It's crazy that Americans think only other countries engages in propaganda. — StreetlightX

We don't think that. We know full well Trump and his acolytes are masters at propaganda. Of course, they have help from Putin, et al, but still. If there weren't a home-grown conservative apatite for it, it wouldn't work.

I love this. I didn't realize parodies could be this real. — StreetlightX

I didn't realize you thought all liberals and all Americans . . . blah blah blah. You'd fit right in with the Trumptettes, if you already aren't one. Say, are you a Trumpette? Just want to know if I should ignore you or not.

Yikes. That’s not good. One of the most important aspects of Trek from the 60’s was how innovative it was. If they can’t do that anymore; I don’t see much of a reason to continue writing stories. — Maximum7

:100:

Liberals never gave anyone anything, — StreetlightX

I guess you don't know your history. Liberals gave you all that is good. It was conservative forces (and their bitch, religion) which maintained all that was bad that liberals were trying to move on from.

Anything every wrested from the powers of conservatism was done so by the exercise and threat of violence by the working class. — StreetlightX

Actually, no. Liberals enticed the cowardice of conservativism to come out from under their rock and invest their ill-gotten gains. But they could only do it by agreeing to protect the cowards from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions. You see, they aren't really risk-takers unless they can hide behind the big government skirts (i.e. corporate veil).

To the extent liberals wrested anything with violence, it was just the return of stolen labor and/or capital.

Also what is it about liberals and Hitler? If he didn't exist, I'd imagine liberals would have to invent him because otherwise they would have no way to orient themselves politically. — StreetlightX

I can't speak for all liberals, because I'm not as magnanimous as they are. But I think you are correct. Hitler makes a good reference point and if he didn't exist, we'd have to use someone older, like Nathen Bedford Forrest, or Mitch McConnel. :rofl:

Keep going, Kim Ill James. — StreetlightX

Name one man-made thing you like that was not brought to you by liberals over the kicking and screaming of conservatives at the time of it's genesis.

Why vote cancer? Seems like a terrible idea. — StreetlightX

Yes, voting cancer would be a terrible idea! That would be like voting for Covid! Learn how to read, silly.

That's why I said "vote liberal." Liberal is not cancer. Liberal is the fount of all that is good, including that which conservatives now want to conserve, and which their forebears fought against.

Ok buddy :) — StreetlightX

YEA! Another covert! Vote liberal!

And people wonder why Trump remains a threat. — StreetlightX

No, we don't wonder. I already corrected you on that point:

The opinions of morons don't count.
— StreetlightX

Actually, they did count. They elected Trump. So you stand corrected. — James Riley

Morons, racists, white nationalists and fascist are the reason he remains a threat.

Will they reach a creative wall when trying to think of how to make stuff even MORE advanced; that they can't? — Maximum7

They might. And if they do, they will fall back on imagery and/or CGI like Star Wars did from day one.

The opinions of morons don't count. — StreetlightX

Actually, they did count. They elected Trump. So you stand corrected.

But sure, keep up the propaganda. — StreetlightX

Are you a Trumpette? Or worse, are you one of those people who pretends to moderation like Joe Mansion? Or something else? Hopefully you are not a Trumpette. I'd have to stop giving you oxygen.

Maybe one day people like you will look into Biden's congressional record, but I don't hold out much hope. — StreetlightX

Yeah, he was/is a real Hitler. LOL!

I don't know why people like to say this like it means anything. — StreetlightX

They like to say it because it is true. It means something to Americans.

Or even think it's true. — StreetlightX

It is true.

Biden was the condition that enabled Trump to get to where he is, and surprise surprise, he's being that very same condition again. — StreetlightX

Biden, et al, were only the condition that enabled Trump to the extent they were magnanimous in victory. They should have hunted down and killed every last racist after the civil war and every last fascist after WWII. So, to the extent they failed to do that, you have a point. But the arc of history bends toward justice, slowly, notwithstanding liberal magnanimity. It's something I guess we don't want to give up.

And Biden has done more long term damage to the States in his career than Trump has. — StreetlightX

No, he has not. The only person who ever did more long term damage to America (and the world) than Trump, was Jr., Dick and the neocons. They broke the world and we're still trying to put it back together.

Biden's a fucking monster. — StreetlightX

No, he's not. People who think so are stupid. Monster's don't exist.

Trump just wears it on his sleeve like a brand. — StreetlightX

Yeah, a guy who pretends to be a monster that does not exist is worse than one who isn't and doesn't. Pretty simple, really.

Trump's the draw. — StreetlightX

I don't follow him. How is he doing out there?

Also Biden is less than useless — StreetlightX

Everyone is less than useless. But some are still better than others. Biden is better than Trump. To the extent all politicians are dishonorable, cowards, and liars, Trump is the gold standard. And those who follow him are racist white nationalist fascists. The idea that "I just wanted to tip the apple cart" is long gone. Guilt by association is no fallacy.

Barring a miracle, he'll almost certainly be back. — StreetlightX

Of course it is early, and we have (hopefully, finally) learned our lesson that you can never underestimate the stupidity of Americans (? is a traitor still an American?) but there are some signs of hope:



Then again, the media may just be doing their thing of ginning up a fight.

I remember on the playground when two antagonist really didn't want to fight but some fuck was always slithering around the perimeter, calling into question the bravery of either side, or starting the chant of "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT". That's the U.S. media, including those surreptitious, conniving bastards in the MSM.

Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective. — ssu

That itself is subjective.

We have a habit of flipping back and forth to which ever suits us at the moment.

I'm doing it now. I often like to distinguish between man and nature. Then I will turn around and look at the objective view.

I like that. Like you, I won't pretend to know how effective it was, but I like it.

It brings up another issue: It seems to me that virtually every single endeavor of man (way beyond philosophy . . . I'm thinking Special Operations but it includes everything) has a hazing process, or a vetting process built in to it. It's a gate keeper thing. I'm sure it has a beneficial winnowing effect. I'm not questioning that. I get that. Wait, just in case someone missed that, let me repeat it: I GET THAT. Please, let's not circle back around to the "why" of why that is done. I GET THAT.

My point is, there is a fine line. You can make yourself feel superior by scaring kids away, leaving a balance of geniuses, sycophants, or those who think they can suck your dick for a good grade. You can close the gate because you feel threatened, proprietary, jealous of turf. Or you can entice them in with promises of intellectual curiosity, community, exploration, growth, mastery. You know; what they paid for. You know; what should excite you.

But for fucks sake, it should be grounded in the respective disciplines, and if you want to find out if a kid "has what it takes" to push through the difficult to get to the difficult, then you might reconsider starting with something less difficult. You don't dump Hegel on him and say you want a book report in the morning. "And no Cliff notes!"

I was given "The Last Days Of Socrates" and, while it did not propel me into a degree in Philosophy, it did show me how I think teaching should be done. You don't walk a kid into a corner with his own answers and make him slap himself in front of the whole class. You ask your questions with your own genuine sense of intellectual curiosity, and let the conversation go from there. After all, if you're the professor, you shouldn't be intimidated by some knuckle dragger who thinks he is just there for the grade. If and when the corner arrives, there is no humiliation in it, but, rather, light bulbs going off and maybe some laughter.

I remember professors in law school who used the Socratic Method for good, and others for ill. Yeah, life is tough out there. We know. We don't need some cloistered proff with patches on his elbows trying to show us how mean the world or some judge can be.

I think birds of a feather will flock together. It can be a little disconcerting to have an interloper but the cow bird ain't dumb.

That's normative, not objective. — ssu

Being normative is natural.

The only objective view is the one that sees everything we do as natural. The subjective view sees what we do as better or worse, or capable of being better or worse. Objectivity is not relative. Subjectivity is.

The subjective will use the objective as an excuse, switching back and forth as it sees fit.

I do however also understand others who have not had this experience, ask for some articulation, and when it is not given, I understand the skepticism that comes with that. But, it is what it is. Not much too do about that. — Manuel

I get that too. Especially if someone dangles it in front of them. That is why, at least in my limited experience, it's pretty stupid to dangle.

There may be an initial excitement and a desire to share, but it does more harm to try to say the unsayable, than to just STFU and let it ride.

But there is no harm in defending the idea of personal experience generally, and it having personal meaning to you that is on par with anything else you've picked up, whether from your fellow man in a lab coat, or teaching philosophy in a university. There are no gatekeepers on wisdom, and there is no such thing as insubordination.

Because if not, then how can a "actual" enlightened subject ever recognize another one? — Manuel

For me, it's another one of those things that cannot be satisfactorily articulated. It's just known.

By an inverse analogy, in a certain profession there are those in the community who have what is called "the look." If you see it in a man's eyes, there is absolutely no doubt about it. You know. There are a lot of pretenders out there; some of them are even accomplished within the community. These poser might practice "the look." But it just doesn't work. And everyone knows it. I don't have it, I've never pretended to have it, I absolutely would not want it, and I've only seen it twice. But I knew when I saw it, and so did everyone else. Nobody fucks with those men; at least not with any quarter.

Anyway, that's just an example, if an opposite type of situation.

When one enlightened subject meets the other, there is really no need to engage because there is nothing to say, even if it could be articulated. They just know. I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Then again, I have not had the exposure that many others (Wayfarer?) have had. I've never travelled in those circles. For instance:

Your word "enlightened" sometimes says way too much. It can conjure all kinds of attributes (especially in the insecure or jealous mind) that simply are not possessed by one who has come to know something that cannot be articulated. In my case, it is simply something important to me in my perception of life; to me it is legitimate wisdom, personally revealed, truthful and authoritativeto me, providing useful and sound insight(s). (Taken from OP.) When seen in this light, there is really no need for anyone to feel insecure or jealous or to mount their steed and coming charging at me with demands for logical proof of something I never teased them with in the first place. I don't pretend to the Dali Llama or some sage or zen master. Those boys are a different animal.

5, 6, and 7 are the tough ones for me. :grin: Work in progress.

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc. — Artemis

Absolutely none. There is a whole community of artists who define art as the process and not result. Some of it appears to me to be absolute shit. But they have educated me on the fact that what I think doesn't mean shit. They didn't do it for me. They didn't do it for others. They did it for the process and burned the result. Some write words on the canvass which influence what is painted over it. Then it's sometimes shared with other like-minded artists, trashed, or hidden away. On to the next creative process.

Who are the gatekeepers? Should they license people, like the bar does, or the medical community, or architecture? If you practice "philosophy" without a license, should the legislature have passed laws to hold you liable? Curious minds want to know.

I have to say there is much to be said for solitude as opposed to "group" spirituality. — Janus

:100: :up:

The only part of this subject that I find worth talking about is the OP. Specifically,

"Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? In other words, can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?

For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s).

Is personal Gnosis legitimate wisdom?" [Emphasis added.]

Not all gnosis is inexplicable, but as to that which is, I think it is foolish to think another human could explain the inexplicable. I think it's foolish to try. But it's also foolish to think that just because one doesn't know anything that is inexplicable, then no one else could either. That sounds like a logician and, as far as I'm concerned, logic has it's own 'splaining to do.

A degree in philosophy is not really a degree in how to be a philosopher is it? It usually has a much narrower focus and perhaps allows you to have some deeper knowledge about a specific text or a few of them. Depends on the degree. — Tom Storm

So wait . . . I got my degree in Political Science. Doesn't that mean I get to be a politician? You mean I have to get votes? WTF is that all about? I thought I was on the fast track to POTUS! Will the hazing never end?

. . . . go back to the beginning . . . — Leghorn

:100: :fire: :death:

What you are missing here, it seems to me, is the wild plurality of ways of going off reservation, and the wild plurality of error. There are far more wrong ways to do something than right ways. — hanaH

I'm not missing that at all. In fact, I think science is somewhat like that. There are more misses than hits. In fact, some even try to intentionally exhaust the misses first, in order to explore the remainder. Why would science expect to be exempt from one area of enquiry, but not another?

How did you find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How was your experiment with Scientology? Did Jainism live up to your expectations? Have you done your "research" on the claims of Q?

Do you see my point? — hanaH

The point I'm not getting is the link between LDS, Scientology, Jainism (or any other religion) and "personally revealed wisdom." See OP. Or, as I said a few posts up: "And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.

When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. — Tom Storm

That sounds so predictable. And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.

There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics. — Tom Storm

That is true not only for those with professed metaphysics, but professed physics, science or what have you. Of course you allowed for that with your inclusion of secular people. In other words, people is people. If you want personally revealed wisdom, you might want to put some distance between yourself and other people. It's also been my experience that many folks don't want to do that because they can't stand having themselves around.

:100: When I wore what I perceived as a white hat, I was subsidized by my partners. When I wore what I perceived as a black hat, the money came rolling in. But when I could not sleep at night, I left. If I could upload a picture of my current hat, I would. It's 10X tejon; it was once off-white; but it's no longer pretty. :blush:

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. — hanaH

That right there is closer to what I was talking about, especially if they replicated in the experiment. That, of course, might be defeated if part of the replication involved not trying. On other words, those who go outward in search of what is inside, or those who go inward in search of what is outside, may not be replicating in the experiment. But I'd like to know if science has studied this, or at least logged some data points for future study.

For me a scientific attitude is something like doing more with less, staying with the undeniable basics, working and thinking from there. Perhaps it's elitist in its way, like riding a bike with no hands. It annoys people who can't do it or just don't want to. — hanaH

With all the time and money dumped into long-term scientific studies, in the field and in the lab, I find that an unwillingness to follow some simple protocols from a simple person to be indicative of fear, laziness, insecurity or snobbery. Annoying? Only when they put on their critic shoes, sans analysis. It's not like it takes a lot of time or money to go off the reservation and up the river for a year or less.

More on your theme, though, a desperate person might spend the dregs of their bank account on spiritual seminars when their problem could be solved by diet, exercise, and a puppy. — hanaH

My theme appears to have missed it's mark. :smile:

Anyway, I tried to create a parable about scientists who pretended to intellectual curiosity, and not a desperate person. The need for me to work on my writing is proven once again. :sad: :smile:

I might be wrong, because I never put a lot of thought into religion, but I always thought it was spiritual group-think, and subsidiary to philosophy. If some other subsidiary of philosophy were to sit around in a back-slapping circle-jerk, then it too might be a religion. But to carve it out as distinct from philosophy would, it seems to me, ostracize some philosophers who were way smarter than me. So there's that.

I'm all for analysis. Let's count. Let's compare. Set up controlled experiment. Sift for correlations in data. Let's circumvent our cognitive biases, use our network nervous systems to learn about and improve those nervous systems with traditions of mutual criticism and education, etc. — hanaH

:100: :up: I agree. Let's do that.

Once upon a time there was X. He came down from the hill stop and said “I have created cold fusion!” Everyone raised an eyebrow, and rightly so. Some of the stupid people said “Prove it, X!” to which X replied “There is no way in hell I can prove anything to you, my child. For science knows full well that if you want to know something, you have to convince yourselves. That is why I have provided my protocols to the real scientists, who are already back at their labs, trying to replicate and satisfy themselves that I am either FOS, or that I might be on to something. That is how science works.”

On another mountain sat Y. A scientist crawled up the mountain and asked “What do you know that I don’t know?” Y responded, “To know what, if anything, that I might know that you don’t know, you will have to become me. Or, barring that, you must do what I do.” And the scientist said “Fuck that! I’m not going to sit up here on a sharp rock, freezing my ass off, starving and thirsty!” And Y just smiled and said “That is a good thing. For if you were to come here looking, you would not find. If you want to find, quit looking.” And the scientist crawled back down the mountain, smug in his knowledge that Y is FOS.

Two observations:

1. Both sides of this equation can be smug.
2. Science is not always willing to put in the work, replicate, and run the test.

Two questions:

1. What is science afraid of?
2. Has science ever had anyone go off the reservation and then return? If so, what did the returnee have to say about what, if anything, that Y might know that they didn’t know before he/she left? What are the numbers? Scientific minds might want to know.

What's the alternative? Self-anointed spiritual masters competing for simps? — hanaH

That's an illogical either/or assumption. The same as 'Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.' There is always the possibility that self-anointed spiritual masters don't compete. That self-anointed spiritual masters aren't known. That peer-review and exposure to criticism realizes it's own inferiority, and itself dies by exposure. That those who know speak. That those who speak do know. Or any other possibilities of which we are unaware.

When someone gives you two choices, pick the third; if only to check someone who thinks they are a peer, or who thinks they are the self-anointed experts on peer-review and exposure. Vet those who would vet. Have they been up the river? If not, what the hell do they know?

Critical thinking takes more than being a critic. It takes analysis. Too many critics jump the gun.

I resent your insult to my intelligence by your thinking that I would never catch you on your trap. — god must be atheist

Perhaps all the experience of losing arguments has imprinted a negative impression. — praxis

I think I might love you two. I mean, if you are going to do it, that is how it is done. It's almost Churchillian, and so much better than my knuckle-dragging F bombs. Gentlepeople, I aspire to this!

I think the main reason for this was cultural and political. Socialism was seen by some in the West as “acceptable” whereas communism – due to the East-West antagonism – was not. — Apollodorus

The cultural and political aspect is the conservative/capitalist mindset that wants to paint socialists with a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist brush. It's no different than a liberal /socialist wanting to paint the conservative/capitalist as a fascist Nazi Hitler Musoliniest. It denotes a lack of education in intro to Political Science.

But the fact of the matter is that communism or Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism. — Apollodorus

One has to be able to parse or conflate (depending on their rhetorical goal) the economic from the political use of these terms, each of which can have cross-over. Much like capitalism and communism (see China). Or capitalism/socialism/representative Democracy (United States).

Communism was the utopian ideal to be achieved in the future. — Apollodorus

And some like to hang on the slippery-slope mythology that comes with a fallacy of the two-valued orientation. They ignore all of the first world countries on the planet because they are on all the way to the gulag. They also conveniently ignore the socialist aspects of the U.S. and how capitalism would have a snow-ball's chance in hell without them.

This is why so-called “communist” states like Russia officially called themselves “socialist”: they were ruled by an officially communist party, — Apollodorus

An education in the Political Sciences teaches one to not confuse what countries say about themselves with what they really are. An example is "Nazi" which the conservative agenda likes to point out, has the word "socialist" in it (see above, re Stalanist, Maoist, Pol Potist). But they are slow to acknowledge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic or a republic. Another example is the the Republican who correctly notes that Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats, all while conveniently failing to note that it was actually the liberals that freed the slaves from the conservatives.

Anyway, your name fired a synapse in the back of my head so I went to a log I keep and, low-and-behold, there you were as someone I had informally banned. While I can't remember the reason now (I don't log such things, and you aren't that important to me) I'm smelling an inkling as to why. So I will cede the floor to your august retort, hoping against hope that you might have learned something. At the very least, maybe someone else did. Adios, and apologies to myself for the re-engagement.

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. — Gnomon

Apology accepted.

But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum? — Gnomon

Read posts 1, 3 and 5.

Indeed. STEM should follow Liberal Arts like school should follow free range play.

In the old days, we used to call the Soviet Union "Communist" not "Socialist." Also, back in the 80's, my poly sci class used to distinguish between the two.

:100: To me, it's a tool. Like logic. Like a hammer. Like a gun. It's not perfect and a lot depends on who's wielding it and what their motivations are. Using it to explore some things is like using a hammer to cut wood.