The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[nino_savatte]

Quelle surprise. Nino fails to make contribution shocker. Nino responds with bizarre and irrelevent inquiries as to his interlocutor's knowledge of Foucault shocker. Actually, that reminds me--what *is* it with you and Foucault? You ask this question--"ever read Foucault?"--of loads of people, in various different contexts, but you never say why it's important. What are you thinking of? I have indeed read *all* of Foucault, so I might be able to help you out here. What is it that bothers you about the baldie frog?

Quelle surprise, phil fails to read the post becase the voices in his head are competing for attention. You can't even tell when someone is taking the piss.

This post is proof of your intent on this thread.

So what is it with you and 'God'? I think you're lying when you claim that you aren't a Xtian or another sort of religious nutcase.

I've read plenty of Foucault btw. I don't need your 'help'.

 

[phildwyer]

I've read plenty of Foucault btw. I don't need your 'help'.

Well, why are you raising him here? I can actually see why he *might* be relevent, but I don't think you can. I think this is just another example of your petty one-upmanship, and a further attempt to derail this thread by carefully introducing sly diversions.

 

[fractionMan]

You could totaly derail this 'take the piss out of phildwyer' thread by posting up your proof. Oh silly me, you already have, and it was crap.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, why are you raising him here? I can actually see why he *might* be relevent, but I don't think you can. I think this is just another example of your petty one-upmanship, and a further attempt to derail this thread by carefully introducing sly diversions.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Originally Posted by anonymous
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

You hate it when someone plays you at your own game don't you?

 

[parallelepipete]

the baldie frog

Academician Dwyer at his finest.

 

[nino_savatte]

Academician Dwyer at his finest.

Priceless, isn't he?

 

[Loki]

Where's god?

 

[parallelepipete]

Where's god?

 

[articul8]

The performative sign is the linguistic corrolary of financial value

Where does Austin refer to a "performative sign" as opposed to a performative utterance? I understand the latter perfectly, but I don't know what would be meant be the former.

Note how Marx describes the imposition of exchange-value upon use-value (of which financial value is the instrument) as an *unnatural* imposition of sign upon essence. [...]So a capitalist economy is a *supernatural* economy, which works by imposing human concepts and signs on natural objects.

And you seem here to draw the bizzare conclusion that since the sign/referent relationship is not given in nature, it is therefore "supernatural". It is nothing of the sort - it is arbitrary and contingent.

 

[118118]

Many would argue that love is very different from all other ideas, would you think that it was made of another substance? So its not just that fv is different, there must be something particular about the properties of power malignancy which sets fv apart as another substance? Where is your justification for this?

What makes you think that fv is a representation, an abstraction, and, why can a representation an abstract concept not be explained by physical processes? Because it’s a representation, an abstraction. Great.

 

[Jo/Joe]

That would imply that to correctly define something as a hallucination a correct concept of reality is sufficient, which in this case Z Word says we have.

No, he says reality is a hallucination. If that's his correct concept of reality then were stuck aren't we?

 

[phildwyer]

Just heard from my publisher, and the book on which this thread is based is definitely coming out next Fall! Who wants to go in the acknowledgements then?

 

[axon]

I hope you don't use the term "rational proof" in the title of book. You may be done under the trade descriptions act.

 

[phildwyer]

I hope you don't use the term "rational proof" in the title of book. You may be done under the trade descriptions act.

Actually the title's still under negotiation. Any suggestions? <runs, hides>

 

[Loki]

Just heard from my publisher, and the book on which this thread is based is definitely coming out next Fall! Who wants to go in the acknowledgements then?

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[bluestreak]

any update on god?

have we got there yet?

 

[Loki]

Just arrived at a petrol station, there's a McDs where you can have wee wees.

 

[phildwyer]

Thanks but no thanks.

Heh, you're *definitely* in there mate.

 

[Loki]

 

[inks]

"Actually the title's still under negotiation. Any suggestions?"

God - The Usurer's Guide

 

[Purdie]

Actually the title's still under negotiation. Any suggestions? <runs, hides>

If Voltaire's not copyrighted you could always call it:

"God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh"

 

[fractionMan]

The idiots guide to the existence of god.

 

[nino_savatte]

Thanks but no thanks.

For an author, he seems far too lazy to do his own work.

 

[Fruitloop]

What I meant was that, by the end of the twentieth century, financial value was widely recognized to be independent of the material tokens that are used to represent it. The last vestiges of materiality have departed from it, and value is now revealed as a purely imaginary, but nonetheless real and powerful, force. It is also revealed to be pure representation, a system of signs that function independently of any material referents.

This is just complete and utter nonsense. Nothing can be bought with imaginary money - go into your nearest shop and give it a crack if you disagree. The difference between weights of grain in gold, fixed denominations of gold on paper money, and denominations of a particular currency in an electronic database are merely that they are expressed by a different technology, in the same way that a novel is the same on papyrus, newsprint or a floppy disk; it's obvious to those without a weird axe to grind that the meaning is just the same, although the method of storage is different. Once the bank account is empty, the effect on the 'imaginary money' represented by cheques and bankcards is remarkeably similar to running out of paper money or gold - no magical reproduction takes place there! (more's the pity).

 

[butchersapron]

I suspect that he may well be referring to the enormous growth in fictitious capital over the last 35 years or so here, but i really can't be bothered to go back and check the rest of the thread - just popping into see where we'd got to:

Fictitious Capital, Real Retrogression

Fictitious Capital and the Crisis Theory

Fictitious Capital and the Transition Out of Capitalism

 

[Fruitloop]

If that's what he means then he should say so, rather than this 'capital magically reproducing itself in a bank account' horseshit. IMHO

 

[Poi E]

I thought this shit only took 6 days! Or was that something else?

Fictitious money? Default on your mortgage and see.

 

[phildwyer]

If that's what he means then he should say so, rather than this 'capital magically reproducing itself in a bank account' horseshit. IMHO

Actually, I think that the language of magic and sorcery are the most appropriate terms in which to discuss capitalism, and I use it advisedly. But Butchers is basically right--I'd only qualify this by saying that "fictitious capital" is actually a misnomer. *All* capital, *all* financial value, is fictitious. The postmodern forms of capital merely *reveal* this Truth to everyone. As I've said before, the illusory nature of value is the finest example in all human history of a Revealed Truth. The fact that value is human life in alienated form is another Revealed Truth, but it is not yet universally accepted. These two Truths combined already bring us more than halfway to proving that value is a spirit, not an idea.

 

[phildwyer]

God - The Usurer's Guide

I love it! I'd love to include this whole thread as an appendix, but I don't think I'm allowed to, even if the publisher can be talked into it. I'd certainly be more likely to buy such a book, though.

 

[butchersapron]

Actually, I think that the language of magic and sorcery are the most appropriate terms in which to discuss capitalism, and I use it advisedly.

"Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."