(September 09, 3 pages)
1) The community prior
Even if you had one day, for whatever reasons, give up looking the truth, you can never give up say. But stranger still, what you say so do not be so different from what you have said if you had continued in the first channel. There is something to understand a convergence possible between you and your say on the one hand, and the unknowable, the impalpable, imperceptible and the unspeakable, on the other.
Know of a new type, namely foreign to our usual communication. Not that he makes a premeditated, ethical or political, to communicate otherwise, not that he would be a secret not to fit in all ears. Its origin and destination are simply not - the international mean.
In this other space (the inter-say), the "truth" explodes, giving way to know-believe, to believe (including think-be) and believe each person in the world and of all. The criterion is a kind effectiveness of each of these modes. For example, if a man does what he does is he has to believe - and believe it be - relevant. (1) No glue perfectly to its action. His expertise is not only (in) causes a certain mode of presence (self, made the gesture and worldliness) is also evident. (2)
This other space, fed the terms of the verb to believe instead of knowledge and truth is one from which we observe without participating. Observe human communication without personally participating in human communication is mutually exclusive itself readily to know everything, of all trade.
This know-there, if any, is not marketable .
This know-there, if any, is not marketable .
A religious community: a communication system among others. A small system in the large. We find here as elsewhere an interior and exterior. External communication, for example what is said about the faith to a man in love with science. He talks like an alien-of-the-faith. Inside, on the contrary, it is "us", that is to say something important - the largest free doubt - is tacit. A secret bond, implied, that we're here together. We do not talk like we talk to a stranger coming knocking at our door. (We do not talk like a child talking to an adult). This foreigner would face some strange questions which you smile. One would think so, and he would know that if he asks because he does not know ...
But I said I did not want to remain so, abroad?
If the truth had not been previously excluded from my speech Now, we think rightly that the scientific discipline called systemic (I think) deals specifically with communication issues. But as the systemic science is addressed does not also to the wider community? This community is not she previously consists of all these men, scholars and laymen, who want to know the truth and nothing but the truth? Even teaching the system to an audience of ignorant, it is still "us".
But I said I did not want to remain so, abroad?
If the truth had not been previously excluded from my speech Now, we think rightly that the scientific discipline called systemic (I think) deals specifically with communication issues. But as the systemic science is addressed does not also to the wider community? This community is not she previously consists of all these men, scholars and laymen, who want to know the truth and nothing but the truth? Even teaching the system to an audience of ignorant, it is still "us".
What is this implicit Community bringing together such a speaker and people curious of systems? Between them, they do not say the outside perspective to knowledge about the community gathered around the knowledge of the institution know - and for good reason! But we do say no more communication that exists within the community. What is it? I am trying to say: just as my interest here for the system requires of me to believe some-being even before I learned anything - just my ultimate satisfaction of having learned and understood complete draw the contours of my being (maybe I am) as belonging to the community. As it was written in advance. In general, the art community to desire knowledge (desire forged by each community) stands out as an individual and collective ontology. So obvious, preexisting individuals we are, an operating system of the world community by advance. With know it (was) moved, it prevents anyone from discovering a general economy of the verb believe, synonymous with being in the world (knowledge economy-believe, of belief make-believe and think- be) which otherwise involve all of us. (Plus he knows, the more it moves away):
To know, one must first be .
But then, in these conditions, knowledge is not what everyone (in the community) believes: an opportunity, freedom, more soul to be offered, it , which would, as he naively believes, "facing the world." Only together, as everyone is not facing the world, it is open to everyone to know, that is to say, to believe that this individual is free ... facing the world.
is as he is not alone in facing the world
To know, one must first be .
But then, in these conditions, knowledge is not what everyone (in the community) believes: an opportunity, freedom, more soul to be offered, it , which would, as he naively believes, "facing the world." Only together, as everyone is not facing the world, it is open to everyone to know, that is to say, to believe that this individual is free ... facing the world.
is as he is not alone in facing the world
Let him know face the world.
This knowledge of another type which I had the feeling place and our man in front of his belief, believing that "before the know as being" offered him by the community. The individual is that it immediately find a bit panicked, he discovers he has to cope, men - but this time in the world as being incapable of knowing anything, except now by a kind of cowardice, a lack of courage ... (3)
This knowledge of another type which I had the feeling place and our man in front of his belief, believing that "before the know as being" offered him by the community. The individual is that it immediately find a bit panicked, he discovers he has to cope, men - but this time in the world as being incapable of knowing anything, except now by a kind of cowardice, a lack of courage ... (3)
-*-
2) A sky for two
If at least one question above all else (object, thought or event ), then the causality is the law of the universe. If causality is the law of the universe, then the whole universe is, perhaps a root cause (if not just a handful). Whoever has the power to sow the same root cause in another world than ours, but similar to ours in its origin, it reset it immediately the same sequence of events than those produced on earth. (We would have a place to go back)
If the world was returning back a few minutes or a few centuries
If the world was returning back a few minutes or a few centuries
He traveled the same path, would reproduce the same story, exactly.
But then, this means that if a good god created the world, its goodness consists only in the fact of having created. Soon the world was born, this is indeed the Laws (which craves human reason) who have taken over. Also, the sequence of events (eg human history) it is not the business of God. No "divine providence," no other possible purpose of the creator god of letting the world be like going ... Even supposing that the god who created the earth created by the same occasion the Laws that govern the events, he will have these fixed and eternal laws - as seen.
What does the cosmology of the ancient Greeks? They wanted to imitate on earth the order and harmony that prevailed in their view in the sky. So what did the stars that did not land men? They were fixed , they suffered no change. They were the very image of eternity .
This does not inspire you does nothing? The men of old sought a fixed reference point, a zero on a scale, one thing is certain, a lever on which to settle the affairs of men. They certainly atonement god, but they relied more on knowledge of its laws.
A single sky for God and human destiny.
A single sky for God and human destiny.
-*-
3) A god without a history
I'd rather be facing the world, to die and be reborn in every moment. Cosmology, genealogy, theology ... basically, the god of history is that human communication. I would prefer a home without god, without fame, without evidence - a god at all times. It whispered in my ear, it might be good . This man who is said he created the earth can be (good), because no good god can reign on this earth if everything is according to fixed laws and eternal (what we know confirms ). What would he have to tell me in the ear except that it is just the god ?
"Love your fate, it is fair to be so
Even if all this escapes you!
The "divine providence" to which I was asked to believe because no one knows the final end, it is only the justice of these laws that apply everywhere and in all things with the same indifference equity. Justice absurd and blind! Improper inevitably cause produces its effect! Good and bad, only the strongest, most cunning wins. If one knows right reason the world (rational causality) and it is believed possible kindness, then human freedom to believe in a creator god both right and good is that the victim consents, if the god's request, to forgive him:
Good god who would attempt to redeem himself with men
"Love your fate, it is fair to be so
Even if all this escapes you!
The "divine providence" to which I was asked to believe because no one knows the final end, it is only the justice of these laws that apply everywhere and in all things with the same indifference equity. Justice absurd and blind! Improper inevitably cause produces its effect! Good and bad, only the strongest, most cunning wins. If one knows right reason the world (rational causality) and it is believed possible kindness, then human freedom to believe in a creator god both right and good is that the victim consents, if the god's request, to forgive him:
Good god who would attempt to redeem himself with men
- to'avoir created this world!
I do not see how he could not contradict both his justice and eternity. I prefer to imagine that another god, stranger to this world , inspires his turn after the goodness of God here have made me understand his justice. In my worst days, when I swear that this world is bad, my freedom comes to my aid, that to disagree with me in my turn, not by some faith shared by a community, but by the gratuitous goodness that Here and there one of us can still exercise. If any action , no matter how small, is good, then the world is not all bad.
It is just so that goodness is beyond the law:
____________ (1) He thinks he is this or that he "believes it" as appropriate.
(2) To believe is being shown in the episode "Bad faith" described by Sartre.
(3) That should please the followers of the faith. But do not rejoice too soon, you who think this way: your faith when it seeks to enlist others, is that knowledge for yourself that you can not prove.
I do not see how he could not contradict both his justice and eternity. I prefer to imagine that another god, stranger to this world , inspires his turn after the goodness of God here have made me understand his justice. In my worst days, when I swear that this world is bad, my freedom comes to my aid, that to disagree with me in my turn, not by some faith shared by a community, but by the gratuitous goodness that Here and there one of us can still exercise. If any action , no matter how small, is good, then the world is not all bad.
It is just so that goodness is beyond the law:
Free .
____________ (1) He thinks he is this or that he "believes it" as appropriate.
(2) To believe is being shown in the episode "Bad faith" described by Sartre.
(3) That should please the followers of the faith. But do not rejoice too soon, you who think this way: your faith when it seeks to enlist others, is that knowledge for yourself that you can not prove.
-*-
