I would say it either has more meanings (some of which you listed later) or it has no meaning at all. I prefer not to think it has no meaning. — Bitter Crank

Those meanings I listed later are illusory and unreal. They SEEM to be meaningful, in truth they are not. They just show vileness of character, and egoism - the pettiness of man. Not that I condemn that to the fires of hell... absolutely not, in the end it is human, all too human, and most of us, including myself, have passed through such stages. I have noticed most of those "meanings" i listed there in my own soul. That's how I came to know them. By watching keenly why I wanted to have sex. And that's how I also freed myself from this bondage, by understanding the causes, and how it brings a harm to myself and others - how it is motivated by ignorance.

I have no idea what these two phrases mean. — Bitter Crank

Objective perfection is an actual perfection. Intimacy or reproduction are actual perfections - we can look at people and say they have objectively achieved these perfections when we see that they bring forth children, and when we see sustained love and compassion and consideration of beloved over self over a long period of time. Subjective perfections are things which temporarily seem to be perfections - ie FEEL like perfections to the individual in question, but may not feel like perfections in the long run, or when viewed from the outside.

Yes, casual sex can do all this and more for individuals. You or I may not like it, but these are contributions to the meaning of sexual encounters. — Bitter Crank

Do not confuse perception with reality BC. People can (and do) percieve things, and yet can be decieved by those perceptions.

Example of more meaning : A gay man just coming out is likely to experience validation in the act of sex with another man, in a way that straight men or women might not. — Bitter Crank

Again, the requirement for external validation is ultimately a short-coming - a sign of weakness, not of psychological strength. Do you mean, per Maslow, to say that gaining psychological strength requires the passing through such stages? If so, then I would disagree, in a limited kind of way. I think one FIRST starts with self-actualisation, and THEN can go on and fulfill the rest - if they start anywhere else, it's merely a false start. Ultimately they will have to begin with self-actualisation anyways.

How the hell did you come to this conclusion? — Bitter Crank

For the simple reason that most people do not know, nor practice tantric forms of masturbation.

It's a breakdown, alright. — Bitter Crank

:D

If X says he has found intimacy and a loving relationship, on what basis would you be so bold as to dismiss his claim as an error? — Bitter Crank

On an investigation of their relationship and what is actually going on among the two people. On watching the two people together, and looking at their behavior towards one another. On watching how their relationship evolves over a long period of time - most relationships crumble - there simply is no real love, just a fake imitation.

How would you sort the deceived from the truly and intimately loved? — Bitter Crank

I can't do it, they would have to do this themselves. I don't spend my time next to them all the time. But - there are signs of intimate love that aren't there in the case of self-deception. If one analyses both their actions and their feelings clearly, one will start to see. That is why I ultimately advocate self-knowledge. YOU must come to know whether you are decieving yourself. That's what matters. I can say they are decieving themselves because I know and understand the motions of their souls sometimes, in comparison with my own, and having travelled (some) of these roads, know they are deceitful.

intimacy adds more meaning to sex; — Bitter Crank

Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. A subjective feeling of pleasure in itself is never meaningful, unless it is associated with an objective perfection. It can however be percieved as meaningful (even though it really isn't) when it is associated with a sense of SUBJECTIVE perfection.

The reason why most people who are interested in sexual gratification for pleasure prefer having sex with, for example, a random partner, instead of engage in some tantric form of masturbation (either mutual or individual) isn't because the physical pleasure is any better. It is not. Rather, there are psychological reasons. And these can be quite diverse (the noble ones are ruled out, since we have already assumed they're pursuing sexual gratification just for pleasure - not for intimacy or reproduction).

1. A misguided pursuit of intimacy can be one such reason - often masking a fear of commitment, and a fear of intimacy - the person seeking sexual gratification is nevertheless motivated by intimacy; however they are afraid of what it may entail, so they do not want to jump in - they want just a small sip of it instead. If the being in question is a stranger, this is perceived as a less risky situation, so the stranger is preferred to the friend.
2. Another reason can be a subtle feeling of superiority compared to their peers (not to the convinced being) because they have convinced another being to yield their body to them (and if this being is perceived as a stranger, then the pleasure associated with intercourse is even greater - cause the person in question assumes his power to be absolutely great, as even a stranger was won over by it).
3. Yet another reason can be a feeling of superiority over the being whom they have convinced. Again, convincing a stranger will yield a stronger sense of subjective pleasure than convincing a friend. This is seen again as a situation of ruling over, and dictating the behavior of another - usurping their freedom by the proxy of their own assent.
4. Yet another reason is to achieve good social standing, and to be perceived as successful by their peers, as well as by themselves. This is when one's sense of self is associated with sexual conquest.
5. And yet another reason is because one feels the need to be desired by another. Again, the more unlikely someone is to desire them a priori, the greater the pleasure to be found in sexual intercourse. That's why strangers will be preferred.

These reasons (and the fact that most people don't know how to properly masturbate) explain the popularity of the one-night stand over masturbation - nevertheless, they are base and misguided reasons, and ultimately and ironically, harm the person who gives in to them more than they benefit them - even the psychological pleasure in these cases is mere illusion - a mere SUBJECTIVE (and selfish), not OBJECTIVE perfection is achieved. How's that for a, pace Spinoza, a more geometrico breakdown of the psychology behind the pursuit of sex? ;)

Most people (somewhere above 90%) go out and find the sex and intimacy they desire, and they engage in mutually loving relationships -- at least sometimes. — Bitter Crank

I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. Some remain completely blind to the potentials of sex for their whole lives and never realise. In any case - people who truly enjoy and are helped by sex are few. Sex is a very sharp double edged sword. It can be a great help, or it can be a great impoverishment - use with care ;)

Some people, though, can't perform the acts necessary to engage in social interaction as a first step. They have a range of neurological and physical disabilities which prevent normal socializing, let alone normal sexual interaction. Who will provide them with loving, intimate care? Families usually do this for children, but as children age into adults this often becomes physically and psychologically impossible to continue. (The parents, remember, are getting older too.) — Bitter Crank

Indeed, I agree. But I would favor looking at creating communities where such people are cared for voluntarily - or where such people can and do get in touch with other people with disabilities (maybe not as severely disabled as they are). Then bonding and love can develop amongst such a community, don't you think so? I'd be much more in favor to setting that up, then having a state funded "doctor" masturbate or have sex with them.

Can we, as a policy of compassion, assure that those who are disabled physically (and mentally in terms of mental illness rather than severe cognitive impairment) have the opportunity to live a fuller life which includes sexual pleasure? — Bitter Crank

Yes - by creating communities of people in similar circumstances and enabling these people to get in touch together. They best know how to take care of each other - we are just guessing here. Then amongst such a community bonding and love can develop - including sexual gratification.

And no, sex isn't necessary. — Sapientia

Good point woof woof! :D See, you're a good boy, even though you bite hands sometime *gives Scooby snack* :D

Sex is not a necessity to exist. Just look at the ascetics, monks, and nuns who (supposedly) did not participate in the realm of sexual affairs. If you imprison someone but give them enough food, water, exercise, and sleep, they will not die.

Is it uncomfortable to abstain from any sexual gratification, particularly when you are bored and have nothing to do? Yes. Is it impossible to do so? I hardly think so. — darthbarracuda

I agree 100%. Excellent points!

So sex is hardly what I would say to be something that needs immediate attention. — darthbarracuda

Indeed - but intimacy, and the desire for love which are underneath the desire for sex DO need immediate attention for people in such dire circumstances.

But I do think that prostitution should not be illegal, at least not to adults (18+, or perhaps 21+). Prostitution without the use of contraceptives should be illegal, though, and generally prostitution should not be advocated as a legitimate business practice when there are safer alternatives. You want to sell your body? Go ahead, I won't condemn you but neither will I applaud you. — darthbarracuda

:-O What? Prostitution?? Who talked about prostitution?

Why do I disagree with the state or institutions doing this? Because institutions can never do something from the heart. That's why this is something that must be done by kind and loving individuals, who do this because they choose to, not because it's an externally imposed duty (rather it should be an internally imposed duty, aka love).

There is a erotic massage program (The Body Electric) which teaches people how to give and receive safe, sexual experiences through tantric practices. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus". In current parlance it's called 'edging".

The object is to provide extended time in erotic arousal through light massage (front side of the body) and sexual stimulation short of orgasm. (Avoiding orgasm is part of the tantric bit; experiencing orgasm doesn't invalidate the experience, but it should be quite delayed.) Deep breathing and relaxation techniques are also part of it.

This program was developed primarily for persons with AIDS. But the basic techniques work on anyone. (Do try it at home.) — Bitter Crank

I am aware of this. This is also apparently a better way to achieve stronger orgasms than actual sex, however, one of the main purposes of sex (intimacy) cannot be achieved by this (at least when done by oneself), and thus this experience still misses what is most important in the sexual experience (which is not pleasure itself). Nevertheless, this is not to say I am against such techniques (in fact I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in sex purely for pleasure).

Picture yourself deprived of physical pleasure for lack of physical capacity, for years on end. Can one survive? Yes. Is there any virtue in experiencing zero physical pleasure vs. experiencing intense physical pleasure? No. — Bitter Crank

I don't disagree with any of this, I merely disagree with the state providing this. If it was a loved one, etc. then I wouldn't mind it.

Sexual pleasure may not be the ultimate good, but it is never-the-less well worth having. — Bitter Crank

If by sexual pleasure you mean intimacy, then I am very inclined to agree. People who are physically handicapped, etc. require to be cared for, with love, not with duty. It's not the state that must do this - but rather kind human beings.

In a certain sense yes.

I agree with you. I don't think sex forms an essential part of the highest good in man. Would you grant that it does have a contributory function to our happiness though? One feels more relaxed and happier after sex. — TheMadFool

Yes, I would grant that sex can be another good of man. In my assessment, the highest good is the good in virtue of which everything else is good. The highest good is virtue (which is the same, as Socrates said, with knowledge). That means that virtue is what makes everything else that we call good, good. Sex, money, and everything else have no goodness in themselves alone, but only in-so-far as they share in virtue ;) . Think by analogy to Plato's forms. Ultimately the forms also have no real existence except in-so-far as they share in Agathon - the form of the Good, which alone makes all of them possible.

don't. I would say they are part of a powerful system of thought that has the potential to increase freedom as compared to other animals. Compare it with money - another construction of the mind. Money is a fantastically powerful means of cooperation that connects people right across the world. As a medium of cooperation is is unrivalled, but unfortunately folks get lost in it, and seek to accumulate it, when its use is in the flow. And then it becomes divisive not cooperative.

Human thought in general is a fantastic tool for creative living, but a lousy prison to live in. Think carefully, think hard, but don't let thought be the world, or you become isolated and lonely in your own head. — unenlightened

Then we are in entire agreement on this.

Sure thing! I think quite a few living beings have consciousness actually :D

Currently, I am reading Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death", which explains the psychoanalytic position that (roughly): — darthbarracuda

Oh absolutely great book! I'll get back to you! :)

Perhaps sex is like an addictive drug. Once you try it you need to keep having it! Some, perhaps those not exposed to this drug, don't think it's a necessity. — TheMadFool

I think people are attracted more to the intimacy that can result from it than to the mere physical pleasure. The only reason sex seems like a necessity is that we live in a culture which PUSHES people to have sex, and treats sex as the highest good for man, and thus sees those who do not have sex, or who do not relentlessly pursue it as somehow stupid/wrong. We don't live in a society which is tolerant of sex - but rather intolerant. It hyper-sexualises people, and oppresses them if they refuse.

Anyway, necessity for what? Clearly, sex is a necessity evolutionarily. — TheMadFool

Necessity for achieving the highest good for man. The highest good isn't to reproduce. It is to know and understand the world. In order to be able to do that, your real needs have to be provided for - food, shelter, water, education, health.

I don't think sex is a necessity that should be facilitated by the state. Having said that, I would encourage the state to facilitate one on one committed relationships, and make it easier for people to get into relationships. Sex would obviously come as a side-effect of that.

Also many people who can't have sex for physical reasons generally show little interest in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a "right" to sex, because I don't see sex as the summum bonum of man's life, or otherwise required for it. I think we have a right to things that are required to achieve the highest good for man - for example, food, education, healthcare.

I don't want to speculate how God could have created things differently or has done in a wider universe that we might call heaven/hell. — unenlightened

Fair enough.

In this world, freedom is built in by the openness of the future and our participation in its unfolding form. — unenlightened

I agree.

Now I don't think that God created the garden of Eden as another world with different rules. — unenlightened

Again, fair enough.

So I take the story of the fall not to be about God literally punishing man for disobedience by deliberately fucking up His own creation. — unenlightened

Me too, I take it as man being responsible for the so called punishment, not God.

My OP was about the meaning of original sin, not about the meaning of the Fall. I am personally not decided on the meaning of the fall, but your version of what it means has a few advantages in its simplicity, and in the fact that it doesn't require two worlds or a change in the rules governing the world. So thanks for your input, gives me a few things to think about.

The counterfactuals of could be, will be, ought to be and was constitute the psychological 'world' to which we have exiled ourselves — unenlightened

I largely agree.

Thus animals do not have regret or shame, and their lives, though finite, are psychologically timeless. — unenlightened

Why do you consider regret and shame necessarily psychologically harmful? I can see situations where they are harmful - where they impede living in the present, and keep one stuck thinking about impossibilities, blaming themselves, etc. But I can also see situations where they are helpful. For example, I can regret insulting my mother, but that doesn't mean I blame myself for it, or never forgive myself for doing it, or continuously think how bad a person I must be. It's simply something that allows to orient myself IN THE MOMENT to behave better towards my mother. The fact I regret it motivates me, and orients me towards the good as it were. I can also regret hurting someone who I simply don't have the chance at the moment to behave better towards. For example, I regret leaving my first girlfriend in the way I did. Does that mean I obsess about it and think how bad a person I must be? No, not at all. I never think about it in fact, except for purposes of discussion and teaching, like this one. But it does help me - it helps me to orient myself in the way I behave NOW with people I care about, and also let's me know that I have learned something from my previous mistakes. In fact, I feel more confident because I have learned from my mistakes, and am determining to do better now :) . If I could remedy them, I would. Granted that I can't, then I just learn from them. To regret them, in this circumstance, means simply to realise they were mistakes, and be determined to live better today.

If, on the other hand, I didn't regret them, then I would simply not be willing to admit that they are mistakes, or to learn from them. Not exactly something I would call good.

It's similar with shame. Shame can be both destructive and constructive, it just depends how you use it :) . Indeed, along with Aristotle, I don't believe any of our emotions, even anger, are ALWAYS wrong. They all have a place, and sometimes failing to be angry is a moral failure.

are psychologically timeless. They live in the present and so there is no death in their life, though there is an end. — unenlightened

Oh yes, indeed:
“If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”
That's why I claim many times, with Spinoza, that I feel and know that I am eternal (although, unlike TheWillow, I don't feel like this all the time lol).

I won't discuss Krishnamurti here, but my dentist sometimes hurts me because he needs to - I need him to. — unenlightened

Indeed - but the so called harm does you more good than bad in the end. I'm referring to harm which doesn't actually do you any good. I accept your desires not to discuss Krishnamurti here though.

I think it is sufficiently rare and unfathomable that we do not need to worry about what the enlightened man's relation to morality might be. — unenlightened

To what degree is someone enlightened if they are also no moral though? Does it not contradict what we mean to refer to by enlightenment? Surely we don't mean enlightenment to be mere presence of mind and mental strength. There's something more to it - it has to do with compassion, and understanding of others.

Jesus overturned the tables in the temple; I will not say that he had an off day, nor that it was a necessary hurt. — unenlightened

I think it was good he overturned the tables - he was simply doing justice, and justice is good - albeit divine justice, not human.

Rather I will consider his teaching and try and make sense of that as one who is not enlightened. — unenlightened

Indeed!

Of course none of this is possible (or at least can be demonstrated to be possible) in the absence of language. — John

Exactly.

There is a logical difference between stating that the world is like this and stating that the world appears like this. But that's just like saying there is a logical difference between saying that the sun appears to rise each day and saying that the sun rises each day. I think it's a difference that makes no difference. There is no coherent way of saying that things by and large appear to be regular, but that they might not 'really' be regular. — John

I agree :D - practically speaking our positions are identical.

And this is what make original sin laughable as analysis of our ethics and worth of the world. It removes ethical responsibility from our immediate actions. We have no worth in our own moral life because we can't make the world perfect. No matter what we do, the world occupies the same fallen state. Why does it matter if I do good in my own life? Myself and the world are still fallen to the point of absolute worthlessness. The fact that actions are finite becomes lost. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As Spinoza would gladly tell you about this, there is no opinion more absurd than this. Read his penultimate (I think it is) proposition. Just because you cannot make the world perfect it does not follow that you should make it even more imperfect and fallen. Just because you cannot eat good food for the rest of your life, does not mean that you should prefer to eat poisons when you can eat good food.

We lose perspective on what matters in the context of of any action. Instead of worrying about whether a finite action we take will make the world better or worse (or both), we obsess it it all terrible because we can't act to make the world perfect. Your reading of the Stoics is still carrying this mistake here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who said we obsess because it is terrible? Is that what I am suggesting? Where?

We should never aim for "perfect" because we don't have the power to create it, even in our own lives. The very idea of "perfection" is dubious because it entails the obliteration of anything that doesn't meet a precise standard — TheWillowOfDarkness

We should aim for perfection, even if we miss it, we will land among the stars ;)

I mean what are you going to do with all those immoral promiscuous people? Would you wipe them out or lock them up to save society form their immorality if you had the power? Lock them out of economic means and social relationships to serve as an example for everyone else? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, I wouldn't. Each individual has the freedom to do and behave as they wish so long as they do not bring harm to the larger community (for the simple reason that moral excellence presupposes individual freedom). That individual X is promiscuous isn't a problem to society (it's a problem to himself I would argue, but he has to deal with it - we don't punish people for over-eating, which is also immoral and harmful to themselves). What is a problem is when promiscuity becomes a STANDARD or NORM to society. What I would do is take measures which discourage promiscuity from every becoming a main-stream, majority position. This doesn't mean outlawing it. It means, for example, denying abortions to people who aren't in committed relationships. This contains promiscuity and prevents it from spreading through society. We must protect individual liberties, while not allowing them to undermine the larger society.

Original sin drags us away from our own responsibility for the finite. It turns away from the actions we are responsible for, distracting us with lamenting the world is not perfect. We become so obsessed with "perfection" and how it is not being met, that we forget ethical responsibility to ourselves and others in the finite moments of our lives. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe it drags you away from the finite. Maybe it makes you obsessed with how "perfection" is not met. It certainly doesn't have that effect on me.

I think that's where we diverge Agustino, I think the regularity of experience, and indeed custom itself are, at least partially, always already matters of reason. — John

We don't start out by reasoning, reasoning is a faculty we gradually build up, which helps pull us out of our initial ignorance. Custom and traditions are what allows us to learn to reason - to become rational beings. There have been cases historically - of people growing amongst animals - those people did not have language, nor were they rational, or open to rational deliberation of any kind. Reason is something that is community built, although, once built, it achieves independence from the community/custom to a certain degree (and this is where I partly disagree with Hume).

Here again we diverge: I would say it does "reflect the operations of the world" or at least it reflects the operations of all the things we have observed. — John

Yes it does. But there's a difference between stating the world IS like this, and the world appears like this. I say the world appears like this, although I am also quite close to certainty that it is like this.

Firstly, I wouldn't agree that the regularity of our experience is something that "we arrive at (purely) by custom". To argue that would be to claim that our experiences are entirely constructed by custom (i.e. culture). — John

By custom and experience. Not by reason.

Also, in our previous exchange I certainly didn't claim that inductive reason is equivalent to deductive reason, wherein the conclusion follows form the premises. — John

Yes, all that I claim(ed) is that inductive reasoning cannot be rationally justified. Rather it is justified by experience and custom.

Most of the time, when we say we have reason to believe something it is not because what we say we have reason to believe is a logical entailment, but because we have no reason not to believe (and thus more reason to believe than not to believe), that what has been regularly observed will continue to be observed in the future. Of course this does not mean that we may be certain by any means. — John

It's a habit John, which is useful to us - which seems to reflect the world. That's why it is derived by custom and experience. It SEEMS to reflect the operations of the world.

I'm not familiar with such a distinction, or at least with how you have worded it. — Thorongil

The self is the real individuality, without the greed, the lust, the vices, the ignorance. It is the real thing behind the illusions of the ego.

That's funny; I seem to remember arguing against your position that inductively inferred beliefs are never rational, that, on the contrary, they are rational insofar as they are based on all we have to go on, namely the regularity of our experiences, and the consequent existential fact that we have no good reason to doubt such things as, for example, the sun will rise tomorrow or that entropy is a universal principle, and I also seem to remember you persisting to disagree with these arguments, that you are now appearing to put forward yourself.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind, but you should be prepared to admit it... — John

I did say in that thread, in the beginning of it (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/213/on-wittgensteins-quietism-and-the-possibility-of-philosophical-certainty/p1) that reason requires custom in order to be able to make inductive inferences, and I maintained that they are not valid because of reason, but because of custom. Custom is the arbiter in this case. And I still maintain the same thing, (although you are right that my position has become more elaborate) because we learn to reason by following customs. From the previous thread:

I will say that because people have died in the past, I believe that people will die in the future, but this is not a deductively valid reasoning, and induction itself is not rationally valid - — Agustino

↪John There can be an arbiter. Custom. ;)
3 months ago Edit
John
449
↪Agustino So you think custom is a worthy guide as to what to think; is that a conclusion based on a process of reasoning or is it merely a blind following of custom?
3 months ago
Agustino
610
↪John Experience. As Hume showed, it's not reasonable because it's not reasonable to expect that the future will be like the past just because the present has so far been like the past — Agustino

So yes. The regularity of our experiences is something we arrive at by custom, not by reason, and therefore everything that follows from it is not justified by pure reason alone. If you want to merge the two and call them reason then I am okay with that, because it's just the way what we actually call reason develops. It develops through custom. We learn to reason through tradition.

What I did not maintain is that we should not believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because it is not justified by pure reason. That @John I surely did not maintain. So I don't see your point. I do believe in the second law of thermodynamics. Just as I claimed in that thread that I do believe in inductive inferences. I merely disagreed on the cause of belief in inductive inferences, not whether we should or should not believe them. In fact, nor do I hold that belief in induction is irrational, rather it is pre-rational.

Do you not realise how this renders your "hypothetical" with the exact problem I described? How are you going to get humans outside the fixed arrow of time towards towards increasing entropy, such that they can have this "timeless freedom" where there is no change or movement in time? Even "hypothetically" humans can't ever express such freedom. It's a contradiction. We are always finite states stuck on the ever running treadmill of time. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never claimed they could have timeless freedom with such a meaning as you use it here. I simply held that "before the fall" (if we can even talk of such a time), the world did not have an arrow of time towards ever increasing entropy. But nevertheless, change was possible, just that the arrow of time wasn't fixed. Again this is metaphorical and we are exiting the scope of the doctrine of original sin. The doctrine simply accounts for how the world is - for the fact it has a fixed arrow of time towards ever increasing entropy. However, alternative worlds can be imagined, where no such permanently fixed arrow of time exists.

I agree with a large part of your post. However, I would say, with the Stoics, that the one thing we do have control over is our own character, and our own moral life. That we do have control over. And that, not our external circumstances, are what we should aim to perfect. In fact, no good and evil exist apart from moral good and evil, for which we are solely in control.

We consider ourselves and our world fallen, to the point where it is not worth anything, where it deserves to be cast into the fiery pit for eternity, for merely having this "limited" which did not produce the perfect outcome. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree with this conclusion. I think original sin serves to remind us that control over the world is not in our power - we should rather focus on our characters, and even there, control is often outside of our control.

Then it would never of us, Agustino. We are not timeless. We begin, change and end. To say freedom is timeless is to put its expression outside humanity an the existing world. How could I be free to be anything or make decisions if freedom is not an expression of changing states? Moreover, how does freedom even make sense in the context of a necessary, unchanging infinite? Such an infinite has no freedom, for it is never subject to change; it never has responsibility for its presence as an existing state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

First of all, this whole paragraph could have been avoided if you had read this:

I meant time-less in the context I had written it. Namely time-less meaning without forward moving time, without an arrow of time. To witness:
Why is an arrow of time logically necessary for freedom? Freedom could be time-less.
— Agustino
My apologies if this confused you - I can see how it could. English is not my first language. But my point still remains. Freedom does not require an arrow of time. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? — Agustino

We can't undo anything that's done. When a decision is taken or an event occurs, it constitutes that moment in the "arrow of time." Sometimes we can "go back" in the sense of changing the world back to a similar state. One can glue the broken vase back together, but that does't undo the vase was broken. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We're talking of a hypothetical scenario there, which has nothing to do with our actual world :/ You are completely mis-interpreting everything, absolutely everything in this last post of yours, it's hardly worth refuting at this point.

To be part of the changing world entails the absence of a fixed arrow because there is never some necessary state everything is heading towards. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is a fixed arrow of time, towards increasing entropy, I don't understand what nonsense you are peddling here.

Whereas humans 'ought to know better'. I don't think this is all that heretical. Having that knowledge, the path to ending or transcending self-consciousness is steep - one has to do better. But I think one has glimpses of paradise regained from time to time. — unenlightened

Also, I may add this question: where does this leave morality then? Can the enlightened person do anything? Is anything they do moral? (I would certainly disagree with that for example - because very often I hear this argument - namely that because someone is enlightened, their actions can hurt those who are not enlightened because they do not understand, or they are too attached to their egos, and in such a case, somehow, the enlightened person is never morally responsible for the pain they cause or the pain is otherwise justified by this - for example, your favorite man J. Krishnamurti and his behavior towards Rosalind and Rajagopal).

Do you agree that freedom requires the possibility of change? — unenlightened

Tentatively speaking, yes, although it is an indirect requirement, in-so-far as freedom necessitates action to manifest itself and action necessitates change.

If so, then I would say it requires at least one dimension of time, distinguished from space by its arrow. — unenlightened

Does time need a FIXED arrow to distinguish itself from space? Doesn't time distinguish itself from space merely by being something different, namely time?

That is to say, my freedom comprises something undecided , yet, that I decide. — unenlightened

Agreed.

f my decision does not stick because I can go back and un-decide, then it does not seem that that adds to my freedom, but undermines it; my decisions are no longer decisive. — unenlightened

Agreed. Yes, I follow what you mean. I'm just wondering now. What if you could undo somethings, but not others? Having no fixed arrow of time doesn't necessarily entail that there is no arrow at all or that you can decide every single time how to change the arrow does it?

thus it is innocent in its selfcenteredness because it lacks the knowledge of good and evil. — unenlightened

Okay I agree. It is innocent in its selfcenterdness, but there nevertheless is a selfcenterdness about it no? Also what do you mean by it "lacks knowledge of good and evil"? How do you define good and evil in this scenario?

Having that knowledge, the path to ending or transcending self-consciousness is steep - one has to do better. But I think one has glimpses of paradise regained from time to time. — unenlightened

I will tentatively agree with this, waiting for you to clarify the above points.

I often find myself thinking like this, although I wish I didn't. — Pneumenon

This is symptomatic of this world's oppression of wisdom. You end up thinking this way because the world, at every step, attempts to pull you down, and doesn't want to let you rise up. But the reaction is only one of anger if you perceive that somehow the man who asks

"What, too good for this world, huh?" — Pneumenon

somehow harms or humiliates you. But the truth is that they humiliate and harm themselves first and foremost. Once this is realised and understood, then there is no more anger present - the whole situation becomes comic. As Socrates said, the good man cannot be harmed, either in life or in death. And further, Socrates told those who killed him that the real irony is that they think they are harming him, while in truth, they are only harming themselves.

On the other hand, I think that, if I were to really become the wise old sage I want to one day be, I wouldn't be so spiteful toward the "man in the street," or feel all that separated from him. — Pneumenon

The sage dearly loves the "man in the street", and wants him too to become a sage. The sage achieves a more perfect blessedness, the more people share in wisdom

There is no problem with such a conception. Indeed it happens to most people to forget themselves from time to time. Self is a habit of thought. — unenlightened

What is the difference between forgetting yourself and being unconscious for example? Clearly, when you are, for example, dead drunk, you are unconscious - you no longer know who you are, or even that you are. What is the difference between this, and forgetting yourself in the context of being really engaged in, for example, watching a flower? Clearly, to a certain extent you are conscious and self-aware when you watch the flower, even though you are completely at one with your activity? Is this not so?

Well now you're just making shit up with neither physics, the bible, nor normal use of language to support you. What happened to 'Freedom could be time-less.'? Now it could be Dr Who's timey-wimey. — unenlightened

I meant time-less in the context I had written it. Namely time-less meaning without forward moving time, without an arrow of time. To witness:

Why is an arrow of time logically necessary for freedom? Freedom could be time-less. — Agustino

My apologies if this confused you - I can see how it could. English is not my first language. But my point still remains. Freedom does not require an arrow of time. Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

I don't think so. I would say it is precisely the individualised self which is fulfilled when being compassionate, in-so-far as this individualised self has realised that everything else in existence is the cause of its own existence - that which ultimately sustains it into being. I don't think love implies annihilation of the self, only annihilation of the egoic self, which is different.

A rock or a tree manages to exist without self-identification — unenlightened

A rock is not, by most account, a living being. A tree has no self-consciousness, and hence, of course, there is no self-identification. To be human means to be self-aware first and foremost, which necessarily implies self identification does it not? However, self-identification does not imply egoism, greed, lust, unbridled desire, etc. I agree that ego is the problem. But I disagree if you take the ego to be the entirety of the individual self :) . I also would state that one must love self, before loving others and that indeed, ultimately love of self just is love of others. A man with a fully developed self, is, after me, enlightened. Such a man would not shy away from dying if they must to save their loved ones for example, BUT they would still retain a sense of self. It is THEM sacrificing for their beloved, not anyone else, and they freely choose this because their good has inter-meshed with the good of the beloved.

Or if you want to say that it is necessary in some way to ensoulment, in which case I'll just go quiet and let you pontificate. — unenlightened

Well, concieve if you can of a human being who does not have a self. Ask yourself, what it means for such a human to exist? Concieve also, how such an existence can satisfy the nature of man.

No time, no change; no change, no freedom. — unenlightened

This is wrong. The absence of entropy does NOT entail the absence of time. It's just the absence of an arrow of time. If there was no entropy, for example, I could dissolve a cube of sugar in a cup of coffee, and then reverse the process and get the sugar back out exactly as I put it in. It wouldn't mean that there is no time, only that processes are reversible - they are not necessarily headed in a certain direction (ie no arrow of time, or many different arrows of time, always changing)!

I added a couple other things to that point too. — Thorongil

I agree with those too haha :P

Yes, though I am tempted to say "to hell with the man on the street." Let the vulgar associate with themselves. — Thorongil

A certain fellow-feeling and compassion draws me to it though.

Agreed, but seeking after the denial of the world, or nirvana, need not mean or entail what you say above. The egoistic hope for immortality is not to be confused with the attempt to abolish one's ego while alive. — Thorongil

Yes but I have qualms with the desirability of abolishing one's ego (if by that you mean the entirety of the individualised self) while still alive. From a different thread:

I have a few qualms with this essentially Buddhist/Humean idea. The Orthodox Christian idea is that, after death, ALL souls (even those which go to hell) are re-united with God, wherein they move and have their being. Those who hate God will perceive it as hell, those who love God will perceive it as heaven. The individuality (soul) of each remains. Now of course, ultimately, only God exists. But, we human beings, are not (fully) God. We cannot exist as infinite, and must therefore exist only as finite. In no way do we therefore avoid death by losing our self-identification - it would be like saying one avoids death by committing suicide, or by being already dead. We cannot be held to even exist as human beings without our self identification. What value does any of this have to us and/or to the fulfillment of our nature? None. How can we even be held to fall, when we don't even exist yet? Not to have self-identification for humans (who have a finite nature) simply means not to exist. — Agustino

Yeah, thats a bit too literal for my wishy washy blood. — unenlightened

Maybe but I think it's what most forms of Christianity profess.

there is no death because there is no separation of self — unenlightened

I have a few qualms with this essentially Buddhist/Humean idea. The Orthodox Christian idea is that, after death, ALL souls (even those which go to hell) are re-united with God, wherein they move and have their being. Those who hate God will perceive it as hell, those who love God will perceive it as heaven. The individuality (soul) of each remains. Now of course, ultimately, only God exists. But, we human beings, are not (fully) God. We cannot exist as infinite, and must therefore exist only as finite. In no way do we therefore avoid death by losing our self-identification - it would be like saying one avoids death by committing suicide, or by being already dead. We cannot be held to even exist as human beings without our self identification. What value does any of this have to US? None. How can we even be held to fall, when we don't even exist yet? Not to have self-identification for humans simply means not to exist.

I don't think there is a need for some other earth with different physics; indeed I cannot make sense of a fall in a world without the freedom of entropy. — unenlightened

Why is an arrow of time logically necessary for freedom? Freedom could be time-less.

I voted for Plato. — Thorongil

Yep, I thought you were going to vote Plato.

One perhaps unconscious reason for siding with him is that he has much more of an effect on me due to the quality of his writing. — Thorongil

Also, I think you are closer in personal mission to Plato's goal, than to Aristotle's. Plato is good for telling the wise man what they should do. Aristotle is much better when we're intending to educate the man in the street.

Secondly, I think Schopenhauer, whose system I accept in the main, managed to incorporate Plato in such a way that he is still relevant philosophically, and not merely of historical interest as the purported founder of Western philosophy. — Thorongil

Yep, I entirely agree with this.

On aesthetic grounds, Plato's system is by far the more beautiful. — Thorongil

Indeed.

If beauty were the standard of truth, as I am sometimes wont to think, then Plato's philosophy would be the truest. And it is further enriched and confirmed in its beauty by the Neoplatonists like Plotinus. — Thorongil

Yes BUT, again, this highest truth, which is equivalent to the highest beauty, is of little interest to the man in the street. The mystical is irrelevant, what I think is really required is to naturalise the mystical as part of daily life - to infuse the material with spirit:

Even this desire motivating the transcendence of the world, or the search for a mystical experience is recently seeming odd and quaint to me. Much rather I am feeling a desire to infuse this world with spirit, rather than search for some spirit apart from the world. I would agree with an idealist, Buddhist perspective for example, or with Schopenhauer's system - I would make some changes though - the most important being returning the focus from achieving Nirvana and transcending this world, to achieving Nirvana and living virtuously in this world. I say I am tempted to agree with an idealist system because I think, ultimately, like the Platonist, that this empirical point of view fails to grasp our continued relationship with the infinite after the end of our finite existence. And I don't say this out of fear of death - recently, like Socrates, I feel nothing but indifference towards death, as if, in the end analysis it doesn't even matter. At the same time I don't know what sense talking of an afterlife has... it clearly has no sense to me. I cannot even imagine it. And it doesn't even interest me. Only that I think there is one.

My point to summarise is this. It is wrong to search for what is to come after death while still alive. It betrays a fear of the unknown AND a fear of life AND impatience. Much rather, the virtuous man focuses on this life while alive (infusing matter with spirit), and on death (pure spirit) once dead. The living with the living and the dead with the dead as Jesus said. That's why ultimately I think an Aristotelian foundation, with a tint of Plato not to lose the connection with the infinite that expresses itself in this life as well as in death, is what is required FOR SOCIETY (the requirement for the wise man in contemplation may be different). — Agustino

What did I mean? Nothing more than that your intellectual development proceeded in a beneficial, straight-forward manner.

Proceeding forward with continuity doesn't always happen; people can get side-tracked by peer pressure, or involved in "sex, drugs, and rock & roll", or they have to work in very unrewarding jobs, or they get married and/or pregnant, or any number of other side-tracking events that either interrupt or stop their forward progress. — Bitter Crank

Ok I see what you're referring to. English isn't my first language, so that's why I didn't understand clearly.

Proceeding forward with continuity doesn't always happen; people can get side-tracked by peer pressure — Bitter Crank

Well peer pressure always played a role in my life, but for most of the time I have always rejected it and stood my ground. Other people didn't. What makes the difference? It is true that my mother educated me from my early days to go my own way - but can that be all of it? I mean many other people were similarly educated by their parents, and yet, behold, they fell to peer pressure. I preferred social isolation, rather than fall to peer pressure... I was always more afraid of doing something I didn't want to, than of being alone. That's how it is with fear. If you fear the right thing, you will not fear the wrong thing. For example, if, like Socrates, you fear God (doing wrong), you will not fear death anymore. One thing I don't like about modern culture is that fear isn't valued anymore - but I think that fear is inescapable, and the good life just means getting your priorities when it comes to fear correct. I think other people fell to peer pressure, or drugs, etc. because they feared social isolation more than they feared wickedness.

Christian doctrine is not univocal, but the way I heard it God looked at his creation and saw that it was good. I assume he was aware of thermodynamics already. The goodness of thermodynamics is the radical freedom it confers on creation.

The Fall is rather more human-specific than this thread allows. — unenlightened

As far as I know, at least in Orthodox Christianity, the fall of man is the fall of creation as well. Remember that in the Garden of Eden, there was no death (hence no thermodynamics). I don't even think the story refers to anything we can conceptualise except negatively (apophatically) compared to this life.

The ground of possibility assumes that something must come in an act as the foundation for the emergence of possibility. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, not must come in. Rather it inevitably and necessarily always is there.

It takes possibility to be a finite state which must be created out of the infinite, rather than being necessary itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It is necessary itself, but only because it emanates from the divine.

The eye is never what makes vision possible. Vision is possible at any point. Logically, any moment might have an experience of seeing. It just takes that state itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I actually am not sure about this point. Some things may appear logically coherent/possible if we think lightly about them, and don't imagine it clearly and distinctly with the entire surrounding context.

Eyes are just finite states which are causal of some actual instances of vision. Logically, any other state might play a similar casual role in the emergence of vision. There might even be the presence of experiences of seeing all on their own (i.e. without any specific causal relationship to an information receiver, such as an eye). This remains the case even when its only eyes which are causing experiences of vision. The thing about a possibility is that it doesn't need to actual to be true. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, I am not sure about this.

There is probably quite a bit of continuity in your life -- childhood forward -- else you would not have accomplished what you have so far achieved. — Bitter Crank

What do you mean exactly by this?

I was responding more to the Humean point raised by Sap. We derive ideas from impressions - where do we learn how to do that? — Pneumenon

That is indeed a correct criticism :D . I never understood people's fascination with Hume. To me, it just is evidently clear that his philosophy is sorely lacking and incomplete (at least in the modern reading of it).

I prefer this pre-modern post-postmodernist reading of Hume (http://newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php?title=Livingstonhumemoral). I disagree on a few issues with Hume even on this reading (although I adhere with him on the importance of tradition. I also agree with Livingston in his analysis of the depravity of the modern age, which has lost tradition and is wondering aimlessly through the abyss of self-indulgent hedonism). I am radical in my position (in the original sense of the word radical), because I collapse social virtues into individual virtues, love of others into love of self. For example, I argue that chastity isn't only an artificial social virtue that spontaneously arises when we organise ourselves into stable and well-functioning societies, but that it ALSO is an individual virtue - it doesn't only act for the benefit of society, but ALSO for the benefit of the individual. Thus I argue further that one who does not have this virtue, isn't simply selfish and just acting for their own good at the expense of social good, BUT RATHER that they are ignorant and irrational in so doing, and are actually harming themselves. I am Socratic/Spinozist more than Humean on this crucial point, as I allow for no excuses for lacking a certain virtue; and I argue, with Spinoza, that if men were entirely rational, no laws would exist in society.

Are you presently practicing? I assume you like engineering. — Bitter Crank

Yes (although I am thinking to stop soon, and start a new business - I sold my previous). I'm not sure I like it, I just don't dislike it. It has taught me a few good things about philosophy, that I would never have learned had I done philosophy itself at university - that's what I've taken most from engineering (it has taught me Humean skepticism of pure reason and also Schopenhaurean value of imagination + rationality trumping rule following and empiricism).

What were you doing at ages 17-20 that facilitated radical change in thinking on your part? — Bitter Crank

It's hard to pinpoint to one thing, or even a group of things. Many things happened, either causing or as a result of my changing. I will list a few facts:
-I had started to be very serious about reading, studying and learning (not in terms of school, but for myself - I was always interested even before, but not like this).
-I became very popular and very well-thought of amongst my school peers - although very very different in behaviour and ideals compared to everyone else. I was never interested in pleasure-seeking. Always had been a serious man in that regard. People who were around - parents and teachers - could never understand how someone like me did it. Nevertheless, I was admired by virtually all other students. This made me completely uninterested in worldly success anymore - in other people thinking well of me. And ever since then, I never cared what anyone thought about me. I also lost my interest in prestige and money (before, my interest was always to become a very rich man - now, I couldn't care less about it - you could say I was obsessed about it). I might add I was also very successful in school, and I never really worked hard for it. By everyone's account I was an over-achiever, in pretty much all fields that one would be expected to be engaged in by that age and more.
-I had my first girlfriend, which probably (I would think) changed me the most. It was the first time that money became irrelevant. I used to sell things in school, and kept careful ledgers of my expenses, etc. This was the first time I didn't care about money, and I threw away the ledgers... stopped keeping record. I had amassed quite a sum for someone my age anyways. And so I started spending it on my girlfriend. I learned about love and self-transcendence, and for the first time, I felt the presence of something more than myself, my girlfriend, or the sum of both of us. I felt, as Spinoza put it, that I (we) am (are) eternal. I became interested in relationships with people, and valued that more than any other extrinsic good afterwards.
-I also stopped believing in God and praying (before I used to pray everyday). I stopped praying because, prior to what was my current girlfriend, I was interested in another girl, but despite my prayers, and despite all my outward success, she still rejected me. So I looked at myself, and I thought: I am too successful, I don't need any God. To add to this, my first girlfriend was an atheist, so spending time with her made me less interested in the subject. Now that I say she was an atheist, please don't think she was a hedonist as well. She was not, in fact she came from quite a conservative family, even though they were atheists. We were also quite a conservative couple (we never went to parties, clubs, etc. for example - she hated that). I later returned to belief in God, but in a different way than I first believed.
-Slowly slowly things crystallized in my mind. In the following years, I understood the shortcomings of the age I was born into. I deconstructed modern hedonistic culture as well as the conceptual structure which has made it possible (nihilism, postmodernism, global skepticism). I understood better and better what the good life is (namely virtue). I cultivated virtue and still do. I have been ascending, as Plato says. Now, I have turned my focus into helping others, and creating a culture of virtue, a community of virtuous people. My main enemies I would say are sexual immorality, anti-religious feelings (simply because religion is the only vehicle for the majority of people to learn virtue), and love of money (since it adds to and sustains the hedonistic culture - it's hedonism's fuel). Also in combatting modern attitudes, and liberating people from the hedonistic illusions which haunt us today. I have come to understand that I have achieved only an imperfect happiness by myself, and a perfect happiness entails that others achieve understanding with me as well. As Spinoza put it, the best thing for men are other men (and women of course). I have come to understand that religion (for the masses) and philosophy (for the wise) is the key to blessedness and teaching virtue. I am in general agreement with the systems put forward by Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein (he's my favorite thinker, although he doesn't really count as a system-builder unlike the others), Spinoza, Aquinas. I know any of these systems are far superior to most other alternatives out there. By and large things are figured out, only details remain. So whereas I haven't got much certainty regarding details, I do have certainty regarding the big picture. Thus I am more interested in spreading learning and virtue today, than in figuring out details. I want to spread the light I have reached with those around me. And this is what I have been focusing my energies on. Teaching virtue and combatting vice, because as Aquinas taught me, the office of the wise man has two purposes: to spread truth and to refute falsity.

There are the "material" changes which facilitated my turn in thinking and living (hope your Marxist questions have now been satisfied ;) ). Make what you will of them BC!

By 18, most people have established a style, a mode, of thinking. College (normally) won't re-program our thinking style, though it will greatly enrich it. If you didn't go to college, then on-going reading and thinking is likewise not going to overthrow the basic approach to life one has developed, but will greatly enrich it. — Bitter Crank

I certainly didn't. My positions and approach to everything RADICALLY changed around 17-20.

Given the milieu in which we live, it would be very surprising if the results were reversed -- that the majority of respondents to the poll thought they were Platonists rather than Aristotelian. — Bitter Crank

Well, given the Western cultural millieu, I think it is surprising to be close to EITHER approach :P .

Or is it the case that Aristotelianism is a more "natural" way of thinking? — Bitter Crank

Maybe. I think some Platonist would agree with this; but would accuse Aristotelianism to be only part of the story. For example, I can imagine Schopenhauer arguing along the lines of Aristotle being helpful when dealing with the empirical world, but totally unhelpful when dealing with the noumenal, where Plato becomes a better guide. (I think even Aquinas may agree to this)

What sort of world would prefer Plato over Aristotle? — Bitter Crank

One where (transcendental) spiritual matters played a greater concern than empirical matters. Which pretty much, given the nature of men, is no world. Even this desire motivating the transcendence of the world, or the search for a mystical experience is recently seeming odd and quaint to me. Much rather I am feeling a desire to infuse this world with spirit, rather than search for some spirit apart from the world. I would agree with an idealist, Buddhist perspective for example, or with Schopenhauer's system - I would make some changes though - the most important being returning the focus from achieving Nirvana and transcending this world, to achieving Nirvana and living virtuously in this world. I say I am tempted to agree with an idealist system because I think, ultimately, like the Platonist, that this empirical point of view fails to grasp our continued relationship with the infinite after the end of our finite existence. And I don't say this out of fear of death - recently, like Socrates, I feel nothing but indifference towards death, as if, in the end analysis it doesn't even matter. At the same time I don't know what sense talking of an afterlife has... it clearly has no sense to me. I cannot even imagine it. And it doesn't even interest me. Only that I think there is one.

My point to summarise is this. It is wrong to search for what is to come after death while still alive. It betrays a fear of the unknown AND a fear of life AND impatience. Much rather, the virtuous man focuses on this life while alive (infusing matter with spirit), and on death (pure spirit) once dead. The living with the living and the dead with the dead as Jesus said. That's why ultimately I think an Aristotelian foundation, with a tint of Plato not to lose the connection with the infinite that expresses itself in this life as well as in death, is what is required.

This is Kant's whole schtick; how do you derive things from your senses without some means of deriving them given independently? — Pneumenon

I think Aristotle offered a solution to this amongst many others no? :P The forms are not separate from the objects - one substance, two (intellectually) separable aspects - form and matter (or according to Spinoza - thought and extension) thus effectively removing the question of how an objective perception of the external world is possible