Posts: 8,459
Threads: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jul 16, 2019 12:39 AM
(Jul 16, 2019 12:26 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Quote:So "the first two definitions" includes "beyond the limits of possible experience"
No idiot. The first definition deals with surpassing and excelling, the second one deals with the limits of possible experience, and the third deals with theology. What aren't you getting about this? 3 separate definitions. And the first one proves me right about transcendence as applied to nature and the universe.
Moron, you can't even manage to keep your own story straight.
(Jul 14, 2019 11:29 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Since I obviously don't believe in God, transcendence has no meaning beyond the first two definitions, which are as surpassing and excelling the human ego. That is the essence of the spiritual. There is no other definition for me that makes sense. I don't need your theistic fairy tales to make sense of my experience. (Jul 15, 2019 04:43 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Because I'm not discussing transcendent in the philosophical sense now. I'm discussing transcendent in the everyday sense of nature and the universe. You can't be this stupid.
So you went from claiming you were using "the first two definitions", which, as you just clarified, did include the philosophical "beyond the limits of possible experience". But since you couldn't manage to justify the second one, now you're backpedaling to just "The first definition".
And just the first one proves my point. That you don't understand transcendence beyond the mundane...as that's all the first definition covers.
Thanks for being so thorough in proving my point.
Posts: 8,988
Threads: 2,017
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jul 16, 2019 12:45 AM
Quote:So you went from claiming you were using "the first two definitions"
I never claimed I was "using" the second definition. In fact I explicitly said I was not talking about transcendence in the philosophical sense. Just quit talking to me. You're too much of an idiot to waste my time explaining anything to.
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jul 16, 2019 02:59 AM
(This post was last modified: Jul 16, 2019 02:59 AM by Syne.)
(Jul 16, 2019 12:45 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Quote:So you went from claiming you were using "the first two definitions"
I never claimed I was "using" the second definition. In fact I explicitly said I was not talking about transcendence in the philosophical sense. Just quit talking to me. You're too much of an idiot to waste my time explaining anything to.
(Jul 14, 2019 11:29 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: No..Since I obviously don't believe in God, transcendence has no meaning beyond the first two definitions, which are as surpassing and excelling the human ego. That is the essence of the spiritual. There is no other definition for me that makes sense. I don't need your theistic fairy tales to make sense of my experience.
So, you admit that transcendence has meaning that includes "beyond the limits of possible experience" or "beyond human knowledge", but you also don't use that definition?
Then why did you mention "the first two definitions" in the first place? Was it only to give the false impression that you were talking about more than the wholly mundane first definition? O_o
Posts: 8,988
Threads: 2,017
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jul 16, 2019 03:07 AM
Quote:So, you admit that transcendence has meaning that includes "beyond the limits of possible experience" or "beyond human knowledge", but you also don't use that definition?
Nope..for the third time, I'm not using the second definition.
Quote:Then why did you mention "the first two definitions" in the first place?
Because those are the only two definitions I acknowledge. I was very clear about that moron.
Posts: 2,659
Threads: 218
Joined: Sep 2016
Leigha
Jul 16, 2019 03:48 AM
Oh my. Does anyone really have a copyright on the term ''transcendence?''
Posts: 17,082
Threads: 10,686
Joined: Oct 2014
C C
Jul 16, 2019 08:43 AM
(This post was last modified: Jul 16, 2019 09:15 AM by C C.
Edit Reason: added second paragraph
)
(Jul 15, 2019 04:38 PM)Leigha Wrote: On SF ... I mention that I'm a believer (again), and everyone wants to tell me that I'm wrong to believe in a god at all.
Just assume or practice whatever it is you need to do to stay psychologically fit. Whether it's the positive stance's set of doxastic options ( believe there is _X_ ... believe there is not _X_) or the negative cognitive orientation's empty states ( don't have belief that there is _X_ ... don't have belief that there is not _X_).
Quote: They don't tell me why, except that there's no ''evidence'' for a god.
Try making an issue about there being no evidence of extraterrestrial life or space aliens and see how agitated a particular clique potentially becomes over that sacred cow. Suddenly inference elevates to being treated as if it is on par with direct sensory validation. A bit ironically, the very ones who rail against any skepticism of ET biological entities might be some of the same lining-up to chastise MR for posting UFO topics. (OTOH, those characters I'm reflecting back on may have departed quite a while ago.)
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jul 17, 2019 12:14 AM
(Jul 16, 2019 03:07 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Quote:So, you admit that transcendence has meaning that includes "beyond the limits of possible experience" or "beyond human knowledge", but you also don't use that definition?
Nope..for the third time, I'm not using the second definition. And I JUST SAID, "but you also don't use that definition". Learn to read.
Quote:Quote:Then why did you mention "the first two definitions" in the first place?
Because those are the only two definitions I acknowledge. I was very clear about that moron.
Again, thanks for making my point so clearly. You acknowledge a transcendence you do not, yourself, experience. If you weren't so quick to insult people, maybe you would have thought about what you were actually saying just a skosh longer.
Posts: 8,988
Threads: 2,017
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jul 17, 2019 12:31 AM
(This post was last modified: Jul 17, 2019 12:33 AM by Magical Realist.)
Quote:And I JUST SAID, "but you also don't use that definition". Learn to read.
You learn to read moron. Not using the definition now does not equal to not ever using the definition.
Quote:Again, thanks for making my point so clearly. You acknowledge a transcendence you do not, yourself, experience.
LOL! Where did I ever say I don't experience transcendence?
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
Jul 17, 2019 12:51 AM
(Jul 17, 2019 12:31 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Quote:And I JUST SAID, "but you also don't use that definition". Learn to read.
You learn to read moron. Not using the definition now does not equal to not ever using the definition. Using it once to give the impression that you understood more than simple, mundane awe, when you haven't described any relevant personal experience, is meaningless, sad, and only proves my point.
Quote:Quote:Again, thanks for making my point so clearly. You acknowledge a transcendence you do not, yourself, experience.
LOL! Where did I ever say I don't experience transcendence?
How many times now have you made a big deal of only using the one, mundane, definition of transcendence?
Maybe you're having trouble reading again. You said you acknowledged the first two definitions, hence you acknowledge the second one, that you've given no indication of every having experienced. That is in contrast to the wholly mundane one you do claim to experience.
No one said you don't experience something you refer to as "transcendence". Learn to read and quit arguing straw men.
Posts: 8,988
Threads: 2,017
Joined: Oct 2014
Magical Realist
Jul 17, 2019 01:06 AM
(This post was last modified: Jul 17, 2019 01:57 AM by Magical Realist.)
Quote:Using it once to give the impression that you understood more than simple, mundane awe, when you haven't described any relevant personal experience, is meaningless, sad, and only proves my point.
I don't have to have an experience of it to understand and accept the definition of it.
Quote:You said you acknowledged the first two definitions, hence you acknowledge the second one, that you've given no indication of every having experienced. That is in contrast to the wholly mundane one you do claim to experience.
Once again I don't have to have an experience of something to use and understand its definition. I use and understand the definition of death all the time, but that doesn't mean I've experienced it. BTW, how exactly does one experience something "beyond the limits of possible experience"?
|