Trump saves the Special Olympics. <color: green>Our hero!</color: green>

What other more conservative values are there? Social stability? Security, Honor? Emphasis on tradition? Patriotism? Religious devotion? I'm trying to be fair, but I'm probably not the one to fill in this list. — T Clark

According to moral foundation theory, conservatives tend to be more well-rounded in their values or moral intuitions and are believed to be less open to change or new experiences. Liberals tend to focus on compassion and fairness, neglecting the values of authority, sanctity, and loyalty. Your valuing loyalty puts you closer to the right, which should make it easier for you to relate to conservatives.

I don't value loyalty, particularly, nor authority or sacredness. With the exception of loyalty, my list would be similar to yours.

I suppose we focus on values that are relevant to each other and affect our morality, such as honesty, truth, etc. I value fitness, for instance, but that has far less relevance to others than my valuing fairness or compassion, or particularly for this forum, truth and reason.

All I can do is ask you to read what I put up as I read what you do. At some point you might see the crisis. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

From the article:

Stancliff said now families must often spend a couple nights in Phoenix as they reach out to relatives and friends who can arrange travel. They often stay with volunteers as they wait for their buses or planes to depart. In that time, they need food, shelter, clean clothes and showers — a big undertaking for local churches and volunteers.

“It creates the perception of a crisis,” Stancliff said of ICE’s highly visible mass drop-offs of families without onward travel arrangements. “It creates the perception that we are overwhelmed by people being released from detention.”

An administration dedicated to immigration reform would stand a better chance of achieving reform, I would think.

I don’t think anyone is opposed to immigration reform. Unfortunate that our divider-in-chief puts all his energy into fulfilling a stupid campaign promise.

Judging by your declared values I would guess that you’re politically liberal or perhaps independent. It’s not too clear as listed. Definitely not libertarian.

Perhaps you might be inclined to if your experiences offered some kind of spiritual insight that you felt could benefit others. Again, I’m just curious why you describe these experiences as spiritual, rather than psychic or whatever.

I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way.

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser

If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist. This is true, in my opinion, but all it really means is that presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. We may or may not have the ability or choice to do so. In any case, claiming that something presented as art is not art is a refusal to view it aesthetically and does not mean that it's not art.

There are various criteria for evaluating the quality of art.

↪Isaac I am talking here about experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are spiritual. As I posted to another response,

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience — Ilya B Shambat

Why are you referring to these experiences as "spiritual"? It seems to me that they would more accurately be described as psychic or metaphysically inexplicable. It would be a hard sell to build a religion around "master number" viewing, ex-husband telepathy or Argentinian clairvoyance, for instance.

I’m not going to put my faith in science as a moral authority, any more than I would traditional religious doctrine. — Possibility

For essentially the same reason I assume: the potential for corruption by those in control of the science or doctrine.

I guess it's impossible to speculate about the corruptibility of an ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science because it has never existed, as far as I'm aware. You might think that it would be the most difficult for those with traditional values to adopt something like this but if it were true to the cause, progressives might have the hardest time meeting in the middle.

In my opinion, morality is not an external authority, but an internal understanding of our interconnectedness. It’s not a code we impose on others or punish them by, but one we inspire them to realise and honour in themselves by our example. — Possibility

A realization of interconnectedness is clearly a good rationalization for cooperation, and a justification that can be validated by science, I might add.

I don't think it's a useful characterization to suggest that the culture (and its moral norms) we are raised in is an imposition. For one thing, it's largely unconscious and not deliberately taught. Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture.

We should recognize the role that authority plays in value systems that respect hierarchy, loyalty, and sanctity, even if we find it irrational.

When you then make judgements and decisions based only on these measurements, you’re effectively dismissing the breadth of experience outside of that value. — Possibility

You must admit that the terms are themselves rather broad. We can experience happiness or suffering in a variety of ways. I was thinking of it as a general barometer, but it can also be broken down into various aspects, such as stress level, general health and fitness, socialization, self actualization, etc etc.

Ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science, basically, rather than traditional moral codes given by religious authority.

There’s no reason that the full spectrum of moral intuitions couldn’t be taken into account.

The idea is to generally increase happiness and decrease suffering.

Now you’re just being childish.

I thrive on challenge, I really do. — Jake

You are proving this to be false.

I just don't find it interesting to be challenged by folks who aren't actually interested in the topic. — Jake

Rather, you don’t find it comfortable to be, as you say, debunked.

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently.
— praxis

I'm here to explain my goofy notions with folks who are actually interested in the topics being discussed. — Jake

Meaning that you're only interested in an unquestioning audience and you don't want anyone to debunk your goofy ideas. I think we all get that.

To debunk this, start your own thread where you explore such topics in some depth without reference to me or anybody else. If we remove me and all other male egos are you still interested? Probably not, but prove me wrong if you can. — Jake

I've chosen to explain your meaning above rather than debunking the claim.

How would my writing a monolog debunk your claim about only explaining your thoughts to interested parties?

Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)? — praxis

From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. — Jake

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm??? — praxis

You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume. — Jake

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. — Jake

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis

I'm not here to jerk you off. — Jake

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently.

I’m saying that in attributing a value scientists cannot expect to know, define or control happiness in any way. — Possibility

Why not? Maybe it’s our primitive egos that believe our emotional lives can’t be quantified.

Meaning provides a comforting illusion of knowing which some of us find irresistible.

Focusing on reality requires a process of surrender. Focusing intently on observation of reality requires a surrender of me, me, me and all my little thoughts, thoughts, thoughts. We typically don't really want to surrender, and even if we do a lifetime habit of chronic overthinking requires work, patience, and good luck to overcome.

So yes, we very often seek meaning. That doesn't necessarily mean that seeking meaning is the best choice we can make. — Jake

Clearly “Reality” has irresistible deep meaning and purpose for you. Lol

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be?
— praxis

I'm suggesting that 1) unity is the fact of reality, and 2) aligning ourselves with reality to the degree that is possible is inherently rational. — Jake

1) Unity is a concept.

2) “Aligning” with your concept of reality is normally considered trans-rational.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct.
— praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. If I'm wrong about that and you do really wish to investigate such topics the best move would likely be to conduct your own investigation. Instead of waiting for me to type something so you can tell me why it's wrong, dig in to it yourself. Or not, as you prefer.

The thing about holding the breath makes no sense. If you don’t want to explain that’s your choice.

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do.

And all language is thought. And all thought operates by division. Thus, all discussions are polluted by a built-in bias for division. — Jake

You realize that this reasoning is self-invalidating.

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be?

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm???
— praxis

You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct.

Mere human happiness? Of course there’s a wide range of moral intuitions and disagreements about their relative value, but wouldn’t it be rational to hold that the highest happiness for the greatest amount of people be a primary principle? Science could work with a principal like this because it is measurable.

It's impossible to really discuss unity in language, because language is built of thought, and thought is built of division. — Jake

No, you’ve gotten yourself mixed-up somehow. We can only discuss the concept of unity in language. Unity/separation is a dualism. ‘Unity’ in the absence of any referent has no meaning.

Descriptive theories, not normative theories. They may have indirect normative implications, but they cannot arbitrate human values. (we can describe moral reasoning with a scientific approach, but we cannot derive normative implications about what our starting moral suppositions or moral conclusions ought to be). To do that we need a starting value that is ultimately subjective to individual human minds. — VagabondSpectre

Happiness and suffering are subjective but highly intuitive, as well as measurable by various means. Any reason these can’t these be held as base values and science given the authority to develop normative ethics? Maybe our moral intuitions are not based in suffering/happiness or human flourishing. Maybe they’re based in something much more primitive and irrational, and no amount of reason, training, or discipline can override them. Maybe all we can do is tell stories to each other and watch as we ruin the world for ourselves.

Religion in practice covers intellectual territory that science can never tread upon, such as determining the starting moral values that individual humans should choose. Science is inherently more narrow minded because it has intentionally blinded itself to the immeasurable and unobservable; not to deny their existence, but instead to place focus on the measurable as the specific puzzle it seeks to solve. — VagabondSpectre

There are scientific theories about moral development and what constitutes moral intuition and reasoning. Also, the results of moral choices can be measured. Suffering can be measured.

As for religion being the arbiter of moral values, it proves to be remarkably moldable by those in the position to use it.

From my point of view, we aren't separate,... — Jake

Clearly, you are conceiving a separation. In addition to that, you're holding on to the idea that you aren't separate.

... a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes.

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm???

At the psychological level, almost everything we're thinking, feeling and saying is just content that is absorbed from our cultural surroundings and then regurgitated with our names attached.

Including the notion that you're not separate from God or whatever.

As I understand it, the illusion that we are separate is part of the life/death cycle, giving us the will to live etc. It's not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it's just the nature of reality, like it or not.

How is the concept of this illusion not also an illusion?

The illusion that we are separate does lead to a great deal of suffering however, so it might be wise for us to try to learn how to manage that illusion to some degree.

Holding the intellection that the separation is an illusion effectively manages the illusion to some degree?

So if we didn't FEEL separate it wouldn't matter if we perceived a separation, right?
— praxis

But we do feel separate, so I'm not sure of the point of this question.

The point is to try coaxing you into explain what this feeling is. What does it mean to say that we feel separate? Why/how do we feel separate?

From my perspective what some call God is not something separate from us, and it only appears that way because we are observing reality through a mechanism which operates by a process of conceptual division. It's not that we are separate from (enter your preferred term here) it's that we FEEL separate. That feeling is an illusion generated by thought, by the way it works. — Jake

So if we didn't FEEL separate it wouldn't matter if we perceived a separation, right? Or are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)?

There are many ways in which the DMN can be disrupted. Are all of them spiritual? If not then you still have not explained what it means for it to be a particular brain state, and nothing besides. — Fooloso4

Deactivation of the DMN is a particular brain state, and as you say there are many ways in which the DMN can be disrupted. It could be deactivated unintentionally and quite naturally, or it could be deactivated intentionally and quite unnaturally in a laboratory setting. Whatever the case, the base experience is the same, though different people will undoubtedly respond to the state in varying ways.

If we both visited the Eiffel tower would our experience be the same? No. One of us might be upset at the time or the tower might remind us of a traumatic experience from the past and this would color our experience. One of us might think the tower was the most beautiful and magnificent thing they had ever seen and imbued it with all sorts of meaning. Metaphorically speaking, what I mean is that the tower is just the tower and nothing besides. It's not depressing. It's not beautiful. It's not boring or magnificent.

A disjunction is often positied between the physical and the spiritual. I think that this is a mistake.

I'm not a big fan of dualisms either, but they are useful. I think the world might be a better place if people focused more on the spiritual than the material.

If it's just a particular brain state, then, okay, I guess. Personally I still find it all rather odd and unnecessary. — S

It's certainly not necessary, but I believe that it's beneficial in a couple of important ways, namely that it relieves existential anxiety and also has a depatterning effect on the mind.

It's just a particular brain state, and nothing besides.
— praxis

Not argument, just explanation. A tenet of Ignatian spirituality is to see God in all things. When one goes through the Spiritual Exercises, a large part of that process is the ability to become more aware of the presence of God in our every day lives. To those with a predisposition to feel so, this will sound very hokey. But to hundreds of thousands of jesuits that have done the exercises it is very real. They would say all of life is a spiritual experience if you train yourself to be aware of it. Who is to say that they are wrong, or deluded, or anything else, simply because though a different frame a reference one can not understand how such a thing could be. — Rank Amateur

We could just as well train ourselves to see aesthetically, for instance, and then we could say that all of life is an aesthetic experience. Not sure what your point is.

On a larger scale, it's a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network).

Has anyone even clearly explained what a "spiritual" experience is, and why we should call them that? Is it just a coincidence? Then why not just say so? A funny feeling? It seems to amount to either something uncontroversial but obscured with religious language, or indeed, something pretty crazy. — S

Spiritual simply because it deals with matters of the spirit, rather than physical, practical, social, or even religious matters. Religious matters involve other people, beliefs, rituals, and some assortment of goofy trinkets.

It's just a particular brain state, and nothing besides.

Western culture is highly materialistic/rationalistic. How do you increase aesthetic values in such a cultural environment?

Know What? — Nort Fragrant

I’d say but then you’d know and I don’t want to make you unhappy.

The less I know, the happier I am! — Nort Fragrant

I can agree that you'd be happier if you didn't know this.

Common values and goals creates unity. More the latter, in some cases where, for instance, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The solution is increasing the demand while also producing supply of good art that people want to buy. — Ilya B Shambat

Can you explain how this solution might work? Or why it would be a good thing if it did work.

What is it [shared meaning], and what does it take? — creativesoul

It’s what facilitates cooperation within social groups. It primarily requires shared values and goals.

I also accept archetypal psychology - that religious and spiritual beings and symbols are representations of, or instantiations of, archetypal realities that exist on the level of the collective psyche. Outside the writing of Jung and his followers, however, there is little recognition of these factors. — wayfarer

Rather they’re recognized in different frameworks, such as social psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

Social beings need meaning, and religions are like fast food franchises: neat little mindless prepackaged nuggets of meaning that are efficiency spoon fed to the masses.

Heaven forbid anyone seek or think for themselves.

They sat around and got high, screwed around like bunny rabbits, tuned in and dropped out, and made us forget what made us great.

Nah, they realized that it (Great America) fully sucked, so they turned on, tuned in, and dropped out. This resulted in progress that half the nation doesn’t want, for some unfathomable reason.