Search
498 results for “docbraines”
-
-
-
— Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) — [Extrait]
L’ouvrage majeur de Vico est "La Science nouvelle", dont le titre complet est "Principes d’une Science nouvelle relative à la nature des nations, par lesquels on trouve d’autres principes du droit naturel des peuples"...
__________
Retrouvez la suite de la biographie et de la doctrine de Giambattisata Vico :
https://sites.google.com/view/mardiphilo/bo%C3%AEte-%C3%A0-outils-philosophiques/doctrines-et-vies-des-philosophes-illustres/giambattista-vico-1668-1744
#Philosophie #MardiCestPhilosophie #Philosophes #Biographie #Doctrine #Vico #Histoire #Poétique #Vrai #Ingenium -
Blog/Apologetics: Where Should the Ethical Lines be Drawn in the Online Christian Space?
Last week, there was somewhat of a stir in the Christian space on YouTube. The reason for this is because Bryce Crawford (who I’ve spoken extensively about here on the blog) had the highly controversial and greatly deceptive Kenneth Copeland on his show. There was a lot of buzz about this since not only was it Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, but it was one of the biggest Christian voices online giving him a platform. This news was so big that Good Fight Ministries did an hour-and-a-half-long livestream talking about why this was a bad thing.
Then, on Monday, the interview came out. Bryce made it very clear that he does not agree with the prosperity gospel and acknowledged that Copeland teaches a “different gospel” (“false gospel” is more accurate.) From there, the interview was 70% Copeland telling stories about his life, 29% him defending the prosperity gospel by taking Scripture out of context, and 1% Bryce asking softball questions.
However, while I could dedicate this entire blog post to talking about everything wrong with that interview, or how people like Good Fight Ministries are starting to notice that Bryce is a false teacher, the thing I want to focus on today are the ethics. Should Christians online be platforming certain people who teach a false gospel? Where do we draw the line in the sand?
Though I have seen some people do a good job of bringing on people with differing religious backgrounds in the name of a common goal without promoting one view or another (for example: David Wood and Apostate Prophet (Ridvan Aydemir) often collab though Wood is Protestant and Aydemir is Eastern Orthodox) I do think it can be a bad idea. This isn’t anything against these people, but as a Christian influencer, you have a responsibility to vet who you’re platforming and, likewise, allowing to influence your followers. And in the case of known heretics who try to pass themselves off as believing the same or similar things as other believers while teaching something that’s incredibly deceptive, you shouldn’t give them the light of day, especially if you yourself are ill-equipped or unwilling to push back on their beliefs.
In the case of Bryce bringing on Kenneth Copeland, this is absolutely something where he shouldn’t be given the light of day. His main power is manipulation. He has the ability to cover deception with misquoted Scripture that he knows most people won’t catch and a charismatic personality. He tries to play himself off as a normal Christian like anyone else who has just figured out how to get God’s blessings. He makes it sound like the Prosperity Gospel that he preaches is an accurate reading of the Bible – just turn your brain off, listen to him, and you’ll be fine.
Further, when bringing on someone of differing beliefs, ask yourself if the collab will actually be good for the audience. Remember, most of your audience probably doesn’t have good discernment, so if you’re platforming someone that teaches a gospel that doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s possible that many of them won’t catch the issues. While you might get plenty of clicks and views, if they can’t distinguish a wolf from a sheep, then you end up hurting them more than you’re helping them.
On that note, if you’re bringing on someone controversial who you know is a false teacher just for views and attention, then you shouldn’t have them on period. In Bryce’s case, while I don’t claim to know his heart, it seems very much like his interview with Copeland was done to generate views. After all, it was Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, and he rightly has drawn the ire of many in the church. Add on that this isn’t Bryce’s first time having a controversial figure on, collaborating with Carl Lentz back in December of 2024 and January of 2025, and this seems like a trend.
Thus, I think it needs to be a rule of thumb for Christian influencers that if they want to bring someone on their podcast who’s controversial or believes in questionable doctrines, they need to first ask themselves if the discussion will truly benefit the audience or if it will simply give the guest access to a broader range of people who they may end up deceiving. If the latter, then it’s best not to have them on.
On that note, the second thing the influencer needs to ask themselves is if they’re actually prepared and willing to give a respectful, but firm and clear rebuttal against anything that the guest may say that goes against Scripture (basically, they need to be prepared to do the discernment part that the audience may not be willing or equipped to do.) They need to understand the arguments and be willing to protect the flock if the guest tries preying on the audience with a nice sounding, but false message. Just saying that you don’t agree with the person or that they teach a different gospel is not enough. You need to demonstrate for the audience how they’re teaching a false gospel via a sound rebuttal.
And third, they need to ask themselves the reason for bringing on the person. Is it to have a discussion and respectful debate about the points of contention? Or is it simply to garner attention online, even if it means potentially harming your audience’s spiritual walk because they don’t know how to tell a wolf from a sheep?
If you’re not willing to ask these questions, or you’re just doing it for the clicks, then you shouldn’t be bringing the person on.
Until next time,
M.J.
#Bible #Blog #BryceCrawford #ChristianInfluencers #Christianity #Church #Ethics #faith #FalseTeachers #god #Influencers #jesus #KennethCopeland #OpinionPeice #Writing #YouTube -
Blog/Apologetics: Where Should the Ethical Lines be Drawn in the Online Christian Space?
Last week, there was somewhat of a stir in the Christian space on YouTube. The reason for this is because Bryce Crawford (who I’ve spoken extensively about here on the blog) had the highly controversial and greatly deceptive Kenneth Copeland on his show. There was a lot of buzz about this since not only was it Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, but it was one of the biggest Christian voices online giving him a platform. This news was so big that Good Fight Ministries did an hour-and-a-half-long livestream talking about why this was a bad thing.
Then, on Monday, the interview came out. Bryce made it very clear that he does not agree with the prosperity gospel and acknowledged that Copeland teaches a “different gospel” (“false gospel” is more accurate.) From there, the interview was 70% Copeland telling stories about his life, 29% him defending the prosperity gospel by taking Scripture out of context, and 1% Bryce asking softball questions.
However, while I could dedicate this entire blog post to talking about everything wrong with that interview, or how people like Good Fight Ministries are starting to notice that Bryce is a false teacher, the thing I want to focus on today are the ethics. Should Christians online be platforming certain people who teach a false gospel? Where do we draw the line in the sand?
Though I have seen some people do a good job of bringing on people with differing religious backgrounds in the name of a common goal without promoting one view or another (for example: David Wood and Apostate Prophet (Ridvan Aydemir) often collab though Wood is Protestant and Aydemir is Eastern Orthodox) I do think it can be a bad idea. This isn’t anything against these people, but as a Christian influencer, you have a responsibility to vet who you’re platforming and, likewise, allowing to influence your followers. And in the case of known heretics who try to pass themselves off as believing the same or similar things as other believers while teaching something that’s incredibly deceptive, you shouldn’t give them the light of day, especially if you yourself are ill-equipped or unwilling to push back on their beliefs.
In the case of Bryce bringing on Kenneth Copeland, this is absolutely something where he shouldn’t be given the light of day. His main power is manipulation. He has the ability to cover deception with misquoted Scripture that he knows most people won’t catch and a charismatic personality. He tries to play himself off as a normal Christian like anyone else who has just figured out how to get God’s blessings. He makes it sound like the Prosperity Gospel that he preaches is an accurate reading of the Bible – just turn your brain off, listen to him, and you’ll be fine.
Further, when bringing on someone of differing beliefs, ask yourself if the collab will actually be good for the audience. Remember, most of your audience probably doesn’t have good discernment, so if you’re platforming someone that teaches a gospel that doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s possible that many of them won’t catch the issues. While you might get plenty of clicks and views, if they can’t distinguish a wolf from a sheep, then you end up hurting them more than you’re helping them.
On that note, if you’re bringing on someone controversial who you know is a false teacher just for views and attention, then you shouldn’t have them on period. In Bryce’s case, while I don’t claim to know his heart, it seems very much like his interview with Copeland was done to generate views. After all, it was Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, and he rightly has drawn the ire of many in the church. Add on that this isn’t Bryce’s first time having a controversial figure on, collaborating with Carl Lentz back in December of 2024 and January of 2025, and this seems like a trend.
Thus, I think it needs to be a rule of thumb for Christian influencers that if they want to bring someone on their podcast who’s controversial or believes in questionable doctrines, they need to first ask themselves if the discussion will truly benefit the audience or if it will simply give the guest access to a broader range of people who they may end up deceiving. If the latter, then it’s best not to have them on.
On that note, the second thing the influencer needs to ask themselves is if they’re actually prepared and willing to give a respectful, but firm and clear rebuttal against anything that the guest may say that goes against Scripture (basically, they need to be prepared to do the discernment part that the audience may not be willing or equipped to do.) They need to understand the arguments and be willing to protect the flock if the guest tries preying on the audience with a nice sounding, but false message. Just saying that you don’t agree with the person or that they teach a different gospel is not enough. You need to demonstrate for the audience how they’re teaching a false gospel via a sound rebuttal.
And third, they need to ask themselves the reason for bringing on the person. Is it to have a discussion and respectful debate about the points of contention? Or is it simply to garner attention online, even if it means potentially harming your audience’s spiritual walk because they don’t know how to tell a wolf from a sheep?
If you’re not willing to ask these questions, or you’re just doing it for the clicks, then you shouldn’t be bringing the person on.
Until next time,
M.J.
#Bible #Blog #BryceCrawford #ChristianInfluencers #Christianity #Church #Ethics #faith #FalseTeachers #god #Influencers #jesus #KennethCopeland #OpinionPeice #Writing #YouTube -
Blog/Apologetics: Where Should the Ethical Lines be Drawn in the Online Christian Space?
Last week, there was somewhat of a stir in the Christian space on YouTube. The reason for this is because Bryce Crawford (who I’ve spoken extensively about here on the blog) had the highly controversial and greatly deceptive Kenneth Copeland on his show. There was a lot of buzz about this since not only was it Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, but it was one of the biggest Christian voices online giving him a platform. This news was so big that Good Fight Ministries did an hour-and-a-half-long livestream talking about why this was a bad thing.
Then, on Monday, the interview came out. Bryce made it very clear that he does not agree with the prosperity gospel and acknowledged that Copeland teaches a “different gospel” (“false gospel” is more accurate.) From there, the interview was 70% Copeland telling stories about his life, 29% him defending the prosperity gospel by taking Scripture out of context, and 1% Bryce asking softball questions.
However, while I could dedicate this entire blog post to talking about everything wrong with that interview, or how people like Good Fight Ministries are starting to notice that Bryce is a false teacher, the thing I want to focus on today are the ethics. Should Christians online be platforming certain people who teach a false gospel? Where do we draw the line in the sand?
Though I have seen some people do a good job of bringing on people with differing religious backgrounds in the name of a common goal without promoting one view or another (for example: David Wood and Apostate Prophet (Ridvan Aydemir) often collab though Wood is Protestant and Aydemir is Eastern Orthodox) I do think it can be a bad idea. This isn’t anything against these people, but as a Christian influencer, you have a responsibility to vet who you’re platforming and, likewise, allowing to influence your followers. And in the case of known heretics who try to pass themselves off as believing the same or similar things as other believers while teaching something that’s incredibly deceptive, you shouldn’t give them the light of day, especially if you yourself are ill-equipped or unwilling to push back on their beliefs.
In the case of Bryce bringing on Kenneth Copeland, this is absolutely something where he shouldn’t be given the light of day. His main power is manipulation. He has the ability to cover deception with misquoted Scripture that he knows most people won’t catch and a charismatic personality. He tries to play himself off as a normal Christian like anyone else who has just figured out how to get God’s blessings. He makes it sound like the Prosperity Gospel that he preaches is an accurate reading of the Bible – just turn your brain off, listen to him, and you’ll be fine.
Further, when bringing on someone of differing beliefs, ask yourself if the collab will actually be good for the audience. Remember, most of your audience probably doesn’t have good discernment, so if you’re platforming someone that teaches a gospel that doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s possible that many of them won’t catch the issues. While you might get plenty of clicks and views, if they can’t distinguish a wolf from a sheep, then you end up hurting them more than you’re helping them.
On that note, if you’re bringing on someone controversial who you know is a false teacher just for views and attention, then you shouldn’t have them on period. In Bryce’s case, while I don’t claim to know his heart, it seems very much like his interview with Copeland was done to generate views. After all, it was Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, and he rightly has drawn the ire of many in the church. Add on that this isn’t Bryce’s first time having a controversial figure on, collaborating with Carl Lentz back in December of 2024 and January of 2025, and this seems like a trend.
Thus, I think it needs to be a rule of thumb for Christian influencers that if they want to bring someone on their podcast who’s controversial or believes in questionable doctrines, they need to first ask themselves if the discussion will truly benefit the audience or if it will simply give the guest access to a broader range of people who they may end up deceiving. If the latter, then it’s best not to have them on.
On that note, the second thing the influencer needs to ask themselves is if they’re actually prepared and willing to give a respectful, but firm and clear rebuttal against anything that the guest may say that goes against Scripture (basically, they need to be prepared to do the discernment part that the audience may not be willing or equipped to do.) They need to understand the arguments and be willing to protect the flock if the guest tries preying on the audience with a nice sounding, but false message. Just saying that you don’t agree with the person or that they teach a different gospel is not enough. You need to demonstrate for the audience how they’re teaching a false gospel via a sound rebuttal.
And third, they need to ask themselves the reason for bringing on the person. Is it to have a discussion and respectful debate about the points of contention? Or is it simply to garner attention online, even if it means potentially harming your audience’s spiritual walk because they don’t know how to tell a wolf from a sheep?
If you’re not willing to ask these questions, or you’re just doing it for the clicks, then you shouldn’t be bringing the person on.
Until next time,
M.J.
#Bible #Blog #BryceCrawford #ChristianInfluencers #Christianity #Church #Ethics #faith #FalseTeachers #god #Influencers #jesus #KennethCopeland #OpinionPeice #Writing #YouTube -
Blog/Apologetics: Where Should the Ethical Lines be Drawn in the Online Christian Space?
Last week, there was somewhat of a stir in the Christian space on YouTube. The reason for this is because Bryce Crawford (who I’ve spoken extensively about here on the blog) had the highly controversial and greatly deceptive Kenneth Copeland on his show. There was a lot of buzz about this since not only was it Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, but it was one of the biggest Christian voices online giving him a platform. This news was so big that Good Fight Ministries did an hour-and-a-half-long livestream talking about why this was a bad thing.
Then, on Monday, the interview came out. Bryce made it very clear that he does not agree with the prosperity gospel and acknowledged that Copeland teaches a “different gospel” (“false gospel” is more accurate.) From there, the interview was 70% Copeland telling stories about his life, 29% him defending the prosperity gospel by taking Scripture out of context, and 1% Bryce asking softball questions.
However, while I could dedicate this entire blog post to talking about everything wrong with that interview, or how people like Good Fight Ministries are starting to notice that Bryce is a false teacher, the thing I want to focus on today are the ethics. Should Christians online be platforming certain people who teach a false gospel? Where do we draw the line in the sand?
Though I have seen some people do a good job of bringing on people with differing religious backgrounds in the name of a common goal without promoting one view or another (for example: David Wood and Apostate Prophet (Ridvan Aydemir) often collab though Wood is Protestant and Aydemir is Eastern Orthodox) I do think it can be a bad idea. This isn’t anything against these people, but as a Christian influencer, you have a responsibility to vet who you’re platforming and, likewise, allowing to influence your followers. And in the case of known heretics who try to pass themselves off as believing the same or similar things as other believers while teaching something that’s incredibly deceptive, you shouldn’t give them the light of day, especially if you yourself are ill-equipped or unwilling to push back on their beliefs.
In the case of Bryce bringing on Kenneth Copeland, this is absolutely something where he shouldn’t be given the light of day. His main power is manipulation. He has the ability to cover deception with misquoted Scripture that he knows most people won’t catch and a charismatic personality. He tries to play himself off as a normal Christian like anyone else who has just figured out how to get God’s blessings. He makes it sound like the Prosperity Gospel that he preaches is an accurate reading of the Bible – just turn your brain off, listen to him, and you’ll be fine.
Further, when bringing on someone of differing beliefs, ask yourself if the collab will actually be good for the audience. Remember, most of your audience probably doesn’t have good discernment, so if you’re platforming someone that teaches a gospel that doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s possible that many of them won’t catch the issues. While you might get plenty of clicks and views, if they can’t distinguish a wolf from a sheep, then you end up hurting them more than you’re helping them.
On that note, if you’re bringing on someone controversial who you know is a false teacher just for views and attention, then you shouldn’t have them on period. In Bryce’s case, while I don’t claim to know his heart, it seems very much like his interview with Copeland was done to generate views. After all, it was Copeland’s first interview in 15 years, and he rightly has drawn the ire of many in the church. Add on that this isn’t Bryce’s first time having a controversial figure on, collaborating with Carl Lentz back in December of 2024 and January of 2025, and this seems like a trend.
Thus, I think it needs to be a rule of thumb for Christian influencers that if they want to bring someone on their podcast who’s controversial or believes in questionable doctrines, they need to first ask themselves if the discussion will truly benefit the audience or if it will simply give the guest access to a broader range of people who they may end up deceiving. If the latter, then it’s best not to have them on.
On that note, the second thing the influencer needs to ask themselves is if they’re actually prepared and willing to give a respectful, but firm and clear rebuttal against anything that the guest may say that goes against Scripture (basically, they need to be prepared to do the discernment part that the audience may not be willing or equipped to do.) They need to understand the arguments and be willing to protect the flock if the guest tries preying on the audience with a nice sounding, but false message. Just saying that you don’t agree with the person or that they teach a different gospel is not enough. You need to demonstrate for the audience how they’re teaching a false gospel via a sound rebuttal.
And third, they need to ask themselves the reason for bringing on the person. Is it to have a discussion and respectful debate about the points of contention? Or is it simply to garner attention online, even if it means potentially harming your audience’s spiritual walk because they don’t know how to tell a wolf from a sheep?
If you’re not willing to ask these questions, or you’re just doing it for the clicks, then you shouldn’t be bringing the person on.
Until next time,
M.J.
#Bible #Blog #BryceCrawford #ChristianInfluencers #Christianity #Church #Ethics #faith #FalseTeachers #god #Influencers #jesus #KennethCopeland #OpinionPeice #Writing #YouTube -
The Spanish Alumbrados: Origin of the Term ‘Illuminati’
Definition
The Iluminados, Perfectibilists and TheosophiCAL REFERENCES
CLICK FOR MORE TERMSIlluminati. the past participle of illuminare, meaning to “light up,” or “illuminate.” The plural term, “Illuminati” (Lat. illuminatus; Ital. Illuminato) was originally applied to a 16 c. Spanish mystic sect, called the Alumbrados (Spanish. “Enlightened”), or Aluminados, led by Sister María de Santo Domingo, or La Beata de Piedrahita (a Spanish mystic c. 1485 – c. 1524).
This term later, under Illuminés, spread to France from Seville of Andalusia, Spain in 1623; and joined in a cause with the Guérinets under Pierre Guérin in 1634. Another little known group of Illuminés arose in south France, whom were called “French Prophets.” They were an off-shoot of the Camisards (French Protestant militants) of the Bas-Languedoc and Cévennes regions, from circa 1722-1794. The Alumbrados were first recorded in 1492 Spain, and had three edicts issued against them by the Catholic Inquisition.
Josef Wäges explains in his book, The Secret School of Wisdom, an early version of Knigge’s Preparatory Essay for potential recruits alludes to these condemned mystics (the Illumines of Spain persecuted by the Spanish inquisition), as the possible precursors of the Illuminati. He also states as said though, that there is no evidence that Weishaupt took any deeper interest in the history of the Alumbrados. The Alumbrados were mainly active in Castile and Andalusia.
Besides the similarity in name, we can establish that there is no historical or organizational link to the Illuminati of Ingolstadt, Bavaria (repressed in 1785) founded in 1776. Before the name ‘Illuminati’ was finally adopted in 1778, founder of the ‘Order,’ Adam Weishaupt initially began with his idea of a ‘School of Humanity.’ Discarding this idea, he drafted up a new secret society, and its members were to be called ‘Perfectibilists,’ “believers in the possible, constant improvement of human nature and society.”
Weishaupt contemplated on the name ‘bee order,’ or ‘bee society,’ an allusion to the Eleusinian mysteries, before adopting the name ‘Illuminati’ in 1778. Adam Weishaupt taught by Jesuits, though abhorring the Society of Jesus, closely examined its structure and constitutions. Weishaupt then utilized elements from Catholic religious orders, the Greek mysteries and Freemasonry to add to its sophistication — creating rules, titles and degrees, and continuing to emphasize the idea of the Perfectibilist (improvement of self-knowledge and constant self-scrutiny of one’s own flaws).
Weishaupt emulated and valued the systems and philosophy of the ancient mysteries and arcane disciplines, and was inspired by his readings of the Avesta. He embodied: the Protestant and Enlightenment thinking of his time; held deistic and republican ideals; fought for secular education in Bavaria; and defined ‘enlightenment’ and ‘illumination’ in the theosophical and secular, or “intellectual” and moral sense.
Helena P. Blavatsky’s Theosophical Glossary (published in 1892) references the term “Illuminati,” and defines it from Latin as a reference to the “Enlightened,” or the initiated adepts† (Lat. adeptus. “an expert”).
The liberality to which this term is used is a great abuse. An illuminati describes a circle of Adepts and Magi, and cannot refer to a group of financiers, elite bureaucrats, plutocrats and technocrats as in the distortions of popular culture and conspiracy theory. Hence, for example the Twelve Disciples of Christ in the New Testament may be technically called — an Illuminati.
H.P. Blavatsky explains that the term is of Avestan Zoroastrian origin, and a reference to magi — the Wise Men of Chaldea, India, Greece, Persia, Egypt and so forth. She referred to Confucius, Jesus and Siddhartha as composing a spiritual Illuminati, the Paracelsists as an Illuminati, and uses this term to also describe a clandestine network in her time in the Orient she refers to as the “real Rosicrucians.” The Theosophists taught that this true hidden Illuminati, or body of initiates exists, and the ancient magical religion of the Chaldeans survives. Blavatsky explains, that “the word “Chaldean” does not refer merely to a native or an inhabitant of Chaldea, but to “Chaldeism,” the oldest science of astrology and occultism.”
For more information see Josef Wäges below who is working with others on a digital collection of Adam Weishaupt’s writings and other readings about The Historical Bavarian Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt
Illuminati History of the Secret School of Wisdom | Josef Wages
Josef Wäges gives the death-blow to Illuminati conspiracies as strings of repeated hearsay devoid of historical fact. He goes into the references made by George Washington, a Freemason, who equated the Illuminati with the Jacobinism of the French Revolution. Illuminati History of the Secret School of Wisdom “THERE are lives that Theosophists and all others…
by Dominique JohnsonMarch 10, 2017December 22, 2024Zain Khan interviews Josef Wages on the Truth about the Bavarian Illuminati
Josef Wäges is making breakthroughs in historical research about the Bavarian Illuminati and Johann Adam Weishaupt. Zain Khan interviews Josef Wages a 32° degree Freemason, and also a best selling author of the book ‘The Secret School of Wisdom: The Authentic Ritual and Doctrines of the Illuminati.’
by Dominique JohnsonJune 15, 2017December 22, 2024Kathryn Olmsted on the Secret Society of the Illuminati
THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE ILLUMINATI Great points by Professor of History at UC Davis, Kathryn Olmsted.
by Dominique JohnsonJuly 30, 2016December 14, 2024Illuminati Pop Lies vs. Secret Society Truth with Josef Wages
JOHANN ADAM WEISHAUPT: FROM SENSATIONALIST AND SLANDEROUS MYTHS TO DOCUMENTED FACTS “It was the full conviction of this, and of what could be done, if every man were placed in the office for which he was fated by nature and a proper education, which first suggested to me the plan of Illumination.” — ADAM WEISHAUPT…
by Dominique JohnsonDecember 20, 2016January 14, 2025The Collected Works of Adam Weishaupt: On Materialism and Idealism
by Dominique JohnsonJanuary 16, 2025Owl Symbolism in the Illuminati’s Minerval Assemblies
by Dominique JohnsonJanuary 4, 2025 by Dominique JohnsonJuly 13, 2018Recommended Reading
- Alumbrado, Encyclopaedia Britannica, online.
- Camisard, Encyclopaedia Britannica, online.
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1914).
#AdamWeishaupt #Alchemists #Alumbrados #Bavaria #BavarianIlluminati #Camisard #CatholicInquisition #English #France #Germany #History #LaBeataDePiedrahita #Latin #MedievalAge #PierreGuérin #PierreGuenin #SisterMaríaDeSantoDomingo #Spain #SpanishMystic #Theosophy
-
In his first piece for Rense’s site in 2005, #LelandLehrman described himself as “an American citizen of Jewish heritage concerned about the methods & doctrines that the criminal leadership of the Jewish & Zionist hierarchy have promoted worldwide.”
Mark Gorton (the millionaire creator of #LimeWire) & Tony Lyons (the founder of #SkyhorsePublishing, which releases conspiratorial & #AntiVaccine books, including by #RFKJr) are cofounders of #MAHA PAC, & co-presidents of the MAHA Institute.
-
— Doctrines et vies des philosophes illustres, Histoires particulières —
Diogène, "Le bipède sans plumes de Platon".
https://youtube.com/shorts/5ne4V74goqc
Retrouvez d'autres histoires de philosophes sur le site MardiPhilo :
https://sites.google.com/view/mardiphilo/bo%C3%AEte-%C3%A0-outils-philosophiques/doctrines-et-vies-des-philosophes-illustres
#philosophie #Cyniques #Cynisme #Diogène #diogenes #Platon #plato -
— Doctrines et vies des philosophes illustres, Histoires particulières —
Diogène, "Le Soleil d'Alexandre".
https://youtube.com/shorts/NPTwW5hls80
Retrouvez d'autres histoires de philosophes sur le site MardiPhilo :
https://sites.google.com/view/mardiphilo/bo%C3%AEte-%C3%A0-outils-philosophiques/doctrines-et-vies-des-philosophes-illustres
#philosophie #Cyniques #Cynisme #Diogène #diogenes -
These lines from Albert Camus's The Rebel come to mind a lot:
If injustice is bad for the rebel, it is not because it contradicts an eternal idea of justice, but because it perpetuates the silent hostility that separates the oppressor from the oppressed. It kills the small part of existence that can be realized on this earth through the mutual understanding of men. In the same way, since the man who lies shuts himself off from other men, falsehood is therefore proscribed and, on a slightly lower level, murder and violence, which impose definitive silence. The mutual understanding and communication discovered by rebellion can survive only in the free exchange of conversation. Every ambiguity, every misunderstanding, leads to death; clear language and simple words are the only salvation from this death.[^1] The climax of every tragedy lies in the deafness of its heroes. Plato is right and not Moses and Nietzsche. Dialogue on the level of mankind is less costly- [^1] It is worth noting that the language peculiar to totalitarian doctrines is always: a scholastic or administrative language.
#AlbertCamus #Camus #SimpleWords #FreeExchangeOfConversation #TheRebel
- [^1] It is worth noting that the language peculiar to totalitarian doctrines is always: a scholastic or administrative language.
-
Enter #Leonard #Leo.
In the early years of the Trump administration, he and the #Federalist #Society had remarkable influence within the new government. The Federalist Society had brought the legal doctrines of #originalism and #textualism — close readings of laws and the Constitution to adhere to the intent and words of the authors — into the mainstream.Leo had taken a leave of absence from the group to advise President Trump on judicial appointments, helping shepherd the appointments of Neil #Gorsuch, Brett #Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney #Barrett to the Supreme Court and helping to fill more than 200 other positions in federal district and appellate courts.
By the time Trump left office, he had put on the bench 28% of all federal judges in America.
In the town hall video, #Baehr explained how he modeled #Teneo on the Federalist Society.
Leo’s “secret sauce,” he said, was to identify an “inner core” group of people within the Federalist Society’s 60,000 members.
Leo was “identifying them and recruiting them for either specific roles to serve as #judges or to spin up and launch critical #projects often which you would have no idea about.”
#FedSoc #teneonetwork #darkmoney
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents -
Enter #Leonard #Leo.
In the early years of the Trump administration, he and the #Federalist #Society had remarkable influence within the new government. The Federalist Society had brought the legal doctrines of #originalism and #textualism — close readings of laws and the Constitution to adhere to the intent and words of the authors — into the mainstream.Leo had taken a leave of absence from the group to advise President Trump on judicial appointments, helping shepherd the appointments of Neil #Gorsuch, Brett #Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney #Barrett to the Supreme Court and helping to fill more than 200 other positions in federal district and appellate courts.
By the time Trump left office, he had put on the bench 28% of all federal judges in America.
In the town hall video, #Baehr explained how he modeled #Teneo on the Federalist Society.
Leo’s “secret sauce,” he said, was to identify an “inner core” group of people within the Federalist Society’s 60,000 members.
Leo was “identifying them and recruiting them for either specific roles to serve as #judges or to spin up and launch critical #projects often which you would have no idea about.”
#FedSoc #teneonetwork #darkmoney
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents -
Enter #Leonard #Leo.
In the early years of the Trump administration, he and the #Federalist #Society had remarkable influence within the new government. The Federalist Society had brought the legal doctrines of #originalism and #textualism — close readings of laws and the Constitution to adhere to the intent and words of the authors — into the mainstream.Leo had taken a leave of absence from the group to advise President Trump on judicial appointments, helping shepherd the appointments of Neil #Gorsuch, Brett #Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney #Barrett to the Supreme Court and helping to fill more than 200 other positions in federal district and appellate courts.
By the time Trump left office, he had put on the bench 28% of all federal judges in America.
In the town hall video, #Baehr explained how he modeled #Teneo on the Federalist Society.
Leo’s “secret sauce,” he said, was to identify an “inner core” group of people within the Federalist Society’s 60,000 members.
Leo was “identifying them and recruiting them for either specific roles to serve as #judges or to spin up and launch critical #projects often which you would have no idea about.”
#FedSoc #teneonetwork #darkmoney
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents -
Enter #Leonard #Leo.
In the early years of the Trump administration, he and the #Federalist #Society had remarkable influence within the new government. The Federalist Society had brought the legal doctrines of #originalism and #textualism — close readings of laws and the Constitution to adhere to the intent and words of the authors — into the mainstream.Leo had taken a leave of absence from the group to advise President Trump on judicial appointments, helping shepherd the appointments of Neil #Gorsuch, Brett #Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney #Barrett to the Supreme Court and helping to fill more than 200 other positions in federal district and appellate courts.
By the time Trump left office, he had put on the bench 28% of all federal judges in America.
In the town hall video, #Baehr explained how he modeled #Teneo on the Federalist Society.
Leo’s “secret sauce,” he said, was to identify an “inner core” group of people within the Federalist Society’s 60,000 members.
Leo was “identifying them and recruiting them for either specific roles to serve as #judges or to spin up and launch critical #projects often which you would have no idea about.”
#FedSoc #teneonetwork #darkmoney
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents -
Hey, I did a thing with @mattsheffield! He and I discuss Mormonism in the current political climate, for your ears.
Topics:
- Challenges of free will and information control
- Mormonism created new doctrinal controversies while solving for classical Christian dilemmas
- Centralization and doctrinal evolution in Mormonism
- Intellectual Mormonism’s conflicted epistemology
- Sweeping embarrassing doctrines under the rug doesn’t make them disappear
- Scientific claims and the Book of Mormon
- Spiritual polygamy remains an actual practice in today’s Mormonism
- Former Mormons and active progressive Mormons are reconciling
- Reclaiming self-worth and autonomy#exmo #ExMormon #ReligiousTrauma #exvie #exvangelical #podcast
https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield/114722780919807783 -
8 January: St. Peter Thomas
January 8
SAINT PETER THOMAS
BishopOptional Memorial
Born about 1305 in southern Perigord in France, Peter Thomas entered the Carmelites when he was twenty-one. He was chosen by the Order as its procurator general to the Papal Court at Avignon in 1345. After being made bishop of Patti and Lipari in 1354, he was entrusted with many papal missions to promote peace and unity with the Eastern Churches. He was translated to the see of Corone in the Peloponnesus in 1359 and made Papal Legate for the East. In 1363, he was appointed Archbishop of Crete and in 1364 Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. He won a reputation as an apostle of church unity before he died at Famagosta on Cyprus in 1366.
From the Common of Pastors
Office of Readings
The First Reading
1 Timothy 1:1-7, 15-19, 2:1-8A reading from the First Letter of St. Paul to Timothy
The calling of a pastor
From Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus appointed by the command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, true child of mine in the faith; wishing you grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Lord.
As I asked you when I was leaving for Macedonia, please stay at Ephesus, to insist that certain people stop teaching strange doctrines and taking notice of myths and endless genealogies; these things are only likely to raise irrelevant doubts instead of furthering the design of God which are revealed in faith. The only purpose of this instruction is that there should be love, coming out of a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith. There are some people who have gone off the straight course and taken a road that leads to empty speculation; they claim to be doctors of the Law, but they understand neither the arguments they are using nor the opinions they are upholding.
Here is a saying that you can rely on and nobody should doubt: that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. I myself am the greatest of them; and if mercy has been shown to me, it is because Jesus Christ meant to make me the greatest evidence of his inexhaustible patience for all the other people who would later have to trust in him to come to eternal life. To the eternal King, the undying, invisible and only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Timothy, my son, these are the instructions that I am giving you: I ask you to remember the words once spoken over you by the prophets, and taking them to heart to fight like a good soldier with faith and a good conscience for your weapons. Some people have put conscience aside and wrecked their faith in consequence.
My advice is that, first of all, there should be prayers offered for everyone — petitions, intercessions and thanksgiving — and especially for kings and others in authority, so that we may be able to live religious and reverent lives in peace and quiet. To do this is right, and will please God our Savior: he wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth. For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus, who sacrificed himself as a ransom for them all. He is the evidence of this, sent at the appointed time, and I have been named a herald and apostle of it and — I am telling the truth and no lie — a teacher of the faith and the truth to the pagans.
In every place, then, I want the men to lift their hands up reverently in prayer, with no anger or argument.
Responsory
R/. Bear with one another in love; do all that you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together; there is one body and one Spirit, * just as you were all called into one and the same hope when you were called.
V/. A servant of the Lord is to aim for holiness and faith, love, and peace, in union with all those who call on the Lord with pure minds; * just as you were all called into one and the same hope when you were called.The Second Reading
Bk I, Ch 6A reading from The Book of the Institution of the First Monks
Love your neighbor as yourself
The Lord says, “The man who hears My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me.” And the first of all commandments is: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. This is the greatest and first commandment.” This cannot be observed without love of neighbor, because “he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen;” “and the second commandment is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” namely, in the things and for the reason that you love yourself. “His soul hates him who loves violence,” says the Psalmist. Therefore, love your neighbor as yourself in good and not in evil, and “whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” and “what you hate, do not do to anyone.” Thus, you must love your neighbor, and so act that he becomes just if he is wicked, or remains just if he is good.
Again you must love yourself, not because of yourself, but because of God. Whatever is loved because of itself is thus made a source of joy and a happy life, the hope of attaining which is comforting even on earth. But you must not place the hope of a blessed life in yourself or another man. “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, whose heart turns away from the Lord.” Therefore, you must make the Lord the source of your joy and the happy life, as the apostle says: “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
If you understand this clearly, you must love God because of Himself, and yourself, not because of yourself, but because of God; and, since you must love your neighbor as yourself, you must love him, not because of himself, nor because of yourself, but because of God, and what else is this but to love God in your neighbor? “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey His commandment.” In the preparation of your soul you do all of this if you love God because of Himself and your neighbor as yourself because of God. “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
Responsory
R/. With all our hearts we desired nothing better than to share with you our own lives, as well as God’s gospel, * so greatly had we learned to love you.
V/. My little children, I am in travail over you afresh, until I can see Christ’s image formed in you, * so greatly had we learned to love you.Canticle of Zechariah
Ant. I am the good shepherd; I lay down my life for my sheep; and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Prayer
Lord,
You inspired in Your bishop St. Peter Thomas
an intense desire to promote peace and Christian unity.
Following His example
may we live steadfast in the faith
and work perseveringly for peace.We ask this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son,
who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit,
God, for ever and ever.Canticle of Mary
Ant. May the peace of Christ fill your hearts with joy, that peace to which all of you are called as one body.
Saint Peter Thomas
Francisco de Zurbarán (Spanish, 1598–1664)
Oil on canvas, after 1634
Museum of Fine Arts, BostonCatholic Church 1993, Proper of the Liturgy of the Hours of the Order of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel and the Order of Discalced Carmelites (Rev. and augm.), Institutum Carmelitanum, Rome.
#bishop #Carmelites #LiturgyOfTheHours #optionalMemorial #StPeterThomas
-
2.
De confession chrétienne, je suis engagé dans le #protestantisme libéral (penser, critiquer et croire en toute liberté au-delà des #dogmes et des #doctrines) et #progressiste (#théologies #Queers, #féministes, #écologiques, #inclusivité, etc). Je ne fais pas de prosélytisme. L'important est que chacun.e se sente bien dans sa ou ses communautés, selon ses propres convictions. -
"We are still wresting control (including autonomy) from those who own."
Or those who claim ownership, with citizens remaining blissfully ignorant.
Land title claims of British North American colonies (consolidated into USA and Canada) are still based on the #DoctrineOfDiscovery , antique Christian religious doctrines, and not legitimate international law.
Far too many settlers uphold the colonialism project.
----
Curious what you think about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C3Yrwwwr1s -
"Wokisme": la #Région ?Paca refuse de verser une subvention à une école de cinéma pour avoir utilisé l'#écritureinclusive
https://www.nicematin.com/politique/wokisme-la-region-paca-refuse-de-verser-une-subvention-a-une-ecole-de-cinema-pour-avoir-utilise-l-ecriture-inclusive-984041
Dans l’exposé des motifs, Renaud #Muselier a expliqué que les libertés ne doivent pas "laisser de place aux doctrines de division et de conflit comme le #wokisme ou le négationnisme" -
"Wokisme": la #Région ?Paca refuse de verser une subvention à une école de cinéma pour avoir utilisé l'#écritureinclusive
https://www.nicematin.com/politique/wokisme-la-region-paca-refuse-de-verser-une-subvention-a-une-ecole-de-cinema-pour-avoir-utilise-l-ecriture-inclusive-984041
Dans l’exposé des motifs, Renaud #Muselier a expliqué que les libertés ne doivent pas "laisser de place aux doctrines de division et de conflit comme le #wokisme ou le négationnisme" -
Norms are in flux with the huge in-migration of new users. I think some folks way over-use the #CW tag. But that's ok. As for #mentalhealth topics, I am all for #destigmatizing . Talk it up. #mentalhealthishealth
-
We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which experience has shown can be properly identified as "fascist."
#fascism #uspol #history #propaganda -
#beer #beersofmastodon #Lagunitas #Willetized coffee #stout aged in rye oak barrels
-
CW: us pol trump
Papier de Naomi Klein et Astra Taylor sur Guardian:
Analyse du fascisme de Trump et sa clique, comme un culte de l'apocalyspe. Selon elles, la différence avec les doctrines fascistes du XXe réside dans l'absence de grande vision aux lendemains glorieux. Ne reste que l’accélération du déclin et la bunkerisation du monde (et la fuite sur mars pour Musk).
Elles appellent celle·eux qui "ont encore un cœur qui bat" à se rallier "ici", ref au mot yiddish #Doikayt
-
Thomas Aikenhead: the thread about the tragic death of the last person executed for blasphemy in Britain
On this day in 1697, January 8th, 20 year old Thomas Aikenhead was executed in Edinburgh by hanging. His crime was blasphemy and he was the last person to be executed for this reason in the British Isles.
The Grassmarket gallows. There are no images of the Gallowlee, where Thomas Aikenhead met his fate, that I am aware of. Sketch by James Skene, 1827. Original © Edinburgh City LibrariesDespite being his being a first offence, the punishment for which was being sack-clothed and imprisoned, the prosecutor Lord Advocate Sir James Steuart was intent on the death penalty. He wished to make an example of Aikenhead to serve as a warning to others.
Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees (1635–1713) by John Baptist de MedinaThomas Aikenhead was born in 1676, the son of Helen Ramsey and James Aikenhead, a surgeon and burgess of the city of Edinburgh. In 1696 he and was a student at the city’s University.
“Museum, Hall and Library of the Old College”. Edinburgh University as it may have been in Aikenhead’s day. 1918 sketch by James Skene. © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn December of that year he was indicted for his accused crimes on the evidence of his friends:
[He] had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old Testament Ezra’s fables, in profane allusion to Esop’s Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Muhammad to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ
Proceedings against Thomas Aikenhead for Blasphemy, T. B. Howell, 1816Aikenhead himself, two ministers of the Kirk and two privy councillors made appeals on his behalf, but the Privy Council put the matter in the hands of the Kirk’s General Assembly. This body demanded “vigorous execution [to curb] the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land“. As a 19th century broadside put it:
Mercy was asleep, as well as Justice and Science, so the dreadful sentence was executed
Broadside printed by John Muir of Princes Street, Glasgow, c 1821-39On the morning of 8 January 1697, he wrote his final letters and was marched to his execution spot, the gallows on the Gallow Lee, between Edinburgh and Leith. We known this location these days as Shrubhill and at that time it was a scrubby, sandy promontory on the main route between the two burghs. We can see it clearly marked below on John Adair’s 1682 map.
Adair’s Map of 1682, with the Gallow Lee scaffold highlighted. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandThomas gave a fairly lengthy final testimony before his sentence was carried out, the closing paragraph of which was;
…as the Lord in his providence hath been pleased in this exemplary manner to punish my great sins, so it is my earnest desire to him, that my blood may give a stop to that raging spirit of atheism which hath taken such footing in Britain, both in practice and profession. And of his infinite mercy recover those who are deluded with these pernicious principles. And for that end that his everlasting gospell may flourish in these lands, while sun and moon endureth.
The last words of Thomas Aikenhead, 8th January 1697Enlightenment Edinburgh, this was not.
Footnote: you may see images online, purporting to be a painting of Thomas Aikenhead. Do not be misled! This is a painting made 70 years after Thomas’ death of the French philosopher and art critic Denis Diderot! As far as I’m aware there are no contemporary images of Thomas Aikenhead, and perhaps none made after the fact either.
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
An old standby. #Deschutes Black Butte #Porter #BeersOfMastodon
-
Atheism and metaphysics
Metaphysics can seem to be a rather slippery term. On the one hand it can be taken to be “the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time, change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind” (Wikipedia) but on the other, being the study of, in one sense, how things come to be, it is too easily conflated with religious creation myths, or with cosmologies intricately involved with religious doctrines of causality and phenomenology.
But “according to modern scientific knowledge, mental events and processes presuppose the existence and reality of material things. Thinking, for example, implies the existence of a bird or a mammal with a brain. Or a momentary event, such as the proverbial cat sitting on the mat, presupposes the real existence of the cat, the mat, the earth under the mat, as well as a real human observer of the event.” (Morris)
But for me, that which is intended by using the term “ground of being” (Tillich) is precisely that which can be known directly as “no-thing” in contemplation. I am not talking here of an idea, a common factor in a Huxley-like perennial philosophy, but of a repeated and very direct experience of what Quakers have referred to as “the light”, as described for instance by Emilia Fogelklou (she writes in the third person): “Without visions or the sound of speech or human mediation, in exceptionally wide-awake consciousness, she experienced the great releasing inward wonder. It was as if the ’empty shell’ burst. All the weight and agony, all the feeling of unreality dropped away. She perceived living goodness, joy, light like a clear, irradiating, uplifting, enfolding, unequivocal reality from deep inside.”
This kind of experience can of course not be described terribly clearly, nor can it be communicated directly, and any attempt is likely to fall into superlatives such as Fogelklou’s. But the experience is as real and direct as any sensory experience, perhaps more so, and it has a curious undeniable quality, a great lifting and healing of the heart. I use Tillich’s term for it not because I have any particular attraction for that as an idea, but because it seems to get closer than anything else I have read to the encounter itself. There is a visual analogue that sometimes occurs in meditation – and which can lead to the experience I am trying to describe – of the visual field itself, seen through closed eyes, extending suddenly through and beneath what ought to have been the observing mind, but which is no longer there.
Now, I have long enough experience in contemplative practice to know that experiences are not things to hang onto, still less to seek after, and I would not be happy if any words of mine sent anyone on a quest for experiential chimeras. Yet the experience itself, with all its indelible affect, has occurred so often over the years, since childhood, that I find myself referring to it over and over again, and it remains for me a kind of lodestone.
Are these metaphysical experiences, insights? Are they therefore somehow at variance with the fundamental insight of atheism that the idea of another, supernatural, layer to existence, within which the human self can somehow transcend, or survive, the electrochemical apparatus of the central nervous system, is illusory? I don’t think so. Daniel Dennett’s insight into human phenomenology as a “benign user illusion” coincides well with the Buddhist conception of things as empty of intrinsic existence (śūnyatā) – all of which seems to me to be a formal expression of what I have come to experience as “no-thing.” Andreas Müller:
All there is is oneness. The unknown. No-thing appearing as it appears. It is already whole. It is already complete. That which seems to be missing – wholeness – is not lost…
What remains is indescribable. It is indescribable simply because there is no one left who can describe it. There is no one left who experiences oneness (which, by the way, would then not be oneness anymore) and could possibly know how that is. Yes, there is no one left who knows how it is. That is freedom.
#AndreasMüller #atheism #awakening #BrianMorris #consciousness #contemplative #DanielDennett #EmiliaFogelklou #PaulTillich #philosophy #practice #religion #Wikipedia
-
Atheism and metaphysics
Metaphysics can seem to be a rather slippery term. On the one hand it can be taken to be “the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time, change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind” (Wikipedia) but on the other, being the study of, in one sense, how things come to be, it is too easily conflated with religious creation myths, or with cosmologies intricately involved with religious doctrines of causality and phenomenology.
But “according to modern scientific knowledge, mental events and processes presuppose the existence and reality of material things. Thinking, for example, implies the existence of a bird or a mammal with a brain. Or a momentary event, such as the proverbial cat sitting on the mat, presupposes the real existence of the cat, the mat, the earth under the mat, as well as a real human observer of the event.” (Morris)
But for me, that which is intended by using the term “ground of being” (Tillich) is precisely that which can be known directly as “no-thing” in contemplation. I am not talking here of an idea, a common factor in a Huxley-like perennial philosophy, but of a repeated and very direct experience of what Quakers have referred to as “the light”, as described for instance by Emilia Fogelklou (she writes in the third person): “Without visions or the sound of speech or human mediation, in exceptionally wide-awake consciousness, she experienced the great releasing inward wonder. It was as if the ’empty shell’ burst. All the weight and agony, all the feeling of unreality dropped away. She perceived living goodness, joy, light like a clear, irradiating, uplifting, enfolding, unequivocal reality from deep inside.”
This kind of experience can of course not be described terribly clearly, nor can it be communicated directly, and any attempt is likely to fall into superlatives such as Fogelklou’s. But the experience is as real and direct as any sensory experience, perhaps more so, and it has a curious undeniable quality, a great lifting and healing of the heart. I use Tillich’s term for it not because I have any particular attraction for that as an idea, but because it seems to get closer than anything else I have read to the encounter itself. There is a visual analogue that sometimes occurs in meditation – and which can lead to the experience I am trying to describe – of the visual field itself, seen through closed eyes, extending suddenly through and beneath what ought to have been the observing mind, but which is no longer there.
Now, I have long enough experience in contemplative practice to know that experiences are not things to hang onto, still less to seek after, and I would not be happy if any words of mine sent anyone on a quest for experiential chimeras. Yet the experience itself, with all its indelible affect, has occurred so often over the years, since childhood, that I find myself referring to it over and over again, and it remains for me a kind of lodestone.
Are these metaphysical experiences, insights? Are they therefore somehow at variance with the fundamental insight of atheism that the idea of another, supernatural, layer to existence, within which the human self can somehow transcend, or survive, the electrochemical apparatus of the central nervous system, is illusory? I don’t think so. Daniel Dennett’s insight into human phenomenology as a “benign user illusion” coincides well with the Buddhist conception of things as empty of intrinsic existence (śūnyatā) – all of which seems to me to be a formal expression of what I have come to experience as “no-thing.” Andreas Müller:
All there is is oneness. The unknown. No-thing appearing as it appears. It is already whole. It is already complete. That which seems to be missing – wholeness – is not lost…
What remains is indescribable. It is indescribable simply because there is no one left who can describe it. There is no one left who experiences oneness (which, by the way, would then not be oneness anymore) and could possibly know how that is. Yes, there is no one left who knows how it is. That is freedom.
#AndreasMüller #atheism #awakening #BrianMorris #consciousness #contemplative #DanielDennett #EmiliaFogelklou #PaulTillich #philosophy #practice #religion #Wikipedia