But the issue here has nothing to do with Rovelli or physics. Philosophy is not physics, nor is it abstract speculation. Think of eternity, for example, but withdraw from assumptions that are in place in the everydayness of affairs (of which science is an extension) and move into a more basic analysis, which is the structure of experience itself. The issue of time is fundamentally different, for time at this level is what is presupposed in talk about Einstein's time. Has nothing to do with physicists being wring and phenomenologists right; rather, these are modes of inquiry radically different from one anothe — Constance

Are they all that different though? Science informs philosophy and philosophy informs science. I’m not talking about Einstein’s time (and neither is Rovelli, although he starts there), but about what is presupposed. And it’s this presupposition that is explored in the second part of Rovelli’s book.

Philosophy, I am claiming, is where thought goes when the world exceeds all paradigmatic categories. Heidegger wrote Being and Time just to go here, to the place where thinking meets its terminal point and explanations run out. But (and this is a crucial idea) instead of thinking like a scientist and dismiss what is not known as something always coming, waiting to but constructed conceptually, theoretically, which is an essential part of Heidegger, where Heidegger looks for some primordial language that has been occluded by centuries of bad metaphysics, I claim the reduction to something primordial and profound lies in Wittgenstein;s eternal present. Put Rovelli aside, pick up Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety.

Again, NOT at all that Rovelli (I read a synopsis) is in any way wrong, but the terms of analysis are very different. Time, its past, present and future, are here features of the experience that is already in place antecedent to what a physicist might say. (Einstein knew this. He read Kant when very young. He just knew he wasn't going to take on philosophical issues). — Constance

I think you’re presuming that I’m deferring to scientific methodology, but this is far from the case. I’m certainly not proposing that we ‘dismiss what is not known’. And I don’t think you can so confidently assume you know what a physicist might say (just how many interpretations of quantum theory are there?) or how all scientists think. I recognise that the terms are often different - but I’m not looking for analysis (and neither is Rovelli in his book), rather coherence. So I don’t seek to understand the primordial or profound as a reduction to ‘something’, but more as the simplest totality of existence.

My recommendation of a book (and your evaluation of its synopsis) is not wholly indicative of my position. The way I see it, Rovelli’s process of deconstructing time as we understand it leads us effectively to Wittgenstein’s eternal present: living in a world without time, consisting of interrelating events (phenomena).

If we do not assume a priori that we know what the order of time is, if we do not, that is, presuppose that it is the linear and universal order that we are accustomed to, Anaximander’s exhortation remains valid: we understand the world by studying change, not by studying things....We understand the world in its becoming, not in its being. — Carlo Rovelli

His more recent book ‘Helgoland’ leads us beyond that point to the relational structure of reality. That he does this from the perspective of quantum physics demonstrates the symmetry at work here. These, for me, are checks and balances to ensure we’re on the right track. But they also suggest that assuming reduction to a singular primordial ‘something’ may be holding us back. Physicists, for the most part, are looking for the source of energy; theologians are looking for the source of quality; while philosophers are looking for the source of logic. The answer, I think, is at the intersection of all three. Where Wittgenstein defers to silence is where we must look to a broader understanding of energy and quality, beyond their logical concepts. Too many philosophers won’t venture here.

What is this, that, and questions are not simply playful antagomisms, but are indicative of the indeterminacy of language (something Willard Quine famously wrote about; and he hated deconstruction...while agreeing!) Concepts are, all of them, open. So what happens, I ask here, when the broadest concept imaginable, Being, stands in openness? THIS is an extraordinary event, to allow the entire conceptual edifice to be "suspended". My claim is that if this is done faithfully, allowing openness its full due, then the world qualitatively changes, for there is no longer any conceptual recourse, no body language into which one can retreat, no "totality" that can subsume all things, for one has breached into eternity.

Energy? Why not shakti, or Brahman? Or thathata? Of course, these terms have different meanings, all of them, but note something important: When Hindus and Buddhists use vocabulary like this, they are understanding the world as it appears, mixed with thought and affect; cognition is not separated from these and objects in the world. How does one privilege ideas in a system like this? According to meaning, and affect is no longer a marginalized phenomenon. It takes center stage in ontology. And saying something like God is Love no longer is just a romantic foolishness. — Constance

Ok, I think I’m (almost) with you now. What you’re describing here - a system structured according to meaning, with affect at the centre and ‘God is Love’ making genuine sense - for me constitutes a six-dimensional qualitative awareness. Your expression of it here is the closest to my understanding of this that I’ve read, so thank you. It is here that I find the triadic relation of energy, quality and logic - not as linguistic concepts but as ideas - also makes the most sense.

Incidentally, my reference to Rovelli is a grounding that for me prevents the tendency to separate thought and affect, cognition and objects. It’s more effective than what I currently understand of phenomenology - but I’m getting there, slowly...

You know, that is a very good point. So a well trained dog cannot, I think we can agree, produce an internal dialog. Sparky can't think, "Well, Jane is sleeping and I wish she would get up and put some food in the bowl. It was the same last week, I mean why own a dog if you're not going to......" There is no concept of time and space, no prepositional constructions, no conditional, negations that can be explicitly spoken internally. But: they do have familiarity that reaches conscious awareness; but then again, do they? When you say, "Let's go outside" does outside mean outside, or is it just a Pavlovian reaction? Of course, they feel good in this activity, bad in that one and they do make the connection between verbal noises and activities, they can anticipate. But is this knowledge?
Depends on what you mean by the term, of course. We say Sparky knows this and that, but we are being loose with this epistemic term. Safe to say, Sparky has no conceptual knowledge. But perhaps he has, and I suspect this si true, some kind of proto linguistic grasp of things. We have the conditional propositional form, and Sparky certainly follows events following other events. — Constance

Dogs seem to have a more qualitative sense of the world. Our verbal expressions are like promises and threats: they have qualitative value, potential and significance for Sparky. They’re not understood (I think this fits better than known) according to objects in spacetime, but according to qualitative relations of embodied experience. When you say ‘let’s go outside’, they understand quality in the ideas you’re expressing: the arrangement of shapes and sounds in “let’s go” have an immediately inviting, inclusive quality to it; while “outside” has a more distant and variable quality related to possible smells, textures and tastes.

religion is a philosophical matter, and the reason this idea sounds counterintuitive is that philosophy, in the minds of many or most, has no place in the dark places where language cannot go, but this is a Kantian/Wittgensteinian (Heidegger, too, of course; though he takes steps....) legacy that rules out impossible thinking, and it is here where philosophy has gone so very wrong: Philosophy is an empty vessel unless it takes on the the original encounter with the world, which is prior to language, and yet, IN language, for language is in the world. Philosophy's end, point, that is, is threshold enlightenment, not some foolish anal retentive need for positivism's clarity. — Constance

Words of truth and beauty, to be sure. We need the language, though, for without language, philosophy is bound within the individual experience. After having contemplated the boundary of understanding, and having discerned "the idea", one will inevitably find that language fails, that the lemmas simply do not exist for sharing with another. So, in the lack of adequate linguistic invention, we equivocate, and all is lost... — Michael Zwingli

In the end, philosophy is supposed to be practical. We forget that in our academic pursuit of a theory of everything, a philosophical description of reality. Where language fails us, it is our own embodied relation that ultimately completes the structure of reality. It’s what’s missing from every written philosophy.

The paradox you mention is between logic and the actuality. If you go by Hegel, then the real's rational nature is only imperfectly realized in our current Zeit Geist: it approaches perfection in God's self realization, and because we see only as our unevolved reason permits, contradictions rise up. But all this is awaiting so sort of divine completion in which contradictions fall away. So, all relations do have the stamp of paradox, for one can easily find contradictions everywhere since knowledge falls apart with inquiry at the basic level. This is what, by Hegel's standard, contingency is all about: the imperfection of realizing God's perfect rationality.
Hegel was essentially on your side because he agreed that reaosn in the abstract had no great value. Kant's pure reason is not very important here. What is important is the way reason grapples with what is given, making science what it is. Hegel doesn't separate things from reason: they are parts of the same grand disclosure of Truth in God.
I think Hegel is interesting. Continental philosophers take him seriously (though not as he would like); analytic philosophers don't talk about him except in philosophy history classes. You have to go through Kierkegaard: reason and objects are qualitatively completely different. To me this goes directly to ethics: That pain in your side where you were assaulted with a baseball bat: THIS is rational?? No. It has nothing to do with reason. — Constance

Well, I don’t assume a singular progression of time as Hegel does, so for me the paradox isn’t between logic and actuality, but between the possibility of an absolute (rather than ‘perfect’) rationality and/or energy source. Is one a ‘beginning’ and the other an ‘end’, a telos? Or perhaps this is a balanced ternary logic (-, 0, +), qualitatively imagined?

Kierkegaard, on the other hand, assumes a perfectly rational singularity (God), so your jump to ethics in his relation to Hegel makes sense. Everything evolves according to Hegel, so reason in his abstraction cannot realise this eternal rationality (pure reason) that Kierkegaard assumes. Nor can it, in Kierkegaard’s subjective philosophy, ever determine the ethical rationality (practical reason) that Hegel assumes.

Pain has a quality that directs energy away from logic and towards action. It isn’t that it has nothing to do with reason. Rather, we assume an inner logic - an embodied rationality - in order to determine a qualitative (outward) distribution of energy (as attention and effort). The way I see it, reason ranges qualitatively from pure logic to pure energy.

This dualism of inner in relation to outer system is unavoidable, but the structure is highly variable. Kierkegaard’s system logically assumes God in order to describe subjectivity: qualitative judgements of affected experience. Hegel’s embodied system, on the other hand, assumes an unlimited process or source of energy (the progress of history) to describe a dialectic: manifesting past experiences of logical contradiction. With Hegel, it seems there can be no synthesis without a process of dissolving identification (thesis/antithesis), from which we then reconstruct history as a new dialectic develops.

Hi Jem, and welcome to the forum.

I will reiterate what T Clark has written - I think your writing ability and willingness to learn, discuss and develop your thinking is enough to render your efforts here worthwhile. The call for an ‘educated standard’ is to deter the level of some responses you may find in more general online forums. That you demonstrate respect for sentence and paragraph structure, the effective use of punctuation and grammar, and the correct spelling of words is sufficient, I feel.

I also have no education in philosophy, only an interest. I would say be willing to look up and read about the topics and the philosophers mentioned, and then think before answering. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is your friend. It’s those who think they know already who may find they don’t belong in the more in-depth discussions, not those prepared to learn for themselves and ask questions of others.

What do you mean by normal in this sense — Ross

Not worth questioning, I suppose.

I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. — Ross

I don’t think you can separate politics from religion, especially when it comes to Catholicism, which has a clear hierarchical structure of authority. The Church is far from faultless, even in the case of Northern Ireland. The idea that religion is ‘used and abused’ or a tool to be wielded is the same argument the gun lobby employs. But religion is not a tool you can reserve only for those licensed to use responsibly. It’s a capacity that anyone can access for any reason: to inspire attention and effort towards that vague awareness of ‘something’ beyond our understanding, and give it form. There’s no such thing as an ‘accident’ in using religion.

But religion is different from teachings, and actually has nothing to do with wisdom. This is the main point I want to get across.

Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by night" — Ross

The ideal catholic community is one in which there is an acceptance that pretty much ‘everyone does this’. So you wouldn’t even consider not wanting to attend mass every Sunday, make your first communion, or recite the Nicene Creed, when all your friends are doing it anyway. There is no need to command obedience to God when this obedience is considered ‘normal’ behaviour. So I don’t doubt you had full freedom to think for yourself within an Irish Catholic context.

I grew up in a suburban Catholic school community in Australia (in the 80s). By the time we stopped listening to our parents, the teachers had us believing that all our religious practices at least were ‘normal’. That started to change once I left school, of course. Thinking for yourself within a religious context isn’t quite the same as thinking for yourself without these constraints, but it’s easiest to restructure it as ‘self’ once you’re free of the original context, at least initially.

But this isn’t following Jesus’ teachings - it’s following everyone else.

But to talk about possibility of impossibility points first to the "'words or logic" that constructs concepts like possibility and impossibility. Perfect relation? What is this if not a language construction? Absolute interconnectedness in the logos? What is this if not a logical interconnectedness? That is, the "saying" is always analytically first. — Constance

Analytical is kind of the opposite to my approach. But I think I get where you’re coming from. And I didn’t mean absolute interconnectedness IN the logos, rather logos AS the ultimate idea of interconnectedness.

Possibility/impossibility points to the quality or diversity of the idea(l) - what do you think logic constructs its concepts out of? Itself? And construction requires a source of energy. Perfect relation is paradox, because nothing else is necessary. And if this paradox exists, then any and all of them do.

And this tapping into eternity, how does this cash out in analysis? Terms like finitude and infinity are fascinating to me, but it is not as if they are exhausted in the mere utterance, the incidental usage. for the question posed here goes to the structure of time itself. Time, I claim (and I am no more than what I read) is the structure of finitude, and finitude is subsumed by eternity, both, obviously, difficult terms and deserve discussion, but the final discussion to be had on this and any matter looks at the th phenomenological analysis of time. What is time? This is presupposed by talk about beginnings. — Constance

Interesting that you read ‘an infinite source of energy’ as ‘eternity’. The finitude/infinity of energy is the paradoxical quality of time, and the qualitative flow of energy is time’s directional logic. Have you read Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’?

Incidentally, I think talk about anything is just a way to test our reasoning, which I would argue is more than the sum of what we read.

Don't know what you mean by infinite perfection. Not that I have no ideas about such a thing, but what you mean is not clear. At any rate, This intersection: is there just this (leaning Heideggarian) construction? Or is there not something, if you will, behind this in the reductive act of suspending all these possibilities? Once you step into that rarified world where language's grasp on the givenness of things is loosened, and meaning is free from interpretative restraint, is there not some undeniable qualitative change in the perceptual event as such? — Constance

Yes, there is not just this possible prediction, but also its negation - the impossibility of it all. You’re presuming a ‘perceptual event’ has form: a definable quality to be changed. But any perceptual event is qualitatively variable in itself - it manifests variable observation events according to a predictive relation, but it’s also variably perceivable as such. So it isn’t so much change as a vague awareness of variability - on the periphery of any capacity for perception. That either draws attention and effort (affect), or not. It’s not undeniable - it comes down to an availability of energy.

What you say about identity is quite right, I think, and this then makes a turn toward agency, for identity is general, definitional, as in the identity of a term, a concept, but agency is all about the actuality of what it is (who it is). Most clearly an issue for ethics. — Constance

My point here is that at this intersection we must embody energy, logic, quality, or some combination, in order to relate to anything at all. You agree that any quest for an unlimited source of energy is one of identity: it assumes that everything has a proper, definitive relation to everything else, and if we somehow manage to complete this process of identification, then the source must reveal itself. It’s an issue for ethics because to do this we assume that our perspective embodies a proper, definitive relation to everything else.

Conversely, any quest for a proper, definitive relational structure to the world (such as ethics) assumes an unlimited source of energy. The idea that there is an ought is predicated on the assumption that we embody unlimited agency. The reality of human experience is that our own limited attention and effort is selectively focused, and it is only in a proper relation to everything (and everyone) else that we can even approach unlimited access to energy.

Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority. — Apollodorus

The difference is in the term ‘Abba’. But this implication of entitled authority is brought into question from the get-go. Joseph is technically Jesus’ father, and by cultural rights has authority over him - except that he doesn’t. Our understanding of the paternal role has developed over millennia, just as our understanding of leadership has developed. The leader of a dominion assumes stewardship of its inhabitants and a pastoral responsibility, not control or unquestioning authority, as was once assumed. This development is apparent across the historical progress of biblical writings.

As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.

However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.

I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” .... — Apollodorus

I think perhaps the embarrassment is in clinging to ‘traditional’ interpretations of these core concepts, in ignorance of logic. Recognising the logical impossibility of certain properties traditionally attributed to core concepts such as ‘God’ and ‘soul’ inspires fear and doubt. But we cannot argue our way out of this: to ‘love God’ is to intentionally increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with, experience outside of logical possibility.

Jesus didn't write anything therefore we have to RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE namely the writers of the gospels who passed his teaching to posterity. Just like Socrates who didn't write anything its from Plato that we are getting the formers philosophy. But I don't think many christians have a problem with that. Jesus appointed his disciples who then wrote down his teachings. An analogy might be a spokesperson for an organization , we generally accept that that person is passing on the truthful information that management gave out because they were appointed by management. — Ross

Scholars will argue that it wasn’t disciples of Jesus who wrote down his teachings, but later generations of followers - and that the four selected Gospels were drawn piecemeal from several earlier sources. There’s no way to even know if Jesus (or Socrates, for that matter) was a real person.

But is that even relevant? The question is not whether the words or the man can be trusted, but whether these teachings lead us to wisdom. That’s the whole point of obscuring the source. Socrates, too, never told us precisely what to think or how to act - he himself claimed to know nothing, and was convicted of corrupting the city’s youth. The authority/wisdom is not in the words or the speaker - it’s in the wisdom and perceived potential we find in ourselves by striving to understand and follow the right teachings.

I wonder is it really true that the Catholic church are obscuring Christ's teaching. That's a huge sweeping statement. I hardly think that hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics in the world are all that naive that none of them have ever questioned whether their church is true to the teachings of Christ. There's been a lot of religious scholarship going on for over a hundred years examining these very issues by Catholic scholars. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but if what you say is correct then Catholics are not true Christians at all if they're not being true to Jesus s teaching. — Ross

I don’t believe all the obscurity is intentional. Most of it has been a case of fear and desire leading church authorities away from wisdom. They’re humans, and there’s been so much political intrigue in Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church since the inception of both. The entire structure of the Catholic Church has been designed to reduce the schisms of the past, and to maximise automatic trust and compliance in the clergy as a hierarchy of authority (above the Bible). We were taught to believe that by obeying our Catholic parents, teachers and clergy, who taught us how to think and what to do, we were obeying God. Suffice to say, this needs a rethink, and I haven’t entirely written them off yet, but it’s a big ask...

So, yes - I would say that most are probably that naive. Or they’ve questioned and then relied on answers from within this church structure, instead of using their own capacity for reasoning. It’s what has made the structure so effective so far.

Incidentally, I don’t think there is any clear way to define a ‘true Christian’. It’s just not a useful category anymore. I think the same goes for a ‘true Buddhist’.

However, I think that the equivocation is understandable in light of the fact that in the Bible Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" and as conceived by God's agency (Holy Spirit). — Apollodorus

There’s an argument to be made that any claim of divine descendency attributed to Jesus’ role in the Bible is a misinterpretation. It would never have been possible to prove that this relationship of ‘son’ to ‘father’ ever had a materiality - even with all the technology we have now. All we have are the words of writers who couldn’t possibly have known, trying to piece a story together that made sense to them. This renders any father-son relationship here a construction of perceived significance, value or potentiality. That’s different from false. Anyone who’s been raised by someone with no genetic link will understand this. Jesus calling God ‘Father’, others corroborating this relationship, and even Jesus calling himself ‘God’s son’ - none of this means he is actually the son of God.

And if the Bible is not the word of Jesus/God, how can we know what Jesus/God taught? — Apollodorus

We can’t know. We can only infer. We’re supposed to use reasoning to assess the validity of statements made throughout the Bible, and to question those that make supernatural or illogical claims. But it isn’t about dismissing these claims so much as understanding the human experiences behind them. Fear and desire in circumstances of ignorance, isolation or exclusion obscures understanding.

:up:

Ok to clarify the issue:,-
Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer.
The above is what I read in a religious magazine.
Now to me the last part they say about praying to God and obeying the Bible seems to me to involve the act of worshipping Christ — Ross

This is an interpretation that equivocates ‘Jesus’ with ‘God’, and the Bible with ‘His word’. The ambiguity of ‘pursuing Him’, ‘obeying’ the Bible and ‘growing as a believer’ enables another authority to then dictate what all this means. This is why your personal interpretation of ‘praying’ and ‘obeying’ seems to be worshipping - it’s what you’ve been taught. But that’s not really what worshipping is.

To follow the teachings of Jesus is to strive to understand what he meant by what others claim he said in relation to how he lived as a human example, and then to act in accordance with that understanding. When we rely on other authorities to tell us what he meant or how to act, then we’re not following Jesus, we’re following another authority...

Worship refers to maximal value, and is either recognised in or attributed to a relation. The question then becomes: are you praying because you’ve been told this act has value/potential, or because you recognise maximal value in the relationship behind it? And is that relationship with God or with the authority that told you to pray? Are you obeying the Bible (as interpreted by yourself or some authority) or obeying God? Do you understand the authority with which you’re aligning your actions?

All of these questions are addressed in the teachings of Jesus, but most are obscured by the teachings of the church - especially the Catholic Church, which assumes its own authority. Read and think for yourself.

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

Not all Buddhist schools emphasise ‘loving’ in an interactive way. That’s the ‘out’ for Buddhism - that general inaction, ignorance, intellectualising or asceticism are acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving indiscriminately. Buddhism doesn’t view love as a feeling, but as a logical interconnectedness. So the less you interact with the world, the less of this interconnectedness you need to manage. It’s much easier to ‘love’ the world in this way when you’re not an active participant.

Christian religion’s emphasis on love as an energy source or feeling renders discrimination or selective ignorance, inaction and asceticism as acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving ‘unconditionally’, with intensity of feeling. If we interpret our ‘neighbour’ as someone most like us, then it’s easier to ‘love’ them actively and intensely, no matter what they do.

Of course, there is also general asceticism in Christianity, and selective ignorance in Buddhism.

No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience:
— Possibility

And vice versa? — frank

No experience exists without relation.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? In the beginning there was the word? Take this quite literally: How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end".

But this takes the matter in the wrong direction. For it is not about trivial intuitions like sufficient causality, but about the origin of ideas and meaning. The event begun presupposes the ability to conceive it, and language as such does not speak, and logic does not make sense. Here is the terminal point of "beginnings" where religion finds its existential reality: the impossibility of conceiving beyond the boundaries of the thought that makes beginnings possible by conceiving of them, for what is possible that cannot be thought? One must take Wittgenstein very seriously here; but then, one must put him down very emphatically: it is in the saying, the twilight world, where meaning meets its dark underpinning, and the world is a naked impossibility---this is brass ring of both religion and philosophy. — Constance

Logos (Greek): variously meaning ground, plea, opinion, expectation, word, speech, account, reason, proportion, and discourse.

The Greek ‘logos’ as presupposed by a beginning has precedence. Yet the ultimate in logos means not just ‘word’ or ‘logic’ - it points to the possibility/impossibility of experiencing the perfect relation or absolute interconnectedness (omniscience). And logos is not alone.

What else is presupposed by a beginning? Aristotle refers to logos alongside ethos and pathos in terms of one’s capacity or potential to persuade. Except an ultimate notion of ethos is not just about character, but points to the possibility/impossibility of achieving quality, or excellence (omnibenevolence) through distinction. And the ultimate in pathos is not just about feeling or motivation, but points to the possibility/impossibility of tapping into an infinite source of energy (omnipotence).

It is at the intersection of these possibilities/impossibilities of absolute, infinite perfection, which both limit and are contingent upon each other, that we find a beginning, the origin of ideas and meaning, to potential and value, and from there to events and ‘beginnings’. No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: the possibility of energy source differentiated by quality. And no source of energy, however infinite, is even useful without identity: the possibility of distinguishing the quality of proper relations. And finally, there can be no distinction of excellence or quality without the fundamental laws of physics: the possibility of ideal relation in the use of energy. And vice versa.

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Jesus said one should love your neighbor. I think that's fairly straightforward. What other way can one interpret that. And the historical and cultural apects have nothing to do with it. The ethics in Christian teaching are supposed to be timeless , to apply to all periods. — Ross

What do you think was the significance of the question ‘who is my neighbour?’ prompting the parable of the good Samaritan? Do you really think there’s only ever one way to interpret ‘neighbour’? This parable suggests that there is more to ‘love your neighbour’ than just a moral injunction. In order for this teaching to be timeless, we need to understand how one’s interpretation of the word ‘neighbour’ can be subject to cultural or ideological limitations.

I framed my point as a QUESTION : Christianity is a more popular religion so does that mean that more people are interested in attaining salvation through faith in Christ than living wisely in THIS world, and Buddhist philosophy does not preach faith in a supernatural Being. — Ross

And my answer is no - not least because I disagree that ‘salvation through faith in Christ’ is the major drawcard of Christianity. But as Shawn mentioned so succinctly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. You have specifically avoided comparing either the religion of Buddhism with the religion of Christianity, or the philosophy at the origin of Buddhism with the philosophy at the origin of Christianity. Is it because such comparisons fail to illustrate the assumed qualitative ‘differences’ between the terms?

Buddhist religion preaches salvation through faith in the supernatural, and Christian philosophy strives for living wisely in THIS world.

By the way Jesus did say the words I mentioned and he is the son of God, God is speaking to us through Jesus. — Ross

That he is the ‘son of God’ or even a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense is your subjective interpretation, probably gleaned from other subjective or authoritative interpretations or cultural assumptions, but is not evident, at best unclear, at the origin of Christian teachings. I disagree with your interpretation, but I think biblical hermeneutics is tangential to the discussion at hand...

By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings . — Ross

...perhaps not.

Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration.

Follow: to act according to the lead or example of someone.

Not the same thing. In Greek, there are even two different words (both used in the Gospels) which are both commonly translated into ‘worship’. One is a customary show of respect due to kings and other attributed authorities, the other is a feeling of reverence towards immeasurable potential.

When Christians worship Christ they are following religious customs. When they are following his teachings they reserve their reverence for a perception of immeasurable potential.

In that case then I don't see the point in christians worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings if what you say is correct that we don't know what Christ taught or even if Jesus existed. That makes Christianity untenable. The sermon on the mount expresses the essense of Christ's teaching , if that is called into question then Christianity doesn't make sense. An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the party. That doesn't make any sense to me. One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian. — Ross

I agree that there is no point in worshipping the Christ, but we can strive to understand his teachings - even if he didn’t really exist. And there is plenty of ambiguity in interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, to the point that it’s like a wavefunction collapse in order to form any clear directive. It’s possible to understand it in the context of Jesus’ example, but any restating of his teachings (without this example) is a limited rendering of such teachings.

If one says they believe in the words from the sermon on the mount (or a translation/interpretation thereof), that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re following the teachings of Christianity. Denying them the title ‘Christian’ has to do with the religion, not the teachings.

Im not a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic and was told that the gospels were literally the teachings of Christ. I was not brought up to believe that it was just a story or an allegory. Of course Genesis is an myth but I don't think the Catholic view is that the sermon on the mount is allegorical or just a story. It is believed to be the literal teaching of Christ, love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you etc are taken as the literal words of Jesus. If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian , maybe they are what one calls nowadays an a la carte christian , that is they cherry pick what they want from Christ's teaching and reject what doesn't suit them. You either believe in loving your neighbour or you don't, there's no halfway . — Ross

This explains a lot. I’m also not (technically) a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic, and was taught that the gospels (as presented piecemeal and interpreted by a priest or religious authority) were literally the teachings of Christ. Of course, it wasn’t until I took the time to read the bible for myself that I recognised the ‘spin’ on what I was taught, and the context of each reading. And, more importantly, that the words of Jesus were only part of the teachings of Christ, and needed to be understood in the historical, cultural and political context in which they were written - incorporating my own doubt as well as faith. It’s not just about loving or not loving your neighbour, for instance, but about recognising that the value we attribute to others is no indication of their potential.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. — Ross

And yet you’re only interested in the religious aspect of Christianity and not the philosophical part. That hardly seems a fair comparison.

In John 10:27–28 Jesus states that: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog. — Ross

No, they’re the words of a story that forms part of the original teachings. I would argue that:

Jesus is not ‘God’.
‘Follow’ is not worship.
Eternal ‘life’ is not eternal Bliss.

Your motivation here seems to be throwing dirt at Christianity, not doing philosophy. I’m not here to defend Christianity as a religion, but your argument that ‘Buddhism is better than Christianity because’ just doesn’t stand up when you compare like for like.

I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, which Nietszche criticizes Christianity especially for, it's turning away from this life. Marx also attacks religion, (and I'm sure he had Christianity in mind) for it's false promises of happiness in the hereafter as a way of ignoring the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life. In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him . — Ross

I thought the central question was about wisdom, but okay.

I disagree that the central focus of Christian teaching is salvation, although I acknowledge this is nevertheless a focus common to many, if not most, Christian religions. And I also acknowledge the criticisms by Nietzsche and Marx in reference to Christianity as an institutional religion. If you’re comparing the original teachings of Buddhism to the religion of Christianity, then I’d agree with you wholeheartedly.

But Jesus never spoke of “a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him”, so I think this is a misguided interpretation. Instead, he spoke of a personal relation beyond physical existence, through which he perceived and sought to understand a potential in himself that transcended his own life, and with it this apparent need to avoid suffering and death. And his life’s example explicitly did not ignore the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life.

The teachings of Christianity are surrounded by a lot of noise. When you strip back the theological base of Judaism and all the political mess that followed, I think the original teachings are not so dissimilar from those of Buddhism - which I’m not sure is about ‘overcoming’ suffering or ‘achieving’ happiness, but more about recognising the capacity within us to manage both in this life.

practical wisdom in either Buddhism or Christianity (as in any philosophical approach to life) strives for an interactive balance between logic, quality and energy. So you won’t notice it unless you’re looking for it.
— Possibility

I'm afraid I don't understand this point. — Ross

I do think that Buddhism brings the possibility of an eternal source (energy) to balance the human experience of suffering and desire towards interconnectedness (logic) and enlightenment (quality). And, by the same token, I think that Christianity at its core brings the possibility of perfect relation or ‘Logos’ (logic) to balance the human experience of power (energy) and difference (quality) with a perception of potential and diversity. But that’s just my own interpretation.

Okay - you’re going to have explain that.

I'm happy, happy enough if you agree that patterns can be used to make predictions because that means you're testing the world to see if the pattern you abstracted is correct or not, correct in the sense whether your predictions come true or not. In effect you're acknowledging the existence of an "out there" in this. — TheMadFool

Only in the sense that any information we receive is incomplete. Not testing the world - testing our predictive representations of the world. It’s not about whether my predictions ‘come true’ or not, but about whether they are useful in determining future interaction. Incorrect predictions can be just as useful as correct ones.

Now, tim wood claims that patterns are mental (all in the head), we could even say it's projected onto the world (look up pareidolia) by our minds - I guess tim wood means to say we see what our minds want to see. However, that means there's no necessity for the world to behave in ways that correspond to the patterns we seem to discern in it unless tim wood wants to claim that our minds have some causal power over the world, able to make it do what we feel it should do (pattern), a preposterous claim, don't you think? I can, for example, imagine a pattern in the world, this pattern being (say) adding nitric acid to plants make it grow but me imagining that hypothetical pattern won't be actualized in the real world. — TheMadFool

I don’t think that’s what Tim IS saying, but I’ll let him clarify that one. Suffice to say, our minds determine predictions we make in relation to the world, and any relative regularities we perceive help us to construct patterns in our predictions, which inform our actions.

How do you think we perceive relative regularities in a process? How do we even consolidate a process at all? By constructing an abstract representation from a series of periodic observations in the past. So are we really seeing the pattern ‘out there’, or are we perceiving it in our mind and then attributing it to our predictions about the world?

Just a feeling... — TheMadFool

No, seriously - where the hell did that association come from?

If you’re going to make comparisons like that, you’d better be prepared to back it up.

Don't go Jordan Peterson on me! — TheMadFool

Ugh! Not likely! Where did that come from?

I thought the quote was relevant given the statement “Essence = Pattern”

Personally, I think there’s a difference between saying that there are no patterns ‘out there’ and saying that patterns don’t exist. A pattern exists as a property or quality of a relation: a relative regularity. This pattern would dissolve the moment the event deviates from predictions. When we (used to) travel across the globe, the event of ‘the sun rising’ would deviate from qualitative predictions. Timezones help us to re-conceptualise a relative regularity in a new location.

Population thinking:

According to Ernst Mayr, population thinking is a metaphysical theory. Mayr's essentialism, amounts to the view that types, including conceptual categories, are real while individual variation is illusionary. In contrast, population thinking entails the opposite view: Types are not real in nature, only individuals exist. According to Sober, the explanatory goal for essentialists is to find an underlying order that unites and underlies the variation one sees in nature. Population thinking as a methodological doctrine states that regularities that occur in populations such as extinction, speciation, and adaptation emerge from the collective activities of individuals. — Andre Ariew (Oxford Handbook of Biology)

If we expand population thinking to events, then regularities that occur in events such as the sun rising emerge from collectively perceived potential/significance of individual events. Patterns are not real in nature, only individual events exist. It is language concepts, then, that reify patterns such as ‘the sun rising’.

Interesting. I’ll make two points regarding the question.

Firstly, teaching cannot contain wisdom - either by words or by example - only constitute a way to it. What is missing is our own embodied interpretation.

Secondly, the original teachings of Christianity and Buddhism (as far as we understand them) require both words and ideal life example together (and there are also many who combine either the words of Christianity with the example of Gautama, or the words of Buddhism with the example of Jesus, or some hybridisation). As far as I can see, this combination of words and example enables certain checks and balances - and any religious or philosophical approach that prioritises one over the other, or indeed defers to or denies personal (or cultural) affect/desire, is not an effective way to wisdom. There are plenty of these wrong turns throughout the subsequent history of both.

Much of the modern teachings (words or examples) of Christianity are way off the mark as far as wisdom goes. Fundamental Christianity heavily prioritises the words but defers to individual desire; Catholicism prioritises the example, but defers to cultural affect. And from what little I’ve experienced of modern teachings of Buddhism, there seems to be a growing distinction between ascetic and intellectual Buddhism (denying affect/desire).

The way I see it, practical wisdom in either Buddhism or Christianity (as in any philosophical approach to life) strives for an interactive balance between logic, quality and energy. So you won’t notice it unless you’re looking for it.

I maybe painted myself into a corner. Brain state is entirely physical and the subject matter of mental content can be affected and based on physical matter. I was referring to mental content the way you would think of thought or ideas as non-physical. — Mark Nyquist

As an example I could show how mental content can flash into existence in a way physical matter can not. Let's say you are driving along a dark road and a deer jumps in front of your headlights. The physics would play out as expected but the outcome could be determined by how you manage mental content. — Mark Nyquist

Flash into existence? Or come to your attention?

The way I understand it, five-dimensional conceptual structure isn’t organised according to time, but according to value/potential/significance in a ‘block universe’ type structure. So, as a deer jumps in front of your headlights, your most affected value structures determine what you pay the most attention to, and time can seem to have moved slower than normal when you recall the event and realise just how much you ‘noticed’. Most of that detail would come from existing conceptual structures, though, and after the event. In that moment, the new information is only what’s unpredictably changing in the areas you predict will count in how to act - all coded as affect. Pretty much everything else is filled in later and consolidated as you would expect. This is how the brain makes the most effective and efficient use of attention, effort and time. It’s also compatible with on-the-spot expressions regarding moments like these, such as “I didn’t have time to think”, or “instinct just took over”. Later, you will have formed a clearer, more rational explanation, including why you acted the way you did.

As for 'non-physical' representations, it would be hard for us to function without them and we all use them all the time...try never doing math. It's just better to understand than not.
This mental ability is also unique to us(humans) on planet earth and we don't know of it anywhere else in the universe. That is a stark contrast to the everything is information definition of information. — Mark Nyquist

I think it’s even better to understand that all representations are only partial structures of reality: they represent the difference between inner and outer systems. So maths is eventually applied by an inner system to an outer system according to qualitative-quantitative distribution of energy.

is a wavefunction of affect:
— Possibility
Did you miss that mental content (as contained) is unaffected by physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

Must have. In expanding ‘brain state’ to ‘BRAIN(mental content)’, what would you say is the process? By ‘mental content’, are you referring to a four or five-dimensional structure?

You and Pop must go back a ways and I haven't read it all but I think you are saying logic first is a good principle to follow as you approach this problem. — Mark Nyquist

Pop and I have had lengthy discussions before.

My approach to logic is probably a little unusual. I think where Pop and I run into disagreement is where he sees logic as mental only, rather than a fundamental aspect of reality. Modern thought has a tendency to focus on quantifiable logic, and we forget about qualitative logic such as geometric structures and dimensionality, because we take it for granted in three-dimensional descriptions of the world.

At least we are getting closer. :smile:

At the most fundamental level. Your most fundamental thought, is a mirror image of fundamental reality. Nothing exists before this, as far as we are concerned. This is where mind arises, as the distinction of one thing to another. Before that, everything was **timeless and indistinct. No mind – but a grey nothingness. — Pop

I think we keep dancing around the same disagreement. As an idealist, you’re assuming that ‘mind’ arises from this ‘grey nothingness’. I’m saying that a vague, qualitative difference of potentiality/significance/value arises from the most fundamental level of reality, and that mind or thought isn’t even in the picture yet. You call it ‘mind’ because that’s the only quantifiable ‘thing’ you feel certain exists in five dimensions. But this involves prematurely positioning yourself in the description. Humans are not fundamental, and mind is inseparable from a living organism. It is your feelings about the existence of mind that are complicating the discussion.

I have the view that signifIcantly more is going on. If you expand brain state to BRAIN(mental content) and further expand to BRAIN(content representing physical matter) and BRAIN(content representing things that are physically non-existent) and further expand to BRAIN(specific mental content) then you may at some point realize *** B O O M *** that brain content representing the non-physical can control physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

I agree that there’s more going on, but brain information (ie. the physical information formed in the brain) is nevertheless four-dimensional. How that manifests, forms and changes depends on the structures of the interacting systems.

Brain information doesn’t actually differentiate between physical and non-physical representations. The ‘code’ it’s written in, as far as I understand it, is a wavefunction of affect: reduced to a relation between qualitative attention and quantitative effort as a distribution of energy over spacetime. This is in much the same way as DNA code is written as energy distribution in three dimensions, with a chemical structure that is irreducibly both quantitative and qualitative. So I would argue that it’s possible to dispense with the physical/non-physical distinction, which complicates so many structural explanations for the universe, as a mere heuristic device - an epistemic cut - specific only to one dimensional level of awareness at a time.

Interestingly, the Tao Te Ching uses the qualitative/quantitative distinction of traditional Chinese ideographic language to create a similar ‘code’ by separating ‘desire’ or affect, the directional flow of energy (chi), from a five-dimensional description of human experience. The TTC says it isn’t about ‘control’, which is only ever temporary, but about wu-wei, or minimising quantitative effort by maximising qualitative attention.

I was agreeing that thigs are relational, and I was trying to point out how this is related to the limits of thinking. Logic at its most fundamental is the relation of one thing to another. Like a field and its excitation, or the substance energy and its information. — Pop

And what I was saying is that Logic at its most fundamental is just relation as an unformed ideal. No ‘one thing’ distinct from ‘another’, no field as distinct from its excitation; no difference, no action.

Systems theory is essential knowledge for any philosopher. — Pop

You seem to be assuming that I don’t understand it yet. I follow what you’re saying here - I’m pointing out your assumptions at the most fundamental level. You assume that something exists to be aware of information as form - this is why you keep ending up at the anthropic principle, or G*D. You need to answer the question: what is logic before anything exists? Before it can even be ‘the relation of one thing to another’?

Yes, Information is the catalyst of evolution. But if we are to arrive at a definition of information, we need to capture all information, in every circumstance. Whilst there are some differences, I think what is significant is that one system causes the other to change - this is information.
We tend to miss the catalysing effect of the process of information, and instead just focus on the result, that data has been transferred. But if we change the focus to how information causes change, then we are closer to getting a fix on it, imo.

Ultimately, we are exchanging information, and being changed in the process incrementally. This is an important consideration in this information age, imo. — Pop

Information refers to the significance of one system causing another to change. Significance, potential, value - this underlies causation.

You can’t fully quantify brain information.
— Possibility

It depends. If you mean simply entropic information then it can. — Prishon

Sure - hence the qualifier.

We can define brain information as physical brain state. It's completely different than Claude Shannon information theory but is information as we know it. — Mark Nyquist

Agreed. The difference as I see it is in dimensional quality. Shannon information is one-dimensional. Brain information is four-dimensional.

So I'm trying to get you to see the difference between data and brain information. — Mark Nyquist

Data and brain information differ in quality - that is, in the value of the relation as a potential difference. Not how much it is valued. You can’t fully quantify brain information.

QM determines the evolution of mass. To include energy quantum field theory has to be involved, the 7 gauge fields (they INTERACTIONmediating fields) representing energy, like the photon field. Dont be awed by qft. Its very easy conceptually. The math is merely used to impress. — Prishon

I guess that was a poor choice of word on my part. As I basically understand it (and I could be wrong), most QM assumes that potential energy exists fundamentally. QFT attempts to explain how.

Energy is
So in fact all men are equal but differently formed inormation structures? To put it in a highly abstract way
— Prishon
In fact a bee equals a people... — Prishon

You lost me...

Equal in what sense?

Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something
— Possibility

:up: In the distinction of one thing and another arises two distinct forms. Hence energy and information. — Pop

?? That’s nothing like what I wrote. Can you explain how you think this is saying the same thing?

Logic is commonly defined as a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something. But what is logic
— Possibility

Logic is the only way to understand something, via a structure of knowledge. The thing understood, is understood in terms of the already established understanding. — Pop

You’re presuming that someone exists with knowledge and a capacity for understanding - ie. thinking. I’m not. I’m talking about what logic is before anything exists. What is this ‘structure’ without knowledge?

Or, at heart, you and me are the same, just different information :smile: — Pop

Different interaction, too; and form...

Different to some extent in quality and energy for any interaction we might have. Same logical relation, though.

Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something - I think we need to at least entertain this possibility by Rovelli that the substrate of existence is simply relational. But is this just a case of quantum-mechanical self-awareness? Prior to anything even possibly existing, one might imagine that energy, quality and logic were at least eternally possible in relation, if nothing else.

To understand these three terms, we need to get to the ineffably absolute, infinite ideals they represent.

Logic is commonly defined as ‘a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something’. But what is logic when no one is thinking? Strip away all the assumptions, and logic is the idea of absolute interconnectedness: inspiring the possibility of perfectly true relation, free of inaccuracy. Technically, it’s a mere possibility - impossible in itself, because any potentiality exists only as relation ...to something else. Yet logic - The Way - is clearly fundamental.

QM determines that energy is fundamental, and exists as an assumed potentiality. Energy originally meant ‘an internal source of work’. It refers to the idea of infinite flux: inspiring the possibility of this ultimate source of work, free of limitation. This is also a mere possibility/impossibility in itself - it is describable as potentiality in a true (logical) relation, while also constraining the accuracy of that logic to some extent. And energy’s potentiality is limited, in turn, by QM as an imperfect logic.

QM also assumes that - for all intents and purposes - potential energy has the same value across the board. But most acknowledge that this is incomplete as a description of reality. It works because we, as observers, exist to interpret the calculations as action - to distribute energy as attention and effort. Something is still fundamentally missing when we replace humans with computerised action, even when they surpass us in terms of technical accuracy.

What’s missing from this described relation is quality: from the original Latin qualis meaning ‘of what kind’. To clearly define it, though, we need to embody what is other than quality: this undifferentiated interconnectedness and flux. From this perspective, quality refers to the idea of value in diversity: inspiring the possibility of excellence by differentiation. When we assume reality as merely a relation of logic and energy, then we presume an observer of either infinite goodness or absolute indifference.

In my view, this triadic relation strives to explain the irreducibility beyond assumptions of potentiality/form/intentionality/mind/G*D evident in this thread. It can be found underlying the truth of most (if not all) spiritual, creative and scientific genius, from the Tao Te Ching to QM.

So how does this answer the question: what is information?

When we define information as ‘enabling the interaction of form’, we are assuming that potentiality/form/intentionality/mind/G*D already exists. This is the same gap that Peirce’s metaphysics had: that somehow this “completely undetermined and dimensionless potentiality” transitioned to a “determined potentiality” consisting of qualities that spontaneously self-actualise and then mutually interact to produce factual events. Why? Because of “the power of the human mind to originate ideas that are true”? or:

The hand of God. The Anthropic principle. The basis of self organization. Natural Law. The forces we feel at our center all seem to be linked? Different words for the same stuff maybe? — Pop

It is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency - something upon which our thinking has no effect. — C S Peirce

The aim of this alternative triadic relation has been to incorporate the ‘why’. Why does information change us? Because interconnectedness (logic), flux (energy) and diversity (quality) are fundamentally eternal and absolute possibilities. To ignore/isolate/exclude an aspect of these in our description of reality is to unavoidably embody this incompleteness in how we then relate or interact with reality, and how it interacts with us.

Is there some bosonic force creating this order?

This would be the thing doing the thinking? - Integrating the information to various forms. — Pop

That would be you.