The most wonderful day of my life was when I finally realized that there was no way to "figure it out." Things are the way they are for reasons that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing. Imagine how much of a relief this must be when you are no longer consumed with analysis. Even better is not having to prove to anybody else that you are right!!

The ego is not our friend, instead, it is a taskmaster of unmatched intensity, a force that refuses to give up until we figure out that it is our own self that we constantly fight while projecting such battles on some innocent who happens to be in the line of fire.

Accepting reality (even our perception-altered reality) is a hell of a lot better than trying to play God.

I definitely agree that there is so much projection going on, and people pretending to have the answers to so many political, religious and philosophical questions.

the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. Again, there are tens of millions of lives that need to be put back together. There are unbelievable numbers of people with mental and emotional issues and the financial toll has been incalculable.

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything. Most corporations seemed to have weathered the storm OK — synthesis

It is a false assumption to refer to the response in the singular. As we all know the previous administration didn't take the lead (I am stipulating that tweeting is not leadership) so things were left to the states. The states handled things very differently from one another. Where I live, we have the 4th lowest infection rate, so the medical part has gone way, way better than average. OTOH, perhaps businesses have done worse than average, though I have seen no data to support this notion.

State and local governments (who rely on income and sales taxes) have taken huge hits, so any idea to the contrary is just wrong.

As to corporations, the airlines, travel/hospitality industries and any brick and mortar retail is either dead or dying.

The funny thing is, Jack, even if you are able to eloquently provide the latest and greatest explanations of this, that, and the other thing, how long does it take before an even "better" version becomes popularized. It's a treadmill from which there is no exit.

But we are human (first and foremost) and find it nearly impossible to resist seeking affirmation for our creative ego-driven realities. Everybody's out there saying, "Believe me, because I am right!"

What's the chance that anybody else out there with completely different experiences is going to believe that you are anything but delusional (at best). They simply can't believe that everybody doesn't think as they do.

And then there are the truly evil people in this world who exploit all of this for fun and profit.

We humans have a long, long way to go...

It is a false assumption to refer to the response in the singular. — LuckyR

You are absolutely correct, but in general, and for this conversation, the overall winners are governments and corporations, the losers, small business and individuals (just like its been for the past 50 years).

I am not saying the pandemic was any kind of plot, but the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. — synthesis

Of course, but we should acknowledge that no one had or has sufficient control for the situation to be handled ideally, or perhaps even halfway well. With total global cooperation the virus could theoretically be eliminated within a month, but that’s a fantasy. If the pandemic were ignored in the interests of avoiding an economic downturn, that too is a fantasy. Many would refuse to work, shop, recreate, etc. in hazardous situations, or would be unable to do so.

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything — synthesis

I don’t know what you mean by that. It could be argued that Trump lost the election because of the pandemic, for instance.

There are industries that did well during the pandemic, sure.

Absolutely, and I am a listener, so I will probably not survive long in the stampede of egos, asserting that they are right. But, I don't just want to end up as a squashed fly. I want to soar to the unknown, unchartered skies to see all the new panoramic perspectives and angles.
.

Of course, but we should acknowledge that no one had or has sufficient control for the situation to be handled ideally, or perhaps even halfway well. With total global cooperation the virus could theoretically be eliminated within a month, but that’s a fantasy. If the pandemic were ignored in the interests of avoiding an economic downturn, that too is a fantasy. Many would refuse to work, shop, recreate, etc. in hazardous situations, or would be unable to do so. — praxis

As always, your only option is the play the hand you are dealt. The system is very broken for a number of reasons we are all familiar with, so not being able to put partisan politics aside caused many difficulties. From shutting things down to money allocations to the response to the BLM/ANTIFA protests and rioting, there was a dramatic lack of leadership.

If you look at other crises this country has faced over the years, generally speaking, people did the right thing (and even people came together for a bit after 9.11).

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything
— synthesis

I don’t know what you mean by that. It could be argued that Trump lost the election because of the pandemic, for instance. — praxis

Nobody in government lost their jobs. They all got paid on-time, every week.

And probably Trump did lose the election because of the pandemic. Politicizing this kind of disaster was truly despicable. The lust for power simply knows no bounds.

I want to soar to the unknown, unchartered skies to see all the new panoramic perspectives and angles. — Jack Cummins

I think your in the right place. :)

Enjoyed the conversation, Jack. Good luck and look forward to chatting again soon.

I am not wishing to deny the importance role of egoism as expressed by Gus Lamarch — Jack Cummins

This is not a problem in egoism. Jack, what you - and everyone else that can't be "I" - don't understand is that egoism, if transformed into virtue, and equivalent, in purpose, the individual human ability to reach the heavens is limitless, but only if we embrace with true feeling to ourselves; our own essence; our own; the ego.

I've participated in these discussion groups for decades and it never fails to amaze me how attached people are to their own thinking (when deep down inside they know they have no clue). — synthesis

The example given here by Synthesis, blatantly reveals what I call the "Negative-Egoist" - those who do not accept their most intrinsic principles and values in their individuals because they do not want to categorize themselves as egoists - the same ones that instead of transforming themselves in their own motivations and goals, decide, out of resentment, to infer their bitterness - unconscious as well as consciously - on others - -. Lamenting it or not, with God or without, nothing changes the practical truth that the overwhelming majority of all humanity was, and remains being beings consumed by the most dread and evil blight of all:

- Resent that you'll all be redeemed!

(when deep down inside they know they have no clue) — synthesis

This, the Christians called Satan, the Atheists, Nihil, and God, Humanity.

I think that most people are not aware of the role that ego plays in arguing views. I would say that this awareness alongside a mixture of certainty and certainty about areas of belief is important, in order to be free to rise into the skies.

belief — Jack Cummins

What makes "belief" if not your faith?

certainty — Jack Cummins

What makes "certainty" if not your certitude?

in order to be free to rise into the skies. — Jack Cummins

Who in the end will be free to rise in the skies? Certainty? Belief? Concepts? or Yourself?

I suppose it is faith, but I probably don't use the term very often due to religious connotations. I would guess that I want my ideas and myself to fly in some way or another. But, I want to be able to distinguish the two, as if I am leaping from an aeroplane by parachute.

If you're suggesting that those ultimately pulling the strings benefit from a divided nation I tend to agree.

I think that most people are not aware of the role that ego plays in arguing views. I would say that this awareness alongside a mixture of certainty and certainty about areas of belief is important, in order to be free to rise into the skies. — Jack Cummins

There's a great book about psychedelics by Michael Pollan that I read a couple of years ago. Without going into the specifics, generally speaking psychedelics temporarily suppress the ego. Funny thing is that the experience of egolessness often seems to have the effect of inflating egos in the long run. Apparently it can give a sense of superiority. Spiritual/religious egolessness can be even worse because it tends to devalue reason.

The example given here by Synthesis, blatantly reveals what I call the "Negative-Egoist" - those who do not accept their most intrinsic principles and values in their individuals because they do not want to categorize themselves as egoists - the same ones that instead of transforming themselves in their own motivations and goals, decide, out of resentment, to infer their bitterness - unconscious as well as consciously - on others - -. Lamenting it or not, with God or without, nothing changes the practical truth that the overwhelming majority of all humanity was, and remains being beings consumed by the most dread and evil blight of all: — Gus Lamarch

Hey Gus, can you titrate that down to a short sentence of two so I can understand what you are trying to say?

We are storytellers who tell stories that could only have been told by us. Imperfect stories that don't capture the full truth and can't. If we were only ever honest, unimpeded by our egos, the conflict caused by our contradicting narratives would not disappear. There's no greater truth to look for together, no "perfect" story. We can help each other improve the stories we tell, that's it.

Hey Gus, can you titrate that down to a short sentence of two so I can understand what you are trying to say? — synthesis

"Those who know they are egoist, however, do not accept their nature, eventually destroy the worlds of those who know and accept what they trully are" - This is the story of humanity.

You are absolutely correct, but in general, and for this conversation, the overall winners are governments and corporations, the losers, small business and individuals (just like its been for the past 50 years). — synthesis

I agree with your assessment of corporations. Governments in the US have taken a huge hit since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's, so you are wrong there in the long term. I will agree that the governments have done much better than small businesses and lower wage workers during the pandemic that had to shut down completely, but being a smaller loser is not being a winner. You are correct that the elite who didn't have to shut down were essentially neutral, like it didn't happen. Though they have been big winners since the 1980s.

those who do not accept their most intrinsic principles and values in their individuals because they do not want to categorize themselves as egoists — Gus Lamarch

Seems rather cynical to argue that that’s the only motivation behind not being dogmatic with your views.....

I think people use emotion most where reason fails them. I’ve noticed that quite often the beliefs one is most emotionally attached to are the ones that are the least rational.

The funny thing is, Jack, even if you are able to eloquently provide the latest and greatest explanations of this, that, and the other thing, how long does it take before an even "better" version becomes popularized. It's a treadmill from which there is no exit. — synthesis

I’ve always thought this line of thinking to be exaggerated. Do you not think there are any eternal truths? Is there absolutely nothing which we have gotten right?

Is there absolutely nothing which we have gotten right? — Pinprick

At what point can you be sure you got it right and are not just making a mistake?

I was interested in the point you make about stories because I enjoy fiction writing. That is based on the perspective of the narrator, even if it is from the third person omniscient narrator. It is a limited view, with bias. Perhaps, philosophy should be seen as a form of storytelling. I would be happy to see it that way, with competing pictures of truth, but I am not sure that everyone else would be willing to see their views in such a way. Generally, I think that we should not see our own ideas and opinions too concretely. They capture our perception at a given moment, and hopefully are not static, but evolving stories.

Whether people do or do not see it that way is just another part of the story they're telling, about themselves and their lives. A fiction book is a fine example, it only describes the things of interest to the author, with the goal of giving only certain information. Emphasising, characterising and narrativising in a way that depicts even this fictional world in a way which could only have ever been done by the author, with their specific intent, feelings and ideas.

If we are both given a long set of facts about a fictional world, of which we must tell a story, our stories will likely not look remotely the same. We will interpret things differently and construct an entirely different narrative, the reader may get a totally different impression of the world we were asked to describe by reading your book or mine. I can say that your book got it wrong, maybe that makes you feel like your perspective is being tossed aside. There is a problem because in reality, when we are describing important issues, I do not necessarily want others to interpret them differently, take this discussion about covid 19 for example. The stakes are high, people want others to understand a specific point and we can't necessarily accept it when others don't agree.

There are many circumstances where we can't just agree to disagree, to see the differences in our perspectives as the harmless consequence of differences between us, which can never be completely reduced. This conflict can never be resolved, only mediated, with maturity and understanding, that our stories can only ever be different, mirroring the differences that exist between people, their experiences and all the things that helped create the narrative.

I definitely think that all our ideas should be seen as interpretation and not as concrete truths. In particular, the whole emphasis is science is of models. We could say that all thought can be seen as forming models and the models themselves must never be taken as an actual reality.

A simple example of this is news coverage. On a daily basis we watch the television for the latest headlines to try to be aware of what is going on in the world. However, the whole sociological understanding of news has shown how this coverage is biased, usually in the slant of those in power.

Your point that, 'There are many circumstances where we cannot agree just to disagree' has a lot of bearing on many discussions, especially in politics and religion. Sometimes, people try to convince others of their opinions, with such determination to change the views of the opposition. I particularly recall how evangelical Christian students were often in a mission to spread the word to the 'heathen' ones and I did not see many 'conversions' happening in this way.

One aspect which I often notice in philosophy is that people often see the whole process of discussion to be about etching out difference and focus on this. I am not saying that I am not in favour of clarifying difference and distinction because it is part of seeing detail and about being analytical. However, in my own approach, I also like to be aware of common ground of thinking as well because I think that this is a very useful too, rather just seeing discussion as a battle.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. — Jack Cummins

People who don't fight for what they believe is right go crazy.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that people should not be saying what they think and fighting for what they believe. I think that expression of emotions and thoughts is a central aspect of human life. I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others.

I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others. — Jack Cummins

Not being locked into a certain position can also be detrimental to oneself and to others.
Like they say, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

I am not trying to suggest the idea of becoming a philosophical jellyfish. One thing which I think is true is that to counter any position, it is not just about focusing on the weaknesses of the opposing one. I would say that the quality argument sees the strengths in the other side and works towards refuting these strengths.

Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard.

I really like this post Jack. It gives a short summary of how our "knowledge" is aligned to our emotion - not just our senses.

This is about the methods or strategies of debate. I think most people haven't thought about this much, and are just going with their gut feeling, or their favorite method (such as reductio ad absurdum).

Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard. — Jack Cummins

"Would" isn't going to get you to those wider areas.