And yet the reasoning behind the penal code is the viability of the fetus. If there's a heartbeat, the doctor can decide not to perform an abortion -- yeah this! even if the life of the mother is clearly at stake. The doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is not prosecuted. The law protects the doctor's psychic pain and liberty to decide not to participate in that decision. — L'éléphant

I believe your facts are wrong. I don't think any doctor is required to perform an abortion anywhere in the US. It certainly wouldn't be a criminal offense. Beyond that, rules vary from state to state. That will become even more true if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.

Are you really just thinking about the person getting an abortion and no one else? That's immoral. — L'éléphant

Says you.

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker

I have done some basic reading about Zen Buddhism and Buddhism in general, but most of my judgement about eastern philosophy comes from my experience with Taoism, which I have spent a fair amount of time with. Based on that, I see recognition of the contradictory, seemingly absurd, nature of reality and especially our place in it as a deep part of what eastern philosophies are about.

If we use the grouping-theory of gestalt to look at how we create words from letters, we can visualize how the different letter groups can be used to create words. The words then become the objects, made up of different letters, similar to how our brain uses different visual stimuli to create objects. I would like to use this as an example of what could be defined as "advanced gestalt theory". Advanced gestalt theory is different from just gestalt in that the established principles of gestalt are used to show how our mind creates the images of objects in our brains - not just the principles themselves. — Don Wade

Keeping in mind that there is a huge amount of research about how language is transmitted, organized, and used. Chomsky et. al. plus lots of others. Language is much different from other types of sensory input and processing. A lot of the rules of grammar and word formation seem to be built into genetically controlled cognitive structures.

Some examples of crimes against society — L'éléphant

Well, let's see...

1. Abortion - Abortion is a bad thing. We should do what we can reasonably to reduce the numbers, but not by enacting legal restrictions. It is not a crime and it is not the problem. It should be legal.

2. Sexual deviance - I have a feeling that what you call sexual deviance and what I do are not the same. Be that as it may, sexual practices that don't harm others should not be illegal.

3. Bigamy and polygamy - I can see the value in having rules in this regard, but I don't see this as a crime against society.

4. Disturbance of the peace - Well, ok, it's annoying and worthy of restrictions, but is it really a crime against society?

5. Violation of helmet and seat belt laws - Sorry. No.

6. Cruelty to animals - Reasonable rules are good. On the other hand, I enjoy eating meat.

7. Domestic violence - Of course. And all the rest of the violence too.

8. Desecration of a flag and public monuments - There should be reasonable restrictions on damage to public or private property. Otherwise, it's none of society's business.

9. Graffiti - Ditto.

10. Littering and loitering - Ditto

You seem to have forgotten that society has methods of social control other than legal restrictions. The law should be the enforcement method of last resort.

You would think, someone that is hopeful, optimistic and has an idealistic view of the future would be uplifting, encouraging and motivational, but I find these views, or the concepts that hold about the world to only further depress me further. — Cobra

I love the world. I am constantly amazed by how well it all holds together. How beautiful things are.

I also love people, both in the aggregate and, usually, individually. I love being around them, talking to them, trying to understand them. I have never met anyone who I could not see the humanity, soul, of, if I tried.

I wouldn't call myself an optimist. I don't necessarily think that everything will work out for the best, but I'm with Lao Tzu:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is a dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

The Tao Te Ching, Verse 13, Stephen Mitchell translation.

It is true that Zen is replete with sayings like 'to chop wood, to draw water' but there really is a purpose and an aim in Buddhism. To mistake it for saying there is no aim and no purpose is a nihilistic misreading, in my view. That's why those who are engaged in Zen actually live under a highly disciplined routine and very hard work. It sounds to me as if the surrender you're speaking of is just abandoning the idea that there is anything worth understanding, which is far from the truth. — Wayfarer

I don't mean to denigrate Zen. Eastern philosophies have something profound to tell us about ourselves and the nature of reality. I think you can, at least theoretically, get that same experience from western philosophies, but it's covered up with the trappings of "reason" to the point that it is almost unrecognizable.

For me, making light of something serious is at the heart of my philosophy, my intellect, and my way of seeing the world. That goes along with my intellectual commitment to understanding the underlying simplicity, clarity, and quotidianism (again!) of our world. Philosophy tends to be too highfalutin for it's own good.

I think that's pretty true although it risks makes light of 'the great matter' — Wayfarer

It makes sense to me that seeing beyond "the great matter" is the whole point. As I see it, nothing about enlightenment is great. Again, it's a surrender. Surrender to the mundanity, quotidianism, of the truth. Just wanted to use that word. If it is one.

Strother Martin. A character actor. This was his most well-known role.

As mentioned by some others, those pithy Zen sayings are part of a vast and complex system of doctrine and practice. Once considered that way, they cease to seem vague, or mystical, contrary, or ironic. — baker

I have been out of town, so it took me a while to respond. There is no reason that something that is part of a vast complex system of doctrine and practice might not seem vague, mystical, contrary, or ironic. It seems to me that the two contrary ways of seeing things is part of the plan. That's why I called it a joke. I always fall back on Lao Tzu's "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." You can be aware of what might be called the absurdity of a statement like that and still see that it represents a profound understanding.

Careful, the joke may be on you. (Although on second reading, maybe I didn't pick up your intentional irony.) — Wayfarer

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I was out of town all this weekend. Yes, sure, there was irony in what I said. I always say that "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao" is a joke. It's an intentionally and knowingly absurd statement. Absurd and profound. I see other eastern philosophies the same way.

I know from personal experience and watching other people that one way of gaining wisdom is through frustration. If you beat your head against a wall long enough, eventually you may say "Wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense." Then there is a flash of recognition, surrender. This is especially true of adults, perhaps especially people of accomplishment and ambition. It seems to me that a large part of Zen Buddhism is intended to frustrate expectations and desires for accomplishment, advancement, and approval to the point that people surrender to the futility of trying not to try, desiring not to desire, working to accomplish a rejection of accomplishment. That's the joke I was talking about.

That saying 'show me your original face' is a Zen koan, I believe. As others have commented, it's easy to repeat popular Zen sayings, but it's another matter to walk the talk. Harold Stewart wrote that 'Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs.' — Wayfarer

I’ve always thought of Zen Buddhism as a joke. You follow all of the precepts. You complete all of the meditations and work. You become more and more frustrated.And then one day, you say screw this this is a bunch of baloney. Bingo, Enlightenment.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. — Tom Storm

Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"? — baker

Perhaps we could say that enlightenment is our directing ourselves toward the development of more and more useful narratives. — Joshs

Well, you should know that enlightenment isn't JUST a narrative. Even narratives are not just narratives. When we understand a narrative, we can ask questions, basic questions that are no different from anything else, since everything is given to us in a narrative; — Constance

It has always seemed to me that enlightenment represents the end of narratives. I think that’s possible, although I Have no expectation, ambition, or even desire to reach that point.

On the other hand, as I noted in an earlier post, I am closer to enlightenment than any of you are.

my thesis is based on 21st century science, with strange concepts that didn't exist eons ago. Which necessitates the use of novel tech terms, — Gnomon

If you want to start a new thread about the use of new words, I am likely to participate, although I will be out of town with no computer for three days.

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon
That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice.
— T Clark

Surprise! I have already written an essay on that very topic. I get blow-back from lazy posters who don't care enough about philosophy to learn new ideas. They seem to want their philosophy expressed at an eighth-grade level. — Gnomon

Yeah, don't you just hate people like that.

The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. — Gnomon

Sometimes in science you just can't get by without coming up with new words. I'm not sure if that's ever really necessary in philosophy, in which people are still talking mainly about the same phenomena that have been discussed for a thousand or more years. In philosophy it is not unusual to read through something someone has written and realize it is very similar to what someone else has written, but that it's hard to tell because each uses idiosyncratic language.

I have offered several alternative definitions. Can't you find one that doesn't offend your sensibilities. — Gnomon

I have no problem with your ideas, but they're not metaphysics as anyone else has used that word. Putting in a hyphen doesn't get you off the hook. Nuff said.

Apparently you've never read a book or taken a course on quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Probably haven't even talked about the subject much either. — Enrique

I have a civil engineer's understanding of physics - mostly classical and Newtonian, although my physics classes did cover relativity and quantum mechanics. I have also read fairly extensively, including books significantly beyond popular science. I certainly am not an expert on relativity or quantum mechanics, there are quite a few here on the forum who know more, but I know enough to see that what you have written doesn't have anything to do with either.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of me by insulting my post based on nothing? You shouldn't troll with contentless posts indicating you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, — Enrique

As I've written in some of your past discussions, I have no desire to insult you. You seem like a nice person. On the other hand, I feel as if someone should speak up when you post your baseless theories. I've had my say and I don't plan to say any more in this thread.

And what in the world is your definition of pseudoscience? You brandish the term a lot but don't really specify its meaning. — Enrique

Here are some definitions from the web:

• A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
• False or pretended science; a pretended science.
• Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
• An activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

The east west thing was big back in the 19th Century. I think most people realize now that there's nothing to the division. Mysticism is mysticism wherever it comes from and actual Asians laugh at buddhism. — frank

I strongly disagree. You see it here on the forum all the time.

in my language community "enlighten" has to do with knowledge. "Let me enlighten you as to the right way to blah blah blah". There's a connotation of preceding delusion. — frank

I think this has been stated elsewhere in this discussion. To western philosophy, "enlightenment" generally means applying reason to answer questions and solve problems. In eastern philosophy, it means something different. There has been a lot of back and forth about what exactly that something different is.

Having said that, I'm the only enlightened person here. I'm pretty sure about that. — frank

When I get in conversations about this subject from an eastern perspective, sometime during the discussion I'll usually say "I'm much closer to enlightenment than you are." For some reason, no one seems to find that as funny as I do.

Whether or not something is hard or easy is a matter of perspective and the main factor if not the only factor would be on whose doing it. — HardWorker

You're in good company. This is from "The Tao Te Ching," Verse 2, Stephen Mitchell's translation.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Could aether be the factor that integrates phenomena of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the observation of which would finally provide us with a realist interpretation akin to the one Einstein sought? Can experimental designs and instrumentation ever become advanced enough to register such a medium, and what does current physics suggest about the chances of this substrate existing? — Enrique

This is all pseudo-scientific speculation. It's not even really speculation, because the things you suggest don't really mean anything. You just use scientific buzz-words; e.g. entanglement, aether, nonlocality, spacetime, relativistic frame; sort of jumbled together and stacked on top of each other to sound profound, but it's not, it's nonsense. If the forum were true to it's standards, this type of post would not be allowed.

When using the word "magick", the implication is that what we're discussing is not stage magic. But something else. — Bret Bernhoft

We all know what "magic" or "magick" is. Samantha wiggles her nose and Darrin's dick gets three inches longer. Harry Dresden summons a demon to do his will. Alice watches some cat disappear little by little till only it's smile is left. Witches fly on brooms. Madam Rue mixes up Love Potion #9 and some guy starts kissing police officers.

The story, which is worth a read, posits a bunch of librarians living in a massive (but finite!) library. Each book in the library has a given number of characters per page, and a given number of pages. The library doesn't repeat, it simply contains every possible combination of characters per book, in different books. This represents 10^4677 books. For comparison, estimates of the number of protons in the visible universe are around 10^78-82. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The theme of incomprehensively huge libraries, either finite or infinite, is pretty common in fantasy books. The problem usually comes down to how to find the information you are looking for. Sometimes you do it by magic, sometimes it's just luck, and sometimes it's impossible or practically impossible and the library is useless.

Although I don't know the history of the word, it seems to me that, before relativity, space was just an expression of common sense and classical non-relativistic physics. Without space there can be no distance. Without distance there can be no velocity. Without velocity there can be no acceleration. Without acceleration there can be no force.

Without distance there can be no volume. Without volume there can be no structure, no chemistry, no form. Can there be mass without volume? Does that mean that without space all there would be is a black hole with the mass of the entire universe.

council of Sharn — fdrake

I looked it up and got "Council on Aging, Town of Sharon Massachusetts."

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units. — jamalrob

Been done - "Minority Report." Good movie.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe something like The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will alone or unaided. — jamalrob

or “without acting”. — Srap Tasmaner

Careful ST, now you're stepping on us Taoists - wu wei, acting without acting.

I say, think of metaphysics as an "Other" that confronts the inquirer with as much vigor as anything else. It is the ideatum that exceeds the idea; the desideratum that exceeds the desire. Metaphysics has a long history, so I say put this down altogether, and put down the epistemology texts as well. All one can reasonably say about the world must be grounded in the bare encounter, and not in the long discursive arguments, and the insight one seeks in metaphysics is not augmentative, but pure. It begins, I claim, with the reduction from knowledge claims that clutter and dialectically collide, to the clarity of the structure of the encounter itself.

The beginning of "good" metaphysics (as opposed to bad metaphysics, as when we talk about God's omniscience and the like) lies in the simplicity of the pure encounter, the "presence" of the world as presence. Alas, this seems to be something very difficult to do, that is, to understand with this kind of clarity, for when one tries to adjust the perceptual Archimedean point, if you will, mundane analyses assert themselves by default. This is what stands in the way of really addressing metaphysics. — Constance

Other people have expressed many different opinions about metaphysics throughout this fairly long thread. For me, your statement expresses a metaphysical position and, therefore, is neither true nor false. I can see that it might be a valuable way to see things. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. Your understanding seems like a pragmatic way to approach the subject.

The standard model is a theory, not a technical notion. It does deal with particles and forces, but doesn’t give a technical notion of matter. — Xtrix

I'm not sure what to say to such a statement. Maybe someone else, e.g. @180 Proof, @Banno, or @tim wood, will be able to help.

Yes, one where the same logic your using us also applied. That should tell you something. — Xtrix

Again, you've lost me.

As Wayfarer noted, I explicitly differentiate between the common definitions, and my peculiar information-based usage of that traditional philosophical term. — Gnomon

In my response to the post from Wayfarer you reference, I acknowledged that you were good about stating what you meant by "meta-physics." I had also acknowledged it in a previous response. I think it was a response to one of your posts. I always make a big deal about defining your terms and I appreciate that you did so.

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon

That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice.

If you don't accept my proffered concept, that's on you. — Gnomon

I don't reject your concept. I object to your use of "metaphysical" or "meta-physical" to name it. If I might paraphrase a wonderful statement from @Cartuna from a different discussion:

It's my duty, as a scientist philosopher, being loyal to the imperative of the Sciences Philosophy, to correct you. Others may take your false image of reality misuse of language for granted...The Truth must be told...

A.S. Neill is probably the classic case you want. — unenlightened

When I was in my late teens, "Summerhill" had a big influence on my understanding of human nature and what it means for me to be person. Neill was a profound radical disguised as a teacher. That's a good thing. My respect and affection for him have not diminished. I gave one of my adult children a copy of "Summerhill" in the last few years. It was hard to explain to him why it meant, still means, so much to me.

name-calling? Prat. — Banno

Yes, but it was knee-jerk, pointless, witless, needless, gratuitous, and not funny, so that makes it ok.

This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has. — baker

You're right, but what a westerner might call vagueness, mysticism, contrariness, or irony is a real part of eastern philosophies.

Okay. But why should the Western ones have the final say? Because we're at a "Western" forum? — baker

I misunderstood you. I'm not sure that's what @Bozo, I mean @Banno, meant to say.

But there hasn’t been a technical notion of matter for centuries, despite your feelings. — Xtrix

So, you do not consider the Standard Model a "technical notion?"

I also said nothing about “fully understood.” — Xtrix

I believe that was me.

Plenty of people argue the same thing about God, incidentally. God isn’t “fully understood,” but not mysterious. I don’t find that very convincing. — Xtrix

That's a different discussion. If you don't understand that, then this one is pointless.

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it? — baker

The OP specifically identifies enlightenment as discussed in both eastern and western philosophies.

There is indeed a combination of physical constants (h, c, and G) that gives rise to that lengthscale but that doesn't mean space is not continuous beneath that scales. — Cartuna

That's the case according to loop quantum gravity. According to general relativity and string theory it's continuous. — Michael

I identified it as a hypothesis, not a fact. The explanation I found indicates that below that size, addition of energy, as would be required to take a measurement, would cause a black hole to form. My point was that it is not yet established that space is continuous at all scales.

That's popular science, which is maybe the best suited for this forum. — Cartuna

Another good reason not to communicate with you any further.

If I watch TV, the TV merely functionss as an intermediary, a sophisticated medium, like air, by means of which information is sent to you. It's in principle the same like the air between you and me if we directly talk to each other. — Cartuna

Not true. The TV takes information from outside and then processes it to form the image and sound we see as the images. You would not be able to understand the electromagnetic signal put out by the transmitter. Let's give up on this discussion.

misunderstanding or inability to undestand. — Cartuna

Another good reason to stop the conversation.

The problem is that individual, separated quarks, cannot actually be observed. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand the concern. I think it's not just that they cannot be observed, it is my understanding that they can not exist independently. From the point of view of @Gnomon's point, I'm not sure that it matters.

It seems most natural to me to think of space as infinite. — Gregory

It is my understanding that the universe is generally seen as finite but unbounded. The analog often used is a sphere. If we were on the surface, which we are, we could walk forever without ever getting to an edge.

There is no end to how small something can shrink. — Gregory

It is also my understanding that the universe is hypothesized to be granular at a sub-sub-sub-sub atomic level. The planck length, 1.616255(18)×10−35 m, is considered by some to be the smallest meaningful dimension of space.

If TV were to play movies without any understanding of how, I think that too would qualify as a mystery. — Xtrix

Every day, billions of people watch TV without any understanding of how it works. They don't think it's particularly mysterious.

Regardless, the main point is that the entire idea of matter (which includes brains) is a mystery. — Xtrix

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. "Not fully understood" is not the same as "mysterious." Also, matter also includes wood, computers, and TV sets.

In Gnomon's defense, he offers definitions and glossary links to every term he uses. You don't have to agree with him but you can't say that he's not trying. — Wayfarer

In my responses I have noted that, although he uses "metaphysics" in a way I don't think is appropriate, he is careful to define what he means by the words he uses. I appreciate that.