Pedro I Rengel wrote:Still with your poetic psychologisms, I see.
Sure, I can humiliate you here too. But I'm not a cruel man. I'll stick to thumping you over on the corner. Where phoneutria can weigh in.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Still with your poetic psychologisms, I see.
Ierrellus wrote: And, once again Iamb adds nothing to the discussion but his own personal agenda.
Pedro, I use the word personal in my argument not to stand for personal opinions such as those of Iamb, but in realization of actual experience.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:I tend to have the same idea.
There is this idea that you have to comprehend reality as out of experience, that experience will lie to you and that bias is confusion. That the chemically reckoned components of a pea are true, while the deliciousness of it is only illusion, granted by evolution to help the animal gravitate to certain bias-less, personal experience-less, universally true chemical elements. But this idea misses that the only reason you have an analysis of the pea reckoned in chemical terms to begin with is the deliciousness of the pea.
So the question becomes not so much in what way humans are impersonal, but in what way the world is personal. Which will of course in turn cause the investigator to bring into doubt everything they had until then understood as person. And then, as well, what is known as the physical world is no longer an obvious starting point (nor are any of a million promulgated starting points, like meditative spirituality of any dogma, or morality, or metaphysics). It is a true scientist's perspective because it accepts no previous answers, cannot accept them, as that would taint the investigation.
Ierrellus wrote:So I lack intellectual integrity. Poor me for not confining my argument to Iamb's narrow limitations.
I outgrew the evangelicals, probably by reading more books than they are able to read.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Old Testament is where it's at anyway Irell, I feel you.
Ierrellus wrote:Note to Iamb.
Your attempts to destroy my thread have not been unnoticed. Regardless of those, I will not succumb to your narrow agenda. And I don't think Pedro needs to go there either. The world of conflicting goods is the old world which needs to be overcome. Why you cling to the status quo as if it were the only possible reality, I haven't a clue. Are you capable of caring whether or not your grandchildren and the Earth itself have a viable future, a destiny of improvement over what now is?
Pedro I Rengel wrote:The problem Irrellus poses is very far beyond such petty considerations as "why is God such a dick?" The problem he poses is: how can evolution be reckoned while accounting for everything, which it would have to. See, a purely materialistic study of evolution leaves out, well really most of what experience is. A scientific quesiton is: how does evolution include teleology? Teleology exists. So how is it involved in evolution?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users