I am open to the possibility of such innovations being the ingenuity of aliens… what could possibly have happened to the previous civilisations that might have come before us? There is evidence of cities, but not of bodies.
Regardless of that, I too find it all very interesting…
I recently read that the EU has been trying to renaturalise the UK with bear and wolf populations for years now, but I think the UK went with containing them in our National Parks… the safest option.
It was… I’ve been out of action for over 3 years… just getting over it now, with help from my GP and specialist clinics. It’s identical to Long Covid, so researchers are doing comparative studies on both illnesses, to identify triggers and best remedial cures.
I’ve got so much/adventures to catch up on, so no time to dwell but to do…
Wow, sounds like you’ve been through it. I’m sorry to hear that, glad to see you’re coming out the other side now though. Hope you’re catching up goes well though!
I find stories of Atlantis and similar sunken lands particuilarly interesting, not least because there are so many of them. Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Thule, Ys, Lyonesse (that last one being off the coast of Cornwall), and so on, the list is almost endless. In these cases, where there’s usually a flood involved, maybe the bodies were just washed away and lost.
Well, I have to try one more time.
Then, seemingly, it can only come down to teleology:
PHILOSOPHY: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
THEOLOGY: the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
Now, philosophically, luck and fate would seem to revolve around the extent to which human beings are in possession of free will. Is David Icke able to opt of his own volition to express the opinions he chooses, or is his brain, as matter wholly in sync with nature’s material laws, able only to opine as nature – the universe – compels him?
Same with you and I.
If so, then luck and fate are in turn entirely intertwined in the only possible reality. And, as for the “purpose” and the “meaning” behind them, well, would that not be as well inherently/necessarily subsumed in this only possible world?
From my frame of mind, given some measure of free will, in the absence of God or the Pagan equivalent, what possibly can be the source of a teleologically purpose and meaning? Other than what any particular individual happens to think is true given the life that they’ve lived. The part I root in dasein, the embodiment of an essentially meaningless and purposeless world. The part you root in the Goddess/Nature, that mysterious [to me] font able to guide your own behaviors.
Now, with theology on the other hand, the “doctrine” that governs luck and fate would seem to be embedded in one or another rendition of God or a religious path. Here then faith often comes into play and it is not necessary go much beyond it. If I am lucky or unlucky, fated or not fated, it’s all ultimately subsumed in my beliefs. People then sustain them, from my point of view, because the alternative is just too disturbing. The loss of the comfort and the consolation they sustain in anchoring their Self to God or the Goddess or to one of hundreds of other spiritual fonts/paths they might have ended up believing instead had their lives been different.
Again, how “I” have come to think human about identity here in a way others do not.
Here, however, in my view, given free will, your understanding of the hole that I am in can only be understood given the assumption you make about “I” in the world around us, given the hole that you are not in yourself. We can only take out of each other what we first put into each other: our own “selves”. Your Self is not fractured and fragmented. Still, the only way I can come to grapple with that is by way of your own more in depth reaction to the arguments I make in the OPs here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
In other words, given particular sets of circumstance that unfold in your life, how do you not construe your own identity as “I” do here. Given the assumptions I make about the “fabricated” self at the existential juncture of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. What different assumptions do you [and others] make who are not drawn and quartered out in the is/ought world?
Well, the crucial point for me is that monarchies, as they once were historically, have ended up on the scrap heap of history. And, given my own political prejudices “here and now”, that’s a good thing. No more divine right of kings or anything else that might upend what many construe to be the best of all possible world: democracy and the rule of law. Instead, what threatens to take their place today is a world ruled by political ideology, dogmas, and authoritarian “populism”. That and the fact that much of the world today still revolves around those who swear only by this: “Show me the money”. Whether they reside in Washington D.C., London, Moscow or Beijing.
Any meaning to life is what you choose to give to it. And the meaning you have chosen, is meaninglessness. Not one that I would ever choose, but you are free to live your life as you wish.
If, as you say, you want to know why I follow the path that I do, based in my experiences in life, then all you have to do is ask me about it, as I’ve said many times. Without specific questions, however, I can’t anticipate what it is that you wish to know.
But if you’re more interested in a debate about your own state of mind, then I’m sorry, but I think that such a debate will only end up with you getting angry and accusing me of not wanting to talk to you any more. That has happened three times already, after all.
So if you want to talk to me, you are always welcome to come onto my threads and engage me with those subjects that I’m interested in.
But, in regard to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, how are your own choices not rooted in turn to the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
And here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
What I wish from you most of all is a far more substantive/substantial exchange regarding both our lives here. One in which you explore the assumptions I make regarding how your own values could well have been very, very different had your life been very, very different.
Something along the lines of identity explored here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Son
ilovephilosophy.com/search. … only&ch=-1
Or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_the_Hero
Perhaps not as dramatic as babies switched at birth, but any number of contexts in which a profound experience you have in life can result in truly momentous consequences regarding how you view yourself out in the world interacting with others.
And no, I have only chosen to think of my life as essentially meaningless and purposeless. Existential meaning and purpose on the other hand is everywhere. I merely root it more in dasein than in things like religion or spirituality or deontology or political ideology or nature.
You noted above that…
“I don’t think there’s any fundamental meaning to existence that’s the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning.”
Which is something that I would offer as one of my own conjectures about myself out in the world with others. But I’m still very much uncertain as to how you intertwine nature, Paganism, the Goddess etc., into your own value judgments on this side of the grave. How do you manage to to sustain a sense of self that is not “fractured and fragmented” given the lack of one or another transcending font – which most call God – in your own life?
It’s almost as though anything goes. If, in your own interactions with nature and the Goddess you come to think and feel this instead of that, that need be as far as it goes.
For me though that just gets all tangled up in the “hole” I have dug for myself in regard to “I” out in the is/ought world derived largely from dasein.
I’ve asked you specific questions. Namely, how your understanding of those experiences is embedded in the manner in which I understand the nature of specific sets of experiences precipitating value judgments derived mostly from the experiences themselves. And then in acknowledging how those experiences might have been very different precipitating very different values instead. It is in confronting the subjective/subjunctive existential nature of identity here that takes us to philosophy. What can the tools of philosophy provide us in the way of coming up with the most rational and virtuous point of view when confronting conflicting goods…whether in regard to political things like vaccinations and Brexit, or all the moral conflagrations that rent the species, or all the hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths available to us depending on the existential trajectory of our individual lives.
It’s not a debate, but a discussion regarding how your assessment of your self has not resulted in a fragmented and fractured frame of mind. How nature and Paganism and the Goddess are not just “existential contraptions” rooted in dasein but something more than that. Maybe not understood in the manner in which some understand God, or those like Satyr at KT understand nature, but certainly able to sustain a more grounded sense of identity than “I” am.
Icke a man of limited education and intelligence.
After kicking a leather bag of wind on a bit of grass for a few years, and getting paid a stupid amount for it, a TV company decided he had enough charisma and interest in sports to give him a job on the Telly, for which he was paid another stupid amount of money. Presumably this gave him some false confidence to think that people might think he has something worth saying.
His opinions are ungrounded and his reasoning absent.
Since then there is very little else to say.
You say the darndest things!!
Are you going to cite where you “read” that?
…thanks : )
Mmmmm 
With respect, I’m not going to read through some other, pre-existing threads in order to enter into a discussion. One of them, for example, has been going for ten years. If you can express those ideas organically, as part of an actual conversation, then that might be different.
You ask, how do I sustain a sense of self that is not fractured and fragmented, without a transendent god. To me, it’s very easy. Nature is everywhere, and I’m a part of it. A part of the goddess, in other words. I do not feel fractured or fragmented in any way. On the contrary, I feel that I’m exactly how I’m supposed to be.
It’s definitely not anything goes, though. Indeed, I think I have a pretty high moral standard. We are all creatures of nature, and abusing others is just abusing nature itself. What goes around, comes around. Or, put another way, like attracts like. If you’re nice, people are, in general, nice back to you. And vice versa. A positive attitude reinforces itself. As does a negative one.
And yes, it’s obviously the case that had my life been different, I might have held different opinions, and had different values.
Well, I had to try. Given the exchange that first unfolded between us on the dream thread, I just felt there was real potential for us not only to explore these things out in the deep end of the existential pool, but even to sustain a virtual friendship.
Sadly, I basically see us now as engaging in two different discussions. But please don’t get me wrong…in no way am I suggesting here that my end of it is better or more authentic or more reasonable than yours. Just different.
Maybe that might change on a new thread from you pertaining to some other issue that interest you. I hope so.
But, again, glumly, we just construe this…
“If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically [and spiritually].”
…from different sets of assumptions.
I figured if anyone might come up with a point of view that would facilitate me in scrambling up out of the hole I’ve dug for myself over the years, it might be you. Or, if not that, then the other way around.
Again, it was largely a win/win situation for me. But only if it goes that far.
[b]
Maia : I have read the book and disagree with most of what he says :
The moon is not hollow but a rocky world just like Earth and the other three inner planets
Saturn does not affect Earth : the connection with Saturnalia / Satan is purely mythological
The Olympic logo is entirely benign and simply represents the Five Continents
There is nothing sinister about geometrical shapes in general or their combinations
I read the book because he is an interesting point on the spectrum : I may read more of his
As to what people see in him you will have to ask them
I simply acquire knowledge and information : no more no less
I do however admire his consistency and refusal to go quietly into the night as it were[/b]
What would be seen in David Icke would largely depend on the kind of x-ray being used by the examiner. Computed tomography, projectional radiography and fluoroscopy, for example, would produce different imagery.
In the other hand, any direct autopsy results would obviously depend on the area and particular anatomical region where the autopsy is performed.
…waiting for your pizza to arrive, or your muffins to burn in the oven?
No, I am waiting on a lasagna. But sometimes Mother is rude to me… and I, I… well I become angry with Mother and have to control myself…
Home-made lasagne, is like home-made moussaka… bloomin fantastic.
That Icke guy… he’s probably a vegan, or a pescatarian… at the very most.
I’m not a fan.
Mummy will smack your little bottom.
Leave her alone to get on woth the Lasagna
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to take a look at it.
From what little I know about him, I expect that my opinion will be the same.
Perhaps multiple reasons. I’d need to know who he is famous and influential among. And what that group looks like.
Absent that, I can only speculate.
One reason might be that he gives voice to alienation that many of his admirers feel. The idea that this world is ruled by dark powers that aren’t even human. That’s a pretty evocative image, you have to admit.
And I suspect that there’s a similar motive among his louder and more aggressive critics who try to exaggerate his influence. These people might get a cheap feeling of intellectual superiority by attacking him and might thereby be expressing their own feelings of alienation from what they perceive as the common herd, where they imagine that Icke’s ideas are far more influential than they really are.
So I suspect that both his admirers and many of his critics share reasons for exaggerating his importance and influence.
But that’s all my own speculation without any real data on what his influence really is.