Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it? — javra

In religion, by imploring and bribing (with sacrifice) the deity to fix your weather, grow your crops, keep the floods off your land, smite your enemies and win your football games.
(I never said this part worked!) — Vera Mont

Hey, more for my own reasons than anything associated with topics in this thread: Ambiguous dictionary definitions aside, do you find no semantic difference between

1) X controls what Y does.

and

2) X influences what Y does.

To me - while the two can overlap in extreme cases - (1) always conveys that Y is in one way or another puppeteered by X (e.g. the TV's remote control puppeteers what the television set does from a distance) which to me is another way of saying that Y is (at least metaphorically) subjugated to X's whims, whereas (2) does not so necessarily convey (for example, it is an intrinsic aspect of any (non-coercive) conversation imaginable: what one says will always influence what the other says back - this without controlling what the other person says back - thereby producing the inter-course of dialogue).

In short, for me, control is one relatively minor subset of influence, but influence does not equate to control.

I get your reply above, but with the understanding of terms I've presented, I take it that prayers and such are generally about influencing situations rather than controlling them (even if it might not work all the same). Still, I'm far more interested in whether you find semantic differences between (1) and (2).

Forgot to mention, I'm in general agreement otherwise. Also:

And it's true that one can go to war for liberty... but only if another attempts to subjugate him. — Vera Mont

:100:

I never said the objective was "control over the subjugated other". I said the objective was control of the world by inventing a more powerful projection of themselves and putting Him in charge, on the understanding that if we do his bidding, He will do ours. — Vera Mont

First, this is an exceedingly limited view of what metaphysics entails. More to the point of this one reply, doesn't this then mean that we are subjugated to Him? Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it?

If ideas were to all be fiction, wouldn't all true propositions then be fictitious?

As to being just names, names of what - other than the archetypes, thoughts, or else conceptualized states of being which they name?

Besides, not all ideas have ready names. These often enough get expressed via art, to includes poetry, music, and painting.

Asking these two questions as someone who upholds ideas to be real existents.

-------

I'll argue that the two categories of real existents in the poll present a false dichotomy. I didn't vote for either option since I deem them both mistaken.

Some ideas, such as that of a circle, could be mind-dependent in terms of all coexistent minds able to so experience while simultaneously being independent of any one individual mind able to so experience. One implication will be that if this one individual mind no longer is, the mind-dependent idea - in this example, of a circle - will nevertheless continue existing unaltered.

Which was my contention. Cultural indoctrination is a direct result of the prevailing philosophy. — Vera Mont

Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great. — Vera Mont

I might have misinterpreted you before. Sounds like underneath all the superficial bickering, you just might be into this "control over the subjugated other" thing yourself.

Of note, one can engage in conflict, war, or maybe worse so as to not be subjugated just fine without any intention of subjugating the other. This can in part be expressed via that whole, "give me liberty, or give me death" motif - a bit of philosophizing in and of itself.

I'm not sure I could classify the findings of metaphysics as "knowledge of what is", but OK. — Vera Mont

Smilingly asked, would one otherwise classify the findings of metaphysics - such as the nature of time, space, and causality - as "bullshit regarding what is not" (such that neither time, space, nor causality are)?

By what is the quest for this kind of knowledge primarily motivated? — Vera Mont

I thought I'd already addressed this. I take it to be primarily motivated by the predispositions of one's character. Some want to subjugate. Others want to understand. Here, alone, are two different motivations.

A few pagans in Europe; Lots of unorganized Native Americans - not the Great Civilizations which conquered them. — Vera Mont

A bit underplayed. It's worth mentioning that these "Great Civilizations which conquered" were all slave-owning. Differences of taste in terms of what is valued, I suspect.

I didn't say it worked, only that control is the aim. — Vera Mont

As in "control over other (to distinguish this from self-control) is the good to be obtained for its own sake"? Aye to that, for far too many. Agreed. But this won't define the motives of all humans. Compassion, wonder, eudemonia, to list a few commonly found attributes of many a human, male and female, are not driven by the aim of gaining control over other (this such that the other is subjugated to the whims of one's own self).

The same I find applies to metaphysics: one's predispositions will greatly determine what one seeks out of it. For instance, to better gain control over all other or, otherwise, to gain a better understanding of what in fact is, this both physically and psychically. (The same, btw, can be said of any form of knowledge, including that which is scientific.) The latter can be appraised as a "love of wisdom" or else "of truth" wherein these are held to be good for their intrinsic worth, maybe here even good for their own sake. The former, however, will view knowledge and understanding as tools to be used for greater ascendancy toward a superlative superiority of one's own self wherein all other is subjugated.

Consider these two different metaphysics for example: nature as evil that needs to be subjugated and conquered vs. nature as sacredness that needs to be honored and conformed to (an example from a song: nature as that which tames the beast within). The first metaphysics is about control-over; the second isn't.

In short, tmk, control is not the aim of all by any means.

Note: I also didn't say 'exclusively' - but if you can prove that organized religions and metaphysics are not predominantly masculine in origin, I'll eat a crow. (But you'll have to kill it.) — Vera Mont

:grin: :razz: Hard to "prove" what was well over two millennia past, but a good deal of evidence points to societies being far more egalitarian in terms of sexes and their interests when addressing at least western culture prior to Abrahamic religion/metaphysics. Everything from women pharaohs supported and admired by the people (we often forget that ancient Egypt is so far the most long-surviving civilization in history by far), to female Druids of cultural and religious importance on a par to male Druids, to many a revered goddess in ancient days (to not address the legend of the ancient Amozons, or of Lesbos, and so forth), to tribal societies and their own spiritual/metaphysical beliefs (such as that of animism and its resulting nature worship - which, btw, I personally can't much distinguish from the basic tenets of today's panpsychism, despite the latter often claiming to be physicalist).

So, if this was the case before, there's no reason other than the status quo of culture that this can't be the case again.

Then there's also such a thing as "feminist metaphysics", this on top of a good enough sum of female philosophers. Outnumbered by males, true, but maybe this in large part has to do with cultural indoctrination and resulting education - on par to what one finds in the sciences and in mathematics. If so, than in parallel to how female authors were once greatly outnumbered by males but no longer are, the same could someday hold for women metaphysicans and philsophers in general.

And, for instance, just because Hypatia of Alexandria was mascaraed by males who'd rather forget all about her does not make her a less worthy philosophical figure in our history.

But hey, in the unlikely case this might eventually come to convince you that religions and metaphysics are not under the primary jurisdiction of males in principle, please let that poor crow be!

You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower: — 180 Proof

I can't help but have a good laugh at this. So, you've never encountered a controlling woman then?

It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce live, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle into submission. — Vera Mont

Not all. Understanding of X does not necessarily equate to control of X. No?

A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning? — Vera Mont

That is an interesting question. There is no real need to have meaning. — George Fisher

Maybe the boldfaced answer provided could be further elaborated upon but, so far, I can only see this answer as utter hypocrisy. Being sapient, we seek meaning so as to make sense of, and we seek to make sense of so as to improve our own condition of being - if nothing else, so as to better allow us to live, rather than, say, to indifferently perish via rot.

Lesser animals may be sentient but, not being sapient, the quality of their lives is nowhere near as contingent on abstract understanding as our own is.

Absurdism, existentialism, nihilism, all these posit having pinpointed the true nature of reality, or of existence, or of the life which we are (else, are endowed with) - and in all this there is entailed meaning; specifically, meaning regarding reality, existence, life; meaning which endows those who uphold any of these just mentioned positions to better live within the context of the cosmos we find ourselves. Otherwise none of these positions would be in any way sensible to, much less upheld by, anyone.

One will note how none of these three positions just mentioned affirm either "I don't know" or "I don't care".

-------

From a somewhat vulgar sci-fi novel I still greatly like, Venus on the Half-Shell, there is the protagonist's leading question to which he tries to obtain an answer for from various beings within the galaxy:

"Why are we born only to suffer and die?"

The novel ultimately answers this question with:

"Why not?" (which I find might be a more important question to answer for oneself than the first, this were one to care about such issues)

To me, your post addresses a very worthwhile perspective.

To reaffirm what I was previously expressing, value's ontological standing - with the perspective you've mentioned being one outlook of such - is not something that can be tested via the scientific method and, hence, by the empirical sciences. This, for yet one more example, no more than the empirical sciences can test for whether teleology occurs within the cosmos - despite all of us experiencing intentions and, hence, actively held teloi, with each of us being an aspect of the cosmos.

But again, nice post.

I am not sure what your claim that value is experiential means. — Fooloso4

I simply mean that value (i.e., worth, or importance) is experienced by us and that we can only know of it via our experiences - although not through any experience we obtain due to our physiological senses (such as those of sight, sound, smell, touch, and physiological taste).

Are you making a distinction between what value is and what is value? — Fooloso4

not in the context you've quoted

What empirically falsifiable hypothesis can be produced to determine if “value” is a fallacious reification of a process? — javra


If I understand the question, [...] — Fooloso4

no. The statement was indirectly addressing this post's question, to which I've already replied:

Suppose "value" is a fallacious reification, and instead there is only valuing as a process that occurs. Could science study human valuing? — wonderer1

The value of what? — Fooloso4

The value of anything. Say, the value of any post in this thread. Take your pick. As to whose attribution of value, for the time being address your own.

Value - aka importance or worth - is neither a sight, nor a sound, nor a smell, nor a tactile feeling, nor a gustatory taste (nor a proprioception of one's own body; etc.). Again, it is not something we experience via any particular physiological sense.

science cannot address even in principle [what value is] — javra


Can the question of what value is be addressed without regard to what it is that people value? Whatever answer we might give to the question "what is value?" wouldn't it be rejected if it is something that no one values? Is there a tipping point? Would it be an adequate answer if one person values it or only a few people? Does it matter who it is that values it? — Fooloso4

Your questions do not address my contention. Value is experiential, but in no way empirical (in the modern sense of the term); therefore, the empirical sciences can only presuppose its reality via non-scientific means, and cannot discern what value is via the scientific method. And, as to "what is value" a dictionary will provide commonly upheld definitions.

Maybe more concrete examples might help out:

What empirically falsifiable hypothesis can be produced to determine if “value” is a fallacious reification of a process? Moreover, by what empirical means could this hypothesis then be tested?

Whether value is a process cannot be determined by the empirical sciences, this in principle, because - be it in fact process or not - it is not something that can be directly perceived via the physiological senses, but can only be inferred from empirical observations that presuppose its reality. For the same reason, neither can the empirical sciences determine whether “extrinsic value” is an accurate conception of what can in fact occur. Nor can it (needless to add, via the scientific method) better delineate what intrinsic value might be, or if it is real. And so forth. While these are all experience-based issues, none of them are empirical (again, in the modern sense of the term).

And whether value is a process or not, to claim that it is unimportant is to directly engage in hypocrisy, for this would be an affirmation of value.

Etc.

How we might distinguish between what people say they value and what they actually value is something that experiments can help determine. — Fooloso4

Sure, but this, again, presupposes the reality of what value is. It, however, does not, and cannot, establish its reality through the scientific method of the empirical sciences.

Suppose "value" is a fallacious reification, and instead there is only valuing as a process that occurs. Could science study human valuing? — wonderer1

Suppositions can get rather arbitrary. Value is a standard English noun, and value was only one of the examples I've provided. It is fully synonymous to "worth". That said, as someone who upholds process philosophy, of course I take it to be a process - just as much as all other nouns in language are. But my only point remains, empirical science cannot be used to give us better understanding or knowledge of what value/worth is - even if it is rephrased as "valuing"/"worthing".

There are some who are critical of the notion of a political or social science, but many in academic political science departments, wanting to mark and defend their territory, regard what they are doing as science. — Fooloso4

They're worthy academic fields of study, but the vast majority of social sciences, and of political science more narrowly, do not make use of the scientific method which pertains to the empirical sciences. In rough parallel, many deem theoretical mathematics to be a science, which it is in the now largely archaic sense of "knowledge obtained via study" - but it in no way utilizes the scientific method as I've outlined it in my previous post. But then, in this archaic sense, in which social and political science are sciences, so too can be philosophy, here granting that knowledge can be obtained via its study.

With regard to value, a social or political scientist might study what it is that people value, putting aside or rejecting the question of what value is essentially. Does philosophy or any other discipline do any better? — Fooloso4

This can enter into an utterly different direction. My sole contention has been that the empirical sciences - again, which utilize the scientific method - cannot address what value is, this even in principle. Philosophy, on the other hand, can - in both principle and practice - with value theory as a primary example of this. That the field of philosophy arguably hasn't been so far very successful at pinpointing what value is will however be entirely unrelated to the stance I'm taking regarding empirical science's innate limitations.

Science is a process of selective limitation. — Pantagruel

Please clarify. Examples would be helpful. — 180 Proof

In relation to the scientific method of the empirical sciences—by which I mean falsifiable hypothesis, test with no or with restricted confounding variables, results, and the replicability of the later, all of which is verified via peer-review methodologies—here’s a partial listing of generally important things which science cannot address even in principle, this due to its intrinsic limitations of what it can address:

• What value is
• What meaning/significance is
• What justice is
• What goodness is
• What knowledge is
• The verity of the upheld epistemological tenets (e.g., fallibilism) and ontological tenets (e.g., the nature of time, space, and causality) upon which all empirical science is founded; otherwise expressed, the philosophical tenets encompassed by the philosophy of science which all empirical sciences make use of in their endeavors.

These, among others, cannot be addressed even in principle by science because scientific knowledge can only pertain to those aspects of reality which are in principle perceivable via the physiological senses by any and all people. This were one to have the inclination, and in some cases the technical requirements, to so look.

This isn’t to in any way detract from the importance of science, but it is to illustrate that science is quite limited in what it can address. And this because it has no choice but to select for understanding/knowledge in those topics which can be empirically verified and/or falsified.

In order to find harmony, religious belief needs to be excluded. But in doing so we lose the parts of religion that is of tremendous importance to our mental health and social bonding. The practices we have in rituals, mythological storytelling and exploration needs to somehow be reworked into a context of non-religious belief, which requires a new paradigm of how to live life. — Christoffer

as well as:

Where, more generally, do the ideas of 'harmony' and the 'collective' derive from, and why can't there be equal dialogue about them between the religious and irreligious? — mcdoodle

Apropos the interplay between religious and irreligious beliefs and praxis: Back in my early twenties when I basically was an atheist in all implied senses of the word (no gods, no spirituality, etc.) a friend once asked me: “If you don’t believe in anything spiritually sacred, then why not choose to piss on a gravesite rather than, say, near an adjacent tree when you’re in a cemetery and there is no one else around?”

It’s a male-centric question, I grant, but, its non-gratuitous vulgarity aside, I still find it to be a good question in regards to beliefs and praxis.

I had my psychological answers back then—basically affirming that respecting the spiritual beliefs of others grants me psychological warrant to then expect that my own atheistic beliefs be respected by them in turn. Other people’s potential answer to the question might well be different. But I think the question can go fairly deep in terms of distinguishing the sacred (to each spiritual person and group of such their own) from the profane; as well as in addressing how the atheist relates to this sacred/profane distinction made by theists.

Not much of an argument for anything. So there’s no real need to address this post. But I’m mentioning this viewing it to directly address the connection between spiritual beliefs and praxis—be the praxis on the part of the theist or the atheist. (Here presuming most atheists to have respect for the gravesites of the dead, despite not interpreting the gravesite as anything spiritually sacred.)

I see good and evil as inextricably intertwined. The knife is a tool and a weapon. — frank

I read this as entailing that being just in decision X is inextricably entwined with being unjust in decision X, or else that being right about what one ought to do is inextricably entwined with being wrong about one ought to do - and vice versa in both cases. Which paints a different impression of the thread's theme. In which case, never mind. It's not a tale I subscribe to.

I mentioned greed, not self-sufficiency.

Wiktionary defines greed as “a selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved [...]”. In parallel, Wikipedia states:

Greed (or avarice) is an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate possessions) or social value, such as status, or power. Greed has been identified as undesirable throughout known human history because it creates behavior-conflict between personal and social goals. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

... which is in accord to what I was saying and contrary to your disagreement.

Greed is at direct odds with just deserts, aka fair appraisals of merit.

I first want to verify we're addressing the same thing - greed - before bothering to reply further.

American politics is comedy gold. — Tzeentch

More like a tragic travesty of democracy when you're a voter within it. Besides, American politics might also have some effect upon non-American politics worldwide, I'm thinking.

Historically, a society's myths and folktales would offer justifications for the social order. If you look at your own culture, you can pick up on these. — frank

Can’t help but comment on this. In as simplified manner as I can currently muster, there are two directly contradictory mythoi, or folk-tales, that are currently at work in—even our global—society:

1) Greed is good.

2) Greed is bad.

Mythos (1) directly underlies our current global economy: a pyramid structure based on the falsity of infinite growth with infinite resources, driven by materialistic consumerism by the masses, wherein those most greedy (hence, least empathetic toward other’s wellbeing) will always win by being closest to the pyramid’s zenith.

Mythos (2), however, underlies so much of our global day to day politics of human interaction (what in my anthropology classes was terms politics with a small “p”) so as to be nearly ubiquitous to humankind—and it is the small "p" politics of individual human interactions we all engage in that, in democratic systems at least, results in the prevailing capital "P" political systems by which individuals are then governed.

(1) is now prevailing worldwide. COP28 as just one noteworthy example of this. (The corruption of USA's political systems by corporate (else, monetary) interests as just one instantiation of this.)

I’ll leave it up to others to judge whether mythos (1) and mythos (2) lead to the same long-term wellbeing, eudemonia, among humans.

My main point here is that—given their direct, logical contradiction—mythos (1) and mythos (2) cannot both be right. This, at least, in so far as depicting that which we ought to strive for for maximal wellbeing. This conflict between the two mythoi being something that underpins a lot of the Trumpist and Leftist (etc., for other perspectives are also present) ambitions in terms of Politics in the US.

I see. :grin: I've never used this word before. — L'éléphant

:smile: eh, "javra" is the Romanian word for cur/mongrel, not that many people make a habit of using the latter.

His choices -- exile, renounce his beliefs, or death -- all points towards the destruction of his identity. — L'éléphant

Yes. Moreover, were he to choose exile and a renunciation of his beliefs rather than concede to his sentence of death, this would have served to obliterate the cause which he strove for. So, especially given that all choices pointed toward the destruction of his own identity, conceding to die was that one option what best served his cause. Doubtful that his ideas would have been held in the same regard historically without Plato having written The Apology of Socrates [edit] or if Socrates would have evidenced himself a hypocrite by choosing to not honor the results of this trial by jury. The Platonic Academy might have never emerged otherwise, for instance.

Isn't that the only way to rebel against a self-generating need-machine: to become the machine yourself? — kudos

no. You might want to address my first post to you.

:lol:

I have not words at the moment. — L'éléphant

Hey, as to being debased by others, “javra” does translate into “cur”. @kudos’s less than civil reply is nothing shocking.

But I’m glad someone is getting a good kick out of things so far.

How nice to know that I'm successfully tapping into the debased individuals who make up the NIN fanbase. Looks like we're getting somewhere good now. Didn't Trent and Manson both satirize the illusion of choice and agency? Through their spectacular debauchery they exposed the asymptotic strivings of the autonomic continuation paradigm. — kudos

Not that this reply in any way addresses my post, but your biased interpretations re NIN are showing. Check this out, for example; and if you want, let me know how non-spiritual, anti-choice, or anti-agency it seems to you:



At any rate, is this going to turn into a rock music is debauchery thing? Or do you have some meaningful content to impart in relation to the content I previously posted?

Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

As the Buddha is said to have been, this before his quest for enlightenment wherein he sat under a tree and nearly starved to death in his ponderings? Certainly the Buddha can be said to have "achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards his attributed circumstances" (this when power is understood as “ability to accomplish”).

From the OP:

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

“Self-destruction” can signify many things and come in many forms. The want for ego-death, wherein the empirical ego is obliterated—and in some traditions said to then be rebirthed anew—comes to mind as one form of want for the destruction of the self. Even Nietzsche’s aphorism of the beast of burden whose back breaks from the load bared, turned into a carnivore combating the monster of “thou shalt and shalt not”, that after fully vanquishing the monster is then turned into a newly birthed babe to the world can easily be interpreted to address just such an ego death. In parallel, all forms of sincere love, such as compassion, will in due measure destroy an otherwise seemingly isolated selfhood—are the destruction of the self in this sense—this in part by opening up floodgates regarding the intrinsic worth of others such that one opens up to what’s commonly termed selfless acts, with altruism as an example.

But something tells me these trains of thought are not what you’re after as regards destruction of the self and spirituality?

To be honest, though, I’m mainly posting because the OP’s enquiry into self-destruction heavily reminds me of this song, which I generally like :smile: :



As artistic expressions go, there might be found some deeper truths in the lyrics dependent on their interpretation; e.g., assent to falsehoods is detrimental to one’s long-term well-being, even if somehow comforting in the short-term. More concretely exemplified, alcoholism is detrimental in just such a manner, yet some will prefer it to dealing with the hardships of life all the same.

But, unlike notions of ego-death for example, I so far don’t understand how such behaviors detrimental to one’s well-being can be said to be spiritual aiming or yearning.

Don't be shy, what do you think? — LuckyR

Already stated.

Think of it this way, the same can be generally applied to an innate attraction to justice. What is just is in one way subjective to individual judgments in concrete particular contexts while, in another maybe far more important way, can all the same be perfectly determinate in the sense of being universally fixed, this as something like "fairness in given and take".

Not an easy topic to address though. So I'll be shy from here on out. :smile:

That is fair, but, ¿in this view of consciousness, when can we say it starts? — Lionino

An addendum to my previous reply: To more directly address this first question, given the aforementioned post's contents, a human conscious being will then approximately commence with birth into the world and will end with corporeal death. As to the thread’s overall theme, were continuation of conscious being to occur subsequent to death—in this example, via reincarnations—it would then consist of ongoing periods of “a human conscious being’s life” thus understood: this in very rough analogy to how, during one’s life, one as a conscious being consists of ongoing periods of awakened states of being which are separated by periods of sleep (which individually commence with awakening from sleep and end with falling asleep at night). The principle difference, to my mind, being consciously accessible recollections or former periods addressed. Yet such periodic states of being, to my mind at least, do not necessitate that process philosophy cannot apply throughout.

though you're saying that "good" is subjective thus essentially anyone's chosen behavior can be labeled "good" if you equate intentionality with seeking to do "good". — LuckyR

I'll honestly say "yes" and "no" (at the same time but in different ways). But will keep it at that for now.

Is it not the inverse? Going by the first quote, it seems that space and time arise from objects, so space and time would need objects and not the other way. I feel like this could be a semantic nitpick on the way you phrased the statement; if it is, ignore it. — Lionino

I'm hoping an analogy might help. Here addressing space alone strictly via geometric points, which, as a reminder, are in themselves defined as volumeless: Conceptually addressed, were there to hypothetically strictly be one geometric point in all of existence, no space would manifest, for all that would here occur is one instantiation of volume-less-ness which, by its very attributes, is spaceless. However, once one allows for the occurrence of two or more geometric points, space (distance-between) will necessarily be coexistent with them. One can here say that space arises from (or is constituted by) a plurality of geometric points, yet here space would need a plurality of geometric points just as much as a plurality of geometric points would need space. Because they they can only be contemporaneous, it then doesn't make sense to ask whether space occurs first and the plurality of geometric points second or vice versa. The two necessitate each other at all times.

Also, as typically understood, objects are only one type of givens that are identity endowed. Thoughts, as well as emotions, can serve as another type of such givens. In so upholding, I then find that cognition is of itself spatiotemporal (although clearly not physical): As one example, because a paradigm (e.g., biological evolution) consists of multiple ideas (e.g., the ideas of species and mutation), a paradigm will then be "larger than" one individual idea contained therein from which it is constituted, such that this relation of "larger than" is here itself a spatial relation (albeit here, clearly not in a physical sense of space). I don't so much want to clarify this here (it would be very cumbersome) as to point out that when I previously mentioned identities I didn't mean to restrict them to objects (again, as objects are typically understood). A conscious being (to which thoughts, emotions, etc. pertain) being another identity that doesn't qualify as an object.

In parallel, if one as a conscious being experiences a new percept, one as the conscious being addressed will itself continue through time unchanged — javra

That is fair, but, ¿in this view of consciousness, when can we say it starts? And if we have a person as a five year old, is it the same consciousness as the same person 80 years later with advanced dementia (may it not happen)? — Lionino

You'll notice that the semantics are here subtly but importantly changed: this in the difference between "a conscious being" and "consciousness". I only know that I cannot know when consciousness started. In terms of a conscious being, however, this is always identified by type. For instance, in supposing that gametes are awareness-endowed and in this sense alone conscious beings, two gametic conscious beings can then unify to produce a different type of conscious being, that of the zygote's. The zygote will then develop and itself change in the nature of what conscious being is addressed till it becomes that type of conscious being which we identify as a human, at which point typically birth occurs. Then the conscious being further changes from a human infant, to a human child, to a human adolescent, etc.

Here, then, in the same sense that a human infant, or human child, and a human elder with advanced dementia (ditto to may it not happen) are different phases of the same exact human being, we can then safely affirm that the infant, or child, and the elder are two different phases of the same conscious being.

Having said this, the conscious being's consciousness will perpetually change throughout.

Here, then, each different type of conscious being will have a different type of quality and magnitude of overall consciousness: hence the sperm's awareness of direction, for example, is of a different magnitude than the awareness of the embryo in utero, is of a different magnitude than the awareness of the birthed human being as a whole.

But I fully acknowledge the many complexities involved. The aforementioned is nevertheless how I currently view the issue.

Now, do you think that, if the nature of time is continuous (and time here would be not relative but an independent substance/dimension within which bodies exist), it would favour a process philosophy view of consciousness, and if it is discrete it would favour quanta-of-identity, or that there is no correlation? — Lionino

Yes, this correlation is in keeping with my best current understanding, or at least my best current intuitions. Although I find that time can also be continuous and relative (this being the view I currently take - as in relative to a plurality of identities that are each endowed with the ability of causation).

So... sociopaths have no soul? — LuckyR

:grin: I could see how that could be allegorically stated. :up: Still, technically, I will argue that sociopaths too want to be good at what they do, and so are in their own way innately attracted to the good, even though their conception of it might be easily considered perverse.

Twice Socrates connects the just and beautiful and good (276b, 278a) — Fooloso4

I was aiming more at this conception rather than beauty as sexual/carnal attraction. If the Just, the Beautiful, and the Good are interwoven (if not in fact being the same thing), I'm thinking the motif of penetration commonly enough attributed to Pan of that age and specific culture could be interpreted spiritually using sexual intercourse as an allegory. As in being penetrated by the Just, the Beautiful, and the Good. All speculation, of course. This could however relate to:

In the mystery cults of the highly syncretic Hellenistic era,[16] Pan is identified with Phanes/Protogonos, Zeus, Dionysus and Eros.[17] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)#Worship

Here assuming Hellenism to be in significant ways derivative of Plato's writings.

Still, the connection between the three ideals/forms mentioned - and a person's possible attraction, hence eros, toward this nexus - is where my main interests personally are.

That's also how i understand it, but am looking for a better insight into it. — Wayfarer

Not sure if this is in tune with what you're after, but the desire to become one with X, here spiritually addressed, would then be eros for X. X could then for example be God just as much as it could be a lover. In the context of this thread, the desire to become good (hence, to become one with the Good) would then be eros as well. As @Fooloso4 previously mentioned, although this desire is innate (everyone wants to be good at what they do, for one example), we don't quite know what the Good we're wanting to be in fact is.

If I'm way off in terms of what your asking for, maybe someone else could give a better answer.

---------

Edit: just realized, beauty, the aesthetic, too would here be classified as a form of eros and hence erotic in this sense. At least if by beauty we mean a pull or calling toward something not yet fully known that nevertheless beckons to us as a welcoming abode, or something to this effect.

I get your stance, but, again, I don't see things that way. I'm starting to question what it is you have in mind when the term "love" is used. Many disparate concepts, yes, but you've hardly provided examples of what these might be (though you have previously agreed on the distinction between strong-liking-of and something else altogether). Aside from which, I feel like we're starting to go in circles. So I'll leave the discussion as is for my part.

It seems the idea of eros and the erotic are quite different in these dialogues to the carnal desire it is generally associated with in modern culture. Almost like an allegory. — Wayfarer

May I be corrected if wrong, but I’ve so far understood Ancient Greek eros to in essence be passionate desire for or attraction, not necessarily of a romantic/sexual kind. This is most typically lacking in storge, philia, and agape, but since it's part of romantic/sexual feelings, the latter will be classified as eros. Still, so interpreted, a desire for or attraction to wisdom, Truth, the Good, or some such ideal would thereby technically be eros (rather than agape, philia, or storge).

Same I think could be claimed for most everything. But this conflates epistemic appraisals of what is true, which are fallible, with the ontic reality of what is true. At any rate, I find that one cannot have the former in the ontological absence of the latter.

But I'll let others continue the debate.

Who couldn’t use a little transcendence now and then? — 0 thru 9

:grin: :up: I like that sentiment. But I don't have an answer as to the typical atheist's views on something like "Pure Love".

It only need be the best among the options I see ahead of me, for any given decision to act. — AmadeusD

Wouldn’t it then be true that you believe it to be the best option? “Best” means “most good”. Hence, you’d be affirming that you judge “one not owning slaves is the best (most good) option” to be true. In other words, you are affirming that the stated proposition conforms to the objective reality of what is good by being most proximate to it, this given the other options available. But this, then, would be realism, since it presupposes an objective, else impartially real, good by which standard you are judging not owning slaves to be a best option.

Apropos, what then do you make of the proposition that "love obliterates ego in due measure with it's strength"? Otherwise stated, that one looses oneself with the attribute of love in due measure to the love's strength. This furthermore varying with the type of love addressed.

Thought this video might be appropriate here. I enjoyed and was inspired by it. — 0 thru 9

Yet this Sufi understanding of love would then be entirely contingent on what one makes of, else how one interprets, the term “God”. For instance, if "God" is understood in a more Brahman-like way, then a mutually shared romantic love (with its erotic sex included) will be one aspect of love thus understood.

At any rate, the video presents what is to me a pleasant alternative to the often-touted motif that one ought to have “fear of God”. Love as longing for unity with God, as the Sufis can be said to hold, and, on the other hand, the need to constantly hold a fear of God will generally lead to two very disparate and in many ways contradictory worldviews. (Via a very rough analogy, loving one's parent is a very different form of respect than that which occurs via fearing one's parent.)