Defeat JK in exchange . . . | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Philosophy
JK
JK Oct 12 '13

Quote from Entropic At what point are children considered human beings?
Indeed. This is the question at hand.

And really, it's not pretty. Generally, the "age of consent" is about 7-8. Now granted, that's not always optimal, but nevertheless, real.

This is why parents are so important.

JK
Davidson
Davidson Oct 15 '13
Quote from JK
Quote from Dyavol you can't expect me to demonstrate


Quote from JK Demonstrate, or STFU.


Quote from Dyavol Are you a hypocrite or blind to your own stupidity and basic context? glgl

I certainly hope we're clear.

JK

Cute, you avoided directly addressing anything I said then removed context to make me look like a hypocrite.


Considering our conversation has reached this point. You asked me to demonstrate from the perception I originally entered


You said at the sect, that it was said that I judged whether or not I entered conflict and drama based on the intention of it. 


I interpreted this as, you disaproved of the decision


With that intepretation I thought it was hypocritical considering in a JK vid, either the ONA or venus satanas. You said you refused to comment or enter into a particular drama because you " knew nothing you said would make a difference". 


But you said here that you were critising something else.


So now I ask, what were you critising?

JK
JK Oct 16 '13

Quote from jack_macleod Prove the existence of an acausal universe populated by acausal beings as described in the writings of D.W. Myatt. Describe the mechanism by which this acausal universe interacts with the causal (phenomenal) universe and prove the existence of this mechanism.

Well, that's certainly tough, but I did ask for it, didn't I?

The acausal is, in my reading of Myatt the closest thing to a "god concept," while at the same time being more like Aquino's "Isolate Consciousness" than any type of physical (i.e. causal) organism. Although Myatt and Aquino are similar in that they treat this underlying, pervasive thing as somehow alien, Myatt is more the naturalist in his approach, somewhat ironically.

Plato's forms, Jungs archetypes, and Myatt's acausal all address a type of mental observation about the nature of the world. Although, among the three philosophers, there is a bit of difference regarding ontology proper. Myatt to me in this regard is perhaps the most interesting because I read him as something of an ontological nihilist. This isn't to say that he a nihilist proper, in fact, his philosophy is anything but. But just that he views ontology as the most useless field of enquiry for living beings.

I think this is why he chose "acausal" rather than the more precise "trans-causal". Above all else, Myatt's thought is world-affirming rather than world-denying. He genuinely cares, in other words.

So, long story short, and back to the challenge at hand: prove the acausal . . .

It can't be done. In fact, I tend to think Mr. Myatt would laugh at me if I tried. The acausal is not a thing for proof. It is the thing that manifests.

JK
The Forum post is edited by JK Oct 16 '13
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Oct 17 '13

Quote from JK = the demonstrable immeasurability of a particular/unique thing.

Why should "demonstable immesurability" constitute Divinity and not merely otherness or the naturally occult? 

I wouldn't be so picky about idiosyncratic definitions, except that the topic at hand is capital-"d" Divinity, and the problem of definition (or the impossibility thereof) is most of the game, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I propose an alternative.  Belief in the divine may be stated equivalently as belief in a realized Perfection of (M)an.  This could entail belief that such a Perfection is attainable through esoteric or other means.  It may manifest as the belief that  the human subject in some way "emanates" from a perfect archon or simulacrum of itself.  In most cases I observe the two together, like right and left gloves.
The Forum post is edited by Hatepeach Oct 17 '13
JK
JK Oct 17 '13

Quote from Hatepeach Why should "demonstable immesurability" constitute Divinity and not merely otherness or the naturally occult?

The idea is basically that for anything to truly be classed "divine" (the capital is irrelevant to the conceptual potency) it must be a thing which transcends any possible finite measurement.

The really interesting thing happens when we consider that such quantities (definite, yet immeasurable) are only known through "Ratio," which is comparison, or ma-rigpa. And such is the nature of mind (small m).

So, for me, divinity (properly, the transcendent divine) is intuited by the very virtue of the constraining factors which allow it (properly, dharmakaya) to be a thing beyond intuition.

When it snaps, it makes the only sense possible. But until then, my points above will have an isomorphism to all the commonly encountered proofs of theism. Which is why many consider me to be a defender of that immediately prior concept.

"How can a thing both invite infinite intimacy (Skt. measure) and infinite evasion?" - Avalokitesvara
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 17 '13
Quote from JK it must be a thing which transcends any possible finite measurement.

I concur with Hatepeach, doesn't man qualify?  Case in point, man invented Theism.  Just sayin'
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Oct 20 '13
My sticking point is this.  Being without limit or beyond the capacity to measure is only one property associated with the Divine, and it doesn't follow logically that anything which shares that characteristic is Divine itself.  I'm perfectly square with the idea that G-d is Divine, G-d is infinite, G-d is metaphysical.  What's not square for me is ascribing Divinity to every metaphysical infinitude.  Why should immeasurability be the prime criterion when so many more relevant ones (such as moral perfection) might be considered?
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 20 '13
Quite frankly, it's the opposite.  To glorify an ideal to the level of Divine, the apotheosis is measurable.  Case in point, Octavius was exalted a Divinity due to his measurable qualities, to his credit the Pax Romana. 
JK
JK Oct 20 '13

Quote from Hatepeach Why should immeasurability be the prime criterion when so many more relevant ones (such as moral perfection) might be considered?

If a thing (anything) is finite, then it is definitely capable of delimitation. And such a delimited thing does not in any way reach beyond such delimitations for an explanation of its existing.

In short, if you can't point to something that defies physical constraints, all you are left with is materialism. The atheists kill this point all day.

The only way to argue to divinity (imho) is to demonstrate transcendence (i.e. necessity).

JK
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Oct 21 '13

Quote from JK The only way to argue to divinity (imho) is to demonstrate transcendence (i.e. necessity).

I hope I haven't given the impression that I disagree with or fail to understand the above, but maybe I haven't stated my contention with you very clearly.  Again, what is your justification for conflating mathematical and structural transcendence with the concept of Divinity?  If that's the definition that you choose to use, why would anyone confuse you with a Theist?
JK
JK Oct 22 '13

Quote from Meq
Quote from Hatepeach Again, what is your justification for conflating mathematical and structural transcendence with the concept of Divinity?

I'm guessing that's a neo-Pythagorean reading of mathematical transcendence.

Pretty much, Meq. The idea is basically that if a real thing (or things) is (are) demonstrably incapable of any finite delimitation, it cannot be the outcome of any finite mechanism. This leaves only some unspecified infinite mechanism(s) as possible explanations. Now normally, such mechanisms are personified as gods and such, but this is just the anthropomorphic lens we tend to use in order to fit such a Beast into the box of Meaning.

So, I chose the word "divinity" due to it maintaining the best denotive flexibility while neutering (at least some of) the anthropomorphizations mentioned above. To my analysis, divinity is a quality of existence, and definitely neither a cause nor a person. And to speak to something Alison said above, it is a quality of all existence. It is just most easily demonstrated mathematically. 

JK
Pages: « 1 2

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.