell is space- time (with a curvature to it)?

We go from abracadabra to hocus-pocus.
Job security for people way smarter than me.

It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault. — praxis

Maybe, but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch: is the above stretch between a man taking over a women’s sporting event (maybe as a precedent for all women’s sports) and child abuse/sexual assault a bigger stretch than an ad with a pretty white girl talking about have good genes/jeans and being offended by her? I’d say only the woke hear that sort of dog-whistle. But all of the girls in surfing competition (if not everyone who watched, could see what was expressly being done (no whistle sensitivity needed).

We all go through an imperfect transporter, literally every moment of our lives. — SophistiCat

I agree.

There is the “Ship of Theseus” paradox -if you replace one board on a ship, it’s still the same ship; but if over time you replace all of the boards, one by one, at what point does it become a new ship or is it still the same ship after all of the boards have been replaced.

Pre-star trek transporter problem.

Like the birth of a caterpillar, then it enters the cocoon, then becomes a butterfly, orbit is the same creature?

Or the swimming tadpole becomes the tree climbing frog.

@Mijin -your line between you being transported or not is certainly an interesting philosophical problem, but I just think all of the sci-fi of transporters of scattered atoms recombined totally confuses an issue that has perplexed mankind since a person fist said “Hey, it’s me.”

Identity is the line between this and that.

Over time (or over space in the case of a transporter) the line between this identifiable one and that identifiable new one is stretched and broadened.

In a way, I am reborn at each new moment and each new moment is a brand new me.

In another way, I can only make this observation, because something I also call “me” persists and remains across many moments. It’s like two clocks are going at the same time in order for ‘me’ to recognize new “me’”.

From his own point of view, did he survive? — Mijin

See that is the problem with the transporter problem - that is a fact question. You’d have to ask him. You’d have to run him through a test transporter and ask him. What else is a ‘me’ but the one subject who reports when you ask “who’s there?” Once transported, If he couldn’t tell whether or not he died and was reborn, or died and was duplicated, or didn’t die at all, who else could possibly determine that and how? What or who would care?
You’d have to run the experiment, or just think about the Ship of Theseus.

I am sorry but I hate this problem. Why would anyone assume the Star Trek transporter could ever possibly work? If one assumed it could possibly work, one could assume any number of solutions to any number of assumed problems.

That said, if one assumes scattering all of the atoms in a living cell doesn’t irreparably disintegrate the cell, and if one assumes one can put all of those atoms back in place and that the cell would just jump start into functioning again (why do we assume you can transport atoms any faster than whole cells anyway, why don’t the atoms need to be broken apart into light waves or something, but…), then the transport process is just me being me while moving very far very fast and the differences between me before transport and me after transport are like the differences between me before walking across Europe and me after - things lost along the way and things gathered making me new with each step.

there has to be a line somewhere between "transported" and "not transported". Because, while "degree of difference" might be a continuous measure, whether you survive or not is binary — Mijin

I think that is the age old metaphysical question of identity and change. Transporter or not; surviving or not - these are ways of saying “what is ‘me’ when ‘me’ is a changing thing?” What about “me” survives one minute to the next no matter what process of change is occurring?

The fact that you can say things like “Abe Lincoln appears at the destination” makes the whole thought experiment utterly impossible to help think through this metaphysical issue. What is “Abe Lincoln” in the first place is the same question as “what appears at the other end of the transporter”, which are the same questions as “are what appears at this end of the transporter and that end of the transporter the same thing or two different things.”

The question is “what is an individual thing, or, what gives it an identity over time?”

This is Aristotle, or Heraclitus. Transporter confuses the confusing issue further. I think.

emotions are forms of judgment: They aren’t just feelings or reactions; they involve interpretation, appraisal, and meaning. — Joshs

Emotions are not just ways of thinking or judging, they are pre-reflective ways of being in the world, shaping how things matter to us. — Joshs

This is all very clarifying, but I think I disagree with some of the distinctions being made.

I would say judgments take account of emotions, but I don’t see how emotions could possibly be a “way of thinking or judging”.

Emotion is a psychological condition. It is like the body or the brain, something in which conscious thought sits. Emotion is disposition, and situates one’s conscious thought in the world. Emotion is like a higher form of sensation.

It can’t be a “way of thinking”. Emotion can be conceptualized and considered as evidence when thinking (but emoting itself is not a type of thinking). One can make judgments to follow the flow of emotion versus stopping to further deliberate and introduce concepts and other reasons. One can choose to go with one’s gut feel and not think too hard about something. This can be the best way to proceed (it’s a judgment call whether to think or not.)

The moment where a judgment is made, one is willing, intensional, about some mental object of thought. One judge’s the deliberation is over, enough evidence has been correlated into a coherent judgment, and one judges. This is reasoning or thinking - intellect and will in operation. But the moment of judgment is the end of this moment of reason. We sense - we reason - we judge. We gather experience through sensation, emotion and conceptualization; we reason about these and deliberate (forming many interim judgments); and then we make the ultimate judgment - we stop thinking and otherwise act.

One feels scared as one senses an angry bear, but one further observes the bear is focused on something else and one reasons the bear is not aware of you so one can judge what to do next. Feeling scared is important evidence to do the right thing. We can short-circuit to the moment of judgment and act immediately out of fear - but in doing so, this is not a “way of thinking” but is not thinking at all. We could also swallow our fear, and be courageous and stay still and quiet to think about what to do next.

There are not two different tracks or circuits here that we judge which to follow. We don’t act on emotion OR act on reason. Emotion is always there, like the body is. We are on one track and either incorporate sensation, emotion, AND intellectual activity all before judgment, or we skip one of these steps.

One can see the American Eagle ad and immediately feel outrage, and act angry, and try to construct an argument about how outrage is reasonable or go protest, or deliberate about what is happening to you by this ad before acting at all, before judging your emotions are reasonable evidence of the world and state of affairs.

Your position, like that of Leontiskos, harks back to an older way of thinking about this relation, wherein emotion and reason run on partially independent circuits, and emotion can distort or inhibit rational processes of thinking. — Joshs

I think my position is less clear than that.

I would say that reasoning is an act of the will and the intellect. A synonym for “to reason” would be “to deliberate”. So will and intellect must simultaneously be at work to reason. Emotion can consume the will or, like a stoic, be subsumed by the will. So emotion is not on a parallel track, or prior to, reason. It’s all in the mix.

What I describe is not very clear, even to me, but I think it is more clear than what I see you describing of Deluze (who I’ve read a little) and Witt (read a bit more). I see carts and horses being moved around, but not much clarity regarding independent circuits being identified.

A critique or even assessment of wokeness can feel ad hoc (and therefore unsympathetic) if it is not situated within a broader theory of error or understanding/assessing. — Leontiskos

That should have been more plainly said by the critic of the critique/assessment. Are you trying to be woke about criticizing wokeness?

perhaps it will help for me to acknowledge that the general error of the woke is not only found elsewhere, but is actually the basis for almost all bad/evil acts of judgment whatsoever. — Leontiskos

True. So maybe what is peculiar about “wokeness” has not been peculiar at all? “Woke” is merely a new window dressing, a new word, for erroneous justification of emotional conviction?

many of our decisions become automatized, almost unconscious. This condition affects not only those identified as “woke” but all of us. Woke individuals primarely remain anchored in a relatively localized domain, where they can continuously demonstrate their vigorous sense of moral rightness and commitment to justice. In doing so, they vividly illustrate how rationality can become subsumed by the impact of ‘the short-circuit’. — Number2018

I think all of this all makes sense, and should continue to be fleshed out, but I also think we may be unnecessarily leaping ahead.

Woke is peculiar. Woke is not just a general neglect of reason, but a particularly focused liberal/progressive brand. Have we defined it enough to go so general as to all error theory?

Eichmann's reason became a slave to his passions, at least if we see Nazism as part of his passions. — Leontiskos

So we can find the same kind of error building leads to following and promoting Nazi ideology, as might lead to following and promoting woke ideology.

Eichmann’s work duties amounted to a network of language games authorized by a form of life which made his work life intelligible to him both practically and ethically. — Joshs

This seems to position things not in emotion, but in a stipulated rational framework called the Nazi.

Affect cannot influence rationality from below — Joshs

Is this a reframing of the source of error? Or are we moving away from error making? In which case we are drifting from our thesis it seems. @Joshs how do you think woke or Eichmann avoid error and emotional trigger.

However, for Deleuze and Massumi, as well as according to Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, affect is the necessary condition of reason and deliberation. My position is that true progress in thought requires an acknowledgment of how we, and our thinking are impacted by the same affective forces and assemblages that shaped figures like Eichmann or contemporary "woke" individuals. This is not a moral equivalence but an ontological and epistemological commitment. Affective investments shape all subjectivity, including our own. — Number2018

Bringing it back home again to the thesis.

So we no longer need care about what is different between “woke” and “Nazi” in order to discuss this subject?

I think error theory is essential here - wokism is error obfuscation. And wokism puts emotion first. But why would the wokist and the Nazi come to such opposite conclusions?

If emotions only, is it random whether a willfully neglect person will become a Nazi or woke?

I mean, both use similar tactics in promoting their ideology, so maybe they are only separated by circumstance? Emotional error makers born in Germany around 1915 who hear Hitler speak are more likely to become Nazis than progressives, and emotional error makers born in America around 1990 who hear the TV and go to school are more likely to become woke? Is that where this analysis is headed?

I’m curious if you think it would be appropriate for wokeists to ignore something like this: — praxis

That’s an interesting way to frame the question.

I am totally interested in what you think something like this is.

I can’t imagine how to go from what this ad says/means, to what this ad REALLY says/means, to whether that is something that either demands response or that can be ignored.

The notion “good genes”?

Yesterday I was talking with my cousin about heart disease in my family, and then with another cousin (different genes) about who is tall in our family. In both conversations the phrase “good genes” came up.

I barely get the pun - she has “good genes” because she’s pretty I suppose. Is there something more I need to know about the model? She’s white? White people can’t say “genes” anymore? So if the ad only had people of color in it, they would be allowed to make this pun to sell jeans?

Yes it should be ignored for two reasons:
1. It takes too much effort and racism inside someone to be offended at this ad (at least she’s not naked) so they should fight to resist that racist urge and ignore the ad.
2. Giving it any attention at all only promotes American Eagle, so if you can’t help yourself but find something deep in the ad that is offensive to non-white or non-pretty people, it would have been better not to repost the ad and talk about it and get it in the news.

But outrage attracts in own attention and gets clicks and likes - so have at it - seems like a minuscule issue that could easily have been ignored and makes the “woke” look bad. Again.

Wish you would say what you think. Why is it something more than a silly pun on “genes” - what is it really saying that is offensive, so much so that it is not appropriate for it to be ignored?

A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored — Leontiskos

That’s what I’m getting at with the comment about the lack of wisdom. The emotional response to systemic power differences usurps good judgement.

ADDED:

that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. — Leontiskos

Yes, like we all do in adolescence. This is how to avoid reasonable discussion. Willing disregard for the reasonable, and anger at the annoyance.

they remain at a primarily descriptive level and lack sufficient explanatory power. — Number2018

I agree - I am more analyzing the effects caused by wokeness, than I am getting to heart of what it is, what drives the emergence of these effects.

apply a theory of affect to approach wokeness as an affective phenomenon. Its rituals of calling out and moral absolutism reflect a particular mode of being, a form of emergent subjectivity. — Number2018

I like it. It’s why my instinct was to place emotion as the first point.

I think affection is at the heart wokeness.

So we leave that fixed as the number one component of something having some explanatory power.

I think an impulse to resist, which may be emotional, needs to be analyzed. Like an adolescent psychology - the first impulse of the woke when perceiving anything as coming from the powerful is to say “No - I disagree, I will resist.”

They have a built in power-detecting filter.

This forces reason, and discussion, as secondary to the emotion. So this further elaborates on how the affective phenomenon plays out.

But I think reason and discussion and argument are at the very heart of being human, so if we do not understand better how the affective creature that is a woke person reasons, we won’t fully explain the phenomenon.

We can’t just say they are guided by emotion, because they use reason and argument all of the time. We need to think through the fact that the woke are as fully human as anyone - I love them too, but they are just wrong - how?

I think the key is wisdom and judgment - the woke, like adolescent, simply lack an interest in learning and cultivating wisdom. They think as the the adolescent thinks that, because some bit of enlightenment is new to them, they are the first person in history to come up with wisdom and so they don’t need to listen to others. And besides, wisdom always seems to come from the powerful, and because they impulsively resist the powerful, they just don’t hear the wisdom from them. Wisdom and “my truth” are mine first, and maybe from those people I like (peers).

So they can be intelligent people, even skilled at logical argumentation, but the objects they argue about or judge to be important are just not always apt.

They view a lack of clarity as an openness to diversity, when it may just be a lack of self-awareness about the fact that they don’t know what they are talking about. That’s poor judgment. And instead of finding wise leaders, they dig in on some hill.

The woke see two things, and look for which has power over the other. It’s sort of a baked in reality that is most important to them - victims and oppressors are absolute and everywhere where two things sit next to each other. They hate this, and so fight for egalitarian leveling. But they don’t take time time to discern what can be equal and what cannot. They don’t ask which one between the powerful and the powerless might be good and which might not matter. The oppressed always matter more, and the powerful always only abuse and oppress. This is poor judgment.

This is why woke feminists can’t integrate with woke trans, and why racial motivations made Obama outshine Hillary in the 2008 election. Racism is a deeper hatred and more impactful fight than feminism (at the time). And now trans is more stark and better battle than what “woman” means (trans is at war with race as well). Since women now have power over transwomen, women may need to be resisted and take men down now.

Wokeism doesn’t really have the criteria built into itself to ensure justice between the feminist and transactivist. They just hope they can feel their way to the right villain and take them down.

It’s poor judgment finding poorly designed categories for sake of barely identified goals, summed up as fight the power.

So, there is not only an affective explanation, but a judgmental resistance to the logical if that logic comes from a station with power.

Basically, any relation that can mean anything at all involves three things:
-An object that is known (the Father)
-The sign vehicle by which it is known (the Word/Logos, Son)
-The interpretant who knows (the Holy Spirit) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now, science often tries to view things a dyads, but it does this with simplifying assumptions and by attempting to abstract the observer out of the picture. There ends up being problems here for all sorts of things (e.g., entropy, information, etc.), but more to the point, true dyadic relationships don't seem to appear anywhere in nature. Everything is mediated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Love it.

I find this actually flows from Heraclitus:
1. Harmony/tension, flows from 2. this, and 3. Its opposite.
(And of course he acknowledged the logos that endeavors to mirror this, or to be held in tension with it.)

And Aristotle:
1. Matter/form, 2. Material informing agent, and 3. unifying final principle (where matter and form can first be intelligible as distinct from one another; the final cause is what allows the agent to see “not this matter, but that matter is necessary, to make this form, not that form,” so it is here that we can elaborate on number 1 being separated into two distinct causes - the first semiotic product of the ontologically real.)
Or for Aristotle:
1. A substance, is 2. an essence, 3. that comes to be.

Trinity is fabric. The triad is the One. (Can’t really be said logically, but is necessary ontologically before one might say anything at all.)

Think of experiencing a flow of events as a bit like watching a film. For something to be happening at all, the viewer makes a connection between each frame of the film, spanning the small differences so as to create the experience of movement. But if there is a completely new viewer for every frame, with no relation at all to the prior or subsequent frame, then all that remains is an absolute unity.

That is brilliant.

For all to be swept up in becoming, ALL cannot be swept up in becoming. We have to put a pin in the intuitive notion that “all is flux” in order to have the intuitive notion that “all is flux.”

(What is odd but I think worth noting is that very much the same arguments and points have to be made on threads about theory of mind as in theories of motion/essence. The same or similar paradoxes and same difficulties with making clear linear arguments abound in notions of mind as in notions of what the mind experiences. But the above analogy is clear, and I would love to hear what a Hume or a Heraclitus might say in response.)

But information theory deals with "what something is," and not "that it is," essence but not existence. It skips the former. We can see this in the fact that a perfect set of instructions to duplicate any physical system would not, in fact, be that system. A perfect duplicator, call it Leplace's Printer, needs both instructions and prior existent materials — Count Timothy von Icarus

This another example of the problem of the One and the Many. Instructions (the one) fail to explain the duplicates (the many), but how the many duplicates can be the same instructions is not clear either.