Personally, I don't think Warren would win because I don't think the US is grown-up enough yet to have a female leader. — andrewk

Well, we did just elect a black man, twice, who remains pretty popular with quite a few Americans.

I believe we could elect a woman, but a woman would face more challenges than a man, and thus she'd have to have more personal skill than Hillary Clinton, who herself was honest enough to admit she's not really a great campaigner.

How do we know when philosophy is just justifying the status quo — schopenhauer1

When that philosophy is popular.

Since I became vegan... — chatterbears

If you care to share, when was that?

Moral superiority is the belief or attitude that one's position and actions are justified by having higher moral values than others. — chatterbears

Ok, seems a good definition. Now please make the argument as to why the comparison to what other people are believing or doing is important. Are you running for political office? Do you seek to join the priesthood?

As I have pointed out with my child molester analogy, do you think it is better to point out what is wrong about the actions committed by the child molester? Or should we give the child molester a replacement (robot life like child)? — chatterbears

Which choice will be more effective in protecting the child?

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that child molesters are typically immune to moral judgment, prison, social rejection etc.

But, if you could demonstrate that casting moral judgment upon the molester would be more effective in protecting the child than offering a replacement target, then I'd be for that.

What I keep suggesting to you, and what you keep ignoring, is that my sense is that you are interested in moral judgment primarily because it allows you to position yourself as being superior to somebody else. That's ok, no problem, I'm just suggesting that this self serving agenda might be made clear, and not be confused with an animal serving agenda.

If you can make a successful case that lecturing meat eaters is more effective at protecting animals than offering meat eaters a non-animal alternative, then ok, please proceed with that.

I am pointing out what is wrong with our actions in regards to animal slaughter. You think it is more "tactical" to offer a replacement, rather than talk about the ethics behind it. — chatterbears

Right, that is the focus of your efforts here, pointing out what somebody else is doing wrong, ie, moralizing. Ok, so continue, your posts are yours to write.

If the focus of your efforts was serving animals, you'd see that offering a non-animal alternative to meat that meat eaters would find acceptable is going to be more effective than waving our finger of morally superior judgment in their faces.

It all depends on what the goal is.

If the goal is establishing our moral superiority, you're doing a good job.

If the goal is serving animals, not so much.

I mentioned atrocities as being a strong incentive to critically assess religion but that can apply to any belief. — Andrew4Handel

Ok, so apply it to any and all beliefs. I can agree to that.

You cannot successfully defend religious atrocities by pointing out other atrocities. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not defending anybody's atrocities, I'm defending reason. If we are going to critically assess atrocities by those of all points of view, that would be reason, so I'm interested.

Or, if you wish to host an ideology thread, perhaps it could be given a name such as "Why I Hate Religion" or something like that.

The problem is religion has been the source of atrocities as well as more positive things. If something is wrong and inspires cruelty then I think the problems need highlighting. — Andrew4Handel

I agree, but...

I first have to ask you if we are going also going to be highlighting the mass slaughter of millions by explicitly atheist regimes in the 20th century. If yes, then I would accept your proposal as being a function of reason. If not, then I would define it as mere ideology.

Next, let's keep in mind that religion is the largest cultural event in human history, and thus contains within itself both the best and worst of what humanity is. So a formula such as religion=atrocities would be essentially meaningless, just as a formula like human=atrocities contributes little to a useful conversation.

This guy is often credited as being the behind the scenes skanky philosopher king who is kind of the grandfather of the Trump reality. Full video on Netflix.

I'll leave Trump land now so as to not further hijack the discussion, a "talent" I seem to have an excessively high IQ for. :smile:

It does not need to be literally true, to be true to its purpose. — Rank Amateur

Like art. Typically entirely fictional, but often shining a useful light on truths about the human condition.

And the truth may be that we don't really want the truth, but rather a story which fits comfortably within our flavor of mind. So for example, if a person is mechanically minded by nature they are likely to reach for a story which paints all of reality as being mechanical in nature too, because then that person feels at home.

Also, I don't know who determined Donald Trump to have a high IQ — BrianW

He has a high IQ at a particular set of skills which have proven themselves decisive in a particular environment in a particular time and place.

I find interacting with humans totally boring to put it bluntly. — FranckFriends

I suspect you are, to one degree or another, describing the situation many of us here on the forum are experiencing. Our minds are stuck on the big picture channel from birth, but most of those around us have little to no interest in looking through that lens. And so they are boring to us, and we are boring to them. If we are pressed together too closely, everyone involved can get annoyed.

I've been happily married for 40 years to a wonderful intelligent woman who isn't at all philosophical, whereas I am almost pathologically philosophical. :smile: Our conversations have evolved in to a kind of elaborate dance of negotiation. She'll tell me about some errands she's involved in with great enthusiasm, which will inevitably spark some enthusiastic philosophical reflection on my part, which is very politely largely ignored as we return to the errand topics, which sparks more philosophical ideas in my head, and so on.

We've learned to do this dance through long practice, probably because both of us have concluded that, bottom line, the other person is more important to us than our personal interests. And of course I can come here to this forum, and she can go to some discount coupon website to get a really good deal on her next purchase of laundry soap.

What I've learned in my own experience is that the more philosophical one is, the more one tends to need a partnership with someone who has both feet firmly on the ground of the mundane real world.

I would like to enjoy my remaining time on earth as much as possible but it's way too hard to ignore the true reality of it all. — FranckFriends

Well, the true reality does contain all kinds of things that aren't negative. You know, few of us wish to be friends with everybody on Earth, and instead we pick and choose to maximize our experience. So that's one path, pick and choose as wisely as we can, and then focus all of our attention of this customized subset of reality.

Another more philosophical option is to realize that we are judging the reality to be lacking by comparing it to an idealized fantasy world of our own invention. It's asking a lot of reality to demand it compete successfully with our imaginations, and perhaps we are just being too greedy.

Some people are blessed with an inability to imagine anything other than what is right in front of them. They accept reality as it is, because they aren't distracted by how it "should be". I often envy them, not that this especially helps.

My take is that intelligence is not a global property. As example, my college room mate couldn't really do philosophy at all, at least not in a manner we would find interesting. But he did go to Harvard med school and become a surgeon. And the opposite is also true of course, many of the best philosophers probably can't figure out how to make a call with their cell phone.

I dont understand exactly, but what I learned since Elizabeth Warren decided to run for election, I am not going to be able to read social media at all. Now all the Trump inanity is going to happen in inverse, and I dont have the stomach for it any more. — ernestm

I hear ya! I keep hoping my headphones radio would finally #$%^ die already so I'll be liberated from NPR. :smile: After 50 years of being a news junkie I'm now wondering what I've actually gotten out of the hobby. The answer seems increasingly illusive....

It will be easier for me than you though perhaps, because I've never been able to stomach any social media other than forums, largely for the reasons you started this thread to discuss. At least here we at least try to say something interesting.

s it true that only a few people are capable of reason, as Plato says? Are there really philosopher kings? — ernestm

Sure. In every field of human endeavor there are rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve. Mozart in music, Einstein in science, etc.

But, in order to be a king one must have a kingdom to rule over, and the plight of these rare people is that few in their audience have any idea what they're talking about, and even fewer care. These "kings" live largely alone on their special little islands, talking mostly to themselves.

Point being, if we could understand what they're trying to share, they wouldn't really be kings.

I'll be reaching my 50s very soon and what currently bothers me the most is the fact that I'm constantly under the impression that, as quite a very maniac observer/listener, I've gathered so much practical knowledge about the human behavior that nobody can surprise me anymore. — FranckFriends

I can relate to this. I agree, we humans are highly predictable. We're almost totally obsessed with the story we have about ourselves, ie. our egos. And we are very skilled at trying to hide this obsession, from ourselves as well, under layers of cover story.

On one hand this predictability can be useful. As example, if you just listen more than you talk, use self deprecating humor, and support whatever story someone is trying to sell you about themselves, you'll be quite popular. And being popular comes with many benefits. It's all very simple really. But not so easy, because we suffer from the same self obsession as everyone else.

On the other hand the predictability can feel very stifling to creative people. For a creative person the predictability of human behavior can be very boring. For a sensitive alert person it gets even worse, because you can see through the cover story to the ego obsession being concealed below the cover story.

The best I can suggest here, not that I'm at all expert at it, is a sense of compassion. We're all basically 4 year olds trapped for decades in these adult bodies. And just as I'm bored with you, you are bored with me, we're all in this together.

The other solution is the realization that human beings need not be the center of our universe. There's a lot more than us going on in the world. As example, one of my best friends is a retarded squirrel who has been living in a cage at the top of the stairs here for years now. He has not the slightest idea what's going on, but he's sweet, pure, innocent, uncontaminated by the world, which makes him more interesting than most people.

But anyway, we're all going to be dead so much sooner than we realize, so it's probably wise to just go with the flow with a sense of humor, and not worry about any of this too much. It'll all be over before we know it.

How typical of the arrogant and ignorant hubris that is so usual. — ssu

Speaking of the devil.

And now you've got me doing it too.

Not yet brewed. Waiting on the frost to melt with a little sunshine before I am venturing out into the desert which is sitting at 35*f. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

35?? 35!! You lucky dog, it's over 80 here today. Here in Florida we have two seasons, summer, and Christmas Eve.

That is an excellent question for the macro level thinkers but what I am speaking of is our ability, as a state which is a collective of communities, to deal with the influx of those in need. We are a giving community but we have our limits. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I hear you, and that illustrates the larger question I'm asking too. How many people is America able to serve, how many is she willing to serve? We should try to have some idea of that instead of just pushing blindly forward while more communities like yours get overwhelmed. I don't have the answer myself, I have no idea how many citizens is the right amount. All I've got is the question.

So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, how much water can the sponge hold? We should try to answer that question at some point before we find out through crisis.

So NPR is now diving headlong in to the 2020 speculation and just did a story listing a great many possible Dem candidates, too many for me to remember or list here.

I started this thread because so far at least none of the names suggested have inspired me to jump up out of my chair and yell, "YES!" Perhaps that will change as I learn more about these folks.

Meanwhile, I now confidently predict that the best candidate the Dems can run against Trump is Dick Cheney. :smile: Ok, ok, so now I'm trolling, you got me...

THOUGHT CONTENT: If we begin from the assumption that fundamental human problems arise from incorrect thought content, from bad ideas, then philosophy is a logical place to turn in the search for solutions.

THOUGHT ITSELF: If on the other hand we begin from the assumption that fundamental human problems arise from the nature of thought itself, from how it operates, then silence is a logical place to turn in the search for solutions.

What I see is that we typically assume without questioning that human problems arise from bad thought content, and so we dive immediately in to the logic dancing that folks such as ourselves love so much. And by accepting such an important premise without questioning reveal ourselves to not being so logical after all?

Perhaps it helps to focus a bit on what authorities we are referencing to build our perspectives? As example, the theist may reference a holy book, while the atheist may reference philosophers and/or scientists.

I would argue that in both cases these are second hand sources of information. That doesn't automatically make them worthless, but perhaps reason would suggest that instead of focusing so much on what people say about reality, we turn our attention to the primary source, reality itself.

This can be done from either the theist or atheist perspective. As example, for the theist reality can be seen as "the book that God wrote" whereas holy books are merely "the books that men wrote". The process of shifting focus to the primary source, reality itself, should be even easier for the atheist. In either case, theist or atheist, it seems reasonable to suggest that we might consider aligning our psychology with the nature of reality, to the degree that is possible.

It appears that reality is overwhelmingly nothing, from the smallest to largest scales. Or perhaps relative nothing for the physics sticklers. Things, objects, existence form the tiniest fraction of reality, as best we currently can tell. More to the point, things depend entirely upon the nothing for their existence, for it is the nothing which defines the something. You know, it is the empty space around the Earth which defines the Earth as a "thing".

For the theist, we can see that this nothing pervades every something down to the very smallest of scales, much as God is claimed to do. In fact, it appears that science is having increasing difficulty finding the boundary between nothing and something, so it might not be unreasonable to state that every something is basically made of nothing.

Ok, you get the point, nothing is a really big deal.

If we were to use nature, reality itself, as our "holy book", our chosen authority, a guide whom we turn to for advice regarding how we can best live....

.... this would seem to suggest that the thought objects in our minds should be surrounded by, and infused with, a great deal of nothing, of silence.

Seen this way, philosophy can be seen as useful, but concerning itself with a very small fraction of reality. It would seem reasonable to suggest that even more effort might be invested in to the study of nothing, of silence, given that it forms the overwhelming majority of reality, our chosen authority for the purposes of this post.

So much noise about silence!! Yes, it's silly, contradictory, agreed. I don't claim otherwise, and am just attempting to honestly share my own somewhat absurd human condition.

There's a kind of logic to the madness though. It's typically the loudest humans who discover the need to study silence.

Thanks Rank, giving it a go. A disclaimer, I claim no knowledge of Camus and related writers, and am just diving in to a response to what I see on the page Rank has linked us to.

Here's a quote from the beginning of the article to add to our conversation...

The human condition is characterized by the probability of suffering and the certainty of death—a fate which human reason cannot accept as reasonable. In the face of this absurdity, the universal reason of the Enlightenment has nothing to say.

1) Yes, obviously, to the probability of suffering and the certainty of death.

2) No to "a fate which human reason cannot accept as reasonable."

3) I can't comment on what Enlightenment writers may have said or not said regarding "the absurdity" but I have plenty to say about it, way too much. :smile:

In The Myth of Sisyphus Camus elucidates this concept of the absurd. The absurd comes with the realization that the world is not rational:

Or maybe the realization that such writers were not as rational as they imagined themselves to be?

“At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world."

My thesis is that the silence is not unreasonable, but rather an ever open (if unfamiliar) door waiting patiently to serve our longing for happiness. Though "happiness" is perhaps not the most precise word one could use.

If one sees that it is the medium of thought itself which is what obstructs the experience of unity that we seek, then silence becomes not unreasonable, but a welcoming oasis from division and conflict. Not a permanent solution (because we still need thought to survive) but just an oasis along the path of our journey.

You do realise how much this sounds like just about every religion ever invented don't you? — Isaac

Please list for us all the religions which explicitly reject all dogma and doctrines, including anything they themselves may say. Thank you.

You appear to be so very eager to play the glorious role of The Great Debunker that it's distracting you from reading carefully. As example, note this...

The God debate generates various answers which are then debated. I'm attempting to escape that failed pattern by pointing out that ANY answer that can be offered will just be a symbol, and a mere symbol is not really what we are seeking. The proof of this is that we keep looking, searching, reaching for something, we're still hungry, no matter how many religions and philosophies we invent. — Jake

This applies to my ideas as much as anybody else's. And so I wrote...

So, this is of course way too wordy, evidence of my own poor writing skills. A better suggestion could be for readers to simply ignore all the theory above, get out in to nature somewhere, and learn how to lower the volume of thought. And then you will see for yourselves. — Jake

Point being, unlike the vast majority of religions, there's no need for anybody to believe anything I said. Readers can instead run the experiment suggested and come to their own conclusions. Or not, that's fine too.

In short the skeptical theist claim is that we do not have any reason based ability to say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God, if there is such a thing. — Rank Amateur

Agreeing with this again, and trying to steer back towards the topic.

It seems this limitation you point us to can be overcome by anyone willing to embrace faith, whether of a theist or atheist flavor. This seems logical and reasonable to me. If a person requires an answer and answers are not available by any method other than faith, one does what one needs to do, as we all do.

And I also like your proposal as it seems to pull the rug out from under the repetitive patterns of the God debate. If theists and atheists are both using faith, which I agree they are, then there's really little to debate. As you suggest, each person of faith believes what they personally need to believe, and mutual respect of these choices seems wise. Mutual respect does not require us to agree with any political proposals which may arise out of beliefs other than our own.

So far so good, but...

What about the person who finds themselves unable or unwilling to use faith as a solution? On a philosophy forum at least, this seems a relevant issue.

If a person declines faith it seems they have little choice other than to face the absurdity (want an answer, but can't have one) you referred to earlier and try to figure out how to make the best use of that situation. I'm not knowledgeable about the philosophers you referenced (regarding absurdity) but it seems to me the situation is absurd only if one refuses to deal with it.

f it's international, then the little weasels would have nowhere to scurry off to in order to avoid paying a fair share. — S

Of course we could simply stop buying their "materialistic toot", a great phrase which I intend to steal and re-license under my own name, making me an over night multi-trillionaire. Buh! Mere billions are for losers!!

Jake - just to be clear there is no Catholic doctrine that says God is Everything - that is your addition - Catholic doctrine says God is God, and God is everywhere. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I understand, I am offering my own interpretation of that doctrine, agreed.

My reasoning is, if God is everywhere, God is thus everything. That is, there is a single unified reality, divided conceptually by the human mind.

Over here at least, the stats show that immigration results in a net contribution in terms of the economy — S

Ok, but what are the limits of this? Should the goal be that the U.S. or Great Britain have as many people as China? More is better, without limit?

Shouldn't we be aiming for some specific population goal which we hope strikes the best compromise between economic benefit and over crowding?

A nurse is technician who only knows how to do something but s/he is valued less than the person inventor who made the nurse's job possible or easier. — TheMadFool

It seems reasonable that someone who makes all nurse's jobs easier should be compensated more than a single nurse. But the pay doesn't need to be 1,000X more to motivate that contribution.

As example, Steve Jobs didn't invent Apple to become a billionaire, he did so because he had a huge ego and he wanted everyone to witness the impact he could have upon the world. He would have happily invented Apple for a million dollars, if society judged that to be an impressive sum (thus making Jobs an impressive person in the eyes of society), and if that was enough for him to continue doing what he enjoyed doing.

We're never going to have pure equality, and we shouldn't have. People should have incentives to do their best work. We just need to dial back the wild excesses in the system. As example, according to Wikipedia...

Bezos's wealth surpassed $100 billion for the first time on November 24, 2017, and he was formally designated the wealthiest person in the world by Forbes on March 6, 2018, with a net worth of $112 billion. — Wikipedia

Ok, so Amazon is a pretty amazing service which provides great value, but wouldn't 100 Million be sufficient reward, instead of 100 Billion?

To step out of religious concepts for a moment, consider the phenomena of space. We assign this phenomena a name, which presumes that space is a "thing" separate and divided from other "things". But as we dive ever deeper in to the nature of "things" we see that everything is overwhelmingly space down to the smallest of scales. We divide this single unified phenomena up to "existence" and "non-existence" which obscures the reality that all of existence is made of non-existence.

There's only so far we can go exploring such subjects with ideas, words, and language etc because that methodology imposes profound distortions upon what is being observed.

Historically, the origin of the doctrine was an attempt by medieval (or earlier) theologians to reconcile the statements in the NT that could be read to imply that Jesus is separate from his 'father' and from the 'spirit', with the doctrine that there is only one god. — andrewk

According to Bozoist doctrine :smile: this is yet another example of the divisive nature of thought at work.

As example, the word "God" is a noun, and the function of nouns is to separate one thing from another. Thus, by the act of naming God, God is assumed to be something different from everything else, even though Catholic doctrine asserts that there is only one God and that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which implies that God is one with everything or is in fact everything.

But thought is still doing it's division thing, so the one God is divided from everything else, and then divided again in to three.

Here's another example of mind imposed fantasy division which seems relevant to the subject of God.

We have one word "creation" and another word "destruction" which implies that these are two different separate processes. Semantically this is of course true.

But in the real world every act of creation is an act of destruction, and every act of destruction is an act of creation. It's a single unified process which thought arbitrarily divides in to conceptual parts for reasons of conversational convenience. This act of conceptual division is useful, but it doesn't mirror reality accurately.

This is the kind of mess we inevitably wander in to when discussing many religious ideas. We're attempting to discuss a single unified reality with language built upon the process of division. So basically every time we name or try to define something we are generating more illusion.

Here's an article from the Washington Post that offers speculation about possible Dem candidates for President in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/06/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020-ranked-3/?utm_term=.11fd921c59d7

Michael Bloomberg is yet again considering making a move. I'd like to hear more from him, should he ever make up his mind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/06/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020-ranked-3/?utm_term=.11fd921c59d7

Since October of this year, over 10,000 illegal immigrants have been released by ICE at the Grey Hound bus station with nothing but a bus pass, picked up by faith groups, cared for until they can contact a family member already in the USA or they can chose to leave and live on the streets of our state.
Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

First, it's important for me to ask this crucial question...

Where is my $%^&%# latte!!!! :smile:

Of less importance is the obvious question which we never seem to get around to asking, let alone answering.

What is the appropriate population for America?

As example, the population of the United States has doubled in my life time. Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much?

The population of Florida where I live is now 4 times larger than it was in 1960, rising from around 5 million to around 20 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/206109/resident-population-in-florida/

Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much etc?

I don't see how we get where ever it is we're trying to go population-wise if we have no idea what that is.

He hoped that at some point the capitalist would be done away with -- not by lining the capitalists up and shooting them, but by replacing capitalism and capitalists with socialism. Will it happen? I don't know. — Bitter Crank

How about this? Capitalism in the middle, and socialism at the extremes.

The goal should be to create a middle class society. The rich are taxed to bring them down in to the middle class, while the poor are subsidized (primarily through education) to bring them up in to the middle class.

Within the middle class things work much as they do already, because we all need and benefit from incentives to improve our skills, advance our education etc.

So the middle class would not be a single uniform category, but would contain within it a range of incomes, just as it already does. But nobody would have a billion dollars, and nobody would be sleeping in the streets.

Bernie Sanders was on the right track with his proposal to make college free (like high school) paid for by the super rich.

Crank is right, a tiny number of people are hogging a huge percentage of the wealth of modern society. That needs to end. Here's an article which addresses the subject...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.403c0d3a0313

A quote from the article:

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America — Washington Post

Luckily there is a simple solution to all of your concerns. You can simply ignore everything I've said and instead share your own analysis of fundamental human problems. This is fully allowed within the tenants of Bozoism. :smile:

I'm watching this documentary about the history of New York City. It's available on Amazon Prime, and apparently also on YouTube. It's called "American Experience: New York" and appears to have been directed by family of Ken Burns. The film is in that style, and is directed by Ric Burns.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDTIEcvzXSDS3aDN95U4jPEdPHIL9OGJi

This has really helped put Trump in context for me. So much of Trump's perspective arises right out of the history of NYC. As example...

NYC was established by the world'd leading corporation at the time specifically for the purpose of making money. Profit has been the focus of NYC from the very beginning.

Also, note how the first elected office that Trump ran for was the very highest office. That's very much a NYC mindset, think big.

Also, immigration was an ongoing issue for NYC given that tidal waves of new arrivals from both within and beyond the U.S. continually threatened to swamp the city's ability to serve it's population. Thus, Trump's obsession with immigration does not arise from nothing, but a long history in NYC.

This is not to suggest that all New Yorkers are like Trump, only that Trump appears far less strange when put in to the context he has arisen in.

Well, having been banned from almost every theist / atheist / philosophy forum I've ever joined, I'm guessing being crucified as a heretic would be the most likely outcome. So thanks for keeping my secret! :smile:

Well, I may have neglected to mention this, but my real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I am the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion, the first to be fully grounded in glorious ignorance.

However I would appreciate you not sharing this personal information because the next step after declaring me a prophet is to start gathering together the hammer and the nails. :smile:

After 67 years of such investigations I'm no longer able to separate my own ideas from all the influences I've been exposed to, so I can't really answer your question. The choice of particular words is mine I guess, but the ideas are thousands of years old. I'd say my contribution is the imperfect attempt to translate some of these ancient ideas in to language which is more accessible to modern audiences, particularly those who have an allergy to religion. Anyway, thanks for reading.

Shut up? Who am I kidding?? :smile:

Put another simpler way....

If we abandon interpretations of experience, all that's left is experience, and that's what we're really looking for.