The core of the idea of progress is the belief that human life becomes better with the growth of knowledge. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Knowledge is inert; it's accumulation does nothing. It is only the application of knowledge which can improve human life, or not. If the Idea of Progress is valid, only knowledge which improves human life will be applied (or at least it will be applied to a greater measure than knowledge which doesn't improve human life).

This raises two questions:
1) What are the metrics of human life improvement?
2) What types of applied knowledge are required to improve human life?

The OECD's World Happiness Report combines both the evaluation of, and affective reaction to, life experiences in its definition of subjective well-being. If the Idea of Progress is valid, why is there variation in the well-being of nations? Is it because some nations (e.g., Syria, Greece, etc.) have not undergone modernisation?

The development of science, mathematics and technology was subsidised in ancient hierarchical (not egalitarian) societies from wealth produced by the large scale division of labour. Thus, the link between economic prosperity and technological advancement was established. The Idea of Progress assumes that modernization improves human life, when in fact; it destroys indigenous cultures.

The Idea of Progress also assumes that it is only the application of scientific knowledge and technology which improves human life. However, science and technology have had both beneficial and detrimental effects on humanity. How Is it possible that the application of ethical knowledge would not improve human life (especially as it relates to the application of science and technology)?

Clearly, the Idea of Progress is a hoax.

History also reveals a certain degree of sociological reflexivity in the actions of societies. For example:

Ancient Egyptian Kingdoms
The rule of the Egyptian Pharaohs was inherently unstable because of the initial, and repeated subsequent, conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt. In addition, the military conquests of the New Kingdom were followed by the Libyan, Nubian, Assyrian and Persian conquests of Egypt.

Imperial China
The Song Dynasty's breach of an alliance with the Mongols led to its conquest by the Mongols 40 years later. Also, the tribute system imposed on other Nations during the Ming Dynasty was followed by the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties and Eight-Nation Alliance during the Qing Dynasty.

Aztec Empire
The Aztecs conquered their neighbours and imposed a feudal system upon them. Then they were conquered and colonised by the Spanish, who imposed an economy modelled after the feudal system of the Aztecs.

Some suggest that all historical civilizations can be interpreted in the analogy of birth, childhood, maturity, old age, and death. — Cavacava

Or interpreted in the parlance of Sociocultural Anthropology: Rise (i.e., success), Dominance (i.e., expansion), Stagnation, Decline, and Fall (i.e., failure).

human nature has remained essentially the same across recorded history. — Galuchat

Debatable. — Banno

Whether or not it's debatable depends on how you define human nature (unless you had some other basis for debate in mind). I define it as genetic predisposition to natural human development (physical, mental and social). How do you define it? Or, what would you rather debate about that statement?

I don't think history is cyclical, nor is history following a course -- like, toward ever more progress. One event follows another, and this event leads to that event, and if sometimes the result is pleasant, at other times it is not. — Bitter Crank

While time proceeds in a linear fashion, human nature has remained essentially the same across recorded history. So, given similar circumstances at particular points in history, human behaviour will be found to be similar. As such, history may not be cyclical, but it is definitely repetitive (at least in a general sense).

And it's because of this repetitive property of human behaviour, that I think future human events are predictable to a certain extent given present circumstances.

I don't know if this is at all answering your questions, and it is said without authority, as my own best understanding. Most of it is stolen from here. — unenlightened

That's great. Thanks very much. I will need to work on the psychology of mindfulness. Perhaps Krishnamurti and Bohm will be of assistance.

Is mindfulness then self consciousness (meta self awareness)? And by "fixing identity in thought" does it construct identity independent of social influence?

Thanks for the clarifications. It makes sense to understand the OP's "ego" as egocentricity. As such, the OP would then be an endorsement of self-denial rather than identity-denial.

Thanks for the summary. It makes sense.

However, identity-denial (as the OP proposes) is not one of them, and for good reason: the destruction of a person's identity destroys the culture they are part of, and vice versa. — Galuchat

I don't know about that. — Wayfarer

What specifically don't you know about?

'Identity' is not something set in stone, it is dynamic. — Wayfarer

Self Identity is composed of Personal Identity and Social Identity.
1) Personal (i.e., Relational) Identity: the set of heritable attributes which remain essentially unchanged throughout the course of a person's life.
2) Social (i.e., Contextual) Identity: the set of social attributes which have their basis in social learning and change throughout the course of a person's life.

How is the static and dynamic nature of Self Identity relevant to the OP's proposal that identity should be denied?

Basically the OP is picking up some principles based on Eastern teachings and practices which do indeed challenge the centrality of the ego. — Wayfarer

"Some principles based on Eastern teachings and practices" is not the same as "similarities in the teachings and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy." Does the latter category include teachings which encourage identity-denial (as opposed to self-denial)?

The following is a list of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy, including approximate dates of origin, appurtenant moral codes, and approximate number of adherents as a percentage of world population (2010):
1) Hinduism (5000 BC): Yamas and Niyamas, 15.0%.
2) Judaism (1400-1300 BC): Ten Commandments, 0.2%.
3) Jainism (900-600 BC): Mahavratas and Anuvratas, 0.1%.
4) Buddhism (600-400 BC): Five Precepts and Noble Eightfold Path, 7.1%.
5) Confucianism (500 BC): Analects (Lun Yu), 3.4%.
6) Taoism (400 BC): Daodejing and Taishang Ganying Pian, 3.4%.
7) Christianity (33): The Golden Rule, 31.5%.
8) Islam (610): Quran, 23.2%.
9) Sikhism (1500): Guru Granth Sahib, 0.4%.
10) Bahai Faith (1844): Kitáb-i-Aqdas, 0.1%.

Where do mindfulness teachings and 12 step programs rank on this list?
What does "challenging the centrality of the ego" mean? Is it:
1) Endorsing self-denial, identity-denial, or something else entirely?
2) A teaching which is common to all the above religions and moral philosophies?

Hence "identity-denial" is innacurate description of what OP is suggesting. — Arran

Seriously?

The final step I envisioned was shedding identity - along with the criticisms and self-imposed restrictions that often accompany it - in order to achieve lasting peace of mind. At this stage, identity loses its importance, and becomes just another choice of how one lives their life. I am most interested in your thoughts on whether enduring contentment (in the absence of familial loss or threats to survival) could be achieved by lessening the importance of identity. — CasKev

'Laying aside the self' is also basic to Christianity, although not all Christians will utilise the terminology. But there's not as big a gulf between the Christian and 'Eastern' teachings on such ideas as there is often thought to be. — Wayfarer

I agree that there are similarities in the teachings and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy, including self-denial. However, identity-denial (as the OP proposes) is not one of them, and for good reason: the destruction of a person's identity destroys the culture they are part of, and vice versa.

Many would agree that over the past 50 or 60 years, there have been tremendous changes in the cultural, economic, educational circumstances that have seemed to have a weakening effect on the "fabric of society". Why and how might be another topic... — 0 thru 9

I agree that the fabric of Western society has been weakening over the past 50 or 60 years (if not longer). But this is not a new phenomenon. Societies throughout history have prospered and collapsed; sometimes due to the (mis)management of their political economies, and sometimes due to the actions of other societies.

I suspect that current societal collapse in the West is largely self-induced, as it was for Rome. If the cause of collapse is self-induced, which sub-groups benefit from division at the expense of the entire group?

Some have compared the situation to that of the Native Americans after their cultures were overrun and destroyed. Even though many physically survived, their way of life was in ruins. — 0 thru 9

This is a valid comparison. The displacement of a culture produces culture shock (i.e., the re-alignment of a person's social identity), fragments society, and leads to tension and conflict.

To me those [the study of cosmology and quantum mechanics] would all be included in the world-for-us. We don't directly experience them via our senses but we do experience their effects on us and the world of our experience. In fact, they constitute the very world of our experience. — Brian

What is the difference between direct experience and indirect experience? Is reading the results of a particle accelerator experiment on a computer monitor an example of direct or indirect experience?

I agree. What the OP doesn't make clear is why the study of quantum mechanics is meaningless if it is part of the world-for-us.

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it. — Brian

I agree. So whatever is known is known not only through thought, but only through experience (the product of sensation, interoception, and thought).

...what ever is known is only known th[r]ough thought. — Cavacava

What is there to think about without the ability to sense one's environment (sensation) and physiology (interoception)?

I would differentiate these with the terms the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. — Brian

Does the world-for-us (i.e., things that human beings can experience) include those things detected and measured through the use of sense-enhancing instruments (such as particle accelerators), or are those things part of the world-in-itself?

...recognizing the potential limits of the human identity/ego is somewhat of a central topic of Eastern philosophies...Western psychology, from what I have seen, does approach the subject, and various pathologies. Eg. the work of Freud and especially Jung. — 0 thru 9

My views on self identity are influenced by the sociologists, George H Mead and Robert E Park. For example:

Self identity is the distinctive combination of personal and social attributes which describe a human being at a particular point in time, and cause him/her to be recognized by others, including: corporeal and mental characteristics, social roles, social group affiliations and values, and personal preferences and goals.

Are you = your thoughts? Are do you have thoughts? That is quite a leap to say if one is not equivalent to their thoughts then they do not exist. — 0 thru 9

It's logic (or algebra), not leap:
I=my self=a subject having unique life experiences.
Therefore, if I have no experiences (produced by physiological process and thought), I don't exist.

With regard to Eastern traditions, the OP uses psychological and sociological terms, as opposed to the terms of any particular worldview. I think these terms have been misused.

I also think it's a good idea to try to construct, or explain, a worldview in terms of social science. But the use of these terms should correspond with current science, and with common sense where science is lacking.

Is there any evidence of psychoanalytic insight in such a case? — Galuchat

possibly, there's an element of tongue-in-cheek in there — Sapientia

I'll take that as a "no."

Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense...if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia

That's funny: a person who calls themself 'Sapientia' (Wisdom), calls other people 'crazy', and says "I'm not crazy." Is there any evidence of psychoanalytic insight in such a case?

Develop Awareness
You are not your thoughts - your true self is the formless observer that is aware of your thoughts — CasKev

I am my self (a subject having unique life experiences). Since self awareness (the combination of sentience and self identification) produces personal experience, if I am not my thoughts (and physiological processes), then I am not a subject, hence; do not exist.

Also, my awareness of my thoughts (meta-cognition) is itself a mental (thinking) process. So, if I am not my thoughts, how can I be my thoughts about my thoughts?

Presence - presence is achieved by using the five senses without background inner dialogue — CasKev

Sensory stimulation doesn't occur without producing sensation (a mental experience). As long as you are conscious, that switch doesn't turn off. At best, it can be relegated to background noise during semi-conscious states (e.g., trance). Which form of trance or other altered state of consciousness are you calling 'presence'?

Stop Judging
Human Nature - authentic human nature is to seek peace, and to act with love and integrity — CasKev

I couldn't disagree more. Human history is largely the history of human conflict. If not intuitively obvious, an experiment could be developed to test the following hypothesis: human beings are primarily concerned with satisfying corporeal desires, then social desires, and finally, ethical desires.

Illusion of Control - the ability to choose is an illusion; everyone is a function of their physical being and their experiences; a person has no control over their creation, nor their initial environment, and therefore no true control over whatever follows... — CasKev

I agree. However, I disagree with all remaining points.

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. As such, there is no premise which supports, hence; no argument which proves, anything about God. — Galuchat

But if that is true, than why is it not acceptable of any other belief that doesn't have to do with God?...If what you say is true in your post than why should someone be upset if they think that agnosticism is self defeating? — dclements

I have not read this "agnosticism is self defeating" thread you keep referring to. But it seems to me that you are the only one in this thread who is upset. Why do you care so much about what other people believe, or what they think of your beliefs? Wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in your own beliefs, or of mental fragility in general? Wouldn't being a philosopher on a mission require possessing a worldview with conviction?

I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. As such, there is no premise which supports, hence; no argument which proves, anything about God.

If we're going down this line where altered states of consciousness (which dreaming is) is proof then why isn't being drunk vs being sober also evidence? There is an obvious phenomenal difference between the two. — JupiterJess

Sleep/Dreaming is not classified as an altered state of consciousness, because altered states are waking states which diverge from normal waking states. However, daydreaming may be classified as an ordinary fluctuation of normal waking states, hence; an altered state.

Schmidt, T.T.; Majic, Timoslav. (2016). Empirische Untersuchung Veränderter Bewusstseinszustände. Handbuch Psychoaktive Substanzen. Part of the series Springer Reference Psychologie pp 1-25.

Your question is certainly valid: if dreaming, why not altered states as proof of idealism?

I think dreams are evidence the waking experience is not [what] we think it is. I believe it is just a continuation of the same ontological sort but with the sensory inputs combined into it... if you focus on the between the waking moment or going into sleep you can actually feel the change first hand. — JupiterJess

Non-conscious mental activity (e.g., automatic thoughts, forgotten memories, etc.) may be continuous, occurring simultaneously with conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions.

Wakefulness is a conscious mind-body condition. Sleep (including dreaming episodes) is a semi-conscious mind-body condition.

Hypnagogia (wakefulness-sleep transition) occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions. Lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis and sleep walking occur during hypnagogia.

Daydreaming also occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions, where parallel (controlled and automatic) information processing occurs.

Christoff, Kalina; Alan M. Gordon; Jonathan Smallwood; Rachelle Smith; Jonathan W. Schooler (2009-05-11). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8719.full.pdf

...dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'...We could, of course, discuss the nature of dreams, whether they have anything to do with the nature of reality and so on... — jkop

I agree. While this discussion on dreams of various sorts is interesting, the OP is going nowhere without an argument or even just a proposition (i.e., a complete declarative sentence). "Dreams, as proof of [absolute] idealism" is an incomplete sentence, hence; incoherent.

The question though, is a question for the lucid dreamer who has control over the dream. How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? Wouldn't having control over it make it like a daydream? And in a daydream I know that what I am daydreaming is not real, because I have control over it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Lucid dreaming occurs during hypnagogia (when both conscious, controlled processing and semi-conscious, automatic processing occur). Your sense of control in a lucid dream is a function of controlled processing, and the dream is a function of automatic processing.

So we have law, psychal law, metaphysical law, law of consciousness, species-specific law, and we know that "human jurisprudence isn't law, but rules." And the question remains: what is law?

That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal. — Metaphysician Undercover

This raises a few interesting points:

The experience of dreaming is real (actually occurs) for its duration.

Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours.

However, the sequence and/or association of these experiences in a dream are generally not the same as those found during waking hours. It is the sequence and/or association of experiences in a dream which are not real (in the sense that they didn't actually occur during waking hours).

I also fail to see the connection between dream reality and idealism.

I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. — Question

Though not a direct result of sensory stimulation, dreams are real because they are a result of short term memory (including sensory) consolidation which actually occurs during sleep.

Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory Process and the Function of Sleep. (6–6 ed.). Journal of Theoretics.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-6/Zhang.pdf

As such, they are not solely a product of the mind.

I think that laws are rules set by people in power as an effort to control an aspect of the population. — MonfortS26

I agree.

Law is a set of rules and guidelines which are created, interpreted, and enforced by a legal system having legal institutions. As such, law is a type of formal social control, hence; implemented in stratified (as opposed to egalitarian) societies. Types include Human Positive Law and Religious Law.

The psychological function which produces meaning (an idea which can be described by attribution or reference) is categorisation: the assertion of a relation between a class (subject) and a category (predicate).

Whereas, a concept is an adventitious or factitious idea which denotes a class and specifies its attributes.

Concepts (e.g., categorisation) can be categorised (i.e., considered to be a member of other categories, such as "psychological functions").

Mental modelling is the cognitive and/or intuitive process of constructing a set of related concepts, arranged to represent a composite concept or system.

Mental modelling may be verbal and/or nonverbal.

It seems that things other than words, and how they are used, are imbued with meaning. You don't need language to know what these things mean. You simply need prior experiences with these things to know what they mean. — Harry Hindu

I agree. It seems Wittgenstein's phrase, "meaning is use" applies only to human communication using human language modified by context.

It doesn't apply to the communication of other types of signs which also have meaning, such as:
Signals
Symptoms
Indices
Icons
Fetishes
Symbols (other than words)

"Einstein originally constructed his model of the universe out of nonverbal signs, ' of visual and some of muscular type . ' As he wrote to a colleague in 1945 : 'The words or the language , as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be "voluntarily" reproduced and combined . ' Later, ' only in a secondary stage , ' after long and hard labour to transmute his nonverbal construct into ' conventional words and other signs,' was he able to communicate it to others."

Sebeok, Thomas A. (2001). Signs: An Introduction To Semiotics. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
https://monoskop.org/images/0/07/Sebeok_Thomas_Signs_An_Introduction_to_Semiocs_2nd_ed_2001.pdf

Apparently, Einstein's thoughts contained meaning which was independent of human language and any modifying context.

...language needs to be defined. — Marchesk

Language: a set of signs (i.e., vocabulary) having paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations (i.e., syntax), hence; semantic information.

Human Language: a set of words (i.e., vocabulary) having paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations (i.e., syntax), hence; semantic information.

Thus language is not about a transfer of some essence of conceptual meaning from my inner world to your inner world, but something that operates in the physical world. — unenlightened

Communication: the process of encoding, transmitting, conveying, receiving, and decoding information.

Biocommunication: species-specific conscious, semi-conscious and/or non-conscious communication using signals (e.g., chemical, visual, auditory, tactile, etc.).

Zoocommunication: species-specific conscious and/or semi-conscious communication using signals (e.g., chemical, visual, auditory, tactile, etc.).

Human Communication: human conscious and/or semi-conscious communication using signals, spoken sounds (i.e., speech), or written symbols (i.e., writing) expressing thoughts and/or emotions in a human language and social context understood by both sender/source and receiver/target.

Animals communicate by means of signals (a type of sign), whereas; human beings communicate by means of language (a sign system).

I agree that his technique and use of colour are superb, but I couldn't look at this particular work for very long because of its dissonant composition.

I like Lucien Freud's technique, but this particular composition has little regard for the harmonic divisions (intersections) in the armature of the rectangle (diagonal lines drawn between rectangle corners and opposite side midpoints) or in the rectangle roots (lines drawn from rectangle corners perpendicular to the two main rectangle diagonals).

Key image elements should be located at, or be aligned with, the harmonic divisions.

His disregard for good composition could very likely be intentional in this case (e.g., conveying an unsettling quality about the subject). It would be interesting to examine his other portraits in this regard.

What makes something beautiful? — River

Alberti explained the transcendent quality of beauty as it relates to painting composition and musical composition in terms of harmonic proportion.

"I am every day more and more convinced of the truth of Pythagoras's saying that Nature is sure to act consistently, and with a constant Analogy in all her operations: From whence I conclude, that the same Numbers, by means of which the agreement of sounds affects our ears with delight, are the very same which please our eyes and mind. We shall therefore borrow all our rules for the finishing of our proportions from the musicians"

Leon Battista Alberti, The Ten Books of Architecture, Book IX, Chapter V

I am not sure peoples motives are that easy to pin down. — Andrew4Handel

Not all mental states can be inferred all the time.

Are we going to judge history on peoples actions or do we have to also invoke their words and mental states? — Andrew4Handel

Writing and speaking are actions. Thinking is also an action. As far as history is concerned, the difference between corporeal and mental action is one of evidence as it varies on a continuum between strong and weak.

...maybe history is somewhat predictable or mechanistic. — Andrew4Handel

Knowing how a person or social group has acted in the past provides a degree of predictability about their future actions in similar situations.

Given new situations, predictability may be possible if actions are sociologically reflexive and their value can be quantified in terms of multitude (the number of people affected) and magnitude (the degree of benefit or harm produced). Human actions can be described as:

1) Altruistic (positive) and aggressive (negative).
2) Cooperative (positive) and competitive (negative).
3) Prosocial (positive) and antisocial (negative).
4) Moral (positive) and immoral (negative).

I suppose the closest to science would be a behaviourist analysis of history. A series of stimuli-response events. — Andrew4Handel

History is a social science which reduces to (can be explained in terms of) sociology, and sociology reduces to psychology, however; psychology doesn't reduce to physiology.

Consider the testimony of John Perkins (among others), look up the definition of fascism in any dictionary, then explain to me how the use of that term doesn't apply to the type of activity described by Perkins.

https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

It seems to be like saying morality exists, and yes most will agree, it is saying there must be a right and a wrong, but on the application of these terms many disagree. What is morality in-itself, I think 'rights' are here. — Cavacava

Universal human morality consists of the similarities between the value systems and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy. Natural human rights are specific moral claims to social equality based on a universal human need for fairness.

Social Equality: a condition in which all people within a social group have the same status in certain respects, such as:
1) Equal rights under law,
2) Equal treatment based on conduct,
3) Equal opportunity based on merit,
4) Equal burden based on ability, and
5) Equal distribution of benefits based on need,
6) All without regard to personal and social differences, and differences in circumstances.

I don't agree with historians using psychological analysis without emphasing that it is speculation. — Andrew4Handel

While clinical methods of diagnosis cannot be applied to dead people, the mental state of any individual (dead or living) may be inferred from their actions. So historical figures are an appropriate subject of psychological analysis to the extent that available evidence permits. Their biographies may even reveal the probable cause(s) of their psychological condition (i.e., biological and/or social).

For example: it should be intuitively obvious that historical mass murderers are lacking in empathy, as indicated by this quote from Joseph Stalin: "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." If you wanted to be more specific and label him a narcissist, sociopath, or psychopath, that would require gathering more evidence.

The anti-relativism (or maybe moral superiority?) that's amply displayed in the UN's list of rights suggests to me that a certain characterization(s) of what is meant to be human ought to be included in our understanding of what a right is. — Cavacava

Or, given that:

1) Morality is a human universal.
Brown, Donald E. (1991). Human Universals. New York City: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-87722-841-8.
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/BrownUniversalsDaedalus.pdf

2) The Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, an interfaith declaration identifying the Golden Rule as the "unconditional norm for all areas of life", was signed by more than 200 leaders from 40+ different faith traditions and spiritual communities in 1993.
Kung, Hans & Kuschel, Karl-Josef, Eds. (1993). Declaration Toward a Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, SCM Press, London / Continuum, New York.
http://www.weltethos.org/1-pdf/10-stiftung/declaration/declaration_english.pdf

3) Similarities between the value systems and moral codes of the world's major book religions and systems of moral philosophy form a consensus on morality which is likely to have an inherent (as opposed to cultural) basis.

Formulate natural human rights in terms of universal human morality.