Perspective and Reality

[Nick_A]

You don’t know what the Great Beast is.

Right, because it's a bunch of malarkey that you believe and obsess yourself with -- why should it have any meaning to me? You feed it and groom it and unleash it on others. Your beast... not mine. (You've even named him. )

You see, YOU are the one who lives in a world of beasts, caves, darkness, unawareness, tragedy, spirit killing horrors, perennial truths, and dead heroes. The fact that you think this reflects some sort of ultimate reality or truth for everyone else is YOUR delusion. You're batting at the shadows on the walls of your mind, screaming for everyone to take heed. It's you.

The Great Beast smiles its approval. It was so taken back by your loyalty above and beyond the call of duty that you will be receiving an autographed picture featuring its left profile. The left is always more appealing to its followers. It won't send money. You will have to send it money as proof of your love and devotion to help it maintain its image. After all, as you know, image is everything.

[Lacewing]

The Great Beast smiles its approval. It was so taken back by your loyalty above and beyond the call of duty that you will be receiving an autographed picture featuring its left profile. The left is always more appealing to its followers. It won't send money. You will have to send it money as proof of your love and devotion to help it maintain its image. After all, as you know, image is everything.

You sure know a lot about it.

[Greta]

Can you imagine -- even if only slightly or briefly -- experiencing and seeing from another perspective that might differ significantly from your current reality and from who/what you think you are?

I've found that I am a very different person from decade to decade so I know relate to a lot of insane crap that other people go in with that I used to embrace.

Our young and disturbed "friend" here, Nick, is a great example. Twenty-five years ago I would have probably sided with him against me of today in our "debates". I ran hard on my emotions as he does, also with a hair trigger temper and deep sense of romanticism about reality with distaste for the "clinical" powers that be.

I also fervently believed in God as a child and I know what it's like to feel that that is the sacred truth that must be awed and respected. I later was very keen on Buddhism, and still like aspects of it. I routinely believed that alternative medicine was not largely quackery. I believed some conspiracy theories. I wanted so badly for there to be bad guys to blame for everything.

Today, what I see in the world is basically the usual dynamics of nature applying to humanity. The re-formation of the Earth's surface by "humanity" is problematic for us as affected individuals, but for mine the whole situation with humans and the Earth reeks to high heaven of a standard natural process. This drama of intelligent beings humans dominating a world and emerging into something new has probably happened, and been refined, many times beforehand in the universe. Like all development - gestation, metamorphosis, maturing and ageing - you have periods where there is rapid development into an emergent form after a long period of relative stability.

You are a text book case of projection. You accuse me of the emotionalism which governs your life. Your attraction to higher ideas years ago was emotional. But the trouble with emotionalism is that when it no longer satisfies, it becomes its opposite. A man can literally kill the woman he once emotionally loved since she no longer arouses this love in him so it is her fault and should be eliminated. This is how you are now reacting to the great philosophical ideas which promote psychological awakening to reality. You have been disappointed emotionally so blame the ideas. You don't realize their purpose isn't consolation or self justification. Their purpose is in furthering awakening. Defending self justifying partial truths only prevent you from experiencing the inner direction leading towards ultimate truth. Buddhism speaks of letting go. Greta speaks of holding on for dear life.

Agree with Lacewing about your projection here. My life was once ruled by emotionalism - as yours is now - but the last paragraph makes clear that I've grown up a tad since then.

As for clinging to life, my bloody oath! Yes yes, I remember non attachment. I was a big fan because I was still a miserable sod after my disastrous teens. Life seemed like a swamp to wade through and I was more than prepared to let go a number of times.

Today I see context as important. If I lead a deprived life of pain, sorrow and high infant mortality like the unfortunates of India and SE Asia I'm pretty sure I would feel as those long suffering Buddhists do about life. Take it or leave it.

Yet, if we are not born or fall into the worst circumstances, our lives are each a unique and precious opportunity. Just one amongst millions of eggs and billions of sperm - the odds against our existence are beyond forbidding even when we discount the rarity of intelligent life on Earth throughout its history and the rarity of Earthlike planets capable of growing intelligent life.

So yes, death will come anyway so I'm in hurry to leave this ride (touch wood).

[Nick_A]

I've found that I am a very different person from decade to decade so I know relate to a lot of insane crap that other people go in with that I used to embrace.

Our young and disturbed "friend" here, Nick, is a great example. Twenty-five years ago I would have probably sided with him against me of today in our "debates". I ran hard on my emotions as he does, also with a hair trigger temper and deep sense of romanticism about reality with distaste for the "clinical" powers that be.

I also fervently believed in God as a child and I know what it's like to feel that that is the sacred truth that must be awed and respected. I later was very keen on Buddhism, and still like aspects of it. I routinely believed that alternative medicine was not largely quackery. I believed some conspiracy theories. I wanted so badly for there to be bad guys to blame for everything.

Today, what I see in the world is basically the usual dynamics of nature applying to humanity. The re-formation of the Earth's surface by "humanity" is problematic for us as affected individuals, but for mine the whole situation with humans and the Earth reeks to high heaven of a standard natural process. This drama of intelligent beings humans dominating a world and emerging into something new has probably happened, and been refined, many times beforehand in the universe. Like all development - gestation, metamorphosis, maturing and ageing - you have periods where there is rapid development into an emergent form after a long period of relative stability.

You are a text book case of projection. You accuse me of the emotionalism which governs your life. Your attraction to higher ideas years ago was emotional. But the trouble with emotionalism is that when it no longer satisfies, it becomes its opposite. A man can literally kill the woman he once emotionally loved since she no longer arouses this love in him so it is her fault and should be eliminated. This is how you are now reacting to the great philosophical ideas which promote psychological awakening to reality. You have been disappointed emotionally so blame the ideas. You don't realize their purpose isn't consolation or self justification. Their purpose is in furthering awakening. Defending self justifying partial truths only prevent you from experiencing the inner direction leading towards ultimate truth. Buddhism speaks of letting go. Greta speaks of holding on for dear life.

Agree with Lacewing about your projection here. My life was once ruled by emotionalism - as yours is now - but the last paragraph makes clear that I've grown up a tad since then.

As for clinging to life, my bloody oath! Yes yes, I remember non attachment. I was a big fan because I was still a miserable sod after my disastrous teens. Life seemed like a swamp to wade through and I was more than prepared to let go a number of times.

Today I see context as important. If I lead a deprived life of pain, sorrow and high infant mortality like the unfortunates of India and SE Asia I'm pretty sure I would feel as those long suffering Buddhists do about life. Take it or leave it.

Yet, if we are not born or fall into the worst circumstances, our lives are each a unique and precious opportunity. Just one amongst millions of eggs and billions of sperm - the odds against our existence are beyond forbidding even when we discount the rarity of intelligent life on Earth throughout its history and the rarity of Earthlike planets capable of growing intelligent life.

So yes, death will come anyway so I'm in hurry to leave this ride (touch wood).

So in your opinion there is no objective reality to allow for acquiring a human perspective based upon this reality. We just make it up as we go along. Just eat, drink, and be merry while creating a politically correct appearance. Well as long as there is a bottle of wine, lobster, shrimp, and a cute blonde to spend the evening with, it could be worse

[Greta]

Agree with Lacewing about your projection here. My life was once ruled by emotionalism - as yours is now - but the last paragraph makes clear that I've grown up a tad since then.

As for clinging to life, my bloody oath! Yes yes, I remember non attachment. I was a big fan because I was still a miserable sod after my disastrous teens. Life seemed like a swamp to wade through and I was more than prepared to let go a number of times.

Today I see context as important. If I lead a deprived life of pain, sorrow and high infant mortality like the unfortunates of India and SE Asia I'm pretty sure I would feel as those long suffering Buddhists do about life. Take it or leave it.

Yet, if we are not born or fall into the worst circumstances, our lives are each a unique and precious opportunity. Just one amongst millions of eggs and billions of sperm - the odds against our existence are beyond forbidding even when we discount the rarity of intelligent life on Earth throughout its history and the rarity of Earthlike planets capable of growing intelligent life.

So yes, death will come anyway so I'm in hurry to leave this ride (touch wood).

So in your opinion there is no objective reality to allow for acquiring a human perspective based upon this reality. We just make it up as we go along. Just eat, drink, and be merry while creating a politically correct appearance. Well as long as there is a bottle of wine, lobster, shrimp, and a cute blonde to spend the evening with, it could be worse

Of course reality is objective, young piffle-meister, though we only perceive as much of it as natural and cultural selection have allowed thus far. Since we don't know much, it's simply logical to suspend belief in lieu of further information.

While I don't much care for your apparent list of desirables, I see no problem with hedonism, especially Epicureanism. I'm grateful for my life and am not ashamed to enjoy it. Like almost all other actual human beings - as opposed to your 2D cardboard cutout "intolerant secularists" - I do have other depths aside from simple pleasures. However, I'm not seeing much point in telling you anything about myself, given your propensity for hostile misrepresentations.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Of course reality is objective, young piffle-meister, though we only perceive as much of it as natural and cultural selection have allowed thus far. Since we don't know much, it's simply logical to suspend belief in lieu of further information.

While I don't much care for your apparent list of desirables, I see no problem with hedonism, especially Epicureanism. I'm grateful for my life and am not ashamed to enjoy it. Like almost all other actual human beings - as opposed to your 2D cardboard cutout "intolerant secularists" - I do have other depths aside from simple pleasures. However, I'm not seeing much point in telling you anything about myself, given your propensity for hostile misrepresentations.

Well at lest I don't kick dogs or push little old ladies down the stairs so i can't be all bad. You don't like lobster. OK, your loss IMO.

If objective reality exists does it include objective meaning and purpose for humanity on earth we are oblivious of now? If so, what will you have to learn to acquire a human perspective based on reality and what will it necessitate for you to learn it?

[Greta]

Greta

Of course reality is objective, young piffle-meister, though we only perceive as much of it as natural and cultural selection have allowed thus far. Since we don't know much, it's simply logical to suspend belief in lieu of further information.

While I don't much care for your apparent list of desirables, I see no problem with hedonism, especially Epicureanism. I'm grateful for my life and am not ashamed to enjoy it. Like almost all other actual human beings - as opposed to your 2D cardboard cutout "intolerant secularists" - I do have other depths aside from simple pleasures. However, I'm not seeing much point in telling you anything about myself, given your propensity for hostile misrepresentations.

Well at lest I don't kick dogs or push little old ladies down the stairs so i can't be all bad. You don't like lobster. OK, your loss IMO.

If objective reality exists does it include objective meaning and purpose for humanity on earth we are oblivious of now? If so, what will you have to learn to acquire a human perspective based on reality and what will it necessitate for you to learn it?

Well done on your relatively harmonious relationships with dogs and most old ladies. Lobster tastes fine but I prefer my food not to die through boiling in water.
Maybe there is a larger purpose for the Earth and the life it grew? I personally suspect that a maturing process has been under way from the outset and there appears to be a general tendency towards expansion of which biological reproduction, wealth acquisition and wisdom seeking are expressions (along with any desire to grow and develop).

At the same time there is also an internal movement to reduce suffering. This development appears to have both internal, philosophical and physical progress elements.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Of course reality is objective, young piffle-meister, though we only perceive as much of it as natural and cultural selection have allowed thus far. Since we don't know much, it's simply logical to suspend belief in lieu of further information.

While I don't much care for your apparent list of desirables, I see no problem with hedonism, especially Epicureanism. I'm grateful for my life and am not ashamed to enjoy it. Like almost all other actual human beings - as opposed to your 2D cardboard cutout "intolerant secularists" - I do have other depths aside from simple pleasures. However, I'm not seeing much point in telling you anything about myself, given your propensity for hostile misrepresentations.

Well at lest I don't kick dogs or push little old ladies down the stairs so i can't be all bad. You don't like lobster. OK, your loss IMO.

If objective reality exists does it include objective meaning and purpose for humanity on earth we are oblivious of now? If so, what will you have to learn to acquire a human perspective based on reality and what will it necessitate for you to learn it?

Well done on your relatively harmonious relationships with dogs and most old ladies. Lobster tastes fine but I prefer my food not to die through boiling in water.
Maybe there is a larger purpose for the Earth and the life it grew? I personally suspect that a maturing process has been under way from the outset and there appears to be a general tendency towards expansion of which biological reproduction, wealth acquisition and wisdom seeking are expressions (along with any desire to grow and develop).

At the same time there is also an internal movement to reduce suffering. This development appears to have both internal, philosophical and physical progress elements.

I personally suspect that a maturing process has been under way from the outset and there appears to be a general tendency towards expansion of which biological reproduction, wealth acquisition and wisdom seeking are expressions (along with any desire to grow and develop).

So the objective meaning and purpose of humanity on earth is to expand outward into nature. The only thing I read as being objective is reproduction. Everything else are subjective reactions to the world around us. Without an appreciation for objective human meaning and purpose we cannot know what wisdom is or how the objective urge to grow and develop differs from the subjective urge. But if we do live in in imagination in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall we wouldn’t be expected to be open to objective human meaning and purpose. We would just turn in circles and call it wisdom.

[Greta]

Greta



Well at lest I don't kick dogs or push little old ladies down the stairs so i can't be all bad. You don't like lobster. OK, your loss IMO.

If objective reality exists does it include objective meaning and purpose for humanity on earth we are oblivious of now? If so, what will you have to learn to acquire a human perspective based on reality and what will it necessitate for you to learn it?

Well done on your relatively harmonious relationships with dogs and most old ladies. Lobster tastes fine but I prefer my food not to die through boiling in water.
Maybe there is a larger purpose for the Earth and the life it grew? I personally suspect that a maturing process has been under way from the outset and there appears to be a general tendency towards expansion of which biological reproduction, wealth acquisition and wisdom seeking are expressions (along with any desire to grow and develop).

At the same time there is also an internal movement to reduce suffering. This development appears to have both internal, philosophical and physical progress elements.

I personally suspect that a maturing process has been under way from the outset and there appears to be a general tendency towards expansion of which biological reproduction, wealth acquisition and wisdom seeking are expressions (along with any desire to grow and develop).

So the objective meaning and purpose of humanity on earth is to expand outward into nature. The only thing I read as being objective is reproduction. Everything else are subjective reactions to the world around us. Without an appreciation for objective human meaning and purpose we cannot know what wisdom is or how the objective urge to grow and develop differs from the subjective urge. But if we do live in in imagination in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall we wouldn’t be expected to be open to objective human meaning and purpose. We would just turn in circles and call it wisdom.

Blahdy blah. It doesn't matter.

We all have our own perspectives about what is going on. If you think that "your way" is deeper than or superior to the ways of others here then hurrah hurrah. Many people are trying to get a better handle on the nature of reality in various ways. No doubts each of us are better in some areas than others. The general idea is for each of us to keep refining and improving our current conceptions, not compete as to who's appreciating or not appreciating this or that.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Blahdy blah. It doesn't matter.

We all have our own perspectives about what is going on. If you think that "your way" is deeper than or superior to the ways of others here then hurrah hurrah. Many people are trying to get a better handle on the nature of reality in various ways. No doubts each of us are better in some areas than others. The general idea is for each of us to keep refining and improving our current conceptions, not compete as to who's appreciating or not appreciating this or that.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/

The late dialogues, by contrast, display a growing tendency to see a unity between the microcosm of human life and the macrocosmic order of the entire universe. Such holistic tendencies would seem to put the attainment of the requisite knowledge beyond the boundaries of human understanding. But although Plato's late works do not show any willingness to lower the standards of knowledge as such, he acknowledges that his design of a rational cosmic order is based on conjecture and speculation, an acknowledgement that finds its counterpart in his more pragmatic treatment of ethical standards and political institutions in his late work, the Laws. Finally: At no stage in Plato's philosophy is there a systematic treatment of and commitment to basic principles of ethics that would justify the derivation of rules and norms of human interaction in the way that is expected in modern discussions. Nor is there a fully fleshed-out depiction of the good life. Instead, Plato largely confines himself to the depiction of the good soul and the good for the soul, evidently on the assumption that the state of the soul is the condition of the good life, both necessary and sufficient to guarantee it. And given that his approaches in different dialogues vary, readers have to fit together what often looks like disparate pieces of information. This explains the widely diverging reconstructions of his intentions in the secondary literature from antiquity to this day.

As a secularist this will be nonsense for you. There is no potential “unity between the microcosm of human life and the macrocosmic order of the entire universe.” Also there is no inner man; no soul capable of this unity.

So as a secularists you are content with Oprahisms that feel good for the outer man as the ultimate expression of a human perspective putting Man's subjective whims at a place of supreme importance. It is the modern secular progressive mindset. However some will have the audacity to question its superficiality.

[Harbal]

So as a secularists you are content with Oprahisms that feel good for the outer man as the ultimate expression of a human perspective putting Man's subjective whims at a place of supreme importance. It is the modern secular progressive mindset. However some will have the audacity to question its superficiality.

Nick, with the possible exception of Dontaskme, you must be the biggest twerp to ever have posted on this site.

[Nick_A]

So as a secularists you are content with Oprahisms that feel good for the outer man as the ultimate expression of a human perspective putting Man's subjective whims at a place of supreme importance. It is the modern secular progressive mindset. However some will have the audacity to question its superficiality.

Nick, with the possible exception of Dontaskme, you must be the biggest twerp to ever have posted on this site.

I sit here with flushed cheeks professing complete innocence. It is Plato you are attacking.

However, when you begin marketing your own brand of hemlock and I am offered free samples, then I'll begin to worry.

[Harbal]

It is Plato you are attacking.

It's not Plato that's getting on my nerves, Nick, it's you.

when you begin marketing your own brand of hemlock and I am offered free samples, then I'll begin to worry.

Don't you ever cringe with embarrassment at what you come out with?

[Nick_A]

It is Plato you are attacking.

It's not Plato that's getting on my nerves, Nick, it's you.

when you begin marketing your own brand of hemlock and I am offered free samples, then I'll begin to worry.

Don't you ever cringe with embarrassment at what you come out with?

No, since unlike you I don't pretend to be one of the beautiful people with the authority to comment on the image of another. Consequently there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

[fooloso4]

Nick, once again you show a significant lack of reading comprehension. First a few words about the quote from Nietzsche. The “great contempt” is not a contempt for happiness but of “your happiness”, that is, Christian happiness. It stands in contrast to “ my happiness” a happiness that “ought to justify existence itself.” You quote Nietzsche yet his perspective is opposed to yours. He does not condemn the pursuit of please. He condemns Christianity for its condemnation of pleasure. He rejects “objective truth”. He is responsible for perspectivism.

From the article on Plato you quote:

Such holistic tendencies would seem to put the attainment of the requisite knowledge beyond the boundaries of human understanding. But although Plato's late works do not show any willingness to lower the standards of knowledge as such, he acknowledges that his design of a rational cosmic order is based on conjecture and speculation …

Whether or not there is such a unity is “beyond the boundaries of human understanding”. Plato describes a “rational cosmic order” “based on conjecture and speculation”.

Nick:

Also there is no inner man; no soul capable of this unity.

The article says nothing about the “inner man” and it denies a “soul capable of this unity”.

What it says is:

Plato largely confines himself to the depiction of the good soul and the good for the soul, evidently on the assumption that the state of the soul is the condition of the good life, both necessary and sufficient to guarantee it.

The good life is not the life of the unity of inner soul and the cosmos simply because, as the article says, we are not capable of knowing the whole. Hence:

… his more pragmatic treatment of ethical standards and political institutions …

In terms you might understand he takes a practical view with regard to the Great Beast. Plato’s position is, as I have said before, fundamentally at odds with your own. Plato is not advocating transcendence but reason. If, as the microcosm, we are to be in harmony with the macrocosm this can only be attained to the extent that our lives are governed by reason. It cannot be what you have referred to as “top down reason” simply because we cannot start at the top. To claim that we can is unreasonable. The human perspective is not from the standpoint of knowledge of the whole.