Do not believe or act as if you believe.....

[wynn]

Sure. But you always follow one or the other, do you not? Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

To me this seemed like sleight of hand. You are using authority in a way I would not. Now parts of me are being reified into authorities that I give myself (the rest of myself?) over to and let them rule me.

Do you not do that?
And like I asked - Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

But I first talked about having a flexible relation to authority. You seemed to think this ruled out effectiveness in this relationship. Now you are saying you have not found an authority with whom you do not have a flexible relationship with. IOW all your relationships with authorities are flexible. So I do not understand why, if you live this way, you think there was something wrong with my suggestion that that is all that is necessary.

Just because I live this way does not mean I think it is right or that I don't aspire to something else.

My explanation for not completely following an authority is that:
1. I am sometimes too lazy,
2. I do not have sufficient knowledge about the authority to make an informed decision to follow completely,
3. I get distracted by a number of things, that although seemingly small, are powerful enough.

My interpretations of the judgments involved in each....
1. something is wrong with me, but not the idea that I must give myself freely and completely to an authority
2. no authority so far has seemed worthy to me
3. something is wrong with me, but not the authority in question. It would be good to give myself over to it, but I get distracted.

Yes, these interpretations are accurate enough.

Are these judgments, if they are your judgments, working for you?

What do you mean if they 'work for me'? Whether they help me to have a sense that my life is meaningful, whether they make me happy?

And I couldn't say whether they are 'my' judgments or not. To be able to say they are 'mine', I would have to have an advanced realization of my self. Which I don't think I have. Until then, they are just (possible) judgments.

 

[wise acre]

Do you not do that?
And like I asked - Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

This is different from finding an authority - some conscious entity - and having it tell me what to do in an inflexible way. I am not utterly independent, though I am independent of some items on that list, but I have flexible relationships will all entities, even ones who are authorities in certain situations. I am even flexible in relation to my senses. I do not always believe what 'they' 'tell' 'me'.

Just because I live this way does not mean I think it is right or that I don't aspire to something else.

And when I am confronted by you which you shall I listen to, the one who thinks it is not living up to the ideals or the one I see living before me? Who do I befriend?

Yes, these interpretations are accurate enough.

To me I have a choice. I could join in on the side of the judge in this case or on the side of the judged. Of course, in general, this may depend on the opinions/actions of these two. Here I side with the judged. I give it the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps these distractions ARE CAUSED by the failures of the authorities and their inappropriateness for this person. Pehaps they are caused by the inappropriateness of giving oneself over inflexibly to an authority. Perhaps what is called laziness is the tiredness and hopelessness of someone who has been judged so long and so unfairly and not been encouraged to trust themselves more profoundly rather then encouraged to distrust themselves more profoundly.

What do you mean if they 'work for me'? Whether they help me to have a sense that my life is meaningful, whether they make me happy?

When I originally expressed that I would only have flexible relationships with authority, you, essentially, made the claim that then one is missing out on benefits of doing this. Yet, you have admitted that you have never done this. You have tried, perhaps, but never succeeded in fully giving yourself over to an authority. So you really do not know what would happen. Certainly there are lots of claims out there that you can only end suffering if you do this, or get close to God or be a perfectly rational person - whatever the product being sold is. But you don't know these claims are true. But you side with these claims - at least in the hypothetical example above where you listed three reasons why you have not given yourself over - against portions of yourself you judge.

Perhaps your sense that the authorities were unworthy was correct and supporting that is the most friendly response - I cannot support all of you, whatever I do will support one part of you and not the others.

Perhaps your laziness and distractedness are not problems but reactions to mistreatment and a yearning for something that fits better, respectively.

And I couldn't say whether they are 'my' judgments or not. To be able to say they are 'mine', I would have to have an advanced realization of my self. Which I don't think I have. Until then, they are just (possible) judgments.

You could say it, if you felt like saying it, and then move on, later perhaps confirming they are yours or realizing something else.

 

[wynn]

And like I asked - Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

This is different from finding an authority - some conscious entity - and having it tell me what to do in an inflexible way.

Sure, it doesn't seem like we ever went and specifically subscribed to the authority of our sense, parents, elementary school teachers and so on - our subordination to these authorities sort of just happened. But we can't say either that we were forced into it.

I am not utterly independent, though I am independent of some items on that list, but I have flexible relationships will all entities, even ones who are authorities in certain situations. I am even flexible in relation to my senses. I do not always believe what 'they' 'tell' 'me'.

Sure, me too. In fact, such flexibility is sometimes necessary. (Like the other time when I was at the dentist. He was working on my upper left 7. When he asked whether the surface was smooth and whether there are any sharp edges, I kept saying there were. So he kept polishing and polishing and asking me each time, until I eventually, because of the awkwardness of the situation, said it was okay. Later, I looked into the mirror at my teeth and realized that during the procedure, I was feeling the upper left 6, not 7! The 6 has a bit of a sharp edge, but the 7 was just fine, in fact, these two teeth are quite different in my jaws and by the looks and feels they cannot be confused.)

And when I am confronted by you which you shall I listen to, the one who thinks it is not living up to the ideals or the one I see living before me? Who do I befriend?

This is the problem of philosophical friendships with a person in transition ...

Cameron Diaz once said that one should not discuss one's psychotic shit with their friends, because this is what therapists are for. I agree with her. Many people are 'in transition', so the issues that come up in relation to it are inavoidable. But I don't think it is wise to discuss this in depth with one's prospective friends.


Thank you for the reminder. Although you are a wise acre ...

To me I have a choice. I could join in on the side of the judge in this case or on the side of the judged. Of course, in general, this may depend on the opinions/actions of these two.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the act of judging - it shows discernment.

Perhaps these distractions ARE CAUSED by the failures of the authorities and their inappropriateness for this person. Pehaps they are caused by the inappropriateness of giving oneself over inflexibly to an authority. Perhaps what is called laziness is the tiredness and hopelessness of someone who has been judged so long and so unfairly and not been encouraged to trust themselves more profoundly rather then encouraged to distrust themselves more profoundly.

Perhaps.

When I originally expressed that I would only have flexible relationships with authority, you, essentially, made the claim that then one is missing out on benefits of doing this. Yet, you have admitted that you have never done this. You have tried, perhaps, but never succeeded in fully giving yourself over to an authority. So you really do not know what would happen. Certainly there are lots of claims out there that you can only end suffering if you do this, or get close to God or be a perfectly rational person - whatever the product being sold is. But you don't know these claims are true. But you side with these claims

Yes. It is called faith. It appears I cannot know whether those claims are true unless I presume they are true and act on them.
Or do you have some other way? Do you first figure out whether something is true (ontologically and epistemologically unproblematically true) and only then subscribe to it?

Perhaps your sense that the authorities were unworthy was correct and supporting that is the most friendly response - I cannot support all of you, whatever I do will support one part of you and not the others.

What does that look like, 'to support someone'?

Perhaps your laziness and distractedness are not problems but reactions to mistreatment and a yearning for something that fits better, respectively.

Sure. The question is only what exactly this mistreatment applies to, by whom it is done - as it could also be done by me. Perhaps an authority would be better towards me if I would be better to that authority.

You could say it, if you felt like saying it, and then move on, later perhaps confirming they are yours or realizing something else.

Aka faith?

 

[wise acre]

Sure, it doesn't seem like we ever went and specifically subscribed to the authority of our sense, parents, elementary school teachers and so on - our subordination to these authorities sort of just happened. But we can't say either that we were forced into it.

No, and with my senses I fele they are a part of me.

This is the problem of philosophical friendships with a person in transition ...

Or challenge. But then we are all in transition, or trying not to be, to some degree or other.

Cameron Diaz once said that one should not discuss one's psychotic shit with their friends, because this is what therapists are for. I agree with her. Many people are 'in transition', so the issues that come up in relation to it are inavoidable. But I don't think it is wise to discuss this in depth with one's prospective friends.

Prospective, I agree. But friends, sure. With caveats for self-care and intuition in choosing to do so.

Thank you for the reminder. Although you are a wise acre ...

Thanks, unless it was ironic and then thanks, with a slightly different tone in my 'voice.'

I do not think there is anything wrong with the act of judging - it shows discernment.

Here we probably differ. I agree that there is nothing wrong with judging per se. But if one judges oneself for qualities one is, this is a problem. I am not talking about actions. So if you allow judgment to be consistantly on guard over essential parts of you, this is a problem.

I know you have had issues with essence in this sense.
I also imagine you asked 'How does one determine was is essence and what is not?'

Which is a good question.

I think the only way is through feel.

Yes. It is called faith. It appears I cannot know whether those claims are true unless I presume they are true and act on them.

I think one can explore without deciding. I am not a believer in faith in the sense of deciding to believe. Belief can build up. At least mine can. I can go from 'wow, I really doubt this is possible but it seems interesting to try x' - some practice or perhaps talking to others with the belief, etc. I can't be sure others cannot function this way, though they must be very different from me if such choices to belief are really holistic.

Or do you have some other way? Do you first figure out whether something is true (ontologically and epistemologically unproblematically true) and only then subscribe to it?

Oh, God no.

I don't think people believe half of what they figure out is ontologically and epistemologically true. Their actions tend to betray this. Like all those who say morals are only subjective.

What does that look like, 'to support someone'?

My statements of perhaps were potential tentative versions of online support.

I have seen all sorts of versions of support. My wife has, on occasion, gotten angry with me for not being nice to myself. It was like a breathy of rain filled ozoney air. I suddenly wanted to breath deeply and I snapped out of it.

Sure. The question is only what exactly this mistreatment applies to, by whom it is done - as it could also be done by me. Perhaps an authority would be better towards me if I would be better to that authority.

I say this not as a general rule but this idea is abused all the time by evil, tyrants, manipulators, etc. All the while claiming it is your own best they are looking out for. In the end you would have to decide if this is the case. But I truly do not think laziness exists. Or better put, that phenomenon is severely distorted by that word.

I am sure many slaves struck the plantation owners as lazy. And no doubt many slaves had the same judgment in return. I tend to support the latter's judgment.

Aka faith?

Self-love, most often noticable by its absence.

 

[wynn]

I know you have had issues with essence in this sense.
I also imagine you asked 'How does one determine was is essence and what is not?'

Which is a good question.

I think the only way is through feel.

I find 'feelings' to be very abstract and unreliable.

Self-love, most often noticable by its absence.

What are acts of self-love, and how can they be recognized as such?