Monday, December 14, 2015

Action vs. Intention 2


Imagine a table with two columns. In one column, you have action. And in the other column, you have intention. In one column, you have a lowly podcaster proclaiming the need for a new ethical approach toward life and the world. And in the other column, you have the sum-total of established religious, philosophical, and scientific theory.

 

Now you must choose a column … And choose wisely! …

 

Or just listen to this episode. And follow Ethan down the rabbit hole of postmodern implication.

 

 

This episode features music by The Silent Partner, which can be found here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/music

 

This episode also features a slightly modified sound effect, that can be found here: 

 

http://freesound.org/people/Timbre/sounds/90964/

 

 

 

 

 


Check out this episode!

Written Dialogue: Action vs. Intention

Ethan: I first came up with this idea when a friend of mine challenged me on our Golden Rule episode. He took issue with our dismissal of Jesus' teaching: "love thy neighbor as you would yourself." We got into a rather puzzling exchange about the difference between loving they neighbor and performing acts of love toward him. I kept insisting that you cannot separate the two, that once you tell somebody to love they neighbor, you are telling him to perform a series of tasks. As a reminder, my objection to the golden rule is that it does not go far enough. That one ought to do unto others as THEY would have you do unto them. And even with this, you have some problems. But in any case, my friend’s objection centered around the notion that, if you love someone the way you love yourself, then everything else will follow. That DOING does not figure into it at all. Or, I should say, the doing is a byproduct of the loving. If I understood him correctly, love is a mode of being that determines an appropriate method of doing, no matter the circumstances.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Action vs. Intention 1


Opinions can change. So can podcast formats. And in this episode, The Trio does both! …
Okay, to be honest, the format changes more than the opinions do. It is Ethan and Zach after all! But in any case, the Trio once more take up The Golden Rule. Only this time, they take a decidedly Christian view of it. Is it possible to “love” thy neighbor in the abstract without demonstrating your love in the real world? Is it possible to take an uncut conversation between two zany philosophers and provide a reasoned voiceover explaining what the heck is going on?!? Find out the answer, and a whole lot more, on this episode of The Ethan and Zach Trio.

 

Featuring music by The Silent Partner.

 

 


Check out this episode!

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Written Dialogue: Loneliness

Zach: I think this will be the last of a series of topics I choose in order to help people relate to me and my philosophy. Having made enough episodes in order to convey who I am to people (this being the last one), I can now choose topics in a more distanced way, or engage more vigorously in what topics you have chosen, trying to nurture them into being as compelling as possible. A whole episode devoted to loneliness and I will have made my peace with conveying my inner nature to the audience.

Monday, October 5, 2015

The Sexiness of Loneliness


The Trio discuss how loneliness, one of the most painful human experiences, is also one of the most important. Meanwhile, Joseph Campbell reveals the secret of the next Abraham Lincoln. Robert A. Johnson's books Inner Gold: Understanding Psychological Projection; and Balancing Heaven and Earth are discussed, and "Zach Tollen, Asteroid, No Home Planet" is explained.


Check out this episode!

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Written Dialogue: Sense of Potentialities

Ethan: This is the sort of topic that I'm willing to let drift on the waves of our conjoined psyche, landing where it will. Perhaps on a lonely island, bereft of human touch. Perhaps on the loading dock of a world-wide intellectual trading hub.

It begins, though, with a simple premise, one that we have all experienced. You are walking down the street and you see a beautiful woman in the distance. As the two of you approach each other, a smile passes over her lips as your eyes meet. For a moment, you consider stopping. "Hi, what's your name," you would have asked. But you don't. Instead, the moment passes, as so many do, and she becomes nothing more than a memory...

Or is she more than that? 

Written Dialogue: Definition of God

Zach: Well, I'll go with the big topic rather than the little one. So: God. Basically, the dilemma for someone like me is to decide whether to say I believe in God or not. Carl Jung got caught in this trap, because a brash interviewer caught him saying, "I don't believe. I know." But what he was really saying was that belief was useless to him, that there was no point in having beliefs, since they aren't based on anything one can know. But since then, Christians in particular (I literally had a Catholic PRIEST quote that line of Jung's to me one time) have projected onto Jung someone essentially like them. When they say "God," they mean a good, all knowing and all powerful God. But Jung's God was a lot more of an objective force than some sweet loving god with a plan. But it doesn't matter, because he got caught, and now all people who believe in God will think they have Jung as an ally.