People don't communicate -truth itself-, they communicate their beliefs about the things they think are true. — flannel jesus

Yes, precisely. And more to the point, for me, is ... we should all stop LYING to each other about 'knowing'. These false pretenses are doing us great harm. And we claim to be lovers of wisdom.

I have social issues every time I HONESTLY say, I am not 100% certain guys, but I am fairly sure this is true ...' because socially ... idiots ... respond much better to certainty. The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear.

Fear as an emotion is rooted in the need for comfort and certainty. And certainty is absurd. Sp, by pandering to that fear, we cause more problems than we really solve. Fear is always, when served in this fashion, a cowardly short-cut to wisdom, to truth, that is a lie, a delusion, an immoral mistake.

You presumably don't know that...
There is no knowledge!
— Chet Hawkins — Banno

Admittedly true. But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief.

That is to say I believe it is impossible to be objectively correct. It is critically important NOT to prevaricate/equivocate by saying 'I am being objective' AS IF you are perfect. Nope!

The correct statement (to me) is 'We cannot know anything so much as we know that knowing requires perfection and what is considered knowledge is therefore only belief'.

"Knowledge" is a very funny word. People try to formalize it in all sorts of weird ways, but I think most people, when they say they "know" something, mean pretty much the same thing as "I believe it, and I'm really really really confident of my belief."

It can't go unnoticed how various people "know" things that contradict what other people "know" as well. Some people know that Jesus is King, other people know Muhammad was the last prophet, other people know Krishna is the eighth avatar of Vishnu.

So if we just look at how the word "know" is used, it's used to refer to extreme confidence (or even extreme faith). It's just a privileged type of belief, privileged specifically by the person with that belief such that they place it above beliefs they have that they don't call "knowledge". — flannel jesus

Exactly! I agree and THAT is my point.

I like your additions to the concepts.

Some methodologies are better than others. — Bylaw

You acknowledged the central point, though. And I am down with your qualifications, as well, not therefore.

It would better be put “there is only belief.” Or “there is no knowledge.” — Fire Ologist

I fairly well agree. When I spoke of knowledge in that sense I erred. That is to say, colloquial knowledge, what most people call knowledge is only a well of beliefs, a set of beliefs.

But you are CORRECT that if I say we can't know, that such a thing is impossible, then indeed (i am saying) there is only belief. There is no knowledge! Acknowledged!

And if I had had the time, I would have bubbled belief around the word fact to show its inclusion in the belief set (properly).

So are you saying that a fact which claims to be nothing more than a belief is better than a fact that claims to be something more than a belief? — Leontiskos

No, not quite.
There are three levels in there.
Knowing
Fact
Belief

At least the 'fact' part is SUPPOSED to have due diligence. But so often it does not, in terms of validation. Further, knowing is elusive, distant, impossible most likely. So fact is closer to 'just' belief than it is to 'knowing'. We just don't even really know how hard knowing is.

That is TRUE and more factual than most facts, because as a part of that fact we ALREADY INCLUDE the flexibility that fact is only belief. — Chet Hawkins

That is the single statement (among others) most able to show that I already did that work.

(And I assume you mean "controvertible" rather than "incontrovertible") — Leontiskos

No I meant what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. My feets is already there.

What makes the softer claim incontrovertible is that it effectively says very little upon which we can certainly depend. It is similar to saying, 'The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything!' THAT we can know which is ... not really so comforting, but, it is in a way.

Juxtaposition IS NOT contradiction. Muddle that one through.

In the sense that it provides no information about how or why some facts are better than others. — Leontiskos

Ah but of course it does. You have to do some of the work!

And the REAL bite here is I DID already do that work.

The flexibility of belief being included in the concept definition of fact SOFTENS the fact to make it incontrovertible. Were facts 'knowing', they would partake of the nature of perfection. But they are not.
So if we properly state that facts are only a subset of beliefs we are on safer ground. Doubt is properly maintained.

An important but vague claim. — Leontiskos

Well you walked into this one:
Someone who 'knows' (ha ha), observes, claims, that this is vague SHOULD be able to say how so.

Well, you kind of backed off on your position I think.

When you dither, I cannot tell what you mean to say or write or believe.

although I also think that much of what is generally considered to be knowledge might be more accurately classed as belief. — Janus

So, perhaps we are more kindred spirits waiting to fight and then we end up drinking a beer together talking about ex girlfriends.

OK, so

All facts are a subset of all beliefs.
Knowledge is not knowing and the word 'to know' is stupid therefore. It implies a failure in understanding.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" - Voltaire was right.

Perfection is knowing. Is ANYONE perfect? (Yes I caps YELL in text to show emphasis. It's more natural to me and appealing to my anger nature than is doing ctrl-I for Italics emphasis. )

Most people describe me as offensive, not defensive. They are neither one correct. But everyone is free to use their set of beliefs.

We all operate in life only from a well of beliefs.

What distinguishes a 'fact' from a belief is that THAT PERSON ONLY (<--- yup) has decided that enough evidence exists to make that fact iota something that is fairly far along the match curve towards infinity, e.g. perfection. For them its a fact.

The fact that many people share the same facts has not so much bearing on the factuality of any fact. As a matter of fact, 'facts' are always wrong in some way. That is TRUE and more factual than most facts, because as a part of that fact we ALREADY INCLUDE the flexibility that fact is only belief.

That leads to an interesting quandary whereby you can claim that most facts are only beliefs, but THAT fact is made more factual, if you follow, which might lead one to say that such a fact was incontrovertible.

The latter type of 'fact' is BETTER in some way than other 'facts' are.

So that is the basis of this argument and in brief, obviously.

So I could/should rest on that statement alone as it is incontrovertible.

But the quislings out there will want to retreat behind 'facts' and 'knowledge' delusions. So, it's best I turn my hat around and address the concepts more thoroughly.

But let's take this outside.

This is a thread on Existentialism and there is enough pseudo derail here already, and indeed, I am as much to blame as anyone. So, if you start a new thread, I'll jump in and we can go go go!

↪Chet Hawkins You seem very defensive. Capitalizations and implied insults so quickly delivered! An observation is not a claim, unless there is a reason to question what has been observed. I see you making claims like 'free will is fundamental to the universe' and 'philosophy is generally based on fear', and I see no reason to question the fact that I have observed you making these claims.

Are these merely your beliefs or do you have some knowledge to support them? If they are merely your personal beliefs, they may or may not be interesting, but the fact alone that you believe them does not constitute a reason why anyone else should share your belief as far as I can see. — Janus

Knowledge is only belief.

That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida... — Tom Storm

Nietzsche could claim some 'success', it seems. His voice can be heard amid more 'common' walks of life, in activism, in music, etc.

Awareness, in general, is blossoming everywhere. And counter-awareness, anger and desire, the many streams that overthrow any indoctrinated prison, are more in evidence. But often they are casual, un-profound and perhaps in an infancy of sorts. Still, the occasional work out there shows great wisdom, great rejuvenation of the dead God.

An observation is certainly a claim, as in a recitation of the senses AS IF they are accurate.
And missing the point is what you did there, JUST an observation, right?
If you have specific performative contradictions you want to discuss, have the SPINE to mention them, and I will explain for your benefit.

For someone who claims not to know anything, you certainly make a lot of very definite claims. Does performative contradiction not bother you? — Janus

It does. Does making a claim in the blind with no specific reference bother you?

I have long suspected that we embrace ideas which appeal to us aesthetically and emotionally but we take them as facts. Sounds like you relish notions of perfection and objectivity, two ideas I don't find convincing. I recognize that humans love their absolutes and their god surrogates. No point arguing further since there's no common ground. :wink: — Tom Storm

In a way, I agree. But the way I agree is expressed well enough by Milton for me to allow him to make my argument here for or with me:

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Truth is strong!" - Milton

In fact, I will add that truth is PERFECTLY strong.

Seems like you don’t understand the point made. No matter. I can’t speak for him but Josh’s does not subscribe to notions of ‘objective truth’ and I would be sympathetic to this. I certainly don’t believe in perfection. — Tom Storm

I do very much understand what he is saying. It seems to be a trend these days that if people do understand and disagree then others claim they just don't understand. I get that such a position would be tempting.

But, I responded in a way that showed that I do understand. Not everyone does that.

His quote says that 'the truth isnt about what is objectively real.' Then he goes on to explain that feelings (other than facts) are not informed or perhaps not just informed by objective reality.

And your statement is incomprehensible as well. If we are not motivated by perfection, by truth; ideas which are synonymous, then what is the source of these motivations? It cannot JUST be internal. There has to be resonance with the external. I would likewise say it cannot just be external.

But Joshs seems to insist that objective reality, that which truly is, should be destressed. That is precisely backwards and nonsensical. It gives credence to choices that are NOT based in truth. In other words he is advocating for immorality, for error. It's actually quite clear. Does he mean that? I doubt it. But it IS what he finally said. And again I would ask him or you, since you seem enamored of his idea enough to quote the SAME quote, or parts of it, twice in a row, what the heck are these feelings based on?

For me the answer is that they are ONLY based on objective truth, perfection, and, DESPITE that, moral agents like people are free to choose amid the guarantee of free will and they so often choose wrongly and thus immorally not to source their feelings OR FACTS in objective truth, but instead on their cowardice, self-indulgence, and laziness.

At this point I am just trying to clarify.

This is something I'll mull over. Notice that in this account the truth isn't just about what's objectively real. It's also about how we feel about and intuit events. If something matches our expectations and values, we accept it as true. And our feelings, such as apprehension or satisfaction, signify whether things are in line with what we believe. I think this circle of interpretation is helpful to consider in the ceaseless debates about gods or politics.

What it says about existentialism I can't tell you as I find Sartre unreadable. — Tom Storm

OMG you call Sartre unreadable and you ... repeated the vomitous word salad of Joshs? What?

The thing to realize is IT IS JUST about what is objectively real. If you want to 'credit' inaccurate feelings that is hopefully not what anyone is talking about. That is JUST the licentiousness of over expressed desire. We do seem to live in a culture in the West these days more than ever before where every ridiculous desire is given credence. No! That's a horrible idea and again, hopefully not what even someone so pointlessly verbose and affected as Joshs is means.

He is saying instead and I hope (properly) that objective truth in fact DOES inform our feelings ... equally to our mere logic and the resulting facts that logic can and usually does draw. These 'facts' are taken then as conclusions and they are anything but.

There is only one conclusion in the metaverse and that is love, the whole system, perfection, etc. No matter the path you take to it, its perfection is finally the only thing that INFORMS choice. Choices, Choice, can foolishly partake of only one of these paths or some of each path but to the wrong degree. Such imbalances strike the missing emotions as wrong. That results in such things as he mentions, anxiety, confusion and satisfaction, all states or consequences of immoral actions and beliefs.

:up: I find this frame particularly rich and interesting. — Tom Storm

I mean, as long as there is a vomitorium nearby and I can hurl up the remains of any brief attempt at digesting that word salad, and then teams of well weaned soothsayers sift and arrange the remains of that effort into a new faith that we then ignore, ... I agree.

I do actually agree, although the word 'valence' is used in no way that I can comply with.

Effectively he is explaining that feelings don't care about facts. And why indeed would they? Facts are only beliefs and all beliefs are partially wrong. But saying things clearly and plainly is not apparently a part of his aims. Exit stage left to the vomitorium.

Intuition and passion are every bit as useful as guides to truth as reason is. Anger, desire, and fear; all equals. Say it simply!

All very neat and tidy. But it looks to me like a large-scale sketch - too large scale and too sketchy to be much help. Possibly you have more to say, but you seem to be in a great hurry to get everything settled. — Ludwig V

Anger is indeed impatient, and that is my born-in failing, I'm afraid. Challenge and impatience. Socrates, my brother from another mother, would relate I think. 'Men of Athens ...'

I'm saying that concepts here are much more complicated and ambivalent than you recognize. — Ludwig V

No, indeed, quite the opposite. I am the one saying they are in fact so multivalent that fear and logic alone, our chosen religion of the day, IS NOT, and never really was, the key way. I in fact underscore the three paths that together must be balanced to yield the fourth way, wisdom. And as this is a philosophy site, where lovers of wisdom ostensibly congregate, I am hoping to find resonance.

It just turns out that many and most practitioners of philosophy find their only home in academia, a citadel in service to fear alone. That is decidedly unwise and will remain so for all time. I appeal to you all in this nonsense, be about the business of real wisdom and admit to the other two paths and then the final fourth way, the real goal. If that's too complicated to understand then I sympathize.

Faith is not easy. And faith is part of it, and I do not mean religion. Faith is required because we cannot know and the dread certainty required by most fear types is ... well ... not to put too fine a point on it, quite absurd. Faith is a consequence of courage, the path of anger melded with the desire towards perfection that understands the pettiness of fear and order as the 'faith of the day', the anti-faith. Atheists everywhere make fools of themselves making fun of faith and they foolishly consider themselves wise in this endeavor. I am one such in many ways, an atheist. God is an unnecessary delusion after all. But objective moral truth, the GOOD, is not a delusion at all.

Fear can underlie the search for order and certainty. But it can also produce panic and chaos. — Ludwig V

Well, yes, meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Circular logic is all that there really is, after all. The beauty of that truth escapes the fear oriented though in many cases. That whole asymptotic thing leaves them scrambling for the nearest exit, a short-cut. Surely we are smart enough to beat objective truth, or at least those wise sages that counsel working with confidence and not the Crimson Permanent Assurance! What was that about hats again?

What it means to say that "anger demands you stand to the mystery" is not clear to me. — Ludwig V

Only a non anger type would ever deign to say such a thing as you just said.

It takes courage to stand up each morning. Default courage is essence, mass, the body. It takes the blow. It's designed with fear patterns instantiated over time as those that from the past made sense to imbue. But mistakes were made and will be made and on we go.

Mystery is the future, yes? The Unknown yawns before us in the days ahead. Anger stands up to face it and does not cower always plotting to be safer and more secure BEFORE life is lived. Cowardice in over expression is tedious, unseemly, weak. Stand up and face the future!

Desire certainly can pull you towards perfection, but it can also pull you in the opposite direction - even against your better judgement. — Ludwig V

If you mean to say, well my dear fellow, precisely what I am saying in a less cool way (ha ha), you are there. That is to say DUH we need to use fear and anger to balance those pesky immoral desires. Self-indulgence is no way to go through life. Greed, more more more; money, power, and children! MOAR!

There is a point to more but more GOOD is the only real point of more.

I am warning this forum's population (in general) of fear types that fear is their prison, their trouble, their strength, and their failure. We need more anger at least up in here. I shudder to say more desire, for the external community this one should serve is already chock full of over expressed desire. But more desire here will serve them there better as well.

Order can be oppression and restriction, but it can also be opportunity and freedom. — Ludwig V

No it cannot. Order is NEVER freedom. It is quintessentially NOT freedom, so you are wrong there. Order is by definition a restriction, a law. If you mean to say that GOOD order ENABLES freedom, ok, then please start saying what you really mean. These halfway truths are the FAILED wisdom of the past. Better speech and writing on this THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of any day, is ... well ... a GOOD idea. Don't you agree?

I can understand evil as the absence or opposite of good, but what is good or evil depends on the context; the same is true of perfection. — Ludwig V

No, again, this is precisely incorrect. Moral truth, the GOOD, is objective. Thankfully that is the case. If it were not the universe would self-destruct in the smallest fraction of time it allows for. But, if you are right, and morality is subjective, then that is my 'Brevity model'. That model states that within that smallest possible time, is where we are. But even in THAT case, the only reason you and I can speak this way now is because right now, and since the dawn of time, morality has been objective. So, really, the no leg to stand on idea permutates all the way back to objective morality. On we go taking rank advantage of the relative stability of this universe and immorally pretending to subjective morality. Sigh ...

No! The context, of course, does not matter at all, not one whit. What is GOOD was objectively so since the dawn of time and will remain so at least until the end of this brevity bubble we are clearly in right now. If you can survive long enough to wait out the end of the universe, perhaps you will be right at that time.

(And perfection can oppress and imprison just as surely as it can liberate). — Ludwig V

Oh, I like that one! It's tricky! Look at you!

Yes, perfection imprisons. But, it is guaranteed by being objective to be a GOOD prison (the only one). As such, it provides for the burden of choice (as mentioned in ... well ... probably every post I ever posted within reason). We are free to choose not GOOD within perfection (the system). And in doing so this tyrannical truth thing, this oppressive prison of perfection, allows us all to choose not GOOD. Perhaps you advise to the contrary? The prison should be more thorough then? But that would not be GOOD, do you understand?!? Instead, the oppressor IS NOT the GOOD. Amid natural law there IS a GOOD, objective and properly ... GOOD. But there is only one fool that choose not GOOD, and it is all of us, that fool. It is those that oppress us all with their failure of effort and thought and desire for that which is objectively GOOD, the hardest choice of all in the universe to make.

But in the worldly sense, no, the burden of choice is infinite choice, not infinite imprisonment. You can muddle the two in a sense I suppose. But that comes of lack of proper faith, not the GOOD.

This is why fear is so weak. It does not understand that death is preferable to immorality. And you call that a prison? The prison of the MERE need to survive.

From where I sit, the universe is completely indifferent (not hostile, I grant you) to my desires and emotions. — Ludwig V

How foolish a statement is this nonsense!? Please, you're well past the point of embarrassment!

Of course it is all hostile! Anger demands that you stand against the entire universe. All aspects of it partake of immorality, imperfection. The finish line is objective. War is the central truth of reality. Peace is a delusion of and for fools. Peace is the sin of anger, laziness. I declare war on everything but the GOOD. And there will never be a truce. I guarantee it. It is a law of nature. Delude yourself to the contrary to assuage your fears and desires but anger knows at least that.

I'm not at all sure that wisdom, understanding and intelligence, though admittedly related, are clearly enough defined to be of use in whatever you are trying to say about them. — Ludwig V

Me either! Seems like it takes a little something past certainty to live right here.

That something is anger and a willingness, the SPINE, to try to aim at the GOOD and fight hard against all imperfection, all immorality, for the latter two are the SAME THINGS.

You remind me of Plato's journey of the soul. But he gave huge importance to love, which seems to be missing from your sketch. I miss it. — Ludwig V

Love is nothing more than the system including all of this.

Perfection is love is God is ALL. Choose your illusion. Amid love, amid perfection, there is nothing but the emotions, fear, anger, and desire; combined into various formations and roiling with the need to arrive again at that blissful and eternally distant perfection yet again.

You counsel from the path of mind alone
— Chet Hawkins

Actually, I submit Body alone. Mind, though it exists, is a system of empty signifiers displacing the Body with its empty Fiction.
But
— Chet Hawkins — ENOAH

Ouch! The false humility of mind is easily seen here. And I am not just attacking you there. That is a real thing in the world. The restraint of order is a first order humility, cowardice. From that destroyed ego the fearful observe and plan and experience joy with humility. It is wise in a grand way, perhaps the best way to face uncertainty and such, hard times.

But the word empty is tragic and wrong. There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. "I dig that, man!'

your happenstance name
— Chet Hawkins

It happily amuses me that you think my name has any relation to the Ark builder. That's part of what i meant by your writing having an inspirational tone. I am tempted not to correct you. But alas, no. — ENOAH

I mean, clearly I know that. But it's fun to point out circumstance and make overmuch of it. It can weave a web of connection where it might seem that none is present. And that is the point.

The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery.
— Chet Hawkins

Perhaps, now you see I am not purporting a predetermined reality; but an interconnected one where even our "choices" have been triggered, even by structures of Reasoning and logic autonomously arising to the task, having been input into our minds at some point(s) in our local and universal history. — ENOAH

I mean you and I can mostly agree here, as mentioned. But the final mover, the truth, remains balanced and supportive of the only real law, free will.

The attitude you espouse comes from the happenstance that order is not yet powerful enough to contain chaos. Amid this humility, like a Nihilist, the order defends its weak ego, its weak stance, with quibbling on fine points. And being detail oriented order can make many convincing arguments. And being possessed of many accolades in order obtained, order can betray the universe and specify or choose a lesser wrong order than the GOOD. Gaius Baltar will squirm and protest. He will betray humanity. Even a cylon might suggest a higher order to the universe than he acknowledges. And if she looks like 6 we are tempted to let that suggestion wash over us with all its glory.

So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth.

In fact, my intuition is that those who push free will do so out of fear and wishful thinking; a conceited desire for our constructions to be real etc. — ENOAH

No instead, this is a lack of faith from order towards the precarious requirements of balance. Rather than face the truth of the difficulty, the orderly type, seeing this ahead of the chaos types, despairs of ever being able to do it. That fear sends them demanding down branches of false order, like determinism. It's predictable. It's sufferable.

What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.
— Chet Hawkins

This is nice. Like you, I like to think about the possibilities of morality or nobility of an atom. But.

You mention "desire" a few times but I'm unsure of its role. For me, there are drives, and feelings, but desire is like meaning, order, and choice: constructs of the Mind which superimposes itself on Nature and displaces it with Narratives. Desire evolved in the system of Mind (not by design or predeterminedly, but by chance) to keep the Signifiers growing and constructing. — ENOAH

No, desire is no illusion. It is a primal force. Fear and anger are the only other two equal forces. Everything permutates from the interaction of those three.

Its role? It could be said to be the standing truth of perfection's existence in the universe. Plato's realm of forms is it in some ways. This sensed perfection is not instantiated. We must 'get back' to it or 'move forward' to it. This causes the delusion of time. We self assess and we are not perfect. Any doubt at all proves this. But does it?

My model suggests that there is a maximal fear, a maximal anger, and a maximal desire; all three. And wisdom and the GOOD exist at the end of these forces, their maximal point is perfection. The concept is embedded in each of us. We DO sense it. Our sense of imperfection is based on desire. In other words we want only because we are not perfect. This reflects worthlessness upon us and thus we strive towards perfection inevitably. If you wish to call this determinism, I think you rob the beauty of truth. The beauty is that it can ONLY be chosen. In no other way is progress made.

And morality gets harder and harder from more and more moral states. It's so worthy though that 'No force in the world can stand against it.' False imperfect order and lazy balances will fail. Desire will break them. On-on!

Ah, here I am again. Far too much to say, to little room to elaborate.

I am interested in how desire fits in for you as used in your reply above. — ENOAH

I explained it. Hopefully that can at least be informative of my stance.

Firstly, I sincerely admire your writing, at least in this particular response. And whether I fully understand/follow/agree or not, it is inspiring in a way which transcends the topics being discussed. There are others like you in this forum, but it merits mentioning. I'll read your response more thoughtfully (likely a few times) and will let you know if I have any comments relating to this post. — ENOAH

Thank you! And that is awesome to hear and ... things get interesting. I am trying to make my tack a polished thing and that is not easy when one is trying to make a case, present for propriety amid truth. And then make sure that this presentation is in no way a deception, apart from pointing at it and saying, 'yes this is a stretch here, but it seems like the BEST stretch I can think of right now.'

But for now:

determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection
— Chet Hawkins

Is it possible that this interconnectedness of all things "idea" which inspires my submission that, to keep it simple, there is nowhere a real burden of choice, but only the illusion that a deliberate being is deliberately choosing (and the suffering which is concomitant with that illusion)...is it not possible that that is not determinism, but only seen as determinism from a perspective which also sees free will and the burden of choice. — ENOAH

I admit quite easily to this possibility, and you are direct and fair-minded to present it.

Now I get to do that famous 'but' part. Amid all motivation, the seed of that truth, free will, we see clearly people who choose to suffer more for the wrong reasons and the right reasons, assuming of course a base scope of 'wrong' and 'right'. And we see people who opt instead for less suffering for the same wrong and right reasons. What of it? Well, the triggers DO NOT MATTER. The spread is determined, to use that poisonous word, by that same law of nature. Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not.

Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism is that it's clear we are on a kind of cresting of some wave of emotive actuation. That means that there must be and are then discrete points of greater moment or contest in the overall 'combat' or 'war' of ... well ... GOOD vs evil, if you will. There are critical points where failure is more likely but success is as well, if and only if enough choosers opt to aim high. Raw determinism, and even your modification to it which I find more plausible, as stated, would see no difference in these moments. Ultimately, that is satisfying to an orderly perspective only. The raw truth of emotive balance though does not agree, and that would include then the POV of both desire and anger, fully 2/3s of the soup. Now it is not that clear. There are splitters to the 'People's Popular Front' even among the crack suicide squad. But those tend to equal out on all sides.

It's the power of the structure and ramification of the discrete moment, the addressing of the problem at hand, that really swings the balance one way or the other. This may indeed be an argument for your suggestion and why I easily agreed to it in part. But it reckons without the effect of the structure and inertia of that situation itself. And then to permutate backwards it reckons without how we got there, by choice.

One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part. A significant number of people resist enough elements of indoctrination so as to defy their being easily categorized or grouped. The state complexity of the choice scope is too profound. As chaos increases, this scope increases and or the experience of living within 'the world', 'the universe' steps up in awareness and freedom and the orderly structures cannot cope for a while and strive to understand how to control it. This is shown by things like cannon and the internet, and even Christianity (as opposed to just Monotheism). Sadly, I might say that gummies and porn are the new REAL wave I see that is bizarre. They are both order and chaos oriented. That should give anyone pause.

So the truth that WAS coming to light in the world was self interest, chaos, and a break with the traditions of all nations. It was a bid for a more world oriented way, unity. It is still quite strong based mostly on the inertia of the loosely defined 'freedom' to pursue self interest. Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking for the freedom of political prisoners opposed to Modi, saying 'Nothing can stop this ...' as they are appealing to the raw force of desire (chaos).

But the human animal is more complex than just the silliness of raw desire can reveal. The wild thing about desire is that as this 'it can be that way' feeling overwhelms a populace, even the orderly types get with it because each sub order sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. The ONLY guiding light is literally that. It is the genuine happiness that is coming only from greater alignment with objective moral truth. That force slowly ekes out its aims. If you follow, the worst thing is concentrations of power that threaten an ability to control the mass from the top without letting the 'wisdom of the masses' unfold on its own. Order is a prison. And the final order of the metaverse, truth, is the greatest prison of all. But, in theory, that prison is perfect, correct; so the final statement is we need not fear it, and yet, of course we do.

Hopefully, all that was not just blather. I'm suffering a fair headache this afternoon.

Again, to keep it simple. When x triggers y triggers z triggers suicide, the suicide was not predetermined. X could have triggered b instead, and y could have triggered quitting one's job. "Choice" is built into that process, but it is an illusion, in that the "choice" was triggered. — ENOAH

And an examination of each chooser would reveal more to this equation. The various motivations impact each other in a complex pattern. With some choosers that tend to have no power, what they had for breakfast can be the deciding factor. With others that tend to have power, their life thrust and belief set is perhaps an almost tyrannical deciding factor. That is chaos and order respectively. But then we have to consider the state, the times, etc. The interweave cannot easily predict which specific motivation will rise to the top in any state. It can be surprising.

I suggest then that order is reactive, not active. It is a known thing. As the Dothraki women say, 'It is known'. Chaos chooses more often and readily by its very nature, desire. The greater energy it has as well is India's 'unstoppable force'. Perfection calls to us. Desire is its consequence.

Reactive order can respond to all the triggers it fears. But the system itself, the nature of reality, is balanced. That means that order that is wrong, that is immoral, is LATE and chaos scores a hit. This will continue. It may take Eons. Vast and well constructed order will possibly survive for a long long time. But the conflict with chaos will wear even that down. Until the order is made perfect by choice, many choices, which may seem like determinism, the system cannot arrive at perfection and thus the non-perfect states will explode or implode by turns, by definition.

If you want to say, 'I prefer to depend on order and I like the idea of determinism', will you be on the right side of this effort all along? Or, must you say 'I prefer to depend on balance, and I like the idea of free will'; which is NOT to say, 'I prefer to depend on chaos and I like the idea of self-indulgence (oh and sure that makes me say yay free will to)' I think that result set is ... well ... rather obvious. Wisdom embraces the risk of free will. Fear chooses determinism. And Desire alone chooses just chaos, but still free will.

Indeed there are a few percentage points that willfully choose chaos in the purist sense. But suicide is not actually painless.

Sure call that chaos, call it meaningless. But is it not possible that from the perspective of the "order" we have constructed; a thing necessarily working with/making meaning, things like meaning, order, balance, and perfection matter. While really, Nature is before/beyond that "order" and (only because we have to assess its function do I say this:) it "functions" as a whole--not with design or predetermination--where each part has an effect upon the other(s) including, ultimately, that whole. — ENOAH

And here we disagree entirely. No, it is NOT possible. Were fundamental balance not the truth, the universe would self destruct instantly. It would take an amount of time that is the smallest possible unit of time. That fundamental imbalance would be the most catastrophic truth in existence. Instead the 'bargain' made is that imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE.

Being before/beyond the order (human Mind) of course we will impose order upon it as part of our dominion over Nature. That is, as part of human Mind displacing Reality. — ENOAH

This is ... not nearly so well crafted as it must be to be meaningful. Order is present already. In fact I define fear and thus order ENTIRELY as an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. On any level within reality, order is only tied to the past. It seems compelling. All awareness is order, clearly. All readiness is order. Joy as a decision, is orderly. And joy and happiness are NOT the same things.

Nature's order is already baseline superior to ours. We are higher level moral agents and so we can be wrong in a stronger way than nature can overwhelm in some senses. Until a comet comes that's big enough and fast enough. Was it all for nothing? No! Every choice for the GOOD affects the whole universe, instantly. And the law of nature that is evolution and the GOOD will rise again on countless worlds and in countless ways. Fear is delusional. (So is desire). Balance is delusional when affected too heavily by fear, or desire; and also the sin of anger, laziness.

Anyway, I fear tge complexity of my thoughts about this far exceed my capacity to express it briefly in this forum. I find, the best I can do is offer morsels with the hope, not just that someone bites, like you; but that someone is able to digest it, that's my biggest challenge. Do not, from that, feel obligated to continue biting. I do appreciate your input already. — ENOAH

Et tu Brute? I agree entirely. I feel so embarrassed to have expressed myself so poorly here. These issues of philosophy require a virtuoso. I am not equal to that task. But I am called to it. So, on-on!

inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice
— Chet Hawkins

Or, there is no "choice." Everything is interconnected. Every action is a reaction to a trigger(s); the same principle applying to each trigger. — ENOAH

If the experience of it does not lead to it again, is that accurate? Idempotency must be ... the thing. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Which was the cause and which the effect? The balance is that each is both. That is the only thing that could be a balance.

Maybe we agree in an odd way. I am down for that. Strange unity! But the thing is, from balance, which is the elusive goal of perfection, or at least perfection-aiming, ANY other tilt is easy, and if taken in smaller doses, easy to return to balance.

The point being only perfectly free will ensures the 'right' burden of choice. That does not mean the burden of choice does not exist. The TRAP of fear and order would see this deterministically. The silliness of desire and chaos would refuse that and explode, particles flying in every direction. But 'right' balance shows the ... Truth. So, determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection. So, it is what is, and it stands alone, perfect. It is all of us and we delude ourselves otherwise, more is the pity.

If you are the E-Noah, you must part this Red Sea with me!

Is this not so from subparticles to suicide? a triggered b triggered c triggered molecular bonding. x triggered y triggered z triggered suicide. Even when the free act of choosing seems indisputable, like in difficult decisions where one wishes one had no choice, the difficulty, the process, and the final action were each reactions to triggers. — ENOAH

You confuse inertia with truth. Really? Why so drawn?

Imbalance is convincing. Watch out! It takes great effort to overcome investment.

Choice is the illusion which arises when we (humans uniquely) construct and superimpose meaning retroactively (albeit often with lightning speed) onto the autonomous activities of Nature (said construction and superimposition also caused by triggers). — ENOAH

And yet nature is the entity anthropomorphized that we most ascribe to as having balance. I love it that you went there. It seems you wish to be convinced! On-on!

As the 'highest' beings, those imbued with the most facile of moral agency, apart from those damn pan-dimensional mice and dolphins, we pretend to understand. We DO understand BETTER than they do, in most cases, at least our exemplars. Agency is an absolute value, so humans can deliver the least in understanding right along with the best. You know like thinking everything is predestined so we can blame our bad choices on the universe. Hilarious!

Speed racer will see it through, even if the odds are stacked against him and that is for sure dangerous work!

Triggered is never a good thing. Balance! Wisdom, ... stands, to all comers.

It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only
— Chet Hawkins

Or does it take no courage at all, but only imagination and forms? Is meaning also autonomously constructed and superimposed as part of an evolved system we have come to think of as directed by the Subject, "I"; and to "know" as our Mind? — ENOAH

And the heart has no say? Does the heart ALLOW the mind free reign? What of the body? Does it offer no constraint upon this mind? Or on the heart? These three are compelling are they not? Why is it these three in humanity the greatest moral exemplar we know of? Is Homo Sapiens Sapiens deserving of that moniker? You counsel from the path of mind alone (as do many an most academics and their groupies). But Noah had to prepare humanity for a RIDICULOUS tragedy that no one else foresaw. What is/was the predetermined source of that? And if not Noah then let's ignore your happenstance name and use someone like the Wright Brothers.

There were PHDs in physics busily writing paper on why it was determined as nonsense that man should want to fly, when powered flight happened. The path of fear and determination is Voltaire's and my nightmare (certainty). The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery. If you wish to say largely predetermined mystery then you neglect the evolved agency of humanity all around you. Rocks and winds you might predict. Good luck with an evolved human. Such agency is at least asymptotic to tipping those scales. I mean ... that's the whole purpose of being alive, being in general.

Where in Nature is there striving for meaning? Where outside of human minds is meaning pursued? — ENOAH

What dread demand requires an atom hold itself to an identity? Just physics right? Not at all. The atom is a moral agent. It 'knows' what it is, and let there be no doubt, it is wrong. It can be other. This demand, this consistency, is order. Order is meaning (chaos and balance are meaning also. Order IS NOT alone as meaning). What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.

Why is this chaotic thing here in the world? This random interaction of atoms? They present a certain type of chaos. Their energetic side is balanced with their stable side. It is a realm from which choice is eventually more possible. Some stability is had. But some chaos and interaction, becoming, is still there. The outer shells, the electrons as a whole, are the chaos part. And their position is not known entirely because they are literally exploring divergent futures. Desire is only the pull into the future. You see another atom coming and its got the right attitude and vector to collide with us, this atom, the right way, and you call their combination pre-determined.

What you do not see is the percentage that defied that choice. Every experiment is slightly off. Why? If it is not you do not measure with enough granularity. Life is the negentropy in growth mode. Life must excel to the position of balance with entropy. I suppose just prior to that exultant universal orgasm, you might convert and believe. Until then, my friend! Two by two, hands of blue!

How do we relate meaning to the physical world? It does seem clear in the interactions, but not the ... essence ... of the physical world.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it is enough to understand the interactions. — Ludwig V

Well, it is a classical backwards walk, baby steps to glory! But, yes, I suppose any path can meander around and find its way finally to the end of the maze. Hand to left wall and go.

So, what I mean is when YOU say understanding, I get the impression you actually mean awareness only, which is not all of understanding. That was what the comment wisdom >> intelligence also infers. To me the term understanding implies wisdom as a consequence whereas observation and analysis only imply intelligence as a consequence. If that is a reset of sorts for us in the conversation, so be it.

You are ONLY saying for us (or Wittgenstein and you, less me as a dread assertion) these training wheels of 'safe frictioned ground' are still needed.
— Chet Hawkins
Not quite the intended meaning. Wittgenstein was saying that the ideal world seems more comprehensible, but that is largely illusion. In order to make progress, we need resistance, and that requires the rough ground. For him, it is the ideal that has the training wheels, and the rough ground is where the work gets done. — Ludwig V

Regardless of what he meant, I would say that any such assertion is LAUGHABLE in its obvious wrongness. The implication being, again, that Not(wisdom >> intelligence){my point}. That is to say, the idea realm is the ostensible correct aim, the destination. And this (fool) very educated man deigns to suggest that it's enacting is easy?

So, I do UNDERSTAND that confusion. He MEANS to say that exemplars of the ideal path, idealists, often tend to not do the work, to not be aware of the impediments that are part of the path they want. Yes, that is true. It is fundamental to the very nature of the two chosen and juxtaposed paths of fear and desire. Fear is all order, all thought, all analysis, all logic, all structure. I am not saying it represents those things. It literally IS those things. Likewise, desire is all freedom, chaos, becoming, etc. These are the two most easily acknowledged forces in the universe. It is the reason for the false duality of existence, polarization, right and left wings, etc. But all of that is only one axis, order versus chaos.

I would then offer that Wittgenstein is clearly in the order camp. The fear path is analysis paralysis. It is static and dead but reliable in most ways. But it's only one third of wisdom in terms of understanding the right path to the GOOD. You seem to concur and nominally prefer that path.

Granted, generic idealism is only another one third approach. That is the wild open free desire and Utopian vision, including then your criticism, the criticism of the order camp, that so much is being blithely stepped aside or wished away in that approach. I agree. That too is not the path of wisdom. But in saying this there is a backhanded win for order only. The order path is also NOT THE WAY.

The axis of good and evil is unlike the other one. With order and chaos, balance is the right way. That is ... understanding, wisdom. But there is no BALANCE in the axis of GOOD and evil. It is actually only rising amounts of GOOD, so evil is nothing special, only less GOOD.

This setup gives rise, my model, to the more apt trinary nature of reality. The only way to get here is to add in a third force, the emotion of anger. Anger demands that fears and desires recede, that confidence amid being is sufficient. From that balance, which is just an infringement on order and chaos, if you will, a bending into another dimension, wisdom is finally something we can work with. From that balance, any path, any imbalance, any choice, may be briefly explored and a return to balance, real balance is not that hard or costly. No other path can say this. That is wisdom.

So wisdom ... SHOULD ... if it is worthy of the name, refute the SOLE or lopsided dedication to the orderly (pragmatic) path. Wisdom ... SHOULD ... if it is worthy of the name, refute the SOLE or lopsided dedication to the chaotic (ideal) path. Wisdom ... SHOULD ... instead promote with great force (belief) the erroneous parts of each of those paths and remain resolute on the perfect union of the two, the properly bent intent of wise choice.

It is fairly hard for me to say that any BETTER. Alas, I still have room to grow in understanding.

The seeds of moral agency are not amenable to the arbitrary science that in its failing cannot explain why the universe is alive. I mean science admits that SOME parts are alive. But in understanding unity and belonging, the real understanding is that anything IS anything else in the final sense.
— Chet Hawkins
I can sort of follow the first two sentences here - except that the reason science cannot explain why the universe is alive is that not all of the universe is alive. — Ludwig V

Au contraire. How is it that life comes from not life? Science thinks it knows. But I say instead that life comes because it can do nothing else. It is not predestined so much as it is intrinsic. For something to be predestined it would have to be missing at some point. It never was missing.

Animism was always more correct than religion. Anthropomorphization of the universe is a CORRECT tendency. If we erased what we THINK we know, and we cannot know really so even that is crazy to have to say, we would say of something planted that later grew that it was always alive. Behold, the universe. You can claim no confusion or derision. Are the details needed? Not in this case. If we do not allow for an external scope, the reasoning is sound. Any example you offer to the contrary will have a familiar external scope. That is your only way to 'cheat'. Clearly things grow here, in this universe. I believe Ian Malcom said it quite well in Jurassic Park, 'Life will find a way'. He could have said 'Love will find a way'. He could have just said, 'There is a way.'

But the fact that science cannot explain something doesn't tell us very much at all. — Ludwig V

Oh yes it does! It tells us that science is NOT THE ONLY WAY. It hints that science is insufficient in much of our efforts to help us be wise, to even answer its little corner (one third) of the universe, awareness. Wisdom is so much more. Understanding is so much more. We need that ... more ... to function RIGHTLY in every now. And overt and improper dedication to the single path of order amid fear is cowardly. That is the primal all encompassing sin of fear.

Lest you think me simply argumentative and without a salient point, the single path of desire is EQUAL and opposed, its sin, self-indulgence. And even anger, the third force, has a sin, and this completes our set of only three sins at the highest level in existence, laziness. The unwillingness or inability to balance these truths is lack of effort. I am NOT denigrating fear and awareness. I am only seeking that it maintain a proper posture towards wisdom.

And this modelling is SUPPOSED to be an appeal to the order types to understand. That IS it's purpose.

The last sentence here is beyond my understanding, as is the rest of the paragraph. I can see that you are arguing that wisdom is more than intelligence. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't see where it gets us. — Ludwig V

Certainty is an absurd goal. Anger demands you stand to the mystery. Desire pulls you towards perfection and only a living universe can respond, so it is alive, and it does. Evolution towards greater moral agency is a law of the universe.

No, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see what you mean in what you write. — Ludwig V

:evilgrin

"Prosaic" is a complex idea, and quite annoying for those in a poetic or transcendental state of mind. Those are much more exciting.
Nonetheless, what is ordinary, everyday, and commonplace is what we start from and will return to. More than that, what is extraordinary and exciting, if prolonged, will become prosaic. We cannot do without poetry and we cannot do without prose.
I would rather say that I find it necessary to keep my feet (or at least one foot or toe) on the ground. You say: -
So defining that non-physical realm of Plato's forms is much more important and essential, than our keen grasp of the obvious insistence on practical physical matters in the world today all about us would easily show.
— Chet Hawkins
But Wittgenstein finds that the ideal, logical forms are indeed perfection and consequently are like a smooth, frictionless surface. He observes:-
"We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!" (Philosophical Investigations Section 107). — Ludwig V

I agree with your sentiment, but, it is the need factor that is the thing to doubt in the sense of wisdom.

Amid perfection we would possibly say, 'We do not now NEED this rough surface. We are beings of will alone, and travel via desire or whim, in balance with the rules because otherwise inertia, speed, ... kills.' You are ONLY saying for us (or Wittgenstein and you, less me as a dread assertion) these training wheels of 'safe frictioned ground' are still needed. Ok! Come on in boo! The water is fine! Seek the internal balance to put off these fears, and skate when it is slippery. Less effort required (in one sense) if one only has earned the skill (effort in the balancing sense).

The ONLY thing in all of existence, including physical matter, is the state of free will, inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice.
— Chet Hawkins
If you had said that every particle in the universe was free, I could have more or less followed you. What it means to say that every particle in the universal is burdened with choice escapes me entirely.
Communication requires a shared context. Given this starting-point, I'm afraid that we have a serious communication problem. — Ludwig V

Do not let this pass so easily. You give up and run at first blush? Let me be brazen enough to ask for the benefit of the doubt. You did not comment on ALL THAT OTHER information. So the topic was ... a) not addressed, or b) read but deemed altogether to unaddressable. It's kind of unknown.

You didn't JUST call me a quack so, on we go.

The seeds of moral agency are not amenable to the arbitrary science that in its failing cannot explain why the universe is alive. I mean science admits that SOME parts are alive. But in understanding unity and belonging, the real understanding is that anything IS anything else in the final sense. That means the essence of what is includes life ALWAYS, ... AT EVERY LEVEL. That is whether or not the current science is aware enough yet to agree with truth. That is because current science IS current awareness. But perfection (truth) is an objective delivery of all awareness. So seeking the higher patterns of wisdom, includes awareness but vice versa IS NOT true. This means wisdom >> intelligence.

Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given.
— Arne
That's quite true. Though perhaps it is more true in Anglophone philosophy than elsewhere. I've encountered the claim before, but somehow I've missed the argument that shows that it is true. I feel I'm left with a blind choice, so I'm not happy. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to understand Sartre's "precedes" as a metaphor; but he doesn't seem to give us much to interpret it. Since the concept of bare existence seems incomprehensible, Heidegger's formulation seems more plausible, so I'm inclined to go with that. But I don't believe that I really understand either concept. — Ludwig V

I have related insight into BOTH these perspectives and WHY the confusion arises.

Essense as a concept just means essential, foundational, base. It's the earliest part, the starting part(s). So the divide exists because of the trouble of whether what is essence is physical or otherwise. The divide exists because meaning and the physical world have not yet been properly combined.

Existence IS essence is a tacit nod to the physical world, practical, almost comfortable. But we are still AFFLICTED with meaning and value, so 'What then must we do?' It the 100,000 years of living dangerously! How do we relate meaning to the physical world? It does seem clear in the interactions, but not the ... essence ... of the physical world. I argue that lack of clarity is only for the willfully blind.

I am NOT saying awareness is easy. Like all virtues, maintaining the strength of that virtue takes effort. In the parlance of wisdom we would say, 'Wisdom is only earned through suffering!' We must then suffer our awareness. The Garden of Eden is delusional. Prefect awareness IS NOT a lack of awareness. And we just covered, awareness is suffering and takes effort. So perfection is a very violent thing. It is a change flux of perfect capacity and enormity.

So the other side of the essence argument is where I am. And apparently the 'precedes' argument is from more like my model, my belief set. That is to say, the physical world, all its essences, are not THE THING. Real essence is meaning. So meaning precedes and allows for the physical via its more fundamental essence. The 'laws of nature' of course play out to be causal to physical essence but only after or at least during (at the same time as) non-physical essence and its interactions.

So defining that non-physical realm of Plato's forms is much more important and essential, than our keen grasp of the obvious insistence on practical physical matters in the world today all about us would easily show. It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only. That is because it SEEMS that we can have anything we want without 'negative' consequences. But that is only for the unwise, who want Truth without effort. What is worthy in essence takes perfectly maximal effort. That is wisdom.

And then of course, even if we believe this, the physical MUST match it. So, the physical allows us to glean insight into the preceding non-physical. And by the way, the model does not forbid the eternal physical. That is to say, when we say 'precedes' we are alluding to the dimension of time and that too may be in some way delusional. In such a case the essence ALWAYS included the physical by way of those very laws. So then to speak of 'preceding' essence is incorrect. Once the laws are known, ANY state could exist at any time but whether or not it does or does not is based on those laws. What are those laws becomes the critical matter of effort. Define wisdom! Define perfection! Define the GOOD!

It seems inescapable that fact and value, although distinct, are interwoven in language in order to serve human interests and capacities. What would be the point of language if that were not so? It does seem that it would be more helpful to articulate the ways in which they interact rather than simply trying to separate them into separate discourses. — Ludwig V

I agree entirely. And these interactions, to be meaningful, must extend past the colloquial local time scope. That means they have to be eternal or laws to be 'of value'. Memorizing and truly creating delusional non-laws does not help us, and has led to entire eons of 'misinformation' as a dynasty. It is dynastic because investment, once made, seems to personal and deep to let go of. The increasing chaos these days is eroding this tendency and people are vacillating back and forth with no basis other than day to day whim and comfort. It's just survival mode, if you follow.

Our values have eroded precisely because they are not attached to objective aims. This is distinct from facts though, which are only beliefs, although that is a matter of debate for some. So when YOU say fact above, I would instead say truth-seeking. That implies we are not done yet. That implies that 'facts' are not the end of the work. And it implies that truth seeking as a process must relate to existing beliefs. I like all of that.

Free will and choice are the only essence in existence.
— Chet Hawkins
I assume you mean "in the existence of humans as people". — Ludwig V

No, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.

The ONLY thing in all of existence, including physical matter, is the state of free will, inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice. Free standing free will, all that is, perfection, is well aware of ... everything. The existence of that background truth of perfection is the origin of fear, anger, and desire; the only parts of free will.

What we call the act of creation is an intentional process for sure that is not creation at all, because all there is is still free will and nothing new is created. But what is there is a set of internal choices to become something amid nothing, and according to the 'rules'. These 'rules' are what we typically refer to as laws of nature, and that designation is fine, as is. The interaction between those three emotions is the only thing happening anywhere, anywhen.

It is part of perfection that perfection is not static. That part is hard to understand, especially for us, who are now so far removed from that state. Perfecting a dimension is fine. That is what is being called perfection here. But there is always more perfecting to be done. And that takes effort. Effort implies flux, change. So even a specific dimension of perfection must change and then ... it's risking being not perfect in order to earn its way to transcend the next dimension.

So this process writ large and small across the metaverse is the whole becoming its parts to transcend its delusional wholeness. That could be called 'evolution' but let's face it that the idea transcends what the colloquial definition of the term intends, even if all the parts of the idea are analogous.

I will stop there to see if there is any interest in this tack. And of course it would probably be a new thread, so ....

I wish pragmatists would find something less narrow-minded than "useful". — Ludwig V

Well, ... Amen to that! Ha ha!

And that idealists would find something more attainable than perfection. Go figure!

What does that sound like? Balance.

Fear is thought is order. It takes high probability short-cuts because they are USEFUL.
Desire is passion is chaos is freedom. It demands everything especially the impossible, now, and wants to work for nothing.
Poo (anger) just is. Being just is. People never seem to understand that each emotion also includes a sub-section where it reflects itself back on to itself. The calm of Poo is an anger infusion to anger (calm).

Playing the who game is misdirection. Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, you , me, are all not the point. But we realize that if we are describing a philosophy finally and properly there is only one effective reference point, and that is ALL. Everything has to match or its not a philosophy. Saying or intimating that there is a philosophy of JUST parts is ridiculous on the surface of it. A similar poor choice would be that there is some temporal anomaly where truth or natural law is no longer the same. If natural law is law at all, then it must be omnipresent. That does not, of course, prevent laws working with each other in ways we yet do not understand, ... at all.

We call things anomaly when they do not agree with laws we have 'on the books' via our own observation. But finally that conflict MUST be resolved. There can be no anomalies. So, all an anomaly is is only our own errored interpretations about what natural law is. Nothing is breaking the REAL laws of nature. So the anomaly is always our observations and beliefs.

I really am just a clown, but, Joan Jett said it best, 'Don't like lookin like no clown!'

you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans
— Chet Hawkins

I made no such implication. Instead, I did and do assert that Heidegger is better situated to describe the fundamental ontological structure of a human than of a fish. It matters not to Heidegger if fish turn out to have the same fundamental ontological structure as human. But how would he know? He doesn't experience being as a fish.

Dasein is the term given to any and all beings having the characteristics of Dasein. Being a Dasein is not a social status among biological organisms and it comes with no entitlements. — Arne

'Better situated' is perhaps a sobering but ultimately timid term to describe agency, the burden of experience. It may be more true than not, but it plays games with truth, rather than addressing truth head-on. Either way, fallibility means mistakes will be made. So, better by far to face the truth with equal measures of courage and analysis. That is to say: As far as we know from this 'situation' we are the best equipped to make any description of ... anything, including the fundamental ontological structure of a fish, and quite to the point INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. To mention the fact that we are not ACTUALLY fish is rather silly, even if it is of passing interest as a point of note, mostly to tame conceit.

But wholesale abandonment of the perspectives of other entities than humans would be nothing short of rank cowardice, an absurd departure from any hope of commonality and unity. That perspective almost is in tacit denial of the oneness of all things, a concept much more reasonable than this implied separation ever can be.

'So long and thanks for all the fish!'

We CORRECTLY anthropomorphize the universe. Each atom is alive is my belief. The SAME seeds that formed us formed the fish, and the dolphins, and the ostensible Vogons who need to destroy Earth (Hitchhiker's Guide). To become enamored of separation, rather than unity, is a moral error of a sort. It is a tendency of one emotion only, fear, the seed of all order, thought, reason, structure, and logic.

The reason I asserted that you implied Daesin was reserved for humans is that again in your response you indicate that Daesin is the term given to beings that have the characteristics of Daesin. That is a ridiculous point of view and precisely wrong for the reasons I already intimated. But to go further: The Oxford Academic:
Dasein is essentially in the world, because it continually interprets and engages with other entities and the contexts in which they lie. Only Dasein makes the world a unitary world at all, rather than a collection of entities. Dasein is the whole human being, and makes no distinction between body and mind.

So, even this much vaunted definition (I assume Oxford is acceptable) directs this concept to human only, effectively. And humorously although I was only vaguely remembering the term, it specifically commits the exact sin I described in its definition. It actually implies that humans are LESS aware and LESS moral because of the foolishness of something that is apparently valued in some way by the inventor of this nonsense, Daesin, ostensibly Heidegger. That is to say whoever came up with this idea had an obtuse pride in the separate facilities of a human being. What a strange thing (facetious) coming from an entity that just so happens to be human! And then the perversity is that from this separating and unaware viewpoint the arrogance then also decides that humans or Daesin 'makes the world a unity world'. No! The world was ALREADY unitary and that include the fish, the tree, every atom. ALL OF THEM continually interpret and engage with other entities and the contexts in which they lie. Now if you wish to start speaking properly, in terms of strength of that agency, the depth and complexity of it, without putting on airs and drawing lines where there are none, then I am down for that.

I also disagree in part with the 'no distinction between body and mind' bit. Then why do we suffer the persistent delusion that there is an essence break there? I can agree that all the universe is composed of parts that together make a whole. I can agree that all elements of that whole are unified by their submission to natural law. Precisely none break the rules. Fish, tree, and human, all are Daesin, just to greater or lesser degrees. The universe is alive. We live because it (the universe) did first. We are not separate or special except as a matter of degree of these characteristics. They are not again wholly reserved to us. And indeed the Oxford definition (and you whether you agree or not) imply that there is some special status to humanity in these assertions.

The distinction between body and mind is clear. Even today's humans are unable to assess this clarity properly though so it's too profound, too beautiful, to see or accept head-on. It surely scares the analytical types. But they, the analytical types are 'of the mind' or 'more given to order'. All order is based only finally in its pure essence from the universal part we call fear. That is why this cowardice is seen over and over again in logical and empirical and reductionist analysis. Fear is the limiting force in the universe, the only one. The mind is the realm of fear. But its purity is not real, only delusional. The universe has three main parts.

The body issue involves another part. That part is anger. Anger demands that our fears at least recede so that its analysis paralysis can be converted into being. So, there is most certainly and observably a
distinction between body and mind. Yet they are ALWAYS found unified because that to is the nature of reality.

I do not want to derail (entirely), but, for completeness the universe only has one more part besides fear and anger, or building block, if you will. That is desire. Desire is the fuel for the engine. It is chaos, energy. And just like anger, desire is properly balanced with fear in all things. Nature has or tends to this balance as a law.

So that is my model's EXTREMELY basic refutation of Daesin, ... unless ... Daesin is said to belong to every particle in the universe. The nonsensical application of any basic moral function, choice, to ONLY humans is one of the greatest errors of philosophy of all time, if not the greatest. Is is a hopeless conceit finally, born of delusional worthiness, rooted entirely in happenstance. So much for the glory of Daesin.

Being-in-the-world is a fundamental state, not a social status. It doesn't make anybody special. — Arne

Although I agree, as I understand it, that has no bearing on our conversation. I was the one claiming that no exalted scenario was implied. The reason I wrote that is because it seemed to me you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans, which is indeed a deluded state, status, social, empirical, ... whatever. If that is Heidegger's assertion, I would deny it, and much of what we seemed to agree upon previously (as I understood it) would mean that you were then agreeing that his tack was slightly wrong.

Also, social status is fundamental as well. It is composed of the SAME seed evolved to the social state as we call it. But atoms then have a social state as well and that is the SAME fundamental thing as ours is. We like to 'put on airs' as if we are different. We do have more moral agency only, but all of t hat complexity is grounded only in the same thing, natural law. There is no escape from law. It's the law.

That kind of underscores my point. Nothing is not fundamental. The concept of fundamental is in error. Everything is fundamental. When you suggest that something is not by saying that something specific is, you are breaking with truth. You are separating instead of integrating. This is a big part of the problem of choice. We can and do delude ourselves. The real challenge to to get to the heart of why, to uncover that ubiquitous fundamental nature of all, of belonging. Accepting on a deeper level means not going on about the separation in any way.

This may be 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing', but I believe, as mentioned, we are going to have to do better with a new tier of philosophy to make progress. We seem to be in a massive eddy, a backwater buildup of a jam. Everything must change all at once. That is what integration means. We can't just get 1 or 3 or 6 things right. It has to be all of whatever there are for virtues. So, we need to detail the essence of wisdom, and it has to gel right back down to the start of 'time' and such. Natural law only is allowed. No distracting and tempting delusions. But hey, what do I know? (Nothing, because knowing is impossible) But belief is critical to wisdom and I do believe a lot!

As true as all of that may be, it is important to keep in mind that those are your claims and not Heidegger's. — Arne

Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply.

Who said anyone is special? Heidegger is not making any normative claims regarding Dasein. A bird is in a unique position for seeing the entire forest. A fish is in a unique position for seeing what is at the bottom of a lake. A human is in a unique position for seeing the ontological structure of being a human. There are no awards for being pre-ontological. — Arne

YES there are! That is the metaphysical hurdle we are just beginning to come to grips with as a species. Granted a few of us have always been a bit saucy and into caviar of the spirit, wisdom. But these days the love of wisdom is being translated into 'My self-indulgent grift for the unwary'

I LOVE Sartre's 'bad faith'. I aim to make things HARDER, not easier. And try selling that to the least common denominator in Democracy. Socrates was right! Golden souls are needed, but Rome has to burn before it is rebuilt. The Rubicon was crossed long ago. Pillaging and raping have been proceeding apace. We are insensate now.

Bad faith indeed. Morality must be more clearly defined and suggestions made about it. I see the core issue as being that being has become nothingness, or close to it. We are seeing how many directions of low we can tease ourselves towards. Since morality is the hardest thing there is, and objective finally, how many people are going to vote for wise things? Philosophers had best get busy. We need some new Billy Shakes (or perhaps Francis Bacon) to school these pilgrims. Thomas Becket was old wisdom.
The Dragon of Ignorance is winning hard.

I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world. — Arne

I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree.

The entire freaking point is that we are not that special and accepting that we both are and are not at the same time, is the right moral choice, in other words, a wise balance.

To admit to this false exceptionalism is to fall prey to a basic form of self-indulgence, pride, and thereby fail.

Again, ALL other species do have the seed of this thing, and only that truth led by pains imaginable, to us. {I detest when people say 'beyond your imagination', because almost nothing is}.

We are ourselves only the seeds of hopefully better selves. But it does give one pause. Perhaps the Fermi paradox represents the universal failing AT THIS STAGE of moral aims. Rare indeed must be the species that transcends that hurdle. Desire is overwhelming us all. Religion was an insufficient opiate. Now we have cut out the middleman. Gummies and porn are far more effective. And the new monarchy of inherited Old Money is putting the fate of the human world into less and less capable inheritors who grew up on the teat of excess and privilege. It's not looking very Dasein up in here. This is the age of the Orc!, The Formorian!

It is telling indeed that you say 'within' which is the clarion call of desire, chaos, self-indulgence. Wisdom counsels instead that without IS within. Wisdom is about balance. And there is no balance between good and evil. That has always been another self-indulgent delusion tempting us to be cowardly, lazy, and self-indulgent by turns. The real balance is between order and chaos and the good is only achieved by maximum effort allowing both to soar while remaining balanced.

That is why the more careful redefinition of Existentialism is needed. In fact, the old waves of philosophy of course hinted at some truths, but we MUST do BETTER. Grow or die!

I've never read anything about existentialism, but I agree with both of these.

One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."
— BC
The definition that I am working off of is this:

a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.
— Chet Hawkins — Patterner

Well, My own perspective agrees that 'God' is a weird way to think of things. But 'Truth', 'Love', and 'All' work just fine for the same thing without the casting a deity in your own image or culture's wishes thing.

Morality to me, is all that there is in the universe and Nihilism, positive or not, is immoral. Meaning is all there is here, including instantiated meaning, e.g. choosers, like humanity. That IS what being-in-essence means, the ability to choose. But since to me the entire universe, every particle is possessed of this being-in-essence, it strikes me as a term, like so many, that adds more confusion than it clears up.

You can decide to get all wonky about locus of choice. That is what most Nihilists and ... maybe you ... or BC seem to be doing to me, with comments about what God, teachers, and government cant or should not or <whatever> verb you use - do.

The ONLY key point is ... is morality objective as a law of the universe. To me the answer is obviously yes because nothing could connect or stay together or act in any meaningful way without that truth in place. So, demanding that YOU are the only one who can deliver a should to you, is colossally missing the point. This is multiplied in impact when it is also realized that objectively, we are all part of 'All' and cannot be separated in any way from 'All'. To me that underscores a relationship with all of reality wherein and whereby effectively 'You ARE me and I AM you'. And that erases the dubious and entirely immorally selfish perspective of 'only I can decide blah blah' or if you like empowers it. But that means it empowers EVERYTHING, every atom, every teacher, every government, me, you, and the kitchen sink as not an 'external' source of impact on you, but an intimate connected part of you, demanding you get real and stay moral for the genuine happiness of 'All'.

Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last. — Arne

Sadly, and apparently it is not evident that I have read quite a bit of it. And gleaned much over the years when I was forced to look up his own words rather than accept others' interpretations. Thankfully, that process left me convinced I was not as deluded as some suspect. But you know, I've always had a penchant for maladroit grandiosity.

It may be time to take on the polluted rivers again!

For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in". — Arne

The undead then, a being, yet sans the curriculum vitae! En soi! La mort c'est tout!

But most philosophers use that word, Dasein, in a selfish way to show humans as some sort of unique entity. I claim they/we are only a natural and inevitable progression of essence from the beginning of time and natural law. And further the specific form and general state of humanity hovers around an absolute value based on the fractal ramifications of evolution, arbitrary, despite all delusions to the contrary. Some fellow with a razor might shave away the silliness, the conceit. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing special going on here.

That Enneatype 4 delusion, the need to be special is, after all, an immoral aim. You belong, we all belong, and cannot be made to un-belong; despite over-expressed desire, denying the actual essence, the anger infusion, as desire recoils from its own reflection when it sees improperly, ... unworthiness.

Now, step back son, yah bother me! You pays yer money! You takes your chances!