From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-22, D  wrote:   
      
   >> You've definitely a "how to live better" book in you!   
   >   
   > Thank you! Who knows... maybe a paradigm shifting best   
   > seller will one day be created? ;)   
      
   "Life Trolling on the Run", by Daniel X!   
      
   >>> But dogma, angels, saints, the entire theology and   
   >>> super-natural stuff, I've never been able to reconcile   
   >>> that with any behaviour on my side, since to me, that has   
   >>> always seemed like childrens stories.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >> Well? There are children, right? And there are many adults   
   >> whose mind/intellect is essentially childlike, right? Who's   
   >> to say such wasn't included to "reach" them?   
   >>    
   >   
   > True. Nietzsche is big on priests creating sin and all   
   > the "stuff" in order to increase their power over "the   
   > children" thus ensuring they are on top in society.   
      
   I don't doubt it. But what does what priests do have to   
   do with whether or not the teaching is worthwhile?   
      
   > Interesting. I'm quite minimalist in my bible readings   
   > and have kind of settled (for the moment) on the   
   > gospel of thomas. I think that kind of boils it down   
   > to the essentials for a deeply personal and subjective   
   > christianity that could be pretty similar to some eastern   
   > religions as well. I think we discussed this a while back.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > But proof of existence is one of those things that go many   
   > hundred years back. Millenia perhaps. Man wants an iron   
   > clad, iron proof of existence so they can build a world   
   > of 100% certainty based on some fundamental undeniable   
   > axiom. In my opinion, no one has succeeded in 2500 years,   
   > and likely no one ever will. We'll have to accept that due   
   > to awareness being aware of itself, we'll never achieve   
   > 100% certainty.   
      
   The latter isn't because we can't achieve certainty,   
   but because words can't contain experiential certainty   
   (i.e. "it can't be put in words"), and so insisting that   
   word-brokered "knowledge" is the only acceptable certainty   
   context necessarily means never being certain.   
      
   Certainty is being as we already are, not mentally knowing   
   what (in terms of words) we are because, again, what we   
   are can't be contained by words.   
      
   > So due to that, I find assuming the world as it is,   
   > for daily purposes the most practical and reasonable   
   > solution. Idealist philosophers beg to differ. ;)   
      
   A mental approach is, well.. *mental* (older sense of the   
   word that became socially unacceptable)....   
      
   > Steadiness? As for knowing it, it seems to be a deep   
   > human drive to extend our knowledge of our universe. When   
   > it comes to the subject/object dichotomy, that's another   
   > barrier to knowledge. I can know all about you, but neither   
   > I nor science will ever know what it's like to _be_ you, to   
   > experience you as you, since that's a running, operational   
   > system we others can only view from the outside.   
      
   That presumes "knowing" is up to the task, only we're   
   either not "doing it (the knowing) right", or somehow   
   can't access what we need to know, what eventually will   
   if we keep trying to know.   
      
   What I'm saying is that knowing isn't the right tool /   
   approach: knowing is *itself* the dead end.   
      
   --   
   oldernow   
   xyz001 at nym.hush.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)