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.

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!