I can't believe Ray has fallen into such an obvious trap as to equate his invisible deity with "history, love and wind"!
Given my last significant post wasn't published (for whatever reason), here's my response to him:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"history, love, and wind..."
Can you seriously do no better than this, Ray?
You think any of those things are equivalent to your invisible deity, do you?
History, a record of events, is an analogue to your God, is it?
Love, is an emotion, a biochemical reaction in the brain that can be easily detected. Moreover, although love manifests itself via biochemical reactions, it is nevertheless a subjective emotion that has no objective reality. This is analogous to your God?
Wind, the easily detectable consequence of pressure differentials, that is analogous to your God is it?
I had no idea He was so mundane.
Given my last significant post wasn't published (for whatever reason), here's my response to him:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"history, love, and wind..."
Can you seriously do no better than this, Ray?
You think any of those things are equivalent to your invisible deity, do you?
History, a record of events, is an analogue to your God, is it?
Love, is an emotion, a biochemical reaction in the brain that can be easily detected. Moreover, although love manifests itself via biochemical reactions, it is nevertheless a subjective emotion that has no objective reality. This is analogous to your God?
Wind, the easily detectable consequence of pressure differentials, that is analogous to your God is it?
I had no idea He was so mundane.
Posts
be patient. He probably just hasn't updated his page (or he censored my reply as well)
ReplyDeleteMaybe he's a secret polytheist. I mean, history, love and wind are gods...
I don't think I would compare God to the concept of History.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would only compare some things about God to love, but not God as a whole.
Also, I would argue that you're definition of "love" is closer to a definition of "infatuation" (which must always precede Love), but that Love is a decision that comes after the dissipation of that Infatuation.
I think wind was a better analogy back when it was a bit more mysterious and poetic in the eyes of People. When the only way to see when was to feel it and see it move things.
Hey BaldySlaphead,
ReplyDeleteActually he also implied that history, love, and wind are "beings." At the same time he implied that he started believing in history, love and wind when somebody died. Take a look, this was his answer to a comment by capt howdy about the death of a friend not being an excuse to start believing in invisible beings.
G.E.
I wasn't being impatient, Tilla; or rather, if I was, I'd have been VERY impatient, since I posted it here directly after posting it there. I thought people might wish to take the piss out of his inane comment, that's all.
ReplyDeleteRob, you're right to say that I've gone more with an infatuation type of love. I didn't have the inclination to go through agape, eros, philia etc, though the same point can be made for each of them.
And GE - it was that post I was responding to!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ BaldySlaphead:
ReplyDeleteActually, I wasn't even thinking about the Greek differentiations among Eros, Philia, Agape, and Storge. I was thinking of the differentiation made in the counseling psychology that I'm (vaguely) familiar with.
Infatuation is the biochemical thing that goes on across your whole brain that you can't control which produces those "warm fuzzies" that everyone associates with Love. Love comes after those chemicals have dissipated, and you can think clearly and rationally about the person. It's when you recognize as many of their flaws as can be recognized, all of the things that you can't stand, and say "even though I can't stand those things, my life is not complete or worth having without them in it."
That's not really biological in any more than is a means to think and reason.
Ah - fair point, Rob!
ReplyDeleteWe seem to agree that regardless, a similar rebuttal can be made to Ray's point, anyway.