But also, isn't comfort ultimately miserable? — Noble Dust

Yeah, when it turns into discomfort.

These two statements seem contradictory. So. I remain confused. — Janus

So, one of the strange things you might say is that epistemologically, the only certain belief that one can hold about knowledge, is that one can be certain only of one's own experiences/sensory data/mental representations. So, that's solipsism in a nutshell. I don't understand why many philosophers shun the idea. It really shows the limitations and truth of the representational theory of mind.

Anyway, if one knew everything there was to know about the world, there wouldn't be anything to doubt anymore, again presuming certainty and solipsism at the same time. So, as long as one's knowledge about the world is incomplete, then there's room for doubt. Therefore, if one were to perpetually live in a dream, then one would never come to realize it from within it due to the solipsistic nature of the dream.

I agree, but the parallel here is about our state of mind, about the authenticity of our experiences. We can easily find a partner who we are indifferent to but they have a pleasing enough face to help tolerate having sex with, or we can find someone who we genuinely care about and fulfils our experience in life beyond that mere interaction. We can go to work in a dead end job as long as we make money to buy material bullshit and a nice meal until we grow old and die, or we can fight injustice and do something meaningful in our lives. — TimeLine

You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others.

Lottery winner, obviously. Or inheritance. Or a savvy investment that I've cashed in. — Michael

Well, if we get to choose, then I wouldn't be the president, I'd be in some other position of power which better suits my desire.

You're making this too personal. The options, as set out in the opening post, are to continue to be miserable in the domain of the real, or to give up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. The options aren't as you set out above, and besides, one could have the experience of living your ideal life in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing. The real thing might be your priority, but it's clearly not everyone's priority, and that's okay. It's okay that there's a difference in how people answer this question. There's no real right or wrong here. You should recognise that your ideal life isn't necessarily the ideal life of others. — Sapientia

That makes no sense, it is supposed to be personal. As mentioned already to Michael, the Architect at the end of the movie explains whether or not you will actually be happy considering that bad is as much a part of the human condition and necessary for the matrix to function productively, that what you are right now is just the same as what it will be in the matrix. You are not Cypher. You are Jessica from West Brompton who eats gluten free.

Is free-will an ideal?

Going back to The Matrix - as I commented, when I saw the film I thought it was clever, but it annoyed me, because it was almost a parody of the idea of ‘consciousness-raising’. Recall back in the sixties [anyone old enough?] that ‘the red pill’ back then was [how to say] ‘derived from ergot’. The point was, that it was supposed to be a liberative experience because through it, you saw the ‘clear light’. You had a vision, or better, a realisation, that what nearly everyone takes for granted as being real, is actually cobbled-together opinions which everyone has learned from one another and that really ‘nobody knows nuthin’. You were liberated by seeing the truth of that, notwithstanding the probability that when you ‘came down’ you would immediately rejoin the ranks with the rest. [‘All those dayglo freaks who used to paint their face, they’ve joined the human race, some things will never change’ ~ Steely Dan, ‘Kid Charlemagne’].

Now, none of this really came across in The Matrix, even though that was the symbolic meaning [but then, it did have Kenau Reeves in it.] But, that was reason the ‘red pill blue pill’ scene was meaningful, [or perhaps, what it meant to me.]

But in the context of the secular world, the world of ‘the straights’ as the sixties types would say - there is no ‘higher truth’ to discover. The universe is essentially rocks, gas, stars and empty space, and we’re accidental tourists, ‘apes on a rock’, as one of our distinguished contributors put it recently.

Nothing to see here folks - move right along.

Right off the bat, I don't remember Morpheus telling Neo that he was going to be a success.

It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other. — Janus

The connection between moral judgement and motivation rests under the umbrella of our cognitive state and thus moral expression is dependent on rational thought. Authenticity is to imply a clarity or honesty of such normative judgements, because if our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality. You are just a blind follower.

Right off the bat, I don't remember Morpheus telling Neo that he was going to be a success. — Sum Dude

It's the journey, not the destination.

Unless it's the destination.

But also, isn't comfort ultimately miserable? — Noble Dust

Depends. If you're young and totally naive, you bare your chest and run straight into the swords. After you've been righteously torn to shreds, a little comfort seems like a great idea.

one could have the experience of living your ideal life [a meaningful life] in the dreamworld, despite it not being the real thing — Sapientia

True. Thing is that no matter what world we live in it is still a construct of some kind. That being the case, what really matters? Does the pursuit of wealth and power matter? Is it fulfilling or lead to real happiness and bliss? If I recall, the character of Cypher, while in the midst of betraying his associates, claims that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that's true.

Now, none of this really came across in The Matrix, even though that was the symbolic meaning [but then, it did have Kenau Reeves in it.] But, that was reason the ‘red pill blue pill’ scene was meaningful, [or perhaps, what it meant to me.] — Wayfarer

I didn't grow up in the sixties but, coincidentally, I just finished reading How to Change Your Mind: What The New Science Of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, And Transcendence and when I read this topic yesterday I immediately made the association. I didn't get it before I guess.

That makes no sense, it is supposed to be personal. — TimeLine

It might make more sense if you read what I say properly. I didn't deny that it's supposed to be personal, I said that you're making it too personal. There's a difference. It's personal for each of us, but you made it too personal with your talk of finding a partner, fighting injustice, and so on, as if that's what it's all about, rather than that being what it's all about for you, personally.

As mentioned already to Michael, the Architect at the end of the movie explains whether or not you will actually be happy considering that bad is as much a part of the human condition and necessary for the matrix to function productively, that what you are right now is just the same as what it will be in the matrix. — TimeLine

What? I don't remember that part, or at least not very well. But anyway, the choice under consideration, as set out in the opening post, is about two starkly different options. I wouldn't be the same either way. That makes no sense.

You are not Cypher. You are Jessica from West Brompton who eats gluten free. — TimeLine

What? I'm who? What are you talking about?

Is free-will an ideal? — TimeLine

An ideal for who? And raising free-will is to open a can of worms. What is it? Does it exist? Is it even possible? Is it necessary or of any practical value? What if it's just an illusion? Would that even matter? I'm not convinced that it would even matter, so no, free-will, as opposed to the illusion of free-will, is not an ideal for me.

True. Thing is that no matter what world we live in it is still a construct of some kind. That being the case, what really matters? Does the pursuit of wealth and power matter? Is it fulfilling or lead to real happiness and bliss? If I recall, the character of Cypher, while in the midst of betraying his associates, claims that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that's true. — praxis

For who? Look, if wealth and power matter to me, or if that's what I find fulfilling, or if that'll lead to real happiness for me, and so on, for whatever reason, then it makes sense for me to pursue wealth and power, unless something else matters to me even more than that, or would be even more fulfilling, and so on. Similarly, if being miserable is something which matters to me, in that I know I would rather avoid it, then it makes sense to avoid the option in which it's a given, as per the opening post, that I'll be miserable, unless, once again, there's something which matters to me even more than that. If a miserable reality outside of the matrix is your proposal, as it must be, being the only other option on the table, then, I say to you that I have considered it, but ultimately rejected it as less desirable.

That doesn't make me a coward, contrary to what has been suggested by Her Nobleness. It makes me a rational hedonist.

That doesn't make me a coward, contrary to what has been suggested by Her Nobleness. It makes me a rational hedonist. — Sapientia

A rational hedonist who, if we're going along with psychedelics metaphor, denies themselves the rapture of transcendence. Does that make sense? Perhaps ignorance is being ignorant of what's possible rather it being bliss.

A rational hedonist, who if we're going along with psychedelics metaphor, denies themselves the rapture of transcendence. Does that make sense? — praxis

I wasn't following the metaphor, but no, you're not making sense. It would be the misery of transcendence. It wouldn't be a rapture.

In the story, Neo could fly in the matrix. He even transcended death in the matrix. Flying and no fear of death would not appeal to a rational hedonist? It should, so we might conclude that the reluctance is based on fear (of the unknown or whatever) and attraction to the relative comfort of the known and predictable.

In the story, Neo could fly in the matrix. He even transcended death in the matrix. Flying and no fear of death would not appeal to a rational hedonist? It should, so we might conclude that the reluctance is based on fear (of the unknown or whatever) and attraction to the relative comfort of the known and predictable. — praxis

But that's neither continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real nor giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. That's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it option outside of those presented, which means you're breaking the rules.

But that's neither continuing to be miserable in the domain of the real nor giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. — Sapientia

Being miserable in the domain of the real is a narrative of the matrix. An advantage of transcending the matrix is not being a slave to such narratives.

That's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it option outside of those presented, which means you're breaking the rules. — Sapientia

Breaking the rules, yes, that's the method, and if you know the story (it's a trilogy), it was by breaking up the rules that the war ended. No more miserable war because some dared to break the rules.

I didn't grow up in the sixties but, coincidentally, I just finished reading How to Change Your Mind: What The New Science Of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, And Transcendence and when I read this topic yesterday I immediately made the association. I didn't get it before I guess. — praxis

It's interesting that psychedelics have made a comeback, but you have to be careful what you say.

In my case, the point was to discover an alternative way of seeing. Of course when you're a teen, then with the absence of emotional maturity and impulsiveness, that easily can and does morph into plain old habituation or empty thrill-seeking, but I like to think that it was really the quest for enlightenment all along. (It seemed obvious to me, at that time, that this 'enlightenment' business was real and important, and typical of the stupidity of 'straight society' that they didn't get it. You can't underestimate the significance of the arrival of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band in the middle of all this, specifically the final song.)

The upshot was, there were a few episodes, or times, when I really did break through to a sense of intrinsic amazement at how things actually are - close to the realisation of such-ness (see here for Alduous Huxley's famous depiction in Doors of Perception). But of course it was always impossible to sustain that awareness, and one always fell back. That was where my original interest in meditation and spirituality originated.

A couple of references:

The Paisley Gate, Erik Davis

Cults and Cosmic Consciousness, Camille Paglia. A long essay, but well worth reading, concluding:

The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from the wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion.

Which is more or less what I've been working at ever since. Hence, my reaction to the 'red pill/blue pill' scene - it seemed to me commercial exploitation of something with real meaning. Close to blasphemy, in fact.

I don't see how it follows that if "our mental states are constructed and given to us, then there is no actual mental states, no rational thought and thus no morality". For sure, to the extent that we simply follow received opinion without question, you might say we are nothing but "blind followers". However, normative moral rules are also given to us. If the purpose of moral rules is to produce good, well-socialized people, does it matter whether that is achieved by blindly following the rules to a tee, or mindfully following them to a tee? If so, who does it matter to: the society or the individual, or both? And if it does matter, then why does it matter?

Is there a difference between intelligently, but completely obediently (that is, without question), interpreting and following the rules, and intelligently, but perhaps compassionately and wisely, bending the rules as particular situations seem to demand? Or is any bending of the rules a selfish act, as Kant would have it? How would you ever measure such differences? I really don't think the picture is as simplistic as you seem to be wanting to paint it.

It's interesting that psychedelics have made a comeback, but you have to be careful what you say. — Wayfarer

Could be the powers that be are desperate enough to allow psychedelic research to continue, with the ineffectiveness of current treatments for anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, etc. I was amazed at how much research was done in the fifties and sixties before the whole thing was shut down or went underground. Indeed I don't know why Pollan calls it the "New Science of Psychedelics." From what's mentioned in the book it doesn't look like anything new has been discovered.

There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!

In a world of pretended and supposed equals, truth as a concept does not really have much meaning. Any armchair philosopher who is worth his/her bacon can pose a rational argument do depose all or most alternate rational arguments.

In the old days (whenever they were) there were authorities, individuals and or institutions who had the final say, there were hierarchies, there were bishops, Lords, and doctors of divinity.

Nowadays there are no experts... everyone with a smartphone is an expert, many or most seek to establish or refresh their sense of significance by debunking someone else's truth. Freud was wrong, Marx was wrong, Nietzsche was wrong, Descartes was wrong.

One can make good bread from the wrongs, and there is little interest in thought that seeks agreement, or that which tips the cap to the Master... in doing so we assert that the Master was or is greater than the self. It is far more gratifying to point to the supposed weakness of other truths than bow to their strengths.

The world is waiting upon a truth that might replace the fancies, parables and celestial myths. Philosophy is not yet up to this task, perhaps because she/we are consumed with a promotion of the self through the destruction of the Master.

I think the truth about the pills is that the choice is not a real one. The notion of choice itself, that we posses the power and or freedom of choice is perhaps the greatest illusion of all. We are not so important as to have a choice, regardless of what we might like to think.

Keep the pills both of them are phony.

In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end.

We will have our truth only when we are ready for it.

M

Alright. :)

In time there will emerge a synthesis of thought. A great work of philosophy that will unite the disparate truth of the Masters into one enduring truth. This might only emerge when the age of self and the 'delusions' inherent to the importance of self come to an end. — Marcus de Brun

You seem to promote the virtues of both pills in the same breath. That a Masterwork matrix will someday be developed, representing the blue pill. And the dissolution of self, represented by the red pill.

I might have the colors mixed up. I don't remember exactly which is which.

What happens if you take both pills at once? Isn't that the ultimate expression of human freedom?

There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising! — praxis

It's deja vue all over again :lol:

What happens if you take both pills at once? — Posty McPostface

My guess would be, nothing.

So, it's dichotomies all the way down. One cancels the other and so on?

My guess would be, nothing. — Wayfarer

I hope you aren't a pharmacist.

There's a recent study mentioned in Pollan's book about researcher exploring the spiritual aspect of psychedelics rather than purely health-related. Scientists concerning themselves with spirituality. Promising!
— praxis

It's deja vue all over again :lol: — Wayfarer

Not like Timothy Leary, if that's what you're thinking. But yeah, the history seems to show that after the ego is temporarily dissolved via psychedelics it tends to inflate to Godlike proportions. One of the reasons I prefer to approach it the old-fashioned way and earn it on the cushion. Not that the psychedelic approach is particularly new. It may date back thousands of years, but it was practiced within a tradition.