There is no such thing as religion, it is socially constructed and as there is something static in beliefs, the only belief one should hold is the somewhat Cartesian dualism; in your own existence and God, the latter being a representation of our goal toward moral perfection, that is, to be loving. Love itself to me is merely moral consciousness, you become conscious of yourself, of your responses and begin to feel empathy through this shared experience.

Love is a choice, an application, a way of thinking and not some spontaneous given. In my opinion, is authenticity, motivating us to be honest and since our will is what drives everything about us, the mechanics of our cognitive states driven by moral consciousness teaches us to rethink our decisions and mirror values and ideas, to think twice. We can then contrast ourselves with something that enables us to self reflective practice.

You've made a good point on this thread, a few times - the point that references Foucault. I understood your point to be something like: though a thing may not have some substantial material core, it can nevertheless really exist, by being realized by the people through whom it exists. There's a theological tradition that deals with the Holy Spirit in similar terms. There may be no such thing as religion, I mean, but still there is such thing as religion when its understood, if you like, in Foucauldian terms.

But I feel like this is in stark contrast to this

the only belief one should hold is the somewhat Cartesian dualism; in your own existence and God, the latter being a representation of our goal toward moral perfection, that is, to be loving. — Timeline

& plus you then say:

Love itself to me is merely moral consciousness, you become conscious of yourself, of your responses and begin to feel empathy through this shared experience.

But this is confusing, because there is nothing in what you've said, in that paragraph, to which 'shared experience' could refer back to. Everything you'd just been talking about was a single person and that person's representations. I am all on board with the idea of God qua a way of opening up a space for the infinite within the finite (ala Descartes), a way of self-bettering....but it feels like what you're talking about, at least provisionally here, is something like Grace. & Grace requires community.

But, then, I'm not sure if you really are talking about Grace, or if, instead, you're maybe just tailoring your response to mine, for rhetorical effect, or deflect.

For instance:

When you say this

Love is a choice, an application, a way of thinking and not some spontaneous given — TimeLine

& this

since our will is what drives everything about us, the mechanics of our cognitive states driven by moral consciousness teaches us to rethink our decisions and mirror values and ideas, to think twice. We can then contrast ourselves with something that enables us to self reflective practice. — TimeLine

but then also say:

If you fall in love with a girl that has all the wrong qualities and that everyone you know thinks is wrong for you and appears to be an all round wrong person, but yet you feel she is right, you trust that above all else. — TimeLine

To me it feels like you're using love to mean two very different things. Not that there's not a potential for some kind of synthesis here.


One thing the comes to mind is: if you really feel badly about the world (Society etc.) and the way it impinges upon people, and damages them, and blocks them from communicating, or being with who they should be with, then there's the danger that that gut voice, the one that would lead you infallibly in matters of romance, may also smuggle with it a kind of romanticized self-destructive impulse. This is one the quintessential romantic themes, right? ( From Tristan and Isolde to Sorrows of Young Werther to Kierkegaard up to Blue Oyster Cult & Thelma and Louise & Love In A Hopeless Place) or this song and video (below) which lyrically seems to say a lot of the things you're saying while visually, saying something else. But I think they're maybe saying the same thing, and in some ways the imagery is conveying the unspoken truth of the lyrics :

[



[Verse 1]
I don't know
Where this world is going
For all this life is showing
Breaks through
The paper chains that hold you
They hold me
You know I try and stay sober
But the feeling is over
Life in this coma
It's hard to stay sober
In this life
Alone, the struggle seems wholly worthless
So find your friend
In defiance, show we are no longer helpless

[Chorus]
You made me forget myself
Until the moment I found I was something else
My heart is good
But believe me I could
Watch these heads go blow
I am so alive I can barely feel fear
And I won't let go
Of this life I'm going to free myself
I don't want to know what your baby say
I will pull the trigger come judgement day
And I don't hear what your baby say
I'll bust this head for a funny game

[Verse 2]
I have no apology for these words
And understand that I can't escape
I have no more love for this world
If you hear me then let's break away
So people come on, people come on
The world that held you now has gone
Together the wolves will lay together
Alone, the wolves will play

[Chorus]

[Bridge] (x8)
To the powers of old, to the powers that be
You have fucked up this world but you won't fuck with me

[Outro]
"In a state of enlightened anarchy each person will become his own ruler, they will conduct themselves in such a way that the behaviour will not hamper the well being of their neighbours. In an ideal state there will be no political institutions and therefore no political power."

]

There's a raw and overwhelming power to this sort of thing, sometimes, but the sheer power of it can blind you temporarily to what that power is leading you to do. So: Self, God, but also a third thing - which is community (grace, holy spirit) & my hunch is maybe when you talk about mobilization you're not really talking about community. But I'm still not totally clear on what you mean by mobilization.

Bet you're fun around the dinner table.

Vaga's mum: "Can you pass the salt, please?"
Vaga: *Consults "The Prince". Schemes furiously over next move.* — Baden

The dinner-time armistice accords were signed out of necessity on all sides following the battle of the bloody steaks. :) (there's something sacred about sharing food...). Humor is a universal seasoning however!

I do find the consistency with which people mindlessly stare at the the floor number display quite amusing though. I cannot be arsed to strike up a 20 second conversation with every stranger (and likely they feel the same) and so out of mutual respect everyone generally remains silent. Silence isn't pleasant though, and so their eyes go searching for something stimulating (which in a cramped 4x6x8 room happens to be a two digit LED number display).

Why do they keep staring though? Are they waiting for a miraculous event? Are they practicing their numbers? Are they just staring into the flames and day-dreaming?

Elevators are like inter-dimensional portals that for brief moments transform us into unwillingly caged animals instinctively awaiting escape. Silence becomes a bulwark against the riffraff, and pleasantry a mutual non-aggression pact. Something about being trapped together causes us all to become more judgmental...

I have suddenly become super anxious about motherhood. How embarrassing would it be if my son turned out to be a weirdo? — TimeLine

But think of how tragically uninteresting it would be to have a child who is average in every way. Their life marked by unremarkableness and inglorious standard... I cannot recall meeting a significantly intelligent person who wasn't "weird" in some way!

I have good news though! We're all weirdos in one way or another; it's downright inevitable to be surprised by one's children. Good thing too perhaps, as there's no way of knowing which current 'weirdness' will turn out to be tomorrow's 'greatness'. In order to improve on the omelette, you have to do some percievably weird things to a few thousand eggs (and granted you're bound to find some stinkers).

Humans are experimental, and whether you're at the top or bottom extreme of the bell-curve, you're "weird" by definition.

I'm ready to roll those dice.

To which I see your "nod" and raise you one more level of the "elevator" game.

Just as the elevator door is closing, with no eye contact, move your body close to the another passenger, invading their personal space and see the response. Many will stop the doors from closing, exiting quickly without explanation. A few will mumble about forgetting something before departing the elevator. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ah yes, direct combat!

In a territory with many floors and only two elevators (one of which breaks down constantly) it is too precious a resource to risk that level of escalation so I've not yet employed it (although once I almost lost control of a nuclear warhead :) )

So we're on the same page [... ] Authenticity is thus a type of ideal — TimeLine

No, we're not on the same page at all. We are radically at odds, which might explain why you find me cryptic.

The most important quality in a politician is sincerity: if you can fake that, you've got it made.

Variously attributed.

Here is a Gordian knot for authenticity as an ideal. One conforms to, ie copies and performs an ideal, well or badly, so whatever one achieves can only be a likeness of authenticity, which is the betrayal of authenticity, as I said earlier. And the pinnacle of achievement in this direction is to manage to fool oneself. Then one is truly lost.

And this is why, when I introduced Authenticity as a character, I was at pains to point out that she does not know herself as such. And it is why whenever you hear people going on about how they 'really mean it, honestly and sincerely' you can take it for granted that they are lying toe-rags.

No, we're not on the same page at all. We are radically at odds, which might explain why you find me cryptic. — unenlightened

It really is hard to tell, particularly when you said this previously:

n this way, self-consciousness is always necessarily a fragmented condition - and in saying that, I am taking the third position of analyst, or God. What I think people feel the loss of, is what I have called authenticity, which is a whole-hearted, un-reflective condition which does not name itself, and does not perform itself in the sense of conforming itself to an ideal — unenlightened

If we are radically at odds, how exactly does the above-mentioned differentiate from my saying that authenticity is thus a type of ideal, including my position on God and moral consciousness as that ultimate ideal toward moral perfection. In addition, I assume with your Thrasymachian quote on politicians that ideals are merely a painting of an actual reality and therefore a likeness, which I also stated, but this likeness is inevitable as there is no possibility of divorcing our cognitive states into something mind-independent, where one can be entirely conscious of the contents of your thoughts; these are the epistemological barriers that we can never escape.

As a consequence, authenticity - as a state of mind - may not ever know herself, but she can see a reflection of herself in the mirror. That reflection may not be real, but it is there - just like nations and communities and religions - and love or moral consciousness is the mirror itself that reflects back intentions, motives, the subjective replies that enables self-awareness and self-reflective practice. Authenticity, like love, is a practice.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been the person not saying anything because they would never hear me...until they are ready. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And sometimes when you think they're ready, they're not. They're just in a moment of being pissed off at their significant other and so they enjoy the validation you're providing, but then they work things out (at least for the short term) and they're both pissed at you because they see you as someone who they now interpret as having created a wedge between them.

I really do think it takes real maturity, understanding, and the right objective temperament to listen to people when they tell you what they see. It's not like you have to agree with them, but if it's someone you trust, it's foolish not to want to tap into what another set of eyes and ears has perceived. Sometimes having a co-pilot assist in the navigation is wise, although that doesn't mean you're not still the captain of the ship and the one who ultimately decides.

when you said this previously:

n this way, self-consciousness is always necessarily a fragmented condition - and in saying that, I am taking the third position of analyst, or God. What I think people feel the loss of, is what I have called authenticity, which is a whole-hearted, un-reflective condition which does not name itself, and does not perform itself in the sense of conforming itself to an ideal
— unenlightened

If we are radically at odds, how exactly does the above-mentioned differentiate from my saying that authenticity is thus a type of ideal? — TimeLine

Well aside from the explicit denial in my last sentence, hardly at all. I am inauthentic, because I am fragmented. So on the one hand I am irritated that you cannot see what is as plain as day on the page, and on the other, I am conforming to an ideal of patient explanation. And on the third hand, I am performing authenticity by laying out the conflict. This is the mode of being of philosophy, and from this fragmented mode, it is not even possible to say what would constitute an authentic response, if I was not fragmented.

But this is not it. This is just that performance of an ideal of non-performance that is a performance and not the ideal, which is not a performance.

They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. — R.D.Laing

(Knots.)