Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The way things are - The way things ought to be

A component still has its own identify that differentiates it from other components. That's the fun part of the paradox.

You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call. 

Abstraction is a good tool as long as it's remembered to keep those mental models corresponding to reality. It's too often that they don't. The most unfortunate part about it is you get the Nihilists who come in later and decide all mental models are useless and trash them simply because they are not the things they describe.


There is no 'way' that people 'are.'

I dont buy this. There is a great diversity of human nature, but there is also a lot we share, a human nature. Some environments will be better for us, some worse. Just like cats, or dogs or lions or sheep. Sure, people adapt. Sure, life goes on despite adversity, despite prosperity, but we cant adapt to everything. We cant shed everything as it pleases us, or survive where this nature is inverted. Cracks appear and widen and eventually some kind of equilibrium is reached at some kind of expense.

You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call.

By what authority do you claim to know what all humans are capable or not capable of?
This is one of those examples of how one human judges the capabilities of all humans by what he, himself, is capable or not capable of.


You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call.

By what authority do you claim to know what all humans are capable or not capable of?
This is one of those examples of how one human judges the capabilities of all humans by what he, himself, is capable or not capable of.

On the authority that no human ever has produced a definite statement of absolute truth with regards to objective right and wrong.

Beyond that. Humans lack the perspective to see the full range of effects which radiate from every action as well as the effects that affect those actions. We can't even recall every moment our short lives.

It's only the hubris of the modern era that allows for the suggestion that everything can be reduced to level that it can be grasped by the human intellect. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that we believe the human intellect is so powerful that it can grasp everything.


I never claimed to be aware of anything, via my intellect. That has been pretty much my whole point, throughout countless posts. Intellect is a poor substitute for whatever you'd call it that intellect is a very poor substitute for. Good luck figuring that one out, via your intellect.
And, really, can't you remember every moment of your short life?
I can remember almost every one, in fact possibly every one, of mine.

The intellect is really what we're talking about when it comes to assessment.

I've been on board with your project nearly the whole way through as far as I understood it to pertain to the ego, identity, the soul, God.

The former being a comprehension of parts (right & wrong), and the latter being an experience of the whole system (the totality of existence).

Try looking at what you, and nearly everybody else does, as processing.
What is processing, anyway?
You take something - in the raw - and change it into something else. Usually for ease, or convenience. You do this via desire. Desire for a result that the original thing does not seem to supply. Think Kraft Cheese Slices. It bears very little resemblance to actual cheese. And that is what happens with mental processing. You end up with an understanding based upon what you have done to the original data, but not the original data, itself.
My one point is this:
Suspending intellect, you get a clear picture of things as things are, rather than what you have turned them into, by processing them. This I learned from a crow.
Call it intuition, or instinct, or whatever you feel comes closest. But whatever it is, it isn't intellect.
We are taught, early on, to process everything and subject it to intellect.
But what is the consequence of that?
Eh?


Either I haven't communicated clearly or you're not processing my words correctly.

Words are only words. No matter how you choose them, and arrange them, there is this problem of what's going on with the listener. You can't ever control that. I posit that the very best you can do, is be sure that you have been as clear as you possibly can be. Then, like an arrow, let it fly.
It probably won't hit what you had hoped it would. But it may hit something.


Try looking at what you, and nearly everybody else does, as processing.
What is processing, anyway?
You take something - in the raw - and change it into something else. Usually for ease, or convenience. You do this via desire. Desire for a result that the original thing does not seem to supply. Think Kraft Cheese Slices. It bears very little resemblance to actual cheese. And that is what happens with mental processing. You end up with an understanding based upon what you have done to the original data, but not the original data, itself.
My one point is this:
Suspending intellect, you get a clear picture of things as things are, rather than what you have turned them into, by processing them. This I learned from a crow.
Call it intuition, or instinct, or whatever you feel comes closest. But whatever it is, it isn't intellect.
We are taught, early on, to process everything and subject it to intellect.
But what is the consequence of that?
Eh?

Hmmm, but even the very simple act of perceiving something (like a crow), even before all processing, as you call it, is changing it from something that it is (particles, and their properties organised in a specific way to produce crow-behaviour) to something that it is not (light waves - and then, electrical signals in our brains).

I think the only way we come to know that this is the case, is via what you're calling 'processing': higher-level, analytical thought!

So by suspending intellect, we do not get a clearer picture of what things really are like, we are, as Plato would have thought, deceived. (And weren't you using analytic processing to get across your own point just now?) I know you're not going to like this, and it is not meant to challenge your worldview, as much to offer my own.

There is of course a big danger is being too analytic, and too intellectual. But what makes us special is that we can switch between these modes, when each is appropriate. When you look at a crow, or the stars, or a beautiful naked woman, you don't want to be thinking analytically all the time. But when it comes to knowing 'things-in-themselves' - then we don our Newton, Einstein, Watson or Crick hats and bow to the mystery (and then sometimes this forces you to stop thinking analytically - for sometimes it is too incredible to put 2 and 2 together and think of yourself as a manifestation of charges and particles. Sometimes you just need to sit and exist without-thinking).

No, that's fine. But that is nothing like the way things are for me.
I know when I am thinking. I see thoughts. Hear them.
Thus I notice, easily enough, their absence.
What is abundantly clear to me, now, after years of writing about all of this, is that pretty much nobody has any idea of what I am talking about. Some are able to take it at face value and leave it alone, but those are few.
The single exception I have seen, recently, is 03-04, who seems to have gone into hibernation. And I suppose, two Indian gurus I happened across, some years back, and wrote to, copiously.

I stand behind all I've said. This isn't a case of poor communication from my end, but more a case of presenting ideas and primordial truths that almost nobody can apparently even grasp.

Robinson Crusoe, that's me!

You're missing the objective judgement of what is good and what is right because no human possesses the faculty to make such a call.

By what authority do you claim to know what all humans are capable or not capable of?
This is one of those examples of how one human judges the capabilities of all humans by what he, himself, is capable or not capable of.

On the authority that no human ever has produced a definite statement of absolute truth with regards to objective right and wrong.

Beyond that. Humans lack the perspective to see the full range of effects which radiate from every action as well as the effects that affect those actions. We can't even recall every moment our short lives.

It's only the hubris of the modern era that allows for the suggestion that everything can be reduced to level that it can be grasped by the human intellect. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that we believe the human intellect is so powerful that it can grasp everything.

Careful, my friend, in all good spirits, be careful.

There is a sense in which the 'modern era' is more humble than other eras. In older times, people thought they would pass judgement over the entire cosmos, it's origins, it's purpose and its operation.

Now, we understand sources of human fallibility, and we construct systems of knowledge that make corrections for this (peer review, experimental standards, and so on). We admit doubt, and by doing so, learn more.

And this relates to our other discussion: the failure to mitigate environmental damage is not the fault of modern 'knowledge' - in the sense of a set of ontological beliefs about the cosmos - it is the fault of human willpower, political structures, moral 'knowledge' and psychological denial. Only 'enlightened' humanity will survive through its environmental crisis - using technology and know-how. Or we will perish.

No, that's fine. But that is nothing like the way things are for me.
I know when I am thinking. I see thoughts. Hear them.
Thus I notice, easily enough, their absence.
What is abundantly clear to me, now, after years of writing about all of this, is that pretty much nobody has any idea of what I am talking about. Some are able to take it at face value and leave it alone, but those are few.

I cannot argue with your experiences. Descartes understood why this is so.

This is not meant to debunk your views, I am thinking perhaps you might be synesthesic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

No. None of that rings any bells. But I see, as usual, science desperately trying to get something it probably has almost no hope of understanding, down to a 'pat' little formula. Science is famous for this.


No. None of that rings any bells. But I see, as usual, science desperately trying to get something it probably has almost no hope of understanding, down to a 'pat' little formula. Science is famous for this.

 ;) Science has raised many more questions than it has answered, for me.

This would be my way of characterizing the feeling, without 'processing' it verbally. Maybe you will appreciate this attempt!

http://youtu.be/tmpxXq3Gx9w?t=6m11s