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

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

Jesus wasn't a hippy. — Lionino

I'm unsure what you mean. Obviously not.

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

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

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

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

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

Which path led you to this conclusion? — Truth Seeker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To imagine — Antony Nickles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hah! And so the thing writes on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Why disagree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice!

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

I agree!
— isomorph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you read any Damasio? — Joshs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again!

Deep apologies for that misstatement

Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples — javi2541997

Ok, well if that's an issue, I don't even need to look at your examples. It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone.

But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right?

Can you explain? — Janus

It requires a long and patient (I.e., on my part) explanation, given it appears "unconventional." Add to that my own limitations at translating my deepest reflections, many not necessarily fully processed (sorry, I know that sounds self serving and pretentious) into text, and, the fact that this is a shared space, you can imagine my challenge (I know, Im not the only one). And yet, my passion to share (which is autonomous, and runs through all of us. . . But Im expanding)

So, I'll give something brief and limited to one aspect of a much larger "picture;" leave it at that for now. Note. I'm trying to be surgical with my words, a skill I lack. I beg some play in the reader.

Sticking to the "I see my hands" example.
Yes we both agree there is a Real, and for the sake of discourse, "knowable" event. That is, in the presence of its being. There are real eyes seeing, real hand seen, all of which takes its place in the presence of being.

But in the instant that that event arises as a thought; specifically in our discussion, the instant it becomes the object of knowing, it (or our real conscious attention to it (?)) "ceases" to be, and "enters" (not literally. Organic consciousness, which naturally attuned to being present (eyes--see-ing--hand) has "its" attunement displaced) is now attuned to becoming ("something"); that is, to no longer really "experiencing" that "knowable" real event (long forsaken), but to constructing it. And that construction process is what we are arguing about as knowing. And that is what I say requires belief and is necessarily not 100% certain.

Even for something as lightening speed as seeing your hand. I say, yes, "you" know this because "you" were there. But you're not there anymore, you're truly just making shit up. Best you can. But still. [Not sure I like the last bit, but wouldn't want to cheat you out of it, should you wish to "attack"]

radical or global skepticism — Janus

I do not agree with that position either.

It is obvious that your eyes see and that the objects are there, and are real. That's not where the uncertainty is. It's in this, my expression of that hypothetical event, and, with respect, it's in yours. We do not disagree that when we look we know and see that we have hands. As to what "your" or simply "knowledge" of that event is, that's where we differ.

If "my" skepticism about that must be relegated to "radical skepticism," so be it. I would then believe there are some who do not understand radical skepticism and think it entertains the foolish idea that you can't be certain you have hands. (Who knows, maybe what you're calling Radical Skepticism is just misunderstood. I haven't studied it well enough to know).

I'll consider whether, and how best to discuss this further. Either way, your OP was perhaps more interesting to some than you might have intended/expected. Sincerely, Thank you.

When I explore my environment I do not find any room for doubt that the things I perceive there are actually there. — Janus

Understood. Thank you.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

It seems everyone is neglecting the pith and substance of the OP.

Comments like, not all Christians "this," or, blame Christians not Christianity, can be applied almost mot a mot to Islam (not all Muslims are terrorists or fanatically sexist). And, as alan1000 was directly suggesting, historically, vice versa. The blame we hurl against one religion can be hurled at the other.

I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases.

That means that systems that appear to have rational principles are in fact voluntaristic frameworks disguised as rational.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

I've generally suspected that most, if not all philosophy or theory, is rationalisation after emotion. — Tom Storm

And emotion is rationalization after feeling. Let me see if I can explain this and how this ties in, without frustrating those who are practicing an admirably tight process when they "do" discourse. I apologize in advance for my anticipated deficiency (neither sarcasm nor self deprecating. Seriously).

If morality is not just rationalization of emotion, then what is its root, at least "for us?" Imagine prehistoric humans with either no language or extremely primitive language like grunts and gesticulations, and focus on the most obvious moral "issue," say murder. I cannot imagine there was a homicide problem. Sure, like Chimpanzees, there was likely occasional reactions to feelings which drove a human to act aggressively, and even kill. And while members of the group might alienate the "killer" this would have to have been an instinct or drive based on other feelings (which now we might label "disgust" "contempt" or "fear" based feelings)

So if what my imagination tells me is plausible, the imperative, "do not kill," better, the principle, "it is wrong to kill," would have emerged after that stage. I currently believe it emerged with the emergence/evolution of Language to a given level (which I won't elaborate on now). That level of Language gave us the equipment and inventory to construct rationalizations we now know as morals.

I also believe that before that hypothetical level of Language development, feelings were organically triggered in response to environmental "events" and we reacted to those feelings, like drives. Some would drive us to aggression, like if a predator or hostile intruder threatened; others drove us to cooperate, share, caress, groom and bond. Once that hypothetical level of Language evolved/emerged, those feelings too, could be rationalized as emotions, hatred or love for e.g., or anger and happiness.

For humans now, with Mind at the helm, "do not kill" is a rationalization of all of the emotions which are rationalizations of all the feelings which are triggered at the presentation of (no longer witnessing or participating in the hostile killing, but sufficiently at the presentation of) related Signifiers: death, kill, violence etc. And we construct the imperative that one should never kill as the fitting response to the manifestation of those signifiers. And we are now lost in that process, believing it to be, not just true and natural, but for some, absolute.

We do not need the moral imperatives. We are not made to rape and murder. We are made to bond, mate and form bonds which we are driven to protect with our lives. But if someone is presented with a "Hitler," and has the opportunity to stop him, it is not the constructed "thou shall not kill," which should play the primary role in the decision not to.

Patterner I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live.
— Truth Seeker
True. But this is just a thought experiment, to see if we can come to any conclusions about the self/mind that we can be reasonably sure of. Imo, we can. At least in regards to human minds. — Patterner

No doubt I share your sentiment above. But it shows how much--for us--life is valued in what our minds do. Because your hypothetical human's life is being assessed from our perspective, that of a conceited ape, we cannot imagine that her life has value. Yet, on a balance there is likely far more life on earth that meets that description, I.e., no sensation, thoughts about past and future, just being.

Mind is great. But is life without mind nothing? Or is life nature's "greatness," the essence, and our mind and its constructions (including the topic of this discussion, the so called self) incidental?

We should try to avoid harming ourselves and others as we stumble around in semi-darkness — Fooloso4

Yes, especially for me, I realize how I am "harming" others when my language is reckless and imprecise. But everyone should be permitted to stumble in the darkness. We are all there anyway.

What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse — Benj96

If the speaker is speaking in earnest*, who am I to judge? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to "play ball" with anyone who truly just wants to play ball?



*(I suppose, including if they are being earnestly comedic, satirical, absurd, etc. That is, "earnest" is related to "intention" not "delivery" )

expect something, to think it most likely, is not necessarily to believe it will happen — Janus

I agree. I was recklessly pursuing a thought.

I'm not claiming there is any right or wrong, or fact of the matter there. — Janus

I appreciate that.

I think we can know many things with certainty. — Janus

Is that not, then dependant upon our definitions of certainty? Assume 100% is a fitting adjective. I.e., that there is absolutely no room for doubt or possibility. Still? I personally cannot see that anywhere

Except, maybe if you "enclose" the knowing and the object of knowing in the "conventional". For e.g. to say I am 100% certain I have a nose on my face. But take that statement outside the box, and already questions arise, what is "nose", what is "face" is it really "on" what is "on" what is "my" is it "my" is there a me, or is there just a lump of flesh? Etc.

Firstly, if I am exploring items outside the scope of your interest, please disregard.

Secondly, maybe the answers are in Arendt, and I'm unaware. I can remember reading The Human Condition (?) years ago. No doubt it has contributed to my narrative, but I can't remember much. And I'm impatient. Sorry.

Thirdly, please bear with me. I am exploring ideas which are apparently (only recently apparent to me to be) outside of the reaches of convention. Or, equally, if not more likely, I have an idiosyncratic way of expressing ideas which are within that reach. Either way, though it may not be obvious, against my impatience, I am trying to be sensitive to both. In other words, I'm not being deliberately puzzling, even less deliberately frustrating, or god forbid obtuse.

(If) culture is Nature (which I haven't settled on) and hubris is "bad" (which I have settled upon). ...

1. Assume, like I do, the broadest definition of culture to mean the very ground of the human condition. ( C is what differentiates us, hence the "human" condition. Not "like" the "rest" of our organic natures). So all human experiences and all of their manifestations which are not strictly primal(?) (you also reference the relevance of prehistoric, so that) are C.

2. But C is Natural, you (and likely most people(?)) say. It's not there in the so-called primal. So it must have evolved...(?)

3. And if C is the ground of the human condition, then hubris also comes from C and its (natural?) evolution. So hubris is natural. And when we see it as bad, that is nature "judging" itself (?). Which if C is natural, our human nature engages in a lot of processes where we necessarily behave as if we were two; behaviors like judging ourselves, speaking to ourselves...but...how? (It least that has to be some form of artificial mechanism taking place)

4. Also if hubris is nature, is it really bad? Yes, I know, aggression is nature and also bad; and so are hurricanes. But are they? If hubris and aggression naturally evolved, they have presumably served some natural fitness for survival. And sure enough, we have surpassed the other primates with hubris. Should we take a step back before we mess with evolution?

I have a few more, I'm sure, but I've said enough to attempt my point. Which is,

Doesn't it seem much simpler (and in the spirit of Ockhams razor) more reasonable to see C--though clearly the ground of the HC--not as a natural evolution, but a complete construction of something new, no longer of this world of natural reality. Something empty of essence or thing in itself; something more like code which emerged/evolved. And C is built out of that. Like everything in C, everything we ordinarily see as "making-up" the HC, Hubris is a construction out of "code" triggering certain organic feelings and activities. Viewed that way, a natural being can, admittedly using the codes accessible in C, designate as something "bad", something we have constructed out of/in C, but something harmful to our organism; a thing we ought to revise or abandon.

In other words, we can most effectively protect our organic beings, and the species, if we recognize that both the so called good and the so called bad are already not what we are, and can be "manipulated" (I prefer edited) or even abandoned if harmful to our organic prosperity; promoted, even reconstructed better, if helpful to our organic prosperity.

if our survival abilities are clouded, we will never be able to adapt, and that is what I think has happened. — isomorph

Here's how I read your ideas. There's "two" of us, but not in the conventional "dualism" sense. One alone is real. The other one, in the words of your narrative, a (multi)cultural construct. So far I'm with you. Though in narrative expressed from my "unique" locus.

The real one you seem concerned about. Again, I'm with you that the "cultural" Narrative has displaced the natural aware-ing of the real one. But I don't think the Real one, organic us, ever loses it's instincts or drives. Because natural aware-ing has its natural attunement "turned away" and "facing" (almost):exclusively "culture" it--real us--is under the "illusion" (not illusion per se, but it seems to be a popular term) that natural drives and senses and feelings are replaced but, as I think you "said" they are clouded over, displaced.

In other words, don't worry* we're still here. We always were and always will be.

*in fairness to your compelling idea, I realize you still raise a valid concern, but, in case you meant, beneath the covers, we were losing our True Being, we can't. But within the "realm" of culture it's a valid concern to think, we could use a little more natural aware-ing, this culture thing is out of hand, yes.

Confucius said, born alike, but by practice far apart. — isomorph

I think "Confucius" was constructing some of the Foundations in culture for that very point you make (and I currently believe) that there is the natural us and the cultural and eventually (both individually and as history) culture takes over (clouds/displaces). But in practice not far apart. Are we kidding? We're the same in nature and in culture. Ignoring nature for now. These variations in culture are minor. We are structured on the same foundational signifiers, we all move by the same dialectical processes, include the subject/object, settle at beliefs, and so on and so on and so on. They only appear to be something different in the given moments along their fleeting manifestations and movements through time. Culture is one thing everywhere. I personally think of it as History or (Universal) Mind. Not in either a mystical nor new age sense. But I won't elaborate.

My point, to wrap, is I agree with you that the natural we, is overshadowed by the cultural we. But I think the natural we is at no risk and is doing fine. And I think the "multi" part of the cultural we is not as multi or mutually exclusive as we think. In fact, it is virtually not at all when viewed structurally.

:up:

Thank you. But it just seems too obvious. Clearly this concept has been considered and reconsidered a thousand times by those who do not think belief is (at least a necessary movement in) knowledge. (?)

Hmm. When "they" were expectations, were they "belief." And now that your expectations have been affirmed, are they knowledge?

Sorry, I regret any part I may have had in meeting your expectations. That was my lame attempt at returning to the root.

The thing is, I still believe knowledge is given its "breath of life" only when the mind makes the final (temporary) movement of belief. Even your last statement can be prefaced with "I believe." It doesn't make grammatical or conventional sense to our ears for nothing. It states a necessary mechanism for a thing to be known. "I believe" is the Signifier structure which is necessarily implied in I know.

Like if I say "give it to me," and "You" are the implied subject addressed. In the implied subject e.g. it's necessity manifests more obviously as grammatical. The implied "believe" is not as obviously necessary in the grammar, but remains just as factually necessary as in the implied subject. However, its latency in grammar has accustomed us to affirming knowledge without the implied belief.

But it is there. We know this intuitively. I'm really not understanding the resistance. And someone more competent and industrious might take the time to demonstrate. But never mind we cannot know with 100% certainty. That reveals another eerie fact about our experience. We cannot know truth period. Knowledge and truth are alien to one another (spoken from the knowledge side of the gap). Thus, after completing a process (and there are many variations of the process, some simple, others complex, slow, fast, etc) and one knows something, it is because they have settled upon it. Sure, with reason. But still, they have believed.

What about truth? If you know truth you know it, belief might be a mechanism. But it wasnt necessary. This might be an objection which hooks us into knowledge doesn't need belief. But worded better I admit by its proponents.

Knowledge takes place without truth. Knowledge is constructed out of the available data. It's not that we don't know whether or not belief was needed. It's always needed to ordain the settlement as knowledge; even if very silently. But it's that we cannot know truth. And I don't mean we can't know if we happen to have stumbled upon it. I mean can't know truth because "know" is constructing a point of temporary settlement.

Lazy e.g.s: this topic deserves much more elegant, microscopic ones, but in 1100 CE they "knew" the earth was central etc. After Newton and before Einstein we "knew" what gravity was.

I agree.

seems no matter how rancid an action might be, we can always summon something more-rancid to happen if we don't take the action, which is when rancid becomes acceptable. — Lionino

When people are starving, they might eat something "rancid".

And where'd the mind come from? What's its true nature? But ok. What if the true nature of the self is the Being in the mind? But what if the true nature of the human Organism were not the self located in mind, but the Being of that organism? I.e. the be-ing (of) the organism, mind/self immaterial. Is there two beings "making up" the human. If so, is one more "important"? If not, which one is real? Isn't the other necessarily an illusion. I know this would not have been so for Descartes, still within a locus of history whose Narrative was dominated by dualism and the Church. But for us, isn't it obvious that the organism be-ing aligns with the rest of Nature, and the self, an oddity unique to a single conceited ape, is the illusion? That organism has sensation. Is that what you mean by there is no self without sense...? But perception is constructed by Mind, displacing the organisms sensation with illusions. The self is one of them.

Wisdom has the unique quality that when we (anyone) sees it they are shamed and reminded of some weakness. — Chet Hawkins

Very Nice

You make a mess of the presentation and I of proper decorum in the forum. But we can still both take a chalice to the palace and have a good drink and a laugh, all the while both being and yet knowing nothing. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe, in the end, the only (fitting) truth. Thank [god] there's always that!

But the nature of truth suggests as I am sure you are well AWARE that they to cannot really know. — Chet Hawkins

alas

DESIRE, is the emotive source of any and all becoming — Chet Hawkins

Yes!

And it will not be magic at that time. It will be just the truth that was always there. — Chet Hawkins

Which means
It's there now.

ENOAH
Hilarious because you know very well that I do — Chet Hawkins

You're killing me! :up:

Like you, I usually read your response and answer immediately as soon as I "feel" the drive to answer. This time, sensing I had blind folded you early on, I collected a few related points to respond to at once. This time, too, I added this preface, written as an afterward.

Given I have afforded my self the breather of a preface. I'd also like to note how intriguing it is to me that we can share one principle concept, e.g. that we cannot hold to conclusions, that knowing is (or at least necessarily includes) belief etc. and yet express it so differently.

And as you justifiably pondered what my expression of that was, you overlooked one of its most "prominent" features. I.e., that it is inevitable that we will express differently, and that, in the end, it is not that one of us is correct (though as to presentation, I might readily defer to you as by far the "best"), it is that we are both ultimately "incorrect."

And no worries, I already know you don't adopt that statement.

I've also answered below since there are intersections of thoughts.

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you regarding the word (hence I placed it in quotes, and often mix in "temporary." However I'm not meticulous. Perhaps I should be, at least, more meticulous).

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth. — Chet Hawkins

to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.
— ENOAH
No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure. — Chet Hawkins

First, kindly NOTE whenever I write "misunderstood me" I fully acknowledge that it is because of my reckless use of Language. I've wondered half seriously if maybe I have a cognitive "condition" which causes me to think people can read my mind.

So, I think you misunderstood me here. And this will illustrate how I must think you can read my mind. Because now I won't be so lazy, and I'll explain it. That was a foot note to the puzzle, how can we know we don't know what's real if we don't in the first place? I'm suggesting that there was a hypothetical first time the root "word" (I.e. "concept") now called "reality" emerged. And that in order for that hypothetical root to have emerged, it must have represented a thing "known" to its hypothetical first speaker. Did she know reality, and its been lost? Or is there no reality? ... but now you see why I added "this is beyond our scope here." But, the point is you can now see, I already agree. Truth can only, as you very nicely put it, inform subjectivity. So even that hypothetical first speaker of the hypothetical root for "reality" was already speaking a "lie"*

*I am being deliberately hyperbolic. Not lie per se, just "uncertainty."

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality.
— ENOAH
Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss.
— ENOAH
I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition. — Chet Hawkins

Here I have definitely assumed you can read my mind. Here is what I was saying, now attempting to use plain English and where applicable your (better) language.

1. Reasoning is great. But assuming it is the "best" path to "truth" it cannot get you to truth. It can only get you to the furthest reach of "subjectivity". You will be at the edge of the cliff where there is an abysmal gap between you and actual truth, reality. It is a gap you cannot traverse.

2. Yet--and here you will not agree. It does not fit**. We human animals, meaning, the Organism, the conceited ape (not the minds where constructions are processed and moved only so far before it reaches an abyss), are already on the other side of that abyss. We are reality and truth. It's just that our organic consciousness our real aware-ing, has been hijacked by the Subject, the "one" who knows and believes, who concludes because it is functional and never because it is true. All the while the Real Being cares not for anything else but being. And that is truth.


**fit is what I mean by functional, and I will explain below.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. — Chet Hawkins

What I mean by Functional is a long and detailed thing. I feel hoggish using up too much space, and prefer to engage simply to see how my thinking might develop. But here goes something concise and thus necessarily vague. Best to paint a picture for now.

1. Our experiences are not of this real natural world, they are written, in Narrative form, by Signifiers operating autonomously and according to evolved Laws and mechanics or dynamics.

2. These Signifiers--primevally, images constructed by the brain to trigger organic response (feeling and action) evolved a "desire" to surface, as they "compete" they move by a dialectical process until finally "one" is temporarily settled upon, belief.

3. Functional is the mechanism which triggers the settlement upon. It doesnt mean usefull though it can. It means "fit for surfacing." So when I say I do not believe the "anger" portion of your hypothesis, it is ultimately because it was not fit for surfacing as belief in my current locus in History (all minds together as one) following a dialectical process of weighing the Signifiers competing to surface in my narrative.

That's why truth is only what is fitting. For all we know there is a remote Amazonian tribe who "know" stuff that would be easily
be adopted by us. But it's not in the local Narrative so it's not true here.

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. — Kizzy

Is it just me, or do you see the uncanniness? I answered Chet first. Look above.

Yes! Exactly. Motion. Time. Becoming. In movement our Narratives only become, and we mistake them for being. Belief are those temporary settlements in the movement of fleeting becoming.

What do you say? Inspired by Chet, I'll read on.

The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project — Kizzy

Ok. That might just be what I think of as temporary settlements based on what is the most fitting to surface or "move the project forward."

Note, part of the movement is that individuality is there and not there. We move as one in the big picture of history. Hence the excitement when we agree. We love to agree.

I'll read that link you directed me to and get back to you.

I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really. — Chet Hawkins

I have no problem with the scientific method as long
as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally — Chet Hawkins

Understood and agree.

I'll admit I'm still pondering the role you place on anger. Alhough now your reasoning is clear, I am not as yet persuaded. I'll explain why, though in fairness to you, I (anticipatorily) don't blame you for not liking it. Your reasoning, I don't disparage. I even found it to be profound and interesting. Once again there is also latent, admirable, drama or poetry in your explanations.

But your focus on anger, though impactful, doesn't have a function in my current narrative of thinking. And I also don't blame you for explaining that if your hypotheses are reasonable and moving, then I am compelled to fit them into my narrative; it is otherwise, to sum up, cowardly, immoral.

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc.

You are blameless for pointing out to me how your categories, fear, desire, anger, balance, and so on (though we arrive at the same station) stand up to the test of reason etc. But nevertheless. Your protestations, if examined honestly, are based upon the deficiency in the use you have for the categories proposed by me. And I'm not complaining. Good for you.

If you object that your rejection of an illogical position is not based upon the function of its conclusion, but upon the dysfunctional process. I'd say yes, function is the deciding factor all the way through. Nothing else in the end brings a conclusion to belief, not even some central being we call you or I.

Since we do not know what reality is — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you. But tell me, how do we know we don't know what reality is when we don't know what reality is *?
*(to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in — Chet Hawkins

Like I said, I now understand, and you presented it with admirable punch. My primary original question, "why link anger with reason," is profoundly answered. Just as for Kant or Heidegger, those who argue in favor of your constructions have found them fitting, and settled for now. And they will go on constructing along side you, varying yours for perfect fit with their own. The others who cannot make a fit will not settle. Some may congratulate you and politely decline, some may politely present their own narrative disguised as a deconstruction of your flawed reasoning, some might find your constructions so unfitting to their own that emotions get the best of them and they demean you and your constructions with a shocking vigor.

I realize for instance how my own proposal here would find few good fits with other Narratives, those whose structures have already closed the door on movements of the plot beyond certain--highly respectable--parameters. Or in plain English, those who can like great Doctors, quickly spot the holes in my logic and reasoning.

But if we cannot know...and we ultimately believe...for a while. Then, who's to say it's only logic and reasoning? I am not saying they ought to be excluded and that we seek truth in one hand clapping. I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality. And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss. So perhaps feelings might have a role...but I'm wondering into another chamber. On our side, function ultimately decides, autonomously too.

Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire — Chet Hawkins

Ok, I didn't know that. Interesting. Neither more nor less compelling. But interesting. Are they somehow Jungian? Or is that a myth? Am I confused?

Are we certain that it is only when particles are arranged in ways that we call "biological" that they can feel, as a unit? We know that it is not what is going on in a given medium that is important? Rather, what is going on must go on in only this particular medium? — Patterner

Fair enough, the hypothesis which I accept, (so yes, an A.I. "who" experiences as do humans is possible), that we cannot rule out what we dont know. I'm open. But I don't know. If you know, tell me. Is there, "good" reason to believe non-organic particles feel or can feel?

Regardless, then there is a secondary importance for me personally in the way I view it. If non-organic particles also feel or can be made to feel, they are in that feeling, already by virtue of being non-organic, not the same. Similar or simulation, ok. But if our organic being is what is ultimately real for us; if it is the feelings, and not the code, wherein you'd find the real consciousness [notice you're not suggesting by way of rebuttal that human type consciousness can exist without feeling. You're saying who says non organic particles can't feel] then whatever feeling A.I. experiences as a result of the operation of its code, provides the necessary ingredient for human like feelings, thus consciousness; but is necessarily not the same as humans' feelings.

And on that same line of thinking, the non organic being would also have to have particles which can form awareness of feeling. I agree it's not for me to argue against, and so I accept, tge possibility. But that second component raises the remoteness of non organic A.I. having the same as humans consciousness. And, also, by the same token, if it did have aware-ing, it would not be organic, and so, it would not be the same.

The only way I can think of is to imbue it with a chronic angst or fear of death or suffering
— Benj96

For it to fear death, it would have to be alive. It would have to be a being, not a simulcrum — Wayfarer

When my mind surfaces a constructed code, it triggers my body to feel. It is that feeling which differentiates me from a machine programed to construct and deliver even similarly sophisticated code.

If I think about eating a decaying rat, I feel nauseated. If I think about an erotic scenario, I feel aroused. That is where Mind's coding leads to experience.

What prevents A.I. from having the same, so called consciousness based experiences as me, and what makes me have code based experiences, is my organic nature/structure; my brain and endocrine system etc etc (I am not a biologist). That's where "I" really "am," and I imagine, A.I. can "never" be. Not in the code or programing, no matter how sophisticated, but in the organism which feels, and is aware-ing of feeling. Like Wayfarer said, it has to be a [organic] being; but not necessarily/only to "make" it fear death; but to make it feel.

Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations. — BitconnectCarlos

I understand your perspective.

It's a tragedy from all angles.

And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe true, but should that be grounds for congratulations? Or are they being dutiful citizens of the world by exercizing restraint (arguably, not enough given the death of so many children)?

That reminds me of an assault case I'm familiar with. A father punched a referee for what he saw as a bad call against the former's son in a hockey game. The judge fined the father $800 and asked him if he had anything to say for himself. The father responded with indignation, "$800, judge?" He shouted, "for $800 I should have killed him!"

like your keffiyeh-clad friends? We don't want no two state we want all of 48. Go do your activism.

And when you do, make sure to equate the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust because it's like totally the same thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Honest question. How do keffiyahs and the Nazi Holocaust relate to the current tragedy in the Levant, the Oct 7 terrorist attack and the Israeli Governments reaction? Because you might be making excellent points from a Real Politics perspective (for instance) but the statements quoted above do nothing to advance them. If anything, they detract; they make me (falsely, I hope) think your arguments are only veiled with merit to conceal an underlying emotion, perhaps nagging to be exposed.

This does not only apply to you. I'm surprised by similar things scattered throughout the forum, and not just this prolonged and often mutually hostile thread. But I sense reading between the lines that you have an earnest position, so I thought I'd ask.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link. — Chet Hawkins

Virtually total respect. But
One question. I am compelled by your presentation. And not just above. But why is "anger" the 3rd? presumably corresponding to reason and being, the latter of which you anointed with parentheses, or suspended. (I know you've explained it. I'm inviting you to abandon it or express any new openings since you began this dialectic journey)

For instance why not just two? In addition to your e.g.s, Desire covers "convention" "belonging" Fear covers "revelation" "authority". Maybe Reason falls under one or the other. Maybe reason is a category of belief. Rather than anger.

Again. I'm sincererely asking.

Or, if anger is a legitimate 3rd, and not a (poetic) attachment (the preceding parentheses were definitely a detainment), then how does reason (and being) correspond to that category? And why not a 4th for reason?