To The Iconoclast

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

The set of rules exist, it's not able to deal smoothly with some extreme cases of oversized egos, but it exist.

Only inside the imagination friend.

I was expecting you would have the capacity to go beyond the poor attempt at playing with words, since you produced over 100 lines of rhetoric about the so called emptiness of language ...

It is not about the emptiness of language, but about the superfluousness of its use.

2 Black rabbits only ? C'mon !
There can be 7 billions if you understand to you're not better than any other guy down here.

If my answer is not satisfying, please tell me how I should have responded.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I speak negatively about how one might react to to words.

Ok, but you are an advocate of iconoclasm, criticism and pessimism; wouldnt and couldnt and maybe shouldnt there be examples of people who have bits of those concepts associated with their being, to 'react' to words?

To put that better, I suppose I am now getting the sense that you are trying to draw a major distinction between reality and language, almost to the point of language being a pure, abstract, symbolic, mathematics, and all discussion and argument and speech that occurs with language only barely touches and exists in reality, but just humans using this ethereal materia to 'make sense' and 'propagate' eternal and temporal truths and half truths.

Well, I dont quite know what you mean, but knowing some of the themes of your previous posts, you seem to clash with the 'God gang' and the 'mystic peoples', and so I suppose you are arguing against people who cannot tangibly refer to 'that which a word exists to describe' (for example; tree. apple. car.), that because they cannot do such a thing, if they for instance say; "God exists", and you say "God does not exist, point to God", you are expressing your thought that there is no reason, or rational, that should cause them to become emotionally, physically, spiritually threatened or offended by such a thing? And then their rebuttal is, "you cant disprove it" etc. etc. "just because I cant show you something doesnt mean it doesnt exist" etc. etc.

Because if you are not specifically talking about those such instances, which I do wish you would be more direct and clear at exactly what you are attempting to attack with your words and passion, because if these views of yours are born from exact and specific circumstances, it gets very messy to misdirect away from those exact and specific topics and circumstances to then attempt to state your found belief and truth, generally and absolutely, which I had or saw no reason to read you of doing otherwise, and therefore attempted to digest your speech absolutely and generally, and immediately come to ways in which I see it very rational and reasonable for words to affect and effect individuals, even iconoclasts, the affect and effect of words is pretty much all a critic deals with, and pessimists.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So there is no set of rule that your life has to cope with ?
Interesting. You happen to be the very first individual that I come across that apparently doesn't need any air to breathe, any food to eat or any water to drink.
I'm quite sure that beside those requirements you enjoy the comfort of warmth and dryness by having a roof above your head. So do I.
This should be the minimalistic amount of comfort every human should be entitled to reach but, we live in a world where this is far from true.
I'd like to suggest adding to the list the availability of toilet paper, since I'm also convinced you have to deal with the issue like it or not.

Only the air we breathe is still free.
The fulfilment of these basic requirements implies us to acknowledge the existence of the 'system'. And to consider some cooperation with it. Even in the fairytale of the bible, where JC multiplies breads and fishes for the many, it's also stated "He who does not work, shall not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
The system is not democratic, for sure, you can't escape it.
Since you can't escape it, don't avoid it, it's pointless. Face it.
Find its Achilles Heel.

Your answers are always satisfying, you should try to be more positive.
Since you like classic literature may I suggest you "The Sorrows of Young Werther - Les souffrances du jeune Werther - Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" from Goethe.

Otherwise, in order to try myself to be constructive on your thread, I happened to post a painting.
Beside the small text I translated you, the painting itself contains a message.
That is not delivered through any words.
Paintings are not just organised patterns of picturesque symbols.
Each symbol can have double meaning according to his context and according to the whole pattern where it fits.
A drawn sheep can 'mean' something else that a sheep ... black or white ...
So its not just words and language that have meanings.
A photograph can tell a whole story, but all stories cannot be narrowed to a single picture.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Well, he/she does open the OP with:

TO THE ICONOCLAST

From this, I gather, it should be safe to say that you have answered your own question about which group of folks he/she is directing this word scramble to.

But where this OP fails, in my most humble opinion, is in it's misdirection.

This “attack”, as they will call it in the typical accusatory and threatening fashion, is nothing more than a series of words strung together in such and such a way as to make it understandable to another human being. Don’t pretend to feel evil for their insidious folly. Calling a series of words an “attack” or implying that the safest sort of creativity—prose, verse and poetry—can bring harm to another human being is an obscenity, and gives actual attacking a bad name.

To whom is this veiled statement being directed to I wonder - that ghostly "they". A riddle to be solved? Eh

Perhaps making a statement such as the above allows the author to rest easier knowing that his/her own "attacks" (quote, unquote) against this mob are actually nothing more than simple empty words strung together, void of anything real.

Rubbish- Words are not just words, empty and void. No, words allow us to translate meaning. It is language that is the vessel of meaning between human beings; allowing one to empathize, sympathize, relate to another. It also allows us to attack one another. Why? Because there is meaning underlying those words, and meaning has a tangible effect on us. A real, physical, biochemical effect on how we feel. Feeling and emotion, the last time I checked, are pretty real and meaningful phenomena.

Now it could be I am completely off base here. Wouldn't be the first time. But I guess I'd have to say, who the heck cares. If this OP has been left open for us to draw our own interpretation, then there you have it.

If not, then the post was one exceptionally long string of words, void of no meaning at all. Which makes it one big waste of time.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ok, yes, it is completely my fault for thinking I already knew exactly what an Iconoclast is, but now as I look up the definition I see it is:

noun
1. a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions.
2. a destroyer of images used in religious worship, in particular.

I personally must be referred to as an Iconoclast, since one of my goals is to 'destroy' or prove false, what can be proven false about religion and religious worship, so I am excited to discover the OP is in part directed toward me, and now I have my own hat in the ring so to speak, in reason to argue. Though I already know that my argument is a success. Since I have proven to my self aspects regarding religious worship that are false, I have proven to myself (and I believe therefore I have proven this to reality, as I am attempting to be nothing other than objectively and absolutely true) these false aspects are (for one, false) detrimental, unnecessary, wrong, bad, the source of many problems, the source and nothing other than ignorance, many negative etc's. So in this case, it would be good, true, right, honorable, virtuous, etc. for me to be an iconoclast.

I suppose it would be good for an iconoclast to have attacked the cherished belief in slavery a few hundred years ago. An unfortunate pity that they would only have been attacking words.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Indeed.

#1 is a broad stroke.

Although I don't know what objective and absolute truth is. Do you?

a reply to: ImaFungi

I refuse to be too clear with what I’m getting at. I risk thinking for others if I speak of my beliefs. However, when I write enigmatically, it is for the strict purpose of forcing others to think for themselves. My aim, besides my own enjoyment, is to strengthen spirits rather than diminish them. This is what I hope happens when a reader is faced with my writing and my arguments, or any critic’s writing for that matter. There is a reason for argument and disputation. If one can deal with my arguments, finds them to be specious, fallacious, or without merit, and even sees through my provocation, then their knowledge is strengthened by defending it. If not, and they do not quickly call foul and run away, but believe my words to be reasonable enough to provoke a refinement of one’s own ideas, they are better thereby. I treat my reader like I would a friend, and I have this friend in mind when I write a polemic. When I seemingly attack their gods, their ideals, their labels, or otherwise perform lyrical iconoclasm, it is with love, and I only hope that they attempt to view the implications, the complexity, and the pros of cons of what they would usually advocate without a second thought. Afterwords, we go for a beer.

What I clash with is not any specific group of peoples as such, but my own thinking and dogmas. When I write about atheism, for instance, it is to dispute my own atheism. The same with spirituality. The same with feminism, etc.. I speak about what I know and what I’ve come to learn through my own travels. Usually in philosophy, philosophers devise a system, or promote a table of values, but I wish to philosophize backwards, to destroy systems—not literally, but figuratively.

About words. You’re right—when I attack a label, people defend it as if it was an attack on their very being. Is it the words that cause this? Or is it the way the listener puts meaning to the words that causes this? Let’s look at the physics. If meaning travelled through the air in sound waves or existed in the ink on paper, anyone regardless of culture could understand it by simply apprehending the meaning. But this is not the case. Something occurs within the listener. Once the words enter the boundary of his skin, they are fully within his domain, and under his power. I argue that people can control the meaning once they realize it is them who creates it.

Language and its institutions—truth, logic, grammar, semantics, mathematics, thought etc.—is metaphorical. Each person has his own language. To strengthen that language should be most imperative.

I have an Indian friend who had to flee his home because he spoke out against a religious institution there, and in the process acquired blasphemy charges. For what? For telling the truth. People like him are required now more than ever.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So there is no set of rule that your life has to cope with ?
Interesting. You happen to be the very first individual that I come across that apparently doesn't need any air to breathe, any food to eat or any water to drink.
I'm quite sure that beside those requirements you enjoy the comfort of warmth and dryness by having a roof above your head. So do I.
This should be the minimalistic amount of comfort every human should be entitled to reach but, we live in a world where this is far from true.
I'd like to suggest adding the list the availability of toilet paper, since I'm also convinced you have to deal with the issue like it or not.
Only the air we breathe is still free.
The fulfilment of these basic requirements implies us to acknowledge the existence of the 'system'. And to consider some cooperation with it. Even in the fairytale of the bible, where JC multiplies breads and fishes for the many, it's also stated "He who does not work, shall not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
The system is not democratic, for sure, you can't escape it.
Since you can't escape it, don't avoid it, it's pointless. Face it.
Find its Achilles Heel.

I like your thinking. Except I go about it a little differently.

Rules require an authority to implement them, and can be broken on a whim. There is no set of principles or orders that tell us we have to eat and breathe.

Consequently, the laws of nature are not laws. If we are truly godless, we have no need for a legislator.

Your answers are always satisfying, you should try to be more positive.
Since you like classic literature may I suggest you "The Sorrows of Young Werther - Les souffrances du jeune Werther - Die Leiden des jungen Werthers" from Goethe.

I am a huge fan of Goethe. I’ve read the English translation of Werther—my German is a little rusty. If you get the chance, read his theory of colors. It’s better than Newton’s in my opinion. And of course, read his Maxims and Interludes.

Otherwise, in order to try myself to be constructive on your thread, I happened to post a painting.
Beside the small text I translated you, the painting itself contains a message.
That is not delivered through any words.
Paintings are not just organised patterns of picturesque symbols.
Each symbol can have double meaning according to his context and according to the whole pattern where it fits.
A drawn sheep can 'mean' something else that an sheep ... black or white ...
So its not just words and language that have meanings.
A photograph can tell a whole story, but all stories cannot be narrowed to a single picture.

I agree with you. Except, the meaning does not reside in the painting, per say. The meaning is in the viewer. This is why a painting means one thing to one person, and another thing to another person.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Perhaps making a statement such as the above allows the author to rest easier knowing that his/her own "attacks" (quote, unquote) against this mob are actually nothing more than simple empty words strung together, void of anything real.

I wrote this with you in mind perhaps. Remember, the attacks are against ideas. How you equate ideas to human beings is an absurdity, and false. Instead, it is rather those who imply it is an attack on people who instil an erroneous precursor to hate in themselves and others. It seems you fail to take responsibility for how you evaluate your own thinking and emotions, and blame others for it.

Why? Because there is meaning underlying those words, and meaning has a tangible effect on us. A real, physical, biochemical effect on how we feel.

If its such rubbish, perhaps you can explain the physics in regards to how "meaning underlies words", and how "meaning has a tangible effect on us".

To start, where is this meaning that is underlying words? Does it float in the air until a word passes through it? Is it in the pixels you are reading now?

If meaning is in the words, how can one hear a joke but not get it right away?

If meaning has a tangible effect on us, by what mechanism is meaning the cause of this effect?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I like your thinking. Except I go about it a little differently.

Rules require an authority to implement them, and can be broken on a whim. There is no set of principles or orders that tell us we have to eat and breathe.

Consequently, the laws of nature are not laws. If we are truly godless, we have no need for a legislator.

Poison does for example ... there are always things we shouldn't do unfortunately, they are generally flagged as 'stupid' according to their level of obviousness.
On the Godless thing, I'm with you. If no God, why bother.
But if we don't bother, what does matter then ?
To break a law you need ... A law. No law, no criminal then ?
Dangerous shortcut.

Anarchy is nothing for me but distributed imperialism.
Instead of having everyone subject to a common authority, everyone defines his own set of rules according to his own way of thinking.
What is the most conflictual situation ? When the slaves resist the emperor or when the local chieftains struggle for power ?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I agree with you. Except, the meaning does not reside in the painting, per say. The meaning is in the viewer. This is why a painting means one thing to one person, and another thing to another person.

Surely, but it's interesting to draw the parallel between the distribution of universally understood symbols and the common roots of some words across different languages ...
Etymology is my favourite parts of linguistics.

Hey LesMisanthropes, don't get me wrong. I happened to share your nihilistic point of view for a short time of my life.
I considered it wasn't getting me anywhere.
But it helped me figure out that, finally, I find ridicule more pleasant than resignation.
Because if you want to apply one thing to the others, then you should be able to apply it to yourself as well.

Have a smile from time to time.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I find that thinking and contemplating thought on top of thought has allowed me to supersede the very concept of "definition" itself, and has also led me to challenge beliefs that are so ingrained into people that they have an effect on the choices they make in their lives. How can I go about with my "attack" as to get them to open their eyes to an erroneous "faith" - I will give you an example.

Someone I know tripped over and broke their foot, they said, basically, that there was an almost supernatural "reason" for it to happen, because they had been contemplating taking time off work - now they have the perfect excuse not to work for a period of time.

The instant I heard this, an entire "mode of attack" occurred to my mind, and here, I will deconstruct it.

Firstly, this person does not believe in accidents occurring, and to me this makes me very angry, because, they cannot accept a totally obvious reality in this world.

Secondly, they believe that a supernatural force (and in their mind they would likely categorise it as God) was responsible for them tripping over.

Thirdly, this implies that God makes people trip over, at least, in simple terms.

Lastly, it brings up the "God works in mysterious ways" blanket that at the same time seemingly grants people their wishes, and gives them a sense of "power" in that "God" has strangely done them a favour.

To me, the whole thing is plainly wrong - however, because I am wise, I did not resort to attempting to explain this viewpoint to them, however, because I care, I do not find it in their best interests to have such a belief, one that I feel is damaging to them.

However, that is the thing with beliefs, they are usually unshakable, and to try and take them on will make one seem like the enemy, because, in a strange way, the simple fact (for a simpleton) that one disagrees with their outlook is immediately presenting oneself not to believe in "God" - and then you will be seen to be a "non-believer" and additionally, ironically, when you hypothetically "trip over" it will be because "God" is not protecting you.

So, is the problem "God" - no, it is the concept and all modes of behaviour and reasoning that are tied to it. I am attacking the very mode of thought itself, however, to their viewpoint, I would be taking on "God" as an entity.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Surely, but it's interesting to draw the parallel between the distribution of universally understood symbols and the common roots of some words across different languages ...
Etymology is my favourite parts of linguistics.

Yes absolutely. I would wager that at one time, they all came from one source.

Hey LesMisanthropes, don't get me wrong. I happened to share your nihilistic point of view for a short time of my life.
I considered it wasn't getting me anywhere.
But it helped me figure out that, finally, I find ridicule more pleasant than resignation.
Because if you want to apply one thing to the others, then you should be able to apply it to yourself as well.

I think you might have me all wrong. I too left nihilism behind me, long ago. It became meaningless. Not only that, it is contradictory. I even wrote about it in that lengthy wall of text if you happened to have missed it (I can’t blame you for that). I actually fully enjoy life—a cosmopolitan and a child of nature. I mean what else is there?

a reply to: SystemResistor

Very good thinking, sir. I think that out in the world, among the people, one might practice restraint as you did. I too would do the same in everyday conversation. Only in writing—sometimes even a nom de plume is necessary—is it even safe enough to do so.

So, is the problem "God" - no, it is the concept and all modes of behaviour and reasoning that are tied to it. I am attacking the very mode of thought itself, however, to their viewpoint, I would be taking on "God" as an entity.

It's a troublesome quandary, indeed. Though no subject should be taboo in regards to what we talk about, they are.

But you're right. Religion itself is a series of ideas, made concrete by a series of rituals.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What I understand about "them" is that they still struggle to use words to adequately explain themselves, and certain words are "picked up" and used by them like implements when they experience difficulty in explaining themselves - words that they do not have the capacity to challenge.

Then, they will "reinforce" by reading about such words in their own personal time, and forming "beliefs" about these words, or "sharpening their tools".

Words are indeed weapons, some defensive, some offensive - and you could say my reasoning, if fully understood by the "target" would probably equate to a WMD.

...To fully realise that accidents and tragedy's happen to all of us and there is nothing we can do to control them.

My "nuclear material" - Bad things happen to good people too.

It would take a lot to destroy their little "bunker" of security however, hypothetically to realise that S#it happens, and yes, even really, really bad and torturous things (some things beyond imagination), to anybody, would be a weapon that would leave no survivors.

I think that very few individuals could truly face the realities in this world (and the universe beyond) and I even think that this planet is some kind of "kindergarten" heavily controlled and restrained, where the "adults" live in the "outside world" and have faced the harsh realities first hand due to simply being around for a long time and as a matter of chance, experiencing the worst life has to offer.

Acceptance.

a reply to: SystemResistor

Will you apply your iconoclasm to your own beliefs?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I routinely challenge my own beliefs, it was not that long ago that I "believed" in enlightenment and as I have refined my mind, I have challenged it and taken it down - at least in my own mind.

When it comes to the experience of pain and suffering, once I thought that these things only really happened to people that "deserved it" due to my belief in "karma" - however, I have had many "recollections" about my "past lives" (Ha Ha) to reveal that I have been subject to extreme torture at some point in my existence, and, however, gotten away with crimes that should have also resulted in gratuitous pain, even saving others from their own punishments and taking the consequences myself as an act of "benevolence", a punch in the face to those whom still believe that people "get what they deserve".

... I have had a vivid recollection of being skinned alive.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As you can see, I once believed in "karma" as well.

As I have read in "A Species In Denial" by Jeremy Griffith, it (the truth) is the "Elephant in our living rooms" that we cannot see - or the obese cat:

Target: "Karma" - All stations, prepare for missile launch:







Target Destroyed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do words have meaning, or not? If not then what is language ?

Have words never evoked emotion with their meaning? If someone doesn't get a joke, maybe they have no sense of humor.

I have a dream.

We are word and idea junkies; we are addicted to semantic systems.

This means that we use words/ideas with an unchallenged confidence that they bear a somewhat accurate correspondence to the actual state of things, Reality.

Within a limited context this may be somewhat true. We can record information, instructions, recipes, etc. in words, and another human will be able to use those words to approximate the "real-world" conditions we intended to refer to. This semantic functionality has apparently given our species a large evolutionary advantage.

BUT... for "spirituality", inquiry into Reality, into our true condition, words/ideas are worse than useless. They are potentially our biggest impediment.

This is because we may tend to assume that the objects/actions which words refer to, ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE WAY THE WORDS THAT REFER TO THEM SEEM TO DEFINE THEM. That is, we may tend to view our experience as being actually made up of the objects and actions that the words we are using to describe it imply.

This is a fundamental mistake, due to the fact that ALL experience is in actuality an infinite, constantly changing, non-repeating, indefinable (in any final way), unpatterned field of miraculously appearing Radiantly Present "energies" existing nowhere else than IN experience, perceived by unknowable, miraculously appearing "consciousness". But our use of words implies that objects and actions may actually exist in the way we refer to them, as knowable, definable objectively existing "beings", "things" and "situations".

This is actually NOT the case.

theopendoorway.org...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

This is a fundamental mistake, due to the fact that ALL experience is in actuality an infinite, constantly changing, non-repeating, indefinable (in any final way), unpatterned field of miraculously appearing Radiantly Present "energies" existing nowhere else than IN experience, perceived by unknowable, miraculously appearing "consciousness". But our use of words implies that objects and actions may actually exist in the way we refer to them, as knowable, definable objectively existing "beings", "things" and "situations".

Experience means really nothing in this sort of context. It is some sort of a container for energies perceived by an unknowable consciousness? Oh wait..."Radient Present" energies...whatever that means. I mean in what language does one capitalize adjectives.

Words can and do describe things and situations. This work you have quoted doesn't. He shouldn't blame the words for his own misunderstanding.