Xn3cTs

“… Listen to Me in the truth of your soul. Listen to Me in the feelings of your heart. Listen to Me in the quiet of your mind.

“Hear Me, everywhere. Whenever you have a question, simply know that I have answered it already. Then open your eyes to your world. My response could be in an article already published. In the sermon already written and about to be delivered. In the movie now being made. In the song just yesterday composed. In the words about to be said by a loved one. In the heart of a new friend about to be made.

“My Truth is in the whisper of the wind, the babble of the brook, the crack of the thunder, the tap of the rain.

“It is the feel of the earth, the fragrance of the lily, the warmth of the sun, the pull of the moon.

“My Truth – and your surest help in time of need – is as awesome as the night sky, and as simply, incontrovertibly, trustful as a baby’s gurgle.

“It is as loud as a pounding heartbeat – and as quiet as a breath taken in unity with Me.

“I will not leave you, I cannot leave you, for you are My creation and My product, My daughter and My son, My purpose and My… ‘Self.’”

—

The above quotation is from the last portion of Neale Donald Walsch’s “Conversations with God, Book 1.” I’m quoting it at length because I think it gives a general idea of what pantheism is all about.

Pantheism is, simply put, the belief that God is everything, or conversely, that everything is God. Of course, some philosophers have pointed out that pantheism is virtually an atheism. To believe that everything is God is to make the idea of “God” profane. If God is immanent (to the universe) and not transcendent, then why use the word “God” at all? The very notion of “God,” they argue, presupposes the idea of “transcendence.” Pantheism, insofar as it denies the transcendence of God, is virtually an atheism.

Read the rest of this page »

Tags: Books, Conversations with God, Hegel, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, spirituality, Translation, Writing
Posted in Books, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, Translation, Writing, spirituality | No Comments »

I am a Nietzsche fan. In fact, one of the things that drew me to him was the fact that he became insane. Mwahahaha! (SFX: Stinger from “Psycho”)A curious fact: When Nietzsche finally had a breakdown in 1888(?) in Turin, Italy, it was occasioned by his seeing a coach-driver cruelly beating up a horse. He ran up weeping to embrace the horse.

I know that Nietzsche has read Dostoyevski (his contemporary), but am not sure whether he has read “Crime and Punishment.” In the novel, Raskolnikov dreams of someone beating up a horse and him trying to stop the beating.

Is this a case of (an unconscious) life imitating art, or a simple weird coincidence? (Raskolnikov murdered an old woman. Nietzsche proclaimed the “death of God.”)

—

I also encountered a book by Joan Stambaugh, “The Other Nietzsche” where she discusses a slightly different, a mystic Nietzsche. She also sees an affinity between Nietzsche and Spinoza, who was a pantheist. (Nietzsche, a pantheist?) I know this might seem quite far-fetched but there are several scholars who are inclined to this interpretation.

I consider myself a pantheist now, so I guess I have to confess I am inclined to see Nietzsche in that light. (With apologies to hard-core atheists.)

best regards,
nietzsche-ian

Tags: , Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevski, Nietzsche
Posted in Books, Life, Nietzsche, Philosophy, Psychology, spirituality | No Comments »

Saw Cinema Paradiso years ago. In it, an old man tells a young man this beautiful story about the lover who on the eve of finally fulfilling his desire (i.e., getting his love), left, without so much as a word or explanation.

Why did he leave? Did he resent the fact that his love had to test his love? Did he get scared of the impending success of his quest? Did he tire of the waiting? Lost his love/desire? Gotten what he wanted (proven to himself that he had the capacity to suffer for his love)?

We do not know.

Why would we give up something/someone that we desire (with the whole of our being) just when we’re about to get it/her/him?

That story is what in the film made the deepest impression in me.

Many years later, I got to read this book by Roland Barthes, “A Lover’s Discourse” (1977). In the section entitled “Waiting,” we find this fragment:

“A mandarin fell in love with a courtesan. ‘I shall be yours,’ she told him, ‘When you have spent a hundred nights waiting for me, sitting on a stool, in my garden, beneath my window.’ But on the ninety-ninth night, the mandarin stood up, put his stool under his arm, and went away.”

Tags: Cinema Paradiso, Desire, Love, Roland Barthes, Waiting
Posted in Art, Books, Life, Love, Movies, Philosophy | 1 Comment »

Tags: boots, cardioid, heart, Painting
Posted in Life, Love, Painting | No Comments »

From a posting in an e-group:

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

—————————————-

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)

(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won’t be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.’s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

(iv) You say I shouldn’t drink, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996

—————————————-

My comments on the above posting regarding the fallacy of “argumentum ad hominem.” (I can’t help it. It’s the philosophaster in me.)

I think there are valid forms of “argumentum ad hominem,” namely, the “circumstantial,” and the “tu quoque.” (“Et tu, Brute?” Translation: “You also, Brutus?”). (I also think that the “circumstantial” and “tu quoque” argumentum ad hominem is one and the same thing.) I mean, I agree completely with friend Fredda’s statement that she writes in order to live. It is precisely because of this connection between our work/actions and our lives that the “circumstantial/tu quoque argumentum ad hominem” (also related to the English “poisoning the well” fallacy) can be accepted as a valid form of argument, and therefore not a fallacy (a logical fallacy, yes, but definitely not an ontological fallacy). Ideas/theories/arguments not backed up by LIFE are just that: ideas… worthless. Crap. (Well, crap has its value/use from time to time.)

What is a fallacy (logically and ontologically), and therefore out of line, is the “abusive” argumentum ad hominem. It’s done out of spite, in the absence of love/compassion. Unless it’s done playfully (in a teasing manner), in which case it loses (or at least reduces) its “abusive” quality.

sincerely,
ian, a.k.a. dee-dee (Shiva the destroyer)

—————————————-

“Let Saigons be bygones.” – Bart Guingona

Tags: Argumentum ad Hominem, Logic, Philosophy
Posted in Philosophy | No Comments »