whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say. — Wayfarer

Ironically, both are something only a human could say... or, does that negate the irony?

sorry to hear that. Thank you

because it is not an interpretation to say that the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible. It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase. — Arcane Sandwich

But, by fact do you mean Truth? Because I think that's up to interpretation. And, if fact and Truth are not the same, what is the difference? Does Truth even deal in difference?

I don't see how you reduce the "I" to the body. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are correct, and I have caused confusion.

The "I" is imaginary; in waking and in dreams. What I meant to say is that the real being is the living body, not in the narratives constructed by its imagination in both waking and dreaming. Although the latter is where we conventionally identify the real being (that is, with the "I").

I understand that you still take issue...I just thought I should clarify.

The idea of determinism, for me, isn’t a simple domino effect; it’s more like a web of interconnected factors—each one influencing the other. Our choices, in this context, aren’t isolated events but are deeply embedded in this complex system. And while we may not fully understand it, I think determinism accounts for all of this complexity and interconnectedness. — Matripsa

It can be called History; each so called individual, a locus in History. At the risk of sounding New Age (though it is not), it is like Indra’s Net. It is also found in Hegel, looked at without nit picking. It is not just Greater Mind or Greater History which is driven by dialectic. Each point of Mind/History, each locus and every seemingly choice/action is the outcome of Mind/History intersecting and interacting with that locus and through micro dialectics gets settled upon. Even choices which seem to be deliberate exercises of free will designed to resist History, are already constructed and informed by History. To give an over simplified e.g., you weren't born with the
settled notion that the thing is an apple(-and-all-structures-attaching-to-apple). It was input and though you think you have a choice, you don't. Then, if you choose to defy History and think of it otherwise, every place you settle at as the otherwise, has been input by History and structures the otherwise.

It's tragically stupid of us to accept the current state of democracy. We don't allow our Bankers to grow rich by cooking the books and stealing our money. Why do we allow politicians and other social influencers to gain huge success by stealing facts?

Why do so called liberal democracies exist? To protect freedom. Already, we have a system of restrictions (laws) in place to maximize freedom. Already we recognize the necessity for restriction to allow for liberty.

If free choices are what we value as freedom, and if troll farms assault our freedom by profoundly fettering our free choices, they need to be regulated, even in a free and democratic society.

Yes, not only is this a contradiction (restrict free speech to protect liberty), it is a challenge on multiple levels. But we do it all the time--with physical restrictions, economic restrictions, social restrictions.

We create our own hierarchies of value everywhere. Regulating free speech at the root need not be any greater a violation of human rights than regulating the order in which customers are served in the bank. I dream of an ideal anarchism as much as anyone. But for things to function, there needs to be rules. Freedom in social venues needs to exist with some protections.

Not to be argumentative. I understand your points. Fair enough.

What was your (or, for that matter, 'the') first experience of 'apple'?

I do not deny the creative capacity. It's creative capacity all the way down [to the forever forsaken so called first experience]. But you're right that I deny the "I" as the source. "I" is a product/tool.

There is a so called real so called I. The body. Although that is affected by the creativity, feeling a positive bond with the "I", the feeling is real, but the object of the bond, the "I" is a small-c creation.

We are not two persons. So, again, the dreaming and the waking human is one: the body. The intriguing problem you raise is a function of the make-believe, or creative capacity.

I don't really understand what you mean by "fitness to surface" — Metaphysician Undercover

If I said dreams are autonomously moving signifiers called out of a
storage in memory, with no central agent, you would consider the arguments against that, but generally, you'd accept the possibility.

But if i said, so too are all of your so called experiences in your waking. Only in waking, these autonomous manifestations follow eons worth of evolution, such that they structure and project effeciently, following certain laws which serve their only function. First, the will to manifest (because the primordial, original or true nature of these images---the imagination---was to stimulate conditioned responses; built in was the drive to function or manifest). Following that, highly functional laws to sustain and promote the manifestations (all made-up by the evolved system), from difference, to cause and effect, reason, logic, grammar, and so on, and out of these, History.

Because dreams are just the outflow of the manifestations which have evolved not to stop, they do not conform to the rules which structure the ones in waking. So, the former seem to be what we would call random. They still signify, but that's another discussion.

The waking manifestations have been regulated, conditioned to follow a dialectic of such efficiency that only the images structured most aptly for the situation (given umpteen factors, run through speedy dialectic, conditioned trials and errors) get to manifest. That is, these operations of mind, are the most fitting to surface. To be simple, your eyes see a round red edible thing, your stomach may release triggers of hunger, etc. But these images stored in memory, autonomously flood those real bodily events with so called experience, their efficient constructions. And "apple" and the hundreds of corresponding structures displace the body with these Narratives. The "I" itself is just a structure which, in the promotion of manifestations, emerged as functional, surfaces a lot and so on. But it is just as autonomous a process in waking as in dreams.

They're both dreams, and in neither of them is "I"/ are you the real being. The body is and always is.

Your post was interesting.

Indirectly related is how in Quentin Tarantino movies, he makes us see always a hierarchy of evil: there's the bad guy(s), often a gangster(s); but soon enough the Real Sicko(s) appear.

I know Im simplifying and paraphrasing but you refer to the human as being doomed to a condition of monstrosity (because we always faced with evil (choices)).

I think it is only in History (Mind) that we are potentially so doomed (conditioned). Because (though almost trite to say) History moves dialectically and difference requires varying degrees of evil and good: to move. I think as human animals, like all other creatures (and why should we be inherently different?), there is no good and evil, no difference. We just are.

Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

When we're awake our imagination (dreams) function in such a way as to be fit to surface (in the world). When we sleep, the autonomous constructions and projections don't stop; they just function without much regard to fitness for surface. Both processes are made-up; one works to create meaning in History, the other also functions to create meaning, but strictly within one tiny locus of History (so it doesnt signify in the same linear logic of our waking narratives). The question isn't are you the same person; you are. The question is, are you really that person? Or, is that person real?

there is the message that the messenger brings to us. — PoeticUniverse

Doesn't the messenger also construct the message? The messenger is the message.

It can be used by leaders and organisations as a form of manipulation, in advertising and the manufacturing of news — Jack Cummins

I dare say, even philosophy operates (under the veil of/using the mechanisms of reason) in that way. Never mind the word 'prophecy' and its so-called meaning associated with magic or the OT. If (some) Heidegger (-like figure) had employed the term in his/her hypothesis about the structure of human experience, no doubt there would be much less resistance to your thesis. Because 'Hypothetical-Heidegger's' thesis about self-fulfilling prophecy would have operated upon History (conditioning) such that its prophecy would be fulfilled. If Einstein hadn't prophesized that e=mc2, for humans today E still wouldn't equal mc squared. I realize how simplistic this sounds. Out of lack of competence or lethargy, I am not wording it in a way best structured to bond with the coding of others, especially here, where there are firewalls of logic and reason. But every idea we entertain, believe; and, therefore, every feeling we have and action we do (at least conventionally/adopted into history), began with a 'prophecy' which by its structure and repetition, ended up fulfilled (albeit necessarily temporarily, because the coding and its triggering is fluid)

I agree with the gist of what you are saying.

I'm not referring to what we may or may not call time as physicists. I mean for uniquely humans.

I think at the sensory level of our experience, sensation and feeling, like it is for the rest of nature, there is no time. Sure, we say "only the present" or "successive nows," but its because "we" humans are not at the sensory level so we can't but incorporate time.

We're at the level of perception, where Mind conditioned by history, displaces sensation and feelings with code evolved to project in dialectical (this/that) linear form,(narrative--subject and predicate, cause and affect) evolving "time" as a necessary mechanism of that moving process.

Even calling it linear or dialectical is just as illusory as time itself. But as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes.

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither

I think it is neither. It is a bodily feeling. Thoughts and emotions are constructions which quickly flood the mind and displace the feeling with narrative fictions, for e.g. from ecstatic Sufis or Pentecostals to Anselm and Buber.


2) are the purpose of koans to bring out faith? — Gregory

I think that is a possible end result. But they're designed to smash the reservoir of constructions so that, finally freed from the chatter of thought and emotions, one might attune to the body feeling.

In a way, everything experienced through mind is a self fulfilling prophecy. Even those not easily noticed, because of volume or rate, most actions and feelings were triggered by a projection constructed out of signifying images formed by conditioning in Mind, and functioning as a code operating on the stimulus response system to trigger feeling and action. In every sense, my mind (already) made me do it. Or, that signifying image "I" (already) made me do it. So clearly saying something about yourself or someone over whom your code has influence, (I.e., your coding are structured to form easy bonds) will affect your feelngs, and behaviors by conditioning.

And when I seem to exercise free will and not do what the code tells so called me, that defiance still required code which my body responded to.

What makes "self fulfilling prophecy," function as a thing on the surface is, that's a place in History where code is generated to "refer" to the code which is surfacing and by conditioning, will end up triggering the responses (unless opposing code wins the dialectical battle and ends up surfacing as the trigger to displace the coding of the so called prophecy). Often the triggering code goes unnoticed as "code."

My point is, that self fulfilling prophecy is a thing, because we're always structuring our feelings and actions with code, present and future.

But "uniquely human" minds tend to analyze Nature into subordinate parts, that may be further distinguished as positive or negative. — Gnomon

Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized {or neutralized} by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

I see and admire your perspective. But consider whether the particulars, processes and conflicts are not things only observed by humans whose minds are the cause of disintegration of an otherwise singular whole. I.e., processes are not real, not how so-called God or nature or cosmos "sees" it; but how we inescapably see it via the lens of disintegration (not the best term, but then no term can ultimately be the best)

NOT:

Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized {or neutralized} by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

BUT RATHER: Conflicts/parts only appear to that single species who can no longer be the whole because it has emerged/evolved a mind which displaces It with the multifarious forms of this/that.

Opposites don't really exist, they necessarily exist to the species which uses its imagination uncontrollably in the construction and projections of opposites.

Neutral monism — Gnomon

I would rather say, Natural monism. It is only because uniquely humans have minds which construct and project code which in turn affects the body (feelings, activity) that we reify the code. Cows don't vacillate between mind and body. And nature already is neutral, as in One. It is only we, that require neutrality between our reality and make-believe. And that is because we cannot/refuse to see the fictional nature of our make-believe.

I took a glance: interesting. Thanks.

That means rationally justified. — Janus

Ok, yah. In that context, I see.

The two are different, though, insofar as everyone sees the apple but no one sees god.. — Janus

Yes they are different.

My point is we, especially empiricism, designate the info perceived from sight as "superior" to the info received from feelings.

I know why. But it is arguable that in some cases--e.g. so called God--the hierarchy doesn't fit. Besides mythology (broadly) who has seen God? And yet for millenia--even atheists by entertaing the notion--we have claimed that God exists.

Yes, there are psychological explanations etc etc.

Nevertheless maybe if God does exist, we "know/believe" this from fellings rather than the conventionally admired organic triggers of construction (perception).

Interesting, thank you.

Too complex to detail here, but...
even empiricism is neglecting something. Feeling, is no less an organic sensation than seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, hearing.

Just as my mind displaces the raw visual sensation of round red object into the perception of "round" > "red" > until it settles on the belief, "apple" projected as knowledge; my mind displaces the raw feeling sensation of X into the perception of "y"> "z">until it settles on the belief, "god" projected as faith, a particular shape of knowledge.

:up:

let’s collapse the dualism. Mind IS body. We live inside the illlusion. — Fire Ologist

:up: no dualism to collapse. The Mind part is fleeting No thing.

reality is illusion — Fire Ologist

Not dualism though it sounds like one. Not monism either, though ultimately it is. You're saying it yourself, dualism. When you concede that its not just reality, but illusion too. I know you're saying they're the same thing. But then why do we refer to the illusion. The illusion isn't reality, it's a fleeting appearance, which, like code, affects reality. Inconceivable oneness and difference; only the difference is an illusion. At best described as a qualified dualism: the duality is fictional projections.

As for knowledge and belief, they are the same thing. Belief is the last link in the dialectical chain that ends in knowledge. It doesn't always surface with knowledge, but its the settlement necessary to project knowledge. Whether it's 1+1 or e=mc² or there is a God, It is believed and known as one complete structure. In body, the real settled feeling is triggered by belief, giving it its only truth; which true feeling, in turn allows for the, always temporary, adoption of knowledge. But the knowledge for humans is not really, the settled feeling alone is real. The knowledge is a super sophisticated, super complex, highly evolved fleeting system of constructions and projections. And that's where we both experience time, (constructions and projections evolved to surface in the Narrative, linear form), and spend it.

And this, to me, ties in with the OP. For the sake of demonstrating, assume what we're after when we apply reason to seek God, is the ultimate Truth, the Reality of the Universe, in whatever format from Lord to God head to Nature. Then that Truth has to be "found" as a physiological feeling, and, reason can at best be a stimulus of the feeling. We call the feeling, among other things, faith. As for God, like the orgasm, no disrespect intended, and all real things; if it's real, use as much fantasy as you need to get you there, but know that it's fantasy, and truth is necessarily not in the fantasy, but in what the real organism feels.

Seek God etc. [in your hearts] all else is talk

But that is precisely what revealed truth means. It is the entire meaning of the Bible. It doesn’t mean you have to believe it. — Wayfarer

Fair enough if that's faith is revealed truth in the bible (and i know you agree you dont havd to believd it), but can't faith be explored beyond those boundaries. Are you suggesting no discussion about faith is meaningful without first adopting the definition that it is a revelation of something otherworldly?

Some people seem to believe that faith exists in a separate domain, as if it were a sacred thread connecting them directly to the truth, untouched by external influences. — Tom Storm

I know what you mean, and I agree, faith which claims to have such revelation into some otherworldly superior reality is not supportable.

But maybe, it seems like another domain, because it's in another, so-called domain; but its not really another domain; its the real and singular domain, where there is a natural body that feels; only we humans are so sucked in to the "fixtional" domain of our collective constructive imaginations , that we make-believe something out of what we really simply, physically feel. The feeling is soon enough "ignored" or displaced, by a make-believe, labeled (today's manifestated version of endless dialectic), because it is so alienated from the physical feeling, as something so outside of our constructions, that it must be Other. And from there we build our Babel of philosophies, getting further and further from the truth, that once crisp feeling we happen, now to vaguely call faith,


Tragically, the human body, the animal of nature, is the domain we ignore/are ignorant of. Not just re god, but always. And as for God, we take a real human feeling about something in Nature, and we settle vaguely on q thing labeled as faith. But only in the make-believe endless trials of the dialectic, are we so called choosing to believe it, and requiring tools to structure a place to settle/believe; tools like reason, and as you say, many other external influences, all of them filtered in, and taking shape, as constructions building over the truth.

We feel it. Just because our ideas are constructions, doesn’t mean it's not God we are feeling. I can't help but feel that it is. Not in any grandiose sense, but in the sense that we all do. We wouldn't be discussing it if we didn't feel it too. And those that don't feel it, build their antitheses upon our consensus. And I ignore the feeling as much or more than you and build my stories. Nevertheless, i do think everything we think, departs from the feeling, and in its departure alienates the truth of god as a
human feeling.

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought. — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree...ultimately

It's like Morality. It doesn’t matter what you think in your head. It's what your body does, your arms and hands, your legs, feet, your face, your eyes your voice, your feelings. The pursuit of "Morality," spends so much time on ideas; distractions and detractors from the real thing/Truth; instead, seeking truth in what goes on in the head about truth. It’s not our ideas about killing. The idea of killing comes up in many forms. Why and where do we think we can draw precise lines? It's the body killing; the movements of limbs or teeth, and the feeling. Yet we focus on endless debates about the thought. Like mathemeticians we tangle with intention, motive, mens rea, justifications, right and wrong, and think we discover truth in our calculations. If it feels good to kill, a feeling triggered by, and covalent with, natural feelings of the body we call compassion, pity, mercy, survival and bonding, then it’s one thing; if it feels like anger, jealousy or fear, it’s another; if it has no feeling because the body, in its motion just stumbled or happened upon killing, it’s neither.

I think the debates about God are the same. It’s a distraction from God to look for It in our thoughts. Thoughts are made up and, ironically, imprecise, not just subject to our prejudices, creations and whims, but constructed by them. As much as we convince ourselves that logic and reason are pre-existing truths, we argue and cannot agree about even logic and reason. Because we construct even logic and reason, they cannot uncover ultimate truth; if nothing else, at least that should apply to ultimate truth about God. If there even is a God, It has to be found with the body. We call it faith, but its not some scriptural directive, duty or virtue that we need to pretend to have (the sad mistake most of us invariably make despite our best intentions). It’s an actual, and real biochemical feeling in the body. And if its the Truth [about] God that we're after, that'sthe only place we'll "find" it. Only that feeling ultimately matters in our search for any truth concerning God.

Of course, that's not to say that thoughts don't trigger the feelings. Fair enough, they have their place for us humans, burdened and blessed with Mind. But ultimately that’s not where we find truths about things like morality or God, or even reality and whatever the real self is, for that matter. As distressingly anti-philosophical as it is, the ultimate truth is a feeling.

If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution — Patterner

If Cat Stevens--Mr. Peace Train--can be so radicalized, then yes, maybe Tom Storm's reasoning is not just functional but necessary.

:up:

Some of my Islamic and apostate acquaintances argue that Muslims need to be exposed to as much book burning and blasphemous drawings and scantily clad women as possible in order to wear away the layers of antediluvian thinking. I guess they are taking the Quentin Crisp view of tolerance - that it comes out of exposure and boredom. — Tom Storm

That's a good point. If that was the spirit of the OP's consideration; I get it. Perhaps I was wrong to read it as latent bullying in response to (pathological) fanaticism.

What did you think about it as a challenge? — flannel jesus

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I addressed it above?

Worrying about offending them is much like worrying about offending some pre-Civil War Americans by burning copies of state laws that allow slavery. Sure, they got mad. But it was still the right thing to do. — Patterner

I was reading the book burning as having no positive value, but only as a gesture of offense. After reading Tom Storms above, I see that there could be value in reforming fanaticism.

So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes.

Ironically, I see I was the one willfully blinded.

If I burn my own book that I bought, it's not the same as punching you — flannel jesus

It's not the same as punching me. No argument there. But I would speculate that the burning of the Quran was not done in the spirit of educating, but rather, violating. Violating does not have to include physical harm. And your question was whether there are "good reasons" to burn. So even in your last hypothetical about burning a book you bought; short of giving some cute response like, fuel or kindling, what would be a good reason. And to be clear, we dont even need to approach it as a moral question, but as a straight functional one. Assuming the underlying unwritten in your OP: Muslims are the kind of scary people who will stab you for burning the Quran, how can we stop this problem and livr in peace? I just don't think burning the Quran is going to stop it. If violating Muslims is a "good reason" (which perhaps for many it is) then yes, there is a good reason to burn through book. I just think the end goal is peace, and thus don't think violating Muslims is a good reason.

The question is, are there good reasons to justify the burning; not is the stabbing righteous (which, it is not); nor are jihadists acceptable (which, they are not)

Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT.

Definitely not (a); but just because these hypothetical Christians are insane, why is burning their literature the solution. Especially knowing they're insane enough to perceive it as a stabbing (which, it is not).


I hope you didn't read condonation of the stabbing in condemnation of the burning.

With respect, it's that kind of wilfull blindness (likely rooted in fear and hatred, even if justifiable) which makes peace so difficult. Isn't that the end goal?

Maybe for some, the burning is not intended as a step toward resolving the problem of jihadism; but rather, just a disguised, legal, form of stabbing Muslims. Getting revenge.
Maybe for some revenge is a good reason for burning books. I just don't think so.

Someone burned a Quran in London yesterday. Another man attacked him with a knife in retaliation. — flannel jesus

Are there good reasons, today, to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

How is it not obvious that both actions are violent and neither can be condoned?

Sure, the knife attack is more recognizable as violence, and a more objectively and directly harmful form.

But as for the burning of the Quran. Can the action be justified by the pretense of free speech, delivering, for example, a political anti-terrorism or anti-barbaric cultural practices message, when the message itself---patently offensive, and known to be offensive, or why do it?---is a barbaric practice, intended to terrorize an entire group of believers for the (admittedly contemptible) beliefs and activities of their most extreme few? [And if one believes that all Muslims are barbaric terrorists, that belief is at best naive, but more likely rooted in fear manifesting as hatred].

Can one justify burning the Gospels to protest Christian White Supremacy? Or the Torah to protest the actions of fanatical Zionists? Or the Vedas to protest Hindu Nationalists? (There are examples of violence perpetrated from all three of those groups) I say no, for the same obvious reasons. We cannot justify barbarism and terrorism if it's done by our team, while condemning it when it's done by a team we (even if justifiably) despise or fear.

Isn't this the kind of hypocrisy Jesus warned against?

One could find passages of both mercy and violence in most scriptures; just as you can find both violent and peaceful devotees in all religions.

The burning of the Quran is only an F you to muslims, hiding behind the pretense of political activism. The fact that we can openly entertain such a question without feeling dissonant reflects that islamaphobia has become our conventionally accepted response to the problem of terrorism in Islam. Islamophobia is not going to resolve that problem. If anything, it'll exasperate and perpetuate it. Jewish Holocaust survivors should hate Nazis, even if that meant the majority of early 20th C Germans, but not all Germanic people, most of them engaged in a war against the Nazis.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause.

Nice to cross paths again. It's an interesting topic with a variety of insights.

So to attempt to say that there is no difference between man and nature, or that human acts are simply natural acts, is really an attempt to dodge or hide from the reality of the human condition. — Wayfarer

I agree with you that they are different, except that you are ignoring the possibility of a hybrid, or a qualified "nature-ism."

To assume for illustration only that we accept the biblical story as helpful and refer to your re-reference to the myth of Eden, the so called fall represents the way/thing which takes humankind away from nature (compare to the cave). This movement to knowledge, is not a movement to an equal reality as the one God made, but an error. Hence, the "fall'. The choice made by Adam/Eve does not effectively eliminate or change so called God's creation. But rather, it is an error launching uniquely humans into a fall from their "God given" natures: nature. Their nature remains the same, Nature. Reality does not change, rather, human constructions of knowledge to displace life are just not reality, or, are 'false.'

Again, I don't purport to judge them ethically or functionally; but as far as ultimate Truth or Reality, we are nature. And as Nature, there is no judgement. It just is. And our make-up and clothes, that is the realm of judgement, where we are both transgressor and judge; and though useful, that realm is ultimately false. Those last words, particularly, (it.e., realm and false) to be understood loosely and broadly.

Now, respectfully, I will anticipate your reply might be directed at some literal interpretation of this suggestion, or a statement as to its failure to comply with a contemporaneous, scholarly, or biblical interpretation, so I reiterate, the myth was used in the same spirit as you used it, in the same spirit as Platos cave, not to be construed strictly, but as a fluid illustration of matters of which expression and discourse already remove said matters from the capacity to accurately pinpoint the truth.

.

I don’t think the ancient Greeks had much grasp of palaeontology. — Wayfarer

If I might chime in. My general agreement with the picture of Plato's allegory referring to prehistoric humans isn't to say he meant "cavemen." It's to say--whether wittingly or un--Plato was addressing an intuition he had (I speculate, from Socrates) that humans approach things already and inevitably "clouded" by the concepts history has constructed. While Plato then took a turn towards more history with his idea that reason is the path back to Truth; both his allegory, and the fact that he was already disciple of Socrates, suggests that his intuition was that the Truth lies in being (human-) unfettered by history, and hence, the 'animal' in its natural state of being.

Again, I don't dismiss history, nor reason. I'm not saying Plato's intuition was a return to nature. Just that the shadow paintings--constructions and projections--are not the locus of Truth, no matter how appealing or functional.

The truth is not knowing, but being. And what is being without knowing? Human [as] Nature.

ou know what Plato's cave allegory might be really talking about, at the end of the day? Maybe it's talking about the time, before the Paleolithic (before cavemen) when men and women were not human. — Arcane Sandwich

or, before they were historical humans.

I, too, see it that way.

To say we’re ’ultimately nature’ is to try to return to that state of primordial purity. And that’s what is a fantasy. The reality of the human condition is far from that. — Wayfarer

Paradoxically, I agree. To say we're ultimately nature is an idealization.

And I fully agree that the human condition is far from that.

But I still believe the reality is we are simply nature, and all else is the plasticization of nature, or as you noted, [not petroleum but] dead dinosaurs.