I can see how you may then apply the same metaphysical logic as me to the world as it seems from a very human-centric point of view. It does make dialectical sense that if our existence seems defined by its extreme self-centredness (not meant in any pejorative way), then the "other" of that - the obvious destination in terms of a radical change - would be a state of selfless being. — apokrisis

In fact, I don’t conceptualize selflessness to be the other relative to self. Rather, in tune with many an Eastern understanding, I conceptualize selflessness to be a core aspect of any (minimally, sentient) self—regardless of how selfish in intents it might be. (Eastern understandings such as that of Brahman, or of Nirvana as emptiness that is being, or of Akasha [which, in similar fashion to other Eastern cultures, can connote sky / ether / vacuity / void … again coming back to emptiness … though, not in contrast but in accord, sometimes connoting “heavens” ]). We as this … Akasha, I’ll for now call it … are formed via the information that surrounds (both materially and mentally); and, as Akasha, hold our top-down causal ability upon mind and body via intentions of goal manifestation. Hence, the obtaining of absolute selflessness is not the obtainment of other but, rather, the obtainment of our fundamentally true selves unperturbed by anything that ratios / divides or partitions / binds or contains or limits. [all this not to convince but to clarify]

I think this is where it gets tricky for you. If selfless being is truly the cosmic goal, then some kind of maximal or ultimate state of selfish being had to be its origin. We are talking about the journey that becomes possible because there is space between two complementary metaphysical limits on being.

So you would have to say more about this origin - this state of absolute selfish being - to justify the dialectical logic of your argument. (Just as you rightly push me to answer "well what is vagueness, what was there just before the Big Bang?".) — apokrisis

Placing this (or any other) end-state at the beginning is not in any way needed for the metaphysics to hold. Metaphysically, the more divided we are as individuated Akasha the more chaotic the total system becomes; the closer to the end-state of absolute selflessness (by this or any of its other expressions) we become the more orderly--more deterministic--the whole becomes. Theoretically, what prevents us from actualizing this end-state is our fear of being metaphysically, technically, devoid of a self, is our fear of an ultimate unknown … this though we know it to be, for example, the ultimate conclusion of a universally perfect love (again, love as process removes divisions, inclinations toward self(ishness), etc.). It’s a death/end of all ego--though not of being, not of the Akasha which is the very essence of us as conscious agents--and this can be quite unnerving to all of us in own ways.

So metaphysically, no ultimate beginning is required to be known for all else to hold. Epistemologically, no such metaphysical ultimate beginning can be confidently affirmed in any universal manner.

Physically, then, as a derivative understanding, the beginning of our physical universe (as we know it) could, for example, be explained in manners in tune with the stated metaphysics thus: given the unknowns of dark matter and dark energy, despite the universe currently expanding, it is yet conceivable that at some future time it will begin to contract. Fast forward to a cyclical model of the universe. Our current universe started as a near-but-not-quite obtainment of this endstate of absolute selflessness (conceived of in physics as the volumeless gravitational singularity) say, due to some aspect of all Akashas deviating from the end-state just enough to cause lack of homeostasis as regards the whole … this leading to a “Big Bang”, a starting from scratch with the same determinate end-state in place (I also hold that this telos as end-state is a determinate facet of reality as we know it).

As regards the metaphysics, there is no “must” in the universe being such that is conforms to a cyclical model. It only happens to me my present favorite approach to this issue of physical (again, not metaphysical) beginnings. And yes, it’s a personal bias.

I'm puzzled here because your scheme would have to resolve the Platonic issue of how mathematical form might be itself related to the greater thing of The Good. If we are talking about beauty, love and truth as the ultimate telos, pure selfless being, then there is a gap to fill in when linking The Good back to mathematical forms. — apokrisis

As I previously stated, all that you mention are facets (faces) of the same underlying given as telos, one such facet being that of perfect symmetry.

In a slightly more drawn out argument for the same, it’s not the telos itself that results in mathematical (as well as other) universals but the telos in simultaneous conjunction with multiple … again, for lack of better terminology … Akashas, always in plural till the end-state is obtained.

What this system does is not a focusing on maths, quantifications, and measurement but, rather, on what you for now seem to be taking for granted: the very nature of differentiable identity and, hence, quantity (regardless of how mathematically abstract, this still holds).

At the end of the day though, thank you for a further explanation of your own model. It seems like we for now can continue agreeing to disagree on the metaphysics while agreeing on numerous more immediate things.

So there is a deeper reality it would seem - the vagueness that is the boundless Apeiron. A sea of pure formless fluctuation. — apokrisis

I’m here addressing differences, not agreements. We may, and me thinks most likely will, choose to yet disagree. But so I may, hopefully, better elucidate the root difference between us on a metaphysical scale:

First off, once again, my realm of expertise is not that of maths. I don’t intend to purport otherwise. Still, I know enough so that the contents of your latest post to me are readily understandable to me – albeit, not in the “shut up and calculate” sense as regards the specifics. To each their own fields of interest.

As to the metaphysical issue:

You choose the Apeiron as the deeper/est reality: “boundless/formless fluctuation”. I so far further interpret you as expressing that one day all shall be Apeiron once again, aka end in a Heat Death. Correct me if needed.

To the extent I’m correct in so interpreting, the Apeiron then serves as the final telos.

Yet, in nevertheless yet holding “fluctuation”, this notion is not one of perfect symmetry.

The final telos (for there are innumerable more proximate teloi) is for me one of perfect symmetry. I think, thus expressed, you may then understand why I also at times state it is technically ineffable / inexpressible (if one seeks accuracy of expression), and impossible to represent via ideas, notions, etc., for none would accurately and fully correlate to its reality. (I don’t deny this correlative aspect of truth)

While it is true that for me this final telos is also, in part, that of absolute metaphysical objectivity (impartiality, hence fairness, hence justice) of which we are all (freewill-endowed) subjects to, absolute coherency/harmony/lack-of-conflict/peace/love (which brings about coherency, harmony, lack-of-conflict, etc.), absolute beauty/sublimity (which, complex as this topic in itself is, in part draws us to the unknown), and absolute selflessness of being, it is also true that—while inductively knowing, or at least believing, it to so be—I for logical reasons also know/uphold that what “it” in fact is is impossible to conceptualize, accurately represent, etc. (for technical metaphysical purposes, by anything that is endowed with selfhood; hence, by any psyche: be it ant, human, or (hypothetically) deity). Still, it, by definition, would likewise also need to be a state of perfect symmetry.

I don’t place this state at the metaphysical beginning, in part, because it is of no personal concern to do so.

At a metaphysical level, to me this end-state is not idealized but actual and obtainable. I’m not here addressing awareness of it, nor alignment with it, nor some kind of mystical vision of it, etc., but, rather, obtainable as a final state of being … which, maybe needless to add, prior to this is always in a state of becoming.

Again, focusing in on our differences:

To keep things relatively concrete and particular, the referents to the symbols of 0 and 1 are then, to me, in a sense, Platonic universals that emerge from this perfect symmetry’s reality in conjunction with the plurality of beings—quantifiable things (as becoming)—that occur. The referents to 0 and 1 are then (very intentionally so stated) more eternal/immortal than the referent to far more complex and context-specific mathematics that hold 0s and 1a as axiomatic givens. Though, upon eventual and contingent obtainment of this final end-state of perfect symmetry, the referents to 0 and 1 too will vanish.

[As to thermodynamics, different debates can ensue. Including those of: is information equivalent to energy? And: can information be created and nullified/erased, such as within the very center of a black hole? Different tangential topics, though.]

Back to the basic concept, though: The maths to me—again, in a simplified sense—emerge from this perfect symmetry as telos, which is itself a non-maths reality (again, not an idealization which is metaphysically impossible to obtain/actualize; but, rather, a metaphysical reality) ((I think we can both understand that minds, within this point of reference, are maths)). Whereas, to you, as far as I so far understand you as saying, this deepest reality of perfect symmetry is itself one of maths.

My contention is that the maths applicable to the physical world will work regardless of metaphysical outlook chosen. For instance, I so far know of no modern maths not in some way reliant upon the referents to 0 and 1. These two referents, then, can be explained to be both via they notion of the Apeiron you uphold and the notion of the factually ineffable final telos of non-maths, which I've previous expressed via its various faces (including that of perfect symmetry).

If a physicist is really pushed (and I am talking about the metaphysically informed ones, of whom there are plenty) then the question of "what is real?" does become pretty Platonic. A particle is a point. Unless we consider it as a string, or a loop, or a knot - each of those conceptions speaking to some different set of symmetries or invariances that seem to explain the symmetry breakings we actually then measure.

So any usual notion of "material" goes right out the window. The image left in the physicist's mind is of a pure mathematical object. And then even the object gets chucked out as what the mind's eye "sees" is really all the possible rotations and translations that are the set of possible actions such an object would have. The mind's eye is left only with the ghostly kinesthetic play of pure relata. — apokrisis

The question I place – to myself if not others – is whether or not these mathematics (and in theoretical maths, many disperse systems can be fathomed) are themselves constrained by something that is absolute objectivity (for lack of better terms) or, alternatively, themselves encompass the very notions we hold of absolute objectivity? Stated differently, are the maths themselves representations of something deeper that is – only allegorically stated - immovable or are the maths that go beyond the mind’s eye reality itself? Hence, for example, is that which is referred to by 0 and 1 – however codified by us - the reality itself, or are these referents universally applicable representations that both stem from a deeper reality which is impossible to represent? (most definitely not via relations)

It’s where I disagree with Nietzsche: his proclamation that there is no (absolute) truth. This even though I agree with him in that we as quantifiable beings cannot be aware of what this absolute truth is.

If it seems to you that I’m talking nonsense, please let me know. No worries whatsoever. But if not, on a metaphysical level of contemplation, are the foundations of mathematics (regardless of how universal and elusive to the mind’s eye) the foundational reality to you? Or do they, in a sense, emanate as very abstract, manifested representation of a deeper reality that cannot be itself represented?

I believe this is what differentiates us at root: I believe this deeper reality is real. It is the telos that I make mention of, and it is not a Heat Death.

Generally, I buy into those assumptions, but I recognize it takes a leap of faith. — T Clark

Why a leap of faith? It's the very conclusion that inductive reasoning would result in – and it, as conclusion, would remain true and untarnished until in any way falsified … this by something that would then hypothetically point toward what is even closer to (absolute) objectivity.

If I interpret you right, it doesn’t seem like this process of induction poses a problem for you. As it doesn’t for me. Though it’s a problem for those that want absolute certainty, neither was it a problem for Hume.

You are right. We talk past each other.

Maybe on a different topic we won't. Till then, I'm logging out of this discussion with you.

Well, it does undermine the very basis of empiricism. Is that what you mean by "ideological reasons?" It's more a methodological reason. — T Clark

I think I get what Wayfarer is saying. Empiricism these days addresses only the materialist notions of that which can be perceived through the physiological senses + logic/maths; is, in a way, itself at times a kind of placeholder for materialism, implicitly at least.

However, I grew up on the empiricism of, first and foremost, David Hume - a very different basic understanding of what empiricism entails. Given this background, here, to me, there's a potential convergence between the methodology of modern science (e.g., falsifiability) and the very old-time foundations of empiricism as interpreted by the philosophical skeptics (a kind of falsifiability applied to logic tempered by experience, including various inferences as applied to experience itself). Well, I'm showing my own partialities.

I don't have anything to definitively prove here - it would also be a different topic than that of this thread's. Just wanted to say that the philosophical skepticism of someone like Plato and his Academia can, as methodology, be rather complimentary to the methodology of the empirical sciences. Both hold as foundation an absence of obtainable absolute certainty; both seek justifications for greater strength of conviction. And, in a sense, both are founded upon inductive (with today's concepts, also abductive) reasoning.

Basically, for what its worth, imo, its not the methodological reasoning that would be undermined, but the very metaphysical foundations upon which today's global community is, for the most part, materialistically built.

All I have been trying to point out from the start is that any idealism which would purport to explain human experience of a shared world must posit some objectively existent absolute mind or spirit; something to foundationally connect and unify individual human minds. — Janus

OK. To reply, no: There is no "must posit" some guiding mind or spirit required for the stance of such idealism. One could instead posit an end-state that is a final cause. Again, no mind/spirit required in so doing. Actually, a mind/spirit would will/aspire/intend/etc.; hence, would not of itself be the final cause/telos ... for it would be via this final cause that the mind/spirit intends, regardless of how evolved or superlative it might be.

To be honest, I still don't understand what you are asking for. — Janus

The question of what of our being is real is pivotal to the entire metaphysical discussion--far more so than the issue I've just given reply to. If this point is swept under the rug, the conversation becomes meaningless as far as I can see. Don't know what else to add here ... this metaphysical, ongoing debate is about what is and is not fundamentally real ... as was also the case on the old forum we all have such fond memories of.

Spinoza's 'dual aspect' conception is also consistent and coherent with our ordinary understandings of matter and mind. — Janus

And how would “dual aspect” monism be logically contradictory to a stance of objective idealism? To better spell things out, some mind-stuff holds the aspect of matter and some holds the aspect of individual minds.

You say these alternatives are not exhaustive; can you think of others? — Janus

I can. But again, I await your justification of what is and is not real regarding mind (as asked in one of my previous posts) before I oblige you with any further specifics as regards my own views. Fair is fair. Else it's a one sided interrogation, which we could both agree would be other than fair. Lets first agree on what is real in regard to our thoughts/minds and in how we justify their reality.

BTW, given the posts of the thread so far, as regards those opposed to the very notion of idealism (not here pointing fingers), it seems like this all boils down not to issues of logic, reality, and metaphysics, but to emotive anxieties over atheistic dogmas v. theistic dogmas. Would like to see this disproved, but not holding my breath.

(Y) This gave me a good laugh. But it's a good approximation. Hell, I even read Tom Jones - a very, very long book by Henry Fielding - on this count. Turned out to be pretty good.

Well thought out and expressed, although I've never liked Robert Heinlein's writing. — T Clark

Eha, tried to read his “Stranger in a Strange Land” later on in life and I couldn’t get past the first hundred pages. Isaac Asimov was my main staple in terms of straight-up sci-fi.

Thanks, btw.

Do you agree with a polygamous world? — Anonymys

I’ve got’a agree with folks like Lone Wolf and T Clark on this one. To all the poly-amorous aspiring people out there, nature holds mono-amorous partnerships as well as any other among its lesser animals. Those wild canids, without a single exception, are built to mate for a lifetime. Birds do it too, from raptors both big and small to, if one seeks to look at greater magnitudes of relative intelligence, parrots.

Robert Heinlein’s novel, “Friday”, is a good sci-fi book when it comes to a possible world of alternative relations. Read it in high school and, from what I can remember, I still can’t see much wrong with the world it presents. But, it is pluralistic, an “each to their own” kind of attitude. You had monogamous/androus marriages just as well as you had marriages between pick-your-number of people (for clarity, many being between equal numbers of two sexes).

As to alternative marriages, since we’re spilling the beans as regards fantasies, my two current all-time favorites are 1) that depicted in Hugo’s Hunchback of Notredame among its gypsies. You get married for the same number of years that a mug shatters into. After that, an automatic divorce. You still love (translated: care for) each other? Marry again. The shared sentiments (eros/agape/and all the rest) found in a lifetime spent together via a sequence of these marriages is what I find myself yearning for, personally. 2) Wiccan marriages. No kidding. These guys/gals get married—last I read—with the marriage vow being “till love ends”. Who would want otherwise? Besides, this type of marriage vow keeps both of you on your toes and the fires in-between stoked. Needless to say, neither is all that realistic when it comes to holding any political significance in our societies.

As for being a harem owner, speaking here to those who desire love and not tyranny, listen to any polygamous or (admittedly rarer) polyandrous head of household and you’ll discover that—other than the economic incentives of increased production via shared labor—it’s an incredibly big headache. You have to make sure that not only one but ten or so spouses are pleased, happy, and sound, each with her own needs, both emotional and physical.

However, if one dreams that “it’s good to be the king”, well, not that many kingships still available nowadays—which also means there’s not that many people enslaved to kings as serfs. Different subject though.

At the end of the day, however, when it comes to marriages/families, I second that it what’s best for the children that matters most.

(hey, if one thinks otherwise as regards children, I highly recommend that they don’t have any)

Objects are "made of matter" by definition. Just as thoughts and experiences "happen to minds' by definition. We know what we mean (not in the sense of being able to offer exhaustive explanations, obviously) when we say an object is made of matter, just as we do when we say that a thought occurs in a mind. — Janus

OK, but on its own this leads to the position of Cartesian Dualism. The position does hold some logical inconsistencies at a metaphysical level of contemplation.

Do we know what we mean when we say that objects are made of mind, or ideas occur to matter? I don't think so. — Janus

Its a different outlook which, in part, entails a different understand of what constitutes real causation types. Freewill being one such different form of causation - top-down causation - which, in turn, entails teleological causation(s). So, if we're to start using this language of "objects are made of mind" first and foremost--unless one chooses to irrationally go down a solipsism mindset--this "mind-stuff of objects" ought to be duly understood to be fourth-person (not pertaining any individual mind in the sense that all idealists and materialist understand "individual minds"). The question of "whose mind is it then?" holds, at minimum, two alternatives: a) somebody's, such as being the mind of God (as you've alluded to) or, else, b) nobody's, something like "the collective phenomena-endowed mind emerging from out of the collective unconscious, to which all individual minds (similar to Jung's worldview) are in their own ways partly tied into" (hence, not the mind of God). This, of course, is painted with wide brush strokes ... and the two alternatives mentioned are not exhaustive.

On the other hand, I believe we do have a more or less intuitively coherent notion of God (an infinite mind), and of the idea that objects might be ideas in His mind. — Janus

Many do. I, personally, can't claim to so hold an "intuitively coherent notion of God (an infinite mind)". With some sober humor I intend to be good natured: Do the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims hold the same notion of God, or do they hold three different such notions vying with each other for supremacy? And of course, there are other major religions out there, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

I think you are taking for granted what you need to demonstrate: that reasoning is "made via means devoid of matter". — Janus

And I, in turn, think you are applying an all or nothing perspective to idealism that doesn’t need to be—and almost always isn’t when looking at actual idealists, be it Plato, Pierce, or others. We look at a particular concrete object over there to understand if it’s actually made up of matter or mind … and then it seems the next question is always “whose?”— but this is misplaced. The materialism/idealism debate is not one of physics. It is one of metaphysics.

I’ll try to justify “that which I need to demonstrate” more, however, only if you are polite enough to first try justify that which I previously asked you to justify regarding what is real.

I can't see the "lot more", I think it is fairly simple: if I imagine something, my imagining it is real, but what is imagined may be merely imaginary, obviously.

If I experience an emotion, the emotion is real, and so is the experiencing of it. If I perceive something the perception of it is real, and so is the perceived object, at least in cases where the perception is veridical. — Janus

Given the context in which my reply to you was made:

The materialist affirms that only matter is real. The epiphenomenalist affirms likewise. Sort of self-contradictory reasoning given that this affirmation is made via means devoid of matter: e.g., thoughts, percepts, and that skeleton-in-the-closet sometimes termed one’s choice, or will, or intention (such as regarding what is in fact real).

If you would like to clarify you’re stance, what justifications do you utilize to determine which mental givens are real and which mental givens are imaginary? As a reminder, your real thoughts (as opposed to those either imagined (maybe hallucinated?) or fibbed about) are not empirical in the modern sense of the term empirical. Neither are your emotions, sensations, intentions, etc. They don’t stand outside you as something you can perceive via the physiological senses. (same could be somewhat also said of cultures, as an added example)

BTW, for the sake of philosophical rigor and verity—since this is a philosophical forum—idealists such as Plato were/are realists … only not materialist-realists.

In the past I feel that I had the ability to hypnotize myself, its back when I routinely thought about my goals every morning, and wrote in a notebook I carried everywhere. This self-hypnotism led me into anorexia/orthorexia, but also led me to save more money than I ever have before, achive higher levels of skill than I ever have before, ect.

The experience has left me fascinated with how to manipulate myself into states of hypnotic focus. Does anyone know allot about a how Anton LeVay Satanism Atheistic Black Magic works? I suspect its a self-hypnotic process, that gives you a major psychological edge.

Any other forms of hypnotism? And most preferably any scientific research on this subject? — XanderTheGrey

[While I agree that this topic is not quite in tune with those of philosophy ...]

Given your knowledge of LeVay (I haven’t read his work yet), you may already be familiar with Aleister Crowley. His positions could potentially be summed up with two of his phrases:

-- “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” [no need to believe others’ authority on this, experience will teach one just fine: all your context-specific actions hold their context-specific consequences in turn … from a different thread, as example, were I to not capitalize my name it would be my will and i will know myself responsible for the consequences that result of my will to so do]

-- [and, as regards the mysteries of magick] “Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity to one’s own will.” [Hence, the act of blowing one’s nose – as one example among many – is in and of itself an instance of magick. no bullshit.]

I mention him rather purposely because—despite being a conflux of good and bad as is everyone else—he was rarely if ever kindly regarded in an overall way, including by other’s that practiced the occult/esoteric. He willed to test out his karma/luck/fortune by senselessly walking in front of bullets … and he got shot. I still like some aspects of what he had to say, though. And I, in my own way, agree with the two statements of his that I just listed. “Learn from fools and from sages” … as says a partial lyric from one of Aerosmith’s songs.

As to hypnosis, think of it this way: every time you say something and thereby affect the mind/memories/emotions/thoughts/etc. of someone else you hypnotize the other in a state of mind partly emerging out of your own state of mind and will. For example, all conversations are about a bunch of wills hypnotizing each other into this or that inter-course/path; sometimes its pleasant and sometimes it isn’t; sometimes it leads to greater siblinghood (to put brotherhood and sisterhood together in a term) and sometimes it leads to one/some subjugating others. Same processes of hypnosis happen when you hear anything said in a song or movie, see anything in your context, etc.—these being aspects of information through which you as conscious agent are momentarily in part formed. As to the more nitty gritty, there are tons of books out there that discuss various theories regarding hypnosis. My favorite still remains, Monsters and Magical Sticks: There’s No Such Thing As Hypnosis? By Steven Heller. I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

Autohypnosis is then putting yourself as a total being (mind&body) into states of memories/emotions/thoughts/desires that you (as a conscious agent) desire/will to be in. Buddhist monks, I’ve so heard, can take autohypnosis to great lengths, and it is also a common staple in the Aikido path, among others (it will, of course, be often termed otherwise, such as “meditation”).

So, the other basic thing that remains is for you to figure out toward what end(s) you aspire to apply this “atheistic black magic” thing. Makes quite a difference.

Unconditional love sounds so appealing, but it is an illusion. It is like addicts who think drugs will make their life more bearable. The drugs can make them forget, make them space out, make them unaware, and give a temporary sense of pleasantness, but it is not real.

How much better to forsake these emotionally appealing illusions and instead grab the bull by the horns, where we acknowledge that love requires standards, and then we get busy working out what are fair or unfair standards for love. — John Days

Is unconditional support a good thing? If the object of our love turned out to be a sociopath (they can be quite charming) and began a campaign of abuse against us it would be foolish to support them in their abuse. The best thing we could do is get away from them. And though we might be able to accept them for what they are we could in no sense support them. Our support is conditional. — praxis

While I still uphold what I upheld, why not be more concrete in your arguments against the notion of unconditional love?

Here’s my reasoning against the terminology: little girls all over the world (not to exclude little boys, who can do the same in different ways) grow up fantasizing about the perfect love. The happily ever after, unconditional, romantic love that conquers all shall one day be theirs (as shall be that grand wedding with the biggest wedding cake and all the trimmings). They fall in love. Now, romantic love, as Pat Benatar once sang about, can be quite an intense dance between interests of ego. Give in to easily and the other can then presume to have you under their thumb. The now grown up young woman then thinks, “my love for the other is unconditional; I will prove it by not losing the taste of unconditional love we both once shared; and, in so doing, will eventually show the other the error in their ways when they … verbally abuse me, maybe hit me, maybe threaten me with my life (… and it can get worse). And then we will live happily ever after together: with my true unconditional love having paved the way”.

Not only does this interpretation of unconditional love not result in good/healthy things for the girls/women who hold it, it also happens to make far more ass holes in the world than there otherwise would be. From the ass holes’ point of view (be they male, female, transgendered, whatever), their partner who holds unconditional love for them only reinforces their beliefs of the way the world “really works” (scare quotes fully intended). Mildly or extensively, it teaches all too many that Marquee de Sade’s philosophy of life is a quite accurate depiction of what life and love is all about.

[edit: Since I know some will view things from as many vantages as possible, this having virtually nothing to do with Servant&Master/Bondage/Spankings/Explicitness/etc. in the bedroom … which - unlike de Sade’s philosophy - can quite readily be aspects/facades of closer proximity to unconditional love as (sometimes) practiced out in the bedroom (as fantasies). It’s a fully different issue than the one I here intended, but, in trying to be clearer about my stance …]

And then I, my family members, and others I care about in this world have to deal with these ass holes out there.

Again, I still uphold what I previously upheld in this thread: Unconditional love is real, but its perfect reality cannot be found within space and time, only closer approximations of it. That said, leaving the logics to unconditional love alone for the moment, there is still this quite, to me, pertinent reason to try to avoid the terminology of “unconditional love” … especially around children, imo.

If they are indeed practical purely on an environmental and resourceful level, my next question will be; why is this technology not government sponsored? — XanderTheGrey

Speaking as an ignoramus when it comes to the details, maybe it’s because over 6% of the global GDP is spent instead on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Go figure. (btw, “subsidizing” is newspeak that translates into “providing welfare for” … not exactly the invisible hand of laissez faire capitalism [not that I’m against welfare for homeless kids and the like: that whole starting out with equal opportunity thing])

A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels

Ideas as in perception, not concepts. That's the sense-data theory of perception that Locke, Hume, Berkeley and others have championed. And it does bring up the specter of skepticism regarding other minds. — Marchesk

Their concept(s) of "perception" were not limited to the materialist concept of perception being that which occurs via the living physiological senses. They weren't materialists. An example I find easy to express: I can perceive/apprehend happiness in me: it has no smell, tactile feel, visual appearance, etc. Nor is it in any way differentiated from me the perceiver/apprehendor when present.

That I can sense other people's moods (sometimes better than other times) is something we all naturally experience (something we can all perceive, as you say).

This is what an idealist needs to do. Show how mind A can know about mind B via ideas in mind A. — Marchesk

Ideas, as in thoughts? Man, this is a bit too Cartesian sounding in mindset for my own personal tastes. We are far more than thoughts. Unless one expands thought to include emotions, intuitions, perceptions via senses, understandings, non-phenomenal sensations (such as pleasure or happiness), and, of course, intentionality/will … which then tends to make “thought” a rather amorphous concept.

Our thoughts are there to better to guide, but we at pith are not our thoughts/ideas.

For instance, I sense your mood via interaction, as you might sense the mood of others. I, personally, don’t have an idea of your mood. Not unless I abstract what I sense into a thought.

I grant it’s a very different outlook on what a mind consists of. But then, never been one to like Descartes’ philosophical mindset (not that he doesn’t have some good aspects).

Yet materialism, at least traditionally, upholds epiphenomenalism to be true. A strange paradoxical perspective: I as an agency, in order to coherently account for my physical and metaphysical context(s) as viewed in a manner X, conclude that I am in no way an agency.

I find a hybrid version more pleasing, though whether it would be termed objective idealism or some variant of neutral monism, it still would not be one of materialism (nor Cartesian Dualism).

Other than the issue of solipsism - were one to be accordant to empirical realities of brain-mind relations within this (objective) idealism - what else would made idealism a less reasonable belief of other minds?

But there's no way for him to be sure. — Marchesk

In a very somber way, I have to admit my amusement at this idea. There are an infinite what-ifs (I presume; I haven't enough fingers to count them all :) ). What does it matter!? This running about for absolute certainty is a running after the horizon in belief that one can eventually hold it in one's hands.

Here, a what-if: what if its all a dream & I am the only conscious agent & all other beings I presume to be independent conscious agents are actually just portions of my unconscious as indivuated conscious agents (notice the mine, mine, mine attitude at work here): this would mean that I as a conscious agent am not all that pivotally important, that I'm an agent along with a bunch of other fellow agents within a singular mind ...

And?

Get over the emotive tingle of it all and it amounts to the same old same old. I'm still me; you're still you; (physical) reality is still as it is. What's the difference? We still conflict, we still find moments of accord, will still have to deal with realities that bite/limit/constrain.

(as to the movie Inception, again, it wasn't one I gravitated toward)

In a sense, there's a lot more to the story of imaginary and real. E.g. are you’re perceptions, emotions, etc. imaginary or real? They certainly pertain to you as a total mind, though (and not the physically objective world).

Still, in the simplified sense you’ve addressed, the answer is (at least for those I have in mind, such as Kant) the same as the answer you’ve given:

The imaginary is understood as something perceivable only by the mind imagining it, whereas the real is something perceivable by multiple minds or even something not perceivable by any mind. — Janus

For my part, a very nicely expressed thesis of what biological autopoiesis consists of. I find nothing here to contradict.

Not that this resolves what life shares in common with non-life that is a continuum rather than a plank-scale-like distinction of quality/attributes … but again, I for my part will let this issue rest.

As regard idealism and solipsism:

I’d say the allegory to Inception is more for kids who wonder about what-ifs without understanding the (hopefully not too outdated) mindset of philosophical skepticism—ala Plato, Hume, and others. The allegory to The Matrix (“the womb”, no?), imperfect though it might be, is more in tune which an objective idealism (I’m specifically thinking of the latter movies in the series).

As to why not solipsism in either scenario: conscious agents will by definition be endowed with agency: top-down causal ability. At a very abstract metaphysical level, what is not my intention/agency will then pertain to some other agency’s (or agencies’) will / top-down causal ability. Hence, there are mandatorily entailed multiple agents (all of which must be aware/conscious of goals in order to will) via the first-person point of view’s reality; this because not everything is a consequence of its current or past will/agency/intentions within this world. Indeed, as per both Inception and The Matrix, conflicts of will are common … of course, between multiple agents/agencies.

To then affirm that in the movie Inception the other agencies were not “real” is then, I argue, a fallacy of reasoning (given the very metaphysical premises of the movie). Either you envision a body that is asleep/unconscious/etc. from which is produced multiple interacting agencies, or, else no such body and there being nothing but a communally shared dream between a multitude of agencies (as to the movie’s depiction of recurring personas, this in a way is no different than Shakespeare’s comments that all we are are actors/agencies/roles on a stage … playing out our roles on the sage of life (or at least something to the like)).

Of course, this doesn’t of itself resolve “why are there ‘independent’ phenomenal objects perceived in like ways by multiple agents … such as the moon?” but, imo, it would logically refute the possibility of solipsism (aka, a singular aware/conscious agency in the entirety of existence). Then it’s back to the same old same old: does that dog over there hold conscious agency or is it an automaton as people such as Descartes assumed?

It exists, it is just rare. Such feelings might be felt between parents and children, between siblings, between partners, and surely other situations. Some feel it with their pets. It's a feeling that simply survives all challenges. — Rich

@Rich
@John Days

OK, my previous wording was imperfect.

On the one hand I agree with Rich. We get a taste of it—of perfectly unconditional love—at times. We dwell within its bounds for the given timespan (sometimes a lifetime); we feel/experience and act out an unconditional love in the perfect absence of all aspects of hate.

Yet, on the other hand, there’s the other reality of others’ in the world unjustly suffering while we, at these junctures, don’t. From this more metaphysical—or global—vantage, all our tastes/experiences of unconditional love are yet imperfect, this in being conditionally limited to “us” and not applicable to “all” … hence is yet, to some degree, self-centric—and, therefore, is not yet that of a perfectly unconditional love. It’s why I mentioned this state of being as the ideal—one not realizable while within a world of separation, a world of quantity and ratios of which we are ourselves a part.

Hope this better clarifies my previous post.

Agreed.

As it happens, new tales are always being told. Helps out when the enslaved too have a voice.

As regard this thread, I was referring more to the uni-versal tale/logos ... to make my previous post clearer

Life was there at the beginning and then it began to create - in some cases some really weird stories. — Rich

:) Yea, I guess you could think of it that way; but then these tails we tell/create latter on serve as the bed we made and need to sleep in/partake of, so to speak.

a thing becomes another thing when it has all the essential parts. a dead thing becomes alive when it completely fits the definition of a living thing. until that it is dead. — Pollywalls

To me it’s a complex issue (which I’m still taking a hiatus from for the moment). Wanted, though, to clarify the terminology you’ve expressed: a dead thing, by all common definitions, is a thing that once was alive. The main theme of this tread is not how life can follow death but, rather, how life can emerge from non-life/inanimate things.

Taking a more vertical approach: Think of an individual cell, like an ameba for example. One of its lipids, on its own, is not alive (nor dead; it is merely non-life). The same applies with all of its individual molecular components (which, as an interesting aside, can all in due measure be stated to hold particle-wave duality). How then does the unity of the living ameba as identity emerge from the structures of its non-life components? Again, it is to me a complex, and not yet resolved, issue.

I think this illustrates my original point; unconditional love does not exist. Any attempt to define what love is requires conditions which separate it from concepts which are not loving, like greed, fear, and pride. — John Days

When it comes to linguistic expressions of this issue, I tend to prefer you’re overall approach.

[To others here about, I grant it can be a bit harsh sounding. It’s like saying, “No, you’re not selfless. You’re only more selfless than others by comparison; and this, to be even more explicit, in your self-ish strivings/yearnings/intentions to become even more selfless (a striving of the ego which paradoxically entails that one becomes ever-more devoid of ego).”]

Yet, while I agree with you that pure/absolute/untarnished/etc. unconditional love does not exist in space and time, I’ll first ask this: Can one approach the ideal of a perfectly unconditional love (and, conversely, further oneself in mood and action from such an ideal)?

I admit to having a presumption that most would answer “yes”.

The next step, then, is for me metaphysical: Does this ideal of a perfectly unconditional love—which we can be either closer to or further from—in and of itself exist?

Here we may part ways. To me this goal, or endstate, is real; is a teleological cause/reason/motivation which awaits to be discovered (felt, experienced, lived, etc.). To others it may not be.

But, then, my next question would be: If we are to any extent governed by this ideal of unconditional love—be it by desiring closer proximity to this state of being or by aversion to it—then how can this ideal not be real (to further clarify, as real as we ourselves are as conscious agents)?

Yea, I grew up with the belief that “depression is nature’s way of telling you there’s something wrong”. Figure out what that is, resolve it (can be as simple as choice between flight or fight), and one not only overcomes one’s depression but gains some new wisdom out of it. To me, it fit in nicely with Nietzsche’s “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. (in depth discussions of Nietzsche here overlooked)

[Yes, sometimes there are too many unresolved long-held problems that can crash in on a person—be it subconsciously or consciously. At such juncture, trying to figure it all out so as to resolve all these problems at once can be close to impossible. Medication can in these circumstances be of significant help—but, imo, the crutch shouldn’t be mistaken for a final cure. To each their own.]

Tying this into BC latest posts, to be a happy-go-lucky person when surrounded by turmoil (don’t know, stuff like wars that never end, too many orphaned children on the streets, etc.) is not the same as having a healthily thick skin. It's more like the ostrich that finds happiness from the charging lion by placing its head in the sand. Else, a lack of ethos/pathos?

Apropos:

Is it the case that depressive personalities take a greater delight in irreverence, satire, travesties upon the dominant class, sarcastic jokes, and so on?

I hope so. — Bitter Crank

(Y) They damn well better if they're going to get over their depression.

This of course means that God must condone or accept evil in some sense: [...] Somehow he suggests that if one is strong enough to not be affected by it, then they have no reason to condemn evil. Which I think is wrong, and fails to avoid the ills of pantheism. — Agustino

Doubtless there are many facets to the issue addressed in the OP. I’ll here try to tackle the one addressed issue of evil.

As for me, while I prefer not to express God as first (to me, teleological) cause via pronouns, I can certainly relate to the expression of “He” when it is demarcated as specifying the first cause/prime mover (and not an anthropomorphic, omnipotent deity).

That stated, one way of accounting for evil being present alongside the first cause (which, within this outline, would also be absolute good), to me at least, can be traced back to ancient western religious outlooks. One such ancient view (I believe it was from the Greeks, thought it’s been some time since I read up on it) was that God is absolute love (love harmonizes, does away with conflict(s), makes disparate beings share a common sense of selfhood, etc.). All evil within this model then stems from a rejection of absolute love as real (“fear of love”, it can be simplistically phrased). The extents to which one pursues paths toward absolute love or away from absolute love will then have something to do with one’s context-limited/bounded freewill intentions.

The Zoroastrians held that their notion of the devil would need to be re-assimilated into inward desire for their notion of God in order for the universe to find harmony/peace (again, at the very least connoting the concept of absolute love).

To, at the very least, ancient monotheistic Judaism, Satan was understood as the “non-believer” in G-d (to slightly converge the expressions of different paths, the non-believer in the reality of absolute love … which, if it needs to be said, cannot be something physical but metaphysical).

I think that, to most people’s minds, evil is that which becomes overly self-interested at the expense of interest in the wellbeing of others. Most villains in books and movies hold this persona of pleasures obtained through egotism, necessarily conjoined with a lack of pleasure obtained via selfless strivings; the more so, the more evil the villain (one can well argue that the reality of absolute love is that of absolute selfless being). Complexities can emerge in terms of proximate and ultimate ends; e.g., a German who betrayed the common cause of those who willed the Holocaust would be viewed as overly self-interested as the expense of the wellbeing of the larger Germanic populace; other examples of complexity abound (and they’re always easiest to address when addressing “the other”).

All the same, these myriad complexities aside, within at least this one perspective that holds a long history in western cultures, it call be simplified into fear that love (ultimately, necessarily, absolute love) is a lie/illusion/wrong … at times expressed via the phrase “love leads to pain”.

Still, having mentioned this perspective, there is also a long history of wise men (and women, I would think) upholding that a mere desire and belief in (absolute) love is not enough; one must also hold wisdom in knowing how to best safeguard one’s proximity to it (paradoxically always then entailing the like proximity of others one cares for to this same metaphysical end). Sometimes that involves conflict—sometimes even harsh conflict—in the short term to optimally preserve one’s long term goal(s).

So, within this worldview, God doesn’t here condone evil but a) stands in stark contrast/opposition to it and b) would “forgive” anyone that would sincerely once again aspire toward God/absolute love (as opposed to those who merely give lip service). This can also be maintained in a roughly pantheistic worldview ... or, if one prefers, in a panentheistic worldview. Both I would think.

These being my best thoughts on the matter for the moment.

Ps. IMO, and speaking from within the perspective of the just mentioned outlook: Till anyone amongst us can validly be absolute love (a joke, actually) we all will then be in our own ways partly adverse to absolute love, i.e. fearful of it in our own ways. With this truism as a platform of our being, I’d say it’s what one then intends be eventually become that matters most. I heard one wise woman explain that we should, as a rule of thumb, strive to be 60% intent upon such absolute love and 40% adverse to it in our thoughts and actions. What a wonderful world it would be if all humans would actually so be! Huh? (And heck, imo, no need for asceticism to so intend; to mention just one example, loving sex regardless of how rambunctious and kinky will still be loving, will still be a striving toward closer proximity to absolute love ((else, it won’t be and it won’t be loving)).)

Understood. I butted in in part due to me viewing this generic view which you address in you post to be, again, a pervasive misunderstanding (at best) of what is actually entailed by the given philosophical mindset. So, in a way, it seems like we might agree: namely, on our disagreement which the general stance that today goes by the name of "skepticism".

No, he doesn't say that - rather he's saying that there's no such thing as knowledge of the external world as such. — Fafner

To found my statements in fact, both Plato and Hume held that there is an external world. Both were staunch philosophical skeptics, rather than parodies of what philosophical skepticism entails.

For me, that the skeptic claims there is no knowledge of the external world is a strawman. He/she might indeed agree that there is no absolute knowledge of an external world—but then, in another lampoonery of skepticism, he/she already claims that “I know [am aware] I know [as absolute truth] nothing – not even this”. [One can be charitable and not view what might have been intended through this statement to be a logical contradiction.]

I understand you have a different view. But, again, I look to people such as Plato and Hume to be the real thing when it comes to philosophical skepticism.

If we just stop being obsessive about absolute certainty, and adopt some more modest standards for knowledge claims (which is not the same as not having standards at all), then there will remain no longer any good reason to worry about what the skeptic is saying, and thus no reason to not to be confident in most of our claims to know. — Fafner

The underlined portion of the quote is exactly what the (philosophical) skeptic is saying: that there is no absolute certainty, knowledge, or truth that we can apprehend, only optimal approximations of absolute certainty, absolute knowledge, or absolute truth - which is not the same as not having standards at all.

You seem to have answered the skeptic by coming full circle to what the skeptic is saying.

(BTW, skeptics such as Plato and Hume were not lacking in confidence.)

Very odd. — Bitter Crank

Very queer, you mean. Dude, whilst I appreciate you comment, no worries. In the words of someone or other, “there are no solutions, only problems”. Or am I getting that backwards?

Anyways, I’ll take a breather from the forum for the time being. Freewill, don’t you know.

Just as what to me is a humorous side note: Has anybody here seen the evolutionary model/predictions made in the movie “Idiocrasy”? Survival of the fittest, indeed. They even elected a president that had acted in porn movies! Can you believe it???

On a more genuine discussion side, I so far agree with StreetlightX: it’s not about being fittest. Evolutionary models, when addressed on their own right, hold that all life is equally evolved. Quite a different take/paradigm than our cultural mindsets of “more and less evolved that some other”, never mind the mindset of most evolved, or most fit.

Even though I have long thought that life came about in some sort of sloppy environment -- hot smoky vent, warm mud hole, clay mush -- whatever -- there are some practical problems with this idea that I can't get around.

The simplest form of life would need several components which alone might happen by chance, but would have to link up in just the right way, also by chance, more or less all at once. A life form needs a template. Life on earth uses DNA and/or RNA. The life form needs machinery of some kind to build itself and carry out making a copy of the template, and cutting the copy off. In order to have all this machinery, it needs yet another piece of machinery -- it's exterior package.

I can sort of imagine chemistry getting more complicated, but for more complicated life-chemistry to form stuff that could fall together, stay together, and make something more or less alive, seems to be on the outside of possibility. It seems like the ur-life form would have to pop into existence, rather than crawl into existence.

On the other hand, I don't want to invoke an exterior agent -- God, for instance, or some sort of cosmic will.

Solutions? — Bitter Crank

... bury our heads in the sand and consider it a done deal philosophically?

:)

OK, bitter. I get the desire to prohibit discussion on this. I'll for now obligingly bugger off.

The so-called scientific method only exists in textbooks. It has no counterpart anywhere in the world whether in academia or industry. Science had morphed into part goal seeking for monetary benefits and party religion promising people some utopian dreams. It's really instructive to observe how science has become quite a religion in its own right with adherents who embrace it for the same reasons any religion is embraced, a combination of money, hope, and social benefits. — Rich

Well, as I was saying, imposing instead bias upon scientist due to monetary reasons pretty much corrupts that whole scientific ideal of impartiality/objective. This, though, is a people interacting with people issue; not a methodology issue.

Do you know of a better means of figuring out what occurs in our phenomenal/physical world in a way that is minimally clouded by hearsay, personal tall tales, and, sometimes, power seeking deceptions?

Bergson is the go to person for great insight into these ideas. Stephen Robbins in his videos on YouTube does a great job in elucidating on some of Bergson's thoughts. Rupert Sheldrake also takes a partial cut at it. — Rich

Thank you. I'll try to check these out

On the one hand, there’s a lot of science this and science that in our culture. Trouble is that it’s mostly duckspoken by folk who look upon science as an authoritative regime, a kind of Ministry of Truth or, better yet, a type of Kafka’s Castle, which is the only way/path (yup, attempting religio-dogmatic connotations here) toward an attainment of absolute truths in this world. Bullocks. Worse, a gross and horrendous insult to the long history of thinkers that have held the otherwise noble title of “(empirical) scientist” [and hey, male and female, btw]. One of the pinnacle reasons for this is an absurd misunderstanding of epistemology that is then projected, with extreme error, upon the empirical sciences: that they in any way, now or ever, purport to discover absolute truths. Many an average individual will then cry’s out, “but if science won’t supply my absolute truths of what is, what or who will?” This can get deep into culturally habituated mindsets regarding epistemic givens. He who knows absolute truths is the authority all bow down to, right? This may be so for some, but not for those of us who don't subscribe to authoritarianism. In hindsight, Bacon might have done better to say “Understanding is Power” rather than knowledge. For one reason, we all fully well understand that there is no such thing within time and space as “absolute understandings”. But staying on track with the issue of science: The empirical sciences, as much as they rely upon various maths and systems of logic, are all, without exception, inductive. Period. Yet it is this very plasticity to the scientific method which has brought about its many, many, great achievements—its non-authoritarian authority, so to speak.

Generally speaking, any basic course in the philosophy of science will illustrate as much regarding the basic notions of the empirical sciences. Any so called scientific article which ends by declaring a given conclusion to be “proven” is sheer quackery. A conclusion can only be supported—this, at best (given our modern systems of quantitative appraisals of evidence), by a probability value of 0.000[?]. Hence, even in the best of times, there can yet be a 0.01% chance of the results of any given experiment being wrong.

And, btw, from previous readings of your posts, I fully agree with you that the empirical sciences need to be independent of monetary interests in order to be integral. It’s about minimizing bias, not kissing the behinds of those who give you money with hope of increasing their company’s stock-value, and this so that you may continue making a livelihood so as to put food on the table for the kids (which, if explicitly is needed, tends to greatly increase bias—both in what one researches and in the conclusions that are then produced and published … which, in turn, if this trend progresses, will make what was once science into a hollow shell at best, a propaganda machine at worst ). Still, the scientific method is not the culprit here.

This miracle of chemicals developing awareness is in every sense of the phrase a Tall Tale. — Rich

I in a substantive sense agree with this. It’s easy to then declare myself a panpsychist of sorts, but the truth is that my current gut feelings (which can always be wrong) find a sharp division between inanimate identities and animate ones; logically, I’ve no idea how panspsychism would work. This is what I’m diggin’ in the dirt for. What attribute would an inanimate identity hold that, though not itself being the awareness of life, could be logically presented not as a divide but as a continuum.

Apo’s approach, though physicalist, resolves this continuum. Now, traditionally neither he or me have significant issues with sharing our outlooks online. So I was interested in the prospect of sharing a cordial exchange of ideas. Who knows, maybe it’ll amount to something; maybe it won’t. (And, of course, no limits on who can exchange ideas.)

Meet with apo? OK! His system already claims to resolve this transition ....

I get your point, though. But why not try to philosophize on a philosophy forum? X-)