The double bind of Gregory Bateson gets a new venue.

— T Clark

My issue with this is how do you apply this approach to creating social change? In relation to progress created by activists in women's suffrage, race equality, gay rights, etc - should they just have waited? Or is there a different nuance to acting without acting? — Tom Storm

While the language does not encourage defining what the best polity may be, I think there is a degree of freedom for the individual to see utility in a more subtle way. The passage I quoted from Zhuangzi, draws a direct line between "how one makes themselves useful" to their longevity and experience.

That connection is the other side of the dynamic Lao Tzu is pointing to as how rulers bring about what becomes useful. Like the stanza:

If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.

The numerous contents of the tradition of Chinese medicine all originate from the study of the Dao.

Another tradition springing from the study of the Dao (which is closely related to medicine as treatment) was the development of the many "gongs" or training methods that lead to exercises for breath, mind, and energy. Those gongs also relate to "dances" such as the Five Animals Frolics of Hua Tuo. The language of Chinese martial arts also draws from the Tao Te Ching.

I read the Tractatus to be saying the opposite in regards to solipsism. The conflicts in our thinking are closely joined to what is said or not said. Instead of a theory of meaning there is this theater of saying. And the observation is not intent upon giving the last word upon meaning. That would interfere with the other observations.

It is only relevant if it is relevant. I understand keeping the frame of reference within one's experience to discuss it honestly. Suggesting that something is outside of a matter of interest is always something to reference. On that basis, saying: "Feel free to bring in more if it seems relevant." is an odd invitation. Nobody would bother to do so for any other reason.

Nice.
I particularly like the Leibniz back flip at the end.
There is a departure from Anselm here in that the transcendent creator is presented as the first idea that occurs to one rather than something your mind can barely conceive.

Got it. I will stand clear from relating the discussion to other points of reference than the text you are interested in.

I have read the books. I am not arguing on the basis of authority. You will have to forgive me for not being interested in your attempts to do so.

That observation about utility and perspective reminds me of one my favorite passages from Zhuangzi:

Carpenter Shi went to Qi and, when he got to Crooked Shaft, he saw a serrate oak standing by the village shrine. It was broad enough to shelter several thousand oxen and measured a hundred spans around, towering above the hills. The lowest branches were eighty five feet from the ground and a dozen or so of them could have been made into boats. There were so many sightseers that the place looked like a fair, but the carpenter didn't even glance around and went on his way without stopping. His apprentice stood staring for a long time and then ran after Carpenter Shi and said, "Since I first took up my axe, Master, I have never see timber as beautiful as this. But you don't even bother to look, and go right on without stopping. Why is that?

"Forget it - say no more!" said the carpenter. "It's a worthless tree! Make boats out of it and they'd sink; make coffins and they'd rot in no time; make vessels and they'd break at once. Use it for doors and it would sweat sap like pine; use if tor posts and the worms would eat them up. It's not a timber tree - there's nothing it can be used for. That's how it got to be that old!

After Carpenter Shi had returned home, the oak tree appeared to him in a dream and, "What are you comparing me with? Are you comparing me with those useful trees? The cherry, the apple, the pear, the orange, the citron, the rest of those fructiferous trees and shrubs - as soon as their fruit is ripe they are torn apart and subjected to abuse. Their big limbs are broken off, their little limbs are yanked around. Their utility make life miserable for them, and so they don't get to finish out the years Heaven gave them but are cut off in mid - journey. They bring it on themselves - the pulling and tearing of the common mob, And it's the same way with all other things.

"As for me, I've been trying a long time to be of no use, and though I almost died, I've finally got it. This is of great use to me. If I had been of some use, would I ever have grown this large? Moreover, you and I are both us things. What's the point of this - things condemning things? You, a worthless man about to die - how do you know I am a worthless tree?"

When Carpenter Shi woke up, he reported his dream. His apprentice said, "If its so intent on being of no use, what's it doing there at the village shrine?"

"Shhh! Say no more! It's only resting there. If we carp and criticize, it will merely conclude that we don't understand it. Even if it weren't at the shrine, do you suppose it would be cut down? It protects itself in a different way from ordinary people. If you try to judge it by conventional standards, you'll be way off! — Translated by Burton Watson, Chap.4

So we cannot say God's intellect is the same as nature. — Eugen

Spinoza doesn't claim it is the same. That is a statement you attribute to him.

So God's intellect has nothing to do with what we call consciousness, feeling, will, etc. — Eugen

Spinoza outlines the connection to human experience through the propositions concerning modes and the distinction between causing oneself or being caused by another. In general, the "hard problem" would require subtracting from substance and then asking how to add it back again.

I've seen some videos and read some materials and they all say he believed everything was animated. On the other hand, God (the whole nature) has no consciousness. This sounds pretty much like panpsychism to me. — Eugen

You will have to show from what text you derive that interpretation. It seems like a misunderstanding of how Spinoza agreed and disagreed with Descartes on various issues.

Spinoza was not panpsychist. Consider:

Ethics, Of God, Definition #2:

"A thing is said to be finite ​in its kind if it can be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be finite because we always conceive bodies that are greater. Similarly a thought is limited by another thought. But a body is not limited by a thought nor a thought by a body."

In regards to God's intellect and will, there are two approaches. In Ethics,Of God, Proposition 18, Scholium:

"Since God’s intellect is the sole cause (as we have shown) both of the essence and of the existence of things, it must necessarily differ from them both in regard to their essence and to their existence. For the thing caused differs from its cause precisely in what it has from its cause. For example, one human being is the cause of the existence of another human being but not of his essence; for his essence is an eternal truth.
Therefore they can completely agree in their essence; but in their existence they must differ. This is why if the existence of one comes to an end, the existence of the other will not therefore come to an end. But if the essence of one could be taken away and be made false, the essence of the other would also be taken away. This is why something that is the cause of both the essence and the existence of an effect must differ from that effect both in respect of essence and in respect of existence. ​But God’s intellect is the cause of both the essence and the existence of our intellect. Therefore God’s intellect, insofar as it is conceived as constituting the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in respect of essence and in respect of existence, and it cannot agree with it in anything except name, and this is what we set out to prove. One may make the same argument about will, as anyone may easily see." (Spinoza does make the same argument for will in Proposition 33)

The other approach is to see it as prejudices of human beings such as discussed in the Appendix to Proposition 36. It is long so I will only quote a snapshot:

"After human beings had convinced themselves that everything that happens, happens for their own sakes, they were bound to believe that the most important thing in everything was what was most useful to themselves and to put the very highest value on all those things that affected them most favorably. Hence in order to explain the natures of things, they found themselves obliged to form the notions of good, bad, order, confusion, hot, cold, beauty and ugliness. Also, because they believe themselves to be free, the following notions arose: praise and blame, sin and merit. I will explain the latter set of terms below after I have given an account of human nature, but the former set I will explain briefly now."

Which attributes do not interact with each other? Are you referring to Ethics, Of God, Proposition 28?:

"Proof:
Any particular thing, or anything that is finite and has a determinate existence, cannot exist or be determined to operate, unless it is determined to exist and operate by another cause, which is also finite and has a determinate existence; and this cause in turn is also unable to exist or be determined to operate, unless it is determined to exist and to operate by another thing, which also is finite and has a determinate existence, and so ad ​infinitum.
Scholium:
Some things must have been produced immediately by God, namely those things that follow necessarily from his absolute nature, and some things by the mediation of these first things, which still cannot either be or be conceived without God. It follows therefore, first, that God is the absolutely proximate cause of things immediately produced by him but not in their kind, as they say.24 For God’s effects cannot either be or be conceived (by p15 and p24c) without their cause. It follows, secondly, that God cannot properly be said to be the remote cause of particular things, except perhaps in order to distinguish them from those which he produced immediately or rather which follow from his absolute nature. For by a ​remote cause we mean the sort of cause that is in no way closely joined to its effect. But everything that is, is in God, and is also so dependent on him that without him they could neither be nor be conceived."

[All citations come from
Spinoza: Ethics: Proved in Geometrical Order (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)]

Isn't "talking about action" the same thing as consciousness? Even if it's just talking to ourselves. — T Clark

By inviting us to follow a way that cannot be explained in the same manner as those we are accustomed to, are we not being asked to become aware of something we were missing before?

As a part of the invitation, the appearance of things and events that we are in the habit of only talking about in our system of names are said to be born from that element we have been missing.

So some part of the instruction to "not act" is recognizing how much happens without a certain agency as we were confined to before making the acquaintance of the missing understanding. The change in our understanding and restraining from leaping into action uncovers the way things actually work and come about.

I don't know if Kierkegaard will address your thinking about sin and punishment. I brought that quote up in response to your comments about fear. It shows that he does not consider the tradition of enduring a "Fear of the Lord" as something that can be circumvented if one takes life seriously.
In regards to the limits of psychology, that element is part of his objection to the Hegelian system that would explain all experience and thus overcome conflicts. There is something that we cannot repair by ourselves.

The quote is interesting to you but does not engage you as some part of what you worry about.
That makes it sound kind of boring. I get how it bores people but I don't understand why a lack of interest does not resolve itself into an oblivion of reference. Nobody cared about certain distinctions after some point of time so talking about it became an irritating detritus to a formerly important matter to understand.

Thank you for the invitation.
Being a "worn" person of much experience but little wisdom, I have long heard this verse as addressed to me as one "who does things" in a tutorial about not doing some things; recognizing my worth but asking more from me.

To me, being and non-being are very central. In oversimple terms – Non-being = Tao; Being = 10,000 Things. — T Clark

I read the importance of wu wei as recognizing that there is a process underway that is generated by the play of opposites but does not consume the opposed elements that keep reproducing the things that are. So whatever the Tao might be, it is something that establishes that outcome rather than a product of it. The reason it is difficult to talk about such a factor is that we talk about absolutely every thing else in a different way. So, to the extent we can draw a distinction between being and non-being, the Tao is elsewhere. Instead of waiting for a Godel to show up to bust up the complete set idea, this view excludes that as a possibility from the get go. I don't agree that "consciousness interferes with action." I think it is more like "talking about action" interferes with consciousness.

One quality about the "10,000 things" that has always fascinated me is that it is a finite number. Saying there is a very large number of beings around one is different than saying there is an infinity nobody could find their place amongst.

From the quotes given, it sounds like there is a psychology being proposed that incorporates particular elements of "scripture" that would attempt to explain the roles of all involved. I think Kierkegaard would consider the interpretation to be as self serving as the motivation charged to the poor ego in that theory.

In The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard separated the circumstances of sin from the realm of psychology by arguing that the choices we all have to make are not circumscribed by explanations of human nature. Being Kierkegaard, he made many psychological observations on the way to establishing that limit. You might be interested in a passage in his personal writings that his editors have pointed to in the work:

The difference between sin and spiritual trial [[i]Anfaegtelelse[/i] (for the conditions in both can be deceptively similar) is that the temptation [[i]Fristelse[/i]] to sin is in accord with inclination. Therefore the opposite tactic must be employed. The person tempted by inclination to sin does well to shun the danger, but in relation to spiritual trial this is the very danger, for every time he thinks he is saving himself by shunning the danger, the danger becomes greater the next time. The sensate person is wise to flee from the sight or enticement, but the one for whom inclination is not the temptation at all but rather an anxiety about coming in contact with it (he is under spiritual trial) is not wise to shun the sight or the enticement; for spiritual trial wants nothing else than to strike terror into his life and hold him in anxiety. — JP IV 4367 (Pap.VII A 93) May 5, 1847

Another Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, emphasized that the Holy Spirit had to be recognized as beyond the powers of human nature if the explanation for the Paraclete or advocate in The Gospel of John was to make any sense.

Now, there are interesting psychological approaches that provide sort of a negative image. In Ouspenski's In Search of the Miraculous, Gurdjieff refers to the first Christians as closed door dojos who were only interested in training in what they only discussed amongst themselves. As a result, G had no idea what they might have been up to.

Right from around 50ish, we get a lot of, essentially, advice about how to govern. Is that too simplistic a reading, is it meant to be allegorical, or is he literally speaking to governors and generals? — Isaac

I think it is both in the sense that the "Empire" is presented as a condition that involves all those who participate in it rather than a result of a specific class pursuing articulated ends. The Tao Te Ching can be read as a conversation with the Analects of Confucius in this regard. There are agreements and disagreements between the two but they share a sensibility regarding the defects of Draconian approaches to order. Consider line 2:3 followed by Muller's comment:

[2:1] The Master said: “If you govern with the power of your virtue, you will be like the North Star. It just stays in its place while all the other stars position themselves around it.”

[Comment] This is the Analects' first statement on government. Scholars of Chinese thought have commonly placed great emphasis on a supposed radical distinction between Confucian “authoritative” government and Daoist “laissez-faire” government. But numerous Confucian passages such as this which suggest of the ruler's governance by a mere attunement with an inner principle of goodness, without unnecessary external action, quite like the Daoist wu-wei are far more numerous than has been noted. This is one good reason for us to be careful when making the commonplace Confucian/Daoist generalizations without qualification. — Translated by A. Charles Muller

I sing this to my stonemason knees when they complain:

Of old he who was well versed in the way
Was minutely subtle, mysteriously comprehending,
And too profound to be known.
It is because he could not be known
That he can only be given a makeshift description:
Tentative, as if fording a river in winter;
Hesitant, as if in fear of his neighbors;
Formal, like a guest;
Falling apart like thawing ice;
Thick like the uncarved block;
Vacant like a valley;
Murky like muddy water.
Who can be muddy and yet, settling, slowly become limpid?
Who can be at rest and yet, stirring, slowly come to life?
He who holds fast to this way
Desires not to be full.
It is because he is not full
That he can be worn and yet newly made. — Translated by D.C Lau. Book 1, verse 15

What else have you read?

But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. — Jack Cummins

The way I view the matter is through how the the "holy spirit" is presented as an advocate in different ways in the text. In John 14:15, Jesus explains how it will be when he is gone:

"If you love me, you'll obey my instructions. At my request, the Father will provide you with yet another advocate, the authentic spirit, who will be with you forever. The world is unable to accept (this spirit) because it neither perceives nor recognizes it. You recognize it because it dwells in you and will remain in you."

So the matter of keeping the dwelling place is the work of the one who would invite the spirit to live there. One can sever themselves from this love through a kind of self destruction. In Luke 12:10, the harsh condition is combined with how the advocate supports you:

"And everyone who utters a word against the son of Adam will be forgiven, But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit won't be forgiven. And when they make you appear in synagogues and haul you up before rulers and authorities, don't worry about how or in what way you should defend yourself or what you should say. The holy spirit will teach you at that very moment what you ought to say."

Having the harsh condition presented together with the helpful one suggests that being a dwelling place is a different situation than being one who commits sins that hurt others. In that sense, Jesus, as a Rabbi, is drawing from the "wisdom" tradition of the Proverbs such as verse 16:

"The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes but the Lord weighs the spirit."

Those two are some pretty difficult questions.

Martin Buber made some interesting observations regarding that tree in his book Good and Evil. What I found most interesting there was how the first psalm compared the happy person to a tree with roots and the wicked out on roads that petered out.

Regarding the idea that we live in something evil by default, I view the Gnostic versions of that as suspect as the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

I read Descartes' wrestling match with doubt as being more concerned with advancing his Method than solving a problem with it. The Discourse on Method argues using only "clear and distinct ideas" to develop inquiry into phenomena. The point is made that deduction from what is obvious can only go so far and that further understanding requires exploring cause and effect by means of hypothesis and experimentation. The separation of mind and body given as necessary in some syllogisms don't match up well with all that stuff about the pineal gland as the seat of consciousness.

A lot of his writing displays what Ortega y Gasset referred to as a willful obscurity but none of that sort of thing is present in On Geometry, where centuries of mathematical problems are solved for all time.

so as a basic dude, the more my body my breaks down and my reasons for living become less accessible and then clouded by annoyances like poor sleep, physical limitations and ailments, the balance sheet starts to sway towards I'd rather go out on a high... — dazed

There are forms of physical effort and conditioning that last much longer than others. I have had very old people toss me around like a rag doll. I don't think I will get that far but trying to do it has helped me a lot.

Gnosticism speaks of the duality between spirit and flesh with flesh being evil. Christianity is ONE and three. — Nikolas

There are certainly many pairs of elements and agents who are seen as set over against each other in Gnosticism. Many of the separated pairs are seen as sources of evil and suffering. On the other hand, some of the Gnostic Christians were less inclined to identify the "flesh" as the source of evil than their Pauline brethren. The division itself was seen to be the problem.

The trinity was an important concept for some Gnostic Christians. Consider verse 44 from the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven. — Funk and Miller translation

Working in reverse, I think there is a desire to have things proved through bitter experience. Thomas needs to touch the wound. Seeing that connection makes me less inclined to make a general observation about it.
It seems to me that I have had the best understanding of other people when the boundary has been established by them.
And that is a lot like our own bodies trying to interest us in something we rather would ignore.

Since this world "partakes" of the realm of Forms, the realm of Forms is "more real" than this world. It's not that this world is false per se, but that the realm of Forms is more real. — Dharmi

As presented as a matter of experience, some things were considered as being more or less a result of "participating" in forms and whatever logic governed them. The formless mud is just as real as the intellectual shape that turns it into something else.

The allegory of the Cave is the most famous example of Plato's opinion on matter — Gregory

Was that an opinion about "matter"? The allegory strikes me more about thinking in ways that are comfortable and pleasing to us as a "show" versus struggling with our own thoughts to get closer to what is real.

It's in his dialogue somewhere. He does say that. The soul originated in the realm of the Forms and returns there. — Dharmi

I look forward to your reference to the text you recall.

In God
In quasi-ideal Forms that do not subsist in a mind
In a certain geometry of these forms
In innate ideas that represent a previous existence in the realm of Forms
In material objects being either bad, non-existent, or hardly existing at all (like a shadow)
In the body being a vehicle of the soul which is intellectual and has its home in the Forms
In escaping from the phantom world (earth) and returning to ideal existence — Gregory

The God as depicted in Timaeus?

The matter of geometry of certain shapes is presented against the need for dialogue to approach the neighborhood of forms. Which dialogues are you going to put in comparison? Cratylus versus Sophist? Protagoras versus The Republic?

Yes, the reference to "innate" ideas are given as evidence for the existence of Forms in many dialogues. But those references don't explain what they are as themselves.

I don't know which statements you are referring to in regards to material objects. I am going to let you educate me on the matter.

The Phaedo refers to the idea of the body being a vehicle of the soul that does not die. Where in the writings does that make the "soul" a home in the "Forms"? Plotinus reasons in that way but I don't know where Plato does.

I have read a fair portion of Plato, some of it many times. I don't have a clear idea of what "Platonism" might be.
There are various thinkers who summed up what Plato meant to them. Many of them disagreed with each other, some as contemporaries and others across generations.
The term seems more like an assigned value that is valued by what opposes it than some idea that explains itself.

Yes, of course we adapt, resist, strive, and so forth on our way to maturity, but it's quite possible that how much we adapt, resist, and strive is biologically determined. — Bitter Crank

I have had a long career where the physical and the intellectual were intertwined with each other. I realize now, despite that extensive tutorial, I believed all along that the intellectual element was free from the constraints of the other.

The desire to have some things conclusively demonstrated has a down side.

I understand and agree that practical outcomes are not the central concern of pursuing philosophy. My response was meant to say that if such was the case, what can be deemed to be "practical" is another problem with their own questions. Some of those questions are philosophical.

It seems like passive aggressive gamesmanship. "I look down upon x from a height but risk nothing by doing so."

The idea that philosophy or metaphysics OUGHT to have utilitarian outcomes, is the basis of the criticism of the way modernity 'instrumentalises' reason. That reason should always be employed for some pragmatic outcome is surely a prejudice of industrial society. Traditional metaphysics has a much broader or higher outcome in mind. — Wayfarer

I don't stand upon firm enough ground to say what the emphasis upon "utility" may develop in histories of philosophy. What puzzles me is that the desire to narrow the terms of exchange ends up saying that things would be simple if all matters related to the issue were put in certain terms.

Well, sure. I could solve all the problems that appear if that was the only objective.

I do not recall ever having a concept of the City of God — Athena

Pardon me, I was referring the book of The City of God by St. Augustine.
My earlier reference to The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis is another book from the 15nth century.

I should have given those as references the first time.

I understand not wanting to live beyond the capacity to take one's life. I don't understand planning for what one will want in the future. One can strive for something in the present unfolding of becoming. That effort naturally leads to planning for the future. But the negation of the future requires no preparation.

In the analogy given of life as a party, if you are preoccupied about when you will leave it, you have already left it.

I have gone to some effort to not make it a problem of capitalism as such. I am getting the impression that you wish I was somebody else.

That is a fair question and I will try to come up with a cogent response.

But what about you? Don't you live somewhere where the conditions I refer to apply? Are you one of those Libertarians that have no idea about where they are and why they receive whatever the universe offers to them?

The idea of exploitation presumes a theft has occurred. I am not interested in that argument.
What I am saying is that the inequality is necessary for certain business models to work.
And that is what many proponents for inequality are actually arguing for in their communities.
That is where the rubber meets the road. What is the ratio of return for all of the people involved in an enterprise?