Gees Posted March 26, 2018 Author Posted March 26, 2018 Migl; This first post of yours was after my post regarding the Europeans and the American Indians. It was next on my list to respond to, but I added your most recent post because I am finally on Page 5. On 3/17/2018 at 9:08 AM, MigL said: Truth is like reality. We have no way of knowing what it really is. We have models to describe reality, whether it be particles of the standard model, fields on fields or geometry of co-ordinate systems, but we never actually know what is real. Only what we can perceive and measure. Truth is the same,;it is the concept on which we base good or bad, right and wrong, etc., but it is also a perception, and therefore subjective. If there is an absolute truth as Koty is convinced, is irrelevant. Even the effect it has on us is filtered through our individual 'sense' of perception. And of course that leads to what is right or good for one individual, can be very wrong or bad for another The following is my thinking out loud. In your last statement, what you are describing could be called "might is right" -- an old concept. But is it true that might is right? If I beat a person down or kill them, am I right because I won? I doubt that the local police would see it that way. On the other hand, might is right, survival of the fittest, and only the strong survive are very old concepts that reflect the reality of humans and other species. History tells us that we tend to follow a strong leader, and that at one time a leader was chosen because of his intelligence and/or physical strength, although now it may be because of his financial or political strength. (We are social animals and have a kind of pack mentality.) And we like to be on the "right" or winning side of things. Science tells us that many species protect the strength of their specie through the might is right concept, especially at mating season. This ensures that the strongest or most wily gets to reproduce. Truth is a reflection of reality, and history and Science tell us that the above concepts are real, so there is truth in these ideas. But what is that truth? How can one nation decimating another nation be right, when one neighbor decimating another neighbor is wrong? To kill is wrong, but to kill in self defense is not wrong. I suspect that this is a matter of perspective, more than perception. The survival instinct in all species is the number one directive -- we must survive. Instincts work through the unconscious aspect of mind and are activated by emotion. The unconscious is communal and is also where our prejudices and biases are formed. So since we are a social specie, if we perceived a threat to our larger self, the unconscious communal self that understands things through "same and difference" and is the source of bias and prejudice, then it could justify war -- to protect the larger self. So wars are fought for land, water, food, or just to protect our way of life. They are fought because the larger unconscious aspect of mind perceives a communal threat. This is why politicians beat the drums of war to build up the fears and perceived differences between peoples in preparation for war. So what I named political truths or social truths are in reality emotional truths which activate a response through the unconscious. 1 hour ago, MigL said: Interesting... "My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs" What does that tell you about any 'truths' gleaned from these differing approaches ? A lot. Philosophy is not that different from Science, nor is truth that different from fact. If Science uses different approaches and different testing but still comes to the same conclusions about a fact, that simply reinforces the validity of the fact. Truth is the same. If you study Nature, you will find that when she finds something that works, she tends to repeat it. What do we know about the basic plot of the story of the Garden of Eden? Well, Adam and Eve were just chilling in the garden, when this "snake" came up to Eve and talked her into eating the fruit of the "tree of knowledge". She convinced Adam that it was pretty good, and then they became aware of things that they hadn't been aware of previously. I don't know what the symbolism of the "snake" is, but I know a guy in another forum who studies symbols, and he may know. So what we have here are people, who were not aware. They made a choice about knowledge and became aware. Anyone who studies psychology or psychiatry will understand that this is about the rational aspect of mind. The rational mind allows us to have two things (that I know of) that we did not have previously. The first is choice, as the unconscious aspect is reactive but does not allow for self-directed choices based on knowledge. The second is knowledge and awareness of that knowledge. A daffodil has knowledge, it knows how to grow, reproduce, pull nutrition and water from the earth, and react to the sun, but it does not "know" that it has this knowledge. It possesses consciousness, as all life is conscious, but it has no awareness of knowledge. Knowledge like that takes a brain and a rational aspect of mind. But we are not born with a rational aspect of mind. I think it is developed by age seven. Coincidentally, religions often put the age where a person can be expected to make choices at seven -- so they did get some things right even before psychiatry taught them. Psychologists have looked at the story of the Garden of Eden and understood that this is a metaphor about the rational aspect of mind. Tub obviously agrees, as do I. Remember that I stated earlier in this thread that Religion is a study of consciousness? It is. When I study consciousness, I include all conscious life, so the evolution of mind is rather important to me. I wonder how old this story actually is. The Bible starts out with the creation of Earth, so I wonder if this story is some corruption of a previous story that tried to explain the differences in thinking that developed "?" thousand years ago. So this may be a metaphor about the development of a person's mind, or it might be a metaphor about the development of mind in humans in general. It is noteworthy that Science will use a child's mind for comparison to other species, ie., a chimp has the mind of a 3 year old, or an orangutan has the mind of a 6 year old, etc. So I am not the only one who looks at mind from this perspective. Then there is the battle of the sexes. Many scholars have concluded that the story of the Garden of Eden is also about Lilith. Lilith was supposed to have been a powerful leader, maybe a priestess or "witch", who lost her power around the same time that men started to develop priesthoods and gained power over societies. This theory has some support because the more ancient religions seem centered around women as being the "keepers of life" or the naturally "magical" beings that provided sustenance, the continuance of life, or all that was good. You may notice that the Bible seems to have a subtle, yet ongoing, war against women in general. I am certain that a lot of men are very comfortable with the idea that the change from matriarchal societies to patriarchal societies coincided with the development of the rational mind. (chuckle) I have my own ideas on that subject, but I suspect that the story of the Garden of Eden evolved and changed over time to include and reflect whatever was happening at the moment. When writing was invented, it stabilized the story. imo Gee
Tub Posted March 26, 2018 Posted March 26, 2018 6 hours ago, Gees said: My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs, but these differences are more additional, rather than adversarial. Thanks, Gee. No need to rush your reply. 6 hours ago, MigL said: Interesting... "My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs" What does that tell you about any 'truths' gleaned from these differing approaches ? Truth, itself, clearly can't be particular or personal, or open to interpretation, ( i think that's the point you're making, MigL ), but the approach is, of necessity, a personal one: people are all different in temperament, character, abilities, skills, talents and natural proclivities, and have widely varied circumstances and environments to cope with; all these factors play a part - from the cerebral, contemplative monastic orders through Buddha's " Middle Way " to the extreme physical asceticism of some Yogic practices, people have tried different ways for centuries to come to what amounts to the same result. Whatever way we take, though, the normal, insistent demands of everyday-life can't be ignored. I can't say there is a definitive right or wrong approach, as the paths of saints and sinners can all lead to that same epiphany - a ( sudden, sometimes ) insight or relevation, seeing what is " wrong " in what is " right ", and seeing what is " right " in what is " wrong ". ( That Good Thief/Bad Thief routine again! ). I don't have a Bible but i think, ( from childhood memories of a strict Catholic upbringing ), that there is a cryptic quote along the lines of " My Father's house has many rooms " which i interpret as meaning that no-one is excluded from finding that Truth, and there many ways to arrive at the same conclusion. Distance and direction may be different but the destination is the same even though we don't all tread the same path at the same pace - and hear those different drummers. 1
Gees Posted March 29, 2018 Author Posted March 29, 2018 Silvestru; Hi. I apologize for being so late with my response. I started this yesterday, but life got busy. On 3/19/2018 at 11:50 AM, Silvestru said: I don't think that was the point of Gees's comparison. Like if I said that 2 tons of cement is enough to crush a tortoise. And you argument is that I'm a monster who hates animals. Thank you for this. I appreciate the feedback, because if only the people who disagree respond, then I don't know if anyone understands my point. I have always used metaphors to explain my thoughts; I know this because people have commented on it since my teens. Metaphors are great because they can give a fuller more rounded understanding of the explanation, and are especially useful in a forum where I don't know the experience, training, or perspective of the reader. But they can also cause misunderstandings, so I will have to be more careful. Quote I have followed this thread closely from the sideline and I can say that even though the members might not agree or might try to clarify your initial thoughts on page one, they have been very coherent and open to productive discussion, giving arguments, something that you started doubting on this forum in a previous post. Agreed. This thread was a kind of test. I specifically chose a subject that would be acceptable as a Philosophy topic and would not cause too much dissent. It has worked out well, and I have learned things, and passed out a lot of up votes, as I firmly believe in positive reinforcement. But many of my ideas are not nearly so conventional. How does one determine whether their ideas are unconventional or unreal? Well, one would have to discuss those ideas with other knowledgeable and open-minded people. I am a holistic thinker. The simplest explanation of holistic thinking is that the person sees the relationship between things more clearly than the things themselves. Holistic thinkers are especially useful in studying things like ecosystems, because the relationship between different life forms is what perpetuates the ecosystem. What has to be considered in ecosystems, and life, is that cause and effect is not so direct; it is more like an influence that causes gradual change or perpetuates the system. This is what I was looking at in the thread Dinosaurs, Deuteronomy, and Ebola -- the relationship. In Freud's idea of infantile sexuality, I see the influences of religion, WWII, Science, and the consequential laws that tried to correct the problems, leading to the breakdown of families, breakdown in society, SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), a bad work ethic, divorce, suicide, and probably even influences the problem of kids going into schools with guns. These things may seem unrelated to you, but when I look at them, I see a bonding issue that has been ignored. Then there is consciousness, which I am pretty sure has properties and works with physical matter and forces. This was the original reason I came to a Science forum, so that I could study the ways that consciousness and physical reality connect. I think it will be a while before I feel confident enough to address these issues. My lack of confidence is not because I am unable to explain or argue my points, it is because I have no way to counter the "click-it squad". I have to count on other people to protect me and my unconventional ideas. Quote And about the subjectivity of truth, and how it is viewed, there are many quotes by philosophers out there, you mentioned the Europeans and the Indians but after reading your examples, embarrassingly a quote from a fictional character from a kids show came to my mind. Quote Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of historyPeople who have never seen peace and people who have never seen war have different values.Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice! This made me smile. You have done a great job of putting all of the issues of right and wrong into a single paragraph. You may notice that all of the issues above could be described as political, social, or moral issues. In this thread I have described these as "truths". Why? Because they are and always will be true. We may describe pirates or Marines as good or bad, and that designation may well change, but what will not change is why we designate them as such -- the reason -- emotion. That is what I learned in this thread. Political, social, and moral issues are all the same in that they all work through the unconscious, or subconscious, mind and are all activated by emotion. These are all emotional issues, so the problem that I have been having, regarding truth, right, and wrong, is the same one that Science has to deal with. But removing emotion from a study of chemistry is, I think, a little easier that removing emotion from a study of consciousness/religion. Emotional issues will always be with us because emotion is real. While trying to determine what is real and what is not real, I realized that something that is real causes effect; it also actively works at balance. Emotion does both of these things, as does matter and forces. Talk about embarrassing, of the three Disciplines, Science that studies the physical, Religion that studies the spiritual/emotional, and Philosophy that studies thought and knowledge, Philosophy studies that which is the least real. Quote I can't say much about truth but I can definitely agree with other members that right and wrong are very situational and subjective. Truth is easy, it is just a reflection of reality. Just like consciousness is easy, it is just communication. Yet these two "easy" subjects have been stumping us for thousands of years. (chuckle chuckle) Quote Absolute truth I think needs absolute knowledge. That would violate the laws of physics. If you could step outside space and time (bear with me) and you would see space and time as finite (let's assume they are), like a circle, I guess in this scenario there could be truth. It's the only way I can think of it. I don't know squat about physics, but agree that absolute truth is not attainable because absolute knowledge is not attainable. It is interesting that you talked about stepping out of space and time. If you study the unconscious aspect of mind, you will learn that it ignores space and time, does not even acknowledge it. The unconscious is massive, has an unbelievable amount of information and is not rational at all. It processes information in "infinite sets", works information by comparisons of same and difference, and makes little sense. If you are interested, you can look up Matte Blanco in Wiki for an interesting but short read on the unconscious. My knowledge of the unconscious aspect of mind is most of what allows me to accept the possibility of the Holograph Universe, or the illusion theories of consciousness, as they seem comparable. But even if all information exists, and I am not convinced it does, it would still not be knowledge, because it would still not be knowable. Gee Shauno; On 3/19/2018 at 9:32 PM, Shauno said: There are so many different types of truth - historic truth, personal experience, scientific truth, mathematical truth, ... Historic truth is whatever the winner says? Personal experience is subjective Religious truth is objective and absolute. Scientific truth should be objective as observations should be repeatable, but theories can only be proved wrong, probably. Mathematical truth would appear to the most solid, but there are theorems that are true or false but cannot be proven (Godel). Even the tools we use are imperfect. Years were spent axiomatising maths (e.g. Frege) only for Russell to produce his famous paradox. The axiom of Choice and Set Theory itself is not beyond criticism. So this thread should be kept going for some time. I can see most of your points, but can not see that Religious truth is objective and absolute. If it were, doesn't that mean all Religion would be in agreement? Gee
Gees Posted April 3, 2018 Author Posted April 3, 2018 Dimreepr; I really don't like to debate things with you because, although your "logic" alternately amazes and amuses me, it rarely makes sense to me. I will try to give you my thoughts on the following, and hopefully, my thoughts will make sense to you. On 3/21/2018 at 11:09 AM, dimreepr said: That's just a really long-winded way to say opinion is true, spoiler alert, it's not. Don't get me wrong, I have argued long and hard, in many threads, that Bibles contain wisdom and that wisdom is as valid today as it was then; but is wisdom true? A metaphor I've used before "All roads lead to Rome" by which I mean there is more than one path to wisdom, I could say my path is true and if I found wisdom it would be, but only for me, IOW whats true for me is not universal however accurate. All of the above is opinion. 1. Opinion is not true, philosophical opinion is based on truths, or it is garbage. In Philosophy when someone states their "opinion" it is their position attained after careful study. 2. Wisdom is not true, wisdom is a compilation of truths. I explained this on the first page of this thread, and you did not challenge it. 3. No one knows everything, so no one is wise in all things -- except people who lie and claim wisdom in all things. On 3/22/2018 at 9:54 AM, dimreepr said: Generally, we don't. It's perfectly possible for two statements from the same person to both contradict and be truthful. On 3/22/2018 at 10:02 AM, dimreepr said: I prefer to trust first and hope I'm not proven wrong. Yes, unless the evidence is overwhelming (caught red-handed). Well, that's what we do when we vote. The above statements all reference your inability to know when someone is lying to you. This appears to be an area where you are not successful, so my suggestion that you attempt another methodology for finding truth might be worth considering. Anyone can be lied to, and we don't always catch the lie, but that is not a problem that I often experience. My problem was that I too often caught the lie, and developed a reputation with my family and friends as a person that it was not wise to lie to, because they would be caught. It was my husband, who convinced me that knowing a person lied did not mean that I had to state that the person lied. Quote Judges don't do that, jurors do. This is not true. This was a response to my statement that Judges judge cases. I would be very surprised if even ten percent of cases were put before a jury, and suspect that it would be less than one percent. There are a lot of reasons for this. The higher courts like the Supreme Courts don't have juries, as the Judges are the jury. The Circuit Courts (county courts) are courts of equity (fairness) and probably have the most use for juries in law suit cases, criminal cases, and cases appealed from the lower courts. Even so, Court Procedures, attorney's strategies, and costs can eliminate juries from many cases. Then one must consider that these courts also judge Family Law, Probate Law, and Juvenile Law. Juveniles don't have Constitutional rights, juries do not probate a will or grant guardianship, juries do not grant a divorce or custody or establish paternity -- Judges do this. The District Courts (city courts) are courts of law, not courts of equity and juries are often irrelevant. You do not get a jury trial for a traffic ticket, or for violating a City Ordinance like refuse on your property, nor are juries necessary for Landlord Tenant disputes. Only Criminal cases would need a jury, and that depends on whether or not you follow Court Procedures and send in your Request for Jury along with your Answer to Complaint, and if your attorney thinks to win the case on sympathy or social concerns (jury) or if you are more likely to win on points of law (judge). Gee
Gees Posted April 3, 2018 Author Posted April 3, 2018 Ten oz; Hi. On 3/22/2018 at 10:02 AM, Ten oz said: Social "truths" as you describe are merely common attitudes or beliefs among specific social groups of people. Those groups could be small as a couple people or large as national political parties. Either way the word truth is being misused. Much of what you stated is true. It does not matter the size or attitude or belief or culture, language, or even race of a group of people. All of these things can be factors that cause them to group, but have little to do with social truths. Persons can also move from one group to another, like people who work to be accepted into a higher social/financial group -- "social climbers". There is much that is transient and fluid about being in one social group or another, but there are also some truths. Whether you want to rub elbows with the rich and famous, live with a primitive tribe, or go and live with the gorillas like that lady scientist did, you will have to learn the mannerisms and social niceties in order to be accepted. This is simple truth. This simple truth is also a social truth. It is my thought that the reason you have to learn these mannerisms is because you have to be part of a large group at the same time that you have to maintain your private self, so it appears these social rules are about levels of intimacy and regulating the duality of the larger and individual selves. I can think of two groups that do not work well within the strictures of social groups. The first is very young children, as they do not always follow the rules, nor do they expect others to follow social rules and can be accepting of unsocial behavior. I suspect that this starts to change around seven years old, as that is when they attain the development of mind that would require privacy. It is also when a child learns to lie. The second group is the mentally disabled. Many people are uncomfortable around the mentally disabled because they don't know how to talk to them, and they don't know how a mentally disabled person will act or react. Their mannerisms and statements are often outside the boundaries of social niceties. If you can think of something that I missed here, let me know what it is. Quote This applies to you specifically and is not true among all people. This is just how you feel. Again, this applies to you specifically. You are conflating what is true for you personally with would is true for others. Of course this is about me, and I am "conflating" nothing. What I have been doing is trying to show you that you can not objectify someone just because they are disabled or sickly or elderly. These handicaps do not change who we are; they do not take away our right to respect for our wishes or privacy. Following is what you wrote: "The type of lies you described leads to people dying prematurely and or catching their families off guard when they pass suddenly. If you have had elderly relatives who have passed or are currently worried about elderly relatives who still live alone and you fear probably shouldn't" Look at your words that I underlined. Are those words about protecting the elderly person, or are they about protecting the relatives of the elderly person? It looks like you are saying that I could have a car accident and die catching my family off guard, but I am not allowed to die of illness or old age and catch them off guard. And what right do you have to determine whether or not your elderly relative should live alone? Maybe your relative worked for decades paying off their home and thinks that they have the right to die there? I am sure that you are a nice person, who really cares about relatives in need, but I am not sure that you are well enough informed. The first and most important thing you must do is listen to the needs and wants of your relative. Then you must understand that taking that relative out of their home means that they can never return. Few people can afford to maintain their home while living in some kind of protected community. From there it is usually a short and quick trip to a nursing home. With so many women working, there are few families that can take in an elderly relative and provide the care necessary. So my advice is, if she says she is "fine", then accept that. Gee
dimreepr Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 4 hours ago, Gees said: I really don't like to debate things with you because, although your "logic" alternately amazes and amuses me, it rarely makes sense to me. Thank you Gees, what a lovely insult.
Ten oz Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Gees said: Much of what you stated is true. It does not matter the size or attitude or belief or culture, language, or even race of a group of people. All of these things can be factors that cause them to group, but have little to do with social truths. Persons can also move from one group to another, like people who work to be accepted into a higher social/financial group -- "social climbers". There is much that is transient and fluid about being in one social group or another, but there are also some truths. Whether you want to rub elbows with the rich and famous, live with a primitive tribe, or go and live with the gorillas like that lady scientist did, you will have to learn the mannerisms and social niceties in order to be accepted. This is simple truth. This simple truth is also a social truth. It is my thought that the reason you have to learn these mannerisms is because you have to be part of a large group at the same time that you have to maintain your private self, so it appears these social rules are about levels of intimacy and regulating the duality of the larger and individual selves. I can think of two groups that do not work well within the strictures of social groups. The first is very young children, as they do not always follow the rules, nor do they expect others to follow social rules and can be accepting of unsocial behavior. I suspect that this starts to change around seven years old, as that is when they attain the development of mind that would require privacy. It is also when a child learns to lie. The second group is the mentally disabled. Many people are uncomfortable around the mentally disabled because they don't know how to talk to them, and they don't know how a mentally disabled person will act or react. Their mannerisms and statements are often outside the boundaries of social niceties. If you can think of something that I missed here, let me know what it is. I appreciate your response. It was well thought out and provided good insight as to your thought process.Unfortunately I don't completely agree. You are right that much of the time people work to assimilate with the groups they wish to be part of but it is far from absolute. In my experience most behaviors, attitudes,mannerisms, and etc of groups seldom apply to those in leadership positions and are flexible for all so long as it benefits the groups. If we look at religion leaders are often caught behaving outside the boundaries. From mega church Pastors flying around on private jets using cocaine to Catholic Priests molesting young boys it seems that what is true for their teachings and followers simply doesn't have to be true for themselves. Here is the states 78% of self identifying Evangelical Christians voted for Trump despite the fact that he is a well known philanderer and clearly doesn't follows any of the rules of their group. Social rules are a figment. They can be rearranged, bent, broken, or ignore at any point. Dian Fossey sought to study and protect Gorilla's natural environment so she worked to learn their existing behavioral traits while having as little impact as possible. She wasn't merely trying to be accepted she was trying not to alter or disrupt. Never to be one of them but rather to simply observe them. 1 hour ago, Gees said: I am sure that you are a nice person, who really cares about relatives in need, but I am not sure that you are well enough informed. The first and most important thing you must do is listen to the needs and wants of your relative. Then you must understand that taking that relative out of their home means that they can never return. Few people can afford to maintain their home while living in some kind of protected community. From there it is usually a short and quick trip to a nursing home. With so many women working, there are few families that can take in an elderly relative and provide the care necessary. So my advice is, if she says she is "fine", then accept that. Again, this only applies specifically to you. All families and people handle these things differently. You are not referencing truth, right, or wrong at all. Some people say they are fine because they have things under control and don't want you to worry, other people say they are fine because they know they need help and simply don't know how to ask for it, other people still say they are fine out of fear of being abandoned, and etc, etc, etc, etc. There is as many reasons are there are individuals. It is not a one sizes fits all and "white lies" are not useful in any of the possible circumstances in my opinion. In my experience all lies regardless how big or small are problematic. Like assembling a puzzle but one piece is off. One might be able to focus on other parts of the puzzle and successfully get much of the puzzle completed but ultimately without all the right pieces they fail. Elderly parents aside but staying within family dynamics lots of lies get told regarding adoption, true parentage, drug use, work back ground, legal background, and etc. I have simply never seen it end well. At the end of the end in my opinion when one lies to someone they are denying the person they are lying to information. Just because the person telling the lie feels it is best doesn't mean the person they are lying to would feel the same way. It is a assumption. The more often it is done the further apart people become. Liars can't be trusted.
Gees Posted April 4, 2018 Author Posted April 4, 2018 Eise; It is a pleasure to talk to someone who has been trained in Philosophy, and I think that on a fundamental level, we are in agreement on most things. There are differences however, but I think that they mostly stem from two things: The first is that you were formally trained and I was self-taught, so we often say the same things, but use different words. This is just semantics. The second difference is caused by our differing subject matter. You study Science and I study consciousness and mind. This is what I suspect leads to our real differences. Example: In another thread, you asked the question "Can truth be wrong?" The question confused me and at the time I thought that it was a ridiculous question. Of course truth can be wrong, just ask any homosexual what he has to do to be right. Lie. If he tells the truth about his sexuality, he will be wrong in most people's eyes. But this is not what you were talking about. Upon further reflection, I realized that in Science truth is correct or valid, so saying that it is wrong would not make sense to you. I probably stated something prior to your statement that caused you to wonder about my thoughts, and you were just trying to clarify. I expect that we will run into differences like this again, so I will watch for them. (chuckle) On 3/23/2018 at 2:59 AM, Eise said: That is very shorthand for what I am saying, but so far, yes. All I care about is if it is right. When you study a subject that is as vast and complex as consciousness, and also has so many different ideas and concepts attached to that subject, with very little that is actual knowledge, any simple truth becomes like precious pearls. So if "truth is a reflection of reality" is true, then it is good enough for me. Quote Of course. Reality has many forms, and the question is if the shorthand above suffices to describe everything in 'human reality'. In my post here I distinguished between different kinds of validity claims. To repeat, and enhance a little: validity claims about the outside world: true or false validity claims about morality: right or wrong validity claims about aesthetics: beautiful or ugly validity claims about myself: honest or dishonest 'Reflection of reality' for me only applies to the first. In all other cases the 'reality' can be changed by human discourse, because these 'realities' only exist in the human domain. We divide things differently. Early on in my studies, I realized that limiting studies of consciousness to "human reality" is a sure fire way to invite human arrogance and the human ego into the study. Many studies of consciousness have done this, and the "human" factor has done a great job of corrupting the evidence, so I consider all known life when studying consciousness and this helps me to find evidence that is more valid. We agree on the first point, if we assume this is about causal reality and not the quantum reality -- whatever that is. The second and third points, morality and aesthetics, are both produced by emotion. Since I have determined that emotion is in fact real, I also see these as reflections of reality. The fourth point, honesty, is somewhat debatable. I have not yet determined that thought is real, so it may not be a reflection of reality and may simply be a reaction to reality. At this point in my studies, I see thought as a tool that is used to manipulate reality, but does not necessarily reflect it. This is because there is imagination, not real, but there is also knowledge, real. A psychologist could tell you that the rational mind can lie, but the unconscious aspect of mind does not know how to lie, so there is also reality in the unconscious, which happens to be activated by emotion. So this point is very debatable as to reality and the reflection of reality. Quote A problem with your ideas is that you mix all these kinds of validity claims. And then you even throw 'wisdom' in the mix, which does not belong to one of the single categories above, but is a product of all the valid claims above, together with openness and selfknowledge, especially of one's own limitations. Actually, I have not been mixing different kinds of truths, but separating them. In the points that you named above, your divisions are specifically from the perspective of humans, Science, and from the rational mind's observation, so they are quite limited. What I have been doing is more like a mechanic tearing down an engine to examine and classify all of the different components that make up an engine. I have been taking different kinds of truths and classifying them and giving them a value as to their reliability. This is how I learned what wisdom is, by breaking it down. When my last computer crashed more than a year ago, I lost a great deal of my work, but I think that I remember where I posted an early copy of A Measure of Truth, so if I can find it in another forum, I will post it here. Maybe it will help you to understand what I am trying to do. Quote Yes of course: truth is a description of a semantic relationship: that propositions correspond to states of affairs that really are the case. So it is not 'in here' and it is not 'out there': it is the correct relationship between the two. A reflection, as you say yourself. Dishonest validity claims, i.e. you think that what you say is invalid, but you present it as valid to others. You misunderstood me here. What I was asking was if truth and lies are not subjective, then what are they? They are certainly not objective. Gee Gwb; On 3/23/2018 at 9:56 PM, gwb said: I cannot really say why other people do not trust truth, but I can offer my perspective on this. Journalism is about truth, disseminating truth to the public. However, journalism distorts truth. Consider the issue of terrorist attacks. True, we experience terrorist attacks, yet I suspect we are more likely to get killed in a random car accident than a terrorist attack. New York City had about 150 pedestrian fatalities 2013, as per the NY Daily News. This is more than the average number of deaths from terrorist attacks, excluding 9/11. We never hear about the likelihood of a terror attack and we do not hear about the probability of being killed by a terror attack. But if you pay attention to the news, you could be forgiven for thinking the probability is higher than it really is. This is why I am cynical of journalistic truth. Yes, I realize I am sourcing a newspaper to say I distrust journalism, primarily because I am too lazy to search deeper into the search engine results. Journalism is supposed to be about truth, but I suspect it is just as much about economics and politics. It is also true that writers and workers need to get paid. It is also true that sensational headlines cause more attention. It is also true that the "squeaky wheel gets oiled". It is also true that editors, publishers, and owners can have a preference as to the "squeaky wheel". It can be difficult to find a journal with enough integrity to put these other truths behind journalistic truth. Gee
Ten oz Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Gees said: We divide things differently. Early on in my studies, I realized that limiting studies of consciousness to "human reality" is a sure fire way to invite human arrogance and the human ego into the study. Many studies of consciousness have done this, and the "human" factor has done a great job of corrupting the evidence, so I consider all known life when studying consciousness and this helps me to find evidence that is more valid. You consider all known life but do so through the filter of your human consciousness. You aren't achieving a result unsoiled by human arrogance or ego. Can a group of men minus any input from women see things from a female perspective?
StringJunky Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 34 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Can a group of men minus any input from women see things from a female perspective? Yes, humans are not perfectly binary.
Ten oz Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, StringJunky said: Yes, humans are not perfectly binary. But we only know what we know in the manner that we know it. I can imagine how others think or feel but am not able to ever actually know and as such confirm that what I imagine is true.
Gees Posted April 5, 2018 Author Posted April 5, 2018 Tub; Hi. I finally get to address your post, although I am not sure I can do it justice. It is such a pleasure to be able to discuss religious topics with someone who is not a Knipperdolling, and also does not go brain-dead with denials and stuttered incoherency. Every time I read your post, I find other points that I would like to address, but that is not possible in this format, so I will just try to show how I came to similar conclusions, but traveled a much different path. If I am reading you correctly, you work a kind of Continental Philosophy approach where you tend to internalize your thoughts, whereas I work Western Analytical Philosophy, where I analyze the hell out of everything. (chuckle) On 3/24/2018 at 3:19 PM, Tub said: To be clear from the start, Gee, i am definitely not a Knipperdolling ( https://1word1day.livejournal.com/680265.html ) but,like yourself, i haven't the slightest animosity towards anyone who peacefully follows any faith - whatever gets you through the night, as we say. Even though i don't follow any religious faith, i would still call myself a religious man, ( in the early sense of the word " religious " as derived from the Latin " religare ", which can mean " bind together " ), as i do believe that all Life is physically and consciously bound together: everything that exists is simply a different expression of the same essence - whatever that essence may be. In my early studies of consciousness, I realized that most people think that consciousness is thought, specifically intentional thought from the rational mind. This is not so -- as consciousness is so much more. It is thought, yes, but it is also knowledge and memory, and also awareness, feeling, and emotion. In the thread, Consciousness and Evolution, I explained that I had divided these six concepts by how they work into two divisions. Thought, knowledge, and memory make up one division that is the static part of consciousness; awareness, feeling, and emotion make up the second division which is active, works between things, and is motion. We also know that emotion causes bonding. Religion is the Discipline that studies spirituality. What is spirituality? It is awareness, feeling, and emotion -- the second division of consciousness. The active division. The division that causes bonding and causes all life to be bound together, which is why AI is not really conscious. If AI did become conscious, it would also become spiritual. Which means that it might worry about dying and have temper fits. (chuckle) I can't say that I am a religious person, as the only thing that I do religiously is drink coffee, but I can say that I am spiritual. To deny people the right to their religion is, in my opinion, foolhardy and short sighted, as all people are spiritual and can need/use spiritual guidance. Quote Do you not regard the Bible as a religious book at all? I think it is , in one way, a religious book, in that it was, and is, an influence on the so-called revealed Abrahamic faiths, but i would never go as far as to call any book divine or sacred. I do agree that the Bible is a valid source for studying consciousness: religions definitely affect and infect consciousness,veneficially as well as beneficially, so they can't be ignored. I can't see it as a religious book and have to view it as a history book in order to not corrupt what I learn from it. About 40 some years ago, some Jehovah Witnesses came to my door. I was polite and talked to them because I knew they thought they were doing the right thing. One of them told me that Jesus did not come to save us, but to save the Jews. This did not seem right to me because my early Christian teachings said otherwise. He gave me a notation of where to look in my Bible, and after he left I did look. He was right. This was rather shocking to my younger self and was the first time that I questioned whether or not the Bible and my religion were in agreement with each other. Most people do not realize that there is a lot in the Bible that they are completely unaware of, and that many of the things they are taught by their religions are from church doctrine, not from the Bible. We are not talking about a nefarious plot here, but an effort to take text that is thousands of years old and make it acceptable to current life. This is why I have to separate religion from the Bible, because I am aware of this discrepancy. Spirituality, just like humanity and evolution is in constant change. It is fluid, like consciousness is fluid. Although this change is slow, much slower than Science, it is still change, so someone must decide what is classic and what is not, what is acceptable now and what is not -- this becomes church doctrine. Remember that when Jesus died, his very small church was not established. He only worked three years. His believers and followers multiplied until they became a force that had to be addressed. So there were two Counsels (I think) one was in Constantinople and the leaders there looked for ways to merge this new religion with the pagan religions, which is why some pagan holidays are also Christian holidays. I think it was St. Augustine, who was a prolific writer (300 to 400 AD) who finally developed the church doctrines that carried the church through the dark ages. It was at this time that poor Mary Magdalen became a prostitute/whore -- hundreds of years after her death. She continued to have that reputation until the 1970's. Although St. Augustine did some wonderful work, much of which is still respected today, he also screwed up a few things. He did not like those pagans, Plato and Aristotle, and taught that the only thing necessary was belief in "God". This idea curtailed science, rational thinking, and encouraged the Dark Ages. Anyone who did not accept "God's" or the church's word was in danger, spawning "witch" hunts, inquisitions, and even the Crusades, as he also thought fighting for "God" acceptable. The ironic part of St. Augustine's doctrines regarding fighting for "God", was that it allowed the Crusaders to go into the Middle East, kill the non-believers, steal all the gold they could carry, and find the works of Plato and Aristotle. You see, the Muslims, not being stupid, recognized Plato's and Aristotle's work as the valuable things they were, so this work was preserved. The Crusaders came home with gold, but also with a wealth of new information and ideas, including a new math idea that had to do with a "0". These new ideas filtered through the church clergy gaining popularity until finally Aquinas arrived, wrote new more rational church doctrine, and opened the doors to the Enlightenment. There is actually much more than this, but this is a synopsis of what I can remember. So yes, I view Religions and religious items as history, because that is the only way I can understand them without corrupting the information. Have you read Holy Blood, Holy Grail? If not, I highly recommend it. I haven't read it in a while because it is one of those books I loaned out and never got back. It started out as a BBC documentary, if I remember correctly. Apparently it was popular, so they did another, then another and finally decided to research enough information to write a book. This book documents the life, death, and aftermath of Jesus and implies that Mary Magdalen was his wife. Of course, the church denied all of that, but could not deny that there is absolutely no indication that Mary was a prostitute/whore, and so they retracted that idea from their teachings. They also could not deny that Mary was actually a woman of noble birth and suitable as a wife to Jesus, as she was Mary of the city of Magdalen. They also could not explain why Mary would be walking around with Jesus, his Mother, and the wives of his disciples in a time when that would not have been allowed for a single woman. Anyway, the book documents Mary's arrival in France with her children, after Jesus's death. It also documents powerful families that married Mary and Jesus's offspring so when they said, "of the Blood", they meant it quite literally. They actually used this connection with "God", Jesus, to become kings because they could trace their lineage back to The Blood of Christ. It is an interesting book. The Da Vinci Code was based on information from this book. I can't finish this tonight. I knew I would have trouble focusing, so I will address the rest of your post tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. Gee
Gees Posted April 6, 2018 Author Posted April 6, 2018 Tub; continuation: On 3/24/2018 at 3:19 PM, Tub said: If not taken literally, as others have said, there are singular truths to be found in the Bible, even if not the absolute, ineffable Truth, and these truths don't really need to have a religious context to be true so "... separate out Religion ", as you said. Agreed. If a person is looking for The Truth, they are going to come away empty handed or with a story that they can believe. Looking for singular truths is more like searching out information, and there is a lot of information in the Bible. One of the things that I noted, especially in the Old Testaments, is that they accepted and understood who and what we are psychologically. I found examples of this repeatedly, and not just in metaphor. They seemed to have a more honest evaluation of human nature, whereas we now seem to think that human nature is what we want it to be. (chuckle) Anyone who studies psychology would see this. Probably not surprising as psychology studies emotion and Religion studies emotion. Quote Among those truths i can see definite psychological lessons, couched in allegory and metaphor: The Garden of Eden. for example, is obviously not a real geographical place but a psychological condition ( a state of Truth, perhaps ) that i think is the genuine, initial state of the unconditioned, undivided conscious mind - a state of the innocence/ignorance of childhood that is not separated from a unified one-ness with Nature, ( egoless, in fact ), which we lose as we rightly grow into adulthood, develop that ego and a separative self-identity and " fall " into the ways of the world around us. Do I see some of Jung's ideas in your above paragraph? I am not sure about calling it an "undivided conscious mind" as I think there are divisions in the unconscious aspect and divisions in the conscious aspect of mind so I am not sure that any mind can be called "undivided". Possibly the Garden of Eden itself could symbolize a unified one-ness. But I agree that the ego or rational aspect is the development that allows us to lose innocence. It could be that the separation, or individualization, is what actually causes the loss of innocence. And causes the ability to recognize evil. As I stated before, this could be an explanation of the development of a person, but it could also be the evolutionary development of species, as both go through this procession. It is interesting that animal behaviorists study a specie's ability to deceive as an indicator of the development of their minds. Quote In a sense, then, we " leave the Garden " when we put-off childhood and i think that what we call the search for Truth is really an attempt to get back into Eden. ( Do you know the chorus of Joni Mitchell's song " Woodstock "? She says as much in a scientific and psychological way. I don't think i can use the lyrics here without permission - you probably know more than i do about copyright laws ). Obviously we can't go back to our actual childhood, but i think it is possible to reconnect, as a wiser adult, with that first unconditioned conscious state of mind that existed before the brain did get conditioned through upbringing, education etc. I don't know the chorus and never studied copyright law, but I will bet that the Administrators of this forum know the laws. You know, I never questioned why truth was so important to me. Are you saying that we are trying to reconnect through truth? It is that internalizing philosophy that you use at work, so now I am going to have to analyze my feelings on this. Thanks a lot. You are making me work here. Quote In that first pre-conditioned state, right and wrong, ( not necessarily equivalent to good and bad ), don't seem to impinge on consciousness until we " eat of the fruit ", leave the Garden and gain that new knowledge which, in turn, gives birth to the universal, intrapersonal conflict between the perceived good and bad sides of the personality - a conflict that ideally culminates in the realisation of the metaphor of the Christian crucifixion and a return to the Garden. Witness to this is a famous Bible quote : " Unless you change and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven ". The kingdom of Heaven being also a state of mind - not a place of reward for good behaviour after we die. My take on this is a little different. Have you noticed that Religions always talk about "good vs evil"? The problem with this is that good and evil are not opposites, the opposite of good is bad. So what is the opposite of evil? Innocence. An earthquake that kills hundreds is not evil. A flood that washes away all you love is not evil. But a lion may be evil, and a human can definitely be evil. Why? Because evil requires intent, and an earthquake or flood does not have intent. But evil does not come from within. To understand my thoughts on this, think of a soldier in a war killing, mutilating, and crushing his enemies. He could very well appear to be evil. He might even think himself evil in the aftermath when he remembers what he has done. But that evil that he sees in himself would not come from him, it would be a reflection of how others view his actions. For himself, if he were honest, he would know that he was just reacting to the insanity of war as war is insane. For a man to be evil, there has to be some person outside of the man, who names the man as evil. We do not think of ourselves as evil, as evil is a second party designation. Someone else has to believe that we intended to do wrong and be evil. This is why innocent children never confront evil, because they do not recognize it. They can only be frightened or hurt, but they have not yet "eaten the fruit", have no ego, and can not read intent into another person's actions. So they can not name the other person as evil. If all are innocent, then there could be no evil in the Kingdom of Heaven. There could be no evil anywhere even if bad things happen. Quote From the allegorical Garden we go, figuratively, through what Hermann Hesse called " the Hell of myself ", inclusive of Purgatory and Limbo ( again, all states of mind encountered while alive, not after death ). At the end of this " Pilgrim's Progress " we arrive at the metaphorical, psychological crucifixion and death of the old self ( " the son of Man " ) and the Phoenix-like resurrection of a new faith-free enlightened self ( " the son of God " ). I think this is the true meaning of a " virgin-birth ". Again, not after death. What is re-born is not a re-birth of the old consciousness but a totally new consciousness completely unconnected with the old, dead consciousness. I think i've been a bit incoherent with that last paragraph so i'll try to explain what i was trying to get at with this other cryptic ( paraphrased ) Biblical quote: "He who loses himself shall find himself ". Which is still relevant today and can be clearly linked to Jung's process of" Individuation " and Freud's model of the Psyche and ultimately , again, to that psychological death of the self "on the cross". If you relate Christ/ Good Thief/Bad Thief to Ego/Superego/Id, you may see some sense in that - or not, of course. If there is a link, however, it could have startling implications. You have too many different ideas stuck in here together for me to give any response that would be less than a book. (chuckle) In the first paragraph, I should tell you that I am fairly certain that reincarnation happens, so I see things in that paragraph that are more than you have described. In the second paragraph, I am not sure what the "startling implications" are. Quote So, at last, " .... How do we find Truth? ", you ask. Well, when we speak of it, i think the search for Truth is the personal search for the truth of one's self, ( that Holy Grail ), and therefore the truth of all selves. It's a conscious undertaking, but none the less practical for that,and seems to me to be consciousness trying to fully understand itself ( even the brain studying the brain to understand the brain, which is quite strange ). The search itself, however, and as you implied, could be the corrupting factor in itself. ( A thief dressed up as a policeman to catch a thief ). The search is the seeker and i think the seeker, ( the conditioned consciousness ), is the very obstacle that needs to be overcome as a pre-requisite to any progress. I do think we can discover the truth of our psychological self, and that understanding of one's self is perhaps the first step we can take towards Truth and that " Peace that passeth understanding " - which, i think, is a liberation from our conditioned consciousness ( but not freedom of it - we still need it for normal social interaction ). I don't think we can take a scientific or philosophical approach to the problem; as much as i love and value both. i don't think Truth can be approached impartially, not through any kind of knowledge or preconceptions - only through a clear observation of our conscious, conditioned self and not as an entity standing outside of consciousness observing from a distance, but as consciousness observing itself: the actor in the wings is part of the play. If we are looking for truth in ourselves, my opinion is that it is in the unconscious aspect of mind, and the conscious (ego) is what we have to get around in order to find any truth. The conscious mind is the liar. The manipulator. Quote In conclusion, then, i'd have to say that it is a case of knowing " how " to look, not " where " to look. It goes without saying , though, that i may be utterly bonkers and talking nonsense- i'm sure someone will tell me, but i promise i won't go for the Galileo Gambit: i'm well aware of my own infinite insignificance so,in all honesty, i must admit that however sincere i've tried to be, i have to accept that, perhaps , nothing i've said can be taken for the gospel truth. I certainly don't think you are "bonkers", but if you are going to continue to be so interesting, maybe you should write shorter posts so I can answer them. (chuckle) Gee 1
Lasse Posted April 7, 2018 Posted April 7, 2018 (edited) Hello Gee, I think scientifically proved truth just right can be. I think they are related L Edited April 7, 2018 by Lasse
Tub Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 On 4/6/2018 at 10:42 AM, Gees said: Tub; ............... maybe you should write shorter posts so I can answer them. (chuckle) Gee Hello again, Gee.I will try to be a little less prolix. ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix 1
Tub Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Tub said: Hello again, Gee.I will try to be a little less prolix. ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix Sorry about that, Gee - my computer crashed so it certainly was a lot less prolix than usual! ( Poetic justice? ). I'll get back to you asap.
Eise Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 On 4.4.2018 at 4:39 AM, Gees said: The second difference is caused by our differing subject matter. You study Science and I study consciousness and mind. Not quite. The mind-body problem and free will were other important topics during my time at university. On 4.4.2018 at 4:39 AM, Gees said: Example: In another thread, you asked the question "Can truth be wrong?" Really? I can't remember that. Do you have a link to my posting? On 4.4.2018 at 4:39 AM, Gees said: Early on in my studies, I realized that limiting studies of consciousness to "human reality" is a sure fire way to invite human arrogance and the human ego into the study. Many studies of consciousness have done this, and the "human" factor has done a great job of corrupting the evidence, so I consider all known life when studying consciousness and this helps me to find evidence that is more valid. Hmm. Don't you think that language is an important factor in the development of consciousness? Further: my listing of four different kinds of validity claims was aiming at showing that they are of different kinds. Not the ontology of their respective domains. It is more or less the way I use to distinguish true, right, beautiful and honest. The methods to support these claims differ, and so do the certitude of such claims. But in all of them communication is one of the most important factors. It is only with truth that there is an strong and explicit reference to a reality as it is supposed to be even without humans. On 4.4.2018 at 4:39 AM, Gees said: This is how I learned what wisdom is, by breaking it down. And I thought wisdom hat an important holistic aspect... And I do not think wisdom increases just with knowing more validity claims. On 4.4.2018 at 4:39 AM, Gees said: What I was asking was if truth and lies are not subjective, then what are they? They are certainly not objective. That is a big 'if'. Why wouldn't we be able to objectively find out what truths are, and what lies are?
Gees Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 Tub; 12 hours ago, Tub said: Hello again, Gee.I will try to be a little less prolix. ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix Why? I thought we were starting a prolix club. Does this mean that I also have to control myself? I put a + on your post simply because I appreciated the call. I had started to feel like the girl, who "went all the way", but did not get a phone call the next day. Take your time about responding. One of the things that I enjoy about talking to you is that you actually take the time to think. Gee
Gees Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 Eise; 3 hours ago, Eise said: Not quite. The mind-body problem and free will were other important topics during my time at university. That is not what I meant at all, and did not mean to imply that you know nothing about consciousness. When I noted a difference in our studies, what I was saying is that we are working off of different premises. I also noted that "fundamentally" we are in agreement. Quote Really? I can't remember that. Do you have a link to my posting? Of course not. I do not know how to make a link to a posting. For the record, let it be known that there are lots of things that Gee does not know -- this is one of them. (chuckle) If you are feeling kindly, or if someone else is, you might send me a PM with very explicit instruction as to how to do this. Think of an elementary student and dumb down the instruction as much as is possible. But I found the post in the thread Philosophy (split from Sam Harris) on Page 5 toward the bottom of the page. I did not get the quote exact, but I got the gist of it correctly. The actual quote is, "??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain." I forgot about all of the question marks, but remembered that you were asking for clarification. Quote Hmm. Don't you think that language is an important factor in the development of consciousness? Sure it is. But it is no factor at all in the existence of consciousness -- an important difference. We did not create consciousness with language, we created language with consciousness. Some theories of consciousness seem to not notice that "important" difference. Quote Further: my listing of four different kinds of validity claims was aiming at showing that they are of different kinds. Not the ontology of their respective domains. It is more or less the way I use to distinguish true, right, beautiful and honest. The methods to support these claims differ, and so do the certitude of such claims. But in all of them communication is one of the most important factors. It is only with truth that there is an strong and explicit reference to a reality as it is supposed to be even without humans. I did not dispute your claims, I only divide them differently because that is what is required for me to stay true to my premise. Quote And I thought wisdom hat an important holistic aspect... And I do not think wisdom increases just with knowing more validity claims. Wisdom does have an important holistic aspect. But what is holistic? Holistic is the thought process that understands how things relate to each other. That means there has to be "things", separate things that relate -- these "things" are truths. You are going to argue that age does not make us wiser? Quote That is a big 'if'. Why wouldn't we be able to objectively find out what truths are, and what lies are? Because I can know a truth that I personally experienced, but can not prove. If no one else experienced it, and I can not prove it, how could it be made objective? The nature of truth is subjective. Gee
iNow Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Gees said: Of course not. I do not know how to make a link to a posting. On the top right of every post is a share icon. Click it and the URL for that post appears. Just copy and paste it to link a reader directly there. 1 hour ago, Gees said: I found the post in the thread Philosophy (split from Sam Harris) on Page 5 toward the bottom of the page. I did not get the quote exact, but I got the gist of it correctly. The actual quote is, "??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain." I forgot about all of the question marks, but remembered that you were asking for clarification. Here's the link you seek: And the seemingly relevant parts of the post from Eise: On 10/29/2017 at 4:40 AM, Eise said: Are truths different for different groups of people? <snip> ??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain. If you can present you ideas with clarity, we can start philosophising. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Until now I do not have a clear picture of how you see facts, theory building and interpretation in science. So I really hope you can clear this up. <snip> I suspect you call finding hypotheses that explain the facts philosophy. I think that is just part of scientific work. But that will become clearer if you can explain your ideas more precise. 1
Gees Posted April 9, 2018 Author Posted April 9, 2018 Ten oz; Hi. On 4/4/2018 at 6:26 AM, Ten oz said: You consider all known life but do so through the filter of your human consciousness. You aren't achieving a result unsoiled by human arrogance or ego. What "filter" would you prefer I use? "Unsoiled?" I don't think I said, "unsoiled". What I am looking for is information that has not been enhanced by human arrogance and ego. There are a surprising number of people who firmly believe that evolution is valid, but also firmly believe that humans are the only ones who are conscious. They make varied arguments to explain this "magical" difference in humans, including language, the ability to make our mark on the Earth, and even "God" for the religious ones. These ideas influence thinking and form a basis in many theories of consciousness. I call bullshit. If evolution is valid, then there was a progression from the simplest life forms to the more complex, and all life has at least some things in common that causes life. The easiest way to avoid falling into the ego trap, is simply to include all life in my considerations. Quote Can a group of men minus any input from women see things from a female perspective? They can if they have wives. On 4/3/2018 at 8:04 AM, Ten oz said: I appreciate your response. It was well thought out and provided good insight as to your thought process.Unfortunately I don't completely agree. You are right that much of the time people work to assimilate with the groups they wish to be part of but it is far from absolute. Thank you. I appreciate your saying so. I am not looking for absolute. I am looking for what is true that reflects what is real. Quote In my experience most behaviors, attitudes,mannerisms, and etc of groups seldom apply to those in leadership positions and are flexible for all so long as it benefits the groups. If we look at religion leaders are often caught behaving outside the boundaries. From mega church Pastors flying around on private jets using cocaine to Catholic Priests molesting young boys it seems that what is true for their teachings and followers simply doesn't have to be true for themselves. Here is the states 78% of self identifying Evangelical Christians voted for Trump despite the fact that he is a well known philanderer and clearly doesn't follows any of the rules of their group. Social rules are a figment. They can be rearranged, bent, broken, or ignore at any point. You are not talking about social truths or little white lies here -- you are talking about political truths. You are talking about "might is right", "survival of the fittest", or the pack mentality. You could maybe call it the dark side of social behavior, but it is no less real. In each of the above examples, you are concerned with the "leadership", and leaders can acquire a lot of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Another truth. Quote Dian Fossey sought to study and protect Gorilla's natural environment so she worked to learn their existing behavioral traits while having as little impact as possible. She wasn't merely trying to be accepted she was trying not to alter or disrupt. Never to be one of them but rather to simply observe them. I wasn't talking about Fossey. There was another woman, and I don't remember her name -- maybe Goodall? Not sure. Anyway, she actually lived with the gorillas and learned how to be accepted by them. I remember the documentary about her, and she stated that it was a very good feeling to know that the silverback leader of the group would actually protect her. She also was allowed to occasionally "babysit" the young ones, which was quite an honor. Quote Again, this only applies specifically to you. All families and people handle these things differently. You are not referencing truth, right, or wrong at all. Some people say they are fine because they have things under control and don't want you to worry, other people say they are fine because they know they need help and simply don't know how to ask for it, other people still say they are fine out of fear of being abandoned, and etc, etc, etc, etc. And some people say they are fine because they are fine. Quote There is as many reasons are there are individuals. It is not a one sizes fits all and "white lies" are not useful in any of the possible circumstances in my opinion. That's right -- there are many reasons. The truth that you are denying is that you must listen, listen, listen. Then you must respect their rights and their privacy. Quote In my experience all lies regardless how big or small are problematic. Like assembling a puzzle but one piece is off. One might be able to focus on other parts of the puzzle and successfully get much of the puzzle completed but ultimately without all the right pieces they fail. Elderly parents aside but staying within family dynamics lots of lies get told regarding adoption, true parentage, drug use, work back ground, legal background, and etc. I have simply never seen it end well. At the end of the end in my opinion when one lies to someone they are denying the person they are lying to information. Just because the person telling the lie feels it is best doesn't mean the person they are lying to would feel the same way. It is a assumption. The more often it is done the further apart people become. Liars can't be trusted. It appears that you have a problem with lies that goes beyond Philosophy and into the realm of the personal. Gee iNow; Thank you. +1 Gee
Tub Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 10 hours ago, Gees said: Tub; Take your time about responding. Gee Thanks,Gee. Here's your return call. Go prolix! ( You've probably noticed that i like to find unusual words and share them with people ). You were right, ( in your previous long post to me ), to see the influence of Jung: as a student, i read many of his books and found them fascinating and instructive. Like you, he recognised divisions in personal consciousness, ( and so divisions in his " collective " consciousness ), but his idea of the " individuation " process was not so much a description of how these divisions arise but more about how those fragments of a particular, nurtured consciousness are to be reintegrated and reconciled, leading to the emergence of a whole, undivided individual consciousness - individual in the sense of the word's Latin root "individuus ", which means " indivisible " rather than " separate ". So the fragmented consciousness becomes whole and undivided again , like the original tabula rasa as the early Stoics saw it. As everything has the same origin, i think that " new " consciousness can be regarded as the primogenitus that everything shares before that personal, divisive consciousness does intrude. In other words we reconnect........ .........and you asked if we are trying to " reconnect through truth ", which i think is a great insight - the best tool we have for understanding these matters. As we ( humanity ) are at the moment, we try to communicate and relate through the bars of our many artificial and superficial identities rather than through the sensitive, unidentified intelligence that sees this fact and the danger of it. Look at the chaos in the world today and you can see the clash of identities for real, and these separate identities which we have inherited are those " sins of the fathers " that go on causing much of that chaos.......... .........so , as you also wrote : " The conscious mind is the liar ". Another helpful insight. ( I would add " white " liar, too ). This has to be grasped clearly, i think, and not just intellectually, to see what's in what isn't true. ( I hope that's not that dreaded Liar's Paradox !). At the moment. though, i can't really subscribe to the notion of an unconscious mind per se as i feel that personal consciousness is an organic part of the brain and that the mind isn't actually part of the brain, even though a brain - in certain circumstances - can interact with the mind and vice versa. I may be groping in the dark here but i have this nagging inkling that, as the Universe is matter and energy, the brain is the matter of consciousness and the mind is the energy of consciousness, if that is even possible. Perhaps one of the scientists here can disabuse me of this idea. I also look at the unconscious as being the " old " brain which controls all the life-sustaining functions of the body, while the evolving " new " brain ( perhaps still in its infancy ) is the reservoir of self-consciousness - with a subliminal consciousness as a sort of very necessary " no-man's land " between the two. ( Almost like that angel with a flaming sword that bars the gates of Eden ). I may be spectacularly wrong about this! Good vs evil in religions? Yes - Manichaeism in particular takes this route and we also see it in the early Indian philosophical concepts of Dharma/Adharma. What is the opposite of evil, intentional evil, as we perceive it? I would guess that intentional evil is extreme selfishness, so its antithesis would be complete selflessness, as long as clinical insanity plays no part in either. ( It may be apocryphal, but it is said that Buddha was so selfless that he offered to let a hungry tiger eat him! He must have truly believed that " I am the food that eats the eater of food " ). I do agree with you that Nature , even though " red in tooth and claw ", can't be seen as being evil because of that - every creature lives at another creatures expense...... ..........it follows,then, as you wrote: " For a man to be evil there has to be some person outside of the man who names the man as evil ". Even if that man is not evil, we all do this. We don't want to think of ourselves as evil so we create scapegoats by projecting all our own " faults " onto others and by projecting all " badness " onto others, individually and collectively, we feel better that it is " us " who are the goodies and " them " who are the baddies. I'm sure you already know this. We don't see those " beams and motes " in our eyes and God is always on our side.......... .........like the medieval Crusaders you mentioned who were given papal licence to massacre all those godless foreign pagans - and throw in a few casual homeland pograms while they were at it - and receive a nice heavenly reward for doing so. It may ring a few contemporary bells but our fanatical ( so-called ) Christian forefathers could give anyone lessons in religious genocide. You also wondered about the role of the snake in mythology and i think the serpent in Eden was introduced as the personification of evil which was necessary for the myth because if there was no evil there would be no need for a good God and so constraint on " sinful " behaviour. You say you are " fairly certain " that reincarnation happens and i agree up to a point. I think that scientists, at least, might agree that all of the physical organism is recycled after death - although a " dead " body is not really dead or it wouldn't decompose. As i see it though,i don't think there is any part of " me " that is somehow separate from the rest that can survive what we call death. As i said, i regard personal consciousness as being organic just as thought is a mechanical activity of the brain that doesn't survive or get reincarnated: the thinker is the thought and the thought is the thinker. I don't think there is an entity inhabiting the body who does the thinking - no " Ghost in the machine " ( Remember ? )........... .......only because i think the nurtured psyche is an artificial concept - that colossus with the feet of clay - so the only thing that really dies is that separative acquired " self " that really wasn't ever born anyway. As Shakespeare wrote in The Tempest : " We are such stuff as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded with a sleep ". Don't despair though, Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote " Death is the end of everything but it is also the beginning of everything ". Both men great hierophants .https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hierophancy ( Strangely, and honestly, as i was writing this, a song came on my radio called " You were never really here " ! How is that for confirmation bias, haha! ). I think that what JK meant was that living is a process of endless, total dying so life is always new - not a continuation or an accumulation. I may be wrong, but in light of this, i think that as an inseparable part of the whole of life, we can never not be a part of life in one way or another. If everything " comes " from the same source, it " returns " to the same source. Physically, we are stardust and unto stardust we will return. But ( sigh ) who does know what really happens after death - other opinions are available and perhaps we have to swallow our pride and surrender to ignorance as to what really does happen - will we ever know we are " dead "? In the end, i guess Mother Nature knows best what to do with dead bodies so i'll leave it up to her. As for those " startling implications " of the Christian crucifixion, i'll just say that if you look at the the life of Jesus, as it is reported, it reads ( to me at the very least ) as an ingenious psychodrama. Apologies for being melodramatic, but it's not right for me to impose my way of thinking here so can only reiterate: Christ/ Ego........ Good Thief/Superego...... Bad Thief/Id. If you see for yourself what i mean then that's your own insight, but even if you don't see anything worthwhile in this that's ok too. In return, there's no need to reply quickly - or not at all if you don't want to, haha. I think this post is long enough now. I could have rambled on a lot longer but my poor little typing-finger is getting tired and, being so humble, i really don't want to be the hierophant in the room.
dimreepr Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 16 hours ago, Gees said: I thought we were starting a prolix club. Does this mean that I also have to control myself? I wish you would because your verbosity doesn't give meaning it obfuscates.
Tub Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 59 minutes ago, dimreepr said: ....... your verbosity doesn't give meaning it obfuscates. Sadly, i don't think there is a cure for your hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Shame.
koti Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: I wish you would because your verbosity doesn't give meaning it obfuscates. You need to read it all again dimreepr, you don’t want to miss anything. Nobody said the path to truth will be an easy one Edited April 10, 2018 by koti
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now