On Christ's Passion

[Dioscuri]

Christ either proved that there is no such thing as death, or else the entire story is utterly meaningless.

Not exactly. Just because there are quarks doesn't mean there aren't electrons. Everything has an opposite. If Life exists, Life's opposite must exist. The trick is that opposites are identical. The magic happens in the virtual space between opposition and identity.

There are a few ways of thinking about that space. The simplest way is numerically.

Let 1 stand for something. The opposite of that thing would be -1.

1 is self-identical. Its square root is itself, 1.

-1 is non-self-identical. Its square root is denoted as i.
So, i^2 = -1
i^3 = i(i^2) = i(-1) = -i
i^4 = i^2(i^2) = (-1)(-1) = 1

This establishes a cyclical and quaternary pattern by which opposition (-1) and identity (1) become each other, for the square root of 1 (or i^4) is also -1 (or i^2).

When the imaginary numbers are extended into 3 dimensions, you get Quaternions.

The rule of which is that any scalar quantity holds 3 virtual vector quantities whose collective "inexistence" determines actual products in a cyclical and noncommutative manner. Real numbers exist in a virtual sphere of imaginary potentialities whose values can be manipulated to determine identities and oppositions on the real plane.

Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and say that, while I'm pretty sure I follow, I'm not sure how this changes much.

The change is in how it's viewed. The mistake is in seeing Jesus as an exception to humanity rather than as an example. It's not that it's right or wrong to say "Jesus was God", these are merely names. There exists for any statement, no matter how nonsensical, a set of conditions in which it is true. This is the nature of Logos, and since Logos is infinite, all conditions can exist, and thus all statements are true.

People who understand Logos have no need to trade in the extant currency of names, they simply happen to appear in situations in which what they say will be true. "Get up and walk." Such synchronistic fittingness of discourse and situation is the currency of miracle. But there's nothing "miraculous" (according to our vocabulary) about miracles, it's simply Logos, the way of the universe. Jesus was hardly the only man to work miracles, he was simply the Master of it, and he wasn't the first or the last master either (except insofar as the proclamation of finality, of being Alpha and Omega, is a technique that effectuates the reordering of flows and stoppages as is appropriate for the identification of himself that Jesus made).

Jesus was not born the Son of God, he became it. The noncommutative nature of quaternion algebra is relevant here: the order in which elements are posited is determinative. Once the identification is made, the structure of flows and stoppages that is proper to that identification is effectuated retroactively.

The Catholic church, back when they were good at this sort of thing, back before everyone was Protestant, made it their business to keep tabs on miracle-workers and see that they were honored appropriately, so long as the miracles of the saints remained lesser miracles, works subordinated to the Master-Name of Jesus.

When the time comes round, when Man's new Master is revealed, we will be seeing all manner of "signs and wonders" again, and there will still be plenty of suckers who actually take them for signs and wonders rather than for the nature of things.

[Apollonius]

Crucifixion was nasty and barbaric, yes,

but compared to:
-terminal cancer
-other degenerative diseases, such as congestive heart failure or Alzheimer's
- lifelong severe disability, physical or mental

then He did not suffer that much, it was over in less than a day.

I agree.

It's almost as if this conversation has been had before...

Yes, we have.

Right here:


http://diegetics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=515



If you go down the page you'll find a comment from myself regarding how much or little Christ suffered compared to others we all know. Typhoon has also reminded us about life expectancies in ancient times.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani ? (My God, why have your forsaken me?), said by JC on the cross.

This is often considered to have been a partial recitation of Psalm 22, which would change the meaning quite a bit.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I don't want to get all monster_gardener, since his courtesy generally intimidates me, but thank you VERY much for your post, Dioscuri.

[Demon of Undoing]

Dioscuri is like John Holmes.

You might not share his goals, you might not like where he's going with it, you might not like what he's doing, but you simply have to be impressed with the depths to which he's doing it.

[Marcus]

Dioscuri is like John Holmes.

You might not share his goals, you might not like where he's going with it, you might not like what he's doing, but you simply have to be impressed with the depths to which he's doing it.

Ummmmmmmmmm . . .you left out what he's doing it with . . .

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

I think Dioscuri is doing a very fine thing. Reading him, I am seeing the philosopher Jeremy Barris, the importance of words and the mechanics of meaning. Agreement with premises are not necessary, but it is worthwhile to be reminded that what we take for granted as common understanding may be misguided and besides, was not always the case.......

[billhicksmostfunny]

There exists for any statement, no matter how nonsensical, a set of conditions in which it is true. This is the nature of Logos, and since Logos is infinite, all conditions can exist, and thus all statements are true.

Unfortunately, this is just too easy a solution. Like having your cake and eating it too.

Perhaps you believe it possible to build a perpetual motion machine as well........that would be nice if it were possible.....but here knocks reality..........

[billhicksmostfunny]

This is the nature of Logos, and since Logos is infinite, all conditions can exist, and thus all statements are true.

The green cow went to the ATM and withdrew a few mangos to pay for a roadtrip. Then the cow picked up his friend Donald Duck and they packed the Cow's Cadillac. Once packed they drove the cadillac to Venus and took a dip in a hot-spring consisting of gummy bears and fruit loops.

This statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

[Enki]

Dioscuri The opposition you speak of seems to me to be a property of the modeling, not a property of the thing being modelled. The universe itself is fully integrated and without opposition to itself. Finitude and its subset: opposites, is a product of the attempts to define the universe.

As for Jesus as 'The Son of God', the promise contained within the revelation seems to me to be one of equality. Jesus didn't heal a single person at all ever. They healed themselves with faith. That was at the core of it. Anyone with the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about biology. You plant a mustard seed beneath a mountain of dirt and the power within it grows into a plant that moves the mountain of dirt until it pokes through the Earth and reaches toward the Sun. 'Get up and walk', was an activation of the faith required to perform that act upon the part of the listener. Jesus was so certain that this person could walk that the other person believed it too. He promised that the powers that he exhibited were not uniquely his alone and could be shared by anyone who had such faith.

[Parodite]

BBeXF_lnj_M

[Marcus]

.....but here knocks reality..........

Define "reality" . . . .

[Nonc Hilaire]

As for Jesus as 'The Son of God', the promise contained within the revelation seems to me to be one of equality. Jesus didn't heal a single person at all ever. They healed themselves with faith. That was at the core of it.

Lazarus had been dead for quite a while. And when Jesus healed the soldier's ear that Peter cut off I doubt the soldier had any faith in Christ.

[Marcus]

As for Jesus as 'The Son of God', the promise contained within the revelation seems to me to be one of equality. Jesus didn't heal a single person at all ever. They healed themselves with faith. That was at the core of it.

Lazarus had been dead for quite a while. And when Jesus healed the soldier's ear that Peter cut off I doubt the soldier had any faith in Christ.

And don't leave out the centurion's servant. From a distance, no less . .

[Dioscuri]

Dioscuri is like John Holmes.

Thank you, Demon, it is true that in whores there is great holiness, and in the holy, a great Whore.

People find it remarkably easy to ignore that what was done to Jesus was what you do to evil people, and that that is done to evil people because "good people" like that being done to evil people.

Long before Jesus crossed it, we loved the Cross. We elevated, honored, and revered our power to kill men on it. What sane and ordinary men of all times love above all things is that which makes them masters over death, and this is what the Cross was created to do. Not to kill men but to be the Sign by which men are killed, which thus becomes a Sign by which they are able to live. From the day that tablets were first carved (to record and spread proclamations of the king/priest), signification has the been the representative of violence. The pulsion of life and consciousness within man urges one thing, and there are two satisfactions of this urge: signifying and dominating. The sign of the life force is the rod or staff, the obelisk, piling, or Herm. In writing, the pulsion of life is expressed in the unary stroke, notably the Hebrew letter Yod, first among letters because the first letter of God's name. It travels through the Greek iota to reach us as the "I" of our trusty Yankee selfhood.

The Cross is the redoubling and the transindicating of the unary stroke. In the Cross, the I undergoes an encounter with itself, two bars each breaking the other while each remains itself solid and unitary. The Cross is the quadripartite self-reflection of the sign: 1) the sign of signs, "This says something." 2) the sign that all signs are crossings, "Warning: this takes something." 3) that all crossings are into opposites, "This sign coverts Master into Slave, Life into Death" and 4) the return crossing of all opposites into the same (whereof we are silent). It is the wheel of all conjunction and disjunction, a union that is called "mystical" but is common as air.

The Cross signifies that the urge to signify/dominate can only achieve signification/dominion through another, and that signifying to/dominating this other necessitates the loss or exchange of part of oneself to this other. The Cross represents the structure of sacrifice, exchange, and the transfiguration of codes that is effected through them.

To be the Messiah is to assume all the consequences of having a powerful structure of significances attached to oneself. As Jesus enters Jerusalem for the last time in his former life, he takes upon himself a whole host of identifications, which I will represent in a reduced form, as a quaternial set of potential-real existences: {priest-king / criminal-Prodigal : Prophet-Shepherd / Messiah-Lamb}.

In the Crossing he gave his fate to the world, he made his gamble upon the rightness of his thought/sight/heart, and which number was to come up he could not have known. This act had to be done in full light of the dual knowledge: that all is well in the Lord, and that the Lord is an unasked for dick in the ass. It is through the Necessary and the Impossible that God reigns over Man, and the Necessary and the Impossible are One.

So one who would dare genuflect with the codes of what was the Necessary and Impossible in the eyes of his society, that one is surely playing with fire and more than fire. Just imagine what we would do to one who would come before us today to tell us our way of life is depraved and deluded and that, as of now, it's over.

Ask not "Who killed Jesus?" Jesus know the Crossing would necessitate his death. His identification and his coming ruined everything. He debased the currency (by observing that the currency in its usage was debased). He converted all that was gold for his people into lavender, and left his entire generation holding the bag (of lavender) in order to make a gamble beyond the knowable, beyond death, to convert what was neglected by his people into what must be attended, what could be attended to only by the New People that would be engendered by allegiance to the Crossing. To become the Prince of Peace you have to be willing to be a stone-cold killer of your own.

[Dioscuri]

Dioscuri The opposition you speak of seems to me to be a property of the modeling, not a property of the thing being modelled. The universe itself is fully integrated and without opposition to itself. Finitude and its subset: opposites, is a product of the attempts to define the universe.

But unless the modeling and the consciousness that models is outside the rest of the universe, then the modeling must be part of the thing modeled. True unity is achieved not "without opposition" but THROUGH opposition. Unity must be lost in order to be regained. This is the whole meaning of the Crossing.

As for Jesus as 'The Son of God', the promise contained within the revelation seems to me to be one of equality. Jesus didn't heal a single person at all ever. They healed themselves with faith. That was at the core of it. Anyone with the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about biology. You plant a mustard seed beneath a mountain of dirt and the power within it grows into a plant that moves the mountain of dirt until it pokes through the Earth and reaches toward the Sun. 'Get up and walk', was an activation of the faith required to perform that act upon the part of the listener. Jesus was so certain that this person could walk that the other person believed it too. He promised that the powers that he exhibited were not uniquely his alone and could be shared by anyone who had such faith.

But in order for people to do what Jesus did "on their own," is it not necessary that they have received the message? So there is no "on one's own." Every message reaches its destination.

[Dioscuri]

This is the nature of Logos, and since Logos is infinite, all conditions can exist, and thus all statements are true.

The green cow went to the ATM and withdrew a few mangos to pay for a roadtrip. Then the cow picked up his friend Donald Duck and they packed the Cow's Cadillac. Once packed they drove the cadillac to Venus and took a dip in a hot-spring consisting of gummy bears and fruit loops.

This statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

What the words say is not what you're saying by them.

[Mr. Perfect]

Crucifixion was nasty and barbaric, yes,

but compared to:
-terminal cancer
-other degenerative diseases, such as congestive heart failure or Alzheimer's
- lifelong severe disability, physical or mental

then He did not suffer that much, it was over in less than a day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agony_in_the_Garden

[Marcus]

This is the nature of Logos, and since Logos is infinite, all conditions can exist, and thus all statements are true.

The green cow went to the ATM and withdrew a few mangos to pay for a roadtrip. Then the cow picked up his friend Donald Duck and they packed the Cow's Cadillac. Once packed they drove the cadillac to Venus and took a dip in a hot-spring consisting of gummy bears and fruit loops. This statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

What the words say is not what you're saying by them.

Abuse of Language Abuse of Power by Josef Pieper

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)once wrote, "It is better to live uncomfortably with the truth than contentedly with lies." Joseph Pieper would agree except, Joseph Pieper would argue that living with truth and honesty can make men live comfortably. Jospeh Pieper's small book titled ABUSE OF LANGUAGE:ABUSE OF POWER is a serious book which makes this very clear to readers.

Pieper begins this book with a serious treatment of Plato's (427-347 BC)serious dispute with the Ancient Athenian sophists who taught men to use clever words and communication to deceive men with total disregard for truth. Plato argued that the sophists were very dangerous men because of their intellectual prowess and supposed sophistication. The unlearned could be easily misled and become dangerous because of the respect given to the sophists which they did not deserve. Readers may ask what is the relevance of the dispute between Plato and the sophists to modern Western "Civilization." One answer may be studied in the Bolshevik (Communist)Revolution in Russia in 1917. Those who engineered this revolution were members of a declasse intelligensia who knew the use and abuse of language.

Pieper then makes a solid point that any communication (language) between an honest man and a liar is useless since the liar has nothing to offer leading to knowledge. Pieper states in effect that the honest man may just as well be talling to thin air, or hot air. The liar is trying to manipulate and gain power over the honest man which is destructive to the honest man if he unaware.

Pieper has an interesting explanation of the destruciveness of flattery. The flatterer is trying to intellectually disarm those whom he flatters to gain advantage. A knowledgeable man who is honest is immune to such flattery. However, flattery can be used to undermine the victim to the advantage dishonest person. A good example is in the Book of Genesis whereby the snake successfully flatters Eve to her destruction as well that of Adam.

Pieper uses Plato's DIALOGUES using Socrates' statements regarding an honest search for truth which could lead to bona fide knowledge, better thinking, wisdom, and ultimately Divine Wisdom which Plato thought should be the ultimate goal of civlized men. The religous implications of the concept of Divine wisdom are obvous. Sophistry (the sophists)has no regard for knowledge or Divine Wisdom and is only concerned with material advantage and corruption of language. This in turn means corrpution of thought and has nothing to with actual learning.

Pieper is not complaining about ignorance. This reviewer defines ignorance as not knowing. An honest ignorant man can learn from an honest learned man which benefits the former. A good example is the communication between student and teacher. Plato's DIALOGUES uses such example to let readers know that those who are not learned can indeed learn.

Pieper shows scorn for advertising and media. He comments that advertising appeals to the lowest human instincts in an attempt to promote materialism to the point of lack of respect of others and lack of self respect. Pieper argues that advertising and media appeal to sexual exploitation, disregard for any civilized values, uncontrolled violence, etc. The point has been reached in Western "Civilization" that the masses are taught to take sadistic pleasure at the tragic misfortunes of others.

With the emergence of mass media and advertising, tyrants and despots have enhanced their power. Tyrants are alert to the effectiveness of propaganda and advert6ising in deceiving the masses. Threats of physical violence are blurred by the abuse of language. Such words as purges, liquidation, etc. are substituted for actual concentration camp brutality and mass murder. The masses are complicit in such evil by their indifference and "a ruthless desire to conform." Tyrants and despots must have enemies, real or imagined, to promote a materialistic utopia which ignores wisdom and "ultimate values."

The second part of the book uses Aristotle's (384-322 BC) and St. Thomas Aquinas'(1225-1274 AD)thinking to futher illustrate authenic learning and honest reason to help men learn wisdom and ultimately "Divine Wisdom." Both men argued that through logic, learning, etc. men could approach God, The Prime Motor, The Unmoved Mover, etc. by serious study and honest truth. What Pieper implies that these men and many in the historical Catholic Church did was to enshrine reason next to Devine Revelation and to learn more of Divine Revelation. Reason and honesty were to be communicated to enhance learning and religious understanding as well as relgious convictions. HOnest communication meant so much to these men.

Another example from Ancient History can be gleaned from Thucydides'(c.460 BC-c.400 BC)book THE PELOPONESIAN WAR. Beginning on page 242 (Penguin Edition)Thucydides showed serious concern of how war and revolution corrupted language, honest character,etc. and enhanced corrupt political power. George Orwell's 1984 has disturbing comments on the abuse of language especially beginning on page 17.

Pieper's book should require careful reading even for its small size. Pieper's book is clear that those who are concerned with honest communication, truth, honest discourse, etc. are free from petty materialism and apprehensive concern for conformity. On page 54, Pieper cites a quote from Boethius (c. 480-520 AD)who wrote, "The human soul, in essence, enjoys its highest freedom when it remains in the comtemplation of God's mind." Boethius wrote this in his jail cell on the eve of his execution.

—from a reader review, much more at the link

[billhicksmostfunny]

The Cross signifies that the urge to signify/dominate can only achieve signification/dominion through another, and that signifying to/dominating this other necessitates the loss or exchange of part of oneself to this other. The Cross represents the structure of sacrifice, exchange, and the transfiguration of codes that is effected through them.

Oh you got this right. The cross signifies something alright. Domination, yes. Probably sacrifice too. Domination over the masses after they sacrifice their intellect. After they sacrifice their freedom.

Yes the cross symbolizes many things alright. If I were to make a list of the things it symbolizes I'd be tempted to put mental illness somewhere near the top.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itual.html

[billhicksmostfunny]

What the words say is not what you're saying by them.

Righto, I was saying absolutely nothing at all talking about the green cow.

Now take this very same logic and apply it to what you so boldly proclaim atop your soapbox.

Two-way street my friend........

[Dioscuri]

What the words say is not what you're saying by them.

Righto, I was saying absolutely nothing at all talking about the green cow.

Now take this very same logic and apply it to what you so boldly proclaim atop your soapbox.

Two-way street my friend........

The messenger is not responsible for the truth of the message. It is the hearer who decides.

It is the fallacy of the unenglightened to demand that the truth of a statement be backed by something that is not a statement. There is no satisfying them.

People of Logos understand that the Word is its own backing. And when a false Word appears to trip you up, there is always a clue to be found, a switch to be thrown that will put one back in the flow of the True.

[billhicksmostfunny]

The messenger is not responsible for the truth of the message.

Dodge your responsibility. Ah smart move. I would do the same if I were saying the kinda things you are saying.

It is the fallacy of the unenglightened to demand that the truth of a statement be backed by something that is not a statement.

I am simply demanding that you make sense. I would not ask of you to back anything up with something that is not a statement at this point. To begin with your statements must make sense. And "all statements are true" does not make sense.

And when a false Word appears to trip you up, there is always a clue to be found, a switch to be thrown that will put one back in the flow of the True.

Lol, so after alluding to the fact that it is futile to back anything up with something that is not a statement you hint at a switch and a clue. Well although I earlier said I would not ask you to back anything up with something that is not a statement. Since you offered. What is this clue? Where is this switch? What does the switch turn on or off?

[billhicksmostfunny]

Hey Marcus ---

Instead of watching Looney Tunes shouldn't you be contemplating the mind of God?

Maybe this is why you seem so confused. Instead of meditating on the metaphysical you are watching Bugs Bunny. Funny thing is you could probably learn more from a WB cartoon than you can from contemplating things that do not exist.

[Marcus]

Hey Marcus --- shouldn't you be contemplating the mind of God? . .

But how would you know?