Donnadogsoth

That's quite a mouthful. I understand where you're coming from. It can be frustrating to consider that the eternal Source is beyond what a friend of mine calls "the Categories". But it is not unintelligible in principle. I give you an example from Cusa to hopefully explain the matter better. "...For God is in our domain, as vision is in the domain of color. Color can only be attained through vision, and so that any color whatsoever could be attained, the center of vision is without color. In the domain of color, therefore, vision is not found that is without color. Hence, in regard to the domain of color, vision is nothing rather than something. For the domain of color does not attain being outside its domain, but rather asserts that everything, which is, is inside its domain. And there it does not find vision. Vision, which exists without color, is therefore unnameable in the domain of color, since the name of no color corresponds to it. But vision gives every color its name through distinction. Hence all denomination in the domain of color depends on vision, and yet we have discovered, that the name of Him, from whom all names exist, is nothing rather than something. Therefore, God is to everything, as sight is to the visible."

This is indirectly jabbing at the pope's Laudato si': New Paradigm • Ending the Climate Change Scare with a Scientific Understanding of Mankind https://larouchepac.com/20150923/new-paradigm-ending-climate-change-scare-scientific-understanding-mankind

You're describing what's known as bad infinity, an infinity of endless counting. The alternative is transfinite, something Cantor talked about, related to what some others here have talked about with taking the set of rational numbers between 0 and 1, etc., but applied deeper. I don't understand it much, but I acknowledge that it's present in the mathematical world.

On the contrary, logic is very important but if we take it too seriously we destroy everything.

Money brought into existence by a banker's pen came from nothing, and yet has a quality of reality. The fact that we came ex nihilo is something I as a Christian can agree on. The difference between myself an an atheist with the same belief, is that I believe there needed to be a cause for the nihilo to become ex. And the result is not nothing but substance.

Then "nothing" is identical to "substance." If all is illusion including me then the illusion is substantial and therefore in no meaningful sense "illusion" any longer. What other religion other than Christianity, or I'm subsuming Judaism in with it, teaches that man is made in the creative image of God?

From nothing nothing comes, for it there were truly nothing, there would not even be sufficient reason for that nothing to become something. Only Christianity explains that man is made in the creative essence of God.

Lawrence Krauss knows more than Nicolaus of Cusa about nothing! Hahaha. Krauss' nothing isn't even nothing, it's just a rarefied something. It is his eternal substrate behind the temporal universe. To say "Darwinian evolution" created creativity, as if that's the last word on the matter, is like saying it created love. Shall I read to my beloved passes from the Origin of Species? Shall we meditate on Origin of Species when we are working on discovering a universal physical principle? The Origin has created, and we can create, ergo we are made in Its image. Coincidentally, this is what Christianity teaches. Are we made in rarefied quantum foam's image?

What's the difference between a law outlawing murdering adults and a law outlawing alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or guns? People are going to murder anyway, so why try to stop them? I realise this is an ancap board and thus "law" is immaterial, there are only the actions and desires of private property owners, but I still think it's an odd thing to apparently say, that laws outlawing X never work. Why have laws at all? Why talk about laws at all?

I think the stigma of fetal abortion should be retained and magnified. If a creature has human DNA and a functioning brain (~12 weeks gestation) then it is a person and killing people except in self-defense or time of war is called murder. I think the stigma of embryonic abortion should be discarded. Non-conscious clusters of cells are not people.

Where does this creativity come from, though? There are two points to be made on that account: (1) temporality cannot be eternal by definition and therefore cannot cause itself, demanding an eternal substrate from which it originated. The materialists among us will say "physics is eternal," but physics merely describes the activity of the changing universe. Physical laws, at least to the physicists, do not have ontological existence, just as whiteness does not have any ontological existence outside of white things and our universal conception of whiteness. So there must be an eternal Origin to give substance to the temporal universe. (2) The relative power of change possessed by what V.I. Vernadsky called "phase spaces" indicates that man's creativity or the noösphere, is, in the long run, stronger than the biosphere, which, in the long run, is stronger than the geosphere. In other words, intelligent life is the commanding force in the universe, and the question of where this force originated appeals to point 1, where nothing changing can be eternal. Thus the Origin is the origin of all three phase spaces, but since intelligent creativity is the dominant in the universe, it follows it is the dominant in the Origin as well.

The problem with the conclusion of this thread, is that the crucial relevance of Cusa's work to humanity has not been understood. The point is not that God is strange and anterior to being, logic, and creation in general, the point is that man is made in God's image and therefore creative, not merely logical, as shown by the precise solution to the doubling of the square. It should be a point of pride that we are not logic machines, but creative or potentially creative and able to improve mankind's practice of power over nature.

That's a different thread, shirgall.

You will never win over the mad cows, so why debate them? As in any debate: to appeal to the murky middle, the fence-sitters, the undecided, the neutral, the mildly-sympathetic or the mildly-unsympathetic observers.

No, not approximately, precisely. The only way to reach a precise construction of √2 is to make a rational leap, not a logical-deductive one. When we deal with the Origin we face the origin of all origins, of all categories, of all things. That gives that Origin a unique nature that the universe lacks. Why did God create the universe as it is? He created it for it to be creative, for man to be creative. Obviously logic helps in that regard, as a kind of alternating current of hypothesis-logic-hypothesis-logic. But when we face the originator of logic we face something that is more akin to square circles, though, again, one in which the opposites coincide rather than existing as a flat logical contradiction. An example from Cusa is the diameter of the circle relative to its circumference. If we extend the diameter to infinity, its length converges on its circumference. Thus, a metaphor for how all apparently different things converge in God.

"extreme trauma"? I think they should have a talk with Jesus about experiencing "extreme trauma."

Take the simplest principle I know: The principle of doubling the square. Take a square 1 x 1 and generate a second square that is √2 x √2. This cannot be logicked to as if one were using a calculator or logical notation. The finest computer known cannot arrive at the solution with exactitude. It takes a non-logical, but not illogical, mental leap, typically aided by physical construction (e.g. cut squares out of construction paper and work on rearranging them) to realise the hypotenuse of the first square serves as a side of the larger square. That is what I mean by non-logical creativity. Logic is used to estimate, to correct, but the essential act of hypothesis is imaginative, the creativity is not a pure logical operation as if by computer. The hole metaphor is just that, a metaphor. If there is a better I would like to hear it, but until then it is all I can give. Analysing it logically as if it were a literal hole misses the point. If God exists and is as I have said, then what choice do I have but to attempt to talk in ever-less-inaccurate “word salads”? God's mystery doesn't allow Him to be contradictory. He is, rather, the coincidence of opposites which precedes all contradiction. Logic is nice but suppose it had an origin which defined it, wouldn't that origin precede logic itself? The logical mind rebels against the awesome definitional might of the Not-other!

An hypothesis is not a logical thing, it is a non-logical attempt to bridge a discontinuity between the known and the unknown. It was impossible to logick our way to universal gravitation. To get there required a creative hypothesis. Thus non-logical creativity as such is, here, responsible for a discovery of power. That is the kernel of what I am saying. Without hypothesis, creativity, there is no power. Logic alone accomplishes nothing except rearrange and clarify what we already know. On God, we start with revelation about God, who is hidden, and apply our intellects to the task of understanding our ignorance of Him in ever greater spirals of accuracy. Think of it like a hole rimmed with ice crystals. We cannot know the true shape of the hole, but we can knock away crystal after crystal and so see the rim of the hole more and more accurately. This you might call "special pleading" and you would be wrong that it is a fallacy here, because God is the most special of all special things, and thus pleading His case in such ignorance is appropriate, whereas principles per se require creative proof-of-principle experiments which then descend to the realm of logical consistency.

As I wrote, the difference is between logic, which is uncreative, and intellect, which is. What lets us discover universal physical principles and what is merely playing in the sandbox of the already known? The key is that man as imago viva Dei, made in the image of God, is creative and can access this power in order to increase his power to survive in the highly dangerous "logical universe".

You're being confronted by stink-bugs. When in doubt, a stink-bug sprays its stinky liquid in the direction of whatever caused it to doubt. In feminist terms, these are power-words that are similar a pheromone or primal marker. They're attempting to smear their shit on you so that you will be ostracised and politically neutralised. Aristotle: logos, pathos, ethos. They don't care about logos, all they are motivated by and use is pathos, and they are trying to destroy your ethos as viewed by wider society. Or more correctly, they are using the feminine traits of intuition and guile, exploiting women's beauty in the eyes of men, and nurturing women and children in a honeypot to addict them to feminine presence. The solution is to destroy their ethos. As they are revealed for what they are, which is misandric, genocidal, homofascistic fanatics, their ethos in the eyes of the wider society will wane. The main challenge today is not to engage the stink-bugs per se, but to understand the strategic situation. That's why I talk about the femiblob: we can't fight what we don't understand. And you're on the right track in noticing that the problem is greater than feminists but encompasses everything, as I put it, eating at Western civ, including culture and traditions, and specifically trying to erase whites, men, heterosexuality, cisgenderism, and Christianity and the Christian heritage. Understanding what exactly is attacking, and who exactly we imagine ourselves to be as counterattackers, will do wonders toward achieving actual social justice for our sovereign nation-states.

*Yes I understand, thanks for the note. I am trying to change your beliefs, but I hope I'm not a swine about it. Cusa says we can have negative knowledge of God, by knowing our own ignorance as clearly as possible. That is, God is mysterious and alienating, but only in analogous senses of the words. One of the higher formulations he gives is based on calling God the Not-other. By this name God defines Himself, as in the sentence, "III. Whoever sees that the Not-other is not other than the Not-other, sees that the Not-other is the definition of the definition." "IV. Whoever sees that the Not-other defines itself and is the definition defining everything, sees that the Not-other is not another from every definition and from everything defined." In other words, God is everything in everything, even though the individual creature is not God, nevertheless God defines that creature and is in a sense that creature, the quiddity of that creature, and indeed is the quiddity of quiddities. Similarly, the universe is the "contraction" of God. God is absolutum maximum where the universe is concretum maximum. These things are not accessible to the rational or logical mind, but only to the intellect or creative mind. These mysteries of which we can strive (as Cusa did heroically and voluminously) to understand our own ignorance of, are on the same order as the Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Christ. In the most relevant sense, what we are describing is the human mind itself, as something which creatively transcends logic, but is not chaotic. That is, if man is made in the image of God, then what Cusa is describing for God, he is also describing for man, that man is triune, that man is creative, that man is the highest reflection of the universe, and so on. And that's the real relevance, especially in light of the union of the two natures in Christ, who is the maximum contractum, the maximal contraction or perfected entity uniting God and the universe.

Close but no cigar. As Copleston reports St. Thomas Aquinas held, "...the essence of the Beatific Vision consists in the act of the intellect rather than in the will's act, on the ground that the intellect is the faculty by which we possess, the will the faculty by which we enjoy the object already possessed by the intellect." In other words, Mother retreats and can never be possessed by the infant after this retreat, because Mother-as-God is not an intellectual object as such. There can only be the enjoyment of Her at the moment of infancy, and the memory of such enjoyment and the feeling of lack. The solution to this bereft condition is attaining to the intellectual essence of God, which can then be enjoyed by the will. Mother becomes not an archetype for God, but an archetype of the Witch, patterned after the Arch-Witch otherwise known as Satan.

Coming from the apophatic perspective of Nicolaus of Cusa: strictly speaking, God is beyond the Categories, including the category of being. That is, God is so strange, even existence itself can only analogously be applied to Him. In that precise sense is God outside of the universe, eternal, and capable of knowing what free willed entities will choose. Correct.

This microagression business is a new front on the culture war, a micro-front. It is appropriate that the femiblob would form attenuated tendrils that seek to penetrate and dissolve the furthest reaches of the wikkum (White Hetero Cis Christian Male). I say “business” because it is an exchange: our islam for their conquering glee. But what is a microaggression in the context of feminational socialism? I'm sure there are many, but I thought before looking it up I'd write out as many as I can think of here. Male Microaggressions Offering a woman his seat on a bus Manspreading (knees >12” apart) Listing female microsubmissions Maintaining eye contact with a woman Noticing a woman's microsubmissions Pointing out a woman's microsubmissions Sporting a codpiece Having a visible clothed crotch Displaying chest hair Wearing a wife beater Looking “hard” Wearing sleeves rolled up Wearing a cigarette behind his ear Displaying tattoos Standing closer to a woman than absolutely necessary Standing behind a woman Standing in front of a woman Not having bathed recently (eg returning home from work) Metrosexual Smiling at a woman Complimenting a woman Belching Farting Scratching himself anywhere Yawning Listening to music slightly audible to others Leaning over a woman (holding the grip on a subway) Initiating conversation with a woman Ignoring a woman Touching a woman Smelling a woman Gagging at overpowering perfume Jesting with others within earshot of a woman Conducting involved conversations within earshot of a woman Using trigger words (“feminist,” “blacks,” “gays,” “fuck,” etc.) within earshot of a woman Referring to master/slave (computer term) Thinking sexual thoughts about a woman (shows up in fleeting micro-emotional displays) Not responding deferentially to woman's engagement Not conversing with women who initiate conversation Not responding to a woman's flirtatious behaviour Responding to a woman's flirtatious behaviour and a few I picked up online: Referring to male/female connectors (electrical term) Referring to “man” as if were “linguistically unmarked” (i.e. universal) Referring to “he” as if it were “linguistically unmarked” (ie. universal) Presuming those in sex-typical occupations with sex-typical pronouns (e.g. most doctors are he's)

Come again?