[1.] Everybody stereotypes everybody... right? — BrianW

OP is a muddle. If it can't be clarified this thread will be closed. — StreetlightX

OP asks us to reflect on whether begging is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination when this is the approach of literally nobody. — Judaka

Then you ask if begging for acceptance is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination. I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but right now, there is not much begging going on. If you are overtly racist or sexist, you will be personally attacked, your business may be attacked and you may even be physically attacked and we've seen countless examples of that. — Judaka

conation
/kəˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun PHILOSOPHY•PSYCHOLOGY
the mental faculty of purpose, desire, or will to perform an action; volition. — Google

THE TAO AND ITS NAME

1. Naming things enables us to differentiate between them, but names are words, and words easily give rise to confusion. They do not replace the thing or direct experience of the thing which they name, but only represent or describe it.
Consider a thing such as a strawberry. If we wish to find the word 'strawberry', we look in a dictionary; if we wish to find a description of a strawberry, we look in an encyclopaedia. But if we are hungry, we do not go to the library, but to the field where fine strawberries may be found. If we do not know where there is such a field, we might seek guidance as to where fine strawberries may be found. A book on the Tao is like such a guide. It can point us in the direction of the strawberry patch, but cannot provide the fruit itself. It can give an idea of the taste of Tao, but of itself, has no taste to compare with direct experience of the Tao.

Consider now three things: There is the universal principle which enables all things to be, and to flourish naturally; there is the name 'Tao', by which that universal principle is known; and there are words which describe the manifestations of the Tao.
Even the name 'Tao' is only a convenience, and should not be confused with the universal principle which bears that name, for such a principle embraces all things, so cannot be accurately named nor adequately described. This means that Tao cannot be understood, for it is infinite, whereas the mind of man is finite, and that which is finite cannot encompass that which is infinite.

Although we cannot understand Tao, we are not prevented from having knowledge of it, for understanding stems from one of the two forms of knowledge.
It stems from that which is called cognitive knowledge, the knowledge born of words and numbers, and other similar devices. The other form of knowledge, conative knowledge, needs no words or other such devices, for it is the form of knowledge born of direct personal experience. So it is that conative knowledge is also known as experiential knowledge. Cognitive and experiential knowledge both have their roots in reality, but reality is complex, and complexity is more of a barrier to cognitive knowledge than it is to experiential knowledge, for when we seek cognitive knowledge of a thing, that is, understanding of it, the knowledge we gain of that thing is understanding only of its manifestations, which is not knowledge of the thing itself.
We may seek to understand a thing, rather than to experience it, because, in a world beset with man made dangers, it is frequently safer to understand than to experience.
Tao is not man made, and there is nothing in it to fear. So it is that we may experience Tao without fear. When we cease to seek cognitive knowledge, that is, cease to seek understanding of a thing, we can gain experiential knowledge of that thing. This is why it is said that understanding Tao is not the same as knowing Tao; that understanding Tao is only to know that which it manifests, and that knowing Tao is to be one with the universal principle which is Tao. This is to say that knowledge of Tao is not the same as understanding Tao. To know Tao is to experience both Tao and the manifestations of that universal principle. As human beings, we are born as manifestations of Tao.

If this seems complex, the reason is because Tao is both simple and complex. It is complex when we try to understand it, and simple when we allow ourselves to experience it. Trying to understand Tao is like closing the shutters of a window before looking for a shadow. We might close the shutters to prevent anyone from discovering our treasure, but the same shutters prevent the moonlight from entering the room. All there is in the room is darkness, and in total darkness we cannot find the shadow, no matter how hard or diligently we seek.
We call one thing a shadow, and another darkness, but the shadow is darkness, and the darkness shadow, for in reality, both darkness and shadow are absence of light, yet we call one shadow and the other darkness. The shadow is darkness in the midst of light, but within total darkness, the shadow seems to disappear, for darkness is a shadow within shadows. We may think that the shadow has been destroyed when all light is removed, but it has not been wiped away; in reality it has grown, but we need light even to see that form of darkness which we call a shadow.

Such is the pursuit of the universal principle called Tao, that if we seek to understand it, we prevent the very means by which it may be found, for the only way in which we might find Tao is through the experience of Tao. We find Tao when we do not seek it, and when we seek it, it leaves us, just as the silver moonlight leaves the room when we close the shutters. We find and know Tao when we allow ourselves to find and know it, just as the moonlight returns when we allow it to return.

We do not need to seek Tao as we seek physical treasures such as jade or gold. We do not need to seek Tao as we seek such treasures as fame or titles. We do not need to seek the treasure of Tao, for although the greatest of treasures, it is also the most common. Perhaps it is because it is so common that so few men find it; they seek it only in mysterious and secret places, in chasms and caves, and in the workplace of the alchemist. The Tao is not hidden in these places, and is hidden only from those who frequent and inhabit them, secretively, and with the shutters closed.

Just as darkness may be known as the absence of light, so too may light be known as the absence of darkness. When we experience darkness and light as having the same source, we are close to the Tao, for Tao is the source of both darkness and light, just as it is also the source of all other natural things. When we experience ourselves as part of Tao, as a shadow or reflection of the universal principle, we have found it, for it is said that "Experience of Tao is Tao". — The Tao Te Ching (An Introduction by Stan Rosenthal)

(6) Therefore God’s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness.

So, the theist tries to split the horns of the dilemma by saying that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.

(5) So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world.

God is good. And that goodness is by His nature. And He always acts in accordance with that nature. Therefore, when He sets down laws one assumes they must be directed towards that goodness. Why then would He not obey such laws? If God's standard of goodness is His own nature, by not abiding by them, He is showing that, either His laws aren't divine or He just overestimated himself beyond His true capabilities.

Now, supposing those laws are for humans to follow but not God, how are we supposed to learn the value of those laws or of the goodness in them when God doesn't seem too concerned to abide by them?

@BrianW seem to have been affected by the same energy spike bouncing around the solar system. Hopefully they will recover soon. — Bitter Crank

To get all meta, one problem with this scenario is that the speed of light would be the same in this universe as it would be in ours. — T Clark

Would you be surprised to learn that reincarnation is not a Buddhist teaching?

"Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. There is no such teaching in Buddhism--a fact that surprises many people, even some Buddhists One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman--no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death, and thus Buddhism does not believe in reincarnation in the traditional sense, such as the way it is understood in Hinduism.

What Reincarnation is Not

Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. In this case John possesses an immortal soul which transforms to the form of a cat after his death. This cycle is repeated over and over again. Or if he is lucky, he will be reborn as a human being. This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism.

ON BEAUTY

AND a poet said, Speak to us of Beauty.
And he answered:
Where shall you seek beauty, and how shall you find her unless she herself be your way and your guide?
And how shall you speak of her except she be the weaver of your speech?
The aggrieved and the injured say, "Beauty is kind and gentle. Like a young mother half–shy of her own glory she walks among us."
And the passionate say, "Nay, beauty is a thing of might and dread. Like the tempest she shakes the earth beneath us and the sky above us."
The tired and the weary say, "Beauty is of soft whisperings. She speaks in our spirit. Her voice yields to our silences like a faint light that quivers in fear of the shadow."
But the restless say, "We have heard her shouting among the mountains. And with her cries came the sound of hoofs, and the beating of wings and the roaring of lions."
At night the watchmen of the city say, "Beauty shall rise with the dawn from the east."
And at noontide the toilers and the wayfarers say, "We have seen her leaning over the earth from the windows of the sunset."
In winter say the snow–bound, "She shall come with the spring leaping upon the hills."
And in the summer heat the reapers say, "We have seen her dancing with the autumn leaves, and we saw a drift of snow in her hair."
All these things have you said of beauty, Yet in truth you spoke not of her but of needs unsatisfied, And beauty is not a need but an ecstasy.
It is not a mouth thirsting nor an empty hand stretched forth, But rather a heart inflamed and a soul enchanted.
It is not the image you would see nor the song you would hear, But rather an image you see though you close your eyes and a song you hear though you shut your ears.
It is not the sap within the furrowed bark, nor a wing attached to a claw, But rather a garden for ever in bloom and a flock of angels for ever in flight.
People of Orphalese, beauty is life when life unveils her holy face. But you are life and you are the veil.
Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in a mirror. But you are eternity and you are the mirror. — Kahlil Gibran (From 'The Prophet')

Basically, I am trying to understand what he means by love is rational because it is beautiful and you can know something is truly beautiful or not by thinking about it, but not by feeling or seeing. — Sameer

are you saying that Islam follows the OT (the 5 books of Moses and the Mosaic traditions)? — Hanover

Let's say that in this 'reality', there are no laws that are set in stone, but rather some beings have created these laws through their will, and they can change them through their will. — leo

If we know what they are then what are they? Do you have a list, or they can't be expressed in words? — leo

I think if one finds the characteristics that are ever-present in reality/existence then one gets a much better definition of what that reality/existence is. So far I have - identity, activity, force/influence, form/space, time.

[1.] Identity - Basically, we can't deny something and we can't affirm nothing. Therefore, every conversation, information, knowledge or understanding about anything begins with the identity of a something.

[2.] Activity - At the very least, the something that is fundamental to everything, call it energy/god/life or whatever, must be performing the action of being. It must be representing itself to itself (internal characteristics) and to others (external influences). Else, there would be no such considerations.

[3.] Force/Influence - This is just the ability and capacity to be and to express that being-ness.

[4.] Form/Space - This is defined by the field, range or extent of activity or force/influence by any identity.

[5.] Time - This is the rate of activity or relative activity. It could be current activity vs past activity, a particular designation of form/space in comparison to another, certain configurations relative to others, etc. — BrianW

But is your certainty on this a rule or a law? And if it is a rule, how can you know that gravity is a law, and thus that we will never find a way to disable gravity in the future? — leo

If gravity is not absolute, then it must be a function of an absolute law. — BrianW

Of them, we know they are not laws because, even though they endure, they are fluid in terms of their application/operation. Often we can work around them, modify them and even discard them in favour of others depending on our progression towards our goals. — BrianW

What do you mean exactly by reality/existence is absolute? There are plenty of things we used to call reality that we now call imagination, and plenty of things that we used to called imagination that we now call reality, and different people have different views on what is real and what isn't. — leo

I wouldn't say it is impossible that we live in a world governed by absolute laws, but do you acknowledge that if we live in such a world we can't know what these laws are? Otherwise if we know what they are, that means we know that they will keep being valid in the future, and how could we know that? So if we can't know what they are, is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules? And if somehow we can know what they are, that means we have scientific principles (rules) that are in fact laws, and then again is it useful to make a distinction between laws and rules? — leo

Know Thyself.

But you could assume that Einstein's theory of gravity is complete, it is precisely this assumption that leads astrophysicists/cosmologists to suppose the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the fact that without them Einstein's gravity doesn't match what we observe in galaxies, but with them it does. — leo

So maybe what you mean is that what is going to happen is already written into nature as natural laws, whereas our scientific theories are only approximations of these laws and are potentially faillible? — leo

But what if in the future we manage to create a device that makes two planets repel one another instead of attract one another, that means we could do away with gravity. How would we know that this is impossible? And then how would we know what is law and what isn't? — leo

It could be that gravity works in some specific way now, and that at some point in the future it will start working differently. But then you could always say that the true law specifies how it works throughout the history of the universe, and that a law that doesn't always work is not a real law. But there is still the problem of determining what is law and what isn't, unless you're ok with saying that there are laws but we don't know what they are? Otherwise if we knew these laws, then some scientific theories (rules) would actually be laws. — leo

There are 'laws', as you say, that we invent, and we get punished if we break them. And there are 'natural laws' that describe how the universe works, according to our understanding of it, of course! These are opposites. The first type of laws bind us to behave in a particular way. The second type of law is bound by the universe, and if the universe should change, the laws must change to reflect it. Be careful not to confuse the two, or misunderstanding is sure to result! — Pattern-chaser

Legally, codes are laws. I'm not sure what alternate sense of "code" you might be thinking of--I suppose something like the set of principles that some organizations have? In that sense, codes are the same as rules.

If you break a law or rule, it usually results in some form of punishment, up to excommunication (from society, from a place of employment, from an organization, etc.). It's up to each individual whether they want to risk the punishment in question. — Terrapin Station

To make sure I understand you correctly, "law" is often defined as a "system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties", you would classify that as a code and not as a law right? — leo

Another thing, in your view what's the difference between natural law and scientific law? It seems that you classify "natural laws" as laws, and "scientific laws" as rules. — leo

For instance why would gravity be considered a natural law and not a scientific law? Are you saying for instance that Newton's law of gravitation and Einstein's general relavity are scientific laws and not natural laws, whereas the observations we make that things tend to fall to the ground count as a natural law and not a scientific law? I don't see a difference myself, in both cases observations are compiled and generalized into a principle. Also, the terms "scientific law" and "natural law" are often used interchangeably by some people. — leo

Newton's law of gravitation does fit the description, it can be said to have been modified or discarded in favour of other scientific laws, whereas the underlying concept of gravity has perdured, so you might say this is what makes gravity a "law" and Newton's gravitation a "rule". But it is not inconceivable that in the future we might manage to create some anti-gravity device, and then gravity would stop being "unavoidable" and so it would stop being a law the way you defined it. So it seems to me that we can't really know whether we're dealing with a "law" or a "rule", maybe what we interpret as a law will turn out to be a rule, and maybe what we interpret as a rule will turn out to be never modified or discarded, which would make it a law. So maybe the distinction you make between law and rule is not warranted. — leo

The philosophical definition of spiritualism; the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality. — Razorback kitten

22. Matter is generally defined as being "that which has extension," "that which can make an impression upon our senses," "that which possesses impenetrability." Are these definitions correct? - From your point of view they are correct, because you can only define in accordance with what you know. But matter exists in states which are unknown to you. It may be, for instance, so ethereal and subtle as to make no impression upon your senses; and yet it is still matter, although it would not be such for you. — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book

What definition can you give of matter? - Matter is the element which enchains spirit, the instrument which serves it, and upon which, at the same time, it exerts its action. (From this point of view it may be said that matter is the agent, the intermediary, through which, and upon which, spirit acts.) — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book

23. What is spirit? - The intelligent principle of the universe. — Allan Kardec - The Spirits' Book

What's any energy, regardless of perspective, made of? — Razorback kitten

I get what you mean but there is a truth to all things and regardless of whether that thing is this or that, it still matters to me that it be defined. — Razorback kitten

You have to admit, accepting energy for it's qualities hasn't brought much to the table. — Razorback kitten

It isn't enough for me to accept it on its influence in reality. To me, it seems the same as saying energy.

How about NOTHINGness, just empty space. Interacting with other empty space, until SOMETHING is happening out of nothing. I believe you really can make something out of nothing. — Razorback kitten

I would like to hear some ideas about what you think matter is made of. — Razorback kitten

what can never cease from being?

[1.] Identity - Basically, we can't deny something and we can't affirm nothing. Therefore, every conversation, information, knowledge or understanding about anything begins with the identity of a something.

[2.] Activity - At the very least, the something that is fundamental to everything, call it energy/god/life or whatever, must be performing the action of being. It must be representing itself to itself (internal characteristics) and to others (external influences). Else, there would be no such considerations.

[3.] Force/Influence - This is just the ability and capacity to be and to express that being-ness.

[4.] Form/Space - This is defined by the field, range or extent of activity or force/influence by any identity.

[5.] Time - This is the rate of activity or relative activity. It could be current activity vs past activity, a particular designation of form/space in comparison to another, certain configurations relative to others, etc.

Unless the world goes esoteric ecumenist like Jesus was. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Of course, they do this. In school I was not allowed to defend myself physically. The teachers, at least many of them would if they were attacked on the street. A fight between kids, both kids got suspended, period. Parents can give orders which children must follow. They on the other hand need not follow the orders of children. Police can decide to put me in the back of a car in handcuffs and cart me off overnight. I cannot decide to do that to them. They can even make and error but not be punished if they followed their rules. I cannot do it to them even in many situations where it would not be an error. There is no situation where I can kill a lot of people including innocent ones. Governments and military leaders can do this. I am mentioning examples where I think most people see this and most people consider this to often be correct, though sometimes it can be wrong. — Coben

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

The whole point of my argument is we may not be in a postion to know. Just as a child might not know. Just as a civilian might not know what was necessary. Just as a non-expert might not know. — Coben

What says we aren't the drunk looking for his keys at the lamp post because that is where the light is? — JosephS