perhaps other philosophies reflect other mindstates? — Benj96

While I'm not prepared to complete such an exercise, it would be interesting if philosophies are "reactive" formations (in the psychoanalytic tradition).

An ideological anarchist is a psychological submissive (wishing to break free);
Deontologist / Morally loose
Existentialist / Emotionally hopeless
and so on,

but...meh. I don't think such a hypothesis can be supported. And yet, to me, your question above is almost inevitably answered in the affirmative. Whether "consciously" or "unconsciously" how can a mindstate not leach into an ideology or (at least a precriptive) philosophy? Just as current culture, a philosopher's locus in History, cannot but influence her constructions/projections into that same History.

Is it not fair to suggest that any given "philosophy" is necessarily constructed using the "words" floating around in the philosopher's individual Mind applied to and combined with the words input from others' minds. What else is there?

Though I’m sure many people are content with the implications of determinism, that they have zero responsibility, and their actions have somehow began outside of them. — NOS4A2

I am surprised at how common this view is, albeit expressed in degrees of subtlety. That is, that those who have settled against free-will are doing so out of a psychological desire to be "free" of responsibility.

I don't believe that to be the case. To me the question is more about the nature/structure of human Mind/metaphysics than morality. I.e., the moral implications follow my judgment about whether or not we have free will, rather than informing it.

But I do find it interesting.

when you keep things vague and generalize what a hole is, it's a paradox, but when you get specific and realize there are two types of holes, you realize the paradox resolves itself. — Echogem222

since many people think that nothing means something which can be understood, something that other things cannot logically come from, when in reality, it's just complete non-understanding. — Echogem222

There is nothing greater or less than nothing, because if not, then that would mean that nothing isn't nothing. That is the most we can possibly understand. — Echogem222

:up:

How many "philosophical" hypotheses (including, admittedly, any that I may entertain) rest on just such a thing as you have illustrated; that is, on a necessary (yet, not necessarily) presumption about meaning?

While I am not a logician in any sense, and ought not comment on the paradox, qua "paradox." I think both your paradox, and the responses, illustrate the same thing. That we arrive at all of our (temporary) "conclusions" through the fundamentally empty and fleeting movement of words, we are bound to run into walls of confusion (at best), "absurdity" seeming impossibility, at worst.

To me, that is not very troubling or surprising. What is more troubling and surprising, is that we "think" those walls are not there when things appear to run smoothly in spite of them (because the intended function of the word seems to have been satisfied), and on that basis, declare (that their use--these fleeting and empty representations with walls), not just point to "truth(s)" but are certainly True.

Good enough...and this is for what it is worth and in no way a "correction" but I believe I am fixating on the intricate details. That the statement, "for Hinduism the universe is an illusion" is accurate provided it is qualified that the "universe" referred to is the one (and the way in which) we "see". But that the universe is ultimately real, in the Being of Brahman...any way, your point was well taken.

I am not sure what other illusions I might still have. — Corvus

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions?

According to Hinduism, the entire universe is an illusion — Truth Seeker

Perhaps you are correct and my read is deficient. But I think for (the) "Hinduism" (you are likely referencing), the Universe is real, but all which we conventionally experience is (clouded by) projections of that Reality and not the Reality Itself, hence the "illusion."

our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust). — Antony Nickles

Well said from where I'm standing. Especially the bit about knowledge displacing being.

what does that path look like? — Antony Nickles

Not to be "cute": that path doesn't "look" like anything. The "looking" is already an act within the cave. We happen to always be, and always already are on the path by being. Any turning or looking is looking away.

People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs — Sam26

I'd dare say the metaphysical (for humans) is the psychological.

Some people think they have all the answers — Sam26

Note: any claim or assertion I make has the implied preface "In my opinion, but then, at tge end of the day, what do I know," notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.

98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit. — Sam26

And this is not facetious, isn't that residual 2% just our ego's demand for the comfort of certainty in knowledge, a thing we are constructing as we go? Isn't the 2% just well crafted bullshit?

The present age is adamant that there need not be a central being at the helm of things as complex as electrons, molecukes and planets, that these are processes of causes and effects playing out since the big bang.

But it can’t comprehend that there can be no one at the helm, that it can be processes of causes and effects since the the emergence of mind and one's birth, in making a decision to go for an ice cream cone instead of killing the neighbor.

And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed. — Chet Hawkins

Needed. Please.

If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. — Chet Hawkins

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice."

The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral.

Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second.

Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral.

This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares?

But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem.

Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved (because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being.

Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, — Chet Hawkins

I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. Not a single idea on these pages is original. I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting.

The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it.

That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral. — Chet Hawkins

And I say there is nothing inherently wrong about making K's deontology the moral structure of history going forward. But where you might say it is anyway, universally and essentially, and we ought abide by it; I say it only is if "we" as in that autonomously moving process will have
made it so.

If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter. — Chet Hawkins

All of that doesn't matter if meaning too, and choices mattering, are evolved mechanisms of that process.

What's your point? you might ask. If the system has evolved these sophisticated mechanisms of freedom choice and meaning, for all intents and purposes, they are real and do matter. Right ? I say yes they do. But my point is, whereas we insist on these as absolutes, as essences, the process has no essence, it is fleeting and empty of "thing in itself" etc. So openess and flexibility, are the way to go. reminded me of Taoism recently. Perhaps that is the moral imperative, be always as an uncarved block ready to serve the Way ( ie. Process or system).

interested in taoism for most of my life. I loved Le Guin's Earthsea books and the old Kung Fu tv show as a kid. Years later, for whatever reason, I started reading the Tao Te Ching , and immediately recognized it. — Patterner

I can't doubt it has structured the Foundations of my constructions, though I have not picked up anything

Taoist for some time. You mention Lao Tze. You may be getting to this as I read on, but the Zhuangzi are (I can't think of a worthy adjective) insightful. Used to be called Chuang Tzu and I bet there are scholarly translations from that time still in use (Watson? I think).

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I gather it goes much farther than taoism does in the direction you're speaking of. But I believe both offer paths to a life that is more content and less frantic. Which probably also helps people be physically healthier. — Patterner

I have to say, in fairness to both Taoism and Buddhism I am far from an "adherent" nor "auhority". I was "challenged" in another thread(?) when I spoke freely about Jesus but outside of church orthodoxy, and you could say the same about taoism, and Buddhism for me. They are building blocks in what this locus in History is currently projecting.

The primary reason you're right that B goes farther in this (my) direction than T, is T is not a good fit with western philosophy at the level of discourse (and though my loose speech may not suggest it Kant, Hegel, Husserl, etc are also blocks; as are so many without my awareness. I believe I should read Merleau-Ponty, for instance but haven't gotten around to it. And Rorty! No doubt they have constructed my thinking.) Sorry my autobiographical points are to illustrate that I have sensed some--no doubt genius--"philosophers" like to insist upon what I see as "institutional" roots of an idea for it to deserve a hearing. I think almost the contrary. Of course we build off of all that is before us and should endeavor to know. And I admire the knowledge of those who like to root their ideas in authority. I just think "freedom" has its function. Ironic, when there is no real freedom. I know. Truth is, both expressing and following these hypotheses places you in paradox. People critique that (you are contradicting etc) and they're right. But it's because they haven't considered that being in the paradox is almost the closest you can get to an empirical observation (hence Zen Koan, but I'm so off topic).

Heck, even if it isn't truth, I see the value. (I suppose that's a matter of opinion.) — Patterner

And an aspect of these hypotheses is that truth is ultimately what is functional. By the way, accepting that Mind is Fictional (bluntly) seems scary, nihilistic, absurd. But it is very functional. I could fill up a page. But at least, remember, mind is Fictional, you are real. It's just that you're not mind. Sounds "religious" but, you're better. Though mind is neither good nor bad but self defines good and bad.

a rejection of our individuality. The universe allows for me, and for you, to exist. Why should we not embrace and explore this? — Patterner

Nice. I am not advocating for the rejection of our individuality. Cherish it. Great has come out of the constructions, love has grown far beyond its organic root. Shelters have become great art, and so too is the individual a great thing. And why should knowing you are the breath of Nature and the aware-ing of the universe make you sad about your Subject. It is a character for you to understand microscopically if you try. And I am not saying I have mastered that or even remotely approached it. But I do believe from a microscopic analysis of your character as if to master a role in a movie, you will be delighted to find that things like peace and compassion arise.

What would have been accomplished by having tried to deny the individual point of acute consciousness when it was possible?

And what would have been the point if there is not a universal consciousness, and this is it? — Patterner

No, I think you are bang on friend. There is a universal consciousness. Move mountains with our special tool, and play your role (reminding me of the Bhagavad Gita--also, turns up out of nowhere without having thought about it; and they say mind isn't autonomous--joke) but know that you are universal consciousness.

And if there is no being present, then to what does the seeming seem to be? — Patterner

[Reiterating that anything I say is unauthorative, and literally just my humble opinion, Grant me the freedom to just answer directly...]

The simple "one line" (likely it'll end up being multi-line) response is, because somewhere in the evolution of Mind, or what we call history, "being" emerged in its likely current state, triggering the necessary, but subtle, imperceptible *) organic feelings which correspond with that Signifier (and it's common local structure, like reality, existence, substance, essence,...,subject...). When the subject emerged it (very simplified), 1. "Stood in for" the Body (which has no self consciousness but is only present aware-ing. 2. (Eventually...but then all of it was/is Eventually. It's still eventual. One day, though extremely unlikely, we may be selfless, having evolved a system which drops the Subject...Eventually) Completely displaced the body: its organic sensation of a real world, displaced by constructions of that world, once removed from Reality, filtered, fictional; its feelings became emotions; its drives became the desire of these signifiers to project; from their the Dialectical process moving it along ( I'm leaving out a lot). At some point(s) in this, the Narrative form evolves, the necessary "I" participates in almost every sentence, or at least hangs back in the shadows. And now, (to answer your question when that dialectic takes place, the one "I" say (I know many do, I'm just speaking for myself) moves autonomously, without a being at the center, Mind and its Narrative, which has been structured with "being" with "I" and with "pulling the strings" (explaining our also Fictional concept of God without negating god--just as this negates the self without negating "its" reality albeit in an unspeakable form), constructs the Narrative signifier structure "I (the body) have made a free choice". These "meaningless" (because to the Body "meaning" has no meaning) Signifiers are sent as code through the fleshy infrastructure of the Body, triggering Body to feel those imperceptible feelings. But they are imperceptible as feelings because they are being "perceived" as the meaning, not the feelings. Now, the Body attuned to that Narrative "I" have made a choice. When really, "it" the "choice" was an autonomous process. What the Body did was feel and/or move, as a result of that process. But the Body did not (as it might for a bonobo who chooses to discard an unfinished banana) attune to the Natural feelings, drives, and actions, and then move on to the next in the successive nows (being), the Body attuned to the story and tge subjects role (becoming)...

*imperceptible because the Signifiers -- the very ones constructing free will -- have displaced the body's present aware-ing of the subtle feelings evolved to trigger a drive, to trigger an action.

Why does it seem there is a being in the mechanistic process? — Patterner

And now, perhaps, you see how there is a being now; its just that being nows "attention" is diverted by a moving train, it is empty and has no presence, and vainly constructs a self and refers to itself as being, but it is by structure and nature always moving, never there. As for the so called "free will" of the real being, the observer whose attention is diverted, free will? It doesn't care.

The fact that we lack the freedom to refrain from things like breathing seems irrelevant- — Relativist

Yes, I agree it seems irrelevant. A clumsy illustration. My point--if it makes a difference now--isn't to say, "see? We can't choose whether or not to breathe, therefore... ." My point (which may equally offend your reasoning on this topic) was to suggest that just as breathing is an autonomous organic process, "deliberating" is an autonomous process having evolved in the human Mind. We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not

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

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

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

:up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now add:

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

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

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

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

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

Nice. True

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you imply that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well put.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because of the way earnestness works — Antony Nickles

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

the other judges — Antony Nickles

Ok, sure. I used "interpret" carelessly.

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

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

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

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

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