That post is super great. I want to add to what you said that Athenians thought democracies must have a small population. Here is another important thing about using a democratic model for Industry, the size of our population is huge and we can not have the democratic experience without belonging to organizations that are democratic.

Ouch, words fail me. How can we have anything but a slave mentality we are paid labor and nothing more. This is very much about how many people live in our city. If we know everyone in town we have a human experience with everyone. That is not so in large cities where we work to avoid each other because our numbers are overwhelming. Biologically we are limited to knowing a few people intimately and a few more on the friend level, then the associate level, and maybe 600 people on the tribal level.
At the tribal level we can know everyone's name and who the person is related to but not much more.

In our large cities, we are lonely people in the crowd. We live as strangers to each other and hopefully, we share some values and ideas about appropriate behavior. Culture gives a sense of safety as our lives are full of strangers, and if someone violates that culture, we may instinctively pull away and avoid that person. If we grow up with too much adversity our primary goal is to avoid people and new situations. Poverty can destroy hope and without hope, we go into avoidance behavior. Now make money the bottom line and further marginalize the less competitive people, and well- the social problems grow like bacteria and petri dish. Relying on laws and law enforcers for social control, will not work!!!

When we are living alone with strangers, our biological moral system goes out of order. We all know we can steal anything we want from the big box stores because they have plenty of money and our stealing doesn't hurt them. I am being sarcastic as I try to make a point. There is honor among thieves because of the personal associations. If I know you and become aware of hurting you, I will feel bad but I don't know you and don't have to deal with hurting you, then what I want is all that matters. What I am saying is we are part of something bigger than ourselves, but if we don't feel we belong and do not have personal caring relationships, there is going to be trouble.

We can not have the democratic experience without belonging to a group that provides that experience.
When speaking of an experience, words are not adequate. How responsible do we feel for our family, our place of employment, our community, our nation? If we do not feel responsible, we are not having the democratic experience.

:up: Thanks for your reply! :smile:

I was going to respond by saying something like “this (situation you described) is completely unacceptable in an affluent First-World country… ”.
But that sounds a bit hollow and callous to my ears for some reason…
Would it be acceptable anywhere? Why?

Our Mother Culture’s* answer: “It is difficult to accept, and so very tragic [wipes away a tear].
But we must face Reality, and see how the sausage gets made. However, such suffering is inevitable for those on the primative low rung. Only the strong can stomach the harsh reality.
(We didn’t make the rules! Darwin did). But wait! There is an upside! If only those (natural but backward) people join us in our technological journey to the heavens, then they too will get a delicious piece of the pie!” (A tiny piece, mostly crust lol).

But what are the consequences of following such thinking?
(For it is meant to be followed, and definitely not just theoretical).

Unfortunately, I’m still trying to rinse my brain clear of the persistence of our cultural propaganda, an indoctrination that’s even deeper than party politics. (Deeper because it is uncontested by both parties, and even by most of the ‘fringe’).
There’s an ignorant (and thus quite insistent and loud) though unwanted voice that lingers in my mind, which tells me that those people in distant lands living in makeshift huts are actually just squatters on the property of Civilization.
Not unlike the squirrels living in an apple orchard: tolerated as long as they don’t get in the way of progress.

Then I realize that I may not agree with every persistent thought that pops up in my head.
I think I have more brain rinsing to do, to hopefully get rid of the brainwashing…
(it’s a work in progress).

* ‘Mother Culture’ being a term I find useful, one used by Daniel Quinn to personify the cultural indoctrination that lives in our unconscious and carries immense influence. — 0 thru 9

What you just said is fundamentally the same as what universeness said. We can not have quality lives unless we meet our human needs and that means more than money. If a person works under conditions that are physically and mentally exhausting more money will not resolve the problem. I always volunteered because in general volunteers are treated better the paid workers. We seem to live a slave owner mentality, of "I paid you and you better meet my demands".

My head is screaming we must replace autocratic industry with a democratic model. All the workers need to feel appreciated and we need to respect the whole person by empowering the individual to say what would improve the working conditions and therefore manifest a better outcome for everyone.

I attended workshops teaching the democratic model for supervisors and was blown away by realizing how the democratic model of Industry would greatly improve the quality of our families because the democratic model treats everyone very well and the worker who learns how to treat others well will bring this home to the family.

Wow what a story that was. My heart is heavy to think everyone's good intentions came to such a sad ending because they all forgot one thing. To take care of you and check with you before you were so burnt out that quitting was the only option. The people making the decisions were not getting the feedback they needed to make good decisions. Hope I remember your story and think of it when I speak about education in my community.

It is not enough to want the very best for children. We must also take good care of the teachers. I think today, in other professions as well, we are demanding too much of the people doing the job. Our Industrial age was dehumanizing and high tech has increased the problem, and there is a pushback, that is unfortunately burnt out people quitting. I don't know how things are going where you live but we can not find enough people to do the jobs that need to be done and this is matters worse!

Culturally, what is driving this problem, and might we improve how we treat each other? I am thinking of the class in public administration that I took, that taught when someone is over stressed the job needs to be divided and more people added. But if everyone is driven to cut cost and demands more and more of workers, things can go wrong. What can we build into our culture that might prevent that?

You and the Universe make me regret I have been too busy to carefully read and participate in the discussion.

Please be patient with me. It is past bedtime:cry:

Everything has become about money and war. Today's education is not the education children once had. We educated our young to be well-rounded individuals and to have good moral judgment without religion. I promise I will do my best to return as soon as I can. I think what we are doing here is very important. I am about saving the world and that is a hard job when I am all by myself. It is great to not be alone with my mission.

I am an example of such a teacher, who took early retirement at 55, because I was burnt out because of the education system in Scotland. — universeness

That is so sad. I have never thought of Socrates or Plato getting burnt out as teachers but they did not attempt to educate anyone younger than 30 years old. Being a school teacher today would be so different from education as they saw it.

It might help if you explain why you got burnt out. I am curious and I think it is something we need to seriously explore. My grandmother was teaching her whole until Alzheimer's destroyed her ability to do so somewhere around 80 years old. Her generation of teachers believed they were defending democracy in the classroom by preparing the young to be the best they could be. Their job was to help each child discover his/her interests and talents. I love the older school books that I have. This is why I write. Teachers are so valuable and we should not tolerate conditions that burn them out. Please, tell me more.

In recognition of the possibility, that it was mostly my mind jumps, rather than the contributions of Vera Mont or @Athena that caused what you considered a thread worthy of maintaining its position as a mainline thread, getting sent to the lounge, where other TPF members have opined, is the place threads go to die. Which at least, has been shown, is not always true.
Perhaps my 'sorry' was more of a recognition of a possibility that 'influenced' @Jamal's action, rather than an aspect of my thought processes that I sometimes regret. I consider my 'butterfly mind,' a great asset in the main. — universeness

I want to assure you of your value. I have noticed I am writing with your influence on my mind. I say something and wonder if it would be agreeable with you and I have a desire for that to be so. For me this is progress. You and others have expanded my mind and I agree with the mods that what is happening here is not technically philosophy as our technologically correct times judge philosophy. But I think Socrates and Plato would approve.

I appreciate the love. That was a nice surprise. — Bret Bernhoft

I am very passionate about education and democracy and I seriously do love it when someone is supportive of education and democracy. That is very rare today. It does require some literacy in Greek and Roman classics and it seems they have been replaced with German philosophers.

:love: In harmony with the subject an atheist but not a materialist, "The pen is stronger than the sword". The US forefathers risked everything for democracy and obviously, life is about more than matter.

Nature is infinitely more cruel than any human could be. :smirk: — praxis

The rock that rolls down a mountain and crushes a man is being cruel? Your wording is intellectually stimulating. Old age can be very cruel but that is getting too close to creating an evil being/force don't you think? Nature does not intend to be cruel, but that is a human perception of some physical changes. We may be tempted to appease the gods when we think of nature being cruel. This is really being nit picky but it is also an exploration of how nature became unnatural in our minds.

You're quite wrong about this. Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.

Please give me something from the Bible that demonstrates how this word of God brought us to science.

Religions deliberately use heratics (e.g., "the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are evil") to shore up group identity by defining what they are not. It is a very effective tactic and that's why it is so widely used. Indeed, it's such an effective tactic that no one can get off it.

That is true however we don't need to prove them right. I say there is a God, it is logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe and it does not have human qualities. As Cicero said, it does not give us what we want when we burn candles and say prayers. Nature does not care- it just is. Now the argument is not about the existence of God. The argument is about the definition of God. I do not make the Christian right by denying there is a god.

I have no idea of what you're talking about here.

A Greek argument is everything has a purpose. Horses run. Birds fly. Humans reason. It is because we reason that is possible to argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning and can therefore govern ourselves with reason. This is opposed to being ruled by kings or the Church, which maintains power by killing the opposition to their power. The Kingdom of the Bible is not compatible with democracy and I will again say, the Bible is not a book for math and science.

'

I suggest that you seriously consider what the actual purpose of religion is and why it exists. Also, consider if there's a difference between spirituality and religion.

Well, let's see. It seems to me the most common purpose for Christians to be religious is fear! Next in importance is social acceptance and belonging. I remain silent as I care for older people who tell me how great God is. They need their belief as they face death. I have my belief about immortality too. I am not sure we are not reincarnated. I like to be open-minded about that.

For others, religion is about controlling the people. For many, when there were few desirable jobs, entering the church hierarchy was an excellent way to have a good standard of living especially when after the Protestant Reformation allowed preachers to have sex. I don't think the US would elect an atheist for president and for sure the winners use religion to get the votes. The presidents of the US have used Christianity to engage in wars. Billy Graham was behind uniting us against the communists by aligning us with God on our money and pledge of allegiance.

In some communities, Christians have greater control of education than in other communities. Teachers had to go to the Supreme Court to stop Texas from forcing teachers to teach creationism as equal to science. I am sure those Christians mean well and we do need to talk about being human and the agreements we should have. Right now both atheists and Christians are being a huge problem because they are both preventing us from having the discussion we need to have.

I think if Orwell could have imagined an artificial general intelligence in 1949 his book 1984 would have been a bit different. Can you imagine the power of media manipulation and surveillance it could have? We appear to be rapidly approaching AGI and those who develop it, the excessively wealthy, will be in control. — praxis

I think we should consider that possibility.

Have you seen the British show "Humans"? It is pretty heavy as it pushes us to take another look at our values. Not everyone you see in this clip is a human. Some are programmed robots. A few of them have self-awareness. Do you want one?

This is a crucial question.

And because it seems difficult to not think it sounds like a naïve question or adopt a jaded, cynical, or pessimistic attitude towards it, may illustrate how low our expectations have slid.

A culture that can’t cover such a basic need is in trouble. (Probably not breaking news to anyone… ) — 0 thru 9

Thank you. I can remember that question from my childhood as my mother could only work for low women's wages and was paid less than a man hired to do the same job. Back in the day, our economic structure favored men. I was somewhat confused as I thought poverty was shameful but we all had an opportunity to get an education. On the other hand, that did not include equality at the college and career level. I was totally unaware of any assistance programs and wondered, how caring was our society? As an adult, I have heard other nations are doing much better. I have not experienced other nations so I am not sure but I still wonder about what are the possibilities.

Growing up in constant insecurity and feeling like a less-valued member of society left me wounded and in my old age I wonder about these things even more because now I can look back and see how the condition of a child's life shapes the child and the problems are passed on generation to generation. Christianity has not made a big difference. In fact, governments intentionally used it to make some people believe poverty is tolerable and even virtuous. So is there something better?

One thing I am relatively sure of is the importance of education and I do not think education for technology and leaving moral training to the church is the best education for a civilization. Coming from Socrates and Plato I think good moral judgment is a vital part of education. And here I agree with Nietzsche. A pagan zeal for excellence may serve us better than being humble and passively enduring inequality and injustice.

I pointed out that a religion is not "as we make it". It's highly dogmatic by nature, in other words, and when revisions are made it's by religious leaders. Followers are not free to make up their own beliefs and promote them within a religion. That would be considered heretical. — praxis

Your post is one of the most mentally stimulating posts I have read this year. I am going to say a lot and I am not sure how correct these new to me, ideas, are.

When I say it is as we make it, I mean our whole experience of life is as we make it. I don't mean we have manifested the earth, but what we do with it is what we, not a god, does with it. We have manifested New York and international enemies and friends. A religion is what we make it, because this is all about what we think and how we behave. Humans with words and the power of reason manifest their own reality. Their private perception of reality may have very little to do with facts. We all make up our own life story and we share some of our stories in common with others. That is called culture.

Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god.
— Athena

I'm aware of various of conceptions of God, some very unlike the one depicted in the Bible. I see no reason why an atheist would be unable to consider an inhuman God. Indeed, the God depicted in the Bible strikes me as extremely inhuman.

God is a manifestation of thought- meaning we think it and it becomes a shared notion. Atheists can not argue against the existence of God without sharing the same notion of a God that they argue does not exist.

By a nonhuman god, I mean the prime mover and logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. The gods that are worshipped are made in the image of man. That is not so for the prime mover or logos. I do not mean a jealous, revengeful, punishing God is an inhuman God. :lol: Sometimes we can really get tripped up on our words. I am saying the power and glory is not a being with human traits.

Also, religions don't all agree on logos and the prime mover. There is no prime mover in Buddhism, for instance, and they'd consider the dualism inherent in logos an expression of ignorance.

Abrahamic religions most certainly do not have a concept that would lead to scientific thinking. they do not have a concept of a Prime Mover or logos. Their brains have zero thought patterns for thinking in such terms. I am not sure that is true of Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhism can be very different from place to place. Some regions are more superstitious than others. And of course, some understanding of Hinduism is very superstitious and the highest level of thinking is patterned for logic and abstract thinking and therefore philosophical, the Siamese twin of science.


They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities.
— Athena

It doesn't make any sense to me why an atheist would be unable to discuss the notion of god as a force of nature with no human qualities. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I was responding to your claim about a religion. Of course, individuals can have their own spiritual experiences and beliefs.

I had no intention of saying an atheist can not think in scientific terms. But God is not science. Now if we say God is not any of the gods made in the image of humans, but God is the Prime Mover and logos, or nature, then we can use science to understand God. However, atheists refuse to do that!!! They shot themselves in the foot by refusing to use the word "God". That just proves all the religious people right because the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are "evil" and reality is a fight of good over evil, and we are on the damn merry-go-round of arguing about God and no one can get off it.
The way to apply science to superstitious notions is to think in terms of a prime mover, logos, universal laws, and nature.

Democracy can be a religion.
— Athena

No, that would be a Theocracy.

Huh?

Theocracy-- a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
"his ambition is to lead a worldwide theocracy"

That is not true of a democracy because the damn God is the prime mover, logos, the laws of nature. Excuse my pagan emotive language but there we go with the merry-go-round. Who gets to define God? You just threw the prime mover and logos out the window and destroyed the reasoning of democracy. Can we discover the laws of the universe and base our laws on such knowledge? Isn't that fundamental to democracy?

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

The word God comes from Germany after the fall of Rome. I am sure Cicero did not use that word, but our Christian understanding is so ingrained in our culture that we are forced to think of God in a very limited understanding of God. I read Cicero to say Logos, not the Christian God.




Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right?
— Athena

Within religion, anyone who does not hold the "understanding" of Truth is considered to have no faith. I use scare quotes because no religion has understandable truths, by design. Ultimate truth requires ultimate authority, ensuring a hierarchy of leaders (who have special access to ultimate truth) and followers.[/quote]

Moral, is a matter of cause and effect. When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral.
— Athena

How would this understanding apply to something like abortion? I think that for any normal person abortion 'feels' wrong, so one consequence of it is a bad feeling. That indicates that it's immoral, according to the cause & effect view. On the other hand, studies indicate that legalizing abortion reduces crime/poverty, a good consequence.

Things become less clear when it comes to personal rights, authority, and tradition. The values that shape our personal and social identities often disagree on the consequences of abortion. — praxis

Athens's patron goddess favored the life of a man over a woman's life and I have a problem with that patriarchy.

I

In the case of ancient Athens, abortion was not forbidden by law. However, this right was not directed at the woman and her sovereignty over her body but at the rights of the father of the child she was carrying (Flacelière, 1971).May 19, 2023

Ancient Athenian Women and the issue of abortion
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/archaeology-classics-and-egyptology/blog/2023/ancient-athenian-women-abortion/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20ancient,carrying%20(Flaceli%C3%A8re%2C%201971).

I think, when it comes to abortion we might want to ask what does "liberty" mean? For darn sure a woman with a child, in her belly or her arms, does not have liberty. If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good.

How does society look at mothers who need help supporting a child? Is she honored almost as much as the Great Earth Mother or is she shamed and marginalized? Will her child be welcomed by the community and be valued by this community? It is not just the mother and child we need to consider but also the community the child is being born into.

PS How about privacy? I think privacy is very important and what we do with our bodies including not only abortion but also the right to die with dignity, is between ourselves and God. There are some things that are public and others that are private. Government and our neighbors should stay out of what is private.

I would first, again clearly state, my lack of academic qualifications in philosophy. — universeness

It is not knowledge that is the end all but how we process our thoughts. Anyone can be valuable in the discussions providing the individual has had preparation for logical thinking and is not 100% driven by emotions. Today most arguments are nothing but emotionally driven conflicts. Especially in politics.

The conflict Athenians had with those who taught rhetoric skills and the old-school philosophers tickles me.

Plato and Socrates believed these teachers and their rhetorical teachings were dangerous because they promised anyone the ability to make compelling arguments in courts and the assembly without a clear sense of the values that should guide this kind of speech.

Chapter 2: The “Origins” of Rhetorical Theory
https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/chapter-2/#:~:text=Plato%20and%20Socrates%20believed%20these,guide%20this%20kind%20of%20speech.

Wouldn't Plato and Socrates have a cow if they saw today's advertisements and political campaigns?

That being said, there will be those who haven't even noticed it, tucked away as it is.
I haven't read it all. Only sampled a few pages. That was enough for me to 'pipe in'.
I felt the need to question. But that's me being me. Avoiding housework. — Amity

This thread has wandered all over the place and I hadn't noticed it was moved to the lounge but I can live with all that because I think the few of us who stayed with the thread have made progress. What is happening here will seep into other threads and eventually, the movement may change the world because this is not the only place that is part of the movement. The whole notion of democracy and logos has been around for thousands of years, but right now that knowledge seems seriously limited.

The priority purpose of education in the US was good citizenship that would make our republic united and strong. We prepared everyone for good moral judgment without the Church! As the Athenians did we created an American mythology and this was part of preparing our young to be good citizens. That is education transmitted a culture that is essential to democracy and our liberty. Only when democracy and liberty are defended in the classroom is it defended. That is what makes culture critical.

Yes, I agree. — Vera Mont

Okay, I now hope we can bring Universeness around to the possibility that is the foundation of our democracy- humans will do as well as they know how to do and if we want to change things, we need to begin with education, including the education of adults. That is the importance of this forum.

We need to make some agreements about how things should be and then how we can achieve it. People breeding like rabbits was great when most of us died before our 40th birthday but it is not a good thing today. Waiting for a God to solve our problems is not an option if we destroy this planet, He is not going to give us another one to mess up and we will mess it up as long as He gives us free will.

:heart: Humans are intelligent animals and that is best when they are well educated but that is not thinking of the young as products to prepare for industry or education for technology that makes them dependent on authority over them.

Your generalised historical description of those events are accurate and you know I fully agree that they cannot be justified. My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? I would also say to Athena, that I think such improvements in general enlightenment, are happening, despite regressive god posit influences or old Greco/Roman fables. My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few. — universeness

Thank you for the mention. You made me think of today's news about national leaders who appear to benefit themselves by exploiting others. To jump on universeness's side of the argument, CEOs who get million-dollar salaries are no better than those terrible leaders who use force to silence unhappy citizens. I am really quite amused right now by the unions demanding the workers get the same pay raise as the millionaire CEOs have gotten. Auto workers, nurses, the entertainment industry.

:chin: How long do you think it will take the capitalist to realize their is a problem with their formula for wealth?

I was a caregiver for a while and my wages were so low I could provide my children with a decent standard of living. Doing my very best was not good enough for the children's well-being and they turned against the values they were taught. They came back to those values, but not before having children of their own and really messing up their lives.

If I were king, all decisions would be based on what is best for the children and living sanely within the limits of nature. It would be a law that the population can not exceed the resources of the community. Diverting a river that many states must use, to provide for overpopulated places would be forbidden.
Laws would be based on laws of nature!!!

Thomas Jefferson is a favorite American hero of mine. His time on the planet was a special period of human history. So it's interesting that you would mention his definition of pursuing happiness in relationship to the non-material.

In terms of a more robust historical type of education, I'm aware that medieval universities taught something known as the "quadrivium". Which was the effort to create well-rounded and balanced thinkers by focusing on arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music; cosmic languages. Today, as you point out, we are limited in our learning; at least when compared to the past.

So it is indeed the responsibility of the individual to seek out knowledge and wisdom, in order to find this sacred middle space. — Bret Bernhoft

I love you. :love: And our democracy will continue to self-destruct until we all know what you said.

Fortunately, someone was wise enough to introduce convicts to the classics and it was discovered these classics could be life-changing. Unfortunately, the Christian understanding of humans and God keeps us in the dark ages before the Renaissance brought back the knowledge of the Greek and Roman documents. People who study only the Bible are not literate enough to protect and defend democracy. They are waiting for a kingdom. :grimace:

They were rights under American law. You have no power to rescind them, and they continue to go unpunished. Indeed, many of the fortunes acquired then, by those methods, continue in the possession of similar people through inheritance and consolidation. The privilege accruing to those robber barons is still enjoyed by their descendants. — Vera Mont

What about voting for the opposing party, writing to representatives and the newspaper, and unions?
The State took my grandchildren and I joined with other Grandparents fighting for their grandchildren and our effort became a radical change in the Department of Children's Services flipping the department's relationship with extended family. Making change depends on how much someone wants that change and the person's ability to mobilize the public for change. :lol: That is not easy, no one pays attention to what I have to say about logos, education, or democracy, and some days I get really discouraged but fighting for change is what a democracy is about and we have made progress. We would make even more progress if we understood a few things differently.

Horsefeathers! When you kill someone they end up dead - you can't fail to notice. You can't not know that someone chained up in the damp, dark, rat-infested cargo hold of a ship is unhappy. You don't whip them to make them feel better: you do it to hurt them.
People were not any dumber than we are. Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. And morality wasn't invented in 400BCE Athens: stone age people knew right and wrong. They also knew that what is detrimental to one person may benefit another, so as long as the benefit is to them and the harm - no matter how much or how grievous a harm - is to a designated scapegoat, it's fine.
People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line?
Much worse, they very often go out of their way to do harm when they have nothing to gain, out of hate, fear, resentment, to satisfy a lust, or simply for entertainment. — Vera Mont

Being dumb and having a different understanding of life are two different things. Your understanding of life is based on your experience of life and those who have a different experience will have a different way of understanding life. Our experience of life and our understanding of what government can and should do has changed greatly in the past 200 years.

Yes, morality was invented by the Athenians. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and it goes with an understanding of logos. I do not think the word moral can be found in the Bible. Christians have Christianized the concept of moral and they like to take credit for our democracy which no one saw in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. We have a serious problem with Christians but that goes in another thread.

If we had the understanding of morality that began in Athens we would understand it means to know the law (universal law) and that violating the law leads to problems that get worse if the wrong is not corrected. This understanding is very important to democracy. The concept also emerged in Asia and to some degree all humans who survived had ideas about what would harm them or benefit them. But knowing what will hurt or benefit us, is not that useful without a notion of logos. It is as it is because of universal law, not because of gods that make it so.

The Bible explains slavery and believing people who look different are not humans equal to ourselves is a lie. But also speaking of slavery as though all slave owners brutalized their slaves also creates a lie. Their awareness was different from yours and today if you run across a brutal person, it is very likely that person had a different experience of life than yours, and has a whole different story of life in his/her head. What we think of that person and how we treat that person, depends strongly on the story we tell ourselves. In some persons the guards are brutal and there is agreement this is necessary because the brutal person must be dealt with brutally. In some counties, the brutality is tolerated and in some counties, it is not.

This is what philosophy is about, comparing our stories of life with other people's stories of life and arguing until we have an agreement on the best reasoning.

What is the life story in a person's head when the person is intentionally brutal? What was the life experience that led to that?

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it.
— Athena

No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow. — praxis

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are saying. You are saying "no" to what? You do not think religion is a story that shapes our thinking and behavior? Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god. They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities.

Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter.
— Athena

The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.

There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.

I agree that the materialist and the Christian prevent us from knowing truth and developing our concepts of the law. However, there is more to religion than worshipping a false god and the only way that antiquated problem will be resolved is to adjust the understanding of god and religion and therefore what we can talk about.

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — Webster Dictionary

Democracy can be a religion. We can make truth our goal by changing the conversation about god and religion. Coming out of the Age of Enlightenment, that is what was happening and how we came to have a democracy. No one saw the principles of democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in the Greek and Roman classics and literacy in the classics unleashed human potential. In the Capitol Building of the US, there is a mural of the gods that make a democratic republic great. At that time in history, no one literally believed in those gods, but they were understood as concepts.

What is wrong today, is the 1958 National Defense Education Act prepared the young to be very literal and uncompromising. The materialism of some of them is as bad as interpreting the Bible literally. Democracy does not work today because we stopped teaching with the Conceptual Method and it is almost impossible to have open and meaningful discussions than advance our awareness of logos. Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right? And the way to deal with those idiots is to tell them their faults as flannel jesus did in his reply to my post.

My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon

:lol: That is preposterous that an evolved species would think itself the ultimate ruler of the universe and so they make a god in their own image.

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile: — Gnomon

Exactly, however, it might help if we resist using human pronouns when referring to logos or a prime mover. As I see it, humans imaged gods in their own image as she's and his's being happy or mad. With the Greek gods and goddesses, we can be aware of helpful concepts and reasoning, which may not be as true for some of the imagined beings in other cultures. I think the Sumerian story of our creation is about an extremely long drought and the return of climatic conditions that made returning to the valley possible. There is geological evidence of this. So we might not want to relate to the spirit of the river that was humanized in the story. Our ancient past is full of such imagined beings because it appears to be our nature to humanize what we experience, such as calling logos and the prime mover "they". Doing that makes what we are saying easier to understand than say, an explanation of quantum physics.

We are not naturally mathematically literate and many of us have a problem remembering complicated equations, whereas we easily remember the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf. There is a survival element in the stories of rocks that used to be beings and now mark the spot where water can be found. But how about this, even materialists have stories to explain our existence. We might want to believe these stories are true because they can be validated, but it is not uncommon for a scientific explanation to be proven wrong and it is prudent to keep our minds open and that possibility. That is why I like what you said, "hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2,".

Considering how rude you were, I can ignore you.

"We" - white protestant males - had freedom to kill and displace Indians, extirpate entire species of plant and animal, blast holes in mountains, clear-cut hillsides, drain swamps, divert and dam rivers, disrupt ecological balance, claim land and mineral rights. — Vera Mont

Those bad things were not rights. They were a failure to know better. Greek philosophy, if it gets good results it is good/moral. If it gets bad results it is bad/immoral. When our understanding is limited to knowledge of ourselves, we can think everything that benefits us in the moment is good, however, if it harms another animal or human or the environment, then it is harmful and not good/immoral. We may be unaware of the harm we have done, but sooner or later it becomes a problem. It may take 3 generations before the problem is so bad we are made aware of it. For example, slavery benefitted a handful of people and they knew they were facing a problem but they did not end the wrong and now we are dealing with that wrong daily. This is the importance of understanding logos rather than believing in a god who punishes and rewards people depending on whether he is pleased or angered. That belief stands in the way of good reasoning.

Sure... assuming there is an eventuality in store for any humans at all. I'm quite convinced there isn't one for the united states of America... unless, of course, it's reconfigured into several separate unions. The current arrangement isn't working and has never worked for more than a few decades at a time, and even in those periods, for only part of the population. — Vera Mont

And this is why I argue so passionately! Immediately, we would see huge improvements if we replaced autocratic Industry with a democratic model and we had education for democracy preparing the future generations to be self-ruling no matter what happens. They could be reduced to a small band of people wandering the earth and sharing it with other nomadic tribes and they would know how to best organize for the best chances of surviving and maybe even thriving.

I know that was one thing one person brought up in the conversation once. I didn't realize that was the central focus. Is it?

"I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math?"
— Athena

Not particularly. — flannel jesus

You are right. We are not focused on how what we believe relates to how we behave and that is a problem because we are not developing self-awareness as we plunder the earth and kill plants and animals and each other.

The best way to discover the problem with being a materialist is to discuss sacred math because then we can see how what people believe about sacred things, limits what they can know.

Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? — flannel jesus

I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math? Perhaps we can discover why a materialist has a hard time accepting an unknown energy.

Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? I'm quite certain that every materialist I know is completely comfortable with the idea that we haven't discovered all that's true about the universe.

I fear you've built up this very narrow idea of what materialists think, that isn't actually what materialists think. — flannel jesus

You do know we are talking about how we use this planet, right? Indigenous people held a spiritual relationship with the land, and our lives and the planet would be very different if we all had a spiritual relationship with our home in the universe. Many people lived with the idea that it was their duty to take care of the earth and our oldest civilizations used math to keep things in order. Kings were replaced when natural phenomena destroyed crops because that was seen as a failure to please the gods. :lol: The extreme weather events we have had and increasing water shortages could be understood as a failure to please the gods, or a failure to understand science. Either way, our failure to live in harmony with nature does seem to threaten us.

The prediction of end times predates Christianity because human populations kept increasing and the people could see in time there would be more people than the earth could support. Thinking a god causes this or a god can protect us from the destruction of our planet seems problematic to me. Thinking we can do whatever we want, seems problematic to me. The materialists have impressed me as being out of touch with reality.

Can we have an economy based on oil and not run into trouble? No.

So, my philosophical curiosity naturally wonders about the original Source of that all-important creative & animating power. I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. That gives me a point from which to reason about our temporary sojourn in a habitat suitable for matter-transcending living & thinking creatures. :smile: — Gnomon

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos.

Stories of a god and angels having favorite people and violating the laws of nature and a Satan and demons are a problem and we might change the discussions we have by asking if this or that story is a valid explanation of reality, rather than the very old and stale arguments about the existence of a god who can be manipulated by our behaviors. Going to war, invading another country because a god wants us to fight the war is totally wrong and should never happen. Presidents manipulating citizens with words like "evil" and "power and glory" is wrong! Religion should not be used to support oil companies and maintain our economy.

A religion that is about a kingdom, is not good for democracy.

Doesn't seem to follow though, does it? That "spiritual dimension" sneaks into the picture. Is that "spiritual dimension" a part of Nature? If so, a Naturalist may accept it as a part of reality, like everything else, including energy. The question would then seem to be whether if it's part of the Universe it is corporeal. — Ciceronianus

Oh my, what a delicious field of exploration you have opened for us. Our mental state has a lot to do with our physical state. Being spiritual can literally extend our lives. Prays work because our thoughts can affect our physical being.

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it. There is more to life than matter. :smile: Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter.

I meant it as refutation of the nice popular mythology of the rugged individualist, Davy Crockett spirit of America: barely constrained personal freedom; unbounded national ambition.
Of course it was never true: of the 2.5 million American citizens, only adult white unindentured males had any freedom at all, and for most of those men, freedom was limited by economic and social constraints.

The notion of individual liberty was false then and is even more false now, but people keep waving flags and supporting antisocial policies in defense of the illusion.

It's nothing to do Gilgamesh or ancient Mesopotamia. — Vera Mont

Gilgamesh and the present have something to do with human nature. We need to be careful about our understanding of freedom.

We have more agreement than disagreement. In early adulthood, I realized I knew nothing about economics and that knowing something about economics was essential to success. Our ignorance keeps us slaves to those who provide our labor and the bankers. The best reason I can think of for schools neglecting this important part of our education is we are not attracted to economics. High school students want economics classes as much as they want math classes. Sure some nerds want that information but not the average student.

However, as long as we had a wilderness to the west, we had real freedom. I think that is something we should be aware of when considering economic matters. We no longer have that wilderness and we might want to update our thinking with today's reality.

Almost daily, where I live, the homeless are in the news. When Reagan was our President he said we don't have homeless people, just bums. That was a lie and people loved it. Reason scapegoated the poor so he could slash domestic budgets and pour all resources into military spending. Today the pressure is to do something about the growing homeless problem. A totally different reality from Reagan's day.

We need to wake up to reality and I think that is as likely as high school students demanding a class in economics. But as things keep getting worse there is hope we will eventually want to understand our changing world and new realities.

Yes. Absolutely. In my mind there is little reason to exclude the thinking, intuition and conclusions of others outright; especially if the work being done is about balance and hybridizing extremes. Being able to challenge myself with diverse sources of knowledge does indeed make living a wondrous thing. This is a hallmark of a good life, in my observations. — Bret Bernhoft

That is what Thomas Jefferson, and Cicero before him, meant when they spoke of the pursuit of happiness.

Before we focused education on the advancement of technology for military and Industrial purposes, we had education for conceptualizing, and being overly materialistic was deemed inferior. Learning a technology is for the working class, not the ruling class.

Concepts are not matter and yet they can be very powerful. Some concepts are very spiritual in nature and this can improve our health. Clearly, there is more to reality than matter.

Both leaf and stone are spinning on the surface of a giant sphere at a thousand miles per hour. They don't fly off of the earth because its mass is so great that it pulls them towards it. The earth is spinning around a star. The solar system is spinning in a galaxy. The galaxy is expanding with the universe... Going the other way, there's a bunch of atomic and quantum movement too, so I'm told. — praxis

That sounds like a familiar explanation. What are the forces that cause the motion? What is gravity?
If nothing counterbalances gravity why doesn't the whole universe get sucked back together? Why is the universe expanding?

Is without purpose, if that's all you do! I did a lot of weekend pub/disco, adventure/indulgence etc but I worked hard during the rest of the week and managed to complete an apprenticeship, study at night schools, complete an honours degree course at uni, a postgrad in education and had a 30 year teaching career. I was never unfaithful to anyone in that time and only had two serious relationships in my life. I was engaged twice but both relationships failed. No kids, thank goodness. I am not against having kids but I agree that it's important to have as stable and as strong a support system established, as you can possibly achieve, before you do. Including contingency plans.

The trouble with the main quote above, is that the 'god' label is so soiled with woo woo, and pernicious scriptures, that it's use in any paragraph, which is designed to make a moral statement or give moral advice to others, simply totally fails, imo.
I would reword the quote above as:
"A person of grace is a person of strength and humility. Human grace, is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being, but a human potential. I believe we are healthier with a concept of grace, that brings out the best in us. This is possible without superstition. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not."

The Greeks had their three charities/graces. Three goddess inventions. Wiki describes them.
Aglaia represented elegance, brightness and splendor
Thalia represented youth, beauty and good cheer
Euphrosyne represented mirth and or joyfulness

Education should utterly remove the need for such child like notions, imo.
Notions of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma etc, are absolutely no different to these three Greek metaphors, for desired human states/ predilections. — universeness

As usual, your post is so profound I am a bit overwhelmed. My thought seems very little compared to the concepts of your explanation however for the sake of discussion I will proceed with my peppercorn of a thought. :smile:

What is important here is the concept. Without a god/concept how do we think about our higher potential? How do we lift ourselves above the animal kingdom? :heart:

When I write of logos as "reason, the controlling force of the universe", I am cutting short the Webster Dictionary explanation of logos. The fuller explanation says, "made manifest in speech". I stop there because I want to avoid notions of the Creator (noun)while speaking of the creation (verb). But you kind of push me in a corner where the power of a concept must be explored. :heart:

I keep putting in hearts to convey I love it when I am forced to think about what I think. Does it exist before there is a concept of it, or does the concept come first? Was it made manifest when a god spoke? Do we manifest it when we become aware of the concept?

I think stories to explain our concepts are essential and perhaps we should be more tolerant of our human condition of having to learn so much because we are not born knowing it all. All the gods and goddesses are concepts and we learn of these concepts through stories. Rather than saying they do not exist, I would say they are real but this does not mean they are individual supernatural gods. A concept is not a being. A concept is of the mind. The separate concepts must be named before they can exist in our consciousness. :chin:

We need a god so we can project all our notions of goodness into the god. Their projection of goodness is what makes supernatural beings so real to those who believe in them, and their belief can work miracles. The concepts are real and can be effective. :grimace: Does any of this work for you?

I personally wouldn't word it as "energy is material", but I'm not prepared to say that's explicitly wrong either. In any case, it's clear that a contemporary "materialist" world view includes energy. — flannel jesus

Might it be possible that our understanding of energy and matter is culturally biased and also lacks more recent information about quantum physics and the center of the universe?

The existence of dark energy is still in question and a materialist would have a hard time accepting an unknown energy but we can see, balance is essential, and it seems quite obvious to me, if the only energy that mattered was gravity then the whole universe would be sucked back together.

Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart. One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate — NASA

It was about how Americans regard individual freedom of action and what they're willing to sacrifice for it. — Vera Mont

Let me begin by telling you know how much I appreciate how your post pushed me to a new realization of a better way to explain the importance of education transmitting a culture.

What you said is a nice popular mythology. Let us check it out with a Sumerian story.

Gilgamesh, the best known of all ancient Mesopotamian heroes. Numerous tales in the Akkadian language have been told about Gilgamesh, and the whole collection has been described as an odyssey—the odyssey of a king who did not want to die.

Gilgamesh | Epic, Summary, & Facts - Britannica — Britannica

In this odyssey is a character from the back woods who is not civilized. He behaves more like an animal than a citizen of the city. This uncouth, backwoods person wants his freedom and will live or die for his freedom. Is this something to be proud of, to be like an animal rather than a civilized person who understands the reasoning of law and is willing to give up some of his freedom for the benefit of living in a civilization?

Uneducated people are not honorably defending freedom because they know nothing of the principles on which honor is built. They know what they want and like a dog will fight to have what they want. This is the mentality of Trump followers. They have permission to be so uncivilized from Neitzche, who they never read but thanks to colleges Neitzche has penetrated our shared consciousness. His Superman who is superior and does not have to follow the rules is very attractive to men like Trump, they have disdain for the civilized whimps. Their understanding of making America great again is contaminated by Neitzche or just raw backwoods mentality. "I want it so I will take it."

Please give me feedback so I can know if I am getting close to a good explanation or not. Thank you.

"Everything" which causes changes is material, ergo "energy" is material, no? — 180 Proof

What are the differences between mater and energy?
MATTER
• Matter has mass.
• Matter takes up space (called volume).
Thus, matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.
ENERGY
• Energy is not like matter.
• Energy does not have mass.
• Energy does not take up space.
• Energy MOVES matter.
Therefore, energy is the ability to make things move.

https://grove.ccsd59.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/1.-Matter-Vs.-Energy-.pdf

NB: ... "yinyang" ... "atoms swirling swerving in the void" ... "E=mc²" ... "fermions & bosons", wtf are woo-ologists talking about? :sweat: — 180 Proof

You have done nothing but insult. Good reasoning requires following some laws of logic and your post is not a good example of that. Name-calling such as "woo-ologist" is destructive to the communication process that I expect of people in the philosophy forum.

This is the second time in my life that I've seen someone suggest materialists don't believe in energy lmao. How is that supposed to work? All materialists believe that matter moves around, right? And matter requires energy to move and interact and change directions and so forth, right?

I've never met a materialist who doesn't believe in energy. I have, however, met non-materialists who say materialists believe that. THAT'S what's truly mind-blowing. — flannel jesus

No matter does not move around. If my computer desk decides to move itself to the other side of the room, I will scream and run out of the door. Not many materialists are in agreement with Native Americans about the sacred land and the wrong of exploiting it. Matter constantly changes but the leaves do so much faster than rocks and neither the leaf nor a stone has the power of moving. So exactly how do you understand the energy of which you speak?

Materialists do not see reality like this...

The earth, in a very real sense, is our mother. We are born from this mother, from Gaia; we are extensions of the earth and the cosmos of which it is a part. This means that our conceptualizing and our spirituality also extend from the spiritual dimension of the cosmos and the earth. — Thomas Berry

I am not sure but I think the big divide between materials and the spiritualist is disagreement about the source of the energy that makes life possible.

Thank you for the recommendation. I have added it to my list of books to consider buying in the near-future. I am a big fan of literature that seeks to fuse seemingly incompatible paradigms, into a new coherent understanding of the universe. — Bret Bernhoft

The book "Great Thinkers of the Eastern World" is easier to read than Fritjof Capra and prepares us to understand Tao which is great for reading Greek philosophy and thinking of things such as Democritus’s ideas of changing physical phenomena. :wink: All the sources of knowledge we have to choose from make living a wonderful thing. It appears you want to enjoy it all as I do.

You're welcome Athena, but I think Tim Booth should get all the credit, for writing such good lyrics.
I found this wee website, with this introductory comment about the song. I don't think it's far away from our interpretations:

"This song is very much open to interpretation, and depending on they way you process the words, it could can be a warning against overindulgence, a look at surviving life on the edge, or a commentary on how you can always turn your life around. James vocalist Tim Booth, who wrote the lyrics, has explained that the character Daniel in the song saves a woman named Grace from drowning, and adds, "He doesn't realize that in saving her he's really saving himself." — universeness

Philosophically I am seeing a question about what makes us good. Most ancient people used a notion of family for social order. Going out and drinking and catering to one's impulses in the moment is a life without purpose. Family and saving Grace gives one's life purpose and this might be better than indulging one's impulses at the moment.

I can not read or hear the word "grace" without thinking of the "grace of God".

Here are some definitions of grace and they are fitting in this thread about culture being critical because graces calls out the goodness in ourselves and others.

Grace Definition & Meaning

Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › grace
grace implies a benign attitude and a willingness to grant favors or make concessions. by the grace of God. leniency implies lack of severity in punishing.
‎Synonyms of grace · ‎In a state of grace · ‎With good grace · ‎Grace period

Grace Definition & Meaning

Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com › browse › grace
the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God. · the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them. · a virtue or excellence ...

GRACE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › grace
the charming quality of being polite and pleasant, or a willingness to be fair and to forgive: She always handles her clients with tact and grace. grace noun ...

Grace - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › grace
The related word gracious originally meant "filled with God's favor or help." Grace was borrowed from Old French, from Latin gratia, "pleasing quality, favor, ...

What is Grace? Bible Meaning and Definition



BibleStudyTools.com
https://www.biblestudytools.com › dictionary › grace
An accurate, common definition describes grace as the unmerited favor of God toward man. In the Old Testament, the term that most often is translated "grace, " ... — several

Going from the last definition, being a person of grace is being god-like. In this case, the god is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being and truly I believe we are healthier with a concept of god that brings out the best in us. This is possible without the superstition that destroyed one other religion, Zoroastrianism. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not.

It's not my freedom. It's the American conservatives'. Yes, they are intent on tearing down the federation. https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/ — Vera Mont

I read some of your link and do not understand how it applies to concerns about our freedom. Do you want to explain what concerns you?

It's one of those songs that leave the interpretations of the lyrics to the listener but does set a definite base focus, as your words that I underlined above, indicate. My personal interpretation was a variation on yours. I took the song writers to be suggesting that the images they were invoking were accurate for many people but the fact they were 'getting away with it,' was 'messed up.' The writers could also have been admitting that this is what is 'messed up' about themselves and aspects of their own life experience, so far. — universeness

I understood the song to say that being human is being messed up. I don't know what we might get away with because sooner or later the consequences of our actions catch up with us. It might not be us personally who face the consequences of our actions because the damage may take three generations to be felt. At least that is what Socrates explained in the debate about justice. Sooner or late those we exploit will become a problem for us. We can most easily see that as we deal with racism and a history of slavery. Our forefathers screwed up and we are paying for that today.

I don't think the song meant the whole of society but as individuals, unless we got super good parents and all the advantages of society, we will be screwed up. That is just how it is for humans.

"Are you aching for the blade?" (are you violent, or attracted to violence or attracted to being the victim of violence?), "Are you aching for the grave?" (Do you have no fear of death, but in fact welcome it and don't give a flying f*** for anyone else life?) — universeness

I appreciate those words and how you presented them. That is youth. I was a Greaser and that included risk-taking and willingness to fight. I kept a notebook from one high school year because I had a sense I was going through a crucial life-changing time in my life. On the cover of it, I drew a creepy hand representing death and a tree stump representing life. I see in the song that period of transformation.

"Daniels saving grace, she's out in deep water, hope he's a good swimmer"
Grace as a person Daniel is trying to save or grace imaged as a feminine aspect of Daniel, which is currently saving Daniel.
Whichever image you choose, that 'grace' is in trouble, as it is in deep water so, the writer hopes Daniel is a good swimmer and he and his 'grace' can mean, he can survive his own inner turmoil. — universeness

Being both male and female is Jungian. I think the stage of determining our sexuality justifies restricting any medical treatments for our sexuality until we have that status of adults. Preferably this would be 30 years of age. This is a little off-topic but perhaps interesting enough for its own thread? Perhaps we could pull more people into the discussion if we start a new thread. What you posted here is a great way to start that new thread.

Oh, how familiar this line is for me. My youth spent doing exactly this, in the pubs and night clubs of Glasgow. I was also a good dancer and did very well, attracting female attention. My main two friends were also good looking guys and we did not often, go out to a night club without ending up going home with a girl. But, what did we achieve, absolutely nothing, shallow, hollow, but seemed fun at the time. Getting away with it all, but basically 'messed up.' That's why the way the lead singer Tim Booth emphasised and stretched the word 'Now,' a little, spoke so clearly to me, as pub and club escapism fun, is very much of the moment, and can seem very 'mis-spent,' when looking back. But, I do think that the reality is more nuanced, than such a conclusion would suggest. — universeness

I very much appreciate your explanation of this. It could have been my X out dancing with you, while I stayed at home alone with our son that he thought he had to have to prove he was a man. Unfortunately, he was not interested in being a father and eventually abandoned us. And so we spread human suffering from one generation to the next, but when I was young I resented civility and wanted to be on the wild side when I married the guy with the biker's jacket and boots. Hey love, I don't know the best words to convey how good I feel looking back at that past from the wonderful perspective of old age and with that song in mind. Thank you so much for this wonderful gift.