literalism

About: Bi-la kaifa


There is something that i have been working up to saying about literalism.  There is a problem with people passionately believing in one story.  The problem is: there are different stories which necessarily must fight to obtain.   If there is one God, then it is mine and not yours.  Since I am right, you are wrong. 

Do you see the problem?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A better situation might be  where people actually believe there are many stories ... not a single one ...  and they are happy to change stories like their clothes for the sake of the dance.

When we start to do that more and more, there will be fewer and fewer suicide bombers for the Jihad.

Tags

  1. item 19047
  2. literalism
  3. jihad
  4. stroies

Comments


Seth says
choy 2015-11-18 09:30:32 19047
Yeah, that may be the problem with Islam, if any. Other religions  have faith which doesn't avoid questioning & avoids the authority thingy.

Well yes it is true that Islma grants a peculiar authority to the literal interpretation of written texts ... even to the extent of thinking it is heretical to use metaphor, "the hand of Allah" being blasphemy ... a story best read from a believer.

but this religious habit is not limited to Muslims.   "Faith" itself resorts to most of the same abandonment of questioning and verification, ... and instead resorts to blind trust in authority established by training and social interaction ... or outright chant:  "It has been written, so shall it be".

Seth says
choy 2015-11-18 10:58:39 19047
seth 2015-11-18 10:50:03 19047
source: choy

Yeah, some Christians use it that way, but I don't.  The GW essay Silence the Lightning Path & LOA tend to use uncertainty & the LL "Free from the Lust of Result" in it's place. One can hallucinate anything in the place of not knowing - death being the biggest question & generator of religions. I like to contemplate al la The Book of Not Knowing.


Well in my book, belief fostered by chanting "free yourself from the lust of result" is a trust in a stories passed along from mouth to mouth.     "Literalism" just carries that behavior to a peculiar extreme. 

With me it is more of a "trust but verify" yet "think for myself" ... when it comes to these wise  adages. 


We cannot avoid belief in stories ... but we can keep changing them at will
-- Bozo Faust

Yet , I do not chant anything, dude.  I had a long career in QA & my mantra if anything is not unlike yours except I just say "Test IT" - no need to claim so-called "wise adages"


Sure you do ... every time you think that same thought you are in essence chanting it.   Unless perhaps it sprang surprisingly and independantly from other elements of your mind.   Then when you thought it, you might also realize that you had re-invented the adage yourself ... it would feel different and fresh.  Me i have never done that on "lust of results" ... rather i come up with "i am the cause in my life" which as i read it, is a contradiction to your favored adage there.

Seth says
source: choy

You WENT OFF THE DEEP END that time - no truth there. Redefining chanting & trying to mind read for something to make you right. Still bull shit!

Well of course i took some liberties with my usage of the word "chanting".  But what is a chant anyway ... is it not just a thought repeated in the mind to enhance it's truth ... and yes that is the way it is billed by Hari Kristna's and the rest of the transcendental meditation gurus.  In some cases the dogma is that the literal sounds themselves have the desired effect.  incidentally when i reread my own stories, i get the same effect ... which was quite a surprising discovery when i first came upon it. 

i don't know where your complaint of me "trying to mind read" came from ... if it was important, please elucidate.

Mark de LA says
Fuzzy thinking:


Seth says
source: choy

Yep you are making a distinction of "objective reality" which has 2 points of view the viewer & the object viewed; already discussed above or elsewhere.

Well yes i am certainly making a distinction - me just telling a story.  But there is no 2nd viewpoint that I tell anything about in my story ... i need not imply it be objective, or whether it be subjective to something grander than i can even imagine.  All i assume of it, is that it is not me - it comes from outside me  - of that i am confident - am not buying a contradiction to that. 

Then too I believe: the part is not the whole ... my story does not need to blow that one up. So that i am a part, of what is not me, feels quite grand enough for the likes of me, thank you anyway.  I  believe in otherness ... don't need no stinking door to blow it up. 

Seth says
choy 2015-11-18 15:40:14 19047
seth 2015-11-18 14:27:10 19047
source: choy

Missing contexts creates literalism.
... .  perhaps it could ... i don't know ... never thought about it like that.  

Can you put some more meet on them bones?
If one has no context within which to put something one has to take the meaning of the words literally. Such in reality is impossible, though since there is always a context somewhere if only objective reality or it's opposite. Or perhaps just shine it on.


Okay i can see that .

I think literalism only applies to the domain of representations.   I don't know what the word  would mean applied "in reality", and if i must guess ... I would probably agree, ...
yes, quite impossible

Seth says
source: choy

Or to quote PR - all there is context & distinction & context itself is a distinction. THe so-called domain of representation is where the fuzzy things creep in (see above picture).

Where does he say that?

I would put it more like, all you can know is the distinctions you make in the context you find them.  I don't know why he wouldn't say it more like that.  To me all distinctions are the representations you make, or absorb from your culture, or your surroundings.  So distinctions are necessarily in the domain of representation requiring interpretation ... and yes, fuzzy stuff that.  

The alternative to that fuzzy stuff is off the edge of the page you are on ... to coin a metaphor ... with no way for your story to actually get there from here.  Maybe that is a tragic story to you. 

Instead you've found written a finale in timeless off the page certainty ... right there by authority of PR's book written like a bible.  Me, i am still not buying it ... even though you seem to have a shiny new one for yourself.  I like this  fuzzy predicament ... humanity has just barley explored it's surface ... don't see how a secret trap door to get out will beautify our page.

Seth says
IamanI 2015-11-19 15:29:16 19047
seth 2015-11-19 15:19:56 19047
PooGueue 2015-11-19 12:44:52 19047
seth 2015-11-19 12:29:27 19047
 
NOPE! These are your windmills, not mine. Don't confuse this with the facebook stuff w/ d'A


"nope" to what ?  I have no idea what you are "nopeing".  Certainly this a story i am telling and not you ... no denying that.  

thanks for the link to facebook ... i like dialogue. 
The rush of transcending self is your bug-a-boo.  The rest got confused with the dup pictures & out of phase posting.


Well it's not just my story ... most gurus tell of it ... although they don't usually call it a rush.  you call that "my bug-a-boo", .... your story,  in which you tell of yourself having transcended such thoughts notwithstanding that you talk of that transcendence all the time ... that is when your not jeering at me for being me.  ... sometimes i just like to unravel that kind of shit ... even though it is never informative. 

what might be more informative would be to unravel how PR emphasizes the automatically of self, yet in the end transcends it ... or does he? ... has he found a way to glory in self with no object: "I being the only thing i can feel directly - all subject, no object, no representation".  I expect it is an a-logical trick ... but i have to read the end of the chapter.

Seth says
source: choy

The bolded part was at the beginning of one of his seminars which I attended, essentially on ontology (versus the ones on martial arts). I don't think YOU simplified it at all. You just munged it all up. I could explain it simply by saying it is ALL distinction.  All that other shit is active during the cognition process [see: item 3976] .

"all there is" does not sufficiently identify what we are talking about for me.  To make that identification i had to put a person in the thought ... for without a person representing a distinction, we know not of what we speak.  And of course, that qualification highlights that there is more than just this "all there is" because we know there are many people here and much Kreation for them to behold.  i don't see how i munged it up or even simplified it ... just merely quantified it so that it didn't vaguely dangle out in unknown territory for me.

Seth says
seth 2015-11-19 12:51:20 19047


There is something that i have been working up to saying about literalism.  There is a problem with people passionately believing in one story.  The problem is: there are different stories which necessarily must fight to obtain.   If there is one God, then it is mine and not yours.  Since I am right, you are wrong.  Do you see the problem?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A better situation might be  where people actually believe there are many stories ... not a single one ... and they are happy to change stories like their clothes for the sake of the dance


Seth says
anyway this item is about literalism and not the rush of transcending self.

There is something that i have been working up to saying about literalism.  There is a problem with people passionately believing in one story.  The problem is: there are different stories which necessarily must fight to obtain.   If there is one God, then it is mine and not yours.  Since I am right, you are wrong.  Do you see the problem?


A better situation is where people actually believe there are many stories ... not a single one ... and they are happy to change stories like their clothes for the sake of the dance. 

Seth says
PooGueue 2015-11-19 11:57:29 19047
Yep your story is not IT nor IS just a story of Egueue.

... whatever IT is in your story.

Seth says
anyway this item is about literalism and not the rush of transcending self.

There is something that i have been working up to saying about literalism.  There is a problem with people passionately believing in one story.  The problem is: there are different stories which necessarily must fight to obtain.   If there is one God, then it is mine and not yours.  Since I am right, you are wrong.  Do you see the problem?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A better situation might be  where people actually believe there are many stories ... not a single one ... and they are happy to change stories like their clothes for the sake of the dance. 

Seth says

Anyway ... back to the topic at hand ... which is literalism ...

Seth says
IamanI 2015-11-19 17:51:21 19047
IamanI 2015-11-19 17:50:37 19047
Yep keep deleting what I say - that is the way you tell me that you REALLY want to know .
HA! - I suspect you just want to argue & hear your brain rattle.


Yep keep deleting what I say - that is the way you tell me that you REALLY want to know.


Well i will continue to delete ad-hominem insults and off topic RWG on my blog.

I never want to just argue ... and if you have actually heard what i have said about that you would know that of me ... so accusing me of just wanting to argue is nothing more than just a  twist for your own egotistical titilation.

Rather, I want us to look at our dialogue as honest scientists exploring a topic space.  you tell of a possibility in that space, i tell of one, ... perhaps mine contradict yours ... then we test in each others minds, which match which ontology, and if not where the contradictions obtain ... and if we can go deep enough, without diversion, we might be able to tease out the various assumptions that underlay those contradictions.   Where that happens we both deserve a goody point ... we both should be proud ... no matter who told of what first.   That is what i want!  RWG and say i want to argue, and yes, i will delete you.

Seth says
then too, perhaps we can realize, that a story is just a story, until it happens

that is said quite simply ... sounds obvious and trivial ...a platitude ...  yet there are a host of assumptions and experiences which supports it ... and the consequences which obtain, for which that represents, are vast indeed.   

And does it matter who's story it is? 


Seth says
source: IamanI

[...] Ask questions like you want to hear the answers [...]

... good idea.

See Also

  1. Thought about: my goodreads ... my reading on Kindle shared publically with 0 viewings related by tag "item 19047".
  2. Thought Expansion ? with 0 viewings related by tag "item 19047".
  3. Thought Muslims in India with 0 viewings related by tag "jihad".