The grooming gang / rape gang scandal, these are a minority of migrants, but they also have to be considered a national scandal, no? A clear example of the worst sort of immigration policy - one that people refuse to discuss, for fear of giving offense?
I taught ESL in high school for years here in Toronto. I loved those kids. It was a different era of immigration, and we were lauded for our points-based system. I think naive, open-door approaches to immigration do a disservice to kids like the ones I taught.
I don’t buy newspapers, haven’t done for a long time. I follow a broad range of news outlets and commentators on Twitter and Bluesky and rely on U.K., Channel 4 News for broadcast news. Along with U.K. LBC radio, as I mentioned before.I assume you have been a reader for while? I noticed a downturn towards woke dogma almost a decade back.
Bad timing, over the last few years (since the Brexit vote in 2016) the conservative leaning press in the U.K. has been going through a nervous breakdown, along with the Conservative Party. They finally lost touch with reality around the time of the 2019 general election and now are just babbling basket cases.I find the UK fascinating in this regard - I started reading conservative newspapers and websites a few years ago when I became concerned about living in a progressive bubble.
Here in the U.K., the government raids the superannuation (national insurance) funds regularly.Australia is an interesting case, since it has such a high rate of Superanuation.
Ok, who did they borrow it off?Chinese debt is about 75% of GDP.
I find it helpful to compare it to the trinity. Which works in the same way, father (god), downward constraint, mother (Holy Spirit)upward constraint, son, (Christ)the resultant reality.I can never figure out what you mean when you talk about Peircean triads. Is it the degrees of freedom below, the constraints above, and the resulting phenomena?
But I come at this from the opposite direction, it is the constraints of the hard physical world which restrict my strong free will. Take that away and I would have near absolute freedom.That things might have been different does not imply the strong notion of "free will" that I suspect is incoherent.
Sorry, I was joking.I'm just not very good at this. Wondering about any specifics.
Nicely put, (I’m not familiar with Plotinus), I would go further. There are a constellation of souls including some who instantiate matter from pre matter. But I would caution that these latter souls are very distant from our own, (“ Some very old material is moving through”, from your post).In Plotinus, the soul animates matter as far as it can. The source is a power that can only go so far because matter is never completely mastered by form. The origin of that soul is from before our birth. Plotinus has also said he has visited that realm through contemplation.
Yes, just read it again, it is good. I like the implicit suggestion that planets and stars are conscious beings and that each act has a deep creative potential. Along with the idea that each act is/can be informed by distant events.Hope you read that poetry above, it is really very good. I understand a lot more about Alfred North Whitehead just having read it.
Well, Aristotle puts a lot of emphasis on the being in front of you is what actually exists. We have different ideas about how that is possible, but the first thing is the encounter with such beings.
So, that is germane to the issue at hand.
This is not necessarily insurmountable, although it would require professional help to unravel. We all have inner conflicts like this of some kind. I had something similar with intense shyness from a young age. But it didn’t develop into something problematic and through considerable effort during my formative years I was able to overcome it. Even now it rears its head occasionally along with other psychological ticks and dysfunctional, or underdeveloped (resulting in repressed), character traits.It seems that the inner me has some tendencies which the outer me has difficulty accommodating for, social anxiety for example. The outer me therefore, has created a bunch of defence mechanisms to fend off what the inner me is telling it. The outer me has set up ways to effectively block the influence of the inner me, because the outer me wants something different from what the inner me can provide for.
This crisis, or inititiation is foundational in the mystical life. Along with the other crisis I referred to in an earlier post. The one where one realises that the world might not be made of the solid objects we live alongside, but could be some form of immaterial phenomena, or something as yet undisclosed.So this, I think would be the most difficult part, the initial accommodation. That is where the logical trick I requested would be required. Maybe Wayfarer's example of the scarab beetle is such a trick. The trick is not really logical, but something which goes beyond logic, something which demonstrates the vast field of meaning which is not enveloped by logic
Yes, although, I am focussing on the personal angle of a being. Which is actually quite limited, on a small scale and only covering a small number of events, outcomes etc. This does require the vast majority of what happens external to the being to be ignored, or screened out*. For such a being, the experience of such an unusual event is very rare, perhaps once in the lifetime, or only for 1 in 10 people in their lifetime. What I’m saying, is that infact it happens more than we know, even regularly, but we either don’t see it, couldn’t appreciate the relevance, are conditioned to screen it out etc. essentially we are blind to it, except in certain very narrow circumstances determined by our life, heritage and conditioning.Possibility extends through such a vast array of features of a vast array of activities, far beyond the capacity of the most imaginative minds.
Yes, that makes sense, specifically to my second point. But when it comes to my third point, I am talking about something else. That there is some transcendent (perhaps) process, or cause which may involve far reaching karmic**significance. For example, two beings who have some connection from a previous life. Or some extended interaction between historical groups etc. in which the two people involved are emissaries, or representatives to some other unknown process, or meeting.This "coincidence" acts to "amplify possibility". When the whole, as a group, does something unexpected, the effect of amplified possibility is realized. We observe this, "the effects of amplified possibility" every time a being makes an act which we designate as freely chosen.
Yes, I’m with you about it not being deterministic. I go back to my emissary analogy, in each event, each being may act as an emissary, or ambassador for a whole species, or series of unconnected(seemingly) events. Also, there is an internal dimension within the physical body of the beings (we are after all a colony of millions of individual cells), a spiritual dimension and a cosmic dimension, to this.***This implies that within the "non-conscious relation between all the different parts", there is some form of what you call "group communion", which is some form of recognition of the underlying meaning or significance, and this acts to cause the amplification of possibility which is required for the individuals to act together as a whole, in a way which is non-deterministic.
This isn't elementary school.
I think we can learn quite a lot from these sort of experiences, it’s like a window into hidden parts of our world that we don’t ordinarily see*.Thanks for that description.
Yes, we are, but I would point to the driving force being climate change and to a lesser extent, competition for rapidly depleted resources.Are we truly entering an era of multipolarity? If so, what are the philosophical consequences of a world without a dominant cultural “center”?
They will have no choice.Is the West prepared to coexist with ideological and civilizational alternatives that do not necessarily aspire to Western liberalism?
It will definitely reduce the risk, as easy power block will be struggling to survive and feed it’s population.Does multipolarity inevitably increase the risk of global conflict, or could it usher in a more balanced, mutualist order?
I find it very interesting how different people will remember the very same event in completely different ways. So you might say, something incredulous happened, but someone else in the same area might just notice a mundane occurrence.
Yes, and there are different kinds of knowledge. Something that interests me is knowledge acquired through the witnessing of events. This doesn’t require learning, or understanding, just observation, or presence. I can remember and visualise clearly, in memory, events that happened 30 years ago. In which I witnessed something unexplainable, something which defies credulity and which has broad ranging implications for how I think about the world and reality. And yet at the time, it was just something I noticed, experienced, for a split second. Something that happened so quickly and was over before I could react. I could have just carried on, walked past and not given it another thought. But my enquiring mind and curiosity latched onto it instantly and it is still with me now as though it happened yesterday.This really depends on how you would define "know". Unlike some epistemologists, I don't think that truth is a requirement for "knowledge". Plato, in The Theaetetus, demonstrated that we cannot actually ensure truth, so a determination of truth is not necessary for us to call some information "knowledge". So I'm not saying that we know nothing, I'm saying that truth isn't really part of our knowledge.
Do you realise that you have just said that we know nothing, in particular. Well apart from what we have evolved to deal with.The simplification helps to keep us focused directly on what is important and purposeful to our little corner of being, but it misleads us into thinking that this is representative of "the universe" as a whole. Ontologies like monism are an extension of this misleading trend toward oversimplification.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
The idea that there is a thing which emits the noise, and a thing which receives the noise is very misleading because it does not allow the proper understanding, which requires that the supposed 'things' must be understood as really the activity of something else. The true understanding is that the supposed 'thing' is not a thing at all, but some other activity of something else, which appears to us as if it were a thing
The title of the thread is* (in a nutshell), to tease out a blindness in the view that, supported by science etc. the physical world**is what exists and anything else is mere speculation. A view which is held by the majority of the population. That the overwhelming truth of this orthodoxy cannot in all seriousness be challenged, and that this (orthodoxy) results in a blinkered view.The I have no idea what we have been disagreeing about, because it is true by mere definition that we cannot see the world as it would be absent any observer.