sagiXsagi
-
Content count
1,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Posts posted by sagiXsagi
-
-
!!!!!!!!!!THIS REVIEW IS SPOILER FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Over the years I have come to know oz through this forum initially, then from films. Last months I watched several more ozzie films, and wow they were ALL are amazing. Well I know how to chose films to watch, I have established a system many years ago, so I am sure I have seen some of the best , quality shit, yet all of them have very good atmosphere that shouts oz, which relates to both competent location shoots and what appears as pretty realistic casting / acting and fantastic scenography. Or its just me and as I am getting old and the good on-location cinematography amazes me even if the film is duller or even cliched for most people - yet ozzie films have a certain power in them, and dull would never be a way I would describe the best of the best of ozzie cinema. On the contrary. Bold, intense, powerful would be the words I would use.
So you got Rolf De Heer, the more films I see of him the more I am impressed.. Well its a sad reality that no more people know this mans work, the numbers in imdb are devastating, but at least the dude seems to have been widely recognized as a pioneer by the film award circuit and film academia people. Thats really something in this weird world we live in.
I have seen the following De Heer films, in the order I watched them: Bad Boy Bubby, Alexadra's project, The king is dead!, The tracker, 10 canoes. I mean come on!! Easily, he enters my short list of favourite directors that include Cronenberg, Almodovar, Solondz, Aronofski.. Each of these films is from very good to excellent to masterpiece on its own, but the films bare no resemblance with each other, both in content , genre, style, approach... But all of them are unique and original in some way and reveal a great artist that judging by the imdb numbers, is not really appreciated in Australia either..
As a major horror film fan I have of course seen 'Wolf creek' 1+2, which I found very good, and specially the 2nd part, hillarious in its more dark comedy horror piece. Also watched the wolf creek series which had also very good cinematograhy but didnt match up to the films IMO . I am sure I have seen several other ozzie thrillers / horror, some of the nature/survival kind, I remember a couple but not the names.. The depiction of life in the outback or the bush , at least in the films I saw, was gripping and very realistic. Good cinematography obviouly plays a role.
Then of course you have Peter Weir, with many famous films - perhaps the most famous ozzie director with both quality and commercial films. I am sure there are interesting films of his I havent seen. But 'Dead poets society' and 'Truman show' are pretty fucking famous.
I could not do a review of australian cinema without mentioning the little known horror/comedy social satire masterpiece "Body Melt", which is one of my earliest encounters with ozzie culture. I love this b-movie, almost a curiocity if you search about the artist/director Philip Brophy. Which makes Body melt make even more sense.
I also saw 'Rabbit proof fence' the other day - again a fine combo of fine on location cinematography and realistic approach to a controversial subject matter. One of several films of the new wave of ozzie cinema that dealt with the dark heart of australias past.
And then you got 'Wake in fright', which I watched yesterday. Wow. This was done from a canadian director, yet some might argue this is the most ozzie film of them all. This is one of the most extraordinary films I have every seen. You wouldnt expect me to say this for a 1971 film. During the years I have seen many if not the majority of the most extraordinary films covering a range of themes , genres and tones, but especially focusing on the extreme, violent, weird, darkly comedic, surrealist. This film is classed as a psychological thriller, but its actually a pretty straight forward drama. Well yeah its a thriller, or at least it looks as if it is, but even then its not thriller-like in the sense you would expect in a 70s film. Its more drama than thriller. What makes it excel is again the combination of the excellent scenography and on location cinematogrpahy with the bravery and determination of the director and actors to take it to the level they took it.
Wake in fright, is exceptional in that it has several interpretations/ readings/levels. In that sense its a multigenre film, a thriller, a drama and a surrealist comedy, all at once. Sure, I must have a warped sense of humour to call this a dark comedy, but this amazing film geniously uses the isolation of the outback and the excellent tailored chacters of the mine town to drive our protagonist out of his comfort zone and along with him, us the viewers. I dont want to say more for fear of spoiling the amazing experience that this film is for those who havent seen it. I for one think this is so close to a masterpiece, that given the time it was filmed, it deserves the hype.. Its not unknown, but its not really known.
At the end, this film is exceptional in that it divides, it provokes, and tells a pretty fucking awesome story while showcasing a piece of australia and mankind not often shown . It is also a film about alcohol. Never again have I seen a story dealing with alcohol overdose so realistically. Everything is amazing on all levels, and for me this film is the hype and maybe 100% times more. Deserves all the hype and then more. Understandably underrated, this is one of the best fucking films I have ever seen. And i have seen many "quality" films.
I want to also mini-review "The tracker" by Rolf De heer which I mentioned earlier. This one is different and unique in that it had a soundtrack written for the film and each scene, De heer writting himself the lyrics and a singer of aboriginal descent singing. Also De Heer played alot with the narrating mediums in this film. He uses narration, then he uses the songs to imply characters traits, then he uses the songs to imply what the characters might be feeling. He also uses painting stills done for the film. Then this musical-approach more or less stops.. and like any Rolf De Heer film , you wouldnt guess where it is going, plot-twist or ending wise.. except if you already know him from Bad Boy Bubby.
Before I end it, it, I know you people might suggest The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith + Walkabout which I havent seen yeah, but they're on my list.. Will definately see them. Also found 'They're a weird mob' but the lack of subtitles makes me hesitant.
Here I should mention that when I first watched Body Melt, in 2002, from a VHS I bought in Berlin, Germany, a Dutch produced release of the film, I had a really hard time to understand what the hill-billies were saying in that hillarious scene. I mean, I got the central point, but hey - subtitles help us who dont speak english as our first. And then again there are so different accents.. There are some scottish films that you cant understand shit without subtitles.
So yeah, thats it, if you want , suggest ozzie films for me and non ozzies who are interested in good quality ozzie cinema, Please, if you propose a film or several, say a few words about each and why we should check it out, without spoilers.
Or, okey, just give us your list, mate.
-
2
-
-
I am sorry I left this hanging. I will reply as some point...
I am not sure any more which is the point?
maybe the point is a point of objectivity in a sea of subjectivity and that's what philosophers have been longing to define
-
1
-
-
plant has grown, is pretty neat.. it would be fun to take a picture of the same spot
-
-
of course a week passed, and its not ready, I havent ever created a pdf from scratch , if you believe it, I didnt even have Word on my computer. as a reward for those that really believed me in that it was going to be ready in a week, here's a teaser
-
1
-
-
whow what a thread (that I hadnt seen in the past) .. as always, amazing ambitious project , well done spooge.
-
1
-
-
Consistent to what Gimli is saying, I managed to get my first seed grown acuminatas grow normally to pubescens (now ~ 1 year old) only when I transplanted the newly sprouted seedlings to very big pots relatively , 4~5 liters, and leaving them exposed on winter and to full sunlight, except from the very hot part of summer when I put them in part shade because they were drying too fast and I was afraid they will dry up if a forget them couple days. I did not use mycorhiza's.
-
Very nice retrospective video! Thanks for sharing!
For those of us that are not in australia, it would be cool to describe the particularity/uniqueness of Tasmanian climate as opposed to australian climate, to understand better why you point this out. Indicative lowest temps and description of the cold season there would also be helpful to form a better picture.
Also of some use and definately interesting would be to have some small descriptions of the habitat / climate where major species naturally occur, for those of us that are not familiar with australian climate
-
sanding/filing the seeds a must for me.
Snu mentions burkittii as a ssp of acuminata btw
-
The other day I planted ~ 1 year old ~ Acacia acuminata plantlets (normal + narrow) and a couple other things in the ground. Fingers croseed.
Today I am preparing a GA3 solution for sowing several things, like more Acacia sp, Mandragora sp (I have seeds from all species this year), Hyoscyamus, and some old Ephedra sp. I will also try petalostylis cassioides which I was recently sent. I guess I will treat them as Acacias as the seed is really like an acacia
-
3
-
-
This thread needs to go up. Does anyone know any viable seed seller for reasonable prices?? I am also looking for Gnetum sp.
-
Hello. This is not from your seed, but at last I have some seedlings grown from seed from ferret, many years ago.
Running out of space in my roof , wanting to plant more seed of Acacia after my success with this species and actually wanting to plant those in the ground made me plant all 4 plantlets I created (both narrow and broad variety) in the ground in 900 m altitude, risking it might get too cold for them as I consider them warm-loving plants. Just today I read that its particularly cold hardy.. I would like to ask, up to what temperature?
-
On 29/03/2019 at 12:43 PM, AbleKay said:Anyone else read about the DMSO Tek? opinions?
Nah , this dude doesnt seem to know much about muscaria.
I have done another final revision of my article on muscaria and I hope I will be able to release the ver1 of it within a week.
-
1
-
-
bump... any growing experience in 2019? seeds seem identical with Acacia sp. so I guess similar to Acacia treatment is one idea
-
I only succeeded with acacia (acuminata) when I repoted the very young seedlings to big pots, full sun and then left them for the duration of winter there .. sometime in the summer they exploded with growth.. maybe desmanthus also need lots of root space when young...
-
1
-
-
thats interesting, never heard of it
-
Impressive. A couple pictures would be cool... Rivea seed are also helped with filing (scarifying) . I havent sowed for long time. I miss my Argyreia. My Argyreia flowered at 18 months from sowing.. And after a while it was strangled by turbina.. Turbina for 2 years was producing tons of buds, but it was mid winter so it never opened them all dropped. Then mysteriously, Tubrina died. It has some 7cm wide trink at the base. Ι have some theories why it died, but its all theory
-
1
-
-
I will not edit this now- but maybe I edit some part later so that it can make sense
EDIT: some small edits were made
-
1
-
-
DISCLAIMERS (to help find the base, where we "come" from)
1. PHILOSOPHY. You are right that my thinking is (almost?) completely coming from inference (a new word for me, you make me use the translator which is something I normally use when I read hard science articles and papers!). I didnt mean any disrespect for you wanting to present your ideas with right semantics, technically well. The this is I had a hard time understanding, but from what I understood, you are being analytical for a lot of "non-issues" in my opinion. I will explain. I come out as a person deeply interested in philosophy, but, what I am interested in is not the same philosophy other people mean. My philosophy is something that a person does. Philosophy is something that I do, not something I read. Something I practice, not something I know. I claim I am a good philospher, not because I think I am right, but because the "unity of my self and opinions/worldview" , "unity of the world and and self" is consisent, is "well described", is a 'good' system! Other people's philosophy is usually some plain "history of philosphy" or some half-understood parroting of some famous philosopher or neo-prophet. They are into philosphy = they have read big philoshers. Lots of times I am told I am using the wrong semantics talking with people that have read this or that form of philosophy.. You know what? I have read almost no philosphy. Only Stirner, and very little of Nitsche. I really dont believe that philosophy needs fancy wording or any new words for that matter. Sure, if you feel existentialism or whatever draws you, sure you should go on and read and learn the special terminology, but you cannot demand people to know the terminology. In few words, I believe you should be able to talk about your philosophical ideas simply. I think you should be able to abstract them in a few sentences. And I also think famous or not so famous philosophers are useful as a means to describe ones philospophy, to refer to. Like bookmarks, though, not like all-knowing gods. So my approach in philosphy is somewhat DIY. Like Max Stirners book title, my philosophy is my very own. Sure I have a touch of Stirner, but I am not a Stirnerist! I had these ideas about egoism before I read Stirner. And I had this absolutist provocative tone before I read the little Nitsche I read. I need my ideas to be able to be told in a simple way and understood by a person of average intelligence.
2. SCIENCE, SCIENTIFICAL METHOD, PROOF & SCIENTISM
Most atheists are of the hard scientific types. I was amazed when I got in an atheist forum and realised why atheist have had such a (bad) name. Scientism is an extreme form of "belief" in science, which is virtually dogmatic, thus religious. Scientifists (thats what I call them) abuse the system (phenomenon - mechanism of action - proof) and break our balls playing protector of science or something when we want to discuss something out of the box or something that is not yet the consensus, or some alternative theory. Thing is this is really common in atheists, and I am totally not like this. Science is supposed to help us figure out the world, the principles are there from the ancient greek amd they are pretty simple. We dont need to call spanish inquisition every time we wanna discuss something. A reall good example is astrology.. There's a really typical , identical I would say reaction from scientists, either agonstics when they are faced with astrology. Immediately they ask about proof and more importantly the mechanism of action. I say "are you nuts? what mechanism? I dont know, there's no theory about this.. proof?? proof about what?? The dudes are happy to delve in the debunking mode about some "phenomenon" . The most logical would be to say, what phenomenon? being some edvidence, indication of what this phenomenon (this technique) does/ predicts... Then after some talk, I understand the dude does not wanna know about what the phenomenon is supposed to be - he just wants to play the debunk game which is really overdone in astrologyand reject it . More talk and I see the majority also reject the Briggs-Meyers personality tests which are based on questionaires. When a sceptic talks to me about natal astrology, I want to talk about the phenomenon, the supposed phenomenon, what could be there, what logical even explanation.. But the majority dont bother and STILL, go on with the debunking nevertheless.. Which I find quite irrational and epistemologically wrong.. If you dont feel a hypothesis (the phenomenon, natal astrology predicts some characters traits of the individual) is even remotely plausible, why bother with mechnism of action and proof? Astrology is a good example where I am very different to the typical scientifist atheist. But in the long term I saw that regadless atheism , scepticisicm. Most people dont want to discuss character traits in general. Many idealists and most humanists dont want to believe there are different qualities, talents , pros and cons lets say, per individual. And they dont like it because it messes with their ideological soup. Existantialists in particular, might be very angry at the ideas that stem from natal astrology.
So I am radical atheist as I am radical anti-scientism. Science and scientific methods should not be used to opress and confine a discussion or arguement. If you think an idea is ridiculous, why the heck would you go into dis-proving ? why the heck would you be going into a mechanism of action?? If you think one idea is ridiculus, the funniest thing to do is hypothesise its true and wonder about the consequences if it indeed were true. Just for the sake of it. Do these absurd ideas take us somewhere?
So I have my own brand of rationalism as I have my own brand of philosophy. and they are both inferencial.
3. MORE DISCLAIMERS
What gnostic fields are really science? I mean real science. Definately not theology. I am of the opinion (not the only one) that science and theology are different things. And I tend to think the same about philosphy. Philosophy is not a science!! History, now history is a science! And there is history of religions and history of philosophy.. But religion and philosophy is self?? nothing to do with science.. we can use science to study them deeper. You know by now that for me its biology, chemistry, geology, engineering are the real sciences.. sociology is not a science! anthropology is. And so on..
---------------------------------------
ok I am now ready to start my rant!!
For what it's worth, me the radical atheist, has talked more about the notion of god, than you the agnostic. Yet, you accuse me for being certain, 100% that the notion of god is useless to me.. I claim there's a point in certainty... psychedelic, meditative, psychotic experiences produce religious and transcendent experiences. If you see a person you know your whole life in a signle isolated psychotic episode, man, what an experience! you can see the presence in the persons eyes and intensity.. Or when that psychotic person in the uni, next lab, had a little break, talked a bit to his voices, and sweared me.. Think of how people saw these phenomenons just some years before.
From teenage anti-theist , I became pretty indifferent soon. From the teenage hobby to go full on there's not god mode, after a while, it was a closed matter for me. And it was boring to me. I was amazed to find some atheists were reading the bible and the like to be able to argue better with christians, to beat them in their own theology... Then with the interest for the natural occuring psychactives, the interest sparked again. For me there was an obvious connection between some religions and psychoactives. I immediately started lokking at religion differently, there were much different religions from the stupid one I knew , dominant in my country. Religions were really different from one other.. They were not all the same stupid shit.. It was different.
It was interesting to me that atheists didnt like my hypothesis and tease about the relations of the religious state of mind to the the psychotic mind or the mind of someone on psychedelics or someone after long meditation, or someone after prolongued drumming session and the obvious parallel. At first it puzzled me, why would they not like it?? Deep down I thought, they might think "this idea might give the theists arguments" . Indeed. I too thought that this idea can give theists arguements and and interesting notions about what "god" is. what religious states is. Then I saw all kinds of different theisms, new-hippism, neoshamanism, psychedelic theism, and even, damn, tryptamine theism - you know who this is, yeah its mc kenna.. What an idiot.
I love something from McKenna. Its really known I think.. Its about the notion of going to fish - he is talking about the psych experience, but it works for lots of stuff. He says, the guys get on the boat, and go fishing, with nets... they dont want to fish for huge fish that with drag them and possibly drawn them. they dont want to catch tiny fish, which would pass through the net , they want to catch medium fish to bring ashore to the others.. He paralels the fish with ideas. And he says, the little fish are ideas like "your little finger fits in your nostril" LOL .
I like this paralel... I was going to get to your questions later but it fits here... It also fits to what I was saying in a previous post about an hierarchy in life. From the dosens thinkgs you have to do each day, chosing the 1,2,3 most important ones .. you cant deal with everything. You cant beat the system by OCDing on it! You have to be able to choose, to make decisions that will make your life better - simpler. I think simple is a part of my philosophy.. Its simple because its about me - and philosphy is about oneself first and for all. A point-of-view thing.
Given the title, I will risk sounding rude and arrogant and give a rate to your question a la Mc Kenna style . rates are deep, regular size, trivial
What is time - deep
What is space - regular
How is the continuity or unity of self maintained in the span of an individual life - regular - deep? dunno strange and interesting
Does the universe have a beginning or is it infinite - trivial
Does the universe have a boundary -trivial
Is matter infinitely divisible or is there an absolute simple substance - very trivial , trace (pun intended)
What is the structural and historical relationship of mythology (to religion) to science -regular to deep
Why does nature obey laws - does not make sense, rephrase
What constitutes objectively valid judgements - I think also need rephrasing
What is consciousness - regular - similar to what is god , what is love, what is hate etc.
Does the unity of self continue into a another form of experience not related to bodies as such (is there an afterlife) trivial
So, there you go, more and more, my "erasing god" was working perfectly all along. no contradiction or whatsoever.. I admit my strong atheism prevents me from seeing anything that feels impossible and metaphysical to me with a lot of open mind. mumbo jumbo and made up stuff will always be that..
There is a big point to be made here, about the importance of strong atheism, because we started off like this.. Being an atheist means - like I said in preious post, you have to answer the big question yourself and maybe stick to unknown to a couple of them. So there's that. But it also offers lots of advantages. It simplifies things a lot! Well it did to me. I have read a horror story of a recovering theist. It was natural to me. I see it as a blessing. You care only about one life - and you 'd better make the best of it! Death is not so scary if you see it how Epicurous said it: "when you are alive he is not there, and when he comes, you are gone ". You are not scared about unnatural stuff. You have to make you own morality though.. This is true. Thats what I strongly believe, unlike other atheists, that religions are not alla unnessasary, and not all harm.. people need a morality.. we are propably going through the transition from traditional religious schemes to more transcedent froms of religious expression right now, as we speak . the form of religion is changing, and god is propably dead or slowyly dieing, like nitsche said.
Man, I cannot get this through to you, but, lots of these questions, if you are a materialist, dont really make sense.. I dont claim that your questions or THE big question in life is of no importance to me - I am pointing out that these exciting bits we find thrilling, either as existential dilemmas, or exciting new fields of knowledge , are at large very subjective as to their important to each.
And its only natural to consider ones own interest important
Nowadays I am drawn by other questions, but I will make up some jsut for the sake of it
1. Homo naledi DNA, more skeletons of denisova, more finds in the "genus Homo - sapiens origins" adventure... Which I wonder why are there not making tales and movies out this shit yet
2. Why do why scratch? its not really known, there are some theories, but its not really well studied.. What does it stem from..
3. How does Natal astrology assign to other "similar" systems ? Why atheists like I-ching?
4. Are there alien beings of similar or more intellegence as we in the universe?? could that be that we are the only ones, by a fucking coincidence???
and this #4 , hell yeah, its a good one... I wonder how come it didnt pop at your questions.
So, I dont play it immune to existantial crisis. It's just that I experience it like a philosophical path, and enjoy it. If you are an atheist, things are simpler: you are afraid of death and the consequences of your actions.. thats it. If you are religious you add to that that you are afraid of god. That's fucked up because nobody knows whats god. Especially the god of big dominant religions. Not being afraid of god is really unexpectedly cool in many ways.. When I was a kid, people looked me like alien while I was just being logical to tell them, "gods nonsense, there are not such things, when did such thing happen to you " .. Later people looked at me like alien when I told them I pick wild pushrooms and told me "wow! careful! they are poisonous" - that was before picking mushrooms became a thing in greece.
(some bit left, have it plain, sorry for the segmented structure of this, but you said you liked the rat style so there you have it)
in a way , IMO, religion or trascendent spirituality, are both kind of similar. Theology and Philosphy have different languages, but they have some common ground.. Then you have religons that are more like philosophies (buddism) and the things get blurred.. Now this could make an interesting diagram
Well, look,
WHAT I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO DO
man what you are trying to do , I think, I wanted to do years ago. I intented to do it, I had it as my big goal.
You talked about the structural and/or language thing about knowledge. I dont know If I am getting this right but you are trying to - wanting to chart man's own preceedure of learning. how he processes data, how memory works, the whole deal. that a whole fucking lot man.. just this.. a lot.. or you are trying to define in a "philosophically scientific and fine way" the concept of concept. how we chart knowledge.. you want to chart what you thing is an important part of civilasation.
Or maybe I am out of my mind.
But I will go on - you want to find a taxonomic universe for knowledge, some system - it might be - it should be complex, maybe like natal astrology.. and this system should make it easier to understand how people learn.. dunno. seem like something neurology would be about.
I dont know now if its realy a taxonomic system or something else... but a taxnomic system of differenent types of knowledge? that definately rings bells to me and that why I am enjoying so much this ... friendly , so close to home, clash of philosophical giants , lets say...
SO, I said, I tried, to do it . I had it in my mind a long time. I thought it was possible. I wanted to chart the basis of human being. the most basic needs, tendencies. the basic. I was idealistic back then in some ways ... I also talked talked about the "core of life" , half sarcastically and half seriously, and the core of life was the point of it all, the point of life, y'know...
In some silly rant with close friends, I saida couple times, "what can you tell me dude, I ve been to the core of life" in a sense we talked about it all existentially... a close friend and philosophical comrade went along for some time and the notion of the core of life didnt work very well for him when he tried to carry it alone with said friends, in a debate or something..
I made a scheme of it, basic needs, I didnt want to make the whole, just the basic, all the common things that exist in all humans, objectively... and later I found there were some similar theories.....
My ambition was to make a more complex web like map ... to chart "human "knowledge" as you said , to see substance through these links both literally and ontologically or whatever the crap you call what I want to say {needless rage about not knowing the right semiology)
I wanted to make tha base of all the characteristics of people, a base in which you could build any philosophy, like a paradigm.... A pattern everyone would accept as universal - or something like that... in that pattern I would create my own philosophy... but ... time passed.. I stopped being an idealist in that time and became a mature cynic. First I realised that my idea had already be done - one form or another... but then I was less and less interested in the project because I saw it was impossible. people were more complex that I had thought, and not only it was not easy to pass on good , humanist and critical ideals, but some also like to be with oppresive or otherwise strange males as mates. Some , give the right temper, built up and conditions would act up in some amazing scenes - and even be opressive to others to steam off in part of their lives- I was becoming more cynic. And elitist. gradually but slowly I became elitist..
I rant a lot.
OK lets say you got the base.. the base philosphy... the basic net what you do with it?? future of humans is impossible to tell... impossible to tell what will hapen.
Most of all, I am knowing more and more as I grow, and I am the dude that really enjoyes the ride of it... this is part philosophy and part knowledge... also depends on how you define the objective and if the objective exists... now that's a good one, but I have "answered" to this one... i have a small theory to explain how the objective is both real and fictional and it the basic factor of us doing anything... that is we live and learn by comparison, and imitating...
like I told you before, yeah, if you switch off god, hey, I dont know if you get that feeling... what is there?? what is there for a watcher of natural history films??
Life is a fucking cycle! You dont expect one single way to deal with it, but if you mingle with it a lot, it will reveal itself - its death. Everyone is afraid of death .. thats the main reason of religion and religious feeling..
LOL, I dont know if somebody has thought this up, but hey, God, is playing us tricks right, we are mortal be he made us believe that there is a second life
I also, I have a saying of my own - I am sure some philospher must have said it - it goes like this.
we are not a philosophy.. us atheists , logical atheist, its a good desciption of my atheism and thinking - logical, but its not a philosophy.. its not "something".. consider what sceptics say, "you have the burden of proof - i say its myth"
If you think about it - it might be what kind of condolences it can offer to someone, religion that is..
And thats some hard shit.
Maybe I speak from a relatively safe place. I hate funerals and I hate christian funerals... Such sad shit.... .I used to say death doesnt scare me.. still believe it for myself- but I dread for the death of a relative... boy !!! hehe, so not so cool after all, mr aint afraid of death.
so death... thats what you start -at religion, god, you name it..
fuck. so depressing....
I see how religion is helping with that... wow I am havin really intense insight with the thought of death of my parents, or the future...
the big cynic has a soft point. fuck I knew it. like hollywood films.
man I love my parents
4. DUDE I HAVE AN IDEA
we should record our texts in audio and overact and do accents and all, and then we could make several edits and collages of it.. crazy .. big project, but it rules. beer mode.
well, not that last part where I opened my heart....
wow.. sorry for all that... I think thats all for now...
I wont edit a thing, I hope I dont read monsters after I re-check this.
Ciao
-
My friend you are complicating things needlessly. People learn to recognise notions and concepts by imitation and comparison. That is the basic machanism way we preceive and interpret life experience.
Its not by chance that every kind of idealism (basically a form of religion itself) more or less reject many of the basic characteristics that make us human beings, like the importance of individuality, talents, our animal nature, the notion of objective reality. Religious idealists, Marxists, Anarchists, Ecologists, Humanists, many of those people have forgotten the ideas they supposedly represent and have turnt it in a dogma.
And you are saying I am dogmatic because I state "your imaginary friend definately doesnt exist?". Come one, this has been argued so much - I was doing that stuff when 13-14. Why should anyone disprove crazy ideas? Religion exists, its a historical phenomenon. Gods do not. How am I dogmatic? would you be dogmatic to say a fictional character with supernatural qualities from a fair-tale does not exist? would it be dogmatic to say film superheros do not exist and are fiction? That's exactly what God is. Fiction.
I dont know if this has anything to do with the trend of using quantum physics to make up philosophical bullshit, but many idealists, theists, new-agists etc ALWAYS want to say something along the lines "nothings exists. what we observe might be a lie, objective reality does not exist. What we perceive with our senses is an illusion" . You know the drill you make several of these type of claims in your post. But you know making false and illogical claims like these dont make me a dogmatic.. I am just a materialist. From where I am watching you talk, you are the one that rejects the notion of reality and logical intelligence to leave room for your transcedent spirituality.
How can you parallel the natural world which we study and understand in pretty much unique ways today, and some of it we understand quite well, there have been amazing breakthroughs in science the last 10 years, and we know more than ever about ... well almost everything, how can you parallel natural history and natural sciences (the hardest sciences) with the "taxonomy of gods and religions" ? Dude this is so wrong.
Anyways, I can dig this term, transcedence or transcedent spirituality. Sorry I am not getting into this philosphical jargon more, but to be honest, I dont really see some point there. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. Like some people that try to play it philosophical and try to tell you "maybe we can pass through a wall.... maybe the wall isnt there.... because..... quantum physics "
We should be talking about WHAT is god in its millions of different definations. We should be talking about what role proto-religion played in the formation of civilisation.
I get why people need to be theists. I get it, but I dont need to. It seems I was lucky on this. You think I am losing my critical ability, that I am dogmatic because I am certain in what god is and what isnt. You know what? Dawkings claimed we cannot be sure about the non-existance of god, and that its scientifically innapropriate to claim it with certainty. Dawkings said this because he is a dogmatic himself and an extreme scientifist. He believed that absolute claims are wrong scientifically. Of course this became a meme in the atheist community because many atheists which didnt regard Dawkins a prophet of truth were strongly opposing this ridiculous notion. Who? Dawkins, one of the most known hardline atheist!! What a funny world!
So I get why people need to believe in god. I get why most atheists need to replace religion with scientifism. I get why many neo-atheists (people that became atheists later in their lives) can be on the fanatic side. You know why? I think its because they are angrier. They feel cheated and oppressed by the notion of God and religion in general. They spent too much time believing in this crap.
Anyways, the notion that "we cant know anything" you are trying to argue doesnt seem like its trying to illuminate things. If all our perception and objective-subjective reality is a lie, then what's the point to argue at all? if everything is nothing and something might be nothing or everything , then there is no meaning at anything. We need an individual point of view to calibrate our "system" of perception and analyze.
Natural history, geology and biology tell us a different story. We are in the position to argue where and how life on the planet started. We are in the position to have great insights about the origins of out own species. We have insights about how different groups of organisms evolved and shaped through habitats and climate and through several major catastrophic events that changed the face of earth.
Astronomy lets us having some understanding of how matter behaves in the large scale. Quantum physics (microcosmos) amazed people by behaving in a completely different way. But zooming in or zooming out should not take the attention off from where life thrives , which is on this planet at the scale of regular physics and normal sizes.
So I dont need think I am dogmatic, since a see religion as one of the most important aspects of proto-civilization. I believe that forms of proto-religion is the cornerstone of humankind. Without collective belief in fairy tales of various kind, there would not be human civilisation. We would be some kind of chimp.
Still you claim that existance of god or not cannot be proven - seriously? .. proof?? I dont think these kinds of arguments stand a chance with any typical atheist. This is the regular fare of debate, and you sure have read and done it elsewhere. You talk about whether the universe is infinite or finite. What's the universe by the way? The "whole"?
You know, theists of various degree and type, all stand in awe in front of the universe, or the out there, or the "whole". And this awe produces transcedent feelings, some kind of cosmic spirituality . And they try to present this as an arguement to us atheists: "so if there is no god, what about space? what about all this unknown around us, all those wonders?" They reckon, if you dont believe in god then you must have some explanation about everything in the cosmos.
But I am not like that - atheists cannot be like that. We can play hypothesis in our minds to test new ideas but we can also say "well, I dont know" and its fine. And you know, it's not so interesting to me, the universe and whether its finite or something. I dont see how its really relevant. There are many questions but which are more relevant? well thats largely depends on the individual. Maybe its pointless to seek answers where there are none. Its fascinating sure, a place for stories and myths and gods.. The unknown might be an "arguement" to prove transcedence is a universal quality of people, but to me its just another segment in peoples existential crisis. The unknown forces people to create stories - because that what people are, animals that tell stories. And its generally accepted that fear of death or awe in front of death is the root of it all. So its a natural thing that humans do.
For me, there's no more awe inspiring thing than the complex but clearly patterned and self-regulating system on earth, life + this planet. There's nothing more amazing than watching these deep-in-the-ocean systems that are filled will life in the total dark, at the bottom of deep oceans, that are more and more discovered these days and it is hypothesised that the first ecosystems on earth must have looked like these and maybe that's where and how life it self jump-started!
By projecting my place in my species in all this mosaic of creatures on earth, I am having transcedent feelings about the whole, about life, about the "meaning of it all" . This is one segment of my transcedent spirituality, and in ways it resembles the psych theist spirituality in that nature. Its the idea of how the individual connects with the rest of the natural world , how he identifies with the chaotic but patterned life circles and systems. Its a system that doesn need any gods - but some religions are really close to my "thinking" in ther tendency to put natural world in the center.
Its reasoning with knowledge of every gnostic field , an hierarchy of sorting out facts from fiction and speculation, sorting the most important (for me) type of knowledge, and the less important or trival shit. It's recognizing the importance of the individual at the center, contrary to the typical "egoism is a bad thing" common with religious people and most idealists.
We are bombarded by a 1000 sources that egoism, individualism is a bad thing. How could one solve his issues, if not by understanding his self? Can resolution come from some collective mumbo jumbo? no, human individual is not an ant. And it has to go through onelself.
" is there a way to fully hypostatize spiritual ideas into concrete objects "
you are already trying to do it. what is marxism, what are religions, what is post-modernism if not spiritual ideas trying hard to become more concrete?
But I think, no we cant. Not concrete objects. I think that trying to define transcedence with jargon philosophical terms presents a problem. Like I said earlier, people learn by imitating and comparing. So we can compare different types of spiritualities, we could make a taxonomic system to class them. That's how we will learn more about trascedence and why its important to people. Some , more than others.
There's a notion that egoism, reason, logic are miasma in this "field" of thought
" how is a definite belief in the absence of god serving your critical thinking?"
I am an individualist. I didnt try to be a radical atheist, but by 12 years old I was sure it was a fairy tale. I didnt try to use atheism to be cool, instead I realised that argueing about my thoughts gave me social confidence. There was something really "awe inducing" and even trasnscedent to a degree to challenge people's well rooted beliefs. Honestly, I couldnt grasp people believed it such stupid shit just because they were raised like that and because the believed priests are good folks or whatever. I found myself in a place I didnt need those kind of religious (and other types of) conventions, and I set me self free from them by instict, slowly but steadily. But there was no a single doubt, ever, since day one.
I reject the notion of god because its poorly defined! The definite belief in the absence of god is validated by the fact that each individual will give you different definition(s) of god and other theological terms. Each religion has a different taxonomy and hierarchy of gods.
What is god(s) if not a general term for characters from religious mythology, presented in a way they look more than just fairy tales ?
So, I claim that I know what god is through its millions of definitions. God "exists". As an idea. With a huge diversity, I mean some people's gods are totally different from some other peoples gods. Some gods are more similar.. Perhaps religion exists as a function of our brain. Perhaps as an antidote to existential crisis. And definately because we are conditioned to believe in 'it'.
God is a bit like the word love. Everyone mean something different with it. Some kill out of love, some hate out of love. It's a problematic word. In greek we have αγάπη, αγαπω (love, I love, in a more general term) and we have ερωτας, ερωτευομαι, ερωτευμενος (falling in love) .. Its really difficult to talk about a concept with an unclear definition.
Its really simple. There is not god. Its an invention due to ... reasons.. People are like this, they create religions - and as the old religions influence fades away, people tend to explore other types of "religious" thought and other types of idealist dogmatism. We dont really need the notion of god to discuss the god question really. And you cant really forget that easily the gods of monotheist religions. They're real cunts!
In that sense , the absolute belief there is no god stems from the fact that all religious related phenomena are man made. Nothing supernatural about them. Nothing supernatural in general. There was never an evidence of a god, other than man made stories about it.
It really doesnt help liking religion being born in a christian country.. Other religions are way cooler, from ancient greek religion to hinduism buddism and of course all kinds of shamanism and modern new-agism etc. God is just a character of some mythologies. Maybe the worse of them, the most oppressive +conservative of them
How it helps my critical thinking? Well it makes sure I dont spend time terrorising my self spiritually and ethically, and instead of accepting the religious teaching, making up my own. I dont think it can go more anti-dogmatic, loosing religious thought at 12 and having to make you own worldview from scratch..
I can accept that we might could do better conversations if we had better vocabulary for theological and religious terms. But religion is such a controversial subject. Some people are rather indifferent (mostly agnostics, I would guess) but some feel really strong about it.
You know, agnostics, are practical atheists, but deeper they are slightly or mild theists that are too afraid to reject the notion of god. Many people are baffled or disturbed by radical atheism. they say "that cant be, what do you believe in? you have to believe in something" I say sure, just not to an imaginary friend. An agnostic thinks smartly: I live like an atheist, but I dont claim I am one. so if there is a god, he will propably not punish me in the afterlife.
You ask how it helps with my critical thinking. It helps in that I can identify the irrational and really dont have to spend any time with it, unless to "play" , or mock or provoke.. Or because its pretty interesting when people tell you crazy shit!
Sometimes I claim I have an intergrated lie-detector in me. In the past I wanted to experiment with a truth serum with tropanes. But never gοt on with this...
Anyways, eliminating God from the equation, you can study the phenomenon better. It is a human thing. Gods or entities dont interact with you. And if something interacts with you, its you or some other part of the self or some archaic memories triggered from a large dose of mushrooms of something.. There are no outside entities. So if you decide that theres no single reason why you should leave some small doubt about it, you throw away so much worthless shit.
And sorry to talk like that, they are worthless for me, as an individual, but they are useful in understanding people. There is a logical quality when you are an atheist. Not always, but most of the times. This is what you win by being a radical atheist. Not having to deal with irrational stuff. Be more objective. Make you own rules.
I say how can you be a sharp critical thinker and NOT be an atheist ? But at the same time I can get it. It can be a separate part of you. You can be logical in your life and irrational or post-modernist or existantialist or (why not) marxist in your spiritual life. There so much existential crisis in humans today. I get it. But that doesnt change my opinion on gods existance or not. People need to believe in shit collectively, and thats what it is. 100% man made.
Anyways, I like that this has gone full blown - existential religious - transcedent talk. Ciao
-
wouldnt it be awesome to create wiki about all sab-ethnno things related? kind of like my monograph-project which isnt going forward. a wiki like structure would be ideal for a team of persons to mess around with a skeleton of such a huge project... please someone do it!
wikipedia structure is the best one
-
re-reading my rant (sorry for the mistakes) I recognize there's a definite anti-religious tone in some of the text... but dogmatic atheism? nope, the dogma of many atheists is scientifism, which I opposed hence I am not the type easily liked in atheist circles. the right word is radical - radically atheist. there's no god. there's only a religious spirituality thing in our brain. its strange not more people talk about this "god module" . Monotheistic religion? I dont like at all.
-
On 24/08/2019 at 3:26 PM, Micromegas said:the dedication to dogmatic atheism is curious for a polyglot.
I can definately argue that I am not a dogmatic atheist, I am so different to the usual types of atheist you might think of. But I like to define my self as a radical one. A la douglas adams. Things that separate me from your typical and often dogmatic atheist are:
1. I dont believe all religions are the same, I dont believe religions (any religion) is necessarily harmful. Its often a helping hand in the human's existential crisis, I get that. Some religions, I like more, in the vein they are 'truer' , while others I dont like at all.
2. God needs a defininition. If god is earth, the whole, the individual, even... the truth, then count me it - I might decide I am a theist too!
3. I oppose scientifism, the atheist typical dogma, replacing religious with scientific dogmatism.
4. I am not anti-theist or anti-god. I might used to be when a teenager, but not really after being 20 years old.
etc.
Anyways, I understand how theists (and even agnostics) can have difficulty grasping the notion of atheism, having difficulty to accept a person is so definately rejecting of any god notion. I get it. You cannot understand how it is to live and grow up without god from a young age (I believe its also very difficult to someone who decides to become an atheist at age 35 or 40 or 55).
So my dedication is not to "atheism" , but to truth, my truth, that is. I couldnt be an agnostic even if I wanted. Living without god is the only way I know. But contrary to most atheists, I regard myself really open to religion and what it means for our species and origins and future. I am still interested in this, this debate hasnt ended, in fact its one of the most exciting + important things that happened in our species: making up religion-like social constructions.
So there you go, where the fuck do you find such an openminded type of atheist mentality? I think I am more open minded to religion than most theists, and contrary to the super-atheist, I claim to understand what's the use and need of religion by humans.
Anyways, this can be a long discussion and we can make it if you like.
But I am also interested in the statement "the dedication to dogmatic atheism is curious for a polyglot." - why do you think those things are related? language and atheism/dogmatism?
-
1
-
-
hehe, its definately intensively honest, so that's always interesting. One might think I am a narcissist , but its a risk I am willing to take
Disturbing films: name some and why you list them
in Chill Space
Posted
^^^
come on!! death proof?? its OK as far as I remember but disturbing??
BUMP!
WAKE IN FRIGHT (1971) is pretty tight... maybe it deserves to be on the list