The mind is a forager of patterns; we, as all living organisms with a brain, seek out repetition and a semblance of ordered, comforting, controllable, predictability in a seemingly chaotic and erratic existence.
This we call logic, reality, experience and knowledge but, above all else, we call it ‘truth’ and/or power.
Whether these patterns are discovered or created, by the mind, is at the center of most philosophical debates and is the main cause for all misunderstandings and confrontations in matters of abstract reasoning.
For the majority order and patterns appear to be pre-existing concepts awaiting our attention or dictating our understanding, as with the Platonic Idea or Christianity, while for some they are illusions produced by a mind is search for power in a universe defined by chaos and constant flux. What for the former is referred to as ‘truth’ or ‘God’ or ‘reality’ or ‘Idea’ for the latter is an unwanted constraint upon free-will and a delusion caused by the minds nature of comprehending only what can be regimented and stored as memory.
Either way what can be safely admitted is that patterns, symmetry and order is of the utmost importance and of extreme interest to our mental wanderings and is the prime source of strategising and theorizing in the human species. We like to categorize and label phenomena; we understand the world through opposites and through causes and effects; we reach for control and power through deducing or inducing rules, laws and relationships and we call our adherence to them happiness, virtue, morality and purpose.
In fact, it can be argued, that since we are products of order ourselves and providential, ephemeral instances of pattern in a universe of predominant disorderliness, that it is therefore natural that we will be attracted to these concepts, see them everywhere and glorify them as our highest standards neglecting, perhaps, the idea that order and disorder themselves are the way we discern between the intelligible and the unintelligible and that this prejudice is one due to consciousness itself with no real transcending meaning.
As products of patterns, it is natural to assume, that we are also slaves to them. No matter how hard we try to liberate our individuality from conventionality we must inevitably confess that we behave, act and think in manners similar to others sharing our social, cultural, religious, and genetic pasts. This uncomfortable reality is what makes psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology and science, in general, respectable disciplines that can teach us things about ourselves but also makes cosmology, philosophy and physics possible since all of these base their validity on how phenomena, sharing common characteristics, will act predictably and consistently.
This idea of mental enslavement and human prejudiced, delusional thinking and of mans subjugation to larger entities [Nature, Society, Culture, Religion] was recognized firstly by the ancients, particularly by the Greeks, and has entered popular consciousness through art and philosophy in more recent times.
The concept of existing in a false reality is not a new one but it has grown in popularity and strength in more modern times culminating in the philosophies of Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, in the science of physics and quantum physics in particular and finding its way into modern artistic mainstream expressions such as movies [‘Fight Club’, ‘Matrix’], music [‘Rage Against the Machine’, ‘Pink Floyd’, ‘Marilyn Manson’, ‘Radiohead’] and any form of surrealistic, mythological or abstract expression attempting to uncover a hidden perspective or to redefine reality through imagery.
It is therefore natural for man to attempt to encompass life and being [becoming] by finding patters in its processes and procedures.
In my own attempts to discover commonalities and life patterns I have stumbled upon an unfortunate realization that at first caused me some discomfort: All life is preoccupied with just staying alive and all acts of being are a struggle to avoid non-being.
The act of living seems to consist of the mere practice of dealing with death and mortality. We feed, drink, procreate, create, interact, build, explore and hypothesize in an endless struggle to give meaning to our inevitable demise or to come to terms with it and, if possible, avoid it altogether.
Civilization is the result of this fight against death and little more.
Life, in essence, can be described as the act of resisting death or the activity of maintaining self and nothing else besides.
We may even say that we don’t really live but only resist dieing and spend our every moment thinking, acting and avoiding our own demise.
Schopenhauer described wisdom as the product of heightened intellectual power that is so abundant that when the physical survival needs of the organism are met the leftover intellect turns upon itself and starts becoming aware of self and its place in the world. It becomes an observer of itself and a critic of its own nature as an almost completely objective observer. This is the experience of self-consciousness which is a characteristic shared by all higher entities with superfluous intellects.
It is this aspect of human nature that eventually leads to nihilistic tendencies and the denial of the self through extreme asceticism caused by self-hatred and insecurity.
This residual intellect varies from individual to individual and, in the ones blessed or damned to possess great quantities of it, it can have detrimental or beneficial effects on the psyche, depending on the mental stability, psychological fortitude and environmental experiences of each person.
Because of this, I believe, it is possible for man to look upon himself and his consciousness with a certain detachment that makes the discernment of patterns, shared by all living beings no matter their sophistication, feasible.
It is this excess intellectual capability that can detach itself from the continuous preoccupations of survival that has the potential to become more than just an instrument of struggle against non-existence and can witness itself and the world as it is without the limiting influences of self-interest and ego.

So, in closing, we may say that we never really live but are only involved in the act of not dieing and it is in those instances of becoming aware of what life is or can be that we find the sublime and the transcending.

I've identified what I consider 3 distinct groups of people.
Each having a particular psychological milieu.

Those who possess a Positive milieu seek truth primarily from a productive disposition, their fundamental motivating desire is love*, this group is pro-humanity, pro-biosphere, pro-truth and wisdom.....the numbers in this group are extremely small.
*not romantic love, the concept of romantic love has been stretched beyond it's practical value.

Those who possess a Negative milieu seek truth primarily from a destructive disposition, their fundamental motivating desire is hate, this group is anti-humanity, is either anti or neutral towards biosphere, can be pro-truth as far as their hate can carry them.
This group is extremely small.

Those who possess a Polluted milieu are effectively brainwashed beyond my powers of persuasion and cannot emotionally cope with the notion of genuine critical thinking,... their primary motivating desire is fear, and this leads to the development of a combination of destructive and productive impulses, but destruction* being the major force.
This group is extremely LARGE.
*physical or psychological, themselves and or others.

I was wondering if you see yourself in either of the top 2 categories?
Do you believe that the goal of philosophy is the attainment of wisdom...or playing second fiddle to science?

I refuse to limit myself to your three options as they are defined by you. It is, perhaps, an attempt by you to pigeonhole me and lead me to conclusions of your own creation.
It is a well-known debate tactic: Offer the opponent a limited amount of options and when he makes the error of accepting them, he inadvertently accepts the premises of his own contradiction.
The premises, as you’ve presented them, are based on prejudiced thinking and feel-good delusions.
For instance the way you group together love, pro-truth [whatever that means], pro-humanity in association with words like ‘positive’ and ‘productive’ makes me think that you’re either trying to be clever or you don’t even perceive the inherit bullshit of your limited definitions.
Wisdom as you've defined it appears to be restricted to the 'positive' category the one stemming from or including love.
How convenient.
This is the one dimensional thinking our world suffers from.
Wisdom is neither ‘positive’ nor ‘negative’ it is both or, more precisely, neither. The idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ knowledge or wisdom comes from how each individual perceives any new piece of insight, to affect him/her personally.
Is the insight that we are mortal good or bad, is it positive or negative, is it constructive or destructive? Well from a human perspective it can be both, depending on how much each values life and how each psychologically deals with mortality, but from an objective standpoint it is neither. Our mortality is merely fact, how we accept it or how we deal with this information constitutes its constructive or destructive conclusions.
Furthermore your labels of ‘constructive’ and ‘destructive’ elude the reality that everything contains both these elements within it.
You cannot be constructive without destroying something that is pre-existing and you cannot be destructive without creating something new in the process, even if it’s an empty space that needs filling.
Both love and hate can be positive or negative, constructive or destructive, good or bad, depending on how one uses them and focuses them.
I remind you that it has been hate that has lead to man’s greatest inventions. Love, on the other hand, has acted as more of a pacifier by those that truly misunderstood it.
this is because these emotions have distinclty different motivations and roles within nature. Both are necessary.

Democritus gave us the example of the uphill to describe how everything contains its contradiction within it and how perception depends on point of view more than on anything else.
Is an uphill then an uphill or is it a downhill?
Well this all depends on which direction you are traveling on or, if you’ve traveled in both directions, on how you wish to perceive it.
In ‘truth’ it is both and neither.
Can we say that all geographical inclinations are automatically down-hills because we wish to remain positive and perceive the world ‘constructively’ from a limited human perspective?
If we do so we miss the fact that these same inclinations are also up-hills that give meaning and value to the very idea of up, as the idea of up gives meaning and value to the idea of down.
I submit that wisdom is not the limitation of perspective to the categories or the psychological milieus as you’ve presented them but it is the insight that both the negative and positive are human inventions forced upon us due to human limitations and self-interests with little transcending meaning beyond this.
Wisdom is a spherical perception, as much as is humanly possible, and a perspective that includes as many other perspectives and definitions as possible.
To be in both your first or second category and especially the third, is to be an unwise moron.

Do you believe that the goal of philosophy is the attainment of wisdom...or playing second fiddle to science?
My dear David Mayes, do you not know that scinece is philosophy?
Science is philosophy that can be based on empirical evidence. Philosophy that cannot remains philosophy or abstract thought.
All the sciences stem from and germinate in philosophical ideas.
Modern day scientific methodology is the product of Hellenic philosophy. It is the result of man throwing off fear and believing that reality can be known and controlled and not feared or worshiped.
Science is the result of the Hellenic gift to mankind that made us believe that we too could know the secrets of nature and that we could become masters of our own destiny and not beggars on the feet of ignorance as many religions would have us be.
This is why science flourishes in truly western domains or in areas where Hellenic spirit abounds. In more primitive or more degrading cultures man cannot challenge reality but remains forever its victim. Most religions, including Christianity, preach submission to and tolerance of the forces around us.
Only in early pagan Greek religions could science and philosophy have been brought forth as a viable alternative.
Where other religions preach fear and cowering towards the mysterious, such as weather for example, the Greeks through their example told man that blaming thunder and lightning on the will of God-on Thor or Zeus or Jesusor Allah- and praying for good weather is prudent but uncovering what makes thunder and why is a nobler endeavour.
It is when man learned not to fear the mysterious and the unknown, through a philosophy or a spirit of Hellenic being, that he started investigating, asking and challenging the forces that bound him. Through this spirit of being, coming from a philosophy, science becomes possible.
This is why Islam and many other religions have maintained many cultures in a state of inertia. They would not even think about challenging the will of god and so depend more on remaining loyal to their gods supposed demands and begging, through prayer, for his good will.
If it were not for the rediscovery of Hellenic thought, during the Dark Ages that lead to the Enlightenment through the minimization of Judeo-Christian influence on western thought, we would still be burning witches and we would still be restricted by superstition and myth.

I sense a discomfort on your part on some of my perceptions about life.
I cannot help you with those.
I am involved in uncovering and discovering as much of reality as I can. Whether what is uncovered is perceived as ‘negative’ or ‘positive’, constructive or destructive is dependant on the psychological and mental fortitude and predisposition of each individual.
I nevertheless stand behind my original position that life, as we know it and live it, is merely the act of not dieing and that what we call living is just a reaction against death.
If we wish to experience life, true life, then we must live as if death was not there.
Ask yourself: If I were immortal would I be doping what I am doing and would I be living as I am and valuing the things I do?
If you are honest with yourself you will acknowledge that all of your beliefs and actions are fundamentally based on your mortality and in wanting to deal with death and give meaning to your short time here.
Live well,

I refuse to limit myself to your three options as they are defined by you.

I consider those categories as capable of withstanding rational scrutiny....although you haven't quite done that...never mind for now.


It is a well-known debate tactic:

If you say so...I've explained them to other philosophers, and one of them gleefully accepted himself as hate filled{no 2}, but wholly commited to truth as far as his biases would allow.

trying to be clever or you don’t even perceive the inherit bullshit of your limited definitions.

I wasn't trying to be clever, but I am clever and this will become apparent should you chose to engage me.

Wisdom as you've defined it appears to be restricted to the 'positive' category the one stemming from or including love.
How convenient.

Oh I get it, I can't define wisdom, but YOU can.....how convenient, LOL.


Well from a human perspective it can be both, depending on how much each values life and how each psychologically deals with mortality, but from an objective standpoint it is neither.

Unfortunately there's just no 3 rd party, there's your reflections and there's mine, but there just isn't some ghostly character who calmly analyses the situation and then gives an unbiased, non-subjective account...it's either you or me.

And I define wisdom as "an ongoing pursuit of proper knowledge"...PK being that which maximizes the human condition.


Furthermore your labels of ‘constructive’ and ‘destructive’ elude the reality that everything contains both these elements within it.

Not really, had you progressively debated my views you would have found out that I recognize that each person has a dynamic core that is dominated by productive impulses{Pos}, dominated by destructive impulses{neg} or a more neutral core that hovers between the 2{polluted}.
I consider myself to have a positive milieu, but I don't pretend to have NO destructive impulses, I assert that I'm "dominated" by productive ones.


Both love and hate can be positive or negative, constructive or destructive, good or bad, depending on how one uses them and focuses them.

I agree but would suggest that we distinguish between rational "reactive" hate, and irrational "constitutional hate.
It's rational for me to become enraged and hate someone jeopardising my life, but once the threat is removed, the emotion should subside, OTOH, someone who is dominated by destructive impulses is emotionally at the ready to release his core energy value of destruction{can be psychological destruction}.


I submit that wisdom is not the limitation of perspective to the categories or the psychological milieus as you’ve presented them but it is the insight that both the negative and positive are human inventions forced upon us due to human limitations and self-interests with little transcending meaning beyond this.

This is your opinion, obviously I disagree+ you've discredited my theory without much in the way of rational scrutiny.

My dear David Mayes, do you not know that scinece is philosophy?

I'm well versed on scientific/philosophical history, and whilst it was
natural philosophers who developed science....there is a clear distinction in accepted definitions between science and philosophy these days, I was simply curious if you found the distinction limited or even insulting.

This is why Islam and many other religions have maintained many cultures in a state of inertia.

Even today, organized religion cripples free thinking.

I nevertheless stand behind my original position that life, as we know it and live it, is merely the act of not dieing and that what we call living is just a reaction against death.

I'm happy enough to agree with that.
Death gives life meaning.


If we wish to experience life, true life, then we must live as if death was not there.

Psychologically we have to come to terms with it...but we also have to plan around approx timetables of 70-100yrs of life.

If you are honest with yourself you will acknowledge that all of your beliefs and actions are fundamentally based on your mortality and in wanting to deal with death and give meaning to your short time here.

Don't disagree, but you seem to be assigning that knowledge as pejorative...are you?


Live well

And you.

In reading your response to me I find, as usual, that no real disagreement is present but only a disagreement on details, if there, and a need to show oneself off as the equal or the superior to the one posting a point of view that is accurate in some way.
A usual human behaviour.
Here too you appear to be more interested in telling me that you are also clever and capable of insight so as not to lose face in the presence of what you perceive as quality of thought. Whether it is quality of thought or not is beside the point here and the obvious arrogance of the above statement is deliberately evident.

I consider those categories as capable of withstanding rational scrutiny....although you haven't quite done that...never mind for now.
You did not ask for rational scrutiny of your premises but you asked me to place myself within them without rational scrutiny, in essence taking for granted their validity.

If you say so...I've explained them to other philosophers, and one of them gleefully accepted himself as hate filled{no 2}, but wholly commited to truth as far as his biases would allow.

What others have done or will do leaves me indifferent.
Should I behave stupidly because others do so?
Is the label ‘philosopher’ one with meaning or is it that just placing it before a name makes it a reality?
How many fools think themselves clever intellectuals?
I wonder.
I, for one, do not accept the premise that what is rooted in hate is destructive and what is in love is productive. This is a biased position from the start and asking a question using it predisposes the other to a specific response.
You see, my friend, in life and in science how one asks a question determines what answer will be given.
It is how many humans manage to always get answers that suit their sensitivities and interests.

I wasn't trying to be clever, but I am clever and this will become apparent should you chose to engage me.

Engage you?
Have I not already?
If only you knew the number of times I've been promised an interesting engagement only to be faced with the same old human frailties.
It seems humans are more prone to prancing than proving.
Don’t tell me what you will do, just do it as the well known Nike advertisement puts it.
Those who tell the other that they are going to hit them, for instance, are usually hiding a physical insecurity and warning the other not to push them because they fear having to prove themselves. For example, an omega wolf growls and postures and raises its hair to look bigger not because it is strong but because it is weak and is trying to appear strong. The alpha, on the other hand, just bites and moves on.

Oh I get it, I can't define wisdom, but YOU can.....how convenient, LOL.

I never said that, I said that to define wisdom only as positive or constructive is placing prejudiced limitations on what it is or could be.
Violence can be wisdom; cruelty, hatred, vengeance can come from wisdom.
Nature is wise and she is full of examples of compassion and cruelty.
By saying wisdom is positive or constructive or good you are just showing how unwise you are.
Wisdom is merely how one deals with what is perceived and accepts what is known. What is known and perceived isn’t always ‘good’ and warm, and safe, sometimes it is ‘evil’ and cruel and cold. To ignore perceptions only based on how much one benefits from them or is comforted by them is to be truly a moron.
So to color wisdom with the nice, joyful shades that pleases the eye is to be blind to the entire spectrum. Only in pain is there wisdom because the wisdom found in pleasure is easily accesible to all and so worth little.

Unfortunately there's just no 3 rd party, there's your reflections and there's mine, but there just isn't some ghostly character who calmly analyses the situation and then gives an unbiased, non-subjective account...it's either you or me.

And I define wisdom as "an ongoing pursuit of proper knowledge"...PK being that which maximizes the human condition.

Yes, but knowing that neither your position nor mine is exact and absolute is a third position. It is a scepticism that forces debate and the testing of opinions.
In the end we don’t say this or that position is ‘truth’ or absolutely correct we say this position is superior to that one. It isn’t an objective truth we seek out but a more powerful one, a nobler one, a higher one.
As you put it: knowledge that “maximizes the human condition”.
But why does only construction and love do this?
Destruction and hate forces us to be efficient and not superfluous, to be precise and honest and not naive. It also wipes away errors and starts over if need be.

Not really, had you progressively debated my views you would have found out that I recognize that each person has a dynamic core that is dominated by productive impulses{Pos}, dominated by destructive impulses{neg} or a more neutral core that hovers between the 2{polluted}.
I consider myself to have a positive milieu, but I don't pretend to have NO destructive impulses, I assert that I'm "dominated" by productive ones.
The painting of yourself in such glorious colors is a human trait, as well.
But of course I already sensed your bias towards ‘positivity’ and ‘love’ and construction, this is why I responded as I did
I categorize humanity more precisely, I think, as the superior and the inferior. The difference between the two is a matter of degree not substance.
How do you discern between the two? The superior simply dominates the inferior of equal quantity. The inferior needs numbers to surpass the qualitative superior. This is why weakness congregates in groups and finds solace in numbers. This is why the weak always become defenders of popular positions and the status quo and always follow what is pre-existing. It is the masculine and feminine drive as I’ve described it in my “The Feminization of Man” thread.

I agree but would suggest that we distinguish between rational "reactive" hate, and irrational "constitutional hate.
It's rational for me to become enraged and hate someone jeopardising my life, but once the threat is removed, the emotion should subside, OTOH, someone who is dominated by destructive impulses is emotionally at the ready to release his core energy value of destruction{can be psychological destruction}.
Everything in nature has purpose. When the purpose subsides or is eradicated the phenomenon, in this case hate, also subsides and is eradicated.
What you describe as “irrational hate” is a myth or un-definable. The fact that you can’t perceive the rationality behind certain behaviour does not mean it is not there.
Even if you say disease or mutation causes ‘irrational’ behaviour this in itself is a rational explanation and a cause for it.
It’s interesting that you are critical against ‘irrational hate’ but you don’t exhibit the same distrust or criticism towards ‘irrational love’. Very Christian.
Are you not influenced by popular religious myth and modern day socialization and indoctrination prejudices?
In the past killing what was weak was ‘good’ because it benefited the health of the whole, today it is ‘evil’ because the weak have been given the task of doing all the mundane work required for a complicated civilization to persist. Since weakness was given purpose it is now defended and protected through institutions and morals. Hell, they are even allowed to procreate.

This is your opinion, obviously I disagree+ you've discredited my theory without much in the way of rational scrutiny.

I would if rational argument was offered.
Now you've just stated what you believe but you’ve offered no arguments in support.
What should I be arguing against, just your simplistic assertions of what is ‘productive’ and ‘destructive’ and what is wisdom?

I'm well versed on scientific/philosophical history, and whilst it was
natural philosophers who developed science....there is a clear distinction in accepted definitions between science and philosophy these days, I was simply curious if you found the distinction limited or even insulting.
Not insulting but limiting.
Today we have made science our new faith. We are materialistic creatures taking matter to be the ultimate definer of what ‘truth’ and reality is. Yet, even here in Quantum Physics we are being shown how prejudiced and limited our understanding is and we are being shown the limitations of empiricism.
Science cannot find truth it can only explain how a perceived truth might work and offer predictions accordingly.
But the observer affects the observed so what exactly are we observing but what we ourselves force there to be.
If man is a weak and limited creature then let him live according to his nature so that a future being might come to be that may have a better chance at uncovering ‘reality’.

Don't disagree, but you seem to be assigning that knowledge as pejorative...are you?
I am because I find it insulting to be told how to live when it is based on such stupidity and ignorance.
I find it degrading to be told what is 'good' and what is virtuous and what is noble and meaningful and true and real by a world that is so moronic that the basic act of introspection is beyond its ability.
It’s like being told to eat bananas, as the only ‘good’ and tasty food, by apes that have no knowledge of any other kind of fruit or little understanding of what is nutrition and what is taste.

In reading your response to me I find, as usual, that no real disagreement is present but only a disagreement on details, if there, and a need to show oneself off as the equal or the superior to the one posting a point of view that is accurate in some way.

Wanderer.

I'm what can be considered an eco-philosopher, I know I'm intelligent and knowledgeable, I wasn't looking for any validation of the obvious, I was looking to chat with you, at whatever level you wanted as you seemed both interesting and knowledgeable.

And whilst I do give latitude to those who possess superior levels of wisdom, you've really become insulting and effectively somewhat of a scatterbrain...you're all over the shop, making a variety of assumptions and giving me booklength responses which are barely intelligible.

The mark of a high-level thinker is clarity and brevity.


You did not ask for rational scrutiny of your premises but you asked me to place myself within them without rational scrutiny, in essence taking for granted their validity.

It was encumberant upon you to examine my views and apply the rational scrutiny...I credited you with being a high level thinker capable of critical thought, as it turned out, you seem to be a bit of a scatterbrain{this shouldn't be taken as an insult}.

Is the label ‘philosopher’ one with meaning or is it that just placing it before a name makes it a reality?

On the proviso the individual can back up his assertion of above average levels of wisdom, then the label is valid.
The basis of truth is the proper application of reason,... one doesn't have to label oneself as a philosopher, but I see no harm in it, in fact I always prefer the company of those whose primary interests are life{philosophy} rather than those who may have a narrow range of knowledge dedicated to a particular methodology{science}.


How many fools think themselves clever intellectuals?
I wonder.

I would say at least 98%...LOL.


I, for one, do not accept the premise that what is rooted in hate is destructive and what is in love is productive. This is a biased position from the start and asking a question using it predisposes the other to a specific response.

If observation and theory support it, then it has merit.
I made the necessary distinction between permanent hate and rational reactive hate.
What is your coherent and superior theory of human behaviours, especially those that are of a irrational destructive kind, ie, when other means were an option..eg, the death penalty.

If only you knew the number of times I've been promised an interesting engagement only to be faced with the same old human frailties.
It seems humans are more prone to prancing than proving.
Don’t tell me what you will do, just do it as the well known Nike advertisement puts it.

LOL..

I never said that, I said that to define wisdom only as positive or constructive is placing prejudiced limitations on what it is or could be.
Violence can be wisdom; cruelty, hatred, vengeance can come from wisdom.
Nature is wise and she is full of examples of compassion and cruelty.
By saying wisdom is positive or constructive or good you are just showing how unwise you are.

WHO ARE YOU to over-ride my definitions using exaggerations and distortions?
LOL, I explained the necessary role of destructive impulses and by implication exposed the absurdity and irrationality of destructive impluses or acts which are constitutional rather than reactive and rational.

How is deliberate ongoing cruelty wise?
Our reason enables us to rise above the natural worlds limits.

Wisdom is merely how one deals with what is perceived and accepts what is known. What is known and perceived isn’t always ‘good’ and warm, and safe, sometimes it is ‘evil’ and cruel and cold.

I suggest to you that there are objective physical needs of man, and that a reasonable person can speculate with high level proficiency as to what the psychological needs are, but understood as provisional, subject to feedback and improvement...the alternative is to say human nature is unknowable.

Only in pain is there wisdom because the wisdom found in pleasure is easily accesible to all and so worth little.

You clearly despise mankind overall and can't bear the thought of delight in simple shared pleasures....you relegate it as unworthy by virtue of it's popularity, and you hate populatity because you hate mankind overall.

Yes, but knowing that neither your position nor mine is exact and absolute is a third position. It is a scepticism that forces debate and the testing of opinions.

Sure but the bias will still be down to your psychological milieu IMO, IOW, yes we can reach stalemate, but I speculate that the details of tie break will reveal the respective milieu's.

In the end we don’t say this or that position is ‘truth’ or absolutely correct we say this position is superior to that one. It isn’t an objective truth we seek out but a more powerful one, a nobler one, a higher one.

Efficiency,... but referenced to what...?

The painting of yourself in such glorious colors is a human trait, as well.

LOL, you're human as well champ.
And I describe myself as one of the best ever.....who should I bow down to?

It’s interesting that you are critical against ‘irrational hate’ but you don’t exhibit the same distrust or criticism towards ‘irrational love’. Very Christian.

My post rejected romantic love, and supports it as productiveness, as that which maximizes the human condition, this can be towards self or towards others, but the others must be receptive.


Are you not influenced by popular religious myth and modern day socialization and indoctrination prejudices?

To a degree, but I apply critical thinking to any body of knowledge that I chose to study.
I reject all organized religion as nothing but authorative and prohibitive ethical doctrines written by men and conceived by man.


Today we have made science our new faith. We are materialistic creatures taking matter to be the ultimate definer of what ‘truth’ and reality is. Yet, even here in Quantum Physics we are being shown how prejudiced and limited our understanding is and we are being shown the limitations of empiricism.

Yes, this is the religion of scientism, as heavily supported by atheists who rely on its dicates as an operational mandate.
I define truth as knowable within a pluralistic epistemology*, not just limited to the current empirical one of today.
*the use of the full human toolkit and modes of knowing...intuition/biological knowledge as well as the rational.


I find it degrading to be told what is 'good' and what is virtuous and what is noble and meaningful and true and real by a world that is so moronic that the basic act of introspection is beyond its ability.

Yes but I asked for your opinion....you then assumed I'd already pegged you.....you then try and relate me to the thoughtless opinions of other morons.
This is your scatterbrain mode in action.

And whilst I do give latitude to those who possess superior levels of wisdom, you've really become insulting and effectively somewhat of a scatterbrain...you're all over the shop, making a variety of assumptions and giving me booklength responses which are barely intelligible.

The mark of a high-level thinker is clarity and brevity.
Why don't you lead by example then.

It was encumberant upon you to examine my views and apply the rational scrutiny...I credited you with being a high level thinker capable of critical thought, as it turned out, you seem to be a bit of a scatterbrain{this shouldn't be taken as an insult}.
I am as affected by insult as I am by flattery.

On the proviso the individual can back up his assertion of above average levels of wisdom, then the label is valid.
The basis of truth is the proper application of reason,... one doesn't have to label oneself as a philosopher, but I see no harm in it, in fact I always prefer the company of those whose primary interests are life{philosophy} rather than those who may have a narrow range of knowledge dedicated to a particular methodology{science}.
Agreed

WHO ARE YOU to over-ride my definitions using exaggerations and distortions?
LOL, I explained the necessary role of destructive impulses and by implication exposed the absurdity and irrationality of destructive impluses or acts which are constitutional rather than reactive and rational.

How is deliberate ongoing cruelty wise?
Our reason enables us to rise above the natural worlds limits.
I AM the WANDERER!!!!!
Nature is an ongoing cruelty, whether it is deliberate or not is up for debate.
Life is suffering and the temporary alleviation of it we call pleasure. Pleasure is really a negative sensation; it is the contrast felt when a source of suffering is eradicated before a new source of suffering takes its place.
For example sexual pleasure is the eradication of sexual need that is quickly replaced by another need, for food or safety or something else.
In essence there is no pleasure only different degrees of suffering that are pleasant or unpleasant depending on their degree and the fortitude of the creature sensing them.
Life IS suffering. In fact life is merely the awareness of suffering.
Why?
Because the universe is in constant flux, that is, it is continuously changing by destroying, constructing, uniting, absorbing, eradicating and expelling.
Life is a temporary union of forces that is in continuous strain to keep itself intact.
Every moment of life is a moment spent fighting against external forces seeking to destroy it or absorb it into new unities.
This struggle causes fatigue, which leads to aging and inevitable defeat. The defeated are then absorbed into new unions in the unending dance of change we call time and space.

In order to "rise above the world" you must first decide where to rise to and you must make sure it is, in fact upwards that you are going.
Isn't this debate all about visions of human destiny?

I suggest to you that there are objective physical needs of man, and that a reasonable person can speculate with high level proficiency as to what the psychological needs are, but understood as provisional, subject to feedback and improvement...the alternative is to say human nature is unknowable.
Agreed.

You clearly despise mankind overall and can't bear the thought of delight in simple shared pleasures....you relegate it as unworthy by virtue of it's popularity, and you hate populatity because you hate mankind overall.
I despise the majority of mankind not all of it.
I relegate as unworthy the pleasures that are shared by the inane majority.
How can you overcome something if you do not first despise it?
If you are content you never change.

Efficiency,... but referenced to what...?
All value judgments are a comparison of self to a perceived other or a perceived average.
For example I am say I am short or tall in comparison to my perception of what the average human height is or in comparison to a specific individuals height.

LOL, you're human as well champ.
And I describe myself as one of the best ever.....who should I bow down to?
I am a human who wants to be more than just that and knows that being human is not enough.
Who should you bow down to? No one, ever. Not even to yourself.

My post rejected romantic love, and supports it as productiveness, as that which maximizes the human condition, this can be towards self or towards others, but the others must be receptive.
Hate has been much more productive than love.
Is it not hate of self that leads to self improvement?
Is it not hate of death that leads to human insight into life?
Is it not the hate of nature that leads to her overcoming?
Will it not be hate for humanity that will lead to an evolution?

Yes, this is the religion of scientism, as heavily supported by atheists who rely on its dicates as an operational mandate.
I define truth as knowable within a pluralistic epistemology*, not just limited to the current empirical one of today.
*the use of the full human toolkit and modes of knowing...intuition/biological knowledge as well as the rational.
So where do we disagree?

Yes but I asked for your opinion....you then assumed I'd already pegged you.....you then try and relate me to the thoughtless opinions of other morons.
This is your scatterbrain mode in action.
I never related you to morons.
And you did have me pegged even if you are reluctant to admit it now.
You had already decided that I was in your second group.
My opinion was given, I disagree with your premises and definitions and so I cannot label myself using your categories.
You asked me in what category I thought I belonged in. That was the focus of your question, nothing more.

I AM the WANDERER!!!!!
Nature is an ongoing cruelty, whether it is deliberate or not is up for debate.

We have left nature so to speak, our reason and powers of reflection enable us to control the natural world{to a degree}.
You should look up Mutual Aid.

Isn't this debate all about visions of human destiny?

It can be.

I despise the majority of mankind not all of it.

That's why I said "overall".

If you are content you never change.

True.

Hate has been much more productive than love.

What is your definition of progress?

Is it not hate of self that leads to self improvement?

It could be an aspiration for what is positive, or are you going to assign self-improvement as negative?

Is it not the hate of nature that leads to her overcoming?

What do you mean you hate nature?


Will it not be hate for humanity that will lead to an evolution?

To what, what's progress in your mind?


So where do we disagree?

Was looking to talk with you, not necessarily get off side ;)


And you did have me pegged even if you are reluctant to admit it now.
You had already decided that I was in your second group.

I wasn't certain, but it's looking promising....anyway so what right?


My opinion was given, I disagree with your premises and definitions and so I cannot label myself using your categories.

You've disagreed....but I've yet to make sense of it, LOL.


You asked me in what category I thought I belonged in. That was the focus of your question, nothing more.

I'm always curious.

What is your definition of progress?
To dominate, to control, to be free, to live with dignity and honor, to be the master of ones own destiny.

It could be an aspiration for what is positive, or are you going to assign self-improvement as negative?
No

What do you mean you hate nature?
I mean I hate how it confines me and limits me.
But given all my options I prefer her dominion over me than that of men and manmade institutions.
Let me only be a slave to my own nature and nothing else.

To what, what's progress in your mind?
Power and see also above.

Was looking to talk with you, not necessarily get off side ;)
And here we are talking.

I wasn't certain, but it's looking promising....anyway so what right?
Optimism and pessimism is, like positive and negative, determined by your point of view or your position.
If I am more pessimistic than you then to you I am a pessimist but to one that is even more pessimistic than I am I will appear as an optimist.
Now who is right you or this hypothetical other?

I'm always curious.
A sign of mental health.

We have left nature so to speak, our reason and powers of reflection enable us to control the natural world{to a degree}.
You should look up Mutual Aid.

Yet much psychological despair results from this deception that we are above or in control of nature, that we can deny her instincts.

Either way what can be safely admitted is that patterns, symmetry and order is of the utmost importance and of extreme interest to our mental wanderings and is the prime source of strategising and theorizing in the human species.

Are you familiair with Ernst Haeckel? I think you hit his theory of asthetics right on the head.

It is this aspect of human nature that eventually leads to nihilistic tendencies and the denial of the self through extreme asceticism caused by self-hatred and insecurity.

This is the foundation of gnosticism, that destructive crutch of the modern world.

It is when man learned not to fear the mysterious and the unknown, through a philosophy or a spirit of Hellenic being, that he started investigating, asking and challenging the forces that bound him. Through this spirit of being, coming from a philosophy, science becomes possible.

Very good, you are one of the few who has made that connection between paganism and science. Hellenism and some of the lesser heathens of the old world idealized the hero, the one who forged foward in curiousity with little fear.

It could be an aspiration for what is positive, or are you going to assign self-improvement as negative?

Don't bother responding to him. To me it sounds like the same old Monotheistic dualism: everything is conviently categorized as good/evil moral/immoral, negative/positive.

Dave, destruction or hate isn't always associated with negativity. Destruction is necessary for what you would call 'positive' outlooks on life.
The cow must be mercilessly butchered to feed the happy little children, must it not. Hate is necessary to defeat those who threaten your way of life, correct?

humans would not have risen to the top of everything else (or so we think) if it had not been for an adequate amount of hate and cruelty and destructiveness. i believe that hate is a concentration of a person's will and determination, as well as some anger. But it stems from the necessity to rise above the rest. Hate is a term for the consumate collective of our emotions and drives that push us to the top of what is an can be by toppling any obstruction in our paths. Overall, most humans have something within them that drives them to succeed, and it is the constant adversity in our lives that cause us to develop and grow. :m:

To dominate, to control, to be free, to live with dignity and honor, to be the master of ones own destiny.

For YOU to dominate others?...or to be in total control of your energies?

I mean I hate how it confines me and limits me.

Hmmm, but ultimately, this containment you feel is probably a result of what I believe are humans transcedent desires, I believe these feeling are innate, but can be blocked by poor upbringings and lead to being spiritually comatosed.


But given all my options I prefer her dominion over me than that of men and manmade institutions.

We share a symbiosis with nature,.... our developed minds have overcome most of natures dangers and "some" of us are able to reach the end of our natural life cycle.
I consider spirituality the nexus between Universe, man, and nature.

And certainly any wise person would reject what modern society has become, an ignorant comsumeristic society reveling in this ignorance and accelerating the consumeristic madness via globalization{despite the impossibility of fully implementing it}, and ignoring the constraint of the laws of ecology, which No species can overcome.

If I am more pessimistic than you then to you I am a pessimist but to one that is even more pessimistic than I am I will appear as an optimist.
Now who is right you or this hypothetical other?

We have to agree to a basic premiss, if we can't agree then logic won't mesh it....but this agreement must be reached via critical thinking and utilizing knowledge of psychology as far as what might constitute the objective parameters* of humans psychological nature.

*parameters define by category, categories have unlimited range within them.

A sign of mental health.

Just for the record, mental health should be defined by critical thinking, not as it's typically done as adjustment to the dominant paradigm....by many measures, this paradigm represents various forms of pathology and has elevated itself into socially patterned defects.

For ex...It's considered normal by many to go out on Friday and Sat nights, get absolutely pissed, become abusive and usually pay for it on credit.....there is no deep examination of why numerous people would do this, although the usual answer is that I'm bored at work or in life, and so society accepts this idiotic behaviour rather than address the spiritual torment that is the cause of this behaviour, which is a disatisfaction with their role in society.

I agree that curiosity is a sign of mental health btw.

Don't bother responding to him. To me it sounds like the same old Monotheistic dualism: everything is conviently categorized as good/evil moral/immoral, negative/positive.

So it's your celebrated opinion that there are no objective categories, either physical or psychological?

Dave, destruction or hate isn't always associated with negativity.

I've explained the difference between irrational hate and rational hate.

Hate is necessary to defeat those who threaten your way of life, correct?

Exactly, and this is EXACTLY what I have previously explained.
Are you 18-19?

Hastein]Very good, you are one of the few who has made that connection between paganism and science. Hellenism and some of the lesser heathens of the old world idealized the hero, the one who forged foward in curiousity with little fear.
Let us sacrifice a goat to Dionysus then.

So it's your celebrated opinion that there are no objective categories, either physical or psychological?

How are your subjective categorizations of people considered objective? Either way, you're a humanist.

Exactly, and this is EXACTLY what I have previously explained.

I overlooked one of your posts by mistake. Sorry.

Are you 18-19?

What?! What does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=David Mayes]For YOU to dominate others?...or to be in total control of your energies?
One can only truly control ones self. But through this control he/she can gain infleunce or indirect control over others.


Here is something I posted a while ago but is relevant to the topic.

Human Lucidity
Here are the levels of human lucidity as I perceive them.

LEVEL 1-Individuality-Specificity-Superficiality-Materialism-Ego-Self-I-Gender-Love/Hate-Isolation-Uniqueness-Selfishness-Logic/Reason- =Slave

LEVEL2-Culture-Society-Religion-Tribalism-Uniformity-Conformity-Instinct-Reality-Us-Nationalism-Racism-Evil/Good-Generality-Consumerism- Social/Economic Ambition-Selflessness-Morality/Ethics-Law-Procreation =Master Slave

LEVEL3-Nature-Universe-Spirituality-Wholeness-Unity-Intuition-Completeness-Multiplicity-Spirit = Master

LEVEL4
-Transcendence-Immortality-Timelessness-Perfection-Symmetry-Beauty= God

Each level requires the sacrificing of the one before to be reached and as such requires a loss for a gain or a gain for a loss, depending on how you perceive it.
In some recent Hollywood movies [I only mention them as examples that many can relate with and as common points of reference] this same idea has been depicted as Matrixes containing human consciousness at different degrees of self-awareness.
In the ‘Fight Club’ the entanglement of human consciousness between two levels of lucidity was represented as a kind of schizophrenia, a psychological confrontation between two aspects of the same human consciousness.
Achieving a new level does not necessarily mean leaving behind the one before, it means incorporating the one before into a new unity of lucidity.
All of us live, to varying degrees, in the first two levels of awareness and we’ve incorporated the two into a single consciousness depending on the strength of lucidity each individual is capable of.
It is therefore possible for a single individual to be selfish and selfless, individualistic and conforming, materialistic and religious.

In ‘modern’ human society the isolation of many from the 3rd level of lucidity has culminated in a loss of identity and psychological stability.
Technology is used to seclude man from the upper levels of human awareness, even if perceived intuitively and subconsciously by the majority, and forcing him to go against his very nature so that he may become more malleable in a social context. The well known Matrix if you will.
This barrier placed in order that only the few, who are capable, can use the rest, who are incapable of such a level of perception, to attain to the higher levels of lucidity.
Unfortunately the masses have achieved superiority through their great numbers and through recent moral and political systems [Judeo/Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, Democracy, Pessimism, Nihilism] they are now placing barriers to all human ascension and attainment of higher levels of awareness.
The few “capable” hindered by over-skepticism, tolerance and the decaying effects of dead-end philosophical ideas and weariness have allowed themselves to be influenced by the very ideologies and ideals of the masses, making them doubtful, non-confrontational, compassionate and tolerant of them.

How are your subjective categorizations of people considered objective?

Hastein

By assigning a premiss along the lines of, this, this and this constitutes wise and productive behaviour and working from there.
Objectivity is just agreement by two like minded thinkers, it isn't truth, it's optimal truth and even then, by definition it's provisional...but it's superior to behaviour as a pavlovian dog.

If you think mankind is fine, mainly sane, then it's unlikley we'll be able to progress on this topic.

Either way, you're a humanist.

I describe myself as an eco-philosopher, I heavily, but not entirely support the doctrine of eco-cosmology and have been influenced by the Great Erich Fromm, Fromm was a humanist, sociologist and author of the Sane Society 1955....a book still relevant today.
I share many humanistic values, but have a problem with their atheism.

I overlooked one of your posts by mistake. Sorry.

It's up to you how you conduct yourself, but if you're going to blast into a thread without fully reading it, you may embarrass yourself.


What?! What does that have to do with anything?

A fair bit....unless you don't feel that you wised up between say 8-10, and then again at 14-16 and perhaps even recently.

I'm 35...how old are you?

Here is something I posted a while ago but is relevant to the topic.

Human Lucidity
Here are the levels of human lucidity as I perceive them.

LEVEL 1-
LEVEL2--
LEVEL3-
LEVEL4

Wanderer....what explains who goes into each category?





-

Wanderer....what explains who goes into each category

-
The past.
We are the sum of our past, Genetic/Environmental.
This detemrines our potential for wisdom or our power of awareness/lucidity.
Wisdom is the sum total of these factors as I've also described them in another thread called : Human Judgment [can also be found on my web-page]
1] Intelligence (analytical ability)
2] Knowledge (second-hand experience-information)
3] Experience (the first-hand personal kind, earned knowledge)
4] Intellectual integrity (courage, psychological strength, spirit)
and now I'm considering
5]Hypersensitivity (an ability to percieve detail, heightened sensitivity or a keener eye, sensual acuteness)
The last one is sometimes mistaken for fragility because it can lead to the destruction of a spirit that cannot bear what is percieved and has direct consequenceson [3] since it determines the depth of our experiences.
Two people can experience the same thing but each will go away with different levels of understanding determined by how sensitive they were to the entirety of the phenomenon.

Wanderer...I tend to agree with most of what you're saying here...but why is it, if we're right and our wisdom is superior, are we not able to effect widespread change.

I'm talking about influencing someone in their 20's...why are "most" resistant to truth?
In your view, is it possible to influence someone who hasn't been the beneficiary of an proper upbringing?

Wanderer...I tend to agree with most of what you're saying here...but why is it, if we're right and our wisdom is superior, are we not able to effect widespread change.

I'm talking about influencing someone in their 20's...why are "most" resistant to truth?
In your view, is it possible to influence someone who hasn't been the beneficiary of an proper upbringing?
How can you convince an animal that it is an animal?
In order to make change you have to first prove that change is needed.
Where ego’s reign it is hard telling someone they are fools and that they should change.
Besides that most are incapable of change anyway, so why bother.
Even if an animal can understand you can it do anything about its genetic and environmental past to change in any relevant way?
Why would you want to enlighten the world anyway?
Does not the stupidity and superficiality of the common man give the intelligent aware man an advantage?
You can only influence him/her who is capable of being influenced and is worthy of it.
The rest can go to hell.
It’s not only upbringing, genetics has a lot to do with an individuals potential.
There’s no way around that. Chance is a factor.