I wonder how all of this stands in the information age. There is more of a demand for transparency and going beyond 'secrecy'. I wonder how this will come into effect, and what will remain 'secret' behind the scenes? Also, the information age gives so much access to knowledge, and how will this affect individuals' understanding? Does it mean that the quest for philosophical knowledge will be about assimilation of knowledge alone? This could be very different from the inner searching for meaning and knowledge. — Jack Cummins

What I am finding is that the information age, or at least this most modern pulse of it, which includes the key piece, the personal smartphone, makes communication trivial, but a burden at the same time.

I remember the first time I felt like I was a programmer and a paramedic at the same time. Some idiotic manager dared to call me after hours for something I had warned management about. I told him exactly how I felt about that. I was too skilled at the time, too clutch for them to fire me, but the writing was on the wall. The proximity of everything empowers the sellouts. I had some half rate hack of a developer in a meeting later that year calling me out for disloyalty. He literally said the company owed me nothing and I owed the company solid 9-5 work. I just smiled at him and it wasn't me that humorously asked if he had his iron cross on his Gestapo badge, but I did laugh a little too loud. Double brownnosing points for delivery of foolishness with a straight face. Crosshair believes it! Good soldiers follow orders. {Bad Batch - Star Wars}

These days I have Gen Z types telling me that I cannot join their facetime groups because I'd just be an old creeper. When all respect for depth is lost, only the trivial versions of success are lauded. Wisdom is easily cast aside as too hard, not for everyone. And today's elites enforce that trend. They have no use for wisdom, or so they think. I guess dog eat dog is fun, until you're long of tooth and tired of fighting younger competition. It never was fun for me. Maybe there is a cycle. Maybe the esoteric mysteries shift in and out of vogue. But I see interest and respect for it diminishing at the same time as almost everyone realizing there is an empty hole right in the center of who they are.

It seems to me one big thing is true, there is no time left for grace. Right when you get the time, the dog eat dog thing will pop and murder you. I guess there is always a meringue though, a froth of excess in the 'winners' win that yields a kind of eddy in which the new version of wise can flourish for a time. But it's no longer enough time to be a wizard on a hill in his tower. These days being a champion of the esoteric truths is more like capture the flag. You can hide and run fast and maybe even be the one who lucks out and gets cover fire from allies you didn't know you had, and then you ring that bell, once.

Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it?
— Chet Hawkins
You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation. — substantivalism

Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!

We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.
— Chet Hawkins
Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement. — substantivalism

Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.

So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.
— Chet Hawkins
I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise. — substantivalism

You're quite poetic.

Being 'in it' alive, and balanced feels like being a scaled down version of the Hulk. Raw, unprotected nerve endings, suffering experience, in all its beautiful agony. It actually is poetry in motion, in being, but its not surprising that most of us remain mostly unconscious of the effects, good and bad. The effort is too great. It's just like the choice, finally, to die. The effort is too great to choose otherwise. You do see some though that have an iron will at least, even amid bleak bed-ridden life support. Aberration? Maybe. The only thing I can think of is the internal world must still be rich and fulfilling in some way. Otherwise it's just a powerful circuit. Like the sun, it keeps on burning.

The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all. — substantivalism

I mean the cycle is real, the oscillation. And it does seem that the swing is wider, corresponding roughly to moral agency. But that is worrying. Anyone, even a child, can tell, ... if the swing is getting wider it's similar to the universe accelerating in expansion. That makes no sense. It will end itself. Unless we can reliably narrow the oscillation by choice, en masse, we may have discovered the real reason for the Fermi Paradox.

Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.
— Chet Hawkins
Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane. — substantivalism

I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. Locking them up seems like the only non-tiring option. But, it is not. And it causes more troubles, more immorality. It is not as efficient as a modern alternative to the old Samurai would be. Robots will help immensely. Everyone has an escort robot. Ha ha! Is that free? I think it could be. But will/would it be? Doubtful.

Only the shadow knows!

Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not. — Lionino

If we are not perfect, there is more balance to be had. If we are not maximized, there is more balance to be had.

As far as forum writing goes, it is so different from so many other forms. The reason why I have used this forum is because I find that the dialogue with so many people throughout the world makes it so good. When I was on academic courses, there was less, or a different kind of intensity. I never really achieved any clarity of thinking. I still find it hard to pin down a particular perspective above all, but I do find that, in conjunction with my own reading, engagement with TPF enables me to analyse my own thinking more critically. — Jack Cummins

Well, yes, that is the hope. The lay or professional-adjacent thinkers interested in a topic are actually more engaging and less ridiculously critical than academia. Academia is really a servant of the elite trends. In that way, academia always fails us all. The academic rebel is much much more likely to be actually helping society. The heavy hand of order and hierarchy is far too typically strangling truth from academia. The thing that helps real groundbreakers is the very new nature of their work. This is an unforeseen problem for elites, because the rolling up the accreditation of new information to academia is a way to cheat truth, not to help its being revealed. Something new gets out of hand too quick for them to cap by its very nature. It's fun and great for everyone when that happens.

The idea of the imminent may be about the present primarily; it may correspond with Eckart Tolle's argument about time, in which amidst the perception of past, present, and future, it is only possible that perceive in the present 'now' consciousness. — substantivalism

Indeed, but he stops short as far as I am aware of declaring the why of all of that. He does realize the importance of Now.

Both ideas of past and future may be a potential for both romanticism and fear. The scope of eternity may also be seen as being about a static achievement while a sense of eternity as immanence may involve a contemplative picture of blending in with the endless aspects of life and its flow. It may be a way of seeing beyond desire itself. — substantivalism

I call now, the eternal now. We cannot escape now. If there is a new future, then there is a new now. So even though now seems more finite somehow than the past or the future, it is not.

I'll go so far as to say that propositional moral statements are used by people as tools to exert power over other people. As such, moral statements are treated as if they were truth-apt, even though the speaker himself might not actually believe they are. As in, instead of slapping someone in the face or hitting them with a bat, one tells them, "Be the bigger person!" or "It's wrong not to forgive", and it can have the same effect of getting the other person to be compliant and submissive. — baker

I mean, I agree. If you are saying that morality is super hard, I agree. And if you are saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions', I agree. But that does not release us from the burden of choice. In fact, it only underscores it.

The trouble with all choice is that there are so very many bad ones and only one perfection. I have found that people that lean in with where you seem to be going are often moral subjectivists. Instead of respecting the objective nature of morality and the good, they just err on the side of doubting everything, even the good. That is not the 'way'. One must morally decide on what good is and stand for that. That means not only making moral propositions as statements but acting accordingly, intentionally, and with force.

Not to get too Nietzschean about it, but if you look at the function of uttering propositional moral statements, it is precisely as described above. The simplest explanation is that there is nothing more to propositional moral statements but that they are tools for controlling others. — substantivalism

I disagree, entirely.

The simplest explanation is that moral statements are intended because they are partial resonances with what is ... objectively good. It is a weak point of view in my opinion that sees control in every 'should'. The point of any valid 'should' is that it indeed points to an intent or suggests an intent in alignment with objective good. That has proper resonance. Many and most choosers feel inside themselves the difficulty of making proper moral choices. And they excuse themselves from those choices by teaming up with all other immoralities. They collectively suggest, oh, see, this is about power. Nope. It is about generating the most happiness for the most people. And that path is the hardest path there is. I get it. It's easy to be lazy or self-indulgent or cowardly, the three main sins. They all team up to make reality easier to handle. This is the Pragmatic short-cut. Lower those expectations! Intentional failure by aiming at less than best is unwise and immoral.

Yes, being strong and not weak is wise. That means you do not turn the other cheek in shame. You do not weaken yourself by so doing. Likewise you do not take the hit that matters, the deep harm. You catch that blow and defend it with everything you have. Misunderstanding the meaning of turning the other cheek is not wise. It is an expression that should be powerful, not an expression of powerlessness.

Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self. — substantivalism

Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? To go so far that the Unity Principle is denied in its furthest interpretation, 'You are God, and God is you!' is dangerous. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.

So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.

And yes, balance resonates to body from thought and vice versa.

The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back. — substantivalism

Well, now! Look at you, willing to beat back hypocrisy? I agree!

I agree as well that society must morally suffer the widest range of free will to its members. There is no choice for society as infinite choice is a tautology in the universe. I could say some very provocative things here, but I will demur for the moment to see how my responses in this thread are handled.

Pity is one good response. Challenge is another.

These days judgement is seen as negative, can you believe it? It is our moral duty to judge literally everything. Desire side chaos thinking, pro-freedom in all ways, even immoral ways, hates to be judged. 'Judgy much!?' is a low-brow epithet often heard these days from the left. A true listing of virtues (and Scotsmen) is needed as a temporary non-conclusion, a state of being, for society, for all human societies together.

Agreed that inaction is merely lazy, implied by your statements.

But the fear side tendency is to go too far, punishment. Punishment is immoral. That one is the one that leaves right side (fear) thinkers reeling, in the same way that when I say war is morally required the left pitches a fit.

Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.

So the right tends to want to punish. But no, the proper moral path is judgment, teaching, and better guardrails until a new moral choice path is established. The greatest freedom must be maintained during this process. As an example the movie 'The Last Samurai' shows the main character kept for winter as prisoner by the feudal Japanese. They do not imprison him. They have a older Samurai, armed escort him around. That is a better way than prison is. Free will and freedom are more respected.

Also right side thinkers have trouble with privacy. Since you are me and I am you, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But we still act to allow for free will, for little choices unseen. This is the same as allowing freedom in the above example. But, as you can see, and if you can think at all, as you can then realize for sure; if the private home is sacred, then that is where immorality will seed itself. It's obvious.

So, wisdom makes all sides to any argument uncomfortable. It seems to cause suffering by being true. But it is wisdom that is causal. It is (your) choice, always.

Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated. — 0 thru 9

Your welcome! I love such topics.

However…

But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment. — 0 thru 9

Ah hopefully we are addressing the issues. Critique is part of why I post as well.

This for example:

No, do not denigrate war.

War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
— Chet Hawkins

You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.
— Chet Hawkins

When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way. — 0 thru 9

That is sad and interesting. Hopefully, you explain WHY your line was crossed. I cannot work on vague notions.

Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. — 0 thru 9

OK, but that does not say why they sound that way.

I suppose the idea that the colloquial definition for war is dangerous and all bad or mostly bad. It's why I took pains to link war to the idea of change only, which I do believe. I am not saying that violent war is not mostly bad, but there can be morally necessary violent war. That is really a key takeaway. You cannot defend yourself, your nation, your group of people who choose a proper moral ideology, without violent war as a threat to would be enemies.

The other key mitigation in my opinion is this. Wisdom only comes through suffering. That is a tautology. In every way, most moral agents do not believe in wisdom until they have suffered some along each path of possible suffering, loss or longing for a virtue that is now in a low state.

So, if wisdom comes through suffering only, in some cases the goal of the wise must be to increase suffering. Then the question is how in each case, relative to the virtues.

So, there is resonance. Resonance is the way in which moral strength helps us earn wisdom without much suffering. We have a relative strength and enacting it resonates with objective good in such a way that the reflection upon the moral agent, the feeling is hard to call suffering. Because we are not perfect though our expression is always not perfect, so, there is suffering always. This is why, even amid strength, it is still a tautology that wisdom only comes through suffering.

The real question is where is the line drawn. That is the line between necessary and unnecessary suffering. We could all easily agree that most warfare, heck even most civilizations regular peaceful living, produces a ton of unnecessary suffering. So, my point there is that we as a society have to get much much better at understanding where that line is, for real.

The final example of the need for war exists in every virtue, but, the basic one is this: You are part of a moral society, relatively to the others around you. They are weaker on some virtues by a great deal, each of your neighbor countries or cultures. We are not naming names nor are we suggesting that this is a real world thing at the moment. All similarities between countries past and present, fictional and real, are unintended. Your country faces a dilemma. The immoral expression is rising, different and seen as such in each of the neighboring countries. Many of them have resources you need and they are tired of your (proper) moral proselytizing. Your existence is a challenge to their immoral ways, and frankly their existence is a challenge to your moral ways. I understand it's not a simple case like that. Some of your country's people are immoral as well, and some of theirs moral, but we are talking about sanctioned inertia as law and cultural practice for each country.

The properly moral country has a moral duty to make war on neighboring nations before they can become powerful enough to overwhelm what is of great value. Competition to weaken the immorality is also wise in other ways than war, before the last step of war must be taken. And of course it could be that the more moral country was always greatly lesser in power. And then it must bide its time, building quietly with less bravado, until it has the strength to project. But the virtue of challenge, of external action, what might be called the basic truth of war, is possibly moral. Like all virtues that virtue has both good and bad expressions. The early stages of challenge are writings and rhetoric and the mere presence of the good example for others to see and feel as a neighboring country.

But moral choice is hard, the hardest thing there is. It is understandable that most will fail and although most will also still be able to admit in some way that they are acting immorally and therefore we properly offer them time and relative peace to earn their wisdom without us having to step in, there are also those that double down on stupid. They oppress their people more, and for worse reasons. They do not adhere to any balance between order and chaos as the good. Instead they immorally conflate order with the good (so many examples in fact and fiction). Some even take the stranger step of conflating chaos with the good (so many examples). So, since moral choice is hard and there are even some that would support diversity of belief to include and embrace immorality, the more moral nation must sometimes morally declare war.

It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’. — 0 thru 9

Well, the short answer is yes. 'You are me and I am you', the Unity Principle, also states that 'You are God and God is you'. Humility though is a virtue and part of proper moral aims. But so is admitting truth, accepting the responsibility of moral agency. Finally, there is no better approach than to admit you are a part of what is God. That is indeed what offers you infinite choice, really. There is finally no other reason you have it.

If you deny the God in yourself, then you deny what is moral, you deny perfection as a concept. I am not saying it's not a slippery slope. All proper approaches to morality are of course slippery slopes. Morality is the single hardest thing there is. All of it fits. Again part of what is good, is humility and perseverance. But if we are too lazy to take right action, to stand and fight immorality, to challenge it, then that is a moral failure.

To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. — 0 thru 9

Well that one sentence is a HUGE, GIANT leap from any other thing you have said.

Still, I welcome all critique. I am offering up my wisdom or lack thereof as something to be tested indeed.

If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements. — 0 thru 9

Consequentialism is a lie. Deontological intent is superior morally in every way. I know that my intent is good, the best I can make it. I admit that my choices can and will lead to failure. I am not perfect. I will reform new intents and try again. But the goal is to earn wisdom and help other's earn it, and my definition of wisdom only includes the balance that makes it good. Some will describe wisdom in a way that includes only their favorite or easy virtues and in doing so they lack balance and they are immoral (wrong). All weakness, all that is incorrect, is immoral in some way. Accuracy is a part of perfection and morality and it is objective, not subjective at all.

(To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely). — 0 thru 9

Hey, as mentioned, it's intended to the good. I see that you are as well. Any slight, I hope either way, is forgiven and let's then say why it was made.

I took the time to discuss the idea more carefully now. Either you are probably a little more moved, or, you will now think you were more right to object and ask for clarification. There are still more examples I can give to show the concept. Here is one:

Students suffer the learning process. They are properly tested. Testing is suffering, ask almost all students. The ones that think it is easy are not being challenged enough. All testing should be variable to the student's capabilities. That is a test for the system, if you follow. This suffering is required to earn the wisdom of awareness. In many cases this wisdom is refused, or refused in part. The wise society though wisely chooses to inflict this suffering on others in order that they might have a scheduled opportunity to earn a certain set of wisdom. Likewise proper parents will schedule and enact suffering upon their children so that these children may have a controlled opportunity to discuss and show and earn their wisdom. The only question is when does that suffering become unnecessary?

And the more desire side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that ANY suffering and ALL suffering is unnecessary. That is mere Hedonism, and it is immoral. Likewise the more fear side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that any and all suffering is necessary. Due to the nature of perfection, this is more correct, finally, than the desire side opinion is. Does this mean wisdom should be imbalanced? No. The trick with that revelation is that as time progresses the state from which a choice is made should be improving. And the greater challenges of any and all suffering become more and more required in order to achieve greater balance (to evolve). Likewise, when a moral agent's state is truly in decline we take a softer approach to allow them rest and resonance in order that they themselves say they are ready for a new challenge (and they always will). The escape for those who cannot muster the will to fight again is only one thing, finally, death. Choose.

To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well. — 0 thru 9

Indeed. No retraction at all.

But, I did explain again for more clarity. My challenges are often met with your response. I am well used to it. At parties I am always the guy who says the provocative things. But I am not doing it for myself (only). You are me and I am you. It worries me greatly that the balance and genuine happiness I feel regularly is not a lot felt out there in the world. All that unnecessary suffering needs a challenger to call it out. C'est la vie! C'est la guerre!

The war is also a synonym for existence itself. The trillions of interactions that happen across your body in any moment are war. The balance that maintains that war properly must continue. There is no effective long term respite from war.

In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case. — 0 thru 9

It may not be the case, but it is partially so. That is to say my ideas challenge your comfort with something. It could be your position and you are of course challenging mine then. But let's see how you respond to this post so we will know.

My statements are not, as I understand them, against this thread. They point out the weakness of yin/yang as a model. They explain why it cannot be successfully used without great modification. The effective issue is that chaos and order ARE NOT the good. Order is often conflated with good, and chaos with evil. But those conflations are immoral. What is really needed most is the balancing force of anger. Anger is the only thing that seeks balance. And the peace types get it wrong. The sin of anger is laziness, seeking peace. The moral duty of anger is to seek war. War is right action. It is change. The intent is what is critical. Intend to cause enough suffering to allow for wisdom to be earned and intend not to cause unnecessary suffering.

The dual model does not work, because reality is a three part system, not two. But the balance is the hardest of the three part aims, and anger is first denigrated because of that. So our delusion began and we started it with the duality, the yin/yang, and all such dual systems. I have hard physical evidence that my model is vastly superior to any two part system I have ever heard of. But as mentioned in another thread (esoteric). Hegel got this. Dichotomy that takes a thesis and antithesis (fear and desire) and forces them together (war/anger) into synthesis, does describe reality. We all sort-of know that the left and the right wing are both useful. What is not usually accepted at any time in history is that they must be in perfect balance. Further that there is the third force pushing back and thus bending the egregiousness of both extremes into a new aim, perfection.

If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower: — 0 thru 9

All good! Thanks for your comments!

I am sorry that I do not quote in my replies. It is because it does not seem possible on my particular model of phone. I would probably need to be able to connect it to a mouse, like on a laptop. Also, your answers are good insofar as they are detailed but make many varying points so I would probably feel I need to make more than one post to address them. Saying that, I hope that my posts don't come across as totally lacking, as I do see writing on a forum.as being different to fuller forms of writing. Some write extremely short replies and I tend towards neither extremes. — Jack Cummins

Your posts are fine. Yeah, I tried to figure a way to help you quote on a phone, but, the infrastructure to support good quoting is not on this site, as far as I can tell. There should be a ctrl key combination that means 'highlight for a quote everything in this single post'. That is sorely needed. Another function that is needed is a sub-thread list follow function. It would be another ctrl key sequence that first found your first post in a thread and then with repeated presses following any and all replies to that chronologically within the thread. I am a developer with 40 years of experience now. I know the functions a very good app needs to be effective because I use so many apps and get so very very frustrated with them.

I think forum writing for most is most often fairly weak, almost like facebook or social media posts. I am not attacking you, but, really addressing the points in a dialogue has its BEST incarnation in forums. There is no better place to get detailed. You are not going to wrote a book of dialogues, and if you do, you would start with an online forum to collect them. Malkovich, Malkovich!

As far as Hegel and the idea of the imminent I think that there is an ambiguity in how he views it. In some ways, he leans towards naturalism but not in the way that most people do in the Twentieth First century and that is probably a reflection of his own historic context. He was leading the way in coming out of grand metaphysical dramas and schemes but was prior to the paradigm of current scientific thinking. In this, he was involved in a process of demystification but this picture was only just starting to appear. Since then, it has become far more prominent with so many shifts backwards and forwards in many ways. — Jack Cummins

I get it, but, none of what you said invalidates or makes a strong point for imminent not meaning a focus on the present tense. So, if there is some other meaning I missed, let me know.

I get it that anger, the present tense emotion, the emotion of imminent intent, staying present, being, is denying desire-side chaos puzzles of imagination. Imagination is desire side effort. So, of course, part of anger demands that we should not want. Wanting is for someone that unwisely believes that we do not have infinite free will. Wanting is for someone that believes they are insufficient unto themselves. The reflection of desire is thus worthlessness. This is a law of nature.

So, I get it that Hegel used the concept of the imminent to fight off mystery and mysticism's self-indulgent dramas.

Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who don’t care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.

Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it. — 0 thru 9

The thing is, when the proverbial poo hits the fan, all their workers will realize it and many will step aside from helping them at that time. Some of them are smarter and pay for loyalty, overpay so they are 'appreciated', but even they will be surprised at the backlash in crisis mode.

Still, until the system collapses, and it will limp along almost forever in some cases (just ask Rome), the decadence and top heavy immorality will keep rising and the pressure below will keep building. It's sadly kind of another law of nature.

The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.

I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.
— Chet Hawkins

Could you please expand on this somewhat?
If I’m understanding correctly, I’m not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.

I don’t think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
I agree that ‘desire’ is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol). — 0 thru 9

So, this explanation would take so much more. But hey, you asked and that is the thread topic, so ...

So, what has been described as the Patriarchy or traditional society, etc was indeed a fear-oriented mostly Pragmatic society, or set of cultures. It is in the nature of the world, or the pool of available societies that most express fear mostly. Anger and desire are less openly expressed.

The reason why anger is left behind is simple. Fear is the orderly building force. It causes all identity in the universe. Group together, form a group, become something. Build it. Fear is the integration force. It is also a more male participated thing.

Anger is balance, neither male nor female actually. Tribal scenarios are NOT civilizations. They are more anger and balance based and they get left behind. Big man or egalitarian groups do not give in easily to the building needs of fear. They do not in orderly fashion form militaries. They have true warriors, not soldiers, and they will destroy soldiers one on one. But they will lose against the grouped, orderly, planned based formations of a fear society. Thus is civilization built and one thing above all is denigrated, anger. Random violence and un-random violence both stop a lot of would be 'rulers'. But it is in the nature of things that anger fights too many battles and wears itself out. Fear has more stuff stored up from planning, more time to rest, better at observation, better at finding weak points. Fear is conniving and cowardly. It does not come to fight without overwhelming odds. Anger is courageous. It will fight just to fight. So, early anger loses to fear and anger is denigrated.

After the fear society forms and all, repeat all societies are fear societies. Formation of a society is only ever based in fear and only ever departing from anger. That is how it happens in the natural state. This is the nominal case of such a transition. There are other cases but they are weird, after the fact, and beyond the scope of this post.

Anyway, societies then, once formed go through phases. The identity they formed when they are created will last depending upon its wisdom and power. Both have great inertia but power has much less than wisdom. Thus in Earth's history we have civilizations with great power that nonetheless disintegrate and fail. Wisdom alone, and greater and greater wisdom with each iteration, has real staying power dur to its multi-virtue more genuine balance.

But the reason societies fail is not fear and not anger. It is desire.

Desire is chaos. It is freedom. They are roughly equivalent terms. It does not matter if people want to disagree. It is a law of nature. Like Milton I can wait. Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong. Desire is effectively the force of disintegration, just like fear is the force of integration.

Do not get me wrong. Fear, anger, and desire are all the only three emotions, primal, and they make up everything in the universe. There are no exceptions. And each of these emotions is both moral and immoral showing the infinite power of free will, of choice. So, I am NOT denigrating desire here. But desire is what it is and to mischaracterize it would also be immoral.

Amid human societies once they are formed and built they cause great 'prosperity'. The survival needs of fear are met and fear itself begins to also be denigrated. Just as fear is more a male instantiation, desire is more of a female instantiation. Do not bother me with trivial examples of this statistical fact not being accurate. It is beyond basely accurate and there are so very very many reasons. Amid humanity, one of the simplest reasons is that women must become pregnant. This is the basis for much of their instantiation. Their more restricted and orderly biology causes a backlash of freedom in their manner. Likewise males have the freedom and must therefore balance that with an order attitude. That is one core reason and another is that to prevent inbreeding, the order of the own group, its restrictiveness, must be denied by the privilege of the protected breeder capable group, women. This freedom-aimed, mysterious stranger from over the hill loving manner is programmed into women. It has worked for millions of years to prevent inbreeding. It has to be there.

But that is all the time I will 'waste' on that issue here. Suffice it to say that societies return to idealism from pragmatism and balance and that tipping of the scale is the beginning of the end for them. It seems almost inevitable (it is not) that all societies follow this pattern. My book is first and foremost about realizing that the pattern exists so that we can slow its wild oscillations and stay more centered on balance and wisdom.

Anyway, all desire side efforts, freedom-seeking in any way, often is abused. It is not even realized as abuse. Most of freedom's defenders will proudly die for their foolish freedoms. And I do not mean the support for wise practices like free speech and such. I mean they will die precisely for the freedom to do and do repeatedly immorally addictive and destructive things to themselves and others. Capitalism is an obvious example. Democracy is another, but that is a topic for another thread.

SO, you have to at first admire all the wonderful explosion (chaos and desire are explosive) of wealth and distractions from the real task (gaining wisdom) that happens when a fear society builds itself up. But they started by priding themselves on the denigration of anger, remember. This trend continues. Now the perversity of immoral desire turns that society on itself, from within. Many failed societies, all of them that just collapsed where that collapse was not based on dwindling resources, followed this easy to understand pattern. Desire and 'becoming' within the society, against all balance, against objective moral truth, begins to take over. 'You can be anything you want to be.' is the clarion call of desire, of immoral desire. It is a direct denial of objective morality. Desire to be moral must be bound properly by fear and anger, but both become denigrated, usually.

'The heart wants what the heart wants!' is mostly a dark immoral excuse. It is not a wise statement and it never will be.

And the faded promise for capitalism is that ‘everyone can be successful!’
(Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert). — 0 thru 9

This is nothing more than what my model predicts. New and 'interesting' and more and more convoluted highs of addictive desire. This is the path of immoral desire-side destruction, obvious to the wise. Here I will arm you with a red flag to see it. And you will probably hate it. It is sad to most desire side thinkers. They rail against it. But 'giddiness' is it. If you see giddiness, you see imbalanced probably immoral desire occurring. Even the church-based giddy high of worship is deeply suspect as addictive behavior. Balance is the healthy state. Within balance fear and anger properly calm giddiness. So, you have been warned. Take the advice or do not, but now, you will at least see it and wonder. It will show you what I mean.

So, why is desire so possibly bad? Remember that I do not intend to denigrate it. It is because the feeling desire offers its user is more compelling than the corresponding fear and anger are. Further, it is because people do not realize that desire (and giddiness) should be suspicious on their own. Earlier societies knew this, back when they were too orderly, too fear based, or too anger based. But the direction of all societies proceeds along that path normally from anger, to fear, to desire, and then back again. Keep in mind that the standard 4 part aphorism of hard/easy times and weak/strong men, is, like most aphorisms, a lie. That is because evil and good are not a real proper part of that model. Just like yin/yang as a model the model itself is wrong. That helps no one. In fact it causes more evil. Belief in a wrong model is one of the worst things we can do against wisdom and the good.

Desire is the emotion of the future. Adding to it feels progressive. It is not. That is to say, it is not unless it is balanced with fear and anger, properly. Fear always feels so restrictive and imprisoning. That is some of its nature, yes. But fear is misunderstood. It is all thought, all reason. When it is agreed that these things are fear, and really mostly just fear, fear's value is better understood. That is why I redefined fear to its true definition. 'Fear is a excitable state that arises as a result of matching patterns from one's past'. All awareness, all preparation, and even all joy (from the angry conquering of fear) is fear based. Fear is the emotion of the past. So to most people fear seems old, it seems boring, and it tends to also excite them as they fear fear itself. This is what leads to its denigration, immorally.

A fear side man like most will try to fit in in society and build something. That male will want to impress the best females. That is 'normal'. Normal just means there are far more of these males than the other types. Order builds on itself. But look at what happens naturally! The chaos side females will, amid their order bought freedom, revolt and push back the 'rules'. Some men will also. They will resist pairings with their own society's males in favor of the mysterious stranger over the hill (to prevent inbreeding). This temps the orderly males to use more order to restrain the females. And the cycle goes on and on.

But eventually, freedom has its way with everyone. Disintegration becomes 'fun'. People take it as licensed behavior to pursue every addiction with reckless desire as their 'right'. All bonds within the society are seen as poisonous restrictions of an unnecessary (fear denigrated) order. Every single connection point is assaulted with the boundless expression of desire, pure self-indulgence as the only holy virtue. The balance of wisdom was tossed aside well before the restrictions of order were. That was the losses of anger and fear respectively. This is a law of nature, not just my observations.

When one emotion is running the show it confuses people. They see all the emotions. But they do not realize that anger and fear now serve desire improperly. The anger you see is violence born of tantrums from puerile children not getting their way, including adults obviously. The unwise all seem like children to the wise. Neytiri in Avatar tells Jake 'You are like a child ...' Her mother Mo'at, the wise woman, tells him she seeks to seek if his people's insanity can be cured. That is tribal wisdom, balance, anger. It is closer to real wisdom, balance, that any civilization's can be. I am not saying to go backwards. Civilization must become more intentional. We must become wiser. Again, that is the purpose of my book, and so many others, crying out for more wisdom in this horrid but hopeful reality.

But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need. — 0 thru 9

All blame is accepted. It is my fault. It is your fault. There is no such thing as a prisoner, excepting one that accepts themselves as such. That is wisdom.

To say 'prisoner' about yourself means you have accepted it on some level and I advise you that such a statement and admission is dangerous. It is the part of you that wants to blame others and not yourself. But the truth is finally 'You are them!', and 'They are you!' So, you are to blame no matter what and all imprisonment is self-accepted.

It is a game, pure and simple… a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game). — 0 thru 9

No, do not denigrate war.

War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.

Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts. — 0 thru 9

Indeed. The winners lost their humility in most cases. That is an unwise takeaway. The winners that will not discuss what was done wrongly are always the worst kind of fiends. Machiavellian consequentialists are a Pragmatic terror upon this world. Resist the immoral lies of Consequentialism, and renew vows instead to deontological free will.

The masters of war have been ‘in control’ for centuries and millennia, and there’s nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times. — 0 thru 9

Change/war/suffering is inescapable. Only a desire side immoral idiot believes that pleasure is the path to success or anything good. Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.

You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.

Do you want something to survive? Declare war on it. It's the best thing you can do to cause the survival of what you declare war on. Figure that one out.

We can identify with ‘winners’ and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those ‘beneath us’.
Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment — 0 thru 9

I agree. But this state is always toxic. It is not perfection. So do not hate it. Do not call it toxic, even. No one is toxic to the wise. No state is toxic to the wise. Everything has the infinity of choice amid its state. Free will is the only thing in existence.

Also, sorry for the misquote of the OP. I fixed it.

Lol! Posting again located my first post. I do not know why I could not see it before when I searched like three times, though.

There is gradual impoverishment of the masses and an an overpopulated elite establishment -- too much money, too much education, too much desire for power, etc. and nowhere near enough slots into which all the low level, mid level, and high level elite can fit. The Upshot? On the one hand, upheaval among the fucked over as they attempt to cope with ever diminishing returns for ever greater effort. On the other hand the elite fuckers resort to vicious tactics to grab power. It's a game of musical chairs in which the number of chairs is fixed and the number of chair seekers is enlarged every round. Competition quickly loses any polite formalities.

Donald Trump Silvio Berlusconi, and Boris Johnson are three disgusting examples of the rash extremes chair contenders are willing to resort to.

See End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration By Peter Turchin. Just published today so haven't had time to steal his ideas. — BC

I agree that this is the shortsighted dynamic.

The issue is that real wisdom, balance found amid struggle, is misunderstood. It always has been and always will be.

But the thing is, and it's pressing now, we have to change to a wiser model, by any means necessary, or we are likely doomed. When I say doomed, nothing is final. That to is part of wisdom. But there is a sweet spot in any situation where the pivot to wisdom and balance is still possible, if improbable, at a lower activation energy. It really is a hear me now or believe me later throw-down.

There are so many inherently unwise states present in today's humanity. What I mean by inherently is that the status quo accepts as wise tenets that are fundamentally unwise. I do not want to derail, so I will say only there are glaring examples and the actions of 'leaders' here points out who we tend to empower to make these horrid immoral errors. That means the system is broken, not just those leaders.

My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. Sadly, Pragmatism is the worst enemy of all moral agents in this sense. (It is not. Idealism is just as bad, but pragmatic failures are improperly trusted and more in control) This dynamic means that broadcasters of real wisdom are all too likely to be sidelined as sophists. I hate that term by the way. Sophistry should be exalted as an art of wisdom. The art of deception as wisdom is the definition of Pragmatism and Idealism, both, taken alone. We should all aim for a sophocracy, a rule of the wise. But first, we have to declare a credo about what wisdom is.

I originally posted a HUGE post reply to this thread. I cant find it now. I have no idea what happened. I am not debating laziness or re-posting it.

The way in which you combine Hegel and the idea of Hegel is especially useful for considering the concept of the 'supernatural'. It may have led to so so much confusion about an 'out there' zone, separate from experience itself. It may elevate religious and spiritual experiences beyond the realms of nature. — Jack Cummins

So, without a quote whom you are responding to is unclear. I will take this as general discussion then. But your 'you' is no one in particular here.

So, at time you seem to be saying that you think Hegel is onto something (e.g. correct) about the supernatural being imminent (e.g. accessible and natural), in which case I agree. Then at times you say religious and spiritual things are 'elevated' beyond the realms of nature, in the same paragraph even. I disagree. I too realize there is a nature juxtaposition or Hegelian dichotomy here. But, for me, and given what you seem to be saying most, for your interpretation of Hegel as well, there is NOT an assertion finally that anything we experience is not within reality. That is my assertion also. Clearly, any experience we have is within reality.

Dividing 'reality' into parts is always an immoral error of fear. Fear, the limiting force, is trying in its excitement to separate in order to understand. The concept of reduction is a fear process (like all thought). The person at real harmony with truth does not do this willingly except as an experiment, for example. Such a person correctly keeps their understanding of unity in place even as they pretend to separate connected issues. The synthesis is respected before the dichotomy that produced it is examined. There was an origin to reduce from, and the polite and aware observer is not allowed to disregard that unity.

If anything, some aspects of esotericism may seem to reinforce this, such as mysticism as being transcendent, as well as the idea of esotericism as being the 'special' experience of the 'elite' initiates, and detached from imminent experience, including numinous experiences. — Jack Cummins

This is a mistake in thinking, to me. This tendency to separate 'for real' in one's thoughts is dangerous and the immoral error of fear.

Also here again, as usual, is the conflation of the two types of worthinesses, a central error within reality. The intrinsic worthiness of all, of each piece of reality is built in, it being an inseparable part of all. But the functional worthiness of each piece depends upon the locus of choice, the delusional entity we refer to as the self.

When you speak of elites that have a different skillset than ... the non-elites, when you speak even of their special experience, you are not, repeat not, saying anything other than they are more aware of the unity that is the synthesis. Any, repeat any delusional locus of choice (ego, self) is only and always sitting amid the same experience effectively as any other. It is not, repeat not the amount of metichlorians in the bloodstream that are causal to this effect. It is the effort of the execution of free will only. Morality's best indicator is the effort put into the choice made. That is the MAXIMAL part of my argument before.

Further, there is nothing at all magical about this. It simply stands to basic reasoning that the more and more virtues you tie in to a single choice made by the locus of choice, the harder and harder, the more effort, that choice would take. Think of it as a reverse gravity north pole on a sphere and this image is particularly compelling. It works very well as a visual aid. I still think it's too simple but for that you might have to read my book. So, divide the sphere into discreet wedges (also delusional). After all the only non-delusion is perfection, unity, all, God, whatever you prefer to call that thing, all of it. Now draw straight lines up at least, but maybe hyperbolically outward into the void in which the sphere is suspended in your mind. You end up in one case with a cylinder with one half sphere at the bottom, or in the hyperbolic case with a kind of circular pyramidal structure with indeed a partial sphere as its bottom. The length of any line drawn making either is similar to effort in the northern direction. That is the direction of the good. But now the real task is shown.

The original north pole of the sphere, as 'high' as any point in our dual model (straight and hyperbolic paths both shown). But that perfection is only a single point. Now we are left wondering what all that space is around it if that space is not perfection also. It is not perfection is my assertion. Why?

The why is the effort is hard. Think of effort now as gravity, but its clearly reverse gravity is it not? As things or choices, actions, become more and more hard they are less and less likely to be chosen. Your non-elites in your paragraph above are unwilling (not unable finally) to expend the effort to do the right thing. They remain 'blilssfully' unaware. And there are so many of them, that the wise elites, the more aware ones, are thus made rare. Quelle suprise!

The trick is that all, repeat all virtues are required to be at their highest effort to reach perfection. Leave out even one and we miss the point (quite literally in the model and figuratively in speech). That combination of literal and figurative is a hint at that same nature of perfection itself. The nature of the Hegelian dichotomy is another clear hint. Depending on the way a circle is measured how many 'units' are contained in its circumference? We could restate Zeno's paradox here but it to simply follows the demands of my model, of the sphere model. The now "Standard Solution" for that paradox is to accept that the runner can, repeat can complete the effort of passing through all those infinities. This is nothing at all but the infinite nature of choice itself, a law of the universe.

What Achilles needs to run through the infinities is effort. The effort simply must touch on and utilize as many virtues as the hero can bring to bear on subjective experience. Somewhere amid that effort enough is enough and each infinity is crossed. The reason why each limit of fear, each delusional barrier is crossed, is that one virtue is transcendent and unifying to another. When we consider the limit of one virtue, the other virtue makes easy progress. This is the very nature of reality itself.

Thus it is the effort missing in the non-elites that is the immorality. It would likewise be an immoral choice to assume that the non-elites are not capable, them being possessed of the same infinitude of choice, but merely choosing to put in less effort. All of reality fits this model.

When thinking of the concept of the supernatural, one book which I thought to be extremely important is Lyall Watson's, Supernature'. In this work, Watson sees the division between biological nature and so called 'supernatural ' experiences to be be problematic. He argues that sensory and extrasensory experiences may be misunderstood by trying to separate them from the understanding of nature and biology. The underlying idea being that the idea of the supernatural and magic itself may be unhelpful. — Jack Cummins

As mentioned, I entirely agree with this. The problem is that separation, reduction, etc deny the synthesis of unity which is the only thing that really finally is in existence. All the smoke and mirrors of failed choices within the subjective realm cloud the proper grasp of perfection. That is precisely because it takes perfect effort to arrive at perfection. There is no other reason.

Perfect effort is so hard that even the best of us now elite thinkers on it are probably tragicomically wrong in our assessments of it. We should remain doubtful of even our best efforts because the maintenance of that doubt is the fear amplitude necessary for proper awareness and preparation, even joy itself. To seek comfort and lower the excitement of doubt/fear is immoral cowardice defined.

Going back to Hegel, in his writing, including his writing on the nature of mind and history, he may have been such an important thinker as seeing reality as imminent, as opposed to transcendent. — Jack Cummins

Again, I simply agree. There is nothing about perfection that is not accessible to every moral agent. We are to blame for everything at all times without exception. It only takes greater effort from us amid choice to 'get past' our immoral failure of laziness.

PS: Structure often contains a built in ease to facilitate moral agency. This is why humans exist as opposed to only the hydrogen atom. So, my earlier example of mitichlorians may be wrong, probably is wrong. The development of mitichlorians would then be, when they develop, a terrible thing that the observers can find that would then suggest to them incorrectly that only such entities could use the force (infinite choice). What is present in the immoral choice/belief that should not be is again the limited and limiting nature of fear's immoral cowardice. In 'seeing' more, in being more 'aware', the fear type limits all of reality and cut's off the rest as insufficient. This is the cowardly mistake of fear. It's trivial to understand, once you accept it. The 'elite' observer might then proclaim 'These Jedi are beyond normal humans! These elites are superior!' And the elites would be right. But they are only right in one limited and immoral way. That is that functionally there is more agency baked in to the Jedi than to someone without such concentrations of mitichlorians in their blood. And the mistake is that this cannot be then used to declare intrinsic worthiness is some kind of sham, that the elites are superior period and finally (they are not). The infinite choice still exists in the lesser form(s) and must be acknowledged and harmonized with. Drawing the line is the mistake. The limit of fear is the mistake, finally. Respect the synthesis as a first principle!

Is our civilization critically imbalanced? How could applying Yin-Yang concepts help?
(or… ancient philosophy to the rescue?!?) — 0 thru 9

I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.

The good news is this swing is of course less wide than the previous wing to the fear side. But it's sad for those of us aware of wisdom, of real balance, will suffer more, precisely because we realize when balance was passed and we are left feeling like, 'Wait, those waters were warmer! Go back! Oh shit you fools don't realize it and are actually still fanning the same now stupid flames. Waaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttt!'

To define the terms of the questions… — 0 thru 9

Oh sh(oo)(i)t, I thought I was already on my groove and you have not even setup the post yet. Damn! I still get points, damnit!

Civilization: our current world civilizations as a general whole. This is somewhat conceptual, owing to the fact that there a many separate cultures, countries, peoples, languages, etc. But here we are talking about the general, popular, industrial civilization which could be said to currently exist as a whole. (To me, “western civilization” no longer seems to be the most accurate term. But use that term if you would prefer.) — 0 thru 9

Like it or not the West had the onus and the drive last wave. Desire always leads the way. Idealism is the path to the future and desire side thinking (motivation) is what takes the helm.

Yes there are sub cultural ruts and eddies (women in Iran were Western dressers with no hijab and 50s conservative clothing and hair styles back the 1970s (compare that to now)). But the WORLD at large was following and ruled by the desire curve. Even now the second or third wave of it from the West is slowly converting Islamic backslide forward again. Yet they remain the most persistent old world male or fear oriented culture(s) on the planet. You have to get deep-fried country within any nation to see that kind of shift. Leadership is all much more on the desire train.

Imbalance(d): unstable, unsteady, unpredictable, and (perhaps most relevant for humans) unsustainable. Unsustainable (in relation to human relationships to the Earth) indicates that resources are being used or destroyed quicker than being replenished. There are perhaps many degrees of sustainability, a spectrum from the sustainable to the unsustainable. The question here is how close we are to being completely unsustainable. Thus precipitating a dramatic change of direction, to avoid the giant iceberg dead ahead (so to speak). — 0 thru 9

I mean you say these words 'unsustainable'. I don't buy it. It's built in that healing can happen and then its also built in that time scales out quite insanely. With each iteration/oscillation of history's major arcs (worldwide expanding soon to interplanetary) the next wave is smaller We are zeroing in on wisdom, balance. It almost seems inevitable. Like barring a world ending event the increasing frequency of the metronome swings will bring us to a perfect(ish) balance in a timeframe that is short order by universal lifetime standards. It is the Fermi Paradox writ small. Other civilizations do not exist precisely because the moral agency curve on those that survive transcends this dimensionality and they need not disturb growing cultures (or perhaps they labor to ensure our growth in an unexperienced way (which makes sense as to why good remains good and is objective and stable).

Yin-Yang: from Wikipedia:
Reveal

Additional thoughts:

As part of the original philosophy, the natural balance and harmony of Yin and Yang can be altered by circumstance or by human actions. — 0 thru 9

So this is just code for me for one word 'Change'. I mean it's kind of boring, if you follow. I envisioned if I were offered Godship and allowed to make 1 rule for reality it would be this one: "Let there be continual change in every way!" That's because with this rule in place you get flux. You get choice.

Very generally, the ancient writings (as I understand) began with a poetic rendering of the cosmic forces at play: sun, moon, and Earth. Fire and water. The seasons. Later, a wealth of literature developed concerning the medical and personal applications of the traditional wisdom, such as TCM and feng shui. — 0 thru 9

The old world thinkers HAD to attach meaning to substance. They slowly realized that meaning does not need substance. But by then the people had already made the icons. Too much work to remake them into ... ideas. This is reminiscent of the Islam and Christian icon-haters that demanded that no image of or representing God could be crafted and to do so was a sacrilege. This affirmation of limits is critical to meaning itself. In not doing by intent, some aspect of infinity is accepted and thus conquered. The certainty is deemed unnecessary if its not possible. You see how that works on so many levels?

This thread takes all of this into consideration. But the focus of the questions are a middle-ground between the cosmic and the personal: society / civilization. And how and why a society can be balanced or imbalanced. Sustainable or unsustainable. — 0 thru 9

Death is a thing. But death is only really relaxing sensation/arousal enough to 'rejoin' all. It's actually kind of a goal in some ways. Get it? So who wins, the society whose individuals live longest or the one that dies the quickest? Tricky questions!

Here’s an article about misconceptions about Yin and Yang. And offers the corrections such as: Yin and Yang are not “good vs evil” (with poor sad beautiful Yin to be unfairly burdened with being called “evil”. Also, sorry Darth Vader... “The power of the overly-Yang” is probably more correct. It’s just not as catchy as “the Dark Side of the Force”). Yin and Yang are not in conflict, nor are they absolute. They are relative to each other. — 0 thru 9

I see a lot of male side consideration being order-related, fear-related because men represent order itself as a gender in general. But this is multi-level deception. Order is not the good and so fear and men are as good as they are evil in agency, in choice. Being order-leaning is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.

It is more generally (in the past) conflated that chaos is evil. But this is also deception and a delusion. Chaos is just as good as it is evil. Being chaos-leaning though is dark only, NOT GOOD, because balance is wise.

So, both standard conflations are practical bets, but wrong in their final assessment.

And importantly, they are primarily philosophical concepts and symbols. Any mystical or religious use is a personal choice and/or optional. It’s doubtful that anyone would relegate the concept of Yin-Yang to woo-woo voodoo section of the library. Since, as is commonly known, the worldwide digital network is based on binary theory. Which was based largely on ancient Yin and Yang diagrams. — 0 thru 9

I would deny any relationship between the binary concept and ying/yang. There is too much depth and meaning amid yin/yang. Binary is literally that 0/1. If you are speaking true binary as a concept its JUST 0/1 and only within reality do we always detect the neutral state as well, some 1/3 intersections. This shows the duality and the trinary nature of reality. But binary is not sufficient on its own to capture that system and yin/yang is although it mostly does not choose to.

To which I’d add that although Yin and Yang were first developed in ancient China, they are not limited to that time and place. Study of original meanings and texts are helpful of course. But for us here today, it seems necessary and critical to translate, interpret, imagine and re-imagine these concepts for our circumstances. — 0 thru 9

Agreed as mentioned before, sustainability is always reachable. Matter, energy, and emotion are never created nor destroyed, but, ... change! So, free will. It all flows.

Answer the poll and give your feedback for a chance to win valuable prizes! — 0 thru 9

'Tell im what ees won Jane!'

From what I take to be the Taoist perspective, or at least my own take of it, the good is found in harmony between yin and yang which then serves as a return to Wuji—Wuji being in the Taoist cosmology the nameless Tao which produces the One, from which is produced the Two, from which is produced the Three, from which all things are produced. Bad, and by extension evil, for me is then a discord, or disharmony, between yin and yang. — javra

I agree. It's clear Taoism and my own model are close. I do not know Taoism. But the sort brief you give on it makes this somewhat clear. Thank you.

To say that good is a harmony between yang-as-good and yin-as-bad, or similar takes, to me so far makes no sense. As though too much good is then bad? But good is a balance between them? — javra

Agreed. That makes no sense. ;)

And I so far interpret these latter type of interpretations to be heavily influenced by western or else westernized thought: wherein light (hence yang) symbolizes good and shadow/darkness (hence yin) symbolizes bad. — javra

Sadly, yes, although as anyone with a pulse can notice, things, they are a changing! The move from yang to yin in the West is epic and actually now overbalanced. Chaos/desire is on the rise, and the chaos proponents have no idea where balance is, so they are #ourturn burning the house down also, just with yin instead of yang. Not good! No, not good at all!

But consider snow blindness—or, more technically, any condition where one would witness only whiteness/light in the complete absence of darkness/shadows. This creates an inability to see just as much as complete darkness does. So understood, neither light/yang nor darkness/yin would of itself be bad when balanced with the other: in balance, they are good together. This while both become bad (and by extension maybe evil … such as in causing temporary blindness) when out of balance with its dyad. — javra

Amen my Daoshi brother or sister or they, choose your delusion.

Sorta gets back to the notion of the metaphors one lives by. — javra

And the collective 'we' need to erase these delusions. I do not think they help. True balance is obtained only amid the polarity that leads to the trinary nature of reality. Nature did not specify and qualify diversity in this way by accident. We might do better, but I kind of doubt it. Still, any arrangement of the entities is fine so long as real wisdom is the goal.

I see this is in rough agreement to ↪Chet Hawkins's comments. — javra

Thank you, yes. There is accord.

ps. made a number of typos in haste. Corrected what I've found. — javra

Maybe so, but your meaning is solid and not mistaken.

Anger-infused fear. This is where the patterns of the past have already combined into a present. That is the case for knowledge.
— Chet Hawkins

You somewhat lost me there… seems a tad too absolute or polemic, for lack of a better word.
Is knowledge always tainted and well, bad? — 0 thru 9

Polemic, yes. That is anger, maximized. If it is correctly stated, then it should be fervent and aggressively stated. Mean what you say, because I sure do.

Yes, all choice is partially bad. And as mentioned the word 'knowledge' is already in error compared to the derivative term, 'being aware'. So that is two wrongs already. Both issues relate to the unattainable nature of perfection. The first in that the only certainty we have is that we are never exactly correct (perfect). And the second is, knowing this, we must properly eschew the term 'knowledge' because it implies the immoral certainty of knowing instead of 'being aware'.

Now you might contend I am splitting hairs here, but I have the beer-infused shampoo to handle that. They have to come together. Now we just need a song for that. Oh wait ...

It's the stance, the attitude of wisdom, that is often missing. Even if there is some understanding, it is not enough. We could always do better. And the day to day people go about their business at the mean, and that is not even the Aristotelean mean, sadly. Its more like a lowbrow average, the practical minimum effort required to 'get er done'. So sad!

Knowledge is always incomplete, little bits here and there, maybe it works now.
Maybe everything changes tomorrow, as it often does. — 0 thru 9

Exactly. Openness to change is the actual ideal. It acknowledges that conclusions are immoral. There is only one conclusion in this universe and that is perfection, the good. You could also say love and in doing so you are instead embracing the entire system, free will as a base, that ideally leads to the objective good via wise choice(s).

I love it when people quote the definition for insanity. Clueless people do this all the time. It's a great example of Pragmatic aphorisms that are anti-wisdom, really. You've heard it, surely: 'Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results' is often called the definition of insanity. Wrong! Doing the same thing over and over again and REMAINING OPEN to possibly different results is called the Scientific Method. Think about it. Honest readers will be shocked. It's true though. So many typical purveyors of wisdom are anything but, and often these same types will declare someone like me a sophist. Hilarious!

Here is another one for you, and these are all from me, pearls cast, and hopefully not before swine, 'The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind!' Nope! Not even close. He is deemed insane for speaking about 'visions' and 'colors', delusional things that do not exist to almost everyone. See the series 'See' with Jason Momoa as Baba Voss for confirmation of this anti-wisdom aphorism as nonsense that most people would still say is wisdom. Real wisdom is hard. It's esoteric and full of strangeness that in the end is truth.

The wise are deemed insane by the unwise, because they understand in a meta-level way that others simply cannot usually grasp.

So what is this flimsy knowledge thing anyway? I still prefer the term and the meaning of awareness to knowledge. It seems more accurate and humble, a state, rather than a final destination.
— Chet Hawkins

But this I understand and agree with, for what it’s worth.
Regarding knowledge as ‘flimsy’ is a healthy practice.
A skepticism to keep one feet on the ground, and prevent the brain from swelling up with so many facts that one’s head inflates like a helium balloon and floats away to the sky… :starstruck: — 0 thru 9

Exactly! Bring the fear types, the nerds, and double that for any academics, down a peg or two. Doubt is required of the humble. That is wisdom.

Question for you (and anyone else):
How do you see the relationship between good / evil… and Yin / Yang? :chin: — 0 thru 9

It's leading, provocative and the answer is rather dull and obvious.

Fear and Desire, yang and yin, both require the balancing foundational force of anger to balance them. So the yin/yang model is woefully incomplete. Add in the third force and you start to make sense.

But even then there is another issue. I mentioned it earlier in this post.

The good is MAXIMIZED and balanced fear, anger, and desire. The higher the moral agency the more of each is expressed. And the good only happens best in perfect balance. That means yin and yang MUST be equal in all things. And the balancing foundational force must also be equal. That is the only path to the good.

I wonder about the nature of doubt even though many have feared it. I was brought up to doubt, but I committed the sin of being the doubting Thomas or whatever guise. Where would philosophy stand without doubt and scepticism, as recognised by David Hume. — Jack Cummins

Being comfortable with doubt is wise. I enjoy my doubt as it confirms a lack of certainty, and shows us clearly that the courage of anger is required to stand up even when in doubt. You have to choose and act, on less than perfect information. And that's how it should be. They don't call it the burden of choice for nothing!

It is also important to think about desire in relation to esotericism. Some may see desire as a problem, including the basic perspective of Buddhism, which looks at desire as something to be overcome. — Jack Cummins

I agree and that was my point in some other response in this thread. It's clear the East views passion/desire with skepticism. I do, but that's back to doubt.

Still, embracing desire as useful, just like fear, is super important. Each of the three primal emotions is critical to have and maximize. Each balances the other.

Anger and fear are often misunderstood and denigrated. But desire is held in high esteem in the West, where it needs more restraint. In the East I would argue desire is way too downplayed, denigrated, like the West denigrates anger and fear. Anger especially is vilified and that is wrong, not wisdom at all.

To go with cult sentiment (The Bible, ha ha) here is a quote: 'The kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force!' The point (to me) being really, It's not fear, anger, or desire alone that are the issue. Its whether they are in alignment with objective moral truth, the Good, or not, that is actually important.

However, desire may be a starting point for expanded awareness as William Blake argued, especially in 'The Marrriage of Heaven and Hell. Blake even wrote that the reason why Milton 'wrote in fetters' was "because he was part of the devil's party without knowing it'. — Jack Cummins

Well, I confess I have not read that Milton book. And I honestly can't quite get what Blake was referring to. The Devil's party? Is that a political reference or one related to a topic in the book? I just can't connect on that one. Maybe you know?

In other words, desire may be the opposition or 'demon', which gives rise to conflict in the first place, in the ongoing process of the evolution of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I do not think to vilify desire either. Denigration of emotion does not help. That is the same mistake I just mentioned where in the West anger and fear are denigrated and in the East desire is denigrated. All of that is old anti-wisdom passing as wisdom. We need a better approach to morality and that is what my coming book is about.

The real trick to morality is first admitting that it has to be objective, and then that genuine happiness is the demonstrable evidence of alignment with the good. The takeaway for moral choice is that increasing moral agency is defined as maximized fear, anger, and desire, all three, balanced for wisdom. That is the path, the only path, to the good.

Ok, thank you very much for your reply. :up: — 0 thru 9

No trouble at all. It's what I do. Communication is just not much of an option for me. Are you a kindred spirit?

To expand on my post somewhat…
As you noticed, I play a little game with myself categorizing a pair of related things into Yin-Yang. — 0 thru 9

Yes, a favored model. I do enjoy yin/yang. All things Eastern have that compelling juxtaposition to Western thought. Much more compassion than passion. And boy does the east ever have issues with desire. Sometimes I worry about them. I find my base is more Greek. Passion c'est tout! Not really, but that path comes more naturally to me than sequestering desire and just doubting it.

Summer (to me in the northern hemisphere) is yang. Winter is yin, for example. — 0 thru 9

Well yes, yang is sun, even in eastern thought.

Dogs are yang… cats are yin… lol. — 0 thru 9

Ha ha, the friendship love of dogs vs the aloof prickly nature of most felines does fit, yes.

This is NOT a hard and fast list with absolute right or wrong answers of course… maybe just a metaphysical puzzle. — 0 thru 9

I think these patterns are indeed the norm. I do not think it is unreasonable at all.

What about this: (politically incorrect warning)
Cold climates that are yin in nature give rise to their opposite, yang investiture.
Warmer climates that are yang in nature give rise to their opposite, yin investiture.
Nature is nothing so much as a force always aiming at least energy balance.

But amid that process, evolution and the call of desire pulls us onward to growth.

To me, the concept of Yin is very foundational, like the roots and soil, the Earth itself.
Being foundational, it might be often overlooked or taken for granted. — 0 thru 9

I cannot find that yin or yang is more foundational.

In fact the third force that binds them is the only real foundational force. That is anger/essence/being.

Yin is desire and mystery, enveloping and dark.
Yang is fear and excitement, pointed and bright.

So by saying that ‘understanding’ is yin is no slight or disrespect to understanding’s worth, of course. — 0 thru 9

I would say that it was, as I did, and for the reasons stated.

'Understanding implies wisdom, both yin and yang, and in fact an equal part of that third force that binds them.' But that is just my take on it.

I would say _metaphorically_ that specific bits of ‘knowledge’ grows out of a deep field of ‘understanding’, and is supported by it and depends on it. — 0 thru 9

Well yes.

This is what is hard to relate, but I think you touched on it well here. No matter how you wedge the sphere, all wedges partake of the north pole. Finally then, all paths lead via desire to understanding. The trouble is that there is always a more direct path. Or, let's say only one path is direct from any location in the sphere. That path is then, the 'best' one.

Also, as is commonly known, both yin and yang contain each other in seed form.
(The black dot in the whiteness, the white dot in the blackness). — 0 thru 9

Yes, that is similar in concept to my wedge and north pole comment.

So one could say that “understanding is all, both yin and yang”.
Being underappreciated, understanding could use some love lol since knowledge and information seem to be ruling the world.
(A knowledge that seems to be often lacking context, compassion, and understanding etc, and aims for pure power OVER (as opposed to WITH) everyone and everything around). — 0 thru 9

Exactly! How to get the science types off their high horse though, serving the elites and control rather than ... love ... for lack of a better word. Even love is conflated so badly. I prefer the 'Good'.

But when saying “understanding is everything”, it seems like then it’s no longer TWO complementary parts flowing together like the Yin / Yang symbol.
I wonder where that leaves ‘knowledge’ though? — 0 thru 9

Knowledge is mostly a yang thing pulled into being by the third force. Anger-infused fear. This is where the patterns of the past have already combined into a present. That is the case for knowledge. The future (desire) remains unknown. And of course, as mentioned, we delude ourselves to think we understand the past. Ask any two scientists and they are bound to find some specific point to disagree on. So what is this flimsy knowledge thing anyway? I still prefer the term and the meaning of awareness to knowledge. It seems more accurate and humble, a state, rather than a final destination.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding. — Jack Cummins

Then Hegel and I agree quite closely. Indeed, there is nothing supernatural at all, to me. It is all here. The unicorns are dreams and dream are clearly real. I concur entirely that the mystery is here, present, and real. Nothing is beyond the infinite nature of choice. The evolution of the body is happenstance and only serves to make choice harder for some, due to this condition or that. In general, let's say, the more evolved form has an easier time expressing greater moral agency. But there is no case for denial of the infinite power of choice. Assuming the effort is put in, anything is possible, just not probable at all.

Your ideas on fear may be particularly important because fear itself may be such an essential trigger for thinking and exploration. In itself, fear may have led to the nature of questioning religion, and its dogmas. — Jack Cummins

Doubt is indeed a core part of fear. It's part of the drive to become aware, this doubt. I love doubt! Absolutely, question the conceptions offered of the absolute, because whoever thought of it, should be doubted! ;) I have to remind my critics that I ask them to doubt me. It's only fair.

On a wider level, fear may evoke so much in thinking, especially the 'lazy approaches' of conventional thinking and logic. At times, this may be a useful basis for criticising the ideologies inherent in religious thinking. Alternatively, it may provoke some kind of response to materialism and its extreme rejection of the idea of 'spirit' itself, as a source of everything, whether it is considered to be 'God', or some other numinous force inherent in consciousness, especially human consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Well, I cannot quite figure your angle on this one. Fear has many great qualities. But amid doubt, many turn to certainty. That is always the failure of fear. Religious dogma often has that quality of nigh unto unquestioning belief. It is a misappropriation of fear as well. Part of the trouble with fear and its need for awareness is that once practiced enough, fear delivers great results. It's the betting man's option, Pragmatism. It only takes just a little while of that before a false confidence develops. Real confidence is born of anger, the toughness to stand against the odds. Fear will say, 'that does not compute!'. Or, 'why did you go all in on a 2-7 hand? That should not win!' {Texas Hold-em} But those used to fear/logic as a path in life often have this delusional sense of worthiness. And since fear is the limiting force, that which separates and categorizes, such types are prone to overconfidence, confidence born of fear. That is delusional.

If you're curious, desire has the opposite effect. It fills its wishful dreamers with troubles aplenty. Amid their low probability efforts life seems cruel and they seem broken, especially to themselves. This then is the reflection of desire, delusional worthlessness. And there again, the mystery is revealed. Balance where it is least expected.

It does seem that some of us are more inclined to pursue the 'hidden path'. Many ways I do try to avoid it, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. — Jack Cummins

Evolution itself, personal growth, will demand that we each face our demons. If a person is sufficiently fearful only, as in (my opinion) not wise, they could go their entire lives and both seek and remain blissfully ignorant of the mystery's call well inside their comfort zone. That is tragic really, to any notion of personal growth. But some of us are explorers on that ocean and some of us stay comfortable and dull (opinion) in 'civilization', coloring inside the lines.

In some ways, it may be better to live a mundane existence of treading the known pathways because the esoteric is a difficult path. It is almost like the 'shamanic call', although there is itself a certain grandiosity to some claims to a calling. — Jack Cummins

Well, I agree that some people have that grandiose affectation thing. And it kind of does overlap with the longing of desire that embodies the mystery. But I think the ones I meet like myself that take on this burden are usually halfway preferring that it would leave them alone, and yet, resigned to do what is necessary to grow if the Kobiashi-Maru keeps putting itself right in front of them. Sometimes the only way out is through.

Further, since I am a broadcaster as well, and not all such called mystics are, I feel it my duty to push people out of their comfort zones and I usually offer to stand beside them as they face their stuckedness. Oddly though, like a Gandalf or the typical wizened type, I find that whereas I am capable of supporting others on their firewalks, few indeed have the capacity to return the favor. The nature of my challenge is always a 'this foe is beyond you' moment. Still, I have indeed been pleasantly surprised by the sudden ally who is often a serendipitous dancer, that while remaining oblivious to the real problem, nonetheless has an instinctual ability to avoid or defeat some of my foes. That 'Lucky Star' type person is very rare though and they tend to be a bit part only and not hang around, which you would want.

That is almost the opposite predicament to the way in which some people stumble upon the 'unknown' through the use of mind-altering substances. I have used them but only as a a means to understanding the nature of the 'doors of perception'. That is so different from people who are partying and using substances as a form of recreation. — Jack Cummins

I was like you at first and then amid the party scenarios I still found that there were more and more often the 'meeting the godhead' moments. I never did Ayahuasca, but I am curious. From accounts I trust as well as many that I do not, it seems that particular experience is rather likely to catalyze the more 'religious experience' type scenarios. Still, it stands to reason that the infinite, the mysterious, the esoteric, is accessible at all times. The movie and story tropes that suggest we must go to Mt Silea on Vulcan or the Eternal Swamp of Doom are just over-blown drama. The Abyss and Elysium both are accessible, to me, everywhere.

That may be why so many end up with drug-induced psychosis. It may involve an 'opening up' which is too dramatic, such as Gopi Krishna describes in his work on the 'kundalini serpent' which can be too overwhelming and lead to 'madness'. — Jack Cummins

Any experience, even daily life, carries the same risks. I would characterize too much fear and safety consciousness as a regular and 'safe' form of madness, if you follow. The 'public mass delusion' of 'polite society' is anything but in reality, for example.

A certain amount of humility is probably worth holding onto as well groundedness in realism. I love the work of Krishnamurti because he rejected the title of spiritual teacher, when that was projected upon him. — Jack Cummins

One of my favorite quotes is apropos at this time:

"It is no great measure of success to be well-adjusted to such a profoundly sick society.' - JK
I paraphrased, but that is the essence of it. The speaker will now apologize. ;)

Part of the reason why I raise the thread topic is because the questions of philosophy are sometimes seen as separate from the esoteric quest. Aldous Huxley was an important writer, including his work, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell', as well as , 'The Perennial Philosophy'. — Jack Cummins

I am not as well read as I might seem to be. I know Huxley of course but have not read most of his stuff. I am wary of being 'polluted' by other creative thinkers. In conversation I have had many many people accuse me of stealing ideas that I thought were genuinely mine. To me, it doesn't matter as much as to them, but, I certainly do not like being considered just a parrot.

A fuzzing of it all may be problematic, but, at the same time some of the issues of philosophy have been approached by many thinkers and artistic people, so it may be an intricate area for thinking about, such as the quest for the symbolic 'philosophers stone', which, hopefully goes beyond the fantasy world of Harry Potter. — Jack Cummins

That's an old one, really, parroted by the Potter books, lol.

The idea of a focus or magic item or thing with the right properties is similar to the Vale of Hidden Treasures as a destination. Such foci are crutches only and never really needed. Truth is ubiquitous. At least that is my opinion. I have never needed quiet or a place to meditate, for example. And the thing people declare to me they get from meditation confused me forever, because it's my waking state. it took decades for me to realize that. So, maybe its not all that.

Fantasy literature explores important themes, but it may lose connection with the basics of philosophy at times, if it becomes too speculative in the grand process of human imagination. — Jack Cummins

I agree, and they take off on limited sets of philosophical frameworks and thus make the same errors as old school aphorisms do, over-emphasizing certain virtues at the expense of others.

One clear example to me is the Jedi in Star Wars. They are so wrong, they almost could not be more wrong. Almost all their aphorisms are terrible anti-wisdom. Don't get me wrong. I love the stories. But their wisdom is pathetic.

Fear is the gateway to the dark side. - Yoda (Nope. Fear is just as moral as it is immoral and all logic and thought are only fear (to me)).
Fear is the mind-killer - Thufir Hawat (Dune) (Nope. The mind is a construct made almost entirely of fear).
In Star Trek the Vulcans eschew emotions for logic. (Nope. The joke is on you, Vulcans (Roddenberry). Logic is only fear).

I probably put everything into a yin-yang relationship, but ‘understanding’ is definitely the under-appreciated ‘yin’ mental ability of the two.
It helps dealing with life and humans, as opposed to things and calculations.
But obviously knowledge is essential and unavoidable, though I tried valiantly to do so in school lol. — 0 thru 9

I have to respectfully disagree as I did in my post.

Understanding is meta-level more important than knowledge. Thus, 'understanding' is clearly both yin and yang. It is all.

Won’t contribute much due to time constraints, but I thought this distinction between knowledge and understanding fits in rather well with what you’ve expressed. — javra

Thank you, yes, just so. I loved the quote by Huxley. He was a far out cat. I am betting he drank more than one pangalactic gargle blaster. And those surely facilitate 'understanding'.

I meant usefulness in a meta sense.

"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]" — baker

Yes, I get that. I agree.

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that. — baker

To state the truth is wise, even if people 'use' it the wrong way. You make your choice, and they make theirs. Deception to avoid them suffering or you suffering their bad choices, is just another bad choice, only. There are no real exceptions. If you think you have found an exception, then that is only a case where the utterance of the proposition was taken too singly, and represents only one or a few of the virtues. To utter a wise statement all virtues must be included.

Example(s):
Aphorisms of old and memes are not often wisdom. They are anti-wisdom. That is because of the conundrum you just underscored. That is statements are taken in isolation and defended with all strength. It is included in wise understanding of any virtue that that virtue in isolation or taken too far is actually unwise. But these posters of memes and aphorisms, they fail utterly and their utterances are failures. That is because they want to hang their hat as done on the single virtue they like, while simultaneously downplaying and poo pooing the virtue opposite that would bend this one back to real wisdom. Such is the nature of reality.

I am not sure that a certain amount of common sense and trust in the empirical is not important to avoid confusion. I have worked with people with acute psychosis and have seen the grave dangers of getting carried away with 'delusions', such as belief in magical and psychic powers. So, it may be about holding onto a certain amount of critical 'realism', but also about juggling this with the limits of reason. Also, each person may come to this in a unique way based on personal experiences. — Jack Cummins

Loved your personal history by the way. Very endearing. I had similar experiences. With my rather committed Methodist parents the snooty scoffing at anything remotely interesting was rather epic. My gateway drug was going over to friend's houses to play D&D and eating spicy foods. Ha ha! It opened up my world so much that there was no going back. And all because my parents saw the beginning roots of my old soul loneliness and they wanted me to spread my wings and have friends. Whoopsie!

I quoted only the last part.

The question you ask there is the focal point of wisdom itself. That is 'Where is the line between the GOOD or necessary suffering and evil or unnecessary suffering?' But that line is fluid as well in some senses. For many they are so tough, and toughness is good, that they can dip heavily into unnecessary suffering and still realize it and return to the necessary only. Others prefer to 'find the bottom' and I find that type particularly vexing, especially when you love them. That type is the tragic romantic artist type, in general. They embody mysticism and are considered the tribal quintessential female type, although men can be it as well, like all types.

What you suggest is correct. You say holding on to ... Exactly! One virtue must be used to balance the other. Failure in raising any single virtue is a lack of wisdom and balance.

Granted all our paths are amid a subjective envelope of experience. But the truth and morality, and that which offers us the feedback of genuine happiness are objective. That is covered in another thread.

We are not perfect, so the great mystery remains unconquered. Fear will drive us into the unknown and desire will embody it to pull from the other side. That is how it is.

↪Chet Hawkins The quote above isn't from me. I think I was responding to someone else, citied it and you have picked it up under my name. I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm

Ah, sorry. Not quite sure how that happened.

The idea of the esoteric, secrets and the hidden may be problematic, especially as it involves the mysterious and the unknown. In general, the unveiling of 'the unknown, may be more helpful as opposed to it remaining unknown. The idea of 'the hidden' in philosophy may be problematic, as if trying to go beyond 'gaps', but it may end up with obscurity rather than any meaningful explanabtions. In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding. — Jack Cummins

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Tom Storm

My own take on this issue is that it is precisely the unknown that is at issue. The unknown, or mystery, is, in one respect, only that which remains to be known. If there is any confidence in what is known, and I am asking 'is there?' then we can 'safely' continue the practices we have, the Scientific Method, etc. and delve, delve, delve like good little Doozers until we are Margery, the All Knowing Tash Heap (Fraggle Rock).

But what if it is the nature of reality itself to deny knowing? What if what we know is only there to delude us? I am not just being coy here.

Can we really know anything? Is the verb to know different than the verb to be when combined with awareness? How is the difference between those two perspectives treated?

I offer that in the case of 'to know', we do indeed delude ourselves of a certain certainty that in fact is not actually present. What we find in 'science' does not refute this sentiment at all. In fact, science itself is based on making incremental progress towards ... something. We could also debate what that something is. Is it truth? Is it practical success in the world, where truth is not required but instead a fair approximation will do nicely, thank you!

I offer that in the case of 'to be' aware does not specify arrival. I mean, when one is aware of something, it can be discussed. But to say one is aware of something presumes not too much one way or another about the extent of the knowledge had. I do think this distinction is not only relevant, but itself a disposition that can be called finally, wise.

This is not Sparta! This is Philosophy! And I for one prefer the old ways, the mud and the glory! Give me the love of wisdom! And then be about your business, if you claim to be a lover of wisdom. The which means, at least be aware (ha ha) of the difference between 'knowing' and 'being aware'.

This thread, and correct me if I am wrong @Jack Cummins, for I have certainly not read all of it, is about the esoteric, and I myself would put forth that less is understood about wisdom than any other subject possible. That is precisely because wisdom is all other virtues or 'good' traits combined. Leave out even one virtue, among a list whose member virtues are not known, and you fail at wisdom. What, then, must we do? This is at least the thread of living dangerously!

I will spare everyone the arguments along the lines of intelligence and wisdom being two different things. But I did read quite a few posts so far in this thread that suggest to me that argument has not yet been won entirely, a thing of great disquiet for me. Really? Well, I said I would spare everyone, so I will start then with a first statement. Wisdom >> Intelligence!

That means, if the symbolism is not clear enough, that wisdom is superior to intelligence. If there are professional logical symbols that mean 'is only a part of' then I would use those symbols instead. But, the heavy takeaway is that wisdom is a superior skill in every way to intelligence. Some might claim, as I just kind-of did, that intelligence is a part of wisdom, and that is fine. But the real right way to say it for Scotsmen and Klingon's alike is that awareness is part of wisdom. Intelligence is only a personal facility with awareness. One might argue that lessens again the importance of intelligence, but that is not my primary goal.

It could be asserted, and I do, that life's only purpose is the earning of wisdom. The divergent nature of that assertion is epic, but I am not trying to derail the thread. Wisdom is the most esoteric mystery that there is.

So, there seems to be some worry about the relationship between logic and a penchant for esoteric goings on, or interest in the esoteric. I mean is that not obvious? This is where I suppose many and most will be offended or start objecting in earnest and I would not have it any other way. Logic is only fear. There is nothing else to logic but the emotion of fear. I'm sure the anger is welling up against me even now. It's nothing but tragicomical to me when proponents of logic say things like, 'stop getting emotional and instead use reason'. Do not make me laugh! Logic is only emotion, only fear.

{My argument that logic is only fear is much more extensive than this, but this bit will suffice for this thread's purposes}

Fear is the limiting force within reality. It is responsible for all aspects of the drives for comfort and certainty. And why then is fear a limiting force? Well, ask yourself, where do you draw the line on comfort? Where is that border within reality for you? Are we a hive mind? Or do you need to believe that you are a separate individual? Is that more comfortable for you? Fear is talking. Everything we consider identity to be is only a separation born of fear. It is for comfort as a goal. And its rigidity is the limit, the asymptote of that effect. Fear takes short cuts. Fear is Pragmatism. Fear is Logic. Fear is thought itself (more on that in another thread).

There are many words that express fear, whether or not the user is aware of this truth. 'Certainty' is one of them, perhaps the worst. This is the delusion of 'knowing', instead of 'to be' aware of something, which, as mentioned, is to me the healthier, the wiser, response or way to be. Another fear word is the word 'like'. Like is the friendship component of the 3 parts of love. The other two being passion and compassion. We like those that are like us, speaking to identity. 'Comfort' is a fear word. We are comfortable with those that we are not afraid of. But there is more to this.

Fear type people have more trouble socializing than other types do. Why is that? It is because any overt expression of fear spreads fear within the group. So, animated or excited states cause fear and that leads to, one word is best, panic. This gives rise to the more traditional, colloquial, and horridly derivative meaning of the word fear. That definition of fear is entirely insufficient and rather dull-minded. No, fear needs a new better, more primal definition. And wouldn't you know it, I have one handy, for some reason. Here it is: 'Fear is an excitable state that arises from matching a pattern from one's past'.

This excitement of 'knowing' or being aware of something is not conducive in some way to social interaction, and that effect is multiplied when anything serious is being attempted in groups. Sports and especially partying are not great theaters for fear to strut its excitement. Times are changing but nerds the world over were shunned, feared, for this reason. They ruin the comfort of others, often enough. Now get a bunch of fear types together (looks around the forum 'knowingly') and things are fine because that excitement is indeed comfortable to such types. Fear types are good with fear.

Are we getting to the point eventually? Maybe! You let me know!

So, what is the first (and only) fear? It is fear of the unknown. Enter our trusty OP and esoterica. Rare or hidden or unknown knowledge. What could possibly inspire more fear/excitement? It's bad enough getting with a bunch of logicians and nerds of all walks of life and having them regale you, foaming at the mouth, about their subject of expertise. Now, we are adding a new wrinkle and this one folds space. You have to do spice to gaze into the unknown, and we all know the unknown gazes back into you. It's positively terrifying. It's actually like a new stage of fear, the old fear revisited, the unknown as a topic or pattern. And now we are making things up! Because the unknown is still unknown right? Or is it?

Would we even accept a map of the unknown if it were handed to us? Should we? Raise your hand in your chair at home if you really do want to know it all! Although my hand is up, I am one who believes that the wise wisely inflict necessary suffering on the unwise. I understand that more and more awareness means more and more suffering. The more awareness we have, the more we realize that wisdom is the only 'good' path. Is your hand still up? In the amazing and amazingly hokey movie 'Krell' the cyclops race is gifted with foresight at the cost of one of each of their eyes. But the gods were cruel. They only allowed this gift with respect to the individual knowing when and how they would die. The beauty of awareness is thus very well demonstrated.

The OP shows a clear worry about two things in particular to me, the nature and subject of God, and the value of logic and reason versus the mysteries of the unknown. It's of interest in part because there is evidence that the two are related.

I am not saying God is only the mystery, the unknown. God is also that which is already known, both sets of things, combined. But fear and its subset, logic, both, are only ... cowardly responses to all that is, reality. We must look to other emotions to balance fear. And there are only two other emotions, anger, and desire. {All emotions are only a mix of these three} It is desire that represents the unknown. Unlike what people would normally say, desire does not make us go there. It represents it. Fear is driving the need to become aware. Desire represents that which has yet to be tamed, had, known. Desire is mystery itself, chaos. This is in contrast to what fear is, order. And what is logic, if not orderly?

The limiting force (fear) and the limitless force (desire) come together to create this situation where we are aware of things somewhat on one side (still deluded) and aware that we are not aware of things on the other side (also deluded). The dividing line is now, the present.

If we add the conjecture as mentioned that God is only all of it, everything, known and unknown, then the purpose of life seems to be to become God. It's not a new idea, exactly. But understanding the interactions between fear and desire more correctly is a new way of looking at that old idea. Hopefully, that is enough fuel for commentary.

Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently.
— Chet Hawkins

So perhaps the monkey's behavior arises from evolved instincts conducive to training conspecifics not to be bad persons? — wonderer1

Implying the monkey sees the human as a peer? Doubtful. The bizarre situation with regular human interaction is almost not factorable. Caged animals are well aware they are caged.

The throwing monkey thinks that Chk'ka has Stockholm syndrome. And he's been psychosomatic against vinegar containing products ever since that Quepos Norwegian tourist incident. You just don't know how hard it's been on him. And his moon is in Mercury! Ugh, the monkanity!

Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt?
— Chet Hawkins

Could the answer to your question be, "Because we share instincts, to some degree, with our capuchin cousins?" — wonderer1

Well, of course we do. They were named for a religious order after all. But those nasty little buggers never converted. They stuck with free will and balance, instead of highbrow persecution and itchy clothing.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way
↪Chet Hawkins

Oh boy. You're familiar with the concept of a Thought Experiment, right? (They're pretty common when dealing with Philosophical topics).
Right but experiments are within reality. Reality perforce includes the inability to attain perfection. So an experiment in which the word perfect is used is often a red flag, if you follow. That was what I was objecting to, and I explained that.
— LuckyR

Of course you're not perfect, that's not the point. Taking your "reward of the good... resonating with wise choices" and extrapolating it to reveal your feeling if your were to follow your moral code perfectly doesn't, in fact, lead to predicting "restlessness" and unease. — LuckyR

It does, actually.

But again you made the same exact mistake.

You deny that perfection, the unattainable thing, is what causes desire. And it does that perfectly. So, it matters not how close we get, we are still not perfect and perfection still draws us on. That is precisely going to cause a feeling of restlessness and unfulfillment to everyone, every time, in every case, without exception. That is because morality, unlike us, is perfect, is objective.

As to your "feeling" as to the righteousness of objective morality, I don't doubt your sincerity, though even a simpleton realizes others have equal but opposite "feelings". — LuckyR

I feel like I should be insulted.

So, what you're saying here is that I am sincerely wrong, yes?

Your contention here says nothing. So what if often people find that others disagree with what morality is? I agree that is the case. Both are wrong. It's always the case. That is my argument. But, since morality is objective, one of the two is more correct in every such comparison. So when you get down to comparisons, the fact that morality is objective is the only thing that allows for the comparison in the first place. Good? Relative to what, precisely? You must compare each example to a standard. Then there must be a measurement.

That measurement is to the objective standard. We sense that it must be objective because we are happier when acting and choosing in an ever narrowing scope of choices, as if our behaviors were being guided by a law of emotion governing choice in the universe. That is objective morality.

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow. — baker

'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that?

We have to add in all other virtues to see the effect it has on the aim. So, saying usefulness is not in and of itself sufficient. We need some other descriptor that means 'good' use. Just so.

So, if you say then that the aim is good amid being useful, and the predictable effect is also good, then that shows alignment with objective morality. If, however, something is useful and not good, then it really was not ever accurately useful in the first place, if you follow. The real term useful must include only that which is useful for good.

It is my experience in philosophy that when you have to bend over backwards and create a convoluted argument why your ultimate goal still holds, its an indicator it does not. But, it DOES mean that there is something to that overall goal that has universal appeal, and we sure do want something about that goal. — Philosophim

I agree that things that are right are usually simple, a corollary to what you said here. It is essentially the Occam's Razor argument. But the thing is, it is simple. The only thing complex about it is the interactions of the virtues. And that is actually simple, just a wee bit harder when you combine them.

As mentioned as well, it is not an appealing truth in some ways. Wisdom hits every person, every entity, on that entity's weakest traits. Wisdom states that effort should increase to get to more and more worthy moral choices. These are not appealing to immoral wishes of most people. This is why wisdom makes people uncomfortable and often they will reject it on their weakest traits precisely to prevent or deny their having to change.

So, I can agree that people want a system of beliefs that has the same GOOD wholesome flavors as traditional religion, which is more and more a failure in social circles. But, after they hear how this model translates the virtues almost everyone will hopefully realize that they are incredibly weak in 1-3, maybe more virtues and that your lowest virtues are more determinant of one's wisdom. That could cause wholesale rejection of the model. The model needs a lot of wise advocacy to get very far. I remain skeptical. People in general are so unwise.

So in the case of happiness, I think we all want to be happy. But as has been noted, happiness as the goal in itself has problems. Drugs, evil, and even sloth. — Philosophim

I countered those problems. You claiming this means you did not understand. That, or you did not give a counter argument.

We can gain happiness from unvirtuous actions, and to your notion you note that virtues give happiness which is greater and true. As a logical statement, I think we both know there's something wrong with that. — Philosophim

No, there is nothing wrong with that. And if you make that claim you should explain why. I did explain the pro.

It makes total sense that what we think of as unhappiness is just less happiness than we normally experience. That means if we are normally immoral in the same ways, and we are, then the low contributions of our lesser virtue expressions (vices) offer us less happiness contribution regularly. It feels normal. And if we delude ourselves into believing we know what real happiness is like (and we do delude ourselves) we might suggest something as crazy as being supremely happy when we dumb down others.

There is nothing inherently complex or confusing about that situation. What is hard for you to believe?

But to the deeper notion, that there is more value in happiness from being virtuous over happiness from being unvirtuous, there's an appeal. — Philosophim

Yes, that one is super easy. But we are trying to get to the hard one. The mix of virtues as wisdom and the mix of virtues for additive happiness. The third realization is the normal value of happiness being deemed 'ok' by the person regardless of how bad it is.

This is why loss is so hard. Loss changes the normal level of happiness for an extended and reliable period of time, the grief interval. Loss is delusional as well, because matter, energy, emotions (all three) are neither created nor destroyed. They are all harmonics. Its a lack of awareness and wisdom overall that causes the failed perception of loss. I mean this can get all squirrely with time is also a delusion, and then question is why do we accept the focus on the 'now' view only?

So lets dig into that. Maybe happiness is simply an outcome of doing steps, and sometimes the steps can be good or evil. In general, we think of positive happiness when doing the right things, so we mistakenly associate the emotion with doing the right thing. What gives us happiness then? — Philosophim

So, no. That would only be one virtue or maybe two, achievement and accuracy. So yes, these two would offer their contributions to happiness. But what about beauty, joy, unity, awareness, preparedness, connectedness, challenge, etc? So, the only virtues being fulfilled that I can detect for sure in your example are the two. It is then a tautology that perfection will not be pleased. It will pull you to do more or do what you do better. It will try to involve all virtues equally as that is the balance of truth and nature.

There is no mistaken association in my model. Actions and choices all do give their contribution. It's the comparison with the norm for that moral agent that matters. Once they have a spike or a dip in happiness from the norm that is extended, they 'wake up to what life could be'. This is evolution or collapse.

The fulfillment of our desires. But if we say fulfilling our desires is moral, I think all would disagree. We all have desires that if fulfilled would be less than moral. But why are they less than moral? Because they damage us or people around us. A drug user damages the rest of their brain for an emotion. A person who would make everyone else dumb and happy does the same thing to others. A glutton damages their own body and takes resources from others. — Philosophim

Indeed. There are virtues that center on each of the primal emotions, part of my model. The basic sin of desire is self-indulgence. The restraint of balancing fear is needed to help counter desire. That fear is fear of damage or 'going too far' with the emotion. What does 'going too far' sound like? If you mapped the strength of the virtues you will see that a person very high on the desire virtues as well as the desire infused virtues has a greater chance of being self-indulgent as a pattern in life. That is because that one virtue is over-expressed. It supports my model entirely. I have found no aspect of reality that does not support my model. I am here to see if there is some, in part.

So, immorality is only a lack of balanced morality or low amplitude morality.

Virtues are ways of fulfilling ones, or others desires without harm to the self or others. To your note about 'maturity', maturity is a skilled and experienced way of fulfilling yours and others desires in the world with minimal harm. This can result in happiness, but not for those who are broken and can only gain pleasure from unvirtuous actions. — Philosophim

Aiming at objective moral truth, from any point (state) will yield the greatest happiness. You can take the circuitous route all of us do, but that yields less happiness and less and less the more distal the aim is from the perfect point of objective moral truth.

Maturity and wisdom are the same things. If you describe one without the other, I think that would mean you did not understand either (really). So, maturity is only properly described as alignment with intent towards perfection, the GOOD. There are many adjectives and verbs that are changed in my model because of the importance of perfection. Any expression of any choice is partially immoral/evil if it is not perfect. Moreover, intent towards the negative direction of immorality even from an exalted state (perhaps especially so) is a very dark and immoral act. As Treebeard says, 'A wizard should know better!' But even wizards are not perfect.

For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.
— Chet Hawkins

I think this is a good first reason to give if someone asks, "Why should I care if I harm myself or others." — Philosophim

Ultimately, all virtues funnel into the unity principle as might be expected. I mean, ... unity, duh. But the deeper truth is that you can build a compelling connection between any two virtues and that connection will show enough similar ties and strength to explain why all virtues are equal, despite the intuition that they are not. Why is beauty and expression equal to accuracy? Why is unity the equal of connection? But it turns out that each virtue can only be equal or morality and reality could not happen.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is.
— Chet Hawkins

Ha ha! I had to laugh at this, and I get it. The reality is that much of our life and decisions must occur without proof. Proof is for the academic, and when talking to others who have a different cultural or emotional outlook in life than ourselves. When speaking to those in similar cultures or emotional outlooks, proof is often not needed. — Philosophim

Certainty cannot ever be had, so it had better not be needed.

But the concepts of proofs and facts are similar. The astute observer or academic realizes that these two items are limits. They are mathematical limits in how they work. Proof is asymptotic to certainty, and that is wise. Fact is asymptotic to truth. Choosers that belief that proof is certainty or that fact is truth are not very bright, nor very wise. The proof is the explanation of why we believe a fact is a fact only. It is the 'non-conclusion', a term I invented to be in alignment with objective moral truth. If we state a non-conclusion, rather than delude ourselves by using the term conclusion, we admit up front that we are partially wrong, and yet we show that for right now, this is our best guess as to the truth. That is very wise indeed.

In most human interactions we actually prefer delusion. We want the fantasy and reminding us of reality just chafes us. This is another reason wisdom is secretly reviled. We would prefer the bridge maker brag and say 'Oh, don't worry! It'll hold! I been doing this for years now!" She doesn't mention it's only 2 years and with a degree from a low rep mail order diploma uni. We scoff and chafe at C3PO or other logic odds assessments duly noted. "Don't tell me the odds!" is our retort. Another way of saying that is 'Don't let fear get in the way of a good time/death.'

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists?
— Philosophim
Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?
— Chet Hawkins

If its a subjective opinion that there is an objective morality, then one has not proved that there is an objective morality, they have just given a subjective morality that believes in an objective morality. — Philosophim

Nope.

That is incorrectly stated.

Subjective BELIEF in objective morality is the proper way to say it. And that is fine. It does not deny objective morality. You just tried to pull a fast one there semantically.

Again though, it depends on who you are speaking with. Less discerning people, or people of similar culture and values to yourself, will not need much convincing to be persuaded in your direction. In the case of discerning academic, or someone with a far different culture or emotional outlook on life, they will not be convinced. — Philosophim

And their cowardly need for certainty will remain a foolish cross to bear. It will eke them out of life itself. They should choose not to live in fear. That means over-expressed fear, like the need for certainty over courage and will.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity?
— Philosophim
Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.
— Chet Hawkins

No, I learned long ago that labels are lazy. I meant what I said in regards to your definition of maturity and nothing more. — Philosophim

Well then, yes, chase maturity (wisdom).

Good conversation Chet! :) I appreciate your passion. — Philosophim

Ha ha! Thank you. I appreciate the testing ground for my model and my ideas.

Moral non-cognitivists will say that a sentence such as "this is wrong" actually means something like "don't do this", and that the sentence "don't do this" isn't truth-apt. — Michael

Well, I would say instead to be more clear:
<this action> is morally wrong according to what can be guessed about objective moral truth.
That means <this action> will objective contribute less to happiness than <some similar action> which is more in alignment with objective moral truth.
And then I have to be vague here because you were, but, then you would state the moral proposition for review.

Of course, we all can contend different and immoral things and we do all the time. And people are not even aware of how to judge these actions because they are not deep thinkers or deep feelers and they exist in a pool of easy prosperity and are mostly only concerned with shallow consequences like a giddy high, rather than genuine happiness. But leave that same person on a desert island for a year with 10 other people and it's probably the best thing that ever happened to them, if they live.

Ha ha! The researcher is not a bad person. But the researcher is BEING a bad person currently.

They have a monkey trapped in a cage, for heaven's sake. That's just horrid, almost no matter the reason. And then they are experimenting on it by feeding its buddy better food or more desired food. That is not exactly a moral aim.

I mean I know they rationalize that they are learning behavioral things by doing this in a 'controlled' way, but I don't think you can escape it being fairly wrong.

Choices, of course, not people, are possibly bad or evil or immoral, use your favorite term.

If creating happiness is moral, then I want you to consider the following situation. Lets say it would make me supremely happy to be superior to other people. I invent a way to dumb down everyone to an extremely low level of intelligence against their will, but they forget afterward and are supremely dumb but happy. Is this moral? — Philosophim

I do not know how I missed this post before. Wonderful!

So, it's a great ask. I love it when things are not easy. It does turn out to be easy to me, but I am no young stump-jumper. You be the judge.

There is happiness returned for each virtue. I may have mentioned this, but it's surprising how people only really get deep into something if they are in dialogue mode. OK. Here we go.

In the case of your question there is a virtue of ownership or you could even say challenging the self to be better, to be the best you that you can be. If this virtue is subjective or delusional, then it can work one way for one person and one way for another person. Luckily for us all, this is not the case. But right now that is just my belief let's say.

Let's add in another virtue and see how this might work. It's the interaction amid multiple virtues that is precisely what confuses most people. This is what turns them away from the GOOD. They get all bangin hard on one virtue and turn a strength into a weakness. It's comical, sad, and typical. Each virtue acts on the other virtues to bend them into alignment with objective moral truth. If there is a skill or belief set that reflects this condition, this ability, to work towards all virtues expressed at the same strength at the same time, that skill or virtue that is special is called 'wisdom'. Wisdom can be said to be strength rising in a single virtue only if that strength is already equal in all other virtues. Otherwise to raise a single virtue is actually over-expression of that virtue, and dangerous (immoral).

Your example is a fairly easy case of this trouble. It does not invalidate my happiness return theory at all. In fact, the example properly understood supports it. If we envision that happiness is the consequence of any virtue in choice, and also that each virtue offers increasing happiness as a return or consequence of increasing expression of that virtue, we have a match with reality. That is my contention anyway.

So, the case you offer would roughly correspond to 3 virtue areas that I offer for your consideration. These are the need to challenge (which has as a darker component the need to control), the need to be just or accurate (which has as a darker component the need to be superior), and maybe even the need to achieve (which has a darker component in the need to be seen and understood or accepted as a 'winner', especially with one's boot heel on the throat of the other). I think that is enough to consider for the moment. But these are virtues that indeed by your example have become objective vices instead.

If I claim morality is objective then something is gravely amiss. These virtues are being expressed quite strongly. And indeed objective morality is rewarding this person for doing so. This is the happiness you say you (you said you in the example, I would have said 'one' to depersonalize it) would feel.

So the way morality works is objective. The high expression of these virtues is returning a giddy high. But what you do not realize, the you in the example, and maybe the real you, is that other virtues are missing. This means to me that you are merely wrong. You cannot know what you are missing. You are terrible at the other virtues. But this is the best happiness you have ever known, more is the pity. You are some sort of hideous tyrant getting off on just a few virtues.

This has several corollaries. One is that people are not really just gut sucking evil in general. There is too much good involved directly in otherwise mundane seeming things like deciding just to remain alive, to continue to exist, to be. That's one example. Another is building connections with others, connectedness, which can indeed be over-expressed and turn into bigotry. That is because it is not balanced with other virtues. And that is the same here. No, people are actually fairly good, and even what we think of as rank evil is really just an over-expressed and imbalanced virtue. It actually takes exceptional good in some way, high values in some virtues, to be famous or infamous. It's not easy. And the hard things in life are usually more moral. This is a very complex equation finally, but it does work.

So, back to the example. Although I have already pointed out how over-expression of a virtue is actually immoral even with the virtues mentioned, there are also virtues missing that my theory claims would deliver unhappiness. I continue that assertion. But the low lying virtues are also offering happiness, just less. So, it's only additive. That causes confusion. So less happiness than ... regular or normally experienced is all that unhappiness is. That means to know that you are unhappy you have to have been more happy than normal. Do you see now?

So, let's look at the low virtues. For sure one that jumps right out at me is the Unity Principle. Now, I made the term up. So, don't go looking into philosophical canon for it. But you will recognize the idea. The idea is that essentially, 'You are me and I am you.' Every permutation of that statement is true. 'You are God', 'I am God', 'We are each other', 'You are everything.', and even something as wacky as 'You are the table', or 'The table is you.' These are all true and represent the Unity Principle as a concept.

Wisdom and morality also objectively include the idea that only through suffering can wisdom be earned. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering on the unwise. An example is a parent 'forcing' a child to do chores. This is quite wise and needed. And I promise you if interviewed the child would call it suffering. But later in life, if that child earned wisdom amid that process, they will claim quite vociferously and rightly that they understand and respect why their parent made them suffer. Just so.

So that virtue of unity is super low and missing in you, in your example. That means your adjective, 'Supremely' is precisely wrong, a delusion. The you that would claim such a thing is unwise. It is a tautology because morality is objective. It is also a tautology because an exactly similar person who is forced somehow to go through struggles that show the unity principle and thereby earns that wisdom is now aware of the more genuine happiness that can come from that belief. And such a person cannot be fooled by your delusion any more. They have been there, to better happiness. They will fight to keep on suffering to remain more happy.

In fact, one might ask, and I have been asked many times by the unwise, why not just be happy on drugs, the Hedonist perspective. The answer is simple. The wise seek out suffering for themselves willingly with joy in their hearts. They seek out necessary suffering only though. Taking it too far is self hatred, wallowing in worthlessness. The wise can only maintain a moral stance amid great suffering. Luckily the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are happy enough to oblige. The wise suffer thus, far more exquisitely than the unwise do, and they would not change a thing. This type of suffering launches happiness, genuine happiness, into the vaults of perfection. They never quite reach the top but closer and closer is the idea.

And it is this concept of genuine happiness that matters. That is to say, a wise person with ALL virtues present, experiences a genuine happiness that others can only guess at when they say silly things like 'supremely happy' by making others dumb. That other is you. Would you be happy dumb? Awareness is pain. Step right up! Here is the red pill. Wallow in giddy ignorance or be aware and suffer, and the more awareness the more suffering! Behold objective morality. The hard path is the moral one.

Hopefully that was enough of an answer.

The claim that morality is objective is fine, but can you prove it? — Philosophim

Of course I cannot prove it. I would not want to.

Proof is for cowards. Proof is a bid to certainty, which is delusional. "Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire Is that wisdom. You bet it is. Fear is the emotion responsible for the limiting and separating force in the universe. When we take the math short cut of saying the limit of x approaches y is y we are failing morally. We may be making a Pragmatic choice, the betting man's success, but that is moral failure. Perfection is the asymptote. It is unattainable. When you write things off, you fail, and in doing so, you begin lazily to write more and more off. The goal must be unattainable. THAT is wisdom. And it is, objectively so. But it still returns the most happiness no matter how often and how far you miss if that was your aim. The miss is consequence. That has no value really except to inform future intents. Kant was right!

Objectivity relies on facts or reason that must necessarily exist. Otherwise, isn't it just a subjective opinion that an objective morality exists? — Philosophim

Of course it is and that is also irrelevant. So, what are you asking in that?

Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire to be a thing in the universe. We interpret it wrongly. But it is the call to that unattainable goal.

Yes, we live in a subjective experience but we can sense and aim at the objective. We can and SHOULD try to be objective, to be perfect, to be GOOD.

If maturity is what causes genuine happiness, isn't the real moral thing to chase maturity? — Philosophim

Wisdom, maturity, and moral aims are synonymous. So, yes.

But Pragmatists mean something different when they ask this question you just did. So I will challenge it. Do you mean people should grow up and stop being idealists in equal measure to pragmatism? Is that what you immorally call maturity? If so, you are wrong.

The GOOD is every single bit as chaotic as it is orderly.

Most folks through "history" who felt unfulfilled while overindulging, knew they were overindulging and were suffering from a guilty conscience precisely because they violated their own (well appreciated) moral code. Thus they aren't examples of those who followed their personal moral code perfectly.

Let's use an example closer to home: if you followed your moral code perfectly, would your response be to feel "restless" and "unfulfilled", or pretty proud of yourself? I'd be patting myself on the back, personally. — LuckyR

I suppose my answer is strange to you. I am not perfect, so the GOOD eludes me. But my intent is as good as I can make it for now. I do not really 'pat myself on the back' for this at all. That is smugness. The smug Gods punish people mightily for smugness. At the poker table I see this all the time.

The key takeaway is that perfection is unattainable and there is always more work to be done. Humility is an objective virtue in that sense. I do struggle from time to time to forgive myself for my failings. But I stop short of indulging in guilt as well. I see that as immoral also.

So your error is in the premise of me following my code perfectly. If one can do that, one's intents and goals are not at all aimed high enough. Further, pride is immoral after the fact. These are not concepts I invented, nor anyone pressed into me over time as a matter of rote. I feel them. I verified within myself those feelings. Yes, people on both sides of the table of belief weighed in. But I did not just believe either side's jargon or dogma. I tested it out for myself and found the side of objective morality to be not only coherent, but, in fact, the only thing that ever made any sense at all.

Lastly, that feeling and the continual tests I put myself through have never failed. I have failed, but the reward of the good, me resonating with wise choices, has never failed, ever. I've never experienced anything that had that consistency in life, in any other way.

Uummm... yeah you would (have a clear conscience). If you (or I, for that matter) followed our personal moral codes perfectly, you'd be very proud of yourself (as I would), not lament that some random portion of your moral code violated some unknown (mythical?) objectively superior moral code, thus leaving your behavior open to criticism. — LuckyR

No, in fact this is easily demonstrable as not true.

People all the time in history and personal experience are 'restless' and 'unfulfilled'. The general malaise of prosperity causes so much self-indulgence (immorality) that people bathe in over-expressed desire. They are left empty, dissatisfied, precisely because they are indeed violating some unknown objectively superior moral truth.

a) Moral propositions are truth-apt
b) Some moral propositions are true
c) Some moral propositions are objectively true.

(c) entails (b) entails (a).

If you reject (a) then you are a moral non-cognitivist. If you reject (b) then you are an error theorist. If you reject (c) then you are a non-objectivist.

Some say that you must accept (c) to be a realist, others say that you need only accept (b) to be a realist, and that to accept (c) is to be a "robust" realist.

Although I wouldn't get too caught up in labels, they're just pragmatic tools with no real philosophical significance. What matters is whether or not (a), (b), and (c) are true. — Michael

Well. ok, yes.

Clearly by these descriptors I am a moral objectivist.
But I am interesting in the gray area that arises when people do not pay attention to details, and yet often enough people think improperly that I am the one missing the details.

That is to say, states cannot be true, meaningfully. They are too transitional.

That is also to say what a person 'is', is not finally good or evil. They actions and intents are done on a choice already made. This means that the choice CAN be determined as good or evil, assuming one also believes morality itself expresses good and anything else is evil.

Evil is in fact merely a lack of perfection. All aspects of reality partake in some degree of evil as expressed. That is every state of every thing and every being in the universe. It's unavoidable. It's true.

So, one cannot discuss things like killing babies as making one evil. They are evil choices only.

---

Why do I bother making such distinctions? Why indeed is it typical for people of all cultures to entertain these notions? Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt?

It is only the nature of existence itself, a law of the universe, which we refer to as morality, that causes this tendency, just like gravity. Morality is another law of nature. It is no more ephemeral nor less compelling than that.

Gravity itself actually is morality in action. All laws of nature are only morality. There is nothing happening but morality.

Gravity is a pull one experiences towards mass. The greater the mass, the more the pulls. Literally, this yields a compelling moral proposition which is the basis of the physics:

'What matters, will draw you to it, and that is morally correct.'

Then we would be tempted by delusion and foolishness (immorality) to say things like,

'Yeah ok, wise guy, let the black hole pull you in.' or
'I feel my porn, calling to me. It must matter and be moral.'

But these do not deny the truth of the first statement. What happens is, other virtues are involved and they split the need for choice, bend it, in another direction.

Loosely,
'Matter that expresses higher moral agency, matters more, at this time, but not finally.'
and
'Some patterns are self-destructive. Fear must rise to balance desire in these cases.'

Morality is the hardest thing there is to understand. It is only worth understanding at all because:

Morality does not change. It is objective.

An interesting possible corollary proposition:
'It is not important to understand any state or being. It is only important to understand morality.'

In terms of “hiding” behind moral realism, it cannot be hiding if the OP is an exposition of a moral realist theory. If you have disputes with moral realism, or the underlying framework within metaethics, then we can discuss that. — Bob Ross

Well, perhaps I need to detail more of my model, but, I agree that this is kind of derailing this thread because of the way everyone, including me of course, is choosing to discuss it. I am a free form theorist, but I can learn this way, I think; assuming it's not just repugnant once I do get more of it. For now I think I'll read more of what others say here on these forums and digest it. Maybe I can. Who knows.

I am certainly not here only to annoy you, which is all I seem to be accomplishing now.

He seem to use the terms ‘objective’ and ‘truth’ very differently than me and the contemporary literature, which is fine; but I need more clarity from you on what you mean by them. I have already explained what I mean by them. — Bob Ross

Well, If I explain more of my model it would help. But I surmise that it would be rejected from start to finish here, although I think its way more useful to people in its verbiage and formulation than what I seem to need to do and say here to interact with you successfully.

I had hoped that interaction with lay and professional philosophers or logicians would be less problematic, that my rather unorthodox approach would be more what was missing perhaps, a theme that follows me wherever I go in life. So, far that is not the case.

Truth to me is all that is objective, the summation of it. It of course does not change. It is pointless to call anything that can change truth. You may make a truth statement about something in a state and that statement is true. It is not especially wonderful or meaningful to me. It's just as cool as saying, it's hot, or it's cold. Who cares? I mean I know people care about temp and I do to. That's not what I mean. Useful truth is only about laws of the universe that never change. Effectively, there are no other truths. There are only states. The laws of truth govern the state changes. So, that's truth.

Objective is the nature of truth, unchanging, eternal, conceptual. Only truth can be objective. If something can change, it is a state. Truth statements about states are less useful than truth statements about objective laws of the universe. So, that's objective.

That's a short sweet and easy to understand synopsis of the system. There is a lot more detail, but that is the highest level, the monad.

Maybe I am not whatever a moral realist is but I do believe that morality is objective and does not change, so you tell me, what is that WITHOUT the other requirements? What is that called? Because that is what I believe and my current state.

By something being ‘objective’, are you just meaning that it is ‘immutable’? — Bob Ross

Well, no. It does not change. So, to me you can also say, TF it is a law of the universe. It is truth or part of truth. And there are many such laws. But one can also say 'Morality is truth' or 'Morality is objective' or 'Objective morality is a law of the universe'. The 'rules' of morality do not change. Opinion is only error. Choice always contains error. Belief always contains error. Fact is just a certain type of belief, so, facts always contain error.

Who cares is my answer. Morality is objective. I can offer arguments as to why.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the view outlined in the OP, not your ethical theory insofar as it doesn’t relate thereto. — Bob Ross

That makes no sense to me at all. It's like you started talking about microscopic portions of the wall and their dimensions and such, but I am not allowed to discuss that same wall my way. It's ridiculous to me. Of course all opinions about the wall should be entertained when speaking about the wall. I mean moral objectivism is indeed what we are both talking about, just two apparently quite different models of that same thing. I do not mind leaping into such a discussion and saying, no, that's not what 'red' means to me. Here is what it means to me. I will tell you why and how I support my belief. I will not just say, 'Hey we are only discussing this way to moral objectivism.' I suppose if that is how it is, I need a new thread of my own.

That's what I tried to do with the first post on happiness and was told that moral objectivism was being discussed here. Apologies if that is also wrong. It seems I have nowhere to be me.

My position is a form of moral realism, and a part that is the affirmation of moral cognitivism. Are you a moral cognitivist or non-cognitivist? — Bob Ross

As discussed already in great detail I suppose I would have to be a cognitivist.

I consider myself both an idealist and a realist

By ‘idealism’ and ‘realism’, I was referring to metaphysical, specifically ontological, outlooks—not whether or not you like following ideals. Idealism, traditionally, is the position that reality is fundamentally made up of minds, and realism is the view that it is fundamentally made up of mind-independent parts. — Bob Ross

Well then tradition is not so useful to me. I'm more fluid.

To me there is the path of mind. That path is also the path of a single emotion, fear. Fear is entirely responsible for realism, Pragmatism, and what might be referred to as the limiting force amid moral objectivism.

I was thinking perhaps you are an idealist, and that would explain why you seem to think that nothing in reality is mind-independent. — Bob Ross

Everything in reality, all iota of matter and even dreams, all of it, yes, everything, partakes of fear. It cannot avoid it. It is objectively true. It is a law of the universe. But, yeah, assuming there is interest, I need another thread to discuss it it seems.

If you think that flourishing can be defined by two different cultures, and that either one could be correct, you are not what I call a moral objectivist.

It cannot be defined by two different cultures in the sense that they are both correct about what flourishing is while simultaneously having contradictory accounts. There is only one way there is to be flourishing. — Bob Ross

Ah, then we agree. Perfection is singular.

Moral objectivity is truth to me

So this would entail that what is true is equivocal to what is moral, which seems very implausible. — Bob Ross

No, because you will now go off into state changes that do not matter to truth at all.

Free will allows for errors in choice and state. One cannot be moral. One can only TRY to be moral. To be moral would be to be perfect. It cannot happen. When it happens I am guessing that would 'end' the universe in all dimensions we are capable of discussing.

If it is true that Gary raped that woman, then is it thereby moral? Of course not. If it is true that 1+1=2, then is it moral? Of course not. — Bob Ross

Again, truth does not apply to states. I would even use another word and clear up logic itself on that basis. A true state is a goofy thing to say/discuss. States can change.

If this model is correct, it accurately describes reality. I contend that it does. I have of course only put fear here in very low detail. And there are chapters of this treatment that flow into every aspect of reality.

Truth is correspondence of reality, or perhaps the whole, or what is, but certainly not equivalent to what is moral. — Bob Ross

Yes it is, to me. To me there is nothing but morality in the universe and that is synonymous with truth, or God, or Love; choose your delusion.

And note the word certainly there in your verbiage in light of my fear treatment above. It can become quite telling if you know what to look for. There is no certainty.

Your flourishing example is terrible and cannot be used. That is because either the intent is to the aim of the perfect good or it is abject failure

You are importing your own views and then simply demonstrating mine are incompatible with them; instead of analyzing my position on its own merits. This ‘perfectness’ being ‘goodness’ doesn’t exist in my theory: should it? I don’t think so. — Bob Ross

Yes, I agree. I am discussing objective morality as I understand and believe it to be. But that should be useful to you. If I have even some shred of a point, at all, you can use my model and assertions to fuel thought and discussion on yours. Clearly I was confused at the examples you gave and admittedly I thought you were on the track of subjective morality and then what you were saying sounded like objective morality.

If you build a tight model, I mean, you can make it, but does it really answer to reality? How can you judge two different models, then? How do you compare one to the other? Is intuition involved at all?

1) Morality is objective and represented by a perfect intent, which is unique.

I don’t know why morality is ‘represented by a perfect intent’, or what that means. — Bob Ross

Well it's not hard to imagine, is it?

Assume there are 16 discreet virtues for example. And assume there is a harmonic amid choice for each of these. There is a perfect vibration to choice for each virtue separately and then if you get all 16 perfect at the same time, you have a single perfect choice, the entire and only purpose of the universe. Does the universe end? Probably! Its conjecture of course, but that's the general idea.

2) Moral perfection is all truth at once. Nothing that is possible is left out.

Again, this just equivocates truth with morality. — Bob Ross

And again, that is precisely correct. I assert that is true. They are the same thing.

3) Between any two beliefs, one is always better than the other, because it is intended along a vector more proximal to objective moral truth.

Why would this be a part of the thesis? — Bob Ross

We need as choosers, as moral agents, some capacity to judge the error level of a choice or state. Due to the nature of the limiting force and the seeming impossibility of perfection, this 3rd contention becomes true and interesting. It means if we have a morality meter no two choices or beliefs could ever be precisely equal in moral value, goodness value. This all depends on, you guessed it, moral objectivism.

There is no state for which there is not a mind component. That component is not zero, ever. The seed of our human mind is in inorganic matter. The fact that science does not yet understand this is irrelevant.

Hence why I thought you may be an idealist. Anyways, you are confusing ontology with epistemology: our knowledge of the world is always mind dependent, but that does not entail that what fundamentally exists is mind-dependent. — Bob Ross

The physical reality we think we know, is not known. It is delusion. It is just emotion, just consciousness. The model I am getting to is a theoretical 'proof' for this truth.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them.

Ok, so you are an idealist. — Bob Ross

Not in my model, I am not.

Idealism is just as much of an error, a moral error, as Pragmatism is. Only wisdom is the right path. Wisdom is the middle path between these two, combining the order of Pragmatism and fear with the chaos of Idealism and desire.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them. And although mind is only precisely one third of reality

That is a flat-out contradiction. You can’t say X is all there is and X is one third of what all there is. — Bob Ross

I agree. That is only because I am not saying it quite right. But, unlike logicians I am more comfortable with that. So, I need your help actually.

I want to learn how to say it right, if that is possible.

I still think you mean that there seems to be a respectable barrier between one mind and another. I think that is what you mean. Please confirm what you mean. I need some term or understanding I can follow. our minds are NOT actually separate from one another.

I mean that it seems as though, and we have good reasons to believe that, our minds are emergent from mind-independent parts and that the universe is fundamentally mind-independent. — Bob Ross

And of course, I disagree entirely. I would say there is precious little reason, the limit as x approaches none, to suspect that. It is in fact a horrid suspicion, and groundless. It is much more likely that all seeds of emotive capacity were part of natural law. We only see discrete breakpoints because we are still deeply deluded. We do not have enough awareness yet. We are going there.

The which is exactly what I was saying and missed by you for no known reason. I can also use the other two paths to make similar theoretical statements:

I am because I think.
I am because I intend.
I intend because I think.
I intend because I am.
I think because I intend.

This set of statements encircles all the possible equivalent statements at that level. Without these statements the understanding is less than best. It highlights the think side only, a problem I detect amid most of academia.

It's compelling, tempting, and entirely wrong to pursue truth only through thought.

I never was, nor will I be, arguing for the cogito argument. I don’t see the relevance of this to my moral realist position. I do not hold cogito ergo sum: I don’t buy the descartes argument for it. ‘I’ do not exist simply because something thinks. — Bob Ross

Whereas Descartes fits my model well and indeed my model would allude to the other statements I made as equivalent and necessary as a full closed set.

I would also say that to think without existing is entirely incoherent. Why would you try to defend that? Yes, something exists because it can think. Any I that thinks, must exist.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to stop there for now; and see if that helps. — Bob Ross

I mean, I think I get you. I am not at all sure you get me. I would like to discuss the whole topic of objective morality.

I tried to trim this down after the fact. It was like 3-4 times larger before. Hopefully its still succinct and coherent.

Morality is objective.
— Chet Hawkins

What does this mean if not "some moral propositions are objectively true"? — Michael

I mean, I agree.

I am only in this thread like ... for ... moral objectivity. But if there is something called moral realism that is different for glossy technical reasons, I am trying to understand so that I can either agree or disagree there.

The moral cognitivism issue was one I either just misunderstood or disagree with parts of it.

I guess then the clarity I think I am trying to obtain for myself and maybe others, is, ...
1) Morality is objective (all that assertion may not be to assert moral realism)
2) Once that happens, I have more to say, as in, how was this concept obtained? How can it be derived from reality? Why is it that this is the case, and of course then, had to be the case?

So, you must then agree that the reader must agree that this theory indeed can possibly describe moral realism.

Any theory can possibly “describe” moral realism. That it is a form of moral realism depends on if it is purporting at least the following thesis:

1. Moral judgments are propositional [moral cognitivism].
2. Moral judgments express something objective [moral objectivism].
3. There is at least one true moral judgment [moral non-nihilism]. — Bob Ross

So, you went right back to a requirement that I do not believe in. I suppose that's a hard thing to get past. If you want to HIDE behind an academic construct instead of addressing the issue, that is not going to help. It does not matter, by the way, if you are right. The fact that even everyone but me agrees that the above is true is irrelevant.

In fairness, what you do not know about me is a lot of things. One that I am a software developer with 30+ years experience and so although I am not a philosophical logical guru, I do understand logic. I also chafe when people offer up the 'I've been a so and so for so many years' thing that I just did. I get it. Academic pursuit. But no, it isn't. Reality is academically interpreted and yet not only possessed of such considered structures. The trouble with science and academia is the same, every time, its odd constructions are considered right, until every single time, someone proves them wrong, or just not detailed enough to be useful. That's where I am at, trying to do that. And I face a true believer in the status quo, entrenched in a singular approach I know is masking the problem for him and others.

Nowhere in reality can I find and point to the tree of moral realism to verify that these 3 propositions must be true. I have to depend on you and this body of academic work that contends that these three are the right requirements. I do not. I refuse. If that makes me a caveman or a fool, I accept that danger. You have to let me know if that means I should no longer post here, because retreating (yes, it is a retreat) behind such structures is not helping anyone. But it is to be expected. My model predicts it. More on that in a bit.

It's one of those conundrums that's really sticky. Lots of moving variables and if you get even one wrong the whole thing looks like spaghetti instead of a string.

Does it feel like or seem to be moral realism? If it bears little resemblance to moral realism, the debate is ended because you are demanding us to lose our minds and believe that black is white as a starting point.

I agree with this. Rhetorically, even if the theory is a form of moral realism, people will not be convinced if it seems counter to moral realism. — Bob Ross

And I am not convinced. I am not even convinced now that moral realism matters at all if it must answer the 3 propositions. I am trying to argue for objective moral truth. That has ramifications that disagree entirely in my opinion with those three propositions as stated. It does not help at all that you keep regurgitating them back to me. I will try to address your comments about why they are necessary below.

I have already given my argument for the uselessness of moral cognitivism.

Moral cognitivism is the metaethical theory that moral judgments are propositional, which is a required position for moral realists to take. You cannot reject moral cognitivism and be a moral realist. — Bob Ross

Yes, I can. I just did. I do again. If that makes me incoherent, so be it. Maybe I am not whatever a moral realist is but I do believe that morality is objective and does not change, so you tell me, what is that WITHOUT the other requirements? What is that called? Because that is what I believe and my current state.

1) All beliefs are in error partially because perfection is impossible (anti-cognitivism)
2) Some moral statements are possibly true because they embrace the concept of limits towards infinity as infinity. (cognitivism)

Beliefs being fallible does not entail that moral judgments are non-propositional. Saying moral judgments are propositional means that one can formulate them into statements which are truth-apt. If you reject moral cognitivism, then, for example, “one ought not torture babies for fun” is incapable of being true or false. — Bob Ross

Well, ok, so, I think that statement is true, so, that means I must be for what you call moral cognitivism, but, the idea of anti-cognitivism is then the issue. But you for some reason did not do the redefine of that one here.

I suppose that is the one I most reject then and I am a moral cognitivist by ... someone's ... definition. Who cares is my answer. Morality is objective. I can offer arguments as to why.

I do not want to go into the deeper basis of my theory or model yet, because it is not only about morality being objective. It's about so much more, everything in the universe, indirectly. But I am one that believes effectively that there is nothing in the universe but truth and all of it is based only in morality. Indeed, morality is the reason for physical existence. I just want to get to a place where I can understand why and how anyone could argue against objective morality. So, on we go.

This ... proves ... to me ... that moral cognitivism (and anti-cognitivism both) are useless.

They are defined such that they are foils to each other and, thusly, you have to either accept one or the other (or suspend judgment): you cannot sidestep the issue by claiming they have low practical utility—even if it is true. — Bob Ross

OK, If I must decide, it does indeed seem that moral cognitivism is, within reason, acceptable. I know we will have to revisit that issue though. So, hopefully my objection is noted.

They are simultaneously false and true meaning they are both true and juxtaposed

That is logically impossible, because non-cognitivism is the negation of cognitivism. You are saying X and !X are both true, which is the definition of a logical contradiction. — Bob Ross

So, what is deemed a contradiction is often not. I understand you are saying that these are not interpreted phenomena that seem contradictory but that the negation was DERIVED from the opposite. Well, ok. But when in the history of mankind has the wording not been wrong on something? Never. I do not want to just digress into confusion either. On we go.

Here you are throwing out two entire models and expect people to read all and follow. I only expect one post at a time and you are expressing difficulty.

Correct. Moral cognitivism and non-nihilism are metaethical theories which are not themselves the same as the debate about realism vs. anti-realism; rather, they are subcomponents of the moral realist thesis, and, for the sake of brevity and because I have already outlined them in full in my moral subjectivism thread, I refer the reader there. This OP is about a moral naturalist theory that presupposes moral cognitivism and non-nihilism and ventures to prove objectivism. — Bob Ross

I can accept for now, with the objection in place.

1) There is no such thing as a mind-independent state of affairs. That's the biggest issue.

Are you an idealist? I am a realist (ontologically), so I think that most events are mind-independent. — Bob Ross

I consider myself both an idealist and a realist. So, about now you are shaking your head. Yes, I mean it. I am dedicated to balance. Balance and wisdom REQUIRE in my ethics that idealist is correct AND that pragmatism is correct at the same time. The contradiction is not there even though people erroneously believe that it is. Sounds familiar right?

Pragmatism is prone to realism, which is based in logic, yadda yadda. Idealism is based in mostly the idea of perfection, in various forms, which I am sure you are familiar with given your verbiage so far. The error of academia is that in pursuing only the realist or pragmatic path, they are almost guaranteed to fail. That is what, in my opinion, you are doing, and probably most people on this forum are doing. The paths of being and of desire (idealism) are being neglected. They do not have equal weight in your considerations. The trouble is that if truth were known, then logic would agree with my complaint. It is a 'childish' or imperfect logic that cannot find its way past this conundrum. Academia in its entirety has that flavor.

The thing is, and this is a case in point, I can argue with the academics some on their home turf and not be offended by their blindness. Most balanced types just hand wave the tediousness. Most idealists can't even do they because they lose it in the face of logic and reason. My question is to the rigorous academic, can you entertain the notion that you are merely wrong? That is to say, the structure that you are relying on to make these models is built on an incorrect base? Because that is what I will end up contending I think. If you can't and I can, I understand. You don't believe my strange tubes are cannons yet and you hide in your fort and think I don't have the holy hand-grenade.

2) If the good is a form, that is mind-independent, in the only way I think you mean it, which means more properly stated that the GOOD does not depend on opinion or choice, but is preset, a law of the universe, then I agree, you are talking about objective morality. But you later suggest that you are NOT talking about a law of the universe making your premises unclear (entirely).

To clarify this a bit, another way of thinking about it is that the Good under this view is identical to flourishing, and flourishing is objective. The methodological approach to determining that is two-fold: (1) the analysis of acts such that they are conceptually subsumed under general categories and (2) the semantic labeling of a particular category as ‘the good’. — Bob Ross

And this is a retreat to jargon again.

No

If you think that flourishing can be defined by two different cultures, and that either one could be correct, you are not what I call a moral objectivist. It is required by my belief model that neither can be correct. That is not relevant either. Truth is not at all related to anything but perfection. Moral objectivity is truth to me. No one can be perfect and knowing is the understanding or aware part of perfection. So, that is why knowing is not possible. The fact that virtues like knowing or being accurate are not perfectly possible to us is fine and it actually proves or is evidence for objective morality. The math of this phenomenon which is demonstrable within reality can be represented by the limiting force. That means it is a limit as intent approaches perfection, and asymptotic. There can be no belief strong enough to arrive at perfection in intent. When we see this effect in reality, we know we are near to truth, yet cannot arrive.

Your flourishing example is terrible and cannot be used. That is because either the intent is to the aim of the perfect good or it is abject failure. So, despite the fact that two differing cultures have nuances of that definition that they are both aiming at and succeeding in, flourishing by your (subjective) definition, the fact that they answer the objective progress towards what is my objective GOOD is not finally relevant. Progress is fine, sure. But both are still errors. They are not perfect. So we cannot be objective in intent. We can only try to be objective in intent.

Further, since there is an objective truth about flourishing, that objective truth is the ONLY real truth, the perfection of that concept. Everything else is just an error. But between the two sub-cultures one error is always objectively closer to the perfect aim by intent. This is relative morality (not subjective). It allows us to possibly use judgement. We can say this or that belief is better or worse than the other. With your way, it is my assertion that because you say, I think, that they are both objectively flourishing despite their possible amazingly different aims, you are saying they can be equally moral. They cannot. It is impossible. If you believe they can that is what I call subjective morality or moral subjectivism. That is in fact the definition of it.

For me all that is necessary for moral objectivism are these propositions:
1) Morality is objective and represented by a perfect intent, which is unique.
2) Moral perfection is all truth at once. Nothing that is possible is left out.
3) Between any two beliefs, one is always better than the other, because it is intended along a vector more proximal to objective moral truth.

Now the thing is these propositions are not academic. I am not schooled in how to craft them. I almost want to thank the fates that that is true. I see the closed mindedness that is prevalent when realism and structure, order, is too highly favored over chaos and balance. It is not pretty and those rocky walls will fall even if they are sorcerously smooth like Orthanc. Truth has better cannon than that.

3) This means you are asserting that these 'forms' which you do not define yet, are mind-independent. But you also have said in other posts that you are not referring to a law of the universe. So you are contradicting yourself and not in a good way.

That which is mind-independent is not necessarily a law. A law is a force of nature that dictates particular behaviors of objects. The action of a cup smashing to pieces is a mind-independent state-of-affairs, but it is not itself a law. — Bob Ross

You say it is not a law and that is not relevant at all. It depends entirely on law. Everything does. There is nothing in the universe but truth, and that is what philosophy is about discovering. We do not create truth. We can only discover it. If we make something, it is flawed. Same argument I used before. Perfection is a limit and we cannot arrive, only intend to make progress towards it by aiming directly at it the best we can.

But, again, as mentioned, and still not addressed, there is no such thing as mind independent. You did not confirm my refinement of that. You refuted it. So we have no common ground yet in shared understanding. We do have common ground in reality. So one of us is more correct and one less.

Mind is ubiquitous. Every iota of this universe contains it. There is no state for which there is not a mind component. That component is not zero, ever. The seed of our human mind is in inorganic matter. The fact that science does not yet understand this is irrelevant. The fact that an academic can go on and on about mind-independent states when they cannot exist is ... terrifying.

There are plenty of believers out there that assert consciousness is all there is. I am one of them. And although mind is only precisely one third of reality, it is ubiquitous and there is no mind-independent state. It is ironic in the extreme that the realist, taking the path of the mind to truth, suggests almost comically that there is such a thing as a mind-independent state. It's ludicrous from my perspective.

I still think you mean that there seems to be a respectable barrier between one mind and another. I think that is what you mean. Please confirm what you mean. I need some term or understanding I can follow. our minds are NOT actually separate from one another. We are just currently unable to muster the will or connection because it is too hard for us. We are not in a state of being that facilitates this awareness enough. We are making progress towards that state. But these many failures do not deny my assertion. The reality though DOES deny your assertion of any mind-independent state, despite the seeming support of the current limit of our being. The seed of any mind, of all minds, was present as a law of the universe at the start of time and will always be so. It is the only way mind could emerge and be deluded enough to consider itself laughably separate.

I assume you mean good and evil as the only categories.

At least those two, there could be more. Such as a neutral category. — Bob Ross

Holy lack of clarity batman! Pow! Ok! Well, I think you should state the list of categories and also mention that they are a single value on a sliding scale if they are. Because these things are all different conceptually, yes?

But, no, I deny it. As soon as you went there I was like, nope. I was ready for that. My model shows and for now this is unsupported entirely, that there is no such thing as a balance between good and evil. This also speaks directly to your (what I would call incoherent) ideas on flourishing. Good is only in a singular direction. If two things, aims, intents, disagree; then one is objectively better than the other, always. This means there is no way to balance good and evil for the good. The only way is not a balance at all. Its all one way. That is in fact the meaning of objective. Perfection itself as a concept is synonymous with objective.

There is a balance amid the progress towards the good that is helpful. But it is not good and evil. It is order and chaos. And I will go ahead and say clearly, the path of logic and reason is only the path of order. The path of idealism is the path of chaos. And balance is the third way, neutral with respect to those two only. But the evil and good bit is not a balance at all. It's one way only. That confusion, of a possible balance between good and evil is rampant in moral subjectivism. It has no merit.

So what precisely denotes good and what evil?

The good is flourishing, and the bad is the negation of that. In action, what is good is progressing towards The Good (i.e., flourishing) at its highest level (i.e., universal flourishing) and evil is the regression from it. — Bob Ross

This can only be true if all definitions of flourishing are perfect, e.g. precisely the same. That is not to say that progressing towards what someone erroneously considers as good is acceptable. No, that that they consider as good must itself also be exactly the same. Otherwise, flourishing is not good. And perfection is quite demanding, I assure you.

So, I still think your flourishing maze of reasoning is wrong, unless you clarify it.

How does a behavior fall into one category or the other?

It will be whether or not the action progresses or regresses from a world with universal flourishing—i.e., the highest Good. — Bob Ross

Yes, as long as the 'highest' Good, and I already warned you about the term 'highest', is the same for everyone. No two people can differ on what flourishing is, because that is subjective morality.

It is no help because you just basically gave no filter and expect that we can decide what makes something good or evil. You have not even said that there is a continuum. What relates the good to the bad?

This has nothing to do with that quote of me, which was:

For example, there is no mind-independent state-of-affairs (or arrangement of entities) in reality that makes it true that “one ought not torture babies” but, rather, it is true because it corresponds appropriately to the mind-independent category (i.e., abstract form) of ‘the good’ — Bob Ross

This is classic jargon and obfuscates understanding. It does not help in understanding.
There is no such thing as mind-independent.
Abstraction is caused by the virtual nature of perfection only. This is the limiting issue mentioned earlier. It is called virtual in honor of the virtues which have that quality. Each is perfect and an unattainable ideal only. Yet and still, the sum of all virtues combined is a perfection of perfections. It was always singular, but that is a way to say it to facilitate understanding.

There is in fact a mind-dependent state of affairs (objective morality) that makes it absolutely true that one ought not to torture babies. It must depend on mind, because everything amid truth does. The term torture includes the negative intent to me, so, it's evil by definition. The whole situation gets much more dicey if you said instead 'cause suffering' for 'torture'. As examples and conundrums go, that is vastly superior to yours. That is because the wise should indeed inflict suffering on the unwise to facilitate their earning wisdom. And then we should be led to speak about such a concept as, 'is harm really harm, as long as it is necessary suffering only?' THAT is a much better set of arguments and such. The term torture is too evil committed.

I was referring to, here, is that, in simplified terms, normativity is not objective; but the good is. The good is flourishing—which is the abstract category I was referring to—and this is objective. I do grant that I need to refurbish the OP to be more clear. If it helps, then use my summary I gave a couple responses back instead of the OP itself. — Bob Ross

Well, I think you should realize by now what my issue with flourishing is. It does not work as an example for the reasons I have stated many times now. You have not addressed my concerns in that sense. You are still just repeating it. I do not know what else to do to get you to address it.

In the OP, I focused too much on the methodological approach to determining what goodness is and not in clarifying the end result (of it being identical to flourishing). — Bob Ross

Which it isn't. Your flourishing is not the good as described. That is unless no two people can differ in any way on precisely the details of what flourishing is, not the fact that they are making progress towards their goals. That can be progress towards evil. It can be evil for one and less evil for another making the latter more objectively moral in their intents. Is that agreed?

And you wonder why I got confused. No. Stick with one theory at a time. You are laying out tenets of a subjectivist theory in an objectivist thread. People will of course respond to each/both.

The problem with that is that you argued as if I was arguing for moral subjectivism, which is not what is happening in the OP. For those tracking my threads, of which many have been, I wanted to provide clarity on how I overcame my main argument for moral non-objectivism.[/.quote]
We are past that.
— Bob Ross

Wow! There is nothing to support this wild conjecture at all up to this point. In fact I would offer a much more reasonable proposition which is this:
Anti-P1: The way reality is currently is clearly the best example of how it should be because it's the only example we have. Guess what? That's a tautology

P1 wasn’t supposed to be incredibly elaborate: it was meant to re-iterate the syllogism from my moral subjectivism thread. The elaboration of that premise is found there.

As for your ‘anti-P1’, it doesn’t negate P1 and it isn’t tautological. — Bob Ross

This is classic you so far. You just state these things and do not say why. That means I ignore you. I say it does negate P1 and it is tautological and round and round we go until you deign to explain WHY.

No they are not.

Better P2: Moral facts are statements about what choices should be made by any and all choosers.

We have entirely different theories of truth and, subequently, of facticity. — Bob Ross

Yes, but, the twain shall meet. We are both within reality. One of us is onto a better set of assertions and beliefs. This is collaborative. But explanation is needed. If you just assume the work without showing it, we all lose. I admit I am trying to learn here. Are you?

Facts are statements that agree with reality. — Bob Ross

They are not. They never do. They cannot.
Perfection is unattainable. Any lack of agreement is lack of perfection. No fact has ever agreed with reality. They only SEEM, SEEM, SEEM to agree with reality. It's always a delusion.

The mind path to truth is always delusional. It must be balanced by the other two paths, chaos and balance, in order to attain perfection.

A fact properly defined is only a belief that a chooser has decided is supported enough with evidence to deem it true. Each chooser is a local authority. Facts sadly often bear little in common with reality or truth.

Truth is the correspondence of thought with reality. — Bob Ross

Said like a mind path only advocate for sure.

No

Truth is objective and dependent of mind, yes, in all cases, but just as dependent of chaos and balance.

Truth is unknowable, unattainable, and unchanging.
It can be approached, in thought, in being, in will. That is good, to do so. The degree of miss to that perfect approach is the degree of evil, which is only properly defined as less good.

By states-of-affairs, I do not just mean temporal processes: I also mean atemoral arrangements of entities in reality. — Bob Ross

I know that. I agree.

States are possibly three kinds:
Being state
Thought state
Intent/will state

There are no other states. These three states combine to form the state.

Moral facts are morally signified statements which agree with reality. — Bob Ross

There are no other facts apart from moral.
Morality encompasses everything. Nothing is devoid of meaning. Everything is only meaning. That is non-Nihilism, to me.

But no, as mentioned, facts are all errors. So they never agree with reality. That makes your last statement false.

Better to say:
Moral statements agree with truth. Reality is only truth. All else is delusion.

We swim in a sea of delusion supported by free will. Only morality is true. Only morality is objective.

Moral statements are possibly true. That means they do not change.

This is a non-sequitur. — Bob Ross

Why? You should not just say that and not explain.

What I meant was that if truth does not change and a moral statement is made and is accurate to describe truth, then there is no reason to change that moral statement. And if you do, it becomes false.

What is TF, true, false?

Sorry, that is shorthand for ‘therefore’.

By the way this statement undoes YOUR P2 completely so you have two contradictory premises

C follows logically from P2 and P1.
You say what a moral fact is and then say they cannot exist.

One can define something and in the next breath claim that something cannot exist: there’s no logical contradiction nor incoherence with that. — Bob Ross

I disagree. There is no way to define something that does not exist. To try is insane.

The concept is perhaps approached only when defining 'nothing'. That one is really hard. But when you defined nothing you do run up against the truth of my assertion and not yours. Defining something that does not exist is worse than useless. Its insane. It has no relevance. It cannot be proved, disproved, or meaningfully discussed. It's just confusion.

Instead, by form or category, I just mean an abstract category we derive by validly subsuming actions or events into more general classifications. — Bob Ross
This is nothing more finally than conceit.

It is the conceit of thought, of a thinker, to think that, in thinking, all else came from thought alone

Categories are conceptual, and conceptualization is the process of subsuming things under more general concepts. I never claimed everything came into being from thoughts. — Bob Ross

Interesting. I do claim that everything comes into being from thoughts. But being is another path, just like intent and will is. The structure and order is thought.

It is a ruination of 'Cogito ergo sum!'

That is not what the cogito argument means: it is not that “thinking is the one aspect of being”. It is the argument that one exists because they can think.

Bob — Bob Ross

The which is exactly what I was saying and missed by you for no known reason. I can also use the other two paths to make similar theoretical statements:

I am because I think.
I am because I intend.
I intend because I think.
I intend because I am.
I think because I intend.

This set of statements encircles all the possible equivalent statements at that level. Without these statements the understanding is less than best. It highlights the think side only, a problem I detect amid most of academia.

It's compelling, tempting, and entirely wrong to pursue truth only through thought. It is fast, better in every way, more alive, to use all three paths. We cannot avoid finally using all three paths, but that is not the issue. The issue is stress or priority. In prioritizing thinking over being or intent/will/passion; we will fail more often and in very patterned ways. The failure of the mind path is cowardice.