I was making the point that what the OP said can go in many directions. The very opposite of a self-esteem problem is just as likely. I gave two versions of an alternative. Neither of which I am committed too. — Tom Storm

My comments were based on what was said. I don't care what any person is committed to or believes in. Hope this clarifies. Though thanks for explaining.

I am not committed that that view I simply put it as an alternative to what the OP provided us. It seems to me that he OP's thesis could go in several directions. Maybe what I should have said is that philosophical questions are propelled by human confidence that truth can be identified. — Tom Storm

Well, one can backtrack all they want after proposing what seems like a rebuttal.

" Maybe what I should have said is that philosophical questions are propelled by human confidence that truth can be identified."

Then that would be a serious error. It's doubt and skepticism that propels a philosophical inquiry. Not confidence, So......getting off the horse would seem an intelligent action.

. I think you could equally argue philosophical doubt (as distinct from self doubt) emerges from the human arrogance to know all there is and be in control of all things — Tom Storm

Then arrogance is stupidity (un-intelligent), isn't it? Rather silly and worthless, considering it has no legs to stand on. It isn't backed by anything other than delusions of grandeur.

If philosophical doubt is a measure then it begins and ends in just one observation, one doesn't know anything, except that one is and objective world is. The latter is still debatable and subject to be questioned. The rest of the philosophical bickering can be considered speculations in the innocent, but may have other malicious reasons in the conflict mongers.

Therefore, getting off the horse, and approaching the subject matter with some humility is the first sign of intelligence. That is if the inquirer is serious and sincere. The rest is just...well...i better not say it in words..

You know @Mystic .......

Your response reminds me again of common sense...

Ha

:-)

where is @Foghorn ?

You could change the word past to Soul and I think this would be clearer and less abstract.
Other than psychological time,the other time is mechanical time. But time is only perceived by living beings,so in a sense its all psychological,no? — Mystic

On the contrary, the word soul has abstract meanings, which mean different things to different people. However most of us know what the past means. It is actual and factual.

As to psychological time, yes. But one has to be very clear on how time moves. How the human mind moves in time. Like i said, i would rather not go into this. Thanks.

Common non-sense?
Could also be that the word sense itself is a observationally biased one. — Tiberiusmoon

:-)

I get the dictionary term which supports your view on this, but if you break it down fundamentally of common and sense you have the majority or common group of people who view sense by their own standards of which may not be up to our expectation. — Tiberiusmoon

view sense by their own standards — Tiberiusmoon

Which may be non-sense.

yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important. — Tiberiusmoon

Rather, common sense is rooted in intelligence, than philosophical or academic biases. But it may require common sense to see this.

But to quickly clear something, in order to understand the mutation of psychological time one has to understand first what psychological time is. It's nature and it's movement.

Most philosophers and scientists are weak and lazy thinkers,stuck in their dogmas and comfort zones.
Trading common sense for conformity. — Mystic

I see the word "common sense " has started to come up more in the threads, one wonders why. :-)

+1 with the caveat that in some cases it is less of laziness but more of dogmatic. Perhaps even a lack of intelligence.

Always the past? Mutation in psychological time? Could you clarify these two a little? — Mystic

I will again refer to OP's previous threads on his take on the "past". But briefly, aren't we a living past? What we are now is what we were before. Maybe slightly modified, slightly disguised but if one looks deeper the offshoots are from the past. Our entire base of knowledge, experiences included, is the past. The lens from which we look at the world, people, things, ideas etc. is made of the past, so on and so forth. I am sure you see this, this is so simple to observe. Our language is the past. Our thoughts are the past....i mean everything is the past.

As to mutation, i would like to reserve that for another time if you don't mind.

Experience is also the present and the future. — Mystic

It's one movement. The past meeting the present and becoming the future. But it always is and always will be the past, unless there is a mutation in psychological time.....but that's a different subject.

Here is something i had wrote on certitude:

Somewhere along the way,

if one is ever blessed with certitude,

that blessing is understood as being incomplete.

For that certitude to flower into completeness,

even though there is no guarantee it ever will,

it has to be put to test in it's very antithesis.

One puts aside the complete-incomplete certitude,

and takes up an equal, if not more,

dose of complete-incomplete skepticism.

If the previous certitude does not pass the test,

then it is known as being a delusion.

If it does pass,

then one is left with absolute * certitude,

that has no opposites.

Naturally and easily.

* not relative

Do you believe in intuitive or non discursive truth? Rather than authority let's say certainty. Do you believe in certainty?
I say yes to both,there is certainty in experience. Intuition being experience. Its the discursive/intrusive thoughts which are the problem. A problem that is reduced or eliminated by meditation or consistent Focusing. — Mystic

That is a complex question. Many threads in one. One cannot comment on any "truth" without having first cleared up what we are talking about.

Second, certitude, or for that matter anyhing that falls under the label of 'truth' cannot be a matter of "belief. (a word you have used)

Third, in my previous threads i have briefly looked at "experience" (a word you have used). Perhaps taking a look at them will clarify OP's take on experience. Experience is the known, the past. It's an accumulative process and always limited. It's one of the psychological lens's.

Life can't be abstracted! — Mystic

+1

Well, so far you are the only person who has replied, so maybe this thread will create a big silence. — Jack Cummins

Conflict 101 eh..

I could be wrong but it seems discouraging some while encouraging others seems to be the name of the game..

Interesting.....

exploring the many expressions of violence and conflict, — skyblack

One had said elsewhere, it's the inner reflecting as the outer. Whether it's Gaza or any other conflict zones in the world. Whether it's in one's life, in one's home, or in society. The outer always mirrors the inner. It's such a simple clear logical observation...

I agree with a lot of what you say.
Many folks will never give up appeals to authority and the worship of experts and fear.
But there are people who are intrinsically free,who accept no unwarranted authorities. These people should recognise their natural inclination toward truth and independence. I think if you overemphasise "psychological revolution" you end up with skepticism,and that's not a natural position. — Mystic

Good points. Let's look at couple of things. Both acceptance and "giving up" are usually done from the lens of authority (whether external or internal). There is action and then there is re-action. The OP isn't suggesting either. The OP is simply examining the nature of authority, it's effects on the human and his mind.

Regarding skepticism: you may be right, but, we want skepticism for the dull and the neurotic (perhaps even for all), because it seems through skepticism one arrives at irrevocable certitude.

I was going to post this on the Gaza thread (which i hadn't even read until today), you and @Foghorn might consider exploring the many expressions of violence and conflict, for purposes of educating the conflict mongers and the trolls. I don't think these halfwits are aware of the subtleties that can be explored and observed, in such a topic. Just a suggestion.

Or, for the atheist, we could rebrand this idea as intelligence/matter. — Foghorn

Ha @ re-branding

That's pretty intelligent, especially when we consider that half the humans we know can't successfully perform the same operation. :-)

Bacteria For President!!!! — Foghorn

You don't say :-)

"half" is pretty generous, more like all

@Foghorn

On a side note since you have mentioned bacteria you might take a look, and contemplate, if you wish, on how unicellulars evolved by a single principle, and that is the pain-pleasure principle. The implications of this at the level of humans is quite significant, and will give an insight into how trapped the human mind is within the network of pain and pleasure.

@Foghorn

The inquirer can ask the questions to themselves, or in a dialogue, is what i meant. I wasn't asking you to answer them. Good thread.

I'm definitely an interested in where you are going, but I could use some help in going therewith you. You seem to have summarized years of investigation in to a single paragraph, which is too big a bite for me at present. If it interests you to continue, further explanation, examples, simpler language perhaps, would be read with interest here. — Foghorn

A nice approach. This is how one proceeds in a dialogue. Thanks for providing an example for the neurotic and the clueless.

Well, what is intelligence and what is un-intelligence? Are we intelligent? Are we living intelligently? What is the measure of intelligence? Is intelligence a product of the intellect or separate from it. Can intelligence be gathered from information/books or does it need more? Is intelligence simply an accumulation of the old/ known, or it is more than that? Is the cosmos intelligent? Are animals intelligent? These are some but not all the questions that confront an inquiry into intelligence, it seems......

...It also seems humans fare poorly in that dept, if we look at the overall situation of our lives and our living conditions.

I said you're not a follower of Reason. I didn't say you weren't a follower. Again with the phrasing. — Bartricks

Right. I added "of anything". for emphasis. Do you know why? I don't think you would know why. You know why you wouldn't know it? Because you haven't understood the workings of reason. Do you know how i can tell? By your statements.

Had you known the workings of reason you would have understood that reason ultimately turns on itself, When reason matures in reasoning it kills itself. That's the actualization of reason. Maybe therein lies the glory of reason.

But i get it, you are simply parroting without having understood. Just a mere follower.

Not that it matters but do you know why i came to this thread? Because i felt bad so many were ganging up on you. I will leave you to observe how quickly you turned on me, in spite of your own advice to others about focusing on the OP rather than the person.

I wouldn't want you going around flattering yourself that you're a follower of Reason - you ain't. — Bartricks

You are quite right sir, i am not a "follower".of anything. Be well.

I was going to respond to your previous post when the above showed up, so will stop after answering your question.

Why would it matter? — Bartricks

It matters, because then one isn't investigating. One cannot investigate clearly if the investigation is through any kind of lens, secular or religious, sublime or mundane, so on and so forth. All my threads have touched on this. That said thank you for the prior response.

I am not sure I like your phrasing, but yes. Our faculties are the means by which we gain awareness, but faculties do not themselves perceive things and when we perceive things we are not perceiving faculties. We perceive with our sight, but we do not see our sight and our sight itself sees nothing. If that is the same as what you're saying, then yes. — Bartricks

I am assuming in light of the responses on your thread, especially the ones that have been deleted, is the cause for you being leery about my phrasing. Otherwise there is no reason not to "like" my phrasing, since it is precisely describing what's going on.

My other question to you is about this "agency/agent" you mention, Is it the christian agent?.

Our sensible faculties - which provide us with visual and other sensations - and our reason (our intellectual faculty or faculty of reason).

So, I seem currently to be visually aware of a computer monitor. If, however, my faculty of vision is wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then I am not seeing the computer monitor. Rather, I am having a dream of a computer monitor induced in me (albeit by, among other things, a computer monitor). — Bartricks

The sensible faculties are through which awareness operates, but the faculties do not create awareness, right? The faculty of vision does not create awareness, right?

in order for our faculties of awareness — Bartricks

Can you explain what you mean by "faculties of awareness"?

One has to look into the issue of freedom carefully. To look at the nature of freedom. Is freedom given? Before one can inquire into the nature of freedom does one know he is a prisoner. Does one know how one has been captured by society, by culture, by ideologies, by narratives, by what one has been told. Does the inquirer have a free mind. A mind that has the capacity to look without any distortions from conditioning, bias, or prejudice. Surely one needs a free mind and attention to even inquire.

We have made society what it is. It's a reflection of us. The crisis 'outside' is mirroring the crisis 'inside'. One can start with self-accountability.

I see you have done an addendum and added the following after my post:

My question is what would you do with it? If you could see the universe through another realm?
Personally, I’m just here for people. Like we all are just a part of a whole, my piece just can see things others refuse to or go about it in ways that are not the path to. — Kiingarian

I have no idea what you are asking so will bow out.

I’m not the one for that. In fact may be the worst candidate. I hold little care for physical things. As I cannot recall them and it seems like recalling great feelings is what most do. I’ll help anyone that needs it I’m the realms that matter, again though I’m but a tool. And now that I have the ability to use this clarity personally it’s okay not to, but I’m advise by a few I should.
Those that ask me to, I understand it’s for some form of self gain... I don’t care for much but to live simply.
I’d be content riding out my years through life on a “small wooden boat” I don’t need a yacht or anything extravagant. My means are met. — Kiingarian

Then what's the question? Or there is none?

simply, I have a sense because my other senses don’t work like everyone else’s. Like a blind man can hear better. But in my case it’s all my main physical senses. What does one do when most people have the same sense but because of their physical senses most don’t use them due to forms of manipulation by the masses or their Beliefs tell them not to use them. — Kiingarian

It seems the above intro is for the following question:

I don’t think I’m the right person to go help millions of people see the world clearer. But I can sense another realm of existence like sight being one, hearing another, while energy (spiritual, auras whatever you want to call it) being the one I can most don’t. — Kiingarian

You would like to help the millions, is that it?