getfiscal posted:babyfinland posted:you're flattening the question out by asserting that the big Other is God, which i don't think is lacan's position.
lol dude you just claimed that atheism was unintelligible because the big Other was based on a monotheistic ontology
well if i did then that's a fault pf my own clumsiness and not lacan's argument; i'm not that well versed in lacan anyway (as you know)
Superabound posted:babyfinland posted:catharism was the dominant faith of the occitan aristocracy you noob
i just read three books about this dont even frontwhich they came into of their own free will. Catharism wasnt militaristically evengelical, the clergy held no power over anything other than the message and the spirit. They did not force populaces into the official state religion as the Roman church did.
Catharism won in the open marketplace of ideas, not on the blood-drenched battlefields where the Catholic church excelled. And for this they had to be eradicated
The Romans realized that they had killed the Body of Christ but not the Spirit
this is utterly wrong
catharism was an elitist sect that opposed certain tithes the church had begun to demand. thats its appeal. cathar believers had a tenuous grasp on cathar doctrine, the perfects were corrupt or monastic perverts and cathar believers tended to simultaneously identify with and perform catholic religion as well. read montaillou. gnosticism is for teen wiccans
Edited by babyfinland ()
"One of the standard topics of today's conservative cultural critique is that, in our permissive era, children lack firm limits or prohibitions. This lack frustrates them, driving them from one to another excess. It is only a firm limit set up by some symbolic authority that can guarantee stability and satisfaction - satisfaction brought about by way of violating the prohibition, of transgressing the limit. To render clear the way denegation functions in the unconscious, Freud evoked a reaction of one of his patients to a dream of his centred around an unknown woman: 'Whoever this woman in my dream is, I know it is not my mother.' A clear negative proof, for Freud, that the woman was his mother. What better way to characterize today's typical patient than to imagine his opposite reaction to the same dream: 'Whoever this woman in my dream was, I am sure it has something to do with my mother!'
Traditionally, psychoanalysis was expected to allow the patient to overcome the obstacles which prevented him/her the access to normal sexual satisfaction: if you are not able to "get it," go to the analyst who will enable you to get rid of your inhibitions. Today, however, we are bombarded from all sides by different versions of the injunction "Enjoy!", from direct enjoyment in sexual performance to enjoyment in professional achievement or in spiritual awakening. Jouissance today effectively functions as a strange ethical duty: individuals feel guilty not for violating moral inhibitions by way of engaging in illicit pleasures, but for not being able to enjoy. In this situation, psychoanalysis is the only discourse in which you are allowed not to enjoy - not prohibited to enjoy, but just relieved of the pressure to enjoy." - snuffles
i mean other than bobby mcferrin
hahahahahahahahah
ok man i do becose iam muslem
aser1111 17 hours ago
full circle
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i still don't really understand why God allows so much suffering
you'd think a benevolent God would have stopped you from posting
Goethestein posted:that's like 22 humans and one demon for every two angels, i like those odds
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i still don't really understand why God allows so much suffering
Good point.,, makes you think
babyfinland posted:this is utterly wrong
catharism was an elitist sect that opposed certain tithes the church had begun to demand. thats its appeal. cathar believers had a tenuous grasp on cathar doctrine, the perfects were corrupt or monastic perverts and cathar believers tended to simultaneously identify with and perform catholic religion as well. read montaillou. gnosticism is for teen wiccans
lol nice revisionism, popelover
Superabound posted:btw its Bons Hommes you freakin bigot
no, technically its parfait or perfeti, "goodmen" was a colloquial term for them and also non-cathar holy men. noob
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i still don't really understand why God allows so much suffering
so this can happen
babyfinland posted:Superabound posted:btw its Bons Hommes you freakin bigot
no, technically its parfait or perfeti, "goodmen" was a colloquial term for them and also non-cathar holy men. noob
Perfecti was outsider terminology and catty sarcasm, slanderously implying that the bons hommes both claimed perfection (they did not) while decadently falling short of it. if you could pull your lips away from your gold-trimmed vicar's robe for five seconds maybe you would know a thing
Superabound posted:babyfinland posted:Superabound posted:btw its Bons Hommes you freakin bigot
no, technically its parfait or perfeti, "goodmen" was a colloquial term for them and also non-cathar holy men. noob
Perfecti was outsider terminology and catty sarcasm, slanderously implying that the bons hommes both claimed perfection (they did not) while decadently falling short of it. if you could pull your lips away from your gold-trimmed vicar's robe for five seconds maybe you would know a thing
according to who?
babyfinland posted:according to who?
non-papists
tpaine posted:
i watched this whole thing
babyfinland posted:catharism was the dominant faith of the occitan aristocracy you noob
i just read three books about this dont even front
oh wow you read three whole books. three books! thats WAY better than acting as a spiritual conduit for several long-dead Cathars during solemn rituals occuring regularly over the course of your entire adult life. fuck me, if only i had read THREE BOOKS instead. what a fucking shortcut! we got ourselves a regular fucking Roald Amundsen over here!
tpaine posted:i read three books too. penthouse letters vol. 1, penthouse letters vol. 2, and fuck and destroy by Johnsonville "Brat" Christee
@Tom - I can see where you're coming from wrt the whole wanting to defend the truth from the various dipshits who post on this forum but, really, shouldn't you know better than to waste time on this by now?
