How would we perceive boundaries if there are none — Marchesk

An illusion created by the limitations of the observer? As example, the Earth appears to be at the center of the universe from our limited perspective on the surface of the Earth, but that's not actually true.

I am not dodging anything - except the an argument on merits of the teachings of the Church - I just continue to tell you factually, what the Church teaches — Rank Amateur

That is what the Church teaches IF we accept your definition of what the Church is, ie. Church=Clergy. What you're dodging is that even if we accept your definition of the Church we are left with the reality that the clergy is not of one perspective, thus the Church is not a single thing, but instead a collection of related things. In the real world beyond theory, the Church is like this thread, a collection of people interested in similar subjects, but having no universal agreement on those subjects.

So, how about we just agree to disagree — Rank Amateur

How about we keep discussing, instead of running and hiding from inconvenient challenges? I propose that this procedure is more in line with the mission of the Church. The Church can not influence the world by hiding within it's own walls.

I really am indifferent to either option. — Rank Amateur

The classic Catholic attempt to be both in the debate, and above it, at the same time.

No, not even close - may be a bunch to type here - but a quick search would get you there. — Rank Amateur

Who is creating apostolic tradition but the clergy?

actually none of that is true when the Pope is speaking "authoritatively" on matters of faith and morals. And it is completely true, often productive, when he is not speaking " authoritatively". This is an important distinction - not everything the Pope says is "authoritative" and therefor inspired. It is rare when they do - and they make it clear when they do. — Rank Amateur

I know all this too, and I also know you are dodging around the fact that there is constant ongoing ideological maneuvering among high ranking clergy, and no evidence of peaceful universal agreement with the Pope in whatever mode he is speaking. And little of this never ending internal ideological conflict would be necessary if the nuns were in charge and the focus was put squarely on love in action.

In an attempt to leapfrog over ideological arm wrestling I would propose the following...

Thought is an electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of division. That is, a single unified reality (sometimes called God) is broken up in to conceptual parts. The human condition, for the better and the worse, arises from this fundamental process.

All products of thought inherit this property of division. As evidence, we can observe that every ideology ever invented has inevitably sub-divided in to competing (often warring) internal factions. Remarkably, this is true even of Christianity, an ideology which has the explicit goal of uniting people in peace.

Trying to say, it may be that ANYTHING made of thought (including my own proclamations) will inevitably lead to conflict, which if true seriously undermines any debate regarding which idea represents the "one true way" to peace.

Where does that leave us?

With the nuns, and a shift of focus from ideology to service.

As example, if a nun were sitting next to me right now I'm guessing she might give me a stern but loving look over the top of her glasses, and tell me to stop screwing around inflating my ego with all these grand ideas and get serious about doing something that's actually useful.

Now that's Catholicism, as I understand it.

But we're never going to get that level of sanity from men, as my own posts should clearly demonstrate.

As a sidebar, here's a site by Catholic academics.

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/

There's no conversation there, though they have the comment section enabled for some reason. They might accept comments from those whose focus is entirely supportive. Or maybe they just stopped reviewing comments altogether, can't say.

Anyway, the authors are professional Catholic theologians, and their perspectives may be of interest to some. I was interested, until I realized the opportunities for dialog were pretty much non-existent. To each their own.

It is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church that the totality of Divine Revelation is both the Bible AND what the Church believes by Apostolic Tradition — Rank Amateur

Ok, "apostolic tradition" is another way of saying "clergy". And, the clergy do not all agree among themselves. Some support traditionalist perspectives, some are more progressive, some felt hiding crimes was a good plan for the Church, some did not etc.

Also the Church believes when the Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith or morals, it is the inspired word of God ( Holy Spirit ), in effect it is God speaking through the man, it is not the man speaking - it is why it is believed to be infallible. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I understand this doctrine. But the Church, even defined as being the clergy, does not believe this. If they did, there would not be constant ideological maneuvering among the high ranking clergy. If the clergy believed in this doctrine they would simply fall in line peacefully behind whoever was currently Pope, given that according to the doctrine it is God speaking through the man.

This concept of Sola Scriptura ( where does Jesus say ) that you are alluding to - along with your challenge of Papal authority were the heart of the Reformation. — Rank Amateur

Yes, agreed. I hope we might also agree that the challenge to Papal authority also exists within the Catholic community, as example, those millions of Catholics who blatantly ignore Church teaching on some collection of issues.

I am not an apologist or an evangelist - believe what you will. — Rank Amateur

I'm accusing you of neither, not that there would be anything wrong with being an apologist or evangelist. You know, I'm an evangelist for my own perspectives. I do appreciate your willingness to engage as Catholicism is still interesting to me, and probably should be of interest to any member of Western civilization. I'll try to dial back some of my rhetorical excess, though as you wisely advised us, we are not dealing with perfection here. :smile:

I am merely trying to give you what the Church itself believes — Rank Amateur

Here we arrive at the question of, what is the Church?

For many people, what they mean by "the Church" is the clergy and the products of the clergy, such as doctrinal statements etc.

What I mean by "the Church" is the sum total of a billion or more Catholics, who obviously do all not believe any one particular thing. In my view "the Church" is instead a meeting place like this forum where people who are interested in a certain set of topics can come together to explore those issues.

To me, the clergy is not "the Church" but instead a small group of serious influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions.

Imagine that I were the leading spokesman on the forum for an imaginary ideology we'll call Jakism. But then I get caught raping children or covering that up thus putting more children at risk. In such a circumstance what credibility would I then have with members of this forum?

This would bring the Jakist community to a decision. Which is more important? Father Jake, or the message of Jakism? If they chose me, that would reveal they aren't too serious about their message.

I was not arguing with you... — Rank Amateur

For what it's worth, it's ok to argue with me should the need arise, I don't object. Should you need to yell at me, that's ok too, doing so does not make you a bad person etc. Or, if you prefer, you can pretend you're not arguing while you argue.

Although you may have been raised Catholic, it is obvious you do not understand what it means, or bothered to look up what it means when a Pope speaks authoritatively. — Rank Amateur

I understand what that means to a traditional Catholic, I just don't share that view. And, reality check, most American Catholics ignore the Pope when they feel that's necessary. Do a search for Pew Research and look up their professional objective "no skin in the game" analysis of Catholic opinion. Roughly half of American Catholics ignore the Pope on gay marriage and abortion, and almost all of them ignore the Pope on contraception, even though such personal morality issues have been a key focus of the Church in recent years.

So, what does it mean "when a Pope speaks authoritatively"? It means that those who agree will agree and those that don't agree will withhold agreement. In other words, the Pope has no real world authority, even within his own community. He can suggest, he can share, he can point in this direction or that, but he has no control over any Catholic's interpretation of the faith. That is the REAL WORLD of Catholicism beyond the traditionalist's fantasy, a billion Catholics, each crafting their own version of Catholicism.

As example, many conservative traditionalists have adamantly claimed in the past that Catholics must follow the Pope no matter what. And then Pope Francis, a somewhat liberal Pope (at least compared to recent Popes), came along and now they are in an uproar.

and it would not be possible for the Church to ordain women, without putting in question all of what the Church believes to be Divine Revelation by apostolic Tradition. In other words, it can not do this, and be Catholic. — Rank Amateur

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say that women can never ever take on leadership roles in his church? You've dodged this entirely reasonable question because you know the answer is nowhere.

You're also ignoring the reality that the credibility of Catholic male clergy is trashed, over and done, at least for the next century. At this point the clergy has no power to influence anybody except those who already agree with them, which is to say, they have no influence. And so as humanity rushes towards some kind of existential crisis during the 21st century Catholic clergy will be stuck on the sidelines, unable to do anything but watch.

In my view, to accept this situation is to betray the mission Jesus gave to the Church.

yes, you are right, "there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference" (about Church's scandals) — CarlosDiaz

There is so much that can be said. But I agree it won't make much difference in Catholic culture.

but there is even less about my supposed pompous response. — CarlosDiaz

For what it's worth, I didn't find your dismissal of engagement to be pompous or otherwise problematic. You no longer wanted to chat and reported that situation. No harm was done to anyone. And...

Your hasty retreat illustrated a situation which may be educational for those unfamiliar with Catholic culture online. In my experience your retreat was quite representative of Catholic dialog with non-Catholics online.

Here's evidence of that claim. Visit as many Catholic sites as one can. What you'll see is that they are overwhelmingly, close to exclusively, Catholics talking to other Catholics. I've never seen a site specifically set up for Catholics to talk to non-Catholics, and if there is one I'll bet my bank account that it was established to create a platform for Catholics to play the role of teacher, ie. not real dialog.

I should add that Catholics have no obligation at all to talk to anybody outside of their community. Except that, um, their mission is supposed to be to change the world, which is kinda hard to do when one hides inside one's own house. Thus, when Catholics retreat from real dialog with non-Catholics they aren't arguing with me, but with their own religion, with Jesus.

It can not do this - Pope John Paul II "authoritatively" declared that women can not be ordained as Priests, and it is "authoritatively" stated in the Catechism and less importantly Cannon Law . — Rank Amateur

Where in the New Testament did Jesus say that women could never lead the Church, even 2,000 years after his death?

Let's look at who you are referencing...

1) Pope John Paul II
2) Catechism
3) Cannon Law

That is, you are accepting as your authority not Jesus, but the clergy, the very people who have lost Europe and trashed the reputation of Catholicism.

It is of course true that Jesus had only male apostles. And it's likely true that the social structure 2,000 years ago was too rigid for women to be effective as leaders, so Jesus's decision was probably wise for his time.

But today, in the world we actually live in now, women are in leadership positions in many other Christian denominations, and guess what, nothing bad has happened.

But, the Catholic Church will ignore all this, cling stubbornly to a social model from 2,000 years ago, and have great difficulty attracting priests, who won't be listened to once they are ordained.

A specific example was requested. I've put one on hold because I'm not sure the mods can handle it. So here's another example where I do the relentless challenge dance, while wondering if there's any point to it.

this interpretation is in absolutely no way consistent with my concern over this horror. — Rank Amateur

Well ok then, what bold action do you propose other than just waiting?

What you said was...

As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. — Rank Amateur

I don't see anything but waiting for it to blow over in there, but if you can correct my impression, please do. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.

actually the point was to just keep doing what the church has been doing for 2,000 years. To continue to tell Its truth as It see it, and ( to be religious for a sec) as the Holy Spirit directs it. Because that is all it can do. — Rank Amateur

Except that this is not all it can do. It could do something decisive, such as have the male clergy and nuns swap jobs. People like nuns because nuns are usually associated with service and not speeches. Nuns are credible. Nuns are very Catholic. What's the problem?

I'm not suggesting that this is the one and only suggestion that could possibly work, I'm just trying to provide an example of the scale of action which is required to restore the Church's credibility. The industrial scale raping of kids is a very big deal, which I assume you agree with. My point is only that a very big problem requires a very big response. The child rape scandal needs to be replaced with another big story. Again, this is just a practical tactical point, that's all.

It says in context of this discussion is that the Church should just do what it believes is right and be unconcerned of the consequences. — Rank Amateur

In my understanding, what would be right from the Church's perspective would be that the Church be an effective change agent in the world, that it be credible, and capable of winning the hearts and minds of those not already in the Church.

I don't like Trump, either, but he's not been any worse in my opinion than any of 'em. Every president in my lifetime has been useless in my view. — Terrapin Station

I'm not arguing with this, just saying that many people appear to share your view, and in their frustration have turned to options outside the usual routine. Bernie Sanders was also an example of this to some degree. Who knew a grouchy old socialist would take the Democratic Party by storm?

Carlos, as a reminder. what I actually said was this....

The clergy has proven itself to be a congregation of paedophile enablers, not just here or there, but globally.

I didn't say this....

there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? — Carlos

You're arguing with assertions of your own invention.

It is important to remember that the organization of the the church - is a human organization. As such is inherently flawed. — Rank Amateur

Good point. I'm not suggesting the Church can be perfect, only that it can be more credible.

There is no doubt at all that the sex abuse scandal is horrifying on many levels - and will certainly have an impact on the faith of many followers - and that is completely understandable. But The Body of the Church has endured worse and it will survive this. — Rank Amateur

This is what I'm rejecting, the "just be patient and this will blow over" mindset. Let's remember how the Church failed to take decisive action when it discovered child rapists in it's employ. The "this will blow over" mindset is more of that. Will the Church survive no matter what it does? Probably so. It will survive as a religion increasingly dominated by old ladies lighting candles in parishes with dwindling membership. It doesn't have to be that way.

As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. — Rank Amateur

This is what I mean. You've failed to learn anything from the crisis, and plan to keep on doing more of the same that got the Church in to the crisis. You have every right, but it's not going to work.

I hate that we have a practical situation where it's only Democrats or Republicans who are viable candidates for any major office. — Terrapin Station

Such sentiments are perhaps at least part of how Trump got elected. Many people are looking for something other than the status quo, and Trump isn't really either a Dem or Repub at heart. Now that the mid-term is behind us perhaps he'll finally get serious and launch the Narcissist Party. :smile:

I suppose challenging the boundaries is likely to be most effective exactly on the line where the group as a whole is unsure whether to prohibit that talk. These troublemakers hold the space open, as if they were stretching out something that has a tendency to contract. — macrosoft

Interesting, thanks! Holding the space open... Hmm...

Bitter Crank is the only true liberal on the forum as he is celebrating election day by blowing the Tweeter-In-Chief out his butt.

And by the way Mr. Crank, stop bragging about your glorious fall weather. 85 here today, and I don't mind telling you I'm about sick of it, as it's been like that since last February. But I'm trying to remain hopeful, as our nine days of winter will surely arrive sooner or later.

Hi everybody, it is intriguing why somebody can be so staunch and firm about only an ideological stance, as if contingency and social realities were unable to make him abandon the world of ideas — CarlosDiaz

Returning to the opening post, I see a possibility for some agreement. "Abandoning the world of ideas" seems somewhat similar to my suggestion to trade the talking of the talk for the walking of the walk.

So, I wondered if the Social Doctrine of the Church should in fact be so political. — CarlosDiaz

I would suggest, replace the doctrine with action. Don't talk about it, do it. This is not a moral argument, but a practical one, based on the following assumptions.

1) Thought is inherently divisive, and love is inherently unifying. As example, the Apostle John put it with great concise clarity when he said, "God is love". Three words! Note that John didn't say, "God is a doctrine about love".

2) Action is far more credible than theory. As example, I'm writing a fine sermon about love here, but I'm not actually DOING anything to help anybody else. Thus, readers will likely scroll over this post at the speed of light, seeing it accurately as just another pile of yack. Being credible matters if the mission of the Church is to influence the larger society.

I wish people would stop using this sort of pompously dismissive response -- it's been cropping up more often lately in various threads, and it does not improve discussion. — Bitter Crank

Well, honesty is a pretty good policy. If that's how someone feels, I'd rather hear that than something they made up. However, because you clearly don't agree with me, I will not be talking with you anymore. :smile:

Dems are taking the house, yay! — Posty McPostface

Thanks for breaking that news, I was surely wondering. Well, the next two years will now make WWII look like a skirmish.

Well ok, this reply doesn't surprise me, as I've seen it a thousand times on Catholic sites. There's a great deal of talk about "dialog" in Catholic culture, but dialog is really only welcomed if it takes on the form of a mutual validation society. I should quickly add this is true not only of Catholics, but most groupings on the web including for example, atheists. A Catholic blog editor I was chatting with once labeled this phenomena the "tribal nature of the Net" which seemed a pretty good description.

I take no offense because surely no one is obligated to engage with me, or anybody else either. If Catholics prefer to talk only with people who already agree with them, that is their right, and that choice is very normal.

But you see, I thought the mission of the Catholic Church was to change the world, and that would seem to be impossible if Catholics are only willing to talk with other Catholics, and those who can't or won't present a challenge to Catholicism.

I would remind you that once upon a time long ago, Catholics were confident and brave. They dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years. A thousand years.

But those days are gone. Today's Catholics are afraid of their own shadow, unwilling and unable to engage anyone who might present a threat to their worldview. And there's nothing really wrong with this either. But one can not change the world from a position of fear.

I wish you well too, but predict you will find philosophy forums too inconvenient to bear. Catholic Answers is likely what you're really looking for.

Does this help?

1) Is it rational to challenge a group consensus with reason if that group consensus was not formed by reason?

2) To what degree is any group consensus formed by reason?

What I see is that almost every group consensus will probably claim it is formed by reason, but then it can typically be ripped to shreds through a process of reasoned challenge.

At the same time, it is true, I myself sometimes feel that there's too much talking but it is debatable whether this is not "credible or persuasive". — CarlosDiaz

The talking of the talk is credible and persuasive to those already in the Church. Perhaps it is also persuasive in the third world, I admit to not being very informed about that. But the reason the Church now has a third world Pope is that the talking of the talk is no longer credible and persuasive in the West. You know, the Church is being run out of it's traditional European homeland, which doesn't bode well for the future.

On the other hand, when I said "go beyond that", I didn't mean, "let's forget" the sexual abuses cases. I of course agree with you, they should be fixed "in a decisive credible manner" and "only decisive bold action can do that". — CarlosDiaz

What decisive bold action do you have in mind? What decisive bold action does the Church have in mind? I may be under informed, but I haven't heard anything that would qualify in my mind.

The Church is not a congregation of paedophiles, its prestige has just been exploited by them. — CarlosDiaz

This is what I mean by talk lacking credibility. The clergy has proven itself to be a congregation of paedophile enablers, not just here or there, but globally. We can't separate the Church from paedophiles as you are trying to do here, unless we are also going to separate the male clergy from the Church, which is basically what I was trying to do with my "put the nuns in charge" proposal.

I'm just trying to be realistic. Whether it's fair or not, the credibility of the male clergy is shot, gone, dead, over, for some number of coming generations. I'm not suggesting we should hate the male clergy, only that they need to be taken off the public stage asap. But, we can probably agree that's not going to happen, which is why I'm not hopeful.

It is also highly debatable the statement "The Church has separated itself from the forces which could renew it" — CarlosDiaz

Well, ok, you could point to specific renewal moves if you wish. Whatever such moves are, they don't seem to be working, as perceived from here at least.

Sentences like "who am I to judge gays?" said by Pope Francis were unthinkable a few years ago. — CarlosDiaz

This is a very low standard by which to measure renewal, imho. Real renewal in this area might take the shape of some gay bishops and cardinals, such as is seen for example in the Episcopal Church. But of course, thank to the child rape scandal, this is now impossible.

less talking and more doing? I (kind of) agree with you but nobody can deny that the Church already does a lot in many countries. — CarlosDiaz

Yes, I agree with this. My favorite stat is that Catholic Charities is the 2nd leading provider of social service to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. That's an impressive accomplishment which I salute.

But if one were to explore the Catholic web for years as I have you discover that few Catholics are actually interested in discussing this accomplishment. Instead, there are thousands of sites focused on the talking of the talk. This is not in any way evil, but imho, neither is it credible or persuasive.

The sexual abuse cases have created a lot of bad press (which is the way it has to be, they have made many big mistakes) but we should go beyond that. — CarlosDiaz

I respectfully disagree. The Church shouldn't go beyond it, the Church should fix it in a decisive credible manner which would persuade those outside the Church that the mistakes are really over. Chanting more of the same old sanctimonious platitudes has no chance of accomplishing such a positive transformation of the Church's reputation. Only decisive bold action can do that.

Such decisive bold action should have the effect of making those outside the Church sit up and take notice and say, "Wow, they did what??" Having the clergy and nuns swap roles would accomplish this, without requiring the Church to stop being the Church.

Regrettably, none of this is going to happen because anyone capable of bold thinking and acting has already given up on the Church and walked away. The Church has separated itself from the forces which could renew it.

What will happen instead is what you seem to be suggesting. The Church will wait out the media storm and then go back to doing what it's always been doing. If we could run time in reverse and head back to earlier centuries that would be a good plan.

Should the common self-images of group identity be challenged? It depends on how much one wants to live in peace. If one does a good job puncturing a faulty consensus, one will probably unleash a hornet's nest of disapproval. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for understanding my life. :smile:

I actually thrive on the hornet's nest of disapproval. In many cases it's been me against an entire forum and that can be an engaging challenge. But what is the point of stirring up the hornet's nest really? I'm less sure these days. I can live in peace while stirring up hornet's nest, but am I accomplishing anything that is worth disturbing the peace of others?

I think specific examples are needed to be able to take this further. I get the impression that you have certain cases in mind where discussion has been stifled, or somebody that challenged the consensus view was shouted down. But I don't know what those cases are, and the specifics matter so much that one can't really talk general principles. — andrewk

Yes, I agree, it would be better to move on to particular cases. Nothing has been stifled or shouted down, though that is a likely outcome of some topics I might chose to explore. But I'm not worried about that. I'm very used to being stifled and shut down and it doesn't really phase me anymore. As example, I've probably been banned from every Catholic and atheist forum I've ever visited. Just another day at the office.

I'm more questioning the value of challenging the boundaries of the group consensus. I'm wondering what such challenging actually accomplishes beyond conflict.

I have a strong emotional and intellectual bias in favor of exploring the boundaries of the group consensus. Emotionally, I feel I have a knack for such nerdy operations, and it feels good (ie. ego inflation) to exercise an ability. Intellectually, I find it fascinating in those cases when widely shared assumptions taken to be an obvious given can be dented. But these biases don't automatically equal such challenging to be rational.

While open public discussion is generally a good thing, we need to balance that against the harm that is done by publicly stating certain opinions. — andrewk

Yes, that's much of what I'm wondering about. If open public discussion doesn't actually accomplish anything beyond conflict can it still be labeled rational, even if the arguments presented are themselves rational? I'm trying to disentangle these two factors.

I can't really speak to this other that to suggest that the existence of "things" depends on boundaries. Boundaries clearly exist in our conceptual frameworks. Do boundaries exist in the real world beyond our minds? If boundaries don't exist in the real world, then neither do things, and thus one might be called to question the insight of thinkers who continually refer to them.

None of the above matters, because in my secret basement workshop I'm on the verge of successfully harnessing the hot air on forums to power the entire universe. Once my device is attached to the exhaust pipe of over a million internet forums we'll be entering an utopian era fueled by the inexhaustible, renewable and totally free power of hot air.

but if the Church has a valid and valuable message, then it ought to do a better job of preaching. I have not the slightest idea of how it should do this. — Bitter Crank

The way to do a better job of preaching is to let go of the talking of the talk, and channel all that energy in to the walking of the walk. The walking of the walk is credible, talking of the talk is not, especially in the modern age when everybody is talking about everything all the time.

This is an especially important shift for the Catholic Church, because it has been working over time at flushing it's credibility down the toilet in recent years. By "credibility" I'm referring specifically to one's ability to influence those outside of one's point of view.

There is an institution within the Church that already has great credibility, because it has long focused on service, the walking of the walk. And that would be the nuns. If the Church was serious about it's message, it would have the nuns and priests swap jobs. The credibility of the clergy is totally shot for now, so they belong behind the scenes, not out front.

But unfortunately, the Church is not serious about it's message, as proven by the fact that it insists on continuing patterns which serve the clergy, but not the message.

Yep, just another lapsed Catholic here. Haven't been to Mass in 50 years and doubt I'll ever return. I wish them well, but don't have a lot of hope for the enterprise at this point.

Got room for one more? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, I don't know about that. First you would have to prove that you are infected with the ridiculous stupidity of youth, because the Space Cowboy Platform Plan Thingy depends upon that.

But, if you can work yourself up in to a state (chemical enhancers allowed) where you think you REALLY ARE a space cowboy, then ok, jump on board. There are already about 17 people in the back seat, but I'm sure we can squeeze in one more.

Check out the lyrics to the song, pretty political really....

I'm pleased to be able to share the Space Cowboy Party theme song in two forms.

First, the live performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwoiy-Fwm0E

Next, the cut from the album (tighter and groovier, but no video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELcTJZLxhFU

This is what was on the radio around the time I started voting. A guy in our gang had a huge old 1940s era car, it was about a half mile from the front seat to back seat. :smile: We'd all pile in the car, smoke about a pound of weed, and then drive for hours down the beach (you can drive on the beach where I grew up) looking for girls.

So, this is the platform offered by the Space Cowboy Party. Good friends, classic cars, a 30 mile long beach, pounds of weed, and girls. Vote for me and I'll make it happen for you! Unless I get too stoned and forget. Or get the munchies and forget. Or get ______ and forget.

I told you 'bout living in the U.S. of A.
Don't you know that I'm a gangster of love
Let me tell you people that I found a new way
And I'm tired of all this talk about love
And the same old story with a new set of words
About the good and the bad and the poor
And the times keep on changin'
So I'm keepin' on top
Of every fat cat who walks through my door

I'm a space cowboy
Bet you weren't ready for that
I'm a space cowboy
I'm sure you know where it's at
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

I was born on this rock
And I've been travelin' through space
Since the moment I first realized
What all you fast talkin' cats would do if you could
You know, I'm ready for the final surprise
There ain't no way around it
Ain't nothing to say
That's gonna satisfy my soul deep inside
All the prayers and surveyors
Keep the whole place uptight
While it keeps on gettin' darker outside

I'm a space cowboy
Bet you weren't ready for that
I'm a space cowboy
I'm sure you know where it's at
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

I see the show downs, slow downs, lost and found, turn arounds
The boys in the military shirts
I keep my eyes on the prize, on the long fallen skies
And I don't let my friends get hurt
All you back room schemers, small trip dreamers
Better find something new to say
Cause you're the same old story
It's the same old crime
And you got some heavy dues to pay

I'm a space cowboy
Bet you weren't ready for that
I'm a space cowboy
I'm sure you know where it's at
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Whoa, good quote from Watts!

Yup, done did the vote thang. I'm so grateful to our Tweeter-In-Chief because I no longer have to think when voting. Now I just go down the ballot and check anything with "DEM" after it. I could probably do that on LSD. Hey, maybe I will next time! :smile:

Vote for Jake and the Space Cowboy Party!!!

The inherent lack in life is (momentarily) satisfied by certain actions. Then we go back to needing things or boredom. — Posty McPostface

This is a common pattern for sure, but it's not a fixed universal truth, as so many posts on the forum seem to imply. If this is what Schopensour is saying (I don't claim to know) he is wrong, misinformed, incomplete in his understanding.

The cycle being discussed is a fixed permanent condition only if we refuse to examine that which is generating the experience of lacking, a refusal which is admittedly very common.

Please stop chanting Schopensour and do your own investigation. Yes, there's a void underneath all the busyness and goals etc. Why? What's causing it? What is it's source?

The key difference is that one is a person, that many schools of philosophy (eg Kant) say is deserving of respect and fair treatment, no matter what they have done, and the other is an idea, which most people would feel has no such right. — andrewk

Thank you for engaging, and for making this distinction between the person and the idea. I probably should have done that from the start.

To clarify my interest (in part for myself)...

What interests me are assumptions that are taken to be an obvious given by the group consensus, but which upon closer examination may be discovered to be questionable, or even false. As example, the long held assumption that the Earth was at the center of the universe, an assumption which seemed entirely obvious and beyond question through a universally shared observation, but which turned out to be totally wrong.

Generally speaking such challenges are entirely welcomed within philosophy, but....

It would seem to get a bit tricky when such challenges touch upon highly charged moral issues. It gets further tricky when some have publicly staked out adamant positions in favor of a group consensus assumption. In such circumstances challenging a widely held group belief may serve little constructive purpose as the process of investigation may be swamped by hysteria etc. And so we come to...

1) The challenge itself could possibly be entirely rational, but...

2) The act of presenting the challenge may not be rational if doing do won't accomplish anything useful.

It seems two forces are at play which will sometimes contradict each other.

On one hand, the group needs shared assumptions to hold it together, and such assumptions may be serving a useful purpose even if technically they are not fully logical. Religion comes to mind as an example.

On the other hand, the group also needs to be protected from placing too big of a bet on assumptions which are not aligned with reality.

I don't really have a big point here, I'm just exploring. In the past (and often present too) I would challenge something with enthusiasm just because I could. Part showing off, and part sincere belief in philosophy.

Given that I'm in to challenging, I'm in the process of challenging that. I'm thinking of hunters who go out in the woods and kill things just because they can. Maybe it's sometimes wiser to just leave well enough alone.

I thought you had the correct reasoning but wrong conclusion here. — Posty McPostface

Ok. Why?

But, there is a constant lacking present in everyone's life. This lack is the source of frustration, anger, and sadness. Therefore, what can be done about this apparent lacking in or life? — Posty McPostface

The constant lacking is typically covered up by busyness of various kinds, but yes, underneath the busyness the lacking is there. The lacking is a waste product of thought, which suggests at least two partial remedies.

1) Do less thinking. The majority of our thinking is just aimless random wandering accomplishing nothing too constructive. A great deal of thinking can be set aside without risking any important projects. Very generally speaking, this approach has often been highlighted in the East.

2) Shift the focus. A key product of thought is the "me". The "me" is defined by a perceived division from everything and everyone else. The resulting isolation and "lacking" can be overcome to a degree by shifting the focus from ourselves to others, an approach often highlighted in the Christian West.

Both #1 and #2 above involve basically the same process, an act of surrender. Jesus called this "dying to be reborn".

Attempting to analyze and figure out all this stuff about our personal situations may be misguided (while being very normal) because such a process is the opposite of #1 and #2 above, in that it keeps the focus on thinking and on "me". The cure you are working on may actually be the disease.

Over thinkers like you and me can be like the alcoholic who tries to cure his addiction with a case of scotch. It's our over thinking, and the resulting excessive focus on "me", which got us in to trouble in the first place, so poring more of that fuel on the fire is not always the ideal remedy. Like with the alcoholic, it's what we want to do, but not always what we need to do.

But, is suffering inherently meaningful? I think so. — Posty McPostface

If meaning is a story we attach to certain events and situations then it would appear that suffering, or anything else, is not inherently meaningful.

Perhaps you have some other understanding of meaning?

I need to stand up on my own feet at the moment. — Posty McPostface

Cheering for you here. :up: