Science is never going to "destroy" religion. If anything, science is going to call into question all assertions about whether gods exist or do not exist. — Frank Apisa

The function of science is to inquire and test, not to make metaphysical speculations (except insofar as it is planning to eventually discover ways of testing them). Nevertheless, as Popper points out, metaphysics has historically been a very productive guide for science, leading towards new discoveries.

Personally, I am a huge advocate of scientific methodology and scientific fact. And I am a huge advocate of spiritual inquiry and practice. And I don't see or experience any overt contradiction or inherent incompatibility between these two fields. It is my opinion that those who do are labouring under the burden of an agenda. And unfortunately limiting the scope of their own awareness in the process.

More inter-disciplinary, but the Royal Institution channel for sure.

He passed away just the other day :sad: I still have two of his books sitting under my bed - one day I'll get round to reading them! — StreetlightX

Most of Bunge's stuff is ungodly expensive. Definitely something I want in my library versus borrowing though.

Starting Quantum Shift in the Global Brain by Ervin Laszlo

The Protestant Ethic was a surprisingly good read.

I would say if you think you have mental health issues then dropping acid probably isn't the best idea.

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Max Weber

Also I've come across the opinion / fact that whilst in the west, consciousness is a recent consideration, in India it was first considered 5000 years ago, that was the first time the subconscious was conceived!
several hundred years ago they conceived the collective consciousness - but also 3 levels lower. They also have identified the super conscious and a number of levels higher. So I'm doing some research on all this stuff. — Pop

Yes, that is fascinating! The idea of this post was inspired by the notion that we are currently experiencing the results of our own (culturally embedded) conceptualization(s) of consciousness.

I think the obstacle is education. Once the level of general education is high enough, I think it is reasonable to expect (hope) that enlightened self-interest will prevail....

Thank you! Yes, I have meditated frequently throughout my lifetime. My goal is to achieve a 'zen' state of two minds, where you are constantly meditating in addition to whatever mundane tasks you may be performing.

It seems to me the collective mind has always existed, to some degree. Due to the meteoric expansion of our species, possibly we are now on the cusp of having to choose whether to consciously embrace our collective identity, or face the rather unpleasant alternatives which seem to lurk around every other corner.

I think consciousness can defeat the problem of subgroup, competition, etc. It is why I'm interested in it.

The ultimate goal seems to be a letting go of everything.Then you are free, and united with all humanity? — Pop

Letting go is an apt expression. I came across a term while reading a book called "Yoga and Psychotherapy", it was "passive volition." I don't like when things become too esoteric though. But I do think that the ego tends to become a stumbling block on the path to 'enlightened cooperation'.

Consciousness is also a relation to present external stimulus and an intention towards the future. There is a creative element of nature, the individual, and the collective. — Noah Te Stroete

I think you can't have an individual without a collective, and vice-versa. So to me it only makes sense that an 'optimization' of the relationship should be possible.

Consciousness seems to be self interested — Pop

But it seems such a small step simply to recognize that our own individual best interests are always, always best represented by every individual working his or her hardest towards the idea of the common good?

Added Critique of Dialectical Reason (Sartre) into the mix. I have theDeathgate Cycle by Weiss/Hickman on the go too.

I have received the Critique (plus a few companion volumes). Hoping to start this by Monday! Online families rock!!

I had an idea that consciousness is, in some sense equivalent with "the idea of consciousness" as it has evolved historically through culture. So the evolution of individual conscious awareness is linked with the evolution of the concept of consciousness. To the extent that consciousness succeeds in writing itself in the book of history, there it is. I thought it would be an interesting bridge between individual and collective thought.

Inasmuch as your programme parallels that I'd be interested in combing through what you've amassed.

See the value of context? I have one to read specific to what we were talking about. However there is a queue, you're right about that. Context is king.

At this rate, by the time you finish them, I'll be dead. — Artemis

Again, I only need to read one.

The next step is to actually do your homework. I'll probably be around somewhere once you have and we can take up this conversation again — Artemis

Will you have read the two books by the time I finish the one do you think?

But you haven't read the later works. And you're somehow not willing to accept that these contradict even a segment of your own ideology. So neither with your homework nor with your psychology are you prepared for this conversation. — Artemis

Everything you said I addressed in the comment that you quoted. It's a reasonable first step.

Let me get this straight... You think a valid thesis is based on skimming one book and having only the initial reading done for another book? — Artemis

Actually, I've read Being and Nothingness a great many times (which I mentioned and again you contradict), plus Psychology of the Imagination, Transcendence of the Ego, Emotions, Search for a Method, and his biography of Jean Genet (all of which are in my library). Based on that, and a overview of the later work plus a few different critical articles, yes, I'm prepared to formulate a preliminary thesis.

Keep it coming.

You got a new book. I thought you said that such reading was reward enough? — Artemis

Yes, that is exactly what I said "addition to my reading list aside." Another peculiar quirk of your "reasoning", you seem consistently to claim that I have not said something I have said.

I explained mutatis mutandis, which should have been sufficient to bridge the gap between Sartre's earlier and later views (it was for Sartre).

I provided substantial critical citations that unequivocally demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is, in fact, in question in exactly the way I suspect it to be, viz:

"Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom"

and

"It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."

plus

"Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."

This is the framework for a valid thesis. Please do continue to showcase your technique. :)

Clearly this has particular interchange has been a waste of time, addition to my reading list aside.

Sorry, exactly how in-depth is your knowledge of the new "material freedom" concept, versus the original "ontological freedom"? Because Being and Nothingness is over 600 pages and the Critique is over 800. So frankly, if you haven't completely read either then you really don't have the contextual depth to do more than point out that Sartre's later work has a more social dimension than his earlier.

As to your response, from what I can see, it appears "close enough" for me to work with comfortably, mutatis mutandis.

Which remains incomplete.
I'm afraid that if you are looking for Sartre to confirm the exact beliefs you've expressed and attributed to him here... you will not find it as rewarding. Spoiler alert: Sartre becomes a Marxist. — Artemis

Excellent! As soon as my finish my current book on Marx the Critique of Dialectal Reason will be a perfect fit. I love it when the books spontaneously lead into one another. The more I read, the more they do.
:up:

edit: I just ordered the Critique. A large and unwieldy tome of mixed reviews, but I'm looking forward to the challenge. I haven't circled back to Sartre in a decade now. By all accounts, it appears to be more of a criticism of Marxism than Marxist, as you suggest. An excellent counterpoint to Marx's own writings I suspect. Can't thank you enough for mentioning this book!

Oh, I did some article trolling of my own. I found the following commentary fascinating:

"Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."

This certainly reconciles completely with my own understanding of his earlier position, moving in a new direction.

Would you like an award or something for that? Or just a standing ovation? Maybe some cookies? — Artemis

No, thank you. The reading itself has been quite rewarding enough!

If it's a free decision, then it's not succumbing or compromising, yes? I suspect we're in agreement, but just some language is in the way. — tim wood

:up:

It's an evolution which blatantly contradicts the way you are trying to present Sartre. — Artemis

"It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom." — Pantagruel

You have a very selective idea about how to read, which is becoming increasingly evident. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for to consider later and earlier philosophies on their own merit.

As I said, the writings...which I actually read...inspired me. I'm confident that the later work...which you found in an online article...will reconcile with what I have already read...when I read it....inasmuch as it appears to be a political evolution of Sartre's focus, and not a direct commentary on or contradiction of his earlier ontological focus...which the quotation I selected emphasizes.

:wink:

That same article also says:
"It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."

Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom (which stand on their own merit regardless). In any case, as mentioned, I'll definitely be reading the Critique, and thank you. How did you enjoy it?

Which Sartre denied. — Artemis

Citation please?

So my interpretation of Sartre is borne of extensive reading and rereading of many of his books, in the context of actually consciously trying to shape my life in accordance with many of his principles. I don't claim that mine is the only interpretation, or the right interpretation, or even the best interpretation. But it is a good interpretation, and one that has worked well for me. I can honestly say that I am much better off and, I hope, a much better person for having embraced his philosophy, authentically. And I think that is perhaps the best result that philosophy has to offer, and the spirit in which he wrote, I believe.

Yes, that's why I appended the full quotation. I really think it pretty much sums it up.

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."

"Therefore, the onus for defining ourselves, and by extension humanity, falls squarely on our shoulders. This lack of pre-defined purpose along with an 'absurd' existence that presents to us infinite choices is what Sartre attributes to the “anguish of freedom”. With nothing to restrict us, we have the choice to take actions to become who we want to be and lead the life we want to live."

You are free to be the kind of person who succumbs to pressure, who compromises his ideals, or not.

"Jean-Paul Sartre decried the idea of living without pursuing freedom. The phenomenon of people accepting that things have to be a certain way, and subsequently refusing to acknowledge or pursue alternate options, was what he termed as "living in bad faith". According to Sartre, people who convince themselves that they have to do one particular kind of work or live in one particular city are living in bad faith."

↪Pantagruel What's the non-sequitur? — tim wood

Everything you said does not apply to Sartre. His notion of freedom is central and pivotal and includes certainly the concept of responsibility - that is the whole point. We are responsible not only for what we do, but for who we are. It is ongoing and omnipresent.

I understand you are reacting to and possibly reinterpreting Sartre in a way that makes more sense to your own beliefs, but that's not Sartre. Authenticity is another of his core concepts, also not one that works with the notion of "compromise" in the negative sense of that term.

"Exempt" is the key word. According to Sartre, we are condemned to be free. Any notion of freedom as shield, or freedom as ground for some particular moral obligation, no. In every sense, then, yielding to what must be yielded to in no wise is connected to freedom. And this is the only way to reconcile that notions that we're free, and that sooner or later the torturer gets what he wants. — tim wood

Sorry, that is all a non-sequitur. We are "condemned" to be free in the sense that we can not escape it. Our freedom is absolute and inescapable.

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."

Yep, it was on our theoretically unlimited freedom, and that even under coercion we are technically free to choose. Pretty much sums it up, I can't really say more about that.

You keep in saying people "endure" torture, but it's not clear what that even means or who has done so? Can you be more specific? — Artemis

Now I'm really confused. It was the exact example that we have been discussing? I quoted Sartre. You disputed, then rebutted based on an interpretation from his later writings from an third party online source. I reviewed and clarified, what part of all that was unclear?

We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free.
— Pantagruel

I think that's an exaggeration. Clearly the torturer has already, de facto, limited our choices and thus our freedom. — Artemis

In any case, I'm ok with leaving it there. I think what I wrote expresses my personal position pretty clearly. I'll definitely be reviewing the later works of Sartre on "material freedom" (thanks for that!).

Cheers!

exempt — Artemis

But exempt from what?

People choose to endure something because and when it is meaningful to do so. And when people do, historically, it often is meaningful.

Well, Sartre evolved and refined his thinking eventually, and I suspect so will you :wink: — Artemis

From what I see, he became even more committed to freedom as an intellectual ideal. And so, during the forty years since I first read Being and Nothingness, have I.

edit: and I think "material freedom" refers to particular context while "formal freedom" remains an intellectual ideal.

Later, especially in Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sartre shifts to the view that humans are only free if their basic needs as practical organisms are met (p. 327)." — Artemis

I've never read the Critique of Dialectical Reason, but I'm starting now, and the preface sure seems consistent with the views I've cited"

"This is the moment to remember the profound resonance
of this theme of treason and the traitor throughout all of Sartre: as the
'objective treason' of the intellectual, never fully or ontologically
committed to any cause; as the jouissance of treason in the rebel
(particularly in Genet), or of the homme de ressentiment ( particularly
in the collaborators); the great test of my authenticity as well"

I think it is the furthest thing from an exaggeration, and I'll tell you why.

Nothing constrains our free choice more than our own pre-existing (cognitive) habits. Evidence of this is the fact that many people will walk the road to ruin before addressing issues which are clearly within their own control, substance addiction, gamboling addiction, etc. This kind of "constraint" is even more severe than external constraint, because it is self-imposed. And it is far more significant. What someone does or doesn't do under threat of bodily harm is, let's face it, begging the question. It is self-evident that anyone "could" refuse to submit to the torture and, point of fact, lots of people have died rather than submit.

But, to the point, we do possess the power of being so free that we can, at any time, actually choose to do something, even if that thing is completely uncharacteristic of any choice we have previously made. I ascribe to this view of radical freedom, because I know it to be true in my own life. Moreover, what is most interesting, once you have tried and learned that you possess this ability, it gets continually easier to make "radically new" choices. And this can definitely be a great power to have.

edit: I think Sartre explicitly discusses this example in "Psychology of the Imagination". Not completely certain on that source, but I wouldn't want to take credit.

Which, let us note, is (maybe) a choice, and if a choice, the choice of a moment and nothing more. (By "submit" I assume you mean break, or something like.) But I suspect Sartre himself is not quite so ambiguous: do you have a citation? — tim wood

Sure, I scraped these from the online version of BN.

In fact no matter what pressure is exerted on the victim,
the abjuration remains free;

We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free.

In a preceding chapter we
observed that even torture does not dispossess us of our free-
dom;

That particular book was the first philosophy text I ever read, and I've read it maybe seven or eight times, so it isn't likely I would misinterpret something as clear as his stance on freedom.