Your welcome! I love such topics.Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated. — 0 thru 9
Ah hopefully we are addressing the issues. Critique is part of why I post as well.However…
But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment. — 0 thru 9
That is sad and interesting. Hopefully, you explain WHY your line was crossed. I cannot work on vague notions.This for example:
No, do not denigrate war.
War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.
Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
— Chet Hawkins
You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.
— Chet Hawkins
When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way. — 0 thru 9
OK, but that does not say why they sound that way.Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. — 0 thru 9
Well, the short answer is yes. 'You are me and I am you', the Unity Principle, also states that 'You are God and God is you'. Humility though is a virtue and part of proper moral aims. But so is admitting truth, accepting the responsibility of moral agency. Finally, there is no better approach than to admit you are a part of what is God. That is indeed what offers you infinite choice, really. There is finally no other reason you have it.It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’. — 0 thru 9
Well that one sentence is a HUGE, GIANT leap from any other thing you have said.To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. — 0 thru 9
Consequentialism is a lie. Deontological intent is superior morally in every way. I know that my intent is good, the best I can make it. I admit that my choices can and will lead to failure. I am not perfect. I will reform new intents and try again. But the goal is to earn wisdom and help other's earn it, and my definition of wisdom only includes the balance that makes it good. Some will describe wisdom in a way that includes only their favorite or easy virtues and in doing so they lack balance and they are immoral (wrong). All weakness, all that is incorrect, is immoral in some way. Accuracy is a part of perfection and morality and it is objective, not subjective at all.If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements. — 0 thru 9
Hey, as mentioned, it's intended to the good. I see that you are as well. Any slight, I hope either way, is forgiven and let's then say why it was made.(To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely). — 0 thru 9
Indeed. No retraction at all.To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well. — 0 thru 9
It may not be the case, but it is partially so. That is to say my ideas challenge your comfort with something. It could be your position and you are of course challenging mine then. But let's see how you respond to this post so we will know.In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case. — 0 thru 9
All good! Thanks for your comments!If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower: — 0 thru 9
Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? To go so far that the Unity Principle is denied in its furthest interpretation, 'You are God, and God is you!' is dangerous. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self. — substantivalism
Well, now! Look at you, willing to beat back hypocrisy? I agree!The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back. — substantivalism
You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation.Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? — Chet Hawkins
Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement.We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally. — Chet Hawkins
I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise.So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity. — Chet Hawkins
Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane.Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good. — Chet Hawkins
Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?
Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.
For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.
We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.
Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.
Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim. — 0 thru 9
Something I may not have gotten across in my initial comment is that Nietzsche definitely felt the world was heavily lopsided towards the Apollonian (masculine) over the Dionysian (feminine). The two don't exactly equate to being "male and female" though. So whatever gut feeling you're getting about this notion, I'd say, run with it, thats your intuition leading you down the path towards the edge of what is known, towards that precipice where one builds their own bridge to a new world to share with others. To new vistas. — Vaskane
Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not. — Lionino
If we are not perfect, there is more balance to be had. If we are not maximized, there is more balance to be had.Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not. — Lionino
Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it?
— Chet Hawkins
You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation. — substantivalism
Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.
— Chet Hawkins
Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement. — substantivalism
You're quite poetic.So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.
— Chet Hawkins
I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise. — substantivalism
I mean the cycle is real, the oscillation. And it does seem that the swing is wider, corresponding roughly to moral agency. But that is worrying. Anyone, even a child, can tell, ... if the swing is getting wider it's similar to the universe accelerating in expansion. That makes no sense. It will end itself. Unless we can reliably narrow the oscillation by choice, en masse, we may have discovered the real reason for the Fermi Paradox.The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all. — substantivalism
I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. Locking them up seems like the only non-tiring option. But, it is not. And it causes more troubles, more immorality. It is not as efficient as a modern alternative to the old Samurai would be. Robots will help immensely. Everyone has an escort robot. Ha ha! Is that free? I think it could be. But will/would it be? Doubtful.Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.
— Chet Hawkins
Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane. — substantivalism
I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.
In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.
Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.
Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.
A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.
However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.
For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.
In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.
Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.
I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy. — Tzeentch
That would simply lead to the current imbalance. This is why Jung talks about embracing your "shadow." To help with maintaining personal equilibrium. — Vaskane
Brenee Brown also has some excellent ideas that I found useful for myself across the corpus of her work. — Vaskane
Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. I’d definitely follow it, and probably participate. — 0 thru 9
Well, I tried to be clear. My philosophical definition of war is closer to change than what people will commonly or colloquially recognize as war.And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge. — 0 thru 9
But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war. — Chet Hawkins
Then, yes, 'jihad'! I agree. The struggle towards God. Exactly!In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as ‘struggle’, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
Not sure where I’m going with that, it just reminded me of that. — 0 thru 9
No worries. And you're welcome. Thank you for offering me a chance for clarity.I hope to respond more later.
Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile: — 0 thru 9
I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere.Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats! — Chet Hawkins
To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator.Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does. — Chet Hawkins
What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy.I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. — Chet Hawkins
Well, that was kind-of my point. 'Real life' is quoted because that is delusional. Real life unquoted is non-delusional amid real experience. Real life includes speculations, idle and otherwise, that do absolutely have impact upon us, whether we wish them to or not.Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere. — substantivalism
You might have to demystify that sentence for me.Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.
— Chet Hawkins
To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator. — substantivalism
Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality.
— Chet Hawkins
What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy. — substantivalism
Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?
Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?
Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?
Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?
Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?
Can you step back from your own mind
and thus understand all things?
Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.
Tao Te Ching, verse 10
I enjoy the sentiment and the balance that any worthy model evokes within us to help us cope and understand reality.It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your life’s purpose, love, and detachment.
And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.
When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and can’t explain…
But I think it’d be radically different, and infinitely better. — 0 thru 9
I mean everyone here including myself.I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?} — Chet Hawkins
Any term you or me use is polluted by colloquial meanings and socially present biases. To call something "truth" without further elaboration on what that means or how to methodologically showcase something as such. . . and the limitations of these strategies. . . leaves you open to having your speculations be handled as a hammer by others against 'dissidents'. Whether that is your intention or not.You might have to demystify that sentence for me. — Chet Hawkins
At least in principle I'd consider the opinions of another as their own without emotive objection and unless I have sufficient basis, besides idle discussion, to point out perceived flaws it always seem to be more psychological projection on my part than anything else.Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are. — Chet Hawkins
Yes, ok, a balanced critique, levelled at all. I agree.I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?}
— Chet Hawkins
I mean everyone here including myself. — substantivalism
Yes, well, hammery or hammerish. I am fairly ... confident ... in my statements for some tastes yes, not necessarily implying you. I speak to truth as I understand it, which is not necessarily the same thing, yet, as truth as I might want it, if you follow.You might have to demystify that sentence for me.
— Chet Hawkins
Any term you or me use is polluted by colloquial meanings and socially present biases. To call something "truth" without further elaboration on what that means or how to methodologically showcase something as such. . . and the limitations of these strategies. . . leaves you open to having your speculations be handled as a hammer by others against 'dissidents'. Whether that is your intention or not. — substantivalism
I find those three to be a likely match for fear, desire, and anger. As such your separations of the approaches is agreeable and predictable.When it comes to philosophical speculation we are left with a handful of attitudes with which to motivate philosophical progress on. Pyrrhonean skeptics who seek to passively take a back seat or actively seek for balancing the arguments for as much as against a specific position. Pragmatic fictionalists who see it as merely make believe in a cosmic mental game to play out depending on the accepted rule set. That or become a supremacist. . . what I called a philosophical dominator. . . or it could also be called a dogmatist/fundamentalist. A position, that despite the immediately negative connotations, isn't meant to be seen as purely negative. — substantivalism
I do engage in forceful discretization of ideas that I believe I have useful and strong arguments against. I will deign to offer those arguments as fully as I can. But, agreed that, at the end of the day, there is no final proof, only belief.However, the word "truth" can be used rather loose in a political sense comparable more to a sociological tool to immediately discredit the viewpoints of others to the benefit a given philosophical dominator. — substantivalism
Well, the admittance of my confidence is there fully. That is all any of us have. So, I have no choice but to allow free will in others, expressing it egregiously and properly myself. And actually although I do not fault anyone their right to express their ideas on what truth is or might be, I would nonetheless fault their reasoning as needed where it does not agree with reality, which I would find reasonable from them towards my model in turn, e.g. 'to be fair' {Letterkenny}.Until there is an admittance that such a word is merely to portray your high sense of confidence or you later present an elaborate theory of truth I hope you don't fault me for my own idle speculations. — substantivalism
The which is a ... rather observant and uninvolved approach, the path of fear. Do you agree? I might say I find the 'get on the field and participate' advice of Joseph Campbell more to my taste, but it's no surprise I'm an anger type.Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.
— Chet Hawkins
At least in principle I'd consider the opinions of another as their own without emotive objection and unless I have sufficient basis, besides idle discussion, to point out perceived flaws it always seem to be more psychological projection on my part than anything else. — substantivalism
Your acumen does not seem wanting at all. The world benefits from people of high ability stating firmly their beliefs. 'Let truth and falsehood grapple! Truth is strong!' - Milton (has a point)I rarely believe I have sufficient basis. . . — substantivalism
The sleeper must awaken! - Frank HerbertAs to 'maligning [my] suffering state', similar to what I've stated before something about taking a position to its breaking point and then realizing the solution with which to gain balance again seems rather appealing. . . but not until a sufficient back reaction sets me free. More so at the moment in principle, not so much in practice. In practice, it may mean that once such a principle has served its purpose it may go into hibernation. — substantivalism
I am very well aware of the Pragmatic side, fear side failure of the cop-out saying of 'this is the REAL world' or 'we are only human'. I do not use that pathetic excuse. ;)↪Chet Hawkins
Thanks for your reply…
I know, I know… the inevitable objection to such idealistic thoughts.
Thanks for not putting it in the usual way, such as “that’s not the REAL world blah blah… ” — 0 thru 9
And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice.(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone). — 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo!But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice. — 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc… — 0 thru 9
Control is an odd choice of words here. In isolation especially this sentence is problematic.It hints that there is much we do have control over. — 0 thru 9
That is not relevant.We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we can’t change. — 0 thru 9
Intent to the good is always and only wise and good. Consequences are not relevant except to inform formation of future intents. The sword of Damocles is involved in the formation of intents. Are you honest about including past consequences into your new intents? You do know.There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
(Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say). — 0 thru 9
I agree. Choice is infinite. But the difficulty of right choice is state dependent in the sense for example that some people can easily hurdle some goals and others can do it, for sure, without exception, but not nearly so easily. The blind can see, they just refuse to. The difficult is too much. They deny in part their connection to all, their oneness with all, and refuse to see only because of the difficulty involved. This is hard to agree with like all real wisdom, and yet remains a tautology.But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology. — 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots.It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”
This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing). — 0 thru 9
But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.
— 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo! — Chet Hawkins
Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…
— 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.
Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference. — Chet Hawkins
Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally. — Chet Hawkins
gaslighting: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise. — Chet Hawkins
Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability? — Chet Hawkins
It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”
This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
— 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots. — Chet Hawkins
(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).
— 0 thru 9
And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice. — Chet Hawkins
Yes you are right. I maybe misunderstood your comment there thinking you were making the Pragmatic, 'Sorry there idealist guy, this is the real world with real people, and real people fail so we let them' type of statement which is really only an excuse. But you were saying from a given state there is (insert clarification here) choice. I agree and my clarification would be this insertion: 'infinitely available but by degrees harder and harder to choose ...'. The meaning of which includes the real world comment a Pragmatist would offer but without making any excuses.But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.
— 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo!
— Chet Hawkins
What position? Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean here. Please expand on this.
I meant simply that (as a very general statement) we have possessions, talents, family, etc and there are many possibilities what to do with that ‘raw material’. — 0 thru 9
So I do not reject that ... way. I do embrace it, but, the teaching part, the assertive declarative part is not the soft part. The do it and be judged part is the soft part. Granted, you cannot detect my demeanor in text. I come off mostly calm and humorous in person, but can lean towards forceful and assertive as indeed I am an anger type person and not a enneatype 9 (which would absolutely fit Tao as you describe if you can scrape them off the couch to get them to do something).Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…
— 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.
Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference.
— Chet Hawkins
Then I regret to say (and hope that I’m mistaken) that you reject (or possibly that you are overlooking) the teaching of the Tao, which (in this small quote) advises to be like a patient nurturing parent towards one you wish to share knowledge / wisdom with. — 0 thru 9
Yes, well, it can be a leaning of mine. I do try to soften it, but natural tendencies being what they are ... I probably fail often enough.This is opposed to claiming some knowledge (which may be presumptuous) and forcing it upon someone (which is very authoritative and domineering). — 0 thru 9
Yes, well, granted in that sense. As mentioned the 'do it' part is much less assertive from me.This usually leads to a battle of wills, instead of surrounding a person with some piece of ‘truth’, but letting them open to it… or not.
You can lead a horse to water, after that it is their choice to be nourished or not. — 0 thru 9
Well I prefer confident professionals to dithering or quiet types. In my experience it works better. I do not mean overbearing but assertive, yes. It's the same to me as a bridge maker. Do you make good bridges? Do you know what you are doing? ' 'Absolutely! I've studied the relevant science and I take great pride in going beyond specifications! I invest time and energy in understanding and using the materials like no one else I know. I do not invest as much time in flashy decor but rather in long lasting bridges that are engineered for flexible strength.' That by comparison with a bridge guy that is soft and quiet and says things like, 'Try it and see' or 'I've never had any complaints' is better to me. The latter type terrifies me with their lack of forthright and assertive candor.To claim wisdom and the right to force it on someone reminds me of the extreme music teacher in the movie Whiplash, if you have seen it. (Please understand that I’m NOT saying that your words are as extreme as the teacher in that movie! Not comparing here. I’m simply against too much force in teaching or leading. Even when one is full of valuable knowledge! Especially then). — 0 thru 9
Yes imbalance anger burns up as Yang teaches. But balanced anger and anger is about balance in general does not do this and also broadcasts confidence and serenity. The mixture is delicate and I admit I sometimes rub my audiences the wrong way. But anger is supposed to run over expressed desire and fear the wrong way. Anger stand to their forces, bending them by force back into proper moral alignment. That is why war can be wise in come cases.That which is loud and hot and demanding is too Yang, and will burn itself out.
Which is fine in nature, but who intentionally wants to burn out quickly? (not me, anymore). — 0 thru 9
So the modern community on fb and other social media is chock full of many people, but mostly left wing and desire oriented types, that use gaslighting and condescension and mansplaining all the time, improperly. I gave these examples because of that. I have had extensive debates on each of the terms in many forums because people tend to use them improperly. Further the point being made was that the negative intent is required to use the term properly and therefore some attempt must be made to judge the speaker's intent. When you simply see people saying 'because a man did it it's mansplaining', and then things like 'he told me I was acting too emotionally all the time, so I'm done with that condescending gas-lighter!" you then have great sympathy for the targets of such nonsense.Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally.
— Chet Hawkins
I don’t know what definition of ‘gaslighting’ you are using here, but it doesn’t have much in common with anything I’ve heard. Gaslighting is psychological abuse, not counseling.
From Webster:
gaslighting: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator — 0 thru 9
Yes, and murder is a great word example. The word murder is basically defined as immoral killing. The implication of that is that indeed there is moral killing. And I agree.I think you are saying that the intention defines the morality of an action?
Like murder is wrong, but killing somebody who is attempting to kill others is justified?
If so, then I’d agree in principle. — 0 thru 9
It was shown. I will show it again. Choice is infinite. Done. Shown. The point is that choice is all we have and the infinite nature of choice makes blame easy. Everyone is to blame for everything. We are trapped in any state only because we lack the will, the wherewithal to change the state. But infinite choice is a guaranteed law of reality that means we are indeed to blame for any state.The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise.
— Chet Hawkins
Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability?
— Chet Hawkins
Ok. But you are making sweeping absolute statements again (like in previous posts about ‘war’).
And the meaning of them depends on some irony or insight or knowledge that I’m just not seeing being demonstrated or shown… rhetorical devices aside. — 0 thru 9
It is tricky! I think I do fairly well. But you are helping by making solid critiques. Thank you.I know about ‘crazy wisdom’ being contrary and provocative while making a point.
That’s been done successfully, though it’s tricky. — 0 thru 9
Ah, well, sorry. I tried to clarify again. It's very possible I am not the best writing spout of wisdom for you then.But I’m not seeing the wisdom here, sorry.
These type of statements just sounds like blunt assertions with some bold attitude, which I’m not inclined to respect or even respond to further. — 0 thru 9
I do not think I'd go that far in characterizing my approach. But confidence can seem too much to some.In my view, a ‘steamroller approach’ isn’t working, and I think you make better points elsewhere in your response. — 0 thru 9
Oh yeah, sorry. I should have been clearer that we agreed on that one. I just instead stated my parallel and supportive argument and maybe you thought I was disagreeing because I sounded confident about it. I was disagreeing alright, but with the same thing you disagreed to.It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”
This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
— 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots.
— Chet Hawkins
I think we actually may be agreeing here, but I might have been a little unclear in my initial wording.
I’m saying RESIST the way we are taught, with regards to the idea that the powerful must know what they are doing, and therefore are worthy of following.
To QUESTION everything, and not be lead by appearances and moved by displays of physical or financial power.
(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).
- 0 thru 9 — 0 thru 9
Yes the sword of Damocles is a hard thing to pretend to adhere to. As in let consequences inform your new intents and then pretend that the sword is there. Ignore it at your peril! The sword is your moral compass from an angry threatening point of view. Maybe you prefer the cosmic tickler of Damocles!And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice.
— Chet Hawkins
We agree again here, I think. (Feel free to disagree lol).
My statement here was like what I wrote above about “resisting and questioning”.
Question our teaching, keep what seems worthy, discard the unworthy teachings, and keep investigating that which one is still unsure of.
Any find our inner guidance, conscience, moral compass… (however one describes it).
(Oh yes… and actually FOLLOW what the conscience advises one to do. I’m still working on doing that one consistently). :smile: — 0 thru 9
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.