These assessors, thinking they “have it down”, lack the insight, to see, their entire life has been a compromise of integrity, values, ethics: bereft of any standards that a true gnostic will hold themselves to. living an entire life essentially of failures (various kinds) stepped in deceit, lack of love/affection, consideration, violence (all kinds : a life plagued by all kinds of insecurities and failed attempts to mask it… — skyblack

So, this 'true gnostic', are you one of that kind?

What?

What is the formula? How is that not a vote for fascism?

Lame response.

I don't know what I am reacting to.
You cloak yourself in mystery.

Or is all of this conformity to the highest degree? You have confirmed to everything. Your society, to ideologies, to your flag, to religions ( or its opposite), to narratives, to your philosophies, to your world views, to your prejudices and biases, to the apathy of your old age, to your lack of integrity, to your experiences, to your knowledge. — skyblack

Your hand sweeps broadly against your perceived opponents. You seem to claim a gnosis of your own against all others.

The US does not have a 'none of the above' option in their slates. Some states are trying forms of ranked voting to alter how run-off elections work.

How it is done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCpTi0EtbU

In the Gospel of Thomas, self-knowledge is related to poverty and wealth. Whether you follow a denomination or not, this idea is a powerful player in the way we view outcomes. Can my understanding change my fate?

He did it lonely in the darkness of his job staying apart from television or looks. It was a solemn and respectful act. This was the main critical action against politics I have ever seen in my life. — javi2541997

And now this private decision is being given public notice. That is a political message.

Then how do you see the withdrawal from the legal right to vote as making change more possible?

If the decision is not connected to a means of change, is not the refusal an acceptance of the service you find so revolting?

So it could be said that refusing to vote is tantamount to refusing to sign over our lives to other men. — NOS4A2

If that is what is said, it is a very private statement. Other men will gladly accept your silence as submission.

If everybody withdraws from the selection of representatives and agents of the state, how is that an opportunity for change? Or do you wish for a war of all against all? That condition would guarantee a change but not much choice.

I started with a number of religious influences but understood them mostly in terms of psychology. That is to say, it was a desire to understand my experience as my experience.

My first encounters with philosophical writings began the wonder of where this experience was happening. So, I think Aristotle is right about how natural it is to wonder about our circumstances.

What is 'natural' beyond that is difficult to comprehend. I want things I am ill equipped to provide.

His idea that one cannot really say anything of "sense" when it comes to ethics, values, and aesthetics, is something that cannot be discussed, is to me, not radical but simply the formal version of the common man's idea of "Well, that's just your opinion, man". — schopenhauer1

The emphasis that agency is not given is what I understood by the separation. As a theory of language, do we learn it as starting with units or are they resolved into focus over time?

I figure it is a fair question that requires it being asked for its own sake, if you will.

I am not sure how to distinguish between willful ending of life from choosing to not defend life. I have one old friend who fought to the last and another who did not. They are both dead now.

Thomas is an odd factor. To some degree, he is anti-federalist about many of these issues. He wants a constitutional restriction upon what can be granted as rights.by states. He seems to be working on having rights for women to be bracketed the way the Hatch decision for gun rights superseded local control.

Yes, sending the matter to the states permits different laws in different places. But the legality of laws is a big part of what the Supreme Court has to figure out. Now that all of the precedents built from Roe vs Wade have been struck down, we don't know how far the Court will go. Or to be precise, they don't know far they can go.

That's what happens in this forum, when I point out the falsities which are currently abundant in mathematics and physics. People here say, the principles serve their purposes, so unless I have something better to offer, forget about criticizing those conventions. But since the principles serve their purposes, no one is inclined to look for better ones. Therefore it is necessary to first recognize the principles as bad, and destroy the bad principles, thereby providing the necessary conditions for the development of better ones. The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

What does destroying a bad principle look like? I understand skepticism. I get the idea that we live in our time of ideas. But what does destroying a bad principle look like?

As I understand it, the exclusion of other views of the divine characterizes the Pauline version of Christianity.
So, the question of what might be seen as included has the problem of being cast out at the beginning..

I rewatched Ivan the Terrible recently. The language is closer to Putin's than even Stalin's.

With Eisenstein, of course, it is all mixed up with each other.

I think restraint is a part of it. One has so many more options if one can slow down the reactions.
A lot of inventing is about giving oneself more time. A situation seems impossible, and we tread water and combine ideas to see the problem a different way. Patience as a result of urgent demands.

That aspect is a feature in parenting as a model. It goes both ways.

I wonder if the matter of history was the bone of contention in the idea of 'structure.' For instance, one could be skeptical of the progressions Hegel described and not claim the result was a matter of pure chance.

What Chalmer is trying to do as a scientist does not dissolve the use of the "I." Isn't the immediacy of experience a given quality in the discussion?

We have other experiences that serve as evidence in scientific inquiry. For instance, when we try to understand why certain things hurt, it doesn't make the hurt less like hurt to treat it as a result of a process. There is a considerable difference between being able to explain some of a phenomenon and explaining it away.

So, you have never betrayed a friend, kissed the ass of a boss, represented your failures in the best possible light, or deferred blame to another as long as it wasn't you?

Are you not presented with moral dilemmas beyond trying to be polite?

How does that relate to the norms you referred to?

Does that mean you don't fiercely hold what you consider to be correct in your encounters?

I think Foucault's Care of Self works are an important advance toward seeing how the matter of personal well-being played an important part in different classical texts as a preface to the emphasis given to it today.

That being said, I wonder whether the notions of what health is changes in the various ways morality is established.

The Bush neocons broke the application of international law and the usefulness of the U.N. The hubris expressed was that it was only the fist that kept the peace. But it turns out that the "pottery barn" rule of Powell is also not true. Break something enough, it stays broken, no matter who owns it. There is no refund desk. None of that blood increased the size of the 'sphere of influence.'

Now Putin is working the same logic and hopes for a better return. The ever elusive 'facts on the ground moves forward like the mechanical lure in a Greyhound race.

It's a crisis, which is fearful, but at the same time you get to experience the universe stripped of false gods, which is exhilarating. — hypericin

That well describes my experience as a parent. A sharp reduction of arrogance. There is still something to keep between generations.

Perhaps you could expand upon that since you put so much emphasis on subjectivity being a 'Christian' thing.

What about my suggestion that thinkers have been struggling with 'consciousness' well before the Middle Ages?

The first thing it suggests to me is that the investigation of what consciousness is did not start with a 'Christian' idea of the subject. Plato talks a lot about what we cannot verify for sure. His confidence that he can rely upon himself to decide is an affirmation of sorts. He may not know much but he affirms that he is someone who could know.

You don't mention Descartes, but it seems like he would be the exemplar of what you object to. He put the personal experience of the 'real' directly against what can be verified. Is that a Christian thing in your understanding?

What to make of the 'know thyself' impetus in Plato? Our existence as evidence of some kind.

Do you not have the experience of being stuck with yourself? Your life and your death are yours alone, no matter who grieves or not after your end. The singularity of your experience is that nobody else will witness it as you do.

Is that not a phenomenon that should be looked into?

I agree that making a neat distinction is impossible. The question I hear Chalmers asking is how does one practice science in this environment. The use of models presumes the presence of beings that function according to their nature. There is value in the distinction, even if it does not unlock the secrets of all creation.

The phenomena must be measurable, and events must be repeated to check models for viability. That such phenomena yield results of this kind is no promise of a clear separation between 'subject and object'.

And if the process of investigating this issue doesn't help separate the two qualities, it won't help us unify them either.

Really, I see the hard problems as a direct critique at Materialism. Materialism proposes that everything is material or abstractions of material. There is no room for "inner aspects" because that itself is not material. The map becomes confused with the territory. Or perhaps, the territory has no room for the specific kind of territory and we are back to square one. — schopenhauer1

Chalmer's work does not insist upon figuring out the limit of the physical but is interested in building models where consciousness is the function of something we are given phenomena to explore. The 'physical' is not a given packet of phenomena.

The problem is 'hard' because of correspondence. The success of scientific methods is that models fit the objects being pursued by restricting what is counted as an event. Our given experience of being conscious beings is an event. Can it be understood in the way other phenomena are understood? Or attempted to be understood?

A good performance of War Requiem: