But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? — Patterner

You do go through a choice-making process, don't you? — Relativist

You do go through a "process" yes. But (while I'm not saying you did so deliberately) note how your wording even implies ultimate passivity. This is only partly "tongue in cheek," but, "choose" to go through the process of holding your breath forever and see how much freedom you have. "Yes, but breathing is an organic process governed by laws." Well, so too for our minds, just as so too for Patterner's ball in the air. For breathing and gravity we currently settle at the lack of freedom. For Mind we refuse too. The reasons are so obvious, I needn't elaborate.

:up:

We may make a “snap judgment”, be unconscious of our reasons ( — Antony Nickles

I'm suggesting (and in no way forcefully, presenting for commentary) that "unconscious of our reasons" is only obvious to us at the (may I call it?) Pavlovian "level" of the brain triggering responses. Im suggesting (and this is highly simplified To paraphrase Huineng, if I were to tell you the whole story it would take a lifetime) all organic behaviour operates in that Pavlovian way, from hearts beating, to designing the Eiffel tower; and that uniquely for humans, that process has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation (iwd). But each step in those processes (iwd) if traced, involves the autonomous movement of "code" (not code; simplified) leading ultimately to what receives signifiers like choice attached to them. It is, like our blood flowing, not chaotic nor random, but a beautifully ordered system. Thinking we have free will emerges out of same. Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you.

But the outcome is ours; we are responsible for its failings and reasons — Antony Nickles

And I both respect that, the profundity of it, and its truth, but only for that "system" which has been autonomously constructed over time and which we rightly look at as "us". That's why I'm also suggesting, that while from the perspective of the "products" of those autonomous process (as in from "our" perspective) the organism is real; from the organism's perspective (hypothetical; it has no "perspective" when used as "opinion") the products are Fictional; they come and go; they are empty "code" etc etc. But that is where the human organism lives its life; not in the natural Pavlovian reactions to nature; in the Fictional world we have constructed (and the "we" constructed thereby). I am definitely not judging it "bad" nor nihilistically justifying ignoring our responsibility in that world. Quite the opposite. We made our beds, or, rather, our beds are made...I'm just pointing out what I think the mind is, and why trusting it is not the question. The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? But every "choice" you make, even if you chose to employ that question, was only because it was triggered by something (like, and its much more of a microscopic analysis than I'm depicting, but, like you reading that question triggered you to employ it--for example).

Thus “trusting your mind” turns our duty into an intellectual problem, such as: whether the outcomes are right or wrong, real or illusion, rational or emotional, etc. So if we can solve this manufactured problem—e.g., an outcome could be “known” to be right—then it would not be my judgment — Antony Nickles

I apologize. I'm overcomplicating what I now realize your intent might have been. Yes I agree--within this "system of code" Im stubbornly fixating on--we have duties, and the analysis of right and wrong, to put it simply, is a commendable process, and at the end of it, whether or not you feel this way, you have trusted your mind. Now, if minutes later you are doubting, you are again trusting your mind. But even if you doubted, that process will take place and you will trust it (as a doubt), and any subsequent process, all of them, your mind weighing code and triggering feeling/action, all based on prior triggering, and so on.

Now, it unfolds, and I fear, we are not yet equipped to settle there. Alas, at risk to (not of) being taken seriously, What is the nature of the True [and not the so called] self?
The aware-ing of the Universe. Not the dance it projects out of atoms and energy manifesting as "your" body. Not the dance it projects out of signifiers and flesh manifesting as "your" mind. And certainly not the character in that dance manifesting as an "I". Those are projections of what you really are,. What really is, is (just the) aware-ing.

When "I", Enoah die, I don't die. I was never born. I (only always just) am (aware-ing the dance of the universe; and not, as commonly mis-conceived, "through" Enoah. That is "Enoah’s" problem, not Enoah’s truth. Who's Enoah think Enoah’s kidding? Enoah’s not aware-ing anything. Enoah’s part of the projected dance.)

The true nature of the self; It is in Being, just not human being; it's in (Universal) Being.

Interesting thing is, I'm pretty sure serious so called eastern philosophy have arrived at that construction (e.g. Thathagata/Nirguna Brahman) centuries ago. I'm not sure panpsychism does their interpretations justice; again, I do not know panpsychism.

I am not myself (purporting/pretending to be) "professing" Buddhism or Vedanta, and only incidentally note the parallels--but lest one be inclined to reject an idea simply because of its parallels to what some may naively call mysticism, there are parallels (to the view depicted here regarding mind body and being) in western philosophy from Socrates and Plato to Kant, Hegel, Husserl, and so on. Parallels are inevitable. We write nothing, we think of nothing on our own.

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you?
— Patterner

I've had an afterthought (assuming I've even made my (previous) thought clear enough to follow).

I had left it vague, though a hunch had been brewing, just too early to surface when I said:

And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me". — ENOAH

Now add:

Or. … have I not gone far enough? I hypothesize body is real. But is that, though real to Mind, ultimately also a projection of atoms and energy? Ultimately only that aware-ing is real.

When you die, you are what you always already are, aware-ing being; not an aware-ing Being.

And yes, smells like panpsychism(?). I have not studied that, albeit it has crossed my path. If it is, so be it. I am not favorable to labels when exploring the less established regions of (I guess any discipline) say, philosophy (the latter too, a label which admittedly makes me nervous because it reasonably implies adherence to a certain process which even this very statement may have violated; though I think not).

Hah! Read my seemingly simultaneous reply to you in Captain Homicide confirming just as you said above.

then you see a different picture when the puzzle is assembled. — Patterner

Nice. True

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you? — Patterner

Hah, again. The answer might offend some very reasonable sensibilities in this forum. And I mean no disrespect because the answer seems (and I assure you with no pretense nor comedy that I believe it does not) to leave the realm of philosophy and enter, at best "mysticism," honestly whatever that is (I wont demean it--its not "mine" with an at worst).

But for what it's worth and briefly, yes and know.

Yes, it would bother "me" because the story is ending, the attachments will fade for those still sharing my narrative, they'll suffer. "I" will end "my" role in "my" becomings in History. But no, because my sentences will continue to be used in building history, if only for the tiny but equally valuable locus of x people around me.

No it would not bother "me" reflecting upon the real me whatever that ultimately is--my dying body--because "I" have the humbling privilege of "knowing" (believing) that my body does not hold any opinion (including by the way my brain). My body is driven to live and my body dies. And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me".

For you, does what I view as the Self have any value? — Patterner

Yes, as I said in the CaptHom thread, you have an understanding which allows you to pose questions which are relatively more free from the fetters of "xyz"
E.g. below. I completely understand that characterization, and I suspect you might even be going beyond simple functionalism(?)

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

right on. And let me clarify, I wasn't suggesting you were ever adversarial. Far from it. Like I said, I value your ideas, questions and how you word them. Of course there are moments we can't meet. But honestly those I value the most.

Hypothetical talks are not philosophy, and they belong to mysticism or esotericism. Philosophical discussions are based on logic, reasoning, facts and the critical investigation on the facts, premises and conclusions in the issues for the verified truths. — Corvus

Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination.

Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table.

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that. — Patterner

I realize we don't seem to see eye to eye, and that my thinking may go beyond what seems reasonable. But if you're so incl8ned, I value your input (if not, truly, I get it).

With respect to your statement above, consider the next phrase "...unless "choice" is our "role" participation in the deterministic system. In other words, faced with the dilemma "rescue that cat," or "dont" you're right. The one who rescues has done so in reaction to every "cause" they have also reacted to leading to that final election to rescue. (And same mutatis mutandis for "dont"). The "choice" step was necessary, just as every reaction to every prior cause leading to that last choice were necessary. In other words we are "agents" acting agents, but our agency does not represent ourselves the subject agent. It represents the system. We want our freedom of choice to give ego super power. But really, not only are we agents for the system, but morally are its fiduciaries.

People still have to do things for things to happen. — Captain Homicide

May I offer some questions which I'm currently convinced are at the root of this. In order to avoid longwindedness, I must be simplistic. Note that the questions could be posed with all their complex layers; best for another time and place.

First, in the scenario where there is freedom, you naturally say people" but who/what is the "entity" (if even) that "enjoys"/has this so called freedom/choice? Is it as simple as the Subject, "I" of what we conventionally think of as (self)consciousness of people?

Another one is, it is possible, is it not, to have neither freedom (in the sense of a being which can, by its capacity to elect "the next movement", determine the outcome, even if in defiance of cause); nor predeterminsm/predestiny (as in the effects have all been predetermined and thus causes are just steps along the way), in for example, a determinism which operates within a closed system of interdependant causes and effects? In that case, chaos and randomness are also (at least) reduced, but so is determinism, in that the (final)* effect might have been anything given causes are incessantly bouncing off one another leading to effects. Or is what I described simply determinism? (I don't think so). Note, there is neither real free choice since that too is an effect from a cause, and in time, a cause. But there is also no being, no design, no purpose necessarily determining a necessary outcome. There are virtually endless possible outcomes. And it is not chaos since it happens in a closed system of evolved "rules" "mechanics" and "dynamics."
*in this scenario there are no final effects, each effect is a cause (even if, "in waiting").

Lastly, if the scenario above could possibly be imagined to be so, would it not be possible that so called freedom is an effect upon that mechanism, the Subject, "I"
and its having evolved within this hypothetical closed system to be "placed" in each "moment" through time, (time, the "movement" of the system) as the mechanism behind the body's feelings or activity? Hence, if this body texting this message stops, it is not that the body exercised "freedom". Though the body seems to have exercised choice, it is only because the moment manifests in the system (is projected into the world) as, "I'm going to stop typing and press, post comment now"

you imply that:

1 – You are in a better position to say what the teachings of Jesus than others.
2 – That Jesus' teachings boils down to "uuuuh turn the other cheek". — Lionino

Ok, you may have reasonably inferred; I neither think 1 and 2, nor did I intend to imply I did.

If you are against central dogmas you are against what Jesus said hence not Christian. You are against central Buddhist dogmas? Not a Buddhist. — Lionino

Ok. Yes. Sorry. That point, I understand and agree.

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

Maybe we already work it out in the best way possible, and today, I grumble about the seeming confusion in the world over the difference, tomorrow I might celebrate.

Since we have two conventional Signifiers, we have clearly evolved the mechanism to differentiate. It is how these Signifiers operate in minds and any given mind which raises your problem. But it is, I submit, a built-in/evolved process which always rests on what is the most functional/fitting outcome in a given situation; we cannot easily change universally but through a very slow historical transformation
1. In clear cases the difference is readily settled upon by most because it is blatantly functional. Think of obvious eg of opinions/facts. Vanilla is better than chocolate/red light means stop. Each of opinion/fact results in the fitting, why argue?
2. In middle cases the Dialectic and the settlement on either side is patent and gives the impression of choice, but, in the end what is functional "wins" projection into the world. If it is most fitting to agree that the evidence shows a thing is fact, it is fact, and vice versa. That's where you get the battle between "that's a difference of opinion" vs "no its not look it up".
3. I very controversial cases, where it is not obvious at all, the Dialectic and settlement on whether a thing is fact or fiction is not as conventionally determined but rather very locally determined by what is most fitting locally. E.g. to a Westerner or Israeli it might be a fact that the Oct 7 Hamas attack started the war. To a middle easterner it might be my opinion. I might even get back lash for this e.g., people saying that it is an obvious fact. But I submit, though sensitively, those protestations are not recognizing the functional turn necessary to settle at that conclusion. And ultimately only that renders the statement a fact for that locus. It doesn't matter the arguments. In another locus, it will always be viewed as opinion, because of the function of those words for that other locus. Not because of anything real

If I may, I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if. . ., not you personally. But you might know that and we're joking

So my conclusion is not “belief”, nor “a belief”—I am convinced. I do not have faith in my judgment; I have faith in you. I have now given you my trust; I treat you as genuine. — Antony Nickles

Understood. In fairness to you, I likely jumped on my own interpretation of the word because the latter "fit." Fair clarification.

Ok, and I can't remember the pith of our most recent exchange. But with respect to trusting your own mind, the clarification doesn't alter my current thinking. I wonder if
a "deconstruct" as the following might better illustrate my current belief (that their is no Mind and no Trusting; that your mind moves autonomously as signifier chains/clusters/structures triggering feelings, in turn triggering more chains, ultimately triggering the feeling/action we call belief). Tracing backwards and extremely simplified:

1. You treat me as genuine. Because
2. You [r mind] have given [the object] me your trust. Because
3. A Signifier having surfaced (projected into the "world") to "signify"/trigger settle upon (believe) "trustworthy" (to be "true") Because
4. Trustworthy fits best Because
5. Following a dialectical process (in this case speedy but not lightning speed) structured by the autonomously driven projections of signifiers competing near the surface for projection into the world, a competing process structured over time by a conditioning response process involving the Organic feelings drives and actions to arrive at the most functional response. Because
6. Mind emerged that autonomous process over History and for each individual as having been input and processed through individual time. (And all of the signifiers input onto you, that individual, over time, aligned to trigger trust in the end)

The point being, the end result. Trusting me, though not predetermined, was not a choice made by an individual being, but rather one superimposed upon an individual being by a process both embodied and external, but not structured by atoms or cells, rather structured by the empty code triggering reconditioned responses. I.e. the experience is (in the) emptiness and not the being. The being feels intricately varying degrees of feeling, leading to given actions, but the experience is the Fictional story written in signifiers and believed as a final step in that process.

I would say that judging whether someone is earnest does take “deliberation”. — Antony Nickles

Me too. But as you can see above, for me "deliberation" is autonomous and so "trusting" your mind is almost absurd, "you" are your mind and have no choice. The question arises because we falsely believe there is an " I " centrally deliberating, when " I " is just that mechanism which evolved to connect that process with its organic host, the "real" you displaced and held captive by the process.

So then what is “trusting your own mind”? If it is “all just movements of [our] mind” then we are left with the fact Benj96 started with: “Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason.” Which is to say, how can we trust our self? — Antony Nickles

And that's where we're funny. How can we trust our hearts to beat? It is the process we trust. Whether we trust it or not is built in. Trust me. We trust it. We have no choice. We just think we do. Even thinking we do is a part of that process. A glitch which evolved, like the Subject, as fit for purpose. Mind would have collapsed early in its evolution if we weren't fooled by it.

And logic cannot help us figure out the truth because logic is part of the process. Another evolved mechanism which promoted Mind's prosperity. So the logic of, if we can't trust our minds we can be rash and stupid cannot address the truth of the process because it seem so much like we indeed can [/b]choose[/b] to be rash
But even choosing to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic. Someone inside this conversation will be equipped with the signifiers from history to so choose. Someone outside may never so choose because they were not input with this trigger (way oversimplified).

Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is, do you want to live in a fair society? — Vera Mont

Well put.

Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy

The part I grapple with is, as I am almost forced by "honesty" to answer no, why is there a nagging sensation "telling" me that is wrong? And if that same nagging is generally universal, even for those who might suppress it with reasoning or pride, why does our honesty compel us to answer no? There are competing interests within an individual, I know. But why in this case do we readily choose no, while simultaneously lingering in yes?

. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. — Patterner

And (I'll stop after this) while what follows is self serving and convenient, it is impossible to argue for or against. 1. Contra-pro: The hypothesis admits that itself is a construction projected but not ever really there. 2. Contra-Contra: it, the hypothesis, would ask you, why you (I.e. we) are insisting on reality being consistent with our Natures, when it already is, to wit, the hypothesis about being; and besides, you're really referring to our constructions and projections when you say our Natures, because the nanosecond that you represent, you are no longer there, but trapped on the road of becoming.

And to tie in to this thread, the "self" the OP had in mind was the constructions and projections, it's true nature being empty, or no nature. The "True" "Self" if there is one (for e.g. if the brain isn't stable) is not an object knowable. It is accessed in being that "self".

An afterthought, and I can predict this might make no difference to you. The e.g. of the rescue might fit with respect to praise or blame post facto, but it is not a good enough.g. to illustrate that the projector provoked the rescue. In rare cases, like rescuing a child, it may just be the human animal being which drove the sudden reaction to rescue. Again, I'll leave it there.

I don't know if I'm correctly understanding your position. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. — Patterner

I'm sorry (possibly, "once again"). Of course you're "not correctly understanding." Because I'm not providing all the details. 1. I do not necessarily fully "comprehend" them in a form coherent enough to provoke understanding, 2. I did not think so until recently, but "my position," (only an acceptable label for the sake of discourse) might "appear" (too) unconventional (for Western(?) listeners), or that might be "me" protecting "myself" and we ought to skip to 3, 3. I might be hastily texting and assuming it's as clear on screen as it is in "head."

I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. Every cell in my body, — Patterner

You can stop right there. That body is the real experience-ing. It's that the "I" and all of the related Narratives is a projection of those Signifiers structuring the Narrative. It's that "I" which we take to be the central agent in the Narrative. But it is just a mechanism satisfying the evolved efficiency of the movement of those projections through Time. These movements are interdependent, not just upon the signifiers moving seemingly "within," an embodied "projector" or Mind, but also upon all signifiers moving through all human minds in History (those signifiers moving closest to an individual locus, having a greater contribution to its projections). Hence when your real body, which we mistake for the name Patterner and their pronouns, rescues a baby, we think, great job, Patterner. But it was the projections constructed by all of us which intersected ultimately triggering its host body (those cells) to act. We are all praiseworthy. Meanwhile those cells "find their reality," or "truth" (those cells really find nothing, not even searching) not in the projections which are constructed out of signifiers and their automous interactions, not in their hollow comings and goings, not in the becoming which is only constructed for meaninf and was never really there; but in the "breathing" the "running" the "diving" the "swimming" the "carrying" and the drive related to bonding with another human, the feelings promoting and conditioning such bodily movements (but not the emotions which are constructed and projected)in the present being which is never constructed in time for meaning, but always only there. Note that much would require further explanation, but I will only elaborate if you so wish.

My body is not not my body because it is not made up of the same particles at all points throughout my life. It is my body, and has been for 60 years. — Patterner

I'm not sure if you're presenting immediately preceding to say the Body is also becoming, or to say it is always being. If it's the former, that is an excellent point. In that case, I cannot tell you what, if anything, in the "individual" is being. But I do believe its not in the projecting, that it is not mind and its fleeting projections. I believe the only way to access being is by being. In our e.g. of Patterner rescuing the drowning child, their true being is in the items I described above, and not in the meanin ascribed. So, to access true being, take the body's aware-ing focus off the constructions and projections, and on the feelings and actions.

I will add, regarding my view, since you bring up for me the terms orthodoxy and heresy, you do acknowledge Jesus was crucified for stepping outside the line. I.e., he was a heretic. And perhaps my following point is intended more for poetic value, and not literally, but feel free. For me, perhaps that is the essence of Jesus (now, Christologically speaking) that it turns out, God, go figure, is a heretic. No offense. Believe me. Discern the exact antithesis of offense, and that's how I meant that.

You don't like Jesus' teachings, you saw things you personally agreed with and suddenly that is what you think Jesus preached. — Lionino

Not factually correct, far from it, but that's not your fault. You don't know me from Adam. You are allowing your prejudices to cloud your naturally open mind. And you're inadvertently demonstrating the point which i am apparentky failing to communicate to you. But I won't use my particular encounter with Christianity as a "weapon" nor "sheild" (don't worry, I know we're not fighting). Instead, I'll reiterate that one can have a completely valid position on Jesus without it sticking neatly inside the party line. This sounds like a defence of the Reformation, but much of Protestant Christianity has simply replaced one Dogma with another. Jesus of N., I submit, if he was anything was, a prophet against Dogma. Do you require textual evidence? I warn you I'm impatient and lazy, so im hoping you already know that. You present yourself as knowing these things. Don't raise arguments tgat Jesus was a passover keeping adherent of Judaism and loved his Torah as evidence to the contrary.

If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine — Lionino

Ok, I can't tell if you're being facetious. If you're not. Full respect friend. But obviously we can end our discourse there. For you, clearly Jesus=Orthodoxy. For me it does not. I am not being facetious when I say, I love you for your orthodoxy. I have no inclination to persuade you otherwise. And it is likely I am going to willfully blind myself to anything I might learn from you since, I am already familiar with orthodoxy and you are, by your very responses, telling me there is only that.

Either be apostate or follow dogma. The alternative is heresy, which is foolishness. — Lionino

And I cannot disagree more, my only concern now is tgat my heresy hasn't offended you.

Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost. — Lionino

And you realize there were quasi political motivations behind rejecting various apocryphal, like Thomas for its gnostic flavor, and notwithstanding its historical status possibly being on par with Mark? And so on. So I suppose, and I am compelled to reiterate that I am not being rhetorical, you believe the Holy Spirit guided them in that selection? If so, again, praise you and praise God. But that simply isn't my angle. And I feel it is better not to further explain to you, now that I know your angle. It would be tantamount to interfering in your marriage (look, I get tgat was a poor analogy, it's the feeling for me that I'm illustrating). I have no desire to interfere with your adherence to Dogma if Dogma is presumably what we commonly call spiritual for you.

It is like talking about the story of Harry Potter and referring to fanfictions online instead of the writings of JK Rowling. — Lionino

I just noted that. Ok. I'm relieved. Now I understand your approach to this. Ibrespect it. But I respectfully disagree. Even for Rowling, a fan might enrich her text far beyond its original place in History. Just as (and I don't necessarily believe this) Elvis Presley enhanced "Its alright mama"

Re-interpretations and reconstructions is how History moves. It's happening right here right now. Whether we see that or not. You might be confusing disliking my so called hippie construction with disliking reconstructions period. The first, I applaud you for. How then am I expected to learn? Tge latter, hate to break it to you friend, you have no control over.

No, because the source is given by it. — Lionino

Fair enough. Then, the argument that the Church "gave" us the canonical Bible, etc. If I lived in Plato's time, born after the death of Socrates, and stood up in the Academy and disagreed with Plato's rendition of the trial, I'd be a fool. Agreed. But if the Academy somehow lived on today, as a student in Athens today, I might offer my interpretation of the trial, a radical interpretation, like Plto depicts Socrates choice to die as heroic, I think it was a tragic capitulation to the dualism Plato promoted, the Ideal (Justice) trumps the Real (the living body); and moreover I think Plato deliberately constructed it that way. I don't think the Academy would insist I stick to the literal interpretation of Platos dialogues. Do you? Or have I corrupted the analogy again. Are you able to see tge point regardless? Or, honestly, is there no point. I am sincerely stuck in my thinking, if you can free me, I am willing, please do.

That is a lot of text for a very simple question. Again, where else do you get the teachings of Jesus from, besides the Bible? — Lionino

Hah. True. Sorry. Directly above too, no doubt. Where else? Yes, other primary sources--but you know this. Desert Fathers, church councils, theologians etc. All arguably teachings of the church. (I wont complicate this further by adding, from Vedanta, or JD Salinger, Bob Dylan, for e.g.) But even if get my teachings of Jesus from church generated/ordained sources, either I (mis)took your (mild) "objection" to mean there is no validity in exploring those teachings and diverging therefrom, or that's exactly what you're saying, and I disagree.

That I have learned unconventional things from the teachings of Jesus, things that seemingly wander far off of the path I may have started with my catechism, does not by itself render those teachings invalid in a forum outside of catchechism or mass. Or, maybe, they even simply re-present them, their true essence, their pith and substance, in an alternate way.

I do try to carry out "love your enemy" but I also keep in mind "do not throw your pearls to the pigs" -- do not give one's best to one who is undeserving. Jesus's teachings can leave one ripe for exploitation, but Jesus knows this so he tells his disciples “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." Yet at least some of Jesus's followers do carry swords. — BitconnectCarlos

Very true. Big confession that, while I pretend to myself not to, I am selective in
my constructed Jesus.

In any case, the world is complex and different dispositions are suitable for different circumstances. — BitconnectCarlos

That simple statement expresses something way up there in the "hierarchy of
[constructing] truths."

His teachings often beckon to an ideal -- very useful to know and keep in mind, but one ought to be "wise as a serpent" when it comes to implementation. — BitconnectCarlos

Another user, Count Timothy von Icarus, mentioned this idea of metanoia i.e. self transformation through the gospels through the internalization of these teachings and this, for me, is close to what I have in mind when I talk about Christianity, as an outsider. — BitconnectCarlos

I respect that so much! No different than a Chritian or Jewish person earnestly seeking Satori (while presumably thousands of so called "native" adherents to zen light candles and think they are enlightened).

It is more like Socrates' teachings are dictated by Plato and Xenophon — Lionino

Sure. Why? Because Oxford is more remote from the source than the Church is from its? Perhaps, and I should be more thoughtfully precise, but I don't think it negates the point to the extent you might. That is, that of course there are secondary sources, and, as you point out, beyond. But their existence, while not to be devalued, while admittedly useful, do not render the primary source invalid to those who are not (simply) adopting the "views" of the secondary source (not intended to demean).

Ok, let's go there, where else would you get the teachings of Jesus from? — Lionino

I am prejudging your question to have a hidden polemic (against, those who claim the bible is the only source, perhaps? Or perhaps you're sitting on, "the church is the source of the bible" with an anticipated explanation about the canonization process, etc. Or that "the bible is not the only primary source.") Otherwise, why the question with an obvious answer. Anyway if it helps. I already assume though there are reasonable doubts, the history is what it is conventionally supposed to be; and, I assume so only for the purpose of discourse. Or, if not, then I am willing to suspend the concept of a historical Jesus and proceed with the question between the lines, "to understand the mythological (or the character) Jesus, is there any validity in drawing my own pictures and sharing them, or ought I restrict them to the pictures of tge church?

And by the way, if it is the latter, then I say, notwithstanding the degrees of removal, the Oxford analogy applies. And I'll go a step further and suggest, by analogy, it is similarly applicable to the way some view philosophy. Loosely put, if one expresses a novel philosophical proposition not included in the "teachings" of "Oxford," or not obviously traceable thereto, it is outright rejected.

There are places for insistence where orthodoxy is a reasonable imperative. Maybe with regard to strictly academically philosophical points, this forum is probably such a place. Maybe this is such a place of orthodoxy in fact for any hint of philosophy (in which case I ought to be reprimanded, if not suspended). But I don't think this to be a forum where one can, with a straight face, insist upon religious orthodoxy. But again, I could be totally misunderstanding.

Because of the way earnestness works — Antony Nickles

Sorry if I am belabouring. Note, we "know" the word acts autonomously. It is latent in your sentence above. "Earnestness" the word is not (as though) magically imbued with some Platonic ideal of Earnestness. Earnestness, the word is Earnestness. Whatever effect it has when it surfaces, is its only "purpose," otherwise it's empty and fleeting and has no reality.

the other judges — Antony Nickles

Ok, sure. I used "interpret" carelessly.

So it is a rational determination, but towards instilling faith and trust — Antony Nickles

Ok, I follow that. I say that "rational determjnation" though seemingly not, is an autonomous dialectic. And the "instilling faith," if achieved, is the (temporary and temporal) settlement of that dialectic, commonly called belief and confused for not being knowledge.

The act or word does not have an “air” of earnestness (it is not imbued in them); — Antony Nickles

Not an "air" as if "magical". The word has an evolved (in both each individual and History) function of triggering the movements/arrangements of other words which eventually trigger conditioned Feelings which eventually trigger actions
(more mental/or physical) .

All of this process seems to contain
"intent" "deliberation" a "self". Hence these discussions etc. But there is no "trusting your own mind" directed by that "you". It is all just the movements of that mind

The others perhaps. This one, I doubt it. — Lionino

That statement, I won't touch. I sense it was hollow and not really intended for discourse.

Jesus wasn't a hippy. — Lionino

I'm unsure what you mean. Obviously not.

The teachings of Jesus are preached by the true Churches — Lionino

And personally transcending convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family, is not a teaching? What, then, is the call to Holiness? The call to be like Christ?

But, with respect, far more importantly, on what authority do you claim that the teachings of Jesus are exclusive to the true Churches? [maybe I misunderstood] . And I don't mean that in the "protestant" sense, as in there isn't a "true" church. I mean it in the same way as if you were saying Plato’s teachings are dictated by Oxford University. Unless I was Russian Orthodox, for e.g., what the Russian Orthodox church teaches may have no bearing whatsoever on my understanding of Jesus. Why wouldn't that be legitimate?

I'm not looking for an argument. I do not have any emotional or sentimental basis for my questions. I'm just surprised at your statements. Maybe you were being ironic?

I think our choices arise out of the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and we are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy. — Truth Seeker

Which path led you to this conclusion? — Truth Seeker

First, I assume the "we" used refers to each of us as individuals. "We" = "I"
Very briefly, I think the reason "we" are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy, is there is no central being "I" upon which to attach praise or blame. And further, no individual one. I am currently exploring what "I" say or do as ultimately the result, not strictly of the interaction of genes etc. referred to by you, though they play am obvious role. Rather, I am looking at each decision, feeling, action (speech or deed) as a point of intersection of all of the "code" input from "history," and interacting in a sort of dialectic ultimately trigger such reaction at that precise given locus in History.

If I "choose" to rescue a drowning child, all of the Signifiers input into the embodied system of which "I" stand-in as signifier of that body worked through the Dialectic in that moment which resulted in the most fitting reaction being to trigger the Body to such reaction.

If I "choose" to drown a child, the same, mutatis mutandis.

Thus "we" are all ultimately writing History while simultaneously writing each story within the circle of our locus.

And I did not mean to suggest that you were “wrong”, only to point out something overlooked generally in these cases. — Antony Nickles

Yes, I understood you that way. My "I can't disagree," was not an expression of regret nor capitulation, more celebratory.

to put ourselves in the other’s shoes intellectually, to consider every expression as possible of more intelligibility than on its face, or first glance. — Antony Nickles

Yes. If only, right? Because out of that kind of marriage there will be the healthiest, least incestuous, offspring.

If we are able to read others and judge them by what they say (as language implies expectations, consequences, connotations, criteria for judgment), we can also, as it were, put better words in others’ mouths, make explicit those implications for them. — Antony Nickles

If one wishes to grow (that is, as in the action of growing (some)thing; not as in the selfish "act" of growing oneself) then how else

The “essence of your thought” can be pictured as a special object that you have — Antony Nickles

Oh. Wow. Right! My attachment. Ok. Thank you. I'm going to read on, but say no more.

To imagine — Antony Nickles

Yes. Yes. You've awakened me. (I know this may read one way.) Let me assure you, I'm being serious. The thing is, I still hold to the essence etc etc. But, just as you did, a few words back about my attachment, you've reminded me that, after all, my essence, too, is imagined. As Chet Hawkins would say, I'm going to read on.

earnestness is not imbued into what we say, it is demonstrated; as you say, it is “shown”, by not “abandoning”. — Antony Nickles

Ok, then is it, not in the speaker, but the receiver? The receiver interprets the committed "action" as earnest? Hence, speaker's intention is irrelevant?

Maybe that's not what you mean, or maybe, if it is, you're "right".

Where I'm currently settled is that (notwithstanding my previous "flippancy") "earnestness" is neither in the speaker (intent) nor in the receiver (interpretation) and (perhaps frustratingly to our conventional logic) it's in both. Why? Because it is imbued in the "word." But , reluctance to use up space, I'll move on. If there is interest in explanation, it will manifest autonomously as do "earnestness" and all other representations surfacing from time to time and structuring these experiences (such as, the cause and effect of "good words," whether it is in "earnestness" or not, etc.).

that you are expressed by what you say; — Antony Nickles

Yes, completely. The self-same "you", a device used to carry expressions into the Narrative. And I agree with you: you are (from your current angle, manifesting to others as) what you say. I just arrived there differently you are (from my current angle) what you say. Hence, to answer the OP, should we really ever judge whether one is talking crap or (within the rules of a strict system) "knows" what they're talking about? Isn't the safest thing to do ( outside of ignoring hate speech, trolling or clowning, for strictly functional purposes (I'm not denying that there are corresponding moral reasons, i just lump them together)) to listen to what anyone says, and then judge it as to its fitness for belief based upon the criteria applicable to the given locus; I.e., if logic is the Host, it better meet logic. If it's Art, creativity is the criteria, and so on.

The thing is, for a Philosophy Forum, I sense there are schools of thought on what the parameters are. I think that's what was likely getting at, wittingly, or not.

I take this as a plea for leniency from criticism, as, per the analogy, before I even take the field. — Antony Nickles

My strictly "philosophical" reasoning is my belief that great discoveries can arise out of a free as possible flow of ideas in forums like these. I'm very excited to be a witness to this. I hope I don't sound pretentious when I say it reminds me of the Salons of the French Enlightenment.

If I were to psychoanalyse my mind, the last representations (thoughts) concerning that plea for leniency, the ones which finally tipped the scale, triggering that plea to "leave my mind," and enter the world upon these pages, was that I have noted with discomfort sometimes at how frustration emerges like a virus until some seemingly decent posts become infected.

But maybe if I dig deeper, what you observed is true. But my surface thinks the contrary, I thirst for criticism. My apologetic tone relates more to my gratitude. Being a new immigrant to this forum, already enriched by its great
people, it's important to me not to carelessly frustrate anyone.

I get the sense that Christians from birth don't find Jesus polarizing — BitconnectCarlos

I think Christendom (to use Kierkegaard's furious label) has made it very difficult for those born into it to properly relate to that (whoever he was) authentic Jewish sage, Jesus of Nazareth.

I grew up "Catholic," and, though it wasn't necessarily a "bad" experience, for me it was the hassle of rituals and the hypocrisy of self righteousness and exclusivity.

I often think we in the west idealize Buddhists or Jains, for e.g., and assume, because of the doctrine of ahimsa (noninjury) they must be peaceful people. Most likely, "they" are no different than you and me. Plato's cave doesn't discriminate.

If only Christians carried out Jesus's "teachings"; and I don't even mean social etc. If they sought, personally, to transcend convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family," oh, what a world this would be.

I think non-Christian probably stand a much better chance at understanding Jesus, frankly. I congratulate you on your openess and wish you good fortune in your academic pursuit of the Hebrew Bible (A fascinating topic. I love the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ecclesiates, Job, Hosea--for their expressions of the impossible human struggle to understand/relate to the "divine").

The irony is that we of course would have to judge whether they are being earnest (or not). — Antony Nickles

Hah! And so the thing writes on.

I would argue that there is a false bar for “earnest” or “profound” or “serious”. It sets up a picture that there is always an “intention” or meaning that we add or give our words — Antony Nickles

I can't disagree [assume my "position" above (if it even is a position; its melting under the heat lamp of your examination (gratitude)) was "self aware" that it was itself, alas, just another in an endless chain of speakers. But what? Am I not to speak? (smiling).]. In other words, save for the eloquence, I might have written the very statement*. But I may not have followed your path. And, I would "argue" there's a false bar for most, if not all words, not just earnest etc.

*(I already recocognize, to your surprise. Sorry. That's frustrating because it seems Im at best switching positions, but more seeming contradictory. And if thats the case, I suggest 1. I don't say this harshly, you're focused on the path. Obviously. That's a proper tool of philosophy. 2. I am discussing my thoughts approached at different "layers" and am poor at articulating that.)

If we should trust in ourselves, we absolutely do trust others (what they say and do) in the ordinary course of business. Thus why we only ask what they “intended” when something doesn’t go as we would expect (“Did you intend to insult the Queen in thanking her?”). — Antony Nickles

Ok. Yes. Completely agree. I was hasty, excited. I should pause. And the tragedy is, I still stand behind the "essence" of my thought. That's the crisis of being impatient as I am. Not with my thoughts mind you which simmer like a slow brew. My expression on this forum. Sorry. And thank you.

What we judge is the negative, when be betray our words. Lying, joking, being under compulsion, like making a promise and not keeping it (or deciding not to keep it ahead of time), these are what we judge. — Antony Nickles

Yes. Why disagree?

Imagining we are judging whether a speaker has some internal commitment (or not), is exactly what opens the door to allow them to say something like, “I didn’t mean it” — Antony Nickles

Ok. That too. It was dysfunctional, my statement. I agree! Nice. Wow. I was careless.

People should be taken at their words, so they can be held to them as well. — Antony Nickles

Beautiful. Listen. I'm not kidding. Funny thing is, I don't abandon my general thinking (and I tell you that not to hang on to some morsel of righteousness but to show you... hah! I did not plan this. I was just about to say, tovshow you my earnest.)

Anyway you're right, and that was well put. I appreciate it.

I guess in some circumstances it would necessitate internally reaffirming your love of an enemy and then picking up your rifle — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry! Ha! I guess that's kind of what you were getting at, nicely lumping it into the functional interface.

IMO a peculiar teaching. I guess in some circumstances it would necessitate internally reaffirming your love of an enemy and then picking up your rifle (or whatever weapon you have) and ending his life e.g. in a time of war where your enemy is out to kill you. I suppose this is the right way to think about it? — BitconnectCarlos

And I get that, and completely agree that "yours" is the reasonable, and functional, and therefore worthy to adopt as true.

But (I'll admit I'm "romanticizing" -- I'm not theologizing) I like to think of, even the historical Jesus, as an "awakened" individual. More like Siddhartha than (and please God, I mean no offense, say, Islam's prophet, pbuh, or Moses, or the Bab, Bahu'allah, for e.g.).

I like to think he wasn't even addressing mundane experience (or what I call, History). He was addressing the imprisonment of our truly human nature, as he saw it: sure, maybe sinful, given he was Jewish, but, redeemable. However, only if we get out of our "heads" I.e., attachment to our ego's, and in turn to the objects to which they attach, and so on.

He addressed this in a few ways (brief e.g.s, not quotes but paraphrasing), "it's not what you eat that defiles you but your speech," "sabbath was made for man not vice versa," "If you don't hate your family, you cannot be in God's domain," "faith the size of a seed can move mountains". "Love your enemies" was like that. On one level it is obviously "impossible" or at least as you correctly pointed out, dysfunctional, to love your enemies. But to be a real human, free from the attachments of our incessant chattering, don't think that all you have to do is pay your tithe, perform your rituals, etc. "Love your enemies," That's "what you have to do."

The human condition pertains to how we are on the earth and in the world we make. — isomorph

Sorry for the upper case. Ha. My keyboard does it and Im complacent. But I getvyour distinction. And you're probably right that I was squeezing you into the upper case. But still, I wonder, is it human "nature" and not a construction that "transcended" (Im not in favor of the word here) nature, hmm. I don't have the breadth of "knowledge" to judge. You are likely on the side of the majority.

It is only the microscopic "part" of History (Culture) which has unfolded for me in my tiny locus building my beliefs. And currently it is that culture, though "tethered" to nature (specifically human) for its infrastructure and feelings-leading-to-actions in Nature (upper case intended, commonly, "the world," but for me it is "other" than Culture, a manifestation of the fleeting dynamics of hollow representations in Mind), is nevertheless alienated from it.

How does that, if remotely true (I currently believe "true" is ultimately what is the most fitting to believe, but that's for a different "thread"(?)), tie in?

Because if C is not our nature, and hubris is obviously bad, attack it where it exists, in the malleable narratives our representatives write; not in our real natures where hubris has no meaning Because "meaning" has no meaning. Why is that functional? It's intuitive to me that if we are aware that our "problems" are "fictional" it would be easier to carry out your call, "curtail hubris". I think your "five" propositions are exactly that, a submission for the editing of our narrative, and in no way directed at our Natures. So great, I can edit the Narrative, that seems manageable.

Heraclitus fragment 61: “While cosmic wisdom understands all things are good and just, intelligence may find injustice here and justice somewhere else.” — isomorph

Nice!

The universe is impartial, while justice, injustice, purpose and meaning all have to do with humans living together successfully"

I agree!
— isomorph

I don’t tend to use words ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural” lightly because they are easily misunderstood as good and bad. — isomorph

An excruciatingly excellent point. I'm recklessly broad and general in these brief encounters. No excuse. I totally need to sharpen my skills to fit the box. In fairness to other. Apologies.

Thank you for the response! Your interests are definitely fascinating and have opened new pathways for me to explore. I appreciate that.

I try to be open minded, as you say, but I'm biased. Am I a "Christian"? Not necessarily. If you look at "Jesus" from a few angles, I don't know how you can deny "His" positive contributions to History. I'll be way more brief than the argument requires.

Historical Jesus of Nazareth: the courage and insight to say, to Judeans, in Occupied Judea, to love even your enemies...

Theological Christ: Wait. God is not there to condemn me? There to rescue me? God is love?

Social Jesus: care for the sick, the poor, the criminals.

But given this whole discussion, I feel compelled to say, there are similar positive contributions to History from all religions. As there has been "bad". Humans are good and bad. That's the Kazantzakis struggle, is it not?

I think so too. It is difficult not to agree with that. Interestingly, as I'm finding to be common, we may arrive at that belief following (at least slightly) divergent paths.

Have you read any Damasio? — Joshs

No. And the information you've provided seems very interesting. I appreciate it.

Supposedly, feeling is dumb, instinctive drive opposing itself to the ‘higher’ mental processes of rational cognition. — Joshs

The ‘affective turn’ argues that feeling is the organizing basis of cognition, not as source of mindless reinforcement , but as intextricably intertwined with cognition. — Joshs

Sorry, it's not clear to me. Are the two above, opposing (or at least divergent) views.

Which, if any, are you suggesting my current belief seems to "follow"? (Not asked, to turn around and 'aha' you. Asked so I can Guage how poorly I'm expressing my thoughts)
Which, if any, do you currently prefer?

Affect doesn’t determine the relevance and significance of those goals mindlessly, but by informing us about our relative success or failure in achieving our norm-driven goals. — Joshs

My hope would be that you address my question above with reference to my last post and not how I respond here. But the immediately preceding makes sense to me, and so far presents no problem with my "thinking" (not to deny my previous post may inadvertently appear to suggest other
wise)

Language skills allow us to add layers of tremendous complexity to social structures, giving the impression that human morality is qualitatively different than social cooperation in animals — Joshs

Ah! OK. Yah, I admit, that is compelling me to (at the very least) rethink. Thank you.

For you and many others on this forum, morality is linked to a world with objectively determinable features, even if our pursuit of those objective truths can only ever be asymptotically achieved. — Joshs

For me, the progress of human cognition is the continual remaking of a niche, which is the only world we will ever know. This progress doesn’t get us closer and closer to the way things ‘really are’, it just gets us fresher and farther from who we used to be — Joshs

Hmm. I'm saying this smiling, but had you not told me what my position is (and I accept I may have inadvertently expressed it thar way); had you simply presented me with those views, I would jump at the latter and reject the former (unless I'm not quite sure how you mean asymptotically achieved(?) Is that because of my reference to the "gap"? Did I reference gap? Maybe not)

Any way, your information is very helpful, and nicely articulated. Especially below, which again I seem to think fits in exactly with my views. Go figure.

And it also opens up increasingly intimate and peaceful ways of understanding each other that I believe will eventually allow us to jettison our blame-based moralisms. — Joshs

Thanks again!