Maybe "based" is a misleading term. What I meant to say is that the biological facts are always there. Whatever societal norms are put on top of it can be very different, but the biological base is always there. — Nobeernolife

I’m not denying that biology exists. It’s the structure of societal norms put on top of a ‘base’ interpretation of biological ‘facts’ such as stated below that I’m arguing against:

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions. — alcontali

The biological FACT here is what exactly?

This is an interpretation of what we observe in nature in relation to understanding human pre-conscious response to stimuli. It isn’t a base: it’s only a handful of clues. Conscious action is not put on top of a base of stimulus-response - it restructures and influences not only how we respond, but also how we interpret stimuli beyond our immediate needs, which then gives us options on how we can respond. Self-consciousness enables us to not only question and critically evaluate these interpretations and subsequent responses (in theory as well as practice), but also to adjust our concepts, giving us options on how we can interpret stimuli more objectively in order to determine and initiate more ethical actions.

So an effective look at sexual ethics requires a restructuring of this ‘base interpretation’ to integrate our capacity for both conscious and self-conscious action. And I’m not necessarily talking only about stopping to think in the heat of the moment. The way we conceptualise ‘male biology’ in the first place might be a good place to start...

Are we? Biology is what it is. The socio-political framework is very different, depending on the time and place. — Nobeernolife

Well, no - what has been referred to here as ‘biology’ is an interpretation, a reduction of information such that it endorses certain behaviour as ‘normal’.

I recognise and sympathise with this preference for an observable, measurable universality as a default. The uncertainty and relativity of what it is to be human requires that we pay more effort, energy and attention to determining and initiating action, and that we relate to the universe beyond our own immediate needs. The extent to which we advocate reverting to a biological or animalistic ‘default’ is a question of ethics.

Well yes, but whatever societal norms you have are BASED on biology. — Nobeernolife

I dispute that societal norms must be BASED on this interpretation of ‘biology’. That’s my point.

So.....a priori and a posteriori reduce to the manner in which our cognitive faculties operate. A priori does not use the faculties of empirical representation (sensibility), a posteriori does not use the faculties of conceptual representation (understanding). They work together equally for direct empirical knowledge, one merely conditions the other for indirect empirical knowledge, and they are entirely separate for rational knowledge. — Mww

So... a priori knowledge is still relative to the information integrated within the experiencing subject, just no longer considered susceptible to empirical information.

Would you say there are conditions in which a priori knowledge can be rendered susceptible? In other words, is it your belief that logical rules are eternal and universal, or are they simply a deeper level of acquired and applied knowledge, gained through pre-conscious and even continued sub-conscious interaction with the world? Are we fearfully protective of certain impure a priori knowledge, such that we ignore, isolate or exclude possible knowledge that threatens our favourable conceptualisation of reality?

Because observation grants a human is moral before he is intelligent, and because experience itself is absent in pre-intelligent humans, after all the metaphysical reductionism, pure practical reason is given as an innate condition in humans logically. Within the confines of a specific epistemological domain, human morality cannot be explained without the permission of pure practical reason, and in which intelligence is not yet a consideration. — Mww

Excuse my ignorance: What would you say a ‘pre-intelligent human’ is? Of course, my issues with this may have something to do with the metaphysical reductionism, but intelligence, by my understanding, is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, which I would think was a condition of even practical reason, along with morality. Are you referring to intelligence here as a measurable value, below which intelligence arguably does not exist?

Intelligence may not be a consideration within a specific epistemological domain, but I would argue that it nevertheless defines/confines the domain itself. That’s how I understand it, anyway.

I’m still reading through the rest of your reply...

I understand that it appears to work in your favour in the short term to ‘default’ back to ‘biology’. But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day?

Frankly, if we consider ourselves to be human beings, then our ‘default’ should NOT be biology. I think this is an issue for sexual ethics, because we continue to use this ‘default’ as an excuse for unconscionable behaviour, as if it can’t be helped. But I call bullshit. It CAN be helped, and the belief that human males are unable to control their violent and/or sexual behaviour without a strict socio-political framework is false. Some CHOOSE not to, and others have been able to leave that door open as a way (and a threat) to restore this illusion of control to which they believe themselves to be entitled.

‘Biology’ as you describe it only appears to work from the point of view of those with this illusion of control. As long as you can align yourself with the victors, and are grateful for whatever benefits such an association offers you, then you can kid yourself that you, too, have ‘control’ to some extent, for as long as the illusion holds out. If you’re on the outer, however, then you feel entitled, even encouraged, to engage in violent and/or sexual behaviour that somehow aligns or associates you with the victors.

But ‘survival of the fittest’ is not an accurate rendition of reality: it’s just a fairytale. Those moments where we feel attacked, betrayed, blindsided or taken for a ride are just reality catching up with us. If we’re prepared to let go of the fairytale and see reality for what it is, then we can be more prepared for it...

May I take “knowledge as what can be known and how it can be known” as a form of capacity?

If I understand it correctly, Kant uses space and time as an example to demonstrate how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible. Take Kant’s space(his argument for time and space is seemingly parallel to each other) as an example, as Kant argues, 1)space is not empirical. Empirical concept derives from experience, yet the experiences from which we would deprive space already presuppose the latter. And, Space is a priori. Though we can imagine objects away, we can never do so for space. 2)Space is not a concept, but an intuition, and followed Kant listed two arguments to support his claim.

However, even for a priori analytic knowledge, which is the trivial, definitional truth(like what you have mentioned in the example: a bachelor is an unmarried one, which we can know from merely the concept itself with no empirical experience), it has to, as you said in the bracket, beyond knowing the meanings of the words.
I understand that Kant’s a priori, defined by necessity and universality, is in its nature independent of empirical knowledge, but it seems like there needs to be some “experience” involved in the phase of “knowing the meaning of the words” in the first place to trigger the capacity of “a priori”(I feel like I am possibly making mistake here).
Under such conditions, is the “a priori” knowledge still counts as “a priori”?
If such capacity is not innate, I fail to figure out how can it escape the involvement of experience in the first place. — Meichen Fan

I think I’m with you on this one. I agree that knowledge is a capacity, and I’ve encountered the same issue with Kant’s a priori, so I’m very interested to hear what @tim wood, @Mww or others have to offer here...

An interesting discussion, between males mostly in their second half of life, if I’m not mistaken.

I’m going to offer a slightly different perspective, if I may.

The human population at large is not in danger of extinction. To those who say sex is ‘necessary’ for a stable society in terms of procreation, I say that diversity and collaboration are more the hallmarks of stability (and sex) than population control in either direction. Don’t procreate as an obligation, or simply to prove that you can - we honestly don’t need more people. If you’re not serious about realising the future potential of humanity, then don’t just add to the numbers for the sake of it. Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.

Monogamy, too, isn’t as necessary as one might think. Yes, it promotes a more stable society than polygamy, but only because a monogamous sexual relationship is less likely to promote an uneven perception of potential. If the laws of marriage or morality promote political imbalance (on the basis of gender, monetary exchange or birthright, for instance), then a sexual relationship negotiated on the freely agreed terms of all participating parties is always preferable to legality, however temporary.

Having said that, a healthy (ethical) sexual relationship within a marriage or without starts with integrity, patience and awareness - with yourself, first and foremost. If you’re only after a romp then don’t pretend otherwise, or vice versa, just for the sake of success. This goes for women and incels as much as players and frustrated husbands. Sex within a marriage - especially after twenty-odd years - is sometimes a matter of just helping each other unwind from the day. That’s okay. There can be comfort, intimacy and pleasure in the humble honesty of sharing a moment of vulnerability and need without fear or judgement. It’s what good sex is all about, really.

Finally, I have to say that I think anyone who believes sex is heavily intertwined with money mustn’t be doing it right...:razz:

To be honest, I’m not entirely following your thoughts here - and perhaps you’re not entirely following mine either.

Yes, I agree there. Even if the combination of both Darwinism and timeless existence ( metaphysical abstracts or features of conscious existence) were indesputable, the Genesis of such could still remain unexplained or mysteriously evident. And thus, technically both are inexplicable.

However in our context, metaphysical phenomena ironically enough, not only makes life worth living versus Darwinian instinct, but arguably adds to the mystery of life here and suggests something beyond the natural. Something beyond instinct and survival needs. — 3017amen

I don’t see it as versus Darwinian instinct - I think we need to be careful here, because there is a tendency in metaphysics (and in religion) to reject the physical features rather than strive to understand and explain them within the broader metaphysical structure. When we say ‘beyond’, people think ‘instead of’, when what we mean is ‘including but not limited to’.

When we began to embrace the notion of a spherical earth, for instance, it didn’t help to simply declare that the earth was NOT flat, but to show how the way we understood the earth to be flat was an illusion - a credible perception given our lack of awareness. We not only needed to explain the bigger picture, but also why we perceive the earth as flat within the context of a spherical earth. This is the challenge for metaphysics, too - not to simply dismiss the illusion, but to ‘show our working’.

So, back to the dichotomy (the need to parse) in order to reach a better understanding using your assertion, which I think is awesome btw, of ignorance ( could also dovetail to the tree of Life metaphor):

1. Love could be a mysterious phenomenon that seeks understanding.

2. The Will to live involves volitional existence.

Did I get those ( metaphysical features) right thus far?[/quote]

We have discussed the metaphysical features of Love on another thread, and I also opened up a discussion some time ago on the metaphysical features of the Will. Both point to a subjective perception of potential and value in relation to how we interact with the universe, which doesn’t necessarily relate directly to a specific event or object in time. Rather it relates to how we perceive the likelihood of that event or object changing over time, and the influence our perception can have on the event or object in the future. It’s uncertain and relative, but we can use it to make predictions about our interactions with the world, to plan for and orchestrate events before they occur, to create new possibilities out of a simple interaction, and to freely determine and initiate events - much like quantum potential.

Love is how we relate to the universe by increasing awareness of, connection and collaboration with potential and value. It isn’t confined to relations with a person or an object, but is inclusive of every possible relation we may have with the universe.

The Will is how all action is determined and initiated in the universe, and is inclusive of cause and effect as well as volition. With every relation, regardless of the level of awareness, each integrated system determines from its limited perception of potential and value whether to ignore or increase awareness, to isolate or increase connection, and to exclude or increase collaboration.

The Will to live is determined from one’s limited perception of potential and value in relation to their life: the likelihood of their life changing over time, and the influence this perception can have on their life in the future.

Nonetheless, do you think we can we get close to an explanation about the nature of the will and/or love? In their essence, can we not agree that they are, at the very least, metaphysical features of conscious existence? — 3017amen

I think we can, but I don’t think we’ll get close to an explanation by continuing to think of metaphysical features as exclusive of physical features. The way I see it, the universe interrelates up to six dimensional levels. In the same way that many physicists are currently looking at the universe as consisting of interrelated 4D events rather than 3D objects in relation to time, I think that if we consider the universe as consisting of interrelated 5D potentiality or value systems, then the unanswered questions we have with regard to quantum mechanics, the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and consciousness in particular can be answered. They’re inexplicable now only because we keep looking for an explanation without dissolving the structure of classical physics.

First, in an existential way, think of the dichotomy like this:

1. Love or the instinct to procreate
2. The will to live life or commit suicide — 3017amen

In my view, both of these point to errors in our thinking that stem from the supposed infallibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular. What if procreation is viewed not as an instinct, but rather as a misunderstanding based on ignorance? What if our capacity to commit suicide points to this ‘will to live life’ as a choice we are free to make, rather than a ‘natural’ instinct we overcome?

I think there's a better explanation: we're in a simulation, and they're saving computing power. It's just us. There's no other plausible explanation for why every galaxy, including our own, looks absolutely pristine and totally untouched. — RogueAI

That’s an interesting analogy. It relates in a way to this understanding that the energy of the universe is finite, and yet objective potentiality is supposedly unlimited. Also to the two main postulates of Quantum Mechanics in relation to Information Theory (as described by Carlo Rovelli): that the relevant information in any physical system is finite; but you can always obtain new information on a physical system.

I think it’s a fair observation that the universe isn’t formulated with this mediocrity principle in mind. Likelihood or probability is not a deciding factor in any of the major leaps in intelligence or awareness in the universe. But in relation to the rare earth hypothesis, as uncle Ben supposedly says: ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. So ‘special’ is a relative term.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts or theories about metaphysical aspects of consciousness(?). Meaning, if things like the Will or Love, exist metaphysically through our conscious existence, are we filtering that emotive phenomena from somewhere outside of our being, or are we secreting that materially and internally.., or maybe both(?).

I think, if one were to argue that the Will/Love is secreted materially/internally/exclusively, then one would also have to show a Darwinian link. And that's mainly because of the exclusive reliance upon natural processes.

And so just to make a huge leap, is the Will/Love, for instance, a super natural or extra ordinary metaphysical feature of conscious existence? — 3017amen

Well, my understanding is that humans consist of more complex relational awareness with existence than simply being, and that ‘cause and effect’ is the universal faculty by which all action is determined and initiated: the Will, reduced to four dimensions.

So to refer to the Will/Love as ‘super natural’ or ‘extra ordinary’ is to miss the point of metaphysics as inclusive of what is ‘natural’ or ‘ordinary’, and to limit our understanding of the relation between being and consciousness.

As an illustration, have you ever tried to explain to someone how to draw a chair so that it looks three dimensional? It’s not just a matter of describing how the two dimensional shapes - two squares and four thin rectangles, for instance - relate to each other on the page. It’s also about how the lines and angles and their relative positions change the observation of those shapes in relation to an observer/perspective.

In the same way, metaphysical features such as consciousness, the Will and Love are not just a matter of how Beings relate to each other in time, but about how all the complex relations that contribute to being, and their relativity, change each experience of ‘being’ in relation to an experiencing/conscious subject/perspective.

To understand the metaphysical aspects of consciousness, I think we need to stop looking at it as an ‘extra ordinary’ relation to being, and rather dissolve being as a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations which are themselves a set of relations - and then look at how all of these relations contribute to conscious existence without assuming definitive entities such as beings/events, objects/organisms, molecules, atoms and particles. Because consciousness is effectively a dissolving of these definitions.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but this appears as a misinterpretation to me. There are no people other than Adam and Eve. Eve has come into possession of "the secret", and reveals the secret to Adam. So the supposed "shameful" act here is the revealing of the secret. Once the secret is out, there is no attempt to hide it from future generations. The problem is that they are supposedly "shamed" for revealing the secret, but what are the feelings which led Eve to reveal? — Metaphysician Undercover

The ‘secret’ is that we are a fragile, vulnerable existence - what did you think it was? We can barely admit this to ourselves even now, let alone share it with future generations, and so the same continues. No one ‘shames’ them for revealing any ‘secret’ - they ‘were ashamed’ at this revelation that they were not what they believed they ought to be.

We cannot answer whether the universe was or wasn't created, we can say 'nothing' or 'something' created us.

There's no specific reason to think it wasn't created. In fact, it seems more likely it was, which is my argument.

There's a lot of strangeness, misjudgements; a higher power, who could merely know more, is a high probability. There is probably existence of other dimensions and locale. This universe, was likely created in a chain of creations.

It's a reasonable suggestion based on all that strangeness.

I think 'some' implies relation and thing, 'anomaly".

Putting two and two together anomaly sounds almost toon, or contra-dimensional - for having what is anomaly power. — Qwex

This has been a fascinating discussion, with many of my favourite posters and some newbies - I’m bummed that I slept through most of it...

So it seems that either the universe was created, or it popped into existence out of nothing. But what if both were true?

If you’re only aware of what is actually occurring in time, then it would certainly seem to you as if the universe popped into existence out of nothing. If there must be an actual cause, then I imagine you’d be stumped. And there are certainly some posters here who have proposed that we simply don’t have enough information... yet.

If, however, you acknowledge the potential of timeless, formless (unobservable/unmeasurable) existence, then it seems that this timeless, formless existence (whatever it is perceived as) likely ‘created’ the actual four-dimensional universe in which we operate, and in which cause and effect can then be observed/measured.

There appears to be two assumptions made throughout these discussions that I’d like to clear up:

The first is that an intelligent creator is a being that is separate from the actual four-dimensional universe it creates. A being is a temporal existence, whereas a timelessness, formless existence would need to be inclusive of all possible instances of being, ever.

The second is that intelligence = knowledge, when it is only a capacity or potential for knowledge. So there need not be any actual knowledge in existence prior to creation. In fact, I would argue that knowledge/information = creation.

Fair enough. I was expressing an agreement with your position, and attempting to connect it, through my own approach, to what @Pfhorrest was trying to say.

My use of ‘more’ (which I imagine you took as a comment on Pfhorrest’s approach) was simply to acknowledge that our capacity to attain the objective morality is limited.

It seems my approach is more confusing than I thought. Perhaps I will go step back and try a different tack. Thanks for your reply.

To begin with I'd like to thank you for the conversation. I too had a view similar to what your espousing here for the possibility remains that either we don't understand or we misunderstand. The denial of these two possibilities implies what is equally improbable -that we actually understand/know reality for what it truly is. — TheMadFool

You’ve been challenging and questioning my theory thoroughly and respectfully, so I thank you for this rare opportunity. Personally, I think it’s both lack and error in understanding that contribute to our perception of unnecessary ‘evil’, which is our best indication that reality doesn’t quite relate the way we’ve conceptualised it at this level of awareness.

One big obstacle to such a point of view is it fails to satisfactorily explain "evil" in the conventional sense of the term: for instance it would be extremely insensitive to tell Jews that the holocaust wasn't evil and the same applies to other cases "understood" to be evil. Nevertheless, it's not clear, in the context of your theory, whether this "understanding" is simply gut feelings or is there a good reason to call such things evil at all. Good too becomes a doubtful category of reality. — TheMadFool

I agree. One needs to tread carefully when questioning whether ‘evil’ is a necessary concept.

Consider the science of ecology and the idea of the food-web. I'm sure you know how evil has been closely associated with predation and good with prey; for instance we call criminals "predators" and we say things like "as innocent as a lamb". These maybe poor examples but hopefully sufficient to convey a "primitive" grasp of ecology and, in line with your thoughts, morality too. In modern times, we've come to recognize that predation is natural and a part of ecology, necessary for harmony and we've managed, only partially in my opinion, to delink predation from evil and maybe we also see the absence of a necessary connection between a lamb and good. Doesn't this square well with your theory? — TheMadFool

It does. It seems the further we are removed from suffering, the easier it is to put aside these notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and consider the value/potential of an event from different perspectives. This is why god as an absolute concept (not a being) can be useful in increasing our understanding of reality. As a being, particularly one who supposedly acts in the world, god’s omnibenevolence is questionable - he must be seen to ‘allow evil’ by doing nothing to prevent or respond to it. It is this inaction that appears most unconscionable. As an absolute concept, however, god relates to us the possibilities and invites us to perceive the potential, but it is us as beings who determine and initiate any action in relation to god or this perspective of absolute benevolence.

Thinking as we observe it appears to operate within time and space because that’s how we observe anything, but it’s not a spatio-temporal relation. Just like energy, it is a relation to the universe in terms of value or potential. There is no certainty here, only probability, but just as energy exists as a potential relation beyond spacetime, so too, I believe, does thinking and feeling and loving and remembering. This is where we test the apparent limits of our awareness, because this ‘nothingness where you don’t exist’, for me, is only an actual nothing. It is in this nothingness that we can distinguish between thoughts and feelings and connections and memories, all of which relate in a diverse and amorphous ‘structure’ of values/potentiality to this four-dimensional universe in which we operate.

Maybe in nothing we learn the ultimate truth, although who is really going to be the learner at this point? What is the learned if it’s experienced outside of time/space? — Leviosa

The learner is the universe itself, and the learned is the universe.

Interesting you seem to be saying that humility is an affliction, an unfortunate feeling, like sadness, or grief. You are the first person I have come across in a thread like this who sees it this way. Perhaps in the passage above if you substitute the word engenders, or something like that for "it calls for" it would be more appropriate.

For me humility is the most powerful means of affecting change in oneself. In spiritual development personal humility is the cornerstone of the spiritual life. In most forms of self help, or personal development processes personal humility is the first lesson, the first step. — Punshhh

I understand that most spiritual language encourages one to actively ‘seek humility’. I guess I’m a little resistant towards instructing subservience without qualification. I think people tend to also distinguish between humility they choose for themselves and humiliation thrust upon them unwillingly. I think it’s important to recognise the experience of humility as inclusive of experiences in which humility is not explicitly sought. Humiliation is more the affliction: only one’s attitude towards the experience determines which term we use.

If I said that ‘experiencing humiliation engenders patience’, would you agree? Sometimes I think it gives rise to anger, frustration or even violence. We don’t like the idea of not being able to choose our experiences of humility freely. Like with unwanted pain and loss, we often feel entitled to retaliate - this is where our spiritual development can be challenging.

Personal humility is a starting point - I agree with this. Self-awareness, patience and integrity together enable us to recognise the potential distance between where we are and where we aim to be. There is not only humility in this, but also an awareness of lack, perhaps even pain. When we experience all three, we are ready to take the first step.

I like the term engenders, by the way. Thank you.

What would be interpretation that would do full justice to your position? Read God moves in mysterious ways; the relevant abstract is presented for your consideration below:

The first line of the hymn has become an adage or saying, encouraging a person to trust God's greater wisdom in the face of trouble or inexplicable events, and is referenced in many literary works
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool

First of all, and I thought this might be clear to you by now, I don’t believe it is god who ‘moves’. Secondly, I have not suggested that we simply ‘trust God’s greater wisdom’, but that we consider the possibility that a greater wisdom may enable us to resolve such a ‘problem of evil’ in relation to ‘free will’. The idea is that we increase awareness of the universe without closing our minds to the possibility that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are of our own making, and therefore NOT founded on some eternal or absolute distinction/dualism that extends beyond the human experience. It takes courage to test the theory - keeping in mind that it isn’t a matter of ignoring information that leads us towards a negative judgement, but of reserving our judgement and instead remaining open to awareness, connection and collaboration anyway.

For animals, morality is a non-issue but for us, humans, morality is an important aspect of our lives; at least we make a show of it. This is explicable with your theory of perceived potential and infinite potential - humans have greater perceived potential than animals. My contentions was that since god has a greater potential s/he would arrive at a greater/better understanding of morality that includes our beliefs on morality and not come to a conclusion that contradicts our discoveries in the moral sphere, if we can call it that.

You seem to disagree with this and are of the view that we, humans, could b are wrong and good and bad are merely illusions caused by our limited perceived potential. If that's so then one thing strikes me as odd: animals have no notion of morality and by your reckoning god too knows neither good nor evil and so doesn't that mean animals, since they too don't recognize good or evil, are actually god? This is clearly a contradiction since animals have less perceived potential than us and yet their understanding of nature is equal to that of god who in your theory is of infinite potential. — TheMadFool

You appear to assume here that morality exists not just beyond humanity, but beyond god, who I imagine you still consider to be a being. For me, god as an absolute concept also doesn’t have potential as such, but I think I basically follow your contention, here. My response would be that god does have a better understanding of our sense of morality, including our beliefs about this morality, and also understands how limited we are in this perspective - in much the same way as a ‘sphere’ can see the limited nature of a ‘Flatlander’’s perspective, for instance.

Animals having no notion of morality is a lack of information. God has all the information we use to determine morality, but he also has all the other information we’re not aware of - such as unperceived potential. When we label an event or person as ‘evil’, we close the door on opportunities to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with that event or person, and instead contribute to more ignorance, isolation and exclusion, such as hatred, oppression, violence and despair.

I agree with this - it’s the main problem with seeking a more ‘objective’ sense of morality. That’s not to say that we’re unable to grasp the relativity of it - just not in the sense that we are inclined to perceive a dichotomous distinction between ‘the Good’ and ‘Evil’ - particularly in the sense that we must distance ourselves from accepting the existence of what is ‘not good’.

I’ve been discussing something similar at length with @TheMadFool here. There is a certain theological context to the discussion, but my view suggests only that a more objective sense of morality requires a conceptual perspective beyond the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ itself. This is a challenge we find most frightening, I think - but it’s one we are nevertheless capable of, if not without help/support.

It is a similar situation in relation to what we believe is true/false, logical/illogical, real/unreal, etc. By positing this possibility of an absolute conceptual perspective to relate to, we can make more objective sense of our subjective relation to each distinction. We must always be careful, however, not to devalue or dismiss the historical and non-human perspectives of the universe (however limited) towards these distinctions, if this ‘absolute’ perspective is to be considered an accurate one. I think we prefer to exclude uncertainty (to avoid the pain and humility of prediction error), but in doing so we limit our capacity to even approach an accurate concept of what is ‘real’ or ‘good’, for instance.

I didn't say free from mind, I said free from its interpretation. This is the basic distinction between polling people about what they believe, and appealing to observation. — Pfhorrest

Personally, I think we need to take both into account in order to even approach the accuracy we’re looking for here. It is where observation differs from what most people believe (or vice versa) that we glimpse the possibility of new information or unrealised potential which may be examined free from interpretation by the mind. These are not facts, mind you - their relative uncertainty must be taken into account, and only by attempting to express these possibilities in relation to the information we already have can we make use of this new information to predict future interactions, and then summon the courage to ‘test’ our conceptual hypotheses - in conceptual discussions (what most people believe), and/or in determining and initiating action (observation).

They are very distinct, because one is the feeling when the person is hiding something, keeping a secret, and the other is the consequences when the secret is exposed, revelation. Therefore if you refer to the biblical story of Genesis, or any other stories to elucidate the nature of "shame", we need to respect this difference. We cannot relate "shame" to the fruit of tree of knowledge, because this is the "shame" of exposure, revelation, and that would not be the "shame" you are talking about, but equivocation by the rules of your thread.

Therefore we must relate "shame" to the feelings which are involved with keeping the secret, the secret existing prior to that incident. These feelings of "shame", the unhappiness and uncomfortableness of keeping a secret, the need to tell someone, are the feelings which inspire the creation of language. Notice that in this case the reason for keeping the secret, the lack of confidence, and therefore the root of that shame, is the inability to communicate. That is why this shame, this unhappiness which led to that first exposure of knowledge is associated with innocence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have to disagree with this exclusion of the Genesis story as an incidence of ‘shame’. It is an exposure or revelation of fragility or susceptibility to harm that is made only to Adam and Eve themselves - not to anyone else. Their unhappiness at this knowledge and their lack of confidence as a reason to keep the secret results in them attempting to cover up or hide what is not even apparent to anyone else.

I buy the notion that God is an idea, and as idea an open invitation to try to think in a Godly way. I.e., it's the power of the human mind that determines God in all respects and aspects, and in the thinking of which determines the quality of human being and humanity. — tim wood

Agreed. The three ‘omnis’ refer to absolute values of knowledge, potential and will - not action. It is the successful application of all three that boggles the mind when we consider how one would act. If I knew everything there was to know about creating a possible universe, had the capacity to do anything, and genuinely intended to do well by the universe as a whole, do I really think my relation to the universe would be more accurate? And is it just about this moment we’re in right now, or this fawn, or humanity, or is it about an entire universe coming eventually to maximum awareness, connection and collaboration? Given what humans can know about the universe, our capacity to interact and our supposed intention to do well by all, how do we evaluate our own actions towards the universe in this context? How can we more accurately relate to the universe in applying the knowledge, potential and will that we have available, or better yet seek to increase that knowledge, potential and will such that we can more accurately relate than we are currently?

These seem to me more productive queries than positing a purely ‘logical’ (ie. value) relation between these absolute values of knowledge, potential and will.

Do you think this observation appears to turn Maslow’s pyramid on its head?

You appear to have trapped your thinking by blocking awareness left, right and centre. When you open your mind to the possibilities of the future as a form of existence, and to the possibilities of not thinking as a form of existence - even to illusion as a form of existence - then you might begin to grasp what life and existence is. Each of these who claim to not exist can be ‘reached’ within time - through the human mind - and so they do exist...the question is how...?

Do you use humility, or a correlate of humility, at all? — Punshhh

For me, humility (like pain, loss and lack) is an experience of life - not an attitude or action that we need to be striving for. It seeks us out easy enough and slaps us around a bit. The trick is to be prepared for it, to recognise it as a consequence of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, and to manage our tolerance of it as best we can.

These experiences of suffering, such as humility or humiliation and our fear of it, are signs that we’re challenging the perceived or predicted potential of the system. In increasing awareness, an experience of humility calls for patience; in increasing connection it calls for gentleness; in increasing collaboration it calls for peace; and in relating awareness to connection, connection to collaboration and collaboration to awareness, it calls for compassion - a recognition that humility is a familiar experience for all.

QM tells us that the amount of relevant energy/information in a physical system is always finite - but that there is always new potential energy/information whose relevance is yet to be discovered. In other words, the universe is not a closed system - it only appears that way from a four-dimensional perspective. I consider humans in the same way. Managing our tolerance of humility enables us to discover this unrealised potential.

Your views on the issue of evil and even good itself is basically a version of "god works in mysterious ways" which effectively puts god beyond our comprehension and demotes our intelligence to a level that renders our understanding of the world in general and good and evil in particular to an illusion caused by our ignorance. — TheMadFool

Well, I think that’s an oversimplification which effectively encourages ignorance, so no, that’s not really my view. But I do believe we are generally missing information that enables us to conceptualise the world accurately, and I think a large proportion of that ignorance has to do with the distinction we make between good and evil.

My question is simple: how intelligent do we have to be or how much of our perceived potential must we overcome to gain insight into god's absolute possibility and come to the realization that there is no such thing as good and evil? What kind of rationale could render the putrefying corpses in the ovens of Nazi concentration camps into something neither good not bad, as amoral as playfully kicking a stone down the road? — TheMadFool

It’s interesting that you offer ‘playfully kicking a stone down the road’ as an example of ‘neither good nor bad’ - I understand that this is rhetoric. I’m certainly not suggesting that the holocaust wasn’t significant. The profound significance of the holocaust was and continues to be immense. What we have learned and are still learning now, and certainly what we will continue to learn from interacting with the many and varied experiences of that event - especially about our potential as human beings - is precious and irreplaceable, whether we see that information or those experiences as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Because of that, we simply cannot afford to ignore, isolate or exclude any of it as ‘evil’. To do that is to risk not learning from the lesson.

So I don’t think it’s about intelligence, but about awareness. And I don’t think it’s about ‘overcoming’ perceived potential, but about increasing it.

Come to think of it, it seems to me that it's exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming all along. Non-human animals don't have the concept of good and evil and their behavior shows that's true and surely you won't deny that animals have less perceived potential than humans? Ergo, our greater perceived potential should get us closer to the truth than theirs: morality is knowledge, not ignorance as you seem to be suggesting, knowledge of a shared heritage, one of the universal desire to promote happiness (good) and prevent suffering (evil). God's absolute possibility would then necessarily reinforce this truth and not contradict it. — TheMadFool

It always brings a smile to my face when people make this observation. Here’s the loophole that lets us back into the illusion that ‘human morality is the highest pinnacle of knowledge’. Phew! That was close, wasn’t it? Morality is knowledge in relation to animals, but it’s ignorance in relation to god.

Non-human animals lack the capacity for awareness that enables them to distinguish between different value systems. To most of them, there is only one value hierarchy, which corresponds to a positive or negative affect in the organism. Most cannot distinguish between ‘good for you’ and ‘good for me’, or between ‘good for me now’ and ‘good for me in ten years’ - let alone between ‘good for me now’ and ‘good for the ecosystem in a hundred years time’. So yes, our capacity for awareness is closer to the ‘truth’ than theirs.

But you refer to ‘happiness’ and ‘suffering’ as if we all know precisely what you mean by those terms, even though there is no clear distinction here, let alone some one-dimensional linear progression from one concept to the other. What you’re talking about is often an assumption of shared heritage, masquerading as ‘knowledge’ that is both eternal and somehow defined. The relativity of morality is more pronounced and complex than that of time, and yet we seem to think that the words suffice to accurately define a concept at this level of awareness.

The terms I use are so often used and misused that I find most people misunderstand them at their core. I have actually thought a lot about the concepts behind these terms before settling on the terms I’m currently using, and I feel they are each still open to change. @god must be atheist mentioned ‘thinking in concepts’, which I think aptly describes my approach, but I also work in communication, so it’s important for me not to just use a word that sort of fits or simply sounds good.

Integrity, patience and self-awareness, for instance, all relate to awareness before we even begin to connect or collaborate with the world. They point to our attitude towards information. In the past I’ve used ‘self-control’ instead of self-awareness (and I’m not convinced this is the right term, either), but I’ve come to understand that it isn’t so much about ‘control’ as it is about learning how we accept and integrate information before acting, and how that affects the way we respond to the world. In a way, it’s about gathering enough information so that our predictions about future interactions are more accurate. I have noticed, for instance, that hormonal cycles change my awareness of quantitative vs qualitative information - not a great deal, but enough that either my spatial or emotional intuition is affected, for instance. Knowing this enables me to factor this uncertainty into how I then interact with the world at certain times.

Integrity is being honest with ourselves - particularly with how our past impacts on our present, and our openness to information from the world based on the sum total of our past experiences. This is basically an understanding of cause and effect in relation to who I am up to this point. With self-awareness, it doesn’t have to stay this way, but we need to interact more accurately with our past in order to start somewhere.

Which brings me to patience - which is recognising that any change we want to happen requires time, effort and attention in the present that we have to find from somewhere. The brain makes predictions about the body’s energy requirements and where our attention needs to be focused every moment of our lives, to the point that we can pretty much go through the motions without conscious effort. If we’re going to adjust this in any way, there will be internal resistance from systems that are used to working autonomously. No change happens overnight, and experiences of pain, humility, loss and lack will feature in any adjustment worth the effort. We need to be aware of how much of this is tolerable at any one time, and therefore how long it’s going to be before things improve. So it’s about an accurate interaction with our present situation.

You're basically saying that god is beyond our understanding - our perceived potential implied to be insufficient to grasp god's absolute possibility. That's why our relationship with god is based on, as you claimed, the difference between the two. It all boils down to ignorance which is probably the defining characteristic of our perceived potential. I agree that indeed, if a being, here god, can create the universe then it would be highly unlikely that the difference between our perceived potential and god's absolute possibility can ever be bridged successfully. The gap in our understanding of god, so conceived, may never be crossed by humans and this brings us to the main issue - the problem of evil. — TheMadFool

This is how everything relates: as a difference between two systems. I agree it is highly unlikely for the difference to be bridged, but I wouldn’t say never - I have reasons to believe in an obscure collective potential to manifest improbable possibilities. We are, after all, existing at a number of levels in our current capacity on the slimmest of odds.

Here I'd like to provide you with an analogy. A chimpanzee may not understand a human just like we can't understand god but we humans understand full well that chimpanzees are essentially hedonists and refrain from causing them harm to the extent that we're fully aware of that fact. Why is it then that god, infinitely knowledgeable as he is, allows evil, the primary cause of much suffering? Basically, god should not allow evil to exist to the extent that free will is irrelevant just as we either avoid, or are reluctant to, cause pain to beings (animals) that have less perceived potential than us. — TheMadFool

First let me ask you: Do we refrain while chimpanzees cause harm to each other, or do we need to step in and prevent every instance of pain, simply because we can? You seem to be equating ‘allowing evil to exist’ with directly ‘causing them harm’ or pain, but I think there is a world of difference here.

Should we not allow chimpanzees to cause each other harm to the extent that their will as chimpanzees is irrelevant? Would that be more benevolent of us? Should we impose our own moral standards on the actions of chimpanzees, and if so, how would we even enforce it, and how would those actions then affect our apparent benevolence?

On the other hand, is it responsible if we neglect the concerns of the wider ecosystem to always provide for and ensure those chimpanzees who abide by our standards are perfectly happy and content? Aren’t we then perceived as ‘benevolent’ only from these ‘good’ chimpanzees’ perspective?

A chimpanzee’s relationship with us is not the same as our relationship with god, though. God is not a being, so we cannot interact with god at this level of being. God is not in a position to simply disallow the existence of ‘evil’ because only we perceive it and we create it - although we have certainly attempted to achieve this on ‘his’ behalf, with often disastrous results. The problem of evil, therefore, is our problem, not god’s.

Our perception of a chimpanzee’s potential would be greater than his perception of his own. As such, we have the capacity to interact with chimpanzees in such a way that they realise a potential they would never have been aware of without this relationship, so long as we meet them where they’re at in their own limited perception, recognising that we also have the capacity to limit their perceived potential in order to benefit ourselves.

God, on the other hand, wants nothing from us, because it isn’t a being, but an absolute concept.

How would god perceive this universe? — TheMadFool

I would think that god perceives the universe as an interrelation of all infinite potential. That’s my understanding of it, anyway.

What is absolute possibility and perceived potential? — TheMadFool

Absolute possibility refers to the meaning of ‘God’: this all-encompassing concept of the All, the One, the Infinite.

Perceived potential refers to what we believe we are capable of.

God does not isolate events or actions in time - for him, everything is always interrelated and cannot be reduced to separate events, actions, objects, etc without deliberately ignoring, isolating or excluding information. The moment you isolate an event from its relation to the unfolding universe beyond time, you are ceasing to view the world as god would perceive it.

What is this potential you frequently mention? — TheMadFool

Potential refers to how one relates to existence beyond what is actual. Value, knowledge, significance, quality, morality, logic, emotion, memory, language, ideology and many other abstract concepts describe this relation of perceived potential, usually within a limited structure. It ties in with quantum potential, and is always limited to the perception or experiences of the interacting subject. Except in relation to the concept of ‘God’ as absolute possibility, in which all potential is infinite.

But ‘God’ is not a being - it’s a relational concept that enables us to aspire to maximal awareness of, connection to and collaboration with existence, and to check this progress. So our relationship to ‘God’ is always a manifestation of the difference between this absolute possibility and our perceived potential.

Ants and apes evolved to coordinate their efforts to overcome the environment.
Ants and apes don't have the belief that life has meaning. — JohnRB

The way I see it, ants don’t conceptualise existence as ‘organism’ across an awareness of time, but across an awareness of individuals. So they’re not looking for meaning in life as humans understand it, but in a present collective experience. Apes can find meaning in ‘organism’ either across time or across their community, but only humans are aware of a distinction between the two ways of conceptualising, and can look for meaning in ‘life’ as a complex correlation.

you seem to attribute evil to ignorance, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as evil and all is 'good' in god's eyes. I naturally concluded then that the relationship between god and us is essentially based on intelligence/knowledge - god being the superior, perhaps infinitely so, intelligence-wise. This point of view basically endorses a view that evil, in all its forms, is nothing more than a misunderstanding of god's omnibenevolence and that evil is simply good in disguise in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool

Okay, let me clarify. In god’s eyes, there is no such thing as evil, but that also means there is no such thing as good - there is no such distinction between good and evil in god’s eyes. When I say ‘from god’s perspective, all is good’, I’m referring not to a judgement (because I don’t believe he makes such a distinction), but to his capacity to relate to and love all as we would relate to and love what is good, ie. beyond moral judgement.

I attribute acts of evil to ignorance, isolation and/or exclusion at the time. But god doesn’t judge acts in time, because in his omniscience he sees the potential of all. I’m not saying that ‘evil is good in disguise’ at all. More like it’s at a point where its potential is unrealised.

If so, can you explain how and in what way the holocaust, in which roughly 6 million jews, men, women and children, perished, was good? There are an innumerable number of atrocities, cold-blooded murder to genocide at a grand scale, that beg for an explanation as to how they are good. — TheMadFool

You’re isolating a collection of events in time and focusing on the death of innocent human beings - of course that isn’t good. If you think that god looks at each atrocity in this way and judges it as ‘good’, then you’re failing to understand the concept of ‘God’ entirely.

The holocaust was a manifestation of how Europe tended to conceptualise the world at the time, just as Trump’s presidency is a manifestation of how America has been conceptualising reality (particularly their concept of presidential leadership) up to the moment he was elected. Unfortunately we have often needed to see our capacity for ignorance, isolation and exclusion actualised before our horrified eyes before we will take steps to critically evaluate and change how we conceptualise the world.

The problem is that we won’t fully learn from our mistakes as long as we continue to ignore or exclude this capacity as isolated incidents of ‘evil’. Hitler was an ordinary human being who managed extraordinary things, but he didn’t manage it alone or in isolation. It was many little acts of ignorance, isolation and exclusion by other international leaders and ordinary human beings that contributed to his rise to power, his attitude towards Jews, his political ideology, his popularity, and his capacity to orchestrate atrocities against innocent people. Such is the potential of humanity.

We can learn a lot about ourselves and our potential from the holocaust, if we include the ‘evil’ as well as the ‘good’ without judgement either way. This is what I mean when I say that ‘God’ is a concept that points to the inclusive potential of humanity, and ultimately all possibility.

A better way to say what I mean is: I'm searching for techniques to cultivate the 'underlying impetus'. That can look like removing blocks, or also ways of attending more attentively to our own awareness. The difficulty I've run into is: It's very easy to get separated from this underlying impetus, or to naturally decrease in awareness. Certain methods of trying to undo this can exacerbate the problem. My feeling, these days, is the more concrete you get, the closer you get to the spiritual. — csalisbury

I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

There are a number of ways we tend to conceptualise reality anthropocentrically, that I think interfere with our openness to cultivating this impetus - so I’ve been looking at building a structure that addresses these misconceptions. One of the main blocks is our interpretation of Darwinian theory, which suggests that evolution is goal-oriented towards survival, dominance and procreation, and therefore we should be also. This blocks our understanding of pain, humility, loss and lack as important factors in cultivating the impetus at all levels of awareness. Another is the various forms of dualism that distinguish between mind/body, physical/mental, material/spiritual or actual/potential, that isolate ‘cause and effect’ from our understanding of the will and its freedom, among other things.

As for techniques, I’d say begin with an internal base of integrity, patience and self-awareness. Learn how you got here, what makes you tick, what you’re afraid of, and what motivates you. Be honest with yourself, and most of all be aware that change (if you want it) takes time, energy and attention. From there, strive to always relate to the world (including yourself) with kindness, gentleness and generosity. When this is difficult, fall back to re-establish integrity, patience and self-awareness. When it gets easier, challenge yourself to initiate compassion for all, and to build the potential for peace with the past, joy in the present and hope for the future. Again, when this is a struggle, fall back to kindness, gentleness and generosity, or begin again with integrity, patience and self-awareness.

And while I consider myself less than average in terms of intellectual capacity, I've heard people who're patently more intelligent refer to less endowed people as "stupid" or "moronic", ignorant by your reckoning. — TheMadFool

Ignorance is not related to intellectual capacity, but to awareness and information. The informal use of the term is derogatory, which does confuse the issue. When I say that those who we think are ‘evil’ are ignorant, I’m certainly NOT saying that those we think are ignorant are therefore also ‘evil’. Ignorance is simply a lack of awareness or information - there is no judgement implied by my use of the term at all. This is a point I have clearly failed to make: I don’t find moral or value judgements such as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ to be at all helpful in understanding ‘God’ - which for me is a relational concept, not a being. In relation to the notion of ‘God’ we are each lacking in awareness, but in relation to each other that lack of awareness shows our diversity, the maximum possible awareness, connection and collaboration of which IS ‘God’.

What I do want to mention though is that people sometimes say that there's a thin line between genius and madness. Could you intepret that for me in re god? God, being omniscient, has to be a genius par excellence. My question is how do we know he isn't mad/insane? — TheMadFool

If we think of ‘God’ as an intelligent being, then this saying is quite apt to describe how we relate to omniscience. When we reduce our understanding of ‘God’ to this potentiality, he is simply a mind of infinite capacity, which is subject to our positive/negative judgement just like any other potential we relate to. To answer your question in this context: it’s relative. Genius refers to perceived intellectual and creative potential; madness refers to potential perceived as unexpected or abnormal. So it’s always going to be relative to subjective experience.

If we relate to ‘God’ as a concept of absolute possibility, then it’s neither - and both. It doesn’t really matter. This may seem like a way to avoid the argument altogether, and no doubt would frustrate atheists out there who prefer a Being to argue against. But aren’t we more than just an intelligent being, too? If I’m considered a mad/insane genius, isn’t this only one way to relate to my potential as a fellow human being? Am I not still capable of giving and receiving love? Of sharing my unique knowledge and perspective of life, my diversity, and connecting and collaborating with others? The genius/madness potential shouldn’t be ignored, of course, when you interact. But just like with quantum particles, if you treat my potential as unexpected and abnormal, then that’s what you’ll get.

Interesting point of view but you said 'good' instead of just good. Why? Is your, god's 'good' different from good as we recognize it? — TheMadFool

Most likely, yes - considering I don’t think ‘evil’ is even a concept in an omniscient perspective, but only an indication of ignorance in our own. As value concepts, both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are always relative to the subjective experiences of the language user. I don’t think there is such a distinction in the perspective of ‘God’. The statement ‘God saw that it was good’ is how one might express this inclusiveness that transcends our own limited experience of the universe.

You’ll notice that I use quotes for the notion of ‘God’ as well. The way I see it, these are all placeholders for relative concepts - I won’t presume that my conceptualisation of ‘God’ is exactly the same yours. I often feel the need to make this clear with certain words in a discussion, to avoid assumptions.

The more we understand what it means to ‘know’, to ‘love’ and to ‘relate’ beyond the limits of an observable, measurable universe, the less necessary this notion of ‘God’ as a being becomes.
— Possibility

Less necessary for what? In what way does god become unnecessary? — TheMadFool

Sorry - this is my lack of clarity. It is the notion of being that becomes unnecessary, not the notion of ‘God’. Recognising that we are known, loved and related to by ‘God’ is not contingent upon the property of being.

I very much agree with all that (I too am certain of something, and think it best to leave in abeyance what that is, as it seems you do). I'm definitely looking to slowly build a structure. Regarding the last paragraph: what you describe as a technique strikes me as something closer to a goal (or a guiding value, or a theme etc). I share these values, but how to realize them? — csalisbury

Yes, I can see your particle-ness showing here - my wish to build a comprehensive structure is for my relations with others more than for myself.

It’s quite common for people to view this technique as an end goal, or as something imposed on our actions from without. My view is that it’s an underlying impetus for all existence, and that we unlock its potential in the rest of the universe insofar as we realise it in ourselves. In other words, we reduce ignorant and exclusive behaviour such as racism by our capacity to increase our own awareness of why they act this way, increase our connection to them through this understanding, and increase our collaboration with them in ways that then increase their awareness, connection and collaboration with diversity. It takes longer and is risky, but it contributes far less to suffering than isolating or excluding racism, in my view.

Well they didn't make shoes or headscarves. I think it's pretty clear what they were covering if not why. But it's not my main point at the moment. Rather it is to note the tradition that shame is the primary mark of humanity, and that it results in the urge to hide, to self efface. — unenlightened

I agree that shame as a consequence of self-awareness is the primary mark of humanity - but the urge to hide relates specifically to the difference between a relation to others that we expect and the relation to others we experience in reality. There’s no urge to hide when we feel shame with regard to a homeless person, but I think there is an urge to determine or initiate action that manifests either an awareness/connection/collaboration or ignorance/isolation/exclusion of this difference. In the same way, Adam and Eve hiding is also an urge to manifest ignorance/isolation/exclusion of the difference between expectation and reality.

I want to draw attention to those who actively persecute and further humiliate the homeless - you will have seen the stories. Why do they care so much as to set people on fire in their sleeping bags or urinate on them or whatever? It is surely their own shame that they cannot bear, and project as hatred onto the immediate cause. And thus perhaps Primo Levi was wrong about the perpetrators - they felt the shame but projected it back as hatred and anger, shaming the cause of their shame. — unenlightened

I agree with this, too. I think people often hate or attack what draws attention to their shame, in the same way as they hate or attack what draws attention to their humility, or their pain or lack or loss.

I don't want to get too rigid too early, and I don't much like the language you use here because it is confusing more than illuminating. "We" identifies 'a group with which one identifies' and substituting one gets a mess... Perhaps it is pedantic but I think "One feels shame ..." is much preferable. — unenlightened

I tend to use ‘we’ because I find ‘one’ to be impersonal, and I acknowledge my inclusion in the description. But you have a point, and I agree that it can be confusing here.

I'd rather start with Adam and Eve and the shame of nakedness and sexuality. Nothing to do with acting in one way or another, but a state of being other. It is surely in the first place a condition of self-consciousness. Adam is suddenly conscious of his difference from Eve (and vice versa). Thus the swimming pool changing rooms allow for shameless nakedness amongst those of the same sex — unenlightened

I’m always intrigued by interpretations of Adam and Eve in relation to shame, because I tend to disagree with the common assumption that their shame has anything to do with sexuality. I agree that it is a condition of self-consciousness, but in my view, it’s more to do with an awareness of their fragility than a state of being other. Adam and Eve’s nakedness displays their vulnerability and openness to the world - which contradicts the assumption that they are whole, complete or impenetrable. It is this contradiction or prediction error between what they think or expect of humanity and what they experience in reality that results in shame.

Shame, in my view, relates to an internal error of contradiction between values and behaviour. We feel shame when our actions contradict the values of a group with which we strongly identify. But we also feel shame when this group with which we strongly identify act collectively in a way that contradicts our personal values.

I think it’s an awareness that my perspective is not identical with the group’s perspective - which in relation to ‘shame for my country’ is not so much of a paradigm shift these days as it might have been for Levi, perhaps. National identity is not so strong anymore (or is it just that I’m not American?). We seem more inclined to criticise our own country now (at least politically) than prior to WWII, I think.

I’m not sure that we ever recover from shame felt towards an extended identity, such as a country or religion, or even the company we work for. Once aware that our value systems don’t match, how likely is it that we’ll continue to submit? And if we do, how quickly would that shame turn to self-loathing, especially if “the perpetrators and their accomplices were not ashamed”?