Ecmandu: the POE & 3 Transcendentals

Since I miss Ecmandu, so much, I’m going to Eastwood him by steel manning the problem of evil he insists will always be a problem… Then, I’ll toss it like a steel monkey wrench into the harmonic triads. I’m going to start with the three transcendentals in a creedal form:

If something is true and good, it is also beautiful.

If something is beautiful and true, it is also good.

If something is good and beautiful, it is also true.

How this will relate to the problem of evil is that the true lines up with omniscience, the good lines up with omnibenevolence, and the beautiful (nobility, greatness) lines up with omnipotence. These features are yellow, blue, and red in the Venn of Import:

image

The following version of the problem of evil is referred to as a trilemma, but it only includes two features: omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Source under religion heading:

The following is an actual trilemma because it includes three features: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience:

Source: Epicurus - Wikipedia

And here is what would happen if Slavoj Žižek “steel manned” the trilemma of evil to be structured after his trilemma of the Communist regime: Of the three features: omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipotence—it was possible to combine only two, never all three. If God were omniscient and omnibenevolent, they were not omnipotent. If God were omnipotent and omnibenevolent, they were not omniscient. If God were omniscient and omnipotent, they were not omnibenevolent. (compare to the Žižek trilemma under the politics heading:

Resolution to the trilemma:

In essentials unity (yellow), in nonessentials liberty (blue), in all things charity (red). I mean …. if you’re not gonna be a dictator (aka remote controller, per Ecmandu) and abuse your power and violate everyone’s consent, essentially nuking the Venn of Import and muting the problem of evil with “Why does something exist rather than nothing?”

I assume @Ecmandu can do the logic from here?

Good day.

See also: Why evil is not necessary - #118 by Ichthus77

Some say divine hiddenness is deceptive.

…that unless God made us all omniscient, he’s lying to us.

…but you could say the same about science:

Science is lying until it is omniscient (tells the whole truth), and so it is always lying.

So if Kant was right about lying…

There goes science.

…unless a) Kant was wrong about lying, and b) those who say divine hiddenness (withheld omniscience) is lying are wrong (¿and therefore lying?), or c) there is no real good/ethics, but then… d) why the beef with hiddenness and our lack of omniscience?

Yes, guess so, but then Eric Erickson has experienced Kant’s untimely marginally repressed should have defined a feeling if not an instinct that other polarities, such as the origin from medi eval succession will develop from unitary sources to decided formations between Marx and Hegel,

Which ultimately recur indefinitely toward a transposed logos, so that

Such repression should, could be seen as stuck in the middle? The solution is evident there, but not visible, sizes makes that rather
clear. The fear that the fear escapes from the freedom of simulating the race between the turtle and the hare, or something Mano may have felt , as a par exemplar.

But what bout about Poe?

)()(

The Raven
BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

SHARE
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;

And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain

Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
“’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door—
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—
This it is and nothing more.”

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,

“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you”—here I opened wide the door;—
Darkness there and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,

Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore?”
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!”—
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,

Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
“Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—
’Tis the wind and nothing more!”

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,

In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,
Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore—
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,

Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door—
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as “Nevermore.”

But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only

That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing farther then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—
Till I scarcely more than muttered “Other friends have flown before—
On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said “Nevermore.”

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,

“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—
Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore
Of ‘Never—nevermore’.”

But the Raven still beguiling all my fancy into smiling,

Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing

To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o’er,
But whose velvet-violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o’er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer

Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
“Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee
Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore;
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—

Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—
On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!

By that Heaven that bends above us—by that God we both adore—
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting—

“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore

)()()(

Leonora overture:

Y’got the good, which is breakeven self=other. But is it really good if it ain’t beautiful?

And y’got the beautiful, which capitalizes on (multiplies over and above) the good. But is it really beautiful if it isn’t at least good? Isn’t that the mistake any economic system makes when it privileges some more than others, and sacrifices none of that privilege to make whole those it impoverishes (often in the name of beautification)?

And you’ve got the true, which describes reality. But is it really as real as it could be if it is neither good, nor beautiful?

This is retarded.

1 Like

You were looking in the mirror when you said that.

@Ecmandu, in the past, you have said we are never born, and we never die, and that we all made this together. I recently spoke with someone who had a similar theory. We had a great discussion about the problem of evil. Your position is slightly different from theirs (and handicaps you from processing this correctly, maybe… because you do not consistently value every person’s consent equally), but I am curious for your feedback on my response to them, which is as follows:

Your position, otherwise you think atheism is the case (but you agree there is no evil without a real good/ought), is that a good God created us omniscient and omnipotent (so, competent and able in knowledge and power), so also omnibenevolent (able to make moral choices–and starting out good). This is how you explain that a good God did not create a universe with needless suffering and evil–you pass that responsibility to us from the eternal kingdom that existed ontologically prior (and posterior) to the beginning (end) of the universe. You don’t think our agreement makes those things okay, you just think they are not God’s fault. However, you struggle with how omnibenevolence (even as a created being) could create a universe with needless suffering and evil. You are open to the idea that we don’t have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in order to be morally responsible–we only have to have intention and ability to behave (im)morally. However, that only accounts for intentional evil, it does not account for needless suffering, which you feel God could have prevented (and that not preventing it is a kind of intentional evil). So, you punt to the eternal us as approving of it from eternity (even if we don’t approve of it in the moment). You think that making God responsible rather than us, as well as the atheist view that God does not exist, are both apathetic views that do not really deal with the problem of evil and needless suffering. (“The opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy,” is so big on your mind right now, that you are contemplating getting it tattooed.)

What does the what in “I love you no matter what” mean to you?

If you agree that non-apathetic love-no-matter-what requires choice (an alternative or painful what), and that we don’t have to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to be morally responsible here and now, why isn’t that enough to account for evil and needless suffering? It doesn’t make it easier to go through, but wouldn’t it be more evil (even imossible) to remove the possibility of all love by removing all pain–for everything that matters to just never exist, and be left with nothing (not even apathy)?

Isn’t it enough that Jesus took full responsibility when he switched perspectives with us on the cross, demonstrating he never held any of our own willfull evil against us–though he won’t force that forgiveness on us against our consent? True power sets free–it does not micromanage…right?

Interesting. I just found this. I made a perfect plan for all possible beings that will send a shockwave forever. It’s so perfect that it had to be implemented yesterday.

But it didn’t happen. So, I had to ponder the universe much deeper.

God wants to be the power forever and ever. I’ll get Gods power eventually, Just like I’ll get the powers of Jesus and the Buddha eventually. And when I get that power, I’m going to use it for real good. I want everyone to have the power forever and ever. Everyone gets everything they want forever at the expense of no being. It’s my passion of the deepest part of my soul.

I want to fuck women all the time, but I know for a fact that it will hurt someone else’s feelings.
Humans are evil. They don’t care. Religion teaches people to marry. Society teaches people to cohabitate and partner. That’s selfish. I’m not raising a child; I’m raising the whole world. Two very different job titles.

If raising a child is selfish, isn’t raising the whole world selfish on a global/absolute scale?

Likewise, if getting married is selfish, isn’t what you want selfish on a global/absolute scale?

Unless you actually care about not violating people‘s consents, of course. Then doesn’t that sort of … slow you down?

People weren’t taught correctly. That’s why I was called back from a 3 trillion-year nap.
You know my perfect plan. Live in a secure universe where your subconscious operates the entire cosmos with marionetted philosophic zombies and your conscious mind gives commands to your subconscious mind to flip switches. An infinite number of dimensions are processed.

It’s a perfect plan. Problem is… there are beings who want to be the power and glory forever and ever.

OK, never mind. Sorry to bother you. Maybe you should set your phone on “do not disturb” even though it’s too late, like I do?

Men will bend their minds over backwards to keep from admitting they are wrong — and that is the real reason there is needless suffering in the world.

Oh. I forgot one tiny little detail. It isn’t a power to sin (act/value/think in violation of consent), or fail to do good (act/value/think regardless of consent). It is a weakness/privation.

Whether or not he can create us already in the eternal kingdom is a totally separate issue (it requires consent to stay there… once you realize that being born/created there doesn’t remove your free will to leave… and that to stay means being born again). The only way we can ever be in the eternal kingdom on the same level as God is if we were always there to begin with (ontologically “prior” to the “sequence” or… upon our birth into it). The alienation is only in our minds. God is everywhere (omni) present. But obviously we’re not omni anything, and never were, and never will be, though he is very generous to share with those who ask.

The problem of evil is very simple. Women never fuck kind men,
Actually, the problem of evil is even simpler, as an afterthought god decided to create hiccups.
And said it was good. Why does god say everything is good?
Why would a hyperempath feel like heaven ever if even one person is suffering?
Things like that.
Non existence has always been better than existence.
The problem is… god has no choice in the matter.
My patch proves it. It’s perfect existence. Just as good as non existence.

Not true. And your definition of kind is problematic. Therefore, your patch is problematic.

To be truly empathetic means we mind our own business about other people‘s joy … except that we are happy for them rather than jealous.

It is because we feel like heaven that we want others to have real (consent respecting) joy and try to help them with their suffering.

It is because we feel like hell that we are jealous to the point of not wanting anyone to have real joy (in total disregard of their consent).

It is only right to be jealous of that which robs people of real joy. …not because you also want that joy robber, but because you want to remove it as an obstacle.

God has plenty of choice in the matter of existence. Things could exist other than they do right now. Nonexistence (like evil) is not a power, but a lack of it.

Admit you’re wrong, Ec. Be the only man to be man enough to do it!

Kind is being generous to a fault Women never go for guys like that.
If anyone suffers, I suffer. That means without the patch or non-existence, I’m in hell forever.

There again, your definition of generous is problematic. You think that women should give you sex without you having to ask for it explicitly just because you were generous. That expectation boils down to prostitution without asking.

sigh

That is neither generous nor kind. To a fault? More like you skipped the generous and kind part and went straight to the fault.

sigh again

People who think that generous and kind is your version …need to suffer. Builds character.

No. I’m not going to use approach escalation, manipulation or aggression.
Those are the things killing this species.
Women want the species to die.
Kind to a fault is that I can destroy this species if I want to, but don’t.
That means no women for me.

You’re pissed off that you have to try and women don’t (in your opinion) (while also judging/rating them). You’re pissed off that you were born a male. It’s humiliating to you to try (do you not have empathy for women who have to try?) (is it any wonder to you that Mel was a one-off?). You think it’s beneath you. And yet you had/have no gratitude when Mel flipped the script and selected you like she was the man and you were the woman (according to standards acceptable in your culture). It’s a double standard to be OK with her doing it, but be unwilling to do that yourself (especially considering you are built for it and she is not…usually). (Not that you should go about it that way.) It seems to me that you don’t really know what you want. Once you got your way with the patch, you’d have a problem with that, too. And every woman knows it … so why would they even try? Besides, when women flip the script like that, they short-circuit the whole process of testing to make sure a man isn’t going to be an asshole who makes her miserable for the rest of her life. Since she is at a physical disadvantage, it is wise of her not to short-circuit that process, don’t you think?

…or is it only entitled males with whom you empathize?

Let’s back up here. I have the problem as an adult of the problem of statutory rape.
I’ve given up on human sex because my mind is so old, that any woman to me is statutory rape.
Because of the approach escalation problem and the sex dimorphism problem…

I actually can only be with a woman cognitively older than me.

Those women don’t exist. Have you seen all the shit I’ve been teaching the whole species for years now?

Do you remember that if I went on a dating site, that I came up with the perfect line to use?

I’m new here. New to this platform. I just want someone I can understand who also understands me.

It’s the PERFECT dating profile Ichthus.

That’s how smart I am.

I’m charming, I’m decent looking although my eyes are my best feature.

This would be easy for me. I’m not a might makes right person. I have the intelligence to pick up lots of women. Even getting married is a manipulation technique (Sorry Carleas)

I have a lot on my mind Ichthus… like… everything. I give women to men, I don’t take them.

I think it’s selfish to pair bond. You’re hoarding nudity, sex and conversation.