hah! :up:

I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint. — Fire Ologist

And maybe that is expressing the closest approach within "reason" i.e., before the inevitable firewalls: paradox, contradiction (inevitable; not the kind from poor reasoning) absurdity . That each of us is constructing/expressing the same Truth(s) in (varying degrees of(?)) approximations, (as if/because) from different viewpoints.

By the way, lest you thought otherwise, I wasn't disregarding the statement about as real as everything as a "manner of speaking," in any way demeaning the statement. I was assuming, as you might note from my return to an edited version, that you meant "as real as everything" as a phrase like "might as well" or "better than nothing."

Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker

The problem is, like philosophy, science, social sciences, and humanities, some of it inevitably reveals itself to be fiction, some has a much longer life span. Even math. 1+1=2 will likely last for eons. Sure, I'm a bit tongue in cheek, but I can at least imagine some genius will come along one day in "human history" and change the conventional thinking.

The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism).

But I, a single lone random individual, am amazed at the parallel truths "expressed" by so called religion and "discovered" by philosophy grade metaphysics and morality. These parallels are found in so called religious concepts since the dawn of civilization, but certainly since the last half of the first millennium BCE, and some of them not reaching western philosophy to a similarly rich degree of analysis until post Descartes.

Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on. — Fire Ologist

This is not intended to be remotely flippant, but, yah, they are all just illusory distinctions and therefore no one needs anything to go on. That is our condition. The truth isn't staring us in the face nor as plain as the nose on my face. The truth is--it's comical--(oops, note that I am speaking with the passion of one who thinks they have discovered something and not--no matter appearances--as one who thinks themselves an authority; which in the end, again highlights our (seemingly) inescapable "predicament," the irony, comical)...the truth isn't those things, it is my face and my nose.

We don't even have to "know" this, we are this. That's how (and you raise this appropriately when you ask (in another thread? (apologies, this thread)) how can we reference the world to one another and denied its objectivity?) we are aware of the real world; not by knowing it. By being it.

And yet we toil with concepts and with words, why? Because that's the structure and "nature" of the projections. They are dynamic and autonomous. So called we, you and I cannot help but share so called objects. It's a built in desire leading to the prosperity history enjoys today. I say celebrate that and carry on. Out of such sharing came tge Eiffel tower, Emancipation, Peace, Love, and the Mona Lisa. Yes, too, war, bigotry, and WMDs. But difference too is a mechanism of the movements of history. We cannot share one without sharing the other. Dialectic.

Anyway, the Body, the Real world which we are, I suspect is also One. Aware-ing Universe. But that, as you imply in your poetico-logical rhetoric above, is just Mind's illusion.

The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc… — Fire Ologist

Yes. And though we diverge, because otherwise how the hell are we going to construct history together? (Don't cringe, I mean a locus of history as small as your or my Narratives). It is our seemingly iron strong consistency here which is most relevant to the OP. You have, in my mind, answered the question with that statement.

From of that River, a billion tributaries flow.

The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else. — Fire Ologist

Compellingly enough put that you opened my mind up to how, I think, I can agree.

Again, I could explain it a lifetime but I'll be deliberately vague (hope can be cowardly).

Mind is "becoming," we agree.

As real as anything else, I'll respectfully disregard as your using a manner of speaking. Why? Because I say everything else we can know is Fictional because it is projected to the aware-ing Body by mind.

But, for flashing moments real. Yes. It is Real, in the present, when it affects body into feeling or action. But only in that instant, and not in the preceding or proceeding projections. And sadly or happily, "we" move right along with the projections.
Why can "Mind's processes" be real in those present instances where it affects the body? Because Mind has its first cause and final effect in its natural source. Put very simply, the projections are images stored in memory (first cause). The "destination" is as code to trigger Body to a conditioned response, feeling or action,(final effect) followed .

The paradox IS! — Fire Ologist

and, therefore, you give me nothing to go on.
(As Obiter Dictum: I'd guess mind may have been silent enough for your body to have attuned to the present at the nanosecond which gave rise to that exclamation. But I won't go there)

Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all. — Fire Ologist

Self (the one that speaks and is spoken of), to me, is neither body nor body part.

There is no "self" of the Body. There is aware-ing Organism, aware-ing it's present doings whatever they be, x-ings.

regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist — Fire Ologist

Again, where it matters most. Full agreement.

The Subject, the Self of Mind exists, but as a projection (you may reject second half)

That Self cannot exist in the present, it can never know nor be tge real being, the aware-ing Body, the presumed "real self" because it moves incessantly away from it leaving projections for the latter to "suffer" or
"enjoy"

No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion. — Fire Ologist

And here again our tributaries flow their separate ways, still drawing from the same river.

Enjoy!

But further, by saying this, it is a fact for you, me and all minds - so we know something objective about minding. We can’t escape the objective either - argument twists again - again the paradox rears its ugly head. — Fire Ologist

Agreed! You are right. There are both subjective and objective provided human mind is processing/projecting the world. I revise/advance my thinking to, ultimately there is no subject, no object. Or, there are subject and object(s) when "we" are from the perspective of "about the world." But from our true and natural perspective, from "in the world," we cannot (do not) speak of subject/object, let aloneca distinction. (What are your thoughts?)

I disagree that knowledge needs to first pass any test. — Fire Ologist

Yes. My habitually loose speech. In my mind I am already happily settled on that knowledge--(with your assistance in clarifying for me, or, at least my presumptuous reading of your assistance) being about the world/not in it--is not an uncovering of any truth present in being, but a projection of constructions (becoming). So my "test" suggestion was "rhetorical."

Yes but take out the world and think about when mind 1 connects with mind 2 (as we sometimes do on this forum). Maybe we don’t know if what we say here reflects the mind independent world when we speak of some third thing, but when mind 1 agrees with mind 2, then mind 1 knows the object in mind 2’s mind. So mind 1 knows of two things: mind 2 and the object it expresses in agreement. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I agree fully. And this reaffirms your clarification regarding the "presence" of the objective, within that framework which, as you correctly say, is "our" framework; not just this forum as you gently posed to spark my attention, but pretty much "everywhere."

Without regard to (what I must only imagine to be the perspective of) the so called real world, one coulofsafely say, of course there is objective knowledge, and thus, "shared subjective" is superfluous. Am I reading you right?

The very fact that we can disagree or agree means that to each of us, there is an objective world that we each measure ourselves and each other against. — Fire Ologist

Will definitely ponder this further.

Even if the objective world is constructed by minds, this world can be shared which means it isn’t only in one mind, and therefore, the objective world is still there, has to be there. — Fire Ologist

Subject to what comes out of re-thinking the above, currently I have settled on an "answer" to that. And you are correct that we diverge. It is more complex than the following statement. But briefly, that which is shared is already a unified system, the projections of a system, I've referred to as History. Part of its projections are the mechanisms projecting individual subjects standing in for the individual bodies "in which" (but not really "in") any given locus of that system/History is embodied.

The process you correctly describe, 1+1, and we can all agree, is not really separate units sharing information mutually but individually uncovered from the real world.
Rather, that process is how History moves. Minds are not isolated embodied entities,
but a free flowing system permeating in
spite of bodies.

Or you think you are possibly totally alone, not event meaning anything you say to yourself. — Fire Ologist

hoping the above explains why I am
not troubled by solipsism (quite contrary, there is no separate self.)

If you reply to me that you deny any objective medium is known, and I acknowledge back to you that I disagree with you, you’ve proven to yourself that my mind is out there in an illusion as an objective fact - which then means you can’t honestly say to yourself that all you know is an illusion. — Fire Ologist

Good foresight. I do think that I cannot "know" any objective world. But I do not deny that I have "access" to it. As I say, I have access to that real world by being. It is just that the instant I contemplate it, I seek to know it rather than be it, thereby displacing "my" truth with my projection.

However, I trust your logic; and that it is more precise than mine. So either you might one day explain it in a way which finally triggers me to belief, or I might arrive there as I continue to review it.

Thank you

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

a "sense" of self. What if it's stop right there? I don't like the word "illusion" but it's being used in this thread. So, if you replace "sense" with "illusion", we need not proceed to the equally illusory "idea that there is an entity with an (equally illusory) identity." There is an illusion of self.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, — Janus

Correct. Statements about entities with identities, and mine above, attempting to qualify that statement. But why stop there? With the exception of empirical science, which operates under the hypothesis that its method of testing yield truths in the phenomenal world*,

*and if empirical science or conventional activities were to claim, or if we should conclude on our own, that their processes yield ultimate truths about the real world existing independently of the world projected by mind, then 1. That is an untested hypothesis, 2. Our hypotheses even about the so called real world remains untested.

In a word, if it's anything but hypotheses we are after, in every academic discipline, art, and day to day activities, we have a problem

When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving. — Fire Ologist

I agree. There is no being in Mind's projections. There is only the movements of becoming and the concomitant temporary settlements (beliefs), mechanisms creating all of our illusions.
.

That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus

I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.

We selves are living paradoxes. — Fire Ologist

I agree with both of you on those points, partly to my surprise. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your views (I understand your views differ from one another on detail too). I wonder if having read my comments, you are surprised I agree with your statements?

It is a necessarily twisted topic. (Jokingly) It’s as if someone set up a firewall to prevent its penetration.

The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”. — Fire Ologist

Yes. That actually encapsulates my beliefs too.

Paradox of being human. The Fictional Mind thinks it is real, functions in knowing, but has no access to Reality. The Real Body is real aware-ing, and has no concern for knowing. The knower is ineluctably making up the knowledge. As soon as it gets close to reality, it is blocked by paradox.

The self is... the Body.
The self [which] cannot be...is the Subject, yet
Only the self which cannot be desires to be.
Because the self that is, is being, and only being.

but what I subjectively know is that my mind is in a larger world apart from my mind, so I have knowledge of objective facts.

So I don’t see why we need to assert fact 3 (no accurate connection) — Fire Ologist

But if that "subjective knowledge of objective facts," is itself not what it proclaims with the word "knowledge." (I am already with you that this is seeming like a twisted "argument," veering off course from conventional logic and reasoning. I submit that that cannot be avoided. In fact, that it cannot be avoided, coincidentally supports the very twisted argument)

Knowledge itself, needs first to pass the test that it is what we conventionally think it is, a revealing, discovering, uncovering of facts/data/truths. "I can only participate in it through exploration and discovery...". I currently don't believe that to be the case.

If the "objects" of "knowledge" are

"constructed and projected" by (no.1) mind, following an autonomous conditioned process of "dialectic"

and are at best representations of the so called objective world, and not "discoveries" following exploration of the real world independent of Mind (no.2)

then we are back to having no connection possible between mind and the objective world (no.3).

My addendum to that is,

1. some intuitively or reasonably read things like sollopsism, nihilism, etc. From no.3. But we are the real world independent of Mind. We need not bridge the gap between mind and Reality, because we, as beings, organisms, like the rest, are that reality. Only mind desires access giving rise to this and all discourse with its projections.

2. within the domain of Mind, the question becomes, are we utterly alienated subjects, or is there "shared subjectivity." And to that I say, Mind is one and in its domain subject/object do not point to separate beings, each with its own "in itself" etc. Rather they are mechanisms functioning, and projecting "selves"/thises and thats/not this but thats/and objects out of selves, not I but It.

You have mind one over here, and mind two over there. If they are to share anything at all between them, they need some object to share. — Fire Ologist

The object they "share" is itself, Mind, not a thing but a dynamic process moving as History, stationed within billions of fully permeable loci, because bodies provide the infrastructure and feedback for conditioning, the feelings, and the means for action. And embodiment cause the subject to stand in displacing the Body, creating the long evolving illusion that we are separated and our self identity and all of its object associations are real. But only the Body is real; a being in the real world independent of Mind.

The denial of objectivity (mind independent reality) in itself makes all speech and thought meaningless. — Fire Ologist

Yes and that's why mind evolved such illusions as subject/object, because mind is speech. We have subject/object, and all qualities to make speech "real"; not the other way of viewing it; not subject/object must be real because we speak.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

Facts are great. Sure. But they're easily dispensed with little incentive to understand from where or why they arise — Benj96

Totally. To add to your observation, I have found that, not only is it fact based rather than "skill" based; but, the "skills" which are taught are not focused on how to think, but rather, how to grow up gainfully employed, even for kids at elementary levels. Of course, I am not so naive as to deny the value; but, like you, I think teaching how to think must be a priority, beginning in early years.

I referred to that in a previous comment. — Lionino

Apologies.

If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction. — Corvus

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals]

My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church. — Lionino

Ok, I did read that in your previous comments. Perhaps I superimposed a more polemical tone in how I read some of the "cloudier" language. Since that's your point, yes. While I think there's room for debate, I have no problem accepting that, and proceeding "aesthetically" as you say. Of course the so-called Bible from which I derive my heretical interpretation is a Church doctrine and therefore by definition any interpretation inconsistent therewith is heretical. I'm contrite for being so fixated that I didn't hear you speaking that simple undeniable truth.

However, two worthies of mention (unless more arise quickly enough)

1. Some interpretations following an independent reading might coincidentally be orthodox. I'm not suggesting the result nullifies that the process was aesthetic. I'm noting that it is reasonable to be flexible about the process if the end result bears orthodox "truth." It might even be viewed favorably as "independent" confirmation. Of course, for what that's worth to the Vicar of Christ which needs no independent verification. I'm just saying...

2. In fairness, the question, what kind of influence has Xtianity been? Does not necessarily call for an orthodox, or theological/ecclesiastical process. Or am I mistaken? In fact to have to answer that question, and associated ones like the role of the historical Jesus, within those confines would be futile. The answer is the Church is God's fiduciary on earth, period.

One would have to proceed historically, as sociological, or, as you said, aesthetically. So though you may have only been after that point quoted above and nothing else; and though I stubbornly bypassed it, I'm not sure why, when the historical Jesus was raised, it would be relevant to insist upon an ecclesiastical perspective, other than to point out, as information, that the ones you were commenting upon happened to be following an historical-critical approach potentially unsanctioned by the self proclaimed catholic and orthodox Church (again, no offense. I recognize much good in thd Church, that is not my focus)

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"? — Lionino

Yes, I now see the distinction. And, trust you see why it's not relevant (unless as info...). If the OP asked has the Harry Potter series been an influence of good, you would not insist that any analysis of restrict itself to an orthodox reading as intended by the author. Even an analysis of the very text.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y. — Lionino

Yes. And I reiterate that you unblocked me on the first part, i.e. you can stop at mistake. But as a side note the second part raises an interesting variation which doesnt effect my acknowledgement of the first part, but may have implications. The point of the church is to dictate truths we must believe. There is necessarily no room for analysis. JK Rowling has written fiction. In fact, there are many who might argue her intent ought not shape our analysis. And as an author (I dont know) she might encourage creative analyses.

Our question in the OP is more like the analysis of fiction. Quick and simple illustration. These are not intended to follow any strict format of logic nor speak to the OP.

Q. Has Xtianity been a force of good?
A. No. It hasn't followed its own teachings.
Q. How so?
A. Jesus says love your enemies, there are
examples where they have not.
Objection. You can't speak to what Jesus says, you're not the Church.

That's what it seems like you are asserting.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively?

I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with both points above. From my analysis which I acknowledge may or may not be orthodoxy,

1. Yes in the synoptics J can get pretty gnostic. I do not think agnosticism is not orthodoxy necessarily because the former did not conform to the historical J or the early church I.e., first 100 years of the C.E. It was a struggle for dominance of the early Church's opposing "interpretations" gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, etc. An earlier version of that is the struggle between Paul who thirsted for the spread of Christ to the so called Greeks vs those so called Judaisers who insisted that Torah etc be strictly adhered to. Though a compromise appears to have been made, Pauls language (which I would argue was far from antisemitic, but rather, along the lines of, hey brothers, if we're going to spread this thing, we need to let up stuff like circumcision and pork)** arguably, the tragic first seed of Xtianity's shameful history of antisemitism.
EDIT**I don't mean it was fine to insist to his fellow Judaens that we should abandon circumcision and pork. I'm saying that was a concern he was willing to bypass in his desperation to spread the new religion among the gentiles. And tragically from the early Church to very recent times, Paul's choices contributed to corrupt antisemetic interpretations of "the gospels," obviously both Jesus, Paul, and the majority of tge first Apostles, Acts and thereafter, were Jewish, and continued for a while to identify as such.

2. I agree Thomas doesn't "contradict" the canonical gospels, it expands with a multitude of gems which are vague enough that they ready themselves for
many interpretations.
Addendum: thank God it was left out of the canonical gospels.

Hence, its meaning is expressed. — jkop

In our conventions that's an acceptable statement. I'm suggesting on an alternative analysis its "meaning" is (temporarily) "constructed" in the expression, by the effect it has upon the participating bodies--feeling--belief--action. And these constructions--that is, "meaning"-- is not a static and in itself thing, but a fast moving train making brief stops.

I like Ice cream has countless subtle effects upon parties from stop to stop. And while a statement like porcupines are ptickly "appears" not to be moving (because we think it is confirmed by our senses).* Meaning is neither static nor ultimately real.

*I am not saying we cannot trust our sense, or that the latter is not Real. I'm saying the statements immediately surfacing following sensation, I.e. perception, is a process of constructing functional but fleeting meaning.

Or, meaning is not expressed but constructed repeatedly in the process of every expression, internal or outward.

What I'm meaning to say is one looks at a random dead body and the Truth of that, whatever it is, just is.

But the instant one thinks or expresses "that is a dead body," one/we think they have expressed an objective truth (and we have set up "shared" criteria long before that encounter which triggers that label).

Then those who believe all truths are either subjective or shared subjective (the latter being "objective" analysed at a closer level: simply the shared criteria), simply recategorize the thought triggered by the encounter as subjective and a silent, "to me" is implied before the statement (to me that is a dead body)

All "three" perspectives (objective/shared subjective/subjective) "think" a Truth has been expressed; and, think the matter for (philisophical) analysis lies in the "truth" (of it) and "who" made it or "who" does it directly effect.

But I'm saying the matter for (philisophical) analysis is neither. It is only "true" for the process attuning to it, and only because of the habitation to the criteria we share. And subjective or objective are more criteria constructed and shared.

The matter for (philisophical) analysis is in the "what" effect the statement has on the parties involved in the process. If it is functional for all minds involved in that tiny locus of moving history to temporarily settle there--that is a dead body--then it is true. If one party entertains a contradictory statement "I saw her breathe", that statement is brought into a new cycle of dialectic until the parties settle on a new functional belief. And so on.

The reason it may be functional to analyze the process in that way is because it doesn't just apply in encounters with statements about empirically testable so called truths, but to all truth statements, projected
internally or into the so called world. So that when I say God is only the god of Abraham or of Krishna, and a million people
agree, that is neither subjective nor shared subjective, but a settlement upon a statement as (temporarily) functional. And the same goes with statements like "roses come in a variety of colors." No where are these Ultimate Truths, subjective or objective. Everywhere they are statements settled upon by an individual or a group because it is functional to so settle.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon. — BitconnectCarlos

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. It presented too "mystical" a Jesus and ignored the urgency of the parousia which the early church was fixated on.

But not because there is anything antithetical to the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels, right?

Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

We've had our back and forth earlier and I was content to adjourn. But I am truly confused by your insistence and am curious to understand.

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. Why? The Church has given itself that authority. Or do you think it to be truly ordained by (a) god?

If I'm not mistaken, you claim you're not even a Christian, yet confidently further restrict the Church so ordained, to just the Catholic one (you realize yet there are Orthodox and Protestants who would think otherwise--and as I said, I was raised Catholic, and have no bone to pick. Its just hard to believe you are seriously taking this stance).

You might be technically correct when you state that if you are against Xtian dogma you're not a Xtian, just as for Buddhists. But even if that were the case, I can't believe you're seriously claiming (as you seem to have been) that one who doesn't adhere to that Church's dogma, has no business formulating opinions about, and discussing, Jesus in a way which differs from such teachings.

Even in something as technical as math or science there are variations and progressions. Even the global "Church," as in the severed Body of Christ, has come up with several interpretations of Jesus. So, your insistence is confusing.

And if your reply is anything like "You can say whatever you want about Jesus, its just not Xtian, or accurate," I'd say that's not what most of your replies sound like. They sound like your saying You can't say anything about Jesus unless it conforms strictly with the teachings of (what?) the Roman Catholic Church as dictated from time to time by the Vatican?

And further, while you are correct to an extent about the ancient Catholic church compiling the Vulgate, precursor to the "Bible," that may give them authority over how their flock interprets the gospels, but not in any way a monopoly over the "right" interpretation. And note, copies of gospels, the letters of Paul had been circulating among the Churches in Greece, Italy and tge Levant long before there even was a Catholic Church. So what if I said I was formulating my hypotheses from those manuscripts in the Hellenic Greek in which they were written? Would that release me from the fetters of the Institution, and free me to think of Jesus in the ways those readings inspire?

With respect, it sounds like either you are repeating a polemic in support of the Catholic Church (in which case, all power to you) or you have so much contempt for the whole thing that it suits you to relegate all talk of Xtianity, Jesus included to authoritarian Dogma, institutional religion, the way some non-Muslims wish to insist that you cannot be a Muslim and not believe in the more fanatical version of Jihad.

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. And I assure you, I'm trying to understand.

I wouldn't know about it unless I find your body or someone else finds your body and tells me about it. So, your dead body would be a shared subjective truth for everyone who sees your dead body. — Truth Seeker

Lest you think I misunderstood (or, I'm case I did) in the scenario above, I would say death and its body are what they are. The moment a member of the living expresses "that body is dead" or "that's a dead body" whether as a thought to themselves or a statement to an other, the "thing" of that expression is not (surprisingly, because we are habituated to "think" otherwise) in its truth, objective or otherwise; but in its function. That's what both words and the so called truths they express are "there for," and believing them or not is the effect of that process. There is never any real truth to be found, because the process is an empty train in motion. No static subject to anchor (substantiate) it, no object to substantiate (anchor).

The shared subjective truths are often referred to as "objective truths" but are not actually objective. — Truth Seeker

I agree with a variation/qualifier (unless, I misunderstand and I simply agree).

My qualifier is that there is neither subjective nor objective truths. Just the expression and hearing of "shared" "truths," constructed by history and reconstructed for expression and re-expression in history.

Expressions of truth are not static, wholes, determinable independently etc etc. That's how they are not "objective." They are fleeting, empty of any essence; parts in an interdependent dynamic process, ("history").

So called "truths" are incessantly moving; even if some, like the truth about the sum of two rational numbers, move astronomically slowly; while others like the truth about what is stylish in clothes move quickly.

The raison d'etre of so called truths is in their expression, and how they function to trigger further movements in that process, and ultimately feelings and actions among real living bodies and their species. That's how they're not "subjective."

Even inner thoughts or expressions of truth never shared with a single other (a doubtful scenario) are expressions intended to find their place or function in the world of others, and are not purely subjective.

Why would I even say "purple is the most beautiful color?" Ultimately not for its "truth" but for how that statement functions internally in so called "my" mind or outwardly in the world.

I'm not expressing truths ever when I am expressing; neither subjective nor objective. Rather expressions are performing a function.

When I say "your subjectivity", I guess and hope that you will be able to find in yourself what I mean. Actually this happens continuously whenever we communicate and use language, even when we communicate with ourselves, which is when we just think. — Angelo Cannata

Its subjective mode of existing doesn't prevent me from expressing it in epistemically objective ways. — jkop

Consider there's no real subjective/objective, but, rather only expressing. Words are projected into the world "I like Ice cream," and received by other. The "meaning" was never an inherent, stable, in itself thing. As Angelo implied, I don't even know what "I like Ice cream" means when I think it, let alone say it. It is expressed and heard as a process which will have an effect. If the speaker, in the next movement says the listener was wrong in the latter's "interpretation", that too is the process described. If a redescription is expressed, same. And so on.

But that hypothesis (if even acceptable) doesn't (I believe) address the OP. The OP describes a very special scenario. It may even be referring to a rare moment where that hypothetical process described is "interrupted." Where the given body is temporarily suspended from that process and faced with only a real feeling not yet displaced by that process and its construction of meanings and functions.

You don't have any words to describe your idea — Scarecow

A possible "explanation": you are describing a scenario where an unfamiliar feeling arises in your body. Your mind is at a loss to describe it because, unlike most feelings, it hasnt followed a well conditioned process, isnt habitual or conventional, and hasn't already been displaced by well tread "ideas" or words. (When the feelings displaced by many variations of sadness are triggered, the words are readily available to describe the feeling, and it is clear that it is rooted in a feeling, for e.g.)

The reason it seems like an idea more than a feeling in your hypothetical is because, albeit less familiar (or not attuned to), words still played a role in triggering the feeling, and words immediately clamor to the surface to construct meaning out of the feeling. Those "early" projections are the "idea." They might be vaguely related to the words first triggering the feeling. But they are insufficient because the feeling is novel. So you are at a loss for words.

Maybe off topic, and chances are I am wrong from a scholarly "Kantian" perspective, but I sense that is what Kant was describing regarding the "Sublime," only without the benefit of a century of psychoanalytic theory, functionalism, and Zen (for "Westerners").

Also off topic, but there is, I believe, a "what to do" with that feeling. I wonder what would happen if, in such novel feelings, one try (though this could be impossible, like in the though experiment "don't think of monkey") to silence the flow of words--by attuning solely to the feeling. Instead of constructing meaning/trying to put it into words, be (the) feeling.

And why do I say all this? Because I don't think one could have an idea without some form of representation/signifier. If not words per se, at least numbers, shapes, symbols, images. Things which can be re-represented in words. At least more than what I assume you were getting at.

The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible. — Chet Hawkins

Ok. Please, how? Not just the one I proposed. How does it close the book on everything?

For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens. — Chet Hawkins

And (not having reflected deeply on it) this is not the sort of thing I need convincing. What I still cannot comprehend is why that statement must be true pre-human existence; why it is absolute, a law of nature. But I'm going to re-read.

Not a single idea on these pages is original.
— ENOAH
I disagree. I think many of mine are. — Chet Hawkins

You may be thinking relatively. What I mean is that you did not simply learn English literacy, reflect, and come up with these ideas.

It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all. — Chet Hawkins

I'm grinning admiringly at your "That is all"
I sense you might not even mean that is all for moral choice, but maybe for the structure and movement of reality. Why? Even if you were accurately describing the mechanisms at play in moral choice, why are they not functioning within a (for lack) "greater" system?


"

sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you? — Chet Hawkins

What you were referring to was my recognition of a contradiction in my current leaning. That is, if choices are the result of autonomous processes of cause and effect (triggers) and yet, I recognize that within that system we yet have a duty to act morally. How? My answer was that the duty and the actions in accordance therewith are also movements within that system. And I admit as of yet I cannot articulate further. But in another thread I reached a belief that certain paradoxes might be the result of having reached the boundaries of the system and at a precipice of truth.

I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. — Chet Hawkins

Ok it's good I have the chance to clarify. I didn't mean people sharing in this forum as a class. I mean, in response to my self posed question--what triggers us to duty and responsibility if not having a good moral nature-- and i say the mechanism which leads us to make moral choices comes to us from others who simply share the right statement at the right time and it fits (like people sharing statements here. I may read something which triggers me in a certain direction not even intended by the writer).

[There’s no point in "going along with it" because it sounds intriguing. Is it compelling? Please indulge me. It is something I need to understand before I settle upon it, continue to play with it, or defer it indefinitely. I prefer settling. But I respect your time and appreciate the agony you felt pushing through until sleep pinned you. So please take your time.] that is, should you wish to reply]

I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. — Chet Hawkins

Thank you. You did. But I am as yet far from having mastered it. And anyway, I wanted to see how it ties in specifically here. Sorry if I seem to be exploiting.]

the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions. — Chet Hawkins

"Emotions": are you entertaining any version of universal awareness/consciousness, then, at the root of/the source or essence of reality?

These balances are laws of nature.[/quote


So, if not universal consciousness, is it that you are using the word "emotion" (which triggers associations with consciousness) because that is the "word" available. But I need to look at it from the source--Laws of Nature. The triad (more like trinity, as they are three "forces" in one?) are not literally "emotional" but are the Laws which ultimately manifested in us as these three emotions (right?).

— Chet Hawkins

these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice. — Chet Hawkins

EDIT: The middle of this is my reply; not your quote. I cannot fix it.

Oh. OK. Choice functions as these (so called) emotions? The triad is both what structures moral choice (noumenally?) independent of human mind/existence; and its (moral choice's) function?

You'll likely answer as we proceed. But why must it be the Laws of Nature? Im ready to settle on that these three structure and move choice But isn't it just as possible that these are the Laws of human Mind? I won't argue the point. My intent is to understand yours. But when I offer alternatives as I just did, these are where I need better comprehension or more convincing.

How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? — Chet Hawkins

I should've read on.

PERFECT balance — Chet Hawkins

Ok. I've referred to the expression of your ideas as poetic. Now I am fully confident having read the overall structures of your insughts that there are layers upon layers of complexity which led to the projection into the world in its poetic seeming form. Yes that aspect draws me in. But in this paragraph I respectfully say either the poetry is so distracting that I am missing the how-we-got-there; or you're describing it only poetically. Because--I repeat, I know you have reasoned the laws and dynamics--what I'm reading sounds like epic mythology: in the beginning the forces of desire and fear battled it out and anger emerged to balance the two and all of our current morality are projections of that battle etc.

I'm wondering, is it actually that? Out of Being emerged these actual emotions?

If so, would it not make even more (not equal) sense to say that out of human language emerged these now dynamic and law following emotions which form the basis of human moral choice? Why bother even looking for parallels in physics. And as for order and time, I say damn right these too emerged out of human Mind and only for human mind. But again, not now.

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free?
— ENOAH
That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. — Chet Hawkins

Off topic of understanding your hypotheses (who knows, topic might shift if you raise further questions) but to be concise.

An in-between is choice itself is a "final" (for that event effecting the choice) mevanism in a process which runs not by the free wilfully movements of a central being (I.e. the so called self), but runs autonomously in accordance with evolved and well tread laws and dynamics. The end result is the function of the countless triggers which got it there. Like Dominoes falling. But unle dominoes no body set them up, each trigger is the result of a preceding trigger right up to the so called final settlement at belief, and in many cases belief is also choice. Choice then triggers the body to feel and to act. There was no free will, but there was also nothing pre-determined. In between.

People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. — Chet Hawkins

I am genuinely surprised at how often variations of that have popped up. I think there might be value in psychoanalysis for the roots of philosophies. But not as an argument against in this way. I could say people want free will to be true because their ego's are terrified at the thought of its own futility (the accurate view us, BTW, not that the ego is futile. It serves a function. Just not the one our Narratives have brought it to, I.e. not the center of being).

Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing. — Chet Hawkins

See? I love the sound of that. And God! I want to be convinced. But I still believe choice evolved etc


.

And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case — Chet Hawkins

And I say, briefly, the happiness is not some ontological real pre existing force. It is a result of the right choice (right defined by convention, learned by trial and error, conditioned response) triggering happy feelings. Then why choose immoral? Because by the same process they trigger other feelings, power or pleasure related feelings. And that individual was constructed to trigger such feelings. It was written on her "soul" She had no choice. But not fatalism nor nihilism. If some series of triggers came along and fit just right, she might choose happiness over power in the future.


I'm going to stop here and read the rest of your post. Again, thank you.

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

Back to more conventional philosophy. Parmenides settled on all is one because of his construction that nothing can proceed from nothing meant there can't be a beginning (and therefore end) Thus all has always been, and always been as one. The multiplicity of things are illusions projected by One.

So, is the resolution to your, and all paradoxes, simply that paradoxes are not to be approached as things to resolve with logic. Paradoxes arise out of projections of Truth but are not true (to use a classical way) in themselves? They take us to the outer ranges of logic and leave us on a single precipice surrounded by what we think must be an empty abyss.

Your fittingly melancholy flavored conclusion "that's all we can understand," applies to the "domain" of the projections; before we arrive at the precipice, where we must abandon understanding. It turns out, its not meloncholy, but cause for celebration, the paradox and its irresolvibility! Truth is "beyond" the domain of understanding; the realm of multiplicity. It certainly cannot be harvested out of logic, nor anything involving the use of Language, arguably a projection twice removed.

The value in understanding this "paradox" is to better understand what the word "nothing" means since many people think that nothing means something which can be understood, something that other things cannot logically come from, when in reality, it's just complete non-understanding. — Echogem222

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

This--my remark to follow this preamble--is not conventionally philosophical, and as for logic, it is necessarily not that. But in my estimation it is philosophy, only it is philosopy not "thought," but "done"---(if properly executed) by the Body. I am sensitive to the fact that it may annoy (already), but who knows, it may not. So, as a well intended arrow shot in the dark,

Your topic--your struggle to resolve the paradox--has an affinity with Koans (in Rinzai Zen). Explaining would be counter productive. I'll just illustrate with a classic by Hakuin,

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

To which the answer is an abrupt, shallow inhale, followed by a joyful long exhale expressing, simultaneously with a blooming grin, and the breath, all barely audibly, "riiiiiight."


Necessary addendum: anyway that's how my body felt after reading those statements I quoted above.

nor does anyone since their number's growing as we speak. I can't tell if you were kidding. Either way, sorry for the confusion.

We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. We just can't have it killing again. We don't feel it really had a choice, for whatever reason, and don't hate it. — Patterner

Yes. In fact we regret having to "punish" it. So what makes us, the conceited ape, so different? I believe it is only that we use "language," and that language has evolved into a system of such complexity in its storage in the human brain that its laws and dynamics (though awesome and functional as hell) have displaced the truth.

And we "believe" what it says. And it most conventionally says we have freedom and responsibility so we believe it.

Of course all of which creates the deeper problem that believing we have no free will is equally a dictate of that language and it's process. And I haven't settled comfortably yet with how to resolve that seeming paradox other than to say settling at the point of paradox must be the closest we can get to the truth inside that system of Language.

All because we are not simply subject to our pasts and physical factors, like storms and avalanches, bees, asked dogs.

Except we are. — Patterner

...and there's that paradox...that precipice of truth?

Even under LFW, we are guided by our impulses, knowledge, assumptions, etc. — Relativist

We can learn from the consequences, and this can result in better decisions in the future. — Relativist

Yes, and that too, the "learn from" and "better decisions" are mechanism which evolved in the so called decision making process, so that when we "learn" and when we make "better decisions" of course, we (falsely) conclude it was our freedom which allowed for it. But these are functions of Mind which move "for" "us" but there is no individual particular of that "us" guiding that process and pulling its strings.

implications of determinism...[are] that they have zero responsibility.
I disagree because this sense of responsibility is a part of our mechanism, and contributes to our choices. — Relativist

I think you are right. It seems to contradict "itself" but the "reason" there is ultimately no freedom (in the more or less conventional way we use that word) is because like, as you say, responsibility, choice and free choice are built-in mechanisms of that process which temporarily ends in a "decision" action or idea. You might say we have freedom and responsibility but they just happen as steps in an overall autonomously moving System.

I note that I may have taken liberties with my expansion on how I interpreted your
point. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood.

Did your past state determine that your present state would exclude that line? — NOS4A2

:ok: Nice!!

perhaps other philosophies reflect other mindstates? — Benj96

While I'm not prepared to complete such an exercise, it would be interesting if philosophies are "reactive" formations (in the psychoanalytic tradition).

An ideological anarchist is a psychological submissive (wishing to break free);
Deontologist / Morally loose
Existentialist / Emotionally hopeless
and so on,

but...meh. I don't think such a hypothesis can be supported. And yet, to me, your question above is almost inevitably answered in the affirmative. Whether "consciously" or "unconsciously" how can a mindstate not leach into an ideology or (at least a precriptive) philosophy? Just as current culture, a philosopher's locus in History, cannot but influence her constructions/projections into that same History.

Is it not fair to suggest that any given "philosophy" is necessarily constructed using the "words" floating around in the philosopher's individual Mind applied to and combined with the words input from others' minds. What else is there?

Though I’m sure many people are content with the implications of determinism, that they have zero responsibility, and their actions have somehow began outside of them. — NOS4A2

I am surprised at how common this view is, albeit expressed in degrees of subtlety. That is, that those who have settled against free-will are doing so out of a psychological desire to be "free" of responsibility.

I don't believe that to be the case. To me the question is more about the nature/structure of human Mind/metaphysics than morality. I.e., the moral implications follow my judgment about whether or not we have free will, rather than informing it.

But I do find it interesting.

when you keep things vague and generalize what a hole is, it's a paradox, but when you get specific and realize there are two types of holes, you realize the paradox resolves itself. — Echogem222

since many people think that nothing means something which can be understood, something that other things cannot logically come from, when in reality, it's just complete non-understanding. — Echogem222

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

:up:

How many "philosophical" hypotheses (including, admittedly, any that I may entertain) rest on just such a thing as you have illustrated; that is, on a necessary (yet, not necessarily) presumption about meaning?

While I am not a logician in any sense, and ought not comment on the paradox, qua "paradox." I think both your paradox, and the responses, illustrate the same thing. That we arrive at all of our (temporary) "conclusions" through the fundamentally empty and fleeting movement of words, we are bound to run into walls of confusion (at best), "absurdity" seeming impossibility, at worst.

To me, that is not very troubling or surprising. What is more troubling and surprising, is that we "think" those walls are not there when things appear to run smoothly in spite of them (because the intended function of the word seems to have been satisfied), and on that basis, declare (that their use--these fleeting and empty representations with walls), not just point to "truth(s)" but are certainly True.

Good enough...and this is for what it is worth and in no way a "correction" but I believe I am fixating on the intricate details. That the statement, "for Hinduism the universe is an illusion" is accurate provided it is qualified that the "universe" referred to is the one (and the way in which) we "see". But that the universe is ultimately real, in the Being of Brahman...any way, your point was well taken.

I am not sure what other illusions I might still have. — Corvus

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions?

According to Hinduism, the entire universe is an illusion — Truth Seeker

Perhaps you are correct and my read is deficient. But I think for (the) "Hinduism" (you are likely referencing), the Universe is real, but all which we conventionally experience is (clouded by) projections of that Reality and not the Reality Itself, hence the "illusion."

our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust). — Antony Nickles

Well said from where I'm standing. Especially the bit about knowledge displacing being.

what does that path look like? — Antony Nickles

Not to be "cute": that path doesn't "look" like anything. The "looking" is already an act within the cave. We happen to always be, and always already are on the path by being. Any turning or looking is looking away.

People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs — Sam26

I'd dare say the metaphysical (for humans) is the psychological.

Some people think they have all the answers — Sam26

Note: any claim or assertion I make has the implied preface "In my opinion, but then, at tge end of the day, what do I know," notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.

98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit. — Sam26

And this is not facetious, isn't that residual 2% just our ego's demand for the comfort of certainty in knowledge, a thing we are constructing as we go? Isn't the 2% just well crafted bullshit?

The present age is adamant that there need not be a central being at the helm of things as complex as electrons, molecukes and planets, that these are processes of causes and effects playing out since the big bang.

But it can’t comprehend that there can be no one at the helm, that it can be processes of causes and effects since the the emergence of mind and one's birth, in making a decision to go for an ice cream cone instead of killing the neighbor.

And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed. — Chet Hawkins

Needed. Please.

If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. — Chet Hawkins

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice."

The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral.

Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second.

Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral.

This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares?

But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem.

Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved (because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being.

Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, — Chet Hawkins

I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. Not a single idea on these pages is original. I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting.

The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it.

That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral. — Chet Hawkins

And I say there is nothing inherently wrong about making K's deontology the moral structure of history going forward. But where you might say it is anyway, universally and essentially, and we ought abide by it; I say it only is if "we" as in that autonomously moving process will have
made it so.

If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter. — Chet Hawkins

All of that doesn't matter if meaning too, and choices mattering, are evolved mechanisms of that process.

What's your point? you might ask. If the system has evolved these sophisticated mechanisms of freedom choice and meaning, for all intents and purposes, they are real and do matter. Right ? I say yes they do. But my point is, whereas we insist on these as absolutes, as essences, the process has no essence, it is fleeting and empty of "thing in itself" etc. So openess and flexibility, are the way to go. reminded me of Taoism recently. Perhaps that is the moral imperative, be always as an uncarved block ready to serve the Way ( ie. Process or system).

interested in taoism for most of my life. I loved Le Guin's Earthsea books and the old Kung Fu tv show as a kid. Years later, for whatever reason, I started reading the Tao Te Ching , and immediately recognized it. — Patterner

I can't doubt it has structured the Foundations of my constructions, though I have not picked up anything

Taoist for some time. You mention Lao Tze. You may be getting to this as I read on, but the Zhuangzi are (I can't think of a worthy adjective) insightful. Used to be called Chuang Tzu and I bet there are scholarly translations from that time still in use (Watson? I think).

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I gather it goes much farther than taoism does in the direction you're speaking of. But I believe both offer paths to a life that is more content and less frantic. Which probably also helps people be physically healthier. — Patterner

I have to say, in fairness to both Taoism and Buddhism I am far from an "adherent" nor "auhority". I was "challenged" in another thread(?) when I spoke freely about Jesus but outside of church orthodoxy, and you could say the same about taoism, and Buddhism for me. They are building blocks in what this locus in History is currently projecting.

The primary reason you're right that B goes farther in this (my) direction than T, is T is not a good fit with western philosophy at the level of discourse (and though my loose speech may not suggest it Kant, Hegel, Husserl, etc are also blocks; as are so many without my awareness. I believe I should read Merleau-Ponty, for instance but haven't gotten around to it. And Rorty! No doubt they have constructed my thinking.) Sorry my autobiographical points are to illustrate that I have sensed some--no doubt genius--"philosophers" like to insist upon what I see as "institutional" roots of an idea for it to deserve a hearing. I think almost the contrary. Of course we build off of all that is before us and should endeavor to know. And I admire the knowledge of those who like to root their ideas in authority. I just think "freedom" has its function. Ironic, when there is no real freedom. I know. Truth is, both expressing and following these hypotheses places you in paradox. People critique that (you are contradicting etc) and they're right. But it's because they haven't considered that being in the paradox is almost the closest you can get to an empirical observation (hence Zen Koan, but I'm so off topic).

Heck, even if it isn't truth, I see the value. (I suppose that's a matter of opinion.) — Patterner

And an aspect of these hypotheses is that truth is ultimately what is functional. By the way, accepting that Mind is Fictional (bluntly) seems scary, nihilistic, absurd. But it is very functional. I could fill up a page. But at least, remember, mind is Fictional, you are real. It's just that you're not mind. Sounds "religious" but, you're better. Though mind is neither good nor bad but self defines good and bad.

a rejection of our individuality. The universe allows for me, and for you, to exist. Why should we not embrace and explore this? — Patterner

Nice. I am not advocating for the rejection of our individuality. Cherish it. Great has come out of the constructions, love has grown far beyond its organic root. Shelters have become great art, and so too is the individual a great thing. And why should knowing you are the breath of Nature and the aware-ing of the universe make you sad about your Subject. It is a character for you to understand microscopically if you try. And I am not saying I have mastered that or even remotely approached it. But I do believe from a microscopic analysis of your character as if to master a role in a movie, you will be delighted to find that things like peace and compassion arise.

What would have been accomplished by having tried to deny the individual point of acute consciousness when it was possible?

And what would have been the point if there is not a universal consciousness, and this is it? — Patterner

No, I think you are bang on friend. There is a universal consciousness. Move mountains with our special tool, and play your role (reminding me of the Bhagavad Gita--also, turns up out of nowhere without having thought about it; and they say mind isn't autonomous--joke) but know that you are universal consciousness.

And if there is no being present, then to what does the seeming seem to be? — Patterner

[Reiterating that anything I say is unauthorative, and literally just my humble opinion, Grant me the freedom to just answer directly...]

The simple "one line" (likely it'll end up being multi-line) response is, because somewhere in the evolution of Mind, or what we call history, "being" emerged in its likely current state, triggering the necessary, but subtle, imperceptible *) organic feelings which correspond with that Signifier (and it's common local structure, like reality, existence, substance, essence,...,subject...). When the subject emerged it (very simplified), 1. "Stood in for" the Body (which has no self consciousness but is only present aware-ing. 2. (Eventually...but then all of it was/is Eventually. It's still eventual. One day, though extremely unlikely, we may be selfless, having evolved a system which drops the Subject...Eventually) Completely displaced the body: its organic sensation of a real world, displaced by constructions of that world, once removed from Reality, filtered, fictional; its feelings became emotions; its drives became the desire of these signifiers to project; from their the Dialectical process moving it along ( I'm leaving out a lot). At some point(s) in this, the Narrative form evolves, the necessary "I" participates in almost every sentence, or at least hangs back in the shadows. And now, (to answer your question when that dialectic takes place, the one "I" say (I know many do, I'm just speaking for myself) moves autonomously, without a being at the center, Mind and its Narrative, which has been structured with "being" with "I" and with "pulling the strings" (explaining our also Fictional concept of God without negating god--just as this negates the self without negating "its" reality albeit in an unspeakable form), constructs the Narrative signifier structure "I (the body) have made a free choice". These "meaningless" (because to the Body "meaning" has no meaning) Signifiers are sent as code through the fleshy infrastructure of the Body, triggering Body to feel those imperceptible feelings. But they are imperceptible as feelings because they are being "perceived" as the meaning, not the feelings. Now, the Body attuned to that Narrative "I" have made a choice. When really, "it" the "choice" was an autonomous process. What the Body did was feel and/or move, as a result of that process. But the Body did not (as it might for a bonobo who chooses to discard an unfinished banana) attune to the Natural feelings, drives, and actions, and then move on to the next in the successive nows (being), the Body attuned to the story and tge subjects role (becoming)...

*imperceptible because the Signifiers -- the very ones constructing free will -- have displaced the body's present aware-ing of the subtle feelings evolved to trigger a drive, to trigger an action.

Why does it seem there is a being in the mechanistic process? — Patterner

And now, perhaps, you see how there is a being now; its just that being nows "attention" is diverted by a moving train, it is empty and has no presence, and vainly constructs a self and refers to itself as being, but it is by structure and nature always moving, never there. As for the so called "free will" of the real being, the observer whose attention is diverted, free will? It doesn't care.

The fact that we lack the freedom to refrain from things like breathing seems irrelevant- — Relativist

Yes, I agree it seems irrelevant. A clumsy illustration. My point--if it makes a difference now--isn't to say, "see? We can't choose whether or not to breathe, therefore... ." My point (which may equally offend your reasoning on this topic) was to suggest that just as breathing is an autonomous organic process, "deliberating" is an autonomous process having evolved in the human Mind. We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not