Also, if you’re in a red room time subjectively slows down, and in a blue room it subjectively speeds up.

Yeah, it’s also a factor for various other uses such as quantities, time and positions. “Orange” is a VERY recent addition to the English language - basically it came about by people saying ‘that is the colour of an orange’.

The above points might have just touched on something that many people have issues with. That is the idea of ‘thinking’ that isn’t verbal. Some people find that extremely hard - I guess they lack the ability to purposefully visualize in high resolution.

That doesn’t make sense to me, sorry.

If this is the case, what are the implications for emergence of a worldview? — Enrique

I’d still like some clarification at this question please.

Read my comment directly after that one.

I meant more in lines of trying to appreciate/consider individual perspectives and the general narrative function embedded in communication.

I don’t see how you need a mystical experience to appreciate the Tao Te Ching

What you mention is one major reason I’ve had an interest in Husserl’s work.

All I know for sure is that I'm pedantic about language. — Zophie

GOOD! :)

I see your objection, but not your alternative. — Isaac

Probably a better thought out thread? :D

Anarchism is the natural human state. We are where we are due to our anarchistic nature. A political reset may lead to something better, but I doubt it as the path we’ve found most useful has led us here.

I would strongly argue that there is ALWAYS a better governmental system. The day we stop striving for something better will be the day the human race either branches off in different directions and/or ceases exist.

Human society had come a bloody long way. We’ve shifted out political perspectives radically over the past few centuries, and centuries prior to that too.

I cannit even begin to imagine what the next few decades have in store for us. I do have a suspicion that we’ll see the concept of nation begin to shift as communication technologies have only recently hit a point that has quite a phenomenal reach.

I'd like to stay on track. Is it "neural priming" or just "priming"? Because I'm afraid the neural part may be quite fatal. — Zophie

It’s a term used by many cognitive neuroscientists. Priming in sometimes used interchangeably, but generally speaking ‘priming’ refers more to ‘visual priming’ - essentially the same effect has been mapped in neurons in other instances.

Things like NLP are much more sketchy, but they popularity by mashing up psychological effects and attaching them to sparse neurological evidence as if it’s ‘proven’.

In terms of language it undoubtedly effects how we view the world. For instance, Korean infants are taught Korean with a strong emphasis on prepositions, whereas in most other languages parents focus more strongly on nouns. Studies have shown that children from around 2-4 (roughly, cannot remember off the cuff) can solve cognitive puzzles at different speeds due to this - Korean youngster surpassing others in spacial tasks where the others surpass the Korean youngsters in category tasks (admittedly this difference evaporate by the time the children hit about 5-6 yrs old). That said, when shown a quick flash of picture of a fish tank (this is from Gazzaniga lecture) and asked what they saw a European adult will just say ‘a fish tank’ where Asian adults are more likely to give a more detailed description - not conclusive, but there is clearly a different focus of attention when the task is given (something purely linguistic or partly educational, is there a serious difference?)

Neuroscience can't examine mental contents, which was the focus of this topic. — Zophie

Cognitive neuroscience is the hardest science there is that can reveal, in part, what the mechanisms of cognition are - which absolutely involve all aspects of consciousness including language development, perception and how we map the world. Priming is a term used throughout the cognitive neurosciences are there are plenty of studies focused on it because memory is of huge interest to many people for many reasons. Psychology has been revived by technological advances that have given a much deeper insight into brain functioning.

I’m not inclined to go down the dualist route of body and mind as separate entities. You can if you wish, whether you find it to be a useful theoretic distinction or a literal one. For me it’s not massively important when scientific evidence, soft or hard, is useful in offering a perspective that can be substantiated to some objective degree.

No one would deny that visual priming is a thing, and tests have been done that observe what neural pathways are firing when this happens. Neurons are certainly involved in mental processes, that would be an extremely difficult thing to argue against from my position.

It is a very broad and fascinating field.

It’s not a new idea. Many people have commented about how ‘religion’ is something like an extension of a ‘nationalistic identity’.

Chopped a little and rearranged. Will either completely rewrite next or just try and edit down to 600-700 words (currently at 1063 words)

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.

What would it have been to a human to create the very first chair? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

The ‘First Chair’ here is, funnily enough, a means to furnish a narrative that reveals something intrinsically human about our modes of thinking and how they adapt. No one really thinks there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment where an inspired carpenter rushed to their workshop to fashion their furniture idea - such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of (and/or apart from), and extracted and contained this space in varying states of permanence through which a common, yet unconscious, need expresses itself and perpetuates through variegated cultural iterations.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group?

Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans around the globe it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life. Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society due to their frequency, with the position of hunters, cooks, elders, shamans, singers or orators impacting the physical position of such gatherings for practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers, adept and honed in their craft, were highly revered, and had their position, literally and figuratively, ‘elevated’ - perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in full view of the whole tribe where standing was a burden for their wisened bodies. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined, as this would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute*. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

(*many rituals and gatherings are ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.)

A chair is something that can be moved from one place to another. A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description) to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space: still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would be something quite different.

A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and where they place their arbitrary possessions. A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space.

What other factors would proceed the First Chair? At first it seems that sedentary life would predate the First Chair, but it could have progressed from a palanquin or cot, where a figure of authority was carried from place to place in a ceremonial manner, or individual/s were held aloft due to a ritual of marriage, some other coming-of-age ritual, or even ill-health or injury.

I would argue that no matter the use of the First Chair it would have been made for a significant purpose in terms of social standing, be this to support an important aged and wise figure or to draw the focus of an audience, rather than being a mere instrument of ‘comfort’ which today is generally how we ‘see’ a chair as they are hardly paid much attention - accept when we wish to possess one for a private moment or to merely find a ‘spot to sit’ for a better view, or more convenient overall location: in a theatre, restaurant or on a bus.

What is unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage, or even initiating your own circle of interest for others to join. Was any of this in the mind of our imaginary-maker of the First Chair? Why would or wouldn’t it be?

What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object. In an enclosed space, furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality, a mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device; being easy to position to suit many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence, its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community, yet the degree of privacy changes the symbolic function. In the modern world, publicly, this is certainly seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

Did the maker of the First Chair even reflect upon how the ‘chair’ would change human life? Did they find the task engaging or ridiculous - I mean, it’s just a place to plant your posterior ... isn’t it?

It just appears that you’re basically using this forum as a means of therapy. It would make sense, if you’re really that disturbed, to seek assistance from a professional in the field.

Note: the religion of a good professional won’t bias them for or against you. It might even take time to find one who is compatible. It’s an option.

If there is some philosophical idea you want to focus on specifically great. I’m not sure what it is exactly. Nietzsche and Camus are two people you might want to look at, but if you see no meaning or point to life then I’m not sure how you can rationally explain your presence here? Either you’re seeking guidance or rebelling (maybe both?).

I’ve never been ‘religious,’ so to speak, but I do understand what it is like to have a dramatic shift in perspective and to have existential questions looming over you. If it’s mostly about the existential problem and you’re only 18 ... you’re just going to have figure it out in your own sweet time and hedge your bets until you’ve experienced more of the world and yourself - no guarantees!

If it’s a more visceral and personal issue surrounding your upbringing, shifts in belief and general psychological well-being, then speaking to a psychologist might something you find useful (you never know). Primarily being honest with yourself should probably be a thing to focus on as all humans are incredibly good at lying to themselves about what is the real underlying problem - I wouldn’t go to hard in that direction though if you’re feeling particularly emotional.

If you don’t see the point in targets, aims or goals, maybe it should be your aim, target or goal to search for a point - I’ve found enough of them myself, but telling you what they doesn’t explicate the value.

Just like teaching someone how to add, subtract, divide and multiply tells them next to nothing about what mathematics is, so telling you what is important to me won’t do anything much for your without the lived experience.

Explore. It’s your human default setting. Don’t inhibit it and don’t let your fear - inner or outer - dictate every single choice you make (note: fear is necessary to stave off insanity - too much or too little are just as bad).

That’s the best I have right now.

GL

Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do. — jgill

I’d rather they go somewhere else and do that. The point of the thread is to question how or why we should engage in any kind of rational analysis of mysticism in general and/or texts that have nysticsl attributes.

Clearly Plato, as well as many others, throughout philosophical history have exhibited attitudes that appear ‘mystical’. I’m pretty sure you’ll find a large number of people interested in philosophy as equally dismissive of anything tagged as metaphysics as they are anything tagged mysticism.

The funny thing is the very idea of such delineations is a clear sign of something metaphysical at work - meaning a cognitive distinction of knowledge whose mechanisms we are unable to fully appreciate (that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?)

It can be quite interesting to ask someone what their job is. Most people tend not to push beyond the job ‘title’.

I spoke to someone once who said he was an engineer. I asked what that meant and what his usual day looked like. He replied that he checked schematics, hesitated, then said that he probably spent the majority of his day on the phone talking to clients, writing letters and/or checking stock and supplies.

Do think it’s a good thing to tell people their job is BS for the sake of everyone else, or just let them be?

Respectfully, the very fact that the question posed has to delineate particular qualifications for the idea to be considered "an excellent form of government" should give rise to the suspicion that the answer to such a question is inevitably going to be a negative one. — Contra Mundum

This has been pointed out. Also, the title says ‘perfect’ and the post says ‘good’. It is clearly a purposeful trap or just poorly thought out post.

I don't see how neural priming phenomena are applicable here. — Zophie

I don’t see how it could possibly be denied. Everything perceptual experience depends upon what happened before it. It doesn’t take much though to see that IOR (inhibition of return) plays a role in how we perceive the world, and will therefore effect our perception of this. There are numerous instances that clearly show how we can be primed to respond in certain ways through use of language - not that I am suggesting that ‘language’ is or isn’t the same thing as ‘neural priming’.

Gazzaniga is famous for doing many different studies on split-brain patients. His research shows the full extend of how the brain hemispheres act independently and give completely different answers based on the same prompts. The myth of language existing in the left hemisphere is just that. Both hemispheres are capable of reacting to prompts but the both respond differently.

Something very interesting is how the two hemispheres ‘communicated’ in the physical world actions NOT directly. The ‘communication’ was happening ‘outside’ the brain.

These talks are quite interesting if you wish to look:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8AD2B712B1A0578F

There’s a thread on UBI somewhere else. To my knowledge no one has mentioned UBI here.

Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8210/universal-basic-income-ubi/p1

Therapy. GL

When you’re watching a movie do you stop it halfway through and never think about what happens next?

If the answer is yes, you’re unique.

If the answer is no, apply that to living your life.

OR go with Socrates and view death as an unopened gift.

It's not that i don't care, but I wonder if there is anything in the abstract to be said. — unenlightened

Me and you both. I honestly don’t know what I can say about the Tao Te Ching that is solid, and not overly reliant upon aphorisms and artistic interpretation.

Maybe it’s just useful for creativity in some way - freeing up thought and that shabang?

I think the case for those references as propaganda hold up well enough:

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting-ancient-rome-throwing-christians-to-the-lions-67365

Again, call me cynical, but if some other religion had risen to prominence I’m sure its followers would’ve found plenty of instances of religious persecution and martyrs.

My original point was that I don’t see how other religious creeds wouldn’t have been as willing to die as Christians were for their beliefs. Such beliefs are not usually something people can just throw aside and in many cases death can seem more inviting than turning their back on their whole world view.

Real scholars tend not to speculate in their works - if they do they’re not writing a scholarly works, writing poor scholarly work or actually explicit about expressing an opinion.

Does language channel our focus in such a way that it affects what we observe even at the level of basic percepts? — Enrique

Yes. Neural priming.

If this is the case, what are the implications for emergence of a worldview? — Enrique

Don’t understand. Can you explain in mire detail?

How much in our beliefs is merely a function of the language we happen to employ? — Enrique

Forget about how much, how would we quantify this? Can we quantify this? I imagine there is some loose way of relating ‘belief’ to ‘language,’ but I guess it would depend exactly on what we were trying to look at.

How radically can experience of reality change with modifications to language use? — Enrique

VERY radically. Obviously this isn’t instant and/or common or we’d have a hard time orientating ourselves.

I don’t see why it would be highly unusual? If they did it to Christians who refused what makes you think they were the only religious group to refuse? The only * I assume is that the Christian religion gained momentum and the others died out.

[*deleted sentence whilst typing there! Wasn’t massively important :)]

I don’t see how Christians would be more willing to die on religious principles than any other religious person.

Of course I could be quite wrong, but I’d need some pretty damning evidence to dismiss it out of hand. Is there any?

Fair enough. I just assumed they removed it themselves after they had realised what they’d posted in a fit of anger. If it was left up I’m certain you’d have had several complaints.

All in all a bizarre episode.

If I was to ask myself the same question and give a definitive answer - even though I don’t really see that there is a significant difference between ‘authority’ in general and ‘religious authority’ (other than the later being more firmly attached to the underlying premise of a ‘deity’ or similar ‘force/agent’), then I guess I’d say ‘religious authority’ is more easily prone to being dogmatic than other species of ‘authority’ - that is not to say others cannot, or aren’t, prone to dogma too! Historically the more ‘scientific minded’ have on occasion put certain figures on a pedestal (Aristotle being the prime example regarding Galileo’s time).

I’m pretty sure that many pagans were put to death too for refusing to give offerings to some other deity. Christians are likely singled out today because Christianity took on many other traditions and rituals of the time as its own.

As a comparable ‘authority’ I do see ‘patriotism’ as being almost identical to ’religious piety’ - in some modern cases they are very much entwined. To die for your country to me is only slightly less different than dying for some deity. I think in both situations it is a combination of protecting your sense of identity - place in the world (holding to your ‘axis mundi’) - and holding to certain sets of principles and ethics that seem commonly enough represented in the ‘authority’ figure (institutional or otherwise).

The feeling of ‘mob’ to both disturbs me and that is why I tend to question any claim to ‘authority’ - even within myself. I believe, foolishly or not, that I would die before giving up my freedom, so can relate to an unerring sense of duty to a set of principles that you live by (the ‘axis mundi’). Once the central pillar of your existence is torn away you’re done for anyway. The thing is the central pillar (‘axis mundi’) is hardly different from any dogmatism which just shows us that life necessitate a guiding map of some form (meaning ‘authority’ isn’t a dirty word anymore than ‘freedom’ is a delightful idea - both in the extreme drain life away).

to talk about talking about mysticism, rather than talking about mysticism. — Punshhh

That would’ve been a perfect title for this thread! :)

Personally I’ve found that a greater appreciation of human behavior and psychology can help the ‘uninitiated’ persist where otherwise they would’ve just given up and moved on. If something is clearly of serious importance to someone, that - in and of itself - is a very intriguing case from a psychological or behavioral perspective.

I certainly agree that observing is better that trying to participate initially, if that is what you mean by

spending time with people in an ashram and having a teacher disciple relationship with another — Punshhh

and having interesting experiences.

Maybe that is the key point. To simply have the experience of someone who has a strong mystical tilt and do no more than observe - reserving judgement and holding your tongue when you feel you require ‘clarification’. A suspicion is necessary, but some emphasis on the ‘suspicion’ that there may be something of use beneath the seeming misuse and misapplication of words (such as with the Tao Te Ching).

If it was for the comments yesterday they were removed, I assume by Pfhorrest almost as quickly as they’d been posted (and I was surprised that someone could make it through a university degree and snap so easily, but I certainly wasn’t offended but understand that others may have been) - plus they seem to have actually been responding in a civil manner to the critique they asked for.

If they was another instance of the same schoolyard name calling ... fair enough I guess! Otherwise a harsh and firm warning would’ve probably worked - it was clearly an emotional explosion (it happens to everyone).

Just finished the rough draft. Not read it through, checked anything or edited it in any way. Feel free to comment and I won’t look at your criticism/points/whatever until I’ve done a rewrite and posted the second version and ideally cut down the word count to 500-600 words (interested to see if I spot the same problems others see). I may also try to write critique for this rough draft too - already doing it in my head! Haha!

Critique: What you think aim of this piece is something I’m curious to hear about. Anything else is more than welcome. As mentioned above this is an open site so you obviously don’t have to write something yourself to offer critique.

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.


What would it have been to a human to create the very first chair? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group? Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans around the globe it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life.

Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society merely due to their frequency with the position of hunter, cook, elder, shaman, singer or orator impacting the physical position of such gatherings for practical reasons practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers, adept and honed in their craft, were highly revered, and had their position, literally and figuratively, ‘elevated’ - perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in fuller view of the whole tribe where standing was too much of a burden on their wisened body. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined, as this would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

Note: many rituals and gathering are seen to be ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.

A chair is something that can be moved from one place to another. A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description) may have supplemented said soft materials to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space. Still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would require more than a movement of parts to establish a space to sit. A chair is something quite different.

A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space. A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and perhaps where they place their arbitrary possessions (soft hides and tools).

At first it seems that sedentary life would be essential to predate the First Chair. It could have progressed from a palanquin though, where a figure of authority was carried from place to place in a ceremonial manner, or individual/s were held aloft due to a ritual of marriage, some other coming-of-age ritual or injury. I would argue that no matter the use of the First Chair it would have been made for a significant purpose in terms of social standing, be this to support an important aged and wise figure or to draw the focus of an audience, rather than being a mere instrument of ‘comfort’ which today is generally how we ‘see’ a chair as they are hardly paid much attention accept when we wish to possess one for a private moment or to merely find a ‘spot to sit’ for a better view, or more convenient overall location - in a theatre, restaurant or on a bus. What is unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage or initiating your own circle of interest. Was any of this in the mind of our ‘imaginary’ maker of the First Chair? Why would it be or why wouldn’t it be?

If we go with the palanquin route, I don’t think we’re really talking about ‘a chair’ rather nothing more than a means of holding someone aloft for ritual means and celebration. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object I hope we can agree. What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. An enclosed space furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality. A mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device I feel. Easy to move, rotate and applicable to many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community at a gathering. In the modern world this is certain seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

I don’t really think there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment with an inspired carpenter rushing to their workshop to change the dynamics of human’s social interaction with their ‘genius chair’ motif - such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of (or apart from), and extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common, yet unconscious, need expressed in culture has perpetuated.

Note: Replaced first rough draft because some of the sentences, well ... they weren’t sentences! So I have briefly read it through and corrected SPAG but haven’t ‘edited’ yet.

That’s puntastic!

So, basically, to wax lyrical? :D

Because we don’t know what is ‘good’ and so rationally we should be cautious about assuming that one thing is ‘good’ and another ‘bad’ with absolute certainty. So really it may be more rational to say we can expect, in our clumsy way, to have what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ partially revealed to us through life if we’re attentive to change and perspective (a ‘rational’ use of our hindsight and foresight).

It’s a bit of a tail eater, which generally says to me ‘be cautious’ and ‘don’t be in search of an iron-cast conclusion’.

Your definition seems more like a position that denies time-travel. Free-will is a bit like Love. It is a term that splays itself far and wide, and can be applied in a variety of ways in colloquial speech that makes it difficult to assess in any universal sense.

I find the subject to be so popular because it touches so many non-intuitive aspects of human cognition, poking at numerous possible contradictions within our limited use of language. Some people even argue that ‘the hard problem’ is merely a repercussion of how we use language, personally I think it is probably to do with a lack of common concepts in our current language rather than ‘language’ itself creating an illusionary problem.

We can only speculate from rough examples in the real world. I would maintain that it comes down to ‘self worth’. With or without a job people need to ‘busy themselves’ in some way.

I don’t agree, as many would paint it in a black and white manner, that people would simply turn to a life of sloth or turn to a life of personal growth.

Essentially we’d have leisure time and some would use it for recreational purposes (to literally ‘re-create’ themselves and hone skills etc.,.), but in reality I don’t think they’d be a huge difference in the problems people face and more than likely society would actively seek to deconstruct such economic harmony (meaning freedom of access to resources) to distract themselves from themselves. Some would likely work together, distinct ideas and cultures would flourish, and then these commitments would inevitably clash at some point as ‘resources’ would almost certainly become strained in some way for some period of time.

The stresses and strains of daily life is most certainly a welcome distraction for everyone to some degree. Having a goal, to get food on the table and pay bills, is a worthy achievement. Many are very happy to do just that and no more so if you took away their ability to look after themselves completely, they’d be forced into a situation where ‘leisure time’ or ‘recreation’ would be the mainstay of their existence. I’m not saying people cannot adapt to this only that they may find such circumstances far less palatable initially than they would otherwise have assumed - the cases of so-called ‘working class’ people winning the lottery eventually returning to their day job are quite clear examples of how expectations play out against reality. The ‘worth’ is often enough about people having a sense of ‘social worth’ and belonging to a group with a common history and understanding of the world.

Anyway, just scratching at the surface of where such could lead. In terms of a UBI I do think it is a good idea, but not a good idea for everyone. The instance of the virus now has shown the value of something like a UBI being a good idea for society. As a crisis management scheme it seems more than appropriate. In terms of the use of social institutes we can clearly see that reasonable safety nets prevent deaths.

One thing I am very much in favour of is FREE education. That is not to say I am against private education only that a stable and respected national system of education is a worthy goal (as far as I can see regardless of problems that may inevitably be associated with it).

Social success seems to be the main focus for juvenile individuals. Nothing wrong with that, but when this attitude is carried through into old age it upsets me. I feel bad for them. By this I mean the attitude that finding a partner, getting lots of money, and having a degree of social fame (within your group or on a media scale) have become mostly what people initially regard as ‘worth while’ and essential to ‘success’.

If UBI happens it will happen in Northern Europe first. I cannot honestly see any other countries even considering it, probably even actively opposing it, until it has been established for a few decades and with widespread economic success.

Without a degree of anarchism any UBI will likely fail. With UBI it seems obvious to me that each individual must take on a greater degree of personal responsibility rather than surrender their autonomy to a so-called ‘higher authority’ - basically freedom doesn’t come for free. Ignoring that would be disastrous.

Is the thingness of thing measurable? If yes, then does ‘information’ lie on the scale you determine as determinate of ‘thingness’?

There, you have your answer! :D

Seriously, the question is more about to what degree we can all agree on different subjects. Funnily enough it depends on the common information we share and how we apply it.

A particular use of philosophy is to formulate definitions that most people can agree on and then build from.

Okay, but the original post I was asking about asked why it was people surrendered their will to authority, specifically to religious authority. My question is still what is unique about how people surrender their will to religious authority? Obviously the belief in a deity is the major one but I assumed you were alluding to something else?

I completely agree that people surrender their freedom in order to avoid responsibility. To avoid responsibility is also to stave off any possible sense of guilt. From that it would follow that people who surrender their will are effectively avoiding responsibility so as not to make any mistakes, and to point the finger at someone else - their authority being the ruling authority not themselves (of course, it is dangerously ironic, but that’s how I see it and that explains why some people who shirk responsibility like to attach themselves to a ‘higher authority’ and claim to be ‘good’ as opposed to those with free will who are willing to suffer the direct responsibility of their actions/thoughts.

It has been predicted before but every time new tech has opened up different types of jobs.

Regardless humans still need a sense of self worth. Most people struggle with that to some degree - hence the ‘bullshit jobs’ thread.

Claude Shannon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

I don't want a conversation. I don’t care who you are. I merely want to know what you think is different between ‘authority’ in general and ‘religious authority,’ in plain and simple terms.

If you cannot provide me with scholarly works about ‘guilt’ in the ancient world that’s okay.

The only thing I’ve found is this: https://www.armand-dangour.com/2017/03/shame-and-guilt-in-ancient-greece/