The Tides of God

[Big D]

How could you possibly know that, even if it was true? To be reminded of something implies prior knowledge or memory of it. I'm not, and never have been, a part of the 'divine'. I'm Human, my perceptions and opinions are Human in their origin and construction.

Your argument is reasonable enough, but there is genuinely no way to evince or support it.

[Besimudo]

Yes it is difficult to see the divine and the physical as a whole. Plato describes mans affinity for the good and beauty as his memory of the divine. Before we come to being all things derive their physical from the forms. The forms are so perfect that when ever man see something beautiful or experiences something insightful...he is reminded of the basic forms (heaven) and feels uplifted.

Human have such a consistent apprehension of what is universally good and what is beautiful. Our ability to detect these things and the idea of oneness is so quintessential that babies can at an early age (without learning) show an understanding of oneness.
It is interesting that what Plato said, after all these years is now "backed up" by scientific research. Not that it needed backing up.


As you know the divine materialises itself in this world via our genes. The basic ideas humans have are more than mere opinions, they underlay our whole being.
Modern thinkers (existentialists) like to believe that everything we are is the result of experience. But our emotions are genetic, our feelings are chemical, and our experiences are limited by what we can do!

The divine is not some blue, cloud laden place it is the very very base of our whole universe.
The ideas humans have, are from the divine.
The idea of oneness and nothingness i.e. 1 and 0 are ideas born from inspiration they cannot be reached by deduction.... Basically rational thought cannot produce these precepts, they can only be reached by internal thought and linking yourself back to the very most fundamental roots. How can one deduce a square for instance from nature? Socrates thought a boy geometry by asking him questions, this was proof that man had a prior knowledge of the divine. i.e. numbers and shapes are rooted in our genes.

The very best philosophers all seem to agree on one thing.

"Know thy self" Socrates

"the cleaver man knows much, the enlightened man knows himself" Sun Tzu

"Only knowledge of the Tao is important, and to know the tao is to know only oneself" Lao Tsu

[Big D]

You've said all of that before. How do you know?

Plato describes mans affinity for the good and beauty as his memory of the divine. Before we come to being all things derive their physical from the forms. The forms are so perfect that when ever man see something beautiful or experiences something insightful...he is reminded of the basic forms (heaven) and feels uplifted.

Nah. An appreciation of physical beauty was, originally, an instinctive aid to reproduction.

There's nothing to actively support your belief - at least, there's no evidence which is not in some way self-referential.

What you want to believe is up to you. Same goes for me.

[Besimudo]

Your Darwinist approach has deluded your wisdom.

I was talking about the knowledge of shapes and numbers. All the great thinkers even today as I have stated access the divine knowledge i.e. that level of inspiration.

Also you say that physical beauty aids reproduction....RUBBISH. where is your proof for this?

Reproduction is chemical driven by pheromones and failing this chemical knowledge (I don’t expect everyone to be a chemistry student) A greater understanding of philosophy would have enabled you to realise that reproduction still occurs in things that are not beautiful.

Beauty may well be a sex selection criteria (today) but there is no evidence that it assists reproduction itself.... if anything small attractive women were more prone to die at child birth while larger women had more stability Anthropomorphism; Big D is an offence in science.

Remember that I was talking about beauty as a concept not just in terms of hot chicks. The reason things are beautiful is because they resemble the forms… i.e. symmetry, perfect shape. And this is why humans agree on what is and what is not beautiful (in blind tests around the world, where people are asked what is and what is not attractive) as we all have the same basic knowledge of the forms….despite culture, intellect or background.

I am afraid you will just have to accept it. All the evidence is there. Perhaps you wont as you seem to think yourself too good for some of the worlds greatest thinkers both from today and the past. Don’t you realise that Darwin, Nietzsche and Marx just simplified much of what was already known. They just dumbed it down a peg for the mainstream. Evolution was around before Darwin, Nietzsche was a moron ("God is dead"....God is the absolute and clearly the infinite cannot die) and finally Marx had good intentions but ultimately the socialist utopia is the final phase of civilisation (as Socrates pointed out 2000 years ago) but Marx neglected this point, and from the masses a despot will always arise destroying the civilisation.

I have noticed that most lay men and pseudo philosophers love the three morons I mentioned as their ideas are easy to digest and reinforce "humanism". And as I damn well know people love to be reinforced, just look at the numerous "feel good" movies... Marx is a real "feel good" philosopher.

I hate to say it but everything is entropic, the universe is not developing, it is actually decaying...wake up and face the truth. Enlightenment is your only hope to break free of the illusion.

[Jentleness]

Jen slaps Besimudo around a bit with a large tuna!

Aaaaaargh!!! If you're going to quote the Bible I beg you to please read it first! I don't have a problem with whether or not you believe it, but I cringe at all the errs.

Contextually this is a metaphor of the biblical myth of Exodus... When Man became sinful and began to entertain infernal knowledge God sent forth the deluge, aiming to reset the world and only those who embraced God's wisdom would survive. The bible describes that the waters sprang forth form the earth.

The plot and it devices resound Exodus.

The story of Exodus is about the birth, life, and calling of a man named Moses. He was the founder of the Jewish religion and the writer of the Torah. This book has nothing to do with Noah, his arc, or the floods.

King solomon and the Balble tower...

King Solomon was the son of King David and Bathsheba, and the second king of Isreal before it became the divided kingdoms of Isreal and Judah. He ruled between 970-930 B.C. and built the first temple for the Lord. His story can be found in 1Kings 1-11 and 2Chronicles 1-9. He had absolutely nothing to do with the Tower of Babel.

The book you are thinking of is the book of Genesis. It goes into all the themes that you are discussing and makes a very interesting read. If I were to recommend a Bible for you to look these, and other interesting tales up in, I would say that you should invest in the "So That's Why! Bible" It goes into the people, places, and events that were happening in history at the time the stories in the Bible take place. Go for it!

[Besimudo]

Oh dear... You obviously have not played enough square soft games to realise that they constantly draw from ancient texts.

In the SNES game "ledgend of Gaia" the hero visited ancient civilisations and such.

In ALL the FF games the summons are ancient Gods.
And like wise the games story line take a lot from MYTHS including Judaeo/christian MYTHS. So it is only reasonable to comment on these games in a mythological sense!!

It seems that you are from the "far right" who only take the bible literally.... Slaps back with an even bigger (monty python) style FISH.

[Jentleness]

That, of course has nothing to do with my post. I am not arguing that you are wrong. In fact, I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was pointing out that if you are going to reference a source you should be accurate. My beliefs are my own and even if I didn't agree with the Bible it would still grate on my nerves to have it misquoted and misrepresented.

[Big D]

Besimudo, remember how I once said that all religious hard-liners tend to believe that their faith is the absolute truth, and that anyone different is an ignorant, godless, heathen halfwit? You're proving my point. Believe whatever you want to believe, just don't think you can criticise the rest of us for not sharing your opinion. Every faith has its own 'undeniable evidence', but that evidence is subjective, whether you believe that or not.

You are perfectly demonstrating the 'religious arrogance' which, on a larger scale, leads to prejudice and even war.

Everyone with a strong religious faith says "mine is the true faith, it's proven by history and science and philospohy, no-one can doubt or deny it unless they're stupid and unenlightened!"

I have heard this far too many times.

Big D is an offence in science.

What the hell is that suppposed to mean?

Perhaps you wont as you seem to think yourself too good for some of the worlds greatest thinkers both from today and the past.

Darwin, Nietzsche and Marx just simplified much of what was already known.... Nietzsche was a moron... Marx is a real "feel good" philosopher.

*cough*

"God is dead"....God is the absolute and clearly the infinite cannot die

This suggests that you have absolutely no idea of what he was talking about. Even I understand 'death of God', and it's not something I really care about. As MateriaGirl says, you should practise what you preach - do a little background reading before launching inflammatory attacks.

I hate to say it but everything is entropic, the universe is not developing, it is actually decaying

Life is developing... the advancement of knowledge and the strength of love are reason enough for me to keep going.

...wake up and face the truth. Enlightenment is your only hope to break free of the illusion.

Whose enlightenment? Yours? Buddhist? Christian-based? There you go again, "my religion is the only hope".

This thead is so completely off-topic that even
I can't be arsed continuing.
And that's really saying something.

[Besimudo]

A misinterpretation?

* No the Weapons as a metaphor for the floods is a very good insight and one I arrived at in meditaion.

* Big D your reductionism in saying that physical beauty was an aid to reproduction was absurd. I pointed out a few scenarios which you conveiniently glossed over as you obviously wanted to rescue your friend Nietzsche.

* Nietzsche is and always will be a product of modernism, his ideas were very loose, unfounded and make very little contribution to the higher philosophical lexicon. Nietzsche is in simple terms the Rowlings of the Tolkein world. No serious philosophers take his ramblings on random topics seriously. I only chose him because I registered your negative reaction to plato; and from this deduced your mentors. Der einer Mensch has to be one of the most lame ideas; Socrates (no surprise) had already illustrated the notion of the "heroes of the mob" Nietzsche was the kind of moron to believe that he came up with such an idea because he himself never read the great works of the ancient philosophers. Oh and as for your good friend Darwin, he himself on his death bed confessed a divine creator.


* I have already disclosed that I know nothing. What offends me is that modernist thinkers who do not even understand the absolute wish to judge and critise it.
Once again your all trying to summarise in a neat psycological frame work, but tell me what has psycology ever proven? The only ground breaking ideas on the mind have come from Chemistry and Philosophy!

* This notion that man is some how progressing is rubbish. Humans are like everything else bound to the laws of the universe. And both physically and spiriturally the universe is decaying. This is not my opionion but the findings of scientists and philosophers.

So please do not credit me with these great thoughts... I am merely a messenger, attempting to preserve the great heritage of knowledge...Unfortunately even knowledge decays.

This forum is no more off topic than "darwinism extinct"
Your simply proving my rule.

[Big D]

* Big D your reductionism in saying that physical beauty was an aid to reproduction was absurd. I pointed out a few scenarios which you conveiniently glossed over as you obviously wanted to rescue your friend Nietzsche.

Physical beauty, as an element of sexuality, has an inherent link to reproduction. I never meant to imply that it was the only purpose and meaning of beauty.

As for Nietzsche... I have a passing familiarity with some of his ideas. He is not my 'friend', nor do I have any particular interest or bond to his ideas.

Oh and as for your good friend Darwin, he himself on his death bed confessed a divine creator.

Darwin isn't my 'friend' either. Oh, and I know he was Christian. Many scientists and great minds have religious beliefs. What's your point?

Once again your all trying to summarise in a neat psycological frame work, but tell me what has psycology ever proven? The only ground breaking ideas on the mind have come from Chemistry and Philosophy!

"Ground-breaking" in your opinion only. Psychology unlocks many subtleties and nuances of the mind, explaining how and why people feel and think what they do, rather than having to resort to the typical lame moron's argument that "everything is divine, there's nothing original about people at all because it's all just a faint echo of something fundamentally superior".

* This notion that man is some how progressing is rubbish. Humans are like everything else bound to the laws of the universe. And both physically and spiriturally the universe is decaying. This is not my opionion but the findings of scientists and philosophers.

Everything's coming to and end, you mean? What isn't? Death is inevitable. However, evolution and other developments prove that life is capable of progression. Actually, the universe itself is eveolving too - the undefined chaos of the primordial universe settled into the familiar stars, galaxies and other cosmic phenomena. Patterns and complexities have developed over time. Life is a part of that system - complexity increases over time, enhancing the capabilities of intellect and understanding. I really don't feel like going into this right now, though. It's a matter for another time. My point is simply that life has become more than what it was.

This forum is no more off topic than "darwinism extinct"

That was, and continued to be, a theological debate. This thread used to be about religious and mythological symbolism in FFVII, but you turned it into a rant-fest extolling the virtues of your 'superior' beliefs.

You should probably stop whinging about being "attacked" in all those other threads - it won't really help your cause. People only attack when they're given reason to; plenty of other intense debates (eg Two Sephiroths) have gone on for a very long time with a minimun of hostility. People only lose their nut with you because of your apparent attitude that you have all the answers, and are above fault or reconsideration, simply because you like a few philosphers and myths.

[Besimudo]

No, psychology is pointless. The rantings of Freud hardly amount to an exact science. How does studying one mind, something which is capable of infinite possibilities assist the understanding of another. What psychology attempts to do is to classify the human mind like a scientist would classify chemicals.

i.e. Br (FeCl3) + Benzene = 1-bromo benzne.


i.e. childhood memories + suppressive adolescence = mid life crisis.

This is the world of the psychologist, the rant about IQ tests, EQ tests and other meaningless exercises that amount to nothing, no laws, no results just temporary little fads that come in and out of phase.

Why dont you study the inaccurateness of psychological information.


As for materia girl I hope that you were not implying that I was not aware that Noah arc myth did not occur in Genesis? Clearly Exodus is another account comparable to Aeris, as she goes on a pilgrimage to find her true self…. FF7 has a lot of this content, one could also compare the 4 weapons to the 4 horse men of the apocalypse…. in revelations

[Big D]

No, psychology is pointless.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! What a pathetic statement. Thousands have studied and applied this science; can you reasonably proclaim to be intellectually superior to all of them? No science is exact; even mathematics and chemistry have unpredictable elements.

This is the world of the psychologist, the rant about IQ tests, EQ tests and other meaningless exercises that amount to nothing, no laws, no results just temporary little fads that come in and out of phase.

So IQ tests are irrelevant? They give a quantitative value to intellectual ability. Pretty useful to most people. Of course there are few concrete 'laws' of psychology; people are different to each other, psychology recognises and examines the causes and affects of those differences. Minds are such complex and variable structures; it'd pretty boring if we were so simple that our very existence could be defined by a set of equations and equilibria.
The workings of the human brain are far more complex than other chemical and physical systems. The study of the Human mind is one of the most intricate and recent. It's still unfolding; of course not everything is known as of yet.

The Common Law develops uncertainly through the operation of Stare Decisis; does that mean that all Westminster-based legal systems are irrelevant? Of course not. Uncertainty does not equate to irrelevance.

I'm no great enthusiast of psychology, however it is a topic that interests me. I'm only defending here because of yet another puerile attempt by you to abuse and ridicule something that you simply don't like. Other people manage to have opinions without assuming that ideas are absolutes which must apply to everyone and everything. You should give it a go sometime. Tolerance is a virtue...

[Besimudo]

Psychology has NEVER proclaimed to study the "mind" as you suggest. No one really knows what the mind even is. The brain it is certain that this organ is quite physical...but the mind, well people have attempted to define this for millennia.

You seem to ignore the fact that Humans can infer ideas from a higher level. Do you actually believe that Plato and Pythagoras went out into the world and said "oh look here is a square".

Sure squares exist in the world but one cannot know what a square is without prior knowledge!!! The reason the Greeks had such a profound impact on learning was because they inferred their knowledge. Some publications like to imply that knowledge was easier back then and today just about everything has been invented.
If anything Knowledge is much more accessible and more PhD papers are published per year! But without the learning culture of the Greeks …preserved by the Arabs and then reintroduced to Europe most of our Western tradition would never have blossomed.

And for thousands of years philosophers of all cultures have come to realise that man can connect with a "higher" information bank and learn "true" knowledge.

This is not an opinion but a fact. Even something as elementary as fire "comes from the gods" because its application is not apparent. When did man learn that fire could be a friend?? By watching it and then saying oh, this stuff cooks things and keeps us warm lets us use it?

OFCOURSE not, the use of fire like all mans great inventions owes its birth to inspiration/divine blessing/higher knowledge....CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT!
This is why invention is treated more as an art than a science.


Now, you obviously don’t understand the history of psychology. It is the ramblings of Freud; based on his "observations" of relatives. He tried to understand the way they acted by taking notes. The notes had no scientific merit at all. Now tell me what has psychology really achieved except "cheapening" the human mind on yet another level. In the destructive modernist tradition (noticeable in the west) first we dumb down evolution and next stop the mind. As I have stated the Greeks came to acknowledge evolution (500 B.C) but its role was to serve a greater purpose. i.e. we see that same mechanism and reason again. Then Darwin simply stated that everything was determined in a completely random fashion (which is statistically impossible) via selection. I agree, but how can anything be completely random (this is pretty basic stuff) everything is born in a time, place and has its own unique genetic structure and all these elements materialise the events it can and cannot partake and thus fate is enacted.


See how knowledge is decaying, we went from a system of absolute knowledge to one which is fanatical about facts. Psychology is not based on laws but meaningless facts. Only America uses "lie detectors", and no body asks for your IQ on a job reference. Also IQ results oscillate, they are not consistent.

The things you are interested in are better explained in literature, even though they attempt to describe them in psychology.

A lot of this information can be accessed in the humble Britannica...that right an encyclopaedia written by unbiased university professors.


Oh... I hate to be critical but no respectable university considers psycology a science! neuro-chemistry is about as close as youll get... and not surprisingly this science does bring results. Perhaps you should read American scientist or even the good old Britanica.

[Rude]

Worst Thread Ever

Seriously guys. Take this discussion to PM or something unless you want to get back on subject.

[Big D]

Originally posted by Rude
Worst Thread Ever

Seriously guys. Take this discussion to PM or something unless you want to get back on subject.

I originally posted...
This thead is so completely off-topic that even I can't be arsed continuing.
And that's really saying something.