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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because of the way earnestness works — Antony Nickles

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

the other judges — Antony Nickles

Ok, sure. I used "interpret" carelessly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus wasn't a hippy. — Lionino

I'm unsure what you mean. Obviously not.

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

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

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

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

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

Which path led you to this conclusion? — Truth Seeker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To imagine — Antony Nickles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hah! And so the thing writes on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Why disagree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice!

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

I agree!
— isomorph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you read any Damasio? — Joshs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again!

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.