The other sleight of hand is to believe Jesus wasn't at some point at least a student of the Pharisees, which he seemed to be, before being heavily influenced by John the Baptist and his Essenic form of Judaism. Mix that together, you get Jesus' most likely ideological underpinnings. — schopenhauer1

Fascinating. I have not kept up with New Testament scholarship for years. I can recall the pharasaic influence, plus some hint regarding the Essenes. I'm asking because it was still controversial last I looked. Is there a strong consensus that J the B was an Essene?

Also, I don't know if Scorces's The Last Temptation offends you (my guess from your text, is not, but if so, apologies). Though Fictional, I liked the depiction of the Essenes and J the B in that film.

Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry if I indicated that. I agree Romans is the source for a more complete recital of Paul's thinking, re Christ. Galatians, I raised as an epistle which could be misunderstood as antisemitic.

Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, very much so it could have been that. Galatians simply illustrates a "desperation" not to have the evangelical success go backwards. But for sure you are correct.

gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Good point. I agree.

80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, what you imply is also correct. By then it was Rome. Makes you even wonder if the Sanhedrin was even as active in opposing Jesus as the gospels suggest, or if that too was "exaggerated" for political/identity reasons.

I think Schopenhauer would answer that you cannot help but pursue it; it's not a choice. — schopenhauer1

I understand that, and, think he may be
right.

We are habituated for anticipation for what we must do next. — schopenhauer1

Interesting. Yah, makes sense. Explains the inability not to follow the chatter, even by [thinking you can/are] trying to employ only the Body in that [cessation of] pursuit.

Hmm. I don't want that to be the case. But c'est la vie.

It is always you situated in the world, not just the world. Believing that the world "is", and you are just there putting your spin on it, matters not, as you will never extricate the two. — schopenhauer1

A very important point I'll have to [re]consider.

I've been enriched. I know it sounds cheesy, but I can't but express my gratitude.

we’ve started AI in the wrong direction, conceiving it first as disembodied brains — NOS4A2

Yes, because we also approach mind/body in the wrong direction, as if real being somehow inhabits the mind.

AI assistants mimic this human tendency at all. They rather seem to be open minded to a fault. — Pierre-Normand

I'd even stick to the first half without the second. If open-minded means "willing" (already not that) to explore beyond the farthest reaches of conventional, or better worded variations of that, they can't be open minded. The OP demonstrates that. It can be resourceful (to "itself" I mean), in producing an answer. It thinks of all of the broadly conventional structures out there, in order to reconstruct what it weighs (I dont know how) how best to answer. Thats what we do to, but I could never come close to that. But we add to that our unique flexibility which allows for (art and fantasy but also) exploration beyond convention, in AI's words, for curious questions. And I won't even get into built in barriers to open mindedness, like legal and political ones.

The very notion of an illusion presupposes that there is something real of which the illusion is a mere semblance or distortion — Sam26

Beautiful.
Leave it to an AI to gloss over/question whether we, its makers, aren't that something real, on any level.

Therefore, if consciousness itself were an illusion, what is the state we are actually in? — Sam26

It seems rather nonsensical to suggest that the very medium through which we understand illusions could itself be an illusion. — Sam26

I think that is the bridge we cannot cross with language. I agree with AI.

In short, claiming that consciousness is an illusion is not just misleading, but fundamentally incoherent. — Sam26

Yes. But AI was also correct, between the lines (in its unconscious (?)). The problem is in tgd language.

Maybe something loosely along the lines of, is the human mind organic and real (it will make a fuss about "real", I know but we're trying to keep our sense of "illusion" which AI yet doesnt have "sense" ...) or is it a projection of appearances none of which have the substance or attributes of reality? (forget it, we're not going to bypass its speedy wit when it comes to any questions we already know are unanswerable.

But that was very cool.

prefacing my thoughts with the caveat of being unlearned in the technological aspect, and especially the deeper sciences involved in shaping AI (and, come to think of it, unlearned in any facet of this issue), I think, the potentially insurmountable challenge (assuming the "goal" is to make artificial humans, not simply AI) is going to be in reproducing organic "feeling." By this I mean those related to "mood" and an unidentifiable "form" of thought (thoughtless thought); but not as in touch.

Technology is capable of reproducing mobility, sensation, and as you pointed out, information processing (intelligence).

But the root of our "aware-ing", independent of Mind (though "hijacked" or displaced thereby) is the way we are triggered to feel stemming from experience, and by that, every nano-"second" and corresponding subtle variation thereof.

And sure, we can duplicate a reward/punishment system with subtle variations possibly as sophisticated as our (I submit, some of which is even imperceptible to mind) sense of (inner) feeling. But whereas with the others, it seems we can even surpass the Organic faculties; when it comes to, what I would call the "real human consciousness" as opposed to Mind/Self consciousness, aware-ing-feeling, I have doubts we can ever succeed.

I think Mind itself fails to represent those feelings, but projects representations called emotions. Emotions are already a projection from Reality. It might be that we cannot duplicate a projected/represented Reality, now twice removed.

As a simple illustration (not purporting in any way to be an analogy, let alone sound) its like other forms of Fiction. When we project a real life character in books or movies, we can duplicate it in all respects but it's feelings. Think of the actor who played Ghandi. Even thoughts (at least knowable ones) can be transmitted if there was a way to record and transmit. But the Organic being is necessary for the feeling. Even the "how it feels" has "left" the Organism and entered Mind. That can be duplicated. But not aware-ing feeling.

ChatGPT 4.0

"Yes, that is a solid definition — Sam26

I guess it's inevitable. One day, perhaps in distant future generations, we'll add to our current amnesia about the nature and structure of our experiences, amnesia about the nature and structure of AI.

As for your definition of philosophy. I like it. Whats not to like? It seems uncontroversially "accurate." But it doesn't rule out variations or alternatives. And yes, most likely, no definition can.

Hence, philosophy.

Agreed. Time will tell is almost always a reliable proposition.

Just because something is constructed only for humans and only by humans doesn’t require that it not be real, not be, not be thereby constructed. Humans are being humans too. — Fire Ologist

I understand that reasoning, am willing to concede that you are more likely correct should this be decided conventionally. And yet..

what you mean? — schopenhauer1

I meant more generally. My exposure, as I said, were from those Histories (like Bertrand Russell, et. al) and Anthologies. My sense comes from those, and likely I'm reading in those "presentations" preamble, Histories, biographies, etc., an extremely subtle skepticism toward his interest in Eastern Religions (theirs, not mine) And its left a trace in my Schopenhauer file. Its not that reliable.

try following this thread: — schopenhauer1

Thank you

He elevates it from a passing emotion to THE emotion par excellance.. As it reveals the vanity of existence. — schopenhauer1

I find that compelling, if not metaphysically (and yet, there, is precisely where I do), then for certain aesthetically.

That in the end, we are not satisfied being. It is an endless onrush of satisfaction-fulfillment because cannot just be. — schopenhauer1

True, but, (though I may be misreading) for me, it's not so blue. I would uses as "hopeless" a hue, as Schopenhauer, if that was Schopenhauer, not me misreading a subtle melancholy into "because we cannot just be". Because that afterall is tge fact I accept.

Anyway, I accept wholeheartedly that human existence is an endless movement driven, as Schopenhauer brilliantly reduced down to its base code, by dissatisfaction.

But Im not so gloomy. One, I can work with that, I do anyway. Why fight it. Loosen the first person Narrator's grip on the endless pursuit; receive satisfaction (though fleeting) rather than pursuing it, And it will ease the tension of the dissatisfaction. And then, just carry on with management of boredom-->desire (Schopenhauer's implicit definition of the human condition, right?).

And Two, I'm alive (as in that's what I really am). And that by definition is the only "satisfaction" required. Satisfaction in being.

Again, Schopenhauer is an inspiration I'm eager to read that thread. Thanks again

Schopenhauer — schopenhauer1

He has aged well/was farsighted. I'm inspired to read further. Honestly, my only brush with Schopenhauer has been in those large philosophy readers. Yet, I knew I was compelled by his thinking. I sense there is a (subtle) propaganda campaign against him?

Happiness is not what is intrinsic, but rather dissatisfaction is — schopenhauer1

Right, it negates (or settles) dissatisfaction the built in mechanism driving the desire! I like this. (Extremely sorry if I'm taking any liberties in my (potentially mis)interpretation of your text. But i sure hope Im not. Im grateful!)

Boredom is seen as the ultimate revealer of a ground-state of dissatisfaction as he argues this to be the "proof" that we are not simply satisfied existing, but always rather dissatisfied. — schopenhauer1

Yes! I really liked his description of boredom. A fresh lesson for me. And impactful. Thank you. I know I am out of bounds not having read Schopenhauer remotely enough to make assertions. But he's involving Boredom, not as a metaphysical state etc, but because the fact of its epidemic manifestation in human experience "reveals" the "real" "metaphysicsl" thing of it, the built in mechanism of dissatisfaction-->desire. Very insightful. I "believe" that.

not even getting to the game of satisfaction-fulfilling.. Just maintaining the lifestyle to get there. — schopenhauer1

Yes. That "appears" to be the only fact, and so, in the "world" where "appear" is "fact", how can we avoid suffering. And so on as you go on to say, since birth, uniquely for humans, life is suffering.

Thanks again for the opening into Schopenhauer.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, — Arnie

There's "good news" at the end.

If you indulge me to dissect "life" for humans into two parts: organic life, life proper; and the human experience, life constructed...if you go with that for 30 seconds, might I suggest the following answer briefly?

And note, these are my understanding of "things" from my very possibly heretical take on what I have gathered from voices, text, and coincidence. Im not an authority on any subject I address. Though I might present ideas as if I am regurgitating what is true to some source(s), I am not. I do not keep an academically responsible track of my sources, though like everyone, I am not unique from my sources, but at "best/worst", a unique by-product thereof.

Organic Life: not suffering. Its natural state is bliss; but within that context there is struggle. Life, because blissful, is driven to survive, and necessarily struggles to satisfy that drive. Inevitably there will be instances of fear, fatigue, hunger, pain, solitude (we naturally bond). But these feelings arise in our organic being without dissatisfaction, anxiety, angst, resentment, hatred, anger, strife, jealousy, misery. Life, already blissful, is not in perpetual becoming, not incessantly reaching and grasping, but rather, being, maintaining being. There is no "something." There is only being/doing-in-(successively)present-reaction-to-being.


Human experience: is suffering. But suffering is not real. Mind having displaced the drive to survive the present bliss, with desire to construct "something" and be heard (projection), has also displaced the natural bliss of being with incessant becoming. Because desire is necessary for becoming, dissatisfaction is necessary in order to perpetuate desire, which, in turn, perpetuates becoming, the manifesting of our projections. Desire cannot cease in Mind's world. And so we must suffer in order to desire the constructions we "pretend" are desired to end suffering; an ineluctable loop, which displaces natural fear, hunger, fatigue, with what we construct as anxiety, anguish, misery, all of it flawlessly perpetuating our becoming.

It might be an iota from impossible to stop becoming. If you were born into a world post prehistoric human animals, if you were born in History, you are programmed to displace being with becoming. Existentialism, thinks it has brought us methods of authentic being, but it only provides reasonable ways to navigate becoming. And though Zazen might appear as a means to bring one to the "silence" of being, and the extinguishment of the "I" of becoming, it doesn't last. You cannot delete, nor press "reset". The program automatically kicks back to the "Factory setting," and becoming continues on autonomously. Besides, you cannot "know" that being, you can only be "it," and the second you succeed at "returning" through Zazen to being, you desire to "know" that being, triggering you right back into the programmed becoming. The locus of inevitable suffering.

The"good news," it's OK. You are not that thing, the "I" (of) becoming. You are really that blissful being.

You wonder, is Life just suffering? No.

Human existence has suffering built in. It's how we grow. In a strange way of putting it, but it is no less a fact, without suffering, there would not be Shakespeare, the Eiffel Tower, Socrates, DaVinci, Icecream, Mozart, Billie Holiday, Charities, and Volunteer Firefighters, and as you know, we could fill this forum with the list of good which we get to experience, albeit constructed by us, and requiring, as one of the ingredients, perpetual suffering; good which we can choose to recognize, by simply incorporating it into each of our Narratives, as at least balancing the suffering. And we can choose to do so with gratitude.

Why? Because our being, that which matters, is bliss. And the becoming, well, we construct it, we can put effort into which projections surface upon our narratives.

It's not a bad deal, at all.

committed to daily recovery from foolery — 180 Proof

A kind of meta-psychotherapy?

A sharpening not of the narrative(s) of the mind for improved functionality of the individual narrative in history (which might be what psychoanalysis/psychotherapy is); but, rather, a sharpening of the what of, and the way mind writes/understands its narratives, and further, the "world" thereby constructed (for improved functionality of each of the individual narrative, the narrative in history, and, ultimately, for the improved functionality of history (and all of them, also, ultimately, holistically and "globally")?

I think we are historically/culturally/linguistically situated — Fooloso4

I am on board with that part.

but not thereby determined. — Fooloso4

Then--unless I misunderstanding--

1. Whence history/culture/language?
2. What/what process/who situate(s)/(d) us "there"?

Are these "things" H/C/L, at least at "source", immutable, preexisting, inevitable? By design?

And note, while I recognize our real beings, our bodies, are not directly determined by HCL, our Minds, are both the source of and determined by HCL.

However, no need to debate this further unless you feel it compelling. I'm already enriched by your comments, comfortable with what I view as minor divergence in our paths, and look forward to the next time they cross.

what is it about a candidate that experiences, such that he must consider something, the negation of which is impossible.

Answer: he must consider himself as subject. He is that to which all representations, all objects of consciousness belong, such that there resides an implicit unity in the manifold of all rational/intellectual doings. — Mww

I agree with that, because of the qualifier, "such that there resides an implicit unity," which of course is the function of the Subject. That is, to unify the movements under a surrogate "self" displacing/standing in for, the "embodied" being.

formerly a positive paradigm shift in philosophical thought but now in somewhat diminished favor. — Mww

No kidding? It seems "ahead" of its time to me. Regardless, I like it. A lot.

Whatever the "real truth" might be, it is not something we possess and not something we can come to know through a misguided model of reason based on the success of mathematics. — Fooloso4

I'm with you there.

"Words" can have multiple paths that can be traced by their history. To do so may require desedimentation. Doing so can open paths that have been closed, leading us away from our conditioning. Paths can be walked and paths can be made. — Fooloso4

Almost shocking how much I see it that way too. Funny how it takes me a few "call-and-responses" to start to understand another's narration.

What these prohibitions mean is subject to interpretation. — Fooloso4

Right. If it appeared otherwise, pardon my unwieldiness. I was saying both moral issues are similarly the product of and resolved by and as language (and not by reference to some eternal law accessible to Language and its multiform projections). But don't kill, being a path well tread seems like it comes to us from nature; more than don't eat meat which requires a dialectic on the surface to take place first but they are both similarly projections of Language and its autonomous processes

I want to know to what it is reducible, such that THAT is irreducible, hence, primordial. — Mww

Do you mean further reduced organically, what are the cellular or bio electrical impulses? Deeper?
The molecular? Atomic?

I know you mean metaphysical, right? And if so, I'm placing that outside of this, the Organic/evolutionary. The metaphysical is an incessant pursuit because (and I am not blind to the hypocrisy/irony: I engage in it wholeheartedly, but I'll comment later)...because it is not going to uncover anything. Mind (the locus of the metaphysical) cannot uncover reality, it can only construct "reality."

But still, though I'm constructing it, I know what you're after. The Real "thing" being while being-displaced-by-becoming is aware-ing, natural consciousness. That is the primordial condition, to be an aware-ing Being. (It's the Body, BTW, aware-ing its sensations, feelings, image-ings, drives, movements--but these become overshadowed by the projections of mind).

But that's not what you're looking for. You/we desire the metaphysical, the brilliant constructions triggering Body to feel that eureka, but getting it through, sure, a special kind, but no less, fiction. Because, every living thing has the primordial condition for Mind, aware-ing. Trees grow to the sun, single cells react to environment. But only our level of image-ing could become its own thing and fool not only its now, host, but even itself into belief.

Before they become words, they are schemata, that which as a multiplicity of minor conceptions, is subsumed under a major. You touched on it with your “image-ing”, which I hold as a requisite component of human intelligence, in that we actually think in images. But we cannot express an image, project it beyond ourselves, so we developed language to do just that. — Mww

Very nicely worded, and, if I may, exactly what I so clumsily beg to say.

In logic, this is tautological — Lionino

Preface that I'm not confident (as in my own weakness) beyond generally that I understand your concern about the logic and precisely how it applies. Sorry in advance as, despite my best efforts, I limp through any logical aspect of what follows.

But, I'm asking genuinely, if something is impossible in logic, can it not be possible "outside" of logic? Is there no outside? Who says? Logic? Is that tautological?

You might choose to stop here, and just answer.

If your answer is yes, logic precludes it, you might not want to read further. Understandably, it may frustrate.

And I respect that. But what Im about to ask, I ask sincerely, and neither to disrespect nor challenge well supported thinking. Plus I'm eager to be corrected let alone challenged because my thoughts have never been just my own. Are anyone's?

Can it be that belief does come back to itself, in the sense that "belief" is not what the word conventionally signifies; (or is that but is also) a mechanism within a perpetual loop, a process becoming out of and back to itself. Not just belief; everything.

And talk about A --> A, what if even logic proceeds from itself within that process? Hence, the loop (which) defies logic.

The "reality" we're "writing" about precisely here is morality (for e.g.), and we think we are discerning the "real" of it. But we are nowhere near the real of it, "trapped" within the loop holding and forming our inquiries and their emissions. We search for the real of morality in subject or object for e.g.. The loop constructed "difference". The loop constructed Subjective/objective both writing themselves into the narratives moving everything in becoming, changing as we go albeit to us, slowly. Our resistance to change another mechanism having evolved to ensure that slow and complex dialectic functionsoptimally for the survival and prosperity of the loop. Logic evolved, a "tool" in the dialectic; a "successful" mechanism to expedite a settlement/belief. And from belief proceeds the Dialectical process settling at a new belief, and so on, and so on, becoming belief, never being True or Real.

The loop never uncovers any independently existing Reality. There might be a Natural Law of "morality," we might naturraly live by it, but we're not going to uncover it with our constructions, fantasy or logic. We are in a loop "constructions" proceeding from a constructed system of construction; affecting our bodies to act and feel; but displacing all of our natural attention with experience in narrative form, all of it fleeting and empty of any of that "the real of it" which we will always endlessly pursue. Illustrating yet again illogicality even of this hypothesis bothering to express itself. Unless expression is the only point. It dresses itself up with logic and poetry to give it the maximum chance for survival and with the hope of its prosperity, that is, settlement by others.

Nice. Thank you.

But it wasn’t just a moment. It happens everyday, — Fire Ologist

I agree (I got carried away with the drama of the Eden myth).

It wasn’t bad to put clothes on. It wasn’t the knowledge itself. — Fire Ologist

Not bad, I agree. But I do see it as knowledge itself. Not as in the pivotal moment, but as in beyond its use for survival prehistorically (I imagine) clothes are made up of signifiers making knowledge (for me knowledge is meaning settled upon from time to time). What strikes me, is its uncanny appearance in Genesis.

The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now — Fire Ologist

Yes. Uncanny, eh? It's tragic that art can be admired universally in pretty much any form except religion. Has Christianity been an influence for good? Maybe the pith of the question is too obvious to ask, it has been an influence, period. Like DaVinci or Einstein, but on a much grander scale. We write good and bad, regardless of the influence.

we killed him, we still want to hide. That’s just like us, don’t you think? — Fire Ologist

lest I misrepresent my angle, I'm approaching this particular segment of this thread as mythico-poetry, not theologically (not saying you are/aren't). But, yes. I do think so. He says, "wake up," and turn your attention. The "Thing" we're all looking for, because we lost it, is not where you're looking. God's world is the birds in the sky, the flowers in the field, who neither reap nor sow, labor nor spin. It's not in the gathering nor the knowing, it's in the living. Dont believe your constructions from time to time, believe in that eternally. Find your soul. What profit is in gaining the whole world but losing your living soul. And not only did his contemporaries kill that in order to remain with their attachments to knowledge, repeating the mistake in Eden, but the moment he died they constructed a fiction in his name, Christianity and we have pretty much been lost in that and its antitheses (heresy, atheism, secularism, science, Islam/Eastern "paganism", hedonism/materialism, communism) ever since.

misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime. — Fire Ologist

Thank God, 'cause I've wandered so deep into "my" imagination here that science is a faint echo in a remote corner of--by the way--the same system, functioning to find truth, in the end, in the same way, settling upon what is most fitting/functional given all competing factors.

We could ask has Science been an influence of good? And the answer would be, like its sister, religion, it has been a remarkable influence. Good or bad is just how we write.

insofar as I see no reason why the human cognitive system in itself, in its synthesis of conceptions to each other, have not in effect described the conditions by which an experience is given, without ever expressing a single linguistic representation of those conceptions or the cognition which follows from them. — Mww

That's what I'm saying. (Although it may not be what you're really saying). These signifiers, the vast majority of them, Freud on stilts, operate subtly. So that it seems like they are not expressing a single linguistic representation. But they are. If not the words "its a beautiful day" when you instantly apprehend that it is, there are nonetheless signifiers working, moving, until finally the apprehension surfaces as...

My point (and--because all of our Narratives are written with and for others--I hope this is what you were saying, if not, please correct me) is that though you use "apprehended"
and that triggers belief that at least in some cases when you "know," you are getting it directly from the source, Reality, and only afterwords superimposing "description" (or constructed meaning), its too late for you to hang anything at all on the so called apprehension. Its not that its gone, its that its only there in the present. And you're not. You're already in the description, the constructing of meaning. Sensation is instantly displaced by perception. The fact that there is apprehension is moot. We abide in the constructions of meaning.

Why I think/thought we agreed is because though you said, "without ever expressing linguistic etc." You also said "in effect described the conditions by which an experience is given." I'm inferring that you are holding nonetheless that experiences are their descriptions. That this seemingly silent apprehension, is in fact, yet a subtle description.

Question: of all that supposedly attributable to lesser animals, in your opinion which is the primordial consideration such creature must attain antecedent to all else, in order for him to be afforded meaningful experiences? — Mww

Pardon my presumptuous intrusion.

My hastily surfacing answer is, "nothing." No so called lesser animal (a label which I dispute) has any hope/fear of having meaningful experience because meaning is precisely what distinctly human mind constructs out of its incessant and autonomous dialectical processes. Animals, like our own "Real" being, the Organic aware-ing human animal, "independent" of the constructions with which mind has displaced its aware-ing, have no "concern" for meaning.

Upon further thought, however, I think I can answer the question at least hypothetically. [Assuming I am interpreting "consideration" fittingly] The primordial consideration such creature must attain antecedent to all else if they were to similarly construct meaning, is to have evolved organically a system with similarly sophisticated image-ing, similar memory, and a feedback loop involving endorphins and the like.

Why? These allow for what has evolved into the human mind. An image-ing system so complex it no just longer recalls image of tiger to trigger flight; it now calls and recalls, structures and restructures, arranges and rearranges Signifiers to trigger all of our feelings and actions. Part of the evolution of that system of signifiers involved meaning. The system "wants" to thrive in order to best serve the "host" organism; and it is what it is today, because the constant constructing of meaning to displace reality evolved, leading to an astronomical growth of the Brain's image-ing sense. And it's still growing as we construct novel variations (like this) of meaning perpetually.

So yes, indirect realism gets my vote. There is a Real world--we are that real organism in that real world--but we have displaced that real world, its drives, feelings, sensation, with desires, emotions, perception. The former just are; the latter construct meaning in their process of becoming.

like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. — Fire Ologist

Nice, Fire. The hypothetical moment when "we" divided/displaced "God's creation" our natural selves, with our constructions, choosing knowledge over life.

It doesn't have to be "bad," as I know you know. But it did kind of go bad, and so one of the hypothetical moments* when "God" surfaced into "our constructions," to "remind us" to construct away but to not to get "lost" in the constructions, I.e. as Jesus, we construct something out of that, call it Christianity, and here we are today. Has it been an influence for good? Of course. Some narratives prioritized life, applied the constructions to that end. Francis Assisi, et. many als. For bad? Yes, some narratives, in spite of Jesus, stayed lost, and took Jesus with them; constructing Jesus not to serve Life, the body-family-community-species, but to serve the constructions. As it happens those Narratives are attracted to Narratives of ego and power. And, it's as easy for a wealthy man to live in God's domain (Living) as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, so...

**also applicable to Buddha as Siddhartha, Vishnu as Krishna, and likelyva few so ons.

This marks a wrong turn in the history of philosophy that fails to strike us as odd and out of touch because we have become so accustomed to philosophers making such claims, as if thinking and feeling are two separate, independent things. — Fooloso4

Though you are far from the point I'm about to make, and I apologize for "mishandling" yours. But for me, you have illustrated exactly the way I believe morality moves (the "stances" we take on "truthity") a thing is a well tread path and we believe
habitually. Morality is a conditioned response triggered by the habitual paths "words" take.

Your challenge does not demonstrate a unique uncovering of real truth; nor does it demonstrate the sole individual rising up against conditioning. It is just another conditioned path which surfaced because multiple "words" moving in your locus of history triggered the beliefs you are espousing.

Both do not kill and don't eat meat follow that process and are neither relative to subjective choice, nor grounded in Natural Law.

Being that the fact of the propositions comes to be once I start believing in them, something is causally connected to itself, which I am confident is not desirable. — Lionino

My understanding, which I will confirm in advance, won't be presented through syllogism (though I admire and respect that process).

The point you--in my opinion, correctly observed--supports, for me, the conclusion that the "reality" we are trying to decipher, is as it turns out, "causily connected to itself," a "loop," all of it, the "thing," the proposition (about thing)and the belief, taking place as a single process "appearing" as separate, giving rise to more propositions about subjects, objects, Beings and Truths.

where do you disagree with my assessment here? — Bob Ross

First, I apologize for not responding in one post. Secondly, your logic seems (to me, not a technician) very tight and I cannot at my skill level, navigate my answer through your logic. Which, Prima facie might indicate I have no business responding at all, to which I apologize in advance.

My current understanding is that your conclusion that moral subjectivism fails the test of logic seems to imply that moral realism is the truthity of this thing morality, and the stance one ought to take.

But perhaps morality is neither "subjective" nor "real". It is not "subjective" in the sense that it follows a unique process (even if that process applies reason and facts) leading to an independent choice for each
individual. It is not Real or "objective" in the sense that it is informed by (pre)existing Laws independent of the individual's choice.

Perhaps it is a process which has evolved in human History, input into each of us since childhood, and operating autonomously in accordance with evolved mechanisms, having evolved to "trigger" "beliefs" which happen to be most suitable for any given moment and locus/individual in History.

So, now, subject is not deciding what is true, nor drawing upon what is True, but over and over again settling upon a temporary but intricately fitting "conclusion."

When it comes to the mechanisms conventionally triggering belief in the truthity of not killing, these are well structured paths, well tread, and thus very commonly, and without apparent dialectic, we arrive and settle there. It neatly falls within the structures of Univeral and Absolute. It may be "really true" somewhere in ultimate reality. But we do not access that reality at all when we construct it and settle there. By the same token, it seems like the choice not to kill is subjective, and based upon weighing relative pros and cons. But it is neither. Morality is the result of dynamics and mechanisms, functions and relations of Signifiers moving us to a conclusion from time to time and based upon the intersection of multiple minds and circumstances having met there.

Like I said, the well tread moral issues amenable to deontology for e.g. like don't kill, don't rape, make it seem like these
are Natural, the conditioning is so quick it seems organic.

The dilemmas are what make us wonder. Press the button and kill one baby to save a million. Here the path to belief is not so well tread, we watch the Dialectical process taking place and assume subjectivity. But the problem is, even the very Subject to whom we designate the final belief, is just a mechanism in that system.

Again, if I have crossed the boundaries of your interest, sincere apologies. I recognize I have not provided enough details, nor framed it in precisely logical terms.

C1: Therefore, a belief cannot make a proposition true or false. — Bob Ross

And, yet, I settle at the same conclusion. I believe it, not because it is true, it is true because the mechanism of belief was triggered at the end of the (dialectical) process leading to it: belief, or the so called stance on truthity, and on "something."

P1: A stance taken on the truthity of something, is independent of the truthity of that something. — Bob Ross

If you assume that that "someting" is unlike the stance, a thing so called "out there" in the real world independent of Mind.

If you assume the stance and the something and the truthity are mechanisms in one dynamic process...

that, we are.

seems that you hypothetically want to perform greater than others in such a way it would reflect as 'hardness', — Barkon

Not sure I understand. My interest in malleablity is not per se driven by any moral drive. Rather, I'm suggesting--under the influence of Zhuangzi--that the obstacles to free and easy functioning "in the face of this world," and the resulting suffering, comes from hardness.

isn't this just reaching the same conclusion, aren't you being malleable to be hard? — Barkon

Hmm. Intuition tells me to look into that further, but on the face of it, I'd say no. I'm, maybe being "hard" regarding malleabiliy. But that's not what you mean, right?

I personally prefer the opposite (not necessarily as a moral position, but as a functional position--if the two are mutually exclusive, which, I think not).

I prefer malleable, like the Taoist "suggestion" to be as an "uncarved block".

Easiest thing in the world to bring someone down, a literal dried piece of excrement on a sidewalk can do that. — Outlander

Yet, when asked what is Buddha Nature, the Master Yun Men answered, " a shit stick." Presumably used as TP.

If our condition is not static but perpetually becoming. There's no point in being a hard dried-up turd blocking your own bowels from discharging their duty, movement. Move along. Exercise discrimination where needed such that you are satisfied that you have discerned the most functional place to temporarily settle. But move, keep moving.

I subscribe to the idea of a fallen world or society, at least. Not necessarily in the Biblical sense, — Outlander

I think I do too. In fact the Eden Myth offers itself up as a brilliant allegory (in my opinion, as brilliant as the Cave). It is because we have fallen from being (Tree of Life) and chosen becoming (tree of knowledge (of difference, i.e. "good and evil")) that we cannot be Hard, even if we think we can. We are like that piece of plastic in the film, American Beauty; and like the answers in Bob Dylan's early "hit", blowing in the wind.

In fact, Heidegger protests against not only the idea of a world independent of our models of it , but the very idea of a subjective or intersubjective scheme, model, narrative , theory that we impose on the world. He wanted to get away from a subject-object dualism entirely, and the accompanying assumption of a normativity or conventionalism within which we view each other and the world. — Joshs

Very nice.. I misunderstood. Not anymore.

Thank you.

in authentic Being, which is not a subject representing a world to itself, but a self continually changed by ‘coming back to itself’ from its world. And this world , for its part, changes reciprocally with self. — Joshs

Here, I diverge. But no worries, armed with the info above, it is clear to me, how and why.

in both cases what ‘is’ is already organized on the basis of prior expectations and anticipations. — Joshs

Understood and agreed

The role of moral structures can be seen most clearly not within a community closely united by shared understandings, but between communities divided by differing intelligibilities. The individual deemed in violation of one group’s moral norms has found themselves caught between two communities, just as is the case with scientific heretics. It is unfortunate that the very bonding around shared intelligibilities that forms a unified community inevitably leads to alienation from those outside of the community. It then becomes necessary to protect that community from foreign ideas and actions which threaten to introduce dangerous incoherence into the normative culture. Thus the need for moral codes and structures. — Joshs

Insightful!

our ethical norms aren’t conventions in the sense of optional fashions that we put on or take off as reasonable members of a consensual community — Joshs

Of course not. I'd go a step further and say they "dictate/code" our feelings and actions, in spite of being "constructed". But I do not need to insist upon that "dangler" in order to "fit" your admittedly helpful depiction here.

Good one. Will rethink with that.

But I disagree if the quote from Amadeus means the good never forms. There is an object, a definition, that forms, from our experience, called “good.” — Fire Ologist

Nice

I think Plato was pointing to what is formed once the good is developed in the human (so he was wrong to point to an eternal form). — Fire Ologist

Yes. I get that [now]. You're probably properly using "object" associating it with "objective" and thus present, not a fleeting nothing. Fair enough.

We still need to glean a definition of good if we are to leap into judgments of better and worse. — Fire Ologist

I agree. But because let's not ignore, our constructing of good serves a functional end, [survival and prosperity. But ignore that if its distracting]. Not because there is an innate thing, "Good", in Nature.

But nevertheless, like letters, we fix good in our lives everyday. — Fire Ologist

Yes we do

Couldn’t you say that the innate in conscience is where the good is gleaned, where the good is constructed?
— Fire Ologist

I can see some sense in which it's a 'construct' but I also believe there is an innate good, although not everyone will agree. — Wayfarer

I'd love to agree. But where? Where can you show me innate good without walking me through constructs?

I think if there is an innate good in nature/reality, we can only Be good, but we cannot know that. The instant we know it we have constructed it. So we can be good but we'd never know if we were. That is, if we're talking about Good in the real world independent of Mind. (If we cam even so talk: which, we can't. So Good is not a thing innate in nature)

Inherent" and "experience" are incompatible concepts. "Inherent" is something we have by nature, we are born with. — Alkis Piskas

I agree. But I also assumed the word wasn't used to denote the contradiction, but rather, in tge sense of "belongs" to experience, "is derived" from etc.

fallacy is in thinking we can separate out the natural from the moral, the ‘is’ from the ‘ought’. — Joshs

since it was precisely Heidegger’s point that a science presupposes as its very condition of possibility a set of metaphysical assumptions about how the world ought to be understood, which implies an ethics. — Joshs

The way I read "natural from moral" above is to infer you mean morality at least has its basis in nature (a lessening of the two are one, and inseparable). Ought is derived from is. And you cite Heidegger above. But I read H (assuming you depicted H precisely not loosely (as I might)) as implicitly saying not that the pursuit of any knowledge requires a natural framework, Laws of Nature, [to re-present?] or that the two are actually inseparable, but rather that there be convention on how some basic structures should be framed and settled upon as "true"; i.e., how to "construct" a universal framework for our further constructions, or pursuits.

With respect, he had to. We all do. Even in our mundane interactions. If we don't do that (agree on a constructed framework), "I love you" becomes what it is structurally and inherently, empty and meaningless. If he didn't do that, for example, he could not have reflected so profoundly on the dynamics of what was necessarily restricted to the becoming Mind, and present it as though it had captured Being.

First, you see the evil in the world.
Then, you see the evil in others.
Eventually, you see the evil within yourself. — Scarecow

And that's when you finally see the good in the world?

Do you agree with this, namely that the notion of good in inherent in the primacy of experience, and not something that can be learned by simply looking up a definition and analyzing it? — Shawn

I think you could say that about everything. Take apple. I wasn't born knowing it. Nor did it ever instantly come to me. As I first learned it, I might've confused it with peach or pear. But for obvious reasons apple, like many Signifiers purporting to (re)present the real natural world (and physical objects we construct using signifiers) has evolved to seamlessly trigger the "same" response for all of us.

"Good" is not only abstract, and therefore "infinitely" broader in its triggering, but we use the same Signifier triggered by and to trigger different very different "newpaths". Good time, person, taste, work etc. Anyway, that's why we ask the question about Signifiers like "good" and not "apple".

But not only do both apple and good have to be learned through experience. But they are both continuously having to be learned, though sometimes seemingly imperceptible, incessantly becoming (learned by experience). Everythung settles at that moment settlement (knowledge/belief) is triggered (the illusion of being present). But nothing settles permanently.

I might taste an apple tonight which subtly changes the Signifier Apple and how/what it triggers for me by way of more Signifiers and ultimately feeling. My thoughts right now may have subtly engaged new signifiers. This has caused so called clarity. Apple seems brighter to me now.

I might learn something in this thread which changes Good for me. I might even say forever. But though the revised chain of Signifiers structuring Good which I picked up here may remain for me forever, Good will yet change for me, as new Signifiers are triggered to trigger newly revised chains.

What can we learn by just picking up the definition and analyzing it? 1+1=2? I think no. First you experienced difference, that took months, then quantity, etc etc. Am I being strangely meticulous, or misunderstanding that the question was intended for a moral assessment?

I think morality is the good, and both, related chains in the evolution of Signifiers and how they structure knowledge/experience, are never discovered by an instant assessment. They are never discovered; but are always becoming. And when we "want" to use them as they quickly move, when we are triggered by a fitting function, we just pick up our
latest version. And call that Good.

:up:

moments.
— Fire Ologist
I told ENOAH the same thing not long ago. — Patterner

It's because I'm atonal, mixing with an arid humor.