Brother James did not particularly push anyone's buttons. He just posted well below standard with cluttered, rapid fire, vague, self-aggrandizing statements that he was likely cutting and pasting from some larger work he's put together over the years. He was selling some theory he arrived at and he was more interested in showing it off than debating it. — Hanover

As I noted in my post, 1B James was not here to philosophize, but to preach. He was spreading the word with a fire hose. That's a good reason to ban him. As I also noted, his ideas are no more unsupportable or unsupported than many other posters here.

And I also don't think this thread is a ridicule thread. — Hanover

@The Opposite's post was unnecessarily disrespectful to @Hope. The only reason I responded was because he made his point in a response to one of my posts. I didn't like that. More generally, people often do use this thread as a way to give a final slap in the face to someone they don't like as they are escorted from the establishment.

I vote hope's banning be reconsidered, and if on reconsideration acceptable, invited to rejoin. — tim wood

When you become a moderator, you take an oath never to admit you're wrong. I know that's true because @Hanover told me.

I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness. — Noble Dust

Generally, you get banned if you push a particular moderator's buttons. I could see how he would.

Why is this a particular issue for you? Are you Roma? I hope that's not too personal.

Hypothetically speaking supposing there was an omniscient being - doesn’t have to be (a) god necessarily maybe a hyper intelligent AI or a genie or whatever but you could ask it one question - anything at all, what would it be? — Benj96

What's the capital of Malawi? Seriously, almost all the questions I have I can get answers for off the web. Ok, ok - What will be this weeks PowerBall number?

English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam. — javi2541997

I thought it was the other way around - that the word "gyp" came from "gypsy."

what exactly is the benefit to the forum of banning someone like this person? — Noble Dust

Was there something in particular you liked about 1 Brother James, or are you commenting just on basic principles? Not disagreeing. Just curious.

It seems you adopt a view of pragmatism where if the principle does not help us in everyday life then it is meaningless? I don't think this answers the question on whether it is rational to accept or deny the metaphysical truth of the principle. — Ghost Light

I think it's fair to call many of my philosophical ideas pragmatic.

As I've said many times before, people generally choose their metaphysical systems. The standard I apply is usefulness rather than truth. In my, and some other's, views metaphysical principles are not true or false.

I may be perfectly rational to either accept or deny the metaphysical value of the idea of causation.

Not having to clutter the forum with nonsense posts. — StreetlightX

As I'm sure most people agree, it was clear from the start that 1 Brother James was not long for the forum. His ideas were no more "nonsense" than many others here. We have a lot of anti-science and pseudo-science posters. Explanations of how consciousness is the result of quantum entanglement between neurons and waves emanating from the planet Kuzbain abound here. There is some controversy as to whether the correct spelling might be "Koozebane."

What bothered me most about 1B James was the fact that he didn't come here to engage in discussions with us. He was just using the forum as a loud speaker to blast out his ideas without explanation or analysis. He was a preacher, not a philosopher.

It bothers me when members ridicule people who have been banned, which is a common blood sport here on the Bannings thread. I'm sure it's humiliating for them. Most of them are sincere. Most, but not all, don't belong here

Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? A trite example suddenly comes to mind, the 1960's television scientist, Julius Sumner Miller. His show was called 'Why is it so?' and typically used simple experiments to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Pray tell, how was that show metaphysical? — Wayfarer

As I noted, the idea of causation may be applicable in some very simple systems. That doesn't necessarily mean it is useful in more complex cases or necessary in any situation. My thoughts here are works in progress.

the furniture of basic arithmetic, — Wayfarer

I like this metaphor.

So I think there's a valid disfinction between the compounded or made or phenomenal, and the uncompounded or unmade (which is the domain of necessary truths). I think that says something important which is nowadays mostly disputed or denied. — Wayfarer

I am focusing my thinking primarily on physical causes, so I haven't really thought through the kinds of issues you are discussing here.

The metaphysical principle would still hold that if there is a state of this system that exists and has not existed forever (i.e. began to exist) then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a cause for why the state began to exist as it does. — Ghost Light

Item 7 on the T Clark list of philosophical principles - If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. I have no problem with your statement, but, since it has no practical use, it doesn't really mean anything. Who cares if something is caused or not if I can't trace the chain of causation?

It seems less reasonable to say that the state of the system could become that way with no cause. — Ghost Light

I don't see it that way.

The principle could be true metaphysically even though it will not help us to understand the future system behaviour. — Ghost Light

As I said, In my view, a metaphysical principle that has no real world use is meaningless.

Even here I would reject that it would not help us do this. If we accept that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then it gives us a good reason to understand that things in systems do what they do for a reason and when new things occur and states begin to exist, there will be a cause for them. It will help us to understand the causal nexus of the system better. — Ghost Light

What is a "causal nexus?"

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. — Ghost Light

I have not fully convinced myself that the idea of cause is useless yet. I'm trying out these ideas to see what I really believe. So, these are just my thoughts too.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence)...it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light

I've heard this claim many times in many contexts, but it doesn't make sense to me. I can understand a claim that it is wrong to deny causation, but not why it would be considered irrational.

The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light

Response to Question 1 - I'm not sure of this argument, but I'm going to try it out. Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can be really useful in some situations, especially simple physical ones like the typical cliche example of billiard balls. The idea of causation may be important when I am trying to predict the future behavior of a relatively simple system based on existing conditions. Something like causation may also be important in situations where we need to identify human responsibility for an action. On the other hand, in systems with many components and many inputs and outputs, it is probably not useful to try to identify specific causes for specific states of the system.

Response to Question 2 - In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior. It will probably lead to unrealistically simplistic approaches.

And your point is well-taken. It has taken me 49+years to acquire what little comprehension I do have of my own processing. And my work with people regarding the operations of the Invisible MIND "Within" them over some 40 years as a Gestalt Psychotherapist also altered how I view the multiple dimensions of Man. — 1 Brother James

So, you acknowledge my point is well-taken, but don't plan to change your approach. Is that correct?

What I find interesting about philosophy is that it does not study how the MIND feeds Delusional Thinking to the Left-Hemisphere of the brain, in the form of words and thoughts, which the brain then thinks is its own thinking. — 1 Brother James

You clearly have a well-developed and well-thought-out understanding of reality and mind. It is also very idiosyncratic. As far as I can see, so far all you've done is to send out blasts of your unfamiliar ideas expressed in unfamiliar language without trying to really connect with the ideas of those of us here on the forum. It's as if you expect us to drop what we believe and take up your way of seeing things just based on your enthusiasm and certainty. It's pretty condescending.

Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence

If you want to start a discussion, you should contribute more of your own thinking before you ask us for ours.

Telos = the potential end toward which a given moves; e.g., a goal (that which one wants to accomplish)
Telosis = the movement of a given toward a potential end; e.g., a striving (what one does to so accomplish)
Endstate = the actual end; e.g., the outcome of the striving toward a goal — javra

I don't see how these are significantly different than my formulation.

If one's telos happens to be the taking to flight by the flapping of hands, one will start flapping ones hands as the telosis. — javra

I'm not sure this is relevant, but I'd think the first step would be to research the history of flight, aerodynamics, anatomy, and other relevant technical information. Then maybe I'd do some calculations about wing/arm surface, muscle strength, drag on my body, and other factors. Then, when my calculations showed I wouldn't be able to fly that way, maybe I'd do some research on eastern religions that are reported to teach us to levitate.

Causation, as typically understood, does not occur strictly in the present. — javra

Everything occurs strictly in the present. Our memories of the past and thoughts about the future take place in the present. Ok, ok, I'm being tediously pedantic.

Or maybe I should ask, how do you define causation? — javra

Some definitions from the web:

[1] The act of making something (the effect) happen
[2] The relationship of cause and effect between one event or action and the result
[3] The act or agency which produces an effect
[4] From Bertrand Russell - "Cause and effect . . . are correlative terms denoting any two distinguishable things, phases, or aspects of reality, which are so related to each other that whenever the first ceases to exist the second comes into existence immediately after, and whenever the second comes into existence the first has ceased to exist immediately before."
[5] More from BR - "Causality - The necessary connection of events in the timeseries"
[6] More from BR - "Cause - Whatever may be included in the thought or perception of a process as taking place in consequence of another Process. ."

Boy. That's not much help. First off, I want to stay away from old Aristotle's four types of causation, at least for the purposes of this post. Too complicated. I think the only helpful use of the word involves very simple systems, e.g. the cliche billiard balls. Hey, how about this. Physical causation is the transmission of energy from one thing to another. I like that. The moving cue ball strikes the three ball. Some of the kinetic energy of the cue ball is transmitted to the three ball, which then moves. Even non-physical causation has to eventually lead to physical causation.

I've been thinking for a while that causation is not a very useful concept. That is not a new thought. Bertrand Russell wrote about it extensively. Maybe I'll start a new thread.

Whatever you do, I hope you'll share some of your translations here.

No, I haven't translated Tao Te Ching. But if I feel couraged again to share some of the related works I tend to find more interest in starting with I Ching. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

In case you haven't found it, here's a website with many translations of the Tao Te Ching along with some other documents:

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

I've gotten started on the I Ching a couple of times, but never got very far. The Tao Te Ching, on the other hand, grabbed me and shook me when I first read it. I find the poetic format much more compelling than the stories in the Zhuangzi. I think that's because I tend to be very intellectual, verbal. I'm an engineer and the Tao has always felt like engineering mysticism to me.

Ray Kurzweil was the protagonist — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Kurzweil predicts that the "technological singularity" will arrive in 2045 and we will grovel on our knees before our machine overlords.

our fear for death is inevitable and acceptance is lying to ourselves. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Yes, well. I think this says a lot more about Kurzweil than it does about me or you or anyone else. Last time I looked, he was trying to keep himself alive until he can upload his mind into a computer and live forever.

Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general. — praxis

I see it more as showing disrespect for discussions of mysticism in general. I thought the "What is Mysticism?" thread was a good one. It had some rigor and clarity. It really helped me get a hand on what the word means. I think it helped others too. The moderators brought it back from four months in the past just because a couple of us referenced it and it was easy to dump it in the trash with the new thread.

Pisses me off.

This is an old thread. Anand-Haqq was banned two months ago.

I don't understand why @1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion.

1) An endstate (maybe the same as “teleute” but nicer sounding): an actualized result; an actualized completion, conclusion, or consummation of one or more processes, activities, events, or changes
2) A telos: A potential result toward whose actualization one or more givens strive, strain, stretch, bend, or move; respective to sentience, a goal, aim, or objective.
3) A telosis: A given’s activity or process of striving, straining, stretching, bending, or moving toward a telos; respective to sentience, the act of intending. — javra

So:

• Telos = goal
• Telosis = plan for achieving that goal
• Endstate = intended future condition.

What value is added by using highfalutin philosophicalistic words? It just confuses things.

Let me see if I can summarize your point. My goal is to achieve a certain future condition. I have developed a plan, a series of actions, to meet that goal. When I've implemented that plan and the intended future conditions are achieved, they will have been achieved by backward causation because, as you've written, "a goal as telos is always found in the future."

Response - All the factors we are considering - goal, intended final condition, and plan - exist in the present. They are not in the future. Therefore, we are talking about just normal old everyday causation.

That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy. — 1 Brother James

The word "mysticism" has many definitions. Yours - "that which the brain cannot experience" - is a bit confusing. You say that mysticism cannot be experienced because mysticism means what the brain cannot experience, which is circular. Here are some common definitions, positive and negative, from a discussion called "What is Mysticism" from a few months ago.

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth). — T Clark

I think you're right, intuition is a big part of mysticism. For me, intuition is a normal part of human mental processing and doesn't involve what I would call "spiritual energy."

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.

Again - gracefully and artfully translated. Many translations feel forced and clunky. Yours are poetic.

Some questions:

• Do you work only from the text or also from other translations?
• Did you find those other translations unsatisfactory? Why have you chosen to translate these verses again?
• Have you done any translations of verses of the Tao Te Ching?

Thank you for this.

We need to find the cure for reactionary religion, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or anybody else. Reactionary religion is nothing but trouble. Some would include all religion as troublesome, and that may be the case. — Bitter Crank

In the words of Winston Churchill, or was it Chico Marx, "What could possibly go wrong."

Really incredible. Clear and straightforward. Written in 415 by one of the early fathers of the church. If someone were to read it without knowing the attribution they'd probably think is was written last week by a liberal protestant, except for some of the language. I'll keep this in my stack-o-quotes to bring out when I want to show my erudition.

You are always pointing the finger — Gregory

If you look you'll see that I make many positive comments, but when I see something I think is intellectually dishonest, I often point it out.

Finally, where are your threads? Are you strong minded enough to make them or do you just trash others — Gregory

If you look, you'll see I've started many threads. It would have made sense for you to check before you asked this question.

I feel bad that I haven't responded before this. I really like talking to you. I think we share a common outlook, an openness, on many of the issues we're discussing. It's just that you are playing on a piano, maybe a pipe organ, and I am playing on a three-string banjo. This old banjo is just right for the song I'm trying to sing.

It’s difficult to imagine anything in reality being significant or measurable without some aware entity to go “oooh!”. But if we go by evidence, life wasn’t always around and therefore there must be a cold dead universe that existed before it could be appreciated. — Benj96

I didn't contribute to this discussion when it first started. I wasn't sure if it would go anywhere interesting, but it did. Not much got covered in any depth, but it has covered a lot of ground and asked some interesting questions.

Some of the posts here have hovered around the metaphysical concept of reality as described in Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. The Tao is the name for the unnameable ground of all being. Lao Tzu was fully aware of the irony. I guess that makes it "reality" as we are discussing it. It is similar to @Wayfarer's universe with no point of view. I'm sure he is aware of that.

In the Tao Te Ching, the Tao is identified with "non-being." The universe where we live on a daily basis is identified with "being," or "the 10,000 things," as Taoists sometimes call it. Being develops out of non-being by the act of naming, which, to me, seems very much like observing, measuring, etc, which are acts of consciousness. Some people do not agree with my interpretation.

As I noted at the beginning, the Tao is a metaphysical concept. There are many out there. I find this one particularly useful.

In this thread I want to discuss how we can have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say... I want to provide the Bible as a good place to start to see if we can really understand what ancient texts mean. — Gregory

Here's what Wikipedia says about textual criticism - "Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books."

Let's be honest. You have no interest in textual criticism. You don't even know what it means. This is just another claptrap jab at Christianity. I guess there's always room for one more.

Philosophy asks the most basic questions. About what? Everything. Then what are basic questions? Questions that underlie everything. They sit quiet as assumptions in a place that gives all knowledge claims there foundation. — Constance

I agree, but is that all of philosophy or just metaphysics, including epistemology?

The technical side of philosophy lies in the disciplined body of theory and inquiry regarding all things at this foundation...the way analytic philosophy goes after the givenness of the world." — Constance

I like this. I might even agree with it. I'll think more about it. Except, for me, there is no "givenness of the world.

Where do we get this qualia idea? From ordinary experience...the source is always everydayness — Constance

The idea of "qualia" does not match my experience. This is my objection to much of western philosophy, even phenomenology, acknowledging my limited knowledge. Philosophers say it's from experience, but it's not. Not directly, anyway. They take experience and cover it with jelly and syrup and marshmallow. Rational jelly and syrup and marshmallow I guess. It obscures true experience.

It depends on what you mean by religion. ...These play off Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety, as does all existential philosophy. — Constance

I'm not sure how to respond to this long paragraph. It feels like the Constance philosophy train has switched tracks and is headed off in a different direction than mine. We probably were on different tracks to start with.

Not sure what other modes of thinking would be. — Constance

I think most of what we know, understand, use is not knowledge of facts or propositions at all, i.e. justified true belief; Gettier; etc. I think there is a model of the world built into each of us. The model is built up from our interactions with the world, our parents, language, education from the time we are babies. It probably also includes factors that are hardwired into us. I feel this model of the world in myself very viscerally all the time. I recognize it as the source most of my day to day decisions both consciously and unconsciously. I guess you would call it intuition. Generally, new knowledge has to get incorporated into that model before it is used. That is vastly oversimplified.

Obviously, they are mistaken. — Constance

I was getting worried until I came to this.

I apologize for all the philosophers I threw out at you. But they are what I think. These guys are simply too interesting not to mention. Phenomenology is, as I see it, the only wheel that rolls in philosophy. — Constance

I took two courses in philosophy in my first try at college back in 19(mumble, mumble). The first was "The Mind/Brain Identity Problem." I remember thinking in my first week of class "This is all bullshit." And I was right. That set the stage for the rest of my experience with western philosophy. I have maintained this bias to a certain extent up till today. I found a home of sorts with Lao Tzu and Alan Watts. They were talking about things that really did match my personal experience of the world.

Since I've been on the forum, I've met several people, yourself included, who've convinced me that western philosophy can be a powerful tool to understand what is going on. I've found some of the discussions moving. People have showed me that they have the same goal I have always had, but their paths have been a little different. In some cases, I've felt that philosophy saved those people. Gave them a ladder out of confusion and despair. It's hard to argue with that, even though that path definitely doesn't work for me.

So - no need to apologize.

I don't see how any of this changes my first response. I'll summarize - are the two situations, i.e. driving drunk and going in public without vaccination; analogous? My answer - yes. Are they identical? No.

I agree in principle, but in reality, none of us are islands. — Hanover

I don't disagree with the distinctions you are making, but I was trying to keep focused on the specific question @Tuckwilliger asked - whether or not the analogy between drunk driving and vaccination is valid.

I am looking for a discussion about whether this drunk driving analogy holds up — Tuckwilliger

If you drive drunk, you put vulnerable people in the public at risk without their knowledge or approval. Being drunk is ok. It's going in public that's wrong.

If you go out in public unvaccinated, you put vulnerable people in the public at risk without their knowledge or approval. Not being vaccinated is ok. It's going in public that's wrong.

No, I'm not trying to say that the risk associated with drunk driving is equivalent to that for going in public unvaccinated.

I strongly suspect this is not an epistemic act at all, but rather a distinction brains are hardwired to make. — hypericin

It makes sense to me that there are aspects of what we know that are not learned, but hardwired. On the other hand, the distinction between inside; what Constance calls "a brain thing or any of its interior manifestations;" and outside seems like something that would have to be learned.

He said without knowing what he was talking about. I really should do some more reading. Recommendations - science, not philosophy.

If you're going to reopen a thread from months or years ago, it would be nice if you'd let people know. Responding to old posts on threads that have run their course and sometimes from people who aren't even active on the forum any longer can be a waste of time.

An aspect of science is formulating hypotheses, and this is a hypothesis. Its where science starts. I purposely made it as easy as possible to understand, so your claim that it's some kind of word salad is consternating. — Enrique

Hypotheses have to come from somewhere connected to current knowledge. Just tossing some jargon from various theories, e.g. entanglement, superposition, wavicles, consciousness, neuroscience..., is exactly what you called it. Word salad.

The basics of consciousness are almost fundamental, emergent from material properties, essentially the superpositions amongst entanglement that I described. So soul exists, but has a mechanistic sort of explanation. — Enrique

This doesn't mean anything. It's just some technical and spiritual terms juxtaposed to sound profound. How do you test this? I'm perfectly comfortable with discussions of spiritual matters based on insight into personal experience, but when you start calling it science and using scientific language, there are different standards.

Have you seen the kind of posts that are made on a regular basis? — Enrique

True. There's lots of crap on the forum. As I noted, I don't have any objection to your stuff remaining here. On the other hand, what you've written is not legitimate science in any way that I can recognize. I don't think that's caused by my lack to scientific understanding.

Furthermore the fact we all going to die one day, it gives more anxiety the fact of the lovers I will leave behid in our path to the "final days".
If you live alone, probably you will not live such difficult situation and probably, you would able to understand that we are finite.
But, it hurts when your parents or pets dye before you... It is so sad really. We have to understand it because is the "natural process" — javi2541997

I agree with what you've written so gracefully. I don't look forward to death, but I'm not particularly afraid of it. Is it a natural part of life? I don't know what that means. As you note, it's coming for us whether or not we want it. Why let that fact interfere with the life we have now.

I guess I hurt your feelings with my last post.