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?

You're right. I did fail to explain my thoughts properly. That was justifiably upsetting. Not to mention its a frustrating hypothesis to have to consider. Sorry.

In the end, it would be "funny" if, after all of this, the truth were the thing that cannot be spoken.

I don't know the first thing about early humans or the birth and evolution of language. I'm just throwing ideas out there. — Patterner

Warning. Either do I. And as for throwing things out there. That's all I do. Sometimes I get things in return. Thank you

don't you think every human without language associated the moon with things? One might look at the moon and think of a wolf that attacked one night. — Patterner

Yes. And I wnt get into a prolonged explanation but you're describing the real and organic roots of the so called illusion. Before Language the thinking you're describing would have to be like, eyes see moon, stored image of wolf autonomously surfaces in memory. It's organic function, to trigger a response, hide at night.

For humans this process of images autonomously arising to the surface triggering Body to respond evolved to a complexity with difference, grammar, the Subject vs the object, eventually the incessant surfacing of the Subject I to serve the Narrative form triggering autonomous feelings ultimately leading to the identity of that picture "I" with the always real organic being. The body. A complex dynamic of autonomously surfacing images we take to be real, illusion.

You said both that “ideas exist” and that they have a “functional effect” but then you say they are “empty”. Makes no sense to me. You have used “empty structures” to signify something of “ideas” and this has brought the effect in me the question, why the hell are you saying that, especially when this is just your idea. — Fire Ologist

You are right to be frustrated here. I need to be more careful with my language. I have already addressed the "paradox" of my speaking of truth, or even speaking at all. As to the use of"structures" and "empty" recklessly, I will rethink and I have no doubt that it will come up again.

Ok, so no distinction whatsoever between Abe Lincoln and Mary Poppins and “me” and “you.”
I’ll go with it for now. — Fire Ologist

Again, mega-distinctions within the Narratives of history. But just as you might like at two unfamiliar dogs quickly and note no distinctions, ultimately no distinctions which we can speak of.

My response is simply a question, where did you come up with the distinction between “for all I know” and “real constituent of reality”? — Fire Ologist

It rolled off the tongue because of countless prior combinations of related structures of these empty codes and their mechanics or dynamics having arrived at that manifestation as fit for the surface.

Your point happens to be that there may not be distinctions. But you distinguished whatever the hell people do for “an actual” and “reality”. Oh, and you said “constituent.” A constituent implies multiple parts, multiple distinct parts. — Fire Ologist

The dysfunction--futility--of the hypothesis being explored here is that in so hypothesizing and so exploring, it is already "part of the 'illusion'" All of your critiques directly above are perfectly reasonable and legitimate--if I was purporting to be "being" while speaking. But while speaking, I have already ignored being and displaced it with becoming.

The whole Truth is you cannot escape tge "illusion" in becoming, each effort is the illusion. You can only do so by ignoring becoming and attuning to being; that is, your organic aware-ing and not your ego-self. But this applies to everyone of us, even the most reasonable or profound utterance is made using fiction, and ultimately is
Fiction.

You are contradicting your point by speaking about it. — Fire Ologist

See above. Yes but if what you say is only true because "my" point is true then that contradiction is the closest to the truth that our constructions can take us. All others efforts at truth are even further movements away from the truth (I fully accept you may not get what I mean from tgat previous koan-sounding convulsion. Sorry. Not your fault. Mine.)

Why would you assert that. You can distinguish shit from food. You need to. That is because there are real distinctions. But you can distinguish shit from food with ideas just as well. — Fire Ologist

Yes to the first part, the "you need to". That's why I asserted that. The distinctions "apparent" in nature are only apparent as such. Maybe science can bring us closer to how I naturally avoid eating shit, and other apparent "differences."

And double yes to part two, distinguish with ideas. I'm saying that part is--going far deeper and way back--a constructed evolved process of dancing code.

“Self” isn’t the same fiction as “shit” or “dragon” - distinction is real regardless of minds. — Fire Ologist

Ok, look. Yes maybe dragon shit and self are distinct in reality. What I'm saying is, 1. We don't "know" Reality because "know" is also constructed. (Just read a long thread on is knowing belief etc.). 2. The way they are distinct for us is not necessarily how they really are, if they are. So the way they are distinct for us is an "illusion"

ENOAH

Analogies are great. But — Fire Ologist

Acknowledged

but honestly, I am not giving any status to ideas whatsoever. Chimps make poop. Birds make eggs. — Fire Ologist

Fair point! You're asking why aren't ideas natural byproducts of the organism, for e.g.? Why give ideas special status?

Your points are excellent. If I wasn't tiring, naturally impatient and lazy; if I wasn't already ashamed (not self deprecating, justifiably) for occupying too much of your time and space in this thread. . . I'll say, recognizing fully it merits more explanation, the "Signifiers" or code are empty. They aren't organic secretions even (yes secretions may be involved). They are representations, vague and fleeting "pictures" stored in memory (yes those are real) functioning in such a way tgat experiences are written out of them. Those are illusions. Sorry. Tired.

It is there in the flesh of the words being themselves now constructed by our bodies for physical travel and in we who use those words to affect the physical world — Fire Ologist

Ok, and I'm not being flippant, then David Copperfield is there. Anyone who enjoys reading Dickens can relay how Copperfield has affected them. But I say, Copperfield exists, has a functional effect on nature, but it is an illusion, a re-presentation at best. But not present. Not there. And same for the self and all of human Mind and History.

Are you saying there are no real distinctions? There were no real distinctions before we humans invented “difference”? — Fire Ologist

I am saying, first and foremost, I don't know. No one knows. For all I know something related to "difference" is an actual and real constituent of Nature and Reality. I'm also not saying I know what Nature/Reality is. No one does. Why? Note the word "know". Like difference, it too is an evolved mechanism of Mind.

I'm saying, I currently believe prehistoric humans and other intelligent animals use drives, memory, conditioning, etc. to "distinguish" shit from food. But "difference," the necessity of a this and that, a not this but that, a this and a not this; these are functional within the churning out of experience in Narrative form. The Fiction Mind writes. Like too is the Subject, I, the Self. "Illusion".

It is a qualified monism. The Body (all of Nature, geological, biological, astronomical) is real. Mind exists, functions and effects. But it is not Real. Hence qualified. If it must be labeled.

So if there are real distinctions, why assume our constructed ideas drawing out such distinctions are ONLY illusion? — Fire Ologist

I understand your struggle. And I feel badly. I may very well be completely wrong. In fact, by these very hypotheses I'm playing with, I am wrong. But to answer you. The distinctions you draw, the meaning they construct, the very requirement for meaning, for distinctions, is the Great Fiction within which you (we) are struggling. So, of course you wonder how the hell difference is not Real.

Does it help to reiterate, within the "illusion" (I don't like that word--trying sheepishly to stay true to the OP), difference is "real," it is "perceivable" it is functional as neither language nor mind would have evolved tge way they did had mechanisms of "grammar" like difference not evolved.

I don’t place priority on where something came from. — Fire Ologist

Fair. And I am not meaning to "deride" mind/self because they are not Real. But they are not. Forgive the analogy, but the tree which made the paper is real. The paper is an artifact. The reality of the tree still exists in the paper, and it's not going anywhere. But the "paper" idea is special to our Fictional world. Now all the more so for the plot of the novel written on the paper.

The human is real and every species sees us for what we are, the tree, in the book analogy. No creature, not even a dog or chimp, thinks Fire is a well dressed man. Just sees an organism.

Now you'll say, we naturally developed the tools to go further than a Chimp. And I say yes, and those tools and everything they construct is a Fictional

The “apple” or “self” in my mind, I call an idea.
You call these illusion. But some thing exists here, so I don’t see the need to call it illusion. — Fire Ologist

The apple is real and it exists. The human construction "apple" and every form of that construction which instantly bubbles up to the surface when you speak that word--fruit, edible, red, green, apple a day, America, Steve Jobs--Exit, but they are empty nothings, passersby; only their effect upon you as an organism, places you under the illusion that for F's sake, they must be real.

Could this be because you think ideas must refer to a real thing in the world or else these ideas are mere illusions — Fire Ologist

No

The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.
— ENOAH

This seems to be the heart (the essence?) — Fire Ologist

Yes

I still think we are standing next to each other looking at the same thing, but I would say the opposite about it. — Fire Ologist

I sense the same. I sense that in a loose interpretation we agree that we are perceiving "the world" uniquely as humans. But whereas you respect how becoming is that special way Being comes to be for humans--therefore it is part and parcel of one reality; I am insisting on relegating becoming to emptiness, and designating being alone as the domain of truth. ... (?)

And yet, in spite of our differences, I feel a comraderie of interest.

So you should be arguing not that ideas exist as illusions, but that ideas don’t exist at all. — Fire Ologist

Hmm. Interesting. If this is a point of logic, or a necessity in word meaning, I would immediately defer to you. However, let me reiterate that for me, ideas exist, evident inter alia in their functional effect, but they are fleeting empty structures of signifiers. Not Real "in and of themselves(?)"

Our dreams — Patterner

Sorry, forgot "dreams." That seems trickier on the surface because dreams are already illusions. Yes you are correct that they exist, take place, have effect, but even convention readily accepts, "that wasn't real; just a dream." But that's not addressing your query. But dreams can be treated in the same way as the moon. Whatever dreams were before we emerged Mind, that's what they really are. Like the moon, they are still what they have always been, whatever that us, but we cannot be perceive them through our constructions. Hence the illusion.

Finally, back to the self. The prehistoric human animal was what it was individually, I can suggest a bonding, mating, animal with sophisticated image-ing, memory, etc. and aware-ing those always. But the self we idolize, with a history, in Narrative form, goals, interests, intentions, and a free and selfish will tobcarry those out, is functional as hell, but is a construction. An "illusion," as such.

Not sure how you mean this. The moon exists outside of our heads. But our experience of it is a construction of it inside of our heads.

If that's what you mean, then I don't see how the same can be said about dreams. Our dreams may contain reconstructions of images of things we saw when we were awake. Even things we never saw may be conglomerates of things we did see. And we may construct things based on things we hear in the waking world as we are sleeping. But the dream is not displaced. It is unique (recurring dreams aside), and some people and places are, afaicat, also unique. In what way is it displaced? — Patterner

Think of a human animal on a hypothetical date before language took off (sorry, I won't be specific about those details. Bear with me, if my attempt falls apart for lack of details so be it). And since Language had yet to evolve to a certain point, so too Mind--that uniquely human "form" which consciousness took--had yet to develop.

When that hypothetical human animal looks at the moon, they see it with their organic senses untainted. The real moon exists, and they see that. Whatever it is. And moreover Whatever it is is irrelevant because there is no Language with which to construct what it is. So it remains the moon, Whatever it is.

Once Mind and its constructions evolved/emerged, for Humans you cannot look with your sense of vision and see what it is. Whatever it is. Instead you look at the moon and see what that Signifier triggers as signified. For e.g. you see astronauts, gravity, tides, werewolves, cheese, etc. Not specifically, but I am hoping I've painted the picture.

For one animal looking at the moon, they cannot see the moon as it really is--Whatever that is--they see the Signifiers which have displaced the moon. That is the "illusion." It's not that our life, our actions, drives, feelings, and tge world around is which we are fully equipped for sensing, is not real; rather, our experiences of those things are constructed displacements to which we are (almost) ineluctably attuned/attached.

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?
— 180 Proof The capacity to feel. — bert1

Yes! And to sense, image-make, and act; And the always present [aware-ing of said feeling, image-ing and acting.

I’m saying you don’t get the moon in the first place for you to construct “moon” without essence becoming. — Fire Ologist

Dreams are real experiences. — Patterner

Yes there is a Real moon and Dreams are real experiences. But both are, for Humans, displaced by our construction (about?) of them.

Watching a movie is real. Believing the movie is real is the illusion.

Anyway, clearly there are items in my thinking about the self being an illusion which need to be worked out. And who knows, I may come out on the other side much closer to where you are.

This is a deep corner of the cave where only the slightest hint of light is all you need to make a point. — Fire Ologist

In fact, the less the better; just enough so as to not form shadow paintings.

I see both becoming and things becoming the same and only find illusion where one or the other is missing or overly reified. — Fire Ologist

I've come to know that about you, my fiery friend. And I can respect that.

We always need both to speak at all. Speaking is real, so no the becoming and essence is real. — Fire Ologist

I say speaking is construction, becoming. It travels lightly through Time and vanishes instantly. Where is it "there"? When is it ever being?
... But I recognize you place reality in becoming too, so, for you it's not so significant that speech is fleeting, since that too, somehow*, is Real. *meant with sincere uncertainty, not rhetorical sarcasm

If all essence was not real, how is it we never say even “becoming” without fixing a distinct essence that makes becoming different from “not real being”? We need a distinction to hold in order to reflect the becoming of it — Fire Ologist

Because--and I sincerely hope this isn't depressing--difference, distinction, and your admirable desperation to square things off against it, are also (to stick to the Language of the OP and pay, at least a token apologetic homage) "illusions" based only in the evolved mechanism "difference", necessary for speech to flourish, a this and a that. The Self illusion is a branch of that in the evolution of Mind: a Me and a You.

Anyway, note that all that I say and write too, is Fiction: constructed out of the tools containing the this and that mechanism. It's ineluctable because the world in which our--and all--discourse takes place is Fiction. Dialectic, like the self, is a branch off of the this and that evolution. It is not Real and natural, but every movement of Human Mind from history to my decision to respond, and my response, is a dialectical movement of made up words and images. So called choice and so called knowledge are just temporary settlements in that autonomous dialectic.

Ah but I speak too much.

See this is why I think we are in the exact same place looking in the exact same direction. You say “emptiness” and balance “suffering” against “joy”.
And you say “It exists alright.” I would say these things about becoming. — Fire Ologist

Wait. Buddy. I am saying it about becoming. I'm saying these functions exist and affect even reality via the Body, but they are sourced in fleeting chains of nothingness, never there, never ever being, always becoming, not Real.

This is a broader view - not just “self” but all mental fabrications. — Fire Ologist

Completely.

The idea part is where the essence is found. But the idea now exists just like wherever it came from exists. — Fire Ologist

Ok. This is exactly where we diverge. I'm not saying either of us is right. We are both necessarily wrong (ironically, if I'm right, haha). But I say you just believe the idea came from somewhere. That exactly is the illusion. It came from your mind! Yes the idea exists. But it is not Real. It was a fleeting manifestation of a construction out of Signifiers, pointers at the moon, not the moon.

dwelling place”. This is an idea. Like the burrow, and the flower, “dwelling place” is just what the man produces, and once produced it exists and is as real as the burrow, or the house or the flower. — Fire Ologist

Yes what the moon produced, even the materials, are all real. But neither the tulip nor the squirrel take that leap which places them upon a new layer with an unbridgeable gap from what they produced and the material they produced it with. None of them calls it a dwelling place and believes that that name is real, that the Signifier is the phenomenon or the experience. See? That's how subtle is the illusion. Not saying these aren't real. But human mind and its system of filtration, displaces their reality with name calling.

We can’t see becoming unless we simultaneously see essences, or beings, that come to be, that become. — Fire Ologist

That statement directly above, and your excellent four apples example: again, that the essence precedes the becoming is the "illusion." Mind is one, permeable between embodiments. That's how History moves and that's how local histories move. The following is oversimplified.

At some point in your minds development, Apple, 4, store, go, son, buy, me, etc. we're input, and over time processed, reprocessed, used to construct, reconstruct, and so on, thousands of times. So too for your son. This reminds me of Platos dialogue (Meno?) where Socrates marvels tgat an illiterate slave can draw a triangle. Of course he can, it was input into the Slaves mind in thousands of ways other than a geometry lesson. So when you crave apples, that real feeling, triggers to the surface, the construction--through a speedy and often imperceptible dialectic of battling code--out of sognifiers, son go get me 4 apples from tge store. You think you have manifested in words the essence, a marvelous idea. But the manifestation is the essence, both empty constructions which evolved to function. Now because your son shares Mind with you, and thr code had tge same effect on him, your body, the Real you, gets to eat apples. But Mind wrote a whole experience out of that. Displacing human organism pleasure food with hey son how about you go... That's the illusion.

You have to keep positing worlds to draw any distinctions between illusory worlds and real worlds. — Fire Ologist

You are absolutely right. For discourse to work, and why else do we do this but that we are built that way--it's not because we are pursuing truth; for gods sake, we don't have to pursue truth, we are truth, in our being--so yes, for discourse to work, I have and am constructing so much shit.

At the end of the day every philosophy, like every thing, will be judged on its function within the very specific locus in which it manifests. Because there is no way to judge upon truth, there is no truth in becoming; only in Being. The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.

still sense something real that I call a “squirrel; none of this makes those ideas and impressions not exist, not real, not something in-itself too. — Fire Ologist

That which you call a squirrel is real, so are you and your senses. But yes, while those ideas,(that it is a squirrel, that it is "real", that you sense it,) exist, they are not Real, not thing in itself; they are outside Fictions superimposed as if from above upon the thing in itself. They are representations placed, like labels atop of Reality, and we no longer see tge essence, we see only the label. That too is the self, a label, fictional, like Enoah, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nice!

see if I can figure out what you're saying. — Patterner

Let me try this analogy and then I'll leave you to it, sorry.

Assuming our "normal" human experience is Real, and unknown to you, you woke up wearing a Virtual Reality head set. That day (ignore the details and niceties, bumping into tables etc) you experience everything in VR. It all happens, it's there, the experience exists. But the next day would you say your experience was real or an illusion?

Richard Bach's Illusions. — Patterner

I don't know it. Looked it up. It looks interesting. If it turns out to share my heretofore narrative, it wouldn't surprise me at all. There's probably hundreds of thousands of "contributors" wittingly or not, to any given "idea " Mind is One structure manifesting as History, and as billions of contributing individual stories.

I get very annoyed when I make an analogy, and people immediately point out its flaws. Of course an analogy is flawed — Patterner

Me too. I too use analogies as "a finger pointing at the moon," not at all purported to be the moon itself.

I wasn't actually saying your analogy is flawed (though I can see why you'd think I was). I'm actually using your analogy. Coupled with mine, I'm making (trying. always read "trying" between my lines) the point that things can be constructed out of Matter, but as constructed "things" besides the matter they are made out of--to which their form is irrelevant; like a snowdrift wouldn't "think" itself anything apart from snow--they are empty of Reality, Being, what some want to call essence or substance. They are becoming, never present, never (contra Dasein) there. They are becoming, incessantly and only and necessarily being constructed, not Real Being, like a beavers dam apart from the trees and grasses, fictional.

I am also saying that, though Fictional, they serve a function. In fact all of our joy and suffering is constructed out of or, at the very least, sifted through the emptiness. It exists, alright. But it is not Real.

And I'm not as sure about what follows, as I am about what preceded, but I suspect that because it is functional--our joy and our suffering (empty signifiers coding unnamable feelings, really)--we have adapted this powerful real feeling which is triggered by the code, and which the Signifier world knows as "attachment," to the Signifier world, the beaver's dam! The Fiction. That's the "illusion" everyone here is getting almost mutually hostile over. A poetic dialectic to watch, but to have the privilege of being a part of! That too is the illusion! So what? We never try to deny the Fictional nature of the Mona Lisa (here's a gd analogy, see? They role off our tongues with nothing but the best of intentions towards our neighbors, then they complain.) and yet we glorify its effect upon our Real natures.

. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

I truly agree that our ideas are impactful both upon our nature and in furthering "themselves" our ideas. History is constructed entirely out of our ideas. Not only does it function, but like our individual Narratives, It moves forward in time! And I get why we want to call that real. But it's not. You are correct, I think (remember. also trying) when you say "ideas". They are empty of Reality, though they bear upon Reality by affecting our bodies, and the earth (like when rock is made into Iron or steel manifesting as the Eiffel Tower etc.etc-- that kind of illusion.

an illusion needs a viewer. — Patterner

Right. That's the real "you" that organism with sensations, inner feelings, image-ing ability, storage ability. The Observer displaced by the illusion. Now note. That Body IS conscious. But whereas presumably for other organisms aware-ing takes place in and of nature, for us, that aware-ing has been ineluctably distracted by the illusions its image-ing and memory have constructed.

How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious? — Patterner

I know, right? And, yet

EDIT: I feel compelled to clarify. It requires a dark perspective to see "the 'self' is illusion," pessimistically.

It is not nihilistic. Remember there is still your real self, your body, your brain, and its aware-ing, which never goes anywhere, just gets its "attention" diverted.

Knowing it is constructed rather than emerging naturally, is "salvation," (I would imagine). All of life's karma, it's joy and suffering, it's this and that, need not define you. You are always (as theistic as this is about to sound) perfect in (your) Nature. If you are breathing, you are good. Remembering that might heal suffering in the illusion.

:up:

Would you choose to be uploaded if it became available tomorrow? — Truth Seeker

There is no "you" being uploaded. that's the point of the OP. Without the Body to sense, feel and act, it would be empty code uploaded into an even more Fictional machine; Fiction uploaded to fiction.

In fact, this is almost a thought experiment illustrating that the self is an illusion. What is it without the organism but empty code?

And the thing is, upload it into a fresh body, and its not you! You know this intuitively.

Take a scenario where a gunman threatens to shoot you. But he's compassionate and talented enough to say, I'll upload your self to this brain dead body. No thanks! You'd rush to say. There is no self to upload. I, grasping your chest, am me.

That it is the essence/substance of our bodies,
— ENOAH
I do not agree. — Patterner

You realize I too disagree, right? I'm not attacking. Just clarifying.

That it is "real" as nature is Real, or worse, more real than nature
— ENOAH
It came about naturally, through nature, through natural processes. It couldn't be otherwise. — Patterner

So did a beavers dam, but the beaver doesn't falsely identify it as a real extension of its body; but better, so did Mickey Mouse and Oliver Twist but we recognize they are Fictions.

That it is a thing worthy of deeper analysis than psychology
— ENOAH
My opinion is that human consciousness is the most extraordinary thing known to us, and is worthy of any amount of analysis.
4mReplyOptions — Patterner

Ok. I respect that. Simultaneously I admit how my communication is confusing. Of course it is the most extraordinary thing known to us, because we are in love with the illusion.

Note: I do not judge it as evil, wicked, immoral, a thing to be avoided, annihilated or abandoned. It is very functional. I just think it is also functional to be aware of its nature.

to restate what you quoted above with a “tree” thrown in for a “self,” I said roughly:

“You see a mirage of a tree.
The mirage exists because you are seeing it,
but the “tree” is not real because it’s a mirage of a tree, not a real tree.” — Fire Ologist

That might well be exactly what I'm saying, adding, the mirage yet serves a function. E.g., it drives me onward with the hope of its shade/it torments me with its seemingly unreachable distance...it's appearance and effect are there; i.e. they exist, but they are not Real. They are all the workings of ignorance.

There’s a nuanced distinction between “exists” and “real” — Fire Ologist

when you experience your “self” you really are experiencing a kind of “self” creation, where the creating is more an activity, and the “self” thereby created as an object, is not real, not the same way the creating, the act, in this this case simply experiencing, is real.. — Fire Ologist

Exactly what I think. Add, the "self" is not even the creator of the created Mind. The self too is a mechanism, the necessary Subject I/me, required to move a Narrative in linear progress as time. Also, and simultaneously, it stands in for the Body, for reference in the self created narrative, which necessarily triggers the body to feel, perceive, act. The illusion is that this mechanism within a constructed Narrative is the Body, and more! Is the Spirit or Soul that the body serves. When factually it is a convenient fiction

It exists, and serves a function, but is an illusion? What is the definition of "illusion" that it allows for that sentence? — Patterner

If "illusion" is even the best word*, the illusion isn't as to its existence nor its function. It is this intuition we all undeniably have about it, such as 1. That it is the essence/substance of our bodies, 2. That it is "real" as nature is Real, or worse, more real than nature, 3. That it is a thing worthy of deeper analysis than psychology** (not exhaustive list)

*I prefer "Fiction," but that raises similar problems.

**It is worthy of deeper analysis than psychology, but that is because we have not "awakened" to its "fact" that it is an illusion

Yes, and it would be obtuse to disagree with you. However, what you expressed may not be the only, or full, representation of the so called self.

But what I was getting at: (I don't know whose post that quote came from, I must’ve erred). To simplify, it was alluding to cognitivescience "defining" the self functionally, and, thereby "resolving" the illusion problem.

I was saying that the self can be functional and still an illusion. The "illusion" is not intending that the self isn't actually existent, serving a function.

The illusion is rather as to its nature and our identification with its fleeting and empty construction, as if it were not just real, but the most privileged among the real, maybe even immortal.

Cognitive scientists might argue that the self, while being a constructed narrative, is not necessarily an illusion but a functional entity.

I have not read every response here, so perhaps someone else has highlighted the following distinction:
Regarding the self, and, for that matter, Mind, being an "illusion." I do not think the point being made is that the self does not exist, as in, it is like a mirage. Rather, that, as to its nature being real, it is not. It is therefore, an entity, and a functional one at that, but it is not the being of this body; not its essence; not who or what we are. All of these, and many other "conclusions" we make both within and outside of philosophies, are illusions.

I have not worded this with enough diligence paid to precision, etc. However, should I be required to clarify further, I think I might.

cannot tell if your form of poetry is to make Voltaire's arrival at the NON ABSURD position of declaring certainty (as a pursuit) to be absurd, or to try to flip the script sarcastically and suggest that he arrived at the absurd (which is not the truest point). — Chet Hawkins

Hah. This stands as a good example of how I need to communicate more precisely. It's hard when you follow this technique. I read a sentence, it triggers a response, I text the response. What I meant was simply this, "OK, I should read Voltaire before I speak but, here I go anyway."

This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. — Chet Hawkins

Not intentional. I know what I mean. I'll work on it. Anyway, I should have specified, "seeking certainty, as if there is a final end

We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. — Chet Hawkins

I recognize why you are right, as in if we were playing musical instruments. But to make a brief a point on this as possible, 1. I think morality is ultimately what is functional. Think big picture. And, 2. I think that insistence on certain precision in speech serves a limited function. Free speech, even in philosophy can be moral. Just as it can be moral to insist on strict precision of speech in philosophy. It is the usage and context together where morality should be measured.

In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle.
— ENOAH
Again your backwards wording. It is I that does not settle, they that do. At least the they I am speaking of that use 'know' so flippantly and will not agree that 'knowledge is only belief'. — Chet Hawkins

We agree completely in principle. We're on 2 different pages. To you "settle" means think there is an end, you are always moving and aware that you are moving. To me settle is that same thing, temporarily adopting a position as it serves a function, yet aware that we are moving nonetheless.

I do not understand your use of the word 'third' — Chet Hawkins

Not as important as you thought. A thought I expressed earlier then corrected.

settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death — Chet Hawkins

Ok, I read it more in the connotation of a traveller's temporarily settling, weather temporarily settling, and so on.

By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means — Chet Hawkins

...
Ha. Me too. As we "speak."

The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd. — Chet Hawkins

First, thank you, in spite of your well deserved dig.

Second, Ok!

But still, now to satisfy entirely justifiable rules of methodology (dictated by this very specific form of poetry), I should have to read (or re-read, I don't remember) Voltaire on how he arrived at the absurd etc. But for the thrill of the expedition, and for whatever edifying artifacts we dig up, I'll proceed trusting either way, it's something to learn. And asking your indulgence.

It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral. — Chet Hawkins

Wow! Yes, ok. Sorry. I should have read, and not so boldly entered. But though indefensible, in my indefense, I was looking for a shortcut answer to that specific question "why immoral?"

Voltaire, and you, are recognizing that there is never certainty, and only incessant movement, thus seeking is absurd; instead, be watchful of the incessant movement (?)

most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well. — Chet Hawkins

Totally! But I'd say, "think," first, speech etc follows suit. But I sense you mean something akin to discipline, like when we insist upon reason or empirical process. I mean "think" first that all knowledge is a thing in constant Flux, and given dozens if not hundreds of factors, my mind will settle every now and again at belief. Who cares what it's called? I need to be endlessly vigilant, watchful of the changes, where I settle, and so on. In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle.

point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases. — Chet Hawkins

Oh, yah. Beautiful. I agree. Voltaire and you? If that's what you mean. I see how functional that is for thinking, and why you'd place it third.

Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing. — Chet Hawkins

I truly respect that! Does it manifest as poetry? Sorry. Yes. But I respect the point. Sincerely.

You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive. — Chet Hawkins

I hear you, neighbor. A pathology in the Dialectic. Nothing's perfect.

It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance). — Chet Hawkins

I hear you, brother! Anger. Mind. A beautiful thing, how it constructs Anger, as if out of the blue, just by mixing memory and desire.

That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished. — Chet Hawkins

Totally get you. Why not "settlement" "current point of settlement"? You know, it recognizes, not only what you're after, that the speaker hasn't provided Us with the end, that they, the speaker are "aware" (as per you and Voltaire), that they have not provided an end.

Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)! — Chet Hawkins

You're not talking to me anymore, are you?

Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity".
— ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time. — Chet Hawkins

Yes. I get how I misunderstood/misplaced previously. And I now understand why you would reply to my comment directly above in that way. I agree! You and V! Certainty seeking is absurd. Of course! And awareness is Monarch.

Thank you

Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. — Chet Hawkins

First, and I happen to mean this admiringly, your words awaken already hovering suspicions that this forum is creating a very specific form of complex poetry (especially if you modify the comma placements). I'll stop. And yet...

Secondly, more, hopefully, to point. My current thoughts align with "certainty seeking," but why "moral failure?" Only because you find fear and anger to be the source/position of certainty seeking? If you could surrender that hypothesis, would certainty seeking still be moral failure?

Are you compelled because you find it illogical or unreasonable for Mind to "simply" have evolved such that "knowledge" is seeking "certainty " (and I say they are the "same" mechanism), emerged as a "necessary" "step" in an "autonomous" "mental" process? (the quomarks are necessary to delineate that when vague hypotheses are being worked out in a forum of many "scientists" and "technicians," then, notwithstanding their arguably poetic byproducts, it is best to be honest about the vagueness)


The intuition which we all share, which makes your hypothesis interesting (presumptious on my part) i.e., that it is "weak," for e.g., or "attached/desiring," and, thus fear/anger based (the intuited organic source of these constructed "movements" "dialectics" or "emotions"), to need to seek reassuring, I.e., to be driven to seek certainty, may have led you to construct such a hypothesis.

And, still, there is on a balance of probabilities, a much greater chance I have misunderstood and am misrepresenting your thoughts. If so, I apologize, but autonomously continue.

Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity". And from there, I would go on to suggest that "belief" too is an evolved mechanism incorporated into the holy trinity of knowing--seeking, certainty/settlement, belief. That no matter what a person thinks they have done to arrive at the mental state wherein they can claim, "I know," they have passed through that autonomous process and settled at belief. Temporarily! That's the thing! All the fuss about certainty, and most knowing gets modified, if not completely reconstructed by settlement at a "new" belief.

How about an afterlife, pretty much the same as this one, only without the crap, the this and that? Today Nature drives, feels, responds; why should she stop for you tomorrow?

No offence taken, and I did not mean for my response to sound offended.

I really dislike when people sentimentalize meditation. — Mikie

Fair enough, and I accept and respect that "sentiment."
In fact, I'll accept your inference, for what it is worth, that I was intending to describe "meditation."