The Dualistic Mind

[Dubious]

Nick is a sprinkler - the stuff sprays out in a fairly arbitrary way in all directions.

That makes it sound as if he's got a mental bladder problem with the respondees having to wipe the floor!

[Nick_A]

Lacewing and Greta

I was going to bring this up later in the thread but it fits now because of the concern for truth. Lacewing you are not an enemy. You are just a fellow denison of Plato's cave.

If you re unfamiliar with the concept of Socratic Ignorance let me introduce it now:

https://www.thoughtco.com/socratic-ignorance-2670664

Socratic ignorance refers, paradoxically, to a kind of knowledge–a person’s frank acknowledgment of what they don’t know. It is captured by the well-known statement: “I know only one thing–that I know nothing.” Paradoxically, Socratic ignorance is also referred to as "Socratic wisdom."

Socratic Ignorance in Plato's Dialogues

This sort of humility regarding what one knows is associated with the Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 BCE) because he is portrayed displaying it in several of Plato’s dialogs. The clearest statement of it is in the Apology, the speech Socrates gave in his defense when he was prosecuted for corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates recounts how his friend Chaerephon was told by the Delphic oracle that no human was wiser than Socrates. Socrates was incredulous since he didn’t consider himself wise. So he set about trying to find someone wiser than himself. He found plenty of people who were knowledgeable about specific matters such as how to make shoes, or how to pilot a ship. But he noticed that these people also thought that they were similarly expert about other matters too when they clearly were not. He eventually drew the conclusion that in one sense, at least, he was wiser than others in that he did not think he knew what he did not in fact know. In short, he was aware of his own ignorance.

I am perfectly willing to admit my Socratic ignorance. You keep insisting that I am claiming to know the truth of universals. This is just silly. My advantage is that I am willing to admit it and agree that it is possible for people to awaken so as to become human. I don't see the sense of arguing opinions if their goal is the love of wisdom the origin of which is higher knowledge responsible for the devolution into opinions. As will be seen shortly this is in direct opposition with the goals of sophist education which seeks to indoctrinate the young into conventional pragmatic conceptions of truth supported by dualistic rhetoric.

Socrates has been accused of impiety and facing a court trial. He asked for definition of piety. the responses he received were all inconclusive. So he was executed in part by dogmatic habit. A very modern effect.

Sophist philosophy argues opinions with dualistic reason while Socrates' philosophy requires leaving the cave and the prison of opinions by opening to the third dimension of thought which reveals objective values. Simone Weil wrote:

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

The third dimension of thought reveals meaning. Dualistic reason must imagine meaning. But if Plato was right to define Man as a being in search of meaning, imagination will soon prove insufficient. There will be a natural impulse to experience objective meaning in some but the world will struggle against it in favor of acquired indoctrination justified through dualistic reason. Now what?

[Nick_A]

Nick is a sprinkler - the stuff sprays out in a fairly arbitrary way in all directions.

He tells everyone who's not a theist that they don't know what truth is. Since some theists believe that their version of reality is exclusively true it's no surprise that nonbelievers are claimed not to understand the truth. Despite differing with them significantly on a number of points he has never accused Mr Can or DAM of not understanding truth because they are fellow believers.

It's that simple IMO

Far more interesting is the fact that he's had his own experiences and the chances are there were numerous commonalities with ours, although he would naturally claim that somehow his peak experiences were of a higher order than ours

Well said.

I would truly much prefer to talk about the commonalities, shared truths, and inspiring insights -- and I do not mean that people must think the same at all!! I have theist friends... and Trump-loving friends (ha)... and some very conscious friends... and some not-so-conscious friends... and we can ALL relate. It's just not that hard, in my experience. There is plenty to see together. Here on the forum, there seems to be a fanatical inclination to religiously defend a platform... not just about a god, but about all kinds of things. It seems quite crazy.

You mean well but you don't seem to acknowledge the reality of the human condition.

Some years back a book was written called I believe: "I'm OK, You're OK." That seemed oh so lovely and the book was celebrated. What if someone else writes a book called: "I'm an Idiot, You're an Idiot". It will be panned something fierce. Who could have the nerve to write such an insulting disruptive book?

Of course the seeker of truth will know that neither I or you are OK and in reality we are both idiots. This will go over like a lead balloon so people open to the idea must share in private..

You can see how reality must be hated and why Socrates had to be killed.

[Lacewing]

Lacewing you are not an enemy.

Thank you.

You are just a fellow denison of Plato's cave.

To your mind, perhaps.

I don't see the sense of arguing opinions if their goal is the love of wisdom

I love wisdom and truth (as best as I and we can know/experience them). Even more, I love clarity and balance. I do not deny wisdom and truth of others -- but I resist being defined by that and them. I am not conventional... and I've told you this many times.

If you don't see the sense of others arguing with you if your goal is the love of wisdom... can you also agree that: there's no sense of YOU arguing with others if their goals include the love of wisdom, truth, clarity, and balance?

It's not truthful or wise for you to judge whether someone's love of wisdom is true or sufficient. There is much brilliance on many paths.

Are you able to have an open mind toward people the way you want them to have an open mind toward you?

[Lacewing]

I have theist friends... and Trump-loving friends (ha)... and some very conscious friends... and some not-so-conscious friends... and we can ALL relate. It's just not that hard, in my experience. There is plenty to see together.

You mean well but you don't seem to acknowledge the reality of the human condition.

Yes, we are all bozos on this bus. I realize this. But I'm telling you the reality of my experience. I have always had many friends of varying beliefs and perspectives, and we ALL have wisdom and truth that we are able to share in ways that benefit all of us. That IS the reality for me.

Apparently I've experienced the "human condition" in a much different way than you.

Your claims about the human condition are not my experience. That's why I say so.

Your idea of wisdom and truth does not look like wisdom and truth to me. And mine may not look like they are to you. That's okay.

What you cannot do honestly is define me in your narrow, one-sided terms. There is just too much else to consider beyond your scope. That's how it is for everyone. And that's what I try to point out in this forum. It's one thing for people to share their perspectives/beliefs/whatever -- it's completely false to define others based on that. You cannot know who I am and what I know based on teachings you have studied.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing you are not an enemy.

Thank you.

You are just a fellow denison of Plato's cave.

To your mind, perhaps.

I don't see the sense of arguing opinions if their goal is the love of wisdom

I love wisdom and truth (as best as I and we can know/experience them). Even more, I love clarity and balance. I do not deny wisdom and truth of others -- but I resist being defined by that and them. I am not conventional... and I've told you this many times.

If you don't see the sense of others arguing with you if your goal is the love of wisdom... can you also agree that: there's no sense of YOU arguing with others if their goals include the love of wisdom, truth, clarity, and balance?

It's not truthful or wise for you to judge whether someone's love of wisdom is true or sufficient. There is much brilliance on many paths.

Are you able to have an open mind toward people the way you want them to have an open mind toward you?

If you look carefully you can see that I'm not arguing. I support ideas that are hated. They invite the nastiest responses so my ideas must be considered arguing.

For example the value of religious teachings for the benefit of human being must begin with the recognition that we are the wretched man. This is repulsive for the secular mind. But the fact that I defend it isn't arguing. There is nothing to argue. It is a premise. A person either agrees or they don't. But the secular mind I've discovered rejects the premise with an unnatural hostility and any response is considered arguing.

[Lacewing]

If you look carefully you can see that I'm not arguing.

You tell people that their ideas (and what they say) are wrong, and you present your views as reasoning. That is arguing.

> Defintions of arguing: to present reasons for or against a thing; to contend in oral disagreement; to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning

You may see it differently when you do it, than how you see it when other people do it, but it's the same thing. People are not full of hate when they disagree with you.

[Nick_A]

I have theist friends... and Trump-loving friends (ha)... and some very conscious friends... and some not-so-conscious friends... and we can ALL relate. It's just not that hard, in my experience. There is plenty to see together.

You mean well but you don't seem to acknowledge the reality of the human condition.

Yes, we are all bozos on this bus. I realize this. But I'm telling you the reality of my experience. I have always had many friends of varying beliefs and perspectives, and we ALL have wisdom and truth that we are able to share in ways that benefit all of us. That IS the reality for me.

Apparently I've experienced the "human condition" in a much different way than you.

Your claims about the human condition are not my experience. That's why I say so.

Your idea of wisdom and truth does not look like wisdom and truth to me. And mine may not look like they are to you. That's okay.

What you cannot do honestly is define me in your narrow, one-sided terms. There is just too much else to consider beyond your scope. That's how it is for everyone. And that's what I try to point out in this forum. It's one thing for people to share their perspectives/beliefs/whatever -- it's completely false to define others based on that. You cannot know who I am and what I know based on teachings you have studied.

You seem like a nice person with many friends with diverse interests. This is all very good.

But philosophy as the love of wisdom attracts me to those rare ones considered abnormal by society. They have witnessed that the emperor has no clothes but has conned all those around him to believe he is a splendid dresser. I learn from these abnormal ones capable of being free from social indoctrination.

This is politically incorrect. The fashionable attitude is to curse out Trump and argue about everything believed harmful in society. A seeker of truth knows as Shakespeare said that the world is just a stage with people playing their bit parts. Must a person's whole being be identified with these parts keeping one chained to the ground? Philosophy and the essence of religion has taught me that a human being is capable of a conscious quality we cannot imagine. Naturally I'm attracted to these rare ones who have discovered they are not just chickens but really eagles and strive to acquire the eagle's perspective.

There’s an old, well known story of a chicken farmer who found an eagle’s egg.

He put it with his chickens and soon the egg hatched.

The young eagle grew up with all the other chickens and whatever they did, the eagle did too. He thought he was a chicken, just like them.

Since the chickens could only fly for a short distance, the eagle also learnt to fly a short distance.

He thought that was what he was supposed to do. So that was all that he thought he could do. As a consequence, that was all he was able to do.

One day the eagle saw a bird flying high above him. He was very impressed. “Who is that?” he asked the hens around him.

“That’s the eagle, the king of the birds,” the hens told him. “He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth, we are just chickens.”

So the eagle lived and died as a chicken, for that’s what he thought he was.

The story is about the potential for a person to become themselves and acquire a human perspective. But modern sophism and secularism is only interested in maintaining a functioning barnyard. It is a shame that so many young eagles through the effects of spirit killing leading to metaphysical repression will just grow and die as chickens. So I support the awakening efforts that inspire the young to question what they are from a universal perspective rather than become mindless snowflakes. One may die as Socrates did for such beliefs but as they say : "What a way to go,"

Those like Simone Weil will always have a special place in my heart. They suffer for truth. I may be incapable of it but can still celebrate the value of what these rare individuals worthy of being considered as a part of philosophy bring to humanity.

[Nick_A]

If you look carefully you can see that I'm not arguing.

You tell people that their ideas (and what they say) are wrong, and you present your views as reasoning. That is arguing.

> Defintions of arguing: to present reasons for or against a thing; to contend in oral disagreement; to persuade, drive, etc., by reasoning

You may see it differently when you do it, than how you see it when other people do it, but it's the same thing. People are not full of hate when they disagree with you.

It isn't a matter of hating me but hatred towards the ideas which attract me. The alarm clock is the most hated of all machines. Its purpose is to awaken you. it is the same with the deeper qualities of ideas introduced into the world by the greats of the past.They have an awakening effect so must be stamped out much like a person wants to throw the alarm clock against the wall.

[Greta]

But philosophy as the love of wisdom attracts me to those rare ones considered abnormal by society.

So why argue on behalf of the controlling mainstream against us?

[Nick_A]

But philosophy as the love of wisdom attracts me to those rare ones considered abnormal by society.

So why argue on behalf of the controlling mainstream against us?

You always think in relation to "against." I'm for that which benefits human being. You cannot understand this because you are so caught up in being "against." Being for what furthers human being is an alien concept for you.

[Lacewing]

But philosophy as the love of wisdom attracts me to those rare ones considered abnormal by society.

Yes, it's clear that you like to see yourself aligning with RARE ones. I think there are lots of rare ones.

They have witnessed that the emperor has no clothes but has conned all those around him to believe he is a splendid dresser.

I think a lot of us have witnessed that, and are very well aware of it in the MANY ways it plays out all throughout conventional society.

I learn from these abnormal ones capable of being free from social indoctrination.

It seems that you have a certain image of what/who these people are, and what their characteristics are -- so maybe you're not noticing that there are other people than those in your "control group".

You know, people don't have to think like you and talk like you to be seeing and wanting a lot of the same things.

The fashionable attitude is to curse out Trump

I curse about him for all the obvious reasons that he gives people to curse about him. I DON'T do it because it's fashionable!

You really should give people more credit, and stop cramming them in little boxes of judgment. There's so much more than you acknowledge with appreciation.

I know you love your Shakespearean tragedy, but you're writing scripts for people that don't fit them.

It isn't a matter of hating me but hatred towards the ideas which attract me.

I don't hate your ideas either. I don't think people here on the forum hate your ideas. People just may not agree with one thing or another, or they may give you shit for carrying on the way you do, or for judging and projecting on people the way you do.

Your frequent dialog about being wretched and hated seems very much in line with your tragic drama. All things considered, Nick, it surely seems that there is much more to the world (and the people in it) than you're recognizing. But I realize that would blow much of the story line of your drama... and you seem pretty attached to it.

[Greta]

But philosophy as the love of wisdom attracts me to those rare ones considered abnormal by society.

So why argue on behalf of the controlling mainstream against us?

You always think in relation to "against." I'm for that which benefits human being. You cannot understand this because you are so caught up in being "against." Being for what furthers human being is an alien concept for you.

Nick, there's no point pretending you haven't been rhetorically bashing me for years. Everyone has witnessed these absurd Punch n' Judy jousts, and probably with dismay and distaste. Be an adult - own your behaviour.

If you wanted what was best for "the human being" you would vote for candidates who wanted to protect the natural environment. You'd want improve education for women in developing countries, reduce reproduction rates and protect ecosystems and waterways as much as possible.

You will argue that the external is just froth a bubble (easy to say) and the true issue is about humanity's allegedly undeveloped internality - as if we were all more or less the same. I think you underestimate the richness of other people's internal lives in much the same way as European explorers underestimated the minds of the indigenous people they encountered, just as humans have long underestimated other species.

In each instance the assumption is that one's own consciousness is rich and lucid while others are acting mechanistically. Hardline Nazis made the same claim about Jews, and hardline Zionists believed that of gentiles, and hardline Muslims think that of infidels - and now seemingly the same claim is being made by evangelists about secularists, and probably vice versa too.

Yet a lot more is going on in people's little heads than it often seems because most of the "iceberg" is submerged out of sight. I think humanity's internal development will look after itself, one way or another. Eventually we flesh and blood humans are doomed; it's just a matter of time. Whatever might (or might not) survive humanity will either be melded with technology, or be technology.

Humans have made tremendous progress in all areas, including morally, in the last ten thousand years when agriculture was becoming widespread in the Middle East and Africa. Humanity's progress has been potted, often with backwards steps as is being seen today (which is complained about on forums ad nauseam). However, the progress ultimately has been extraordinary. Unlike most, I am highly optimistic that things will work themselves out in the long term but, like most, I'm pessimistic about short-to-medium term prospects for the world.

Still people will continue to work and lobby in various directions and in time the various pushing and pulling shapes societies.

[Greta]

I would truly much prefer to talk about the commonalities, shared truths, and inspiring insights -- and I do not mean that people must think the same at all!! I have theist friends... and Trump-loving friends (ha)... and some very conscious friends... and some not-so-conscious friends... and we can ALL relate. It's just not that hard, in my experience. There is plenty to see together. Here on the forum, there seems to be a fanatical inclination to religiously defend a platform... not just about a god, but about all kinds of things. It seems quite crazy.

People get certain concepts in their heads and decide that this is either The Problem or The Solution. Then, as good citizens, they want to spread their good news rather than keep it to themselves.

It's basically the desire to simplify in a world (and existence, really) too complex for human comprehension. In time they may come to accept reality as it is - messy and interesting. Or they may not :)

[Nick_A]

Forgetting about the ususal ad homs, accustions, and the debates about humanities moral progress, this thread is about the distinction between the dualistic and triune mind – the earthly and the universal mind. Of course people are all different and within society there are those with highly developed being and others who are basically walking automatons. People are different. However, society or the “great beast” composed of expressions of human types has a very changeable temperament. As such, the great beast along with individuals is simultaneously capable of the the greatest compassion along with the greatest atrocities. It is the way of the beast.

Somewhere around 500 B.C.E. emphasis shifted from cosmological concerns to human (ethical, political) concerns. Sophism began to take hold. Truth was no longer important since there was no objective truth. Consequently influences shifted from realism to relativism. Man became the measure of all things so what affected a person’s life in the world at the present time became the most important consideration.

https://wisdommatters2015.wordpress.com ... ethics-03/

The sophists were teachers in ancient Greece who used rhetoric and philosophy for the purpose of teaching arete, or “virtue”, to young statesmen. Their peculiar cultural relativism was an attempt at simultaneously assigning a coherent set of meanings to vocabulary, and understanding how to live well, and more specifically effectively, in a city state.

Success, in this respect, was to be effective within the public forums, which meant that one needed to conform to the prevailing conventions as to what is and is not just. The sophists did not therefore believe in a criterion for justice and virtue as such, rather that to be just and virtuous was simply to be successful. This type of philosophy necessitates a certain level of social discrimination, since wisdom was held to be available only to those of noble and wealthy stead. It was this fact that led to the condemnations of the sophists made by Socrates.

The search for truth was abandoned in favor of acquiring skill in rhetoric or the ability to persuade – in other words, BS.

Sophism has the upper hand today as can easily be seen by current values

http://www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/lawhead ... phists.htm
Modern Sophists

One of the realities of Athenian life that Socrates lamented the most was the prominence of the sophists. These sophists prided themselves on being able to “make the weaker argument the stronger.” Relying on persuasion and rhetoric, sophists would argue in support of which ever side of a case they believed would serve their best interests, or whichever side they were being paid to argue for. Socrates decried the sophists because they did not recognize a difference between truth and opinion, believing that everything was relative. Some contemporary social critics compare modern day advertisers, lawyers, and politicians to Greek sophists. Many of these people, the argument goes, are concerned only with convincing you to believe them, not with the truth. The following Web links will help you explore this theme........................

For the Sophists the ends justify the means. For Socrates without knowledge of the means the ends will become their opposite.

This is what we see today. Secular society seeks to destroy the natural attraction of human being to the “good” or the source of values and replace it with man made dictates established by transient dualistic relativism. For Socrates, values are remembered as soul knowledge. A person feels value when objective conscience is awakened. For the modern day sophists values are determined by pragmatic concerns. For seekers of truth, objective values are universal and exist within man’s being and the question becomes how to awaken to them so as to become human.

The dualistic mind is only concerned with facts which led to pragmatic conceptions of value. The triune mind is open to the idea that values originate with the highest level of reality: “good” and devolve over time to produce relativism.

Is there a way for a seeker of truth to reconcile legitimate pragmatic earthly needs easily witnessed with the dualistic mind with the source of universal values a person can awaken to with the help of the triune mind essential for Man to become himself?

Where the sophists ask who is to say, Socrates would ask how we can know.