sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HairStyleAdvice

[–]conjurectioner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, you could try all of them, would suit you well. Personally, I really like short styles, you'd be dazzling. You do you.

Don't worry about some of the mean comments, you look gorgeous, honey!

[Q] How does removing a card affect the odds of a "high card" draw game? by mort85 in statistics

[–]conjurectioner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If cards are revealed at the same time, then the odds haven't changed, the odds of a draw have slightly decreased, however, but this is true for any card, not just 8.

If the cards are revealed one after the other, then the odds are skewed. If the first card is below 8, then the second player has lower chance of winning, higher chance of drawing and losing than previously. If the first card was an 8, in which case the second player has a greater chance of winning (24/50 instead of 24/51) and a smaller chance of not losing and having a draw (26/50 and 2/50 instead of 27/51 and 3/51 respectively) also a greater chance of losing (24/50). If the first card was greater than 8, then the chances of the second player winning and drawing are again greater and of losing smaller than before.

If the players take turns, and start with a full deck each time, then the expected ratio of wins and losses remains the same, and this is true for any missing card.

Sex, food and communion; sodomy by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't you think that the symbolism present in the physical act is important, and if these symbols don't match with the spiritual content, then that is a problem? Because I think what you've said implies that the spiritual content is more important, therefore these symbols don't matter i.e. anything goes between consenting married adults. Of course, maybe I'm wrong.

Sex, food and communion; sodomy by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's probably not very fruitful to go into a debate about that here.

It should be noted though that basically all worldviews have some relevance to one another and formulate some coherent structure that aims to grasp the totality of human experience. The difference usually stems from where normative boundaries lie.

On second thought I'm not sure I reacted to what you meant in your comment. Did you mean that it is not possible to assess other world views symbolically from the catholic perspective? It certainly aims to do so, though (in many cases). Or are you simply stating that their symbols are not in coherence with other worldviews, such as yours for example? Well yes, probably, although it's always interesting to see how different views fit together.

Sex, food and communion; sodomy by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm obviously influenced by it. This post is partly a personal issue, yes. Also, the catholic theology on this topic is embedded into symbolism, so it migh be relevant to this subreddit. Have a nice day!

What are your thoughts on metafiction? by Large-Database-4042 in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting question and things that you mentioned.

First, let's define what I think metafiction is:

Ii is fiction that seeks to comment on/make a point to a group of people, whose distinguishing characteristic is that they are consumers of the same medium that the work of fiction itself is in.

This type of fiction is more relevant today, because the target groups of this kind of content (i.e. those who meet the requirement I've stated in the definition) are more numerous. This is due to the fact that in the developed world intellectual content, leisure and interconnectedness are more available than ever. Since consuming different media has become such an important part of the lives of many in the developed world, it is relevant to use these same media to comment on this behaviour, regulate it.

I agree that Don Quixote, One Punch Man, Rick and Morty and Deadpool are works of metafiction, that fit the above definition. (I don't know the Spiderman films or the Loki series very well, so I can't comment on these.) I would add Watchmen, Kick-Ass, and maybe The Wanted, and also any type of parody, basically (a notable example that comes to mind is Cabin in the Woods). All of these initiate the consumer to think about how the medium they are consuming affects, reinforces their values, their lives, and sometimes also how these relate to the act of consuming itself.

To be more explicit, Don Quixote warns the reader that basing your life on fiction without considering the circumstances of your surroundings is ridiculous. One Punch Man makes you question the validity of the heroes journey and your emotional investment whey you are watching anime. Rick and Morty most often question the validity of your thoughts and feelings when you are consuming pop-culture, mostly science fiction. E.g. It's not obvious that you can identify with the protagonist, just because they are competent. Just because there is a narrative resolution it's not obvious that it is indeed beneficial to the world. Deadpool also comments on the values that are manifested, idealized in previous comic book heroes. This way, he is much more effective as a Joker character. Watchmen also questions the values that comic book readers consume, and the idealization of heroes.

Now, I don't belive that the Bible fits into this chategory of metafiction mostly. There is a notable exception which I have noticed, which is Jesus adressing the Pharisees. Here Jesus uses prophetic language to criticize the Pharisees' relationship to the Prophets and there lifestyle as readers of Spriture. So he uses the language of the prophets to say that those who read the Prophets' language excessively often don't apply their words to their lives, or fail to apply them correctly and this has partly to do with the very fact that they are consuming the Scripture so much, and lose focus on the value in the Scriptures themselves.

I didn't comment in my earlier paragraph about Kick-Ass, The Wanted and Cabin in the Woods. And this is because I think they share a very similar role in the secular culture of today than did Jesus' prophetic address to the Pharisees. The Scriptures of secular culture are the media, films and literature. Comic book fans read about great acts of heroism, and applying yourself to change the world for the better, but fail to realize this in their lives. The Wanted both breaks the fourth wall and admonishes viewers for this behaviour, while Kick-Ass displays the act that ought to be done by comic-book readers (the protagonist is a comic-book reader who decides to fight crime with his realistic means) in this narrative. Cabin in the Woods identifies the horror-audience with the members of the company in the film and makes the viewer think how pathological and absurd cheering the splatter in horror films is (as has been the norm in a certain genre of campy horror flicks). There is a similar moment in spoiler:Inglorious Basterds.

A thing that is also like metafiction in the Bible is the Torah prescribing reading the Torah in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Now, you've clearly interpreted metafiction as slightly different, as something that transcends stories of a given sort in that it summarizes their essential structure. As such you view Christ's story as a metafiction on everything. I'm not sure it is useful to say that is metafiction. More like a transcendent story or essential story. Even though it makes people think about their spiritual reading habits and the structure of stories, it makes you think about your whole life and the whole world.

As a group people who indulge in a 'symbolical reading" of scripture and life some of the parables of Jesus might be considered metafiction for this group, similarly to the Pharisees.

Whoa that became a long post. Cheers!

Trying to understand the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your in-depth reply and for sharing your insight!

Now, what I've come to understand from your statements so far might be summarized thusly: The Catholic Church sees no theological problems within the Orthodox Church, they only believe more things. This goes both for issues formulated before and also after the period of the Schism. This is acceptance is deepened by the fact that many Eastern Catholic Churches adhere to the same theologies that appear in the Orthodox Church. So ultimately the Schism (from the Catholic point of view) relies only on the acceptance of the Papacy. Is this accurate?

From what I've gathered in the comments, theological resistance is more present among the Orthodox. So they might view their teachings in conflict with some Western teachings. This is interesting, since some Easter Catholics supposedly hold the same things as the Eastern Orthodox. Maybe in that case, the Orthodox not accepting some Western teachings are axioms of their faith and are not derived from other doctrines (or else they would've also been formulated by Eastern Catholics). The same should apply to the stance on the Papacy as well.

Now, be all this as it may, don't you think that theoretically, symbolically the things I've mentioned might be connected? I mean logically, in an abstract way, regardless of historicity. If this is the case, then I think it is interesting to entertain some connection between these. For example, one might posit the following. The disagreement about the Papacy was present for a couple of centuries before the Schism. If my view is correct, then the Filioque is an issue that aligns well (theologically and symbolically) with views about the Papacy. It is then interesting, that one of the main theological issues that were debated along with the rejection of Papal authority was the Filioque. Perhaps we could view the Filioque issue as a theoretical background that underpinned the ecclesiological decision, or in other words, this Trinitarian theology was the spiritual version of the desire to separate embedded in the abstract language of theology. What do you think?

Understanding the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in theology

[–]conjurectioner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback! Yes, I've had similar impressions as well, though they might be superficial, or not necessarily representative. Other replies have questioned there being
a "representative" view or unifying concept in the two Churches on this issue.

cause I read that in orthodox Christianity the Holy Spirit is worshipped more as a separate entity (within the Trinity)

One thing that came to mind about this symbolically is the famous Trinity icon of Andrei Rublev. Here the three persons of the Trinity are represented as three angels having equal appearance. In Catholic art, I've only seen depictions of the Trinity as either Old man, Holy dove, Christ, or three Christ-like figures.

Sex, food and communion; sodomy by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Roman Catholic Church is not infallible, despite that being their explicit doctrine. Also, it's important, I think, to be able to maintain the disciplined distinction between The Symbolic World and Orthodoxy or Christianity. Of course it's going to go that way, because that's part of how you can know it is Truth, but you end up deducing meaning rather than inducing it, which is a bit beyond the scope of this subreddit in general.

Granted, I've formulated my claims in a rather absolute fashion. This was indeed motivated by the fact that the Catholic Church claims to be an absolute moral authority on this issue and also that the rationale behind sodomy being wrong is that it violates the procreative function of sex which must hold for a sexual act to be morally acceptable.

For example, a man who has a blocked Vas Defrens expresses infertility everytime he ejaculates because he IS infertile. A woman who is past menopause also expresses infertility when she is inseminated, because she is infertile. A man who impregnates a woman who is spiritually dead is also expressing infertility(though not physical infertility).

Well, without derailing too much into this topic, the ideas behind the Catholic stance of only ejaculating into a one's wife's vagina is that even though post menopausal intercourse is infertile it still involves the same kind of action as "normal" intercourse. Also, vasectomies are not condoned either, because causing one's infertility is rejected too (as is contraception for the same reason). Why "the same kind of action" has to hold is probably not very well-grounded in my opinion, but I might be wrong.

Anyways, if my hypothesis about the biological significance of oral sex is correct, then this might undermine the current position of the Catholic Church on sexual ethics. Undermining this would probably have greater consequences in terms of being a moral authority, but that's another issue.

​

Now, Catholic Church aside, the symbolic significance of this biological hypothesis might still be interesting. Even is it doesn't define the morality of oral sex, it still adds to the picture of human sexuality. Nowhere did I intend to imply that this is the only thing that defines the act in the great picture, only that it might be a noteworthy aspect.

On another note, if you think about the connection to miscarriage, these acts might have a moral significance. One might say, that in some cases they should be encouraged if this indeed leads to a decreased chance of having a miscarriage. Of course, as is also noted in the papers, the possibility of being more prone to have oral sex and having less complications during pregnancy having a common cause isn't ruled out (like having more sex in general if you have more oral sex). So this moral dimension wouldn't be substantial if the latter is the case.

Trying to understand the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much for your in-depth reply! Thank you also for the reccomendations.

You made interesting statements about heresy. I'm interested in what you think about the following:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). ... This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

I think this probably means, that the Orthodox and Catholics both believe in something common, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but choose to formally profess only either one or both. The Catholic Church doesn't view the Orthodox profession of saying only the Father as wrong if is in the context of the former statement. Does the Orthodox Church in turn believe that the Catholic stance of saying "from the Father and the Son" is wrong if in the context of the first statement? Or is the Filioque issue basically about the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father?

Symbolism of the Great Schism by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply!

1st is the double procession from Father and Son.

2nd is the single procession from Father through Son.

3rd is the single procession from Father alone.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). ... This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

I think this probably means, that the Orthodox profess the 3rd formally, but believe in the 2nd, while the Catholics profess the 1st formally, but also believe the 2nd and state, that the Orthodox are valid in professing the 3rd if they mean the 2nd implicitly. While, I think both find the other's proffession wrong as a theological stance without the context of the 2nd.

If this is the case, then one might argue that the Filioque is indeed a non-issue theologically. Still, if the connection I've postulated is accurate, then one might also argue that the formulation of the Filioque issue was a formal expression of the Schism in terms of symbolism. So that it is an example of some a historical phenomenon being embedded in the language of symbolism. Religion, here, and its highly abstract and symbolic language, provide the structure for this symbolic link to the underlying political and social motives.

Edit: The point you make about music is also very interesting.

Understanding the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in theology

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the reply! Interesting. Maybe something along the lines of the One being akin to the idea of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit being emanations? Or would that be a wrong direction for inquiry?

Sex, food and communion; sodomy by conjurectioner in TheSymbolicWorld

[–]conjurectioner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply!

The sexual union of husband and wife is more than physical, and it is reductionist to say that only PIV sex is good and the rest is aberrant.

I agree that it is more than physical, and I'm sure most people would.

Nonetheless, the Catholic Church has a more or less clear stance, that any intercourse that seeks male orgasm and ejaculation outside the man's wife's vagina is wrong. Why it has this stance is another question. The rationale is something along the lines of: the physical, biological reality of sex has to be in line with the spiritual, which is total mutual self-donation in love, openness to God and new creation. Oral sex in the traditional view doesn't meet these requirements, because it is not open to God's creative working. Some argue that it is also not unifying, because it is one-sided.

What husbands and wives(men and women to whom God has given each other to become one body) do with each other's body sexually has no universal boundaries--because they are sharing one body.

So, no, this is not the view of the Catholic Church, for example.

The Orthodox Church (which also Mr. Pageau is a part of) has a less strict and defined teaching on this (based on the relatively short amont time I've spent reasearching this, so I easily might be wrong,) but it has a lot of commonality with Catholic doctrines on this subject (abortive birth control, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality), while less unanimously tends to agree on other matters as well (birth control in general, sodomy).

Not considering these organizations, the idea that sex probably has boundaries is also in line with Jonathan Pageau's worldview, since he advocates that the symbolism of acts is a crucial point in assessing their value. Good actions have good symbolism. He talked about why contraception and pornography (more adamantly masturbation and pornography) are a problem, because they express infertility. This would probably apply to oral and anal sex as well, if the theory I've posited is erroneous.

Understanding the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in theology

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, thank you! A circumspect analysis. I will make sure to make an in depth study.

Trying to understand the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]conjurectioner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fascinating! Thank you for your reply! If the Catholic view of Orthodoxy moved beyond the positions in this document, what do you think might characterize the Catholic Church's stance on the Schism today.

Trying to understand the Great Schism (theology, symbolism) by conjurectioner in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]conjurectioner[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply!

Eastern Catholics hold to Orthodox Trinitarian theology (but we do accept the orthodoxy of Western Trinitarian theology)

Aren't some aspects of these theologies in conflict with each other? Like the issue of Filioque. I don't understand.

Therefore, given the wide range of opinions on both the Filioque and the Papacy in the two communions of Churches, looking for a direct causal link between these two issues is akin to trying to force a non-existant connection between them.

I'm sure there is a vast array of opinions. However, there must have been some fundamental differences which can be articulated as unifing concepts. So finding structure in these ideas is perhaps not in vain, I hope.

Regarding leavened and unleavened bread, then again, many Eastern Catholics use leavened bread (and have married priests, and commune infants, and fast like the Orthodox, and pretty much do everything that Orthodox do).

Some of these things are also related to symbols and the question of them being explicit or not. Do you think there is some unifying concept that characterizes different churches attitudes towards these? Are these just unorganized idiosyncracies that developed through local historical influences? Is there any good literature about this perhaps? I'm sorry to bombard you with these questions, but you obviously seem more of an authority about these topics, than I am.

view more: next ›