Thread: cargo cults

interesting wiki article,
isolated villagers worshipping americans and stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1skNgYdJXK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMkVxry-YJI

It's interesting how the cargo cults demonstrated how easily religions can sprout up through sheer ignorance. As hard evidence, it may very well demonstrate how all religions started.

I also find it interesting that these cargo cult religionists amazingly manage, via their respective doctrine; to use their supposed deities in the interests of the promotion of themselves (being the 'true believers') as the rightful recipients of the cargo.

However the question will always remain as to whether the worship was all about the spiritual deity as theorized, or the obviously physical cargo?

I find it interesting that they have this natural predisposition to recognize something as greater than themselves

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I find it interesting that they have this natural predisposition to recognize something as greater than themselves

It certainly is fascinating from a social sciences/human psychology perspective to notice that pre-scientific cultures tend to assign agency to things they cannot explain via some other method. I don't think this is sound argumentation for their being "a higher power" though.

For example, most children have fears of boogeymen, but that we all have this common fear doesn't mean there really are monsters underneath any of our beds.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I also find it interesting that these cargo cult religionists amazingly manage, via their respective doctrine; to use their supposed deities in the interests of the promotion of themselves (being the 'true believers') as the rightful recipients of the cargo.

However the question will always remain as to whether the worship was all about the spiritual deity as theorized, or the obviously physical cargo?

obviously for the cargo, just as the worship of god is to get into heaven, and not burn in hell.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I also find it interesting that these cargo cult religionists amazingly manage, via their respective doctrine; to use their supposed deities in the interests of the promotion of themselves (being the 'true believers') as the rightful recipients of the cargo.

However the question will always remain as to whether the worship was all about the spiritual deity as theorized, or the obviously physical cargo?

obviously for the cargo, just as the worship of god is to get into heaven, and not burn in hell.

Obviously a religionist's response, however I will reiterate a previous point, now in your direction, my friend - beware ye the leaven of the Pharisees.

Clearly you have little more insight than any 6 year old on your mentioned 'god', his 'heaven'; and 'hell', for these are all spiritual terms, which necessarily requires them to have zero physical quality to them. Yet religious people continue to pin their hopes in the physical - just as these natives looked for their salvation in the physicality of the cargo goods - rather than their (supposed) half spiritual / half physical 'god' - who like all predecessors; will forever remain as nothing more substantial than yet another concocted imagining of religiously minded man.

Obviously a religionist's response,

Huh?

Originally Posted by dejawolf

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I also find it interesting that these cargo cult religionists amazingly manage, via their respective doctrine; to use their supposed deities in the interests of the promotion of themselves (being the 'true believers') as the rightful recipients of the cargo.

However the question will always remain as to whether the worship was all about the spiritual deity as theorized, or the obviously physical cargo?

obviously for the cargo, just as the worship of god is to get into heaven, and not burn in hell.

I guess in one sense, with all our over hyped zeal in technology, we are also cargo cultists

[quote="PhoenixG"]

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I find it interesting that they have this natural predisposition to recognize something as greater than themselves

It certainly is fascinating from a social sciences/human psychology perspective to notice that pre-scientific cultures tend to assign agency to things they cannot explain via some other method. I don't think this is sound argumentation for their being "a higher power" though.[quote]
of course there is a (quite literal) higher power involved

For example, most children have fears of boogeymen, but that we all have this common fear doesn't mean there really are monsters underneath any of our beds.

I'm not sure what direction you are trying to take with this.

Even in the case of bogeymen there is the clear example of a predisposition to a higher power than one's self

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

of course there is a (quite literal) higher power involved

The way I see it, there are two alternatives:

1) You have evidence to support this or
2) This is conjecture.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm not sure what direction you are trying to take with this.

That our shared experience of imagined things does not make them real.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Even in the case of bogeymen there is the clear example of a predisposition to a higher power than one's self

I don't know that I would categorize monsters under the bed as a "higher power than one's self".

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

of course there is a (quite literal) higher power involved

The way I see it, there are two alternatives:

1) You have evidence to support this or
2) This is conjecture.

I'm not sure I follow?

You don't think there is any evidence that the cultists had a way a life which involved (in their opinion) higher powers?

Or is it your opinion that there are no higher powers involved in the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe?

(PS - If your arguing the later, I think you are way out of your league)

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm not sure what direction you are trying to take with this.

That our shared experience of imagined things does not make them real.

Certainly.

However when you try to suggest that human culture can exist without the display of awe and reverence to some object/form/ideal (of course whether they are actually deserving of such awe and reverence is something else) its not clear what consensus of experience you are calling upon, much less what evidence there is for this claim.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Even in the case of bogeymen there is the clear example of a predisposition to a higher power than one's self

I don't know that I would categorize monsters under the bed as a "higher power than one's self".

explaining that to a 4 year old is probably just as difficult as explaining to a dying gross materialist that there are issues of self beyond the body

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm not sure I follow?

You are making a claim that there is a literal higher power. Here is the quote again for clarity:

"of course there is a (quite literal) higher power involved"

Per my post, you either have evidence to support this or you do not (meaning that it's conjecture on your part). I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You don't think there is any evidence that the cultists had a way a life which involved (in their opinion) higher powers?

Actual higher powers or a belief in higher powers? Again, belief of something is not evidence for something.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Or is it your opinion that there are no higher powers involved in the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe?

I have yet to see any evidence for any such "higher powers", therefore I don't see any reason to believe in them. If/when evidence is forthcoming, I shall have to re-evaluate my position.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

(PS - If your arguing the later, I think you are way out of your league)

I guess we shall have to see about that.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Certainly.

However when you try to suggest that human culture can exist without the display of awe and reverence to some object/form/ideal (of course whether they are actually deserving of such awe and reverence is something else) its not clear what consensus of experience you are calling upon, much less what evidence there is for this claim.

I'm not sure what this means. I suppose it is arguable as to whether or not "feelings of awe" (I'm ignoring "reverence" because I don't care much for double-barreled arguments) are necessary for our survival, but I do think it fairly safe to conclude that most people have them.

All that is though is evidence that human animals are generally capable of an emotion that we call "awe". So what?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

explaining that to a 4 year old is probably just as difficult as explaining to a dying gross materialist that there are issues of self beyond the body

Gee, I was hoping that we could talk to some adults. Unless of course you are suggesting that theists share the emotional development of 4 year olds. Personally, I like to think that all adults are capable of more than that.

The reality is that we have no evidence for "issues of self beyond the body". Accepting such claims without evidence is superstitious wishful thinking, and while such thinking might be as comforting as a nite-lite, that doesn't make it reality. The same thing goes for un-observable "higher powers".

Thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm not sure I follow?

You are making a claim that there is a literal higher power. Here is the quote again for clarity:

"of course there is a (quite literal) higher power involved"

actually I am making a claim that the cargo cult involves issues of higher powers (and extending that to say its typical of all cultures, even those in the lower rungs of gross materialism)

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You don't think there is any evidence that the cultists had a way a life which involved (in their opinion) higher powers?

Actual higher powers or a belief in higher powers? Again, belief of something is not evidence for something.

socially speaking, their culture is atypical.
If you have an example of culture, community or even sub culture that doesn't involve higher powers, perhaps you would have something to talk about

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Or is it your opinion that there are no higher powers involved in the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe?

I have yet to see any evidence for any such "higher powers", therefore I don't see any reason to believe in them. If/when evidence is forthcoming, I shall have to re-evaluate my position.

let me ask it another way

Do you consider yourself the topmost entity in the universe or do you think that there are persons/cultural tropes that have greatly influenced the construction of your sense of self?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

(PS - If your arguing the later, I think you are way out of your league)

I guess we shall have to see about that.

feel free to explain how you exist in a cultural vacuum or a culture that places you at the pinnacle of perfection

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Certainly.

However when you try to suggest that human culture can exist without the display of awe and reverence to some object/form/ideal (of course whether they are actually deserving of such awe and reverence is something else) its not clear what consensus of experience you are calling upon, much less what evidence there is for this claim.

I'm not sure what this means. I suppose it is arguable as to whether or not "feelings of awe" (I'm ignoring "reverence" because I don't care much for double-barreled arguments) are necessary for our survival, but I do think it fairly safe to conclude that most people have them.

Most?
Why fall short of "all"?
Feel free to provide evidence.

All that is though is evidence that human animals are generally capable of an emotion that we call "awe". So what?

I'm not sure what you called upon to bring it to merely "generally capable"

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

explaining that to a 4 year old is probably just as difficult as explaining to a dying gross materialist that there are issues of self beyond the body

Gee, I was hoping that we could talk to some adults. Unless of course you are suggesting that theists share the emotional development of 4 year olds. Personally, I like to think that all adults are capable of more than that.
Actually I was suggesting that the framework of "what is knowable" is constructed differently according to individuals.

The reality is that we have no evidence for "issues of self beyond the body".

"evidence" is a philosophically surcharged term

Accepting such claims without evidence is superstitious wishful thinking, and while such thinking might be as comforting as a nite-lite, that doesn't make it reality. The same thing goes for un-observable "higher powers".

Its not so much about asking you to accept something without evidence but asking you to examine the framework in which you deem "what is knowable" is constructed

[quoteThanks for your post.[/quote]
anytime

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

actually I am making a claim that the cargo cult involves issues of higher powers (and extending that to say its typical of all cultures, even those in the lower rungs of gross materialism)

"involves issues of higher powers". I don't know what this means. "Involves" what how?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

socially speaking, their culture is atypical.

You didn't answer my question or address my point. This sentence appears quite random with relation to what you quoted.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you have an example of culture, community or even sub culture that doesn't involve higher powers, perhaps you would have something to talk about

Again, actual higher powers or a belief in higher powers? Regarding the former, I would say that unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to accept that any cultures have "higher powers". In regards to the latter, I would direct you towards your local atheist.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

let me ask it another way

Do you consider yourself the topmost entity in the universe or do you think that there are persons/cultural tropes that have greatly influenced the construction of your sense of self?

You're moving the goal post. The original question was if I believe in a higher power that was involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe. Potential influences upon my concept of self is a completely different animal. Even if it were somehow relevant, I think you'd be using "higher power" very liberally (I don't think the guys from the Reasonable Doubts podcast constitute a higher power, even though their discussion regarding free will vs determinism have greatly influence my thinking on the concept of self).

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

feel free to explain how you exist in a cultural vacuum or a culture that places you at the pinnacle of perfection

I don't need to because I'm not making that claim. I will point out again that this sudden shift from "higher power/creator-maintainer of the universe" to "higher power/cultural influences" seems more than a little disingenuous on your part.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Most?
Why fall short of "all"?
Feel free to provide evidence.

Because "some" people are incapable of such experiences (i.e. birth defects, mental retardation, brain injury, emotional trauma, etc). "All" would fail to account for these cases. Therefore I try to avoid building traps for myself by using absolutes.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm not sure what you called upon to bring it to merely "generally capable"

Same as above. I generally try to avoid absolutes. You're free to use them as much as you'd like.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Actually I was suggesting that the framework of "what is knowable" is constructed differently according to individuals.

Again, I don't see what relevance this has to what you were quoting.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

"evidence" is a philosophically surcharged term

This isn't an argument.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Its not so much about asking you to accept something without evidence but asking you to examine the framework in which you deem "what is knowable" is constructed

Ok and when that's done, then what?

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

actually I am making a claim that the cargo cult involves issues of higher powers (and extending that to say its typical of all cultures, even those in the lower rungs of gross materialism)

"involves issues of higher powers". I don't know what this means. "Involves" what how?

there is some element of "self" that is categorized as higher by the addition of awe and reverence.

For instance compare a common footballer's experience of the game in contrast to the narrative that drives the "football superstar"

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

socially speaking, their culture is atypical.

You didn't answer my question or address my point. This sentence appears quite random with relation to what you quoted.

I am saying that their culture is atypical.
Meaning that there is actually no evidence of a culture existing bereft of some notion of higher powers

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you have an example of culture, community or even sub culture that doesn't involve higher powers, perhaps you would have something to talk about

Again, actual higher powers or a belief in higher powers? Regarding the former, I would say that unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to accept that any cultures have "higher powers". In regards to the latter, I would direct you towards your local atheist.

I've listen to them deify dawkins on more than one occasion, if that's what you mean ... (you can even check out his website for purchasing the paraphernalia of worship too)

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

let me ask it another way

Do you consider yourself the topmost entity in the universe or do you think that there are persons/cultural tropes that have greatly influenced the construction of your sense of self?

You're moving the goal post. The original question was if I believe in a higher power that was involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe.

so we can take it down a notch by examining which entities have shaped your view of of the function/creation of the universe (and how you relate to it) and take it from there

Potential influences upon my concept of self is a completely different animal. Even if it were somehow relevant, I think you'd be using "higher power" very liberally (I don't think the guys from the Reasonable Doubts podcast constitute a higher power, even though their discussion regarding free will vs determinism have greatly influence my thinking on the concept of self).

I think its more a question of looking at the values you attribute to self and how they developed. Kind of like looking at whatever you have idealized in order to come up with whatever values are integral to you.

It might be more pertinent to examine the role that actors play in the movies that you like to watch than tumbling through the dry ramblings of an atheist's take on a godless universe

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

feel free to explain how you exist in a cultural vacuum or a culture that places you at the pinnacle of perfection

I don't need to because I'm not making that claim. I will point out again that this sudden shift from "higher power/creator-maintainer of the universe" to "higher power/cultural influences" seems more than a little disingenuous on your part.

I'm just pointing out that even though you may reject some sort of category of higher power, you are definitely working with another set

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Most?
Why fall short of "all"?
Feel free to provide evidence.

Because "some" people are incapable of such experiences (i.e. birth defects, mental retardation, brain injury, emotional trauma, etc). "All" would fail to account for these cases. Therefore I try to avoid building traps for myself by using absolutes.

So you would agree that anyone who can make the distinction between their self and the self of another has contingent issues of awe and reverence at work?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Actually I was suggesting that the framework of "what is knowable" is constructed differently according to individuals.

Again, I don't see what relevance this has to what you were quoting.

just as a 4 yr old has issues that frame their knowledge, so does a gross materialist.

In that sense, evidencing that a monster isn't under one's bed can prove just as challenging as evidencing that issues of life continue after the demise of the corporeal bod

y

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

"evidence" is a philosophically surcharged term

This isn't an argument.

what it is however is the introduction of a whole chapter of philosophy (and what chapter of philosophy is complete without a cluster of arguments?)

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Its not so much about asking you to accept something without evidence but asking you to examine the framework in which you deem "what is knowable" is constructed

Ok and when that's done, then what?

we could begin discussion

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I've listen to them deify dawkins on more than one occasion, if that's what you mean ... (you can even check out his website for purchasing the paraphernalia of worship too

your logic, its broken.

some atheists thinks dawkins is an awesome guy. therefore they believe dawkins is a god, with supernatural abilities, who can heal the sick just by touching them, and make blind people see again by spitting in his hands, and touching their eyes?
get your logic straight.
dawkinsmight be a bit of a rockstar, bu he is NOT being deified, not even close to the level jesus was, or even some of the saints.
take saint olav. his blood healed wounds? his beard and hair grew after his death?
by your trainwreck of a logic, rockstars are gods.

elvis lives!



who knows, maybe in 2000 years people will be worshipping elvis presley?

People already worship Elvis. Nearly every year in my hilljack town they have a series of bands and singers entertain down at the lake, and every year they have an Elvis impersonator who always draws the biggest crowd.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

actually I am making a claim that the cargo cult involves issues of higher powers (and extending that to say its typical of all cultures, even those in the lower rungs of gross materialism)

"involves issues of higher powers". I don't know what this means. "Involves" what how?

there is some element of "self" that is categorized as higher by the addition of awe and reverence.

For instance compare a common footballer's experience of the game in contrast to the narrative that drives the "football superstar"

You're talking about a subjective experience that is completely localized to an individual. That it is common means nothing in this context. Furthermore, if it is localized, then I don't see how you can argue that this is a "higher power". You could argue that an individual is achieving their full potential, but "higher" intrinsically means "outside" or "apart". You cannot have it both ways.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

socially speaking, their culture is atypical.

You didn't answer my question or address my point. This sentence appears quite random with relation to what you quoted.

I am saying that their culture is atypical.
Meaning that there is actually no evidence of a culture existing bereft of some notion of higher powers

Repeating yourself doesn't tell me anything.

Furthermore, you seem to be either arguing against your own point or are completely unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you have an example of culture, community or even sub culture that doesn't involve higher powers, perhaps you would have something to talk about

Again, actual higher powers or a belief in higher powers? Regarding the former, I would say that unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to accept that any cultures have "higher powers". In regards to the latter, I would direct you towards your local atheist.

I've listen to them deify dawkins on more than one occasion, if that's what you mean ... (you can even check out his website for purchasing the paraphernalia of worship too)

I believe this has already been addressed in another post.

At least we are able to clarify what you meant and can move on to listing all the ways your point fails.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

let me ask it another way

Do you consider yourself the topmost entity in the universe or do you think that there are persons/cultural tropes that have greatly influenced the construction of your sense of self?

You're moving the goal post. The original question was if I believe in a higher power that was involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe.

so we can take it down a notch by examining which entities have shaped your view of of the function/creation of the universe (and how you relate to it) and take it from there

This is still moving the goal post. Paraphrasing your point doesn't change it.

So I repeat: "The original question was if I believe in a higher power that was involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe."

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Potential influences upon my concept of self is a completely different animal. Even if it were somehow relevant, I think you'd be using "higher power" very liberally (I don't think the guys from the Reasonable Doubts podcast constitute a higher power, even though their discussion regarding free will vs determinism have greatly influence my thinking on the concept of self).

I think its more a question of looking at the values you attribute to self and how they developed. Kind of like looking at whatever you have idealized in order to come up with whatever values are integral to you.

It might be more pertinent to examine the role that actors play in the movies that you like to watch than tumbling through the dry ramblings of an atheist's take on a godless universe

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'll take it that since you've abandoned your argument, the point is conceded and I can rest my case.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

feel free to explain how you exist in a cultural vacuum or a culture that places you at the pinnacle of perfection

I don't need to because I'm not making that claim. I will point out again that this sudden shift from "higher power/creator-maintainer of the universe" to "higher power/cultural influences" seems more than a little disingenuous on your part.

I'm just pointing out that even though you may reject some sort of category of higher power, you are definitely working with another set

Not at all. Unless you're trying to argue that "god" and "kindergarten teacher" belong in the same category. Pretty sure that kindergarten teachers still put their pants on one leg at a time, poop, occationally forget about loved ones' birthdays, etc, so since they're human they can't also be a "higher power" (at least, not without making the term "higher power" utterly meaningless).

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Most?
Why fall short of "all"?
Feel free to provide evidence.

Because "some" people are incapable of such experiences (i.e. birth defects, mental retardation, brain injury, emotional trauma, etc). "All" would fail to account for these cases. Therefore I try to avoid building traps for myself by using absolutes.

So you would agree that anyone who can make the distinction between their self and the self of another has contingent issues of awe and reverence at work?

Not sure how you got that from what I said.

Theory of Mind. Go look it up. Seriously.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Actually I was suggesting that the framework of "what is knowable" is constructed differently according to individuals.

Again, I don't see what relevance this has to what you were quoting.

just as a 4 yr old has issues that frame their knowledge, so does a gross materialist.

In that sense, evidencing that a monster isn't under one's bed can prove just as challenging as evidencing that issues of life continue after the demise of the corporeal body

And I'll repeat my earlier point that adults (hopefully) have better reasoning facilities than children. You seem to want to argue that every one stops developing at the age of four. Do you have anything to support this assertion?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

"evidence" is a philosophically surcharged term

This isn't an argument.

what it is however is the introduction of a whole chapter of philosophy (and what chapter of philosophy is complete without a cluster of arguments?)

Unrelated babble.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Its not so much about asking you to accept something without evidence but asking you to examine the framework in which you deem "what is knowable" is constructed

Ok and when that's done, then what?

we could begin discussion

Indeed we could. Too bad that you prefer jumbled sheets of word of the day toilet paper masked as profundity. Good luck with that.

this is an example of hero worship

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

this is an example of hero worship

Huh? Is it just me, or is reason on holiday, leaving perhaps; post amassment to steer us towards our destination?

Originally Posted by dejawolf

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I've listen to them deify dawkins on more than one occasion, if that's what you mean ... (you can even check out his website for purchasing the paraphernalia of worship too

your logic, its broken.

some atheists thinks dawkins is an awesome guy. therefore they believe dawkins is a god, with supernatural abilities, who can heal the sick just by touching them, and make blind people see again by spitting in his hands, and touching their eyes?
get your logic straight.
dawkinsmight be a bit of a rockstar, bu he is NOT being deified, not even close to the level jesus was, or even some of the saints.
take saint olav. his blood healed wounds? his beard and hair grew after his death?
by your trainwreck of a logic, rockstars are gods.

I didn't say that they were worshiped in an identical manner or even that they were proclaimed to have identical glories.

I mean in the sense that a category is created that is propped up by paraphernalia, a dogma, an ideal etc etc

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

actually I am making a claim that the cargo cult involves issues of higher powers (and extending that to say its typical of all cultures, even those in the lower rungs of gross materialism)

"involves issues of higher powers". I don't know what this means. "Involves" what how?

there is some element of "self" that is categorized as higher by the addition of awe and reverence.

For instance compare a common footballer's experience of the game in contrast to the narrative that drives the "football superstar"

You're talking about a subjective experience that is completely localized to an individual. That it is common means nothing in this context. Furthermore, if it is localized, then I don't see how you can argue that this is a "higher power". You could argue that an individual is achieving their full potential, but "higher" intrinsically means "outside" or "apart". You cannot have it both ways.

Thats the point
its not localized, since the status and glory is a fabrication of category

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

socially speaking, their culture is atypical.

You didn't answer my question or address my point. This sentence appears quite random with relation to what you quoted.

I am saying that their culture is atypical.
Meaning that there is actually no evidence of a culture existing bereft of some notion of higher powers

Repeating yourself doesn't tell me anything.

Furthermore, you seem to be either arguing against your own point or are completely unfamiliar with the subject matter.

You are more or less saying "look at these bozos and their funny ways"

I'm simply pointing out that things like sport, music stars and even technology are treated in exactly the same manner in more contemporary times

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Thats the point
its not localized, since the status and glory is a fabrication of category

Random words strung together.

You can posit all you'd like that what you're describing isn't localized, but you have absolutely nothing to back up such an assertion.

Please prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You are more or less saying "look at these bozos and their funny ways"

Yes and no. Regarding the crux of the argument, I'm saying that their funny ways are just like those of all the other bozos (they wear different hats and say different words, but the product is almost entirely the same).

You're the one that states they are atypical. I'm still trying to find out how you figure that.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm simply pointing out that things like sport, music stars and even technology are treated in exactly the same manner in more contemporary times

Except that you're assigning an arbitrary term ("higher power") and immediately rendering it meaningless. What is this higher power? It's you and me. So how is it higher? We aren't perfect.

Okay, sparky. Thanks.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Thats the point
its not localized, since the status and glory is a fabrication of category

Random words strung together.

You can posit all you'd like that what you're describing isn't localized, but you have absolutely nothing to back up such an assertion.

Please prove me wrong.

If you are referencing something that is the subjective experience of everyone in every culture, its not clear why you say its localized.
/shrug

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You are more or less saying "look at these bozos and their funny ways"

Yes and no. Regarding the crux of the argument, I'm saying that their funny ways are just like those of all the other bozos (they wear different hats and say different words, but the product is almost entirely the same).

You're the one that states they are atypical. I'm still trying to find out how you figure that.

You don't recognize any "funny hat" wearing and "funny ways" in the culture of technology, sports, music, etc etc
?????

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

I'm simply pointing out that things like sport, music stars and even technology are treated in exactly the same manner in more contemporary times

Except that you're assigning an arbitrary term ("higher power") and immediately rendering it meaningless. What is this higher power? It's you and me. So how is it higher? We aren't perfect.

Okay, sparky. Thanks.

You have a category that is propped up by paraphernalia, social behaviors and rituals all pointing towards something perfect, transcendent or the like.

For instance a person may see their own faults, but pontificate on how technology can fix them.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you are referencing something that is the subjective experience of everyone in every culture, its not clear why you say its localized.

It's not something that every one in every culture experiences. That should be one great big hint for you that it cannot be anything other than localized. The existence of people that either reject superstitious traditions or interpret them differently than others is pretty strong evidence that each individual within a culture is capable of fabricating their own ideas about "higher powers". This means "higher power" is not something objective.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You don't recognize any "funny hat" wearing and "funny ways" in the culture of technology, sports, music, etc etc
?????

I am rejecting your assertion that these are examples of tapping into a "higher power".

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You have a category that is propped up by paraphernalia, social behaviors and rituals all pointing towards something perfect, transcendent or the like.

For instance a person may see their own faults, but pontificate on how technology can fix them.

I don't see anything here that counters my point that your "higher power" is so vague that it's meaningless. If it's "higher" it can't be "you" at the same time.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

I don't see anything here that counters my point that your "higher power" is so vague that it's meaningless. If it's "higher" it can't be "you" at the same time.

An extremely interesting observation, yet I would think there to be a reasonably safe argument that everyone actually serves a 'higher power' whether they realize and/or like it, or not – even though the vast majority of us never have the slightest idea that such an ongoing interaction profoundly controls our every decision, and from such a vantage point – our lives – and ultimately our death.

A person who has permitted a consciousness altering drug of addiction to have sway over his life choices, will for instance; be found to have sufficiently surrendered his existence over to the lure of the seductive promises of the next ‘high’, and if he fails to redress his particular adoration for the thrill, his culmination will most assuredly be in accordance with his ongoing choice of lifestyle.

Yet his addiction generally did not eventuate without the genesis of his own implicit decision, which upon further investigation, will be found to have been according some concept of personal gain of the moment. Therefore, it could well be argued that his ‘higher power’ was, and remains - himself.

A religionist on the other hand, will happily proclaim servitude under his imagined version ‘God’ (by whatever identification), as his ‘leader’. The fact that his principal doesn’t exist beyond his imagination matters little, for such is merely a faceless figurehead at best. Further delving will reveal this individual more than likely serves his insatiable appetite for things such as wealth, possessions & power.

Therefore in truth, as with the drug addict above; his prime master is again his own gratification - his own ‘self/isness’.

Interestingly, the more you dissect and discern the innate particulars for just about anyone’s life choices, the more it becomes obvious that the actual ‘higher power’ for the vast majority of us, is profoundly our self, or more correctly – our servitude to our appetite/flesh.

Moreover, this pervasive service to our appetite/flesh, actually has it’s own genesis – as from deep within our surreptitious and stealthy emotions, which (again) emanate from within our (physical) flesh.

So what is the ONLY alternative to such a rampant personal servitude to one's self?

The answer is as obvious as it is breathtaking – the emancipating and redeeming selection to serve the other half or our core reasoning – indeed our intellect; thereby placing our capricious emotions as subservient. Which astoundingly, is the antithesis of the preeminent way of dealing with our existence.

Now there's a leader worth developing a servitude towards.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

An extremely interesting observation, yet I would think there to be a reasonably safe argument that everyone actually serves a 'higher power' whether they realize and/or like it, or not – even though the vast majority of us never have the slightest idea that such an ongoing interaction profoundly controls our every decision, and from such a vantage point – our lives – and ultimately our death.

I think it will eventually come to pass that my appreciation for the work of Steven Pinker will to make my ability to communicate with other humans impossible.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

A person who has permitted a consciousness altering drug of addiction to have sway over his life choices, will for instance; be found to have sufficiently surrendered his existence over to the lure of the seductive promises of the next ‘high’, and if he fails to redress his particular adoration for the thrill, his culmination will most assuredly be in accordance with his ongoing choice of lifestyle.

Yet his addiction generally did not eventuate without the genesis of his own implicit decision, which upon further investigation, will be found to have been according some concept of personal gain of the moment. Therefore, it could well be argued that his ‘higher power’ was, and remains - himself.

If we could show that addiction is not a naturally occuring phenomenon observed within humans, I would probably be able to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Since all evidence shows otherwise, I cannot see how this is an example of a "higher power". It's not "higher". It's just another possible behavioral computation for "human".

"Higher power" = "meta-human". I don't see anything meta-human to addiction.

If I am missing the point, please tell me.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

A religionist on the other hand, will happily proclaim servitude under his imagined version ‘God’ (by whatever identification), as his ‘leader’. The fact that his principal doesn’t exist beyond his imagination matters little, for such is merely a faceless figurehead at best. Further delving will reveal this individual more than likely serves his insatiable appetite for things such as wealth, possessions & power.

Therefore in truth, as with the drug addict above; his prime master is again his own gratification - his own ‘self/isness’.

Same as above and I think you're dangerously close to agreeing with me in the following paragraphs

Again, if "belief" is a human phenomenon, then it cannot be meta-human at the same time.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Interestingly, the more you dissect and discern the innate particulars for just about anyone’s life choices, the more it becomes obvious that the actual ‘higher power’ for the vast majority of us, is profoundly our self, or more correctly – our servitude to our appetite/flesh.

Moreover, this pervasive service to our appetite/flesh, actually has it’s own genesis – as from deep within our surreptitious and stealthy emotions, which (again) emanate from within our (physical) flesh.

Indeed. It is a localized and subjective, therefore it cannot also be "higher".

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So what is the ONLY alternative to such a rampant personal servitude to one's self?

The answer is as obvious as it is breathtaking – the emancipating and redeeming selection to serve the other half or our core reasoning – indeed our intellect; thereby placing our capricious emotions as subservient. Which astoundingly, is the antithesis of the preeminent way of dealing with our existence.

Now there's a leader worth developing a servitude towards.

Yes, it seems quite common that people seem to value certain forms of servitude as service to "the greater good". But this "greater good" is a construct which is given to, not taken from. "Higher power" suggests the opposite and lacks the benefit of any kind of evidence.

My 2 cents.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

An extremely interesting observation, yet I would think there to be a reasonably safe argument that everyone actually serves a 'higher power' whether they realize and/or like it, or not – even though the vast majority of us never have the slightest idea that such an ongoing interaction profoundly controls our every decision, and from such a vantage point – our lives – and ultimately our death.

I think it will eventually come to pass that my appreciation for the work of Steven Pinker will to make my ability to communicate with other humans impossible.

My apologies to you and Mr. Pinker, for I know little of his efforts at preventing my esteemed forum colleague from divesting any residual loose coinage or verbiage.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

A person who has permitted a consciousness altering drug of addiction to have sway over his life choices, will for instance; be found to have sufficiently surrendered his existence over to the lure of the seductive promises of the next ‘high’, and if he fails to redress his particular adoration for the thrill, his culmination will most assuredly be in accordance with his ongoing choice of lifestyle.

Yet his addiction generally did not eventuate without the genesis of his own implicit decision, which upon further investigation, will be found to have been according some concept of personal gain of the moment. Therefore, it could well be argued that his ‘higher power’ was, and remains - himself.

If we could show that addiction is not a naturally occurring phenomenon observed within humans, I would probably be able to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Since all evidence shows otherwise, I cannot see how this is an example of a "higher power". It's not "higher". It's just another possible behavioral computation for "human".

"Higher power" = "meta-human". I don't see anything meta-human to addiction.

If I am missing the point, please tell me.

Indeed ‘higher power’ is generally synonymous with meta-human, yet I would suggest the overall picture needs a little further clarification prior to hanging over our mantelpiece.

Although you might be expecting an argument along the lines: ‘addiction is, by our own silly choices; an aberration that for a time comes upon ‘me’ as an unhelpful and disruptive passenger in the vehicle I steer around for 60 or 70 years of life, and maybe disembarks somewhere down the track via an alternative choice when ‘I’, as the driver and owner, employ a more reasoned headspace’, I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint you, my friend.

Indeed addiction is a naturally occurring aberration in human life, yet is a matter of degrees. We may not all have in our personal vehicle, passengers of the seductive persuasion of heroin, alcohol, gambling and tobacco, yet I would argue that those who do, have merely placed themselves at the more visible end of the spectrum, and even though they are to be applauded when and if they get around to demanding the disembarkation of such unhelpful passengers, nevertheless they will return to the more general and (perhaps) less salient enchantment demon/s that haunt us all.

Of course, as with all passengers lacking a reasoned level of discipline, some of the above have the decided propensity of raucous behaviour occasioning a form of hostage-taking in the decision making process of the one behind the steering wheel – invariably with deleterious results. But if we may later return to those on the passenger manifesto, we find it is actually up front where the real action is to be witnessed.

To fully appreciate the ‘Higher Power’ for our vehicle, we need to look within, to view the driver – the one who steers the show around for the duration. However, contrary to popular belief, he is not alone in the front of the cabin, for there is also a navigator next to him, yet not all is as wholesome and ambrosial as it might appear. A deeper investigation will reveal that right here is also the genesis of the human dilemma, which in turn gives sway to those unruly passengers we may at times wish to disavow.

It is a fact of our existence that the vast majority of vehicles manage some motivation for a time, and therefore only function under the head stewardship of either the driver or the navigator, yet; never both. For astoundingly, even though the vehicle requires both to get anywhere at all, they constantly fail at melding a happy concordance on any decision whatsoever. Even so; agree they must, or catatonic the entire show will remain.

Therefore the ‘Higher Power’ for every vehicle, most definitely is not some meta-physical-super-daddy sitting on a great throne at a divine control panel in the clouds, or any other removed mythical physical-meta-domain. Contrary to what some believe, neither is it any part of the physicality of that vehicle, nor (should it be) any of the mixed assemblage of passengers behind.

The ‘Highest Power’ is indeed the predominant of the two dissenting front seat occupants – either the driver, or the navigator.

Under such circumstances, the required truce at the motivational end of the cabin is often under such duress that it can be quite difficult to recognise who has the controlling hand at any time - most particularly whilst our ongoing failure continues, in discerning the reality; that there are actually two up front, yet only one thereof is in control.

Again, for every functioning vehicle; there are two intrinsic 'higher powers’;
A; who has at any time, the upper hand in the decision making process, and;
B; who has had to acquiesce to A in the current choice of direction.

Of course, it could be further argued that there exists after a fashion, many other powers bidding for the tag ‘higher'. Even so, I would regard all these as extrinsic, and although they strive for inclusion as a passenger, and from there seek to exercise their influence, the ultimate choices will emanate from between the two 'higher powers' in control.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

A religionist on the other hand, will happily proclaim servitude under his imagined version ‘God’ (by whatever identification), as his ‘leader’. The fact that his principal doesn’t exist beyond his imagination matters little, for such is merely a faceless figurehead at best. Further delving will reveal this individual more than likely serves his insatiable appetite for things such as wealth, possessions & power.
Therefore in truth, as with the drug addict above; his prime master is again his own gratification - his own ‘self/isness’.

Same as above and I think you're dangerously close to agreeing with me in the following paragraphs

Again, if "belief" is a human phenomenon, then it cannot be meta-human at the same time.

Ahhhh! What's a little danger between a bout or two of healthy jousting between a couple-a buddies with pointy sticks?

Generally, I see it as a natural consequence that we primarily drive our vehicles down the road that best fits our belief at that moment – to eventually arrive at the destination of our desire. The belief upon which we base our trust at any time, for our choice of direction, is the culmination of one or more extraneous suggestion/s, and (always) through an uneasy discussion between the driver and navigator, then motivating decision via truce. The more unruly passengers on board of course; the more turbulent the decision making process, and more likely the errors in selection.

We need to keep in mind that the physical vehicle is merely that which conveys the far more essential occupants around the place - while it remains in good order at least. The occupants up front and the physical vehicle remain a single entity, only whilst the vehicle is operational. The passengers, whether compliant, progressive, ennobling or otherwise will come and go from time to time via agreement and acceptance between those up front.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Interestingly, the more you dissect and discern the innate particulars for just about anyone’s life choices, the more it becomes obvious that the actual ‘higher power’ for the vast majority of us, is profoundly our self, or more correctly – our servitude to our appetite/flesh.

Moreover, this pervasive service to our appetite/flesh, actually has it’s own genesis – as from deep within our surreptitious and stealthy emotions, which (again) emanate from within our (physical) flesh.

Indeed. It is a localized and subjective, therefore it cannot also be "higher".

They are respectively; both entirely subjective and ‘higher’ - in more ways than can be explored in the overall focus of this post.

At the most fundamental level however, it may be noted that we all give service at any given instance, to our spotlighted target of; suggested advancement. For if it was my determination that my focus was upon something unlikely to provide suitable improvement, I would assuredly; be seeking an alternate (higher potential) avenue along which to proceed.

We generally make our every choice at any time, with regards promotion towards our intended goal – even if that goal is constantly moving; due too many unruly back seat passengers, all having their own agenda and sway.

Put another way; whatever (objective) focus we make a (subjective) choice of direction upon, presents for that moment as; ‘higher’ than our present location.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So what is the ONLY alternative to such a rampant personal servitude to one's self?

The answer is as obvious as it is breathtaking – the emancipating and redeeming selection to serve the other half or our core reasoning – indeed our intellect; thereby placing our capricious emotions as subservient. Which astoundingly, is the antithesis of the preeminent way of dealing with our existence.

Now there's a leader worth developing a servitude towards.

Yes, it seems quite common that people seem to value certain forms of servitude as service to "the greater good". But this "greater good" is a construct which is given to, not taken from. "Higher power" suggests the opposite and lacks the benefit of any kind of evidence.

The vehicle rarely (if ever) is headed off in a direction that has not presented in some manner, as a ‘greater good’ - embracing a promised ’higher’ outcome. So after a fashion, the direction of choice is, for the duration; offered as the equivalent of ‘power’ behind the decision - towards it; even if only time will reveal if the promised evolution is proven - with reward (or pain).

The nefarious passengers are, not surprisingly; less than interested in reasoned ‘evidence’ of any hue, for their attention rarely digresses from their own selfish agenda, often mastering in surreptitious treachery, so would best be left to perish – extraneous to the vehicle of conveyance - if only it were possible! Yet whether we like it or not, it is an unspoken, inconvenient and evaded rule of the human journey, that we seem required to deal in a general sense, with (at least one) regressive and repugnant back seat companion, who really doesn’t like being the only ornery fellow on board, so strives to bolster his influence through similar support.

To shed extra light on the ongoing fireworks up front, is the reasonably disturbing observation; that our prime duo are less than equally yoked, and would; upon open-eyed investigation, appear to be heading us off in the direction of destruction, which not so amazingly, is precisely where every vehicle appears right now; to terminate.

Indeed there is our seasoned and highly intelligent yet softly spoken navigator (sometimes portrayed in chidren's cartoons as a pleasant angel perched upon the hero's shoulder), perusing the map book and constantly striving to provide well informed direction. He is of course; not in the driver's seat, which is jealously guarded by a physically stronger and earthy, yet wildly vacillating, brash and presumptuous neophyte (respectively presented as a harsher talking 'devil' on the opposing shoulder), who resents the intelligence of the navigator, and as with all brash youngsters; knows better anyways.

In such an environment, it's not difficult to realise our first dilemma; that the motivational truce fails at being entirely cohesive, and the second; that too often the hero of our story proudly 'jumps in' with both feet, only to later discover he would have done well to first take heed of a more seasoned consideration.

So now, if we may get back to that passenger dilemma; it is not so laborious a task to discover which of the two up front is more likely to receive the erratic emotional appeals, from (in particular); those who seek their own selfish and destructive agenda in the progress (or otherwise) of our life's journey.

**Finally I would like to note; even though I have to admit to this not being the most effortless or buoyant post to formulate, I hope hesitation will not be a factor when you have cause to discard further currency.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you are referencing something that is the subjective experience of everyone in every culture, its not clear why you say its localized.

It's not something that every one in every culture experiences. That should be one great big hint for you that it cannot be anything other than localized. The existence of people that either reject superstitious traditions or interpret them differently than others is pretty strong evidence that each individual within a culture is capable of fabricating their own ideas about "higher powers". This means "higher power" is not something objective.

and lo and behold, the persons who reject the "superstitions" as lofty ideals of a fantasy simply go on to create another set

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You don't recognize any "funny hat" wearing and "funny ways" in the culture of technology, sports, music, etc etc
?????

I am rejecting your assertion that these are examples of tapping into a "higher power".

really?
You don't think persons are attracted to these avenues to make themselves "greater" in ways remarkably similar to transcendence, etc?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

You have a category that is propped up by paraphernalia, social behaviors and rituals all pointing towards something perfect, transcendent or the like.

For instance a person may see their own faults, but pontificate on how technology can fix them.

I don't see anything here that counters my point that your "higher power" is so vague that it's meaningless. If it's "higher" it can't be "you" at the same time.

Its not vague.
Its very precise.

Just like the difference between a ten year old lap top and the latest one (even though both of them might have/had scope to the same title of greatness).

And the fact that a person remains different from the host of tropes that they call upon to bolster themselves means that "higher" can't be "you" at the same time
(In other words, the advertisements lie)

Your quote tags are broken. Please fix them. Thanks.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Your quote tags are broken. Please fix them. Thanks.

done

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

and lo and behold, the persons who reject the "superstitions" as lofty ideals of a fantasy simply go on to create another set

Where?

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

really?
You don't think persons are attracted to these avenues to make themselves "greater" in ways remarkably similar to transcendence, etc?

What avenues? This is what I mean by "vague".
And "remarkably similar to transcendence" sounds incredibly speculative. Do you have anything more than speculation to offer? Sound argumentation perhaps? I dare not ask for evidence.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Its not vague.
Its very precise.

No, it's not. If anyone can be a "higher power", then "higher power" is something common and hardly deserving of the adjective "higher". I ask you what's "higher" and the closest thing I've seen to an answer is some hand-waving about "transcendence".

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Just like the difference between a ten year old lap top and the latest one (even though both of them might have/had scope to the same title of greatness).

So by your own argument, "higher" is relative? Making it subjective, per my argument, no? Congratulations. You just argued yourself into a circle.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

And the fact that a person remains different from the host of tropes that they call upon to bolster themselves means that "higher" can't be "you" at the same time (In other words, the advertisements lie)

But "different" doesn't mean "higher". We're all "different" and if that means we're all "higher" then "higher" is meaningless. I think I've said this about three times now.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

and lo and behold, the persons who reject the "superstitions" as lofty ideals of a fantasy simply go on to create another set

Where?

practically anywhere you look

whether it be music, sport or technology.

Given the nature of this forum, perhaps we could talk of technology.

Until recently, modern science, seen as a religion, lacked a deity suitable as an object of worship. The machine, which is generally pictured as something that has gears, moving parts, and so on, has existed for a long time now. To modern man the machine certainly represents power, control, mastery over nature-in other words, attributes a worshipable deity should have. But the machine lacks mystery. In fact, it often demystifies in the sense that people believe that most anything can be transformed, metaphorically at least, into the form of a machine and then understood as such. The machine has become an almost universally applicable metaphor that demystifies both itself and the thing to which it refers. This thinking holds true for both intellectuals of all persuasions as well as for ordinary people. Perhaps most people today think a thing is not understood until it has been reduced to a mechanical process.

I think that this phenomenon has contributed to science's inability to provide an idol which the faithful can worship as truly representative of their common faith. Now recently, within my lifetime, the computer has appeared, and it seems to me that the computer fills that need. Modern man has seen that machines which physically destroy and reconstruct his environment — the steam-shovel, for example — are made in his own image. The steam-shovel has an arm and a hand, and it digs into the ground, picks up objects and so forth. Clearly, it is a kind of imitation of a certain aspect of man. But the computer takes things a step farther. When instructing a computer to think (if I may use that term for a moment) in imitation of human thought, we cross a subtle line.

http://www.gosai.com/science/computerized-gods.html

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

really?
You don't think persons are attracted to these avenues to make themselves "greater" in ways remarkably similar to transcendence, etc?

What avenues? This is what I mean by "vague".
And "remarkably similar to transcendence" sounds incredibly speculative. Do you have anything more than speculation to offer? Sound argumentation perhaps? I dare not ask for evidence.

see above

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Its not vague.
Its very precise.

No, it's not. If anyone can be a "higher power", then "higher power" is something common and hardly deserving of the adjective "higher". I ask you what's "higher" and the closest thing I've seen to an answer is some hand-waving about "transcendence".

Everyone is attracted to the notion of "higher power". The real question is which narratives that support it are factual or not.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Just like the difference between a ten year old lap top and the latest one (even though both of them might have/had scope to the same title of greatness).

So by your own argument, "higher" is relative? Making it subjective, per my argument, no? Congratulations. You just argued yourself into a circle.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

And the fact that a person remains different from the host of tropes that they call upon to bolster themselves means that "higher" can't be "you" at the same time (In other words, the advertisements lie)

Higher is certainly relative to lower, much like the latest laptop is relative to one that is a decade old.

But "different" doesn't mean "higher". We're all "different" and if that means we're all "higher" then "higher" is meaningless. I think I've said this about three times now.

rather than repeating yourself it might serve the discussion better if you respond to .....

And the fact that a person remains different from the host of tropes that they call upon to bolster themselves means that "higher" can't be "you" at the same time

"rather than repeating yourself it might serve the discussion better if you respond to ..... "

I did. You responded by repeating something you quoted earlier. How's that for the pot calling the kettle black?

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

"rather than repeating yourself it might serve the discussion better if you respond to ..... "

I did. You responded by repeating something you quoted earlier. How's that for the pot calling the kettle black?

I didn't edit out part of your work in my response though ....

I didn't edit yours either.

Did you intend to address what I said, or are we done here?

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

I didn't edit yours either.

On three occasions you've overlooked clear assertions of difference that translate into a hierarchy.

But anyway, if you want to continue on with your assertions that there is no higher or lower, I have a dusty lap top tucked away that I am happy to trade with you for a latest model.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

On three occasions you've overlooked clear assertions of difference that translate into a hierarchy.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "editing your work"

Sorry if I'm not inclined to chase down every irrelevant rabbit-trail you care to introduce.

Actually, no I'm not.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

But anyway, if you want to continue on with your assertions that there is no higher or lower, I have a dusty lap top tucked away that I am happy to trade with you for a latest model.

"Newer" and "older" have nothing to do with "higher power". That fact that we've gone from "higher power" as a transcendent all-force to "higher force" as a more powerful laptop makes it pretty obvious that your term ("higher power") is as vague and meaningless as I've consistently pointed it out to be.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

But anyway, if you want to continue on with your assertions that there is no higher or lower, I have a dusty lap top tucked away that I am happy to trade with you for a latest model.

"Newer" and "older" have nothing to do with "higher power".

The do however introduce the notion of "higher" to a person who insists everything is simply an issue of "difference"

That fact that we've gone from "higher power" as a transcendent all-force to "higher force" as a more powerful laptop makes it pretty obvious that your term ("higher power") is as vague and meaningless as I've consistently pointed it out to be.

The Weizenbaum reference is right there waiting for you ..........

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

The do however introduce the notion of "higher" to a person who insists everything is simply an issue of "difference"

Okay, well have a good time debating with whomever that person is.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

The Weizenbaum reference is right there waiting for you ..........

I'm not going to address your non-sequitur (hence why I didn't respond the first time you posted it).

Loftmarcell what you said about reverence for consumer products really chimed my own thoughts. I think we all feel in our guts how "just wrong" it would be to nail or rope a sleek new television screen to the wall, though it "still works great". I'm reminded of the reverence for Art we used to have, embodied in massive gilt painting frames, pedestals for statues, etc. But it's more: we're unauthorized to sully nice consumer goods, even those we've paid for, even where we know such sully would improve them. It's like we don't really own the objects. So who or what do they belong to? If nothing: wouldn't that be curious in a culture where everything is property?

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

The Weizenbaum reference is right there waiting for you ..........

I'm not going to address your non-sequitur (hence why I didn't respond the first time you posted it).

Actually its a short article (by a historically acclaimed major contributer to the AI industry who happens to be critical of it) discussing the issue of technology bordering on the transcendent/religious.

I thought it might be helpful since you are having major problems in comprehending the mere introduction of such a subject

Originally Posted by Pong

Loftmarcell what you said about reverence for consumer products really chimed my own thoughts. I think we all feel in our guts how "just wrong" it would be to nail or rope a sleek new television screen to the wall, though it "still works great". I'm reminded of the reverence for Art we used to have, embodied in massive gilt painting frames, pedestals for statues, etc. But it's more: we're unauthorized to sully nice consumer goods, even those we've paid for, even where we know such sully would improve them. It's like we don't really own the objects. So who or what do they belong to? If nothing: wouldn't that be curious in a culture where everything is property?

Sometimes you get crazy artists who do things to try and suggest otherwise (I recall one guy who was one of the first in queue to get a new X box and before the long line of bystanders, took it out of its packaging and smashed it with a sledgehammer), but this is hardly a ripple in the huge upstream migration of consumerism.

If you have a culture where everything is property you also bring the social body in to line. So not only is it that ideas of selfhood are totally framed by property, but also idealized notions of selfhood too. So my consumption illustrates not only who I am but also who I want to be (so ruminations of an ideal or higher self/power can be relegated to issues of what they do and do not own).

BTW this fits in remarkably well if one has a mechanistic view of the self.

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

Originally Posted by Pong

Loftmarcell what you said about reverence for consumer products really chimed my own thoughts. I think we all feel in our guts how "just wrong" it would be to nail or rope a sleek new television screen to the wall, though it "still works great". I'm reminded of the reverence for Art we used to have, embodied in massive gilt painting frames, pedestals for statues, etc. But it's more: we're unauthorized to sully nice consumer goods, even those we've paid for, even where we know such sully would improve them. It's like we don't really own the objects. So who or what do they belong to? If nothing: wouldn't that be curious in a culture where everything is property?

Sometimes you get crazy artists who do things to try and suggest otherwise (I recall one guy who was one of the first in queue to get a new X box and before the long line of bystanders, took it out of its packaging and smashed it with a sledgehammer), but this is hardly a ripple in the huge upstream migration of consumerism.

If you have a culture where everything is property you also bring the social body in to line. So not only is it that ideas of selfhood are totally framed by property, but also idealized notions of selfhood too. So my consumption illustrates not only who I am but also who I want to be (so ruminations of an ideal or higher self/power can be relegated to issues of what they do and do not own).

BTW this fits in remarkably well if one has a mechanistic view of the self.

In short, we take the idea of cargo cultism to a new level that perhaps even remote islanders would view as primitive

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you have a culture where everything is property you also bring the social body in to line. So not only is it that ideas of selfhood are totally framed by property, but also idealized notions of selfhood too. So my consumption illustrates not only who I am but also who I want to be (so ruminations of an ideal or higher self/power can be relegated to issues of what they do and do not own).

BTW this fits in remarkably well if one has a mechanistic view of the self.

In short, we take the idea of cargo cultism to a new level that perhaps even remote islanders would view as primitive

I see. So a bumper sticker is kinda like a nose piercing?

Originally Posted by Pong

a bumper sticker is... like a nose piercing?

Thats pure gold. :-D

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by loftmarcell

If you have a culture where everything is property you also bring the social body in to line. So not only is it that ideas of selfhood are totally framed by property, but also idealized notions of selfhood too. So my consumption illustrates not only who I am but also who I want to be (so ruminations of an ideal or higher self/power can be relegated to issues of what they do and do not own).

BTW this fits in remarkably well if one has a mechanistic view of the self.

In short, we take the idea of cargo cultism to a new level that perhaps even remote islanders would view as primitive

I see. So a bumper sticker is kinda like a nose piercing?

more like, because they don't have a mobile phone or whatever its okay that they starve or die in millions

I've only just started reading this...

So, your idea is that computers are god? OK then...

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I've only just started reading this...

obviously

So, your idea is that computers are god? OK then...

errr.... no