Angels, super man

Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Might (Majesty)

Continuing on the theme of the Brights, we need to list a few things that are important to the world view needed for a constructive build. Actually, there are many things, but we can start with a few. Some of these will be almost antithetical to the opinion of some, yet they need to be allowed (without causing the need for belief on the person who is reading and trying to process the notions - such as, Moments and more).

One of these will be the issues related to angels. The section at wiki is not complete, but it does provide a starting point to which we can add.

---

Why 'super man' in the title? Well, one of the Brights thinks that those who accept the supernatural (many ways to define this, but the BASIS for this author would be the Writings - ah, that brings up the problems related to how we process these) ought to call themselves super.

So, I am a super man. Okay? Now, as to delusional leanings, don't count on it. Why? I may not have the wherewithal, at this point, to demonstrate the 'super' in an undeniable sense, yet the Brights do not have any proof that is sufficient to show that it is not. Too, the ontological issue is not resolved by any cardinality of set. That is, all the Brights throughout Creation, and all of time, cannot pull together the necessary proof, either, to remove the underpinnings (even if there were such) of the 'super' position.

It's a stalemate to any reasonable stance, easily handled by updating Blaise's take on the matter.

---

Now, back to angels, such as this, KAF (16):

• We created man: and we know what his soul whispereth to him, and we are closer to him than his neck-vein.
• When the two angels charged with taking account shall take it, one sitting on the right hand, the other on the left:
• Not a word doth he utter, but there is a watcher with him ready to note it down:

This notion is not unfamiliar to most, as it has almost the same universality as does the golden rule. There are several of these statements on angels that we'll collect together after they are itemized.

---

A definite recurring theme, that we'll get back to.

Remarks:

02/08/2014 -- Angels, again.

03/11/2012 -- CH as angel?

Modified: 02/08/2012

Brights, again

Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Names (Justice)

How apropos! However, not calling names. Just recognizing that there is now a place to which to point. Brights, et al.

Hence, we'll keep a Brights group to collect places where the movement is mentioned.

Remarks:

06/08/2011 -- Brights ought to be interested in motivation and construction.

05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.

Modified: 06/08/2011

Peter and motivation

Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Grandeur (Independence)

As we work constructively to build a basis, we'll look at Motivation from time to time, also.

We'll point a lot to the SAQ, as it is a seminal work. For instance, look at this in relation to Religion and Science.

SAQ #34 (Peter's Confession of Faith): While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge?

---

Peter will be a central point for several constructive arguments.

Remarks:

05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.

Modified: 05/26/2011

Construction I

Month, Day: 168, Beauty, Honour (Independence)

We said that it would be constructive and slow. Looks like a good place to start might be Anselm of Canterbury and his ontological argument.

Paul Oppenheimer and Edward Zalta recently updated their 1991 thesis (A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument - pdf), using insights obtained through applying computational metaphysics.

There are several reviews available at the philpapers site.

---

To believe or not, that's the issue. But even dis-belief is a type of belief. Hence, we get back to a choice that was described well by Pascal.

---

Our artifacts are going to help us settle many things, yet we ought not dumb ourselves down (inverse of audacity) in order to prove them to be smarter than us.

Remarks:

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.

06/08/2011 -- Motivation.

06/02/2011 -- Construction II.

05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.

05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.

05/16/2011 -- Makes it easy to see the either-or aspect. Believe or not, essentially. Though, if one takes the belief side, 'how to know what to believe?' is the question. Which, by the way, was not left to be an open issue. If one takes the non-belief side, 'how to live?' is the question. That is, is it imperative to push the non-belief agenda (as we see happening)? Ah, Questions either way. Now, of course, taking the belief side could culminate (as it does with the brights) with believing in reason and science (yet, 'from whence that?' is a question). One thing that is apparent from using the computational framework is this: language, system, semantics, and more (very much more, there have to be supporting resources - which are not easy to obtain, nor are they trivially developed, and definitely they do not run without power and maintenance). Now, to boot, there will be factors related to the capability of the one doing the believing or the disbelieving. 'Can a fully-capable person believe?' is a question. Or, we see 'is believing the attribute of the ignorant?' as another type of question (of course, the whole notion of delusion, or hallucinatory states, rests upon such implications -- thanks for bringing that to the fore, Richard D. [yet, you have not really cast out (can you?) the phenomena behind the experience]). This could go on, but here is a final point: is not it true that throughout the history of these issues, that those who are better able exploit, manipulate, and otherwise, just plain out-and-out, misuse those of lessor capability (and is not this the motivation behind a lot of the misbehavior on the part of believers which leads to people claiming that religion causes more problems than it solves?)? Smart religionists (universally offered - in any context in which it may apply) - you ought to understand that you are to not be the cause of this type of mischief.

Modified: 08/08/2013

Wise words

Month, Day: 168, Beauty, Knowledge (Perfection)

In the Tablets revealed after the Aqdas, there are the Words of Wisdom.

One is as follows: The essence of true safety is to observe silence, to look at the end of things and to renounce the world.

At some point, we'll get back to the constructive arguments and provide an update of Pascal's thought about the matter which has been ridiculed by the brights.

Remarks:

05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.

05/14/2011 -- A slow start.

Modified: 05/26/2011