Nick_A wrote:Questions like “where’s the ketchup” don’t require wonder to initiate them. ...
I wonder where the ketchup is?
I’m referring to the attraction to eros and you’re only concerned with fitting in which only requires simple answers. ...
You seem amazingly informed about what people are concerned with before they've told you, how are you doing this?
You keep mentioning this "eros", what do you mean by it as it can't be Platos' Socrates as he appears to use it to mean a love of questions. Although we can't really say we understand what they understood by such words but the context of the translation does appear to say this.
Again, you have no idea what it means to open to wonder. You are too caught up in answers. If you don’t know by now, I cannot explain it. ...
But you've not tried explaining it at all?
Do you mean something like wonder in awe?
You are caught up in beliefs and what people do. ...
Best way to judge them I've found.
Christianity as opposed to secularized religious expression is primarily concerned with what we are. ...
You do know "secularized religious expression" is just nonsense upon stilts don't you?
Which sect of Christianity are you talking about and didn't you say you were a pre-christian so how do you know what Christianity is concerned with?
I didn’t post the link so you would blindly believe it but to raise the question of significance worthy of the name philosophy. ...
I didn't blindly believe it. Unlike you I actually read it and agreed with the main thesis which ironically enough contradicts pretty much all you say.
Just because philosophy has degenerated into indoctrination and self justification for many doesn’t mean everyone must go philosophically into the gutter. ...
I seriously doubt you have read any Philosophy other than one author so I think you just talking from ignorance.
A creature of reaction lives in one level of reality. Conscious Man consciously connects levels of reality. ...
Give me an example?
Plato’s GOOD or Plotinus’ ONE; take your pick. ...
I'd prefer to hear what you mean by either or both of these terms as I doubt we can understand what Plato or Plotinus understood by them given that we're not of their culture and more specifically that they were written in ancient Greek. So what interpretation do you make of these terms?
Yes, a forest is a collective of trees just like a secuprog is a collective of secular progressives. It is the same idea
Not really as the last two terms are pretty much nonsense.
No. We re all “in the world.” However some are not “of the world.” They are attracted to something repulsive to the world so a struggle begins between the world and the need to awaken. The world seeks to eliminate them. I am on the side of those who support inner freedom from the self while the world seeks to make the indoctrinated self dominant. ...
What's this 'world' you talk about? I do hope you're not being a Yank and thinking America is the world.
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by how he has attained liberation from the self." ~ Albert Einstein
He should have stuck to Physics.
Addition is an objective fact. Two apples plus two apples will always equal four apples. ...
What do two rain-drops plus two raindrops equal?
But what is the objective value of two plus two or even of numbers themselves? ...
They give Physics a language to model the world with, Engineering a language to build useful stuff with and a few brain-boxes some interesting symbolic puzzles.
Science deals with facts while the human perspective places them into the human rather than subjective perspective which appreciates objective value. ...
Science(not really sure what you mean by this?) deals with the how of the world and does it by using a method that allows intersubjective confirmation about the world, i.e. objectivity. A human perspective is subjective and that is why it appreciates what Science has brought, objectivity.
As we are now, people serve machines. ...
What machines are we serving?
They govern our consciousness. ...
How?
If society reflected a conscious perspective machines would serve people. ...
They do.
Society lacks a conscious perspective and does what it can to assure it will never have one. ...
Give me an example of what you mean by this?
Accepting the ideal of objective values greater than that of society's would cause the loss of imagination as the dominant impulse which is intolerable. ...
Pardon, you appear to be saying that you wish to remove the impulse to imagine from our kids?
Society cannot allow the young to be open to what Einstein wrote. ...
What do you understand by what he said?
It may cause them to question what a human perspective is and that is intolerable.
What do you think they are teaching the kids about a human perspective?