We cannot be held to even exist as human beings without our self identification. — Agustino

A rock or a tree manages to exist without self-identification. I'm not sure if you are claiming this as tautological, a defining characteristic, in which case I have no problem - to be human is to have fallen. Or if you want to say that it is necessary in some way to ensoulment, in which case I'll just go quiet and let you pontificate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the difference between forgetting yourself and being unconscious for example? — Agustino

It depends how you are understanding 'conscious' of course. Some folk take conscious and self-conscious to be identical. But the way I understand it is that a cat, say, is fully conscious but unselfconscious; thus it is innocent in its selfcenteredness because it lacks the knowledge of good and evil. Whereas humans 'ought to know better'. I don't think this is all that heretical. Having that knowledge, the path to ending or transcending self-consciousness is steep - one has to do better. But I think one has glimpses of paradise regained from time to time.

Freedom does not require an arrow of time. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? — Agustino

I do, but I am not dogmatic about what is possible beyond this world. Do you agree that freedom requires the possibility of change? If so, then I would say it requires at least one dimension of time, distinguished from space by its arrow. That is to say, my freedom comprises something undecided , yet, that I decide. If my decision does not stick because I can go back and un-decide, then it does not seem that that adds to my freedom, but undermines it; my decisions are no longer decisive.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if you could undo somethings, but not others? Having no fixed arrow of time doesn't necessarily entail that there is no arrow at all or that you can decide every single time how to change the arrow does it? — Agustino

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

To be part of the changing world entails the absence of a fixed arrow because there is never some necessary state everything is heading towards. It's always being made as it goes by the specific changes which occur. Not only is no pre-existing arrow of history which one "shifts," but the path of events is made with every single decision and event. Whether or not I turned on the computer this morning made the arrow of history, it was what defined whether the computer existed in an on or off state this morning.

Suggesting we change the arrow doesn't make sense, for there was no arrow defined for that moment until the decision was made. This is the meaning of freedom, time, entropy and the finite. Change and emergence of different states. To be infinite, to be necessary (rather than possible), to be unchanging, is to be outside existing states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do think that question has much to do with original sin. In the face of the world we have limited control (i.e lacking the power to fix everything) but absolute control (our decisions do define much of what happens in the world and whether problems can be fixed) over, how can we ever, as self-aware beings, act to make it good rather than evil?

No matter what we do, there are some problems we can't overcome, some problems we don't fix because we choose to help someone else or pursue or our interests, creating a schism between what we understand to be a good world and the one we live in.

In our self-awareness of how we make the world, we see how we have not made it perfect or virtuous as it might be, and it gnaws away our sense of value about the finite. We consider ourselves and our world fallen, to the point where it is not worth anything, where it deserves to be cast into the fiery pit for eternity, for merely having this "limited" which did not produce the perfect outcome.

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

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

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

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

Which is constituted by various events as they occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I go even further than that: we are frequently in control of many external circumstances too, as the decisions we take affect the world.

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

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

We should never aim for "perfect" because we don't have the power to create it, even in our own lives. The very idea of "perfection" is dubious because it entails the obliteration of anything that doesn't meet a precise standard. I mean what are you going to do with all those immoral promiscuous people? Would you wipe them out or lock them up to save society form their immorality if you had the power? Lock them out of economic means and social relationships to serve as an example for everyone else? The underside of perfection is genocide: the value those who don't meet a standard deserve to be obliterated.

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

But that's a contradiction. Our character is part of the world. The actions we have control over are not separate to the world. Control of the world is frequently in our power. Original sin drags us away from our own responsibility for the finite. It turns away from the actions we are responsible for, distracting us with lamenting the world is not perfect. We become so obsessed with "perfection" and how it is not being met, that we forget ethical responsibility to ourselves and others in the finite moments of our lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are talking about a time "before the fall" though. The story itself does so too. Upon the eating form the Tree of Knowledge , humans and/or the world become fallen. A change. A fixed arrow of time where the world changes from not fallen to fallen. This is a contradiction with a "timeless world" of freedom. The world before the fall was always progressing to the change of the fall.

Sure, you can imagine a world where time doesn't progress but undergoes change, but it doesn't make sense. Your "metaphor" is nonsense. It only serves as an expression of meanings in your head, not as any analysis of a world as it might exist.

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

Also, in our previous exchange I certainly didn't claim that inductive reason is equivalent to deductive reason, wherein the conclusion follows from the premises. Most of the time, when we say we have reason to believe something it is not because what we say we have reason to believe is a logical entailment, but because we have no reason not to believe (and thus more reason to believe than not to believe), that what has been regularly observed will continue to be observed in the future. Of course this does not mean that we may be certain by any means.

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

By custom and experience. Not by reason.

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

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

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

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

By custom and experience. Not by reason. — Agustino

I think that's where we diverge Agustino, I think the regularity of experience, and indeed custom itself are, at least partially, always already matters of reason. I certainly don't have a narrow conception of reason as being nothing but 'deductive logic'.

That's why it is derived by custom and experience. It SEEMS to reflect the operations of the world. — Agustino

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

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

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

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

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

As soon as we start to recognize differences, similarities and regularities, reason is already well in operation. Of course none of this is possible (or at least can be demonstrated to be possible) in the absence of language. Rationality consists in weighing things up, making generalizations and reasoning about them and, of course giving reasons for actions and beliefs. Conceptualization itself is a function of reason.

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

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

I don't want to speculate how God could have created things differently or has done in a wider universe that we might call heaven/hell. In this world, freedom is built in by the openness of the future and our participation in its unfolding form. Now I don't think that God created the garden of Eden as another world with different rules.

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

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

Animals can be self-centered, and they can be loving and nurturing; what I think they do not do is reflect on what they do or on what happens by way of counterfactuals. They do not consider what they might have done, or ought to have done, or ought to do or ought not to do. They participate in the freedom of the universe with consciousness, but not with self-consciousness. The counterfactuals of could be, will be, ought to be and was constitute the psychological 'world' to which we have exiled ourselves. Thus animals do not have regret or shame, and their lives, though finite, are psychologically timeless. They live in the present and so there is no death in their life, though there is an end. I don't know if this clarifies my thinking at all?

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

I won't discuss Krishnamurti here, but my dentist sometimes hurts me because he needs to - I need him to. I think it is sufficiently rare and unfathomable that we do not need to worry about what the enlightened man's relation to morality might be. Jesus overturned the tables in the temple; I will not say that he had an off day, nor that it was a necessary hurt. Rather I will consider his teaching and try and make sense of that as one who is not enlightened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

Fair enough.

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

I agree.

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

Again, fair enough.

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

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

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

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

I largely agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed!

That's good; I'm glad we cleared that up. But for the sake of conversation, I hope we may find ourselves disagreeing (or at least appearing to disagree) in the future.

Why do you consider regret and shame necessarily psychologically harmful? — Agustino

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

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

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

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

Then we are in entire agreement on this.

When discussing modern Christianity (that which is currently practiced by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants), I believe (no pun intended) that one must bear in mind the two or three various major independent sources of doctrines and dogmas of Christianity.

First is the Bible itself. If you are not reading from the original Greek New Testament, then you need to make sure you have a really good local country language translation. I like YLT best but I can read the Greek on my own. YLT is Young's Literal Translation, and I have found it to be quite accurate most of the time. I have found the KJV to be the most inaccurate however.

Second is the Council Of Nicaea. This council imposed Athanasianism on the world, which is completely inconsistent with the Bible.

Third is the modern Christian lore and fads, such as instant born again salvation without good works. Matthew Chapter 25 refutes this modern dogma within Evangelical Protestantism.

Having said all that, I suppose that original guilt is probably some kind of Catholic fantasy.

People will most likely be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam and Eve's "transgression", in my own personal opinion.