Thanks for wanting to help, we’re simply disagreeing, God is Great.
Don’t you see that a god.ess, but also sometimes a saint.e, is the ~embodiment of an Idea(l) ?
Temples for the god of knowledge were libraries, taverns often gave worship to Bacchus, and Hermes/Mercury, the god of merchants, was also the god of thieves.
Moreover, the genealogy of god.desse.s is rational, have a look.
Idea(l)s are real, and god.desse.s as well under this definition, you can’t kill an Idea(l) even by killing its representation among humans, because they’re not invented but discovered, and given their rightful place. Yet even Idea(l)s aren’t God Almighty, no worship could ever be enough, we’re not worthy but can( only) try to search for H…er.im.
I remember that i wrote about this a few years ago, here :
The temples of Gula, goddess of medicine, he writes, served as healing centers where patients’ wounds were licked by dogs, and then dressed with herbal ointments.
The temples of Samas, the god of justice, functioned as courthouses;
the temples of the goddess Nungal served as jails;
and those of the goddess Kittum were a sort of Bureau of Weights and Measures.
In the chapter dedicated to the deities of writing, the goddess Nibasa and the god Nabu, Charpin discusses the training of scribes, the constitution of archives, and the establishment of libraries.
And in the temples of the well-known Ishtar, the goddess of love and war, there was space for taverns and pleasure houses.
Most important, key and sometimes mundane aspects of daily life—funerary practices, beer brewing, dairy production, and even the crafting of perfumes—were placed under the patronage of a deity or deities, whose temple served as the center of the activity.
Even if that wasn’t exactly the case in all religions, god.esse.s were/are as real as Idea(l)s. But worshipping god.desse.s without worshipping God is despicable, and even rejecting God after hearing about H…er.im, i can’t stand by the side of polytheists or animists who despise my/our/Our/the Lord/Creator/Source/Highest/…, the reason for everything and the only possible direction, etc., if only because it’s a total lack of common sense, i’ll never be on their side, Muhammad and the other prophets were right, but that doesn’t mean that i see a point in being an anti-polytheist either, they’re simply mistaken, perhaps even more than me, and as we all are, only God knows the most(, once again by definition).
An other problem is that in these domains, virtue is the one which should be given preeminence, i’m thanking God to have enabled our ancestors to wish for, and accomplish, this worship of virtues, i’ll never be thankful enough for that, the Kingdom/City of God could come tomorrow if we all durably changed our minds overnight, one day, we must have faith that everything will turn out all right, that God’s Kingdom/City will come unto Earth, but for now we must be awake, preparing for its coming with the help of God’s Grace, otherwise we may not be worthy enough for it to come.
This allegorical speech makes more sense if you understand that they were longing for the Paradise on Earth, something doable if we set aside our disagreements and help each other as sisters/brothers, can’t we do it ? I maintain that bringing down this City/Paradise is one of the historical role of the Church.
A very well written comment, thanks. However, I’d have to disagree on the following points:
If one examines deconstructivist subdialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept antipagantheoreconstrucivism or conclude that reality comes from communication. Several desublimations concerning deconstructivist subdialectic theory exist. Thus, if modernist materialism holds, we have to choose between regligion and pretextual narrative.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. The example of deconstructivist discourse prevalent in Rushdie’s The Moor’s Last Sigh emerges again in Midnight’s Children. Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the dialectic, and eventually the paradigm, of posttextual class. However, the cultural paradigm of reality suggests that language may be used to oppress the Other, but only if consciousness is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, we can assume that the goal of the reader is deconstruction.
Thus, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as participant. The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
It could be said that Debord uses the term ‘the conceptual paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between culture and apocrypthic neoclusterism. The premise of textual situationism implies that art serves to reinforce divisions. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning the conceptual paradigm of expression exist. Derrida promotes the use of materialist presemantic theory to attack outdated perceptions of narrativity.
It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘textual rationalism’ to denote the role of god…ge…ci as poet. Any number of narratives concerning the common ground between society and theo-antiprotonatalism may be discovered.
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying 🤷♂️.
Would you say that you’re a materialist then, that 'i/I’dea(l)s don’t exist, would that be your “argument” ?
Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
This one above is self-explanatory of course :), but could you please be kind enough to explain :
The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
I don’t understand how consciousness as a totality would be included, thanks :) !
And while i could eventually understand how «textual situationnism» could lead to division in a world who hasn’t found(searched?) how to be united in diversity, i’d say that “your” usage of the word «serves» is a bit too strong for my tastes(, since “you” didn’t meant, like, 100% of what art serves, then it’s all right, i’d agree, just that the emphasis on “involuntariness” could be more marked).
But it turns around the idea that the “real Human” can’t be found, that Idea(l)s don’t exist independently, such as this other informative myth ?
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.
Thanks for wanting to help, we’re simply disagreeing, God is Great. Don’t you see that a god.ess, but also sometimes a saint.e, is the ~embodiment of an Idea(l) ?
Temples for the god of knowledge were libraries, taverns often gave worship to Bacchus, and Hermes/Mercury, the god of merchants, was also the god of thieves.
Moreover, the genealogy of god.desse.s is rational, have a look.
Idea(l)s are real, and god.desse.s as well under this definition, you can’t kill an Idea(l) even by killing its representation among humans, because they’re not invented but discovered, and given their rightful place. Yet even Idea(l)s aren’t God Almighty, no worship could ever be enough, we’re not worthy but can( only) try to search for H…er.im.
I remember that i wrote about this a few years ago, here :
Even if that wasn’t exactly the case in all religions, god.esse.s were/are as real as Idea(l)s. But worshipping god.desse.s without worshipping God is despicable, and even rejecting God after hearing about H…er.im, i can’t stand by the side of polytheists or animists who despise my/our/Our/the Lord/Creator/Source/Highest/…, the reason for everything and the only possible direction, etc., if only because it’s a total lack of common sense, i’ll never be on their side, Muhammad and the other prophets were right, but that doesn’t mean that i see a point in being an anti-polytheist either, they’re simply mistaken, perhaps even more than me, and as we all are, only God knows the most(, once again by definition).
An other problem is that in these domains, virtue is the one which should be given preeminence, i’m thanking God to have enabled our ancestors to wish for, and accomplish, this worship of virtues, i’ll never be thankful enough for that, the Kingdom/City of God could come tomorrow if we all durably changed our minds overnight, one day, we must have faith that everything will turn out all right, that God’s Kingdom/City will come unto Earth, but for now we must be awake, preparing for its coming with the help of God’s Grace, otherwise we may not be worthy enough for it to come.
This allegorical speech makes more sense if you understand that they were longing for the Paradise on Earth, something doable if we set aside our disagreements and help each other as sisters/brothers, can’t we do it ? I maintain that bringing down this City/Paradise is one of the historical role of the Church.
A very well written comment, thanks. However, I’d have to disagree on the following points:
If one examines deconstructivist subdialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept antipagantheoreconstrucivism or conclude that reality comes from communication. Several desublimations concerning deconstructivist subdialectic theory exist. Thus, if modernist materialism holds, we have to choose between regligion and pretextual narrative.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. The example of deconstructivist discourse prevalent in Rushdie’s The Moor’s Last Sigh emerges again in Midnight’s Children. Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the dialectic, and eventually the paradigm, of posttextual class. However, the cultural paradigm of reality suggests that language may be used to oppress the Other, but only if consciousness is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, we can assume that the goal of the reader is deconstruction.
Thus, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as participant. The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
It could be said that Debord uses the term ‘the conceptual paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between culture and apocrypthic neoclusterism. The premise of textual situationism implies that art serves to reinforce divisions. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning the conceptual paradigm of expression exist. Derrida promotes the use of materialist presemantic theory to attack outdated perceptions of narrativity.
It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘textual rationalism’ to denote the role of god…ge…ci as poet. Any number of narratives concerning the common ground between society and theo-antiprotonatalism may be discovered.
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying 🤷♂️.
Would you say that you’re a materialist then, that 'i/I’dea(l)s don’t exist, would that be your “argument” ?
This one above is self-explanatory of course :), but could you please be kind enough to explain :
I don’t understand how consciousness as a totality would be included, thanks :) !
And while i could eventually understand how «textual situationnism» could lead to division in a world who hasn’t found(searched?) how to be united in diversity, i’d say that “your” usage of the word «serves» is a bit too strong for my tastes(, since “you” didn’t meant, like, 100% of what art serves, then it’s all right, i’d agree, just that the emphasis on “involuntariness” could be more marked).
But it turns around the idea that the “real Human” can’t be found, that Idea(l)s don’t exist independently, such as this other informative myth ?
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.
Then cite a sentence that you found nonsensical if you’re interested in this topic, and if not, thanks for the chat anyway.