What thoughts spring to your mind for each image you see.

What bearing do those thoughts have on the theistic - atheistic worldviews as contrasted.

I will sometimes post just a lone picture, and for each, I'd like your thoughts.

Also I may place more than one picture in a post, and i'd like your thoughts on the significance of the contrast, in respect of the theistic - atheistic worldviews.

Many thanks.

?

These two to be taken together - - ->

- - >

--->

These two to be taken together -

- - ->

- - - >

I will stop here for now. Please I request that the viewer takes each image at a time and takes a moment to reflect deeply on the image, the meaning of the image, what the image tells, and its implication on the existence or non-existence of God and the meaning of our lives (where there are two images in a post, they are meant to be reflected on together)

I request genuine and deep reflection and comments.

May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

^^^
Is there such a thing as absolute truth then?

@ deepsight.
In the first image I see a man.
Meaning: The man looks deep in thought. He seems to be looking, to be analyzing, to be thinking. The looks of a man in deep thought, I percieve as I look deeply at this image, is unique. That look tells me this man is a being. A creature that is able to ponder and that is intelligent. The look on this man's face, I think, is deeper than the look any other animal can have. This mans look is unique. This mans thought process is unique. This man is unique. He is dynamic. This man cannot be compared to any other animal


I conclude man is made to be something. He is much more than an animal. He is able to think and greatly influence his evironment. I Blame the ability of this man to be able to do things like think deeply and have speech and influence and "that look in his eyes" on the fact that something is within man. I call it spirit and/or soul. I call this an atribute of something divine, God-like. I conclude. This man is not like others. This man speaks and thinks. This man cannot have achieved speaking and thinking as a result of nothing. I realize that there must be a higher being who gave man some of these superior attributes since other animals do not have them.
If this being exists, he must be very powerful, I think. And that's where my problem begins. I try to find meaning in life by setting a community up in which this superior being must play a part. I set out to achieve balance with this being in my life. But that's where the problem starts, begins, and grows. But I must take these things into consideration, because I am a thinking man. I set out to achieve balance, etc, etc

I agree with @Plaetton

0

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

as you say, your mind has already been influenced enough for you to look at everything from an evolutionary point of view.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

I partially agree with this. You forgot to add atheistic(non-god) philosophy and psychology.
I do not want to derail this thread. I wisoon open a thread with something on this line. Of course, I will come on your grounds to put forth my words, then I will use scripture to butress my points. See you there.

Joshthefirst: @ deepsight.
In the first image I see a man.
Meaning: The man looks deep in thought. He seems to be looking, to be analyzing, to be thinking. The looks of a man in deep thought, I percieve as I look deeply at this image, is unique. That look tells me this man is a being.

Thank you very much. Are there further thought developments that can arise from this recognition.

A creature that is able to ponder and that is intelligent. The look on this man's face, I think, is deeper than the look any other animal can have. This mans look is unique. This mans thought process is unique. This man is unique. He is dynamic. This man cannot be compared to any other animal


I conclude man is made to be something. He is much more than an animal. He is able to think and greatly influence his evironment. I Blame the ability of this man to be able to do things like think deeply and have speech and influence and "that look in his eyes" on the fact that something is within man. I call it spirit and/or soul. I call this an atribute of something divine, God-like. I conclude. This man is not like others. This man speaks and thinks. This man cannot have achieved speaking and thinking as a result of nothing. I realize that there must be a higher being who gave man some of these superior attributes since other animals do not have them.

I would be interested in Plaetton's take on this.

But please do go ahead to give me your take on the other images.

Thank you.

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

This is true and correct, but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

All of this could similarly be said on the question of whether anything around you actually exists at all or is all in your head: a mirage. A futile line of thinking, which, even where true, is meaningless for everyone, and profits no one anything.

I am simply interested in what may be deduced (in philosophic terms) from the pictures I posted.

Joshthefirst has taken a bite by saying, with respect to the first picture -

Joshthefirst: @ deepsight.
In the first image I see a man.
Meaning: The man looks deep in thought. He seems to be looking, to be analyzing, to be thinking. The looks of a man in deep thought, I percieve as I look deeply at this image, is unique. That look tells me this man is a being.

His last sentence in the quote above is a plank on which a great deal of thought can be built - particularly on the nature of being.

Deep Sight:

This is true and correct, but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

All of this could similarly be said on the question of whether anything around you actually exists at all or is all in your head: a mirage. A futile line of thinking, which, even where true, is meaningless for everyone, and profits no one anything.

I am simply interested in what may be deduced (in philosophic terms) from the pictures I posted.

Joshthefirst has taken a bite by saying, with respect to the first picture -



His last sentence in the quote above is a plank on which a great deal of thought can be built - particularly on the nature of being.

My post is very relevant to the thread.
My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth.
Imagery can only instill or re-enforce archetypes.

plaetton:


My post is very relevant to the thread.

Not at all my friend. In reality, it is a most escapist, futile and nihilistic response. And it is a response that can be made to any and every statement or observation ever made in all history, and forever into the future.

Does it miss you that that post can be made as a response to anything anybody ever sees, hears, smells, observes, or rationalizes? Have you reflected on that?

My point , in case you missed it, was that whatever is mentally induced from an image or imagery cannot be trusted to contain all or any element of absolute truth.
Imagery can only instill or re-enforce archetypes.

As I said above it is only a meaningless escapist answer and I will show you why.

We are each trapped within our senses. You cannot see through my eyes nor I through yours. You will only ever see through your eyes. You will only ever observe or understand anything from the point of view of the same archetypes that you are used to and you know. What this immediately means, if to be taken seriously, fair and square, is that nobody can ever know anything whatsoever to be true. Indeed this will then be the final answer to every postulation, argument, or even scientific process. The adamant conclusion must be and will remain that since we only see from our points of view only, we can never know an objective truth: and therefore every single discussion and debate about anything and everything is thereby immediately futile, empty and meaningless, as no one can ever know anything.

Indeed, we cannot know for sure if nairaland exists at all or if it is a figment of one's imagination.

In the extreme, one cannot even know if one exists.

This type of argument, as I said, is meaningless to everyone, advances nothing, and even if true, will eternally remain purposeless and meaningless.

Secondly you have to realize it it also applies to everything even you have ever postulated or thought. They are ALL your subjective notions governed by visual archetypes that you have become governed by. You cannot know that the moon is not in reality a tea pot saucer any more than I can know that I am typing anything right now.

All existence collapses in meaninglessness.

That is why such a response from you is just neither here nor there. It is a response that can be made to every statement in the world and will apply equally. If you state that you have a wife, I could state that that is just your subjective notion governed by the visual archetypes that govern you.

No one takes such a line of discussion seriously as far as serious existential discourse is concerned.

You are, in this regard, just like the man who states that since all things are subjective, we cannot know that he actually exists independent of our thoughts or imaginations. Of course the quick and sure fire response to such a man is that in the same vein, we cannot know that he actually just made that statement, and as such we can ignore it.

In the 1st picture above, I doubt of there is any body in whose subjective reality, the man pictured would appear to be laughing or smiling.
But then, we cannot know that, can we?

This is your line of argument, and it's absolute nonsense.

Please you don't really need to respond to this post, as the post might not really exist, it might be your imagination, or worse still, it is possible that it is actually a racoon that you are looking at, but on account of the visual archetypes governing you, you have subjectively viewed it as a post written by Deep Sight.

No?

So: kind sir, if you are content to play in a meaningless sandbox of such tittle-tattle, enjoy yourself. Those who wish to meditate on the strong thoughts inherent in the images, i think, would have spent their thoughts better.

^^
Well said.

Yawn.....

Pictures speak a thousand words but seriously, using pictures for a theistic worldview?

Ehem,
1) God is invisible. Seriously, he got no image mann
2) God is beyond a thousand words and is limited when you use picture to represent him/her
3) No. 2 depicts the problem with God- how does one describe a limitless god with a limited mind?



You can ignore my ramblings if it doesnt make sense to you

Considering the fact that we CANNOT view these pictures objectively, i tend to agree with Plaetton. I know you are a Deist, Josh is a Christian and Plaetton is an atheist/pantheist. Whatever each and every one of us see will surely be interpreted based on our preconceived world view.


That being said, i find the picture of the rock and brain laughable. You, Deepsight have always been a proponent of Intelligent Design and that particular picture is simply a subtle way of passing your point across. Nice try though. . .but we don't do emotional responses.

I'll take a pass on this one

^^^ In all fairness I think you are rather the one being emotional here. Nothing is stated in any picture, only contemplation is invited.

As I stated in my revert to Plaetton, his position, which you endorse, really means that nothing should ever be discussed, as nothing can ever be objectively known. Nothing whatsoever. It is a lame and very escapist response.

Deep Sight:
^^^ In all fairness I think you are rather the one being emotional here. Nothing is stated in any picture, only contemplation is invited.

As I stated in my revert to Plaetton, his position, which you endorse, really means that nothing should ever be discussed, as nothing can ever be objectively known. Nothing whatsoever. It is a lame and very escapist response.

Art (including pcitures) is subjective.


Simple, short answer

Logicboy03: Yawn.....

Pictures speak a thousand words but seriously, using pictures for a theistic worldview?

Theistic worldview? ? ?

I specifically said -

"What bearing do those thoughts have on the theistic - atheistic worldviews as contrasted."

Ehem,
1) God is invisible. Seriously, he got no image mann
2) God is beyond a thousand words and is limited when you use picture to represent him/her
3) No. 2 depicts the problem with God- how does one describe a limitless god with a limited mind?



You can ignore my ramblings if it doesnt make sense to you

I don't know why you have rushed to set out attributes of God. The pictures are there. All that is invited is your sincere and simple thoughts on each one. This is not only about the existence or non existence of God, but, as I said, also about learning the meaning of our lives.

Deep Sight:

Theistic worldview? ? ?

I specifically said -

"What bearing do those thoughts have on the theistic - atheistic worldviews as contrasted."



I don't know why you have rushed to set out attributes of God. The pictures are there. All that is invited is your sincere and simple thoughts on each one. This is not only about the existence or non existence of God, but, as I said, also about learning the meaning of our lives.

No worries...


Here is a better comment on your op

Logicboy03:


Art (including pcitures) is subjective.


Simple, short answer

Logicboy03:


Art (including pcitures) is subjective.


Simple, short answer

Save the drawing of the brain, and unless you wish to revert to photographs as works of art, a la the artistic photographer, the images I posted are not all necessarily works of art in the creative-artistic sense, and you know that.

For example:

I would hardly consider the image of the stone a work of art. I just googled "stone' and snatched up the first picture of a stone I saw. So its is not there in an artistic sense or for an artistic purpose.

It is rather there in a philosophic sense and for a philosophic purpose.

It seems Plaetton has succeeded in providing a lame plank for the escape of those who do not wish to think.

Everything is subjective, so there is no point in structured common thought development, therefore good night, all. Lol.

Deep Sight:

Save the drawing of the brain, and unless you wish to revert to photographs as works of art, a la the artistic photographer, the images I posted are not all necessarily works of art in the creative-artistic sense, and you know that.

For example:

I would hardly consider the image of the stone a work of art. I just googled "stone' and snatched up the first picture of a stone I saw. So its is not there in an artistic sense or for an artistic purpose.

It is rather there in a philosophic sense and for a philosophic purpose.

It seems Plaetton has succeeded in providing a lame plank for the escape of those who do not wish to think.

Everything is subjective, so there is no point in structured common thought development, therefore good night, all. Lol.

Yawn.


Take for instance, the first picture.

-could be interpeted as a man thinking
-or a man holding his mouth closed
-or a man shocked and therefore holding his mouth closed.

Logicboy03:



Yawn.


Take for instance, the first picture.

-could be interpeted as a man thinking
-or a man holding his mouth closed
-or a man shocked and therefore holding his mouth closed.

Every single option you provided is still based on the notion of thought - and still discloses a thinking being. That, as Joshthefirst noted, is one of the building blocks of thought that the image alludes to.

So you see, sometimes, you need to be careful of desperation to avoid thought - simply to preserve already held views. There is nothing in this thought development that needs to frighten you.

If you stick with Plaetton's take, there is no point in the existence of any school, as nothing can ever be known or taught objectively. As I said, it is a meaningless and purposeless - and also empty - treatise - even if found to be true!

Why don't you settle down this nice Sunday morning and simply provide your simple sincere thoughts on each image.

Cos this thread was actually meant to be a fun exercise. So even if you say its a subjective matter, it is actually okay, because it is your subjective views that I am interested in.

Deep Sight:

Every single option you provided is still based on the notion of thought - and still discloses a thinking being. That, as Joshthefirst noted, is one of the building blocks of thought that the image alludes to.

So you see, sometimes, you need to be careful of desperation to avoid thought - simply to preserve already held views. There is nothing in this thought development that needs to frighten you.

If you stick with Plaetton's take, there is no point in the existence of any school, as nothing can ever be known or taught objectively. As I said, it is a meaningless and purposeless - and also empty - treatise - even if found to be true!

Why don't you settle down this nice Sunday morning and simply provide your simple sincere thoughts on each image.

Cos this thread was actually meant to be a fun exercise. So even if you say its a subjective matter, it is actually okay, because it is your subjective views that I am interested in.

Sorry, we saw through your BS with the rock and the brain.......

Logicboy03:


Sorry, we saw through your BS with the rock and the brain.......

Now tell me what thoughts came to your mind regarding that BS. What exactly do you think I was trying to say there.

Feel free to ignore and walk away, your answers here are only as usual.

Logicboy03:


Sorry, we saw through your BS with the rock and the brain.......

In fact, just thinking about this alone seems to show up the wastefulness in this pre-emptive defence of subjectivity.

I wonder how you were able to recognize the rock as a rock and the brain as a brain.

Deep Sight:

Now tell me what thoughts came to your mind regarding that BS. What exactly do you think I was trying to say there.

Feel free to ignore and walk away, your answers here are only as usual.

lol....something to do with creationism (the pic of the rock) and god being the mind (pic of the brain)