I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus... — Possibility

I only asked you to re-read what I wrote. If anyone is being uncouth...

I’m not convinced Jesus, Socrates, Buddha or Robin Hood were actual, historical people. They might have been, but I don’t think there is conclusive evidence either way. I understand Jesus to be a literary character written about in the 1st century AD - anything more than that is speculation. That doesn’t mean that what that character was reported to have said has no merit.

Perhaps you and I may have more beliefs in common than you realise, but I’m not going to continue this conversation if you insist on being rude. I do wonder, however, what the word ‘Christian’ in Gnostic Christian Bishop means to you...

Saying that a religion isn't a religion doesn't make it so. I think that denying religiosity helps fulfill a selfish desire to conform an omnipotent being to an individual's whims. It also gives freedom for groups or individuals to cherry pick beliefs and values from antiquated texts much of the content of which is antisocial and doesn't at all conform to modern living. — whollyrolling

Your first statement still assumes that the ‘Christianity’ to which this particular pastor is referring must be a ‘religion’, and therefore fulfill all the expectations you have as to what a ‘religion’ is. He said that ‘Christianity’ was not a religion, not that ‘a religion’ was not a religion.

You then assume that an omnipotent being exists whose properties are not up for debate. You also seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to interpret any text for all time, so if one disagrees with this literal interpretation, then they must reject the text outright.

From your post above.
" I would say I believe in the literary Jesus,"

I questioned you on it but you did not reply. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’?

Surely, the value of Pi doesn't change. — petrichor

What makes you so sure?

The gentlest is not the fittest...How then do you see a way for the gentle to inherit the earth when it is the rich and non-gentle who are inheriting most of the resources on earth? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The Greek word translated as ‘meek’ does not have the same meaning as the word commonly in use today. What praos means is more along the lines of self-control: a balance between capacity and application. One who is meek is aware of their own strength and capability, but does not need to use it simply because they can. They choose cooperation over coercion, and see a fulfilment of their own potential in helping others to fulfill theirs, rather than in some false ideal of absolute power, independence and accolade.

‘Inheriting the earth’ is also not the same as seizing its resources. The rich and non-gentle will only succeed in destroying the earth - all they will inherit is a wasteland. The meek at least have the opportunity to inherit a rich and resourceful universe by working together - perhaps once all the rich and non-gentle have destroyed each other...

You and I are animals first and foremost and subject to evolution just as all animals are. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You and I are animals, yes - but your evaluation of this as ‘first and foremost’ is based on a limited understanding of your own potential. If you think that we are subject to evolution, that our capacity for abstract thought, for words and actions other than those ruled by instinct serves no purpose except to follow instinct, then I can only conclude that you have shackled your own intelligence to a limited physical existence. Such a waste.

if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm) — James Statter

If you read all of Timothy and understand it in context, you would recognise that the letters were written not as public letters to a congregation, but as private letters from one human leader of the church to another, a younger mentee. Most of what is written in them is an expression of personal preference or personal interpretation of scripture to support the way the author thinks a church community could be organised within the particular culture and historical period. They address issues of governance and political structure, and suggest rules and regulations to solve specific problems occurring in these communities. What is interpreted today as misogyny and oppression was an attempt by its leaders to bring order and control to communities where women (particularly widows) initially had more autonomy than they would have enjoyed in either Jewish or Greek society, causing fear and complaints by others within the community who were unaccustomed to, and likely threatened by, this behaviour.

That these letters were selected in the canon reflect the fears and motivations of leaders in the early Catholic Church. Whatever ‘truth’ they reveal is more about human thought and behaviour than about ‘God’, in my opinion. They’re not a guide to behaviour, but rather show how quickly fear can distort the way we interact. There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus.

Or perhaps you read it wrong. Show me where I’ve described belief in a ‘literal and historical Jesus’, because I don’t see it.

I have followed the biblical narrative as a journey in developing awareness of God, and it has led me to interact with God in a different way than the majority interpret as ‘Christian’. That doesn’t mean I ignore the bible at all - on the contrary.

I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus, and I’m quite familiar with Bishop Spong, thank you. Progressive Christianity is a faith community in which I feel most at home.

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to?
— Possibility

It's from Thomas Nagel. — praxis

Thanks for the reference - I’m already intrigued by his approach to the objectivity-subjectivity tension. Bear with me, as I withdraw for further study...

no, it wouldn’t.

I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) — Possibility

I don’t do worship, of idols or otherwise, and I don’t interpret from the bible that Jesus is ‘the son of God’, nor do I interpret ‘God’ as literally described or defined by human beings in politically, ideologically or culturally motivated texts. If you think he taught or did any of that, then I don’t think you’ve read the bible for your own understanding, without a predetermined agenda.

The words of the bible are words of human beings who lived thousands of years ago, interpreting real spiritual experience and then using those words as tools to further certain ends. What I understand to be ‘God’ is not a god at all.

...and then there’s NZ PM Jacinta Ardern

What do you mean by developing life and the universe itself to its fullest potential? Life and the universe doesn't need us to develop, and as I mentioned, life on this planet will without a doubt flourish far better without us. 1k - 10k times the baseline extinction rate with us on the planet. Yikes! — praxis

While I understand your reasoning behind it, I disagree that this is without a doubt. My understanding of evolution suggests that if we took humanity out of the gene pool, another species would eventually evolve in our place and begin to develop self awareness and intelligence. Many popular theories suggest the ecosystem will flourish in our absence - in the crisis we find ourselves facing, this could be interpreted as humility, but also as an excuse to continue on our path to self destruction. In my view, that seems a waste of the awareness we’ve been gradually developing.

I don’t have a rose-coloured view of humanity. I’m well aware of our capacity to destroy at an alarming rate for our little slice of ‘heaven’, but I’m also aware of our capacity to create very real, global solutions when we have the courage to think beyond our physical existence. If our potentiality is between these two extremes, then I’m personally inclined to focus on encouraging inclusive solutions rather than resigning to our worst fears.

What if life and the universe really did need our species - we just haven’t yet developed the collective awareness to fulfill our potential. What if all this colossal messing up, all this pain and loss, is the most effective way to develop that awareness? After all, isn’t awareness of failure the first step to learning? And it’s not like we’re listening to the advice of anyone with a broader awareness of the universe - the way we would with, say, a parent - are we?

We have intuition, hear disembodied voices, and relate on a personal level to distant planets in order to develop life and the universe to its fullest potential? — praxis

I know - it sounds far fetched. But I think it’s mainly about awareness. We have intuition because we need to stop ignoring feeling as a valid way of gaining awareness of the universe. We hear disembodied voices because we need to stop focusing on our physical existence as if it were the only way for us to interact with the universe. And we imagine beings from distant planets with whom to relate on a personal level because we need to develop a broader awareness of the universe....

What is the fullest potential of life and the universe anyway? — praxis

On reflection, I think it’s inaccurate for me to suggest that there is a ‘fullest potential’ as the best or most complete actuality that the universe or life should strive to achieve. I will say that I think our current tendency to strive for maximum independence, autonomy and esteem is an ultimately self-defeating task. Likewise, I think we’ve worked out that our evolutionary drives (to dominate, procreate and maximise genetic benefit) are equally self-destructive and fear-driven - especially once we reach the top tier and differentiate within the species.

I think the most valuable, non-destructive achievements of life and the universe so far have come from facing fear, broadening awareness, building relationships, valuing diversity, maximising interconnectedness and recognising potential - without judgement or concern for limitations. I think as humans and despite our many failings, we represent the highest evolution of this capacity in the universe. That doesn’t make us better - but, to butcher a popular quote: ‘with great capacity comes great responsibility’...

With the exception of 'disembodied voices' and 'relating on a personal level to distant planets', you basically appear to be talking about in intuition and our modern devaluation of it. — praxis

Basically. These examples are mainly to demonstrate that ‘psychic phenomena’ is not as ‘out there’ as some people think. It’s a broad spectrum of experiences that starts with intuition and extends to more ‘spooky’ experiences such as ghosts and those examples that Ilya mentioned, which I tend to reserve judgement on because I have no direct experience that comes close enough to what he’s describing.

And ghosts aren't spooky? — praxis

If I’d meant ghosts, I would have said ghosts. I wasn’t talking about moving objects or apparitions. I meant those interactions in an experience that cannot be reliably attributed to any specific physical entity, despite our attempts to do so. We may find ourselves experiencing a moment where we suddenly ‘feel’ reconnected with a dearly departed in a very real way, and then we search for a reason that fits with our understanding of the universe. By then the moment has passed, and we have nothing to show for it except a memory of that feeling.

When identity expands to encompass the universe or whatever, there seems to be a tendency for the ego to correspondingly expand, and that's never a good thing. — praxis

Yeah, you gotta watch that ego. This is why Buddhism is so difficult for many of us to grasp. I’m not talking about identity, though, but about self awareness. Part of that is the recognition of pain, loss and humiliation experiences as the process of life - not as suffering. This is where most reasonable people struggle, because ego gets in the way.

I'm theorizing that with 'a view from nowhere' there's nothing to do, no potential, nothing that the universe could be, and nothing to develop. — praxis

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to? Can you theorise this viewpoint even in a limited position such as a single human being? Is one able to reach a point in their life where there’s nothing to do, no potential, nothing that they could be, and nothing to develop? What leads you to think any perspective of the universe could ever reach this point?

Granted our species might have the potential to not ruin the world for ourselves and other life, but it's not looking good at the moment. — praxis

I guess that depends on what you’re looking at, and how you make your evaluation.

Mind/matter is bound by order. If that order loses integrity then a being ceases to be what it was, so there is no escaping order or form. If a human being came to possess inhuman values then it would no longer be human. — praxis

A living being ceases to be precisely what it was with every passing moment. The integrity of a living form interacting with the universe is not as ordered as we would like it to be, and we really aren’t certain what mind or matter is, if we’re honest - let alone whether either is bound by anything except our own awareness.

How do we decide which values are ‘inhuman’? Can you name some? Where does one draw the line, and is that based on knowledge or judgement?

...is a nail. Perhaps I have. :blush:

Psychic phenomena basically, right? Like Ilya B Shambat mentions in his linked blog post. — praxis

Not necessarily that spooky, though. We may also notice it in the little unexplained things that we tentatively accept as part of the human experience. Like falling in love, kindred spirits, the ‘presence’ or disembodied ‘voice’ of a deceased loved one, a connection to ancestral lands, gut instinct, intuition, vibes and other ‘weird feelings’ people get about situations or interactions that they can’t quite explain and often dismiss until other more ‘objective’ evidence vindicates their initial response.

All of this points to a way of interacting with and deriving information from the universe that we keep trying to ignore because we can’t prove to others that we really experienced it. It also includes the capacity and desire to relate on a personal level with ancient expressions of human experience, with animals, with distant planets, etc - not just intellectually with the facts or evidence.

Imagining and/or feeling that we're the entire universe is still trading one identity for the another. — praxis

I disagree. Identity is either understood as socially constructed or simply the condition of being oneself and not another. When the ‘self’ expands in awareness, I would think that ‘identity’ is irrelevant either way.

What are the intents and purposes of the entire universe? All intents and purposes, I imagine, which means no intents and purposes. In the view from nowhere everything is perfect just as it is. — praxis

Not quite. We tend to conceive of intents and purposes as individual and fundamentally distinct from each other - like we tend to see everything else in the universe. But as we develop awareness of that underlying interconnectedness with the universe, we also develop awareness of the awesome potential that interconnectedness brings, and of our collective capacity to develop, achieve and succeed at almost anything. It’s not a matter of fixing what’s ‘wrong’ with the world now (as you say, everything is perfect just as it is), but about realistically understanding what the universe could be, and then doing what we can in each brief but potentially universally interconnected life to develop that.

Actually, it's not actually the best solution, but it's potentially the best solution. — praxis

Perhaps in your opinion, but what I said was that your judgement, not the solution itself, was based on actuality: on what is or was, rather than what could be. The tricky thing about rational thought is that one must first imagine or define an actual future solution in order to evaluate it. You cannot evaluate potentiality, because you cannot define or measure it without collapsing it into an actuality. That doesn’t make it nothing - it only makes it fuzzy at best.

The solution I mentioned is not reasonable at all. It was meant to demonstrate the inescapability of our human values. We will explore our potential no matter what the cost to other species. — praxis

I don’t think our human values are inescapable. We are not bound by our physical form or existence in terms of interacting with the universe. By ‘our potential’, I refer to our capacity to develop, achieve and succeed - not as individuals, but collectively, and not for the benefit of our species, but in order to develop life and the universe itself to its fullest potential. I think that this is why we have these metaphysical experiences.

I was inquiring about any metaphysical claims or theories you might have that would clarify or help to substantiate "interconnectedness beyond our physical existence," I suppose. It's not clear what you mean by that. Are you claiming, for instance, that there are two types of 'connections', one physical and one non-physical? — praxis

I guess what I’m saying is that across subjective experience there appears to be a metaphysical connection that underlies, promotes and transcends all instances of observable or ‘reasonable’ connections: physical, biological/genetic, ideological, etc. Many have referred to it as a ‘spiritual connection’ for want of a better term, but I think that invites some people to abandon reason, rather than just get it to step back a little and reserve judgement.

It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe. — praxis

Not in all instances - There are plenty of ‘spiritual’ practices that don’t so much ‘imagine’ as ‘feel’ this experience, and in most cases the resulting experience is more profound than simply imagining, because it engages the whole body in the experience, not just the mind. But for those of us who prefer to keep reason in the picture at all times, imagining is as close as we will probably get.

Wouldn't our values shift with this broadened awareness? For instance, if we valued all life equally how would that affect our actions? — praxis

Yes, our values do shift with our sense of awareness. They always have.

Because of our species, the extinction rate on earth is 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate. If we loved all life equally, quantity and diversity should matter. And if that were the case, the best solution to resolve the loss of life would be to eliminate our species. Quite literally a self-defeating philosophy. — praxis

This seems like quite a leap - reason is so quick to judge, isn’t it? This judgement of the ‘best solution’ is based on actuality, rather than potentiality. Reason must fix all observations in time and space before it can evaluate, but if we can reserve judgement and explore the potential of human beings to work together, to show compassion, to find solutions and put them in place, then the best solution is not to eliminate, but to strive to realise our potential. That probably sounds overly optimistic, but I think it’s actually more ‘reasonable’ and broad-minded than your suggestion.

The distinction appears to come from the French Revolution, prior to which the King was France and the people his subjects - patriotic, loyal to the identity of France that was their King. Nationalism determined that the identity of France was constituted by its people, not its King.

Patriotism is about action in defense of the country to which one is loyal. It is a love for country. Nationalism is more about identity. Where I think nationalism takes on a negative connotation is when one expands the notion of pragmatic self-interest to this national level of identity.

Specifically what metaphysics are you referring to?

Interconnectedness is, in itself, morally benign. It doesn’t inform or imply what we ought to do in any particular situation or moral dilemma. It implies that our actions can have far reaching effects but says nothing about the virtue or vice of any action. Ruining the environment for other species and ourselves doesn’t violate the concept of interconnectedness, at least not unless the term has special meaning not expressed in the name itself. If if did, the core of that meaning would be based in self-interest.

We can act responsibly and cooperatively for mutual benefit, and that seems to be the best strategy to flourish or maintain order, but it’s ultimately based in self-interest. — praxis

If you’re asking me to define a specific metaphysics so that it can be quantified, measured and evaluated, then I’m afraid you may have the wrong idea of what I understand metaphysics to be. For example, what we define as ‘energy’ is essentially metaphysical in nature, but what we quantify, measure and evaluate is the way our sense data interacts with the way this ‘energy’ interacts with what we define as ‘matter’. Yet we refer to both ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ as if they are physical entities that we can define, control and manipulate. Metaphysics as I understand it is about interactions and relationships between the underlying events we strive to understand subjectively, not the entities we can define and ‘know’ objectively.

Interconnectedness is intertwined with both awareness and love (as actualising potentiality) in my experience - and in that relationship on a metaphysical level, it informs morality as a guide to the virtue and vice of any action. When we consider interconnectedness beyond our physical existence, we can develop awareness of a fundamental connection not just with family and ‘loved ones’, but with all of humanity, life in general and the universe itself, stretching across space and time - not in the sense of a hierarchy of evaluated connections in reference to the physical existence of ‘self’, but all with the same potential strength and value. Our environmental actions in this sense have far reaching effects that limit potentiality, and so are considered at least as important as immediate and personal benefits, if not more important. In a metaphysical context, the ‘self’ in question has the potential to be the infinite and eternal universe, limited only by our awareness.

But I get that the self-determined priority of rationality and logic (which in turn prioritises self-interest in terms of physical existence) gets in the way of this kind of thinking. The only way past it, I think, is to enable experience to question logic - like quantum physics, for instance - and not be afraid of the result...

So I thought i could use some help on this from you guys. I had a chat with my professor about this in relation to refuting religion and his view is that it is through the encompassing range of the inexpressible that we are moved by to do things and that I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. My point to him was that while that is true, you still need rationality and in his example you would need it to fall in love with the right woman/man lest you make some mistake and live in regret/sorrow. So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination.

Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona

As I may have mentioned once or twice in other threads, rationality and logic is about definition, measurement and evaluation and is a method for interacting with the world. Through its own method, it has gained top priority in modern human thinking, but it is only one of at least four methods by which humans can interact with the world: the others being sense data, memory and feeling.

We tend to apply rationality to love, but we certainly don’t need it to love. We may, however, need it to make the ‘best’ choice in life partner - but that’s not love.

The problem with putting rationality and logic on this pedestal is that its method of definition, measurement and evaluation diminishes the perceived validity and value of many interactions with the world that are part of our experience. Emotions, for example, are not direct feeling, but rationally defined and controlled aspects of sense data as it interacts with feeling. The feeling itself remains undefined and uncontrolled, but it exists nonetheless, and therefore is valid in itself.

In reference to religion, rationality and logic dismisses spiritual awareness almost entirely, because it encompasses a variety of ways we interact with the world that cannot be defined or measured. While there is much about religion itself that can and should be examined (and likely dismissed) by rationality and logic, when it comes to spiritual awareness, rationality and logic as well as sense data must defer to feeling as a rule.

This will take some practice before we learn how to trust feeling as a valid and useful method of interacting with the world, but I think if we’re going to get past our current level of understanding in science, it will be necessary.

Values don't just appear, we know that for sure. Drilling them into children's head gives them the form ("I can not tell a lie", "I will not abuse the cat" ...) but it doesn't give them any motivation to be truthful, or to be nice to the cat.

It seems to me that the key to teaching children good values is first establishing loving relationships in the family. (No love? Just forget the rest of this.). The loving relationship between the parents and between parent and child is where the motivation comes from to please the parent by emulating their behavior. We don't teach children values (initially, anyway) by drilling theory into their heads. Children acquire the parents' values by emulation, then thinking, then by making decisions.

Later on, we add formality to the values instruction, building on the bonds of affection that motivate the wish to be good in the way the parent desires. We tell the child to be honest, play fair, and don't cheat. We tell them to follow the law. No stealing. Be loyal to your country; respect the police, congressmen and women, the Supreme Court, and the President (even if you have to hold your nose and keep a barf bag handy). — Bitter Crank

I agree that we teach values to children mainly through the relationship we develop and the example we set. Children don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. But to be honest, it usually starts with physical guidance/restriction/coercion, and then a set of rules and regulations designed to guide specific actions towards the values we aim to teach them. Distraction, physical removal or a simple ‘no’ become “Tell the truth” or “don’t hurt the cat”, then later become “be honest” or “be kind to animals”, and then gradually broaden into integrity and kindness based on the behaviours we demonstrate, expect and reward, the language we use to teach them and the extent to which we show compassion and support for their struggle to uphold them.

We can tell a child to ‘follow the law’, but if they observe us consistently doing things like driving over the speed limit or illegally downloading movies without qualification, then what these words come to mean for them is ‘follow the law (unless you can get away with not following it)’. We can also tell a child to ‘respect the President’, but if the President has done nothing to earn it then the child will question the meaning of ‘respect’ as applied to the police, Supreme Court, etc. Is it the position of office we respect or the person holding it, and what actions constitute ‘respect’ when the person abuses their position?

I guess that depends on how you understand them. I think as an individual human being they are all limited, but when we strive for the first three beyond our physical existence, the others tend to broaden in relation to them, in my experience.

Personally I see nationalism, patriotism and loyalty as limited forms of interconnection;
Learning, intelligence and competence as limited forms of awareness;
Honesty and trustworthiness as limited forms of integrity.

When values are upheld in these limited forms, they can contradict each other. So valuing loyalty can lead to dishonesty, valuing learning can compromise nationalism, and valuing trustworthiness can compromise patriotism.

I value:
Awareness, interconnection and love (as actualising potentiality)
Integrity, self control and patience
Kindness, generosity and kindness
Peace, joy and hope

I'm thinking that the concept of interconnectedness may lead to moral intuition when it becomes apparent that it can serve our self-interest. Like a farmer who hates bees and would like to eradicate them, because she was stung as a child or whatever, but does everything she can to help them flourish because she knows that her crops will fail without them. — praxis

I don’t know if she can simultaneously wish to eradicate bees and also do everything she can to help them flourish. In any case, it’s still a very narrow awareness of interconnectedness, but it’s a start.

The problem with self-interest is that it is limited - if everyone only sought self-interest, then the environment’s ultimately fucked for one thing, and we’re likely to destroy ourselves before then. But we do have the capacity to broaden awareness of interconnectedness beyond our physical existence, so if we have any interest in realising our full potential, then I think this metaphysical awareness, and the reasoning behind, should be explored more.

In my opinion, Christianity is a group of religions. To call Christianity a single religion is to assume that everyone who calls themselves a Christian follows the same doctrine, rituals and traditions, but this is not the case.

I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) - and yet I associate myself with no particular religion in membership, practice or belief system. Most Christians would disagree that I follow Christianity at all, and would reject most of what I currently believe about God, Jesus, heaven or the bible - I also fully expect these beliefs to continue to change and evolve throughout my life experiences and learning.

I am aware that some Christian pastors would prefer to distance themselves from the range of religious doctrines and traditions that claim the banner of Christianity, in order to promote a more personal, genuine or progressive interaction with the teachings and examples of Jesus.

For essentially the same reason I assume: the potential for corruption by those in control of the science or doctrine. — praxis

Agreed.

A realization of interconnectedness is clearly a good rationalization for cooperation, and a justification that can be validated by science, I might add. — praxis

I’m not suggesting that science isn’t useful, but I am in agreeance with Ilya that logic is not an overarching process - I see it as one of at least four main contributors to understanding experience. Science has a tendency to filter all experience through logic as a priority. Define, quantify, measure, evaluate. Among other effects, this process diminishes the validity of feeling except when objectively defined and controlled ‘emotions’ are acknowledged through sense data. What science has dismissed is often referred to as ‘spiritual’ experience - this term makes more sense and has more validity than ‘metaphysically inexplicable’, in my opinion.

I don't think it's a useful characterization to suggest that the culture (and its moral norms) we are raised in is an imposition. For one thing, it's largely unconscious and not deliberately taught. Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture. — praxis

That doesn’t mean culture is not imposed. The majority of what we learn is not deliberately taught - like bigotry, for example - but we can certainly become conscious of how they are learned, and then choose how we raise our children, including how they interpret and internalise cultural ‘norms’.

Also, I don’t see nature/nurture as a useful dichotomy, particularly for moral intuitions. My view of morality is that nurture interacts with nature - to either encourage an internal awareness and understanding of interconnectedness through which ‘moral intuitions’ become apparent, or to impose a moral code or set of norms that may or may not fully align with what awareness/understanding one may have of interconnectedness.

We should recognize the role that authority plays in value systems that respect hierarchy, loyalty, and sanctity, even if we find it irrational. — praxis

But do you agree that this authority is essentially a construct? It’s a scaffolding that serves as a ‘temporary’ sense of security, while we develop sufficient awareness and understanding of interconnectedness (not to mention courage) to act morally without reliance on a sense of authority, let alone hierarchy, loyalty or sanctity.

Ask me anything else that fancies your mind. I have a clear conscious that I am not cradling my way to my grave on the shoulders of my mother. I hope to grow old with her and follow her to the grave when that finally is unavoidable. — Wallows

And yet you still won’t answer my question.

You must admit that the terms are themselves rather broad. We can experience happiness or suffering in a variety of ways. I was thinking of it as a general barometer, but it can also be broken down into various aspects, such as stress level, general health and fitness, socialization, self actualization, etc etc.

Ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science, basically, rather than traditional moral codes given by religious authority.

There’s no reason that the full spectrum of moral intuitions couldn’t be taken into account. — praxis

Maybe no reason as such, but I have a feeling we’ll need more than reason for the full spectrum to be taken into account at the same time.

In the meantime, unless utilitarianism can reach anything close to a consensus (which I highly doubt), I’m not going to put my faith in science as a moral authority, any more than I would traditional religious doctrine.

In my opinion, morality is not an external authority, but an internal understanding of our interconnectedness. It’s not a code we impose on others or punish them by, but one we inspire them to realise and honour in themselves by our example. I recognise that historically this has not been the case, and I put that down to a combination of fear and logic, mainly. But that’s probably another discussion.

Thanks for the background, but I don’t think it changes my view of the situation much.

What I'm trying to say is that I kind of grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth. Yet, it has never manifested in vanity or inflated pride over nothing. Rather, a docile sense of calm and coolness with a lot of procrastination.

But, before you judge that I've never tried at anything in life, just remember that I tried the military, college, and the 9-5 life, and couldn't complete any of them. Where I ended up is here on disability, reading posts on here every day.

You might be wondering if I set myself up for this very early retirement plan with the social security disability pay and possibly growing some pot in the garage to supplant my income? Yes, I think I have. I chose the path of least resistance and it's not going all that bad if you really care for my opinion. — Wallows

No vanity or inflated pride? Really? Are you sure? I’ve no doubt that living in a closed-off world where everything and everyone revolves around you is wonderful. Wouldn’t we all like to live in that kind of world! You’ve created quite a little kingdom, haven’t you? No wonder you have no interest in getting better. Where’s the incentive?

But in answering my questions, you did miss one out, so I’ll repeat it: How do you show unconditional love to your mother? Because if loving unconditionally is helping them to develop and grow as a person, I wonder if you even know who your mother is apart from what she does for you. I wonder if she even knows, or has ever allowed herself to think about it without feeling guilty.

The thing about being a mother these days is that we assume responsibility for how our children turn out - more so, I think, when the father abandons his part. There seems like so much pressure on us to try and pave the way for them and protect them from all harm - including the avoiding experiences of short term pain, loss and humiliation that actually strengthen their character in the long run. What we create in the end are children who are ill-equipped to manage the difficulties of life without their mother there to continue paving the way.

But we don’t mind. It’s one of the hardest things to do as a mother: to give up that awesome and total responsibility for the life of another. It gives us a sense of power and control, and we learn that we can hold onto that power as long as we want, because it’s also up to us to relinquish it - to give it as a gift to our children, and show them how to manage it - or to teach them that the responsibility is ours.

We teach our children to become confident and capable by gradually stepping back and saying ‘now you give it a go’, then picking them up when they fall, and saying ‘almost - try it again, but this time, try...’. But we also hurt when our children hurt, so it’s much easier on us to say ‘don’t worry, let me do it for you’. That doesn’t teach them to manage the inevitability of pain, loss or humiliation long term, but it helps us as mothers to avoid these experiences ourselves, short term.

To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I'd like to phrase this issue from the POV of a female.

Is a male desireable or evolutionarily "fit" if he is to live with his mother after the age of adolescence? If not, then what is he treated as? — Wallows

Ok. I’d like to respond to this from the genuine POV of a female and a mother.

This has absolutely nothing to do with desireability or evolutionary fitness. Is that straightforward enough for you?

If my son was still living with me at 30, it would NOT be because he doesn’t want to give up the ‘unconditional love’ that he receives from me.

I wonder what you mean by ‘unconditional love’ - because from my POV, the love I have for my children is not conditional on them living with me or being by my side. It is not conditional on them needing me to take care of them, either. I think there are many mothers who claim ‘unconditional love’ for their children, but who simply don’t want to give up feeling needed by them.

I also wonder if you love your mother unconditionally in return? How do you show your love for her, and would you continue to do so if she no longer took care of you the way that she does now? Would you take care of her in return if she needed it?

The concept of unconditional love is regularly abused by mothers and their children to mask co-dependency. I love my children unconditionally by supporting them to develop and grow well past the point where they no longer need me. As painful as that is for me to gradually but surely let go, I know that I am not so narrowly defined by my role as his mother, just as he has the potential to be so much more than just my son.

I suggest you leave feminism out of this, by the way. Your POV is so far from feminism it isn’t even funny.

That sounds very noble, but when you start to attribute numerical value and measurements to happiness and suffering, there is a danger of focusing in on that particular measurement and forgetting that it’s collapsing a multidimensional experience into one or two dimensions at best. When you then make judgements and decisions based only on these measurements, you’re effectively dismissing the breadth of experience outside of that value. This is how oppression, neglect and disenfranchisement happens.

I’m not saying don’t attempt to measure elements of happiness. Just don’t forget that everything you’re not measuring is just as informative and valid, if not more so. And there is so much you’re not measuring.

Do you believe there to be some deep underlined psychological issues he maybe having? — Anaxagoras

I believe we all have deep, underlying psychological issues, but most of us function relatively well regardless, and many of us are able to gradually work through these issues without the need for a therapist - so long as we can be honest with ourselves without judgement.

It’s when we cannot trust ourselves that we place our trust in a significant other or a therapist - whose job, in my opinion, is to help us re-establish a pattern of integrity and honest interactions, rendering themselves unnecessary.

There is no indication here that her boyfriend has any underlying issues, but we don’t have the whole picture by any stretch. He’s just a normal bloke who appears to consciously work hard to respect his girlfriend in the bedroom and to maintain a sense of social decorum and respectability in public.

The relationship is in its early stages, so I would assume he’s not yet comfortable enough to let down his guard with her while sober, but I think his behaviour when drunk is a good indication of how he’d like to behave if he thought he could get away with it. I think she needs to be conscious of that as he begins to settle into the relationship and reveal the private thoughts and beliefs that govern his drunken behaviour - particularly in reference to their sexual relationship. They may not be toxic at all, but if she continues to pretend that his drunken persona is not connected to his sober one, then she may set up a pattern of denial and enabling that could cross over effortlessly into his sober behaviour.

The DMT documentary I mentioned earlier was fascinating to me because the participants in the study reported compelling experience of another level of reality, or so it seemed to them. According to them this other level of reality they experienced felt more real than our everyday lives.

And while I wouldn't want to push the comparison too far, much of what they described seemed to sync with Catholic teachings, at least in a general manner. As example, some participants reported experience of an overpowering presence of love that saturated this realm they were exploring. Also a good deal of discussion of ego death.

Most people probably feel that this is just a drug induced hallucination and thus should be dismissed, and that may indeed be an appropriate conclusion. I don't claim to know.

However, we might consider this. You get up in the morning, have that first cup of coffee, sit down at the computer, and your ideas begin flowing effortlessly on to the forum. Are your ideas automatically wrong or fantasy because they are being fueled by caffeine?

It seems at least possible to me that such drugs open channels in the human brain that aren't typically accessible to us, and that to some degree these channels are perceiving something that is actually there. — Jake

Sam Harris talks about a similar experience on MDMA in his book ‘Waking Up’.

I think attempts to transcend the religious/secular divide without judgement enable physics and metaphysics to engage in civil, inclusive discussion and share ideas. There is much to be gained from this.

There is a tendency in science and law to dismiss data or evidence that is gathered without adherence to logical processes. The idea is that these logical processes ensure the reliability of the data/evidence (and therefore its ‘objectivity’), when at best they only increase the probability that this data/evidence points to the notion of an objective reality or truth. While I recognise how satisfying it feels to declare ‘close enough is good enough’, one can never be 100% certain.

This gap between logic and certainty is faith in an objective reality or truth. Quantum theory, among other things, has recently eroded faith in that notion, just as evolutionary theory eroded faith in the same notion from a religious perspective 200 years ago. And now it seems we’re all adrift in the same ocean of uncertainty. We can keep pretending that our particular ship is not sinking while shooting holes in the other, or we can try to salvage whatever still floats and work together on building a seaworthy vessel out of what we have left.

Personally, I’m intrigued by quantum theory inadvertently uncovering ‘potentiality’ as an underlying metaphysical concept, and how this relates to Aristotle’s concept of potency/matter and to the concept of Love: both as an act of actualising potential and as God. But perhaps that’s another discussion.

Why not? Maybe it’s our primitive egos that believe our emotional lives can’t be quantified. — praxis

Quantified does not equal control.

I tend to be the giving type. If you're buying beer at a counter I may see that and pay it for you. Or I'm the playful type like joking. More importantly when I get plastered I'm more so wanting to sleep so usually I tap out early. — Anaxagoras

My father on the other hand, was a recovering alcoholic who was sober from the birth of his first child until his youngest had left home, so I only observed his drinking habits as an adult. Like many, he only needed one drink before the first inhibition to go was his impulse control - hence his ability to regulate his drinking, then his ability to respond to reason, then his ability to manage his anger and frustration. If we weren’t at a quiet family BBQ, it might easily get out of control.

My father was always quiet and reserved in public, almost too accommodating and peaceful. But I knew that his ability to control his anger and frustration was a conscious daily effort even when sober, because I witnessed moments when the locus of control he thought he did have (at home) was challenged, and he responded violently, sober.

He is the same person inside, drunk or sober, with the same thoughts, beliefs and impulses at the forefront of his consciousness - despite what he assures you when sober. What changes with alcohol is simply whether or not he acts on them.

Happiness and suffering are subjective but highly intuitive, as well as measurable by various means. Any reason these can’t these be held as base values and science given the authority to develop normative ethics? Maybe our moral intuitions are not based in suffering/happiness or human flourishing. Maybe they’re based in something much more primitive and irrational, and no amount of reason, training, or discipline can override them. Maybe all we can do is tell stories to each other and watch as we ruin the world for ourselves. — praxis

Or maybe they are based on something more primitive and irrational, but it’s not about overriding them - rather seeking to understand them (not to know, define or control them). Maybe we need to put aside our colonialist ways and stop trying to oppress and diminish the ‘primitive and irrational’, instead valuing the diversity with which we can interact and understand the universe through the full experience of life.

In my experience, there is much about happiness and suffering that cannot be measured by any means. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t attempt to measure happiness - there is a lot to be gained towards understanding and increasing overall happiness through measurement. I’m saying that in attributing a value scientists cannot expect to know, define or control happiness in any way.

First of all, most people who get intoxicated every time they drink are actually unable to measure their drinking once they start, so he will likely never be able to have just one or two drinks and then stop, despite what he promises when he’s sober. This is the most dangerous part of this behaviour. You will both need to establish what situations he will agree not to drink at all, because it will likely always be all or nothing for him.

Secondly, if you decide to stay, then I think you need to take steps to protect yourself when he’s intoxicated, because being ‘stubborn’ at this early stage in the relationship is not likely to improve. You need to establish very clearly with him, while he’s sober, where you draw the line with his drunken behaviour - so that when (not if) he crosses that line you will have recourse to distance yourself without damaging the relationship.

I don’t think a drunk person is ‘who they really are’, but is a part of their personality that they need to acknowledge. It’s our inhibitions that alcohol removes: our self-regulation. So what we consciously work hardest at trying to control - such as sexual urges, bad language, saying whatever thought pops into our heads or violent aggression - is given free rein when we’re drunk.

My husband is what you would call a ‘happy drunk’ - as a teacher he spends much of his working life keeping his cheerful, happy-go-lucky side in check. With a few drinks in him, he is extremely playful and spontaneous. On the other hand, I have a strong self-edit function (to the point where I’d often not speak), so I tend to have verbal diarrhoea when drunk, and also fall asleep very easily.

Evidence that we are not just biological machines driven by feelings that have been selected through evolution as a survival aid, evidence that there is a point in spending great efforts in understanding the world other than it being an instance of us being survival machines that attempt to understand so we can predict better and increase our chances of survival, evidence that there is a point in exploring the universe other than it being another instance of us being survival machines attempting to spread as much as we can like an invasive species, evidence that helping others feels good not just because evolution selected it as a trait that made our species survive, evidence that love isn't just another meaningless drive whose only purpose is to make us reproduce and preserve one another, evidence that there is more to existence than just it being one big survival game until we die, that we aren't just puppets controlled by our feelings whose only purpose is to keep us alive until we die. — leo

I was trying to find out if you were specifically after objective, scientific evidence, or if relating to another person’s interpretation of subjective experience would suffice. It appeared as if you were looking for physical evidence of something beyond the physical, which seems a pointless exercise from my point of view.

Having said that, I can relate to your questioning. For myself, I choose to not believe that we are just survival machines, controlled by our feelings or instincts, who twist everything we do towards our individual survival. I recognise that scientific evidence leads us to that conclusion, but so much of what I experience suggests that we are more than that. And the more I understand about how others experience the world, the more sure I have become that metaphysics is worth exploring. That doesn’t mean I believe in immortality, heaven or hell, incarnation, etc., but I do think we have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to subjective experiences that cannot be verified with language, logic or evidence.

A few times in my life I have felt connected with something beyond. Once the feeling passes it remains as a distant memory, it seems like it was a delusion, but on the moment it is as real as anything else we deem to be real, yet it cannot be communicated in a way others can comprehend since it is so different from what we are used to experience. Some will interpret it as a psychotic episode, others as a true connection to the beyond. But we can never really be sure. Maybe the only way to access it is to somehow let go of our fears and certainties. Or maybe it is yet another survival tool that shows up to save us as a last resort. I want to know for sure, but maybe that's what prevents me from feeling it again. — leo

I have increasingly felt connected with something beyond, and also recognised the lack of evidence available to back it up. In a world where the notion of subjective experience is being reduced to what can be digitally validated, it’s difficult to recognise these transient elements of experience as anything other than delusion. But I have also noticed that there is increasingly less certainty in how we experience the world generally. We can never really be sure of anything, when you think about. I would agree it is time to let go of our certainties, but I also think that fear is something we’re just going to have to live with, whether we like it or not. That’s the hardest part, I think. We’ve convinced ourselves that fear is something we should be avoiding - it’s unhealthy, hindering our ability to think straight or to function logically. But if we’re going to let go of our certainties, then I think we need to learn to live with fear, not in it.

Life is very much different depending on what we believe. I think I could ponder these questions forever and still be as lost in the end. I am really lost, and afraid about a lot of things. I want to live, but I live in fear. When we feel good we don't look for meaning, we've already found it. It is when we stop feeling that absurdity appears and meaning is nowhere to be found. — leo

It feels good to have an objective view of the world when it’s working to our benefit. The world appears, at least, to have meaning. But when life appears to be working against us, we start to recognise this view for the absurd construct it is.

As long as I am living, I will never be completely safe, nor completely secure, nor completely invincible; I will also never be completely autonomous, nor completely independent, nor completely adored. As long as I am living, I am fragile, temporary, dependent and imperfect, no matter what I do or how I do it. That’s life - and it only seems absurd to be afraid of it because we believe our ultimate aim is to survive...everything.

However, I believe our ultimate aim is not to survive, but to develop/achieve/succeed - in a frustratingly non-specific way. It is our unique capacity as human beings to evaluate and prioritise our experiences that leads us to the conclusion that survival is our top priority.

1, 3 and 5 as you’ve summarised them here refer to the origin of life, whereas 2 and 4 refer to a process of development towards the current state of the world, but appear to say very little, if anything, about the possible origin of life.

2 can therefore be combined with 3, for instance (and from memory, Darwin did propose something similar as the origin of organic evolution), without much contradiction. This is about where I sit at this point in my understanding, but mainly because I’m less familiar with 4 and 5 - although I wouldn’t deny them plausibility. As for 1, I think if you have to deny or reject scientific evidence in order to maintain the plausibility of your theory, then your theory’s in trouble.

I think it’s fair to say that none of the five are a complete theory of how the world began, owing to significant gaps in our (or is it only my?) knowledge. I’m holding out for a more comprehensive marrying of the evidence. My understanding of biology and chemistry is limited, so like many of us, I have to go on faith at this stage...

What evidence is there that this feeling serves any other purpose? — leo

What kind of evidence are you looking for?