Your recent interpositioning will eventually result in destructive activity. I assume that you and Russell are planning it out, even if it is not being planned. I have posted what is the very core of Russell's intellectual process and capabilities with the quote about 'demons requiring exorcism' and there is little else to say about it. The fact that you ally yourself with that astounds me. But it no longer surprises me. Still, you have asked for some attention to your problem, the problem of the dead-end you find yourself in, and I will speak to that a little.Diebert wrote:Imploding? That depends on ones perspective. Over the hill perhaps? The big dilemma of this age seems to be the question of identity, of human nature, caused by all the interactions in terms of neurology, robotics, communication, mass data and so on. It's possible the big "shift" will be a radical new definition of humanit, even its complete "disappearence" as we knew it. But again, while I'm interested in the subject, it's to me only marginally philosophical or existential in terms of the modern individual.
If the disappearance of humanity is a reality, and if the 'big dilemna of our age' is the question of identity, then it appears quite solid that that must be the subject of philosophy. To then say that you are 'marginally interested' in what you have defined as the core dilemna of the age that may result in a new definition of man, is one of your more bizarre statements. By your own definition you have located what could only be seen as the most compelling area. It seems to me that if 'the human' is on a road to soon 'disappear' that philosophy, and existential religion, and simply ideation and concern, might have a thing or two to say about it.
Interesting. Being silent says something then? You are the most un-silent silent genius I know of! ;-)Gustav Quote: "The 'hero' of course, in my mind, is one who chooses the counter-current!"
Diebert wrote: "To me that's always the path of the genius. In modern times though, every gesture would become drowned in all the current currents: "anxious, forceful, overhasty: like a river, that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect" (Nietzsche). The proper counter-current is to appreciate the ending, like there were so many endings before and witness perhaps even encourage any potency of the new. Silence is the new loud..."
Declarative statements offered but without rational back-up mean very little. And personal statements are merely personal statements. But declarative statements as "To me that's always the path of the genius" when seen in the context of other broad statements such as "I've no doubt you have a righteous cause and good intent, but delusion itself is evil, and so inasmuch that you are delusional, you have demons that should be expelled" need to be taken apart - deconstructed as it were - to locate their moving parts. So, if the 'path of genius' is to locate and brand 'evil' which is so loosely defined as with Russell, and if a demonological nomenclature is brought out, I think it safe to say that we have located an operative core. 'The core predicates that determine how the system-of-view functions'.
Now, I am 99.99% sure that the two of you are entirely caught up in this sort of structure of view. It no lomger has to be debated or proven. In conversation of philosophy you have both shown yourselves as totally unreliable. There is hardly any good reason to carry on conversation, and conversation is made impossible when one is dealing with this level of obscurantism. So, what to Diebert is or has been 'the path of the genius' is simply of no concern at all. To discover 'genius' then - this I propose - means to forge out into different directions. To cover new ground which may also be going back over old ground. In the spirit of 'rational discourse' I want to lay out on the table in exact terms that this is the base of my oppositional stance, and this is what I have opposed: religious zealotry.
To borrow so obviously from Nietzsche and to interpose it in this way is a suspect route. Nietzsche's words are poetical-philosophical and have power and also beauty and yet they do not decide this issue or any issue. I would focus on the way they are used. They are part of 'absolute conclusive statements' on your part Diebert which dovetail with your very personal take on things, and it seems also on things related to your own soul and spirit. I see you, as you know, as caught in a sort of trap. It is a magnificent and rather large trap, impressive at times, but a trap nonetheless. Yet it follows from your own declaration: Issues about 'identity', about how mechanics (neurobiology, robotics, mass data, etc.) have so overpowered the Individual that he has become lost to himself? But what most interests me is the statement about 'disappearance'. Loss of self, lack of capacity to locate it, no sense of what it is or should be, rejection of all that is mutable in our shifting realm as 'delusion', 'ego', and demon-possession, and a very powerful, yet violent, and willful little 'silent sage' who is anything but silent.
What does all of this mean as we turn the lens of examination around and examine the examiners, the deciders, the zealots and their mission, their discourse?
To notice these things, to identify them as topics, and to insist that they be talked about as the main topic of religious-philosophical discourse and with 'illumination' and 'enlightenment' as backdrops?
Well, I assume that you understand what I am saying. (Insofar as you are not possessed by a demon!)