The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:38 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:42 pm
There are no higher and lower parts of our being, that's all made up. There are no two levels of reality and there is no white horse and black horse.
That's not an actual contradiction you presented, since you made up the contradicting elements in the first place.
The thing is Atla, you have to already know that knowledge first before you can make the statement...the contradiction is pure illusory as the knower and known have to exist in the same instant...else how can anything be known? You have to exist before you can know you exist, knowing is not prior to existing, it's instantaneous in the moment one with the knowing..

The problem with trying to get a peek up our own skirt is that we are using concepts to define this ineffable oneness, so it is rather a tad contradicting, but can't you at least look past that hurdle?

In duality space time 3D world of opposites where the infinite is having it's being, (as experience)....it could not know or experience itself without those opposites.

I'm a little confused about the way you speak Atla because the contradicting elements you speak of is conceptual, but how would you know a concept without anything to relate it to? ..this is where the split mind comes in and is necessary....so the two realities have to go hand in hand else nothing would make sense. I understand you calling this out as a contradiction which it is, but it's unavoidable is it not?

I'm following your thread over in the religious forum, and here you are talking about the conscious and subconscious ..being in the same reality. Yes they exist parallel within the same instant, NOW...so it's not really a contradiction is it, and yet it is unavoidable at the same time...as all parallels simultaneously exist NOW this instant. There is only NOW.

You seem to be describing the split mind here...correct me if I'm wrong?
This is how I get answers from my own subconscious though. I put questions and information into it, let that stuff be silently parallel processed somewhere way down there, and then eventually an answer appears. And then I check that answer using "normal" methods. As far as I know this is a rare ability.
So it does appear that there is a split mind reality, to be two levels of reality that you appear to deny exist...this is how I'm reading it from my own level of understanding within this debate.

This unconscious / conscious is what's known as the split mind, between clarity of the heart of what's really true, and valuable of what keeps us safe and from harm, as opposed to the head of belief and interpretation, the wayward self.

''Our Split Mind. Our mind can be separated into two general processes: conscious and subconscious (also know as unconscious). ... However, we are not aware of most of things our mind is doing so that we can function. Some mental mechanisms are constantly used without our awareness''

We are AWARENESS.... first and foremost...we can be awareness without a mind, but a mind aka (the conceptual knowing of I exist) is totally dependant on awareness to BE...because it's an aspect of that one eternal self.

This is the split mind, the two seeming realities existing in the same ONE reality. One is infinite, the other is finite within the infinite.

Atla wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:42 pm
There are several ways how people can arrive at such split minds where they start to believe/experience two realities. Sometimes they are born that way, sometimes religion/philosophy leads them there, sometimes it's a nervous breakdown or some mental disorder etc. etc.
Then according to your definition we need to get a little mental, go a little bat shit crazy before we can arrive at the split mind level of thinking.

That doesn't necessarily mean one is losing their mind, it means one is gaining their uncreated creative true eternal self... :D

What a divine paradox.

.

uwot
Posts: 3681
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by uwot » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:42 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
You raise a question that creates a great deal of animosity between secularists and universalists.
Probably not as much as saying things like this:
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
As a universalist it is natural for me to believe the secular mind and its emotional defense through denial is a weakness.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4408
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:23 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:42 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
You raise a question that creates a great deal of animosity between secularists and universalists.
Probably not as much as saying things like this:
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
As a universalist it is natural for me to believe the secular mind and its emotional defense through denial is a weakness.
Weak can disguise itself as Strength and Strength can disguise itself as Weak.


They're complimentary opposites.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)


The 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - by Julian Jaynes

.

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:42 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
You raise a question that creates a great deal of animosity between secularists and universalists.
Probably not as much as saying things like this:
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:26 am
As a universalist it is natural for me to believe the secular mind and its emotional defense through denial is a weakness.
De Nile.

Two options.

One option is to reject the assertion, which I think you’ve done.

The other option, solely for the purpose of learning, is to accept the assertion as an absolute truth, and unchangeable.

After this arbitrary acceptance, then task rationality with figuring out how it can be true.

If you can’t then understand how it can be true, then the statement is either false, or you have reached your limits of understanding.

It’s like learning about evolution.
To understand how evolution can be true, you accept it as truth and then apply reason to understand how it is true.

It’s like learning about philosophy in school.
To understand how a philosophical premise can be true, you accept it as truth and then reason to understand how this can be.
Often the philosopher will do this for you.

It’s easier to do with things, because with things you don’t have the escape option of denial.
Although, that doesn't seem to prevent defenestration.

For example, you can’t very well deny the reality of a fish after you pull it out of the ocean, on the basis that science says it should have been extinct a hundred million years ago.

You have to accept its existence as true, and then you reason to understand how this can be.

So, if the premise is that rejection of the possibility for an absolute is an indication of a weakness, then the options are to deny and reject that assertion, or to accept it as true for the purpose of learning, even if it seems implausible to your current mind, and then understand how it can be true.

That opens a lot of doors for dualistic inquiry.
What is the nature of weakness?
Is this a particular weakness, a type?
What conditions would encourage such a weakness?
And so on.


This is what mind control looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5NABbTmUAQ

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Science Fan » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:45 pm

I wonder why a religious person is here claiming to be a "universalist" while also claiming secularists are not universalists? After all, every religion is part of tribalism. There is a reason why religions initially involved ancestor worship and many still do to this day, whether in the form of so-called saints, or some other references to ancestors. Religion promotes tribalism, an us versus them mindset. This is why religious people have so often murdered each other and engaged in political discrimination against each other ---- each religion represents an enemy tribe.

Secularists, on the other hand, are far more universal in their ethics than any religious view. Now, I will admit that this is not true for the new-atheist movement, which is quite childish, but atheists in general, and religious people as well, who accept secularism, are the one's inviting others to live peaceably together, ignoring our religious differences in the process.

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:20 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:45 pm
I wonder why a religious person is here claiming to be a "universalist" while also claiming secularists are not universalists?
Because it gets closer to the beginning, I prefer:

How can this be?

"Why" contains unnecessary assumptions, until how is established.

In addition to denying an absolute, a secularist believes in a mandated and enforced separation between church and state.

A universalist would not predicate existence upon such an arbitrary, consciousness-limiting boundary.
The mental freedom is based on the premise that within the absolute, all boundaries are illusory.

I’d reason that such a universalist would be more politically libertarian than not, based on the limiting and divisive mindset required for secularism. However, this does not imply that another's self-concept would contain any formalized concept of libertarianism.
It may have developed naturally and be understood in terms of life and memories.

uwot
Posts: 3681
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by uwot » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:58 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
One option is to reject the assertion, which I think you’ve done.
Who, me?
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
The other option, solely for the purpose of learning, is to accept the assertion as an absolute truth, and unchangeable.

After this arbitrary acceptance, then task rationality with figuring out how it can be true.
I think you have identified how many people operate. When this line of reasoning is taken by religious thinkers, it is called apologetics. Typically the apologist will assume a proposition such as 'The Bible is inerrant', or 'Jesus died for our sins' and construct a narrative according to which the proposition they wish to defend is true. It happens in other fields such as astrology and psychoanalysis, both of which Karl Popper criticised for being 'unfalsifiable', and in everyday life, some people use this approach to defend the record of a sports team which is performing badly, or a political party which is ballsing everything up.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
If you can’t then understand how it can be true, then the statement is either false, or you have reached your limits of understanding.
Another strategy is to not make a decision about a proposition until enough evidence has been demonstrated to make a provisional judgement.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
It’s like learning about evolution.
To understand how evolution can be true, you accept it as truth and then apply reason to understand how it is true.
Well, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection came about because he had gathered a fair bit of evidence from the differences in the beaks of isolated populations of finches in the Galapagos Islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
It’s like learning about philosophy in school.
To understand how a philosophical premise can be true, you accept it as truth and then reason to understand how this can be.
If that is how you were taught philosophy, then you and I had different experiences. Personally, I was taught to challenge premises, in the Socratic style.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
Often the philosopher will do this for you.
The most famous example of which is Descartes' Discourse on Method. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
It’s easier to do with things, because with things you don’t have the escape option of denial.
Although, that doesn't seem to prevent defenestration.

For example, you can’t very well deny the reality of a fish after you pull it out of the ocean, on the basis that science says it should have been extinct a hundred million years ago.

You have to accept its existence as true, and then you reason to understand how this can be.
Indeed. That is the strength of empiricism.

Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
So, if the premise is that rejection of the possibility for an absolute is an indication of a weakness, then the options are to deny and reject that assertion, or to accept it as true for the purpose of learning, even if it seems implausible to your current mind, and then understand how it can be true.

That opens a lot of doors for dualistic inquiry.
What is the nature of weakness?
Is this a particular weakness, a type?
What conditions would encourage such a weakness?
And so on.
Not convinced. I think it is preferable to ask those sorts of questions before you make up your mind about the proposition.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:26 pm
This is what mind control looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5NABbTmUAQ
Yeah. That is genuinely disturbing.

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:02 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:58 pm
Yeah. That is genuinely disturbing.
There's no denying that is one big fish, figuratively speaking.

How can that fish exist?

I have to wonder if you could find as many preachers saying the same thing, word for word.

As far as the why goes, it's obviously to discredit the tweeting of Trump.

His supporters don't have the weak mind to swallow that bait.

8) :lol:

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:13 pm

"If that is how you were taught philosophy, then you and I had different experiences. Personally, I was taught to challenge premises, in the Socratic style."
Make the other prove the point.
Sure.

Lay back like a lazy slob and throw darts.
Just kidding.

Nick_A
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:23 pm

Walker wrote:
De Nile.

Two options.

One option is to reject the assertion, which I think you’ve done.

The other option, solely for the purpose of learning, is to accept the assertion as an absolute truth, and unchangeable.

After this arbitrary acceptance, then task rationality with figuring out how it can be true.
Science Fan wrote
I wonder why a religious person is here claiming to be a "universalist" while also claiming secularists are not universalists?
The difference between the secular mind and the universlist’s mind is the origin of meaning. The secularist relies on bottom up reason while the universalist begins with top down reason The secular mind is restricted to the world as the source for human meaning while meaning for the universalist begins with one of the many names for God. I prefer Plotinus’ concept of the ONE. If a person is open to experience the inner vertical direction leading to the ONE. The original purpose of religion as an esoteric school serving the purpose of awakening becomes meaningful. A person opens their mind to experience the process of involution beginning with the ONE and lawfully involving into Nous, world soul, and soul. It makes sense to me explaining the world of forms and the eternal values necessary to sustain the universe. Opening to the third direction of thought reveals how Man’s task is to serve universal process as a part of the process. The human condition denies objective human meaning and purpose. Not good for karma so it is no wonder collective Man functions in darkness as the Great Beast and everything is as it is. ONE is described here:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/hand ... otinus.htm

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:36 pm

uwot wrote:"I think you have identified how many people operate. When this line of reasoning is taken by religious thinkers, it is called apologetics. Typically the apologist will assume a proposition such as 'The Bible is inerrant', or 'Jesus died for our sins' and construct a narrative according to which the proposition they wish to defend is true. It happens in other fields such as astrology and psychoanalysis, both of which Karl Popper criticised for being 'unfalsifiable', and in everyday life, some people use this approach to defend the record of a sports team which is performing badly, or a political party which is ballsing everything up."
To counter this, and continue the reply to Science Fan's question, I would say your understanding of the "how" process is limited.

Determining "how," is not a matter of assertion that denies facts.

Perhaps a weak mind, or a global warming climatologist, would interpret "how" in such a way.

:shock:

The use of "how" as a functioning philosophy of rationality requires equanimity, balance, and detachment.

It runs you into your own contradictions, which you then must resolve in order to understand.

Takes you further into philosophy than denial.

uwot
Posts: 3681
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by uwot » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:08 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:36 pm
To counter this, and continue the reply to Science Fan's question, I would say your understanding of the "how" process is limited.

Determining "how," is not a matter of assertion that denies facts.
Ok. Can you give an example of a fact you think I deny, and its relationship to "how" that I don't understand?

uwot
Posts: 3681
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by uwot » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:13 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:23 pm
The difference between the secular mind and the universlist’s mind is the origin of meaning. The secularist relies on bottom up reason while the universalist begins with top down reason
What do you think of theists like Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig who argue that you can demonstrate the existence of god with bottom up reasoning?

Walker
Posts: 4856
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:08 pm
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:36 pm
To counter this, and continue the reply to Science Fan's question, I would say your understanding of the "how" process is limited.

Determining "how," is not a matter of assertion that denies facts.
Ok. Can you give an example of a fact you think I deny, and its relationship to "how" that I don't understand?
A secularist denies the absolute.
It is a view based on the limitations and boundaries that the act of denial asserts, applied to society, in the form of separating church and state.

What a secularist may fail to understand is that ostensibly, which is ideally in this case, Socratic dialogue forms a collaborative synergy from two, resulting in an understanding more complete than one of the components of the dialogue could have provided.

However, in practice it serves more as a platform, to be challenged.

To properly function:
One of the two dialoguers should be a licensed philosophy inspector.
The ideal inspector knows who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.

Minus an inspector, an agreed upon premise isn’t going to be found, which results in getting stuck in the shallows, unable to venture with the collaborative synergy of Socratic dialogue into the philosophical waters beyond premise.

Accepting the premise of the other as an absolute, as I have explained, rather than denying it based on subjective knowledge, does far more for the Socratic dialogue cause.

uwot
Posts: 3681
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by uwot » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:15 am

Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:08 pm
Can you give an example of a fact you think I deny, and its relationship to "how" that I don't understand?
A secularist denies the absolute.
It depends on whether you have a specific concept of "the absolute", but in general terms, I don't deny it. Unlike post-modernists, or relativists more generally, I believe that there are some things which are absolutely true. Some things are ontologically real; or they aren't-The universe is made of some stuff or it isn't. There is a god running everything or there isn't. I don't deny that any one of those four propositions is true; I simply don't know which ones are.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm
What a secularist may fail to understand is that ostensibly, which is ideally in this case, Socratic dialogue forms a collaborative synergy from two, resulting in an understanding more complete than one of the components of the dialogue could have provided.
I don't think secularism has any bearing on understanding Socratic techniques. True the early dialogues were generally maieutic and some could be characterised as you describe them.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm
However, in practice it serves more as a platform, to be challenged.
Well yes, there are other Socratic dialogues that are more straightforwardly dialectic and belligerent.
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm
To properly function:
One of the two dialoguers should be a licensed philosophy inspector.
The ideal inspector knows who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
Sounds a bit like Facebook. How would you decide who qualifies for a licence? Who gives the accreditation?
Walker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:01 pm
Minus an inspector, an agreed upon premise isn’t going to be found, which results in getting stuck in the shallows, unable to venture with the collaborative synergy of Socratic dialogue into the philosophical waters beyond premise.

Accepting the premise of the other as an absolute, as I have explained, rather than denying it based on subjective knowledge, does far more for the Socratic dialogue cause.
Ok. We can play this game. You be the inspector, and I will accept any premise you choose.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests