• 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    @Chet Hawkins :up:

    Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who don’t care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.

    Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it.

    I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.Chet Hawkins

    Could you please expand on this somewhat?
    If I’m understanding correctly, I’m not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.

    I don’t think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
    I agree that ‘desire’ is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol).
    And the faded promise for capitalism is that ‘everyone can be successful!’
    (Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert).

    But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need.
    It is a game, pure and simple… a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game).
    Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts.

    The masters of war have been ‘in control’ for centuries and millennia, and there’s nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times.

    We can identify with ‘winners’ and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those ‘beneath us’.
    Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Nietzsche said that God is dead, and on a mythological scale, he was accurate.

    Now Progress (that which tried to fill the endless void) is on life-support.
  • BC
    13k
    My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals.Chet Hawkins

    Well, Mr. Gadfly, what is the wisdom to which we should switch over? The dictionary says...

    "Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment."

    but this doesn't get us any closer to what exactly we should do. I agree that we ought to change. I have a list of changes we could / should make. Lots of people have these lists, and many of the items are excellent recommendations. "The List" isn't the problem. The problem is motivation -- the compulsion individuals must feel that leads them to act, to change (for the better or for the worse, depending).

    My guess is that individuals attempt change their behavior when their material circumstances present enough motivation to change. A farmer gives up his land when persistent drought and heat ruins the farm. Parents migrate long distances when there are no longer opportunities for themselves or their children to survive. People make serious efforts to lose weight when the doctor tells them "diet or die".

    I live a much less stressful, happier, simpler life now than I did 20 years ago. Wisdom didn't motivate the change: circumstances that were beyond my control forced new circumstances into my life.

    If wisdom has an effect, it comes in when we have to decide what to do next, usually under difficult circumstances. ("Life is what we do while we make other plans.") I don't happen to know what to tell someone who has a family, a mortgage, student loans, and car payments what they should do if their means of earning a living is pulled out from under them. Simplify? Get rid of the cars? Sell the house? Put everyone in the house to work? Go live in a tent? Get a new career? Shoot yourself? What?

    My options as a single man were/are not the same as a man who has a family. What is wisdom for me might be folly for them.

    I'm 77. I don't know how a 27 year old should respond to the challenges he or she is facing in the years ahead.
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Thanks! I feel similar anger and frustration about being stuck on the Titanic with billionaires who don’t care if we hit an iceberg, because they have a personal helicopter to fly them to safety.

    Addiction to power is the worst addiction, because everyone suffers for it.
    0 thru 9
    The thing is, when the proverbial poo hits the fan, all their workers will realize it and many will step aside from helping them at that time. Some of them are smarter and pay for loyalty, overpay so they are 'appreciated', but even they will be surprised at the backlash in crisis mode.

    Still, until the system collapses, and it will limp along almost forever in some cases (just ask Rome), the decadence and top heavy immorality will keep rising and the pressure below will keep building. It's sadly kind of another law of nature.

    The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.

    I think we are on a vast pendulum swing from right wing or fear oriented societies to left wing or desire oriented societies. It's also clear that although the value-added portion of desire side orientation has already been accomplished, that we have gone well past balance and clearly the inertia is going to take us further into desire-side failure before the metronome uses up the swing energy to oscillate back towards balance.
    — Chet Hawkins

    Could you please expand on this somewhat?
    If I’m understanding correctly, I’m not sure that I completely agree with this particular point, though I agree overall.

    I don’t think the situation as a whole has reached a balance point anytime recently, not even for a moment while swinging in the other direction.
    I agree that ‘desire’ is the carrot stick to keep the machine running, and the whip is never far behind (from hitting our behinds lol).
    0 thru 9
    So, this explanation would take so much more. But hey, you asked and that is the thread topic, so ...

    So, what has been described as the Patriarchy or traditional society, etc was indeed a fear-oriented mostly Pragmatic society, or set of cultures. It is in the nature of the world, or the pool of available societies that most express fear mostly. Anger and desire are less openly expressed.

    The reason why anger is left behind is simple. Fear is the orderly building force. It causes all identity in the universe. Group together, form a group, become something. Build it. Fear is the integration force. It is also a more male participated thing.

    Anger is balance, neither male nor female actually. Tribal scenarios are NOT civilizations. They are more anger and balance based and they get left behind. Big man or egalitarian groups do not give in easily to the building needs of fear. They do not in orderly fashion form militaries. They have true warriors, not soldiers, and they will destroy soldiers one on one. But they will lose against the grouped, orderly, planned based formations of a fear society. Thus is civilization built and one thing above all is denigrated, anger. Random violence and un-random violence both stop a lot of would be 'rulers'. But it is in the nature of things that anger fights too many battles and wears itself out. Fear has more stuff stored up from planning, more time to rest, better at observation, better at finding weak points. Fear is conniving and cowardly. It does not come to fight without overwhelming odds. Anger is courageous. It will fight just to fight. So, early anger loses to fear and anger is denigrated.

    After the fear society forms and all, repeat all societies are fear societies. Formation of a society is only ever based in fear and only ever departing from anger. That is how it happens in the natural state. This is the nominal case of such a transition. There are other cases but they are weird, after the fact, and beyond the scope of this post.

    Anyway, societies then, once formed go through phases. The identity they formed when they are created will last depending upon its wisdom and power. Both have great inertia but power has much less than wisdom. Thus in Earth's history we have civilizations with great power that nonetheless disintegrate and fail. Wisdom alone, and greater and greater wisdom with each iteration, has real staying power dur to its multi-virtue more genuine balance.

    But the reason societies fail is not fear and not anger. It is desire.

    Desire is chaos. It is freedom. They are roughly equivalent terms. It does not matter if people want to disagree. It is a law of nature. Like Milton I can wait. Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong. Desire is effectively the force of disintegration, just like fear is the force of integration.

    Do not get me wrong. Fear, anger, and desire are all the only three emotions, primal, and they make up everything in the universe. There are no exceptions. And each of these emotions is both moral and immoral showing the infinite power of free will, of choice. So, I am NOT denigrating desire here. But desire is what it is and to mischaracterize it would also be immoral.

    Amid human societies once they are formed and built they cause great 'prosperity'. The survival needs of fear are met and fear itself begins to also be denigrated. Just as fear is more a male instantiation, desire is more of a female instantiation. Do not bother me with trivial examples of this statistical fact not being accurate. It is beyond basely accurate and there are so very very many reasons. Amid humanity, one of the simplest reasons is that women must become pregnant. This is the basis for much of their instantiation. Their more restricted and orderly biology causes a backlash of freedom in their manner. Likewise males have the freedom and must therefore balance that with an order attitude. That is one core reason and another is that to prevent inbreeding, the order of the own group, its restrictiveness, must be denied by the privilege of the protected breeder capable group, women. This freedom-aimed, mysterious stranger from over the hill loving manner is programmed into women. It has worked for millions of years to prevent inbreeding. It has to be there.

    But that is all the time I will 'waste' on that issue here. Suffice it to say that societies return to idealism from pragmatism and balance and that tipping of the scale is the beginning of the end for them. It seems almost inevitable (it is not) that all societies follow this pattern. My book is first and foremost about realizing that the pattern exists so that we can slow its wild oscillations and stay more centered on balance and wisdom.

    Anyway, all desire side efforts, freedom-seeking in any way, often is abused. It is not even realized as abuse. Most of freedom's defenders will proudly die for their foolish freedoms. And I do not mean the support for wise practices like free speech and such. I mean they will die precisely for the freedom to do and do repeatedly immorally addictive and destructive things to themselves and others. Capitalism is an obvious example. Democracy is another, but that is a topic for another thread.

    SO, you have to at first admire all the wonderful explosion (chaos and desire are explosive) of wealth and distractions from the real task (gaining wisdom) that happens when a fear society builds itself up. But they started by priding themselves on the denigration of anger, remember. This trend continues. Now the perversity of immoral desire turns that society on itself, from within. Many failed societies, all of them that just collapsed where that collapse was not based on dwindling resources, followed this easy to understand pattern. Desire and 'becoming' within the society, against all balance, against objective moral truth, begins to take over. 'You can be anything you want to be.' is the clarion call of desire, of immoral desire. It is a direct denial of objective morality. Desire to be moral must be bound properly by fear and anger, but both become denigrated, usually.

    'The heart wants what the heart wants!' is mostly a dark immoral excuse. It is not a wise statement and it never will be.

    And the faded promise for capitalism is that ‘everyone can be successful!’
    (Cryptocurrency is the latest attempt to let everyone try to game the system, and is immensely seductive because there is a lack of cash flow is like living in a dry desert).
    0 thru 9
    This is nothing more than what my model predicts. New and 'interesting' and more and more convoluted highs of addictive desire. This is the path of immoral desire-side destruction, obvious to the wise. Here I will arm you with a red flag to see it. And you will probably hate it. It is sad to most desire side thinkers. They rail against it. But 'giddiness' is it. If you see giddiness, you see imbalanced probably immoral desire occurring. Even the church-based giddy high of worship is deeply suspect as addictive behavior. Balance is the healthy state. Within balance fear and anger properly calm giddiness. So, you have been warned. Take the advice or do not, but now, you will at least see it and wonder. It will show you what I mean.

    So, why is desire so possibly bad? Remember that I do not intend to denigrate it. It is because the feeling desire offers its user is more compelling than the corresponding fear and anger are. Further, it is because people do not realize that desire (and giddiness) should be suspicious on their own. Earlier societies knew this, back when they were too orderly, too fear based, or too anger based. But the direction of all societies proceeds along that path normally from anger, to fear, to desire, and then back again. Keep in mind that the standard 4 part aphorism of hard/easy times and weak/strong men, is, like most aphorisms, a lie. That is because evil and good are not a real proper part of that model. Just like yin/yang as a model the model itself is wrong. That helps no one. In fact it causes more evil. Belief in a wrong model is one of the worst things we can do against wisdom and the good.

    Desire is the emotion of the future. Adding to it feels progressive. It is not. That is to say, it is not unless it is balanced with fear and anger, properly. Fear always feels so restrictive and imprisoning. That is some of its nature, yes. But fear is misunderstood. It is all thought, all reason. When it is agreed that these things are fear, and really mostly just fear, fear's value is better understood. That is why I redefined fear to its true definition. 'Fear is a excitable state that arises as a result of matching patterns from one's past'. All awareness, all preparation, and even all joy (from the angry conquering of fear) is fear based. Fear is the emotion of the past. So to most people fear seems old, it seems boring, and it tends to also excite them as they fear fear itself. This is what leads to its denigration, immorally.

    A fear side man like most will try to fit in in society and build something. That male will want to impress the best females. That is 'normal'. Normal just means there are far more of these males than the other types. Order builds on itself. But look at what happens naturally! The chaos side females will, amid their order bought freedom, revolt and push back the 'rules'. Some men will also. They will resist pairings with their own society's males in favor of the mysterious stranger over the hill (to prevent inbreeding). This temps the orderly males to use more order to restrain the females. And the cycle goes on and on.

    But eventually, freedom has its way with everyone. Disintegration becomes 'fun'. People take it as licensed behavior to pursue every addiction with reckless desire as their 'right'. All bonds within the society are seen as poisonous restrictions of an unnecessary (fear denigrated) order. Every single connection point is assaulted with the boundless expression of desire, pure self-indulgence as the only holy virtue. The balance of wisdom was tossed aside well before the restrictions of order were. That was the losses of anger and fear respectively. This is a law of nature, not just my observations.

    When one emotion is running the show it confuses people. They see all the emotions. But they do not realize that anger and fear now serve desire improperly. The anger you see is violence born of tantrums from puerile children not getting their way, including adults obviously. The unwise all seem like children to the wise. Neytiri in Avatar tells Jake 'You are like a child ...' Her mother Mo'at, the wise woman, tells him she seeks to seek if his people's insanity can be cured. That is tribal wisdom, balance, anger. It is closer to real wisdom, balance, that any civilization's can be. I am not saying to go backwards. Civilization must become more intentional. We must become wiser. Again, that is the purpose of my book, and so many others, crying out for more wisdom in this horrid but hopeful reality.

    But I think we are prisoners of a system whose rules make it mandatory to consume the Earth for power and profit, not just human need.0 thru 9
    All blame is accepted. It is my fault. It is your fault. There is no such thing as a prisoner, excepting one that accepts themselves as such. That is wisdom.

    To say 'prisoner' about yourself means you have accepted it on some level and I advise you that such a statement and admission is dangerous. It is the part of you that wants to blame others and not yourself. But the truth is finally 'You are them!', and 'They are you!' So, you are to blame no matter what and all imprisonment is self-accepted.

    It is a game, pure and simple… a tragic game with all losers (as in war, a key feature of the game).0 thru 9
    No, do not denigrate war.

    War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

    Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.

    Even the winners are tragic selfish scared losers, only with bigger bank accounts.0 thru 9
    Indeed. The winners lost their humility in most cases. That is an unwise takeaway. The winners that will not discuss what was done wrongly are always the worst kind of fiends. Machiavellian consequentialists are a Pragmatic terror upon this world. Resist the immoral lies of Consequentialism, and renew vows instead to deontological free will.

    The masters of war have been ‘in control’ for centuries and millennia, and there’s nowhere left on Earth to escape them as might have been possible in simpler times.0 thru 9
    Change/war/suffering is inescapable. Only a desire side immoral idiot believes that pleasure is the path to success or anything good. Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.

    You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.

    Do you want something to survive? Declare war on it. It's the best thing you can do to cause the survival of what you declare war on. Figure that one out.

    We can identify with ‘winners’ and believe their lies, and go along with their plans, and be their prison guards and beat up those ‘beneath us’.
    Or we can abandon this toxic dream, even if we have nothing to replace it with at the moment
    0 thru 9
    I agree. But this state is always toxic. It is not perfection. So do not hate it. Do not call it toxic, even. No one is toxic to the wise. No state is toxic to the wise. Everything has the infinity of choice amid its state. Free will is the only thing in existence.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k


    Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated.

    However…

    But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
    I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment.

    This for example:

    No, do not denigrate war.

    War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

    Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
    Chet Hawkins

    You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.Chet Hawkins

    When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way.

    Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’. To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements.

    (To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely).

    To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well.

    In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case.

    If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower:
  • substantivalism
    206
    Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.Chet Hawkins
    Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self.

    The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.Chet Hawkins
    Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back.
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated.0 thru 9
    Your welcome! I love such topics.

    However…

    But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
    I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment.
    0 thru 9
    Ah hopefully we are addressing the issues. Critique is part of why I post as well.

    This for example:

    No, do not denigrate war.

    War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

    Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
    — Chet Hawkins

    You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.
    — Chet Hawkins

    When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way.
    0 thru 9
    That is sad and interesting. Hopefully, you explain WHY your line was crossed. I cannot work on vague notions.

    Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy.0 thru 9
    OK, but that does not say why they sound that way.

    I suppose the idea that the colloquial definition for war is dangerous and all bad or mostly bad. It's why I took pains to link war to the idea of change only, which I do believe. I am not saying that violent war is not mostly bad, but there can be morally necessary violent war. That is really a key takeaway. You cannot defend yourself, your nation, your group of people who choose a proper moral ideology, without violent war as a threat to would be enemies.

    The other key mitigation in my opinion is this. Wisdom only comes through suffering. That is a tautology. In every way, most moral agents do not believe in wisdom until they have suffered some along each path of possible suffering, loss or longing for a virtue that is now in a low state.

    So, if wisdom comes through suffering only, in some cases the goal of the wise must be to increase suffering. Then the question is how in each case, relative to the virtues.

    So, there is resonance. Resonance is the way in which moral strength helps us earn wisdom without much suffering. We have a relative strength and enacting it resonates with objective good in such a way that the reflection upon the moral agent, the feeling is hard to call suffering. Because we are not perfect though our expression is always not perfect, so, there is suffering always. This is why, even amid strength, it is still a tautology that wisdom only comes through suffering.

    The real question is where is the line drawn. That is the line between necessary and unnecessary suffering. We could all easily agree that most warfare, heck even most civilizations regular peaceful living, produces a ton of unnecessary suffering. So, my point there is that we as a society have to get much much better at understanding where that line is, for real.

    The final example of the need for war exists in every virtue, but, the basic one is this: You are part of a moral society, relatively to the others around you. They are weaker on some virtues by a great deal, each of your neighbor countries or cultures. We are not naming names nor are we suggesting that this is a real world thing at the moment. All similarities between countries past and present, fictional and real, are unintended. Your country faces a dilemma. The immoral expression is rising, different and seen as such in each of the neighboring countries. Many of them have resources you need and they are tired of your (proper) moral proselytizing. Your existence is a challenge to their immoral ways, and frankly their existence is a challenge to your moral ways. I understand it's not a simple case like that. Some of your country's people are immoral as well, and some of theirs moral, but we are talking about sanctioned inertia as law and cultural practice for each country.

    The properly moral country has a moral duty to make war on neighboring nations before they can become powerful enough to overwhelm what is of great value. Competition to weaken the immorality is also wise in other ways than war, before the last step of war must be taken. And of course it could be that the more moral country was always greatly lesser in power. And then it must bide its time, building quietly with less bravado, until it has the strength to project. But the virtue of challenge, of external action, what might be called the basic truth of war, is possibly moral. Like all virtues that virtue has both good and bad expressions. The early stages of challenge are writings and rhetoric and the mere presence of the good example for others to see and feel as a neighboring country.

    But moral choice is hard, the hardest thing there is. It is understandable that most will fail and although most will also still be able to admit in some way that they are acting immorally and therefore we properly offer them time and relative peace to earn their wisdom without us having to step in, there are also those that double down on stupid. They oppress their people more, and for worse reasons. They do not adhere to any balance between order and chaos as the good. Instead they immorally conflate order with the good (so many examples in fact and fiction). Some even take the stranger step of conflating chaos with the good (so many examples). So, since moral choice is hard and there are even some that would support diversity of belief to include and embrace immorality, the more moral nation must sometimes morally declare war.

    It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’.0 thru 9
    Well, the short answer is yes. 'You are me and I am you', the Unity Principle, also states that 'You are God and God is you'. Humility though is a virtue and part of proper moral aims. But so is admitting truth, accepting the responsibility of moral agency. Finally, there is no better approach than to admit you are a part of what is God. That is indeed what offers you infinite choice, really. There is finally no other reason you have it.

    If you deny the God in yourself, then you deny what is moral, you deny perfection as a concept. I am not saying it's not a slippery slope. All proper approaches to morality are of course slippery slopes. Morality is the single hardest thing there is. All of it fits. Again part of what is good, is humility and perseverance. But if we are too lazy to take right action, to stand and fight immorality, to challenge it, then that is a moral failure.

    To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way.0 thru 9
    Well that one sentence is a HUGE, GIANT leap from any other thing you have said.

    Still, I welcome all critique. I am offering up my wisdom or lack thereof as something to be tested indeed.

    If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements.0 thru 9
    Consequentialism is a lie. Deontological intent is superior morally in every way. I know that my intent is good, the best I can make it. I admit that my choices can and will lead to failure. I am not perfect. I will reform new intents and try again. But the goal is to earn wisdom and help other's earn it, and my definition of wisdom only includes the balance that makes it good. Some will describe wisdom in a way that includes only their favorite or easy virtues and in doing so they lack balance and they are immoral (wrong). All weakness, all that is incorrect, is immoral in some way. Accuracy is a part of perfection and morality and it is objective, not subjective at all.

    (To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely).0 thru 9
    Hey, as mentioned, it's intended to the good. I see that you are as well. Any slight, I hope either way, is forgiven and let's then say why it was made.

    I took the time to discuss the idea more carefully now. Either you are probably a little more moved, or, you will now think you were more right to object and ask for clarification. There are still more examples I can give to show the concept. Here is one:

    Students suffer the learning process. They are properly tested. Testing is suffering, ask almost all students. The ones that think it is easy are not being challenged enough. All testing should be variable to the student's capabilities. That is a test for the system, if you follow. This suffering is required to earn the wisdom of awareness. In many cases this wisdom is refused, or refused in part. The wise society though wisely chooses to inflict this suffering on others in order that they might have a scheduled opportunity to earn a certain set of wisdom. Likewise proper parents will schedule and enact suffering upon their children so that these children may have a controlled opportunity to discuss and show and earn their wisdom. The only question is when does that suffering become unnecessary?

    And the more desire side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that ANY suffering and ALL suffering is unnecessary. That is mere Hedonism, and it is immoral. Likewise the more fear side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that any and all suffering is necessary. Due to the nature of perfection, this is more correct, finally, than the desire side opinion is. Does this mean wisdom should be imbalanced? No. The trick with that revelation is that as time progresses the state from which a choice is made should be improving. And the greater challenges of any and all suffering become more and more required in order to achieve greater balance (to evolve). Likewise, when a moral agent's state is truly in decline we take a softer approach to allow them rest and resonance in order that they themselves say they are ready for a new challenge (and they always will). The escape for those who cannot muster the will to fight again is only one thing, finally, death. Choose.

    To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well.0 thru 9
    Indeed. No retraction at all.

    But, I did explain again for more clarity. My challenges are often met with your response. I am well used to it. At parties I am always the guy who says the provocative things. But I am not doing it for myself (only). You are me and I am you. It worries me greatly that the balance and genuine happiness I feel regularly is not a lot felt out there in the world. All that unnecessary suffering needs a challenger to call it out. C'est la vie! C'est la guerre!

    The war is also a synonym for existence itself. The trillions of interactions that happen across your body in any moment are war. The balance that maintains that war properly must continue. There is no effective long term respite from war.

    In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case.0 thru 9
    It may not be the case, but it is partially so. That is to say my ideas challenge your comfort with something. It could be your position and you are of course challenging mine then. But let's see how you respond to this post so we will know.

    My statements are not, as I understand them, against this thread. They point out the weakness of yin/yang as a model. They explain why it cannot be successfully used without great modification. The effective issue is that chaos and order ARE NOT the good. Order is often conflated with good, and chaos with evil. But those conflations are immoral. What is really needed most is the balancing force of anger. Anger is the only thing that seeks balance. And the peace types get it wrong. The sin of anger is laziness, seeking peace. The moral duty of anger is to seek war. War is right action. It is change. The intent is what is critical. Intend to cause enough suffering to allow for wisdom to be earned and intend not to cause unnecessary suffering.

    The dual model does not work, because reality is a three part system, not two. But the balance is the hardest of the three part aims, and anger is first denigrated because of that. So our delusion began and we started it with the duality, the yin/yang, and all such dual systems. I have hard physical evidence that my model is vastly superior to any two part system I have ever heard of. But as mentioned in another thread (esoteric). Hegel got this. Dichotomy that takes a thesis and antithesis (fear and desire) and forces them together (war/anger) into synthesis, does describe reality. We all sort-of know that the left and the right wing are both useful. What is not usually accepted at any time in history is that they must be in perfect balance. Further that there is the third force pushing back and thus bending the egregiousness of both extremes into a new aim, perfection.

    If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower:0 thru 9
    All good! Thanks for your comments!
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.
    — Chet Hawkins
    Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self.
    substantivalism
    Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? To go so far that the Unity Principle is denied in its furthest interpretation, 'You are God, and God is you!' is dangerous. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.

    So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.

    And yes, balance resonates to body from thought and vice versa.

    The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.
    — Chet Hawkins
    Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back.
    substantivalism
    Well, now! Look at you, willing to beat back hypocrisy? I agree!

    I agree as well that society must morally suffer the widest range of free will to its members. There is no choice for society as infinite choice is a tautology in the universe. I could say some very provocative things here, but I will demur for the moment to see how my responses in this thread are handled.

    Pity is one good response. Challenge is another.

    These days judgement is seen as negative, can you believe it? It is our moral duty to judge literally everything. Desire side chaos thinking, pro-freedom in all ways, even immoral ways, hates to be judged. 'Judgy much!?' is a low-brow epithet often heard these days from the left. A true listing of virtues (and Scotsmen) is needed as a temporary non-conclusion, a state of being, for society, for all human societies together.

    Agreed that inaction is merely lazy, implied by your statements.

    But the fear side tendency is to go too far, punishment. Punishment is immoral. That one is the one that leaves right side (fear) thinkers reeling, in the same way that when I say war is morally required the left pitches a fit.

    Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.

    So the right tends to want to punish. But no, the proper moral path is judgment, teaching, and better guardrails until a new moral choice path is established. The greatest freedom must be maintained during this process. As an example the movie 'The Last Samurai' shows the main character kept for winter as prisoner by the feudal Japanese. They do not imprison him. They have a older Samurai, armed escort him around. That is a better way than prison is. Free will and freedom are more respected.

    Also right side thinkers have trouble with privacy. Since you are me and I am you, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But we still act to allow for free will, for little choices unseen. This is the same as allowing freedom in the above example. But, as you can see, and if you can think at all, as you can then realize for sure; if the private home is sacred, then that is where immorality will seed itself. It's obvious.

    So, wisdom makes all sides to any argument uncomfortable. It seems to cause suffering by being true. But it is wisdom that is causal. It is (your) choice, always.
  • substantivalism
    206
    Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it?Chet Hawkins
    You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation.

    We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.Chet Hawkins
    Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement.

    So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.Chet Hawkins
    I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise.

    The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all.

    Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.Chet Hawkins
    Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane.
  • Tzeentch
    3.3k
    Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?

    Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
    To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

    For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
    To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.

    We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
    We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.

    Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
    But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.

    Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
    In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim.
    0 thru 9

    I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

    In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


    Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

    Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


    A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


    However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

    For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

    In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


    Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


    I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.
  • Vaskane
    643
    Something I may not have gotten across in my initial comment is that Nietzsche definitely felt the world was heavily lopsided towards the Apollonian (masculine) over the Dionysian (feminine). The two don't exactly equate to being "male and female" though. So whatever gut feeling you're getting about this notion, I'd say, run with it, thats your intuition leading you down the path towards the edge of what is known, towards that precipice where one builds their own bridge to a new world to share with others. To new vistas.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Something I may not have gotten across in my initial comment is that Nietzsche definitely felt the world was heavily lopsided towards the Apollonian (masculine) over the Dionysian (feminine). The two don't exactly equate to being "male and female" though. So whatever gut feeling you're getting about this notion, I'd say, run with it, thats your intuition leading you down the path towards the edge of what is known, towards that precipice where one builds their own bridge to a new world to share with others. To new vistas.Vaskane

    Thanks! Much appreciated! :smile:

    I think Nietzsche nails it, especially as a description of his time.
    And it largely carries forward to this day, even as radically different as the world is compared to a hundred plus years ago.

    I’d say the Apollonian aspect of knowledge is of course a wonderful thing.

    But in our culture, it seems to be placed far above other equally necessary parts of the human experience.
    I theorize that this is at least partially because it enables the discovery of the principles that allow powerful weapons to be built, and the worldly power that comes from that.
    That is the primary motivation (so to speak) when it comes to civilizational knowledge and information.
    An example of this is the origin and creation of the internet for military purposes.

    The opposite (but reinforcing) civilization trend is murkier to describe, but I’d say it is a bias against simplicity, sharing, not consuming, and well… against happiness itself.
    Happy people are satisfied in a deep way, and will probably not feel the need to buy things and consume mass quantities.
    A person who is afraid, in pain, confused, competitive, envious, anxious etc is an ideal consumer.

    If one were to see many ‘strangers’ going around lovingly and unselfconsciously hugging one another, and asking if they are feeling well, that would be a sign that something in our culture has dramatically changed.
    The fact that that statement sounds humorous shows how ingrained these habits are, even in those who are trying to see beyond them.

    :flower:
  • Lionino
    849
    Is our civilization unbalanced?0 thru 9

    Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k


    Thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. I hope to respond more fully later. :smile:
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not.Lionino

    Thanks. Yes, civilization as a whole…
    But any pockets of sanity in a sea of upheaval is definitely a good thing, like an oasis in the desert.

    Mmmm… cheese danish… :yum:
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not.Lionino
    If we are not perfect, there is more balance to be had. If we are not maximized, there is more balance to be had.
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it?
    — Chet Hawkins
    You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation.
    substantivalism
    Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!

    We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.
    — Chet Hawkins
    Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement.
    substantivalism
    Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.

    So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.
    — Chet Hawkins
    I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise.
    substantivalism
    You're quite poetic.

    Being 'in it' alive, and balanced feels like being a scaled down version of the Hulk. Raw, unprotected nerve endings, suffering experience, in all its beautiful agony. It actually is poetry in motion, in being, but its not surprising that most of us remain mostly unconscious of the effects, good and bad. The effort is too great. It's just like the choice, finally, to die. The effort is too great to choose otherwise. You do see some though that have an iron will at least, even amid bleak bed-ridden life support. Aberration? Maybe. The only thing I can think of is the internal world must still be rich and fulfilling in some way. Otherwise it's just a powerful circuit. Like the sun, it keeps on burning.

    The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all.substantivalism
    I mean the cycle is real, the oscillation. And it does seem that the swing is wider, corresponding roughly to moral agency. But that is worrying. Anyone, even a child, can tell, ... if the swing is getting wider it's similar to the universe accelerating in expansion. That makes no sense. It will end itself. Unless we can reliably narrow the oscillation by choice, en masse, we may have discovered the real reason for the Fermi Paradox.

    Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.
    — Chet Hawkins
    Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane.
    substantivalism
    I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. Locking them up seems like the only non-tiring option. But, it is not. And it causes more troubles, more immorality. It is not as efficient as a modern alternative to the old Samurai would be. Robots will help immensely. Everyone has an escort robot. Ha ha! Is that free? I think it could be. But will/would it be? Doubtful.

    Only the shadow knows!
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k


    Thanks for your elaborations. That helps a little understanding your thinking. I still disagree, but I’m going to withhold going any further with the general ‘war’ topic here and now.

    It is definitely a ripe topic, and I’ll admit I haven’t heard anything exactly like your position before.

    Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. I’d definitely follow it, and probably participate. And I’d be curious about the general response from others. You don’t seem like you are rattled by disagreement, and that is a noble quality. It’s difficult sometimes not to take disagreement as an attack on one’s core beliefs, sending one into ‘attack mode’. I admire that you can remain polite under stress.

    Anyway, thanks and carry on! :flower: :victory:
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

    In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


    Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

    Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


    A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


    However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

    For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

    In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


    Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


    I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.
    Tzeentch

    Thanks very much for your response. That puts the thread into a fuller context of the origins of the Yin-Yang idea.

    I definitely do not want to “reinforce the western male/female dichotomy”! Quite the opposite.

    Thanks again. :smile: :up:
  • Vaskane
    643
    I definitely do not want to “reinforce the western male/female dichotomy”!0 thru 9
    That would simply lead to the current imbalance. This is why Jung talks about embracing your "shadow." To help with maintaining personal equilibrium.

    Brenee Brown also has some excellent ideas that I found useful for myself across the corpus of her work.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    That would simply lead to the current imbalance. This is why Jung talks about embracing your "shadow." To help with maintaining personal equilibrium.Vaskane

    :up: Thanks. Yes, I’d agree with that.

    Jung’s concept of anima and animus (the female and male within everyone, in a nutshell) has been around a long time. But it’s still quite radical.

    And the far-Right conservatives would probably wish to ban and burn it. Which is not surprising, but is rather depressing. It’s like they are stuck in the movie Pleasantville.

    Brenee Brown also has some excellent ideas that I found useful for myself across the corpus of her work.Vaskane

    I’ll look into those books. Thanks!
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. I’d definitely follow it, and probably participate.0 thru 9

    @Chet Hawkins

    And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge.

    Just an idea… :chin:
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge.0 thru 9
    Well, I tried to be clear. My philosophical definition of war is closer to change than what people will commonly or colloquially recognize as war.

    To many and most, war is only some crazy, violent, nation versus nation thing that is often about money or resources one way or another.

    My caution is that war is really only change. And suffering itself is indeed the only path to wisdom. Change involving suffering cannot be simply deemed immoral as most people would tend to do in my opinion.

    Writers are probably well versed now in/on the concept of the 5 conflicts and I think 'they' have added AI as the 6th conflict, although AI to me is just another chooser, e.g. man v man and not a new category.

    All of these conflicts to me are 'war' or 'change' or 'struggle', etc.

    If you want to say, 'no Chet, I prefer that the term war always means foolish or unnecessary conflict!' , then there is no point in me bringing up my term shifting.

    But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war.

    Again, if you wish to split terms on these differing matters you risk misunderstanding the nature of reality itself.

    {It's the same with fear actually. The colloquial definition is not useful really. If you insist on the limits of weakly defined terms and or colloquial common nonsense (which I deem to be similar) there is no saving you from misunderstanding. Of course, all of this is said tongue in cheek, my opinion, stated firmly as belief. I do tend to mention almost every time what my changes are from the standard colloquial terms. But I do feel those terms, the old emotional terms, are correct to use for better understanding}
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war.Chet Hawkins

    Ok thanks for the further explanation.
    I may have been unsure when you were using rhetorical devices (metaphors, analogies, hyperbole, polemic, etc) and when you were using words literally and by usual definition.
    Rhetorical devices are cool, and I usually love some creativity to people’s writing, and I usually ‘get’ subtle nuances, so I’m a little disappointed in myself if I missed these subtleties.

    Now I understand that you paint with a fine brush, I’ll try to read more carefully! :nerd:

    That said…

    “One less potato chip is war”? Hmm…
    I believe our language has been devalued by lies, politics, advertising, and such.
    But that may be straining the word ‘war’. But ok, you made the point.

    In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as ‘struggle’, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
    Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
    Not sure where I’m going with that, it just reminded me of that.

    I hope to respond more later.

    Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile:
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as ‘struggle’, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
    Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
    Not sure where I’m going with that, it just reminded me of that.
    0 thru 9
    Then, yes, 'jihad'! I agree. The struggle towards God. Exactly!

    I hope to respond more later.

    Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile:
    0 thru 9
    No worries. And you're welcome. Thank you for offering me a chance for clarity.

    Sometimes people just misunderstand me despite my painstaking efforts at clarity and ... yes ... spreading my beliefs. But then I just declare jihad! Seriously though, the way to be is jihad by the definition given. And I would change the term 'God' for 'the good'.
  • substantivalism
    206
    Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!Chet Hawkins
    I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere.

    Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.Chet Hawkins
    To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator.

    I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality.Chet Hawkins
    What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy.
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!
    — Chet Hawkins
    I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere.
    substantivalism
    Well, that was kind-of my point. 'Real life' is quoted because that is delusional. Real life unquoted is non-delusional amid real experience. Real life includes speculations, idle and otherwise, that do absolutely have impact upon us, whether we wish them to or not.

    What is in the mind's eye of the others is unified with us, as an objective truth. There is no final escape from that trouble. Perfection-aiming involves first admitting that this trouble is part of objective truth, and then striving with effort to overcome the many delusions that tempt us from the great happy resonance with truth.

    I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?}

    Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.
    — Chet Hawkins
    To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator.
    substantivalism
    You might have to demystify that sentence for me.

    Again, I sense a kind of dig at me. But, I am often a bit paranoid. So, I try to err on the side of letting slights go unanswered which has, I hope, an effect that means ... hey this Chet guy gave me side-eye so he saw my angle, but he let it pass. I guess that does not affect his position. His idea(s) remain stable despite assault. What does that mean?

    Philosophical dominators with committed and mischievous intuition are fun! Right? {I had a cat once, ughhh} That is especially true if the foil is openly accepted and also humble (really) in that truth-seeking remains the final goal however haphazardly we approach it. When one mounts a soapbox or posts on such a site, one is not free of intents, no, and none of those intents are perfect. But, such a proselytizer is either wearing better angle wings than most, or not. Is there a clear assertion of yea or nay in that regard?

    I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality.
    — Chet Hawkins
    What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy.
    substantivalism
    Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    When starting this thread, I considered emphasizing the Tao Te Ching, but went with the possibly easier-to-grasp symbol of Yin and Yang.

    But this says what I try to say so gracefully and concisely:

    Can you coax your mind from its wandering
    and keep to the original oneness?
    Can you let your body become
    supple as a newborn child's?
    Can you cleanse your inner vision
    until you see nothing but the light?
    Can you love people and lead them
    without imposing your will?
    Can you deal with the most vital matters
    by letting events take their course?
    Can you step back from your own mind
    and thus understand all things?

    Giving birth and nourishing,
    having without possessing,
    acting with no expectations,
    leading and not trying to control:
    this is the supreme virtue.

    Tao Te Ching, verse 10

    It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your life’s purpose, love, and detachment.
    And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.

    When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
    If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and can’t explain…

    But I think it’d be radically different, and infinitely better.
  • Chet Hawkins
    82
    It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your life’s purpose, love, and detachment.
    And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.

    When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
    If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and can’t explain…

    But I think it’d be radically different, and infinitely better.
    0 thru 9
    I enjoy the sentiment and the balance that any worthy model evokes within us to help us cope and understand reality.

    In the end, by my model, you are aiming at the being portion, the anger portion, as a consequence. This is great in the sense that it stresses the third force, the consequence, of that model, yin/yang. What worries me is that the details and information and delusional hurdles along that path are required and cannot in any way be circumvented, despite the 'fond' desire that they could be.

    One must 'suffer' though them and then hold that suffering present in one's balance to be and maintain wise action.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k

    Thanks for your reply…

    I know, I know… the inevitable objection to such idealistic thoughts.
    Thanks for not putting it in the usual way, such as “that’s not the REAL world blah blah… ”
    (So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).

    But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.

    Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
    “CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…

    It hints that there is much we do have control over.

    We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we can’t change.
    There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
    (Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say).
    But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology.

    It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”

    This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
    We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.