Concepts of intuition (Kant)

[Ichthus77]

Also, Charles said he was born and he never dies nine times.

[Ecmandu]

Define “ascend”.

So you’re not down with where he said the truth will set you free? You’re not down with where he said we’ll live even if we die & stuff? What is your issue with that stuff? And if you’re so obsessed with us not dying, why do you keep referring to his crucifixion? And anything worth living for is also worth dying for. That’s basically what it means to consider it worth giving your life for it or to it. That’s why it’s so hard to take you seriously. It just feels like you must be joking (upper class Greek philosopher bit included). So — whether or not you’re just joking — I lost nothing.

Ok. At this point, you’re literally not comprehending or responding to what I write.

We were never born, we never die. It’s how we plan our forever that matters.

Jesus may have stated “the truth will set you free”, but!!!

Jesus never said the truth. Maybe he made a loophole for himself... who knows?

The issue I take with the narrative of any religion is that they didn’t speak the truth, and we’re suffering to this day because of that.

Ascendency is reaching a pure immortal plane where there is no suffering while still following our individual hearts.

[Ichthus77]

Ec, if you desire to follow your individual heart, even if it is in line with God’s, you are signing your own suffering certificate. But if you desire in line with God’s heart (the kingdom), you are also signing your own eternal life (starts now) certificate. You get inner peace despite suffering. That’s why Jesus was able to endure the cross - the Joy of reconciliation.

Not a deal that can be forced-especially not without increasing suffering. Guess you could say hell is forcing the deal on those who don’t want it. They dissociate the distance even while communicating obliviously. That’s why the rich dude is still trying to slave Lazarus. And why declaring oneself mentally retarded is no loophole. The declaration (“I see”) leaves you oblivious.

[Ecmandu]

Ichthus.

You’re not replying to what I’m writing.

I’m literally using logical proofs, definitional and visceral.

My posts are VERY simple to comprehend.

That’s why you ignore them.

[Ichthus77]

Charles said he heard you say something entirely different right before you posted that.

[Ichthus77]

Ecmandu, let’s do this here cuz relevant & this is my thread:

Perfection/wholeness/greatness … we don’t even come close. What makes you think we could even attempt at an accurate definition of it “for ourselves” in order to say none of us are it until we are all it? We’ll never reach it, except we are made in the image of the Best Idea. So…we can accept the Signal rather than block it. Listen…

Regarding repeat resurrections & memory wipes: If we keep having to be WOWed out of the mud/vomit we keep returning to (like a pig/dog) (salted with fire) (gross)… eventually we’re gonna be toast (super burnt—not the way you like it). Kinda stole that from my ethics prof.

***

One more go round responding to your narrative:

All solutions to the “three structural problems of existence” are variations of treat the other/them as self/us and vice versa (equality/cooperation principle)… correspondence principle…

1.) The goal of life is to give everyone forever, everything they want at the expense of not one single being in existence.

We are all patterned off the same basic original consent structure (God’s image). So everyone wants, at bottom, truth, goodness, and beauty, all of which are completely free (even of inclination or compulsion). And everyone who seeks, finds. Boom. Solved. No micromanaging required. Since Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice with the joy set before him (in his mind, but for real), which made it all worth it, the plan is for us to do likewise. If we seek the kingdom first, it puts all our other wants in order.

The nonhuman animals (and as far as most know, the AI) don’t have that same hunger—and if they do, they should be treated as a person. If they, or even a human, don’t appear to understand the difference between good and evil, they should be protected (from themselves and others) like a wild animal.

2.) There are three structural problems with existence:

a) consent violation: the assumption only equals can consent, and any differences constitute power imbalance and thus violation of consent, meaning, “I don’t want this” - maybe we should solve that problem for all beings!!

Everybody wants the first stuff. Boom. Solved. You have the concept of “no turns into a yes” — so you know “yes” is consent — so you know not all “yes” involves bullying (consent violation). The greater/rich should redefine great/rich and be servant leaders/sharers. Size is irrelevant to consent… a large nation should respect the no … or the yes … of a small nation, and vice versa. Thoughts on arranged marriage possibly relevant: https://www.facebook.com/10000369670299 ... 22579/?d=n

Jesus is God demonstrating his eternal perfection/mercy covers our crap attempts at/away from perfection … so we would stop TRYing (& running out of steam… Kierkegaard’s ethical sphere, or religiousness A) and start living in & out from the the fullness of his JOY/love (infinite well - into which we take Kierkegaard’s leap of faith…like a canon ball).

For some, it’s like you’re Indiana Jones and … you have all these clues confirming the reality of a way over the abyss… but you have to step out in order to learn the path is really there.

b) the negative zero sum problem: the assumption that everyone should win, or for every winner there is more than one loser.

Not if everyone is seeking after that first stuff. All who seek, win. Boom. Solved. Work this out in conversation that tweaks terms until double standards are removed. Be happy when others win more, as long as everyone’s needs (including Maslow’s or comparable hierarchy) are met.

c) the pleasurable exclusive access problem: the assumption that all resources should be shared (everyone should win) equally. Also meaning, while you’re having a decent time, you’re invariably stomping, shattering and crushing another’s heart.

Not if their heart is busy seeking after that first stuff. Boom. Solved. Everyone who does their part should have their basic needs met. They should be free to choose what part that is within their abilities. No one should be able to take anything from them that would result in their basic needs (all on Maslow’s or comparable hierarchy) not being met. Be happy their needs are being met. Just bring your loaves & fishes & see what God does with them. Store ‘em up in heaven, though…this world is a sandcastle for the tides.

How could God allow it to continue, when it’s looking more & more like hell than helleaven in many people’s lives?

Answer: He won’t. Be patient, as much as you want him to be patient with you/us—more, if you’re like Jonah. And check the plank in your own eye.

Only one being is capable of absolute perfection. The rest of us are just stuck with knowing we’re loved despite our imperfection. Do we not know? Have we not heard? We are held accountable according to how we respond to the light we’ve been given. The more light/forgiveness we’re given, the more we will show it and keep trying when we fail because the Perfect One made us to be loved & love no matter what.

Only the sort of king or Greatest Being described by the Golden Rule (self=other) (demonstrated in switching perspectives with us on the cross) would make us a royal priesthood — all kings/queens (yada).

We don’t need a new plan. We need to read the current one and … enforce it in our own lives.

i.e. properly rule/order our inclinations

What did you think he meant by the last will be first & the first will be last?

This becomes a soup sandwich if we try to do this apart from the Vine, the source of Being, Goodness, and Beauty.

If you jettison the Golden Rule (the God who is first but made himself last so we could be first) no plan will work to get us where you (he) want(s) us to go.

“The best people suffer forever. And the worst people are punished forever until they become the best people, and then they also suffer forever.” — Ec

It isn’t the best people who accept God’s forgiveness. It’s those who know they need it (psychopaths turned empathic, sure). And by your theory, that’s eventually everyone. I don’t rule it out. But we’ll all be salted with fire.

If no one chooses hell because everyone chooses what we want, then we’re all choosing heaven right now, so we’re already in heaven.

If you’re not great until everyone is great, but great is subjective, then everyone is already great/perfect and there is no room for improvement, and everyone is already in heaven. If we’re already in heaven, no one goes to hell. What do you do with that?

Psycopathy (too much mind/reason) & sociopathy (too much body/impulse) are on a spectrum & there is only one Golden Virtuoso (perfect blend of mind/body—the Godman), right?

Psychopaths & sociopaths (everyone, to varying degrees) have the same deepest hungers (goodness, beauty, truth), though stunted according to their genes/learning. Both extremes & all in between can choose to treat self/us as other/them based on those hungers.

Impulses like empathy can even get in the way - like a parent being overprotective, or a spouse being overjealous, or vengeance being overblown.

If genes or learning bumped us too close to an extreme, God gets that. And he can use it for Good. And it is still malleable. We are co-creators.

besides the OP, and replies to felix dakat’s undefined terms he then called tangents, this is where it stands

[Ichthus77]

Thank you, Dr. Snyder, for pointing out the difference between an emotional body experience and a cognitive feeling/interpretation. I think that feeling is what Kant must be referring to as a good will free of inclination.

[Ichthus77]

DO NOT ANSWER IF YOU HAVE NOT READ KANT OR STUDIED BRAIN PROCESSES

Kant talks about concepts of understanding, and that ideas are concepts of reason (Critique of Pure Reason). He seems to imply concepts of judgment (intuition) yet also speaks like judgment tries to refer an intuition to understanding to see if it has a concept there (Critique of Judgment). Why can’t judgment just recall prior (or innate) intuitions by which to compare new ones? Or why not all three (judgment, reason, understanding) recall prior (or innate) intuitions, ideas, and concepts (respectively) by which to compare new ones?

(For those with an ear for it: Things old: innate. Things new: prior (learned)… and new ones.)

Excerpt from midterm:

“Kant wants to use rules of understanding to make nature answer reason’s questions. The task of Kant’s transcendental aesthetic in CPR is to isolate empirical intuition of sensibility (a priori presentation) from “everything the understanding through its concepts thinks [in connection] with it” (ibid, A22) (a posteriori appearance). This involves separating out everything belonging to sensation in order to arrive at principles of a priori sensibility (ibid, B36). In other words, he wants to emphasize or describe our a priori filter through which sensations become the content for concepts of understanding - sensations being the matter of appearance, filter being the form (or presentation) of all matter of appearance. This is pure intuition.”

It feels like if judgment refers something to understanding and finds it isn’t there, and it is also something that satisfies the desire of reason, then (if the only two choices are eternal ideas and temporal concepts) intuition that doesn’t intuit concepts intuits ideas. I think this could be an argument from desire & beauty. It is not construed as such.

[Urwrongx1000]

Judgment is a decision-making, choice-making cognitive process.

Pure intuition is the manner in which sense-data is cognized into psychosomatic patterns.

The senses perceive existence and disseminates that (neural) information into re-cognizable 'Forms'.

[Ichthus77]

lol no

[Urwrongx1000]

lol yes

[Ichthus77]

nuh uhh

[Urwrongx1000]

mmm hm

[Ichthus77]

I’m just gonna have to stop you right there. Because that’s where you’re wrong.

[Urwrongx1000]

Nice try

[Meno_]

Getting ironic,

[Ichthus77]

bien au contraire

[Ichthus77]

Adorno, Minima Moralia, 79
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... m/ch02.htm

[Meno_]

Don't go ill offer other cheek.

[Meno_]

Adorno, Minima Moralia, 79
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... m/ch02.htm

If ud realize what killer time is then u'd understand.

[Meno_]

So between the will, which is intuitive and the oft occurant representations, the formal 'rules'=categories are compelled to make all kinds of probable weights between what could have been sensed before each epoch and after.

How? Look at the main drift and then use Brentano's logic to guess what was intended consciously and what lay in the depth of a river of gold.


Separating freedom from what has been determined.


I hope the cat doesent look so ironically deceptive

[Ichthus77]

Frustrating not to be able to ask clarifying questions in real time.

[Meno_]

Frustration feeds unreasonable expectation and hype, where judgments become tediously uncertain and directly proportional ,the farther in time as one is trying to ascertain the source.(of frustration)

Frustrating indeed. For some in that position, the doubtfullness of the situation can transcend a reasonable assessment, and is replaced by strong senses of intuition.

Staying within an assessment of approximated reasonable man's closeness to a 'standard deviation, may offer a sensible intuition.

[Meno_]

Frustration feeds unreasonable expectation and hype, where judgments become tediously uncertain and directly proportional ,the farther in time as one is trying to ascertain the source.(of frustration)

Frustrating indeed. For some in that position, the doubtfullness of the situation can transcend a reasonable assessment, and is replaced by strong senses of intuition.

Staying within an assessment of approximated reasonable man's closeness to a 'standard deviation, may offer a sensible intuition.

This is where Jesus was said to be able to raise the bar in an inordinate manner between alpha and omega, and the real psychic can actually channel the loooon stretched metta-signs., and dampen frustration .


Just saying.

[Ichthus77]

How’d I do?
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 7#p2870897