iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote: I note you are dismissing most of the ideas I have proposed as intellectual contraptions. Such dismissals are actually lost opportunities. I suggest you be more open minded to dig more deeper on those concepts or at least suspend them temporarily.
I'm not argung that they
are intellectual constraptions, only that from my frame of mind that is how they are construed by
me.
And, based on my experience with those who do tend toward intellectual contraptions in discussions like this, when I am pressed to dig deeper into them, it generally means that only when I have come to share their own point of view have I finally succeeded in digging deep enough.
Whereas, from my own point of view, arguments that revolve around either the is/ought world, or fundamental inquiries into an understanding of Existence/Reality itself, are beyond the reach of mere mortals. At least insofar as that crucial gap between what we think we know about them and all that would need to be known about them still exist.
But even here I am only arguing that you have not convinced me that, with respect to the impossibility of an extant God, you have closed the gap.
Sure, maybe you have. And, sure, maybe others here believe that you have. Or, sure, maybe others insist that you have not because your own ontological/teleological TOE is not sync with their own ontological/teleological TOE.
And, with respect to things like God and Existence, there have been hundreds of intellectual fabrications embraced thoughout the course of human history.
And what of all the other possible intellectual contraptions [relating to God] being batted about throughout the entire multiverse?
Do you really imagine that yours actually does
resolve the God/No God debate?!
Personally I am VERY confident my thesis will resolve the God/No God debate based on real evidences, i.e.
1. As I had stated the original impulse towards God [and it negative baggage] is the inherent existential crisis deep in the psyche of humans.
2. There are already Eastern philosophies and spiritualities resolving this same existential crisis without resorting the a God, i.e. non-theistic approaches with great potentials toward the future.
3. There are tons of research demonstrating the 'idea of God' also emerged out of from within the human minds, e.g. brain damage, mental illness, stress, drugs, hallucinogens, out of the blue, etc. These throw doubts that God pre-existed as an independent supernatural Being.
4. Humanity has progress significantly without reliance on a God, e,g, on morality re the elimination of slavery by all Nations on a legal basis to compel reduction in the practical.
5. The average humans has only used a small % of the the full potential of his mind individually and as a group or one as humanity.
6. Others, etc. etc.
You may deem such views as 'contraption' but my basis is based on rational arguments as supported by the above evidences and potentials.
You believe this, yes. But how have you actually demonstrated that with respect to the existence of God that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe the same? Each individual will react to this from a point of view embedded in a particular turbulence embedded in a particular world embedded in a particular self that, relating to questions of this sort, is embodied in dasein.
As mentioned above, the average human is only using a small % of his/her mental potential, say 10% [very crudely], imagine the power of reasoning if the average is raised to say 30%, 50% or >.
You will notice there is a trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology that is pulling the average person into greater tendency for rationality.
At present there are smart drugs that can heighten one's cognitive power and intelligence while that drug is active. I am confident humanity will be able to expedite the average person's intelligence and rational thinking without side-effects in the future.
I believe the more the average person exercise his mental capacities in critical thinking, they will arrive to agree with what I am proposing at the present.
What is most critical is in the future there must be approaches [fool proof] that will enable to target general intelligence and wisdom with real changes in the neurons within the brain.
Thus when you note that...
Prismatic567 wrote: What I am proposing is a general view to a self and the above works only when the conditions are met which is not likely at present but rather in the future [>75, >100 >200 years]. Note I am only discussing the problem in general and not offering anyone an immediate solution.
...my reaction is always the same: how on earth can something like this "here and now" be either verified or falsified? Thus, from my frame of mind, it is an especially vague "general description" of human interactions.
The confidence comes from the progressive trend that is going at present since the last 50 years. Note we have already mapped the complete human genome which was once thought to be impossible.
We are now embarking to map the full terrains of the human brain and its various neural patterns in relation to specific behaviors and capabilities.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The Human Connectome Project aims to provide an unparalleled compilation of neural data, an interface to graphically navigate this data and the opportunity to achieve never before realized conclusions about the living human brain.
To be optimistic I always made an attempt to keep up with the latest technological advances in such areas.
The point is, the no-God approach is already been in practice since thousands of years ago with relevant results for some minority. So it is question of relying to the various technological advances in the future to translate this proven practices to the masses [for a critical mass] and wean off theistic practices and their inherent negative baggage.
Prismatic567 wrote: Unless it is possible for you or anyone in your position [in tatters] to instantly acquire those required competence, the general proposals I made will not resolve your problem effectively. It takes time for one to rewire one's brain to change one's beliefs for the better.
For the better?
And that's the crux of it. You are convinced that in a No God world, mere mortals are in fact able to "progress" morally: >75, >100 >200 years from now.
And that may well be true. But "here and now" what would such an argument actually sound like pertaining to a conflicted good like abortion? What constitutes "better" here? And how is your own narrative
not embedded in something like this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
This is the manner in which I encompass my own value judgments here: Clearly embedded
in an "existential contraption" embedded further in a No God world. And then to the objectivists --- God or No God -- I ask: how are your own values not embedded in the same? How, philosophically, can an ethics be devised that transcends this?
Well, with God it seems obvious. But No God? How does it work then?
As for this...
The point is humanity will never achieve the ideals because of randomness and chaos.
What is critical for the average person and humanity to ensure a standard impulse of continuous improvement and its related skills is embedded within one's psyche.
For example, in the case of the question abortion;
At present the question of abortion between parties will always be raised mainly [amidst other reasons] because the Sexual Impulse Control of the average person is VERY weak.
Thus the corrective action to be taken is to improve one's Impulse Control in general and its relation to other impulses, in this case, sexual.
At present there are tons of research going on in relation to 'Impulse Control' e.g.
With the potential of knowledge and technology I mentioned earlier, humanity will be able to improve greatly on the individual's impulse control in the case of sexual, hunger, and other additions.
In this case, we don't need a God to dictate commands on issue to abortion.
The question of abortion will still be raised, but it will be reduced drastically if what I proposed in implemented in the future. Where abortion happened, what we need is to be persistent at the problem till the issues are negligible and abortions are only done in extreme cases.
Whatever problem that arise at present, the individual must always keep a distance from the problem, i.e. be indifference emotionally to the problem but nevertheless engage in it to contribute to its resolution where possible. The technique is to raise one's awareness above the turbulence, like letting oneself [mental self] float above the physical and mental turbulence.
As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.
We are creatures of time and circumstances but all human has the inherent potential to improve on their existing state in the best way possible. I believe you have already ride along this flow of progress when you are able to disentangle yourself from that rigid Abrahamic God which is illusory anyway. Naturally there is a cost to it but is still possible to gain equanimity, i.e.
Where one do not have the real mental capacity to act spontaneously on the above maxims of detachment and being indifference to the mental bonds of problems, one can actually force oneself to do it by rational thinking and self-psychoanalysis.
Prismatic567 wrote: It is the turbulence [inherited from our ancestors from millions of years ago] within our brain that enable the 'zombie parasite' to emerge. This is a very powerful force that is embedded deep in the brain and psyche which cannot be rid of but can only be inhibited by the specific rational neurons.
There is a percentile of humans who has sufficient rational neurons to suppress the theistic impulse via inhibition of the relevant neurons. There are other reasons why some are non-theists. But ..
Note the once very notable world famous atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to God [deistic] during the later part of his life when the neurons supporting his rational faculties in this respect failed him.
...how on earth is it applicable to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
I have explained above.
One need to develop the mental capacity [which take time] to detach in one way while still allowing oneself to interact in the issue/ Bruce Lee's "Fighting Without 'Fighting.'"
If one do not have the natural propensity and ability, then one can psycho-analyze and forced oneself to perform what is justifiable rational.
If one has conflicting thoughts re goods and political economy, etc. one must ensure one is not emotionally blindly attached and let the thought ruminate to no end thus bringing emotional suffering. Thus one must in this case 'Think Without Thinking," i.e. think rationally and not blindly.
Prismatic567 wrote: I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.
From my frame of mind, this frame of mind speaks volumes: it is objectivism on steroids. A "master blueprint" for "Perpetual Peace"?!
As I see it, it is
that you believe this that counts far more than whatever the blueprint actually is. After all, there have been countless such blueprints down through the ages.
So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.
Instead, what I come back to here is the manner in which you embrace a wholistic frame of mind that is really not all that far removed from the ones that you critique among the theists.
It's just that, in their head, when they die there is immortality, salvation and divine justice. But when you die there is none of that. All you've got is the comfort and the consolation of knowing that when the world finally does come around to embracing your master blueprint the world will finally experience Perpetual Peace.
Even if you -- as "I" -- are only on the long grind back to beoming star stuff.[/quote]Note the points I had presented above.[/quote]
My master blueprint will be a draft blue print based on critical and rational thinking.
My master blue print is just a proposal based on current knowledge, but I am optimistic the average humanity will progress along the current trend toward a dynamic blue print that will strive towards Perpectual Peace.
There was no master blue print, but note re morality, the abolishment of slavery by all National on legal grounds did actualize. So I am confident this apparent master blue print will progress along the lines I proposed and hopefully the principles involved will be abstracted on paper so that progress can be expedited.
Why did I get this idea?
Wiki wrote:The term perpetual peace became acknowledged when German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch"
So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.
I view what I am proposing as being
a voluntary act as a responsible citizen of humanity.
Whilst I am not a Buddhist per se, I adopt one of the Boddhisattva's vow, i.e. be compassionate to all sentient beings and contribute whatever is positive.
I don't believe such impulses are driven by psychological angst or defense mechanism which are driven from the basement of the brain and mind from billions of years inherited from our 'reptilian' ancestors.
Compassion and empathy to humanity is based on 'mirror neurons' which is a very late development of evolution and are located within the higher and later parts of the brain, mostly in the higher primates and human beings.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.