I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.

Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean! — universeness

I have bolded the statement I want to reply to. I think there are examples of untouchables in many cultures however, not every culture would have institutionalized this common human behavior in the same way. I have read some ancient yoga practices are extremely concerned with cleanliness, Hebrews were also concerned with cleanliness but I don't think to the same extent. When the US had outhouses there were people who were paid to tend to outhouses. The owner of an estate surely would not want his daughter associating with such a person, especially if this person looked different, or if outhouses were associated with disease. The US has had some very prejudiced laws!

Hebrews for sure saw themselves as different from others and they institutionalized that aspect of being Hebrew. Kind of like, all people have engaged in war, but not all of them created an economic and social organization around their military, such as Prussia was organized around its military. These human behaviors being common, but more or less, formal and defining. The point is, knowing what I know about human behavior and organizations, I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. In the US a young man of color could be killed just for speaking with a White woman. We had a huge segregation problem! We just call it racism instead of Hinduism. :lol: Bad behavior isn't funny but on the other hand it can be pretty ridiculous, especially when we point fingers at others as though we don't think and act just as badly or worse.

I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s). — Seeker

I don't think that is possible for a conscious being. I also have no desire to go to heaven. I think it is our nature to want stimulus and that leads to wanting what we don't have and then doing what we have to do to get what we want. If we are in heaven where a God takes care of our every need and there is nothing for us to do but enjoy, that sounds like hell to me. There would be no great movies or novels. We would be satiated and have nothing to strive for. Boring!

No question. And another big one is doing something for others. — Tom Storm

Oh yeah, My mental health program is being a Senior Companion. I pick people up and take them where they want to go, we have lunch together and play games. The lockdown was terrible! I was sure I was loosing my mind and feared I was on the way to loosing my independence. I love being alone and writing and the forums, but I have to have that face-to-face human contact too. Now I am so busy caring for others I really appreciate my time alone. It is strange how making others happy means our own happiness too.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste. — baker

Not enough fat, salt, and sugar to make food as unhealthy as it is today, and chances are good the meal had to be worked for with real physical labor. Next to that, surviving was so demanding people did not have time to fret about how much better their lives would be if only they had made different choices, so in way, there was less stress.

Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear. — universeness

I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? I don't think it was like the Hebrews who took the land that was Isreal with the belief a God had told them to do so and to kill everyone who was already there. Christians have carried for centuries as though a god has told them the land is theirs and they should kill everyone else. That fearsome Christian god has only recently become a god of love. However, when people feel threatened they become defensive, so was the killing a justified act of defense? This matters to me. I tend to be too Polyann and not realistic and I want truth,

So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism? — universeness

I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. I do not think my mind is capable of giving me a good understanding of ancient times and foreign places. I can reason that some people may live unhealthy lives and for one's own safety it is best to avoid contact. They did not have a government that can take care of them as well the US government has started caring for its people, and they sure did not have the economic opportunity we have today. Cleanliness for those who had the luxury of practicing cleanliness was very important.

I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today. — universeness

I think Christianity is a barrier to learning not only for those who identify with the religion, but they have defined God, and that God is a supernatural power that can violate the laws of nature. That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.

I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin", and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.

Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother. — universeness

I love your argument and especially the Latin and Greek words. I seriously wish I could learn those languages. But in argument to your argument, nature molded all things. Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. The writer of the stories based them on a study of human nature and all our different approuches to problems. Darn, I am too tired for the mental work that is needed for an argument, and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. We need another thread for this. I really would like to look deeper into the gods.

I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them — javi2541997

Wow, I have to agree with that. When I get in the creative space of writing it is the only thing that matters. It is not that I am totally confident in myself but that the creative experience or that moment of enlightenment when we see the bigger picture is better than good sex. I want to explain the hormonal experience so I don't sound like an egomaniac.

For a quick recap; estrogen rises in your midluteal phase (the first half of your cycle) and a few days after ovulation. As estrogen increases in these areas of your cycle, your brain is better able to wire itself off dopamine – which means that your creativity skyrockets.Dec 10, 2019
shleymargeson.com/estrogen-creative-superpower/#:~:text=For%20a%20quick%20recap%3B%20estrogen,means%20that%20your%20creativity%20skyrockets . Why Estrogen Is Your Creative Superpower - Ashley Margeson — Ashley Margeson

How Being More Creative Improves Your Mental and Physical ...https://www.lifehack.org › articles › lifestyle › how-bei...
Studies show how creative pursuits alter our brain chemistry, help improve attention, decrease stress, and can boost our physical and mental health. — Colette DeDonato

There is a lot to say about creativity and our physical being and I have heard that some people who have been depressed for years have broken free of that when they start doing something creative.

The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you". — schopenhauer1

Thank you for clarifying that point. I have covid and want to avoid things that pull me down.

If one thinks life is wonderful or that it sucks may depend on psychological matters. I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D..

"To feel authentic means to be free to develop traits and potentials that are innate predispositions. When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy. From childhood on, first our family and then our culture are the mirrors in which we see ourselves as acceptable or not. When we need to conform in order to be acceptable, we may end up wearing a false face and playing an empty role if who we are inside and what is expected of us are far apart....

When life feels meaningless and stale, or when something feels fundamentally wrong about how you are living and what you are doing, you can help yourself by becoming aware of discrepancies between the archetypes within you and your visible roles. Men are often caught between the inner world of archetypes and the outer world of sterotypes. Archetypes are powerful predispositions; garbed in the image and mythology of Greek gods, as I have described them in this book, each has characteristics drives, emotions, and needs that shape personality. When you enact a role that is connected to an active archetype within you, energy is generated through the depth and meaning that the role has for you. "

Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death. — universeness

Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. The Romans with their superior military force were winning wars so obviously they have the strongest god, right? Except the Germans in their forest. Whoo, those guys were badasses and you didn't want to get too close to them. People from the south feared the forest and the way the Germans defended their territory was terrorizing. Eventually, they accept the God of Abraham but then they claimed the Holy Roman Emperor as their own, and when the Church in Rome did not give them the power of authority they protested and started their own religion built on the God of Abraham stories. This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.

I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to. — universeness

Yes, that is exactly the point. Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.

I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats. — universeness

Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. You might like reading Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book Gods in Everyman" or "Goddesses in Everywoman". The God of Abraham religions have given the gods a bad reputation. I can see I need to work on this explanation. A blog might be the best way to handle what the gods have to do with democracy and why they are in a painting at the US Capitol Building and science instead of superstition. The God of Abraham mythologies are perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to humanity.

Thoughts control our behavior and even our physical condition. It is not necessary to attach superstition to the stories. We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we are not superstitious we can appreciate all the others. My point is these stories hold truths and good moral lessons. They all work the same, even if the story is folklore or a native American explanation of life. Being open to the stories of others is also a path to knowing truth and learning science. The question can be more important than the answer. Greeks and Romans didn't believe they had a revealed god's truth. They learned of the gods of others and created their own in their image.

Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity — universeness

They stole the religion from others. 5 of the Biblical stories are from Sumer, so the mythology begins in Ur a Sumerian city and it was plagiarized by Abraham and his people who he lead from Ur to Egypt. In the beginning, everyone had many gods and it is curious how the idea of one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god caught on spread. A nation at war might desire such a war god. Constantine meant well but making Rome and Christianity the same thing, created a monster. Important is the idea that a god chooses the king and gives the king power, and everything relies on inheritance. That is Judaism not a family of gods. There is no one to correct that god as Greek gods could argue their case.

Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?

So why do people need to be here? — schopenhauer1

Because "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." Chardin.

I am less familiar with the Mayan Factor explanation of our light bodies and the universal entrance.

Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.

The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one. — universeness

May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? Each one is a concept and concepts are powerful. Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods.

The Greeks slowly began slipping out of this superstition with questions like "Is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do they say it is bad because it is bad?" If it is the latter, something exists besides the gods. Now we are creeping into universals and the laws of nature. And we have Hippocrates who says the conditions of the body are not caused by the gods. But before those who love knowledge replaced superstition with universals, people experienced their gods as very real. If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. :grin:

There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit. — universeness

And there we become the gods. It is as we create it. :grin: It is as Zeus feared. With the knowledge of the technology of fire, we have discovered all other technologies and now rival the gods. However, as you hint, with concepts such as socialism and humanism we can create a reality that encourages happy families, or we can feed the beast and make the beast strong.

I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump. — universeness

Oh burn, ssssss- :fire: That was nicely said. I could totally off topic with you what you said, but maybe if we focus on your lead in statement we can have a very meaningful discussion!

Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies. These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates. — universeness

Yes, and what does the Bible have to say about that? :naughty: The Bible is a very complex book with something for everyone in it, but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. The Council of Nicaea was all about power. The Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. The God of Abraham gave man kings, not democracy, and one's life's work was defined by inheritance, not the merit system of the Greeks that enable any qualified person to have a government position.

Some conversations can not happen until someone opens the door so we can see what there is to talk about. Your statement about we are organized as we are organized opens a door. Conservatives want to cling to tradition but democracy is not a Christian tradition.

The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species. — universeness

Are you aware that

Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment - Independent Institutehttps://www.independent.org › publications › article
Wills observes that the study of Scottish Enlightenment thought played a prominent role in American education in the second half of the eighteenth century. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2790 — RONALD HAMOWY

We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.

If we had better global politics and the collection and distribution of resources was organised for the size of population we have and not exclusively for the benefit of the few then we probably could cope with the current population. So, at least the problems are crystal clear. If we can 'sort it out,' then perhaps we can start to expand off planet. If we don't then we will continue to give oxygen to the anti-life people until we do.
If the human population reduces over time due to individual human choice not to have kids and we end up with a more manageable population and we then 'sort things out,' then hopefully we all have the choice back, to freely and positively procreate again, in line with the natural imperative. — universeness

Might that be what democracy is about? It is empowering everyone who is affected by a decision to come to the table and explain what is and what should be. Then arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. You know, like the Greek gods.

A geologist showed me a cartoon explaining exponential growth. You begin with a couple of frogs in a pond and then increase the number of frogs exponentially. Everything appears fine until the last day when the pond goes from half full to completely full. That is what happened to us. When I was born we still had a sense that there was plenty of everything. In my lifetime we have gone from plenty of everything to crisis. We have a housing shortage where land used to be dirt cheap and there was far more available land than people to fill it. Plenty of water to water wars. We are having a very hard time dealing with reality. I do not think we have a good grasp of it and we are not organized to deal with the facts we need to know.

:rofl: In general everyone is behaving like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car. They are yelling at each other and no one is working with the facts.

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin:

They have decided THEIR joy = other people must do X. That is a political position (on what others should be doing based on one's own attitudes) in my book. — schopenhauer1

I totally like that explanation.

Besides, as humans live in a society, so I guess there's a lot of people deciding what others (or we) have to do. — ssu

The Greeks had a concept of what is public and what is private. Liberty depends on respecting what is an individual, private decision, and unfortunately, Evangelicals are determined to impose their notions of how things should be on everyone, just as much as some Muslims believe it is God's will to make everyone live as they believe their holy book defines how people should live.

Rocks don’t feel pain and don’t need joy. — schopenhauer1

We question if animals have self-awareness. For sure rocks do not, any more than the tires on my car want different things. But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be?

What if industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model? How might that change our reality? How many industries would move to China if the employees were making the decision? Who should have the power to decide our joy? What industry would pollute the environment causing their own families disease?

Athena, I am so much appreciated of all information you have provided to me. But, trust me please. I do not see myself in a marriage because I already lived the experience of being heartbroken and I don't want to go through the same painful process. — javi2541997

I am now relatively irrelevant in the continuation of the species imperative but under the rules, I am still allowed to have lots of fun! — universeness

I have mixed feelings about relationships and having children. Today, I don't think I would want to bring a child into this world. Our present technological society is very different from the society and culture we had when I came of age. Back in the day we wanted to grow up and prove we were capable adults and that meant getting married and having children. It was especially important for a woman to be married and have children because there were not a lot of good options for women when our society was strongly based on the Bible and the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras and Plato were in favor of women having equality but allowing women equality was a radical idea that so broke tradition it could be met with some hostility.
Aristotle thought a man should have a slave, an ox, and a wife. I am not so sure he saw having a wife as different from having an ox and a slave. Our culture didn't seem to think having a wife was different from having an ox and a slave. Economically, women were held dependent on the man.

There was a time when having a family would improve a man's chances of getting a job and getting advancements. A married man was thought to be a responsible and more stable person. In some cases, his wife could advance his career by having the boss over for dinner and making social connections with the right people. She was not "just a housewife" but a very valuable part of the social and economic order we had.

I am not saying there were no problems. I am saying things were different back then and being married and a parent was part of our identification and social status. We also saw the world getting better and better. We believed we could make the world a better place and that was a much happier situation for having children. Today we no longer see the world as getting better and global warming means in a generation of two the world we took for granted may be irrevocably destroyed. I do not see this as a good time to have children.

There are not benefits. Marriage is a community of sacrifices. Raising and maintaining a child is complex as hell and you do not how the tables would turn out in the future. Probably I can end up being cheated by my wife or mistreated by my own kid. So no... I prefer live in loneliness rather than being married. — javi2541997

I am sorry. Everything in life has some risk. You could have the best job in the world and a lovely house, great car, and loose it all. Then who will you be without everything that once defined you?

For sure marriage and family involve risk. It surely is not something anyone should do without a lot of talking! That piece of knowledge comes from hindsight. I took so much for granted and that was a mistake. So if you ever change your mind about marriage and family please remember to talk about everything that is important to you. There is really good information in books and on the internet and the more we know the better are our chances of doing well. This video is really good and perfect for you. It is about why we marry the wrong person. Please give it a try and tell me what think.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+we+marry+the+wrong+person&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=Why+we+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0i512l2j69i57j0i512l5j0i390l2.4428j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers — Yohan

Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family.

I'm wondering if you can add your notion of non-interference to those three ideas and scenarios. — schopenhauer1

The math has no meaning until we give it meaning. I don't think there is any empirical evidence of your ethical considerations. Exactly how do we come to a consensus on the best reasoning? Like I didn't mean to be insensitive. I was just very busy and had to stay focused on my goal.

Interesting you should say that. I still do minor research and write short notes. Just last night I was dabbling with my current project and the thought came to me, All I'm doing is moving symbols around. The create/discover part of the process was missing. :chin:

Later: An idea came to me and now the symbols have meaning. :cool: — jgill

What you said is very exciting. I just spent the morning with a deceased friend's daughter and carried over the discussion we are having here with her. She has one of those super high-paying jobs as a computer chip engineer. What you said perfectly fits in the discussion we were having, the difference between manipulating the symbols and understanding their meaning. You expressed that very well.

Logical thinking is far more disciplined than what most of our thinking is. Math must be logical but can be devoid of meaning. Blending the logical with a sense of meaning is uniquely human don't you think?
Animals may have a concept of 4 wolves and distance and the best escape route. That would happen instantaneously without much deliberation. But figuring out the best design for a computer chip or the knots in DNA is a whole different ball game.

:chin: Does our understanding of such matters require better words for explaining? Do our thoughts become none existent when we stop thinking them, or might they infect others and grow and become more permanent and yet changing?

New Math

As an Asst Prof in the early 1970s, I had a colleague whose office was a couple of doors down the hall. He was a retired Army colonel with an MA in math, and he taught some of the remedial and freshman courses. One day, early in the semester, he burst into the department chair's office, red in the face and clearly angry,"What is this shit!? Why prove a*0=0???" We were using Vance for College Algebra and there it was in chapter one. I was less vocal, but I too found it ridiculous to toss bits of math foundations into a more or less utilitarian course.

Proof: a*0=0

Note in the Wiki piece that Time magazine called New Math one of the 100 worst ideas of the twentieth century. :cool: — jgill

I don't know if this is relevant but- The education controllers did the same thing with teaching reading. I could not learn to read because when I was that age the school was using the "look and say method", not phonics. Many of us could not read without learning phonics and fortunately for me my grandmother was a teacher and spent a summer teaching me to read and spell.

It would be interesting to do MRI's of learning brains. What happens in the brain when it absorbs the lesson and what happens in the brain when there is no learning?

"The four core learning styles in the VARK model include visual, auditory, reading and writing, and kinesthetic." https://sphero.com/blogs/news/learning-styles-for-kids#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20four%20learning,reading%20and%20writing%2C%20and%20kinesthetic.

I find, that when I can not see it, I may have trouble thinking it. Phonics has a mechanical nature to it. It is slower but it is also closer to seeing how the symbols work together. Take that away and reading is like the explanation of proof. A jumble of symbols that do not make sense. My brain does not cross that gap. A picture of one apple and a picture of no apple make sense. What is seen with the explanation of proof? We teach math with pictures. How many apples are in the box? But a prove? If all I see is symbols, the me that is trying to learn, screams and runs away. Does that make sense? I would like to break through that barrier and be able to understand the language of symbols.

Imagine that! Perhaps human history can be retold in terms of how many and how big our failures were/are rather than as it's usually told to us, a sequence of successes. I wish I had the time and resources to do that; no worries, some are already on the job (re History's Biggest Mistakes, a book by....). — Agent Smith

I love that idea! Maybe that would give us a much better perspective on the meaning of being human.

I'm not sure I've known a colleague becoming that euphoric, but it is a really good feeling when understanding dawns. It's mostly a game of exploring concepts. But I only taught at the college level and know little of techniques used in K-12. However, the modern math movement supported by university mathematicians during the 1960s and 1970s was a failure - I ventured into it when I taught a freshman algebra course. For a few very motivated students it worked well.

As to motivation, part if not most may have to come with genetics, like musical talent. — jgill

Oh dear! What can you tell me about the 1960s-1970s math education failure? :broken: I really care. I consider my failure to understand higher math as my worst disability. I so wish my school had put geometry before algebra. I am drawn to geometry as it is explained by Michael S. Schneider in "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe- The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science".

Dropping art and music as unnecessary liberal education is so wrong because they go with understanding math. And if we had a good understanding of these things we would have a better understanding of science and then a better understanding of life. And we would use such understanding for philosophical discussions and live happily ever after. Then we would have good moral judgment and a strong democracy. :heart: I write to repair my broken heart.

Here is a video of Professor Satyan L. Devadiss, the professor who gets very emotional about math. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR6saOaGXNg

Thank you for agreeing with me ,(it's rare to see that on a forum like this one!). Yes, the fundamental issue with unmitigated consumerism is that it is a road to nowhere. Instead of enjoying the good, it always tries to needlessly dig holes when the ground was already filled up. We should have a balanced approach.

Sharing knowledge is undoubtedly a great way to obtain happiness! — DA671

You have soothed a painful wound. I was expressing my joy of learning and how I what others to interact with me in another forum and a mod closed thread. This is not unusual. I made many enemies several years ago by answering a professor's question by saying "I am a seeker of knowledge." What is up with that intense anger towards someone who delights in learning? :worry: What has gone wrong with our society, people feeling anger towards those who enjoy
? That resentment goes against a love of democracy. And when I spoke of being poor, it is my understanding that Socrates was poor. There should be no shame for pursuing knowledge instead of wealth and I think in a democracy that pursuit of knowledge should be free. Can you help me with this- what is the virtue/moral of what knowledge for the sake of knowledge?

And for darn sure, good manners are essential to our intellectual development and the progression of our civilization. When people come to a forum they should feel safe to express what they think and they should never have to fear being attacked. Challenging their idea is wonderful because that is one way to develop our thinking and moves a discussion forward, but keeping these 3 rules in mind is helpful.

1. We are respectful because we are respectful people.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.

Seems to me if we follow those rules, it pretty much handles most human problems.

↪Athena Money is a key, but not the central, cause of happiness. I agree with much of what you have written. I think that a major issue in our modern society is that people intentionally create unnecessary desires in order to acquire superficial pleasures instead of focusing on the subtle yet more potent good of contentment. I hope that our perspectives will change. Music, family, beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge can be sources of indelible fulfilment. May people get the happiness they deserve! I hope that you have an amazing day! — DA671

I like your words "intentionally create unnecessary desires in order to acquire superficial pleasures". This seems very much the focus of our consumer society, and this is worrying. For one thing, it is very bad for our planet and it leads to believing happiness is what is outside of who we are, leaving us dependent on an external world for our happiness, instead of developing our inner world.

My favorite math professor loves math and he gets so excited when he talks about it. He makes comments such as "cry for the joy" of the math principle he is talking about. I don't think he needs anything else in life other than his joy of math and sharing it. That is not "a superficial pleasure" and wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone had such an internal pleasure? I know when someone expands my understanding of a concept, I feel extreme joy. Nothing makes me happier than the enlightenment feeling of getting a better sense of meaning. Except I am dependent on all of you for this pleasure. Reading is very beneficial but it is much more fun when I know I am going to share my new ideas with all of you. There is a social component to my sense of pleasure.

My dear lady, that was done long ago. Regardless of categories. :cool: — jgill

OH come on. I was looking forward to a better answer. One that might help me understand what you are talking about. When it comes to math, I am an idiot, but an idiot who delights in the subject. To me math is perhaps the best magic wand we can have. What we can know and do with math is totally awesome and my point is we do not teach math as needs to be taught. Instead of trying to "program" little minds with math that our high-tech society demands, excite them with the history of math and the wonders of math such as the magic pi. I swear, few math teachers truly love math so the best they can is "program" the little brains that are programable, but they can pass on a love of math and they turn children off.

I think in the past it may have been easier to be happy? I really am not sure about that. Aging chances our thinking soooo much! I grew up thinking happiness was a happy family. I didn't exactly grow up with that, but in Dick and Jane books family was the center of all happiness and that always made sense to me. It just is NOT what I experienced in my life. :lol:

Early in life, I realized accomplishing something resulted in much more happiness than going to a party.
I was chasing after happiness and it was always out of reach or ended as soon as the party ended, but gardening, hard work over a period of time, and then getting the results of that work, was experienced as a happiness that stayed with me. Kind the difference between eating empty calories or healthy food. Feeling satisfied by my own work was more satisfying than temporary, frivolous happiness. Few people have the land for gardening today.

Nature has always been a source of happiness for me, but I grew up in LA county in California and witnessed concrete and blacktop covering the ground from mountain to mountain. I am extremely thankful that where I live now the banks of the river have been preserved as natural areas with parks along the way and within half an hour I can out of town and in nature. I would swear, much insanity is caused by the loss of nature.

There have been times in history when music was considered essential to a good frame of mind. The Greeks, god bless them, thought music and beauty quite essential to a good life. So to defend my opinion line, modern living can deprive us of family, beauty, good music, and nature. And may god have mercy on the person who thinks happiness is using a credit card.

That's an amazing article on Indian mathematics on Wikipedia. Ramanujan, of course, was one of the great geniuses in math. When I was a math prof I would be asked occasionally to teach the survey course in mathematics history - a task none of us relished since no one had the necessary background. It would have been an enormous help had Wikipedia been available!

How do you guess mathematics might have evolved had it not been for the Romans and Christianity? Or, is it the teaching of math to school age kids that you think should be different? My wife is a retired HS English teacher and she made the same remark about coming up with the right answer without going through all the steps when she was a student. :smile: — jgill

I very much appreciate teachers confirming the truth of things I read in books and/or experience.

Your question has a very deep meaning with no empirical support that I know of. My interest in the Roman/Greek difference has become a big-picture awareness. I have always known the Celts and Greeks got a long, but not the Celts and Romans. However, only recently have I become fascinated by the deeper metaphysical significance of that difference.

Rome did not have the number system essential to developing math and science. Rome did not ask the impossible to answer questions and dare to answer them. Rome did not have the concepts for metaphysics.

Metaphysics - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, ...
‎Aristotle · ‎Feminist metaphysics · ‎Category:Metaphysics literature · ‎Substance theory — wikipedia

That makes Christianity a problem. On the one hand, we must believe in supernatural beings, and on the other hand, we must stand against superstition. How is it logically possible to do both at the same time? My god is real but not yours? :chin: There is a saying, "when you think you know God, you know not God". How about this, why do Christians think the unscientific story of creation is important, but not an understanding of pi? A few have put quantum physics and Tao together but that will not be discussed in Sunday school when everyone is proudly talking about God's truth. How can I explain this better? Rome did not have the concepts for such a discussion, and Christianity neither does Christianity. The Greeks and others created gods as they saw a need for them. Without all those gods (concepts) interacting we could not have developed our intellect. Without the Greek academies, the Dark Age was dark.

So what music do you listen to for healing? What is your favorite medication? What do you read for an understanding of truth?

It seems to me that years of experience are neither necessary nor even sufficient for wisdom. They can definitely help foster it, but years of experience are useless without the use of reason to extract knowledge from them. Of course children have neither fully developed reason nor years of experience, but I’d say that, on average, they have some wisdom. — Hello Human

I was raised by a mother who thought I was a child with great wisdom. I have tried to live up to that my whole life. :rofl: The older I get, the less wise I think I am. I look back on my life with horror about how much I did not understand. I wish we lived at least 300 years. I am concerned that if we live only 100 years, we might still not know enough to be sure of our wisdom. Truly Socrates was the wisest, because he knew there was so much he did not know.

And of course, just getting old does not assure we gain any wisdom at all. I used to think rich people were intellectually superior and then I met some well-off people and I was horribly disappointed about them not exactly being the intellectual people I expected them to be. They didn't know any more than the poor folk and didn't care any more than the poor folk. Their life goals were pretty much about money and social status, not gaining wisdom.

However, I want to make a point that how our brains function literally changes with age. The Greeks doubted if anyone could learn anything of a philosophical nature until at least age 30 and when we did have liberal education it was part of our culture to think age 30 was still youth and just beginning to be capable of serious thinking.

While a google search leads to mostly negative explanations of the age brain, there is a positive....

Aging may also bring positive cognitive changes. For example, many studies have shown that older adults have more extensive vocabularies and greater knowledge of the depth of meaning of words than younger adults. Older adults may also have learned from a lifetime of accumulated knowledge and experiences.6 days ago

How the Aging Brain Affects Thinkinghttps://www.nia.nih.gov › health › how-aging-brain-affect... — National Institute on Aging

That means it is too late for me to learn math, but I can enjoy the wonder of pi and the history of math and appreciate the importance of math. I can also be angery with sexist father who prepared his son to be an engineer and insisted I major in home economics. :lol: I really really wish I understood the value of math when I was young enough to develop those neurons. My IQ would be much higher if I had learned advanced math.

As someone who is sympathetic to vedanta, it would have been difficult for me to have not heard of him! I really enjoyed reading Ethics.

Doing the right thing for the right reasons is certainly quite important. It is the only way one can ensure the long-term triumph of the good

I am sorry, but did you mean to say that poverty does not have to mean ignorance and suffering? Your reply seems to suggest so. If that is the case, I would definitely agree with you. Coming from a relatively poor country, I have been amazed by the degree of satisfaction many of the financially less fortunate people seem to experience. Additionally, they seem to have a wisdom about how to live a good life that many well-off individuals appear to lack. The pursuit of knowledge is undoubtedly a source of great satisfaction. I am glad to know that you have had a nice day. May you have plenty more ahead! — DA671

Don't tell me I forgot to put in the word "not" again. I hate it when I do that.

You reminded me of shows of poor people around the world that I have seen and how impressed I am with their happiness. I sure do not want to romanticize being poor however where everyone is relatively poor and there is equality, there is no relative deprivation between the have's and the have-nots. In these cases, it appears to me happiness is dependent on relationships and everyone doing a lot of singing and dancing together and of course eating together. They do not need math and a search for truths.

You have me really thinking. The Greeks developed the idea that happiness is gaining knowledge. Now I am wondering, what are the social conditions that made that so? Why a search for truth, instead of just singing and dancing together?

There are about 24,000 math topics on Wikipedia, many if not most by "Western minds". That doesn't sound like the Western mind is terribly limited. — jgill

I don't know if that is enough information for that judgment. Do you want to provide some of those categories on the chance of conceiving me?

I suppose there are psychoanalytic threads woven into the relationships between the gods of ancient Egypt, but, yes, nonsense. On the other hand, some of the spiritual practices originating in the East, like Zen Buddhism, are relevant today. I once wrote a chapter of a book on a certain aspect of a sport being a "mystical art form." :cool: — jgill

In India, it seems religion and math went hand in hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
That is not so in the West outside of Egypt and the Greeks who delighted in learning from Egypt. In India, the relationship between religion and math made it possible for them to recognize 0 as a legitimate number and to recognize negative numbers, and it made them capable of contemplating infinity.

The mystical and math go very well together and I think the Western mind is biased and this bias is like blinders that limit the consciousness of the Western mind.

PS In another thread I tried to have a discussion of how ancient Greeks and Romans differed and that discussion didn't go very well, so here I want to bring up the fact that the Roman number system would have never led to scientific discoveries.

How did Romans calculate without zero?
The Romans never used their numerals for arithmetic, thus avoiding the need to keep a column empty with a zero symbol. Addition and subtraction were done instead on an abacus or counting frame. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Education/rome/

Why is math important to philosphy?

What I experience is mentioned in the video about Spinoza, that the more I learn and expand my consciousness, the more I see a bigger picture and that decreases the importance of the small things. Learning other languages and traveling are good ways to expand our consciousness and so is MATH. With math, we can see the invisible. I know a professor who can lecture for at least 4 hours about knots and how we can use math to know if the DNA is knotted or not. Like pi can explain so many surprising things making math mind-blowing as we can know more than our six senses can detect.

[quote="DA671;724052"[/quote] Are you aware of Spinoza? Given what you said I think you may be familiar with him.

Baruch (de) Spinoza[13] (24 November 1632 – 21 February 1677)[17][18][19][20] was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardic Jewish origin.[12][18][21] One of the foremost exponents of 17th-century Rationalism and one of the early and seminal thinkers of the Enlightenment[17][22] and modern biblical criticism[23] including modern conceptions of the self and the universe,[24] he came to be considered "one of the most important philosophers—and certainly the most radical—of the early modern period.
— wikipedia

I have been watching and rewatching this video about him. Especially his reasoning of cause and effect impresses me as how the ancient Athenians thought and I think this thinking is the foundation of democracy. It goes with what Cicero said about happiness and doing the right thing when one knows what the right thing is. It is the foundation of democracy being rule by reason and good moral judgment being good reasoning.

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

And thank you, I am having a nice day. I am enjoying the forum and eating popsicles on this hot day. I just finished eating a shrimp salad. And I want to say I have an extremely low income that forces me to live very simply while thanks to the internet and libraries and books, I can have what Cicero and Jefferson meant by happiness. Intellectually my life is very full and that makes any personal troubles seem very small. Poverty does have to mean ignorance and suffering.

I think in the West much of Eastern is considered nonsense. But I also think this is more about perspective than fact.

Is God outside of nature or is nature God? Should we look for God in everyone? Could our understanding of God affect our understanding of democracy?

Imagine a loved one has been abducted by aliens. The aliens set about reorganizing their brain. They do not add new materials to it, so your loved one's body continues to have the same constitution, it's just that some structures have been rearranged. These rearrangements were done in such a way that your loved one now has an entirely different set of memories, entirely different preferences, and an entirely different personality. However, they still look the same, and the molecules making up their body haven't changed any more over the week they've been gone than they would have had they been living on Earth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:lol: It was not an alien that changed the daughter/son. It was hormones! That person most certainly is not the sweet child I raised.

Try a stroke or Alzheimer's disease for wiping out memory. One woman said the benefit of having no memory is not knowing who one is angry with and having a chance to have a relationship without the anger.

Those changes do not change the identity of the person but like the clay, what is left after the change is different. I am still Mary the daughter of John and Susan and mother of Alex and Kayla no matter how much they change or I change and this is a beautiful part of being human. And if the body is found, we can identify it with its DNA or forensics to reconstruct the face. Of course, a mush of clay will not retain even the foundation of facial features so it will not be possible to identify the statue that no longer exists, but we can identify the clay by its properties.

We might even determine the trade route that the pot took by analyzing the property of the clay and the cultural characteristics of its shape and the designs on it. Forensics and archology have gotten very good and identifying things and their path through life and I don't think this fits in the formula you provided but there does seem to be some value to acknowledging the passing of time and change.

Today a young paraplegic requiring medical help has been thrown out of the hospital with a sleeping bag and he will be sleeping on the streets somewhere. Good luck sucker. This is America the wealthiest country in the world and we are great. The marginalized people do not count.
— Athena

Sad but true. "Sorry about your luck." — Pie

Trying to get us to the topic of math and philosophy. Today it matters what we measure and what measurements have to do with public policy. Maybe we should not be divided between those who have made math and science their God and those who have not because we are butting heads. I think a lot may rest on if we see numbers as sacred or not. If we have no sense of awe and no reverence could we go in the wrong direction?

This is a good description of us fitting ourselves to our own machines, become their obedient robots. It's easy to imagine AI playing larger and larger role. It's my understanding that banks already loan or not according to algorithmic decisions, and someone might joke about the replacement of juries (trained on transcripts of previous trials and associated verdicts.) — Pie

I had no idea how important @Agent Smith's question is. I don't think we are going in the direction of the expected discussion, but I am seeing a lot of importance starting with no longer seeing numbers as sacred to no longer having a sacred notion of humans. I stand against all the God of Abraham religions, but now I am seeing the Beast and I have a sense of horror.

It seems we agree on the important of the humanities. A good citizen needs critical thinking and historical awareness. A mere cog in the machine, however, needs only a set of a skills. I've been reading Howard Zinn's history lately, and the presence or absence of class consciousness looks central to me. Am I to be merely a monkey pulling levers as directed ? Or an enlightened, autonomous being working with others to build a just and happy society? Certain politicians and oligarchs would rather me be the former, surely. — Pie

Please go to this thread about our ID and how to have a better society. Some people's utopia is another person's hell. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13274/doing-away-with-absolute-indiscerniblity-and-identity

I think you truly have a better understanding of what is important than some people. :grin: But how much fun would we have if everything was absolute and we had no reason to argue from our different perspectives? It is a big step between identifying ourselves with our human relationships or with numbers and thinking of numbers as sacred or as cold lifeless things useful for recording information or making predictions.

I am a number. Everyone in the US is a number. Everything about our lives is a number, our birthdate, our address, our Social Security number and the amount of our income determines if we get a loan or government assistance. You said a lot about our ID but why? Just validate all your numbers so I have a good empirical idea of who you are.

Really is that better than knowing you by personal relationships as a daughter/son, sexual orientation, mother or wife, mill worker or doctor, and religious affiliation? I guess you can choose your preference but I am not sure you have a good awareness of the empirical number alternative. I think it destroys our humanity and leads us into a very dark nightmare.

jgill
2.2k
What is not worth the effort?
— Athena

Competing with the wisdom of the ancients, such as:


Ennead The nine worlds of the Odine Mysteries. The Egyptian Ennead, or company of nine gods and the goddesses, represents archetypal principles that regulate and rule the cosmos through the laws of number. The pharaoh came forth from between the thighs of the divine Nine.
— Athena — jgill

I love your reply! I am not sure of your meaning or why you quoted me about the Egyptian Ennead but given the greater discussion, I delight in pondering how the Egyptian Ennead is different from how we think of number 9 today. Today we no longer think of numbers having a sacred meaning, do we? We don't know what they have to do with the laws of nature do we?

I wish I had found this information when the subject was the trinity.

The Archetypal Synergies
1. Associations and Manifestations
The energies represented by the various neteru (gods/ goddesses) rarely function individually, but are often allied or fused with other neteru (gods/goddesses). The union of certain pairs of complementary energies/attributes (masculine and feminine forms) results in a third energy/attribute. Trinities are sometimes portrayed together as a single composite entity; sometimes separately and sometimes in binary form.

In human terms, a family consists of a man, a woman, and a child. The three are one unit—a family. There are also binary relationships such as: husband–wife (marriage), father–child (fatherhood), and mother–child (motherhood).

Egyptian deities are connected in a complex and shifting array of relationships. A neter’s connections and interactions with other deities helps define its character. Such relationships were the base material from which Egyptian allegories were formed.

A distinction must be made between associations of deities and manifestations of a neter principle into other neteru’s principles/forms. For example, it is wrong to assume that Re-Sebek is an association of two deities. When we realize what Re REPRESENTS, then we can figure out that Re-Sebek is the manifestation of the creation force [being Re] into the Sebek form/aspect. As mentioned earlier, the Litany of Re shows his manifestation into 75 forms/aspects.

Synergetic combinations were not permanent. A neter/netert who was involved in one combination continued to appear separately and formed new combinations with other deities.

The combined synergies are basically found in dual, triple, octad and ennead combinations, to be detailed as follows: — ?