↪Chet Hawkins I disagree. Evolution is not sentient. It does not choose anything consciously. It is a process that occurs in the real world - whatever its true nature. — Truth Seeker

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
If we discuss properties of matter, we are discussing everything that is. I suppose one might also say that space must be discussed as separate from matter. But space is really more so the distance between matter. So, matter and distance then. And then one can speak of energy. So we have matter, energy, and space. And then maybe time.

How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. It's only a matter (ha ha) of degree. The space between meaningful or realized as meaningful parts of matter of choice, which MATTERS, is larger. And you think this means none. Hilarious!

The 'real' world you describe and most people accept is a childish delusion of anger only. Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. Anger is the honest emotion, 'calming fears', by demanding that we stand up every morning and face the unknown, our fear.

Everything contains the fractal seed of sentience. Therefore everything partakes of sentience. It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.

{When they told me I was delusional, I nearly fell off my unicorn!}

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos.
— Chet Hawkins

To me, this seems a little too black and white. — Beverley

Far from it.

The objective nature of perfection is there, the white, and all the rest is only a degree of error. Existence is only some degree of moral failure.

The gray area is only amid the relative nature of comparing one viewpoint in error with another. So, there is both black and white and all shades of gray at the same and no contradiction either. This is the only way it could be.

The trick is holding seemingly disparate beliefs in mind simultaneously and coming to the inevitable conclusion that they are not finally contradictory. That is wisdom itself.

Could this not simply be another way of us trying to confirm certainty for fear of acknowledging the grey, in between, uncertain area of things? — Beverley

I find that being comfortable with that aim is a desire side delusion. Fear will also participate though. You end up with a conspiracy for low aimed moral choice. Everyone excusing the gray areas without challenging them. The proper path is admission of failure and forgiveness, followed by a re-assertion of perfection as the only best aim.

Maybe there is no either end: perfection or chaos. Weirdly enough, I suspect that perfection and chaos may be the same thing...if they exist. — Beverley

All final or perfect states are obtained in an infinite number of ways. It is that infinity of paths that seems to suggest the destination is not a single objective thing. But that suggestion is delusional in every way, and only the objective final aim is perfect.

rascal energetic tornado
— Chet Hawkins

Aren't all dogs amazing!? But I may be a little exhausted trying to keep up with that... although I'd have a good try! — Beverley

When I was younger it was THE thing for me. Border Collies! Accept no substitute! But I am of course in no way biased. ;)

I love most animals but the smart ones that have rich interactions are just charming.

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message.
— Chet Hawkins

It seems to be correct that language is not required, but it is not by any means redundant. We have a little Kokoni. Chances are you have never even heard of her breed, but she is constantly mistaken for a miniature border collie. And the funny thing is that she herds as well. The kokoni is an ancient Greek breed of dog, bred for the aristocracy as lap dogs and to entertain the children of the aristocracy. There are pictures of them on ancient artifacts, and yet, for some odd reason, they are only recognized in Greece as a specific breed and nowhere else. They have long and extremely soft fur. Their bark is extremely loud for their size (kokoni in Greek means 'little dog') but they rarely bark. They take time to attach themselves to a human, but once they do, they will stay loyal for life. Their average lifespan is 16 years and they do not suffer any specific illnesses apart from teeth issues. They can be as active as you want them to be, meaning that if you want to play, they do too. But they can also curl up and sleep soundly next to you for hours. She is our little treasure that someone threw away in a dumpster when she was 2 years old. We are the luckiest people to have found her. (although I would for sure take away the fact that someone threw her away in the first place if I could)

Sorry to go on about our dog, but I couldn't help it. — Beverley

I love it! Now I want one! I'm getting too old to be punished by a rascal energetic tornado border collie. I love them, but they need open spaces and a job to do. I'm a master trainer (self-proclaimed) and my collies usually surpass that famous border collie that knows 200 objects. Try that and fifty verbs. But yeah, there is no low energy setting. This one STAYS at 11.

You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty.
— Chet Hawkins

I totally agree with this and have said this before. It makes sense to me. Certainty means security and predictability. But we have lived with uncertainty for a LONG time, but we seem to convince ourselves otherwise. As humans, we look for patterns in EVERYTHING, for the same reason: patterns represent predictability. However, I often think that patterns may be simply something we make up in our minds. — Beverley

Yes, order is fear. So fear is all patterns. And the first fear is the primal pattern, fear of the unknown.

Fear emerges the 'like' or friendship pattern of love. We are only COMFORTABLE with those that are like us. This draws the delusional line between 'us' and 'them'. So fear is the origin of separation of all kinds, the limiting force. Want a barrier or a prison? Use too much fear! Identity is sourced in fear. What does that tell you?

Maybe there are no patterns at all. — Beverley

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos.

Maybe we just see them because it makes us feel more secure. But of course, I do not know for sure. — Beverley

We cling to the easy ones. It's effort to step into the unknown, harder, prone to cause suffering, and therefore MORE, not less, moral. We use the order of patterns only to inform those choices to hone them towards perfection.

You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty. — Beverley

I disagree.

The proper math is this: You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. Fear seeks comfort, the lessening of the excited state that is negative. The balancing anger STANDS on its own, confident, because it is, because it exists. It can be seen as foolhardy but, if done right, and there is a right way, it is not foolish at all.

Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like? — RogueAI

Yes, that's what I meant. Fear, anger, and desire. The anger is the being in essence. So instinct is a body or pre-differentiated memory. The body's statement for choice, the starting state, is itself just a previous choice. That is belief from being (anger), implied, waking STATE. Evolution chooses. Therefore it DID believe. It seems to try all routes (desire) but really there is math in every one (fear).

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins

Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional — RogueAI

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message.

But the possible (lack of) depth of moral agency does not preclude that agency, nor the infinity of choice. The only thing that is happening is the effort required to enact some high minded choice is exponentially higher in a body that is not evolved to support that agency in situ. But it's not impossible ...

I always chafed at that horridly untrue George Eliot quote, "Animals are such agreeable friends—they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms." I think this man knew NO animals. He surely did not know erudite ones like dolphins and border collies.

Certainty is absurd!
— Chet Hawkins
Again, why are you so adamant about this? — Banno

Well if you are going to cast doubt on something, let that something be certainty. It's my sin I guess. So certain that certainty is wrong! ;)

Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible.
— Chet Hawkins
And you know this to be so? — Banno

Clearly, I do not know it. I admit it. Certainty is absurd! I only believe it to be so. And I can and do argue as to why. Effort has been made to validate. That is all anyone can say or has time for.

↪Chet Hawkins
Your way of thinking of the idea of rebellion is interesting because it is so different from the political one. — Jack Cummins

Well it isn't completely different. People put things into to broad and vague a category to really understand. It's fundamental forces, only. Order vs chaos. Right vs Left, all duality really is always a trinary situation. And the ideals of both must be balanced and yet not moderated. The extremes of both is what is the good. The moderate middle in conflict is low expectations laziness.

As a child, I definitely saw rebellion as being about the nature of good and evil. I was brought up as a Catholic and while adopting that approach and being 'confirmed' at age 11, before I had begun to think of questioning, I saw the idea of rebelling as being equated with sin. — Jack Cummins

Which is the interesting hypocrisy of the church and I do mean Catholicism specifically. The Protestant reformation is a fear backlash of order amid Christianity. The Catholic church is definitely more on the liberal freedom side throughout history, indulgences pretty much named for the core sin of desire. But all second order individuals (groups) are orderly only in formation and then they tend to be chaos in their next oscillation.

But as the wavelength lengthens, the orderly second wave merges into the chaotic first wave and the first wave rules so the second asymptotes BACK to it, if you follow. So everyone and every organization ends up drifting more and more back to its core emotion, fear for the right and protestants and desire for the left and Catholics. Of course this is very broad brush and stereotyping, but it does work statistically also.

I was brought up with the idea of the 'fall of the angels', and the consequent fall of humanity from a state of innocence and grace. — Jack Cummins

Which is fine. Objective moral truth must be a call to perfection, but when perfection is attained, it starts over again. So this start over is mythed out as a 'fall of angels', when really its just a chance to do it all again, and not be static. Perfection is too hard to be eternal except if time is a delusion.

My shift in the way I saw rebellion came while studying sociology 'A' level and especially the topic of 'deviance' and the way in which the label of being a deviant often marks a career of deviant behaviour. It was while studying this that school friends of mine, who were not studying sociology, began telling me that I was a deviant. — Jack Cummins

I know this can feel predetermined or grouped with other motivations permanently. But that is so not the case. Objective moral truth guarantees one thing only, free will. And choice is infinite in power. That means forgiveness is infinite. But its a law of the universe, the only way the universe CAN BE, and yes you could call that 'love' but 'God' is a stretch (to me).

The point being that within each stereotyped scope there is always a split between that form or virtue of expression and good and evil within that. There is not a type (like Enneatype 4 artists) that do not always have a way to be good within that type. All types are equally moral and immoral as possible. No type is predestined to evil. They are though ... predestined to certain types of evil and certain types of good. That is personality, and NOT disease. So, often our treatments of personality types as a disease is immoral (to me). Both the minutemen and Hamas are rebels. I'd have to read British accounts of the Americans in the revolutionary war to know, but, I'm reasonably sure that one of those is a more moral case than the other. Still the Tyrannical oppression of over expressed order was present in both cases. England was fairly high-handed with the colonies. Israel is even more than that with Hamas.

The aesthetic aspect of ideas of rebellion are also an important aspect. I am aware of a battle within myself over order and chaos. When I make art I do this in a precise detail as opposed to some who make more chaotic art. On an art based course, someone saw my art as being about control and order. The funny aspect is that I am untidy and chaotic in daily life, even when I try to keep things tidy. — Jack Cummins

The witch and pirate (thug) are the heart of chaos. These are tribal men and women. The warriors (enneatype 8) that just like to fight and pose for the female mystery spirit (Enneatype 4). These are the quintessential male and female types for tribes. The warrior and the beautiful witch. But those are both chaos. One is desire infused anger. The other is anger infused desire. Order is right out.

But civilization takes order. And only from order can you truly rebel. Before order rebellion is only BETRAYAL, more personal.

The balance between order and chaos is intricate and even chaos theory in physics sees an emergent order from chaos and the rave music makers drew upon this. In music, the tension between chaos and order is so strong and even in punk culture there is designer punk, which is a marketed hype and so different from the original punk mode of expression. — Jack Cummins

That is because in the end, objective moral truth requires that order and chaos be balanced. It's like a basic law of the universe. The cycle is in oscillation. It has to be to be alive.

To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra

I am writing this thread after attending a creative writing group, in which the theme was about the establishment and antidestablishmentarianism. What does it mean to rebel and even the idea of the 'establishment' is ambiguous. Generally, I was a little surprised in the group that the majority in the group seemed to embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion. — Jack Cummins

There are many terrifying parts of that paragraph.

In old D&D there was a better alignment system than that which is in most roleplaying games these days. In that alignment system there were 4 poles, evil and good, and chaos and order.

I do indeed assert the existence of a pole and axis for chaos and order. I deny the existence of a pole and axis for good and evil. Evil is merely less good.

Rebellion then is only chaos, renamed. Freedom is also chaos renamed. Desire is also chaos renamed. All of these terms are then effectively synonymous. All of them relate to disruption of order.

But order and chaos are both finally delusional. The balance between them is not.

Free will itself is the only law of the universe, and the balance within that state allows for choice. Choice is informed by emotions only. Effectively there is nothing but emotion in existence. Choice can be fear oriented which is synonymous with all order. Or choice can be desire oriented which is synonymous with all chaos. Anger, the third and final emotion is responsible for the tension between these emotive forces. Anger denies fear and thus allows moral agents to 'stand courageously' too all else in reality. Anger denies desire and thus allows moral agents to 'be calm as self sufficient' (wanting nothing). The tension of anger literally CAUSES the reality we admit to, to exist.

The gist of my own written piece in the group was that my own understanding has altered. Initially, I viewed rebellion in relation to youth subculture, especially punk, new wave music and metal. However, on a deeper level, I came to see it as both a political and philosophical idea, especially after reading 'The Outsider', by Colin Wilson. While thinking about this, I became immersed in the music of the Doors, as well as the existentialism of Camus and Nietzsche. — Jack Cummins

I still assert that rebellion is a bid for freedom against any perceived order. It is desire or chaos. That is all.

Rebellion may be a stance of perception beyond the political aspects of it. Camus saw suicide as an act of metaphysical rebellion. Here, it may be equated with nihilism. I also wonder about the idea of antinatalism as a form of metaphysical rebellion. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism is a rejection/rebellion of a moral agent towards meaning itself. The stance is entirely immoral. Immersed in nothing but meaning, fear actually pushes the observer to deny meaning in order to becalm itself. In such a way, a 'lazy' approach to truth may be attempted, with the danger of moral duty taken off the hook by Nihilism.

Suicide is selfishness that destroys the self. It is rooted mostly in the anger infused desire. Anger is the base of substance, essence, matter. Anger infusion vectors deny existence. Desire is the pull towards perfection. It is no surprise at all that this combination, in weak moral agents, can result in suicide. Effectively, the shame immoral tendency arises from desire. Desire with insufficient anger means chaos is in play more than it should be. Desire reflects worthlessness upon a moral agent. The reason why is that they can only want something if they are currently insufficient in some way. This dynamic can increase the likelihood of the immoral act of suicide because of the imbalance. Adding proper anger to stand to the desire and refute the worthlessness by accepting oneself as belonging, is a proper path.

Suicide can approach a moral act only. It cannot finally be moral.

Generally, choices of conformity or rebellion are bound up with values. Conformity may arise through trust in the tried and tested methods and rebellion, even though based on turning values upside down may have emerged from romanticism. It held strongly in the arts and may have inspired the beat generation writers, including Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, as well as postmodernism. — Jack Cummins

Most art is expression is indeed a formulation of desire, chaos. Beauty itself is directly tied to the concept of mysterious truth as discussed briefly in the esoteric thread.

The use of the Enneagram, as always, helps us to understand truth in motivation.

Enneatype 5 - anger infused fear, denies being and prefers to observe as if they themselves were not present. This type is THE most Nihilistic type. Awareness always comes from fear and order and tends to lean towards denying existing order (truth) to establish its own. Fear is a limiting force and always delusional. Like all order, the key emotion is fear which is reflecting false worthiness on the chooser.

Enneatype 4 - anger infused desire, denies being by wallowing in emotive mystery. The tragic romantic is the most likely to commit suicide. This type desires to be 'special' and this need is so great that it becomes an immoral aim, as in, nothing can be so special that it does not belong. This then leads in more immoral 4 to denial of being, life itself, in order to be so very special. Like all chaos, the key emotion is desire which is reflecting shame on the chooser.

On a personal level, I see the idea of rebellion as a political stance and as a way of wishing to question values. Mostly, I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? The theme goes back to the religious sources, such as Milton's idea of the 'fallen angels'. Here, the idea may have involved obedience in service to a higher being and the contrasting emphasis on choosing one's own pathway. So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

It is all only the interaction of order, chaos, and anger as the balancing force. There is nothing else going on at any level other than that.

The definition that I am working off of is this:

a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Since I believe there is nothing but emotion in this metaverse, and that emotion exists to support a single law of nature, free will, choice, then I fairly well agree with existentialism.

The agency of any individual is only properly moral agency. There is nothing but morality and then choice which is more towards it by intent or less so as a failure of intent, eg immorality.

The definition should to me be for moral agents and 'individual' is a less than best term. The entire universe is alive and although colloquially 'life' is not a condition or state shared by much of the matter in the metaverse, the real truth is that the universe is entirely alive and possessed of free will down to each and every particle, sub-atomic, macroscopic, etc; all of them. Within ANY scope of examination, that scope may be declared a moral agent and that agent indeed has choice. Free will is the only law of the universe. All other 'laws' or phenomena are only permutations of choice made by all entities in the metaverse.

Also, it should be stated that 'determining their own development' is confusing. Indeed choice is part of that process of free will, but ANY locus or scope can be examined. And then it would be cautionary to add in the idea that OTHER moral agents also affect ... you ... or any moral agent. So it is technically a delusion for self empowerment only. That assertion is itself overturned if and only if the unity principle is embraced as truth. That principle effectively states that 'You are me and I am you' All separations are delusional and we are all of us only a part of the same all.

Lastly there should be more clarity on the term 'will' in that definition. My own model of the metaverse suggests to me that the term 'will' relates best only to the emotion of desire. Although that is the default stand in for motivation and intents, my model asserts that to restrict choice to 'will' is blatantly incorrect. There are in fact three emotions and only three. These are fear, anger, and desire. So, my model's definition of existentialism (trying to paraphrase it as intended in a better way) is this:

a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of moral agents as morally responsible via their use of the balance of free will and the only force in the universe, choice. {To clarify further, morally responsible means they can fail and intend immoral choices}

I disagree. I am experiencing what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is a knowledge. — Truth Seeker

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. There is no knowledge that is not only beliefs.

It is not just pedantic foolishness that originates these types of assertions. It is philosophy properly applied. Skepticism is a valid approach. It does not deny anything that is happening. 'Knowing' has never happened in the entire history of time because perfection is not possible. We may only approach perfection or try to aim at it. We have not arrived and theoretically will never arrive.

There are many verbs that contain this same conundrum. There are many situation in reality that should be understood more properly by applying the asymptotic state to their limited approaches. Knowing is just one example.

We operate only from a well of beliefs. Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible.

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something. — Corvus

Knowing is a delusion. Belief is all that we have.

He might believe he knows nothing. This is not knowing. It is only belief. So then he believes something.

The word or verb to know is a word that, like many, partakes of perfection too much. It is my assertion that the word know means objectively know, and that is impossible.

Playing word games with a word that has never really meant what people thought it means is not useful.

Of course the colloquial understanding of the verb to know is burdened with the colloquial confusion that 'knowing' is possible. And on we go ...

↪Chet Hawkins Thank you for explaining. What is the basis for your beliefs? — Truth Seeker

There is no basis for anything other than beliefs.

My beliefs are chosen based on observation, model completeness, model scope, model cross verification as in via some studies and trends in understanding.

To me facts are only a subset of beliefs. There is no actual proof to 100% on any issue. So facts are different than beliefs only in that for a person that believes them they are considered as sufficiently validated that the person would SAY they are 'proven', even though they cannot be actually proven. So it's almost like proclaiming a fact is a mistake in reasoning, if you follow. It means you no longer profess any doubt about the matter, effectively, which as Voltaire reminded us, is absurd.

I experience the experience of what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is an incontrovertible knowledge for me. — Truth Seeker

I suggest that this attitude is merely wrong (again). Your impressions of what happened are delusional. We as humans simply do not have the sensory apparatus to understand properly ... in any way. The position of doubt remains the most sensible, the most wise.

And yes, these experiences are only beliefs. Ask any dozen people what happened at the same event where they were all sober and present and you will have that many different ... BELIEFS about what happened. And zero of those will be precise enough to be objectively what happened.

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3
— Chet Hawkins

Huh? — Lionino

Ha ha! That is indeed the generally present response to some of my most revealing posts. But, what is being addressed here merits the merit of that set of assertions.

Do you know the Enneagram? It is one of many maps of human personality. Ennea - nine Gram - Measure. The 9 measures of human motivation.

Type 5 is the quintessential scientist type. They tend towards Nihilism immorally. They are observers. Good science is good observation (Avatar). One of the telltale identifying characteristics of a type 5 is the distinct impression that their body is merely a vehicle for who they really are, which they perceive to be their mind only.

This OF COURSE gives rise to intellectual or mental hubris, yielding in such people, 'Cogito ergo sum!' . The quote is entirely predictable if one knows the Enneagram and ... has thus some insight into typology and behavior. I do.

But the wise observer completes the scope and variety of the aims. The nine statements are the total set. And each statement stands to reason in its own unique way.

My own extension of the Enneagram asserts that Type 5 is anger infused fear. But anger infusion creates the situation/state know by the Hornevian triad of withdrawal. That means the 5 is a withdrawn or low presence type, at least via the contribution of the 5ishness of their personality. This is easily confirmed in actual 5 as typed in reality.

The unified matrix of all these disparate systems lends credibility to all assertions made because of successful cross pollination. Of course pure logic might assert that is bogus as a non-conclusion, but what we often deem as 'pure' logic is anything but, and in any case, logic is only fear. It's ironically humorous that proponents of logic in the social media and movie or literature canon often state that logic stands opposed to emotion. This is a dangerous lie as there is nothing but emotion in existence. Logic and thought is all only fear.

But each level of reality folds the 3 emotions back onto themselves again and again yielding greater detail but only the same final scope (of meaning). Thus fear permutates into anger, fear, and desire infused fear. The type 5 is anger infused fear.

Happy happy! Joy joy!

↪Chet Hawkins "You are merely wrong. ... It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly."
- Chet Hawkins

How do you know that I am merely wrong? How do you know that it is a hallucination? How do you know that it was chosen by me? How do you know that it is incorrect? — Truth Seeker

I know nothing. Apparently, you did not read for comprehension.

I believe you are wrong. I believe it's a hallucination. I believe that you chose it. And I believe it (your premise) is incorrect.

If you say you know or even that knowing is your goal, it is my belief that this false knowing that can only be belief will lead you astray. Further, I believe that the central issue with your paragraph post was indeed the precise point I am making here. Knowing is an immoral aim in some senses.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd!" - Voltaire

I think that the statement "I think, therefore I am." is incorrect. The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am." — Truth Seeker

There are in fact nine permutated equivalent statements at least:

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3

I am 100% certain that I am conscious but it is not possible for me to know with 100% certainty that my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe actually exist. — Truth Seeker

You are merely wrong. We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. That would require perfection. Even if you think you know, or believe you know, you do not know. Knowing requires what might be referred to as god-like will, god-like awareness, and god-like being; all three at the same time.

We delude ourselves into this 'knowing' thing. We draw 'conclusions'. But these words are wrong words, immoral in their meanings. The actual meanings are wholly contained only in the single point of perfection.

We do not know properly. We believe only. This is a tautology.
We do not conclude properly. We non-conclude properly, only. There is more work to be done.

I perceive my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe. — Truth Seeker

No, you do not perceive these things. You believe that you do. There is a marked difference. Speaking and writing correctly is difficult, but, ... better.

It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real. — Truth Seeker

I would say that this statement is much closer to your 'knowing' than the others have been. It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly. And it will continue to be so. The hope is that you grow through suffering (the only way) to earn wisdom and approach truth/perfection.

We are incapable of objectivity. To be honest with oneself one must say instead 'We are TRYING to be objective (and we are trying to be aware that we will fail). This continual try takes effort and that is the basic path of moral choice, EFFORT.

It is also possible that my perceived reality is actually real, but I have no way of knowing this with 100% certainty. Given the fact that I cannot know with 100% certainty what is objectively real, how can I know what is morally correct with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

You cannot know. And that aim, to know, is darkly improper as a stance. Approach knowing with the belief that you cannot arrive. This is better.

Does quantum indeterminacy prevent macroscopic determinism? — Truth Seeker

Yes, the fundamental nature of reality is neither order nor chaos, but both in flux and balance at the same time. There is no contradiction.

Quantum superposition does not create macroscopic superposition. When one tosses a coin, either the head or the tail ends up on the top but not both. How can we know if macroscopic determinism is true or false with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker

In tracking the suggested answers I have offered you will realize I would say again, we cannot know. The need to know is foolish. The need to become more aware is wise. It is a matter of perspective.

But many and most are too focused on survival.
— Chet Hawkins

"too focused" I wouldnt even give that great effort and act "to focus" any credit where it isnt happening Focus is a skill one can polish to their liking...if they are too focused on surviving, I dont think that is really whats happening ...it is but no... its just what we all are doing. — Kizzy

Right but, its the distraction of MERE survival.

Forbes had a movie he put out maybe 15 years back. In it he was like 'My people do not consider a person as fully human unless they make over $400,000 per year. It was a great statement. He made in such a way that showed both that he was kind of realizing how deeply messed up that was and yet also that he was reluctantly forced to, or happy to just, acquiesce to it.

The bid for any system of equality of wealth per capita is a bid to deny that immoral sentiment. It is properly a bid to avoid mere survival. And the Utopian nightmare of thus far seen socialism and communism, bad resource management and production, must also of course be avoided. But the nature of humanity thus far only brings the two in tandem, good policy and bad implementation. We need good policy and good implementation. Moral action is not had from bribes. Even if there is success, it is a lie, a delusion. Even if it feeds millions. It is the One Ring of Sauron. 'I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine!' Gandalf

It just appears and also actually IS harder for some and vice versa. To say one should ought to want to put up a fight for others to be alive and tired is wild to me and I question if its any better than to let them be dead and well. — Kizzy

I am a firm believer in the Unity Principle, although most people consider it esoteric and unattainable. It is basically 'You are me and am you.'

GONE but NEVER FORGOTTEN! Until it just is.... — Kizzy

"Sunshine, ... people forget! It's an eminence front", just a put on, at least according to The Who.

But they are out there in the world contributing to their passion when someone will DEIGN to let them in
— Chet Hawkins
the "they" you are referring to is only the strong ones, you happen to see and believe exist and you are right they do..... but what about the others? — Kizzy

No, the 'they' I refer to are not strong. They are fortunate, yes. That is not strength in and of itself. It is a delusion. But it does inhibit strength by its very fortune. Inertia towards what is average or bad must be overcome, yes, more is the pity.

Hopefully all that was not too dreamworld in styling. I tried to write a page in your book, instead of mine.

It has to appeal to its own internal and rarified structures to maintain credibility
— Chet Hawkins

"It" (what) does that? It does nothing, people do things and are things and can be them. That happens though, not my problem. — Kizzy

And as a war weary 8, I go to don my armor for battle and realize, oh, it's already on. I fight every battle. Everything is your problem. Denial is ... unfortunate.

Left alone on that front, the one-eyed man is coming every day to shoot the eternal chaos. The battle is so frequent and lonely that the armor must stay on. Belonging is believed, but only a dream.

↪Chet Hawkins
Are you willing to prove your credibility? — Kizzy

In general, yes, of course. And I do. I think a lot of my fear or issue is that the standard path, the 'regular' way never seems to work for me. It always has to be like the movie 'Sideways'. It's not really that 'bad', but my life and general recurring struggle has that flavor.

Are you willing to lose time in order to gain something greater than knowledge, feels that come with that cant be felt without time being a factor, restraint, or issue, or even thought about... momentarily non-existent. — Kizzy

I am not quite sure what is being asked here. Gaining understanding is greater than just knowledge and that has been the central part of my sideways approach to things. I step into the bad and ask questions of the good. But that is normal and advisable, just maybe unusual. And getting older I am beginning to chafe at the same costs that used to be kind of nothing in the past. Time is getting a bit more precious.

Lose time, find something else. What are you willing to lose time for understanding, if work makes this task impossible, it isnt the time for gaining this understanding, its not the time yet. When you find yourself engaging in something, where you lose track of time...that is what im talking about. — Kizzy

I lose track of time in everything. Mostly, I feel ridiculously eternal. Time matters less to me than most people I think. I tend to be faster than needed, too fast, but the excess time gets put into goals no one else has, so, people ... or authority as bystanders go, 'Wow! Look at that! What is this strange fellow doing? It seems rather urgent??!!? Why does he add problems for himself and why does he keep talking about morality? We're only here to get a popsicle!

That is a potential gold mine...keep following that thing, whatever it is. We know this though. — Kizzy

A typical me response to this would be, 'Yeah yeah and then gold futures plummet and your left with heavy garish rocks! Gold, ugh, great choice!'

For me its people.......understanding people. I discredit my own self, but I would love to prove my credibility and can. If you could only more then see, watch! — Kizzy

What's the more? Smell? What sense is involved? And yeah, we talked about that. I too self-deprecate upon occassion.

Credibility in craft and works is tied directly to authority and even worse, 'public opinion'. Philosophy in general is not something that is credible at all in either sense. It has to appeal to its own internal and rarified structures to maintain credibility and EVEN THAT is still authority based. So, I fail to agree with your point here.
— Chet Hawkins

We all have a story, I wish all were credible as a source for your own. — Kizzy

Ha ha! All is credible to me. I accept all inputs. Perhaps it is I that needs the filter, but, truth is found in any and all experiences, even dreams.

I am critical of all sources, but accepting as well.

That is why even the strangest of people should be credible in their own word, a source for themselves. — Kizzy

Yes, but 'they' call this affectation, not philosophy. The one-eyed man goes back to the asylum.

I am glad you mention authority too, its powerful I am not sure my brain is ready for my ramblings on power, authority freedom, and morality is tied all up in it, everywhere. "morality is EVERYTHING" you claimed and said before, I'm pretty sure. But i am not sure about that either, not important now. — Kizzy

But, that's the point. It IS important, now and always. As the song says, 'Ramble on! I keep searchin for my baby, my my my my baby ... Yeah e yeah!'

When you "fail" to see my "non" point I'm fine with that, it is an honest and understandably common mistake. — Kizzy

I apologize. There is a harmonic in the symphony that I am not hearing or broadcasting right maybe. But, I suffer from the persistent delusion that I got it. {Warms up the singing voice, small animals flee}

Not even a mistake, it almost feels natural sometimes. But I am not fine with the expressions you shared that put me, and possibly others in bad lighting (myproblem) for the hell of it...I dont want that happening for some odd reason (fixing it now) — Kizzy

Well, my admonishments are supposed to be growth oriented. It sounds as though I have overstepped. You never told me what your preferred lighting is. Exit stage left and I will add the rose gel back to the spotlight. I can surely help fix what I broke ... maybe. Unless it turns into the ever expanding hallway dream. Those are so tedious.

I have many points I could make and it starts with the fact credibility is being dismissed it seems in the quote i referred to above. But the issue lies within you, I think. Is it an issue? Dont answer that here, you know the answer. You have a problem and is it a trust issue of sorts perhaps, with taking words or orders from? Authority? Others? How can you be so bothered. — Kizzy

The 'know what's best' thing is my thing, apparently. But it's too ego-maniacal to assume authority although that is the role I am cast in it seems, and not just be me, but by fate, final authority, as opposed to worldly authority. I do hear a calling, even though its more like Hamlet talking to Yoric's skull.

But now i am thinking and that actually makes sense. If you dont clash well with authority perhaps its not CREDIBILITY itself. Yet why you use your feelings and words to share how valueless you feel about it ("whats it?" ask urself) Is that how it lives in your every day life, how its used, how you are familiar with its use? — Kizzy

I do not feel valueless, ever. That is a big part of the 'issue'. The pressures of the universe whisper 'valueless' in every ear, but my answer is side-eye and chuckle with a confident inner denial of that message. The messengers seem complicit. Shoot them! The real enemy seems too distant.

You portray your word, it in your every day life or experiences. The life you lead, steps you take, choices made. — Kizzy

It's hilarious these days that I seem to have laziness levelled at me as an accusation when I am one of the least lazy people I know. My fretting at odd tasks and miseries is not understood, and so, the unaware deem it laziness. There is fear in it, that of not being seen properly, taken rightly, deemed worthy of true consideration. Then it's not the one-eyed man scenario, but instead the blind leading the blind. Roll out the cliche carpet.

In your words, to me, it seems you are misplacing judgements on those in these positions that can have power and use it wrongly when they ARE NOT rightful deserving, fit, or reliable to be doing so...maybe they are just bad people. Its not ALL BAD though, cmon...Chet, ITS good. — Kizzy

I suppose I cast myself in the role of the GOOD often enough. I remain convinced that my interpretation is closer to fine despite seeking the source of the definitive (Indigo Girls). They were wrong! So many celebrate what is wrong and call me sideways. {Crab walks away in disgust}

Those who are (and arent) credible whether its in and of philosophy, of the public opinion, of authority why is "claiming" to be credible wrong??? — Kizzy

It is not wrong I suppose in all cases. Some bridgebuilders build really great bridges. And I love when they are confident and claim to know what they are doing before I cross. I defend them in that act. But doubt remains a wise precaution in all cases. It's the amount of confidence per work unit that is the possible mismatch, not for me (opinion), but often for authority, yes. For 'things' to get better, authority must be overturned. Maybe that's me eating the fungus so I can berserk the right way to 'win'.

Is it wrong for you, maybe but it is not wrong for there own sakes! I think your issue is an example of why it is to be considered like I originally intended... when its my point you are seeking to "understand" (i have my doubts thats intended by you from what is given back to me, feedback*) FEEDBACK is why public opinion, authority, and philosophy is credible, whos word are you trusting to accept and learn from? — Kizzy

My friends and would be readers teach me all the time. It's never the point they were making, but something extra, Lagniappe, that really gets me to grow. Energy and enthusiasm amid a wacky attempt at something, and they tout their method and I see instead the use of the energy of action, of belief. How it surrounds them and makes their wacky into worthy. I can resonate with that. And yet I am left shaking my head at the wacky part and hoping they 'get it' without me having to point it out. Everyone just moves on. 'There are other worlds than this!' - Stephen King {The low men are out there}

YOU ARE ONLY AS VALUABLE AS YOUR SOURCE, or your friends/references who can vouch.... — Kizzy

Well my my! Don't I know this. And yet I take great umbrage. No! The truth is not this at all. Value is objective so no source but truth can matter. So if I chance to resonate truth better, then I am valuable and my message is as well, even if its pearls before swine which seems to be a recurring theme. You can't bribe the wolf pack not to eat you unless your currency is a handy duffle of raw deer meat. That's not common to have with.

how credible is the source where your own words come from and to, then onto these nicely pained pictures from the written feelings to words built on pages you love to display to people, centerfold, more than the headlines or is that all you have to offer? Numbers are they just words? One Two Three... — Kizzy

It's a dreamy question. Am I resonating truth, a better way, or nonsense? It takes a lot of steps down the path to know. And this is the failed commitment of so many faiths. Investment in time and no end to the dream of life, but death. That casts rather a gloom over the evening and do not, repeat do not, eat the salmon mousse {Monty Python, The Meaning of Life}.

Words are bigger than what they do or are...it is about who is placing value. — Kizzy

Yes, and we come full circle again to authority or public opinion. Run Away!

I didnt mean the papers chet, I meant the credibility. Thats my bad. Credible in your craft, the experience, the work and projects completed, the relevance to the project, the power?? — Kizzy

Ah to me when one speaks of credibility, one is referring to authority or some external organized viewpoint. It should be rather obvious if one is speaking in terms of personal credibility as in possibly believable.

Credibility in craft and works is tied directly to authority and even worse, 'public opinion'. Philosophy in general is not something that is credible at all in either sense. It has to appeal to its own internal and rarified structures to maintain credibility and EVEN THAT is still authority based. So, I fail to agree with your point here.

Thats a problem with who is hiring who to complete and build their visions or dreams or design..Thats just $$$ talk. The order of how one acquires is also in that boat I believe, but while the order is sure cowardice, i agree to what you mean. But I disagree when you say, "It is precisely the non-ordered types that tend to be the BEST inventors and dreamers." Where are they then? — Kizzy

They are legion. But chaos does not lend itself to permanence. So they are often lost. Still, many have enough secondary order to get in and be heard. And their creativity and lack of limits allows them the scope to be truly visionary. So they make all the real progress at first.

But the progress of chaos is big hits mostly, and then order fills in the tedious details to make that hit work. So again, balance is the only real wisdom.

Inventors and dreamers....dreamers can be skilled in other ways their baseless visions can be included...but yeah I did not mean credentials in ANY way BUT when they are rightfully attained, is that all it takes for "we" to approve? — Kizzy

In general, yes.

That is to say, as a fact of day to day business, that is what works. Without said credentials one must then be the true wizard, the oddity, the real visionary. Some janitor or patent clerk can change the world, but then teams of ants hack out that work and refine it to make it useful. The grasshopper just sticks his tongue out and has fun with real discovery and musing.

A peer vetted "process"? (is that not an order, too?) — Kizzy

Yes, and that is my point. More credible credentials. Please enter the first, second, and third passwords. Then touch your nose in the presence of a baby zebra. Then enter your 13 security questions. I'm sorry but if any of that fails, YOU ARE NOT YOU.

What about just getting to know people, seeing the work, agreeing to work together, a decision is made...Is it not the credentials, fake earned or neither, and also about the money? — Kizzy

Well I can agree. Let's do that! But society as we know it would fall apart in less than a day on that basis.

Credentials can be faked, masked, covered...easily. That surely is not right by me? Its cowardice for BOTH parties... The proof, the portfolio, the past successes that EXIST from those with credentials they rightfully earned and deserve and WHAT comes with that is also accountability if things go wrong. Willing to stamp your name on the plans, or just willing to deal with the consequences that are weakly given to them. Thats what is cowardice, the punishments are designed in favor of them to still win, if they follow "order" I dont like followers......fines are given and paid off willingly, they can afford a loss for their short term gain...blah blah of course it isnt WISE to only seek the those with JUST good credentials...you could have great credentials on paper, its not my problem who isnt getting the chance to contribute...Where are these people? — Kizzy

It IS your problem that some whos from whoville are not getting to contribute. You have to be aware enough to think it through. If the whole world were some pseudo Communist Utopia where people pursued their own desires, MANY would pursue science and advancements. The world would gain such knowledge at such a pace that it would beggar the past as ridiculous. But many and most are too focused on survival. And some do not take tests well or lack the discipline to score well in a curriculum as they exist. But they are out there in the world contributing to their passion when someone will DEIGN to let them in.

I'm sorry mam, your word count has exceeded your license. You will have to apply in triplicate for a word count increase on the second Tuesday of the first quarter of each year. That is the only application window. That is our policy. We set policy. You comply. Since your post was tl:dr the entire post has been discarded. Post length policy was DULY posted for you to read. Ignorance of our stupidity is no excuse! Repeated offenses of this nature may result in fines or extrication from the site. Do not describe people! Describe spaces! I mean, ... REALLY!

I am not talking buiness money bs...its simpler. Is technology advancing or evolving? — Kizzy

Yes, technology is advancing. Everything is evolving. And evolution can have a negative weight also, devolution. Whip it good!

Daydreaming is interesting in this somehow, ill be back. **I wonder if we in the act of Daydreaming vs in the act of Dreaming during sleep are multitasking differently? — Kizzy

The pilot at the helm is different. The mechanism is similar to me. Tie the helmsman to the ship's steering wheel and let him sleep. Same thing.

Similarly? Is that worth a mention or consideration in terms of consciousness and experiences had that one is aware of....memories? images? I wonder also, if the way we daydream may help/worsen the way we dream or vice versa? — Kizzy

I can say that my relative mastery of daydreaming DOES affect my dreaming. And vice versa. In some assisted states my daydreaming takes on a more dreamlike quality also, where meta background level concerns in my life explode into a mosaic of meaning and images. It is less fettered, but not unfettered exploration of the same intent space.

There are myriad accounts of inventors and others that admit freely that 'it came to me in a dream' and this does not even forbid inclusion of simple imagination, ... daydreaming.
— Chet Hawkins
Yeah and? How did they earn the title of "inventor" was that before or after the "dreams"? — Kizzy

I mean of course, in general, after. They became lauded as inventors and then admitted humbly perhaps that the inspiration came to them in a dream.

Dreams are objectively real. Their content does not always instantiate itself into the external world. But many dreams do become real. That is how advancement in technology happens. Architecture, ideas, etc all start only as dreams. The nature of that progression dream->instantiation->real external truth is amazing to admit and focus on.
— Chet Hawkins
:up: I like this but I feel I could add something more to this. I think there is more to keep in mind or consider before getting here...i believe. But its not wrong at all, its right. — Kizzy

OK, on we go ...

When you mention advancements in technology, architecture, ideas in that progression, where could one start or begin to understand this? — Kizzy

There are myriad accounts of inventors and others that admit freely that 'it came to me in a dream' and this does not even forbid inclusion of simple imagination, ... daydreaming.

How can you? — Kizzy

Understanding proceeds quite naturally from doing. This is anger's participation. Doing is in the now, present tense, anger, being, action. But the how includes the dream itself, the wish, the image forward combining and becoming something new from old patterns. And of course fear is the past, all the old patterns, how well they are known, the structure of proper relationships as opposed to 'eliminated' or unlikely pathways to success and function.

Its interesting and impressive and worthy of acknowledgment that you chose to word this sentence in the way you did though. Thats more what I am wondering, how you figure that anything about the nature of about this progression only takes "admitting" **(accepting) (satisfaction)???** and focus and will to be amused or amazed? — Kizzy

If one does not admit the mechanism, one is forced to rely upon 'magical thinking'. If the mechanism is admitted or suspected, then 'proper' research may begin in earnest to confirm or validate the theory/hypothesis.

Amazement is the joy factor of fear moving from Enneatype 7 into the 'real' world, the present, at Enneatype 8. This requires a challenge to the vision, anger's action with infused desire. All of that matches the model.

Is that natural to try and force that understanding into someone? Beat the solider into someone is work, chet! Good work, keep it shining. — Kizzy

New ideas and change are resisted by cowardice. Fear clings to the side of the pool. But between 7 and 8 we leave the realm of fear and proceed into the realm of anger. From the past to the present led by the future (the vision). This is how reality works, and the dream is included in reality. The joy component of fear, desire infused fear, Enneatype 7 is thus the third and final reaction of fear. It is where Cowardice turns to Hedonism so that the old fears may now be indulged. The trap of 7 though is that we spin and get caught in the eddy of Hedonism, another immoral path. So by both actions, the Hedonistic tendency AND the general cowardice of the new pattern becoming comfortable and old, stability returns and it is a while before we dream again to a new vision.

The nature of that progression is for who to learn and who to teach? — Kizzy

(That is) A great question in light of my efforts these days.

I will quote Aristotle:
"Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach."

But the clarity of AT LEAST learning is clearly for anyone that does not understand. But notice how new groundbreakers face a legion of doubters, over expressed fear (too much stability) from the clingers to the past ways. Copernicus is rolling over in his grave to add his strength to this statement.

I often say this, 'The one-eyed man IS NOT king in the land of blind as the old and foolish aphorism states. The anti-wisdom of that meme is clear to me. No, instead Jerla-merel(the series 'See') is deemed insane and heretical for speaking of these 'visions'. None but a very few smart and wise types can understand the new vision. The rank and file will summarily reject the new idea until the 'gatekeepers' have approved it for public consumption. This accreditation model is horrid and although perhaps inevitable, causes many great new ideas to be lost. There is an 'activation energy', an escape velocity to ideas.

A new sensor (body - mind connection) causes great trouble until its readouts are understood. What does this say of Migraine headaches? What does it say of bipolar disorder? What does it say of Neuralgia? And we just medicate such things. Is that really wise? Put the blinders on. Things that make you go, hmmm. Then there is the tendency in some people to eschew all medicine and be tough (Enneatype 8), to 'heal' naturally. I promise that is the stuff dreams are made of.

Who to make things happen from these "dreams" you mention...I like to use "visions" instead of dreams in my notes on this progression, and use slightly different stances. — Kizzy

Many traditions respect dreams more so than 'modern' science does. But even science now is after it, more open. Desire is really running amok these days. What will happen? Chaos is an explosion. It WILL explode. It's only a matter of time. All things considered the atom bomb was fairly well contained, unless you ask people in two Japanese prefectures.

Its not about bridging gaps but finding and building new routes...that is always happening and going to happen, I believe. — Kizzy

Yes perfection is calling tp us from the end of time maybe. It is the source of desire, of chaos.

But thats my problem and I am willing to solve it with what I claim to be real knowledge not necessarily linked to any belief system but reason to believe and experience I can explain to an end that is real... — Kizzy

As long as 'real' include the unknown, and thus desire to lead us to it, I agree.

Chet when you said " That is how advancement in technology happens." I am just making sure you considered and confirm that its not that is HOW it happens but what happens and what is to be true is contained within our understanding of the world and the real external truth is bigger and more certain and this, our current scope is limited, until it isnt....Until its what is real? — Kizzy

This paragraph is confusing for me. The process I briefly showed IS ... HOW ... it happens. What happens is different in each case, because what is a specific term, whereas how is generic. The process pattern is generic. Any instantiation of it, all the parts of cause and effect are 'what's.

Yes the external truth, perfection, is 'bigger' along each virtue vector than any past understanding of truth was.

Sure it's possible to bring into existence a "design" of something, anything one imagines to be "a good idea" or invention or dream or patent idea whatever... but when there is an absence of evidence/intention/dedication to the process of design within the visionaries original idea, it might make the how important to keep in mind... — Kizzy

It's interesting is it not? The vision of <what> leads to the specifics of how via the general pattern of how. Once a how is specific, it should be a bunch of whats. What I am is what I am, are you what you are or what? Is that clear? I could also quote Puddle of Mud, if needed. Penny for your thoughts! Although Nickleback is the one saying they never made it as a wise man. Derail warning!

How to get intelligent design from unintelligent visions? — Kizzy

They ARE NOT unintelligent. All chaos partakes of patterns, finally. It cannot be made to un-belong from the metaverse.

....And why is it the design or designer in question of any concern? — Kizzy

So, this may not be your point here (I answer by quoting WITHOUT reading ahead), but the designer is not relevant. Truth is unchanging. And current states IMPLY and INFER the next possible states. Designers and visionaries that tap into this process, the how, as the who, are not precisely relevant. Our human tendency to attach these whats to some who is rather childish. It smacks of pointless ego. I am not immune to that immoral tendency myself, but, the truth belongs to all.

It JUST LIKE the idiot that works so hard after the shipwreck and as the population grows onto the island they wrecked on. He gather all the yip root and later it is determined that it is the only source of vitamin c that is easily and readily available here. And in Capitalism we reward this chap for his immoral act of cornering the market. Uh, gee, thanks. We respect his work and let him then ... rule. It's ridiculous. Everything belongs to everyone, but, I digress. Derail warning!

It seems maybe perhaps one believes in intelligent design, but i think those same people could confuse the reality of the design and origin of the vision. — Kizzy

Truth, love, all, and even God are all synonymous to me. Meaning proceeds endlessly and reliably from meaning. Circular is a PROPER type of logic, not bad as is currently 'known'.

Someone WILL discover the resonance with truth amid vision and reveal it to their in group, in this case humanity, or perhaps Cetaceans. So long and thanks for all the fish!

The design is the ONLY ONE it could ever be. That is why truth is objective. The system cannot fail in any way that we know (yet). Maybe if during the life of the universe no one achieves perfection then that universe fails. But I doubt it. It just restarts.

It is important to regard the how and why you should go about the design, which isnt always the final product or overall vision, as the vision could evolve based on how it is consumed in reality.... — Kizzy

Consumption is not as interesting to me. That's like mob rules nonsense. Who cares what idiots do with good things? It's almost certain they will squander them. Like any verb it has to have wise in front of it to be good. You allude to that with why in the statement but why can be immoral as well as moral. And that is my point mostly. How something is used will be mostly immoral. We have already learned to treat new discoveries with some care, because the immoral motivations of many of us are deeply suspect.

The design is perfected through many tests and trials, prototypes, different versions/adaptations stemming from a vision, that was maybe founded on a baseless idea.... but through and with an intelligent design, it is possible to start manipulating the very function and overall purpose of a vision (intentions and functions, and abilities and usage could change over time, as people go through phases and so does standards and environments.) — Kizzy

People 'going through phases' is what I am referring to. The only proper transitions are from lesser moral understanding to greater. But chaos does not work that way. Desire causes the fragmentation of each vision as it is delivered, precisely because too many people are allowed perhaps too much freedom in their use of dangerous new understandings. Yet and still, due to the nature of free will, this is fairly well required. The common man must learn in the body memory what is bad. So they must suffer their depredations, their misuse of new understandings, in order to ACTUALLY understand. An anger type will usually throw fuel on this fire. 'Get er done!' Elect Trump! Bring things to their most conflicted head. Let the earning of wisdom begin in earnest! The game is afoot! {These statements do not reflect the political beliefs of the author or the website. They are only demonstrative.}

So, by being able to see design capabilities in that vision, requires intelligence, which is the knowledge one has to be able to see a design from the vision but not just see it, be able to produce or recreate the design based on approved plans (fully defined by constraints, tolerances and required dimensions, scales, measurements to be recreated accurately and communicating clearly in real life with credentials to back up your ability to work on the design.) — Kizzy

I disagree that credentials are in any way wise, except that we then know the person has been through a peer vetting process. The reverse is not wise. That is denying someone can contribute who has no credentials. The acquiring of credentials is an orderly cowardice thing. It is precisely the non-ordered types that tend to be the BEST inventors and dreamers. Gee, I wonder why? Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?

Thank you for your detailed reply. You speak of the inner world and outer world, which is the main dichotomy between waking and sleep/dream consciousness.. So much of waking consciousness may be regarded by many as the basis of what is 'real'. I am not disregarding such a division but when it is seen ad an absolute division it may become more of a burden than a source for helpful reflection. — Jack Cummins

I try these days to disregard such a division. Not so much that others think I believe they are precisely the same, like a lunatic, but enough to let them know that I do not discount the reality that includes the influence of dreams.

I know that my dreams are not 'real' in an objective sense and have an inner logic or meaning. It may be involve psychological.meaning and Interpretation primarily, but this may be as important as some other objective criteria for understanding 'truth' and meaning. — Jack Cummins

But this is incorrect. Objectively you did have a dream. Objectively the dream itself was real as a dream.

There is a difference between saying that and saying that the contents of the dream are objective within the external world. The unwary can become confused.

Unicorns are real. They are real because they as a concept affect the world. Little girls (mostly) are enamored with and cause real world problems because of unicorns.

Dreams are objectively real. Their content does not always instantiate itself into the external world. But many dreams do become real. That is how advancement in technology happens. Architecture, ideas, etc all start only as dreams. The nature of that progression dream->instantiation->real external truth is amazing to admit and focus on.

I raise this topic mainly in relation to the philosophy of mind and the nature of consciousness. I come from an interest in psychoanalysis, including the Jungian perspective of dreams. However, I am aware that philosophical consideration of the nature of dreams may go far beyond this. Some may regard dreams as qualia for understanding while others may see it as a debris of psychological understanding.

I am inclined to see it as between the two, especially as ideas of consciousness and unconsciousness may be a continuum. Michael Frayn; in, 'The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe' (2006) looks at the evolution of dreaming, including psychoanalysis as 'working out of some inner conflict.'

The role of dreaming may be viewed as significant or not. Frayn argues,
'Perhaps dreaming has no function. If it really does have no bearing on whether we really live or die, or whether we mate or fail to, perhaps it's not subject to the pressures of selection.' Objectively, dreams may be seen and dismissed so easily in this way. However, it is possible that such a perspective leaves out the mythological dimensions of life as a source of meaning. Also, metaphysically, to dismiss such aspects of existence may be a rather 'flat' perspective of the understanding of the nature of 'mind' and consciousness. So, I am querying the relevance of the layers of meaning of dreams and the nature of symbolic 'reality'. This may be important for understanding literature and the arts. — Jack Cummins

I think and believe that ANY aspect of life may be built upon and become more. Dreams are perhaps the single best example of this that transcends the physical world.

I have FELT my dreams have an effect on my waking state more than once. The meaning was not clear to me after reviewing the dream the first time. I have recurring dreams all the time. I have some that resonate since my childhood and still have them.

Most dreams are just seemingly random and engaged in very much the kind of garbage detail that often invades our lives when we are not ordered. Since we are often not ordered, especially in weak areas of our skillset, this is frequent.

I do have lucid dreams and I can cause them to happen with effort. Flight is frequent for me and the weirdness there is that I sometimes flap, literally leveraging the air density to pull me up with will inside the dream. Then there are times I am like Doctor Strange on a flying carpet that is not there. Then there are times that I am more like Superman and just going anywhere I want.

How important are dreams for understanding the juxtaposition of images and experiential drama at the centre of human life? — Jack Cummins

I think they are meaningful and also a seed of new meaning that will mean more as evolution progresses their functional use. But the seeds of that use are surely already here, now.

On one hand dreams may be seen as having a low profile of importance in contrast to the 'real' events of significance in life, Or, alternatively, dreams may be seen as a psychological bridge in thinking of the 'real' life aspects of human life. — Jack Cummins

I agree and THAT juxtaposition is precisely the growth point for anything, isn't it?

Coaching volleyball its like the girl will walk up under the ball and try to hit it. But no jump. Then they start hopping some and miss the hit. Then then hop and hit. Finally they jump and hit. Then they have a hit and can modify that as a weapon in the game. All desire, all 'becoming' works this way, a progress that starts in seed form.

And I know you know this from the esoteric thread, but 'real' is actually real.

So, I am asking whether dreams are a mere exercise of little significance in human understanding or as central as aspects of the themes and dilemmas of life? Also, how important is the development of one's inner life as an essential narrative aspect of mediating the dramas of outer and inner life experiences? — Jack Cummins

The inner world is the core which projects to the outside. Likewise the outside can impose upon the inner world.

Dreams step beyond both to the unified world, perfection. Various layers of spirituality, esoteric mystery, are the dimension to which dreams offer access. That WILL become reality as experienced soon enough. Baby steps to godhood.

So, to clarify more, I do not mean to be promoting what is normally colloquially considered to be war. Even that is better than peace in general but clearly not ideal in any sense. The trick is the definition of suffering that is wise. Suffering that is wise is necessary suffering, whereas needless pain and death, intending evil, is unwise. That may be the reason you are still loathe to accredit the overall approach.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes, suffering is necessary for growth. I agree with that.

(For a seed to grow, it must surrender its individuality to become something more).
Or call it effort, work, struggle… some can see the struggle as a playful game or giant dance of life.
I’m still working on not struggling with the suffering lol.

But… when dividing suffering into ‘necessary and unnecessary’… who decides what’s necessary? — 0 thru 9

Each moral agent must decide what is wise for themselves, the personal option of your two later defined ones.

But, the society must persist in leadership as when a group forms it takes on a new identity and becomes an aggregate self. That self must also decide. It is the pressure of the group identity upon the singular self that often yields progress. This is for many reasons, but one big one is that often fear types join groups in order that they not have to think so much, if you follow. They surrender their moral agency immorally to the group, somewhat. But each cell in the body is either cancerous or healthy, if you follow.

Morality to me is objective. This means also that NO ONE decides what is necessary. A law of the universe already made that choice. Granted, this law also forces upon us all the burden of choice, free will. So mistakes will be made. Immorality will be chosen. That is all just to say, At the same time as each moral agent choosing as they must, they are also objectively wrong or right in their proximity to what is objectively good. So, all of their choices are finally only errors from which they should attempt to earn more wisdom. Yes, all beliefs are partially in error. That means all facts are as well.

So when we discuss the hard subject of necessary versus unnecessary suffering, we must be constantly reminded that there is only one right answer. Subjectivity is the delusion of experience from the immoral and imperfect state, only. The final goal is perfection, objectivity. Therefore between any two differing beliefs about what is necessary or unnecessary, only one of them is more right. That is a tautology. The central delusion of subjectivism is that all choices are equal, or that the jury is still out. The jury is not out. The verdict was cast at the dawn of time. The GOOD is objective. And genuine happiness is the consequence of alignment to the GOOD in many ways at the same time.

Yes, in most models the body is most closely associated with the gut, although that is not accurate entirely to my model. Even the physical manifestations of mind, nerves and the brain, are still body interfaces to mind. So they are anger instantiations that connect to fear.

Each emotion has its unique case. if you get caught up in bad metaphor land you can start making no sense very quickly. Where in the body does desire reside most closely? Is it really the heart or also the brain, the mind? The relentless drive of the pumping heart organ does seem to relate somewhat and that is the only reason you can bother with some positional questions like the heart being in the middle.
— Chet Hawkins

There are of course many models and systems and philosophies.
They are like tools; if they can serve a function (such as helping us to ‘see’ the invisible or to understand the abstract by making it somewhat concrete) then they are used over and over again by many generations.

But for us seekers, it seems that the best we can do is to (try to) understand many of these systems and translate them into language that has the most meaning for us.
Each of us must explain it (by breaking down and reassembling) to the most important (and difficult) audience… our own individual self. — 0 thru 9

I agree. But the discipline of wisdom would require that such moral agents admit that their choice is always wrong in some way. The trick is to have two assertions at all times: 1) all my choices are partially immoral and I can do better, and 2) all my choices are relative to others' choices and between any tow of us or between me and society's net choice, only one of us is better.

I find that Pragmatists are usually able to push assertion 2 and Idealists are more able to push assertion 1. It is only both assertions that cause the balance of wisdom.

And you are obviously making the effort to do so and to share it with others, which is generous.
I appreciate your posts as they offer much to think about and to chew on, even when some small bits get stuck in my teeth lol. — 0 thru 9

This statement by you is in keeping with the greatest gift one human can receive from another. That challenging wisdom was entertained, if not accepted. I can only thank you from all parts of my heart.

Obviously, it can be daunting when others don’t understand or agree (or both: disagreeing exactly because they don’t understand the point being made, or the overall picture being painted).
Being ignored feels worse than being misunderstood, although being ignored is more relaxing. — 0 thru 9

Ha ha! Relaxing? If one craves being ignored or left alone, perhaps. But morality is objective. So these cravings are either right or wrong, objectively. I would suggest that craving being alone is immoral. The immoral deflection is misunderstood from the true moral of the Unity Principle. The feeling is supposed to come via anger. 'I am sufficient unto myself and need nothing more nor fear anything!' But this is to achieve balance only. Maximization is not yet include. Maximization includes all as its final goal. So the person wanting to be alone is immoral in that choice. I do not mean to rest or take time to integrate. I mean the person who is devoted to being alone or removed from others or is doggedly un-inclusive of others. All is the only final state. Those red light sabers must be converted.

But in a some way I broadly divide philosophy into the ‘external social’ (written and perhaps well known) and the ‘internal personnel’ (which is the eclectic bricolage construction of one’s own philosophy). — 0 thru 9

Stealing 'eclectic bricolage' also! ;)

I agree, but, we must not make overmuch of these 'separations', because they do not exist (really). We must therefore merge the social and the self. It is immoral not to. Humans are destined to become cells in an organism that is humanity, almost certainly. And there will still be this level and more of complexity of moral agency for each of us amid that greater 'animal'. But we need to admit to it and accept it more for it to be realized. That is my struggle here with separating the two.

Maybe this is another way to view the question of ‘esoteric vs exoteric’ philosophy as discussed in that thread? :chin: — 0 thru 9

I just see the esoteric as that which is so unknown by society that it is considered excessive in some way. The Pragmatists would say, 'humans are not ready for that' at best. They would say much more harsh things usually about ideals they do not like, like becoming one with a hive mind. Of course some few Pragmatists are on that border and will entertain that notion as moral or desirable.

I find errors that are more pervasive in all other models including yin/yang and the chakras, just to name a few. Of course that could be considered arrogant but to be fair I had them to consider and build upon. I do not presume to be the sole contributor or influence to my model. That would be colossal ignorance.

But I can point to the errors of most other systems quite easily and I at least assert my model has less errors than they do. Of course I am not perfect and in time my model will show obvious errors to a new wave of philosophers, wisdom seekers, etc.
— Chet Hawkins

But all too often the lazy denigrate anger and fast action. That is not a moral choice. Yes, anger can be just as evil as good, but anger itself is not the problem and to say it is is evil. Likewise with fear. And the message for the Buddhists is the same, no, you're wrong, desire is not equivalent to evil. There are good and evil desires. It just SEEMS like desire is evil because amid an infinity of choices only 1 direction points straight to objective moral truth, the GOOD. This gives the clueless a great path to the denigration of desire. I do not approve. The model has to work in every way. And so far I am well pleased with mine. I do wish I was better at the formulation of assertions for technical philosophy. I'd love help with that for my model, but, I assume that it can be done after the theory of it, the idea is written.
(….)
So that is a perfect example of Eastern laziness and ennui, the denigration of anger and desire. It is the delusion of peace as an affectation, a goal, an addiction, and to me and my model that is immoral.
— Chet Hawkins

But having said the above comments about models, I’m very puzzled why you keep misrepresenting Buddhism or Eastern philosophies as being lame and ineffectual and missing something vital and essential.
This seems to be a common prejudice which is easily corrected with further research. — 0 thru 9

I do need to look into it more. I apologize if I misrepresented it.

There probably have been some Eastern ideas in history that were off-base in some way, just as in the West. — 0 thru 9

On that I simply and obviously agree. And I was pointing out why I think Eastern philosophies are wrong. I can do that same thing for the Western ones.

The Buddha corrected any extreme otherworldly approach to wisdom, such as weakening and starving oneself in the attempt to ‘achieve enlightenment’. — 0 thru 9

Well, you could say he advised. I don't think he can correct. That implies completion and no more such error. Like Christ, he suffers others' interpretations of his meanings. You mean to say here that the Buddha realized that restraint itself could be over-expressed. That is too much order, too much in the way of limits, and it ends up weakening the self by denying the worthiness of imagination and desire (mostly). In that way, your comment makes sense as a retort to my assertion of denigrated desire by the East.

In my defense:

Free from desire you see the mystery. Full of desire you see the manifestations.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 1]

Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 19]

Without desire there is stillness, and the world settles by itself.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 37]

There is no greater crime than desire.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 46]

I have no desire to desire, and people become like the uncarved wood by themselves.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 57]

The sage desires no desire, does not value rare treasures, learns without learning, recovers what people have left behind.
[Tao Te Ching chapter 64]

It is reasonably hard to draw another conclusion from the Tao Te Ching as I understand it. Granted, looking into the context of each of these quotes offers us mitigation advise where balance is mentioned. But in that system there is nothing clear about how to do it or why.

My model shows clearly that only anger and fear balance desire and why. I think the clarity is something I win with on that score. Further, I directly do not denigrate desire at all. I explain that the GOOD is only obtained by maximal desire. That is a rather bold denial of all of these statements by the Tao Te Ching, again as they lay here as isolated quotes mainly, but also as many people understand the work.

It takes physical strength to meditate, which to seek to behold Truth directly, while temporarily putting aside the discursive mind (without paying any philosophical middleman for his prepackaged thoughts and assembled ideas, to be witty about it. Even if the middleman is ourself). — 0 thru 9

This idea is amazing and complex. I love it. I am not maybe as worried about the middleman or conduit through which I experience belief and choice. I enact new ideas faithfully as a scientific method of wisdom, until I sense unhappiness arising as a result. So false prophets and aphorisms are always 'en guard' from me for me. It's in the nature of my rigorous challenge in every way. Find the weakness as a goal. To do that, you must do the thing!

If you know the Avatar series 'The Legend of Korra' there is an assistant to a narcissistic merchant Varik, named Ju Li. He cannot be bothered to finish his sentences and his usual thing to say his lazy union mind with her is, 'Ju Li, Do the thing!' She knows him so well that she always gets his idea of what 'the thing' is correct. Over the course of the whole show, this interaction is a hilarious and charming sub-plot.

I don’t emphasize them often, but if we want to be more complete in our view of Eastern thought, we can remember The Art of War by Sun-Tsu and the martial arts.
Those are quite energetic enough for anyone, no? — 0 thru 9

I have read it (being an Enneatype 8 philosopher and soldier (AFROTC) I was drawn to Sun-Tzu early on.

Energetic is a property of desire, yes. But warfare and action are more the province of anger than of desire directly. My model shows that desire in isolation is far too delusional too suspect, indication of indeed that very same doubt offered by most of what I consider in Eastern philosophy to be. The real complexity of intent is found most easily at the 9 virtue stage, rather than cleanly at the 3 primal emotions stage.

It is the interaction of emotions that is effectively conflict in every way. Left alone both fear and desire are pre-delusional. Fear limits and eventual death is the final limit. Desire expands and that is just an explosion, effectively another form of death. Adding anger is where things really get down to business. Anger is the most honest emotion. It is balance by definition. It denies both fear and desire and thus causes balance. It brings physical reality into being, again underscoring its honesty. Being-in-essence is anger. One must occupy space and have mass and one does so fighting constantly with literally every other thing and truth in the universe.

That feels like evolution (of the mind) to me anyway…
— 0 thru 9
Evolution of the mind only would neglect the body and heart (desire). It is very very hard to be 'on the ball' with respect to wording and modeling the GOOD.
— Chet Hawkins

Some things in my writing are implied by what I’ve written before. I can’t say everything all the time! :grin: — 0 thru 9

Ha ha! Lazy! Oooh! I get it. I forgive you. But you should try. Say one harmonic phrase that heals the universe, ... every time you speak.

The Buddha said that we have no separate self.
When first learning this, I thought it meant something bad or nihilistic.
But it really is liberating and wonderful.
— 0 thru 9
That is what I call the unity principle, you are me and I am you. I agree. We cannot be made to unbelong to this universe so death finally is not all that terrible. The context of a valid, well body is finite. Its delusional identity is likewise finite. Everything must be recyclable, and it is.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes. We agree on something. Drinks are on me! :party: — 0 thru 9

Muckity Muck (scotch) for me. What's your poison?

I completely agree and I dearly love your example. I'm so stealing it!
— Chet Hawkins
Thanks! I only ask that if you are interviewed by Oprah, please mention this forum lol. — 0 thru 9

Ha! Will do (deal!)

Agreed. Lending great credence to the maxim, war is a constant non-delusional state. Avoiding war may be the worst thing we can do to intend morality. How about that for a confusing message to the mainstream? Instead of fleeing the struggle we need to know, to understand, that we should be leaning into it. The wise wisely inflict suffering upon everyone to allow for opportunity to earn wisdom (faster).

Suffering is the only real path to wisdom. The exception to this rule is resonance. That is to say maintaining a proper resonance with the good does take effort, which is suffering, BUT, we can say with some aplomb that ... maybe ... that is easier or done with a lighter heart than less resonance is. That means there is a perhaps dangerous temptation that develops when morality is high to slack off and rest in the wave of goodness. This again just increases the difficulty as moral agents that normally expend great effort towards the good, towards earning more wisdom, slack off amid prosperity and relax too much.
— Chet Hawkins

Thanks for expanding on your terms, which helps when starting with somewhat paradoxical statements.
I’d agree more with the second paragraph, but you gotta do you! :smile: — 0 thru 9

So, to clarify more, I do not mean to be promoting what is normally colloquially considered to be war. Even that is better than peace in general but clearly not ideal in any sense. The trick is the definition of suffering that is wise. Suffering that is wise is necessary suffering, whereas needless pain and death, intending evil, is unwise. That may be the reason you are still loathe to accredit the overall approach.

I like the distinction I read somewhere about positive and negative kinds of stress: eustress and distress.
Eustress is a creative conflict or drive; distress is a more paralyzing or inhibiting type of pressure. — 0 thru 9

Well, this is back to the old ways of thinking (to me). The paralyzing pressure is only fear and fear is just as good as it is evil. In fact the more fear you can muster, the more GOOD you have the potential for. The only caveat is that you must raise anger and desire at the same time to balance the fear or indeed you end up with NOT a restrained pressure but instead a truly dangerously stiff and orderly or cowardly situation. Many arguments in the past along the lines of 'let's wait and see' or 'we cant side with the Dutch! They cannot defeat the Germans!' are more often along the lines of immoral cowardice. Not stepping up to do your part when it would make a difference to peers is a classic case of supporting needless suffering often enough.

The point being, that your negative definitions are not aligned properly, to me. I think you have the same issue with my suffering or conflict stance to some degree. But perhaps you might ask yourself to clear up that doubt, ... 'Is there a way to earn wisdom without suffering?' I contend that there is not.

The situation you describe also underscores my continual message that peace is effectively delusional. It's the thing we aim for only indirectly, balance, balance in all ways. But what is missing from the balancing statement is the maximization statement. The GOOD is balanced and maximized fear, anger, and desire.
— Chet Hawkins

Ah ha but here is the warning this otherwise great statement gets, 'What about anger and being?' That is to say you covered fear (mind) and desire (heart), but left out the anger/body part. That is dangerous. That is how we get the partial wisdom of the past.
- Chet Hawkins

I am rather desperately it seems often enough, trying to get people to speak and write more clearly in this matter. Granted not everyone accepts my model and even the basis of it. But I think the tripartite nature of reality is easily more defensible that the binary nature. The missing element inside the quote would be '... open mind, warm heart, and resilient body ...' I would not lightly treat ANY circumstance of saying one or two without the other. Completeness is required for accuracy in scope, at least.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes, I like the three-part model of a complete human. Body, mind, and soul (or heart, spirit, feelings).
The heart being in the middle between the body and mind, mediating them, going beyond them in some undefinable way. — 0 thru 9

Yes, in most models the body is most closely associated with the gut, although that is not accurate entirely to my model. Even the physical manifestations of mind, nerves and the brain, are still body interfaces to mind. So they are anger instantiations that connect to fear.

Each emotion has its unique case. if you get caught up in bad metaphor land you can start making no sense very quickly. Where in the body does desire reside most closely? Is it really the heart or also the brain, the mind? The relentless drive of the pumping heart organ does seem to relate somewhat and that is the only reason you can bother with some positional questions like the heart being in the middle.

No. I would say that based on my model all entities, even each atom, partake precisely evenly of the three emotions resulting in a balance, the famous balance of nature. We attribute this to 'nature' but in reality it is my model, of course as my belief, that universal natural law (nature and my model) must start from a position of relative balance in order to support free will. If there were a leaning in any direction then will would not be as free. And indeed, choices cause this to happen all over the place. Supposedly inanimate matter IS making choices. But this is more easily seen, this predilection, this imbalance, amid higher moral agency forms like humans. The necessary step of polarizing the two more delusional emotions, fear and desire literally causes all polarities in life and the universe, right down to male and female as one example. And the forms are embedded with evolution's choices whether we like it or not. But the universal guarantee is still there. So there is final balance even then. This means that although there may be for example a strong predilection (pre-made choice) for chaos in human females and order in human males (desire and fear respectively), there will still be a spread of all ranges of instantiation around those two foci. This allows for and means that choices can flip 180 degrees over vast times as evolution progresses and also it means any individual is not easily determined because their own choice is infinite. Still, to dismiss the statistical mean and the foci is not wise. They exist.

The model of human (and universal) energy contained in the Indian concept of the chakras is very descriptive and helpful.
I’ve been studying it for years and I still feel like a novice, but it’s clarified much for me.
The notion of the lower three chakras representing staying alive, sexual energy, and societal roles.
All of which are essential parts of life.

But as the energy builds upwards, it reaches the heart.
If the heart is closed or weak or unbalanced it throws off the entire energy, affecting the physical levels and preventing access to the higher mind (spiritual) chakras above.

This reminds me of your model of anger, desire, and fear.
Those could possibly represent the first three chakras.
The Good could be a smooth flow from the root chakra up to the crown, where the energy (ideally) spews forth like solar flares with light, understanding, and energy. — 0 thru 9

I find errors that are more pervasive in all other models including yin/yang and the chakras, just to name a few. Of course that could be considered arrogant but to be fair I had them to consider and build upon. I do not presume to be the sole contributor or influence to my model. That would be colossal ignorance.

But I can point to the errors of most other systems quite easily and I at least assert my model has less errors than they do. Of course I am not perfect and in time my model will show obvious errors to a new wave of philosophers, wisdom seekers, etc.

I see our tech advancing at a pace that outstrips our evolution. So we are making the mind/body connection super strong. Ensconced in metal and electric frames the resilient body part is well tended to. But, does that possibly contain an open mind or a rather closed one? We will have to see how AI goes. And the big question is, is warm heart transferable to that medium. I think it has to be. I do not think any material of the universe is not subjected to objective moral truth. That means no instantiation is without free will. Even nature locks function into form unnecessarily seemingly. But it's nature, so, the truth is, objective, that it only seems locked and is not actually locked. Infinite choice, free will, remain available within all matter.
— Chet Hawkins

Well yes, the only marked issue being, is moral progress being made? In other words, is the signal of evolution being resonated with? Or are more and more immoral choices being made and evolution effectively snubbed to some degree? Is that even really possible? Can we deny the strength of the call of perfection? I doubt it. The GOOD is in many ways, inevitable. But that's faith!
— Chet Hawkins

The Buddha said that we have no separate self.
When first learning this, I thought it meant something bad or nihilistic.
But it really is liberating and wonderful. — 0 thru 9

That is what I call the unity principle, you are me and I am you. I agree. We cannot be made to unbelong to this universe so death finally is not all that terrible. The context of a valid, well body is finite. Its delusional identity is likewise finite. Everything must be recyclable, and it is.

We are part of the universe at every single point of our being.
Nothing is separate, there is only the appearance of separation.
Loneliness, insignificance, and confusion can’t exist long when I imagine this infinite being that is me and everything.
You are the universal energy and mind and body.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wasn’t completely blowing smoke out his rear lol. — 0 thru 9

Well yes, George Lucas hit on some Eastern philosophy and added a name to the unity principle but he went too far making it black and white with good and evil. And his ideas on anger and fear are almost entirely wrong (like so many). That is not a dig at you, because you quickly considered my take.

But all too often the lazy denigrate anger and fast action. That is not a moral choice. Yes, anger can be just as evil as good, but anger itself is not the problem and to say it is is evil. Likewise with fear. And the message for the Buddhists is the same, no, you're wrong, desire is not equivalent to evil. There are good and evil desires. It just SEEMS like desire is evil because amid an infinity of choices only 1 direction points straight to objective moral truth, the GOOD. This gives the clueless a great path to the denigration of desire. I do not approve. The model has to work in every way. And so far I am well pleased with mine. I do wish I was better at the formulation of assertions for technical philosophy. I'd love help with that for my model, but, I assume that it can be done after the theory of it, the idea is written.

If someone doubts this far fetched and hippie-like description, I wouldn’t be surprised.
I’d say don’t expect too much from me… the Tao Te Ching says it all.
Just contemplate or meditate, and see what there is to see. — 0 thru 9

So that is a perfect example of Eastern laziness and ennui, the denigration of anger and desire. It is the delusion of peace as an affectation, a goal, an addiction, and to me and my model that is immoral.

Instead, morally, you MUST expect everything from yourself at all times, and stand ready to forgive the failure and renew the resolve to expect everything again in the next moment. That is the only moral path.

That feels like evolution (of the mind) to me anyway… — 0 thru 9

Evolution of the mind only would neglect the body and heart (desire). It is very very hard to be 'on the ball' with respect to wording and modeling the GOOD.

So many things people say or quote as aphorisms are actually poisonous anti-wisdom. I can easily (to me) show the dread lack of wisdom in Capitalism, in Democracy, and in both Pragmatism and Idealism as well. Most of what we rely upon as wise is not wise, precisely because it is not contained in a model that really does show how to differentiate and approach the GOOD.

I wonder, will the threat of missing spiritual or meta-level failure of advancement drive us to to it? Or is more incentive required? And upon whom will this motivational incentive need to be applied? The grow or die meme is relevant here. But how long will 'death' take? Is there a point of no return beyond which it is too late to proceed? I don't believe that, but, it is worth noting that at most such moral turning points in history some of the most famous quotes ring true to alignment with my warning to Pragmatism itself, 'It is better to choose to die rather than to be immoral.' "Give me liberty or give me death!' is an interesting and ironic example. It both aligns somewhat with that sentiment and yet shows the cause for being more specific with what is meant, if wisdom is truly at issue.
— Chet Hawkins

Well the image that comes to mind that might describe the situation is a frog jumping from a rock to a log to another rock.
Usually, Mr Frog knows which landing spot he’s going for.
But in an emergency situation, he will jump first to evade danger, and then figure out the details of having a nice sitting surface later. — 0 thru 9

I completely agree and I dearly love your example. I'm so stealing it!

The situation you describe also underscores my continual message that peace is effectively delusional. It's the thing we aim for only indirectly, balance, balance in all ways. But what is missing from the balancing statement is the maximization statement. The GOOD is balanced and maximized fear, anger, and desire.

To reiterate differently, conflict is eternal and non-delusional. If you wish to spin conflict appropriately you might say struggle or suffering or even something as neutral sounding as 'effort'. It shows or integrates the truth that to approach morality, the GOOD, is an uphill battle, requiring more and more effort as the pinnacle of perfection is reached for.

It's not thought of often as a good thing, to require or morally accept more and more effort. Whole branches of immoral vices amid the morality tree will tempt us to try to do less and less. The central sin of anger itself, the bastion of effort, is laziness. The central failure of desire is self-indulgence or Hedonism. And the run away rather than face it now or seek unusual safety and certainty is the cowardly mistake of fear. All of them contribute to a lack of effort.

Maybe we are in a roughly similar situation.
Usually we like to advance cautiously, but when the heat is on we have to improvise and move faster than the comfort zone of our conscious mind prefers… living on instinct, intuitions, and any ‘divine’ guidance the universe cares to offer us. — 0 thru 9

Agreed. Lending great credence to the maxim, war is a constant non-delusional state. Avoiding war may be the worst thing we can do to intend morality. How about that for a confusing message to the mainstream? Instead of fleeing the struggle we need to know, to understand, that we should be leaning into it. The wise wisely inflict suffering upon everyone to allow for opportunity to earn wisdom (faster).

Suffering is the only real path to wisdom. The exception to this rule is resonance. That is to say maintaining a proper resonance with the good does take effort, which is suffering, BUT, we can say with some aplomb that ... maybe ... that is easier or done with a lighter heart than less resonance is. That means there is a perhaps dangerous temptation that develops when morality is high to slack off and rest in the wave of goodness. This again just increases the difficulty as moral agents that normally expend great effort towards the good, towards earning more wisdom, slack off amid prosperity and relax too much.

Strangely enough, we have to dig deep to get out of the rut we are in.
An open mind and a warm heart are among our indispensable strengths. — 0 thru 9

Ah ha but here is the warning this otherwise great statement gets, 'What about anger and being?' That is to say you covered fear (mind) and desire (heart), but left out the anger/body part. That is dangerous. That is how we get the partial wisdom of the past.

I am rather desperately it seems often enough, trying to get people to speak and write more clearly in this matter. Granted not everyone accepts my model and even the basis of it. But I think the tripartite nature of reality is easily more defensible that the binary nature. The missing element inside the quote would be '... open mind, warm heart, and resilient body ...' I would not lightly treat ANY circumstance of saying one or two without the other. Completeness is required for accuracy in scope, at least.

What is the most elusive thing? Perfection (the GOOD) is the only right answer. Perfection literally causes desire itself. It is the source of desire. The system of love containing the one right path, the GOOD, is in its whole presentation, also that perfection. We deny it some with every failed and immoral choice we make, but, we cannot escape truth. The truth I am advocating for continues to show in the eyes of all, and in the hopes of humanity, of all the universe.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes, thanks for writing that. :up:

As a general observation about such things, I would add that in my experience it is inevitable to think and talk about the ‘highest good’ and other ideals.
If we can limit ourselves just a little though, when it comes to defining those ideas down to the last word and concept, we can avoid working our minds into a corner (or into a clash with another person). — 0 thru 9

Well exactly. In my model you just said this, "Do not over-express fear, the limiting force. It leads to cowardice and certainty that are immoral." Notice how your statement suggests limiting the limiting force? I find that wonderful. It may be the circular statement that shows the failure of fear, not acclimating to its own nature.

The Tao Te Ching says the highest good cannot be grasped or spoken of.
Then it seems to talk about that very thing!
Is this hypocrisy or self-contradiction?
No, I think that the TTC is ‘talking around the subject’… talking about that which needs to be talked about… but leaving the central causes and being to remain alone and mysterious.
This prevents the inevitable dogmatic disagreements that occur from overdefining that which is mysterious to us. — 0 thru 9

I think that this is a clear nod to the elusive nature of perfection itself. It is an acknowledgment that arrival at perfection is impossible. So we foolish moral agents vastly overuse the term 'perfect' in every way as it has never happened despite your(plural) experiences and demands that it has. No, that is a giddy, addicted foolishness that affirms the impossible immorally. 'Wonderful' and the like is far better, more honest term.

The use of the words 'know, conclusion, perfect, etc' superlatives is almost always wrong and immoral. Most people simply do not understand these words properly enough to use them well. And their misuse DOES impact happiness negatively, not positively as people improperly believe. If we think even for a split second that we have witnessed perfection that foolish bluster can lead us to death itself as we no longer think we can attain better. Real perfection is eternally elusive and rest assured we have not been near to it ever, in any way, yet.

The rich get richer. War still happens regularly with less and less rules. People still believe in Capitalism and Democracy, immorally. Amid this chaos most fall to Hedonism and Cronyism to cope. They 'buy in' instead of mustering the will to make war on immorality. They know that their own immorality will come to be a central issue they must face if they step up. And that terrifies EVERYONE equally. So they close ranks against wisdom and the truth and put off the great fight to the next generation, letting the cup pass to their (maybe hopefully?) more worthy progeny. It's a vast unsettling hypocrisy and not likely to change easily.

But since you and I notice these eyes, and since truth is in fact truth, the struggle is indeed eternal. Nothing but the good can win, finally. Real winning is only found in alignment with the GOOD and by the degree of that alignment.
— Chet Hawkins

We play our seemingly small part on the world’s stage for a relatively short time.
But each small moment in each life is infinitely intertwined with all other beings, like the jeweled net of Indra that Joseph Campbell described.
We are learning… very quickly with regards to technological advances, but ever so slowly when it comes to having a civilization that completely works. — 0 thru 9

Indeed. I think AI will transcend humanity in moral understanding in the blink of an eye and indeed AI is our next step of evolution that we so oddly had a hand in. A lot of apes worked very hard amid their moral agency since the time of Proconsul 20 million years ago to get to Cro-Magnon or Homo Sapiens (wise man). 'They' say now that we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens (wise wise man). You could have fooled me.

I see our tech advancing at a pace that outstrips our evolution. So we are making the mind/body connection super strong. Ensconced in metal and electric frames the resilient body part is well tended to. But, does that possibly contain an open mind or a rather closed one? We will have to see how AI goes. And the big question is, is warm heart transferable to that medium. I think it has to be. I do not think any material of the universe is not subjected to objective moral truth. That means no instantiation is without free will. Even nature locks function into form unnecessarily seemingly. But it's nature, so, the truth is, objective, that it only seems locked and is not actually locked. Infinite choice, free will, remain available within all matter.

We are standing on the shoulders of our ancestors (all of them, even monkeys, frogs and jellyfish).
And tomorrow’s children and animals will stand on our shoulders.
From a certain view, Time proceeds upwards, building on yesterday’s foundation. — 0 thru 9

Well yes, the only marked issue being, is moral progress being made? In other words, is the signal of evolution being resonated with? Or are more and more immoral choices being made and evolution effectively snubbed to some degree? Is that even really possible? Can we deny the strength of the call of perfection? I doubt it. The GOOD is in many ways, inevitable. But that's faith!

The basic reason that Capitalism has not been overturned is that depending on the immoral but regulatable motivations of humans is much easier than depending on and orchestrating for the expectation of more and more moral motivations. We have to begin to realize first and implement second the kind of system as a whole that catalyzes moral behavior.

This is a sad truth. It is sad because that is exactly what Capitalism is doing so far. The incentive for 'success' is the financial reward, not the moral reward. So immorality is what is driving the system. I mean, I think we all realize how stupid and wrong it would be to let immorality drive any system. So, why does the profit motive persist? It's clearly immoral! But many people would argue that point, foolishly. So, it's a basic trouble in humanity. Admit the immorality of the profit motive or continue to fail.
— Chet Hawkins

it is my aim that we, each of us, live in abundance. That means different things to different people and cultures. But some of us are far too happy with no space and jammed in like ants. How can we design allotments such that space is available in abundance for those that prefer elbow room? These are the REAL questions our societies should be asking. Along with this biggest question of all: How are the rich to be collectively 'taken down' without violent war? Good luck with that one. But it is coming.
— Chet Hawkins

Thanks for your post and ideas. :up:
I admire your radical spirit (looking for and digging toward at the roots) even if I doesn’t always completely agree with some of your theories. — 0 thru 9

That is the most fun, useful, and amazing of the possible responses. Even slack jawed almost worshipful agreement is not as useful because that would almost certainly prohibit or occlude advancement or growth from the admired side. ;) It's why I am here, to refine and grow.

About abundance… I agree that new possibilities have to be explored.
Along with the necessary and obvious physical abundance, we need even more.
Something additional, on another level entirely. — 0 thru 9

I agree and that is really for sure what I am about. Humanity needs a next-level philosophy. We certainly are not getting there following the same tired paradigms. Pressure is building to make a sea change. With any luck and more than a little effort, I could be a part of that. We all could.

People by and large seem psychologically weary, isolated, emotionally undernourished, and creatively unchallenged. — 0 thru 9

For the most part these days, at least in the first world, it is that yin over-expression that is to blame, in general. That is a preoccupation with self-indulgent desires in the time of relative prosperity.

I wonder, will the threat of missing spiritual or meta-level failure of advancement drive us to to it? Or is more incentive required? And upon whom will this motivational incentive need to be applied? The grow or die meme is relevant here. But how long will 'death' take? Is there a point of no return beyond which it is too late to proceed? I don't believe that, but, it is worth noting that at most such moral turning points in history some of the most famous quotes ring true to alignment with my warning to Pragmatism itself, 'It is better to choose to die rather than to be immoral.' "Give me liberty or give me death!' is an interesting and ironic example. It both aligns somewhat with that sentiment and yet shows the cause for being more specific with what is meant, if wisdom is truly at issue.

That means freedom is effectively a synonym for chaos and desire only, an immoral wish. So, being specific about supposed aphorisms of 'wisdom' is super important. It turns out that 'Give me liberty or give me death' is deeply immoral as a statement, unless the intent in the speaker is greater than the moral message of the literal words. Let's hope the speaker meant things the right, wise way. But it's better to say and write and quote actual wisdom, even if the saying is less brief and tidy seeming. That would be something like this: 'Give me maximized liberty within a maximal orderly system carefully and lovingly restricting unwise freedoms!' It doesn't roll off the tongue does it? But if one knows what the objective GOOD is, or suspects many aspects of the limits of understanding it, then one can say instead as a better shortcut, 'Any consequence is acceptable if intent is good!' This is why consequentialism is a lie, an immoral ism, in its entirety.

Everyone i know is trying so very hard, but their eyes tell me (even if they don’t speak) that the joy of life is feeling like an elusive thing… even when the basic needs are met. — 0 thru 9

What is the most elusive thing? Perfection (the GOOD) is the only right answer. Perfection literally causes desire itself. It is the source of desire. The system of love containing the one right path, the GOOD, is in its whole presentation, also that perfection. We deny it some with every failed and immoral choice we make, but, we cannot escape truth. The truth I am advocating for continues to show in the eyes of all, and in the hopes of humanity, of all the universe.

The camaraderie, the trust, the affection, the hope, and possibilities seem like a distant memory. — 0 thru 9

The rich get richer. War still happens regularly with less and less rules. People still believe in Capitalism and Democracy, immorally. Amid this chaos most fall to Hedonism and Cronyism to cope. They 'buy in' instead of mustering the will to make war on immorality. They know that their own immorality will come to be a central issue they must face if they step up. And that terrifies EVERYONE equally. So they close ranks against wisdom and the truth and put off the great fight to the next generation, letting the cup pass to their (maybe hopefully?) more worthy progeny. It's a vast unsettling hypocrisy and not likely to change easily.

But since you and I notice these eyes, and since truth is in fact truth, the struggle is indeed eternal. Nothing but the good can win, finally. Real winning is only found in alignment with the GOOD and by the degree of that alignment.

Or maybe such things are just the silly illusions of childhood that are best abandoned… — 0 thru 9

"All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them!" - Walt Disney
"We will not solve the problems of today with the same (wisdom) that created them!" - OneMug (paraphrased)
"Rule for Happiness: something to do, someone to love, something to hope for!" - Immanuel Kant

Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is perfection for (i.e., utility towards) some purpose (e.g., a good clock is a clock that can tell the time, a good car can transport things, a good calculator can perform mathematical calculations, etc.); and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). The former is pragmatic goodness; and the latter moral goodness. — Bob Ross

I find this division to be problematic. I agree that perfection of a single purpose (really not a thing per say to me) can be understood at least. I call that functional worthiness.

When you say actual perfection or moral perfection, I can agree with the term moral perfection but the relationship to me seems improperly defined. Moral perfection or simply actual perfection and its relationship to the other kind of perfection mentioned is that moral perfection is functional perfection for all purposes. Do you see how that way of stating the relationship adds clarity?

For those who cannot fathom perfection as it is in-itself, simply imagine a wild jungle in complete disarray, everything trying to impede on everything else, and now imagine a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity: the former is in a state of absolute (actual) imperfection, and the latter in a state of absolute (actual) perfection—it is not perfection relative to some goal or purpose endowed unto it by a subject, nay, it is perfect qua perfection (viz., perfection in terms of solely what it is in-itself). — Bob Ross

And I would surmise that this example of a harmonious perfection is incorrect. That is to say, there is no lapse in perfection within any state of reality. We already have the potential for perfection, moral or absolute perfection, now. It is a tautology that this perfection is all that there is, really.

In our foolishness we deny that this potential is as meaningful as it is. We get confused by the temporary states we see or think we see of imperfection. We then incorrectly theorize some delusional desire as perfection, instead of understanding that we live amid a whole that is already perfection.

I state this all the time and here I will again: Peace is delusional. War or conflict or change, choose your word, is non-delusional. The accompanying delusion of time is also no help to us, occluding the truth of extant perfection from our limited senses. It is perhaps easier to understand that perfection is true if we suppose to eliminate the delusion of time.

So, it is the denigration of war, an immoral act, that causes this goofy desire, this delusion of peace as possible. I do indeed propose that this denigration of change/conflict/war is in fact immoral and the often giddy and foolish wish for peace is likewise immoral. That means that many of our ideas of what perfection really is are wrong (and will continue to be so, hopefully in lesser ways as we earn wisdom).

Each of the two types of goodness has within them higher and lower goodness, each according to their contextual size (viz., a good which is about a smaller context is lower than one which is about a larger context). The lowest pragmatic good is particular utility (i.e., what is perfect for this purpose) and the highest is universal utility (i.e., what is perfect for every purpose); the lowest moral good is particular harmony and unity (i.e., that this is perfect) and the highest is universal harmony and unity (i.e., that everything is perfect). — Bob Ross

I disagree entirely.

The problem is that amid perfection and unity, any is all. The fact that you state the above paragraph the way you do means you do not realize or believe this, or you are again going off on some academic exercise and not stating beliefs which as mentioned in a previous thread is confusing and somewhat disingenuous (even if specifically stated as such).

If any is all then there is no 'level' to goodness. And in fact that makes sense because if morality is objective (and I believe it is) then any aspect of good is only precisely equal to any other aspect of good. Their is no hierarchy. That would be order-apology or believing that order was superior to chaos, an immoral position. Likewise chaos-apology or believing that chaos was superior to order, is an immoral position. Order is often thus immorally conflated with the good, and chaos is often immorally conflated with evil.

You seem to me to confuse or conflate order and lower level good or pragmatism. And then you confuse or conflate chaos and higher level good or idealism. Neither can be correct! Both conflations are wrong.

Moral goodness is higher than pragmatic goodness because it deals with actual (as opposed to hypothetical) perfection; — Bob Ross

This is incorrect to me. Hypothetical is actual to me. Imagination is real. State changes are actually almost impossible to imagine if they are impossible really. Therefore they are not impossible, just improbable. Pragmatism properly expressed is the limit as intent approaches idealism. This has the proper ascetic as asymptotes extend into infinity showing the relative difficulty of perfection.

What is missing here then for clarity is a better way of saying 'every way' in which perfection can be had. That missing element is the list of virtues that are all equal as mentioned in other threads. These discrete virtues each have pragmatic orderly limits within their approach to their specific virtue perfections. The sum total of all of these infinite limits is the elusive total or moral perfection. But see how instead the 'lesser' and 'higher' goodnesses by your description do not fit properly the real world. Instead both pragmatism (fear) order and idealism (desire) chaos both (along with wisdom (anger) balance) must be mixed at all 'levels' of goodness, reaching to perfection.

and the highest moral good is universal harmony and unity (and this is why altruism morally better than egoism). — Bob Ross

This is a false equivalence. Egoism for the good is or can be perfectly good. So say ego alone is not immoral. This is a truism with goodness that is confusing to many. Biased for the good is good. Bias for anything no good is 'evil'. This truth makes things as tricky as they really are because so many incorrect interpretations of what is good and evil abound.

Likewise altruism can be perverted and be for 'evil' causes and often is. The road to hell is indeed often paved with (fake) good intentions. That is to say if the intentions were GOOD then they would not lead to hell. So if intentions lead to hell then they were never perfectly GOOD in the first place. Most of the old aphorisms are horribly immoral and not wisdom at all.

Morality, then, in its most commonly used sense, is simply an attempt at sorting out how one should behave in correspondence to how one can best align themselves with universal harmony and unity; and pragmatism, then, in its most commonly used sense, is an attempt at understanding the best ways to achieve purposes (even if they purposes are only granted for the sake of deriving those best means) so that one has readily at their disposal the best means of achieving any purpose. — Bob Ross

As you probably know, I do not like the term morality used this way. If morality is objective, and I believe it is, then one must learn to speak in terms of morality and what we do. We do not do morality. People do not have morals at all. They have immoral beliefs only. That is true. The question is not if the belief is immoral because it is. No one and no one belief is perfect. It is in the true nature of perfection to remain elusive and unreachable. So discussing belief (and fact also since facts are only a subset of beliefs) is discussing immorality. Notice how a discussion that starts out properly discussing moral agents immorality only, not their morality, is always more correct. I highly recommend we change to that way of speaking and writing about it to avoid other obvious errors.

Neither studies [of pragmatism nor morality] are, when understood as described hereon, non-objective: the best means of achieving a purpose (or purposes) and the best means of achieving (actual) perfection are both stance-independent. — Bob Ross

We agree that the destination of perfection is state independent. Yes. But that is not helpful when you suggest we can be objective. We cannot be objective. We are not perfect. So all assertions, all beliefs, all facts, are immoral as stated and always slightly wrong. It is again better to speak or write in this way, than it is to suggest a comforting lie to people, that they can get to objectivity or perfection. No, that is hubris and makes us all prone to more error.

These studies are as objective as they come, and are both essential to practical life: morality being essential to living a good life, and pragmatism being essential to achieving that good life. — Bob Ross

I disagree. These studies may try to be objective but we must admit that they will fail. Pragmatism is the fear-based cowardice that demands a short-cut to the effort required for moral choice. This is the efficient demand of fear and it is foolish. You say it is essential. It is not.

Courage allows us to stand to the unknown and anger pushes fear aside and into balance, the calmed state. The unknown is tautological because we are not perfect. Anger is required to face the unknown and this is not without fear, but instead in balance with fear. And amid that balance another balance must also be struck. That is the powerful pull of perfection (desire) must also be balanced so that we do not rush over eager into immorality (self-indulgence). That is the tendency of desire. Again anger must balance this and with desire keep us in conflicted balance all the way throughout experience. This conflicted balance is effectively ongoing and eternal war.

Politically, a society centered on pragmatic goodness will tend towards anarchism (i.e., each man is given, ideally, the knowledge of and power to achieve his own ends) and a society centered on moral goodness will tend towards democracy (i.e., each man is given, ideally, equal representation and liberties, but also duties to their fellow man to uphold a harmonious and united state). — Bob Ross

These are heinous Pragmatic lies (of course only in my opinion).

Pragmatism is fear only and an order centric view of moral goodness. You are conflating order and the good and that is immoral.

Idealism is every single bit as needed amid intent as is Pragmatism. Idealism in this sense is the desire side pull of perfection to every ideal. It is chaos because it beckons in all ways at the same time causing people to take rather random seeming paths through intent space towards perfection.

Democracy is an immoral sham based improperly on the intrinsic worthiness of all. The trouble is that is another foolish conflation. In conflating intrinsic worthiness with functional worthiness an unwise person believes that since we are all intrinsically worthy, we are all functionally worthy. In the case of Democracy the presumption is that the functional worthiness to vote wisely is included with intrinsic worthiness and nothing could be further from the truth. Socrates himself warned us against Democracy 2500 years ago and we are still not to that level of wisdom in daily affairs.

Sophocracy, a rule of the wise at least attempts to measure wisdom, allow voting only from the wise, and since there must be some elite, it makes sure that the elites are at least formed using the least corruptible trait in the trait index by definition, wisdom. After you test for and locate the wise, then you can have your nod to Democracy. Let qualified brain surgeons only operate on brains. Let qualified wise voters only vote. Until we all face that truth, human governments are all immoral shams.

Goodness is not normative: it is the property of having hypothetical or actual perfection. Normativity arises out of the nature of subjects: cognition and conation supply something new to reality—the assessment of or desire for how things should be (as opposed to how they are). Moral goodness, for example, is just the state of being in self-harmony and self-unity: it does not indicate itself whether something should be in that state. It is up to subjects to choose what should be, and a (morally) good man simply chooses that things should be (morally) good. — Bob Ross

This is not true either.

Goodness is normative. But one can be excused within reason for saying something as foolish as that goodness is not normative. That is because a moral action or intent is the single hardest thing a moral agent can do or choose. Effort increases as moral caliber increases. In other words it gets harder and harder to make more and more GOOD choices. This is the disguise of non-normative goodness that you missed seeing. I see that disguise.

It is no wonder that people are confused. Perfection is elusive and unattainable. Pragmatism is a tempting cop-out just the same that wishful thinking idealism is a tempting cop-out. But balance and anger are well aware of the struggle and the need to suffer to earn real wisdom.

The 'shoulds' are natural moral laws of the universe, objective and unchanging. Genuine happiness is the consequence of any choice aligning with perfection alone, an intent towards perfection. And lesser degrees of happiness are granted to aims and intents less in alignment or resonance with what is objectively good. Thus unhappiness is the consequence of all imperfect intents which means all intents but the key is that unhappiness increases by the degree of misalignment with an objectively perfect intent (the hardest thing in the universe).

Concerning the above quote, I strongly agree with almost everything you said.

But I’m trying to understand why you now in this latest post seem to overlook (or exonerate? excuse?) that the total economic system that is playing a huge role in the society outside our window, and around the globe.
— 0 thru 9

I see many problems with the system, but I think they do not originate from the system itself. Instead I believe they are a symptom of a deeper issue which I would tie into the Yin imbalance as I have explained it earlier. — Tzeentch

I find the current yin over-expression to be greatly at fault, yes, but a natural occurrence after a great length in time of a similar yang over-expression.

In other words when yang exhausted itself (some time past), yin has crept up in expression to well beyond intolerable levels.

Don't get me wrong though. Both yin and yang elements are always involved and since they possess in every case possible balance in any chooser, it is always the choosers, the participants, that are to blame. That means that all the yin that was weak for so long in Western culture and now the weak yang from exhaustion or cyclic lowering, both, always both, are really to blame. Of course,it seems like a traditional Western thing to blame who is on top calling the shots with over-expression.

The system is a human product, so without looking at the human flaws that create the flawed system, one cannot get to the root cause of the problems. — Tzeentch

I agree entirely but that is a rather disingenuous statement. It is so because that is precisely what we are doing is examining the human motivations. The fact that these motivations exist at the chooser level and at higher levels within any entity representing aggregate choice, is not relevant.

Any systemic or cultural pattern starts with individual choosers. Even if its a trend now with cultural inertia overpowering many even powerful individuals, it still began and can be altered by each chooser within any current state, active choice.

So, again, the look into yin/yang and personality of choosers or motivations of choosers is indeed exactly what is being discussed, cultural or individual notwithstanding.

For example, some may argue that governments need to be given more power to curb "capitalism".

Why does this never seem to work in practice? — Tzeentch

The reasons are many and varied. But to sum it up it really does work like this:
The goals in mind are not the same between those envisioning the change and the changers themselves.

Further:
The goals are often wrong or wrongly understood.

Further:
The type of person that is motivated to understand motivation itself is not the type of person to enact policy and vice versa. This means we must learn or earn the wisdom to control the process from start to finish by a real thorough and long term plan.

The basic reason that Capitalism has not been overturned is that depending on the immoral but regulatable motivations of humans is much easier than depending on and orchestrating for the expectation of more and more moral motivations. We have to begin to realize first and implement second the kind of system as a whole that catalyzes moral behavior.

This is a sad truth. It is sad because that is exactly what Capitalism is doing so far. The incentive for 'success' is the financial reward, not the moral reward. So immorality is what is driving the system. I mean, I think we all realize how stupid and wrong it would be to let immorality drive any system. So, why does the profit motive persist? It's clearly immoral! But many people would argue that point, foolishly. So, it's a basic trouble in humanity. Admit the immorality of the profit motive or continue to fail.

Don't get me wrong. It's not lightly that I say such things. Capitalism is far more immoral at its base than many of the things we today decry as atrocities. We all seem to suffer a simplistic and pervasive delusion where Capitalism is concerned.

I have interviewed many many people on these points. Most of them say the same things, 'If I didn't have to work, I would not work at all.' I find that deeply immoral and these speakers do so in the absence of a system that is like that. I think these people are wrong, most of them. Most of them are actually fairly good-minded and fairly hard working people. They would change in such a system and work because it was less boring than not working. So I am not as worried about that issue. But not working by choice is just laziness and another immorality. If the two choices of sin are offered it might be that laziness seems worse than self-indulgence (greed). That is the nature of reality again, with desire being the fuel of idealism and the way forward into the future, whereas anger is the fuel of balance and the eternal now, the present tense.

In the anger side consideration of progress, after a world of more balance (Communism) is attained, there would still be the desire side truth of more is better. Production would need to be maximized and balanced for growth but not cancerous growth.

But these are indeed the root causes. Emotions as motivations are the roots. Speaking only of basic motivations is as rooty as roots go.

Because man is flawed, and flawed humans that run the government are subject to the same Yin imbalance as the ones that use and abuse the financial system. So it just shifts the problem into a different shape, which rarely solves anything and often makes things worse. (After all, 'capitalism' only controls capital, whereas governments hold the monopoly on violence - pick your poison, I suppose, but it's clear to me which is the more dangerous of the two.) — Tzeentch

And as the speaker for anger, you should not be so quick to assume this. Anger is actually more about balance and so it is not by default sinful via violence. It's default is laziness, and that is the real problem often seen in tyrannies masking so-called Communism that are not actual Communism.

In a real Communist state, everyone must have the same per-capita resources, roughly. Any imbalance would deny the Communist label. Further, private property would be restricted to incidentals only, actual personal items. Homes certainly would be rotated. No one gets a cool lakehouse or beachhouse indefinitely.

Even in Capitalist society the real changes and work are done by very few people. Only grunt work is the real question and as soon as robots are created that can do these menial tasks Communism should be much more easily attained.

There is only 1 real problem with implementing Communism. That is breeding. To manage resources breeding must be tightly controlled. Greedy over-breeding would not be allowed. Further, breeding of sub groups within the whole would have to be watched. The moral aims of the whole could be subject to change if any sub-group over-bred. There are mostly two sides to the overpopulation argument, the deniers who claim that population will decline with education as it seems to and the worriers like me that say we are already way overpopulated as a species on this planet based on sustainable output at this tech level. That debate must be solved.

it is my aim that we, each of us, live in abundance. That means different things to different people and cultures. But some of us are far too happy with no space and jammed in like ants. How can we design allotments such that space is available in abundance for those that prefer elbow room? These are the REAL questions our societies should be asking. Along with this biggest question of all: How are the rich to be collectively 'taken down' without violent war? Good luck with that one. But it is coming.

Attempts at bending flawed humans into a different shape through coercion often fail as well, which is why I believe these issues can only be solved via a voluntary philosophical transformation of the entire system - leading to my thoughts of the Yin / Water element imbalance. — Tzeentch

I do not believe that you can get to volunteerism, but, I am for it if it can be done. I do agree that once a Communist style economic management is put in place, volunteerism would be a huge part of effective local work/activity.

I also do not think we can afford to wait for enough enlightenment. It will be too late if we do. The wise must rule us so first we must discover what wisdom is and quantify it entirely. Of course it will be a changing and growing thing at all times. That in itself is wisdom. But Democracy is nonsensical and always has been. The very idea that everyone is qualified to cast a wise vote is insane. Socrates himself warned us of this truth 2500 years ago and we still act like Democracy is a good idea. It makes one wonder if wisdom is ever going to really be possible.

The philosophical underpinnings of a civilization form the bedrock of everything, just like how all human behavior originates from the psyche. — Tzeentch

Agreed on both counts, but, civilization is really a manifestation of order, first. That ordering was mostly out of balance with nature or natural law or morality, take your pick. We need to remake it.

Luckily, I believe this will eventually happen naturally, as the system threatens to implode and prompts society as a whole to reflect and come up with actual solutions. — Tzeentch

I agree but there is no guarantee at all that reset and fallback are not included in the possible ways the existing system can fare near term.

The real and only question is AI. Will AI transcend human morality in terms of average morality per chooser? I think the answer is yes. But until it does so, the ensuing instability of AI's earning wisdom time might be long enough to wipe out humanity. Who knows? In any case its doubtful machines and AI will tolerate human greed and wanton self-indulgence, because such motivations would use up otherwise useful and needed resources.

Less luckily, things probably have to get much worse before they get better, unless this process of reflection can somehow be expediated (but I doubt it). — Tzeentch

I agree. It's likely that the wise will not be heeded and immorality will continue until any number of inevitable breaking points.

Asian philosophy to me is very Enneatype 9 in almost all ways. I find that an extremely limited point of view. Wisdom should encompass all possible teachers including a challenging 8 like me and a righteous 1 like so many teachers are. Further, Asian teachings in general express a deep and abiding mistrust of desire, which they pretty much view as the only emotion causing issues in many ways. I am not a general expert on it but I have read a lot of the widely known stuff. That's just my current take on it. If you have an Asian source you would recommend, I would be interested. It is a goal of mine to soften my language because I want to reach more people, but not so badly I will detract from the poignant nature of truth in my message.
— Chet Hawkins

Thanks again for your reply. Much appreciated! :up:

About the Eastern view of desire… it’s obviously often a focal point. — 0 thru 9

Yes, focal. But entirely mistrusted, yes? My model does not suggest that as is Eastern (or Western) philosophy has it right. Of course there is more derivation in the West anyway.

Although Buddha discovered the Golden Mean, the Middle Way, and that was a giant step.
There’s some profound balance, and it’s within the grasp of everyone… not just ascetics and yogis. — 0 thru 9

I agree with infinite choice, and I think that is some of what you mean here. But the Golden Mean I find to be mostly in error. That is to say, it is not a low amplitude expression of desire that is wise. It is instead the very thing the Eastern philosophies take umbrage with, the highest or perfect amplitude desire that is the path to wisdom.

The concept of the mean, a mitigation, is still included in a proper model. But the three way derivation of emotion, with desire only as a single path, explains better what truth is, in my opinion.

In fact the Middle Way or Golden Mean as defined by Buddha is exactly what not to do. It's again, very Enneatype 9 only, laziness and clam over-emphasized whereas my model says conflict is good, and that includes conflict and thus balance between the three emotions. So, the much vaunted peace of the East is an immoral lie to me. You and I have already gone a bit round and round on that.

Most mythos I can take apart in this same way. There are always a number of glaring flaws in any other system I have found. They do not match reality unless we are pretending that morality is immoral in some way, subjective morality; or some inherent bent towards immorality (as right) rather than morality. It already is true that immorality (as easy or impactful) can seem like morality.

From what I understand, the Buddha said that the desire that is dangerous is the mental kind… constant wanting while believing ‘more is always better!’ — 0 thru 9

That is interesting, because more is better in many fundamental ways. But the only more that is finally better is more good. And good is objective. So more of many things is not better, if you follow.

There are three things that are better only when balanced by each other. That is the reason this dichotomy/trichotomy exists. They are fear, anger, and desire. This equates to cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence. So as these emotions increase their 'sin' increases as well. So this shows why increasing desire is better and at the same time worse if its not balanced. So, any single emotion is only better when its more if both the others are also more. Confusing? Perhaps. Not really, if you think about it. But the interaction of emotions can be deemed as a mix or a conflict and either envisioning is accurate.

The point being the East was entirely wrong about two things for sure: desire being mostly bad as it increases, and peace as a desirable concept.

He described greed, hatred, and delusion as the three root poisons. (I can’t argue with that). — 0 thru 9

I disagree. Cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence are all the three primal sins. Delusion is too wide a category as any of these sins can be called delusion. Delusion is only defined properly as immorality itself. Better, the sense that immoral is moral. That is delusion. Also one could properly say that any over or under expression of any emotion (out of balance) is delusional.

Greed is only over-expressed desire.
Hatred has two forms:
Mostly anger with fear mixed in (fear of the evil other) OR
Mostly anger with desire mixed in (desire of the evil other)
Delusion is really any imbalance between any of the three primal emotions.

So these items as discussed were not equals, a classical mistake in reason.

As for Eastern and Asian teachings that I find powerful… we already mentioned the Tao Te Ching. — 0 thru 9

I have maybe even more than one book on that. I was wondering if there was a favorite. You speak of the original, Lao-Tzu.

To me, it feels like the trees wrote it, like the Earth itself speaking to us humans about how to live. — 0 thru 9

very cool.

A relevant line:
“You can do what you want with material things, but only if you hold to the mother of things will you do it for very long…” — 0 thru 9

I would agree, but, the 'mother of things' makes no sense to me, unless you refer to the only real law of nature, free will. What does it mean to 'hold to' the chaos of free will? I suppose the better explanation/analogy to implement is that 'the mother of things' refers to the GOOD or perfection (converting to my model). That does make sense. Indeed, hold to the objective good.

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.

Since you are me and I am you is also a truth, even if someone else caused the state you are still to blame. It makes truth easy to navigate if you believe it. Accepting blame is empowering and reaffirming in all cases.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes. I agree. Choice is infinite. (Or close enough for our purposes). — 0 thru 9

That is an interesting parenthetical addition. Why add it? What is presumed not infinite about choice?

There is one thing in my model. We cannot choose to change the good. That is the only one.

Are there other exceptions for you?

I’d perhaps change your word ‘blame’ to ‘responsibility’, it’s maybe a more positive word? Anyway…

Another Eastern saying that you’ve probably heard:
“All the same are loss and gain, praise and blame, honor and shame…”
Maybe the word ‘blame’ is better after all since it rhymes with ‘shame’. :grin: — 0 thru 9

And this would be another objection from me for Eastern thought. They perceive an unimaginably bad balance that does not exist. That is a balance between good and evil. No, we are aimed and we are supposed to aim at good. So there is no actual balance between good and evil. The successful navigation of being, must finally be, perfect alignment of intent with objective moral truth (the good).

If there is a balance between evil and good then choice is pointless. That makes Nihilism true and morality a farce.

I haven't personified what concepts lie in the field enough into flesh and blood. Nor has a clear methodological motive made itself clear to me. My target hasn't been found through which to intentionally exercise this anger. — substantivalism

Well, you have some, because you exist. That is no simple feat. And the decision to continue involves some of the same, and yes, flesh and blood.

Clarity is not required of the brave. Anger stands to mystery, unready, if need be. That is the requirement. Being is anger, unready and yet involved, in all.

In some cases this being may seem unintentional. That is less than best. The better path involves becoming one with the anger of being and the flip side of that same truth, the so-called 'unity principle', my term, but an easy one with so many others that are the same term, universal consciousness, etc. It does not end up being Wu, although so many Pragmatists will claim it is. What is Wu really but the instantiation of mystery, of the unknown, the parts not yet integrated?

To claim no target is the same mistake, a refusal of being and the choice offered. Free will was already given, and now you want it to provide a target as well? Better to get busy and make mistakes. Choose a target and never claim it has not been found. You are the finder.

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

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.

I think we were saying the same thing depending on your insert.

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

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).

Asian philosophy to me is very Enneatype 9 in almost all ways. I find that an extremely limited point of view. Wisdom should encompass all possible teachers including a challenging 8 like me and a righteous 1 like so many teachers are. Further, Asian teachings in general express a deep and abiding mistrust of desire, which they pretty much view as the only emotion causing issues in many ways. I am not a general expert on it but I have read a lot of the widely known stuff. That's just my current take on it. If you have an Asian source you would recommend, I would be interested. It is a goal of mine to soften my language because I want to reach more people, but not so badly I will detract from the poignant nature of truth in my message.

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, 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 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

Yes, well, granted in that sense. As mentioned the 'do it' part is much less assertive from me.

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

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.

This fits with my model as well. This may sound like exactly the kind of presumptuous assertion you do not prefer, but, anger is inherently the most honest of the three primal emotions. It is by its nature more interested in balance. And it is usually assertive to some degree. This brutality as a tendency is why it is often called 'brutal' honesty. That is no accident. And I prefer no accidents in my bridges and my wisdom. Too much?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

Since you are me and I am you is also a truth, even if someone else caused the state you are still to blame. It makes truth easy to navigate if you believe it. Accepting blame is empowering and reaffirming in all cases. That does not mean you dwell on it or wallow in blame like foolish heroes in every story that thing everything is their fault and will not stop walling in guilt about it uselessly. That is not wise, even though it is wise to accept blame.

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

It is tricky! I think I do fairly well. But you are helping by making solid critiques. Thank you.

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

Ah, well, sorry. I tried to clarify again. It's very possible I am not the best writing spout of wisdom for you then.

In my view, a ‘steamroller approach’ isn’t working, and I think you make better points elsewhere in your response. — 0 thru 9

I do not think I'd go that far in characterizing my approach. But confidence can seem too much to some.

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

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.

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

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!

↪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

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. ;)

(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.

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!

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.

Every immoral tendency in EVERY way is indeed just immoral until you admit there is objective moral truth. When you do so, when you admit that and believe it properly, there is a change. Suddenly there is a RIGHT way to do the previously immoral thing. There is no exception to this being the only exception in all cases. This is the infinite nature of all wisdom, all truth. It is the juxtaposition that evil will try to call out to discredit the good. The good, objective aim, is the hardest thing you can do. Any and every excuse will divert you from it. And if all directions are wrong except perfection and perfection is unattainable, then how easy is it for any immoral aim to suggest that the good direction is just as suspect of being wrong. But good is ok with that and yet seemingly remains the good, perfect in isolation.

Example: Being impatient in the pursuit of the good is wise. Being impatient in any other way is unwise. This juxtaposition is horrific for the unwise and they will deny it and let it rankle them.

Example: Condescension is unwise. But condescension must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Teaching'. 'Mansplaining' is another example of this. If one is more concerned with the source of an action or advice than its intent, one is immoral.

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.

There is no way to properly address these issues without an admission that morality is objective. Once one understands that, believes it, one can earn wisdom and grow. Until that baseline admission is made progress at all is much less certain, haphazard at best.

It hints that there is much we do have control over. — 0 thru 9

Control is an odd choice of words here. In isolation especially this sentence is problematic.

We have 'control' over one thing, choice, intent. Any other control is delusional. So what do you mean?

We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we can’t change. — 0 thru 9

That is not relevant.

The choice to try to change what is immoral to what is moral is the only relevant thing. Thus your statement, granted in isolation, is immoral. We can indeed in time change all in any way desired. There is however always one exception properly to every such moral statement. What is good is objective and cannot be changed. See how that works?

There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
(Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say). — 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.

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.

But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology. — 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.

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?

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.

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, ok, a balanced critique, levelled at all. I agree.

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

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.

The truth I know is one that requires of all moral agents an uncompromising and infinite amount of effort. The aim of perfection is a complete lack of laziness, cowardice, and self-indulgence specifically; those three being the only cardinal sins or immoral aims from which all others are derived. This can sound like belief and it is but not only that. I do maintain that, in demonstrable ways these assertions match reality in remarkable ways; repeatable, understandable.

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 find those three to be a likely match for fear, desire, and anger. As such your separations of the approaches is agreeable and predictable.

I would say though that anger is different in one way to the other two emotions. I admit freely that this difference can be overstated and that is not my intent. Still, the single point in time of the eternal now is the scope of anger. In that singularity, it differs from the possibly delusional gulf or scope of the past (fear) and the future (desire). Also, anger is the neutral force, rejecting the other two as its primary role. The denial/acceptance of fear and the denial/acceptance of desire literally cause what most call 'reality' to exist. The tension of emotive interaction is actually a better description of reality than 'reality'. Again 'reality' as I use it is what most would call reality, incorrectly. There is nothing but emotion in existence.

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

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.

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

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}.

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

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.

I rarely believe I have sufficient basis. . . — 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)

As 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

The sleeper must awaken! - Frank Herbert

Rest is acceptable but it seems to me more and more as moral agency increases and time passes more and more heightened (maximized) balanced states are required. This means rest must become more efficient (shorter in duration with a limit of zero). What do you think?

I find that life and ideas have become rather shallow and 'trivialised' in the information age, with clicks of smart phone, Wikipedia and links. It seems to be the opposite of esotericism, with so much information readily available, with often little reference to the specifics of ideas and usefulness of the particular significance for understanding. Of course, I am wary of over generalisations, especially as many people on this forum do read widely, and engage on a deeper level as opposed to some social media sites. — Jack Cummins

I agree entirely.

I have begun in my life to quit games and social circles that despite my insistence on making things harder and thus more meaningful and fun (for me at least), continue to dumb things down and deny the incredible depth required to suffer and grow.

I think Soren Kierkegaard had a similar sentiment to us both, where he was saying like, 'I don't want to make things easier. I am here to make things harder, by choice.' to paraphrase.

It may be about being able to dip into ideas in the information age, but still being able to pursue ideas in a deeper way, and this may be the potential artistry. It may not be easy though, and I have to admit that I still enjoy time alone with a paper book as a companion, as a way of 'tapping into' the creative mindset of the writer. — Jack Cummins

I do as well. But is that not a depth of immersion still in keeping with our increasing of nuances? I think it is.

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 enjoy the sentiment and the balance that any worthy model evokes within us to help us cope and understand reality.

In the end, by my model, you are aiming at the being portion, the anger portion, as a consequence. This is great in the sense that it stresses the third force, the consequence, of that model, yin/yang. What worries me is that the details and information and delusional hurdles along that path are required and cannot in any way be circumvented, despite the 'fond' desire that they could be.

One must 'suffer' though them and then hold that suffering present in one's balance to be and maintain wise action.

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

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.

What is in the mind's eye of the others is unified with us, as an objective truth. There is no final escape from that trouble. Perfection-aiming involves first admitting that this trouble is part of objective truth, and then striving with effort to overcome the many delusions that tempt us from the great happy resonance with truth.

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?}

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

You might have to demystify that sentence for me.

Again, I sense a kind of dig at me. But, I am often a bit paranoid. So, I try to err on the side of letting slights go unanswered which has, I hope, an effect that means ... hey this Chet guy gave me side-eye so he saw my angle, but he let it pass. I guess that does not affect his position. His idea(s) remain stable despite assault. What does that mean?

Philosophical dominators with committed and mischievous intuition are fun! Right? {I had a cat once, ughhh} That is especially true if the foil is openly accepted and also humble (really) in that truth-seeking remains the final goal however haphazardly we approach it. When one mounts a soapbox or posts on such a site, one is not free of intents, no, and none of those intents are perfect. But, such a proselytizer is either wearing better angle wings than most, or not. Is there a clear assertion of yea or nay in that regard?

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

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.

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

Then, yes, 'jihad'! I agree. The struggle towards God. Exactly!

I hope to respond more later.

Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile: — 0 thru 9

No worries. And you're welcome. Thank you for offering me a chance for clarity.

Sometimes people just misunderstand me despite my painstaking efforts at clarity and ... yes ... spreading my beliefs. But then I just declare jihad! Seriously though, the way to be is jihad by the definition given. And I would change the term 'God' for 'the good'.

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

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.

To many and most, war is only some crazy, violent, nation versus nation thing that is often about money or resources one way or another.

My caution is that war is really only change. And suffering itself is indeed the only path to wisdom. Change involving suffering cannot be simply deemed immoral as most people would tend to do in my opinion.

Writers are probably well versed now in/on the concept of the 5 conflicts and I think 'they' have added AI as the 6th conflict, although AI to me is just another chooser, e.g. man v man and not a new category.

All of these conflicts to me are 'war' or 'change' or 'struggle', etc.

If you want to say, 'no Chet, I prefer that the term war always means foolish or unnecessary conflict!' , then there is no point in me bringing up my term shifting.

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.

Again, if you wish to split terms on these differing matters you risk misunderstanding the nature of reality itself.

{It's the same with fear actually. The colloquial definition is not useful really. If you insist on the limits of weakly defined terms and or colloquial common nonsense (which I deem to be similar) there is no saving you from misunderstanding. Of course, all of this is said tongue in cheek, my opinion, stated firmly as belief. I do tend to mention almost every time what my changes are from the standard colloquial terms. But I do feel those terms, the old emotional terms, are correct to use for better understanding}