I think that since we are mortal some degree of fear is inevitable. Insecurity is a disposition; some people are more secure than others. Very often it has to do more with social conditioning than it does with the bare fact of mortality. — John

John, I think you are funny – insecurity is experienced in all aspects of life – not just life and death situations. Insecurity is a disposition or emotion that can be triggered by social conditioning, social pressure, pressure from a broken water pipe or pressure we put on ourselves. For example, I go to the gym & eat organic because I want to be healthy – I don’t want to be fat & sick. The insecure thought of being fat & sick; drives me to eat right & exercise. Insecurity is a motivator/driver in all aspects of life.

I would say that people go to church (hopefully) on account of their faith ( and not out of fear). — John

Most people go to church to be told what to think. They want to be told what to think because they are too cowardly to think for themselves or too stupid to formulate coherent ideas or both. In addition, churches incite insecurity in their parishioners with hell fire and damnation. There is camaraderie and fellowship in church; but its first job is to dictate a religious formula. This is a prime example of the carrot and stick methodology. The social pressure to conform to a ridged system is enormous – talk about insecurity!

I would say that we are all on this board for our own reasons. What is most important is to know why you are participating here; to know what you are seeking to gain from it. — John

I am here to “know thyself”. I am here for the same reason I go to the gym – I want to strengthen my mental muscles. I am here for entertainment. I am here to see what other people think. I am here to learn what I can. I am here to refine my thinking. I am here to know my heart’s desire. I am here to observe wisdom in all its myriad shapes and sizes. I am here to continue building a coherent philosophy for myself and share what little I have to offer. I am here to contribute to civilization in that which I think best. I am here to discover new things. I am here for adventure. I am here to add my voice to the chorus of the human song. I am here to add my pennies to the bank of human knowledge.

Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'. — John

Actually I wasn't complaining; I had been enjoying the exchange with Timeline. I was more explaining that I thought the conversation had devolved to become predominately an equivocation about the sense of 'reverence' and signalling that I did not have the time, energy or present inclination to participate in trying to unravel that. — John

John you chose a word which I think most aptly describes you – equivocation. You have made several statements and then equivocated on them. You portray a sense of religious righteousness which reeks of insecurity, but then deny that it is everywhere. I wish you Godspeed and hope you discover what you are looking for.

I don't know woodart; I think you are over-simplifying what is a very subtle and complex question, characterizing the human situation very narrowly and in an excessively generalized way. — John

Ok John – do you mean humans are not insecure? That insecurity is not inherent in the human psyche? My statement is a generalization to all humans – I agree. However, please show me I am wrong about this generalization. Are humans secure in their biology? Humans are very fragile biologically. We are subject to disease, breaking bones, threats from other humans, threat of natural disaster, hunger, financial shortfall, psychological imbalance. The psychological threat can come from a spouse, child, friend, enemy, employer, government, law infractions; not to mention our own assessment of intellectual prowess. Is there much psychological intimidation going on in this board? When I drive on the freeway and someone suddenly cuts in front of me with a 10,000 pound truck – I feel insecure. Please tell me in simple terms how life is not insecure? Insecurity can be subtle and very complex, but I do not think we need to look in any of those areas to see how we all are threatened in common everyday life. For example – you go out to lunch and almost immediately - you know you have food poisoning. Has it ever happened to you? A restaurant worker wipes his ass and passes his bacteria on to you – it has happened to me on more than one occasion – regretfully.

Most humans never think about solar flares, earthquakes, volcanos or supernovas – but lions, tigers and bears do exist. And we are all aware of monsters under the bed or in the closets of our mind. We try to calm ourselves – mindfulness techniques work. I use mindfulness techniques everyday – why? Because I want to allay my fears – calm my mind – chase the boogeyman away. Do you know anyone that does not have boogeymen? Why do people go to the gym, eat organic food – go to church? Why are we here now on this board – because we know everything – and we just want to benevolently share it?

I think philosophers are absolutely necessary to civilization – I think we stick our fingers in the dike to hold the floodwaters back. Most people cannot even tell you how they feel, much less what they think. Why do people watch TV, listen to music, make art or write? We do things to distract ourselves, calm our minds, in additions to express and enhance our lives. The agents of religion are all around us – priests, scientists, witchdoctors, psychics, therapists – who are these people? They are all different brands of philosophers. There is an old question/joke that has been around forever – what is the oldest profession? The answer has always been prostitute. Well, ask yourself – don’t we need someone to first designate the illegality of the profession of prostitute? We first need the moralist to point the finger and say – whore! That moralist or conceiver of what is ethical - is a type of philosopher. In other words the oldest profession is philosopher – prostitute may be second. However, the sex worker is a type of therapist – they calm the nerves, body and mind – just like the philosopher.

We all live a dualistic – Walter Mitty – type of life. A man is a bank teller, but thinks about being a superhero, financial titan or whatever. Fantasy is a good thing – it is an escape from who we really are and the possibility of who we may become. We fantasize because we want out of a situation or we want to create a new one. You were just complaining of all the quibbling on this board about – reverence. You were unhappy about all the quibbling – I agreed with you. Unhappiness or dissatisfaction is a type of insecurity. We were both asking – please stop. Insecurity is not a bad thing – or at least it doesn’t have to be. Insecurity is in every corner of human existence – it is what drives religion – religion is one type of philosophy. I can see from your most recent posts that you are driven by religion and most assuredly – insecurity.

Thanks for your efforts, Timeline, but to be honest I've lost the thread of what this conversation was about beyond quibbling about different senses of 'reverence'. — John

I agree John; there is a lot of quibbling in this thread. The original assertion was that religion will win in the end. I think religion will persist because humans are fundamentally insecure. It is a major characteristic of who we are. At the beginning of our evolution – when we first began to talk – we asked religious questions. Think about our ancestors back 100,000 years or more in a cave around a campfire; they asked what I call the three universal questions:

1- Who am I?
2- Where did I come from?
3- Where am I going?

As soon as humans were able to think and talk; they asked these questions. Some of the first answers were like – we came from Mother Earth and we go back. We are sons and daughters of the Sun and Moon. The big trees are our father and mother. A Turtle laid eggs on land under a full moon and we became human. There are a lot of variations, but they all address the 3 universal questions. These questions still face us today - except today the campfire is a keyboard and monitor.

Who were these people who gave answers to these questions? They were the first explorers, scientists, priests, shamans – philosophers. Philosophy holds the vision of who we are; where we came from and what we will become. These are the “experts” of their time – the authority figure. These authority figures are still with us – giving expert guidance to the 3 universal questions. We here are the religious leaders – experts - of today. We, philosophers, will be supplying answers ad infinitum. Society needs us and we will be around as long as humans exist. You know the definition of expert - right? X is an unknown quantity and spurt is a drip under pressure.

Life is funny – isn’t it? I mean look around – here we are sitting on this little speck of dust – which is also a dung heap - literally – percolating from a fiery core – adrift in the infinite vastness of space. It’s a nice cozy little picture/place - isn’t it? I feel very secure about this scenario – how about you? I guess we are just lucky – huh? Are you paying attention? Life is not secure – at all - ever! Forget about the external universe for a moment. Look at yourself. You are a bag of water, walking around on sticks; composed of trillions of alien organisms, which you have to make agreements with – so we don’t kill each other. And to make matters worse – just one of these trillions can kill us. Now, is that a very secure and happy deal? No!

Let’s take a look again at the external universe. How long have we been observing our sun? I would say 200,000 years or so. Is that a long time? In relation to the theory of the big bang (which I think is speculation) – not very long. That is the ratio of 200,000 to 13,800,000,000 - which works out to be about 2 seconds in the totality of time. We have been great scientists for 2 blinks of an eye – very impressive. How much do we know about the characteristics and behavior of our sun? I would not say nothing, but I would not say very much. Let me skip to my main point – and stop belaboring our ignorance – which is – if the sun farts we will be incinerated. The sun doesn’t have to blow up, just a big solar flare. Well, you say, it hasn’t done that, yet. Your right; we are still here, but we only have been watching for the last 2 seconds. If the sun incinerates us will that affect my 401K and my next birthday party? Don’t worry; congress has passed a law prohibiting large solar flares. How smart are human beings – 2 seconds worth – smart?

My main point is that human beings are overwhelmingly insecure. From day one to our last dying breathe. There are no exceptions – all humans are insecure. Now I think the Buddha reached a level of equanimity that few attain. However, he got there on the engine of insecurity – desire. Insecurity is not a bad thing – it can be our friend – or it can be our worst nightmare – or what is most common – both. I feel insecure about these thoughts – please tell me (show me) I am wrong about our ubiquitous insecurity.

Yes, this is an interesting topic of which i'm somewhat aware. How much did science fiction influence the decisions of actual scientists? How much did the creative imagination of fiction writers influence the scientific principles that were later discovered? — Noble Dust

Science is science fiction – or at least it should be considered that way. What is science for? It is a bridge to tomorrow. We are not satisfied with today. Why – because we want something better. Ask yourself – what is the first scientific instrument? It is a club or rock used as a basher. I can’t forget the movie – Quest for Fire – in the beginning an Ape throws a club up in the air. He sees for the first time he can use an object outside of his body to do something. That’s what science is - seeing a connection. It doesn’t have to be real or right – it is an experiment.

Well, why aren’t we satisfied with today? Because, as I am sitting under a banana tree with my buddy, feeling full and happy – he points and says - what’s that? I say – I don’t know, but someone told me it’s a mountain. What’s a mountain? Imagination – it’s actually a drug like heroin. Some addictions are better than others.

Science is our quest for fire. My motto is – beam me up Scotty, I am tired of this planet.

What do your questions have to do with imagination? They're also leading questions. I think you could easily re-frame them as statements. — Noble Dust

Some of my comments are statements – some are questions. Imagination is the brush that paints the picture of our ideas. An idea is an image in our minds eye. A mask is traditionally part of a costume, but it can also be a disguise of ones persona. We all use imagination to project our persona, which is like a mask. When I get up in the morning I put on my clothes – my costume. I also put on my persona, my mask for the different “things” I will do throughout the day. I have many hats that I wear. One of the hats that I wear, today, is that of philosopher. I use my imagination when I put it on – don’t we all? Imagination and philosophy are like brother and sister – don’t you agree?

One of the things I notice about philosophers is that they are insecure. I wonder if you agree? I also see arrogance and obfuscation – do you? I think some philosophers use great imagination to construct a mask that obfuscates. What do you think about this idea? A mask or argument that confuses ones companion is dishonest. It lacks honor – don’t you agree?

I think the questions we ask ourselves in philosophy take great imagination and stamina. We ask the hard questions and they are not easy to understand or formulate. The answers are even more difficult – sometimes impossible. It takes courage to be a philosopher and great imagination. I don’t want to make my task harder by confusing myself or someone else. I want to be clear in what I think and say. What do you think?

It is also my right on a public forum to comment on what you and noble dust articulates."
— woodart

I never questioned your right to comment; I don't know where you got that idea. — John

I made that statement as a prologue to my questions. Do you care to answer any of them?

I was specifically responding to Noble Dust, and I was confident from previous conversations that he is familiar with the thinkers I referenced. I referenced them to establish a context that I believed he would understand. If you have any specific questions concerning uncertainties you may have about anything i said there I will be happy to answer them, but I don't have any interest in unwarranted and more or less vague speculations about my psychological motives. Thanks for you kind, even if somewhat presumptuous and condescending thoughts and wishes, in any case. — John

I quite understand you were engaged with noble dust. I have no problem with anything you said. That is your right on a public forum.

It is also my right on a public forum to comment on what you and noble dust articulates. And to add additional comments to the subject matter at hand; along with my commentary about philosophy in general. The subject matter is imagination and philosophy – a pretty board area – no?

So some of my questions and/or critiques are:

Are philosophers more insecure than people in general?

Is insecurity covered, many times, by arrogance and obfuscation?

Is arrogance and obfuscation a mask purposely worn and is it dishonest?

Do the best philosophers know they are insecure and admit they do not know very much?

Are some philosophers bullies?

Is it hard to make a significant contribution to human knowledge?

I do not think these are “vague speculations” about philosophy and/or psychology. Nor do I think these are presumptuous and condescending questions to ask. These are honest questions about how philosophers use their imagination. It is not easy to be a philosopher – we ask hard questions.

Is it my imagination or are philosophers insecure? No, it is not my imagination - it seems to me everyone is insecure, but philosophers, are, more so. Why? Because they question everything more than most. The process of asking the “hard” questions is daunting. Most people hate philosophy – that’s why they join a church. What I mean to say is that questioning “things” is unsettling. The questions and the answers make us nervous. The more one questions, the more insecure one becomes. One could argue that a really good philosopher is not insecure because they have examined the big questions in detail, many times, and are secure in their positions. I think the answer to this is both yes and no – because the more we know – we understand there is more to know. . I think a really good philosopher can have equanimity, but still be insecure in what they don’t understand.

There are many great philosophers that have come before us and live with us now. However, in my estimation, the best thinkers, both past and present, still struggle, bitterly, with the hard questions. I think the best thinkers admit their struggle and uncertainty. However, not always. Many time’s we disguise our uncertainty with bravado and arrogance. So, I think it is appropriate to ask here – what is a disguise? It is a mask, a projection of who we want to be – an avatar. It is more than what we think we are – in other words it is dishonest in varying degrees. Now, do I think it is wrong to want to be a super hero, a savior, or just a really good person? No. However, if I say I am a really good person and I don’t hurt anybody. I don’t think I have examined myself close enough. If I project myself as really smart, smarter than most, does that mean it is not so? No, I may be the smartest person in the room, campus, state or planet. Let’s just say for argument sake, I am the smartest person on the planet, today. Whew, I am glad we got that established. How smart does that make me? Let’s see, humans, in their present format, have been around for 200,000 years. In terms of evolution, by my calculation, that puts us about six weeks out of the cave. Do you think humans in 10,000 generations will be reading what any of us write today? What about a million generations? We have no idea how far we can evolve. Perhaps in the future we will not read at all. Maybe we will absorb knowledge and communicate by some sort of mind meld. I certainly hope so.

So what is my main point? We are insecure – all of us – particularly philosophers. Because we know, that we do not know, very much! And the more we know, we find out there is more to know. So, we cover up our insecurity, dress it up – put on a disguise. Use a lot of difficult language, references and complexity. We play hide and seek with each other. But most importantly, we play hide and seek with ourselves. I do not find this behavior particularly courageous; as a matter of fact I find it cowardly. Many thinkers, especially in the ivory tower and churches, are guilty of this sin. In addition many of these sinners are intentionally a bully. Sometimes the intention is to bully passively. Like a man 6 foot 6 with bulging biceps with a tattoo – BORN TO KILL. This is a use of imagination in a very negative way.

I do not wish to offend anyone – nor do I wish to be offended. I wish to communicate. Very few of us will have even one significant original idea in our lifetime. To make a real contribution to human knowledge is not that easy. Therefore, a little humility is in order along with our clarity.

Ever since reading Steiner in more depth recently in response to Barfield's enthusiastic belief in his surpassing greatness, I am wary of evolutionary models of human spiritual growth. Such models tend to imagine objectified and pre-determined processes of development. It's the thing I found I could not swallow in Aurobindo many years ago and, more recently, in Hegel. So I am likewise a little skeptical of Berdyaev's notion of the stages of Christianity. The idea certainly has some symbolic spiritual significance, I just can't accept it as constituting an historical telos.

Having said that I have long thought that there may be a kind of immanent telos in dialectical unfoldings; an internal logic that determines, or at least mediates, the historical trajectories of ideas, whether they be visual, musical, poetical or philosophical ideas. So, Hegel, if interpreted that way, is more acceptable to my way of thinking. I tend to see any ideas of God as desiring, planning, waiting, and so on as examples of human projections, but on the other hand I don't deny the profundity of some mystical experiences that find him that way, either. I think Berdyaev has said that God needs humanity as much as humanity needs God (or perhaps I am thinking of Meister Eckhardt or Boehme).

In any case it is on account of the importance I attribute to the internal logics of creative activities and human activities in general, that I think logos is first and foremost, and that without it, imaginatio will only produce trivialities. It is only in the critical fire of logos that imaginatio becomes significantly creative, and that the Word may become Flesh. — John

You know I am not quite sure what you are saying. Although I think that may be part of your intention – I do not know. In the little I have read of you in this thread, I see a person who can focus keenly, but veers off on tangents with references to other thinkers and methodologies that may or may not pertain to the question at hand – imagination. I am not sure if you are trying to impress yourself – an audience – or both. I would like to parse the role of imagination in philosophy. I think you have something to say. I would like to hear what you have to say. If your idea is strong, you do not need to use a pedantic vocabulary or compact your concepts so close together and/or reference a lot of other thinkers. Any idea can be expressed clearly. What I have noticed with many philosophers – is they make ideas more complex because they are not quite sure what they think. I know this from experience. I always find it beneficial to admit my uncertainty and lack of knowledge to myself first and in a place like this – to you. In the final analysis it strengthens my argument - I wish the same for you.

I don't really agree with this, although I do see that sort of imaginative thinking as theoretically having some limited use. But I think it also leads to a lot of bad philosophical ideas. — Noble Dust

Oh, I totally agree with you – bad philosophical ideas should be outlawed. We should have a committee to approve and discard ideas. Let’s see – who will be on the committee? We will make it democratic; so it will be run by the government. I vote for me to be editor-in-chief. And now that I am chief – I am taking away your “fire” because you scare me. ;)

Philosophy is the process of creating a cohesive picture in your mind’s eye. The picture is a collection of ideas. The ideas are a vision and representation of a heart’s desire. I reach with my mind to build a coordinated mass that I can love. My greatest companion and light on this dark, lonely journey is imagination.

All of my experience – past, present and future – is contained in my consciousness. The external universe – is contained in my consciousness. Even my own perception of consciousness – is contained in my consciousness. Consciousness is a type of tautology.

There are two fundamental attributes of consciousness. I call them gifts. The first gift is volition – we have the ability to choose. We not only have the ability to choose, in fact we are obligated to choose – something. We make choices all the time, every day. The second gift of consciousness is love. Love and all of its attributes and permutations are present in consciousness. Love is a continuum of feelings that spans the gamut from extreme positive, to the extreme negative - all the way to hate. In order for love to exist we must be able to define its opposite – hate. Love in all of its transformations is emotion.

Our predilections for one thing or another is a curious blend of want and desire. In other words – volition and love or emotion is what forms most of our awareness or consciousness. The substance of our consciousness is mostly concerned with emotion and will. There are other aspects to awareness like recognition, memory and sensory input; but volition and love most fully define our individual consciousness. There is another special aspect of consciousness call pure awareness or stillness. Let’s set this characteristic aside for the time being, perhaps we will discuss it later.

Well let’s be practical and ask where does consciousness come from? I would say the Holy Spirit but this answer is amorphous. So let’s not argue about the existence of God. Let’s focus on what we know and feel and can prove to ourselves. We know consciousness exists and that we all have it. And we know or sense consciousness has two main characteristics – volition and love - desire and emotion. Is there a logical association between volition and love and our behavior that we can be certain of? Can we deduce a causal relationship in human behavior which explains it? I think we can.

Consciousness is not so much a thing as it is a phenomenon. It is consumed with experience and yet everything is claimed and defined in it – both physical and metaphysical. Aside from the spiritual dimension love can be explain on a very practical level. Love exists and is initiated between a mother and a child. From the moment of conception a mother loves her child. Why, because it is not different from her – it is her. A mother loving her child is the same as loving herself, because they evolve as one being. Where did a mother learn love? Answer – she learned it from her mother. Love is born in the mother-child bond. Love of self is learned from a mother or mother figure.

Love has another attribute which reverberates in consciousness - desire. Love speaks to the existence of will in consciousness. Love and will co-create each other in consciousness. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two. Love is not solitary, nor is volition. They need each other in order to exist. We need a push or predilection in order to make a decision. A will needs a desire and a desire needs a will. They don’t exist separately.


I believe love has a spiritual dimension and origin that precedes all of physical existence. However, the defining of God is difficult, if not impossible. Therefore the practical unfolding of the mother-child bond is enough concrete proof of loves origin and existence. We do not have to answer first cause. We do not have to explain how or why the universe exists – it just does. We don’t have to say God created love. We can see a real origin for love and we know it exists, it is true. The mother child bond is enough of an explanation for love. We don’t have to know the origin of the chicken or the egg. We don’t have to explain or prove the universe exists. We know love exists and we know where it comes from. Love is very practical.


However, we are not always aware that loves is the basis of all civilization. Society is held together by collective agreement. The first collective agreement is between a mother and child for the relationship to persist. The mother-child bond is the basis of all relationships – family, hunter/gatherer group, village, town, school, commerce, city and nation. We live in society by collective agreement. All of our institutions are held together by collective agreement and all of these institutions are patterned after the first collective agreement. I would call the mother-child bond the first contract. It is a contract that surpasses all others. It is the mother of all contracts literally and figuratively.

What I mean or what I ask - is there a thing which surpasses everything else in your existence in value? I say it is consciousness because everything is contained in it. All other values are a subset. Now a person could argue that life is the greatest value, but we need consciousness in order to appreciate life. This is the existential principle – existence precedes essence.

So what is love?

I think it is hard to argue that anything is more fundamental or valuable to each of us than consciousness. Our consciousness contains everything that we physically and mentally experience. Love, hate, sex, God, trees, mountains, stars, galaxies all are only in our minds eye. I am not saying that trees or galaxies are not real or separate entities from ourselves. What I am saying is that our individual contact with them is only experienced through our individual awareness. Our awareness is the framework upon which all our experience is filtered. Our awareness holds the entire universe, God or no God, ourselves and everything we have ever done or will do. So I ask you, what is this thing – consciousness?

I assert that there is something all humans possess which is more fundamentally valuable than anything else. It is consciousness. It is in consciousness that all of our experience is held. Everything we have and value is in consciousness. It can be argued that the only thing we own is consciousness. Our bodies are vessels for the existence of consciousness and we are just renters - tenants in our bodies. All of our experience is in our minds eye. Through the eye of consciousness the entire universe is unveiled. The most valuable thing is consciousness.

Studying philosophy is an obligation not an elective. Why? – because we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not. The old adage that “philosophy is the first science” is true. We ask philosophical questions of ourselves and others from the beginning of our consciousness formation. Consciousness itself is a philosophical dilemma that we deal with our entire lives. Descartes maxim – I think therefore I am – is backwards it should be – I am aware therefore I think, feel, smell, touch, sense, etc. We are aware, whether we like it or not and because we are aware, we are compelled to choose something. The thinking about and choosing is what philosophy is about. It may be very rudimentary stuff like – should I eat; or it may be bit more complex like – should I kill that guy?

Having awareness and exercising judgement is a philosophical endeavor and we all do it. Some of us are a little more deliberate in going about this daily chore. It is to our advantage to refine our thinking in the philosophical arts – that’s why I am here.