you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans
— Chet Hawkins

I made no such implication. Instead, I did and do assert that Heidegger is better situated to describe the fundamental ontological structure of a human than of a fish. It matters not to Heidegger if fish turn out to have the same fundamental ontological structure as human. But how would he know? He doesn't experience being as a fish.

Dasein is the term given to any and all beings having the characteristics of Dasein. Being a Dasein is not a social status among biological organisms and it comes with no entitlements. — Arne

'Better situated' is perhaps a sobering but ultimately timid term to describe agency, the burden of experience. It may be more true than not, but it plays games with truth, rather than addressing truth head-on. Either way, fallibility means mistakes will be made. So, better by far to face the truth with equal measures of courage and analysis. That is to say: As far as we know from this 'situation' we are the best equipped to make any description of ... anything, including the fundamental ontological structure of a fish, and quite to the point INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. To mention the fact that we are not ACTUALLY fish is rather silly, even if it is of passing interest as a point of note, mostly to tame conceit.

But wholesale abandonment of the perspectives of other entities than humans would be nothing short of rank cowardice, an absurd departure from any hope of commonality and unity. That perspective almost is in tacit denial of the oneness of all things, a concept much more reasonable than this implied separation ever can be.

'So long and thanks for all the fish!'

We CORRECTLY anthropomorphize the universe. Each atom is alive is my belief. The SAME seeds that formed us formed the fish, and the dolphins, and the ostensible Vogons who need to destroy Earth (Hitchhiker's Guide). To become enamored of separation, rather than unity, is a moral error of a sort. It is a tendency of one emotion only, fear, the seed of all order, thought, reason, structure, and logic.

The reason I asserted that you implied Daesin was reserved for humans is that again in your response you indicate that Daesin is the term given to beings that have the characteristics of Daesin. That is a ridiculous point of view and precisely wrong for the reasons I already intimated. But to go further: The Oxford Academic:
Dasein is essentially in the world, because it continually interprets and engages with other entities and the contexts in which they lie. Only Dasein makes the world a unitary world at all, rather than a collection of entities. Dasein is the whole human being, and makes no distinction between body and mind.

So, even this much vaunted definition (I assume Oxford is acceptable) directs this concept to human only, effectively. And humorously although I was only vaguely remembering the term, it specifically commits the exact sin I described in its definition. It actually implies that humans are LESS aware and LESS moral because of the foolishness of something that is apparently valued in some way by the inventor of this nonsense, Daesin, ostensibly Heidegger. That is to say whoever came up with this idea had an obtuse pride in the separate facilities of a human being. What a strange thing (facetious) coming from an entity that just so happens to be human! And then the perversity is that from this separating and unaware viewpoint the arrogance then also decides that humans or Daesin 'makes the world a unity world'. No! The world was ALREADY unitary and that include the fish, the tree, every atom. ALL OF THEM continually interpret and engage with other entities and the contexts in which they lie. Now if you wish to start speaking properly, in terms of strength of that agency, the depth and complexity of it, without putting on airs and drawing lines where there are none, then I am down for that.

I also disagree in part with the 'no distinction between body and mind' bit. Then why do we suffer the persistent delusion that there is an essence break there? I can agree that all the universe is composed of parts that together make a whole. I can agree that all elements of that whole are unified by their submission to natural law. Precisely none break the rules. Fish, tree, and human, all are Daesin, just to greater or lesser degrees. The universe is alive. We live because it (the universe) did first. We are not separate or special except as a matter of degree of these characteristics. They are not again wholly reserved to us. And indeed the Oxford definition (and you whether you agree or not) imply that there is some special status to humanity in these assertions.

The distinction between body and mind is clear. Even today's humans are unable to assess this clarity properly though so it's too profound, too beautiful, to see or accept head-on. It surely scares the analytical types. But they, the analytical types are 'of the mind' or 'more given to order'. All order is based only finally in its pure essence from the universal part we call fear. That is why this cowardice is seen over and over again in logical and empirical and reductionist analysis. Fear is the limiting force in the universe, the only one. The mind is the realm of fear. But its purity is not real, only delusional. The universe has three main parts.

The body issue involves another part. That part is anger. Anger demands that our fears at least recede so that its analysis paralysis can be converted into being. So, there is most certainly and observably a
distinction between body and mind. Yet they are ALWAYS found unified because that to is the nature of reality.

I do not want to derail (entirely), but, for completeness the universe only has one more part besides fear and anger, or building block, if you will. That is desire. Desire is the fuel for the engine. It is chaos, energy. And just like anger, desire is properly balanced with fear in all things. Nature has or tends to this balance as a law.

So that is my model's EXTREMELY basic refutation of Daesin, ... unless ... Daesin is said to belong to every particle in the universe. The nonsensical application of any basic moral function, choice, to ONLY humans is one of the greatest errors of philosophy of all time, if not the greatest. Is is a hopeless conceit finally, born of delusional worthiness, rooted entirely in happenstance. So much for the glory of Daesin.

Being-in-the-world is a fundamental state, not a social status. It doesn't make anybody special. — Arne

Although I agree, as I understand it, that has no bearing on our conversation. I was the one claiming that no exalted scenario was implied. The reason I wrote that is because it seemed to me you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans, which is indeed a deluded state, status, social, empirical, ... whatever. If that is Heidegger's assertion, I would deny it, and much of what we seemed to agree upon previously (as I understood it) would mean that you were then agreeing that his tack was slightly wrong.

Also, social status is fundamental as well. It is composed of the SAME seed evolved to the social state as we call it. But atoms then have a social state as well and that is the SAME fundamental thing as ours is. We like to 'put on airs' as if we are different. We do have more moral agency only, but all of t hat complexity is grounded only in the same thing, natural law. There is no escape from law. It's the law.

That kind of underscores my point. Nothing is not fundamental. The concept of fundamental is in error. Everything is fundamental. When you suggest that something is not by saying that something specific is, you are breaking with truth. You are separating instead of integrating. This is a big part of the problem of choice. We can and do delude ourselves. The real challenge to to get to the heart of why, to uncover that ubiquitous fundamental nature of all, of belonging. Accepting on a deeper level means not going on about the separation in any way.

This may be 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing', but I believe, as mentioned, we are going to have to do better with a new tier of philosophy to make progress. We seem to be in a massive eddy, a backwater buildup of a jam. Everything must change all at once. That is what integration means. We can't just get 1 or 3 or 6 things right. It has to be all of whatever there are for virtues. So, we need to detail the essence of wisdom, and it has to gel right back down to the start of 'time' and such. Natural law only is allowed. No distracting and tempting delusions. But hey, what do I know? (Nothing, because knowing is impossible) But belief is critical to wisdom and I do believe a lot!

As true as all of that may be, it is important to keep in mind that those are your claims and not Heidegger's. — Arne

Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply.

Who said anyone is special? Heidegger is not making any normative claims regarding Dasein. A bird is in a unique position for seeing the entire forest. A fish is in a unique position for seeing what is at the bottom of a lake. A human is in a unique position for seeing the ontological structure of being a human. There are no awards for being pre-ontological. — Arne

YES there are! That is the metaphysical hurdle we are just beginning to come to grips with as a species. Granted a few of us have always been a bit saucy and into caviar of the spirit, wisdom. But these days the love of wisdom is being translated into 'My self-indulgent grift for the unwary'

I LOVE Sartre's 'bad faith'. I aim to make things HARDER, not easier. And try selling that to the least common denominator in Democracy. Socrates was right! Golden souls are needed, but Rome has to burn before it is rebuilt. The Rubicon was crossed long ago. Pillaging and raping have been proceeding apace. We are insensate now.

Bad faith indeed. Morality must be more clearly defined and suggestions made about it. I see the core issue as being that being has become nothingness, or close to it. We are seeing how many directions of low we can tease ourselves towards. Since morality is the hardest thing there is, and objective finally, how many people are going to vote for wise things? Philosophers had best get busy. We need some new Billy Shakes (or perhaps Francis Bacon) to school these pilgrims. Thomas Becket was old wisdom.
The Dragon of Ignorance is winning hard.

I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world. — Arne

I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree.

The entire freaking point is that we are not that special and accepting that we both are and are not at the same time, is the right moral choice, in other words, a wise balance.

To admit to this false exceptionalism is to fall prey to a basic form of self-indulgence, pride, and thereby fail.

Again, ALL other species do have the seed of this thing, and only that truth led by pains imaginable, to us. {I detest when people say 'beyond your imagination', because almost nothing is}.

We are ourselves only the seeds of hopefully better selves. But it does give one pause. Perhaps the Fermi paradox represents the universal failing AT THIS STAGE of moral aims. Rare indeed must be the species that transcends that hurdle. Desire is overwhelming us all. Religion was an insufficient opiate. Now we have cut out the middleman. Gummies and porn are far more effective. And the new monarchy of inherited Old Money is putting the fate of the human world into less and less capable inheritors who grew up on the teat of excess and privilege. It's not looking very Dasein up in here. This is the age of the Orc!, The Formorian!

It is telling indeed that you say 'within' which is the clarion call of desire, chaos, self-indulgence. Wisdom counsels instead that without IS within. Wisdom is about balance. And there is no balance between good and evil. That has always been another self-indulgent delusion tempting us to be cowardly, lazy, and self-indulgent by turns. The real balance is between order and chaos and the good is only achieved by maximum effort allowing both to soar while remaining balanced.

That is why the more careful redefinition of Existentialism is needed. In fact, the old waves of philosophy of course hinted at some truths, but we MUST do BETTER. Grow or die!

I've never read anything about existentialism, but I agree with both of these.

One definition said: "The existentialists argued that our purpose and meaning in life came not from external forces such as God, government or teachers, but instead is entirely determined by ourselves."
— BC
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.
— Chet Hawkins — Patterner

Well, My own perspective agrees that 'God' is a weird way to think of things. But 'Truth', 'Love', and 'All' work just fine for the same thing without the casting a deity in your own image or culture's wishes thing.

Morality to me, is all that there is in the universe and Nihilism, positive or not, is immoral. Meaning is all there is here, including instantiated meaning, e.g. choosers, like humanity. That IS what being-in-essence means, the ability to choose. But since to me the entire universe, every particle is possessed of this being-in-essence, it strikes me as a term, like so many, that adds more confusion than it clears up.

You can decide to get all wonky about locus of choice. That is what most Nihilists and ... maybe you ... or BC seem to be doing to me, with comments about what God, teachers, and government cant or should not or <whatever> verb you use - do.

The ONLY key point is ... is morality objective as a law of the universe. To me the answer is obviously yes because nothing could connect or stay together or act in any meaningful way without that truth in place. So, demanding that YOU are the only one who can deliver a should to you, is colossally missing the point. This is multiplied in impact when it is also realized that objectively, we are all part of 'All' and cannot be separated in any way from 'All'. To me that underscores a relationship with all of reality wherein and whereby effectively 'You ARE me and I AM you'. And that erases the dubious and entirely immorally selfish perspective of 'only I can decide blah blah' or if you like empowers it. But that means it empowers EVERYTHING, every atom, every teacher, every government, me, you, and the kitchen sink as not an 'external' source of impact on you, but an intimate connected part of you, demanding you get real and stay moral for the genuine happiness of 'All'.

Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last. — Arne

Sadly, and apparently it is not evident that I have read quite a bit of it. And gleaned much over the years when I was forced to look up his own words rather than accept others' interpretations. Thankfully, that process left me convinced I was not as deluded as some suspect. But you know, I've always had a penchant for maladroit grandiosity.

It may be time to take on the polluted rivers again!

For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in". — Arne

The undead then, a being, yet sans the curriculum vitae! En soi! La mort c'est tout!

But most philosophers use that word, Dasein, in a selfish way to show humans as some sort of unique entity. I claim they/we are only a natural and inevitable progression of essence from the beginning of time and natural law. And further the specific form and general state of humanity hovers around an absolute value based on the fractal ramifications of evolution, arbitrary, despite all delusions to the contrary. Some fellow with a razor might shave away the silliness, the conceit. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing special going on here.

That Enneatype 4 delusion, the need to be special is, after all, an immoral aim. You belong, we all belong, and cannot be made to un-belong; despite over-expressed desire, denying the actual essence, the anger infusion, as desire recoils from its own reflection when it sees improperly, ... unworthiness.

Now, step back son, yah bother me! You pays yer money! You takes your chances!

Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence.
— Arne
I've always thought existence – how one actively exists – creates (one's) essence – becomes who one is. They (usually) reject the notion of "our essence" which is why (most) "existentialists" also deny the (non-subjective) designation. In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof

I mean, what is the difference to you? I am not specifically ... after ... you, on that point, more curious. But the thing is, can just being be wrong?

I think that the final answer there is no, which to me confuses subjectivists and often has them say, well then you are a subjectivist. Nope.

Being in the world, being here, alive, involves will to power. It also involves freedom. Now, the thing is, each of those is on a scale.

Even being in the world, physically present, can be a tragic thing, because you can be a corpse. If you then say, that is not you, then you lose. Because that is what being-in-the-world must mean right? Alive? Or does it? With my model all particles are alive. That means the corpse IS alive in its own way. Even the atoms are choosing. Their moral agency is super low though. The extreme moral agent, the human identity is dead.

But then you could say, ok well that's on/off. The other two differ in that freedom is a scale. Will-to-power is a scale. And let's say then RELATIVE to others you are either an exemplar and 'winning' or you are failing. So, again, a scale.

For the most part though, in my model and belief, the latter two are mostly involving desire, a single emotion. Being in essence in the world in my model is anger, which is responsible for mass itself.

And then thought has no connection to the world, without both the body and the will-to-power intact. So fear (thought) requires desire and anger.

---

So, to me, there is no particle in the entire metaverse that does not partake of this same math, this same model, choice. Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency.

That moral agency though is an absolute value +- the effect number. It means the great moral possibility ONLY comes with the risk of equal evil.

↪Rob J Kennedy
I think that it is problematic to try to describe oneself as being or not being an existentialist. Having read the ideas of some of the writings, such as Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, I embrace some aspects of the philosophy, possibly the nature of existentialist anxiety, but I wouldn't go as far as to define myself as an existentialist, anymore than I embrace aspects of Buddhism but don't call myself a Buddhist.

Labels of philosophical thinking are useful for navigating ideas but not in a boxed way. I am often left perplexed by equal opportunities parts of forms, asking about religion. I often end up ticking the 'other' box and thinking that an essay would be more appropriate. It may be that the spirit of existentialism is opposed to boxes and labels, in the pursuit of freedom itself. — Jack Cummins

Hear! Here!

Their! There!

And everywhere in between!

What is ones truth if no one asks? Is that learnable? I am no teacher... — Kizzy

Everyone is both a teacher and a student. To deny the role of the teacher is avoiding responsibility. To deny the role of the student is arrogance and short-sightedness, both.

Then who is asking? Why? — Kizzy

Why is hard to judge. People spend their whole lives together and only see what touches them in a pattern they are willing to admit.

I am not sure about the who part of this. I only read the OP and your answering posts and nothing in between.

You could be fully aware without having to spread or share any knowings. — Kizzy

That is very normal for type 5. They seek awareness and then they hoard it. Our D&D group got to the point with one of our players that we would get into a middle part of a story and torture his character to tell us what he knew. He had all the divination magic and stealth and recon skills but savored not telling anyone to preserve his value and superiority as a feeling. We actually caused the player, the man himself, to mature some. He realized he did that in real life as well.

In real life this is a major issue. Super smart and observant 5s are the way science progresses. And they KEEP thier findings secret. 'I taught him everything he knows, just not everything I know.' They take their discoveries to the grave often enough. The exception usually are the 5-3 types that make a business of it and SELL their ideas back to humanity. Society needs to be aware of first and fight second this tendency in our observers. But we need to welcome these quiet brainy types into the fun social scene first to make them feel appreciated.

Are you aware or becoming aware? Is it happening simultaneously? Are you always becoming aware of new things or can you turn it on and off? or both? Are you aware of when you are being unaware? — Kizzy

Most people are dangerously unaware of almost everything. They maintain awareness and YES awareness takes maintenance, on just enough to be moderately happy in their estimation. Type 5 is anger infused fear. That is withdrawn and lazy about its thing, as a regular sin.

All virtues properly expressed are properly described as suffering. Awareness is a form of suffering. The more you maintain awareness, the more you realize how little most people do this. They are not soldiers on that front. They cannot and will not hold the line. They collapse and let the thinkers do it.

I feel like an "ultimate awareness" could be reached after self awareness is mastered but the end of awareness is unforeseen...certain attributes can make you better at being aware of things, surroundings, scenarios or being able to become aware of certain or even specific things but ultimate awareness.. its like using the body and mind together to learn about its own self. — Kizzy

Wow that was very well said. Just so. Fear, anger, and desire must work together for wisdom. Any virtue is placed on an exponent in one and only one (objective) case. That case is the case of wisdom, of the GOOD. If we intend towards the GOOD, only, can we approach perfection. Perfection is the GOOD.

But each path has over-expressed immorality that occludes this unity, this integration of wisdom. In this case that means the path of fear, type 5, shrinks and does not feel comfortable being exposed. The 5 likes to be mind only. They deny their body and their desires. They tend towards minimal highbrow Nihilism.

But the way you say this implies the temporal refutation the OP was expressing. Is time a delusion? Do some people suffer the ability, the skill, to see past that delusion in part? Does this awareness make them too odd to deal with?

As I mention all the time, old wisdom IS NOT WISDOM at all. It's anti-wisdom (now and always was). That is to say, as they say, 'The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind', IS NOT true at all. Instead that person is deemed insane and put in prison or medical prison (OP) and thus kept out of credible society. This is why credible society is a lie, always. Progress becomes harder and harder, because we cordon off odd behavior instead of keeping it in plain sight (where it belongs).

I have a whole chapter in my upcoming book on 'Defeating the mainstream tyranny'

Awareness could also be a reminder of a truth one has known to be true all along, despite all possible outcomes and oppositions faced. Like one can "spread awareness" while being unaware at the same time. Examples: surroundings arent fit to be receptive of information, dangerous conditions, bad audience "read the room", a person could have a hidden agenda maybe while promoting a promising message thinking people cant see through the lies etc. The "Ultimate Awareness" one can have doesnt have anything to do with a whole truth, I dont think... because it is up to the aware person to let the unaware know how aware they really are. Or however they want to be perceived. Ultimate awareness requires knowing who is listening and who is just talking or asking things to just say something because they want to engage in general, despite the topic of discussion, despite the answers...unaware people sometimes dont know what they want to hear. Or they ask the person that will give them the answer they know they will give and want to hear. Thats awareness but If they want to hear one answer, one they already know to be true to them and arent willing to see things differently, then why even ask? Maybe thats the point. No stupid questions, i guess. — Kizzy

Ok wow! That was a lot of detail. But you are on to the right tack to me.

We need to define more properly all aspects of each motivation. And awareness is only a motivation, type 5 motivation. The anger infusion of type 5 is relevant. Anger IS intuition. Anger is Gestalt. It transcends the senses we normally consider the brain's sensory input. That means the body is guessing ahead of time, what it 'knows' that is not conscious. This is instinct. The pattern is already known in the body. It's muscle memory. And we can and do develop this further every day. That is a HUGE part of what evolution is. It is relegating to the body, the patterns needed to survive that are GOOD. And evolution is a million parts making choices. We all know choices can be wrong or immoral. Evolution is the same. It can fail. But that is a self-correcting issue. Keep shooting people and you will be shot. Grow a giraffe nick and when the trees die, you probably don't have time to adapt back. Bad choice.

But really...Who asked? Whose truth do you seek and who are you to them? That says a lot. — Kizzy

Truth is objective, the same truth to all. There is no 'your truth'. There is only objective truth, and everyone's MISTAKES about what truth is.

Morality is truth also. So that same pattern applies to morality.

Ask yourself what it may take to be reach "ultimate awareness"...and if you think you are capable of getting there, that is it. — Kizzy

No one can arrive at perfection, ever. It is probably that that is the purpose of the universe, to eternally seek it and yet not be able to arrive at it. But, like, entertaining the notion of self-mastery is horrid. Self-mastering, implying the ongoing process, is a BETTER term.

So settle for BETTER awareness and not 'ultimate awareness'. But I agree entirely that to properly seek BETTER awareness you must aim at perfect, or ultimate awareness. Any other aim is intending to fail.

Choice is tricky business.

I dont think you could find a better answer, are you really looking for whole truth? Why do you deserve any sort of truth, when you dont even know who to ask? — Kizzy

Who is not important, finally.

We are all embedded within truth. Its parts are universally and omni presently available to all. That does not mean that one is not well served by seeking out wise and smart exemplars to learn from. That is certainly a good idea. But the final chooser, authority, is only you.

When you dont know who to ask, the truth might not then be true at all because of such unawareness of the self who is seeking answers to baseless questions they didnt even want to know answers to in the first place. — Kizzy

Exactly! When faced with moral truth, with a glimpse of perfection, many and most will trun aside and claim to be 'only human'. Sorry, 'the heart wants what the heat wants!' It is not wise. But it is normal and expected. Horse, water. RIGHT desire is objective, not subjective. Most people will rankle at that truth.

Make it make sense...for you with the help of others whoms answers actually matter to you, and with good reason as to why they should.... Or accept your own answer. Ask yourself and accept it. Or dont and wait for the answer that fits best in your reality. Thats valid enough. — Kizzy

I would disagree. Accepting delusion is not wise. And accepting anything, becoming satisfied in any way, is immoral. My quote is 'Satisfaction is death!' This is why orgasm is called the 'little death' because it is so satisfying. All desire (to live even) recedes temporarily. The right chooser 'gets ready' again quickly. Do not wallow in death!

At least look at this as spreading awareness about how people are so unaware of who they are and who they are seeking answers from, yet somehow thinking they can handle or are deserving of any sort of truth? — Kizzy

Now I agree.

Laziness is not moral. No one deserves truth who does not work their ass off for it. All morality is that way. The primary sin of anger is laziness. That is the sin of BEING wrong. Not pulling your weight. Not trying. Not suffering the maintenance of virtue. Not caring. Denying meaning. Denying connection. I can go on and on. Truth is exalted in all cases. The juice of truth is ALWAYS worth the squeeze.

If you dont have self awareness you are lucky to end up with a psychiatrist. If you arent capable of putting the trust in anyones hands to tell you what is best for YOU when YOU should know the answer or how to get to the answer....Being that unaware that you cant explain what you are doing and why you do what you do is dangerous, and there are cases like the one presented above in the OP where the woman needs to be institutionalized and deserves to be heard but can she explain herself and feelings are they reasonable? Who is she asking to validate? Is she helpless? I think not...she didnt get put there automatically. It takes $$$, family, whatever, someone is taking your burden of life and adding it to their own burdens, trying to help the best they know but you can only help yourself, we know this already and this is a "What if" scenario that takes more context and details to make it make sense...We only know what YOU tell us. Who are you? Why do we know you more than you? That shouldnt be true, you can make it not true. Also, I am delusional. — Kizzy

Lol, the final sentence.

So, all forms of punishment need to be better understood and avoided in life as punishment is immoral. Love, the system, the law of the universe, already is set up to empower the punisher. The punisher though is not love. The punisher is you. Your choice is the only possible wrong. And also you are me and I am you, the unity concept. So all choices in the universe are yours.

That means we need to be very careful judging the lady in the op. And we should let her do her normal life but make normal life more and more 'safe' for someone like her, or someone with any other affliction. For example I love the movie 'The Last Samurai, because the bad actor or possible bad actor is followed around by an old Samurai who has nothing better to do to guard the Gaijin. THAT is how to do prison properly. Freedom is maximized, not minimized. And yes with some huge dangerous types that service would require several large escorts per offender. But, I think we can do it and we should.

So, in the OPs case a psychologist would escort this person and they could come in shifts. There could be a lighter touch intern doing the night work. And all the time the assumption is that she is abnormal and that that is not a bad thing in and of itself. If we do this we learn how to tweak things to make them ok, even if they are not normal. The small ant climbs the leaf and acts as a scout for the big leaf cutter ant. The abnormal becomes normal. The lady works her way into being a seer or she trains her brain via neuroplasticity not to break temporal stability in imagination.

It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things.
— Chet Hawkins

You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance. — wonderer1

Well, THAT is maddeningly insulting. My expertise is present in many and varied fields.

Significance is a choice of each person, and I wonder if you'd argue that many and most choosers are woefully unskilled at choosing, at believing, and certainly at knowing. So, what is deemed significant is almost always wrong. And by wrong I mean when you dig into it, in the way your next response suggests, when you approach, because you can ONLY approach and never arrive at 'knowing'. Or do you suggest there is an arbitrary cut-off to 'knowing'? That would mean that good enough is acceptable and we search for laurels to rest on. (That is or would be) The seventh day as it were.

For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well. — wonderer1

But they do not. They believe things and can demonstrate reasonable success with this belief. Therefore and of course I can and do often believe them. So your point is not lost on me. By mine is lost apparently on you, and indeed, still a point. Significance being what it is, perhaps I erred in addressing yet another who refuses to see.

After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know.
— Chet Hawkins

Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning. — wonderer1

Incorrect. If you know, you know all the way. There can be no reason to seek more. That is what 'knowing' should mean as it partakes too heavily of perfection, is my point. And ANY perfect virtue requires all virtues to be perfect, which is the nature of wisdom itself, again MY point.

If there is more to know then you DO NOT KNOW. You only believe.

But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing. — wonderer1

Learning from others is precisely my thing. But I would also suggest that you are me and I am you, finally, if truth is KNOWN. So, there are no others, only other parts of me.

It has been my lot in life often enough to up-end the expert, not the common man who cares less about either of our fine points. Multi-tack approaches to truth are superior in all ways to the single path. Integration itself as a concept shows this form and that form to must be perfected, and yet never arrives at perfection. This 100% delusion is quite damning, is my claim. And that is what 'know' means to me.

You accept some mitigation, some half (ass) way of knowing. I admit freely that does not work for me. There are many verbs, many insinuations, of language that trick the unwary into false knowing. Culture these days is rife with misinformation and echoing chambers of wrong 'knowing'. It is more correct by far to doubt everything and yet believe in what is best shown to be resonant with truth in the day to day. This pattern is more successful, more balanced, more wise, than to claim any 'knowing'.

The path of doubt allows for earning more awareness from all states of ... you guessed it ... unawareness, e.g. NOT KNOWING. This path cripples dogmatism and yet empowers science and truth-seeking, which those who claim to be philosophers should be all about.

This is not mere wordplay and sophistry, a term I detest for its inaccuracy in meaning. Knowing is a cold delusional prison. It is a cowardly short-cut, Pragmatism, and as I continually must deem it, 'intending to fail'. The humorous joke though is on ALL of us, because you are me and I am you in the final state, truth. Pragmatists tend to win until there is a real, out of bounds challenge, and we meet them every day because that is the nature of reality.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.
— Chet Hawkins

I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.) — wonderer1

And facts are only a subset of beliefs. They are exalted in no way beyond that. I would offer indeed by way of concession that even what I deem a 'fact' is what I consider to be 'an acceptably probable belief', but in doing so, I realize there is always a small chance of failure, of not KNOWING, because knowing is impossible.

Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't. — wonderer1

And you say trite small things like all Pragmatists that reek of fear and the trap of KNOWING. This Vulcan stagnation is petty and cold. It has no fire. And life includes passion and passion is worthy, a part of wisdom.

I do believe that passion should mix with reason, but you exclude it too thoroughly (to me). You see only the probability of my chaos and not the beauty and dedication to actual perfection that is present in that belief. At least that is how I interpret your answers to me, and so many others here on this order-apologist thread.

If reason cannot admit from its trap the purpose of desire, of anger, then that reason is the unreasonable thing. Its limit has been reached and found stale, dead. The cycle must then be rebellion and disintegration. Try again, build everything back and hope the next time the logicians know (ha ha) their place because their current belief (for real) is not knowing and only haughtily presumed as such.

Because of all that x is, y seems implicit.

The seeming is desire. A wish.
What is is anger. Being in essence, trapped between what was and what will be.
The structure and rules, the objective nature of these relationships is pattern, thought, fear, order.

A fear based or ruled person has a leaning to order that is accompanied by delusional worthiness. That is because they think they know. And they think they know thinking. It's all only fear. And this lack of admission makes them also often say things like, 'Use logic, not emotion' But logic is only fear.

Fear is the limiting force in reality. It is exactly like its mathematical namesake. It extends to, but never reaches infinity (asymptote). Infinity in this case, is perfection. Knowing is an objectively aimed verb. It is therefore a limit, a representative of this emotion, fear. It is also a bad idea in every case. The superlative of 'every' is a more aware use of that stress than 'know' is. That is because that superlative reflects acceptance and awareness of both the high probability of fear based evidence and the NEVER FINALLY PERFECT limit of fear as an approach to truth.

So logic and fear and order itself are only high probability short cuts, possessed of delusional worthiness. The grace of perfection is more elusive than it seems to them. As time passes and the moral agency of choosers increases, dread admission of this truth is required to advance in wisdom beyond that plateau, that limit, the limit of fear itself.

Anger and desire are the only other tools to work with. Each stands to fear and adds value.

Logic chafes at the self-indulgent perversity of low probability desire. After all desire runs in any direction, every direction at once, amok and irreverently illogical. How could that be wise?

Logic chafes at the foolhardy nature of anger and the lazy repose of calm alike. Logic prefers patterns and prisons and excitement and to then be calmed by the familiar short cuts, the path of high probability cowards.

Fear and logic alone lead inexorably to cold stagnant death.
Chaos and desire alone lead inexorably to blazing disintegrating explosions.
Balance and anger alone is listless, calm, just there, peaceful, and deeply boring. The most massive dull lump!

That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality. — wonderer1

One really must wonder. Oh, um, sorry!

I love the moniker. My normal one is Series0. After me, they broke the mold. Can't have Q running about causing trouble in the universe.

If one claims to have an apple here, and then two apples, what is the limit for where the two are distinct?

It takes what to separate one from the other? Further, finer grained awareness is the right answer.

The tendency of order, of reason, of fear, is to take each and every short cut within a practical defined set of colloquially agreed upon short cuts. In this pool of fools there is then a top echelon that is academia or 'smart people'. These short cut takers think they can finally 'know' something. A God would be revolted by the notion. What mystery remains. None. End it.

This is also why fear in its panicked striving towards keeping its delusional worthiness, life, focuses on the short cut of mere survival, rather than really living. The result is instead the slow and cold progression of building one's own 'know' prison. That has another name: Death.

↪Chet Hawkins I know trillions of things. So do others. Just because you claim that one cannot know anything it does not make it true. — Truth Seeker

It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. What would be the point of further trying?

This relationship rather PROVES the point, if you are paying attention. It is critically important that we do not have the capacity to know. It is likewise important and when I say this I mean to truth, that we realize this and remain curious, doubtful.

That is what is meant by Voltaire's quote and my various blathering(s) on the same subject.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense.
— Corvus

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino

It does indeed, if one's model of the universe is correct.

That is to say, what is thought?
That is ALSO to say, what is morality?

If we decide there is something called thought, what is it?
It is a pattern contained/experienced in a body. It is additive and complex in nature. That is to say there are thoughts that are many thoughts put together. Is it possible to reduce thought to a single thought?

Again, define thought.

A 'thought' is an excited state that arises from matching a pattern in one's past. This implies the pattern is present to match, in symbolic form, or structure.

Some structure must HOLD the thought. Further the thought itself is a pattern, implying a structure.

The pattern of the structure of thought is possibly not instantiated in the physical world. This would imply a 'thought dimension' or some such and possibly allow for non-existence. But the structures through which thought is enacted are physical in the most colloquial sense and the implication is indeed existence. This is a simple matter to reason through.

I already listed the 9 such statements that are all primordial. Further, that is all of them. That 9 relationships are the only possible equal statements of their kind. These are the primary relationships in the universe.

Cogito ergo sum was BOUND to be the first one. Why?

Thought is an excited state that arises by matching a pattern from one's past. After the base condition of being, having mass, the form of that mass acts physically on the surrounding area. Its form and characteristics, its IDENTITY, its atomic number if you go that small, determine its choices and how it impacts others in its environment. Sound familiar? Every particle in the universe is possessed of choice.

The first fear is what? Easy. The fear of the unknown. Done, pattern matched. Nothing, no match is now a match. And anything not previously matched is also 'unknown'. But well before this esoteric 'unknown' pattern is understood, the nothing is simply ignored. Awareness (thought) is minimal.

As physical and then chemical interactions happen, choices expand. More parts are making choices and they begin to relate them together because thoughts are additive. But each piece has its own identity and limitations on choice. The moral agency of an atom is quite small indeed. But morality is objective and the choices and how they play out are predetermined.

Over time the structures that hold patterns can hold more and more complex patterns. Eventually the nothing pattern and the something not yet known pattern are detailed versions of the fear of the unknown.

Familiar or beneficial patterns generate less excitement. This means the chooser 'likes' that. That which is known is more comfortable at every level of reality. Some chemical are -philic to other types. This is nothing but desire.

The three way nature of reality is played out at every level. There is no exception to this model that you can show me is my challenge.

The entire universe is nothing but interactions between fear, anger, and desire. Choice, free will is the only thing happening.

Cogito ergo sum was bound to be the first one. Why?

Because most scientists are Enneatype 5, observers. They are anger infused fear. Their type represents this motivation most strongly: the need to be aware. All thought is nothing but fear and all fear and thought are representative of the concept of order. They are so because order is the PATTERN part of my former definition.

Fear is therefore only and always an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. This applies to every moral agent in the universe and it follow the physical hierarchy chain naturally as all structure was its awareness from start to finish.

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence.
— Chet Hawkins

Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD

I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence?

offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.
— Chet Hawkins

Your self image is a rather impressive edifice — AmadeusD

I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model.

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?
— Chet Hawkins

Oh, interesting. :) — AmadeusD

Well, you do not say how or offer any specific. Why bother to respond at all?

↪Chet Hawkins Your worldview is esoteric and your evidence is not evidence but faith. — Truth Seeker

Since we cannot KNOW anything, all evidence is only faith.

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
— Chet Hawkins

I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence. — AmadeusD

Shaka, when the walls fell!

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. Is it not yet enough. I will try to do better. Maybe you think I have no part in that?

Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware.
— Chet Hawkins

Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth.
— Chet Hawkins
)

dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim: — AmadeusD

Sense alone is your goal. It cannot be the only goal or that is not wisdom. Wisdom seems to defy reason, via anger and desire. Reason is only fear. The fourth way includes all the other three in balance. If it seems like I am spouting lunacy only, I offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.

It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.
— Chet Hawkins

It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do. — AmadeusD

I take that as high praise. Many thanks!
I will don my jesters hat (is how you see me) and preach sight to the blind even more.

So you advocate for the patron saint of depression, Macbeth:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?

Your very existence is supported by the unknown. So what you know alone will never support you. It takes something more.

Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.
— jgill

Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view. — Beverley

The last bit has to be said. Compassion helps the giver. Why?

It does so because anger is the source of compassion. Anger is the pre-balanced emotion, more honest. It partakes of both fear and desire, the typical polarity of the universe, and thus aids in cancelling both to balance. Why is it an aid?

As internally balanced anger can relate both to fear and to desire. It's a common ground, a roundedness, neutral. Anger demands the normal aims of both fear and desire vanish. It is both angry and finally calming, balance. Compassion is the so called 'empty love'. It calms the excited state of friendship, that 'you are like me' bond. And it calms the fire of pure passion, of desire itself, which is also exhausting and over-extending. This is why it is called empty. The balance is the final effect of the emotion anger, which makes it and its echo amid love, compassion, the source of the 'unity principle', effectively, "You are me and I am you'.

In this reflection, compassion shows us neither fear's delusional worthiness, nor desire's delusional worthlessness. Balance is achieved. Honesty shows us that by helping others we are only helping ourselves and we neither need to aggrandize that (virtue signal) nor to wallow in the temporary defeats of failure.

Amid peace of BEING who we are, anger, allows us to find balance from which it is easier to proceed along the path to perfection.

↪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.