Deep apologies for that misstatement

Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples — javi2541997

Ok, well if that's an issue, I don't even need to look at your examples. It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone.

But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right?

Can you explain? — Janus

It requires a long and patient (I.e., on my part) explanation, given it appears "unconventional." Add to that my own limitations at translating my deepest reflections, many not necessarily fully processed (sorry, I know that sounds self serving and pretentious) into text, and, the fact that this is a shared space, you can imagine my challenge (I know, Im not the only one). And yet, my passion to share (which is autonomous, and runs through all of us. . . But Im expanding)

So, I'll give something brief and limited to one aspect of a much larger "picture;" leave it at that for now. Note. I'm trying to be surgical with my words, a skill I lack. I beg some play in the reader.

Sticking to the "I see my hands" example.
Yes we both agree there is a Real, and for the sake of discourse, "knowable" event. That is, in the presence of its being. There are real eyes seeing, real hand seen, all of which takes its place in the presence of being.

But in the instant that that event arises as a thought; specifically in our discussion, the instant it becomes the object of knowing, it (or our real conscious attention to it (?)) "ceases" to be, and "enters" (not literally. Organic consciousness, which naturally attuned to being present (eyes--see-ing--hand) has "its" attunement displaced) is now attuned to becoming ("something"); that is, to no longer really "experiencing" that "knowable" real event (long forsaken), but to constructing it. And that construction process is what we are arguing about as knowing. And that is what I say requires belief and is necessarily not 100% certain.

Even for something as lightening speed as seeing your hand. I say, yes, "you" know this because "you" were there. But you're not there anymore, you're truly just making shit up. Best you can. But still. [Not sure I like the last bit, but wouldn't want to cheat you out of it, should you wish to "attack"]

radical or global skepticism — Janus

I do not agree with that position either.

It is obvious that your eyes see and that the objects are there, and are real. That's not where the uncertainty is. It's in this, my expression of that hypothetical event, and, with respect, it's in yours. We do not disagree that when we look we know and see that we have hands. As to what "your" or simply "knowledge" of that event is, that's where we differ.

If "my" skepticism about that must be relegated to "radical skepticism," so be it. I would then believe there are some who do not understand radical skepticism and think it entertains the foolish idea that you can't be certain you have hands. (Who knows, maybe what you're calling Radical Skepticism is just misunderstood. I haven't studied it well enough to know).

I'll consider whether, and how best to discuss this further. Either way, your OP was perhaps more interesting to some than you might have intended/expected. Sincerely, Thank you.

When I explore my environment I do not find any room for doubt that the things I perceive there are actually there. — Janus

Understood. Thank you.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

It seems everyone is neglecting the pith and substance of the OP.

Comments like, not all Christians "this," or, blame Christians not Christianity, can be applied almost mot a mot to Islam (not all Muslims are terrorists or fanatically sexist). And, as alan1000 was directly suggesting, historically, vice versa. The blame we hurl against one religion can be hurled at the other.

I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases.

That means that systems that appear to have rational principles are in fact voluntaristic frameworks disguised as rational.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

I've generally suspected that most, if not all philosophy or theory, is rationalisation after emotion. — Tom Storm

And emotion is rationalization after feeling. Let me see if I can explain this and how this ties in, without frustrating those who are practicing an admirably tight process when they "do" discourse. I apologize in advance for my anticipated deficiency (neither sarcasm nor self deprecating. Seriously).

If morality is not just rationalization of emotion, then what is its root, at least "for us?" Imagine prehistoric humans with either no language or extremely primitive language like grunts and gesticulations, and focus on the most obvious moral "issue," say murder. I cannot imagine there was a homicide problem. Sure, like Chimpanzees, there was likely occasional reactions to feelings which drove a human to act aggressively, and even kill. And while members of the group might alienate the "killer" this would have to have been an instinct or drive based on other feelings (which now we might label "disgust" "contempt" or "fear" based feelings)

So if what my imagination tells me is plausible, the imperative, "do not kill," better, the principle, "it is wrong to kill," would have emerged after that stage. I currently believe it emerged with the emergence/evolution of Language to a given level (which I won't elaborate on now). That level of Language gave us the equipment and inventory to construct rationalizations we now know as morals.

I also believe that before that hypothetical level of Language development, feelings were organically triggered in response to environmental "events" and we reacted to those feelings, like drives. Some would drive us to aggression, like if a predator or hostile intruder threatened; others drove us to cooperate, share, caress, groom and bond. Once that hypothetical level of Language evolved/emerged, those feelings too, could be rationalized as emotions, hatred or love for e.g., or anger and happiness.

For humans now, with Mind at the helm, "do not kill" is a rationalization of all of the emotions which are rationalizations of all the feelings which are triggered at the presentation of (no longer witnessing or participating in the hostile killing, but sufficiently at the presentation of) related Signifiers: death, kill, violence etc. And we construct the imperative that one should never kill as the fitting response to the manifestation of those signifiers. And we are now lost in that process, believing it to be, not just true and natural, but for some, absolute.

We do not need the moral imperatives. We are not made to rape and murder. We are made to bond, mate and form bonds which we are driven to protect with our lives. But if someone is presented with a "Hitler," and has the opportunity to stop him, it is not the constructed "thou shall not kill," which should play the primary role in the decision not to.

Patterner I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live.
— Truth Seeker
True. But this is just a thought experiment, to see if we can come to any conclusions about the self/mind that we can be reasonably sure of. Imo, we can. At least in regards to human minds. — Patterner

No doubt I share your sentiment above. But it shows how much--for us--life is valued in what our minds do. Because your hypothetical human's life is being assessed from our perspective, that of a conceited ape, we cannot imagine that her life has value. Yet, on a balance there is likely far more life on earth that meets that description, I.e., no sensation, thoughts about past and future, just being.

Mind is great. But is life without mind nothing? Or is life nature's "greatness," the essence, and our mind and its constructions (including the topic of this discussion, the so called self) incidental?

We should try to avoid harming ourselves and others as we stumble around in semi-darkness — Fooloso4

Yes, especially for me, I realize how I am "harming" others when my language is reckless and imprecise. But everyone should be permitted to stumble in the darkness. We are all there anyway.

What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse — Benj96

If the speaker is speaking in earnest*, who am I to judge? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to "play ball" with anyone who truly just wants to play ball?



*(I suppose, including if they are being earnestly comedic, satirical, absurd, etc. That is, "earnest" is related to "intention" not "delivery" )

expect something, to think it most likely, is not necessarily to believe it will happen — Janus

I agree. I was recklessly pursuing a thought.

I'm not claiming there is any right or wrong, or fact of the matter there. — Janus

I appreciate that.

I think we can know many things with certainty. — Janus

Is that not, then dependant upon our definitions of certainty? Assume 100% is a fitting adjective. I.e., that there is absolutely no room for doubt or possibility. Still? I personally cannot see that anywhere

Except, maybe if you "enclose" the knowing and the object of knowing in the "conventional". For e.g. to say I am 100% certain I have a nose on my face. But take that statement outside the box, and already questions arise, what is "nose", what is "face" is it really "on" what is "on" what is "my" is it "my" is there a me, or is there just a lump of flesh? Etc.

Firstly, if I am exploring items outside the scope of your interest, please disregard.

Secondly, maybe the answers are in Arendt, and I'm unaware. I can remember reading The Human Condition (?) years ago. No doubt it has contributed to my narrative, but I can't remember much. And I'm impatient. Sorry.

Thirdly, please bear with me. I am exploring ideas which are apparently (only recently apparent to me to be) outside of the reaches of convention. Or, equally, if not more likely, I have an idiosyncratic way of expressing ideas which are within that reach. Either way, though it may not be obvious, against my impatience, I am trying to be sensitive to both. In other words, I'm not being deliberately puzzling, even less deliberately frustrating, or god forbid obtuse.

(If) culture is Nature (which I haven't settled on) and hubris is "bad" (which I have settled upon). ...

1. Assume, like I do, the broadest definition of culture to mean the very ground of the human condition. ( C is what differentiates us, hence the "human" condition. Not "like" the "rest" of our organic natures). So all human experiences and all of their manifestations which are not strictly primal(?) (you also reference the relevance of prehistoric, so that) are C.

2. But C is Natural, you (and likely most people(?)) say. It's not there in the so-called primal. So it must have evolved...(?)

3. And if C is the ground of the human condition, then hubris also comes from C and its (natural?) evolution. So hubris is natural. And when we see it as bad, that is nature "judging" itself (?). Which if C is natural, our human nature engages in a lot of processes where we necessarily behave as if we were two; behaviors like judging ourselves, speaking to ourselves...but...how? (It least that has to be some form of artificial mechanism taking place)

4. Also if hubris is nature, is it really bad? Yes, I know, aggression is nature and also bad; and so are hurricanes. But are they? If hubris and aggression naturally evolved, they have presumably served some natural fitness for survival. And sure enough, we have surpassed the other primates with hubris. Should we take a step back before we mess with evolution?

I have a few more, I'm sure, but I've said enough to attempt my point. Which is,

Doesn't it seem much simpler (and in the spirit of Ockhams razor) more reasonable to see C--though clearly the ground of the HC--not as a natural evolution, but a complete construction of something new, no longer of this world of natural reality. Something empty of essence or thing in itself; something more like code which emerged/evolved. And C is built out of that. Like everything in C, everything we ordinarily see as "making-up" the HC, Hubris is a construction out of "code" triggering certain organic feelings and activities. Viewed that way, a natural being can, admittedly using the codes accessible in C, designate as something "bad", something we have constructed out of/in C, but something harmful to our organism; a thing we ought to revise or abandon.

In other words, we can most effectively protect our organic beings, and the species, if we recognize that both the so called good and the so called bad are already not what we are, and can be "manipulated" (I prefer edited) or even abandoned if harmful to our organic prosperity; promoted, even reconstructed better, if helpful to our organic prosperity.

if our survival abilities are clouded, we will never be able to adapt, and that is what I think has happened. — isomorph

Here's how I read your ideas. There's "two" of us, but not in the conventional "dualism" sense. One alone is real. The other one, in the words of your narrative, a (multi)cultural construct. So far I'm with you. Though in narrative expressed from my "unique" locus.

The real one you seem concerned about. Again, I'm with you that the "cultural" Narrative has displaced the natural aware-ing of the real one. But I don't think the Real one, organic us, ever loses it's instincts or drives. Because natural aware-ing has its natural attunement "turned away" and "facing" (almost):exclusively "culture" it--real us--is under the "illusion" (not illusion per se, but it seems to be a popular term) that natural drives and senses and feelings are replaced but, as I think you "said" they are clouded over, displaced.

In other words, don't worry* we're still here. We always were and always will be.

*in fairness to your compelling idea, I realize you still raise a valid concern, but, in case you meant, beneath the covers, we were losing our True Being, we can't. But within the "realm" of culture it's a valid concern to think, we could use a little more natural aware-ing, this culture thing is out of hand, yes.

Confucius said, born alike, but by practice far apart. — isomorph

I think "Confucius" was constructing some of the Foundations in culture for that very point you make (and I currently believe) that there is the natural us and the cultural and eventually (both individually and as history) culture takes over (clouds/displaces). But in practice not far apart. Are we kidding? We're the same in nature and in culture. Ignoring nature for now. These variations in culture are minor. We are structured on the same foundational signifiers, we all move by the same dialectical processes, include the subject/object, settle at beliefs, and so on and so on and so on. They only appear to be something different in the given moments along their fleeting manifestations and movements through time. Culture is one thing everywhere. I personally think of it as History or (Universal) Mind. Not in either a mystical nor new age sense. But I won't elaborate.

My point, to wrap, is I agree with you that the natural we, is overshadowed by the cultural we. But I think the natural we is at no risk and is doing fine. And I think the "multi" part of the cultural we is not as multi or mutually exclusive as we think. In fact, it is virtually not at all when viewed structurally.

:up:

Thank you. But it just seems too obvious. Clearly this concept has been considered and reconsidered a thousand times by those who do not think belief is (at least a necessary movement in) knowledge. (?)

Hmm. When "they" were expectations, were they "belief." And now that your expectations have been affirmed, are they knowledge?

Sorry, I regret any part I may have had in meeting your expectations. That was my lame attempt at returning to the root.

The thing is, I still believe knowledge is given its "breath of life" only when the mind makes the final (temporary) movement of belief. Even your last statement can be prefaced with "I believe." It doesn't make grammatical or conventional sense to our ears for nothing. It states a necessary mechanism for a thing to be known. "I believe" is the Signifier structure which is necessarily implied in I know.

Like if I say "give it to me," and "You" are the implied subject addressed. In the implied subject e.g. it's necessity manifests more obviously as grammatical. The implied "believe" is not as obviously necessary in the grammar, but remains just as factually necessary as in the implied subject. However, its latency in grammar has accustomed us to affirming knowledge without the implied belief.

But it is there. We know this intuitively. I'm really not understanding the resistance. And someone more competent and industrious might take the time to demonstrate. But never mind we cannot know with 100% certainty. That reveals another eerie fact about our experience. We cannot know truth period. Knowledge and truth are alien to one another (spoken from the knowledge side of the gap). Thus, after completing a process (and there are many variations of the process, some simple, others complex, slow, fast, etc) and one knows something, it is because they have settled upon it. Sure, with reason. But still, they have believed.

What about truth? If you know truth you know it, belief might be a mechanism. But it wasnt necessary. This might be an objection which hooks us into knowledge doesn't need belief. But worded better I admit by its proponents.

Knowledge takes place without truth. Knowledge is constructed out of the available data. It's not that we don't know whether or not belief was needed. It's always needed to ordain the settlement as knowledge; even if very silently. But it's that we cannot know truth. And I don't mean we can't know if we happen to have stumbled upon it. I mean can't know truth because "know" is constructing a point of temporary settlement.

Lazy e.g.s: this topic deserves much more elegant, microscopic ones, but in 1100 CE they "knew" the earth was central etc. After Newton and before Einstein we "knew" what gravity was.

I agree.

seems no matter how rancid an action might be, we can always summon something more-rancid to happen if we don't take the action, which is when rancid becomes acceptable. — Lionino

When people are starving, they might eat something "rancid".

And where'd the mind come from? What's its true nature? But ok. What if the true nature of the self is the Being in the mind? But what if the true nature of the human Organism were not the self located in mind, but the Being of that organism? I.e. the be-ing (of) the organism, mind/self immaterial. Is there two beings "making up" the human. If so, is one more "important"? If not, which one is real? Isn't the other necessarily an illusion. I know this would not have been so for Descartes, still within a locus of history whose Narrative was dominated by dualism and the Church. But for us, isn't it obvious that the organism be-ing aligns with the rest of Nature, and the self, an oddity unique to a single conceited ape, is the illusion? That organism has sensation. Is that what you mean by there is no self without sense...? But perception is constructed by Mind, displacing the organisms sensation with illusions. The self is one of them.

Wisdom has the unique quality that when we (anyone) sees it they are shamed and reminded of some weakness. — Chet Hawkins

Very Nice

You make a mess of the presentation and I of proper decorum in the forum. But we can still both take a chalice to the palace and have a good drink and a laugh, all the while both being and yet knowing nothing. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe, in the end, the only (fitting) truth. Thank [god] there's always that!

But the nature of truth suggests as I am sure you are well AWARE that they to cannot really know. — Chet Hawkins

alas

DESIRE, is the emotive source of any and all becoming — Chet Hawkins

Yes!

And it will not be magic at that time. It will be just the truth that was always there. — Chet Hawkins

Which means
It's there now.

ENOAH
Hilarious because you know very well that I do — Chet Hawkins

You're killing me! :up:

Like you, I usually read your response and answer immediately as soon as I "feel" the drive to answer. This time, sensing I had blind folded you early on, I collected a few related points to respond to at once. This time, too, I added this preface, written as an afterward.

Given I have afforded my self the breather of a preface. I'd also like to note how intriguing it is to me that we can share one principle concept, e.g. that we cannot hold to conclusions, that knowing is (or at least necessarily includes) belief etc. and yet express it so differently.

And as you justifiably pondered what my expression of that was, you overlooked one of its most "prominent" features. I.e., that it is inevitable that we will express differently, and that, in the end, it is not that one of us is correct (though as to presentation, I might readily defer to you as by far the "best"), it is that we are both ultimately "incorrect."

And no worries, I already know you don't adopt that statement.

I've also answered below since there are intersections of thoughts.

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you regarding the word (hence I placed it in quotes, and often mix in "temporary." However I'm not meticulous. Perhaps I should be, at least, more meticulous).

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth. — Chet Hawkins

to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.
— ENOAH
No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure. — Chet Hawkins

First, kindly NOTE whenever I write "misunderstood me" I fully acknowledge that it is because of my reckless use of Language. I've wondered half seriously if maybe I have a cognitive "condition" which causes me to think people can read my mind.

So, I think you misunderstood me here. And this will illustrate how I must think you can read my mind. Because now I won't be so lazy, and I'll explain it. That was a foot note to the puzzle, how can we know we don't know what's real if we don't in the first place? I'm suggesting that there was a hypothetical first time the root "word" (I.e. "concept") now called "reality" emerged. And that in order for that hypothetical root to have emerged, it must have represented a thing "known" to its hypothetical first speaker. Did she know reality, and its been lost? Or is there no reality? ... but now you see why I added "this is beyond our scope here." But, the point is you can now see, I already agree. Truth can only, as you very nicely put it, inform subjectivity. So even that hypothetical first speaker of the hypothetical root for "reality" was already speaking a "lie"*

*I am being deliberately hyperbolic. Not lie per se, just "uncertainty."

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality.
— ENOAH
Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss.
— ENOAH
I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition. — Chet Hawkins

Here I have definitely assumed you can read my mind. Here is what I was saying, now attempting to use plain English and where applicable your (better) language.

1. Reasoning is great. But assuming it is the "best" path to "truth" it cannot get you to truth. It can only get you to the furthest reach of "subjectivity". You will be at the edge of the cliff where there is an abysmal gap between you and actual truth, reality. It is a gap you cannot traverse.

2. Yet--and here you will not agree. It does not fit**. We human animals, meaning, the Organism, the conceited ape (not the minds where constructions are processed and moved only so far before it reaches an abyss), are already on the other side of that abyss. We are reality and truth. It's just that our organic consciousness our real aware-ing, has been hijacked by the Subject, the "one" who knows and believes, who concludes because it is functional and never because it is true. All the while the Real Being cares not for anything else but being. And that is truth.


**fit is what I mean by functional, and I will explain below.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. — Chet Hawkins

What I mean by Functional is a long and detailed thing. I feel hoggish using up too much space, and prefer to engage simply to see how my thinking might develop. But here goes something concise and thus necessarily vague. Best to paint a picture for now.

1. Our experiences are not of this real natural world, they are written, in Narrative form, by Signifiers operating autonomously and according to evolved Laws and mechanics or dynamics.

2. These Signifiers--primevally, images constructed by the brain to trigger organic response (feeling and action) evolved a "desire" to surface, as they "compete" they move by a dialectical process until finally "one" is temporarily settled upon, belief.

3. Functional is the mechanism which triggers the settlement upon. It doesnt mean usefull though it can. It means "fit for surfacing." So when I say I do not believe the "anger" portion of your hypothesis, it is ultimately because it was not fit for surfacing as belief in my current locus in History (all minds together as one) following a dialectical process of weighing the Signifiers competing to surface in my narrative.

That's why truth is only what is fitting. For all we know there is a remote Amazonian tribe who "know" stuff that would be easily
be adopted by us. But it's not in the local Narrative so it's not true here.

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. — Kizzy

Is it just me, or do you see the uncanniness? I answered Chet first. Look above.

Yes! Exactly. Motion. Time. Becoming. In movement our Narratives only become, and we mistake them for being. Belief are those temporary settlements in the movement of fleeting becoming.

What do you say? Inspired by Chet, I'll read on.

The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project — Kizzy

Ok. That might just be what I think of as temporary settlements based on what is the most fitting to surface or "move the project forward."

Note, part of the movement is that individuality is there and not there. We move as one in the big picture of history. Hence the excitement when we agree. We love to agree.

I'll read that link you directed me to and get back to you.

I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really. — Chet Hawkins

I have no problem with the scientific method as long
as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally — Chet Hawkins

Understood and agree.

I'll admit I'm still pondering the role you place on anger. Alhough now your reasoning is clear, I am not as yet persuaded. I'll explain why, though in fairness to you, I (anticipatorily) don't blame you for not liking it. Your reasoning, I don't disparage. I even found it to be profound and interesting. Once again there is also latent, admirable, drama or poetry in your explanations.

But your focus on anger, though impactful, doesn't have a function in my current narrative of thinking. And I also don't blame you for explaining that if your hypotheses are reasonable and moving, then I am compelled to fit them into my narrative; it is otherwise, to sum up, cowardly, immoral.

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc.

You are blameless for pointing out to me how your categories, fear, desire, anger, balance, and so on (though we arrive at the same station) stand up to the test of reason etc. But nevertheless. Your protestations, if examined honestly, are based upon the deficiency in the use you have for the categories proposed by me. And I'm not complaining. Good for you.

If you object that your rejection of an illogical position is not based upon the function of its conclusion, but upon the dysfunctional process. I'd say yes, function is the deciding factor all the way through. Nothing else in the end brings a conclusion to belief, not even some central being we call you or I.

Since we do not know what reality is — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you. But tell me, how do we know we don't know what reality is when we don't know what reality is *?
*(to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in — Chet Hawkins

Like I said, I now understand, and you presented it with admirable punch. My primary original question, "why link anger with reason," is profoundly answered. Just as for Kant or Heidegger, those who argue in favor of your constructions have found them fitting, and settled for now. And they will go on constructing along side you, varying yours for perfect fit with their own. The others who cannot make a fit will not settle. Some may congratulate you and politely decline, some may politely present their own narrative disguised as a deconstruction of your flawed reasoning, some might find your constructions so unfitting to their own that emotions get the best of them and they demean you and your constructions with a shocking vigor.

I realize for instance how my own proposal here would find few good fits with other Narratives, those whose structures have already closed the door on movements of the plot beyond certain--highly respectable--parameters. Or in plain English, those who can like great Doctors, quickly spot the holes in my logic and reasoning.

But if we cannot know...and we ultimately believe...for a while. Then, who's to say it's only logic and reasoning? I am not saying they ought to be excluded and that we seek truth in one hand clapping. I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality. And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss. So perhaps feelings might have a role...but I'm wondering into another chamber. On our side, function ultimately decides, autonomously too.

Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire — Chet Hawkins

Ok, I didn't know that. Interesting. Neither more nor less compelling. But interesting. Are they somehow Jungian? Or is that a myth? Am I confused?

Are we certain that it is only when particles are arranged in ways that we call "biological" that they can feel, as a unit? We know that it is not what is going on in a given medium that is important? Rather, what is going on must go on in only this particular medium? — Patterner

Fair enough, the hypothesis which I accept, (so yes, an A.I. "who" experiences as do humans is possible), that we cannot rule out what we dont know. I'm open. But I don't know. If you know, tell me. Is there, "good" reason to believe non-organic particles feel or can feel?

Regardless, then there is a secondary importance for me personally in the way I view it. If non-organic particles also feel or can be made to feel, they are in that feeling, already by virtue of being non-organic, not the same. Similar or simulation, ok. But if our organic being is what is ultimately real for us; if it is the feelings, and not the code, wherein you'd find the real consciousness [notice you're not suggesting by way of rebuttal that human type consciousness can exist without feeling. You're saying who says non organic particles can't feel] then whatever feeling A.I. experiences as a result of the operation of its code, provides the necessary ingredient for human like feelings, thus consciousness; but is necessarily not the same as humans' feelings.

And on that same line of thinking, the non organic being would also have to have particles which can form awareness of feeling. I agree it's not for me to argue against, and so I accept, tge possibility. But that second component raises the remoteness of non organic A.I. having the same as humans consciousness. And, also, by the same token, if it did have aware-ing, it would not be organic, and so, it would not be the same.

The only way I can think of is to imbue it with a chronic angst or fear of death or suffering
— Benj96

For it to fear death, it would have to be alive. It would have to be a being, not a simulcrum — Wayfarer

When my mind surfaces a constructed code, it triggers my body to feel. It is that feeling which differentiates me from a machine programed to construct and deliver even similarly sophisticated code.

If I think about eating a decaying rat, I feel nauseated. If I think about an erotic scenario, I feel aroused. That is where Mind's coding leads to experience.

What prevents A.I. from having the same, so called consciousness based experiences as me, and what makes me have code based experiences, is my organic nature/structure; my brain and endocrine system etc etc (I am not a biologist). That's where "I" really "am," and I imagine, A.I. can "never" be. Not in the code or programing, no matter how sophisticated, but in the organism which feels, and is aware-ing of feeling. Like Wayfarer said, it has to be a [organic] being; but not necessarily/only to "make" it fear death; but to make it feel.

Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations. — BitconnectCarlos

I understand your perspective.

It's a tragedy from all angles.

And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe true, but should that be grounds for congratulations? Or are they being dutiful citizens of the world by exercizing restraint (arguably, not enough given the death of so many children)?

That reminds me of an assault case I'm familiar with. A father punched a referee for what he saw as a bad call against the former's son in a hockey game. The judge fined the father $800 and asked him if he had anything to say for himself. The father responded with indignation, "$800, judge?" He shouted, "for $800 I should have killed him!"

like your keffiyeh-clad friends? We don't want no two state we want all of 48. Go do your activism.

And when you do, make sure to equate the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust because it's like totally the same thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Honest question. How do keffiyahs and the Nazi Holocaust relate to the current tragedy in the Levant, the Oct 7 terrorist attack and the Israeli Governments reaction? Because you might be making excellent points from a Real Politics perspective (for instance) but the statements quoted above do nothing to advance them. If anything, they detract; they make me (falsely, I hope) think your arguments are only veiled with merit to conceal an underlying emotion, perhaps nagging to be exposed.

This does not only apply to you. I'm surprised by similar things scattered throughout the forum, and not just this prolonged and often mutually hostile thread. But I sense reading between the lines that you have an earnest position, so I thought I'd ask.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link. — Chet Hawkins

Virtually total respect. But
One question. I am compelled by your presentation. And not just above. But why is "anger" the 3rd? presumably corresponding to reason and being, the latter of which you anointed with parentheses, or suspended. (I know you've explained it. I'm inviting you to abandon it or express any new openings since you began this dialectic journey)

For instance why not just two? In addition to your e.g.s, Desire covers "convention" "belonging" Fear covers "revelation" "authority". Maybe Reason falls under one or the other. Maybe reason is a category of belief. Rather than anger.

Again. I'm sincererely asking.

Or, if anger is a legitimate 3rd, and not a (poetic) attachment (the preceding parentheses were definitely a detainment), then how does reason (and being) correspond to that category? And why not a 4th for reason?

You're right. I did fail to explain my thoughts properly. That was justifiably upsetting. Not to mention its a frustrating hypothesis to have to consider. Sorry.

In the end, it would be "funny" if, after all of this, the truth were the thing that cannot be spoken.

I don't know the first thing about early humans or the birth and evolution of language. I'm just throwing ideas out there. — Patterner

Warning. Either do I. And as for throwing things out there. That's all I do. Sometimes I get things in return. Thank you

don't you think every human without language associated the moon with things? One might look at the moon and think of a wolf that attacked one night. — Patterner

Yes. And I wnt get into a prolonged explanation but you're describing the real and organic roots of the so called illusion. Before Language the thinking you're describing would have to be like, eyes see moon, stored image of wolf autonomously surfaces in memory. It's organic function, to trigger a response, hide at night.

For humans this process of images autonomously arising to the surface triggering Body to respond evolved to a complexity with difference, grammar, the Subject vs the object, eventually the incessant surfacing of the Subject I to serve the Narrative form triggering autonomous feelings ultimately leading to the identity of that picture "I" with the always real organic being. The body. A complex dynamic of autonomously surfacing images we take to be real, illusion.

You said both that “ideas exist” and that they have a “functional effect” but then you say they are “empty”. Makes no sense to me. You have used “empty structures” to signify something of “ideas” and this has brought the effect in me the question, why the hell are you saying that, especially when this is just your idea. — Fire Ologist

You are right to be frustrated here. I need to be more careful with my language. I have already addressed the "paradox" of my speaking of truth, or even speaking at all. As to the use of"structures" and "empty" recklessly, I will rethink and I have no doubt that it will come up again.

Ok, so no distinction whatsoever between Abe Lincoln and Mary Poppins and “me” and “you.”
I’ll go with it for now. — Fire Ologist

Again, mega-distinctions within the Narratives of history. But just as you might like at two unfamiliar dogs quickly and note no distinctions, ultimately no distinctions which we can speak of.

My response is simply a question, where did you come up with the distinction between “for all I know” and “real constituent of reality”? — Fire Ologist

It rolled off the tongue because of countless prior combinations of related structures of these empty codes and their mechanics or dynamics having arrived at that manifestation as fit for the surface.

Your point happens to be that there may not be distinctions. But you distinguished whatever the hell people do for “an actual” and “reality”. Oh, and you said “constituent.” A constituent implies multiple parts, multiple distinct parts. — Fire Ologist

The dysfunction--futility--of the hypothesis being explored here is that in so hypothesizing and so exploring, it is already "part of the 'illusion'" All of your critiques directly above are perfectly reasonable and legitimate--if I was purporting to be "being" while speaking. But while speaking, I have already ignored being and displaced it with becoming.

The whole Truth is you cannot escape tge "illusion" in becoming, each effort is the illusion. You can only do so by ignoring becoming and attuning to being; that is, your organic aware-ing and not your ego-self. But this applies to everyone of us, even the most reasonable or profound utterance is made using fiction, and ultimately is
Fiction.

You are contradicting your point by speaking about it. — Fire Ologist

See above. Yes but if what you say is only true because "my" point is true then that contradiction is the closest to the truth that our constructions can take us. All others efforts at truth are even further movements away from the truth (I fully accept you may not get what I mean from tgat previous koan-sounding convulsion. Sorry. Not your fault. Mine.)

Why would you assert that. You can distinguish shit from food. You need to. That is because there are real distinctions. But you can distinguish shit from food with ideas just as well. — Fire Ologist

Yes to the first part, the "you need to". That's why I asserted that. The distinctions "apparent" in nature are only apparent as such. Maybe science can bring us closer to how I naturally avoid eating shit, and other apparent "differences."

And double yes to part two, distinguish with ideas. I'm saying that part is--going far deeper and way back--a constructed evolved process of dancing code.

“Self” isn’t the same fiction as “shit” or “dragon” - distinction is real regardless of minds. — Fire Ologist

Ok, look. Yes maybe dragon shit and self are distinct in reality. What I'm saying is, 1. We don't "know" Reality because "know" is also constructed. (Just read a long thread on is knowing belief etc.). 2. The way they are distinct for us is not necessarily how they really are, if they are. So the way they are distinct for us is an "illusion"

ENOAH

Analogies are great. But — Fire Ologist

Acknowledged

but honestly, I am not giving any status to ideas whatsoever. Chimps make poop. Birds make eggs. — Fire Ologist

Fair point! You're asking why aren't ideas natural byproducts of the organism, for e.g.? Why give ideas special status?

Your points are excellent. If I wasn't tiring, naturally impatient and lazy; if I wasn't already ashamed (not self deprecating, justifiably) for occupying too much of your time and space in this thread. . . I'll say, recognizing fully it merits more explanation, the "Signifiers" or code are empty. They aren't organic secretions even (yes secretions may be involved). They are representations, vague and fleeting "pictures" stored in memory (yes those are real) functioning in such a way tgat experiences are written out of them. Those are illusions. Sorry. Tired.

It is there in the flesh of the words being themselves now constructed by our bodies for physical travel and in we who use those words to affect the physical world — Fire Ologist

Ok, and I'm not being flippant, then David Copperfield is there. Anyone who enjoys reading Dickens can relay how Copperfield has affected them. But I say, Copperfield exists, has a functional effect on nature, but it is an illusion, a re-presentation at best. But not present. Not there. And same for the self and all of human Mind and History.

Are you saying there are no real distinctions? There were no real distinctions before we humans invented “difference”? — Fire Ologist

I am saying, first and foremost, I don't know. No one knows. For all I know something related to "difference" is an actual and real constituent of Nature and Reality. I'm also not saying I know what Nature/Reality is. No one does. Why? Note the word "know". Like difference, it too is an evolved mechanism of Mind.

I'm saying, I currently believe prehistoric humans and other intelligent animals use drives, memory, conditioning, etc. to "distinguish" shit from food. But "difference," the necessity of a this and that, a not this but that, a this and a not this; these are functional within the churning out of experience in Narrative form. The Fiction Mind writes. Like too is the Subject, I, the Self. "Illusion".

It is a qualified monism. The Body (all of Nature, geological, biological, astronomical) is real. Mind exists, functions and effects. But it is not Real. Hence qualified. If it must be labeled.

So if there are real distinctions, why assume our constructed ideas drawing out such distinctions are ONLY illusion? — Fire Ologist

I understand your struggle. And I feel badly. I may very well be completely wrong. In fact, by these very hypotheses I'm playing with, I am wrong. But to answer you. The distinctions you draw, the meaning they construct, the very requirement for meaning, for distinctions, is the Great Fiction within which you (we) are struggling. So, of course you wonder how the hell difference is not Real.

Does it help to reiterate, within the "illusion" (I don't like that word--trying sheepishly to stay true to the OP), difference is "real," it is "perceivable" it is functional as neither language nor mind would have evolved tge way they did had mechanisms of "grammar" like difference not evolved.

I don’t place priority on where something came from. — Fire Ologist

Fair. And I am not meaning to "deride" mind/self because they are not Real. But they are not. Forgive the analogy, but the tree which made the paper is real. The paper is an artifact. The reality of the tree still exists in the paper, and it's not going anywhere. But the "paper" idea is special to our Fictional world. Now all the more so for the plot of the novel written on the paper.

The human is real and every species sees us for what we are, the tree, in the book analogy. No creature, not even a dog or chimp, thinks Fire is a well dressed man. Just sees an organism.

Now you'll say, we naturally developed the tools to go further than a Chimp. And I say yes, and those tools and everything they construct is a Fictional

The “apple” or “self” in my mind, I call an idea.
You call these illusion. But some thing exists here, so I don’t see the need to call it illusion. — Fire Ologist

The apple is real and it exists. The human construction "apple" and every form of that construction which instantly bubbles up to the surface when you speak that word--fruit, edible, red, green, apple a day, America, Steve Jobs--Exit, but they are empty nothings, passersby; only their effect upon you as an organism, places you under the illusion that for F's sake, they must be real.

Could this be because you think ideas must refer to a real thing in the world or else these ideas are mere illusions — Fire Ologist

No

The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.
— ENOAH

This seems to be the heart (the essence?) — Fire Ologist

Yes

I still think we are standing next to each other looking at the same thing, but I would say the opposite about it. — Fire Ologist

I sense the same. I sense that in a loose interpretation we agree that we are perceiving "the world" uniquely as humans. But whereas you respect how becoming is that special way Being comes to be for humans--therefore it is part and parcel of one reality; I am insisting on relegating becoming to emptiness, and designating being alone as the domain of truth. ... (?)

And yet, in spite of our differences, I feel a comraderie of interest.

So you should be arguing not that ideas exist as illusions, but that ideas don’t exist at all. — Fire Ologist

Hmm. Interesting. If this is a point of logic, or a necessity in word meaning, I would immediately defer to you. However, let me reiterate that for me, ideas exist, evident inter alia in their functional effect, but they are fleeting empty structures of signifiers. Not Real "in and of themselves(?)"

Our dreams — Patterner

Sorry, forgot "dreams." That seems trickier on the surface because dreams are already illusions. Yes you are correct that they exist, take place, have effect, but even convention readily accepts, "that wasn't real; just a dream." But that's not addressing your query. But dreams can be treated in the same way as the moon. Whatever dreams were before we emerged Mind, that's what they really are. Like the moon, they are still what they have always been, whatever that us, but we cannot be perceive them through our constructions. Hence the illusion.

Finally, back to the self. The prehistoric human animal was what it was individually, I can suggest a bonding, mating, animal with sophisticated image-ing, memory, etc. and aware-ing those always. But the self we idolize, with a history, in Narrative form, goals, interests, intentions, and a free and selfish will tobcarry those out, is functional as hell, but is a construction. An "illusion," as such.

Not sure how you mean this. The moon exists outside of our heads. But our experience of it is a construction of it inside of our heads.

If that's what you mean, then I don't see how the same can be said about dreams. Our dreams may contain reconstructions of images of things we saw when we were awake. Even things we never saw may be conglomerates of things we did see. And we may construct things based on things we hear in the waking world as we are sleeping. But the dream is not displaced. It is unique (recurring dreams aside), and some people and places are, afaicat, also unique. In what way is it displaced? — Patterner

Think of a human animal on a hypothetical date before language took off (sorry, I won't be specific about those details. Bear with me, if my attempt falls apart for lack of details so be it). And since Language had yet to evolve to a certain point, so too Mind--that uniquely human "form" which consciousness took--had yet to develop.

When that hypothetical human animal looks at the moon, they see it with their organic senses untainted. The real moon exists, and they see that. Whatever it is. And moreover Whatever it is is irrelevant because there is no Language with which to construct what it is. So it remains the moon, Whatever it is.

Once Mind and its constructions evolved/emerged, for Humans you cannot look with your sense of vision and see what it is. Whatever it is. Instead you look at the moon and see what that Signifier triggers as signified. For e.g. you see astronauts, gravity, tides, werewolves, cheese, etc. Not specifically, but I am hoping I've painted the picture.

For one animal looking at the moon, they cannot see the moon as it really is--Whatever that is--they see the Signifiers which have displaced the moon. That is the "illusion." It's not that our life, our actions, drives, feelings, and tge world around is which we are fully equipped for sensing, is not real; rather, our experiences of those things are constructed displacements to which we are (almost) ineluctably attuned/attached.

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?
— 180 Proof The capacity to feel. — bert1

Yes! And to sense, image-make, and act; And the always present [aware-ing of said feeling, image-ing and acting.

I’m saying you don’t get the moon in the first place for you to construct “moon” without essence becoming. — Fire Ologist

Dreams are real experiences. — Patterner

Yes there is a Real moon and Dreams are real experiences. But both are, for Humans, displaced by our construction (about?) of them.

Watching a movie is real. Believing the movie is real is the illusion.

Anyway, clearly there are items in my thinking about the self being an illusion which need to be worked out. And who knows, I may come out on the other side much closer to where you are.

This is a deep corner of the cave where only the slightest hint of light is all you need to make a point. — Fire Ologist

In fact, the less the better; just enough so as to not form shadow paintings.

I see both becoming and things becoming the same and only find illusion where one or the other is missing or overly reified. — Fire Ologist

I've come to know that about you, my fiery friend. And I can respect that.

We always need both to speak at all. Speaking is real, so no the becoming and essence is real. — Fire Ologist

I say speaking is construction, becoming. It travels lightly through Time and vanishes instantly. Where is it "there"? When is it ever being?
... But I recognize you place reality in becoming too, so, for you it's not so significant that speech is fleeting, since that too, somehow*, is Real. *meant with sincere uncertainty, not rhetorical sarcasm

If all essence was not real, how is it we never say even “becoming” without fixing a distinct essence that makes becoming different from “not real being”? We need a distinction to hold in order to reflect the becoming of it — Fire Ologist

Because--and I sincerely hope this isn't depressing--difference, distinction, and your admirable desperation to square things off against it, are also (to stick to the Language of the OP and pay, at least a token apologetic homage) "illusions" based only in the evolved mechanism "difference", necessary for speech to flourish, a this and a that. The Self illusion is a branch of that in the evolution of Mind: a Me and a You.

Anyway, note that all that I say and write too, is Fiction: constructed out of the tools containing the this and that mechanism. It's ineluctable because the world in which our--and all--discourse takes place is Fiction. Dialectic, like the self, is a branch off of the this and that evolution. It is not Real and natural, but every movement of Human Mind from history to my decision to respond, and my response, is a dialectical movement of made up words and images. So called choice and so called knowledge are just temporary settlements in that autonomous dialectic.

Ah but I speak too much.

See this is why I think we are in the exact same place looking in the exact same direction. You say “emptiness” and balance “suffering” against “joy”.
And you say “It exists alright.” I would say these things about becoming. — Fire Ologist

Wait. Buddy. I am saying it about becoming. I'm saying these functions exist and affect even reality via the Body, but they are sourced in fleeting chains of nothingness, never there, never ever being, always becoming, not Real.

This is a broader view - not just “self” but all mental fabrications. — Fire Ologist

Completely.

The idea part is where the essence is found. But the idea now exists just like wherever it came from exists. — Fire Ologist

Ok. This is exactly where we diverge. I'm not saying either of us is right. We are both necessarily wrong (ironically, if I'm right, haha). But I say you just believe the idea came from somewhere. That exactly is the illusion. It came from your mind! Yes the idea exists. But it is not Real. It was a fleeting manifestation of a construction out of Signifiers, pointers at the moon, not the moon.

dwelling place”. This is an idea. Like the burrow, and the flower, “dwelling place” is just what the man produces, and once produced it exists and is as real as the burrow, or the house or the flower. — Fire Ologist

Yes what the moon produced, even the materials, are all real. But neither the tulip nor the squirrel take that leap which places them upon a new layer with an unbridgeable gap from what they produced and the material they produced it with. None of them calls it a dwelling place and believes that that name is real, that the Signifier is the phenomenon or the experience. See? That's how subtle is the illusion. Not saying these aren't real. But human mind and its system of filtration, displaces their reality with name calling.

We can’t see becoming unless we simultaneously see essences, or beings, that come to be, that become. — Fire Ologist

That statement directly above, and your excellent four apples example: again, that the essence precedes the becoming is the "illusion." Mind is one, permeable between embodiments. That's how History moves and that's how local histories move. The following is oversimplified.

At some point in your minds development, Apple, 4, store, go, son, buy, me, etc. we're input, and over time processed, reprocessed, used to construct, reconstruct, and so on, thousands of times. So too for your son. This reminds me of Platos dialogue (Meno?) where Socrates marvels tgat an illiterate slave can draw a triangle. Of course he can, it was input into the Slaves mind in thousands of ways other than a geometry lesson. So when you crave apples, that real feeling, triggers to the surface, the construction--through a speedy and often imperceptible dialectic of battling code--out of sognifiers, son go get me 4 apples from tge store. You think you have manifested in words the essence, a marvelous idea. But the manifestation is the essence, both empty constructions which evolved to function. Now because your son shares Mind with you, and thr code had tge same effect on him, your body, the Real you, gets to eat apples. But Mind wrote a whole experience out of that. Displacing human organism pleasure food with hey son how about you go... That's the illusion.

You have to keep positing worlds to draw any distinctions between illusory worlds and real worlds. — Fire Ologist

You are absolutely right. For discourse to work, and why else do we do this but that we are built that way--it's not because we are pursuing truth; for gods sake, we don't have to pursue truth, we are truth, in our being--so yes, for discourse to work, I have and am constructing so much shit.

At the end of the day every philosophy, like every thing, will be judged on its function within the very specific locus in which it manifests. Because there is no way to judge upon truth, there is no truth in becoming; only in Being. The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.

still sense something real that I call a “squirrel; none of this makes those ideas and impressions not exist, not real, not something in-itself too. — Fire Ologist

That which you call a squirrel is real, so are you and your senses. But yes, while those ideas,(that it is a squirrel, that it is "real", that you sense it,) exist, they are not Real, not thing in itself; they are outside Fictions superimposed as if from above upon the thing in itself. They are representations placed, like labels atop of Reality, and we no longer see tge essence, we see only the label. That too is the self, a label, fictional, like Enoah, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nice!