Unpopular Opinions

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Would you please restate your point so i can stay on topic?

 

 

Divine law, not natural law.   Essentially the divine-monach got angry.  But they were ale t break those laws for 600+ years without any real consequences.

 

 

Many or most did not.  In any large group there will be outliers.  Hebrews were consistenly the outliers.

 

 

Sure they are   That's witchcraft, wizardry, sorcery, invoking angels and demons.  That's why it's forbidden.

 

 

Generally speaking the ancient mind classified natural/spiitual forces as in conflict and chaos.  At some point that paradigm was shifted to divine providence.  According to the hebrew myths, this was always known by a small minority.  Here's a good article about it surveying the various viewpoints.  If you don't want to read it, in summary, there is a natural law which governs in general.  Then there is also a divine law which governs in particular.  When the divine law is followed, blessings are produced.  When it is not followed, the blessings cease and the individul or group is left to the forces of nature, cause and effect.

 

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/80723/jewish/Brief-on-Hashgachah-Pratis.htm

 

 

That looks pretty new.  They don't last forever.  The oldest scrolls are the DSS from 100BCE.  In order to confirm that the ancient hebrews had the samemindset as the others, one would need something goind back to 2000BCEish.

 

 

All I'm saying is that PHD and "Scholar" does not mean that their conclusions are good and reliable.

 

 

The point is, if Judaism and the ancient hebrews are not being considered, outliers, iconoclast, and polemic, then the conclusion is liable to be faulty.  Without evidence that these people were following the conventional practice of all the others, there is a consistent pattern by these people to go against the trend no with it.

 

This last paragraph ...  really Daniel ... you are going to try to 'resort to that ?   The wealth of published material on this subject  is now all cancelled as you believe that it cant be true because the Jews where absolutely different to every other people and culture on earth ?

 

I think that might be a 'chosen people' 'throwback' on your part .... its the JEWS themselves that insist they are so special and chosen ... NOT the historical record .

 

As far as restating my point ... yes, you lost it some time back and started arguing with me about things I never stated . or twisted them somehow . No restating, I am happy with the clarity that I already got down . If you want to know what I really was writing about, you can always go back and read what I wrote .

[Nungali]

I will add this though , the influences that DID change the human mind set / paradigm 16 - 1700  from a three part conception to a modern duality , due to the influence of  the 'scientific revolution ' ( and associated discoveries and practices ) was not only effecting the Jews , but they where a part of this development themselves .  Again , I show this reference :

 

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/the-hub/rabbis-of-the-scientific-revolution-jews-and-early-modern-science/

 

 

 

[Apech]

 

... unexpectedly and suddenly the Daobums ran out of unpopular opinions and just sat staring at the white space of their computer screen as dust slowly settled on their shoulders and foreheads until an unpredictably large solar flare hit the earth and destroyed all that humans had built since the dawn of history, leaving only a handful of indigenous carpet dwelling peoples as the last of humankind - who simply shrugged and in their tongue said 'well that's that then.'

 

 

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, Nungali said:

This last paragraph ...  really Daniel ... you are going to try to 'resort to that ?   The wealth of published material on this subject  is now all cancelled as you believe that it cant be true because the Jews where absolutely different to every other people and culture on earth ?

 

Not absolutely different.  But yes different.  Are you saying there are no outliers among the majority of peoples and cultures?

 

22 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

I think that might be a 'chosen people' 'throwback' on your part .... its the JEWS themselves that insist they are so special and chosen ... NOT the historical record .

 

We haven't really gotten into history yet.  But it's not about "chosen" or "special".  It's more like stubborn.  "Stiff necked" is the phrase used in the bible around a dozen times.  What's described in history is a small group of scribes and priests who were the true-believers, and the common people were assimilating into the indigenous religious practices of the region.

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

unexpectedly and suddenly the Daobums ran out of unpopular opinions

 

I like New York in June.  How about you?

 

 

 

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I like New York in June.  How about you?

 

 

 

and tell me what street compares with Mott Street in July 

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, Nungali said:

I will add this though , the influences that DID change the human mind set / paradigm 16 - 1700  from a three part conception to a modern duality , due to the influence of  the 'scientific revolution ' ( and associated discoveries and practices ) was not only effecting the Jews , but they where a part of this development themselves .  Again , I show this reference :

 

 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/the-hub/rabbis-of-the-scientific-revolution-jews-and-early-modern-science/

 

Here's what I was talking about with Rabbis being avoided for source criticism:

 

"The European Enlightenment in the eighteenth century saw the rise of critical biblical scholarship, and the nineteenth century witnessed in particular the development of source criticism, in which midrashic approaches were generally rejected in favor of a theory of composite authorship"

 

The Compostion of th Pentateuch - Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis - Dr. Joel Baden - Harvard Divinity

 

And then as the book continues, any and all Rabbinic input is considered "midrashic".

 

Here's a few links regarding the reaction to the rationalist approach in the 1200s

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidean_Controversy

https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/vol-13-no-1-jan-2022/four-critiques-of-crescas-against-maimonides-and-the-relationship-of-intellect-and-practice-in-religion/

 

The second link above is really good because Rambam's extreme emphasis on "knowing" is detailed as well as the connection to Greek wisdom which would have been prohibitted by the traditionalists ( kabalists ).  Kabalah literally means a "recieved" tradition.

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

This unpopular  opinion became a majority .... 5 out of 7 in a  board meeting :

 

7 out of 7 voted to sack  ' Mr.  X ' .  We will send him a letter outlining why . But then someone thought that was a bit harsh , we should send the letter and offer him an opportunity to respond . So, I suggested a show of hands :  how many for hard approach, how many for soft approach ? 5 for soft approach .

Me: " So , you may not be going to sack him ?"

Them :  " Oh no, we decided we will . "

Me: " Then what is the meeting for . "

Them: " To give him a chance to speak up and defend himself ."

Me:  " Even though, whatever happens at that meeting , he is still getting the sack . "

Them: " Yes, we cant have someone like that here . "

Me: " So the soft approach is , you are getting sacked , but come and talk to us about it , even though we explained it all in a letter and the decision is final . .... what, so he can tell you all to go and get ******  ?!  ...  and the hard approach is to just send the letter ?

Them :  " I wont be there for that .....  neither will I . .....  " 

 

 

 

" Okay then ... how many for the 'soft approach ' where there is  no recanting, but an invitation to discussion, that will not change anything and that you probably will not be attending ? "

 

...   7 out of 7 yes ..... passed .

 

I just luv advising board meetings  

 

[old3bob]

 

[Mark Foote]

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Here's what I was talking about with Rabbis being avoided for source criticism:

 

"The European Enlightenment in the eighteenth century saw the rise of critical biblical scholarship, and the nineteenth century witnessed in particular the development of source criticism, in which midrashic approaches were generally rejected in favor of a theory of composite authorship"

 

The Compostion of th Pentateuch - Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis - Dr. Joel Baden - Harvard Divinity

 

And then as the book continues, any and all Rabbinic input is considered "midrashic".

 

Here's a few links regarding the reaction to the rationalist approach in the 1200s

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidean_Controversy

https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/vol-13-no-1-jan-2022/four-critiques-of-crescas-against-maimonides-and-the-relationship-of-intellect-and-practice-in-religion/

 

The second link above is really good because Rambam's extreme emphasis on "knowing" is detailed as well as the connection to Greek wisdom which would have been prohibitted by the traditionalists ( kabalists ).  Kabalah literally means a "recieved" tradition.

 

Meir Abulafia ("the RaMaH") was initially an admirer of Maimonides. When he found, however, about the charges that Maimonides had denied resurrection, he responded furiously and disappointedly. But when he saw Maimonides’ ambiguously apologetic Treatise on Resurrection (1190–91), published in response to the charges, he was calmed, convinced that Maimonides actually did believe in the bodily resurrection. After Maimonides’ death 1204, the controversy simmered down.

 

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidean_Controversy)

 

 

I wasn't aware that bodily resurrection was argued about in the Jewish tradition.  I thought it was a New Testament thing?
 

After presenting each of Crescas’s critiques of Maimonides on these four topics, I will attempt to articulate Maimonides’s likely response to him in order to illuminate the origin of their disagreement as grounded in two competing syntheses of philosophy and religion, one that sees practice as the vehicle towards intellectual perfection and the other that views intellectual perfection as the tool towards achieving perfection in the practice of the commandments.

 

(https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/vol-13-no-1-jan-2022/four-critiques-of-crescas-against-maimonides-and-the-relationship-of-intellect-and-practice-in-religion/)

 

 

What's the object here--become an intellectual?  Go to heaven?  

Return to the garden of Eden?  Get out of debt, fast?  Write more unpopular opinions?

That brings us to the unpopular opinion paradox:  if an unpopular opinion gains popularity, is it still an unpopular opinion (would be to some, I suppose)?


 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

I wasn't aware that bodily resurrection was argued about in the Jewish tradition.  I thought it was a New Testament thing?

 

Jewish tradition argues about anything and everything.    The bodily ressurection is listed in Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 26:19.  Both of those can be read as allegory or hyper-literally.  So there's plenty of reason to debate it.  Certainly from a modern point of view.  BTW, one of the main distinctions between the pharisees and the sadduces was about reincarnation.

 

The problem comes in, because Rambam ( Maimonides ) is claiming that this is allegory in **contradiction** to the sages of the talmud (BT ketubot 111a) who say it's literal without bringing any reasons for taking the dissenting view, while at the same time, claiming that he is recieving the ruling from the sages of the talmud and discouraging others from studying it.  This among other things led to grave concerns and criticisms that Rambam is making changes to the tradition not reporting on it or codifying it.  

 

7 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

What's the object here--become an intellectual?  Go to heaven?  

Return to the garden of Eden?  Get out of debt, fast?  Write more unpopular opinions?

 

Big picture:  the purpose is to bring heaven to earth.   Conventionally, traditionally, this was imagined to be literal.  In Hebrew it's included in our prayers, recited 3 times daily.  "He who makes peace in the heavens, bring peace on us..."  Or as Jesus prays "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  So there's a parallel reflective reality between the divine realm and the material world.  Actually many many reflections.  There are "Heavens" fixed in the divine realm, this produces the potential for "heavens" in the material realm.  As above... so below... it's a repeated motif in the Zohar and other places. 

 

Rambam's approach is, basically reductive.  Reduce all the miracles to natural occurances.  Everything thats written are gross exaggerations.  If the Jewish people can cultivte their intellect and change their minds then the "world to come"  or "Heaven on earth" will be a perceptual shift.  Following the commandments are secondary to acheiving this mindset which he calls "knowing God" or "knowledge".  It's a very greek influenced philosophy.  The highest virtue is knowledge.  And those without it are... let's just say... judged harshly by him.  Rambam was clearly brilliant, but also a racist pig.  In that time and in that place, it's not uncommon.  But a pig is still a pig.

 

This reduction renders heaven on earth nothing more than a place where the jewish people are able to dwell safely and securely in the promised land without interference from outsiders.  And the Jewish people will cooperate with each other lacking nothing.  The rest of the world will continue in what ever state of chaos that they are accustomed to... or not... it's not his concern.

 

Rambam doesn't fully explain how this intellectual shift among the Jewish people coming into alignment with God's divine intellect will establish saftey and security for the Jewish people.  But that's what he says will happen.

 

The conventional / traditional view is different.  Miracles are real, magic happens. When the Jewish people do what they're supposed to do individually they recieve heaven on earth individually. When they collectively do what they're supposed to do in unison, everyone benefits, heaven is brought down to earth for everyone, Jew and gentile alike.  The intellectual connection to each commandment, which Rambam makes primary and the exclusive purpose of the commandments, is considered an important part of a process.  Not the solitary goal.  It's a much loftier aspiration, but the reward is greater as well.

 

Rambam is making the goal more acheivable, but reducing it as well. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Daniel

[whocoulditbe?]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Big picture:  the purpose is to bring heaven to earth.   Conventionally, traditionally, this was imagined to be literal.  In Hebrew it's included in our prayers, recited 3 times daily.  "He who makes peace in the heavens, bring peace on us..."  Or as Jesus prays "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  So there's a parallel reflective reality between the divine realm and the material world. 

I hadn't clocked this aspect of Judaism before. Kind of cool.

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

I hadn't clocked this aspect of Judaism before. Kind of cool.

 

Chains connecting heaven and earth in stained glass.  Mid-1800s Orthodox temple NYC.  There were chains everywhere.  On the undersides of the arches even.  The star itself is interconnected triangles pointing up and down.

 

 If you want to go deep... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_hishtalshelus

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Daniel

[Trunk]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Chains connecting heaven and earth in stained glass.  Mid-1800s Orthodox temple NYC.  There were chains everywhere.  On the undersides of the arches even.  The star itself is interconnected triangles pointing up and down.

 

 If you want to go deep... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_hishtalshelus

 

 

Beautiful!  

And really nice to have someone here steeped in Judaism.  It occasionally crosses my mind that that’s one where I’m nearly entirely lacking in education.

 

One of my pet theories … something like …

a series of

different polar potentials, integral

yet separated by semi-permeable membranes (physical or otherwise, could be just space).

 

The above could be applied to things as big as the sun and the earth,

or as small as microscopic living cells,

or heaven ~ man ~  earth … similar to the stained glass.

 

- Trunk

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Jewish tradition argues about anything and everything.    The bodily ressurection is listed in Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 26:19.  Both of those can be read as allegory or hyper-literally.  So there's plenty of reason to debate it.  Certainly from a modern point of view.  BTW, one of the main distinctions between the pharisees and the sadduces was about reincarnation.

 

The problem comes in, because Rambam ( Maimonides ) is claiming that this is allegory in **contradiction** to the sages of the talmud (BT ketubot 111a) who say it's literal without bringing any reasons for taking the dissenting view, while at the same time, claiming that he is recieving the ruling from the sages of the talmud and discouraging others from studying it.  This among other things led to grave concerns and criticisms that Rambam is making changes to the tradition not reporting on it or codifying it.  

 

 

Big picture:  the purpose is to bring heaven to earth.   Conventionally, traditionally, this was imagined to be literal.  In Hebrew it's included in our prayers, recited 3 times daily.  "He who makes peace in the heavens, bring peace on us..."  Or as Jesus prays "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  So there's a parallel reflective reality between the divine realm and the material world.  Actually many many reflections.  There are "Heavens" fixed in the divine realm, this produces the potential for "heavens"

in the material realm.  As above... so below... it's a repeated motif in the Zohar and other places. 
 

 

 

Gautama's recipe for developing psychic powers:

 

So he abides fully conscious of what is behind and what is in front.
As (he is conscious of what is) in front, so behind: as behind, so in front;
as below, so above: as above, so below:
as by day, so by night: as by night, so by day.
Thus with wits alert, with wits unhampered, he cultivates his mind to brilliancy.

 

(Sanyutta-Nikaya, text V 263, Pali Text Society volume 5 pg 235, ©Pali Text Society)

No expansion on the first line.  Second line, he said that one should survey the body upwards from the soles of the feet and downwards from the crown of the head, and comprehend the body as a bag of flesh enclosing impurities.

Not exactly heaven and earth.

“By night as by day, by day as by night”: Gautama explained that in cultivating the psychic powers, one employs by day “the same signs, characteristics, and marks” that one employs by night, and vice-versa. 
 

“Thus with wits alert, with wits unhampered, he cultivates his mind to brilliancy”: Gautama explained that a monk “cultivates his mind to brilliancy” when the monk’s “consciousness of light is well grasped, his consciousness of daylight is well-sustained.”
 

 

Quote

 

Rambam's approach is, basically reductive.  Reduce all the miracles to natural occurances.  Everything thats written are gross exaggerations.  If the Jewish people can cultivte their intellect and change their minds then the "world to come"  or "Heaven on earth" will be a perceptual shift.  Following the commandments are secondary to acheiving this mindset which he calls "knowing God" or "knowledge".  It's a very greek influenced philosophy.  The highest virtue is knowledge.  And those without it are... let's just say... judged harshly by him.  Rambam was clearly brilliant, but also a racist pig.  In that time and in that place, it's not uncommon.  But a pig is still a pig.
 

 

 

Gautama speaks of "perfect wisdom", and even his attendant Ananda speaks of "a method of gnosis":

 

'How is it, Ananda?  The order of monks seems diminished."

'As to that, lord, the Exalted One spoke to the monks in divers ways on the subject of the unlovely (aspects of the body), spoke in praise of the unlovely, spoke in praise of meditation on the unlovely.  Then the monks, saying, "The Exalted One has (thus spoken) spent their time given to meditation on the unlovely in all its  varied applications.  As to this body, they worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a weapon to slay themselves.  Nay, as many as ten monks did so in a single day; even twenty, thirty of them slew themselves in a single day.  It were a good thing, lord, if the Exalted One would teach some other method, so that the order of monks might be established in gnosis.

 

(SN V 320, Pali Text Society V p 284)

 

 

Gautama had Ananda gather the monks, and he taught the sixteen elements of his own mindfulness, one particular version of arisings in the four fields of mindfulness.  This, he advised the monks, "is something peaceful and choice, something perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of living too." (ibid 322 p 285)

 

 

Quote

 

Rambam doesn't fully explain how this intellectual shift among the Jewish people coming into alignment with God's divine intellect will establish safety and security for the Jewish people.  But that's what he says will happen.

 

The conventional / traditional view is different.  Miracles are real, magic happens. When the Jewish people do what they're supposed to do individually they receive heaven on earth individually. When they collectively do what they're supposed to do in unison, everyone benefits, heaven is brought down to earth for everyone, Jew and gentile alike.  The intellectual connection to each commandment, which Rambam makes primary and the exclusive purpose of the commandments, is considered an important part of a process.  Not the solitary goal.  It's a much loftier aspiration, but the reward is greater as well.

 

Rambam is making the goal more acheivable, but reducing it as well. 
 

 

Something I wrote over on Dwai's "Bliss and Enlightenment by James Swartz" thread, about Gautama's way of living (the sixteen elements of "the intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing", which Gautama described in response to the mass suicide of so many monks):

 

"Gain is delusion; loss is enlighenment" (Kodo Sawaki)  

The difficulty in appreciating Gautama's way of living, and the way of living that he recommended for those who are learners and for those who are arahant (enlightened), is in having sufficient lack of desire to experience the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) inhalation and exhalation (regularly).  The difficulty in attaining enlightenment is apparently having sufficient lack of desire to arrive at the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving--I don't really know!

Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "determinate thought" arising from the knowledge of good and evil resulting in action of the body (and consequently in the action of inbreathing and outbreathing), resulting in action of the mind (consequently in feeling and perceiving).

 

And the difficulty:  whatever one thinks the states of concentration to be, they "are otherwise."

Edited August 11, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:46 AM, Mark Foote said:

Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "determinate thought" arising from the knowledge of good and evil resulting in action of the body (and consequently in the action of inbreathing and outbreathing), resulting in action of the mind (consequently in feeling and perceiving).

 

According to the story, determinate thought pre-existed eating from the tree of knowledge-of-good-and-evil.  The serpent asks:  "Although... Did God tell you not to eat from any tree in the garden?"  Eve answers confidently ( but inaccurately ) "we can eat from any tree but the not the fruit from the of the tree in the middle of the garden... we cannot eat from it and not touch it else we die."

 

So before they ate the so-called forbidden fruit, they had determinate thought.  They were designed with it.  There is nothing wrong with it.  

 

And, if the forbidden fruit did introduce determinate thought processes, the tree would have been named differently. It would be a disjunctive OR, not a conjuctive AND:  the tree of knowledge-of-good-OR-evil.  Good-OR-Evil is determinate.  Good-AND-Evil is a paradox.  Knowing good-or-evil is human.  Knowing good-and-evil simultaneously makes one god-like because any rule can be flipped and reality can be rewritten per their command.

 

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good-and-evil; and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also from the tree of life, and eats, and lives forever;

 

The serpent ate from the tree already.  It used knowledge-of-good-and-evil to trick her.  Once Eve ate the fruit, she knew she could give it to Adam and he could avoid the death penalty.  The serpent's desire for eve corrupted its thinking, and it missed the a key detail which foiled its plan.  

 

Very-unpopular-opinion:  Eve is the heroine in this beautiful love story, but everyone blames her for a fall from grace which was actually intended by God all along.  What people don't realize is, all of this, Gen 2 and 3 happened on Day 6.  After the serpent is cursed to the ground ( on its belly ), and Adam and Eve are ejected from the garden...then....

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

And on the 7th day... rest.

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Daniel

[old3bob]

 

"there but for the grace of God go I"  (which is not a method)

[Michael Sternbach]

Daniel, Mark, and others,

 

One way to read the narrative of The Fall rests on the assumption that Man, by learning about the "good" or "evil" consequences of their actions, lost their capability of spontaneous, "innocent" action.

 

With the words of Richard Wilhelm in his commentary on hexagram 25 of the I-ching (translation is my own):

 

Accordingly, if movement follows the law of heaven, then man is innocent and without wrong. This is the genuine, natural thing, which is not clouded by any considerations or ulterior motives. Where one notices the intention, there the truth and innocence of nature is lost.

 

However, this kind of interpretation raises the question in what way the knowledge of good and evil would make Man more God-like -- when at the same time it led to the Fall from Grace and the loss of immortality. 

 

Please share your thoughts on this.

 

 

 

 

[Maddie]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:43 PM, Apech said:

 

There is nothing wrong with thinking.

 

 

I wish more of that happened in this world LOL 😂🤭

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

One way to read the narrative of The Fall rests on the assumption that Man, by learning about the "good" or "evil" consequences of their actions, lost their capability of spontaneous, "innocent" action.

 

 

This sentence inspired me to search for a quote from Lori Gottlieb's book, Maybe You Should See Someone.  I couldn't find the quote so I'll paraphrase.  In the book, Lori, a therapist herself, goes to another therapist to deal with her own problems.  After explaining her presenting problem, she asks the therapist "is that good or bad?" The therapist replies "it's neither good nor bad."  Lori writes: that's when I really knew I was in trouble.

[old3bob]

well, the time to be a human child is limited, and the time to be a soul child is also limited...thus there is evolution related to both.  (into an old soul in a human body that has reclaimed innocence that is also wise through purity)

Edited August 13, 2023 by old3bob

[oak]

4 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

However, this kind of interpretation raises the question in what way the knowledge of good and evil would make Man more God-like -- when at the same time it led to the Fall from Grace and the loss of immortality. 

 

Please share your thoughts on this.

 

 

What matters to me the most is understanding the wisdom or teaching contained in a particular biblical story. Being so I think it's very profitable to try to understand or interpret it as if it was a greek myth for example. If I ask myself when and why this happened to me, when did I start hiding my nakedness and learn to be deceitful towards my creators (parents) and ended up becoming like them (knowing both good and evil) ? 

Thst's how I take something useful from a biblical story to my personal growth.

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, oak said:

 

What matters to me the most is understanding the wisdom or teaching contained in a particular biblical story. Being so I think it's very profitable to try to understand or interpret it as if it was a greek myth for example. If I ask myself when and why this happened to me, when did I start hiding my nakedness and learn to be deceitful towards my creators (parents) and ended up becoming like them (knowing both good and evil) ? 

Thst's how I take something useful from a biblical story to my personal growth.

 

Was it after you got arrested?

[whocoulditbe?]

12 hours ago, Daniel said:

And, if the forbidden fruit did introduce determinate thought processes, the tree would have been named differently. It would be a disjunctive OR, not a conjuctive AND:  the tree of knowledge-of-good-OR-evil.  Good-OR-Evil is determinate.  Good-AND-Evil is a paradox.  Knowing good-or-evil is human.  Knowing good-and-evil simultaneously makes one god-like because any rule can be flipped and reality can be rewritten per their command.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good-and-evil; and now, what if he puts forth his hand, and takes also from the tree of life, and eats, and lives forever;

This reminds me that Brook Ziporyn wrote a book–which I still haven't read–called Evil and/or/as the Good about Tiantai. Interesting idea, but it's troubling to base such a subtle analysis on the English version. In Genesis 2:9, 3:5, and 3:22, the knowledge of good and evil is הדעת/ידעי/לדעת טוב ורע in the original, and γνωστὸν/γινώσκοντες/γινώσκειν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ in the Septuagint. I have weak knowledge of Greek and none of Hebrew, but I can see that the conjunction is ו in Hebrew, and καὶ in the Greek. καὶ is sometimes used disjunctively, and apparently ו also has other uses. According to Strong's Concordance, טוב and רע can be adjectives or nouns, but καλοῦ and πονηροῦ are only ever adjectives (and the Hebrew words wouldn't be in the genitive if they were nouns anyway). That's pretty weird at 2:9, because it looks like it could mean something like "knowledge which is good and evil," but the verbal forms of the phrase at 3:5 and 3:22 rule out that interpretation. So does it mean something like "knowledge of good (things) and evil (things)"? If so, maybe Daniel could respond with "knowledge of good-and-evil (things)"?

 

–––––––––––

 

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

On 27/07/2023 at 11:43 PM, Apech said:

There is nothing wrong with thinking.

I wish more of that happened in this world LOL 😂🤭

Daodejing verse 3:

不尚賢，使民不爭；不貴難得之貨，使民不為盜；不見可欲，使心不亂。是以聖人之治，虛其心，實其腹，弱其志，強其骨。常使民無知無欲。使夫知者不敢為也。為無為，則無不治。

Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones. He constantly tries to keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act on it. When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal.

 

But this might be about obsessive/strained thought and desire. Good sense is another thing.

Edited August 13, 2023 by whocoulditbe?

[oak]

11 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Was it after you got arrested?

 

Sorry to traumatize you. Didn't mean to put that image in your head.