philosophy...our own individual experiences

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, what is god? a story or a narrative about what is the point or
meaning of life?

we can explain life/existence by a number of different stories...
we can use natural explanations, that the universe is random
and chaotic, or we can use supernatural, metaphysical stories
of god and religion.....

take the story of the baby who had a brain tumor at one year of age...
is that a story best explained by a god, a loving, merciful god or
is it a story best explained by the chaotic and random nature of
the universe?

what story we use to explain the universe and the reasons for the
universe are stories we best understand, why we will tell one such
story as opposed to another story...is philosophy....
or depending on our story, it could be religion.... or again, depending
on the story being told, the narrative, it could be scientific....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

the story we tell or the narrative we use, also tells
us and others, what kind of person we are...

the very use of a narrative that uses the supernatural tells us
and others who we are... and a story/narrative that is natural,
that also says something about us.....a story that is chaotic
and full of chance, is just another explanation of our human nature....

what story or narrative you tell, also revels who you are.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

we have to understand the dual nature of existence....
one, we have, what I will call temporary events,
we have a couple of temporary events going on right now...
the Hamas-Israeli war and the Ukrainian War...

and as serious as these wars are, they are just temporary...
as I am old, I can think back to hundreds of such temporary
events that have occurred in my lifetime....the drummed up
war in Granada, in 1983... another tale of an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing... and who among
us actually remember this ''war".... and its impact on us?

this little war reminds us that history is full of moments that
seem to be deep and profound and yet, like sand castles,
easily wash away with the next wave... and what does a ''deeper''
event actually mean? by this, what really has impact us,
past, present and going into the future?

love, not any specific love, of Romeo and Juliet, for example,
but of love in general.... now is this love, part of Plato's eternal
forms? no, this type of love is something that we have as part of
our evolutionary traits that is basically programming done to us
by evolution.... love is programming meant to allow us to survive
as a species... we have several different types of programming within
us... Maslow and his pyramid list out the types of programming we
have... we are programmed to have psychological needs as well
as biological needs... and love is part of the psychological needs,
alone with safety/security, the need for esteem, the need for
validation and the need for belonging, are part of the psychological
needs all human beings have.... these needs, they are part of us,
permanently... and we have bodily needs of food, water, shelter,
education, health care.... these needs are the exact same needs
that human beings have had since day one of being human...
and these needs are needs we will have until the last day of
human existence....these needs transcend us individually,
as needs that all human beings must have...

that is what is eternal in human existence... our needs....
our needs in fact, is what makes us human beings,
not temporary events like the Hamas-Israeli war....

now some might claim that I am downplaying this war, I am not,
I am simply putting it into context....the history of human beings,
is full of wars like this and our future will contain many such wars,
that are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...proving nothing,
showing us nothing..... as an American, I can't say that the "Prussian-Franco''
war of 1870, has had much, if any effect on me in 2023....

I think part of philosophy lure is that it puts events into context...
and context is what we miss most in our day to day observations
of the world.... making sense of the world is really just putting
the world's events into context... our experiences is just putting those
events into some state of order that we can comprehend....
we cannot put into order the world today, in which random chance
and probability are really what drives our lives.. because we
don't have a philosophy in which we put this chance and randomness into
context.... and the interesting thing about war is that we quite often
stumble into war, not as a planned act, but literally as an accident...
the great battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil war was an accidental
meeting of two advance scouting forces... it wasn't planned or organized
by either side, it just happened.... perhaps the most pivotal battle
in American history was an accident...

and we can say that much of human history is driven by the same random forces
that caused the battle of Gettysburg... what we often forget is how much
of human history is simply a product of chance, of random actions.....

and the greatest force in human history can be thought of as
inertia... the plain failure of human beings can often be
traced to people's inertia, a failure to act in a timely manner....
we can traced the history of the second World War to the actions
of the Germans and the inaction/inertia of the British and French
governments...in fact, we can trace much of human actions in
terms of physics... inertia and the randomness of the universe,
to how energy impacts our actions and/or our inactions...

you can see the impact of energy in action by watching a sporting event...
the team that wins is the team that has the greater energy...
the team with the greatest energy in a game, will be the team
that will win.... and this is true, most of the time...but given
the random nature of the universe, it is not true all the time....
the amount of energy a team will put into a game will usually decides
who wins that game......

if we tried hard enough, we can use physics to better understand
human beings and their actions.... but that must wait until later,
as I must get ready for work...

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

hey keter, if i was in the self check-out lane and u saw me bag a pepperoni stick without scanning it, would u bust me?

before u answer i want u to think carefully.

if u approach me at the check-out and inform me that i didn't scan the item, I'll just play dumb, pretend like it was a mistake, and scan the item.

if u wait until i exit the store to approach me so that i can be arrested for stealing (per statute 133.8c), I'll plead not guilty in court, in which case you will be summoned to court to testify against me. your company will not compensate you for your time, and u will also spend at least ten minutes looking for a place to park. add to this an additional five minutes walk to the court and another 30 min, minimum, before my case is called.

now do u really want to bust me, keter? we're talking about a pepperoni stick here.

also, what would the anarchist Prince Peter Kropotkin do?

i think the answer is clear, keter. you're gonna be a good sport and look the other way. isn't that right, keter?

[Peter Kropotkin]

hey keter, if i was in the self check-out lane and u saw me bag a pepperoni stick without scanning it, would u bust me?

before u answer i want u to think carefully.

if u approach me at the check-out and inform me that i didn't scan the item, I'll just play dumb, pretend like it was a mistake, and scan the item.

if u wait until i exit the store to approach me so that i can be arrested for stealing (per statute 133.8c), I'll plead not guilty in court, in which case you will be summoned to court to testify against me. your company will not compensate you for your time, and u will also spend at least ten minutes looking for a place to park. add to this an additional five minutes walk to the court and another 30 min, minimum, before my case is called.

now do u really want to bust me, keter? we're talking about a pepperoni stick here.

also, what would the anarchist Prince Peter Kropotkin do?

i think the answer is clear, keter. you're gonna be a good sport and look the other way. isn't that right, keter?

K: the problem with this ''thought experiment" is the fact that the laws themselves
limit my actions... and company policy... in California for example, stealing anything
less than a $1000 dollar is nothing but a misdemeanor... and basically company policy
is to avoid any type of confrontation with customers in regard to theft...
you can walk by me with a dozen cases of beer and I can only say,
have a good day... that's about it...that as far as I can go.... outside of
maybe, do you need any help sir, as they walk past you...and I can't even go
outside of the store in any type of case of theft.. to go outside and confront
a customer is a firing offense for me.....on the spot... fired...

it doesn't matter what my own thoughts are about it... the company
policies are rigorously held to... so steal away... ain't a dam thing
I can do about it...

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

no shit?

well I know where I'm goin

u know why that is? two reasons; those retailers are so rich from jackin up the prices that being stolen from doesn't even faze em. two, the court system is such a joke they might somehow get sued by the defendant.

[Peter Kropotkin]

no shit?

well I know where I'm goin

u know why that is? two reasons; those retailers are so rich from jackin up the prices that being stolen from doesn't even faze em. two, the court system is such a joke they might somehow get sued by the defendant.

K: here in California, several attempts to stop shoplifting, has resulted in
them being shot...a couple of people have died from stopping shoplifters...
being sued is the least of our issues... personally, I had one guy take
a swing at me and another threaten to ''kill'' me... and that wasn't even
shoplifter related...and now we take active shooter classes at work...
what to do in case of an active shooter.... that is the world of
supermarkets these days...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Anyway, back at the ranch...

for most of philosophical history, we have had two forms,
a dualism which has had several different names...

and one such name has been Athens vs Jeruslam...
in which Athens is logic, reason, Greek Philosophy,
and the second was basically Christian theology....
(another dualism is this ongoing question of Materialism
vs Idealism)

the debate between philosophy and religion, which is at the
heart of the Athens vs Jeruslam question, is also thought of
as philosophy Athens, and Jeruslam obeying the law of god....

but there is a third viewpoint... and it is unable to fit into
either side, Athens or Jeruslam... or the materialism vs idealism
question...or think of this... think of the battle between the
Enlightenment and the Romantic viewpoint.... which is just
a replay of the Athens vs Jeruslam idea...

this third viewpoint is the role of chance/randomness/chaos....
for this viewpoint does not fit into either Athens nor does
it fit into Jeruslam... and yet, much of human history and
its ongoing works, history, ethics, economics, science, philosophy,
come from or is impacted by chance, the randomness of existence,
the battle between order and chaos... we have to mark out somewhere
in our philosophies, the place for chaos, or chance or randomness...
for neither within Athens or within Jeruslam, is a home for chaos or randomness
or chance....

and we must find a home within our thinking, our philosophies,
for randomness and chance... for as evolution makes clear,
we exists today in large part due to random evolution and
processes.... the very idea of the big bang theory suggests it
too is an act of chance or randomness..... and the creation of
life is almost certainly a product of the universe random nature...

so, how do we include into our philosophical understanding, chance
or the random nature of the universe? Is there room within say, Nietzche
or Spinoza or even Kant, for the true nature of existence which is randomness
or chance within nature?
or do we throw our hands into the air and dive deep into Jeruslam and
avoid the question altogether? as the easy way out of trying to fit into
a rational system, something outside of rational, reasoned thinking which
is chance and randomness....

how do we turn the randomness of the universe into a rational theory?
and that is the question....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

as we can see from the way of our current world,
that many people try to escape from the randomness and chaotic
nature of the world, by turning to Jeruslam, to faith, to god....
and quite often, attributing the random/chance aspect of the universe
to god and his mysterious ways..... the baby dies of a brain tumor
and it is said that god works in mysterious ways....
if, however, as I and many others have claimed, that this is a no-god
universe, then where else do we turn to, to explain the pointless
death of an innocent baby? because it certainly isn't rational or
reasonable for a baby to die of a brain tumor, but if it isn't rational
nor is it an act of god, then what is left? Randomness and chance....

the question comes down to how we explain the various processes of
the universe... it is random, is it the work of god or is there some
logical/reasonable explanation for the way the universe works, in all cases....
and exclude chaos and chance and randomness..... but we can see
in a wide number of cases, that we cannot explain everything in either
terms of science or in terms of religion.... there is an entire
category of events that operate outside of both science and religion....
and we call that category being ''Random'' or ''Chaos''
or ''Chance" call it what you will.... but it does explain certain
aspects of existence better than science or religion does....

and we have a choice.... what is your choice?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

perhaps, perhaps the answer to our questions lies in
another possibility.... we believe that there are polar opposites..
that for instance, that there is good and then there is evil,
and my the two never meet... but upon reflection,
we can see that good and evil are simply two sides of
the same coin and then, after further reflection,
we can see that good and evil, are really the same thing...
depending on what side of the problem you are on.....

perhaps we can think of the three possibilities, shorthanded,
as science, religion, or chance... as three separate ideas,
then we can see them as sides of the same coin and then
later, as the same thing...or perhaps as a better suggestion,
instead of a coin, perhaps a dice.. we can roll the dice and get
different possibilities... a three sided dice can offer us that chance....

if we approach any question/answer in terms of, is it science,
religion or chance, our answer will be really about our own
inclination.... which is to say, our own viewpoint...
any answer be it science, religion or chance, has no
external reasons but will have many internal reasons....
our viewpoint dictates our answers as to whether or not,
it is science or religion or chance...and we can, if we actually
think about it, begin to realize that between the three,
science, religion and chance, there doesn't seem to be
any real reason to pick one over the other.... it is, as I said,
personal preference....which is to say, that they are one and the
same..... depending on how one looks at the world.....

but Kropotkin, you yourself have argued, rather vigorously, against,
against the religious viewpoint.. and I have... so, Kropotkin,
how do you reconcile this?....

we could just remove the religious viewpoint, and leave it to another
dualism, that of science and of chance/randomness.....
that would be one solution..... and we could easily do that....
not everything has to have a reason for existing... does it?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

it is said, that for the religious, what makes a human being
is in the heart.. and for the secular human being, what makes
a human being is the head....

most people seek out certainty and certainty is found in
faith...

but I am a modern man.. and I don't seek out certainty...
because I can live in the randomness of the universe...
and in an uncertain universe, without the faith of convictions,
ambiguity, and hesitation, and doubt is what is left of my faith....
in fact, if I were to describe our modern world, I would
answer with ambiguity and doubt and hesitation.....

but Kropotkin, think of all the things that have been built on hope...
and faith...the great Cathedrals of Europe.. were all built with faith...
and all wars are begun with faith... for who would start a building or
a war without some hope that it will be finished correctly?
it is with blindness that we start all things... a blindness that
tells us we will succeed and conquer despite the odds....
and against all possibilities...

every work of ART is started with a faith that an ART work
will say something of value... in fact, everything started, is
started with the faith, a hope that it will be finished...
or have something of value to say.....

without that faith/hope, who will begin or start anything?
and that is the modern dilemma... who will begin to build
a long term project without some faith in it being able to be
finished?

but think about life, your life... and how many projects did you start
without knowing that it will ever be finished? the very act of being married,
is an act that has much doubt in it... for being married offers us no
certainty or faith, that it will turn out as both parties want it to turn out....
one commits to each other without knowing what the future will bring...

but I might suggest that is the wrong way to look at it....
we commit without the certainty of knowing the future, for the very
act of commitment is a hedge against the uncertainty of the future...
we commit because the future is unknown, uncertain... that commitment
is a vow to overcome the future... think of the words spoken at a
marriage ceremony....

''... to have and to hold from THIS day forward, for better for worse,
for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
I will love you and honor you all the days of my life''

this vow isn't about yesterday or today, it is about tomorrow...
and our commitment to each other, no matter what
random events may befall us.. in this vow, comes the acknowledgement
that we may face quite different/random events in our connected life..
and we will face them together... and it is in this commitment to each
other that we can begin to build something that goes into the future...
the future building comes with a commitment to each other...
and that is the basis of where we can start to build for the future...
not in the act of building, but in the act of a commitment to overcome
whatever happens...the future gets built on the basis of a
commitment to each other, not in the act that may or may not be
finished....upon this rock, will I build my future.. on a commitment
to overcome whatever may come..... on that we can take faith in,
trust in... our commitment to each other.... and perhaps
that is where we can begin anew...in making a commitment to
each other, a nation divided cannot succeed, but a nation citizens
committed to each other, therein lies the path into the unknown...

Kropotkin

[Walker]

In the collection of dialogues called I Am That, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj explains that experience is not "the thing."

What he means by that, references non-duality.

Just sayin': understanding that, intellectually, is rather de rigueur for understanding some of the traditional viewpoints of your expressed interest.

[Peter Kropotkin]

one of the questions that has ''haunted'' philosophy has been
this question of ''essence'' vs ''existence''

pretty much the entire history of medieval philosophy is
the exploration of ''essence'' in man... the essence of man is
to be........ the collective aspect of being human....
we are a religious bunch, or we are, as Aristotle said,
"Man is a rational being'' to be human, is to be rational....
that is the essence of being human....

existence is asking, "who am I?" that is the main point
of existentialism, not asking who are we, but who am I?"
the question of essence is a fairly abstract one...
the question of existence, is a fairly common, concrete, personal
question... we ask of ourselves, in those rare reflective moments
we have.....

and within philosophy itself, we tend to ask and answer questions that
are more abstract, then are concrete and personally....
what is morality/ethics? that is an essence question...
what is epistemology? that is more of an abstract question......
metaphysical questions, how did we come to be? and why
is there being as opposed to non-being? take a wild guess....
questions that inquire into a class of people or things is an essence
question... questions that inquire about me personally, are
existential questions.... "who am I?" "What should I hope for?"
''What can I believe in?" ''What should I spend my energy on?"

These Kantian/Kropotkin questions are at the heart of existentialism,
existence questions...what am I, as an individual, going to be/do?

If I were in charge, I would demand all philosophical questions
begin with a statement saying this, this is a essence question
or perhaps this... this statement is an existential statement....
to label your statement with an understanding that you are engaged
with either essence questions or essential questions...

but Kropotkin, why can't philosophy engage with both questions at
the same time? Indeed, why can't it?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

it can be said, that man/human beings are rational...
that is an essence question, but the problem comes with
the fact that the universe, which is different than the Greeks thought,
is not a rational, logical place...and why can't we understand all aspects
of our universe? if it is rational, then we should be able to conquer,
understand the universe.... it is my contention, that we cannot,
for reasons to be named, that we cannot understand all areas/aspects
of the universe...and one of the reasons is that we cannot, no matter how
hard we try, to name all aspects of any given system... we are unable to
completely describe any system and name all its parts...something will
be missing in any description of a system...this inability to describe
all aspects of any given system, creates incompleteness....

all theories, all philosophies, are by their very nature, incomplete...
and as we cannot account for all aspects of any given system,
know if any system if true or false... or is a question of
essence or of being an existence question.....

the essential point of being human is that we will, no matter how hard
we try, we will have incomplete knowledge of any system we know of.....
we never have enough information about a system to make a complete
statement about it....or said another way, no matter how hard we try,
we will have only incomplete information about anything we wonder about....

''what is man?" that question is answered without all the information we need,
and ''what is the universe?'' that question is lacking an immense amount
of information... ''who am I?" again, we are lacking enough information
to accurately answer that question...we can guess, but that is all we can do.....

both essence and existential questions are questions that are lacking in
enough information to make truthful judgements about...
and my guess is as good as your guess..... what is goodness? what is
evil? there is simply not enough information for us to honestly answer
these questions....

what is the meaning of existence? what is the point of life?

how would one answer these questions given the lack of information?

another point comes from this notion that human beings have
that we are searching for being whole... that we are, individuals
and collectively, need to be part of something, and we strive with all our might
to become whole... to complete us is by... this is a common theme in
literature and music and ART.......we seek to be make whole
and we have entire industries that seek out ways to complete
ourselves as human beings....

to belong to something bigger than we are...for many, that is the point to
being human... we often spend our lives trying to become part of something
bigger than we are.....that becoming something will make us whole...

but what if, what if that seeking, becoming whole, is really about
overcoming our lack of information in both essence and existence....
if we could answer the question, what is our essence and the question,
what am I?... then we have no need for us to be seeking
how can we become whole?

this seeking to becoming whole is related to our seeking our essence and/or
our existential part of us... both the collective part and the individual part....
if we were to answer the question, who am I? that might mean I would
give up the search for becoming whole....Perhaps.....

but it would help us to at least engage with that question...
is seeking wholeness a function of our inability to answer the question,
what is the essence of man and what is the individual aspect of me,
in "who am I?".. is one related to the other?

it's worth a look...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

that there are rational truths, 1 + 1= 2 and there are
what one might call, irrational truths... god exists..

and may the two truths, never meet... for what can we moderns
do with an equal share of rational and irrational truths?

and once again, we are faced with the prospect of two polar
opposites coming together into being one truth....
just as good and evil, look, look as being two opposites,
we, on further review, discover them to be two sides of the same
coin and then further along, we discover, much to our amazement,
that good and evil are actually the same thing... depending on
where one stands that make something good or something evil....
it has nothing to do with good or evil as a concept, but how we
view it....

and thus we see the rational and irrational being the same type of
concept... at first, we see it being totally opposite, then we discover
that the rational and irrational are just two sides of the same coin,
and then, if we are lucky, we find that rational and irrational are
the same thing....it just depends on how we view it..... nothing more.....

there is no objective viewpoint for either good and evil, or
rational- irrational, just a belief that good is good
and evil is evil... and that same belief powers our understanding
of thoughts being rational and other thoughts being irrational....
what if, what if they are one and the same?

Kropotkin