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.

Ofc I'm on some fantasy rant here. But I enjoy dabbling in wild metaphysical speculation — Benj96

I think this topic betrays the underlying current of art which--like it or not--drives all philosophy.

Also, ultimately, if it were a Simulation (which I have no reason to believe) then our efforts to prove or disprove are absurd give the "Simulator" would likely be utterly other than us and our comprehension. And yet we toil.

Which I guess brings us back to art.

it is impossible to produce a complete representation or simulation of Mona Lisa.

Yet many people seem to believe that the whole universe, or at least our experienced part of the universe, is or could be a simulation. — jkop

Interesting, your discussion of "representation." I do not believe the universe is a simulation.

And I don't believe our experiences are or are a part of a simulation.

But I am entertaining the thought that our experiences are representations (or at least structured thereby/processed thereby). No need to elaborate now. But does your adamant position regarding simulation preclude that?

Could it be, Nature is not a simulation. We are not in a simulation. But--to be very brief and simplistic--because all of our knowledge is "delivered/processed/constructed" by representation (of the presumably real thing--like your Mona Lisa), we are necessarily "closed off/boxed off/inaccessible to" the real "thing;" causing this (problematic) intuition that our experiences are "appearances/projections/illusions"? Hence, the idea in popular culture of the Simulation.

And though I am far from understanding the physics..., maybe even the scientist/mathematicians who so theorize (about a simulation), do so because they are inevitably using our representation based experiences to uncover reality, I.e , to uncover always "the Real thing" of things. And yet, those representations necessarily box us off from that real thing (just as the painting necessarily boxes us off from the real Mona). This inevitably causes them to arrive at calculations and conclusions suggesting we must be in a simulation. While, really, it is because they are only examining representation, and they are only using tools of representation.

I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism — BitconnectCarlos

You could start (and end) with his letter to the Galatians. But as I said, I don't think Paul was being antisemitic per se. Paul himself, Jewish, and likely a Pharisee.

What I think Paul was doing was responding to a mixed Jewish and gentile faction who insisted that gentile followers of Jesus must adhere to Jewish laws like circumcision and abstaining from pork and other unclean meats. Either, 1. He was sincere about his Christology that Jesus as Christ atoned for humanity, and emancipated it from law *see letter to Romans. Or, 2. He was an "evangelical" genius who realized the Greeks were more compelled by high christology than eschatology, purity laws and sacrifice.

But I'm either recalling or hypothesizing (read Gallatians and you might see why) that Paul's diatribe against the "Judaisers" was used as a weapon against people of the Jewish diaspora, particularly after the Empire converted to Xtianity. At the very least, it (unwittingly) painted a picture.

I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos

Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

We now view it as having recorded history. But to them it was a document glorifying a movement (and the authentic Paul Epistles were mostly addressing instructional concerns of his associated church communities) . The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly. As didactic. But also to set-up the system their way (the way we do still today; though it embarasses us). These are the bad guys so we depict them that way. And their depiction emphasizes their opposition. The Gospels were written after Paul had already established himself in the early church. The "negative" depiction of Pharisees and Saducees was not to record history, and almost certainly not to garner hatred against their own race and heritage as a whole, but to express that the new movement has at least loosened adherence to Tanakh and other traditions, displacing both with the person of Jesus, now truly "the Christ," and that (naturally) the establishment, Pharisees and Saducees opposed that.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

Revelations/The Apocalypse, which emerged much later, does the same but more cryptically, and now, shifting its focus with respect to their opponent, Rome.

Arguably, just as the Gospels and Epistles are misused to "justify" antisemitism; Revelations has been misused by Protestant factions to justify anti-Roman Catholicism.

What goes around, eh?

Knowing what philosophers do in the academic field is a first criterion to separate cheap mysticism, pseudoscience and youtubers from serious philosophy. — David Mo

I agree with you that that is what it is, and I fully agree with and cannot argue against the functionality of it.

But tragically, a thing all of humanity can turn to for clarity in a complex universe of constructed and competing Narratives, is just another closed institution. It must. I know. But is there no refuge from prejudice? No "place" where we can judge the institutions?

And if you say, that's why you have freedom of choice. You judge which philosophy is reasonable to you. Well, still I must confine myself...and If you say, you judge all philosophies, judge philosophy etc. Yes, but it is already implied, built in, I, a pseudophilisopher* am necessarily wrong.

*I am not "sulking" I'm being honest.

Philosophy is not based on authority but on the exercise of personal reason. — David Mo

Ok. But I still agree that philosophy proper must adhere to the methods and conform with at least a reasonable finding accepted by academic philosophy.

We think we're ok with personal reason, but, without judgement, I've seen personal reason attacked often for not adhering to accepted methods of academic philosophy. Is that qualifier just implied?

Philosophy is academic philosophy. The rest of us are adults playing cops and robbers. (honestly).


I honestly liked the rest of your observations. I didn't want to reiterate for each, the obvious qualifier, "within the institutional confines."

The happy note, which I can already tell you have similarly implied, is the unqualified can benefit both by reading and discussing within the confines, provided they are careful not to pass themselves off as philosophers; and, by crossing the bounds (a thing which an ordained member of the institution cannot do for risk of excommunication) and exploring things so called pseudo.

If it used to be the love of wisdom, I guess it's now the love of the analytic brain. — Noble Dust

Yah. I think you're right. But dont tell anybody, or it's over (the way I'm reading it--for what is the brain, but us?).

Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that. Would you entertain this read of that? Maybe it is implied in that, I don't want to presume either way. Feel free to shift your read of what follows into metaphor if it is easier to work with.

And now my offer:
Would you agree that both so called wisdom, and its pursuit move about in the "world" projected by/within uniquely human mind(s). Any "appearance" of pursuit even, let alone uncovering/possession of Reality or Truth, is just that, a re-presentation of something (no longer) accessible (or only accessible in the being (of) it, in the present; only knowable (objects of pursuit) as representation in the moving about of time).

And how that relates to what is philosophy, is that--and now it is a metaphor--philosophy is an almost infinitely complex/layered literary analysis of what human Consciousness has and continues to project in time or History. "discern[ing] the true from the false, the good from the bad... the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given
question"

Ones way of thinking or consciousness is indeed "ones philosophy". You get where I was coming from though. :D — Outlander

Actually, I did. And I was content to stay there. I think you were right, philosophy is not "ones philosophy." I think (I'll carry on as though I'm sure, but I'm just projecting thoughts) the latter's use is casual, it could mean one's disposition, rules one lives by, worldview, morality, etc.

But as for what is philosophy? I hope we stay at "saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed" At least that expresses an aspect of philosophy proper. For me, at least, an impactful and "foundational" part.

what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed? — Outlander

Ok, yah, that. Sorry.

But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts — Outlander

Isn't by "consciousness" not necessarily my deepest thoughts? Because you're right. But rather, a reflection on that thing, consciousness, and the whats of it ?

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder. — BitconnectCarlos

Bitconnect, I'm an admirer of your thinking on other threads, outside of this (perhaps personal(?) and understandably so) one.

I'm just saying, I don't know if you're feeling ganged up on, and resorting to an F U response, but it doesn't appear to be helping your cause.

Now, I already know anyone of us could come up with arguments against Hamas, their "mission" and their ideology. But why not admit the tragedy of the death of so many innocents (yes, I mean the victims of Hamas, Palestinian civilians) and abhor it, and then justify the actions with strong reasons presumably demonstrating inevitability? Do you not see the violence in that contradictory statement? "the murder of innocents"

Again, I am sure Hamas is wrongful, and malicious. But a statement like that cannot be made with ease. I can't imagine any human scenario where that statement could be expressed functionally. Sure, you and I might think it absurd in this case, but I always reserve the what if, the just what if the other side thinks they're doing the same thing? Is one right? Who gets to say? Are they both right? Is that not a path to mutual destruction, extinction? Isn't the only functional truth that they are both wrong? That is, that the statement is wrong?

Anyway. This is an excruciating moment in human history. It feels like watching your siblings, who thoroughly despise each other, and likely, on some level, given each of their traumas, despise themselves. And they're no longer arguing, not even just shoving, they're literally plucking eyes, and strangling each other.

Should our conversation really be about who's right, while big brothers everywhere cheer them on to over power each other?

Anyway, I absolutely know this might be personal and please know I am sensitive to that, and if I have not been, it is only out of ignorance.

I'll continue to relish our fruitful dialogue in other rooms!

Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife.
However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow

I think, if there is (a) god(s), and our conventional constructions hold true, that god(s) would "see" through our self-serving reasons. In that sense (albeit, I'm speculating) an authentic atheist might garner more divine favor than a self interested adherent (albeit divine favor is not the point of religion).

In any event, theism (or "mysticism" , deism, agnostic theism, pantheism) and so on, might be as rational a mechanism as any, in "places" in philosophical pursuits where one is left having to fill "gaps" with an externally independent/atemporal/first mover etc.

On the other hand, atheism seems rational when we restrict ourselves to empirical methods, etc.

To me there are "regions" of religious thought in history which necessarily overlap with and inform philosophy (particularly moral/metaphysical) and can shed light on "truths" which for one reason or another, philosophy has overlooked.

Finally, for me, many of the arguments which this age raises against (a) god(s), stem from a mistaken expectation that god(s) are for gaining favor/reward, and avoiding suffering/punishment; that god(s) has to be active in, and "care" about, the things we care about: actively alleviating suffering, intervening to prevent "sins", choosing sides, etc. These, and questions like "why are wars so often in the name of religion?" are strictly human concerns tainting religion, giving rise to "fanatical" (angry and hostile) atheism.

To me, I do not have to profess to be a Christian to appreciate these words from its founder regarding the "proper" religious perspective on/relation to god. After telling his disciples not to seek worldly favors from god(I.e., the alleviation of suffering) he exhorts them to only do this, "seek [god's] kingdom [domain/realm/dimension/truth/reality]" and leave worrying about the world to the world.

you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I've been reading much, and especially not all the religious books. But I had already agreed with you about a rich analysis being needed before making any final judgment on
religion.

hah! :up:

I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint. — Fire Ologist

And maybe that is expressing the closest approach within "reason" i.e., before the inevitable firewalls: paradox, contradiction (inevitable; not the kind from poor reasoning) absurdity . That each of us is constructing/expressing the same Truth(s) in (varying degrees of(?)) approximations, (as if/because) from different viewpoints.

By the way, lest you thought otherwise, I wasn't disregarding the statement about as real as everything as a "manner of speaking," in any way demeaning the statement. I was assuming, as you might note from my return to an edited version, that you meant "as real as everything" as a phrase like "might as well" or "better than nothing."

Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker

The problem is, like philosophy, science, social sciences, and humanities, some of it inevitably reveals itself to be fiction, some has a much longer life span. Even math. 1+1=2 will likely last for eons. Sure, I'm a bit tongue in cheek, but I can at least imagine some genius will come along one day in "human history" and change the conventional thinking.

The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism).

But I, a single lone random individual, am amazed at the parallel truths "expressed" by so called religion and "discovered" by philosophy grade metaphysics and morality. These parallels are found in so called religious concepts since the dawn of civilization, but certainly since the last half of the first millennium BCE, and some of them not reaching western philosophy to a similarly rich degree of analysis until post Descartes.

Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on. — Fire Ologist

This is not intended to be remotely flippant, but, yah, they are all just illusory distinctions and therefore no one needs anything to go on. That is our condition. The truth isn't staring us in the face nor as plain as the nose on my face. The truth is--it's comical--(oops, note that I am speaking with the passion of one who thinks they have discovered something and not--no matter appearances--as one who thinks themselves an authority; which in the end, again highlights our (seemingly) inescapable "predicament," the irony, comical)...the truth isn't those things, it is my face and my nose.

We don't even have to "know" this, we are this. That's how (and you raise this appropriately when you ask (in another thread? (apologies, this thread)) how can we reference the world to one another and denied its objectivity?) we are aware of the real world; not by knowing it. By being it.

And yet we toil with concepts and with words, why? Because that's the structure and "nature" of the projections. They are dynamic and autonomous. So called we, you and I cannot help but share so called objects. It's a built in desire leading to the prosperity history enjoys today. I say celebrate that and carry on. Out of such sharing came tge Eiffel tower, Emancipation, Peace, Love, and the Mona Lisa. Yes, too, war, bigotry, and WMDs. But difference too is a mechanism of the movements of history. We cannot share one without sharing the other. Dialectic.

Anyway, the Body, the Real world which we are, I suspect is also One. Aware-ing Universe. But that, as you imply in your poetico-logical rhetoric above, is just Mind's illusion.

The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc… — Fire Ologist

Yes. And though we diverge, because otherwise how the hell are we going to construct history together? (Don't cringe, I mean a locus of history as small as your or my Narratives). It is our seemingly iron strong consistency here which is most relevant to the OP. You have, in my mind, answered the question with that statement.

From of that River, a billion tributaries flow.

The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else. — Fire Ologist

Compellingly enough put that you opened my mind up to how, I think, I can agree.

Again, I could explain it a lifetime but I'll be deliberately vague (hope can be cowardly).

Mind is "becoming," we agree.

As real as anything else, I'll respectfully disregard as your using a manner of speaking. Why? Because I say everything else we can know is Fictional because it is projected to the aware-ing Body by mind.

But, for flashing moments real. Yes. It is Real, in the present, when it affects body into feeling or action. But only in that instant, and not in the preceding or proceeding projections. And sadly or happily, "we" move right along with the projections.
Why can "Mind's processes" be real in those present instances where it affects the body? Because Mind has its first cause and final effect in its natural source. Put very simply, the projections are images stored in memory (first cause). The "destination" is as code to trigger Body to a conditioned response, feeling or action,(final effect) followed .

The paradox IS! — Fire Ologist

and, therefore, you give me nothing to go on.
(As Obiter Dictum: I'd guess mind may have been silent enough for your body to have attuned to the present at the nanosecond which gave rise to that exclamation. But I won't go there)

Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all. — Fire Ologist

Self (the one that speaks and is spoken of), to me, is neither body nor body part.

There is no "self" of the Body. There is aware-ing Organism, aware-ing it's present doings whatever they be, x-ings.

regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist — Fire Ologist

Again, where it matters most. Full agreement.

The Subject, the Self of Mind exists, but as a projection (you may reject second half)

That Self cannot exist in the present, it can never know nor be tge real being, the aware-ing Body, the presumed "real self" because it moves incessantly away from it leaving projections for the latter to "suffer" or
"enjoy"

No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion. — Fire Ologist

And here again our tributaries flow their separate ways, still drawing from the same river.

Enjoy!

But further, by saying this, it is a fact for you, me and all minds - so we know something objective about minding. We can’t escape the objective either - argument twists again - again the paradox rears its ugly head. — Fire Ologist

Agreed! You are right. There are both subjective and objective provided human mind is processing/projecting the world. I revise/advance my thinking to, ultimately there is no subject, no object. Or, there are subject and object(s) when "we" are from the perspective of "about the world." But from our true and natural perspective, from "in the world," we cannot (do not) speak of subject/object, let aloneca distinction. (What are your thoughts?)

I disagree that knowledge needs to first pass any test. — Fire Ologist

Yes. My habitually loose speech. In my mind I am already happily settled on that knowledge--(with your assistance in clarifying for me, or, at least my presumptuous reading of your assistance) being about the world/not in it--is not an uncovering of any truth present in being, but a projection of constructions (becoming). So my "test" suggestion was "rhetorical."

Yes but take out the world and think about when mind 1 connects with mind 2 (as we sometimes do on this forum). Maybe we don’t know if what we say here reflects the mind independent world when we speak of some third thing, but when mind 1 agrees with mind 2, then mind 1 knows the object in mind 2’s mind. So mind 1 knows of two things: mind 2 and the object it expresses in agreement. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I agree fully. And this reaffirms your clarification regarding the "presence" of the objective, within that framework which, as you correctly say, is "our" framework; not just this forum as you gently posed to spark my attention, but pretty much "everywhere."

Without regard to (what I must only imagine to be the perspective of) the so called real world, one coulofsafely say, of course there is objective knowledge, and thus, "shared subjective" is superfluous. Am I reading you right?

The very fact that we can disagree or agree means that to each of us, there is an objective world that we each measure ourselves and each other against. — Fire Ologist

Will definitely ponder this further.

Even if the objective world is constructed by minds, this world can be shared which means it isn’t only in one mind, and therefore, the objective world is still there, has to be there. — Fire Ologist

Subject to what comes out of re-thinking the above, currently I have settled on an "answer" to that. And you are correct that we diverge. It is more complex than the following statement. But briefly, that which is shared is already a unified system, the projections of a system, I've referred to as History. Part of its projections are the mechanisms projecting individual subjects standing in for the individual bodies "in which" (but not really "in") any given locus of that system/History is embodied.

The process you correctly describe, 1+1, and we can all agree, is not really separate units sharing information mutually but individually uncovered from the real world.
Rather, that process is how History moves. Minds are not isolated embodied entities,
but a free flowing system permeating in
spite of bodies.

Or you think you are possibly totally alone, not event meaning anything you say to yourself. — Fire Ologist

hoping the above explains why I am
not troubled by solipsism (quite contrary, there is no separate self.)

If you reply to me that you deny any objective medium is known, and I acknowledge back to you that I disagree with you, you’ve proven to yourself that my mind is out there in an illusion as an objective fact - which then means you can’t honestly say to yourself that all you know is an illusion. — Fire Ologist

Good foresight. I do think that I cannot "know" any objective world. But I do not deny that I have "access" to it. As I say, I have access to that real world by being. It is just that the instant I contemplate it, I seek to know it rather than be it, thereby displacing "my" truth with my projection.

However, I trust your logic; and that it is more precise than mine. So either you might one day explain it in a way which finally triggers me to belief, or I might arrive there as I continue to review it.

Thank you

We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

a "sense" of self. What if it's stop right there? I don't like the word "illusion" but it's being used in this thread. So, if you replace "sense" with "illusion", we need not proceed to the equally illusory "idea that there is an entity with an (equally illusory) identity." There is an illusion of self.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, — Janus

Correct. Statements about entities with identities, and mine above, attempting to qualify that statement. But why stop there? With the exception of empirical science, which operates under the hypothesis that its method of testing yield truths in the phenomenal world*,

*and if empirical science or conventional activities were to claim, or if we should conclude on our own, that their processes yield ultimate truths about the real world existing independently of the world projected by mind, then 1. That is an untested hypothesis, 2. Our hypotheses even about the so called real world remains untested.

In a word, if it's anything but hypotheses we are after, in every academic discipline, art, and day to day activities, we have a problem

When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus

That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving. — Fire Ologist

I agree. There is no being in Mind's projections. There is only the movements of becoming and the concomitant temporary settlements (beliefs), mechanisms creating all of our illusions.
.

That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus

I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.

We selves are living paradoxes. — Fire Ologist

I agree with both of you on those points, partly to my surprise. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your views (I understand your views differ from one another on detail too). I wonder if having read my comments, you are surprised I agree with your statements?

It is a necessarily twisted topic. (Jokingly) It’s as if someone set up a firewall to prevent its penetration.

The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”. — Fire Ologist

Yes. That actually encapsulates my beliefs too.

Paradox of being human. The Fictional Mind thinks it is real, functions in knowing, but has no access to Reality. The Real Body is real aware-ing, and has no concern for knowing. The knower is ineluctably making up the knowledge. As soon as it gets close to reality, it is blocked by paradox.

The self is... the Body.
The self [which] cannot be...is the Subject, yet
Only the self which cannot be desires to be.
Because the self that is, is being, and only being.

but what I subjectively know is that my mind is in a larger world apart from my mind, so I have knowledge of objective facts.

So I don’t see why we need to assert fact 3 (no accurate connection) — Fire Ologist

But if that "subjective knowledge of objective facts," is itself not what it proclaims with the word "knowledge." (I am already with you that this is seeming like a twisted "argument," veering off course from conventional logic and reasoning. I submit that that cannot be avoided. In fact, that it cannot be avoided, coincidentally supports the very twisted argument)

Knowledge itself, needs first to pass the test that it is what we conventionally think it is, a revealing, discovering, uncovering of facts/data/truths. "I can only participate in it through exploration and discovery...". I currently don't believe that to be the case.

If the "objects" of "knowledge" are

"constructed and projected" by (no.1) mind, following an autonomous conditioned process of "dialectic"

and are at best representations of the so called objective world, and not "discoveries" following exploration of the real world independent of Mind (no.2)

then we are back to having no connection possible between mind and the objective world (no.3).

My addendum to that is,

1. some intuitively or reasonably read things like sollopsism, nihilism, etc. From no.3. But we are the real world independent of Mind. We need not bridge the gap between mind and Reality, because we, as beings, organisms, like the rest, are that reality. Only mind desires access giving rise to this and all discourse with its projections.

2. within the domain of Mind, the question becomes, are we utterly alienated subjects, or is there "shared subjectivity." And to that I say, Mind is one and in its domain subject/object do not point to separate beings, each with its own "in itself" etc. Rather they are mechanisms functioning, and projecting "selves"/thises and thats/not this but thats/and objects out of selves, not I but It.

You have mind one over here, and mind two over there. If they are to share anything at all between them, they need some object to share. — Fire Ologist

The object they "share" is itself, Mind, not a thing but a dynamic process moving as History, stationed within billions of fully permeable loci, because bodies provide the infrastructure and feedback for conditioning, the feelings, and the means for action. And embodiment cause the subject to stand in displacing the Body, creating the long evolving illusion that we are separated and our self identity and all of its object associations are real. But only the Body is real; a being in the real world independent of Mind.

The denial of objectivity (mind independent reality) in itself makes all speech and thought meaningless. — Fire Ologist

Yes and that's why mind evolved such illusions as subject/object, because mind is speech. We have subject/object, and all qualities to make speech "real"; not the other way of viewing it; not subject/object must be real because we speak.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

Facts are great. Sure. But they're easily dispensed with little incentive to understand from where or why they arise — Benj96

Totally. To add to your observation, I have found that, not only is it fact based rather than "skill" based; but, the "skills" which are taught are not focused on how to think, but rather, how to grow up gainfully employed, even for kids at elementary levels. Of course, I am not so naive as to deny the value; but, like you, I think teaching how to think must be a priority, beginning in early years.

I referred to that in a previous comment. — Lionino

Apologies.

If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction. — Corvus

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals]

My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church. — Lionino

Ok, I did read that in your previous comments. Perhaps I superimposed a more polemical tone in how I read some of the "cloudier" language. Since that's your point, yes. While I think there's room for debate, I have no problem accepting that, and proceeding "aesthetically" as you say. Of course the so-called Bible from which I derive my heretical interpretation is a Church doctrine and therefore by definition any interpretation inconsistent therewith is heretical. I'm contrite for being so fixated that I didn't hear you speaking that simple undeniable truth.

However, two worthies of mention (unless more arise quickly enough)

1. Some interpretations following an independent reading might coincidentally be orthodox. I'm not suggesting the result nullifies that the process was aesthetic. I'm noting that it is reasonable to be flexible about the process if the end result bears orthodox "truth." It might even be viewed favorably as "independent" confirmation. Of course, for what that's worth to the Vicar of Christ which needs no independent verification. I'm just saying...

2. In fairness, the question, what kind of influence has Xtianity been? Does not necessarily call for an orthodox, or theological/ecclesiastical process. Or am I mistaken? In fact to have to answer that question, and associated ones like the role of the historical Jesus, within those confines would be futile. The answer is the Church is God's fiduciary on earth, period.

One would have to proceed historically, as sociological, or, as you said, aesthetically. So though you may have only been after that point quoted above and nothing else; and though I stubbornly bypassed it, I'm not sure why, when the historical Jesus was raised, it would be relevant to insist upon an ecclesiastical perspective, other than to point out, as information, that the ones you were commenting upon happened to be following an historical-critical approach potentially unsanctioned by the self proclaimed catholic and orthodox Church (again, no offense. I recognize much good in thd Church, that is not my focus)

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"? — Lionino

Yes, I now see the distinction. And, trust you see why it's not relevant (unless as info...). If the OP asked has the Harry Potter series been an influence of good, you would not insist that any analysis of restrict itself to an orthodox reading as intended by the author. Even an analysis of the very text.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y. — Lionino

Yes. And I reiterate that you unblocked me on the first part, i.e. you can stop at mistake. But as a side note the second part raises an interesting variation which doesnt effect my acknowledgement of the first part, but may have implications. The point of the church is to dictate truths we must believe. There is necessarily no room for analysis. JK Rowling has written fiction. In fact, there are many who might argue her intent ought not shape our analysis. And as an author (I dont know) she might encourage creative analyses.

Our question in the OP is more like the analysis of fiction. Quick and simple illustration. These are not intended to follow any strict format of logic nor speak to the OP.

Q. Has Xtianity been a force of good?
A. No. It hasn't followed its own teachings.
Q. How so?
A. Jesus says love your enemies, there are
examples where they have not.
Objection. You can't speak to what Jesus says, you're not the Church.

That's what it seems like you are asserting.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively?

I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with both points above. From my analysis which I acknowledge may or may not be orthodoxy,

1. Yes in the synoptics J can get pretty gnostic. I do not think agnosticism is not orthodoxy necessarily because the former did not conform to the historical J or the early church I.e., first 100 years of the C.E. It was a struggle for dominance of the early Church's opposing "interpretations" gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, etc. An earlier version of that is the struggle between Paul who thirsted for the spread of Christ to the so called Greeks vs those so called Judaisers who insisted that Torah etc be strictly adhered to. Though a compromise appears to have been made, Pauls language (which I would argue was far from antisemitic, but rather, along the lines of, hey brothers, if we're going to spread this thing, we need to let up stuff like circumcision and pork)** arguably, the tragic first seed of Xtianity's shameful history of antisemitism.
EDIT**I don't mean it was fine to insist to his fellow Judaens that we should abandon circumcision and pork. I'm saying that was a concern he was willing to bypass in his desperation to spread the new religion among the gentiles. And tragically from the early Church to very recent times, Paul's choices contributed to corrupt antisemetic interpretations of "the gospels," obviously both Jesus, Paul, and the majority of tge first Apostles, Acts and thereafter, were Jewish, and continued for a while to identify as such.

2. I agree Thomas doesn't "contradict" the canonical gospels, it expands with a multitude of gems which are vague enough that they ready themselves for
many interpretations.
Addendum: thank God it was left out of the canonical gospels.

Hence, its meaning is expressed. — jkop

In our conventions that's an acceptable statement. I'm suggesting on an alternative analysis its "meaning" is (temporarily) "constructed" in the expression, by the effect it has upon the participating bodies--feeling--belief--action. And these constructions--that is, "meaning"-- is not a static and in itself thing, but a fast moving train making brief stops.

I like Ice cream has countless subtle effects upon parties from stop to stop. And while a statement like porcupines are ptickly "appears" not to be moving (because we think it is confirmed by our senses).* Meaning is neither static nor ultimately real.

*I am not saying we cannot trust our sense, or that the latter is not Real. I'm saying the statements immediately surfacing following sensation, I.e. perception, is a process of constructing functional but fleeting meaning.

Or, meaning is not expressed but constructed repeatedly in the process of every expression, internal or outward.

What I'm meaning to say is one looks at a random dead body and the Truth of that, whatever it is, just is.

But the instant one thinks or expresses "that is a dead body," one/we think they have expressed an objective truth (and we have set up "shared" criteria long before that encounter which triggers that label).

Then those who believe all truths are either subjective or shared subjective (the latter being "objective" analysed at a closer level: simply the shared criteria), simply recategorize the thought triggered by the encounter as subjective and a silent, "to me" is implied before the statement (to me that is a dead body)

All "three" perspectives (objective/shared subjective/subjective) "think" a Truth has been expressed; and, think the matter for (philisophical) analysis lies in the "truth" (of it) and "who" made it or "who" does it directly effect.

But I'm saying the matter for (philisophical) analysis is neither. It is only "true" for the process attuning to it, and only because of the habitation to the criteria we share. And subjective or objective are more criteria constructed and shared.

The matter for (philisophical) analysis is in the "what" effect the statement has on the parties involved in the process. If it is functional for all minds involved in that tiny locus of moving history to temporarily settle there--that is a dead body--then it is true. If one party entertains a contradictory statement "I saw her breathe", that statement is brought into a new cycle of dialectic until the parties settle on a new functional belief. And so on.

The reason it may be functional to analyze the process in that way is because it doesn't just apply in encounters with statements about empirically testable so called truths, but to all truth statements, projected
internally or into the so called world. So that when I say God is only the god of Abraham or of Krishna, and a million people
agree, that is neither subjective nor shared subjective, but a settlement upon a statement as (temporarily) functional. And the same goes with statements like "roses come in a variety of colors." No where are these Ultimate Truths, subjective or objective. Everywhere they are statements settled upon by an individual or a group because it is functional to so settle.

I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon. — BitconnectCarlos

Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. It presented too "mystical" a Jesus and ignored the urgency of the parousia which the early church was fixated on.

But not because there is anything antithetical to the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels, right?

Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino

We've had our back and forth earlier and I was content to adjourn. But I am truly confused by your insistence and am curious to understand.

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. Why? The Church has given itself that authority. Or do you think it to be truly ordained by (a) god?

If I'm not mistaken, you claim you're not even a Christian, yet confidently further restrict the Church so ordained, to just the Catholic one (you realize yet there are Orthodox and Protestants who would think otherwise--and as I said, I was raised Catholic, and have no bone to pick. Its just hard to believe you are seriously taking this stance).

You might be technically correct when you state that if you are against Xtian dogma you're not a Xtian, just as for Buddhists. But even if that were the case, I can't believe you're seriously claiming (as you seem to have been) that one who doesn't adhere to that Church's dogma, has no business formulating opinions about, and discussing, Jesus in a way which differs from such teachings.

Even in something as technical as math or science there are variations and progressions. Even the global "Church," as in the severed Body of Christ, has come up with several interpretations of Jesus. So, your insistence is confusing.

And if your reply is anything like "You can say whatever you want about Jesus, its just not Xtian, or accurate," I'd say that's not what most of your replies sound like. They sound like your saying You can't say anything about Jesus unless it conforms strictly with the teachings of (what?) the Roman Catholic Church as dictated from time to time by the Vatican?

And further, while you are correct to an extent about the ancient Catholic church compiling the Vulgate, precursor to the "Bible," that may give them authority over how their flock interprets the gospels, but not in any way a monopoly over the "right" interpretation. And note, copies of gospels, the letters of Paul had been circulating among the Churches in Greece, Italy and tge Levant long before there even was a Catholic Church. So what if I said I was formulating my hypotheses from those manuscripts in the Hellenic Greek in which they were written? Would that release me from the fetters of the Institution, and free me to think of Jesus in the ways those readings inspire?

With respect, it sounds like either you are repeating a polemic in support of the Catholic Church (in which case, all power to you) or you have so much contempt for the whole thing that it suits you to relegate all talk of Xtianity, Jesus included to authoritarian Dogma, institutional religion, the way some non-Muslims wish to insist that you cannot be a Muslim and not believe in the more fanatical version of Jihad.

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. And I assure you, I'm trying to understand.

I wouldn't know about it unless I find your body or someone else finds your body and tells me about it. So, your dead body would be a shared subjective truth for everyone who sees your dead body. — Truth Seeker

Lest you think I misunderstood (or, I'm case I did) in the scenario above, I would say death and its body are what they are. The moment a member of the living expresses "that body is dead" or "that's a dead body" whether as a thought to themselves or a statement to an other, the "thing" of that expression is not (surprisingly, because we are habituated to "think" otherwise) in its truth, objective or otherwise; but in its function. That's what both words and the so called truths they express are "there for," and believing them or not is the effect of that process. There is never any real truth to be found, because the process is an empty train in motion. No static subject to anchor (substantiate) it, no object to substantiate (anchor).