I am my highest authority, judge and guide. Who is yours?
I am my highest authority, judge and guide. Who is yours?
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the esoteric teachings of Jesus.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This fits perfectly with the bibles teachings that we are to judge all things and hold to the good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
This is a compulsion to be our own masters instead of just kowtowing to someone else’s opinions.
This is also why Christians used their inquisitions on us. Freedom of thought was not allowed by Christianity.
A concept and freedom that Christians now seem to promote.
Many Christians follow the teachings of, to us, a genocidal and infanticidal demiurge, Yahweh.
How Christians can see him as a good god is beyond me and Christians shy away from any apologetics as to why they think such a satanic god is good.
I see my judgements as more moral than that immoral demiurge and that is why I have rejected him for Jesus.
Do you follow 1 Thessalonians 5:21, or do you let someone else do your judging for you?
Regards
DL
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the esoteric teachings of Jesus.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This fits perfectly with the bibles teachings that we are to judge all things and hold to the good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
This is a compulsion to be our own masters instead of just kowtowing to someone else’s opinions.
This is also why Christians used their inquisitions on us. Freedom of thought was not allowed by Christianity.
A concept and freedom that Christians now seem to promote.
Many Christians follow the teachings of, to us, a genocidal and infanticidal demiurge, Yahweh.
How Christians can see him as a good god is beyond me and Christians shy away from any apologetics as to why they think such a satanic god is good.
I see my judgements as more moral than that immoral demiurge and that is why I have rejected him for Jesus.
Do you follow 1 Thessalonians 5:21, or do you let someone else do your judging for you?
Regards
DL
Comments (134)
This is a good point. To ask:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
is perplexing.
Resting a claim to be one's own "highest authority" upon the authority of Thessalonians 5:21 is nonsensical.
What is the perfect judge('judge' used like scales)?
That's what I think OP's off the beaten path, thought train is about.
'scuse my high justice.
Value may stab you in the back, but knowing that, she's a good judge.(some shoddy motto).
I am an esoteric ecumenist and I use the help of all I know to judge. So do you. No?
If god wants to be my authority he has to show up and earn that privilege.
Regards
DL
You have more than one process when judging?
Show the different processes please.
Regards
DL
Really. What do you follow that has you putting the highest authority in another, without you absorbing and embracing the ideology and making it your own?
Regards
DL
the question was not about the process I use in making a judgment.
Instead, the question was whether I am the "highest authority" regarding my judgments.
And again, that depends upon the issue.
If I have medical issues, I am going to find a doctor worthy of being the "higher authority" on the issues.
And please do not confuse final authority with highest authority and please do not respond in such a way as to make your own vacuous.
I know that words have meaning and no reasonable person would subscribe to an ideology where they would refer to their self as the "highest authority" while referring to someone else as the "highest authority."
Just saying.
So you might not give final authority to the best authority. Ok. Not the brightest choice, but Ok.
Quoting Arne
Yes, after you judge and embrace his authority as the best. That is making yourself the final authority.
Regards
DL
You cited a higher authority to support your claim that you are your own highest authority.
You can address the obvious contradiction or you can continue to pretend it is not there.
It matters not to me.
I am happy to look at that if you would quote it. I would have to see how I wrote it and am not sure what statement you are talking about.
If I do consider someone a higher authority than myself on an issue, I am duty bound to accept such information, work it into my ideology, and move on from this new position and knowledge. I do not cut off seeking an even better opinion or fact.
Being my own authority does not mean never changing my mind on an issue.
Gnostic Christians are perpetual seeker as we do not want to end as idol worshipers and entrenched in a stagnant and never improving ideology. We perpetually raise the bar of expectation.
We are always climbing Jacob's ladder and do not want to think we are at the end of learning.
We evolve and so should our thinking.
Regards
DL
So who is your highest authority, you or Jesus?
As I said, I follow his ways or his guidance and have chosen to be my own highest authority.
Regards
DL
Indeed. Without the stuttering.
What don't you understand about--- Quoting tim wood -------
-- not meaning just prophesies and being expanded to everything?
Regards
DL
I am ultimately responsible for everything I say and do and think. So I find myself pragmatically in the same category as you I think.
Perfect.
Let us pray that sheeple get into that.
Regards
DL
??
That was your quote, goof.
If you cannot dither out that "every kind" means "every kind", which is equivalent to the "all things", that I used, go back to school.
Regards
DL
Who is this "I" person and what makes them so trustworthy?
Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.
You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.
The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.
In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.
That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.
Regards
DL
Stop looking in the mirror.
Regards
DL
Insisting on being one's own highest authority is not the same as accepting responsibility for all one does. The world is full of the highest authority rejecting responsibility for the negative consequences of exercising authority. For many, the more authority they claim, the quicker they are to blame.
So what if you're being hypnotized, drugged, manipulated, or in some other way duped?
I would have to argue that what you are describing is an abuse of, rather than legitimate authority. Insofar as authority is legitimate, in my view it embraces full responsibility.
Ah. That explains a lot.
There is no necessary connection between authority and acceptance of responsibility and the "legitimacy" of the authority does not create one. The world is full of people who only exercise "legitimate" authority while still denying any and all responsibility when things go bad.
Having mechanisms to force "legitimate" authority to accept responsibility is not the equivalent of "legitimate" authority "embrac[ing] full responsibility." I do not remember the last time that anyone in Washington "embraced full responsibility" for anything gone wrong. But they sure don't hesitate to push that envelope when it comes to exercising their "legitimate" authority. Even if he did it, its not a crime.
Do you have some reason to believe that this renders you unusual in some significant way?
I don't have anything against confidence borne of true knowledge but given that we all have blind spots I suggest you take a look at the Dunning-Kruger effect.
So what if any of us are? We are duped and hope we learned our lesson.
FMPOV, we are all always doing the best we can with whatever we have. Be it intelligence or other skill or ability.
We are all always striving for the best possible end. Right?
Regards
DL
It explains a lot more if you are not up to it. Child.
Regards
DL
Not unusual that I know of. It just says that I am not as gullible as some and do not make a good sheeple.
I find sheeple unusual as they seem to intentionally put their tribal affiliations ahead of their morals. I do not. I see my duty as to make my tribe better.
In the supernaturally based religions, I think they voluntarily go into intellectual and moral dissonance and that is why the mainstream gods are such genocidal pricks, that they somehow see as good.
That is unusual, dishonest and stupid.
Regards
DL
I just put this up that answers this notion of error or being duped nicely. I hope.
FMPOV, we are all always doing the best we can with whatever we have. Be it intelligence or other skill or ability.
We are all always striving for the best possible end. Right?
Regards
DL
Right.
I suspect every sheeple would say the same.
You make my case.
Regards
DL
Not by the definition of the term.
If it was so, they would reject the genocidal god.
Regards
DL
The kind of "authority" you are talking about seems to me no more than the radical freedom to do whatever one wishes. Sure, we do have that freedom, but of what use is it? The scope and scale of our abilities ultimately depends on our embracing and adopting external systems, which are rule-governed. In so doing, we necessarily accept the laws of those systems, or suffer the negative effects of attempting to "bend the rules".
Nicely put. I think I agree.
Quoting Pantagruel
Yes, but we can oppose and our freedom to change poor rules and have all profit.
Regards
DL
That kinda puts a wrench in the whole "being the highest judge and authority" bit.
Are you suggesting that a highest judge and authority cannot make a mistake?
Have we ever had a perfect ideology or leader to follow?
You might want to check our history before positing such an idea.
Regards
DL
That just means there might not be such a thing as a highest leader.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I'm suggesting that in circumstances when someone else is causing your behavior and or manipulating you, then you cannot be considered the highest authority in that moment.
Sure you can if you are making the choice, wrong or not, to accept and make your own whatever is being sold to you.
Doing the best we can with what we have at all points in time does not mean that we won't get screwed by a good con man, be he religious or political or just a charlatan doctor.
Regards
DL
If you're being manipulated, lied to, hypnotized, drugged, etc. YOU are not making any choices on your own.
It is still your choice, although it is being intentionally impaired.
It is not the others choice, it is only his suggestion, fortified by the products you mention.
Regards
DL
That makes no sense.
It does to me.
If I hold a gun to your head and threaten to shot you if you do not hand over your cash, whose choice is being exercised when you hand it over? Whose brain makes your hand move?
Mine or yours?
Yours.
It is my threat, but you chose to live instead of die and have your hand give your cash.
It is never my choice as I cannot make your hand move.
Regards
DL
lol
So... Your argument is based on someone else eradicating the near infinity of usual choices you have, narrowing it down to a miserly 2, but at least you still got to choose between them? Ha! Some "highest authority."
On a side note: since choosing death leaves you without cash too... I'm not sure what the "choice" in your example really revolves around.
You are a poor loser of this debate because you cannot refute the logic.
Come back when you finish sulking.
Regards
DL
It was a hypothetical, goof.
Regards
DL
My main point stands uncontested.
I just want to say that Descartes may have approved of you since, in effect, he was sure of only one truth - his own indubitable existence. Surely then, you, just as he was of himself, must be your highest authority.
Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture....
Not in your mind. It is in the more discerning ones.
Regards
DL
As an esoteric ecumenist, I take out what I want and approve of in all thinking system's, even his, and discard the rest. If all he believed in was his existence, I would have discarded that notion.
We are alone, but we are all in this together.
I think he was indicating by his statemen that, as other great minds before him thought, that when looking at any issues, one should try to approach it without biases. Do not be for or against was how the ancients said it. That is really tough to do.
My thinking system is composed of many things from many sources. I am thus my own authority unless I wish to give it up to the many who formed my thinking system.
As keeper of my files, I am the only authority that I recognize.
Regards
DL
I agree.
Regards
DL
So you got nothing. :up:
Mayhaps, but even Satre would recognize that the torturer has exerted higher authority by whittling down all the multitude of your usual choices to two.
I got that you cannot follow a logic trail and cannot refute it.
Regards
DL
It's clear from the way you've interacted with pretty much everyone on this thread, that you just can't stand people making valid points against your own. Some "highest judge."
If you had such thing, I would acknowledge it.
Regards
DL
Keep telling yourself that.
Sure, I scraped these from the online version of BN.
In fact no matter what pressure is exerted on the victim,
the abjuration remains free;
We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free.
In a preceding chapter we
observed that even torture does not dispossess us of our free-
dom;
That particular book was the first philosophy text I ever read, and I've read it maybe seven or eight times, so it isn't likely I would misinterpret something as clear as his stance on freedom.
Early Sartre. He got smarter later on.
Actually, I think I read recently that psychologists agree with that idea about vertigo. It's a survival mechanism to stop you from actually doing it or getting too close to the edge.
I think that's an exaggeration. Clearly the torturer has already, de facto, limited our choices and thus our freedom.
If at point A you have 100 choices, and point B only 2, then your freedom has been limited.
"Later, especially in Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sartre shifts to the view that humans are only free if their basic needs as practical organisms are met (p. 327)."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-p/#H3
Nothing constrains our free choice more than our own pre-existing (cognitive) habits. Evidence of this is the fact that many people will walk the road to ruin before addressing issues which are clearly within their own control, substance addiction, gamboling addiction, etc. This kind of "constraint" is even more severe than external constraint, because it is self-imposed. And it is far more significant. What someone does or doesn't do under threat of bodily harm is, let's face it, begging the question. It is self-evident that anyone "could" refuse to submit to the torture and, point of fact, lots of people have died rather than submit.
But, to the point, we do possess the power of being so free that we can, at any time, actually choose to do something, even if that thing is completely uncharacteristic of any choice we have previously made. I ascribe to this view of radical freedom, because I know it to be true in my own life. Moreover, what is most interesting, once you have tried and learned that you possess this ability, it gets continually easier to make "radically new" choices. And this can definitely be a great power to have.
edit: I think Sartre explicitly discusses this example in "Psychology of the Imagination". Not completely certain on that source, but I wouldn't want to take credit.
Well, Sartre evolved and refined his thinking eventually, and I suspect so will you :wink:
I've never read the Critique of Dialectical Reason, but I'm starting now, and the preface sure seems consistent with the views I've cited"
"This is the moment to remember the profound resonance
of this theme of treason and the traitor throughout all of Sartre: as the
'objective treason' of the intellectual, never fully or ontologically
committed to any cause; as the jouissance of treason in the rebel
(particularly in Genet), or of the homme de ressentiment ( particularly
in the collaborators); the great test of my authenticity as well"
From what I see, he became even more committed to freedom as an intellectual ideal. And so, during the forty years since I first read Being and Nothingness, have I.
edit: and I think "material freedom" refers to particular context while "formal freedom" remains an intellectual ideal.
Keep reading. Or just flip to the requisite page.
No matter what you or Sartre might say about human freedom under ideal circumstances, the torture victim from our example is clearly exempt in Sartre's later theory, since "basic needs" of a "practical organism" are obviously not only not met, but also perverted.
But exempt from what?
People choose to endure something because and when it is meaningful to do so. And when people do, historically, it often is meaningful.
You keep in saying people "endure" torture, but it's not clear what that even means or who has done so? Can you be more specific?
Now I'm really confused. It was the exact example that we have been discussing? I quoted Sartre. You disputed, then rebutted based on an interpretation from his later writings from an third party online source. I reviewed and clarified, what part of all that was unclear?
Quoting Artemis
In any case, I'm ok with leaving it there. I think what I wrote expresses my personal position pretty clearly. I'll definitely be reviewing the later works of Sartre on "material freedom" (thanks for that!).
Cheers!
Here:
Quoting Pantagruel
And here:
Quoting Pantagruel
Sorry, that is all a non-sequitur. We are "condemned" to be free in the sense that we can not escape it. Our freedom is absolute and inescapable.
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
Everything you said does not apply to Sartre. His notion of freedom is central and pivotal and includes certainly the concept of responsibility - that is the whole point. We are responsible not only for what we do, but for who we are. It is ongoing and omnipresent.
I understand you are reacting to and possibly reinterpreting Sartre in a way that makes more sense to your own beliefs, but that's not Sartre. Authenticity is another of his core concepts, also not one that works with the notion of "compromise" in the negative sense of that term.
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
"Therefore, the onus for defining ourselves, and by extension humanity, falls squarely on our shoulders. This lack of pre-defined purpose along with an 'absurd' existence that presents to us infinite choices is what Sartre attributes to the “anguish of freedom”. With nothing to restrict us, we have the choice to take actions to become who we want to be and lead the life we want to live."
You are free to be the kind of person who succumbs to pressure, who compromises his ideals, or not.
"Jean-Paul Sartre decried the idea of living without pursuing freedom. The phenomenon of people accepting that things have to be a certain way, and subsequently refusing to acknowledge or pursue alternate options, was what he termed as "living in bad faith". According to Sartre, people who convince themselves that they have to do one particular kind of work or live in one particular city are living in bad faith."
Which Sartre denied...
Citation please?
Already told you.
"It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."
Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom (which stand on their own merit regardless). In any case, as mentioned, I'll definitely be reading the Critique, and thank you. How did you enjoy it?
It's an evolution which blatantly contradicts the way you are trying to present Sartre.
Quoting Pantagruel
You have a very selective idea about how to read, which is becoming increasingly evident. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for to consider later and earlier philosophies on their own merit.
As I said, the writings...which I actually read...inspired me. I'm confident that the later work...which you found in an online article...will reconcile with what I have already read...when I read it....inasmuch as it appears to be a political evolution of Sartre's focus, and not a direct commentary on or contradiction of his earlier ontological focus...which the quotation I selected emphasizes.
:wink:
:up:
Yeah, everyone buys that you're the judge and jury while quoting a book of superstition from savage ages.
Easy to ignore.
The latter half of that statement is the obviously more selective way to read. Reading Sartre as a person who evolved and therefore changed his theory and on that basis giving the most consideration to his most mature work is the obviously more holistic approach.
To paraphrase another great thinker, Ghandi: when asked which of his writings to go with as they changed dramatically over his lifetime, he said to go with whatever he had most recently written. Logically, most writers would agree with that, or else they would not have written that which they have most recently written.
Would you like an award or something for that? Or just a standing ovation? Maybe some cookies?
No, thank you. The reading itself has been quite rewarding enough!
Which remains incomplete.
I'm afraid that if you are looking for Sartre to confirm the exact beliefs you've expressed and attributed to him here... you will not find it as rewarding. Spoiler alert: Sartre becomes a Marxist.
Excellent! As soon as my finish my current book on Marx the Critique of Dialectal Reason will be a perfect fit. I love it when the books spontaneously lead into one another. The more I read, the more they do.
:up:
edit: I just ordered the Critique. A large and unwieldy tome of mixed reviews, but I'm looking forward to the challenge. I haven't circled back to Sartre in a decade now. By all accounts, it appears to be more of a criticism of Marxism than Marxist, as you suggest. An excellent counterpoint to Marx's own writings I suspect. Can't thank you enough for mentioning this book!
Oh, I did some article trolling of my own. I found the following commentary fascinating:
"Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."
This certainly reconciles completely with my own understanding of his earlier position, moving in a new direction.
Not if you're sticking to your freedom under torture theory.
As to your response, from what I can see, it appears "close enough" for me to work with comfortably, mutatis mutandis.
Interesting how you see yourself as exempt from your own strictures.... :chin:
I don't think Sartre would agree with that kind of behavior either!
You got a new book. I thought you said that such reading was reward enough?
Yes, that is exactly what I said "addition to my reading list aside." Another peculiar quirk of your "reasoning", you seem consistently to claim that I have not said something I have said.
I explained mutatis mutandis, which should have been sufficient to bridge the gap between Sartre's earlier and later views (it was for Sartre).
I provided substantial critical citations that unequivocally demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is, in fact, in question in exactly the way I suspect it to be, viz:
"Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom"
and
"It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."
plus
"Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."
This is the framework for a valid thesis. Please do continue to showcase your technique. :)
Let me get this straight... You think a valid thesis is based on skimming one book and having only the initial reading done for another book?
Well, when you've actually finished reading them, let me know. You seem to have a very incomplete understanding of what it means to be a Marxist, or what that entails for autonomy.
Actually, I've read Being and Nothingness a great many times (which I mentioned and again you contradict), plus Psychology of the Imagination, Transcendence of the Ego, Emotions, Search for a Method, and his biography of Jean Genet (all of which are in my library). Based on that, and a overview of the later work plus a few different critical articles, yes, I'm prepared to formulate a preliminary thesis.
Keep it coming.
There is no perfect judge. Evidence.
What keeps my theorizing stable from start to end?
Good morality (Otherwise my theory will become unstable).
How do I know that the theory is sound at the end?
My own good judgement; reasoning.
How high is your authority? Is a good question.
But you haven't read the later works. And you're somehow not willing to accept that these contradict even a segment of your own ideology. So neither with your homework nor with your psychology are you prepared for this conversation.
Everything you said I addressed in the comment that you quoted. It's a reasonable first step.
The next step is to actually do your homework. I'll probably be around somewhere once you have and we can take up this conversation again.
Happy Reading!
Will you have read the two books by the time I finish the one do you think?
At this rate, by the time you finish them, I'll be dead.
Again, I only need to read one.
Quoting Pantagruel
Quoting Pantagruel
Okie dokie.
Marx is not specific to a conversation about the Marxism in late Sartre? Who knew!
By basically living that way most of my life.
The clincher, when I chose to take the Gnostic Christian label after suffering my apotheosis.
I know I know. You think that to be fiction and I have nothing I can tell you or show you to have you believe such things even happen.
I have been abuse for my claim before and often so you need not add to it.
Most people associate that term with the supernatural but if your read a bit on Freud and Jung's Father Complex, you will perhaps think lie I do and see apotheosis as a natural thing.
Regards
DL
Wouldn't this mean Jesus is your highest authority, if you are following him?
Jesus showed a way to think. I have embraced it, but others have the same teachings. I use him as an example because most people I chat with can then have something to relate to.
Buddha as some Jews also put man above god, where we belong, given that we created all the gods, and I can find much n the bible to confirm what I say.
If you see only one Jesus in the scriptures, then I have taken his good advice and discarded his more immoral tenets.
Those I do apologetics against.
As an esoteric ecumenist, that is what we do. That is how we do not become idol worshipers of what we know and as perpetual seekers, I have raised even Jesus' bar of excellence and keep on seeking.
Seeking god the way Jesus said to do is good. Finding a god and idol worshiping him is evil.
Regards
DL
Seriously.
Regards
DL
:clap: :wink:
I approve. Happy Reading!
:smile:
Michael. Who was there to report what Satan and Jesus said?
Let us use logos and not mythos.
Test all things is good moral advice regardless of who originally said it, which was not a bible character.
Correcting those who do not agree is the loving thing to do.
As to the myth. Satan did not have dominion to tempt Jesus with. Man had never given it up.
Either the temptation is a lie, or you have god giving Satan full control of the earth and man.
Do you see Yahweh/Jesus as that big of a jerk?
Regards
DL