iambiguous wrote:Ierrellus wrote:How does one communicate an experience? It can only be done intersubjectively when both of those who would communicate agree that there is something in each which is like the other. Iamb's Dasein, etc. formula reminds me of my former fundamentalist religious ideas, ideas that crippled my youth. Yet this idea of afterlife and quid pro quo salvation sustain Iamb's chosen view of life in conflict. I could care less about what happens to me in an afterlife. If Iamb were serious about wanting a belief that offers hope, he could have it. But the hope needs to be down to Earth, a hope for a better future for all living beings, not of some pie in the sky, after death reward--an idea which Nietzsche well refutes in "Zarathustra".
What iambiguous is serious about is discussing general description intellectual contraptions of this sort given a particular set of circumstances involving conflicting goods that progressive Christians react to in connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
Also, a serious discussion regarding the manner in which you came to acquire the things that you do believe are true "in your head" about God and religion in the manner in which I explored that here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
It's not about you being "dumb" but about you're refusal to bring progressive Christianity down to earth.
You are merely seeing the topicality of the arguments, biggy, and that creates a dilemma.
The reasoning You present makes sense, but not irrevocably. Beneath the surface, there are myriad considerations which should be addressed.
I am grappling with them as well, and take the Theistic aspects versus the atheistic ones surrounding the central issues.
God conceived as an idea may be a formal approach, and Das Ein and all the arguments about it have been exhaustively treated, in and out of ILP
To me, Buddhism makes more sense in this regard. and particularly the notion that relates to the Theistic conception.
Karmic effects underscore even the Platonic preoccupation that can be visualized by allusions to a ladder of progressive evolution of virtuous behavior.
I met William Burroughs a while back
and he denied familiarity with the idea that pertains to this, and the cinsequent proof, relating to this, but will fill in at a later time as to the work and author.
But for now, let it suffice by weighing the Tantric idea of practicing Kundalini, as basically pertinent, on practical aspects of sexual behavior.
Heidegger's involvement in Oriental philosophy is no coincidence , hers, and this also can be investigated here, if interested.
Wilhelm Reich is diametrically opposed, and that is part and parcel to the failure of psychoanalysis, as well as it,s tangency to the political and psychological philosophy of Marx, but that may be a stretch.
If we have gotten this far, please give me a heads up.