Action and the Soul

Miscellaneous General
21

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
The fact that our environment has changed so dramatically is responsible for the fact that most of us now have to ponderously think about what to do and how to live, unlike our ancestors 8kya. No self-reflection was required for them. And self-reflection is onerous, as well. It is an onerous means to satisfy a want - the want to seamlessly and effortlessly integrate with our environment.
[/quote]

I am struck by the irony of this statement. Man was effortlessly integrated in his enviroment, then he got to thinking, alienating him from the world. Now he thinks in order to re-establish that severed link! I suppose that assumes the non-cognitive, or instinctual man had already grasped the Truth, which I am doubtful of (although I suspect the instinctual beings are closer than many of the cognitive ones due to our proclivity toward endless categorization).

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
Epicurus noted that natural wants are finite - your body will make you feel hungry, thirsty, inquisitive, sociable, etc. but that’s it. It is the wants which you create yourself - artificial wants - which are unlimited. Natural fears and natural guilt do not require any honing or whetting… they are what they are and they are finite, limited. But the fear and guilt that arises from artificial sources from self-infliction of myths such as Hell or Onan (don’t masturbate!) is unlimited and gratuitous. For the same reasons that you should whittle your wants down to those you can reasonably expect to satisfy, so you should whittle down your guilt and fear to those which are natural and useful to you within the social environment in which you live.
[/quote]

Yes! The intrinsic human nature does provide for non-cognitive reactions to stimuli. But I also think that this reductionist perspective on what constitutes our non-cognitive “nature”, is a bit too vulgar,

[quoteuser=“Yoda”]
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.
[/quote]

Using your example, it can be inferred that even our ancestors had distinguished between themselves and the tiger, they knew the tiger was a threat to their survival (and subsequent procreation), and they knew this outcome was undesireable. Hell, even paramecium know to flee an amoeba. I would argue that these creatures have not realized their True nature, but do not care to either (as the first quoted passage explained), as it is a superfluous exercise to their immediate concerns (primarily survival and procreation).

As Genesis explains, man is in a unique position. Sort of a demi-god between the instinctual and the divine. So, we really can’t regress back to the mindset of a purely instinctual being. Biology has already determined we will be a thinking species. We are left to “think our way out” of suffering, and achieve the second aspect of divinity, the fruit of the tree of life. This is the ultimate goal of any philosophy, understanding to the point of divinity. It is our consciousness breaking the illusory fetters of the physical world,

[quoteuser=“Jesus”]
I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
[/quote]

It is ignorance which creates fear and doubt. It is impossible to completely dispel these if one still clings to the false distinctions even the instinctual being makes in life.

22

I have been following the discussion, I do not have much to add, but I did want to address this particular point. The time when man got to thinking “wrong” instead of thinking correctly is called the fall.

when all we knew was good, we did not have to use rational discourse and empirical verification to discern truth from falsehood.

23

I agree for the most part, but I think that the course we now persue would bring us to a state of Divinity, which differs from a return to a non-cognitive state.

In other words, ignorance was bliss, but I consider complete understanding to be “more blissful”.

As I stated, there is no turning back. We are conscious beings. As Clayton mentioned, the quest of philosophy is to maintain understanding while reintegrating with our True nature. To “get back to the garden”, so to speak. I would go a step further, and claim the goal is to, “get to heaven”, completeing our quest for divinity, our union with God. Our abilities have granted us the knowledge of “good and evil”, now we must also gain the knowledge of “Life” i.e., divinity.

Simply realizing our nature as an animal is not the ultimate end. The mundane is not all that we are capable of.

Some mystic Christian sects believe that the YAWH featured in the Old Testament was a jealous authoritarian overlord, the Demiurge, creating the material in order to rule over it, and clouding our realization of a higher union with the Godhead.

24

thats why all of this is happening.

well put.

25

I didn’t use the word “alienating”. Humans (and many other species) are maladapted to the modern environment. This is not a result of changes within us, it is a result of the rapid changes in our environment (changes brought on by humans). Because humans are social beings, we are the species most affected by our own changes to the environment. Long before the Industrial Revolution our impact on the environment was already profound. We had created essentially new species of animals (domesticated species) and we had altered the survival pressures on many other species which we hunted.

Today, the modern human lives a daily life radically different from the daily life of his ancestors even just 200 years ago. Unless you are unusual, you are in a controlled climate 90+% of the time. You sit, stroll or engage in the most minor exertion during the day, certainly not enough to give your body proper exercise. You eat a diet that is radically different from what your ancestors ate. And on and on.

These changes mean that you have to actively “compensate” - if you have a sit-down job, you must go to the gym or find other ways to get exercise. If you work and live indoors 90+% of the time, you must go outside and strip down to get sufficient doses of sunshine, etc. The very fact that you are engaging in compensatory behavior is a sign of your maladaptedness to the modern environment. These kinds of compensatory behaviors are more obvious because they are physiological but the psychological compensation which you must do in order to adapt to your environment is no less real.

You were not born with a brain that expected to live in a climate-controlled, predator-free, processed-food environment. You were born with a brain that expected to hunt, be hunted, to work with and know a very small group of individuals from birth to death, and so on. The modern environment violates these expectations in many ways and this is why you have “think” through even the most basic things.

I don’t know what “the Truth” is and I don’t see any profit to expending energy worrying about it.

Clayton -

26

Could you expand on this? What most “basic” actions need to be thought through? Is it really a necessity to “think” through them or is just stemming form a habit of thinking?

There’s quite a concepts of what the truth is- although a common phrase is that all paths lead to “God” or the “Truth”. The reason its can be so difficult to explain- as people like Sri Nisargadatta maharaj would put it- is because the “truth” about one’s own nature is not something conceptual or something that can be reached by expending energy to worry about it. Worrying or “thinking” about the truth is itself the obstacle to reaching it. The truth is to be reached by becoming detached from thoughts. Not a state where thinking doesn’t happen- that’s impossible and goes on by itself- but a state where there’s no identification with them.

27

When I say “alienated”, I mean in the sense of the “I” vs. the “not I”. The ego immediately alienates us from our surroundings.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
I don’t know what “the Truth” is and I don’t see any profit to expending energy worrying about it.
[/quote]

And so, you shall suffer.

28

I’m not that familiar with Freudian theory so you’re going to have to define your terms a bit more… but assuming this is the case, why is it a bad thing?

OK, let me state it a little more strongly. There are true propositions. There are false propositions. But there is no such thing as the Truth (capital-T). I challenge you to prove me wrong. In fact, I won’t even hold you to that high of a standard… just give me a good sketch outline of the reason I’m wrong (at least, that’s what I think you’re trying to say).

Clayton -

29

Um, what to eat, what to do when you wake up and begin your day, etc. Pretty much nothing you do in a day is what your brain is wired to do without reflection.

It seems we may be using conflicting definitions of the word “true”. When I use the word “true” I mean it synonymously with propositional truth, which is its most common meaning. I think Wittgenstein said, Truth is the case in fact. Discussion of propositional truth presupposes active use of one’s cognitive capacity. Hence, it’s absurd to speak of truth absent cognition unless you have in mind a different sort of truth. Can you clarify?

Clayton -

30

Perhaps he means Platonic Truth, which exists because all true things have to participate in something which is of greater truth or else, one thing is of greater truth (intelligibility or abstractness) by virtue of something less true which is absurd. Also, if there was no Truth, then there would be no eternal truth -a truth that subsists regardless of the subject that apprehends it -that is no tautologies.

31

By ego, I mean the “self”, or the “I”. I’m not saying the alienation of the self from the other is a bad thing, but you seem to be treating it as one. If the eliminaion of suffering is the end goal, than I would argue that this distinction is the root cause of that suffering.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
There are true propositions. There are false propositions. But there is no such thing as the Truth (capital-T).
[/quote]

I consider this statement to literally be nonsense, unless you are considering truth to be relative to the individual, which would make the concept of truth itself moot.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
I challenge you to prove me wrong. In fact, I won’t even hold you to that high of a standard… just give me a good sketch outline of the reason I’m wrong (at least, that’s what I think you’re trying to say).
[/quote]

If there is no Truth, how can I ever hope to “prove” anything? Does it simply reduce to the ability of my sales pitch (proof) to sway you?

32

I’m a strong believer in separation of ontology and epistemology. The statement, “there is such a thing as THE TRUTH (angels sing in heaven as it is spoken)” is not an epistemological claim, it is an ontological claim. If you simply mean “there are true statements”, then I agree. Truth is nothing except believability and is, indeed, relative to the individual because only the individual can perform the act of believing something to be true.

What I believe you are denoting by the name “the Truth” can also be termed the Absolute or, as mentioned by another poster, Platonic Truth. Direct treatment of the Absolute can only result in absurdities. Man’s capacity for knowledge is limited; this is one of the few things we do know for sure. The Absolute is unlimited in every possible sense and, thus, we can only get it wrong when making claims about the Absolute beyond the limits of our knowledge. One of the things about the Absolute that lies beyond our knowledge is whether or how far the Absolute extends beyond our knowledge. Hence, any claim that the Absolute does exist is conceited, arbitrary and leads to absurdity.

Truth - as man can know it - is neither relative to the individual (as in, you can make up any truth you like) nor is it absolute, it’s somewhere in between. Whatever true things we can discover, we can have confidence to be true. But we can only speculate about that which lies beyond our capacity to discover - even in principle. Speculation is not reason, it is speculation (arbitrary guessing).

I’m not trying to be clever - I’m simply unsure what you mean when you speak of The Truth. Some people use it as a synonym for (their particular conception of) God. Some people use it as a synonym for the Universe itself. I simply do not know what sense you are using it in.

All of these conceptions of Truth fail on the same point: formal logic has shown us the boundaries of human knowledge. There is an infinite amount of truth (true propositions) which man simply cannot know, even in principle. Our knowledge of formal truth is an infinitesimal drop in an infinite ocean - and I’m not speaking poetically, I mean this rigorously (read almost anything by mathematician Gregory Chaitin or ask me and I’ll explain). Of the infinite number of possible true axioms from which there are to choose, our choices are as arbitrary as any.

As if this were not bad enough, we can directly translate the limites of our knowledge into physical reality by simply constructing a computer whose operation is to compute these unknowable truths. So constructed, it is provably the case that we cannot - even in principle - predict the operation of such a device. In other words, we will have constructed a physical object whose long-run state cannot be predicted, even in principle, which renders false any claim to a physical Theory of Everything.

There is no Theory of Everything. There is no Absolute. There is no “final secret of knowledge” which, once known, contains all other knowledge within it. There is just our infinitesimal island of knowledge in an ocean of truth stretching off into the infinite horizons far beyond our capacity to see.

Clayton -

33

So, what is the greater truth in which Platonic Truth participates? Surely, it must participate in a greater truth, else, Platonic Truth itself would not be true, which seems problematic.

Clayton -

34

IMO, I shouldn’t have said “all truth participates” w/o an explanation. The argument implicitly rests on the understanding that that which is mutable is less real and implies something that is more real and immutable to move it. Now all the “earthly” truths are mutable so they need to be moved by, something that is immutable. And this is what is called participation.

From this the further objection “what does Truth participate in?” is circumvented by remembering that Truth is immutable and infinite by nature while truth participates in it.

Personally, I don’t think that we can know all Truth either. At least, not until the eschaton.

35

Gah! Tautologies are just artifacts of how definitions and sentence structure work. Logical truth in general is merely what follows from the premises, which itself is again solely determined by definitions and sentence structure. These thing have nothing to do with happiness or human action, other than the action of stringing sentences together. Now outside of logic, truth is an opinion and proof just means you convinced someone. Nothing too interesting going on there either. Finally, one more meaning of “true” is “reliably guides my actions toward pleasure and away from pain,” but that is better called utility, not truth. In any case, there’s nothing mystical-magical going on (Buddhist, Godelian, or otherwise). Unless you’re a schoolmarm, none of this relates to the OP.

36

Clayton - you have read the Parmenides no doubt?

37

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
The statement, “there is such a thing as THE TRUTH (angels sing in heaven as it is spoken)” is not an epistemological claim, it is an ontological claim. If you simply mean “there are true statements”, then I agree. Truth is nothing except believability and is, indeed, relative to the individual because only the individual can perform the act of believing something to be true.
[/quote]

So essentially you are claiming that there is no absolute Truth, just more or less convincing arguments? How depressing, considering our noise machine can never match that of the State.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
What I believe you are denoting by the name “the Truth” can also be termed the Absolute or, as mentioned by another poster, Platonic Truth. Direct treatment of the Absolute can only result in absurdities.
[/quote]

Absurd by what standard? Perhaps these “absurdities” result from our cognitive limitations and ignorance, rather than faulty concepts. That’s like if I wore a welding mask and claimed the world around me was “too dark to see anything”.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
Man’s capacity for knowledge is limited; this is one of the few things we do know for sure.
[/quote]

Man’s knowledge, fine. What of God’s knowledge? As I said in the previous post, my aim is to claim my divinity, not to remain a “man”. See Enlightenment.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
any claim that the Absolute does exist is conceited, arbitrary and leads to absurdity.
[/quote]

Mmm, I would temper this statement a bit. I’d say it’s more like,

“any claim of understanding, knowledge, or comprehension of the Absolute is conceited, arbitrary and leads to absurdity.”

Simply stating,

“I believe there is Truth.”

I simply a statement of faith and preference, no better or worse than stating,

“I believe Truth does not exist, or if it does, we can never know it.”

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
Truth - as man can know it - is neither relative to the individual (as in, you can make up any truth you like) nor is it absolute, it’s somewhere in between. Whatever true things we can discover, we can have confidence to be true. But we can only speculate about that which lies beyond our capacity to discover - even in principle. Speculation is not reason, it is speculation (arbitrary guessing).
[/quote]

So, truth to you is neither “true” nor “false”? Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. What is the foundation of this “confidence of discovery”? Is this not arbitrary guessing about the validity of your perception? I agree that speculation is not reason, but I would argue that you are begging the question by implying that reason is a superior method of validation than random guessing, which I would consider just as baseless a speculation than anything I’ve been throwing out there.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
I’m not trying to be clever - I’m simply unsure what you mean when you speak of The Truth. Some people use it as a synonym for (their particular conception of) God. Some people use it as a synonym for the Universe itself. I simply do not know what sense you are using it in.
[/quote]

I believe you, Clay. You are probably one of the most respected posters here, and I have never known you to be douchey or combative when posting. I hope I am coming across the same way, because I am thouroughly enjoying this discussion, and think it has the potential to be a real learing moment (for me).

It is tough for me to acurately define “Truth” as I am treating it, since I consider it (as do you) as beyond our reckoning. It is all, yet nothing, it is God, the Universe, anything and everything, yet nothingness, and void. A dualistic, materialist mind immediately sees this as a contradiction, an absurdity. This is why I stress the limits of this mindset, rather than the apparent self-refutation of non-dualism.

This concept is core to any sort of mysticism, regardless of the age, location, or the overlying belief system. Gnosticism, Medieval Mystic Christianity, Sufism, Kabbalah, Hemetic Alchemy, Neo-Platonism, Dionysian Mysteries, Buddhism, Taoism, the myriad mystic Hindu sects, the list goes on and on.

[quoteuser=“Clayton”]
There is no Theory of Everything. There is no Absolute. There is no “final secret of knowledge” which, once known, contains all other knowledge within it. There is just our infinitesimal island of knowledge in an ocean of truth stretching off into the infinite horizons far beyond our capacity to see.
[/quote]

Or so you think… Since this is all arbitrary, isn’t it equally as likely that the IS an ultimate truth, and that man has the ability to realize it?

38

To relate all of this to the OP, treating “truth” as relative and Truth as unknowable, inevitably leads to the conclusion that,

“The end of suffering is unachievable in life.”

This is the Existential Crisis in a nutshell. As we strive towards satisfaction, the “truth” we are aiming for is constantly chaning, thus we are left to find Truth in what is considered to be a Truthless existence. It is the fate of Sisyphus, attempting to accomplish what is an absurd, unachievable goal.

Both Camus’ and the Epicurean conclusion seems to be,

“Learn to enjoy suffering.”

Which to me is rather cold comfort. I believe there is something more.

39

What could be more certain than this? If you don’t drink water, you will die within a few days. Want is the formalization of suffering (pain)… your want of water is biologically guaranteed to recur until the day you die. Ataraxia - the state of complete contentment where all action ceases - is unattainable, it is just a point on the compass which you are either moving towards or away from but to which you can never really arrive.

I’ll address the other post after awhile.

Clayton -

40

@Aristippus: No, I have not. Let me be up-front that most of my philosophical knowledge is not built on original sources since I’m too impatient to read old philosophy that has been well-refuted even if it has other important building-blocks in it that still stand today. Do you recommend it?

Clayton -