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

But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? — Patterner

You do go through a choice-making process, don't you? — Relativist

You do go through a "process" yes. But (while I'm not saying you did so deliberately) note how your wording even implies ultimate passivity. This is only partly "tongue in cheek," but, "choose" to go through the process of holding your breath forever and see how much freedom you have. "Yes, but breathing is an organic process governed by laws." Well, so too for our minds, just as so too for Patterner's ball in the air. For breathing and gravity we currently settle at the lack of freedom. For Mind we refuse too. The reasons are so obvious, I needn't elaborate.

:up:

We may make a “snap judgment”, be unconscious of our reasons ( — Antony Nickles

I'm suggesting (and in no way forcefully, presenting for commentary) that "unconscious of our reasons" is only obvious to us at the (may I call it?) Pavlovian "level" of the brain triggering responses. Im suggesting (and this is highly simplified To paraphrase Huineng, if I were to tell you the whole story it would take a lifetime) all organic behaviour operates in that Pavlovian way, from hearts beating, to designing the Eiffel tower; and that uniquely for humans, that process has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation (iwd). But each step in those processes (iwd) if traced, involves the autonomous movement of "code" (not code; simplified) leading ultimately to what receives signifiers like choice attached to them. It is, like our blood flowing, not chaotic nor random, but a beautifully ordered system. Thinking we have free will emerges out of same. Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you.

But the outcome is ours; we are responsible for its failings and reasons — Antony Nickles

And I both respect that, the profundity of it, and its truth, but only for that "system" which has been autonomously constructed over time and which we rightly look at as "us". That's why I'm also suggesting, that while from the perspective of the "products" of those autonomous process (as in from "our" perspective) the organism is real; from the organism's perspective (hypothetical; it has no "perspective" when used as "opinion") the products are Fictional; they come and go; they are empty "code" etc etc. But that is where the human organism lives its life; not in the natural Pavlovian reactions to nature; in the Fictional world we have constructed (and the "we" constructed thereby). I am definitely not judging it "bad" nor nihilistically justifying ignoring our responsibility in that world. Quite the opposite. We made our beds, or, rather, our beds are made...I'm just pointing out what I think the mind is, and why trusting it is not the question. The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? But every "choice" you make, even if you chose to employ that question, was only because it was triggered by something (like, and its much more of a microscopic analysis than I'm depicting, but, like you reading that question triggered you to employ it--for example).

Thus “trusting your mind” turns our duty into an intellectual problem, such as: whether the outcomes are right or wrong, real or illusion, rational or emotional, etc. So if we can solve this manufactured problem—e.g., an outcome could be “known” to be right—then it would not be my judgment — Antony Nickles

I apologize. I'm overcomplicating what I now realize your intent might have been. Yes I agree--within this "system of code" Im stubbornly fixating on--we have duties, and the analysis of right and wrong, to put it simply, is a commendable process, and at the end of it, whether or not you feel this way, you have trusted your mind. Now, if minutes later you are doubting, you are again trusting your mind. But even if you doubted, that process will take place and you will trust it (as a doubt), and any subsequent process, all of them, your mind weighing code and triggering feeling/action, all based on prior triggering, and so on.

Now, it unfolds, and I fear, we are not yet equipped to settle there. Alas, at risk to (not of) being taken seriously, What is the nature of the True [and not the so called] self?
The aware-ing of the Universe. Not the dance it projects out of atoms and energy manifesting as "your" body. Not the dance it projects out of signifiers and flesh manifesting as "your" mind. And certainly not the character in that dance manifesting as an "I". Those are projections of what you really are,. What really is, is (just the) aware-ing.

When "I", Enoah die, I don't die. I was never born. I (only always just) am (aware-ing the dance of the universe; and not, as commonly mis-conceived, "through" Enoah. That is "Enoah’s" problem, not Enoah’s truth. Who's Enoah think Enoah’s kidding? Enoah’s not aware-ing anything. Enoah’s part of the projected dance.)

The true nature of the self; It is in Being, just not human being; it's in (Universal) Being.

Interesting thing is, I'm pretty sure serious so called eastern philosophy have arrived at that construction (e.g. Thathagata/Nirguna Brahman) centuries ago. I'm not sure panpsychism does their interpretations justice; again, I do not know panpsychism.

I am not myself (purporting/pretending to be) "professing" Buddhism or Vedanta, and only incidentally note the parallels--but lest one be inclined to reject an idea simply because of its parallels to what some may naively call mysticism, there are parallels (to the view depicted here regarding mind body and being) in western philosophy from Socrates and Plato to Kant, Hegel, Husserl, and so on. Parallels are inevitable. We write nothing, we think of nothing on our own.

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you?
— Patterner

I've had an afterthought (assuming I've even made my (previous) thought clear enough to follow).

I had left it vague, though a hunch had been brewing, just too early to surface when I said:

And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me". — ENOAH

Now add:

Or. … have I not gone far enough? I hypothesize body is real. But is that, though real to Mind, ultimately also a projection of atoms and energy? Ultimately only that aware-ing is real.

When you die, you are what you always already are, aware-ing being; not an aware-ing Being.

And yes, smells like panpsychism(?). I have not studied that, albeit it has crossed my path. If it is, so be it. I am not favorable to labels when exploring the less established regions of (I guess any discipline) say, philosophy (the latter too, a label which admittedly makes me nervous because it reasonably implies adherence to a certain process which even this very statement may have violated; though I think not).

Hah! Read my seemingly simultaneous reply to you in Captain Homicide confirming just as you said above.

then you see a different picture when the puzzle is assembled. — Patterner

Nice. True

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you? — Patterner

Hah, again. The answer might offend some very reasonable sensibilities in this forum. And I mean no disrespect because the answer seems (and I assure you with no pretense nor comedy that I believe it does not) to leave the realm of philosophy and enter, at best "mysticism," honestly whatever that is (I wont demean it--its not "mine" with an at worst).

But for what it's worth and briefly, yes and know.

Yes, it would bother "me" because the story is ending, the attachments will fade for those still sharing my narrative, they'll suffer. "I" will end "my" role in "my" becomings in History. But no, because my sentences will continue to be used in building history, if only for the tiny but equally valuable locus of x people around me.

No it would not bother "me" reflecting upon the real me whatever that ultimately is--my dying body--because "I" have the humbling privilege of "knowing" (believing) that my body does not hold any opinion (including by the way my brain). My body is driven to live and my body dies. And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me".

For you, does what I view as the Self have any value? — Patterner

Yes, as I said in the CaptHom thread, you have an understanding which allows you to pose questions which are relatively more free from the fetters of "xyz"
E.g. below. I completely understand that characterization, and I suspect you might even be going beyond simple functionalism(?)

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

right on. And let me clarify, I wasn't suggesting you were ever adversarial. Far from it. Like I said, I value your ideas, questions and how you word them. Of course there are moments we can't meet. But honestly those I value the most.

Hypothetical talks are not philosophy, and they belong to mysticism or esotericism. Philosophical discussions are based on logic, reasoning, facts and the critical investigation on the facts, premises and conclusions in the issues for the verified truths. — Corvus

Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination.

Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table.

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that. — Patterner

I realize we don't seem to see eye to eye, and that my thinking may go beyond what seems reasonable. But if you're so incl8ned, I value your input (if not, truly, I get it).

With respect to your statement above, consider the next phrase "...unless "choice" is our "role" participation in the deterministic system. In other words, faced with the dilemma "rescue that cat," or "dont" you're right. The one who rescues has done so in reaction to every "cause" they have also reacted to leading to that final election to rescue. (And same mutatis mutandis for "dont"). The "choice" step was necessary, just as every reaction to every prior cause leading to that last choice were necessary. In other words we are "agents" acting agents, but our agency does not represent ourselves the subject agent. It represents the system. We want our freedom of choice to give ego super power. But really, not only are we agents for the system, but morally are its fiduciaries.

People still have to do things for things to happen. — Captain Homicide

May I offer some questions which I'm currently convinced are at the root of this. In order to avoid longwindedness, I must be simplistic. Note that the questions could be posed with all their complex layers; best for another time and place.

First, in the scenario where there is freedom, you naturally say people" but who/what is the "entity" (if even) that "enjoys"/has this so called freedom/choice? Is it as simple as the Subject, "I" of what we conventionally think of as (self)consciousness of people?

Another one is, it is possible, is it not, to have neither freedom (in the sense of a being which can, by its capacity to elect "the next movement", determine the outcome, even if in defiance of cause); nor predeterminsm/predestiny (as in the effects have all been predetermined and thus causes are just steps along the way), in for example, a determinism which operates within a closed system of interdependant causes and effects? In that case, chaos and randomness are also (at least) reduced, but so is determinism, in that the (final)* effect might have been anything given causes are incessantly bouncing off one another leading to effects. Or is what I described simply determinism? (I don't think so). Note, there is neither real free choice since that too is an effect from a cause, and in time, a cause. But there is also no being, no design, no purpose necessarily determining a necessary outcome. There are virtually endless possible outcomes. And it is not chaos since it happens in a closed system of evolved "rules" "mechanics" and "dynamics."
*in this scenario there are no final effects, each effect is a cause (even if, "in waiting").

Lastly, if the scenario above could possibly be imagined to be so, would it not be possible that so called freedom is an effect upon that mechanism, the Subject, "I"
and its having evolved within this hypothetical closed system to be "placed" in each "moment" through time, (time, the "movement" of the system) as the mechanism behind the body's feelings or activity? Hence, if this body texting this message stops, it is not that the body exercised "freedom". Though the body seems to have exercised choice, it is only because the moment manifests in the system (is projected into the world) as, "I'm going to stop typing and press, post comment now"

you imply that:

1 – You are in a better position to say what the teachings of Jesus than others.
2 – That Jesus' teachings boils down to "uuuuh turn the other cheek". — Lionino

Ok, you may have reasonably inferred; I neither think 1 and 2, nor did I intend to imply I did.

If you are against central dogmas you are against what Jesus said hence not Christian. You are against central Buddhist dogmas? Not a Buddhist. — Lionino

Ok. Yes. Sorry. That point, I understand and agree.

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

Maybe we already work it out in the best way possible, and today, I grumble about the seeming confusion in the world over the difference, tomorrow I might celebrate.

Since we have two conventional Signifiers, we have clearly evolved the mechanism to differentiate. It is how these Signifiers operate in minds and any given mind which raises your problem. But it is, I submit, a built-in/evolved process which always rests on what is the most functional/fitting outcome in a given situation; we cannot easily change universally but through a very slow historical transformation
1. In clear cases the difference is readily settled upon by most because it is blatantly functional. Think of obvious eg of opinions/facts. Vanilla is better than chocolate/red light means stop. Each of opinion/fact results in the fitting, why argue?
2. In middle cases the Dialectic and the settlement on either side is patent and gives the impression of choice, but, in the end what is functional "wins" projection into the world. If it is most fitting to agree that the evidence shows a thing is fact, it is fact, and vice versa. That's where you get the battle between "that's a difference of opinion" vs "no its not look it up".
3. I very controversial cases, where it is not obvious at all, the Dialectic and settlement on whether a thing is fact or fiction is not as conventionally determined but rather very locally determined by what is most fitting locally. E.g. to a Westerner or Israeli it might be a fact that the Oct 7 Hamas attack started the war. To a middle easterner it might be my opinion. I might even get back lash for this e.g., people saying that it is an obvious fact. But I submit, though sensitively, those protestations are not recognizing the functional turn necessary to settle at that conclusion. And ultimately only that renders the statement a fact for that locus. It doesn't matter the arguments. In another locus, it will always be viewed as opinion, because of the function of those words for that other locus. Not because of anything real

If I may, I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if. . ., not you personally. But you might know that and we're joking

So my conclusion is not “belief”, nor “a belief”—I am convinced. I do not have faith in my judgment; I have faith in you. I have now given you my trust; I treat you as genuine. — Antony Nickles

Understood. In fairness to you, I likely jumped on my own interpretation of the word because the latter "fit." Fair clarification.

Ok, and I can't remember the pith of our most recent exchange. But with respect to trusting your own mind, the clarification doesn't alter my current thinking. I wonder if
a "deconstruct" as the following might better illustrate my current belief (that their is no Mind and no Trusting; that your mind moves autonomously as signifier chains/clusters/structures triggering feelings, in turn triggering more chains, ultimately triggering the feeling/action we call belief). Tracing backwards and extremely simplified:

1. You treat me as genuine. Because
2. You [r mind] have given [the object] me your trust. Because
3. A Signifier having surfaced (projected into the "world") to "signify"/trigger settle upon (believe) "trustworthy" (to be "true") Because
4. Trustworthy fits best Because
5. Following a dialectical process (in this case speedy but not lightning speed) structured by the autonomously driven projections of signifiers competing near the surface for projection into the world, a competing process structured over time by a conditioning response process involving the Organic feelings drives and actions to arrive at the most functional response. Because
6. Mind emerged that autonomous process over History and for each individual as having been input and processed through individual time. (And all of the signifiers input onto you, that individual, over time, aligned to trigger trust in the end)

The point being, the end result. Trusting me, though not predetermined, was not a choice made by an individual being, but rather one superimposed upon an individual being by a process both embodied and external, but not structured by atoms or cells, rather structured by the empty code triggering reconditioned responses. I.e. the experience is (in the) emptiness and not the being. The being feels intricately varying degrees of feeling, leading to given actions, but the experience is the Fictional story written in signifiers and believed as a final step in that process.

I would say that judging whether someone is earnest does take “deliberation”. — Antony Nickles

Me too. But as you can see above, for me "deliberation" is autonomous and so "trusting" your mind is almost absurd, "you" are your mind and have no choice. The question arises because we falsely believe there is an " I " centrally deliberating, when " I " is just that mechanism which evolved to connect that process with its organic host, the "real" you displaced and held captive by the process.

So then what is “trusting your own mind”? If it is “all just movements of [our] mind” then we are left with the fact Benj96 started with: “Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason.” Which is to say, how can we trust our self? — Antony Nickles

And that's where we're funny. How can we trust our hearts to beat? It is the process we trust. Whether we trust it or not is built in. Trust me. We trust it. We have no choice. We just think we do. Even thinking we do is a part of that process. A glitch which evolved, like the Subject, as fit for purpose. Mind would have collapsed early in its evolution if we weren't fooled by it.

And logic cannot help us figure out the truth because logic is part of the process. Another evolved mechanism which promoted Mind's prosperity. So the logic of, if we can't trust our minds we can be rash and stupid cannot address the truth of the process because it seem so much like we indeed can [/b]choose[/b] to be rash
But even choosing to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic. Someone inside this conversation will be equipped with the signifiers from history to so choose. Someone outside may never so choose because they were not input with this trigger (way oversimplified).

Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is, do you want to live in a fair society? — Vera Mont

Well put.