This conversation is a carry over from the last
posts on 'Millennium Shift' and 'Challenge the
Philosophy' that predate this post. But since the
others had become so lengthy, I thought to bring
them together under a new topic that reflects
where they seemed to be going, a new philosophic
enlightenment. --Ivan

Dear Ivan,

I agree with your idea that the ideal way to
interact with others is through agreement rather
than through coercion. Politically, an anarchist
system would be ideal if all people were able to
resist the use of coercion either through brute
force, power of the majority, and so on. However,
as a reality, we have been unable to develop
social institutions that could eliminate the need
for government to protect the weak from the
strong. However, I disagree with your idea that we
need some form of consciousness outside human
consciousness that helps us "justify" our choices.

The question--"What justification do we have for
this freedom of choice?"--is misleading. It
assumes that "freedom of choice" in the broad
sense needs justification. Gravity needs no
justification. Gravity is a fact of nature.
Similarly, freedom of choice is a fact of human
nature. However, "freedom of choice", in the
narrow sense of political freedom, or individual
freedom, or choosing one movie over another movie,
does require "justification"--at least,
explanation in terms of reasons, and evaluation
in terms of looking at expected consequences in
the light of ethical values and goals. In
practical terms, every decision--even the most
trivial--could have ramifications that are totally
unknown and unpredictable, and so every decision
has risks that no amount of forethought,
rationalization, justification, and so forth can
avoid or eliminate. So, in the long run, human
decisions and choice can never be fully
justified: choice involves inescapable risk.

If choice involves inescapable risk or minimally,
every choice has unpredictable consequences, then
justification is impossible. If justification is
impossible, then there is no consciousness outside
human consciousness that can justify our
decisions.

Genuine choice and genuine freedom is like jumping
into a flowing river where the hidden rocks
beneath the surface cannot be seen from above.
Moreover, when we jump we must do so alone and
without a safety net. Life is risky. There is no
big MAMA or PAPA who can catch us if we fall and
smash ourselves to bits.

On the positive side, to conclude with a less
pessimistic tone: the very unpredictability of
our choices allows for the discovery of new
worlds, both within our souls and in nature. One
takes the risk of going to school and makes new
friends; one takes the risk of starting a new job,
and finds new skills and powers; one takes the
risk of walking down a different street and finds
new sights and sounds. Whatever "justification" we
have for our choices, only comes after we have
made the choice, and sometimes never to one
personally. For instance, Mozart, personally had
no justification for his decisions, his
choices--they resulted in a life of poverty and
early death. However, if he had taken a different
route in life we would not have received the
beauty that he created in his music. His choices
are "justified" only in the long run after many
generations; in the short run, if Mozart had
sought security as opposed to Beauty, he would
have produced trivial music that would have been
forgotten.

Thanks,

Ask the Philospher

-------------------------------
http://as
kthephilosopher.cjb.net
askthephilosof@yaho
o.com

Dear Philosopher,

You say: "Similarly, freedom of choice is a fact
of human nature." Indeed it is, but rather than
taking it a priori, as we do now, there is a way
to see it as a justifiable conclusion. This is
the body philosophic of Habeas Mentem, whereby we
have a right to be who we are because that is how
we are then able to occupy our space in time in
terms of who we are. But this is true only for a
conscious mind, since an unconscious mind neither
knows who it is, nor does it matter whether or
not it occupies its 'being' in terms of who it is.
So this is another step, one that jumps over
accepting freedom of choice as a starting point
and ends by justifying why this freedom is so
important to us. Thus, once understood, a
conscious mind would never let it be taken away.

You also write: "If choice involves inescapable
risk or minimally, every choice has unpredictable
consequences, then justification is impossible."
And I agree with this too. However, the
unpredictable consequences can be understood as
what manifests from a greater reality, and this is
how a self-interrelated universe responds to our
choices. So there is an explanation, if not
justification, for why the risks exist: it is
because reality has defined itself for the results
to be what they are. 'It' already 'knows', and we
are always but participants in this. Not a big
Consciousness that guards over our individual
selves, but rather one that is the construct of
itself; though the potential then exists for us to
tap into this Universal Consciousness once we are
positioned within the whoness of our being, our
identity as it is described by that Consciousness.
Communications then develop that we did not have
before (which at this point can only enter into
the realm of speculation as to what that
communications is, because we had never been
there). This is why it is so important, as
concluded by Habeas Mentem (which is still an
unknown philosophy, I may add), since then
'coercion' becomes not merely something we don't
personally desire, but something that is demanded
by this Consciousness, or interrelated Totality:
that we do not coerce one another, or else pay the
risk of becoming disconnected from our identity of
who we are. Once disconnected, as the philosophy
explains, we then lose contact with our greater
being, and the communications from the Universal
Consciousness is lost (though we never knew we had
it in the first place!). So the next human
evolution will be one of awareness of this.

What I am describing here is how the pieces fit
together in this universal model of a universe
that is spanned by the fabric of its own
interrelationship. What is so intriguing about
this idea is that it is able to jump from the
physical into the metaphysical, and then surpass
that too and jump into the meta-social, how we
then interact as human beings in a way that is
true to how the universe is constructed. I
realize this is quite a reach, but it is doable.
And if it succeeds, which at this point I do not
know that it will, since it involves our conscious
choice for this to be so, then we have the
prospects of a whole new way of seeing reality and
our existence in it. By reducing human
interaction to a process of agreements vs.
coercions, we then have the potential to see major
changes in how the world is now. But to cease
having the crimes, abuses, wars we see today would
require a conscious human choice to accept the
philosophical validity of a world built on the Law
of Agreements. I think we are partially there,
though we still do not know it, and more or less
got there by chance. With the Rule of Law and the
Enlightenment's focus on human rights, liberty,
equality, etc., we have more or less moved in that
direction. However, remove the randomness of what
we do to one another and replace it with the
choice to act only in ways that elevate a person's
right to be who they are, to occupy his or her own
space in time, that this is a right given by the
Universal Consciouness, you then position the
world to grow in a very positive direction. Then
what manifests is in relation to who they are, and
not in relation to some 'imprisoned' version which
manifests for them something less. So this is a
liberating philosophy, and what results is the
'why' we need freedom of choice.

I must say that it is rather more complicated than
this, and I hope other minds join in someday. But
if they do not, then if the idea is a good one, it
will eventually find the light of day. If not,
then it will simply die. I just hope that it does
not take another social catastrophe to propel us
beyond the current impasses of intolerance,
isolation, and adversarial human relations. I am
especially concerned over the Israeli-Moslem
conflicts since they are religious in nature and
given the irrational passions on both sides are
virtually unsolvable. But to change all this will
take not only a new philosophical enlightenment,
but truly a change of heart.

Take care, always a pleasure,

Ivan

This was written into "The Examined Life Journal
Forum" in response to the arguments shown below:

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
See: "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution", also
copied arguments at bottom
:
----------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 06:00 pm:
THE SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE PARADOX

Dear Humiliberty, and all,

I think it has been overlooked that there is an
inherent paradox in the Objective vs. Subjective
argument. Objective arguments apply to 'things'
only. In your quote, for example: "If the ideas
'work' in reality, then the factors that made the
results possible must be objective in nature,"
you identify this correctly. However, apply this
to a person, other than an inanimate object, to
living things, then the argument fails. When we
reason objectively that we have identified
something that 'works', then no matter how
detached we may be from this, we 'buy' into it,
and internalize it; thus making the objective idea
now a subjective. There is no way around this,
since we are seeing things only from the
perspective of ourselves. Even if everybody in
the whole world agrees with you, even if the
proof is unassailable, it is still internalized as
part of your belief system. The only way around
this, in my opinion, is to detach from it and let
reality describe itself, since we are in the end
only the observers. But that is a philosophical
other step into which I won't go into here.
Otherwise, to insist instead that our 'objective
truth' applies to all reality, then, is to put the
Subjective before the Objective by the very nature
of the argument. Why should an objective argument
have to prove itself, for example, if it exists
detached from you? So to present an argument to
another person, mind, human being, body of people,
etc., is to automatically step from the Objective
into the Subjective. And, especially this, when
we argue objectively to show the error of someone
else's personal belief, then we are truly
invalidating the Objective argument with our own
opinion, which is then once again Subjective.
This is especially sinister when it 'objectively'
applies to something like 'Love', because it may
be a person's 'sacred cow', and to argue against
that person is then to disrespect him or her. So
this is the paradox, that we cannot use Objective
arguments as they apply to Subjective beings. You
can use Subjective arguments, which are opinions,
which we are entitled to, but are not binding
unless accepted by the other. Now, if the other
person's 'Love' for example is binding on you
against your desire, then it is a trespass, and
the story changes completely. But an unrequited
argument when subjective in nature has no
objective recourse, or else it simply becomes a
trespass. Any such subjective trespass then is
simply an error. (Remember 'chaos theory', that
this error with time only gets worse; Communism
and Fascism come to mind.) So, each person has a
right to his or her belief, even if you think it
is wrong. Of course, this is my Subjective
opinion. But I dare say, that most everyone who
agrees with it will fight to protect their sacred
cows, either intellectually, verbally, or
otherwise. This is the nature of our human love
for liberty and why a freedom of choice is so
important.

Sincerely,

Ivan

PS: Anon-1,

Hang in there! I can feel your pain. But as a
human being, you have a fundamental right to be
who you are, even if no one else agrees with you.

PPS: The above argument belongs under the "Isms"
argument page, but I posted it here under
"Evolution" because this is where I found
Humiliberty's last post.

-----------------------------------------------
Below are the arguments as they were presented:

By Anonymous on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 05:38 am:
WJ, G-man,

The world is driven by emotions, and the strongest
of all is desire, or want. Love is one human
desire or want; therefore, is it love that drives
forces of the world? In a way I suppose it should
be assumed that love is the strongest driving
force known to anyone, but why? The answers are in
each of your minds, and the problem is, you know
those answers but give sway to listening to other
people, and allowing them to influence your
notions, thoughts, and whims; so, I ask you again,
why? Are not your experiences as valid as those of
the great philosophical authors each of you study?
After many years of attempting to find the
‘perfect philosophy’ to follow, I finally
discovered that I had my own, and wondered why I
should adopt the philosophy of someone else? They
have not lived my life, nor have they experienced
my experiences, so how can I trust their method of
thought instead of my own? Truth is, I cannot
trust them for they do not walk in my shoes. I
will not give up my philosophy, nor can I give it
away to others even if I wanted to. Is my
philosophy right or correct? Not for everyone, but
I consider self a middle of the road type person
with natural wants and desires just as everyone
else has.

This discussion was bound to enter ethics and
morality, but what is ethical, or what is moral?
Again, each of you know what is ethical, and what
is moral; therefore, why is it so difficult to
openly declare and write a simple statement that
defines “ethical” and the more difficult “moral?”

Ethical and moral essentially mean the same thing,
but philosophers seem to make it most difficult to
define each word, which is ludicrous because
languages are not equal, and if we define
something it should be simple and straight
forward.

Moral = do no harm

Ethical = deny lies and demand truth

Can you fault the definitions? If so, how? Was
that difficult? I don’t think so, but to listen to
a debate about morals and ethics among
philosophers often is disturbing because of the
gyrations many will go through to overwhelm an
opponent.

If everyone would live his or her lives according
to the two definitions as stated, could the world
obtain a modicum of peace all over the earth? I
think it could, albeit equality will never be
fully equal among peoples when some are unwilling
to give part of their excess to those that have
less than adequate means. So, say what you will,
and think what you will, but remember, what goes
around comes around, and personally I do not
believe that ends with our lives.

God? Who knows, but I am sort of fond of Pascal’s
Wager, and believe that if you do no harm, no harm
will come to you. I have read many arguments pro
and con Pascal and his bet; however, I do not
believe that reason alone is sufficient to fully
develop the human factor, mainly because, human
factors are not reason based; instead, they are
based on consciousness, life experiences, and
emotion, not reason.

Anon – the 1st one
-----------------------
By Humiliberty on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 02:50
pm:
Dang it!

The strongest emotion is "desire" or "want"?
Desire of what? Want of what?

If you live to see only a white sky never to hear,
see, smell, touch, nor taste anything, what
possibly could you "want", "desire", "wish you
had"?

How are we so readily willing to attribute
emotions to the mystics? Because what once took a
child days to grasp, now takes an adult an instant
to "feel validated."

Check out the objectivism vs. subjectivism site.

Anon,

I like your post but for the one element you've
yet to explore: the origins of emotions. And for a
quick definition:

Love -- that feeling attributed to one's greatest
values. How does one value what cannot be
explained nor identified? If never identified,
then this individual necessarily loves NOTHING.

-Humiliberty

To anyone, Subjectivist or Objectivist:

Himilberty writes: [The "objective truths" to which you refer can be obtained only by interacting with reality in the only means possible to man: sensory-perception, the five senses. What "intuitive knowledge" is possible to an idiot?]

I can think of many 'intuitive' leaps of faith that when tested against reality become 'objective' truths. For example, take Copernicus. He lived in a Terra-centrist world as formulated by Aristotelian thinking, and officially endorsed by the Catholic Church of the time. All the 'objectivists' of the time subscribed to this Earth centered view of the universe. This accepted view was extremely well reasoned, visually tested by the then most modern astronomical observatories, and well debated by the scholars of the time. Their mathematics supported this with, what to us today, was unbelievably convoluted, especially as it pertained to planetary regression, so that there were cycles within cycles to explain this. It was all very well reasoned and accepted by the best minds of the time, including Tyco. However, there were people like Copernicus, and later Kepler, who had a different idea, that a Helio-centrist astronomy made more sense. Their ideas were 'subjective' because they were unsupported by the 'objective' observations and philosophical thinkers of the time. Of course, today, we know that Terra-central thinking was totally wrong, and that the Copernican view was correct, though the math was a little off, but then made whole by Kepler's introduction of the elliptic. Now, since the math worked and coincided with observation, the Aristotelian view was grudgingly discarded, eventually even by the Church. So which was Subjective and which Objective? Was Aristotle an Objectivist, though he was wrong? Was Copernicus a Subjectivist, though he was right? Kind of murky, I would think. As Humi says, Reality is always the final gavel of Truth, the final arbiter of our observations. But for us humans to make the Objective vs. Subjective distinction is not always so clear, as per the example above. Taken to the next step, let's say Kepler wanted to go and work for Tyco at his highly acclaimed astronomical laboratory (which in fact he did), and he had to pass the university exams with honors to gain this post; would he not have to excel in studying a system that was totally in error? Yes, of course. So now we have the added component of being personally subjected to an Objectivist view which was the accepted doctrine of the time, even dogma. As per my "Subjective vs. Objective Paradox" (posted under "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution" 6/25/01), we are now faced with an Objective that turns out to be a Subjective instead, because it applied not only to physical reality, but to a human condition instead: whether or not Kepler will get the job at Tyco Labs. In the end, he did get the job, but he had to keep his Copernican theories to himself until Tyco's death, or else face 'objective' retribution. Or simply, he would have been called an "idiot" by his quarelsome and pompous employer.

I think this example had been repeated throughout human history, whenever the accepted, reasoned, and even 'objective' doctrines of the times had to be overturned. So where is the philosophic Truth in this? Indeed, we need Objectivism as a tool of understanding physical reality, but it is not an article of religion, and should not be viewed that way. It is never to be used against people, however, (sorry Ayn Rand), because that immediately disqualifies it as 'objective' and self-negates it into the 'subjective'. This is okay, as long as every intuitive, logical, rational and irrational, idea is understood as such: that all Objective ideas are subject to change with observation, and that they can never be used as a Truth on the thoughts and beliefs of others, for then it reverts back to being merely Subjective.

"Or was possible to Hellen Keller?" Yes. This argument is true whether or not a person has all five senses, for as long as they have a conscious mind and are the beneficiaries of their own thoughts and the thoughts of others which, by extension, become their five senses as well.

Ivan

As posted in The Examined Life Journal Forum:
By davet84 on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 04:55 pm:

Hi Ivan,

So, 'Coober Pedy Noir' could be 'white man's black
holes'!

Well done. I've always noted that 'The Book on the
Taboo' was hard to come by. It seems like it was
published by a private person or something. Rare
though, like a jewel.

Your list of influences reminds me of a notion I
had. The day I attempted just off the top of my
head to recall influences that I'd struck since I
became 'interested'.

It was in a 'personal thread' called my 'At Home'
series idea from about 400 pages back in my
'ideas' files.

I had this notion, which was basically along the
lines of a 'talk' show. I combined that with Brian
Magee's format in his 'The Great Philosophers'
book and TV series where he chats to a given
contemporary philosopher, a specialist, on a
philosopher in history. Then I worked in the
notion which I saw in a Psychology journal item a
while back that in future students might attend
lectures given by a holographic virtual reality
version Einstein.

I called it my 'At Home With Series' idea. So you
switch on the monitor, light the fire, get a cup
of coffee, and you're 'at home with' Aristotle or
Kant or whatever.

The thoughts I had about it were these, plus I had
a list I made out of the influences I had found at
that stage. I made sure they were off the top of
my head so I could genuinely note the influence.
I'd now have to add Mitch Hodge, Graham Dennis,
Paul Rezendes, Ivan, WJ, Humi, G-Man, Ida and
Anon1-7 of course.


--------------------------------------------------
Quote:

At Home with Kant (idea title)
· The ‘At Home’ series.
· At home here meaning, ‘at home’ with one’s own
conscious and unconscious thoughts, as a modern
being in the 21st Century. But using the thoughts
of other ‘thinkers who wanted to share their
visions’, to expand one’s own vision of ‘humanity’
and one’s place in it.
· E.g. ‘At Home’ with Buddha, Dammadinna,
Hippocrates, Hypatia, Democritus, Heraclitus,
Diotima, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammed,
Augustine, Nagarjuna, Aquinas, Frances of Assisis,
Hildegarde of Bingen, Pico de Mirandola,
Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, Montaigne, Kepler,
Leibnitz, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, Johnson,
Jefferson, Rousseau, Kant, Blake, Schiller,
Fichte, Wordsworth, Vico, Schopenhauer, Hegel,
Kierkegaard, Thoreau, Emerson, Marx, Darwin,
Spencer, Mill, Wollstonecraft, Whitman, James,
Wundt, Bradley, Dostoevsky, Chekov, Twain,
Brentano, Meinong, Bergson, Freud, Jung, Einstein,
Pierce, Dewey, Russell, Wittgenstein, Proust,
Kaffke, Heisenberg, Bohr, suffragettes, Heidegger,
Ayer, Austin, Moore, Churchill, Gandhi, Sartre, de
Beauvoir, Crick, Galbraith, Kerouac, Kennedy,
Presley, Dylan, King, Kennedy, Wilson, Lennon,
Rogers, Maslow, Krishnamurti, Frieden, Steihem,
Franz, Greer, Mother Theresa, Watts, Bowie,
Browne, Derrida, Foucault, Laing, Geldorf,
Gilligan, Bateson, Reanney, Ness, Suzuki, Laszlo,
Irigaray, Noddings, Capra, Wilbur, Kornfield,
Chalmers, Diamond, Hawking, Macy, Sessions,
Collins, Tannen, Kim, Adeline Yen Mah, bellhooks,
Palmquist….and others….

· An ordinary working/family person, caught up in
the demands of everyday life is generally unaware
of the thoughts which many of these people
recorded. Save for some of the religious and
scientific names, ordinary folk would not have
come in contact with many of these thinkers. But
their legacy belongs to each and every one of us.

· Apart from the musicians, the religious and
political leaders, the prominent scientists and
feminists, and some writers which I happened upon,
I was unaware, until seven years ago, of much of
the thinking which the above list (and others) had
left and is still leaving as their legacy to the
world. My change of career path (from a computer
programmer to amateur philosophical seeker)
allowed me to acquaint myself more closely with
the ideas of these people and others. I set about
recording, in soft copy, many of the wisdom
passages which these people have made public. I
will cite appropriate bibliographic references,
but I hope that people would see my approach as
not being a desire to appropriate the thoughts of
prominent thinkers, but to assimilate the thoughts
with my own innate intuitions and feelings – my
irrational becoming self. And I would encourage
any reader to do likewise. Our thoughts are our
own little sacred share of the entire cosmos…so we
shouldn’t devalue them.

The activities in academia, in my view, for the
purposes of this exercise, serve mainly to
critique the views of the people I wish to cover,
and pass the ‘critical tradition’ and model on to
the next generation of academics. Thus the
ordinary person passes through life without ever
having been exposed, let alone given the
opportunity to synthesise inspiring thoughts. The
actual value in developing a deeper ‘understanding
of the world’ that can be gained from these
thinkers is lost on those who have more immediate
problems at hand or who separated from ‘academics’
earlier in life, and have been kept excluded.
· My goal is to render these views in such a way
that ordinary folk can gain some benefit. My
intention is for ordinary folk to simply ‘play’
the views across their ‘ordinary’ mind. In light
of this, given the rather elevated and complex
language that is employed by many thinkers, I will
try to cover the thought presented in everyday
language, and give some ideas on the connections
that are relevant. It is a little like the task of
political commentators, trying to express complex
political processes in language which can be
understood by the average person.
When ordinary people come to a better
understanding of some political point or other,
they can make up their mind, and they can cast a
thoughtful vote. The ‘democratic’ process as it is
today, more or less relies on the ignorance of
people, and the ‘better knowledge’ that the
elected representatives supposedly have.
Pragmatically, we have to live with what we’ve
got. Perhaps in 200, 500, or pessimistically 1000
years, every thought of every person (given that
90% of adults will be educated, mature, aware, and
thoughtful) will be online to the political
process, and drive it accordingly. Until then,
that is until ‘the people’ have a better
understanding, then at least we can hope, for the
short term, until true, participatory, informed,
democracy is achieved, that the representatives
put before us will be truly ones which can
enunciate our wishes for a better world.
If it is suspected that I have a political aim
here, it only this – to garner more votes for
humanity, sentient life, earth’s natural systems,
and earth itself, and for humanity’s happiness in
simply being.

--------------------------------------------------

There, that was one one of my 1600 or so ideas
from my 600 page 'ideas' file. None of it has come
to fruition yet (I still keep getting new ideas!),
but at least my daughter might read it one day. I
might call it 'Daveus Mentum'

Dave.

(In Answer to post 6/24/01 to AskthePhilosopher)

Dear Ivan,

For now I would rather not comment on your
cosmology. I will make a few comments on the
issue of freedom of choice and explanation.

Generally speaking there are two types of
explanation: scientific explanation of natural or
physical events, and historical or humanistic
explanation of unique historical, anthropological,
and social events.
Scientific explanation is usually deductive and
reductive: explains particular events on the
basis of general laws or principles, and attempts
to explain complex events in terms of simpler
events. For instance, heat is explained in terms
of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions are
explained in terms of molecular events.
Humanistic explanation is singular, and in terms
of stories. For instance, events in the sixteenth
and seventeenth century are often correlated in
terms of the development of the "age of the
enlightenment". Also, the First World War is
explained in terms of particular events, such as
treaties, colonialism, ethnic conficts and so
forth.
In general, scientific explanation of naturalistic
events are general, and apply to recurrent events.
Whereas, humanistic explanation of the human
dimension such as social or historical events are
particular stories about unrepeatable events.

Where does human choice, if at all, fit into this
picture: can human choice be explained?

I think not. I think human choice is an
irreducible and inexplicable fact of human living.
However, there are attempts to explain human
choice naturalistically or humanistically. I
think both types of explanation must fail, in
principle.

Naturalistic explanation is deductive and
reductive: whereas human choice is unique.
Though, in general, suppose that my choice to do X
as opposed to Y, can be explained in
neuro-chemical reactions in my brain.
This explanation is retro-ductive, i.e. from the
result or consequence to the "cause". If I had
chosen Y, as opposed to X, we would need to go
backwards to find what neural events caused that
choice. Also, the "choice" is not merely
neural-chemical events in the brain, but a
constellation or complex of events. "I choose X
over Y" includes the "I", the "choosing", and how
I think and feel about X and Y. So, naturalistic
explanation cannot completely explain choice, only
the physical basis for choice.

Humanistic explanation also falls short of
explanaing choice because choice as free choice
involves me inventing various stories in my mind,
or constructing various scenarios in my mind,
which go into making up my mind to decide between
X or Y. Historical or humanistic explanation
attempts to find one story and apply it to various
events, often selected from all the events that
are going on but seem irrelevant to the
pre-selected point of view. At best, we can
invent fictions to explain retro-deductively why
one person generally chooses in a certain way
given his "character", or given his place in
"class-struggle", or given her place in a
political movement, or given her psychological
make-up...and so on. In other words, we create
"novels" with a drama to tell, and we use these
"novels" to help us find a unity or theme or story
guiding various choices that are in reality
discrete, contradictory, and unpredictable.

We always search for order and meaning regardless
of the mess. But reality is a mess, including
human reality and physical reality.

Thanks for the discussion Ivan---

*********************************


KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT


One desiderata for effective leadership is to hold your own in conversations about free will. Not in esoteric language, to be sure, but in language that suits you and suits the occasion. And in a voice that is yours -- not someone else's. A voice grounded in your own agonized and expansive experience.


I think that, when leading, it is necessary to be credible as you talk about the sense of personal free will, and the anxiety surrounding it. That is the core truth-point inside the soul where all action and all decisions, all choice and all self-starting, all sense of responsibility and accountability, all power start and from which they all emanate. If you are there, you are a person who has absorbed a sustainable leadership personality structure. Congratulations! It is now your task to teach us all how to get there ourselves. And we shall thank you for it.


June 25, 2001


Copyright © 2001, Peter Koestenbaum. All rights reserved. Protected intellectual property.


************************************
*** Click here [www.pib.net/workshop.html] to see what participants said about the March 27-28 leadership workshop facilitated by Peter Koestenbaum, Ahmed Yehia and Laurie Yehia.


E-mail us at info@pib.net if you would like to be notified when future workshop dates are scheduled. Dates will also be announced on Koestenbaum's Weekly Leadership Thought e-mail and on the http://www.pib.net/ home page.

(As first posted under "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution", The Examined Life Journal Forum: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html )

Hi All,

Why evolution?

It's the "why" I want to address in WJ's original post above. Why do we have evolution, or creation? I believe this is always the quintessential question in philosophy: Why?

Per force, I am obliged to avoid 'why" of the Creation question because it leads me into circular reasoning. In the Bible, God created man in His image. However, what is His Image? This I cannot know without observing the creation, Man. But in studying man, I am no closer to understanding the Image of God, except to say that man is made in God's Image, so I am back to the beginning. Either I accept God's word as it is written, or I have gained nothing, and thus desist.

In evolution theory, however, there is potential for an answer to Why. Again, I must observe what evolution has propelled forward to gain some sense of its trend. What comes up as the most evolved organ of the body, especially in man, is the brain. Most people will agree with this. But what if it were not the brain, but some other organ instead? For example, what if the eye had evolved to such a perfection that it could see down to the molecular level, or out to astronomical distances, or the invisible rays of radiation? Would that then place the eye as the most evolved organ, and from this would we then gain some sense of Why evolution happened? Of course, we would then say that evolution was to create a better eye. But in fact, that serves no real purpose as it applies to survival, so the eye evolved to a point and then stopped. The same for the liver, lungs, teeth, sexual reproductive capabilities, etc. What of a more musical ear? But those did not advance most, except as they were needed for a species' survival. This is why we have binocular vision, yet birds have articulated vision; and hearing is good but not that good, my dogs hear better. We also have two kidneys, two ovaries or testicles, two lungs, two halves of the brain; but only one heart, one liver, one stomach, one mouth. So the thesis of evolution would appear to favor duality, but not always. It is never clearly of one thing over another, except as it reverts back to the brain, that evolution favors the brain and thus adapts other parts of the body to meet the demands of a greater brain. Therefore, having binocular vision, walking erect, having articulated thumbs, all favor our survival, but mostly these can be understood as products of a brain that needed these function in order to survive better. But why not some other organ, the pituitary gland, for example? Or what some call the 'third eye'? Could it be that we are evolving something that has not yet manifested itself, and thus we are searching for an answer without having the necessary clues, because they are not yet there? Science fiction can invent many possible scenarios of our evolution, man-machine androids, amphibians, etc., even mental telepathy. Would telepathy be an advancement for mankind? If I can read another's thoughts, I would have a survival advantage, I would think. Unless the other's thoughts are lies, then the advantage is lost again. It seems to me that we are forced to gravitate back to the motivation for evolution, which is survival. We evolved a brain to survive better than animals which do not have the same brain. But this could also be overkill, since now our brain is beginning to kill us, either through pollution, wars, or even scientific overreach as raised by the Genome question. So why would the universe, or God, want to evolve a superior brain that could kill us?

Perhaps survival is not the key, that this is not why the brain evolved as a superior organ to all the others. My guess, then, is that the brain evolved to manipulate reality, which is evidenced by its ability to do so. So here is a possibility of 'God's Will', that He wants us to do his work for him. The Bible said to be fruitful and multiply, but it is silent on whether or not it is God's demand to have a 'co-pilot' who is to take over for Him. Maybe, that is not the key either, though the ability to manipulate reality, using objective reason and skills, is important work nevertheless. Then, this leaves us with, I think, the last option: 'Who' we are. Now we are reaching all the way over from survival to physical manipulation to the Subjective, our human being. I like this idea because it is all encompassing. The enhancement and evolution of our 'being' involves all the skills we have accumulated to date, even intuition, and that also involves our arts, our music, our thoughts, our history, our science and philosophy, and even our beliefs. We are who we are as extremely complex beings. And the fact that this whoness of ours seems to reside in the brain is on the surface one more piece of evidence for the survival theory, except that it surpasses it. We do not need the arts, music, literature, ballet, opera, theater, to survive. Yet, they are definitely us, if not individually, then collectively and universally as a people. And the same is true for belief; religions exist universally all over the planet. Whether or not any one of us believes in God is immaterial; the rest of humankind has and still does. Then there is one other component of human evolution that may not serve a survival instinct: Love. Think about it. An act of love, of charity, of forgiveness, of humor, joy, emotional feelings; they are all anti-survival, except maybe as 'love' in the crudest sense of sexual reproduction... but the universe had to start it somewhere. But it makes no rational, logical self-interest sense to be charitable or forgiving. Some would call it stupid. Yet, that is us, and whether we rationalize it away or not, it is our human condition. So, evolution is reaching for something more, in my opinion, than merely the better survival of its species. If that were so, then it would have stopped with the cockroach! which will no doubt survive all. (Incidentally, I also think the universe created us in order to manipulate reality, because we can do what it cannot do for itself, like build a space station, for example.) But why would it want to do so? Unless, we are being readied to assume a role for which we have not yet been told?

This brings us back to the beginning, that to understand what is the purpose of man, we have to understand God. Maybe the Creationists are not so far off after all. But by extension, given what the brain had already evolved into, and given our 'whoness', that we can know who we are in its infinitely complex ways, universally and unprompted to be so; then I am tempted to say that the purpose of evolution is to articulate 'being'. In the same way we can articulate words, our thumbs, process and manipulate matter, we can also manipulate Being. I believe this will in fact prove to be the next step, as I had posted earlier of 'belief being in the Subjective' (see "What is Intellect" July 2, 2001; also under "The Hodge-Rezendes debate: on knowing", July 1, 2001.). I also believe that we still do not know what that means, though we will learn it in time. But then what? Do we manipulate being to form new universes? I do not know, since God has not yet told me (and I do not remember being there when they wrote the Bible). Of course, from my dogs's point of view, I was evolved to take them for a walk, which I must now do... I wonder if they think that it is they who manipulate my reality, that my 'being' is only for them? I hope not unless, of course, they think of me as God.

I hope this 'fireside chat' is revealing in some way to a very important question: Why were we evolved or created?

All the best, and always a joy,

Ivan

Hi Dave, & all,

East meets West? In the quote:

"If we just allow the mind to relax and rest in that sense of knowing, in that purity of being, then there is liberation, there is freedom right at that point. At that point, the mind is aware of the sense of unity, of Suchness, there is the unifying vision which in Christian terms they call beatitude. The beatific vision is the vision of totality, of wholeness, the disappearance of any separateness. In this realisation there is no self - it's not you being with Ultimate Truth - there's just THIS … "

I instantly recognized the idea of 'interrelationship' as a Totality, as I had mentioned in earlier posts. Is this where East meets West? It's the point where 'the mind is aware of the sense of unity, of Suchness' that strikes a familiar chord. This is the same idea developed in the concept of Habeas Mentem, http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm, the 'being'ness that is achieved with awareness. But it goes one step further (its evolution?) whereby that 'being' is also achieved unconsciously when we occupy our space in time in terms of who we are. And this is achieved at that moment when we are free of coercion and do things through our choices that are in agreement with others. This is definitely a western spin on Suchness, since here it is achieved not through meditation, but through a philosophical model that defines a mind's identity, a person's being, in terms of its interrelationship to the infinite, and thus to its position within this infinite, the universe. Meditation is one path to this Suchness; being true to who we are, free of coercion, is the other path. What distinguishes the two is that the latter can then be formulated into a course of future action where this Suchness is not violated. In order for a person to break the persistent cycle of coercion (abuse, violence, deceit, forced disagreement), and of being coerced, requires conscious (aware) human choices; and that social laws protect those choices as based on personal agreements, the Law of Agreements; and on social consensus, as expressed by the laws of the social contract. For all this to happen, however, requires a free and conscious human choice to make it so: to not coerce another, and to be protected from another's coercions. And that, I think, would be a great evolution. It would also reconcile the Eastern view, achieved through meditation, with the Western view, achieved through reason and belief: the two meet in the consciousness of 'being' of who we are. If ever this were to be achieved, the human mind would find a new freedom within the unity of the interrelated universe within which it was born, and within which it would have found its true identity. I think that such an achievement, once consciously chosen by the people, would have ramifications that we cannot imagine. If nothing else, it would become a more peaceful place, more aware, and with more joyful smiles, I suspect. And I sincerely think that's where we're going.

Here's to Hope,

Ivan

Hi Dave,

When you write:

"Forgive for my ignorance, but I thought Habeus
Mentum already had 'evolved' from East-West
influences. Maybe indirectly, since Alan Watts
doesn't leave one's sub/un/conscious thinking once
you've passed him on the path."

I think you are most correct, that Watts does not
leave one's mind. Indeed, I suspect that his
influence on my thinking went deep enough to
resurface on the other side as Habeas Mentem.
What makes the result exciting, at least for me,
is that there is a pragmatic application to the
ideas that resulted from this meeting of East and
West: Being who we are as a social formula
through the Law of Agreement.

Take care,

Ivan

(As posted into The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/7/01)

Dear Anon-1, and all,

The quote below was lifted from my book: "Habeas Mentem" (Ch. 4, Each One of Us). which can be viewed, free, at: http://www.humancafe.com/Chapter-four.htm . The portion of the text below gives a succinct definition of how 'interrelationship' acts as a medium of change upon itself, which is one reason why 'evolution' happens. This is being presented as a follow up thread to the very successful page started by WJ: "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution" which has grown to become unwieldy, at nearly 400KB. So I post this here as an answer to Anon-1's question (7/7/01):

"Ah Ivan, why evolution? How is it possible for reality to evolve? If you can explain that to me, then, and only then will I accept evolution as the eminent explanation for existence as we human beings know of it. Did the earth evolve, how about the sun, our galaxy, or the universe? Those things make up parts of reality, as we know it, yet, how is it possible for non-living things to ‘evolve’ if they are not alive?"

This quote, which I wrote more than twenty years ago (please pardon my style of that time), I think captures something of how interrelationship is able to redefine itself as it grows in totality. I superimposed this idea then into the real world, by using this mechanism as evidence of life's evolution. It does not prove evolution, merely that here is a schematic that explains it, if it is in fact true.

Ch. 4, Each One of Us:

"In interrelationship (see Ch. 3, What is the Form of Interrelationship), our beginning goes back through our parents and their parents back to the beginning where the first interrelations combined in such a way as to form life. In this beginning, this allness, this image in time, became Man.

Our image connects us with our beginning in all directions. Physically, we are the materialization of the infinity of interrelationship at that point of reality that defines our body. Through the billions of years of life's evolution, through the parentage of our ancestry going back to the formation of first life, we are connected individually to all the forces and circumstances that have created each one of us to exist today. Through time, we have been fashioned painstakingly into the form of our present being; through space, we are connected at every moment of time to the infinite image in the universe that is materialized as the definition of our physical form. Physically, the properties that are our body resemble the properties of the universe that define all things. What distinguishes us is that we live.

It is a property of interrelationship that it can become greater than itself. After all the possible interrelations have been calculated and incorporated into totality, a new image appears. The totality takes on a new value which is the value of its total interrelations plus the value of these interrelations added back as a total image. The total image is then interrelated as a new factor of interrelationship, redefining itself through all of its parts into a new image. This process results in a creative force that, in effect, causes the totality to grow continuously, through time. With each growth is a redefinition of all things within the whole. When the redefinition has been completed, the process resumes. In this manner, it is possible for the universe to evolve continuously within itself reflections of its progressively more complex image. At some point, the image becomes complex enough to describe that value we call Life. As a new image, redefining itself in reality as a living organism, in some distant part the universe changed again.

Change took time and through time the universe evolved. With each progressive evolution came a more complex redefinition of both the totality and its reality. The reality that first sustained the simple living organisms became more complex as it accommodated the existence of more complex organisms. Through interrelationship, evolution was as much a factor of the changes in the living organism as it was the reality that defined that organism. With each progressive change in the life form came a gradual redefinition from the now more complex, greater infinity. As the image of totality grew, the life forms that were that totality's most recent materializations grew with it. Each new evolution was a reflection of the newer value added within the matrix of infinity. In each new birth was added, however minutely, that new image. As reality redefined itself and the environment within which the life existed, it changed the organism to adapt itself within the new environment. At the limit, where the change itself is being defined in infinity, much is discarded in favor of that which is to remain and endure. In the end, when the compatibility between reality and the organism is assured, a new life form is born.

The more complex the organism, the more complex the definitions of its environment. With each new evolution the interactions that exist between the living organism and its environment also grew in complexity until such time that the organism would need to register data defining its relationships to its reality. In some rudimentary manner, it began to develop the ability that would enable it to recall experiences, make it more independent of a perfect set of circumstances for survival, and to register this data in its being. At some point, life developed a mind.

The development was always bi-axial in space and time and always registered in the surviving organism. Where the change in evolution was incompatible between reality and the organism, the organism perished, if not immediately, through time. Where the compatibility existed, the organism endured within the matrix of its greater image. The successful organisms passed onto their offspring the elements of their compatibility with the universe. Much was possible, but not all proved feasible. With the survival of certain life forms, the universe grew again. What was stabilized at infinity passed on this definition to their progeny; what was unstable perished.

Each one of us is a descendant of such stable interrelationships. Passed down to us have been all the successful elements of our evolution within the definitions of reality. These definitions have followed us in our development totally and infinitesimally; not a moment was lost nor an experience not registered in our being. Each one of us is the sum total of all the circumstances and experiences that have brought our being from its first living generation to the body from within which we are conscious now. In us registered not only all the characteristics that define our appearance as being human but also all the moments of reality, all the interrelations to infinity, that have brought us here into the present to where we are. We are what and where we are because of what and where was everything else through time. The universe grew with each new definition within itself until its total image created human. At infinity exists for each one of us, individually, a definition in terms of our total image that has materialized us through time into our present being. What is our definition at infinity? In part, it is that definition in us that has registered the data of our being; in part, we are our mind..."

("Habeas Mentem: the Given Word". http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm)

(As posted into The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/10/2001)

Dear G-man, Dave, Anon, WJ, Kevin, Humi, and all, Gentlemen (&Ladies),

The Gordian knot of Ethics can be simply resolved, from my point of view, by bringing it to its basic
components: How does it affect each one of us individually in terms of the fundamental philosophical formula of 'Coercion vs. Agreement'?

It is either 'might is right' or it is 'right is right'. If 'might is right', then the most coercive wins. This has been pretty much our human historical experience, where power goes to the strongest. If 'right is right', then the right to be 'who we are', our liberty, forces us to do things through agreement. With this we have had limited experience, since the idea of inalienable human rights is still new for us. However, this is not the domain of the strong man, but rather the domain of the man who is most aware in how to rightly achieve agreement. This is a philosophical evolution of morals, hence Ethics. As an aware being, each one of us has a responsibility to not coerce another against their will, their agreement. Individual agreements are then sanctioned by those laws of society we had created through another agreement, the democratic and legislative process. Agreements between individuals are preserved except where they act to force a third party into disagreement, hence to coerce another. A forced agreement, one forced upon a person against their will, not freely chosen, is then a violation of Ethics, which turns it into a coercion. So it is a 'moral duty' to structure agreements that protect individuals from coercion. The result is that individuals are then free to pursue their happiness, their goals, their inner joy and visions, as it is for their minds and souls to pursue. If they interact with one another freely and through agreements, then the results of these activities will either bring them joy or disappointment. But that is for none to judge, except for the persons involved. So this is how 'right is right' becomes a social evolution, one that simplifies Ethics to a 'on or off' human action: either it is done through agreement, or it is done through coercion. This has to be done of one's free choice, and binding only on those who are parties to these agreements. The social law then validates these agreements or not, depending upon how the laws had been legislated into what is a de facto social contract. Will people be happy with this? They will be what they make of it.

So this formula of Ethics is a philosophical choice: Either we choose coercion, or we choose agreement. Then how each individual is affected by this choice becomes their reality, which either will manifest for them their well being and happiness, or manifest what will be a hardship and disappointment. In a socially-consiously evolved society, hardship may be a call for help; but this help cannot be forced on anyone, for that too must be by agreement. Society is then a collective of these choices, as our lives will manifest it for us, when we through agreement have the right to be who we are.

My question, then, is this: If this is an evolution of Ethics, does it have a practical application in
Society at large?

I humbly submit,

Ivan Alexander

Dear Kevin, (Anon, Dave, G-man, and all)

As I see it, 'coercion vs. agreement' is an ethical formula between sentient and conscious beings able of making choices, as it applies to their interactions.

You say: 'Are humans who eat meat, allow abortions, take brain dead humans off life support, experiment with fetal stem cells, and pollute the environment then all behaving unethically toward their victims, whom they are coercing without their agreement? Or is all of this morally OK, because the objects of our actions cannot agree or disagree, and therefore cannot be said to have any ethical status because they are not moral agents? In other words, is there "third party coercion" going on in these cases or not? If not, how can any of them be wrong?"

Indeed, these are example that are odious to me too. But like pain, one of the senses (which Aristotle forgot about) which is real to me but, except as another may empathize with it, it is not really felt by another, so is it with ethical-moral conclusions I may have. They apply to me, but cannot be placed into a general Ethics content as it should apply to others. I would prefer to step outside the food chain, for example, and not eat meat, which I have at times in my life. Anthropologists believe that long ago, cannibalism was universal, though today it is largely agreed upon that eating dead people is not okay. So the agreement, socially speaking, is that cannibalism is unethical. But this is an agreement between conscious human beings. If we could talk to sheep, and they tell us that eating them is not okay, then to persist in killing them for a dish of mutton would force them against their agreement and constitute coercion. Take the example of Washo, the chimpanzee who used sign language to communicate, which she was even able to teach to her offsprings. If she were told that she would be killed in order to be eaten, what would she say, if she truly understood the question? I can't put words into Washo's fingers, but I would guess that she would be horrified. Would killing her for meat, as is done in African countries, then constitute coercion? Yes, of course. Or, let's say I need to move a large stone in my back yard, and I use levers to roll it. Am I coercing it? Well, I am applying force without consent, since the rock cannot agree or disagree with me, so I am 'coercing' it in a manner of speaking, but only as it applies to my intelligence, and to my choice of doing so, since the rock is mute. So the underlying criterion for whether or not an action is a coercion is to ask: "Am I coercing you?" In other words, am I forcing someone against their agreement? If I choose, therefore, to kill animals for meat and think of it as an act of coercion, then like the pain I mentioned above, the choice is felt only by me, and not a question of ethics at large, unless is becomes socially agreed upon that killing sentient animals is no longer okay. Then, if I persist in killing, I am breaking a social law as it had been agreed upon and am guilty of coercion as far as society is concerned. But I might not agree with this, and then as a conscious being would have to communicate that this law is coercing me and that either I am exempt from it, because I am a conscientious objector to non-killing, or the law is changed to accommodate dissenters. So, this is what I mean by the formula of 'agreement vs. coercion'. In your examples above, I personally find it unacceptable to experiment on fetuses, pollute the environment, and otherwise behave in ways I consider unethical. However, this is non binding on others, unless there is a general social agreement that these things cannot be done. I think that in the case of polluting the environment, there is a critical need to establish this as a coercion, because it affects the well being of all of us. And most important, because it is coercive to third parties, you and me, I would not object to the ethical application of the 'agreement vs. coercion' principle. Now, getting back to cannibalism, which our distant ancestors practiced. (Really, why let good meat go to waste?) But here, unlike the killing of animals, humans can communicate their wishes as regards their bodies upon death, and it seems that, with higher awareness over time, the idea of eating one's relatives or enemies became undesirable. So the agreement was to stop eating dead people. Coercion? Only if you kill another to eat him! But in all seriousness, the real test of coercion vs. agreement is on how it applies to the person who is affected: "Do you agree with this, or are you being coerced?" It is as simple as that. (Not really, since for a person to be free to agree he or she must be not guilty of coercion, or the idea is self negating.) And that, I find, is the bottom line in ethical behavior as it applies to others. Even taking 'dead' people off life support is an agreement between the family, health practitioner, and the wishes of the patient while alive, if such be known. If, for example, the patient had asked those who had the power to do so to keep the living corpse on life support for as long as the heart beat, then it would be an agreement, and it would be coercive to the patient if it were disregarded. However, the patient is no longer sentient and conscious, so this becomes an ethical judgment not as it applies to the patient, but as it applies to the subjective of the person who will pull the plug. Of course, any choice as it applies subjectively to oneself, that is between our mind and our conscience, or God. But in all cases where it applies to two or more parties, especially as it applies to third parties, then either things are done ethically, by agreement, or they are unethical, by coercion.

I hope this answers some questions, or at least casts some understanding of where I'm coming from.

All the best,

Ivan

(As posted in The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/14/01).

Dear G-man,

I think there are too many factors in your question that confuse the Ethics issue .

You ask: "If he that kills refraineth not by mercys plea, then how can its redress be unjust though the killers plea goes unanswered?"

Indeed, the killer was deaf to pleas from his victim, and now we feel it is ethical to turn a deaf ear to his pleas for mercy as he is about to be executed. In asking for mercy, either the victim or the killer is asking for a cessation of coercion, an agreement to not coerce, or coercion in the extreme, to kill. But once the coercion had taken place, and found guilty as such, then the right to seek agreement by the murderer is negated by the coercion that had taken place, his guilty verdict. There is no agreement to be found with one who cannot be true to agreement, judged as an an unconscious mind, as one who is guilty of coercion instead. So now society assigns a punishment. In some societies, the punishment of having killed a family member necessitates payment to the bereaved family by the killer, and a judge decides with the family how much this payment should be. Alas, in the same society, if a husband kills a wife, he may be judged as having committed a justifiable act, and no punishment follows. In our society, it seems we prefer to put killers into prison and leave them there, or in extreme cases put them to death. Punishment dispensed is an agreement within the members of the family, tribe, community, and society at large. If we agree that killing people for murder is a justifiable punishment, then the question of ethics is taken from that agreement, though we each individually may not agree with this. Certainly, the murderer who is about to be executed may not agree with this, but his coercion has absolved him of the right to agreement, so he is held prisoner and, having demonstrated a level of non-consciousness, is not free to make agreements. (I must add that in the Law of Agreement as it is expressed in Habeas Mentem, all this is supported by other things to do with how the universe is structured through interrelationship, but I leave all this out here for the sake of simplicity.) So the choice society then has, if it wishes to act in an Ethical way, by agreement that is, is to offer the choice of either dying or not to the prisoner (Socrates comes to mind). If the prisoner accepts that choice, i.e. Timothy McVey style, then the execution of the killer is ethically justified as an assisted suicide. If the prisoner does not accept the choice of the assisted killing of himself, then the execution, if the judgment is such, will proceed regardless; the prisoner at this point really has no right to agreement anyway; but then it is questionable whether or not this killing is ethical, though any other punishment would be ethical. I base this, in terms of my understanding, that killing is unethical under any circumstances. So the question of Ethics here is not whether or not a prisoner should be punished, nor is it whether or not a prisoner even has a right to seek agreement after being guilty of a heinous coercion, but only as it pertains to society's desire to act ethically by offering the prisoner one last chance to agree, in this case, to agree to his own death. So it is not a question of whether or not he pleas for mercy, which at this point becomes ethically irrelevant, but does he agree to die? If he answers "yes' without duress, then it is an 'ethical' murder of the murder. If he does not, and no other punishment is found fitting, then his murder rests on our conscience.

I hope this answers your question. If not, I plead for mercy.

Ivan

WHAT IS INTELLECT?


I will try to define 'intellect' in as short a sequence as I can. I will attempt this without involving evolution or interrelationship, since these are concepts in question by some, and foreign to others, and yet will arrive at the same conclusion. Below is my proposal.

BEING = INTELLECT

My proposed schematic:

1. Being = Subjective Why? Because we exist within the framework that has imprinted existence upon us from birth, and from before us in the birth of our parents, and their parents, and so on. All this is recorded in our DNA, our birth features, our capacities, and ultimately on our subjective mind: the Who we Are. Being further breaks down into Reality as it is vs. an imaginary world.

2. Subjective = Mind Why? Because the 'Who we Are' is best represented by our mind, our brain, as opposed to any other organ in the body. This included our fears and hopes, our joy or sadness, our needs and desires, the full panorama of our emotions. The Subjective further breaks down into Belief, what we have internalised as Truth/Falsehood.

3. Mind = Objective Why? Because it is reason, the Objective mind, that can understand this. The Subjective mind is what defines us in our being, but it is powerless to understand at the rational level. Our Mind further breaks down into all the characteristics that make us live and be who we are/being someone else.

4. Objective = Reason Why? Because through reason we can identify our other traits that define our being, our existence, the identity of who we are, as we choose to define it with the mind. Reason is also how we assess what is reality. Objective further breaks down into Truth, what is definable as true/what is not consistent and questionable.

5. Reason = Intellect Why? Because this is the only part of our mind that we are in touch with to reasonably assess that we can think. To think is our Intellect. Reason further breaks down into what we choose to believe rationally/what is irrational to us.

But as shown in the mental schematic above, Intellect is more than merely to think. It is also to be both Objective and Subjective, to be our Mind and our Being. This is simpler to demonstrate with 'interrelationship' because that is the universal mechanism that ties reality, space and time, and being into one. But since this is still an unknown, unproven, and unexplored concept, then the above may serve instead. They both arrive at the same place, if not directly, then through extension: Being is Intellect. Intellect can then be further broken down into what we choose to do through Agreement vs. what we choose to do through Coercion. Agreement engages the Being of another human, whereas Coercion disengages the Being of another human. But to achieve this, it is a Conscious act, since an unconscious being does not know when he or she is in agreement or not. But even an unconscious being can feel the pain of when it is being coerced.

This is something my brain 'cooked up' while hiking today in the San Bernardino Mountains near Mt. San Jacinto, California.

Enjoy!

Ivan

Ibidem on Being = Intellect.

CONNECT the colored WORDS, leave MAN/WOMAN in center:


----------------------------------------.BEING-----------------------------------------------------



.MIND-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.REASON

................................................MAN/WOMAN..........................................................


.OBJECTIVE---------------------------------------------------------------------------.SUBJECTIVE



----------------------------------------.INTELLECT--------------------------------------------------


So here we have a visual schematic of Being = Intellect, where if you connect the dots, you get two overlapping triangles, one being represented by Being: Subjective, and Objective; the other represebted by Mind: Reason, and Intellect. Note how in this image, Being is /opposite/ Intellect, Mind/Subjective, Reason/Objective; also note that the lines connecting the dots show 'relational' connections. (You may exchange places for Mind and Intellect, and still have same effect, with a different interrelationship.)

This may be further illustrated by considering the following:

1. BEING: can be representative of any existing thing, alive or inanimate, from cosmic dust to planets to stars, to all living things.

2. SUBJECTIVE: can be any living thing, plants, single celled animals, all life, possibly life endowed planets and galaxies.

3. MIND: All living things with volition and motion: all animals that display any form of learning, recall, most animals, including man.

4. OBJECTIVE: All minds that can think, higher evolved species, those that can display forward action like building or digging shelters, making tools.

5. REASON: All minds that can formulate ideas: thinking species, of which humans are known to be one, possibly evolved animals like apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, those that can mourn their dead, even bury them.

6. INTELLECT: Reasoning minds that can understand all of the above, including philosophers, and other advanced species that can communicate with us either through sign language or sound, though they have not yet told us they can philosophize.

So these are potential 'tests' as to where in the hierarchy of Being = Intellect each animate and inanimate thing fits in. All of us are part of Being, but only some of us who had evolved more advanced brains can be part of Intellect. However, this does not mean that Intellect does not exist in the others, only that there it exists only as a latent potential that may yet evolve, as defined by Being within the existence of a much greater Intellect. I suspect that Intellect exists all through the Universal Reality, and that it has manifest in the brains of alien species we will yet have the pleasure, or horror, or discovering in the future.

This was written in response to a post in: The Examined Life Discussion Forums: Philosophy Discussion: 'Philosophy, Wisdom and Thinking': By WJ on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 09:13 am:. http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Dear WJ,

Thank you for the beautifully written piece above on System Builders and Wisdom. Having been a system builder myself, still am, where I sought to find a common thread that ties in the human-mind-experience with the human-physical-reality, I very much identify with your statement that system builders, like Hegel, seek to attempt 'in words to weave the final and absolute world-view, one that would forever settle all disputes and bring an end to controversy'. However, unlike Hegel, I also come to the conclusion that since we are dealing with a Subjective matter, as opposed to Objective, human beings who are endowed with a freedom of will and choice; my conclusion is that once such an absolute system is found, it is not the end but only the beginning of the journey.

When I composed the philosophy of Habeas Mentem, whereby human beings are identified by the consciousness of their mind, and where this becomes evident with whether or not they interact through coercion or agreement; I wrote this philosophy mainly as a social contract, of which self critical philosophy as such was secondary to the work. However, though the philosophy is self complete through the way it is structured, it leaves the reader, or thinker, to then come to his or her own conclusions as to whether or not this philosophy is true for them; it becomes a matter of personal choice. So in this way, the System as it was built into Habeas Mentem remained 'open ended' and not 'closed' in on itself as an absolute. What is absolute then, as a working philosophy, is whether or not human beings choose to interact through agreement, or not. In my understanding of Habeas Mentem, of which I am but another observer, only one more student, the system described works on in its own self defined mechanisms whether we then tap into it or not. The Wisdom, as a universal, then would come from how well this System works for us human beings once it is chosen.

Every time someone does an action, if he or she asks themselves the question: "Am I seeking agreement, or am I coercing?" Then this system is being applied. Or if conversely a person who is being acted upon by another asks: "Am I in agreement with this, or am I being coerced?" Then the philosophical System is at work as it is supposed to. But such a system, though it is an all inclusive philosophy which takes the basic elements of our physical reality, within which we exist and survive, and combines these elements into greater wholes that then lend meaning to their component parts, all the way to a whole that we call the Universe, and that lends meaning, definition, to All its basic components, including its conscious human beings; it is nevertheless not a dictate. Philosophy can discover how the world works, and how human beings work in it, and what is truth or not; but philosophy cannot dictate what is truth or right action. So what is shown is not Law, but only a rightful course of action, if it is chosen as such. If not, then reality will manifest what it will, and if the philosophy is correct, then what manifests under conditions of coercion will be other than what had been expected, if not immediately, then over time. This is the world as we know it.

Why is this so? In part, philosophy cannot dictate because it is a human construct, and no matter how well constructed it is, nevertheless it is a thing man-made. So even a philosophy like Habeas Mentem, which derives its existence from how reality is tied together via the mechanism of an infinite interrelationship, it is nevertheless a human construct. I do not know with certainty that at infinity, reality redefines itself; this is only a conclusion from the system built by me, a human. However, if this is true, then I will see evidence of it in reality as human beings interact with one another. This is why I spent some time on chapters examining evidence of the use of 'exchange', which means 'agreement', as opposed to the use of 'force', or 'coercion'. If the end results of the use of exchange and agreement surpass those of force and coercion, then I feel there is real life evidence that this philosophy is true. But nevertheless, because it is a philosophy for the human mind, and that mind is a conscious mind, it is not a given absolute, but only one that then must be freely chosen. So the human construct exists as a body of thought, a System, but it is powerless if not chosen, or agreed with. Now, there is one more thing that leads a thinker to not take any System as a finality, why it must remain open ended: The future is always open ended. And there is one more reason.

We construct ideas, and as such we imagine ourselves as being the only intellect in existence. This may be an illusion to which we have succumbed because 'ourselves' is all we know. We can observe animals around us, and though we have recently discovered that we can communicate with apes and dolphins, where a language of signs and symbols and sounds can be constructed by us with which they can communicate with us, only we have been able to philosophize. So we put our mind above all others, and rightly so. But this does not mean that mind, intelligence, thought, is our invention, that intelligence does not exist independent of us. When I constructed the system of 'interrelationship', I discovered that things are already in relation to the context within which they exist. So each thing in reality has some definition from its place and relationship to all that defines its existence. That definition from existence, upon closer examination, is minutely and infinitely attached to the thing it is defining, which includes us humans, as well as all living things and inanimate things. Is this a form of intelligence, I wondered? Can it be that my intelligence is already existent within the medium of reality in which I exist? This was a difficult question because I had been taught, as we all have been, that the intelligence I display comes from inside me. But to turn it around and say that intelligence is already part of the fabric of reality is disturbing to us, since it also means that there may be an intelligence greater than the one we understand in ourselves. This conclusion was one reason I was lead to writing 'Being = Intellect' on another post. Yet, this is where any System, no matter how brilliantly conceived, falls short of the Absolute: We create systems with lesser intelligence than that of the reality that defines us. Again, this is a choice. Some may continue to believe, in the Objectivist mold, that intelligence exists only in humans, and the rest of reality, with the exception of some more evolved species, is inanimate and void of intelligence. Others, and to me these are the more conscious beings, will begin to see that intelligence is a universal fact, and that we are privileged to partake in this is an infinitely invaluable gift. Once understood that such intelligence is a gift, an infinite gift, then how we view our thoughts and those of others changes: Each one of us, as is true for all living things, is now a final point of life at the end of a continuous chain of existence. We now have a new perspective from which to view human thoughts and actions: It is viewed in the context within which they exist and manifest their reality. Then, whether or not this reality is 'conscious' is chosen by them in terms of how conscious they are themselves. An unconscious mind will see none of this, whereas a conscious mind will puzzle over it. It is my opinion that such a mind then becomes more tolerant of many of the things an uncionscious mind cannot see, except when that is a damaging act: coercion.

So, in conclusion, how 'Wise' is a person? Do we stop thinking because we have found the perfect 'System'? No, never. The universe is so big, and so endowed with intelligence, that no matter how perfect we may imagine ourselves to be, or our systems to be, they are but a faltering flame within a much bigger fire. We learn, we observe, we test, we think and rethink, we believe, fall in love with our ideas, tell them to the world; and then go back and retest them again, and again. This is a never ending process. But when in our unsteady and faltering way we do stumble on something that the universe will allow us to work, then it is great. Every once in awhile the universe will allow for us to find one of the many, infinite keys of the meaning of our existence. Yet, for for us to be 'Wise', we are forced to question and examine and test, and even argue, over all the things we think we know. And when we ask ourselves: "Am I in agreement with this?", then our answer is a conscious choice.

If I may add a PostScript here: This Forum has been invaluable to me, not only because of the pleasure I received from reading the posts, the sincere thoughts of others, but because it gave me a chance to test my ideas against those of others. I have had to make some changes in my thinking, such as the Subjective/Objective valuation that I had never really seen before, and I am sure I will change again, so I learn. I also discovered that communicating ideas is hard, as hard as it is understanding ideas being communicated by others, which reinforced in me that it is not proper to judge. I must admit that though I am well read, I am not a philosopher in the traditional sense of the word, and to debate points to either create a logical proof or disproof has never been my calling. Though I am not a chess player, I find mental games a diversion, but not necessarily a path to Truth. But there are things that need to be debated so that the rough bar of iron can be refined, to find in itself the sharp blade of steel. And I see this Forum as a very good and safe place to do that.

Three more things come to mind: For those who have found the perfect Love, it is better to look no further for, in this lifetime, it can lead to a heap of troubles; those who cannot forget are doomed to remember everything, which in this life can be an unbearable burden; and for those who have found the perfect dogma, it is better to forget.

Thank you All for your fine thoughts and attention.

Kind regards,

Ivan Alexander

This post was in answer to the following quote on the Forum of The Examined Life Journal.com: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html, under "Philosophy, Wisdom and Thinking", July 23, 2001:

"Speculation shows us that the universe, by itself, is the contradictory; that it is incapable of self-subsistency, that it can exist only cum alio, that all true and cogitable and non-contradictory existence is a synthesis of the subjective and the objective; and then we are compelled, by the most stringent necessity of thinking, to conceive a supreme intelligence as the ground and essence of the Universal Whole. Thus the postulation of the Deity is not only permissible, it is unavoidable. Every mind thinks, and must think of God (however little conscious it may be of the operation which it is performing), whenever it thinks of anything as lying beyond all human observation, or as subsisting in the absence or annihilation of all finite intelligences."

Dear WJ, and all,

Just to put you in the mood, check out this site and see where we are in the universe: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html . How can we not help but think that after all is reasoned out and there is no more to say, that we are not left only with 'God'? It seems all systems gravitate to this in the end. Or, as C. Altieri says in his archived post on St. Augustine: "Quid es, Deus meus?" ("What is my God?") Why is it that God had been the topic of universal speculations of humankind for a very long time, all over the planet? I do not know what God is. We are but infinitesimal fragments within a very big universe, and yet we have a mind that rejects that smallness and we seek to find meaning in it all, even to find God. It seems irrational to do so, and yet somehow more irrational not to.

I stayed away from the idea of God in my 'System' as expressed in 'Habeas Mentem' (to have the mind), and instead focused on what that system is reduced to in terms of who we are in our human interactions. [I did touch on God in Chapter 31, "God is a Choice", http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-thirty-one.htm, but I purposefully left the topic of God for the end, where it is more an addendum than part of the main theme.] Rather, I focussed instead on a basic formula of 'agreement' versus 'coercion'. This is easily understood for a one-on-one relationship, but it becomes extremely complex when we introduce a third party, or groups, who will be affected by anyone else's agreement. Volumes can be written on this, what is an agreement or not, and whether this agreement coerces another, really keeping us busy for a hundred years. In the end, when an agreement is reached, whether it is sealed with ones signature on a piece of paper, or with spit in the palm and handshake, or merely by giving one's word (note that Habeas Mentem's subtitle is 'the given word'), then something happens in the cosmology that affects those who agreed. Even when we vote at the polling booth, we give consent to that social structure that governs us with its laws. Now we are bound to each other through this agreement; and through this our respective personal realities, the world in context within which we live, are now bound up together as well. This also happens through coercion, but that binding is done without agreement and the result, at least to a conscious mind, is hurtful. (Please note that coercion, abuse, enslavement, intimidation, all work for a short time to achieve a specific goal, but in the end it breaks down, since the universe's structure does not support these 'agreements', so they can be maintained only through more force.)

So I avoided bringing God into this picture, though it does not mean that He/She does not exist, merely that, same as I am unable to put myself a 100 million light years away, I cannot fathom the infinite mystery that is God. I cannot prove what I cannot possibly know, but this does not mean that God does not exist. Quite frankly, I find myself asking for help at times without shame of the fact that I cannot prove His/Her existence. So, how does one construct such an idea of a non-God universe in a dispassionate, detached way? The answer is that it can be constructed only as a self defining mechanism devoid of a prime mover. Then, it matters not what God had in mind for the universe, or for man, and there is no need for anyone to interpret God's Will, which I think is impossible; rather the philosophy turns its attention to the 'mechanics' of how it is constructed. This would be relatively simple, to show how things are identified or defined by their context within how the universe is interrelated into itself; but the mind of a conscious being, our humanness, gets in the way. We are able to exert influence on that otherwise perfectly ordered universe through our will and actions. Then the question arises: Are we working with it, or against it? (I might add here that coercion exists at all levels of life, as things eat each other. But they are not conscious of this, and only in humans can the choice be made to not coerce.) And this is where the concept of 'agreement' fits in. The short answer is that when we find agreement, then we work with it; when we coerce, we go against the structure of how the universe defines itself and are working against it; the end result is that agreements are agreeable to us, whereas coercion is not. Pleasure and pain? Sometimes. Because we are extremely complex beings, cosmologically speaking (Each one of us, as is true for all living things, is now a final point of life at the end of a continuous chain of existence), then the result of either working with or against the universe's own self defined structure will yield real life results which may not necessarily be what is pleasurable. This is why I think we live in an interactive universe, and from our actions manifest our reality, the physical reality within which we live, which may or may not be to our expectations. There is risk in life, and to find guarantees may be as illusive as the philosopher's stone. Yet, in the choices we make, and thoughts we have, no need to stop trying! If we finally succeed in finding pleasure, or guarantees, then it is in our mind.

Finally, my saying so does not make it real. I describe a system which I think approximates reality, but only through time and application, and only with the end results, can I ever hope of knowing if my System as described in Habeas Mentem is correct or not. So this system is 'relational': we do and to us is done. Life teaches us, though we generally give it no intelligence. Can a philosophy of non-coercion be coercive? Certainly, when a person consciously rejects coercion. However, in that event, the choice to not be coerced is a coercion only to him who would coerce, and that is self negating. So this is the final condition of being conscious: it is always our agreement, our choice. And I dare say that I suspect that this freedom to find agreement, and be free from coercion, is as passionate as the ego can be, once we become aware of it. Why should it be otherwise? But as you say: " the trick might be to carefully move to an ‘uninterested’ view or position which would somehow help produce new thoughts about a subject." Within this new cosmology of an 'interrelated' universe (not 'my' cosmology mind you, but out there, as I understand it), this is very likely the best way to seek agreement without coercion.

I hope these thoughts answer some of your questions. Ask again if you need more, and I will try to answer as correctly as I can within the framework of this new cosmology, as I understand it.

Always a pleasure,

Ivan

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Dear WJ,

You write:

"But now it may be appropriate to add in the discussion:

- In terms of anything that we ever have experienced, or will experience, we have no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of:
(A) our own free will;
(B) our soul's immortality;
(C) God. "

In his Eternal Life? (Image Books, NY, 1985), Hans Kung writes:

"But does the demand for verification mean conversely that life after death is demonstrable? Perhaps by those arguments for the immortality of the soul which have been used constantly since Plato's time? Like his great master Socrates, who had gone to his death serenely and confidently, struggled to work out new arguments for the immortality of the soul, regarding the soul as the principle of life and for that very reason as immortal." -pg. 74.

This is the question I often ask myself as well: Is the infinite chain of connections that define a life, a point of life at the end of this chain: is this the soul? What is it that constitutes a definition of our being that is continuous, immortal, that is some value in us which survives us upon the death of our body? Does the concept of 'interrelationship' as a defining force of things in existence lend itself to a definition of the soul, and ultimately of God? Or does it require some higher consciousness in man to reach such an immortality, such as found in the life of the saints? I do not know, and can only offer a guess on this: I suspect the answer is 'yes'. Or in the words of the Buddhist masters: 'Thou art that.'

Kung then writes in his "Summary" at the end of the book:

"God all in all: For me it is expressed in unsurpassed and grandiose poetic form -- interweaving cosmic liturgy, nuptial celebrations and quiet happiness-- on the last pages of the New Testament at the end of the book of Revelation by the seer in statements of promise and hope, with which I would like to close this series of lectures on eternal life: 'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; the first heaven and the first earth had disappeared now, and there was no longer any sea (the place of chaos). I saw the holy city, and the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, as beautiful as a bride all dressed for her husband. Then I heard a loud voice call from the throne, 'You see this city? Here God lives among men. He will make his home among them: they shall be his people, and he will be their God; his name is God-with-them. He will wipe away all tears from their eyes; there will be no more death, and no more mourning or sadness. The world of the past will be gone.' It will no longer be a life in the light of the Eternal, but the light of the Eternal will be our life and his rule our rule." pp. 233-234.

Kung wrote earlier (pg. 232): "Not a human kingdom, but only God's kingdom is the kingdom of consummation: the kingdom of definitive salvation, of fulfilled justice, of perfect freedom, of unequivocal truth, of universal peace, of infinite love, of overflowing joy --in a word, of eternal life."

So eternal life is not necessarily in the physical sense, but one where that final point of life, our being, is now connected completely, consciously, and in total agreement with the universe within which it exists; and this is by choice. Think what this can mean! Imagine a world where fear is replaced with joy because of the certainty that one is part of the whole universe in such a way that the connections never end. Imagine a world where finding agreement between individual human beings is sought as passionately as a philosopher's quest for truth, or a true believer's quest for the holy places of their saviour, or lovers for each other. Imagine a world where the structure is one of agreements rather than coercions. Can such a world exist? I think it is a philosophical possibility, but to get there will take a level of awareness that I fear is not yet amongst us. Our mind, as a planet-wide- consciousness, is still too weak, and we lose sight of our goals too easily and fall back into the confusion which we so comfortably know. The answer to an eternal life is beyond birthing and dying; it is in knowing that we are part of a much bigger picture, and that this picture asserts itself here on earth when we do things through agreement rather than through coercion. And this is done of our own free will. I think this will be the path to what the seers of the book of Revelation wrote about, a perfect freedom and universal peace. The question is: If this is demanded of us as our next stage of human evolution, of our being and soul; and we who are still lost in our confusion do not know how to get there; how can it happen? I do not know, but I can venture a guess: It will happen when we realize that we can freely choose to be free of coercions. Alas, I am too pessimistic to think this can happen. But if it did happen, imagine the Joy!

Most sincerely,

Ivan Alexander
http://www.humancafe.com

Dear WJ, and all,

You write: "Be that as it may, an extraordinary force is creating this somewhat universal idea of utopia. Again, nothing really new in terms of the possibilities, but the sadness of realization will produce its own limitations. And those, of course, would relate to the so-called evil forces intrinsic to our species. Fallible systems indeed! So where is the hope? How does your system (agreement/coercion) provide for hope?

"I ask this because that is what you/we are suggesting; a hope for a grasp of perfection, on the planet. What other systems are there that provide for that hope, and why and to what extent? Are these the areas where all the religions try to address? If so, why can’t there just be one omnipotent, universal Being? There are as many of these ‘beings’ as there are platonian ideas. Indeed, all humans lack universal knowledge and wisdom. I suppose this is where Christianity comes in... ."

In response to the above and our dialogue, I would like to bring up why I have concerns that lead me to be pessimistic over the implementation of an ideal-social-contract in human society. By 'ideal' I mean a social contract that uses reason to arrive at conclusions that then define for human beings an ontological formula of their being, or of becoming 'who they are'.

I think that the past of human society, as we know it from our histories, has been dominated by a search for an ideal morality which can serve as a social template for what is correct human action. An extreme example of this is the 'just war', whereby a chaplain, or priest of mullah or monk, will call on God for victory and send soldiers into battle because they have God on their side. In fact, it may very well be a just war because of the grievance experienced by either side are due to some coercion that is happening, or had happened which now, in the absence of a third party tribunal resolution, results in combat. This moralistic attitude of justice then leads the troops to fight for a cause they deem to be the right cause, which may even impassion them into acts of cruelty and atrocities against the enemy population. I am using this example based on atrocities as they had been exemplified in past and current wars: WW II, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. Now, if the psychology of the war was instead strictly because of a need to correct abuses and coercions, then the war is more an act of soldierly duty; but if it is against 'gooks' or 'japs' or 'gerries' or 'ivans' or whatever, then the soldier is desensitized to the people he is fighting from seeing them as being 'human'. Then it is no longer a correction of some coercion, some disagreement as a result of the use of force, but rather becomes a 'moral' war of 'us' against 'them'.

Why is this moralistic attitude dangerous? And is philosophy guilty of this too?

It is dangerous because it obscures the fact that we all live in a humanly interactive environment where we either agree or disagree. This is behind all exchange activity, the principle behind all democratic governments, all courtships, the binding force of all contracts, in fact behind all formal and informal interhuman actions. We always solicit agreements and repulse trespass or coercion. When we examine how human beings act, this agreement/coercion principle is always present. The fact that we are ignorant of it or unawares of it may be the main reason why it does not work as it should. There will always be those who for personal gain will try to get around it and deceive or steal or force through violence. They are empowered by those who allow them to do this, either meekly as victims, or actively by joining in with those who will coerce, only to become victims themselves. In the company of thieves, who is safe from thievery? However, as I had said before, seeking and finding agreement is an extremely complex case, as complex as who we are as human beings.

So the 'moralistic', and generally universally acceptable, approach to this was to find correct rules of conduct, and to seek the approval of some higher force who will endorse this morality, which in the end translates into God. From this force then flows blessings as they are interpreted by the religious clerics who then interpret the sacred writings, and who ultimately tell us what is moral and what is not. Philosophers of the past have largely supported this heavy 'top-down' system. But now we can see how it hinders where it should help, since it leads people to believe that their 'just causes', which transcend merely the agreement/coercion conditions, thus gives them license to coerce another. This is the error. Rather than imposing this heavy burden of interpretation of what is morally correct, or politically correct, or justifiably coercion; why not simplify it dramatically by allowing individuals to work out their own particular inter-human conditions by allowing them to either seek agreement, or be protected from coercion? This can easily be done through social agreements that are aware of this need for a new justice where individuals are forbidden from coercing each other and third parties except in the case of either preventing or correcting coercions. Then the passions of what is morally correct is instead replaced with a colder light of reason, where the judgment of whether or not coercion is displacing agreement can be understood rationally. I ask you then, is this 'bottom-up' approach not a better way? And is it really idealistic, or simply mundanely practical? Even without the general public understanding the mental constructions that lead to this conclusion, even if they are oblivious of philosophical arguments, they know nothing and could care less of Habeas Mentem as a principle of agreement vs. coercion; but they can see it as a practical application to their daily lives: "Do not force me against agreement, and stop me if I am coercing you." It is really that simple: Agreement/coercion as a social ontology is no more than a postulate of practical reason. The ramification of a general public seeing it this way are immense.

So, why am I pessimistic about this? I fear that we will invent new ways to coerce one another using 'agreements'. Really, we as human beings are incredibly clever, and sometimes in the wrong way. Maybe this is why we have had to rely on morality, because we are clever in how we can damage each other. So, if there must be a morality, let it be this: that we do not use agreements to coerce one another.

And when we can do this, I think we will have found the Truth of 'who we are'.

Well, tootle-ooh, but I've gotta run. My wife will be coming home from Italy in a couple of days, and I have to get the house ready so as not to 'coerce' her with my sloppy, detached living habits. As always, it has been a joy. Thanks.

Adios! Ivan

Ethics: #1 of 4:

This is a four part series on Ethics, which is work in progress, and each part will be posted about a week apart. All comments or ideas are welcome. -Ivan

* * *

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND

By Ivan Alexander


1. TOP-DOWN ETHICS

In "Burden of Dreams", the documentary film about the making of "Fitzcarraldo" in the Amazon jungle, filmmaker Werner Herzog says that the jungle is not full of joy and goodness, that this is an illusion. Instead, the beautiful sounds one hears are sounds of pain, of desperation, the screams only of survival, of eating and being eaten. There is no peace there, only constant war and killing. This is the reality of Life, or to paraphrase Herzog, there is no goodness in the wilderness, no paradise, and 'ethics' and the 'good' are human inventions which do not translate into nature. Nature is not good; it only 'is', to survive pain and death.

This caught my attention because I think it captures the reality of our human existence in a universe that merely 'is', in one that life merely 'survives', and that our human struggle to find meaning in an existence that stingily offers us some inner hope is born only of a desperation to survive death. Where is the 'joy' in this, the beauty? Is this not a fatalistic existence from which none of us will escape alive? What is this 'good' we strive for? If the function of life is merely to survive, how can there be an Ethics for moral action?

This is the Subjective question that went through my mind, watching Herzog struggle in the Amazonian jungle, where some of his native crew died: Where is the Good in this world? Why do we struggle so to realize our Dreams?

This question is of necessity a product of an advanced mind. There is something in the frontal lobes of my brain that requires I address this, and will not let me rest without an answer. I doubt our animal neighbors of the planet are much troubled by this, though they too may have good and bad dreams of their own. But their inner programming seems to have adapted well to the cruel existence of eating and being eaten which propels the living things of this world. They do not seem to display any moral judgements in their actions. They kill without remorse, and maybe die without regret, but selfless actions like sacrifice seem foreign to them. Existence as displayed by the surviving living species is inherently selfish; ethics is of no concern to them; moral ethics is a manmade thing.

Amongst the human species, however, Ethics has been a subject of debate for a very long time, possibly predating the written word. In our known recorded history, it already occupied the minds of ancient Egyptians, where in the presence of Osiris, after confessions of sins, the heart of the deceased was weighed against the weight of a feather; if it proved heavy with sin, it was eaten by a monster, thus destroying the dead man's soul so it could not enjoy paradise in the beauty of the gods. Though this was a fanciful and naive approach to Ethics, it persisted in various forms to this day in the ideas of heaven and hell. All religions of the world have some such version of what is closer to God, hence Ethical, or further from the Good, from God, and thus Evil. The ancient Greek thinkers further formalized these questions into philosophical ideas of Ethics in their search for 'what is the Good'. We have carried on this tradition to modern times, so the thinking of early Greeks, Anaximander, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, were later carried by the Church via St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, and are now still with us into the modern thoughts of Kant, Buber, De Chardin, Kung, Levinas, amongst many others; debates that have been faithfully recorded and carried on through the university systems, and their publications; and now this debate is carried still further into academia's most modern and democratic offspring as it continues on the internet. So we actively debate this still. But is it not strange, that after so many centuries of debate, millennia, we are still no closer to the truth of what is Ethics? What is the Good? Why has it proven to be so difficult, so illusive?

One possibility is that it simply is not true. There is no Good. If so, then all Ethics are a human invention with no reference to the reality of the universe as it is. This is what Herzog implied, that there is no God to which we can turn to. Nature is an evil place, not the embodiment of the good. The idea of nature as Good is a clever lie. Of course, a cleverly structured lie can never be deciphered and will leave the thinker perpetually off balance trying to understand truth where none exists. But this answer does not satisfy us and, except for die hard pragmatists or existentialists, it is quickly rejected as a philosophical dead end. Another possibility is that we are still wrestling with a template of reality we inherited from the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Zoroastrians, Hebrews, and even Greeks, whereby the universe is an imperfect, corrupt version of the perfection of God. And we are the imperfect and corrupt creations within it. Laboring under this moral template, we are then forced to build progressively greater and more complex systems of thought and structured embodiments of ethical behavior, rules of moral laws, that then dictate to us what is moral behavior, and what is not. This body of moral ethics is then embodied in our Holy Books and Scriptures. Man can never aspire, however, to approach the perfection of God, never get close enough to form that perfect union with the infinite which would allow him to become like God, and thus remain forever banished into the nether world of imperfection. Thus damned, man is forced to be punished by the morally correct laws representing our ideas of what is God's perfection, whenever we stray from this. So under this template, the one handed down to us from ancient times, we are never good enough to be Good, and never moral in our own right because we are damned with original sin, being imperfect-corrupt images of God. The only salvation, if we should accept this, is to be redeemed of this sin through some form of baptism of the holy spirit and accept our saviour, whether it be Christ or Mohammed, or Baha'u'allah, as our redeemer. This is the heavy 'top-down' structure of morality that fundamentally underlies much of the general and common thinking of the world today, that man is an impure creature that needs to be cleansed, or at least kept in check because he is wicked. For this structure of morality, great religions had been created to enforce the moral code, to reward or punish as the need may be, and to offer and even guarantee salvation for those who obey, or further damnation to hell for those who disobey. Interesting ideas, but they are fundamentally flawed themselves as self negating, since non can ever really interpret the perfection of God for us, and thus leave us no closer to understanding whether or not we are closer to the Good or not. This is a debate without end. It is not a dead end as in the prior case, but it is a debate without resolution since none can ever identify with certainty what is the Good. In the end, man does wicked and evil things, which is an historical fact, and a morality of Ethics does not seem to sway him to correct his ways. Man stays rebellious and refuses redemption, which is regrettable; or worse, he revels in his evil deeds. Why is this so? Why is this heavy moral 'top-down' structure so difficult to apply to the world?

In part, the answer to this question, it is because a super-structure of morality does not work. The Good, morally ethical behavior, is not something that can be imposed from above. Human beings are extremely complex creatures with a will, a mind, a soul, and even a little wickedness. We cannot help what we inherited from our lesser brethren. Ever watch monkeys steal? They grab and run, knowing full well they should not be doing this. I have seen monkeys do this from the rooftops of Agra, India. Would you believe I was 'mugged' by a baboon in Malaysia, who with bared teeth against my leg took my two oranges from my pocket? I have also seen it in my wolf-dogs, who habitually steal from each other, given the chance. Only I can 'morally' intervene to make sure that each gets a fair share, and not more. Does this make me their moral equivalent of a 'priest', I wonder, as I point my finger at them: "thou shalt not!..'? They slink away embarrassed with tail between legs when caught, and immediately beg for forgiveness. Sounds almost human? I suspect we are not yet so far removed, that we will not still deceive, steal, cleverly force where we can, and generally act in ways that we would judge to be amoral. There is a lack of awareness when it is convenient for us to forget what is morally good. This is our human nature with which we had been wrestling for these thousands of years. Yet, this is also our strength, the force that makes us be 'who we are' and who came to dominate the whole globe. Being morally good has not always been an asset, since we then are often destroyed; being morally bad has had its rewards in this world, but has not been an asset either, since in the end things fall apart. So where does salvation lie? How do we resolve the paradox that we cannot be totally good, nor totally bad?

* * *

Ethics: #2 of 4:

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND contd.

2. ETHICS AS AGREEMENT VS. COERCION

The human reality is that men have been predators to one another, and thus we have ample historical evidence that man can do damage to others. A mild case of damage is infidelity, where trust is broken. An agreement of trust had existed, and now it is broken so the agreement that had existed no longer applies, and thus one or both parties are damaged and suffer. A more serious case of damage is entrapment or enslavement. Here a person is forced against their will, against their agreement, to become property, or subject to satisfying the needs of another. Again, if done through trickery, without ones agreement, then trust was broken, and now enslavement ensues. A still greater damage is violence, where a person is forced against their will with physical assault. Here, not only is trust and agreement broken, but the physical space occupied by the person is violated as well, since the fists, or whip or tire iron, used to beat the other is entering the victim's personal physical existence, his or her body. Of course, the ultimate damage is death, where all the agreements are broken, all the covenants of life disconnected, and the victim is killed. In each case, the operative word was 'broken agreement', where a person was forced against his or her will to serve the needs or passions of another. Implied in each broken agreement, by definition, was a 'coercion', whereby the perpetrator of this coercion was overstepping the boundaries of the person who was being victimized against their agreement. When a person forces another against their agreement, a coercion results. Why is this important? Is this 'agreement versus coercion' a valid Ethics question?

Each human being who is conscious and has a mind can form agreements. We naturally seek what is good for us, pleasing, pleasurable, fun, funny, satisfying, lovely, comforting, reassuring, exciting, safe, necessary, correct, dutiful, beautiful, etc. We are extremely complex as conscious human beings, and our agreements reflect that complexity. There is no simple formula for what is a 'good agreement'. It may be for mere survival, or it may be for pleasure, or esthetic beauty, or to satisfy a childhood wish, or some philosophical dream. We cannot define this, since it is as complex as the being who is seeking or accepting this agreement. But we can say that each agreement is how it is perceived as desirable by the person accepting the things agreed upon. So 'agreement' is a totally Subjective thing. For another to step into this and try to analyze it, or judge its merits, is to trespass onto that person, unless that person had first invited them to do so. So agreement is also voluntary, it is an expression of our free will. For better or worse, whether the agreements we make are smart or stupid, functional or dysfunctional, they reflect the 'who we are', our subjective selves. If this is a given, and our subjective selves are allowed to be who we are, then an agreement is always a good, since it reaches over into both our lives as we agree, and into the life of another, as the other agrees. "Are we in agreement over this?" -- just testing-- The point is that an agreement between two people is a 'good' for them.

Now what happens when this agreement is violated? Above and beyond the examples of violations given above, there is also the violation of third parties. For example, I make an agreement with another to go into someone's house and steal. The agreement between us exists and satisfies 'our' needs, but it violates the agreement of another, the owner of the house who is to be robbed. Another example is that in joining my fraternity, I must submit to the agreement that I will 'haze' the initiates on hazing night. I must agree with this, if I am to remain a fraternity brother, and I must use the paddle on the rear ends of the pledges, since that is my agreement to be part of the fraternity. On the other end, the pledges agree to bare their bottoms and be slapped with the wooden paddles. All this abuse is agreed upon, which certainly is an abuse as observed by outsiders, but not at all an abuse by the participants who are part of the ritual. This template can be translated to families, companies, governments, social clubs, religious practices, etc. We can agree even to be abused; but it is 'our' agreement, and thus is valid. The only agreement that is not valid is where we agree to coerce another; then it is a coercion and devoid of this principle of agreement. So where is the good? The good exists wherever this network of agreements functions such that it does not trespass or coerce on another third party, and meets the needs of satisfying the persons who had entered into their mutually beneficial agreement. Then, there is no judgement, no morality involved. They do onto themselves as they agree, and what they then gain or lose is up to them, as it is assessed by their individual minds. It is not then for some greater structure to pass judgment on them, but rather they pass judgment on themselves. Either the agreement works, and they are happy with the results; or the agreement is a bust, and they end it unhappily. But what if one wants to end the agreement, and the other does not? That depends on how the agreement was drawn up in the first place: If I buy a house without contingencies, and find that termites had eaten all the interior walls, then I am stuck with a bad agreement; had I had contingencies, then the agreement would have become null and void. The point is that we control our agreements, and the more aware we are of that control, the more conscious we are of what the potential results of such agreement may be, the better is the agreement formed. But to refuse to release another from agreement, when it is not justifiable, not in the agreement that they may not do so, then that constitutes a coercion. So the balance is always between agreement and coercion. For the conscious mind, this is a very simple thing. For an unconscious mind, the agreement versus coercion function is difficult but not impossible to learn. The judgement then always rests with the persons who are in agreement, as to whether this agreement is a good or not, and the resolution of conflict, or forced disagreement, in effect of coercion, then falls on the moral equivalent of the social agreement, the Law.

Agreements exist all around us, all the time. We are creatures who find agreements instinctively. But because the Ethics of the past never clarified this for us, we had been living in a state of confusion that did not allow us to see clearly when we were being coerced. That is not to say that all agreements are Good; only that all agreements are the good we seek in making them. Whether they are then manifest into a good or not is not up to us, once the choices are made, but up to the reality which forms around those agreements. What manifests as a result of these agreements, the context within which they exist and materialize in reality, is then a judgment from reality. How we then respond to that reality based judgment then will lead us to conclude whether we have materialized a good or not. On the other hand, if coercion is forced upon us, we immediately know it is not a good, even if he who coerces may imagine that this coercions is 'for our own good'. When it is not something we voluntarily accepted, so what manifests around us from this coercion will be other than what we had chosen. Through coercion our free will is suspended, our ability to make conscious agreements is thrown into jeopardy, and when we finally break free and make agreements, they may already exist in a damaged state due to the prior coercions. In other words, whereas agreements manifest for us a reality condition for who we are, coercion manifests for us a reality condition for who we are not, or worse, they damage us. In the paternalistic relationships of Ethics based on ancient philosophy, none of this was made clear to us, so we lived in a perpetual state of confusion devoid of knowing when we were manifesting reality in relation to who we are, and when we were manifesting a reality in relation to who we are not. The two are radically different from one another. Agreements with reality exist all the time since we survive; but the Good of these agreements is when they are made in the image of 'who we are'.

Agreements also exist by extension. When a social order had been validated by public voting in a fair and democratic process, then the resulting decision of the vote is a binding agreement on that population who participated in this democracy. That does not negate the protection of our individuals rights from coercion, but participants in this democratic process agree to abide but it. The same can be said of children as wards of their parents, legal guardians, responsible elders, social and educational institutions, etc. Because children are not yet of an age, in many cases, where agreements can be sought and abided by, then the responsibility falls on those who are responsible for them. This does not give them the right to abuse the children, or handicapped persons, or mentally challenged wards (or even pets, or wild animals, or animal husbandry); rather it puts the responsibility of agreement on those whose minds are mature enough, and evolved enough, to be able to make binding agreements. Even if the agreements are not formalized by contract, rather informal as no more than a 'given word' or 'hand shake' or merely an understanding; it is an agreement if both parties understood it this way. To then violate that agreement is a coercion, which then throws confusion into the agreement, and manifests the unhappiness of beings forced against their will. So this is always so, a balance between choices made in agreement as opposed to choices resulting from failed agreement, or forced dis-agreement, namely coercion. By extension, this principle then applies to members of groups, corporations, fraternities, clubs, educational institutions, military service, condominiums, etc. where the original agreement to join and abide by the rules of the organization then subjects the members to the agreements and rules of the group. So, unless someone disagrees with the group so strongly as to quit the group, their agreement is to abide by the laws and bylaws of the organization. Of course, under no circumstances can a group activate agreements that force others against their agreement, that coerce, except in the event to stop coercion. The police, military, legal and tax systems, all have the power to coerce; however, in a just and legal system, they may coerce only to enforce agreement or to prevent or stop coercion.

Why is all this important? It is important because it dispenses with the heavy 'top-down' moral structure of prior thinking on Ethics. The moral equivalent of the Good is reduced simply to Agreement; the philosophical enforcement of that Good is then no more than the enforcement of allowing the freedom to find agreement and being protected from coercion. Rather than a top-down morality, instead we have here a democratic process where each individual finds his or her right course of action in agreement with others, and is both free from coercion and is forbidden from coercing. Then each person is free to find their own happiness as it agrees with them to do so, and as it is found in agreement with others who are happy to share in this. This is a very uncomplicated Ethics for the new modern mind of man. But it comes with a 'caveat': this 'bottom-up' Ethics of Agreement works only for conscious minds.

* * *

Ethics: #3 of 4:

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND contd.

3. ETHICS AS CONSCIOUSNESS

So here is the fundamental question of Ethics: If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?

Nature has proven to be brutal, and coercion is a chronic state of affairs. However, even in nature there is reprieve where in between attacks and suffering there are moments of comfort and joy. When the kill is being eaten, when there is sleep afterwards to aid in digestion, when there is sex, nursing offsprings, or play with others for its own sake; these are all moments of an animal's time to enjoy its existence. Within the totality of experiences that define the animal's existence, these are moments of happiness. So instead of the apparent coercions that haunt an animal life, there is agreement; but then it is not between conscious minds, but rather between a subjective mind, the animal's, and its totality existence within which it survives. When these are in agreement, life goes on and procreates; when in disagreement, life perishes.

In human society, a similar principle is at work. We appear to be coercing one another all the time, with little agreement sought and, when asked for, rarely found. But that is the surface of appearances; underneath all manners of agreements are being formed, often unconsciously, tacitly, that make our society work. Same as in the animal world, agreement exacts a high price: either we survive, or we perish. For example, to disagree with the captain of a vessel tossed at sea in a storm is a peril to all aboard, there is no room for disagreement, and thus all fall-in tacitly to survive. In general, this is how unconscious agreements work, we fall into agreement to survive. However, in the new mind, there is a level of consciousness that questions and demands the freedom to pursue its own way. This is a function of awareness, so not all will share in this need equally, and rather than tacitly accepting an agreement given to us, conscious minds seek out agreement in advance. This requires forethought and a level of awareness to make this forethought possible. A more conscious mind is aware of its actions, of its agreements, and is usually aware of what to expect as a result of these actions and agreements. Where the question of Ethics fails here is that a conscious mind will use forethought not to seek agreement, but rather it will use its conscious choices to cleverly coerce others. And this is the ethical dilemma here: How do we prevent conscious minds from using their skills of awareness to 'not coerce', but to seek agreement instead.

The answer to this ethical dilemma lies, I believe, in the level of consciousness of the person who is to seek or break agreement. A simple mind, childlike, even animal like, can see the quick gain to be had from a coercions: Why ask when you can take? A more conscious mind will see that to ask but not force is a path to agreement, and then can bind that agreement formally so that both parties can be secure in their trust of one another. But a most advance mind, one that has an awareness which surpasses these, sees an agreement as still more: Not only do not force the reality of another, but serve and forgive when the other fails to do the same. This is a tremendous leap forward in human consciousness: to love one another, or do onto others as you would have done onto you. Because there is no perfection in the Earthly totality of human existence, to seek agreement without force, and then forgive in a spirit of service where that failed is to heal; and that is the mark of a very advanced mind. Thus, such a level of consciousness is most well suited, even necessary, to manifest our social reality into the Good. It is this third level of consciousness, still so illusive for us, that I call the 'new Mind'. And it is this new mind that best understands this statement:

The best defense against coercions for humankind is the awareness that it exists, and then convert coercion into an agreement instead.

Alas, this is still in the future, for we have not yet completely evolved above the first step: We must first ask and not force. This is not a judgment, and I believe that humankind can and will rise above this ethical dilemma. All it takes is consciousness.

* * *

Ethics: #4 of 4:

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND contd.

4. IS ETHICS MANMADE?

Therefore, we come to the final question of Ethics regarding finding agreement as a primary principle of the Good: Is Ethics a manmade thing? Is it the function of man's total body of thought, or is it the function of a body of thought greater than that? How big is the totality that guides our human actions and consciousness into achieving a planetwide 'social agreement' that validates the 'law of agreements'?

We can understand totality at various levels, such as of force, where great pressure is applied on a given point. We can also understand totality of understanding, where all ideas are assembled into a cohesive whole that makes sense as that whole, as in philosophy. We can also understand the totality of humankind's understanding, all the philosophies and sciences as knowledge and principles that guide our lives, our belief systems, even if we are but dimly aware of them. And finally, we can understand the totality of human activity, what is our social order, our planetwide human reality. From each totality is some guiding principle that is identifiable to us. For example, the totality of force is a sum-total; the totality of understanding is a synthesis-total; the totality of human social interaction is a guiding principle of Ethics-total. All contribute to man's existence totality. But the final totality, the one that defines for us our human condition on this world is one that transcends human understanding, since it jumps over the total knowledge and understanding of human awareness and off into the cosmos of the reality that had assembled into what we call Existence. That totality is beyond the human mind, beyond our consciousness, and yet it is still in "agreement' with us because we survive, do not perish, and even thrive within it. This is the totality that has assembled within itself the greatest dimensions we can imagine, what we will call the Infinity-total.

Why should this be important? It is important because we are still left the question asked earlier:

"If an agreement is freely made by conscious minds that satisfies all parties who are in agreement, are they happy with it, is it a Good? If not, then where does it fail as a good? If it is not a good, then what in reality will manifest for it as an error? And if so, then who is to judge?"

Until we can resolve this question, then the validity of an 'Ethics of Agreements' is still in doubt. If Ethics is a thing only manmade, then from what can it hope to gain validation as a Truth? From what source of divine knowledge or principle-totality can it draw its strength as a law for humankind?

Humanity has labored under these Totality-Principles for a long time now. We have had the totality of law, which guides us in what we may or may not do as social beings. We have the totality of religious teachings and scriptures which, through example and metaphor, act as an interpretation of what is God for humankind. And in the spirit of philosophy, we have had the totality of human thought assembled into a total body-philosophic from which we gain reason and understanding of the human condition. All these encompass totalities that comprise our sense of the ethical. Now, if we fail to comply within any such totality, whereby individually we break the rules or laws or spirit of ethical behavior, then from each such totality comes a judgment, and even a punishment. However, in each case, this is a manmade thing, where some human authority will condemn the unethical behavior and seek to correct it. But if each of these totalities is a lesser totality, in terms of the 'Infinity-totality mentioned', and they have the power to punish or coerce, then what should we expect from the greatest totality, the universal-infinity-totality as a corrective action?

The answer lies in what manifests from our actions. If reality 'accepts' our action, in effect the infinity-totality 'agrees' with what it is we do, then what will materialize within the vicinity of our being, our personal reality within which we exist, will match that what we had expected from our agreement. For example, at a very simple level, let us say we agree to move a large boulder and put our collective backs into it. If the boulder moves as expected, then reality has validated that agreement; if it fails to move, then the validation for the agreement is not there. On a more sophisticated level, taking it to the most complex human interactions, if we agree to barter and exchange and from this is created a successful economic reality, then reality accepts these agreements; if the economic reality is failing or crashes, then reality has failed to endorse these agreements as they are. The interrelationships that manifest from human activity as they relate to one another are immeasurable; the interrelationships that result from how our human activities thus affect reality, both the universal reality of matter within which we exist and the human reality of being within which we are conscious; all these are a function of the interrelated-totality from which materializes results. The results of each of our agreements, or coercions, are a function of the greatest possible reality-totality: Existence. For each action we do, or agree to do, manifests a response from the Infinity-totality as to how it will manifest a response within the vicinity of our being. Then, whether or not we are conscious of this, whether or not the mind wants to accept of reject the outcome, the result 'is' as reality has made it. This is not a 'judgement' but merely a 'reality' of what manifests in response to human action.

In conclusion, the final arbiter of reality is the universe within which we exist; it is the ultimate Totality to which we answer. We do not answer with fear of 'punishment', rather with awareness of what we can expect to have manifested in our personal existence from this Totality. If all lesser manmade totalities are interrelated into bodies of thought and conscious understanding, then what is this interrelated Totality? Is it a conscious Thought? Is an Infinite-Totality God? The answer I give is that: it does not matter. What matters is whether or not what we do through agreement, as opposed to coercion, manifests for us a desired reality in response. If so, then our agreements of human action are validated by that Infinity-Totality. And if it is validated by the greatest possible totality of existence, then is this not a Good? It would seem that there is not need to judge it as good or evil, for what manifests merely is. However, as in the Amazon jungle where Herzog lamented the absence of goodness in the wilderness, there is no guarantee that all of our actions will yield joy and desired rewards. Life can be brutal and filled with pain, injustices at levels over which we have no control; yet, this is the human condition that calls upon us to find agreements to correct the pain, the injustice. We are the creatures of the wild endowed with conscious minds, and on our shoulders falls the responsibility to improve our condition. And when we do this, when we can overcome nature's pain and killing, and instead replace it with joy and kindness, with love and beauty, are we not achieving a Good?

I say that human interaction by agreement is the ultimate Good.

In the end, I propose that the Ethics as described above is an infinitely designed Good, not manmade but of its own 'interrelated' construction, and that for humankind to build upon the foundations of a social contract validating agreements, and opposed to coercions, will introduce into the human reality a new level of justice, goodwill, and happiness, of a Good and a new Mind, which we had yet never experienced. This is the 'burden of our dreams', to bring a new reality resulting from this new Ethics. Is this Truth? Future will tell.


END

POINTS OF LIFE, in answer to Anon-1's post below, under topic "Necessity and Being":

By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 2, 2001 - 03:13 am: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Ivan, G-man,

Let me put this bluntly – I am excited, more so than any time during these past twenty years of working on this project, and the reason for that is, I am beginning to grasp the theoretical conceptual process that possibly leads to ‘consciousness’ in the noumenal sense as it relates to reality. Brain-ache, is about the only way I have of conveying to each of you what I am mentally going through as I attempt to logically conceive, then record the notions as they are occurring.

Ivan, I am not sure the actual order of occurrence (at least for now) is significant, but at some point the order will become the key to revealing the precise moment when a being enters the state of reality, and then becomes a living entity through conscious awareness. In that sense, most probably at this particular stage, we exist without the ability to store events in either short or long term memory for several reasons; 1) we do not understand how first stage mind functions begin; 2) we do not know the exact point they begin; 3) we do not know when the ability to store data in memory occurs.

In the metaphysical sense, all doubts that I previously held concerning the noumenal us have vanished, and at present, only the noumenal pathway to existence in reality makes sense to me. In that regard, this requires specific considerations concerning all reality, not just that of human existence.

I agree with Ivan’s perception of time wholeheartedly. Einstein also recognized time was a problem from a scientific standpoint, and the time problem has been a stumbling block for Quantum Everything since day one. So, from my perspective, the model that I think can eventually be constructed will ignore time for it has been logically theorized, tested, and verified universal time is impossible.

G-man, the fabric of noumenon is transparent; thereof, we should be able to ‘see’ through it, and comprehend what is inside of it. In that sense, the fabric of noumenon seemingly is all inclusive of all things, and everything, uniformly distributed across this – eternity – of which is reality, as we know it. It appears to me, the first will be last, and the last will be first, and there is no middle between the beginning and end, for the end is contained within the beginning, and the beginning is contained within the end – eternity is – all of everything that ever was, is, and always will be. In that sense, logic tells me that all of everything is unified within a single entity, of which, is inclusive of the universe, as we know it. This should give us the ‘insight’ required to establish a basic model that could possibly withstand all genuine serious scientific inquiry, without our having to know the specific sciences required to ‘proof’ the model. If what I now perceive is possible, there is most assuredly a bridge of the type that you mentioned.

Ivan and G-man, I would appreciate both of your opinions on perpetuity – for a perpetual entity to exist, it must be self-contained, and possess the quality of infinitude; meaning in the sense, it is a closed system with infinite capabilities to expand as powered by internal energy, that creates new energy by growing it from the residue of expended energy. I am very weak knowledge wise in the sciences of energy and matter, and honestly do not see how I can get to where I need to take this without at least having some notion if what I think occurs is even theoretically possible.

I stopped here – and went through the new posts of interest, before finishing this and posting it. While reading and responding to the new posts, it become clear to me that consciousness is perhaps, not such a deep mystery after all. Consciousness means that we are aware of self, and in a coherent state of existence, but that consciousness is not representative of our – being, of which, is at a much greater depth inside-of-the-core at what I perceive to be – the subconscious part of us, where intuition and innate qualities are deeply rooted or perhaps, embedded. Our subconscious never stops functioning as we live, unless it is done by induced methods, trauma, or death (I am not sure about the last – death). If that is the case, it is at the subconscious level where consciousness is triggered, and at the subconscious level where our being resides (soul?). Our being has access to the ‘fabric of noumenon’ because of one factor I never before considered. It is obvious that ‘life’ flows through us never ceasing while in the mortal state of existence; by that, there must be a connection between our subconscious and ‘that’ of which, is the source that in essence, ‘makes us come alive,’ and that ‘source’ continues to function in perpetuity while we live until our mortal life is ‘interrupted’ by induced method, trauma, or death.

I have always believed that all knowledge is universal, and I think it is through the part of us that functions without our being aware of it, that knowledge formulates as we obtain it through the various mechanisms available to us, basically via experience, learning, and in retrospect – intuition and/or instinct, of which are probably innate or embedded data that is available to us through our noumenal connection. I believe that is the ‘bridge’ thought of by G-man. While reflecting about this, we know people come to similar notions while being completely independent of one another, and my first inclination is to think it occurs because of similar circumstance, but I also realize the potentiality of that happening is at best, preponderant, and of a magnitude beyond reason, especially when the era of notion is centuries or millennia apart. It is in that regard that I am most certain noumenon is the answer, and all knowledge is universal, which makes it readily available to anyone if they search for it diligently.

While sleeping the remainder of this night, hopefully I can assimilate (in the sense – to comprehend completely) the connections betwixt coherent recognition, subconscious being (soul), and mortal life.

Anon – the 1st one
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, October 2, 2001 - 04:30 pm:
Dear Anon-1, and all,

RE: "Ivan and G-man, I would appreciate both of your opinions on perpetuity – for a perpetual entity to exist, it must be self-contained, and possess the quality of infinitude; meaning in the sense, it is a closed system with infinite capabilities to expand as powered by internal energy, that creates new energy by growing it from the residue of expended energy. I am very weak knowledge wise in the sciences of energy and matter, and honestly do not see how I can get to where I need to take this without at least having some notion if what I think occurs is even theoretically possible."

I like to think, schematically, that each living entity is a 'point of life'. What I mean by this is that each living thing is the product of previous life, through its ancestry going back to first life, in such a way that the 'umbilical' chord of life was never disconnected. So we have a continuous chain of living existence from the beginning to the present represented in each organism that is living. But this is only one half of the cross hairs of the point of life. The other half is that life is supported by a reality that closely hugs it at every moment of time. Each infinitesimal point of life is intrinsically interrelated into a whole fabric of energy that spans the universe, and within which the energy expanded is replenished into more life. I think science will ultimately prove this out, that nothing is exempt from this interrelated infinite reality, that all things are connected to each other through a web of universal energy; if so, then each life form is alive in it as this fabric of reality allows it to be, and thus is always the 'point of life' that is intimately connected to this infinite reality, spatially as well as umbilically. This interrelationship is what defines the cross hairs of its existence at its point of being. To be alive, this must always be so. Now, why is this important? It is so because this same life exhibits varying degrees of consciousness. At the top of this structure is human consciousness, though we cannot discount the possibility of consciousness greater than ours somewhere in the universe; and through this awareness of self, through our conscious being, we occupy as points of life the center of the cross hairs of our total being, both within our minds as well as within the energy fabric to which we are so totally connected, interrupted only upon death. Again, this is to the best of our knowledge, though one can speculate that shows that this 'point of life' continues as a life energy or consciousness even after death, since nothing in the universe is ever lost. So this consciousness, this self contained being which is also conscious, is therefore also the 'bridge' G-man talked about, "a bridge that links (in terms of Time theories) Einstein with St. Augustine, Blake, Eliot, Whitman, et al," one which may ultimately prove that all of our noumenal being is connected through our minds to all of existence. I realize that as stated here, this is still an article of faith since we cannot fathom infinity, but I think the potential for understanding this model now exists, as does its 'proof'. Is this infinitude; is it in perpetuity? Yes. The beauty of it is that as long as life exists and procreates, there exists at each point of life a noumenal definition, as represented by its mind, that connects this life to infinity.

I hope this adds something of value.

Take care, Ivan

Continued: Points of Life:

By G-man767 on Wednesday, October 3, 2001 - 11:22 pm:
Anon: Questions: If pure experience could (at least briefly) be shut away from those cognitive functions which serve to organize and make sense of what we sense and perceive, would the sense perception of that purely experienced teach us anything about 'reality' independent of the processes through which such 'reality' is reformulated in order for us to apprehend it? Also, you ask about what other (possibilities) opposites to XX, XY? My response is: why, of all possible imaginable alternative worlds...why this way, according to 'this' order, versus...? Ivan: You suggest duality...versus seamless whole whose extremes are (perhaps) recycling/perpetuating programs. Example: Consider oceanic convection systems based on currents and heating/cooling processes. Which harks back to my question to Anon: if 'reality' is ultimately pre-cognitive (that is, independent of and indifferent to our apprehension), is not a characterization (modelling) of duality afterall, indeed a cognitive (and re-cognitive) output? G-man


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, October 4, 2001 - 12:12 am:
Ivan,

Do you comprehend the word – ineffable? The missing pair from the sets is precisely and most definitely – I/? – That set is not so much the focus of my logic as is an idiom expressed ‘noumena’ in the inherent dialect of ancient Greek, but understood in context of ancient Sanskrit. One key is in the lock, it opens the lock to the point one tumbler is all that remains before the lock clicks – open. To emphasize the point on that of which we are probably now standing, perhaps the following sets will explain my dilemma.

A battery has two poles – and +
Consider noumenon as – phenomenon as +

Electricity stored inside a battery is not polarized
Electricity will not flow from + to –
Electricity only flows from – to +

The above suggests that everything flows in the same manner as electricity, and if that is true, our being flows from noumenon ‘to become’ a phenomenon in reality, but when not in reality (while sleeping), are we not ‘noumenon?’ If that is the case, noumenon is also dependent on phenomenon. Consider the battery as a whole that consists of two aspects, for that is what we are – similar to a battery, and two aspects of a whole. Necessarily, we are in this thread, as has everyone before us to my knowledge, ignoring the most obvious fault in our reasoning concerning human understanding of what being is. Identity is the key that will not open the lock, because we do not know what fits where the ? is in I/?

The reason for that is simple, the signifier does not exist in the English Alphabet, but it does in numbers.

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9

Nine numbers is, logically.
Paired they must total the same.
1/9 – 2/8 – 3/7 – 4/6
Odd number out = 5 for there is no counterpart to 5

Logically, I pairs I/me – but if we pair our set that way, there can be no match for – you, which is illogical. Truth is, the missing pair set is – I/5 – and the five represents our five senses. The five major senses are our connections to all noumenal beings – us, which is inclusive of all life eternally. Of the five, we can eliminate taste, smell, hear, see, which leaves but one sense to do all the work for us – feel. Feel is not only touch – it is also an emotional trigger, our instinct, our gut feeling or intuition. If we can get down and dirty, every one of us know when ‘it feels’ right’ – and ‘it’ covers the spectrum of all things.

We eliminated four of the senses: Deduction: 5 – 1 = 4, 4 – 1 = 3, 3 – 1 = 2, 2 – 1= 1 and in the process we have a remainder = 1, now we have arrived at the abstract pairing = I/1 – so what does the 1 mean or signify? I prefer to use the question you wrote to identify or give the pair identity I/One for many reasons, chiefly for a specific reason that shall remain private.

Ivan wrote: “Or do we call it the 'One'?”

The correct pair is I/God – and it can be no other way. Yes, you are your own God while in the phenomenal state of being, but in the noumenal state of being, you are not God, but what you really are, of which, is based solely on your identity, and you are your own police department, your own detective, your own prosecutor, your own defender, your own jury, your own judge, and your own executioner. That is what an identity does for us, our identity proves who we are, what we are, what we mean to others, what we mean to ourselves, but mostly what we stand for, which is a true signifier of ‘worth.’ I call it - Integrity of Character, others may call it something else to suit their own whim. Despite what a human beings’ mentality is, unless a human being is diseased or has a mental defect – it is totally impossible to lie to self about anything.

Without an identity, a thing reminds me of a black square block that sits nameless before us. Sure, we recognize it as a black box, but we do not know what the purpose of it is, but if someone writes the word – battery – on that black box, we know exactly what it is; moreover, we know what it does. That is the way of human beings, a person must have an identity in order to recognize and realize – what they are, but without filling in the I/? Understanding of being is not possible.

The one thing that I cannot figure out is; why does modernity ignore these notions? It is apparent many ancient peoples knew about these concepts, which can be ascertained by reading, and study of many ancient texts no matter where upon the earth they were recorded. Follows is a part of one of those texts as translated by, unknown-

'Phenomena' cannot be such without 'noumenon', neither 'noumenon' without 'phenomena'. Therefore, conceptually, they also are two aspects of non-conceptuality. Phenomena, being no things in themselves (devoid of self-nature) yet are everything, and noumenon, being the source of everything, yet is no thing. Everything, then, is both, and neither is any thing: eternally separate as concepts, they are forever inseparable unconceived, and that identity is the essential understanding.

That is what the universe is in so far as its nature can be suggested in words. The universe is inconceivable, because what it is, is what we are, and what we are is what the universe is - and that is total absence cognitionally which, uncognised, necessarily subsists as total presence.

'By jointly discussing noumenon and phenomenon, one reaches the highest consciousness and creates right understanding among sentient beings' - Fa Tsang, A.D. 642-712, founder of the Hua Yen Sect of Buddhism, based on the Avatamasaka Sutra.

Anon – the 1st one


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By G-man767 on Thursday, October 4, 2001 - 12:22 am:
Anon: Some good thoughts. But, beyond analogy, what precisely is the link between 'noumena' and 'electromagnetics'? (Please, don't get me wrong. I appreciate--and do grasp--what you're alluding to..:) But, I'm challenging you to dig further so as to...perhaps...express what it is you REALLY KNOW...in a more effective way, for all here. Question: what do you mean, precisely, by 'noumena' (harking back to the Greek 'nous')? How did the Greeks substantiate it? (Could Graham help here?) G-man


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, October 4, 2001 - 01:42 am:
G-man,

You wrote: “If pure experience could (at least briefly) be shut away from those cognitive functions which serve to organize and make sense of what we sense and perceive, would the sense perception of that purely experienced teach us anything about 'reality' independent of the processes through which such 'reality' is reformulated in order for us to apprehend it?”

Firstly, I believe that we must establish a distinction concerning the senses. I am a believer that humans possess more than the five basic senses. In that respect I do think the notion of ‘feeling’ – as in, ‘I feel sad, or, “my back feels sore,” is a sense as necessary to our being as is ‘touch’ or see.

My answer to your first question is, probably not, because I do not know of any methodology that could possibly validate a yes response. Think about this. You see an apple in a tree. Where is it that you see the apple in the tree? The tree and apple are seen not where they are, but behind your eyes, in your brain, where recognition occurs in the ‘abstract’ subjective apparatus that objectifies tree and apple, and accurately portrays them in spatial reality as they ‘objectively’ are. I call this the, ‘theatre in my mind.’ All of that occurs without ‘thinking,’ so it is a reflexive reaction to stimuli that triggers cognitive function. Without first learning what a tree is, and an apple is, our cognitive function will accurately objectify them, but we have no method of ‘knowing’ what they are even after apprehension. So, I cannot fathom how we could learn more about reality in the manner as questioned.

G-man wrote: “Why, of all possible imaginable alternative worlds...why this way, according to 'this' order, versus...?

After considering the question, logically, I do not believe that modern science is much closer to understanding – how the universe formed – than we were fifty years ago. Ok, call it gut feeling or intuition, but a gnawing feeling inside continues eating away as so many ‘theories’ are being taught (instilled) as being fact, when in reality, science is now an ‘institution’ that has been institutionalized to the extent, I am unsure ‘common sense’ prevails among it. For instance, can science tell us if space is flat, round, rectangular, pyramidal, or octagonal? No, of course not because we cannot find the ‘edges’ of space; moreover, it is not possible to find the edge of – space, yet the arguments abound about the ‘dimensional aspects’ of space. Common sense says; space has no dimension. What about the universe? Does the universe have shape or form? Science cannot tell us the answer, but common sense says, no, the universe is without shape or form. How can I be so sure of that? Simple – the universe exists in space, space is without form, and so must the universe be without form. Space is infinite, of that I have no doubt; thereof, so must the universe be infinite, otherwise space would have no purpose to be infinite. Infinite is not comprehensible, but it most obviously be a property of space; otherwise, finite could not exist as a property therein it. You exist, you are finite; thus, you could not exist if an infinite place/space did not exist. That is reality of the world as I perceive it, which is as defined by ‘common sense,’ for no other type of sense exists. All senses are common to humanity, but I often wonder which of them is absent among the scientific community?

Anon – the 1st one


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, October 4, 2001 - 02:08 am:
G-man,

The link between noumena and electricity (no magnetic) is – communication. If you, we accept noumenon phenomenon potentially – true, there is obviously a connection, and it is that connection of which, is presently receiving the focus of my attention. But, I am not prepared to dwell upon it until I can find the documenting evidence required to interpret three ancient Sanskrit words as contextually understood by users of that specific tongue.

So, two questions in partial response:

How does negative communicate with positive?

Why can’t positive communicate with negative?

Noumena – is the plural form of – noumenon; probably best expressed as,

Posited objects and events, as each object appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

Perhaps this will help concerning – noumena – noumenon

Etymology: German, from Greek noumenon that which is apprehended by thought, from neuter of present passive particle of noein to think, conceive, from nous mind
Date: 1796

Anon – the 1st one


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By davet84 on Thursday, October 4, 2001 - 05:38 am:
Hi Anon, G-Man, Ivan,

Interesting work guys. Almost seems like the thread is getting into the the Atman-Brahman-Anatman realm. Om mane padme Om.

The above could be referred to as a religious perspective, seemingly readily appreciated by most people. These folks don't seem to look for other instances of it though. Then there is the noumenon/phenomenon construct seemingly readily accepted by the philosophically minded.

Another area which G-Man was beginning to enter was Physics, with the mention of electromagnetism. But the specific area that has often occupied my thoughts over many years is Einstein's E and M. It seems to me that Atomic Science was mostly interested in the E aspect, where we (well not we, but the mind and the particles of U235) reach the speed of light (squared). But the necessity there was to blow whole cities to smithereens. In the cool light of day fifty years later, perhaps we can look at the other side of the equation. So, if E=MC2, we must also be able to say M=E/C2. We sit actually much closer the M than the E. Could it be that I=M=E/C2, plus something miniscule (like consciousness). I becomes the containment of E, (and the containment of All).

So the I/?, might then be I/All. The opposite, or perhaps 'the significant other' of I is thus often referred to as God, or Brahman, or Not Self. Seems that we have been given a joyous shortcut to it through the coming together in copulation and what we experience in the moment of orgasm, with the added bonus of gift of life. But it seems that it may also be accessible through philosophical, mystical, scientific, mathematical, indigenous-animistic, and even day-dreaming type, contemplation (but not formal logic methinks, because one has to accept the inherent contradiction).

The fact that all those areas of human endeavour have more or less come up with the same result (with different naming conventions) seems to give weight to it being of some significance (even without my little rendition of it, which is really just a personal explanation for sanity's sake). What did the character played by the French actor Francois Truffault say in Close Encounters of the Third Kind - 'vee think zis is significante...vee think zis is importante...'

Grease was the word, now maybe Om is the word, and the necessity becomes the will (??).

Dave.

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/
see: "Necessity and Being"

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

From Examined Life Philosophical Journal Forum, Philosophy of Consciousness:

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 - 04:18 pm:

Hi Anon-1, (& all), really interesting posts.

RE your post: "G-man, You must view 'now' as a continuum. No, now is not measurable for it never began, and it will never cease; thereof, how can you measure a thing without dimension? You cannot." --Oct. 4, '01.

My sense is that 'time' in the 'now' does have a dimension: 'Now' stretches spatially in all directions simultaneously throughout the infinity of space. If so, then one can measure the 'nowness' of time isotropically (?), provided all the interconnedness of space is simultaneously taken in as a complete whole. A new calculus to do this, perhaps, where the value tends at the margin towards infinity, rather than to zero? Is there room here for a 'super-set' theory of infinites? Hmmm... interesting question. But what do I do with it as it applies to consciousness? Am I conscious of this vast 'whole' in the now? Can I somehow test this holistic consciousness? Do the zillions of neurons in my brain, interconnected through the metal contacts of rhodium and iridium, mimic the isotropic wholeness of space? Hmmm... Don't know, am not conscious enough to know, yet.

Ivan

By G-man767 on Thursday, October 18, 2001 - 08:27 pm:

Ivan: The Russell Paradox and Godel's indeterminacy theorems factor into a 'superset' theory. How long/short is a 'now'? Longer than a pico second? G-man T

By Anonymous on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 12:52 am:

G-man, Ivan,

I have been thinking about ‘how long is now,’ and it just dawned on me that – now is forever, necessarily it is infinite, so ‘now’ is an eternity in duration; therefore, now is true perpetual motion and it cannot be any other way. Now, is the result of continuous motion as we experience it; when we are asleep, we do not experience motion, so – now – moves forward, but we remain static during sleep, and must catch up ‘to’ now after waking. If I am correct – now cannot be fractionalized, it is straight line with no end in any direction. If that is true – the Universe is true – Uni – meaning only one universe is possible, and if that is true – the Universe never began; moreover, it will never end or cease to exist. If I can make contact with one ‘physicist’ friend, I believe he can work out the numbers that could prove once and for all – the Universe consists of a multitude of singular big bangs that are most probably the method of continuous expansion. As I work through this, the repercussions are mind-boggling, so I am going to bed and think more about it.

Beginning to nod off,

Anon – the 1st one

By GDennis on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 09:00 am:

All,

What we mean by now is an intant in a temporal stream. But all such "instants" are necessarily abstractions. And, as abstractions, they are no-thing. The notion of the "now" functions linguistically as an instant in a temporal flow. But, as an "instant" it is technically an abstraction. Thus, the ideology of "presence" or the "eternal now" functions upon the assumption that existence is a series of nows. But, this assumes that existence is a series of instants. And, as we have suggested, the "instant" is an abstraction. Thus, technically, "now" can only be an abstract temporal marker and not an ontological reality. It is unhelpful to think about existence as a series of "nows" because this assumes that existence is a series of temporal instants.

Take care,
Graham

By Anonymous on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 10:01 am:

Graham, Everyone,

Very well said Graham, and from a perspective that few people ever consider. That is the reason QM and other Scientific Theories break down if and when ‘time’ is a factor in any equation relative to the Universe, which has caused some physicists (and biologists) to reconsider established ‘time lines’ as not being reliable methodologies to date ‘specific’ events. It is interesting to note that
NASA has abandoned funding further research on life origins here on earth, and have made many of those resources available to the SETI project. I believe the next five to ten years are going to be most significant as QM theorists are diligently attempting to overcome the problem of ‘time.’ Could it be possible the vagaries of time are responsible for the Uncertainty Principle in QM.

Trying to sort this mess out with QM, Relativity, Consciousness, and getting one mean brain ache in the process.

Anon – the 1st one

By Ivan A. on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 03:28 pm:

Anon-1, G-man, Graham, & all,

Anon's statement: "If I can make contact with one 'physicist' friend, I believe he can work out the numbers that could prove once and for all – the Universe consists of a multitude of singular big bangs that are most probably the method of continuous expansion."

This 'feels' right for me too, if I may say so from the intuitive. Does this point to a constantly self renewing universe, or maybe a kind of multiverse? I think the math could be worked out where the 'now', as mentioned by Graham, could be identified at each point where a 'change' takes place, ie., chemical change, directional change, electrical change, etc., where a force is applied, or results from, to effect change. The math for these changes may end up looking more like fractals, where each branch sprouts more branches, which is how I intuitively view the interconnectedness of the universe. Except, as it applies to self creating multiverses, these fractals eventually turn back upon themselves and cancel out, to start over... where each 'change' is a renewal? Only thinking out loud, way over my head!

G-man mentioned Russell's paradox, which involves set theory: "The paradox arose in connection with the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. Such a set, if it exists, will be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself." I am not certain, but I believe that Russell and others argued against an 'infinite set' theory. Though I can imagine an 'infinite set', if I use Russell's paradox to state: "infinity is a set (x) of all sets (x~) that are not a member of infinity." But since 'x' cannot be applied to itself without leading to circular reasoning, then we are left with an open ended set that is infinite. Now the math would again refer to a fractal structure, where at infinity it would close in on itself and cancel out... But what would be the end result? One, or zero? Don't know, have a too limited consciousness, tripping into hyper-fractal-interconnectivity-dream state!

Cheers, Ivan

By G-man767 on Friday, October 19, 2001 - 07:14 pm:

All: How do the last three posts bear on what Deleuze described as the "Aion," in his text, the "Logic of Sense"? (I must say, I'm really impressed with these last 3 posts.) G-man This

By Anonymous on Saturday, October 20, 2001 - 01:53 am:

Everyone,

Ivan, if your theory of infinite sets is correct, you answered the question; however, the set would not close and cancel itself, instead, at infinity, it would expand, and encompass all sets inside it, further perpetuating an ever expanding universe. Thereof, the Universe can only be – Uni – in all respects, aspects, and the dimension of it; thus, no – Multi – is even theoretically possible. Obviously, the end result would be – 1 – not – 0 – or none, for no purpose could be served by negation or cancellation; therefore, would I be correct to say, the only possible set of ‘infinite’ numbers consists of a single digit = 1, expressed as –

1 + 0 = 1
1 – 0 = 1

I believe that is an infinite set, it is always positive, and it is open-ended for perpetual expansion; it cannot be altered by set or theory, and it cannot be negated or cancelled by factoring. The reason is – number 1 cannot be reduced by factoring for it becomes any ‘infinite’ number of 1’s inside of 1, of which, remains 1; neither will it be expanded for it again becomes any ‘infinite’ number of 1’s inside of 1, of which, remains 1. Thereof, 1 will always be greater than 0, and it is necessarily so that all other numbers consists of 1. Fractal these 288 and you come up with,

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

This I believe defines what is a ‘whole’ is, despite whatever the ‘whole’ is; yes, a whole is the ‘sum’ of its parts, and each part is necessarily 1 part of 1 ‘whole.’

G-man, what little I know of about Deleuze, is tiny – but in the sense of his use of Aion, I think he made fun of Russell’s Paradox, and all paradoxes. Instead of giving sway to the common notions of paradox, Deleuze viewed the paradox as ‘two paths’ that parallel one and the other with both being potentially true; each path complete based on its own merit.

Brain just went bust!

Anon – the 1st one

By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 20, 2001 - 11:39 am:

Dear Anon-1,

Yes, your point is well taken, it has to be 'one'. The reason 'zero' came up is because that is the only way I could imagine a universe closing in on itself, which may not be in the Big Bang manner, but continuously at the subatomic level, just a guess. Another reason why I looked at this zero possibility is because I see numbers as adjectives rather than nouns. A noun would always bring itself back to the whole; an adjective may be reduced to nothingness. But these are merely mental exercises of philosophical possibilities, since reality is a hard task master and it would take measurements to confirm which way it really goes. I suspect that a fractal of infinite proportions can theoretically revert back to its origin, at infinity, but don't have any way of finding out at present. Thanks for your fine ideas. Still thinkin'.

Ivan

By GDennis on Saturday, October 20, 2001 - 11:45 am:

G-man, Ivan, Anon,

David Bohm can help us here, I think. Bohm rejected the orthodox QM interpretation of quantum events and quantum particles (the Copenhagen school: Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg). This interpretation tended to think that subatomic particles had no objective existence and believed that the subatomic world was characterized by absolute indeterminism and chance. Bohm, on the other hand, suspected that there might be deeper causes behind the apparently random nature of the subatomic world.

In Bohm's view, subatomic particles are not simple, structureless particles. Rather, they are highly complex and dynamic entities. He rejects the notion that their motion is fundamentally uncertain or ambiguous; they follow a precise path, but one which is determined not only by conventional physical forces but also by a more subtle force which he calls the quantum potential. The quantum potential guides the motion of particles by providing "active information" about the whole environment, like a ship being guided by radar signals (an example he uses). This leads to a notion of what one might call quantum interconnectedness. This notion is related to the QM notion of non-locality. There are certain instances in which electrons appear able to "feel" the presence of a nearby "event" or "system." In '59, Bohm and research student Yakir Aharonov demonstrated the validity of the notion of "interconnectedness." They showed that in certain instances electrons are able to "feel" the presence of a nearby magnetic field even though they are traveling in regions of space where the field strength is zero. This phenomenon is known as the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect. In '82 the most remarkable example of interconnectedness was demonstrated by physicist Alain Aspect. Aspect's experiment was an extension of the EPR paradox propsed in '35 by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. The results of the Aspect experiment show that subatomic particles that are far apart are able to communicate in ways not explicable by the transfer of physical signals traveling at or slower than the speed of light. Such non-local connections can make it possible for us to rethink materialist and reductionist accounts of "matter" and spatiality. Bohm argues that such non-local connections are absolutely "instantaneous." Again, this may force us to reconsider our understanding of spatio-temporal interaction.

Bohm proposes that there is what one might call an underlying "order" that shepherds and connects all things. The perspective of separate and radically distinct entities (divided by ontological barriers) that exists at the macroscopic level or reality is deceiving insofar as the very condition for the appearance of "autonomy" and "stability" at this level derives from a deeper implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm uses the analogy of a flowing stream:

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances (Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p. 48).

Another example of an "implicate order" is that of the hologram. As the laser beam is split into two beams, and then reunited, the complex swirls of the interference pattern recorded on the photographic plate appear meaningless and disordered to the naked eye. But, there is within this apparent disorder a hidden or enfolded order that can produce a three-dimensional image when viewed from any angle. And, more importantly, if the holographic film is cut into pieces, each piece produces an image of the whole object. Bohm suggests that the whole universe is like a giant, flowing hologram (or, to use his term, holomovement) in which the total order is contained in some implicit sense in each region of space and time.

When this is applied to consciousness, for instance, there is the implication that consciousness is enfolded deep within the implicate order. Here we can see a connection both to Dostoevsky's notion of "sobornost" (connectedness) and later Heidegger's notion of Gegnet (Being; "that-which-regions"). There is an intimate relationship between what one might call the explicate order (the order of things as they appear on the macrocosmic scale: autonomous, independent) and the implicate order (in which things are connected and interdependent). Each thing, on Bohm's model, is internally relatable to the whole. Since the explicate order dominates ordinary experience, we can be fooled into believing that this is the only order. But, the explicate order is made possible, in some fundamental sense, by the implicate order:

The explicate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical (Newtonian) physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understood properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order (Bohm, "A New Theory of the Relationship Between Mind and Matter").

The implicate order, then, is much like Heidegger's Being or Dostoevsky's "Sobornost." In Brother's Karamazov, Father Zossima gives a homily ("Prayer, Love, and the Touching of Other Worlds") in which the notion of sobornost is presented. It begins with an anthropology of humility:

A loving humility is a terrible power, the most powerful of all, nothing compares with it.

Humility opens one, according to Father Zossima, to the underlying ground and order of all things. Sobornost, then, is revealed through the virtue of loving humility. From this anthropology (similar to later Heidegger's "hearkening" and "releasement"), Father Zossima arrives at this explanation of sobornost (connectedness):

My young brother asked forgiveness of the birds: it seems senseless, yet it is right, for all is like an ocean, all flows and connects; touch it in one place and it echoes at the other end of the world. Let it be madness to ask forgiveness of the birds, still it would be easier for the birds, and for a child, and for any animal near you, if you yourself were more gracious than you are now, if only by a drop, still it would be easier. All is like an ocean, I say to you.

Everything in this world, then, is bound together by connectedness. This connectedness is often hidden, and thus the many philosophies and psychologies of individualism and materialism prevail. But, through the virtue of a "loving humility" (releasement), it is possible to discover this "connectedness":

Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why philosophers say it is impossible here on earth to conceive of the essence of things. God took seeds from other worlds and sowed them on this earth, and raised up his garden; and everything that could sprout sprouted, but it lives and grows only through its sense of being in touch with other mysterious worlds; if this sense is weakened or destroyed in you, that which has grown up in you dies. Then you become indifferent to life, and even come to hate it.

The perception of this "connectedness" is the ground of the conversion of one's understanding. Through the awareness of this "deeper order," it is possible to recognize one's indebtedness and connectedness to the whole. Each action, then, acquires a profound significance. For, if all is connected, each action of the soul is like throwing a stone into a pond: the ripple makes its way to Pluto.

The silence of the earth seemed to merge with the silence of the heavens, the mystery of the earth
touched the mystery of the starts…. It was as if threads from all those innumerable worlds of God all
came together in his soul, and it was trembling all over, "touching other worlds."

Time and space, from the perspective of sobornost, are transferred from their inherently subjective nature and enfolded into the whole. Unlike the Kantian thesis that "time" and "space" are features of sensibility, Dostoevsky argues that they are markers that can point beyond themselves or obscure a more fundamental reality. If time and space point beyond themselves, they point to the temporal order that underlies all private (subjective) experiences of autonomy and disconnectedness. The very specter of individualism depends, ultimately, upon an underlying connectedness. The macrocosmic order and autonomy that we experience is grounded by a mysterious and more primordial togetherness.

This theme is prominent in the works of Herakleitos. Human beings, he argues, are initially mistaken about their situation:

It is necessary to follow the common; but although the Logos is common the many live as though they had a private understanding (Fr. 2).

Herakleitos' LogoV is like Dostoevsky's sobornost, later Heidegger's Sein, and Bohm's implicate order. One must pass beyond the merely subject (human) viewpoint, then, and "hearken" to the Logos.

Listening not to me but to the Logos it is wise to agree that all things are one (Fr. 50).

The problem, of course, is that human beings are in the habit of covering over the Logos, and are in the business of "hiding" the true reality of things:

Human disposition does not have true judgment, but divine disposition does (Fr. 78).

Thus, it is necessary to uncover (alhqeia: a-letheia) the true nature of things that is "accustomed to hiding":

The real constitution of things is accustomed to hide itself (Fr. 123).

Thus, the Logos reveals the things "hidden from the foundation of the world." The function of the Logos is to reveal the underlying order. For this reason, St. Paul says that Christ is the revelatory logos. All things have their subsistence, then, in Christ:

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1.17).

The spatio-temporal markers that we use to demarcate and divide existence, then, can obscure and cover-over the deeper connectedness of all things. When we attempt to do metaphysics or ontology, then, we need to be careful not to pay too much heed to these spatio-temporal markers. The ideologies of the inside and outside, or the subject and object, can obscure the more fundamental connectedness that makes all things part of one deeper order.

Take care,
Graham

damn--reading this stuff is making *my* head hurt :)

you guys are great and the fact that we're *sensing* for this 'solution' (which, in theory, should 'be there', heuristically and intuitively speaking) speaks of...something that can never be *truly* "known"??..daunting, but then as many suggests, if what we're looking for is so damn important, and is 'absolute' (like it is rumored to be), then it can take care of itself--it is us humans and sub-creatures who need to find out how to not let certain specific entities ruin such a *Good* thing (by war, egotism,...whatever).

as for the universe being only a UNI-verse--the term omniverse is a nice one (i do concur that there is only "1" of that which we speak, given the definability of what we speak of...)

as for playing with the numerals 0 and 1... *laugh*

i've spent threads w/ meta-friends trying to *prove* that 1=0 (later, i realized that it might be better to "imply" that the 2 were possibly equivalent)--it was fun to say the least, and i could 'feel' that we were all hinting at the same thing..tracing the same deeply-*rooted* pathway.

i'm a bush league math person, but i was looking at some factorial stuff and i ran into the define for the 0 factorial (that is 0!=1); this conclusion, of course, jumps the track in terms of logic, so i tried to research why and checked out some math tutorial boards. found one at ASK DR. MATH (The Math Forum--search "factorials") that sounds good (but i gotta still translate them and understand them for myself).

it dawned on me--going back to godel and all *thorough* logicians--that the axiomation of a system is a very strange 'principle' indeed.

the factorial of 0 says (to me) that "there are rules to 'factoring' terms and numbers; some general and 'simple' rules, but some rules are sort of the *rules of rules* (if you will)".

EG--i can factor everything above 1 (2 really) given the formula that describes (defines) "factoring" (n!=n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)...3*2*1), but at or "below" 1, things become *systemically* difficult in terms of using the definition to acheive a "real (enough)" solution.

when i "hit the wall", there has to be a more *absolute* define for such an 'irrational' solution. in this case, the solution of 0!=1 is impossible to come by by simple factoring methods..you need this absolute-define which, if this sounds remotely apropo of the overall thread topic, doesn't "explain" HOW but WHY 0!=1 (hope someone understands what i'm trying to say).

=================================================
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 16:30:29 -0500
From: Demetri Bonaros
Subject: Re: Chris Grants factorial issue

Hello, Chris!

Thank you for writing to Dr. Math. Your question is indeed a very good
one, one that puzzles a lot of students when they are first introduced to
the fact that 0!=1. I think there a couple of reasons that explain this
fact; offhand I can only think of one of them, but I'm pretty sure that
it's not the only one.

First, let's see what the binomial coefficients are. We define them as
follows (OK, this is going to be a little hard to do on email, but here
goes, anyway)

/k\
\i/ (the / and\ are supposed to form one big parenthesis) is called "k
choose i". Its value is the answer to the question "in how many ways can
we choose i objects out of a set of k?" The value of "k choose i" is:

k!
__________ (can you prove this? Try induction)
i!(k-i)!

Let's see a few examples: "k choose 1" = in how many ways can you
choose 1 object from a set of k? Well, the answer has to be k, right? If
you have k objects, you have k choices.

"k choose (k-1)" = in how many ways can you
choose (k-1) objects out of a set of k? The answer here is also k. In each
of the ways you are choosing, you are excluding one object (in other words,
you are choosing one object not to choose- does this make sense?) So, this
is the same as "k choose 1".

It turns out that / k \ / k \
\ i / is equal to \ k-i / (can you see why?)

Anyway, in this case, "k choose zero" and "k choose k" are

k! k!
__________ and ___________ , respectively.
0!(k-0)! k!(k-k)!

This would pose a few problems if we defined 0!=0, since the
denominator would be zero in that case. Also, we can figure out without
calculations that the way to choose k objects out of a set of k is only one
(we can pick them all in only one way). Hence, 0! has to be 1, so that the
numerator and denominator of the above fractions will be equal.

I think that 1!=1 follows directly the definition of factorial which is

n!=n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)...3*2*1

(I suppose I should have put this earlier in the message, but I assumed
that you knew it.)

Anyway, this is one reason we define 0!=1. I guess you could say that
necessity dictates that we do so.

I hope all this makes sense. If not, feel free to write back.

Demetri- Dr, or something...
==================================================

take care all

metan01d

Hello Kenny. Welcome! Yeah, it's intense.

Your post on 'factorials' rings true, though in
truth I had forgotten them (math in school was a
hundred years ago), and had to look them up. Yes,
indeed, 0! = 1 , or even (infinity)! = 1, I would expect
intuitively, though the two would be a monumental
paradox. Or, another way of looking at it is to
multiply zero times infinity, which should result
in One; i.e., (0)(infinity)=1, except that
mathematicians have yet to prove this. What would
the good Doctor say? *laugh*

Of course, if it does, then think of the
possibilities! An interrelationship of infinite
micro-macro resulting in a unity, a Universe.
Or perhaps an Omniverse! Cool.

The WHY or HOW may need to be answered with a new
'calculus', where the limit function tends towards
infinity rather than zero. This calculus can then
be used to analyze interrelationship functions,
how things interrelate in sets...

Any possibility this could be?

Truly brain is well teased, a joy!

Ivan

aah--paradox..intuition...heurism--if the all "came true" we would KNOW, wouldn't we? ;)

you just "joined the ends" by infering (infinity)!=1 (or [infinite series]!=1), but, as you pointed out, it hasn't been *proven* yet, so the ends are just as loose as ever. i'm just a "math groupie" and have not the skill to seriously tackle this (sigh)

it all makes me think of the film "Pi" and the outcome of our hero Max--mind blown, but yet, the look on his face tells it all :)...and yet, some of us choose to dig on (maybe that facial expression Max wore is what we are ultimately seeking).

could what we are trying to "touch" be 'Real' but yet *unrealizable*? not to get to far off base, but a 'quantity' (n+x) can be considered the same as a simple term (n), yet though the quantity speaks of 'functionality' (taking two distinct terms and performing an operation to come up with a new, distinct term). that is to say--if (n+x) and (n) literally have the same *solution*, why is it that they are acheived by different means?--also, not how if you apply the identity axiom to this, it sort of makes sense [a+0=a]..in both cases, the solution is synchronized...rant.

of course, there are infinite series that move toward limits, but i'm not sure of a series that does so toward 1. (of course, there are an infinite number of points between 0 and 1, so maybe there's an expression that can be developed to aid us here..i don't know, i did my math homework for the grade :{ *laugh* (damn i'm so lazy).

again, there may not be a 'real' solution. as i like to say, the only solution is 'dissolution' (then, re-solution). someone said--in this forum i think--that "there is no such thing as dissolution". to me, dissolution is the same as an "ideal gas"; the ideal gas law suggests that an ideal gas is one in which all molecules are an infinite distance from each other. it's still a gas, but...it's 'not' (cuz to get an infinite distance away from something...).

so you are never out of 'solution' (this is an impossibility).

interrelationship? only if things are indeed related :)

(and 0 x 'infinity' should be 1? how so, w/o possibly the in-depth proof)

*tired and ranting*. take it easy.

metan01d

Hi Kenny,

Nice to see your thinking moving towards the 'limit' of infinite series. Here's something that may help illustrate what we are talking about, to help explain [0 x 'infinity' = 1], though it does not constitute a formal mathematical proof. By way of illustration:

If 1 x 1 = 1

then 1/2 x 2 = 1

or 1/4 x 4 = 1

and 1/8 x 8 = 1 etc...

or formally [1/n x n = 1], where the 'n' gets larger and larger until it approaches 'infinity'.

Thus, where does this leave us? We eventually get: 1/'infinity' x 'infinity' = 1.

This is only an illustration, but to my knowledge it is not a 'proof', alas, since we do not know formally that 1/'infinity' is actually 'zero'?

Of course, it can also be interpreted as you say: ['infinity'! = 1].

Pretty COOL ! Now, let's see... if a gas is made up of molecules an infinity away from each other, can they still be 'interrelated' somehow? Don't know... Worth thinking about, I would think, especially if each molecule, which is its own universe, is an entry into another 'omniverse'. Ha!


Take care, talk soon,

Ivan

PS: Synthesis?

Hi Kenny,

The formula above can also be understood as another way of rephrasing the 'thesis => antithesis => synthesis' idea. So, in varying degrees, a thesis may be expressed as (x), and antithesis would be (1/x), so that the synthesis is then (1). If this works, then we have a new mathematical way of expressing this Hegelian idea via (x) (1/x) = 1.

Take care, Ivan

hey Ivan A. (all?)--i'm a mainstay at http://www.bluereality.org/ (http://www.bluereality.org/cgi-bin/ib/ikonboard.cgi for the board)

i post as "albert 0nest0ne--i throw most of my crap up here...

i'm terribly disorganized (not terribly). i am a big procrastinator, but...i don't want to be :)

check my post here under "GOD, TERRORISM, AND EVIL" thread (if you'd like)

we're rantiing about ideas like "stasis", "constructive (Reality)"..and such things.

(i work during the week and i'm tired as hell a lot of the time, so i havent' been able to get back here...+ i'm drunk a lot of the time *laugh*)

take care Ivan, all_-feel free to email me

As posted on THE EXAMINED LIFE DISCUSSION FORUM:
Existentialism, Dualism, and Truth. (May 20-25,
2001)
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
in response to a post by WJ, May 17,2001:

"“Reason, as the ultimate ordering system in a
godless universe, is the most overused, overvalued
tool at man's disposal. The Modern Man thought
that through science, logic and careful rational
reflection we would discover the underlying order
to all things in order to discover the meaning of
it all...
"The Existential emphasis on volitional choice as
what defines us is the belief that we are what we
do. We are not so much "beings" as we are
"becomings."...

"My questions are:

Is the aforementioned a complete formula for the
discovery or uncovery of a truth? I suspect not,
but if it is, 'truth' then, is either found thru
experience or thought, or both. (?) Is there a
better formula without these painstaking rules of
our existence? Is physical truth out-there waiting
for our minds to grasp it?"

******************************

By Ivan A. on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 06:54 pm:
RE "Is there a better formula without these
painstaking rules of our existence? Is physical
truth out-there waiting for our minds to grasp
it?"

Well WJ, let's see if this adds light in any way.
It is taken from the philosophy of Habeas Mentem:
the given (as in promised) word:

12 Keys to Understanding Habeas Mentem:

1. All things are related to everything else in an
infinite interrelationship.

2. The definition from that web of interrelated
totality gives each thing its identity, its being,
in terms of its position in the image of that
whole.

3. All things in reality have their identity from
infinity; in living things, and in conscious
beings in particular, that identity is defined in
the mind.

4. To have the mind (habeas mentem) is to be one
with that identity, to be who we are.

5. We are who we are in our mind when we do things
through agreement; we do not have the mind when we
do things through coercion.

6. Habeas Mentem is the philosophy that protects
the conscious human mind from coercion, and
defines the Law of Agreement.

7. In a society of conscious individuals, the Law
of Agreement preserves our identity in terms of
who we are.

8. In a society of Habeas Mentem, each mind is
free from coercion and has the right to
materialize in his or her reality their being, as
long as they do not trespass on the identity of
another through forced disagreement.

9. Free from trespass, the conscious human mind
then materializes in its existence the order of
the universe in terms of who we are.

10. When we do through agreement and are free from
trespass, we dream with the soul a new
consciousness into our reality.

11. Then we are free to choose a more conscious
reality with our more spiritual being.

12. In the end, it is all One.

* * * * * * *

The philosophy can be found, for those interested,
at: http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm

Ivan Alexander
Auth

-------------------------------------------------
By GDennis on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 06:49 am:
Ivan,

I cannot take seriously a philosophy that does not
attempt to resolve such a central contradiction as
the one that you have presented (unless, of
course, from the outset you state, as Nietzsche
did, that contradiction is desirable at times, and
even necessary). There cannot both be a
metaphysical whole that we are related to as parts
and something like "my reality" (which is implied
by your understanding of the subject). Twice you
use some notion of reality as property --
something we own or possess as a right ('8' and
'10') -- and then proceed to draw from this the
conclusion in 12 that "it is all One." What is the
"it" that is all "One" if reality is something
that I can own and possess like property?

Take care,
Graham

------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 03:41 pm:
Dear Graham,

In the reference above, the "property" of reality
in question is one that is defined within the
dynamics of an infinite interrelatioship, though
not necessarily "my reality", rather a reality
within which we are participants with our being.
The mechanism that defines this philosophy is what
I call "interrelationship", and the "it" in #12 is
the totality of those interrelated ideas that
describe Habeas Mentem. My loss, alas if the 12
points lead to confusion rather than clarity. They
are not meant as a complete thesis, but rather
only as mileposts to help a reader better
understand the total idea. Does this help in any
way?

Thanks for pointing out this possible flaw.
All the best, Ivan

---------------------------------------------
By WJ on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 09:17 am:
Ivan (&Graham),

Welcome! Relative to 8 & 10, I'd like a bit of
explaination or qualifier on your interpretation
of reality, if you could.

You certainly have, at least, my support with
regard to the discovery of self, as I interpret
items... actually, most of the items contain that
element...no?

Beyond the basic discoveries (& un-coveries) of
self, in a psychological way, what about the
notion that logic & reason becomes an important
ingredient to the formula? If you take note,
you'll see that the 'theoretical' formula I chose
combines reason with intuition. Are there any
benefits in combining those, in your view?

At this point, what is your reality?

Just a couple quick questions...

Sincerely,
WJ

-------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 12:12 pm:
Dear WJ, Graham,

Regarding your posts above, I see "reality" as a
manifestation of all that exists in such a way
that the sum totality of all its parts form an
infinite image. Because this totality is formed
through the interrelationship of its parts, (which
means that each thing within this totality is
exactly as the interrelationship of all the other
things allows it to be), it has the resulting
effect of influencing, or defining, each of its
parts as they relate to the whole. This idea, or
mechanism, taken to infinity (even if as Girodano
Bruno says, that each thing in infinity is always
at its center), then defines itself and lends
meaning to each thing within it, depending upon
how and where it is within the totality.
Therefore, each thing in reality exists exactly as
the mechanism of interrelationship has allowed it
to be in terms of the image of the whole. That's
the short form!

Regarding items 8 & 10: I am not able in a short
sentence to synthesize this, except to say that
the system of reality as described above leads
into a new way of seeing human beings as alive,
feeling, conscious, evolving and thinking beings
within this system of reality. (Mind you, the
system exists as a self defining mechanism whether
or not we are aware of it, it being a self
definition of its reality.) We as conscious being,
who have a mind (habeas mentem), are then able to
tap into it at different levels of awareness. At
the simplest level, we examine reality and find
definitions, codifications, scientific
observations, as we assess the physical world. At
a higher level, we interact with one another
mindful of this system defining the reality within
which we exist, and thus interact with a process
of agreement (where our respective definitions
from reality, our identity of who we are in our
own brains), then validates our greater existence
and enhances it; through coercion, this mechanism
is damaged. At the highest level, we enter
speculations of what are our dreams, what radiates
from our soul into our personal reality, who we
really are in our individual selves, and even if
God exists. In describing this philosophy, it is
my goal to be faithful to the description of
reality as defined by interrelationship I
mentioned above. The conclusions, (which are
secular and not religious in nature), are that the
universe is an interactive system of reality that
works with us at all levels of our existence, both
physical and mental and, I speculate, spiritually.

Alas, this is still a short form, so I do not feel
I have done it justice, and only given a small
piece of the whole story. Thank for asking, and I
hope this long winded reply lends something of
value to your question.

All the best, Ivan

--------------------------------------------
By WJ on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 02:08 pm:
Ivan,

Thanks for the speedy reply. If I could paraphrase
or interpret this slightly, I like your ideal or
the way you analogized Being as more closely
related to plants rather than, say, vehicles!
Nonetheless, they still are physical, tangible
things. The one distinction then, is that of
'growth'? But you haven't denied our existence is
in fact a physical one. Perhaps consciousness and
cognition are the 'problem'.
:)

I have two thoughts at the moment;

1. How do we go about making choices that combine
all the elements in your formula? For instance, do
we use our intuition or reason? Or, how does one
reach the 'higher level'? And what do you see as
being some of the tangible results, or the
possibilities, from this presumed recognition of
Self vis-a-vis infinite interrelationship? (I tend
to agree with the general notion of relativity,
but does intuition and logic supercede any of
this?)

2. You mentioned coercion. In your view, what does
that comprise? It's obvious that freedom, in a
general sense, is valued, but how does the Self
become 'obscured' during the search (choices)for
any 'truth'. What are these forces or elements
that comprise coercion? And if they are presumed
to be something avoidable, why do they exist?

What follows is a utopian society? Surely not, but
if so, how do we balance these 'real' 'forces' of
coercion? Or, are they only an illusion in our
minds?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to
get clear... perhaps simple common everyday
happenstance would be helpful in providing further
explaination or example, I don't know.

Sincerely,
WJ

------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 04:57 pm:
Hi WJ, nice to hear from you so quickly

If I may answer your thoughts above in the
following way: Choices still exist in the kind of
universe described by the interrelationship
phenomenon. Reason helps us make those choices, as
do other parts of our being to which we may not be
connected in our rational minds, but which define
us nevertheless, i.e. our emotions, our fears, our
intuitions, even loves and hates. Life is a risk,
but the fact that we survive this risk is the
product of more than merely reason. This is
especially true when we perceive things happening
to us by chance, a car accident, surviving war, or
disease, falling in love, or winning in Vegas. The
conditions of this happening to us is beyond
reason, in my opinion, and thus we are sometimes
forced to make choices that are more from the gut,
irrational, to survive (though not always
successfully); or from the heart, where an outcome
is guaranteed to be never certain. The system I
describe, one of which in all honesty I am only a
student, allows for all this to take place,
allowing us to use either our rational or
irrational mind. (My opinion is that the rational
mind is only a small portion of our total mind,
and that we operate at levels of which we have no
cognition, like the beating of one's heart, for
example, on both the macro and micro levels.) Does
one supercede the other? I don't see them in
contest, but rather as compliments of each other.
If in fact we live in an interactive universe, the
final arbiter of whether our choices are any good
is always reality, in what actually happens in
response to our choices and actions. (For example,
I reason that if I walk off my roof, the universe
will respond by making me fall. My irrational mind
will have the same conclusion, for fear of falling
is innate in most of us.) Taken to the next step,
does the Self become obscured in this? Actually,
the self becomes more manifest, since then the
choices arrived at through our free volition
manifest in our reality, in response to reality's
conditions, and create an environment that more
closely resembles the "who or self" of who we are
in the immediacy of our individual being. This
system breaks down when there are coercions,
abuses, that prevent this from taking place. A one
liner on Coercion is: whenever we force another
against their agreement, provided they are not
guilty of the same force; or we are forced against
our agreement, when innocent of forcing another.
(In fact, this is much more complicated than this,
because it has to do with our being able to occupy
our own space in time in relation to who we are,
which is still a very alien concept to
philosophy.) Is this Utopian? I hope not, since to
me utopian ideas have a template for a perfect
existence, or at least perfect in someone's
opinion. In the system described here, life is
totally open ended, full of risk and nobody's
call. It is also full of the gratifications, Joy!,
that result from having the freedom to be who we
are. I cannot predict what will happen to any one
person in their choices in life, though I may have
opinions about my own; same as I cannot predict if
another person who is free is going to be happy
about it. Rather than Utopian, I would call this
system as Simplified: The system of an infinite
universal interrelationship is such that a lot of
the work is already done for us, we need to only
be aware of it and make our choices in life. Can
this system work? Well... I'm only a student of
this. The only Truth here is that reality realigns
itself at every moment of time, at both the most
minute microscopic level as well at the totality
of its greatest dimensions, in terms of how all
its components are interrelated to each other.
Reality, then, is always the final call.

There is perhaps one more thing that can be
addressed here: Our consciousness. Within this
framework of interrelationship system, our
consciousness is the net product of an
evolutionary phenomenon that has arrived to our
world fairly recently. Consciousness is part of
cognition, since I see my consciousness as a
cognition of itself, that I am. However, the
system described now points to a new definition of
consciousness: we are the sum product of all the
affects we have had since birth, and all the
evolutionary affects through the long line of
successful existences of our predecessors, who in
turn are the product of the same, each life living
within this interactive universe, back to the
first molecules that came together in a way that
is life. Why should this be important? Because all
through that time, all the way back, each living
thing, (our great great great grandparents who
swam in the sea, etc.), were all connected to this
system of interrelationship. As life evolved and
developed a mind, so did the system evolve with
it; when we became conscious in "I am", this
consciousness was already built into the structure
of reality. So, it may not seem so outwardly,
maybe the universe does not care what I think of
myself, but the mechanism exists to respond to it.
That's what I call my conscious existence. And if
I'm lucky, and reasonably smart, I'll even survive
this existence today, and go on to think
tomorrow!

It has been fun chatting with you. Enjoy!
Ivan

This post was written for The Examined Life Journal Forum, but it especially pertains to the ideas of Habeas Mentem as they had been presented here. -Ivan
***************************************************

Greetings to All!

I wanted to pick up on this thread again, as posited by Anon-1: What is Intellect? And on his conclusion, thus far, is that it is 'the ability to survive in this world'.

It made me wonder if survival was really what is behind intellect. Survival of individuals and species seems to be programed, hard wired if you will, into them. My two wolf-dogs, for example, are hard wired to chase rabbits. If I had to abandon them in the woods, they would eventually fall back upon this internal urge and figure out how to hunt for food again. So they could survive, as do most animals in nature. But are they gifted with intellect in the human sense, or is their intellect merely sufficient to accomplish their needs? If we stop and think about this, then it would seem to imply that human intellect, if it is in fact advanced beyond our need for survival, is then geared into something else, maybe some higher cognitive ability that we will need to use at some point. Hence, why we search. I like to think, my pet theory, that dreamers and philosophers are the 'pathfinders', and that their successors, the scientists with their research and verifications, are the pathplodders', who are then followed by the 'pathpavers', the engineers who formalize knowledge into action, and finally by the bureaucrats who are the 'pathtaxers'. When we have made that full circle and are being taxed to death, it is time for philosophers to once again find a new 'path'. But this digression is telling: We may be at a point in the road where we need to identify what it is that our intellect is being readied to do. Where are we going? Aristotle and his successors have identified the paths; science kicked in formally somewhere in the post Middle Ages as the Renaissance was dawning in Europe; America and its allies paved the way with its tremendous economics successes (and paved much of the country in the bargain); and now the Government taxes our estates upon death at 55%. So, we're there! But the thesis that we use intellect to survive does not satisfy me enough. There is something more.

It was in Anthony Smith's book "The Mind" that I read the brain grows its capacity for a long time before it suddenly engages to use its new capacity (Ch.1, Evolution). But that was a biological growth, and I suspect that it will be different this time, that we are experiencing a growth of thinking which will at some point engage into some other activity we may not be privileged to guess what, as yet. If I postulate that this thinking is leading us towards a higher awareness, a higher level of consciousness (which is self evident), then it follows that this consciousness will be defined at some point in the future as the mechanism that will help us find ourselves on some new path. Perhaps it will be evolution, or it may be social and how we structure future community, or it may be spiritual, that we find we can connect to some higher order of the universe to which we are still blind. I like what my Baha'i friends say about life in this existence, though I myself do not subscribe to their religion. They claim that their founder said that life for us here is like a baby in the womb. There, it grows lungs and arms and legs and eyes and ears, none of which are useful in the womb, but which will become invaluable once they step into the world into which they are born. Can it be that we too are now growing a kind of 'organ of consciousness' for which we still cannot see what we would need this for, but once we step into some future, it will become instantly obvious to us. This echoes, in some way, the Objectivist vs. Subjectivist debate that had been going on in these pages, or the 'cogni-centrist' vs. 'cosmo-centrist' idea I had posted earlier. So, initially, the concept that our intellect is for our survival makes sense; now, I sense that we have that pretty well in place, and that we are now moving towards something new. And, in my opinion (I like to use disclaimers, because this is what I have to do in my line of work), the Subjective-Objective debates already give us a clue. I think we had been moving from a superstitious world of animism to a scientific world of objectivism, which is where we are now. In the future, if I were to make a guess, we will move from an 'objectivist existence' in our physical reality to a more 'subjectivist reality' where the mind and existence begin to interact at a level of which we are still ignorant. In fact, I think that we are still ill prepared to interact with reality at that level, and thus we not only do not, but are not even aware that it is possible. I can postulate an interactive universe because I can think of it as being 'conscious' in its own way because of how it is structured through its inter-relatedness. But that is not a current idea, so my ideas are totally into the realms of speculation, which even I must admit. But what if... and this is where we begin breaking a new path... what if we grow our minds to the ability whereby we understand when some greater existence of ours is communicating with us, and we then in turn are able to communicate with 'IT'? Pretty far out, and futuristic, science fiction, and advanced space aliens all rolled into one! But what if...? Is that the roll of our intellect beyond survival? Of course, we have to first survive the challenges of the present: higher world pollution, altered climates, possible choking off the oxygen capacity and food chain in the oceans, death of the rain forests, exponentially increasing cancer rates, AIDS epidemics, extinction of species, saltification of desert growing areas, top soil destruction, poisoning of water tables, overpopulation and famines, wars and more wars, nuclear winter, sudden rise in ocean levels, and, of course, a mega-asteroid strike... Well, if we do survive this, did somebody say Greed?; then maybe we can search for that new 'path' that will take us to the next level. Or, I should say, we'd better find that path, or our intellect isn't worth its salt, nor the effort it had put in thus far into its survival. Actually, I think that this is the point: We have to use our intellect to reach a new level. The pressure is on.

So Anon numero uno, in the end you are right: Intellect=Survival.

Always a joy,

Ivan

***************************************************

I might add that indeed, we do live in an 'interactive universe' and that is where we are going next.

(ibid.) http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Hello Everyone!

May I add something to your debate?

RE posting by GDennis, 6/10/01, he writes (3):

"Therefore, he (Mitch) tends to ignore the fact that subjects hold beliefs. And, holding a belief is an act. In fact, holding a belief is a profound act of authorization or giving-assent."

In my lexicon of ideas (of Habeas Mentem), 'belief' goes one step further: a person's belief places them at the center of their activity within the space-time relationship which defines who they are. In other words, their belief will materialize for them a response from reality to manifest a 'being' which then either endorses or rejects their belief. The point is not that this belief can either be accepted as truth or not by the subject who holds this belief; rather, this belief can then be understood as whether or not a subject is at the center of his or her reality, which is then determined by whether or not the belief manifests the expected results. Please note that this is not the same as saying a 'truth', which is an act of 'reason'. A 'belief', in this case, is an act of 'being'.

An example of this would be: "I believe there is a tree in my front yard." Someone may then ask "how do you know this"? The answer is from observation, having seen it this morning, dog peeing on it, leaves filling my driveway, etc. But then if asked how can you 'believe' this, the answer would be with the subject's 'being': He or she walks in the front yard with caution, so as to not walk into the tree. Reality is there, standing tall and ready, to give the subject a bump on the head if he or she is not being true to their belief. So, the two combine, truth and belief, to center a person within their being in their reality, where they exist, live, think, survive, etc. Therefore, in terms of who this subject is, which is made up largely of what they believe, and in terms of their space and time identity, the whoness of their belief is what centers them within their existence. They are where they are (and who they are) in their being because of what they believe.

(And I will not have to sacrifice my first born to God to make this so! But also note that anyone's belief is never, ever, a justification for coercing another into the same belief, which is a whole other discussion.)

I write the above only as a footnote to your volumes written in this debate, since it might add another perspective. I see the universe as a largely probabilistic phenomenon, so nothing is ever truly fixed within it. Of course, I know George W. Bush is president of the United States , and thus specifics can be pinned down with 99.99999% certainty (unless Bushie is a clone!). In fact, I actually believe he is the President (alas), and simultaneously this is a 'truth'. But in most cases of human knowledge, we can at best only tend towards truth and then, at some point when we are satisfied, lock it in with a 'belief'. Once locked, then the test is how reality responds to our 'being' in this belief. (This is why I think of the universe as 'interactive'.) I dare say that this is how we all live our lives, conscious of it or not, and that this is the manifestation of our life around us, how we live, what we have, our health, what we do, how we understand things, the choices we make, etc.; we are surrounded by our belief; these and more are all based on this mechanism of belief and how reality responds to it. This is what I mean by saying that 'we are at the center of our belief'. I see this as a close philosophical relative to the tests of scientific data to arrive at a truth of observation. Here, the truth is one of being instead. Once there, the probabilities of our ever mysterious universe take over, to make our belief either fact of fiction, while we live squarely within it all.

All the best, hope this adds something of value,

Ivan

POSTSCRIPT to above:
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

By Ivan A. on Monday, July 2, 2001 - 05:01 pm:

Hi Dave, Anon-1,

Very interesting posts. Indeed, I totally agree,
too much effort has been placed on refuting what
is in essence a 'selfish' and dead-end philosophy
as it applies to people. As you point out, Rand is
virtually unknown outside of the States, so it's
kind of 'our stuff'. In my last post, July 1,
2001, under "The Hodge-Rezendes debate: on
knowing", I touched on something that became
apparent to me only after hitting the 'post'
button. A conceptual formula seems to be taking
shape here: Objective = Reason / Subjective =
Belief. This represents the relations between the
objective as it is defined by reason, and the
subjective as it is defined by belief. But the two
are not interchangeable, as the Objectivists would
have us believe. Indeed, reason does influence
belief, if we are reasonable people; but
conversely, belief can influence reason through
intuition (i.e. Copernicus example), which then
leads to a new reason. But to raise 'reason' to
the Subjective is equivalent to saying that
laboratory results are the same as those in real
life, which 'chaos theory' shows they are not. Or,
to raise 'belief' to the Objective is like having
'olde tyme religions' defining reality because 'it
is written', which may or may not be true. So the
two, objective and subjective, which translate
into reason and belief, are not equal. So, where
does this take us? Well, it is in our self
interest to use both reason and intuition to
better understand the Subjective. I think this is
where we still need to go, since the objective has
been fairly well defined and verified, and the
domain of belief is still mired, in my opinion, in
the superstitions of the past. But it won't be
easy, since beliefs are much slower to change than
ideas (same as reason was slow to change!). Yet,
when consensus is found through agreement,
eventually, a light goes on, and people's sense of
who they are begins to change. In the domain of
the Subjective, therefore, freedom of choice is
paramount to let us be who we are, but it will
take an enlightened self-interest modified by a
much bigger picture of who we are that will propel
us forward as a planet into a more conscious and
habitable world. I think that with a greater sense
of compassion, love, non-selfish interests,
understanding and forgiveness; a sense of using
not only our intellect but also our heart; that
our future, and our children's future, will move
forward in ways that will open great vistas, which
we still can only imagine. So when we can learn to
live through agreement rather than coercion, and
through exchange rather than war, then we will
have entered into a new era. This is the role
philosophy will need to play in the future. We are
the pathfinders, and this is the path we must work
to find. The intuitive optimist in me says that
this will happen. Alas, the pessimist says that it
will still take a very long time. But happen it
will.

Take care,

Ivan

WHAT IS COERCION?

As free willed human beings, we have the ability to be conscious of when something is agreeable to us, or not. When it is not, and it persists, we then call it coercion. But coercion is a more complex phenomenon than would appear at first glance. Sometimes it is overt, such as being physically attacked or abused, while at other times it is subtle, such as being verbally abused, or even more subtly as when mentally abused. This coercion can also be a result of natural causes. For example, if a lady bug lands on my arm, I am not offended, nor do I feel coerced. I might even think it is good luck. But if a mosquito lands on my arm, I have an instant aversion to it and, even before it bites, I already feel coercion. From manmade causes, these coercions are easier to identity, since we relate to other humans easily, but what if the coercion is so subtle as to not be noticeable by us? For example, I belong to a social group that shuns me, not for any reason I understand, but which subtly excludes me from their activities. Is that coercion or not? It could be argued that it is no more than the social environment such as it exists, and the coercion is totally self induced. On the other hand, it can be viewed as coercion if the group is willfully shunning me, in order to punish me, for example. The point being that coercion is not always self evident, though its effects on us can have damaging, and possibly lasting effects.

I bring up these questions because if we are to progress into a higher state of consciousness, where we seek to do through agreement and avoid coercion, then we need to raise our awareness to when it is we are being coerced, which in effect means we being forced from what is agreeable to us, against our agreement. When this coercion happens, it is important to identify it, so that we can then either focus on its removal, or ignore it consciously in order to make it lose its bite. Otherwise, if we are unconscious of such coercions, then we respond in the way I instinctively respond to a mosquito landing on my arm: I slap it. And this is most of what I think we should avoid, the unconscious response to what appears to be a coercion. When such coercion does appear, it is most important to then become cognizant of it, not have a gut response to it, and then work in some conscious way to either remove it, or turn it into something that is more agreeable to us. This may not always be possible, and a conscious mind will as much as not try to be aware of future circumstances to avoid being placed into an undesirable situation, but coercions do happen, and then how we deal with them is very important, if we are to bring things more towards agreement.

Any thoughts on this topic? For example, is a coercion valid if no one thinks it is coercion, except the person who feels coerced? Or, can coercion be defined for a person who does not think he or she is being coerced? Is coercion an internal feeling, or is it something that transcends the individual? Can it be called coercion if a person trespasses on another accidentally? What if a person is ignorant of what they are doing to another, and the other thinks it is coercion? Is it coercion? Or what if a coercive act is totally acceptable to another? Is that coercion too, or not? Lastly, can a Stoic be coerced?

Philosophy has been rather silent on agreement versus coercions, so this is why I thought I would start this question: What is Coercion?

Ivan

* * * * * *
Some defined terms:

Coercion: when a free being responds to another in such a way that is objectionable to them, hence against their agreement.

Agreement: two beings whose interactions are consciously acceptable to each other.

Contract: a legal obligation of agreement.

Consciousness: an awareness of our awareness, or the awareness of others; all living things have some consciousness evident, but in humans it is most aware of itself, thus we are said to be conscious.

Ivan,

RE: << I bring up these questions because if we are to progress into a higher state of consciousness, where we seek to do through agreement and avoid coercion, then we need to raise our awareness to when it is we are being coerced, which in effect means we being forced from what is agreeable to us, against our agreement. >>


I think we need to be me conscious of our own true motives. Most people who use mental force or coercion against others do so with no consciousness of their doing so-- or their true motives. This is what Jung calls the "shadow."

Most human evil comes form this phenomenon, but it is seldom even spoken of in our society because most of us wish to avoid the discomfort of "owning" the unattractive traits we object to in others... but have ourselves. (Which is pretty much the entire range of unattractive human traits!)

But we also object to owning the highest and best in ourselves-- the "hero" qualities. We project them onto others. Presidents athletes, firemen. But each of us has some heroic qualities and are capable of heroic acts-- small and large. But to own this is also uncomfortable.

So this is the work we must do collectively and individually if we are ever to truly mature and have a peaceful world. Look for the qualities we loathe or admire... In our OWN souls.


E.Carroll Straus, Esq.
Collaborative lawyer, Holistic Lawyer
CA Bar No. 110028

Ivan: 'Coercion,' generally, is so overbroad in that it has implications spanning fom psychology to political thoughts to...Indeed, I'm coerced not only by the media, at times, but also by my rather entrepreneurial girlfriend who has become surprisingly a highly apt negotiator when it comes to extracting favor(s) in exchange for sex with moi:) She's at her best, especially at those times when I am having an especially excrutiating ache. She walks about in casual wear, often scant...cotton undies, brief top. My point: What relation is there between 'coercion' and 'torture'?:) G-man

Ah yes, G-man, sex is a subtle coercer, though when it is found in agreement, can be most enjoyable. Then again, at what point is the joy 'coercive' while agreeable? Is there not a Magnus point of enjoyment where the pain blends with pleasure, and the agreement vs. coercion is thrown into a confusing conundrum? Still, I will take that most enjoyable pain, with its excruciating aches, to its full enjoyment.

Enjoy! Ivan

My opinion (sorry for mistakes), or some free notes to think about the matter. I can't avoid to talk about the war... thank you Ivan to talk about this:

Coercion exists at minimal terms.
The more invisible are the terms the more we talk of coercion.
Otherwise we can talk of oppression, invasion, power etc.

Coercion exists when somebody feels it on himself even if the coercitor doesn't think to be coercitive.
If somebody feels coerced the coercer has to understand and to act knowing there is something wrong in the comunication that creates the loss of balance.
Coercion, actually, exists even when nobody consciously thinks of it.
Coercion can exist at a subconscious level.
It is the worst.

Awarness and strength of character help the individual to get stronger and to be less easily victim of coercion.
Problem: Sometimes this awarness and strenght bring them to become coercitors.
This is very easy, to not be able to stay in the middle of the freedom.

It is important the level of human respect reached in each individual.
The more you respect the others the less you are able to act in a coercitive way.

Coercion sometimes means a lack of respect and trust in the others as too much ego.

It is the lack of exchanges.

The coercer is not the stronger.
Most of the times is the weaker one the coercing one.
And when they can't coerce and get agreement, they have to destroy.
Even when he dies, the victim is still stronger of the killer.

Was Galileo Galilei weaker of who impose him to abjure is research?
Was Christ weaker of his killers?
Was Gahndi weaker than all the powerfull generals making nuclear wars?
Is peace weaker than war?

Strong, free individuals they don't need any power to be free.
They can let everybody to be free togheter with them as they are free too.

Mentally weak individuals, sick, insane persons only have to create a motive to be alive over the others to feel powerfull.
Only insane individual have to subdly change other people minds to feel good.
They have nothing else than the energy they still from the others to survive, and they suck it.

They can survive longer physically and have the best sits in the power castles, but history doesn't belong to them.

Coercitors (and every kind of oppressors) last the time of one life and save money for their descendents.
Coerced people, not needing to sign with their names any history, they just make it.

Betta

Dublin, Ireland

Here's my thoughts which are part of one of my seminars..and also a
forthcoming book.

Our thinking creates our experience. The chain of events goes like this.
We experience something. We immediately have a thought about it. (We name it. perhaps coercion.) We have a feeling about it....(anger, resentment?) We act.
Our thoughts and feelings come from our beliefs which may or may not be valid. However, if we believe them, they are valid to us. Beliefs come from what we have learned, either by sour past teachings by family, church, etc. or our experience. If we want a more peaceful and harmonious experience, we need to be aware of what caused us to act in the way in which we did. We examine our thoughts and feelings. We make a judgement as to whether they are valid or if different thinking might change the way we feel and subsequently the way we act. With practice, all of this can take place in a matter of a fraction of a second.

Change your thinking, change your life. This is not new. The key is to do it.

Sandra Weaver

Ivan

Thank you for your article on Coercion and the opportunity to respond. Though I don't have energy on the topic of coercion, I do have energy on the ideas I've written below. So, in parallel response to your Coercion article, I thought I would send you the body of a letter I sent to my daughter last week.

--------------

Truth is the physical universe.

When I want to know what IS, I look at the physical universe. It is measured by what we have and to what we have access. It is the home we live in, the car we drive, the friends we can call and visit, our family, the cubicle or office at work, the people we associate with at work, etc. Our physical universe is the accumulation of our beliefs, values and spirituality. A monk has but a desk, a paper, a pen and a robe (not sure what they wear under the robe). He is happy though happiness is not defined by what or how much we have. Whenever I want to see the truth, I look at the physical reality of an event or situation.

We do not act on truth. We act on our passions and assessments of the physical universe. We chose words (nouns) or phrases that carry our judgments about the physical universe. It's like calling people names. Behind these words and phrases lies a continuum of physical reality. As an example let's look at the word terrorism. There is no physical reality (like green, dirt, or toe) to this word, but it is used to excite people toward causes and to justify actions. Behind the word terrorism lies a continuum of the physical universe. The continuum, in this case, stretches from carrying a rifle and grenades in Afghanistan (John Lindh) to piloting an aircraft into the WTC. Truth lies in what physically occurred not what we call it.

We objectify people. We place them in categories that are demeaning so we can disparagingly treat them. We violate the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some of the words and phrases that come to mind are thug, criminal, politician, selfish, corporate greed, tree hugger, and, of course the ultimate one, Evildoer. These words cover continuums of physical realities. The truth lies somewhere along these continuums. As an example, the continuum for "criminal" would stretch from one who steals a kiss (Hershey) to one who tortures and kills someone.

Physical events are neutral.

Physical events are not good or bad, right or wrong, sinful, sad, hurtful, or happy. We create the ensuing judgments and the emotions. And we must take responsibility for them. If I feel hurt because of what someone says or does, or for what I've done, then I must take responsibility for that feeling. That person did not do it to me. On the other hand, if a person does not do anything and I feel sad because of this void, then I, again, must take responsibility for my feeling.

With all this crap that I'm doing to myself, do I want to stop it or to continue to live in it because it's familiar and more comfortable than seeking the unknown? A solution is to tell the person about the emotion I'm choosing in response to his action or inaction. That way he can choose not to do it (or to continue to do it).

In summary: •••• happens; I look to the physical universe for truth; I see physical events and situations as neutral. We use words to describe physical situations and events, but usually these words have little bearing on what physically is or took place. We chose our emotions. No one hurts us, makes us feel sad or gives us happiness.

We are NOT our •••• - though we create it. We are unique, powerful, wonderful gods. Let's us marvel at our creations - without judgments.


Ian
----------------------------------------------------------
RE: "If I feel hurt because of what someone says or does, or for what I've done, then I must take responsibility for that feeling."

Dear Ian, thanks for your thoughtful writeup, indeed in parallel universes, on coercion. I selected the quote above because there is one fine point there that I, not being a Stoic, puzzle over. Do we feel hurt when someone coerces us physically? Is that an internal feeling, caused by us from an outside source, or is it an external source that succeeds in damaging us, even perhaps kill us? Interesting question.

Would you mind if I post this into the Humancafe Forum (under the New Philosophic Enlightenemt discuss thread), if you had not done so yourself? I am sure others would like to read this too.

Take care, let me know, all the best, Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan

I see it this way.

If someone's coerces us physically, we may choose any feeling we want. Of course we have already judged the physical action as coercive. But what is the truth? What is the physical reality? Behind Coercion is a continuum of the physical universe. It can lie between "Honey, if you loved me you would . . ., and a burglar with a gun pointed at you telling you to hand over your money.

Coercion is an assessment of a physical reality. We choose the word to "describe" the reality. We choose the associated feeling.

Thanks for asking.

If you think the article is worthy for Humancafe, I would be honored to have it posted.

Ian
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think I see what you mean, Ian.

So we know it is a coercion, but it is our choice in how we respond to it. This is a Stoic idea, I believe. What intrigues me, and this is what is not clear to me about coercion, is do we somehow "invite" coercion into our lives? In other words, is this something we actually choose? Or is it something forced on us? I suspect that there are some universal mechanism where our minds extend out into the reality of others, and when this happens, coercion is one of the products that results. However, how does one explain a young infant being coerced, say brutally beaten, if we actually invite coercion into our being? So this is the problem, that yes, we may choose to respond to coercion as we will, and a Stoic would say that though you may hurt me, you cannot take my soul. However, that is not enough for modern society, not in a more enlightened sense. We need to identify clearly what are coercions, how to avoid them, and then make it clear to those who are coercing us that this is what they are doing. At least, that's my view of it, thus far.

Thanks again, Ivan

SO WHAT IS COERCION?

I must confess that I still am not totally clear on this. It seems that there are internal reasons why some people coerce, such as brought up by Betta (see above), which may be expressed as a weakness of character, a lack of exchange. Or, as Sandra points our, it is something within our belief system, and that changing our thinking can change how we are in response to any coercion we may feel. Or, as Carroll said, most people who coerce are not conscious of it, that it is something in their soul. G-man points out that coercion can result from a bitter sweet source, like from someone you care for, or are attracted to sexually, so that the coercion is almost delightful. And Ian brings up the point that coercion is felt in response to what may at times be no more than a neutral event, but it is coercive to us, if this is how we view it, or feel it. Also "Behind Coercion is a continuum of the physical universe." I agree with all these, that coercion is felt from the inside of us, and that its origin comes often from an unconscious source, whether natural and neutral, or human and 'consciously' willed.

I think what troubles me is this: Oftentimes, we are not aware we are being coerced. This is the "battered wife syndrome", if you will, where she will return to the man who is beating her. Do we do this on some other level, for example, where we actually invite coercion into our lives? If so, then it is truly a matter of becoming more aware when this happens. But then, how does one explain mass coercions with this? What of the genocidal periods of human history, against Indians, Jews, Palestinians, Tibetans, Armenians, Nubas, Yanonami, etc.? Obviously, this line of reasoning does not work there, for the coercion is not invited by each individual into their lives, but is a result of mass hatred and political ambitions, or differences of ideologies.

More subtly, I think that the first defense against coercion on us by others, whether individually or en masse, is to be aware of it, to identify it, and then communicate this to the person, or people, doing the coercing. This is a very difficult thing to do, though Ghandi and Martin Luther King did this, and when firm in their belief that they were being coerced, they succeeded in ending it, or at least ameliorating it. But as individuals one on one, that is not always easy to identify such coercions, either in the other or in ourselves. I know that I have failed in it, for as I have been accused (sometimes rightly so) of coercing others. I do not think of myself as a coercive personality, but that does not mean that someone else may not think that I am. And if this happens, what do I do? I suspect communications and awareness, consciousness of the other person and situation, is perhaps the first step.

Then, and this is where it is metaphysically interesting, there is the possibility that we create our environment, consciously or unconsciously, where we will be coerced. If I choose to walk down a dark city street in an unfamiliar neighborhood, I am taking a risk which may lead to someone coercing (robbing, mugging, etc.) me in a way I did not anticipate. Or did I? This is a subtle philosophical part of the coercion affair: Do we create coercion not only for others, but also for ourselves? And why? If we are to progress into a world where we seek to interact with others through agreement, then I think understanding coercion is most important.

Any more ideas are most welcome. Thanks for those expressed thus far.

Ivan

Practically speaking, coercion is both effect and function of power. Be it subtle or not, coercion is--through various means--a way in which power asserted negotiates/convinces compliance. It may be through promise (i.e. the casting couch), or fear (i.e. incarceration, job loss, etc.). My point? As I said earlier, let's focus more if we hope not to wander here:) G-man

Hi G-man,

One way to better focus coercion is how it is different in varying types of coercion (and different from agreement). Is a "coerced" agreement valid, for example? Is lying to protect an innocent person a form of coercion, or not? I think that coercion to protect against coercion is different from coercion for the sake of power. Would you agree? In every negotiation, there are coercive positions that need to be resolved before agreement is found. But that is the key, that agreement can be found even when faced with coercive factors. So when agreement is consciously arrived at (unlike tacitly arrived at, where a person merely succumbs), then the coercion is changed, since now in its place is found an agreement.

These are the subtle points that directly affect how we interact with other human beings, most of whom display some consciousness, sometimes, and which thus interact with us, and we with them, through either coercion or agreement. So a promise broken is a coercion, as is a lie, as is incarceration. But these are coercions in response to what? To another coercion? Or to a failed agreement? Or as an exercise of power? These I believe are all fundamentally different, though the semantics of our language do not automatically distinguish between these varying types of coercion.

My point is thus that we must be aware of what coercions are, and how to either render them harmless, by bringing them into the sphere of agreement, or repell them, as in repelling force used against us. Warfare has been the common weal of humankind. Can a higher level of human consciousness (of coercion) change this?

Thanks for your inputs.

Ivan

Hope you've been well Ivan

I read a book last year called "Coercion" the author of which escapes me at this point but will get it to you . . .
I find the question interesting in so far as I've always felt that intellect was the greatest of all coercers- Not unlike the way Nietzsche re-assesses Socrates process of dialectic and questioning in Athens as a veiled aggressive act by a weaker creature as revenge against the healthier Athenians . . .
I mention that because philosophy (in truth, Verstandeh Sociology, and mid 19th century theoretical European social thought, i.e. Simmel, Comte, Weber, Durkheim, et. al) has always been something that has been so alluring to me, something that would be extremely enjoyable, something that would also seem to have some potentially tangible value . . . and yet . . .
After L Wittgenstein's conclusion in the Tractus Philosophicus that whatever could be said could be said simply and that all else should be silence (paraphrasing, yes?) I never understood how the field of philosophy found it possible to continue on a "truth" track (as it once used to profess)- It took a great deal of blurring the eyes, hemming and hawing, and silently conspiring to continue putting forth the notion that philosophy had the capacity to speak to truth . . .
Post Wittgenstein and his subsequent segue into some sort of aesthetic school of thought , a clever way to keep a job philosophisizing after fundamentally proving that philosophy as a pathway to "reasoned" truth was impossible, the obscuring clouds of intellection have simply multiplied, compounded and re-ified themselves into impregnable illusory fortresses of jargon and self-deception, to such a point that the vast number of people find it insurmountably daunting to venture into the realm of philosophical thought . . .
Let me put it simply . . . it's the wizard of Oz. After the smoke and mirrors, behind the words and attempts to connect symols of meaning as if they contained meaning, beneath it all there is a hollow, vacant arena wherein everyone is performing but there is no audience to see, no market that finds relevance except those involved in play . . .
Not so bad except that, in truth, Philosophy, in its most divine sense, is that super sharp sword whose purpose is to aid the enlightened human mind to hack through the brambles of bad consciousness and false and injurious doctrines propounded by all manner of false prophets and charlatans. Like True Religion, Words of Power, hurled through infinite dimensions, imbued with the Elixir capable of flooding the being of man with infinite realities and understanding, but sadly being corralled, distorted and corrupted by a blind, self-appointed body of hacks and spirit palsied pharisees, so too philosophy has suffered. . .
And herein is the matter of coercion, that disagreeable condition that one is unwillingly subjected to- For to be a man is to "be", to be in active process, and so there is within the Baha'i writings this short prayer . . .
"I bear witness, O my God (whatever that is)
that Thou hast created me
to A) Know Thee and to B) worship Thee . . . "

It goes on a line or two more but, for our discussion, this is sufficient. Regardless of the individual concept one holds of God (for one does hold such a concept regardless of one's profession)- since every Baha'i says this prayer, and since a Baha'i is simply, by definition, anyone who declares their belief in Baha'u'llah, then this prayer is actually a theo-ontological statement pertaining to a fundamental component of man's being- a faculty or spirtual member, if you will, that is common to all men . . . namely To Know and To Worship.
That is, as all men need to breath, eat, etc. . . . To Know and To Worship are innate forces, directions, instincts, whatever, in the animal man . . .
So? According to this prayer the proper object of Know and Worship is God or Thee or whomever, which is consistent with the first two commandments of the Torah, and ostensibly if one orients Know and Worship to it's pre-destined object, than all will be well . ..
But let's see . . . without the object . . .
Man's unending desire to Know - ANYTHING! Sports stats, lottery numbers, unending genetic sequence, philosophical arguments, websites, reading whatever books, compiling knowledge about everything and anything FOR NO REASON WHATEVER. AT A GREAT COST TO HUMANITY.
And Worship? What is worship at it's most basic- it's the expending of time, focus and energy on some particular object - Sports? Degrees? Making Money? Raising a family . . .
How is 7 years spent in a sequestered, isolated, communalized environment in pursuit of a PHd any different than the worst of all possible cult scenarios? If someone spent 7 months with David Koresh back in the day, what would have been the general condemnation regarding that? And yet it is the mainstream norm for people to at least be mastered by Masters programs if they are to be allowed to enter the more lucrative flowing streams of commerce or social prestige . .
This is a conspiracy of epic proportions . . .
Coercion on the grandest scale.

And at the root of it all , as the greatest coercer, is intellection- whether genuine or feigned. Trying to sound smart, think smart, implying time spent learning, a facility for language, for reading - an implication that there is something worth knowing on the "other side" of the efforts spent climbing mental Himalayas or plumbing Stygian darknesses . . .
And yet it's the wizard of Oz. Who would dare confess, like commander Kurtz, "the horror, the horror" that, in spite of all the thinking and reason and logic, and the best efforts of the greatest minds that ever went before, we have not been able to figure out a damn thing worth the black in the eye of a dead ant - except!
Time IS Money!

Not that money is Time but rather time is the only tangible object which has any value whatever to any human being . . . . and we are continually forced to engage in processes of hyper "being in the present" which work to disengage us from the treasure trove which is our true "ontological" condition- namely perpetually present consciousness divorced from the illusion of time passage, otherwise known as life eternal.

This is the condition of "little children". This is the pre-calendar, pre-clock world. And we, the parents, the unconscious participants in very old inter-locked system of soul-denial which we deify as civilization and progress, are the unwitting (though some witting) baton carriers in the great relay race of man as supreme deity vs. . . . vs . . . . well that for some other time.

So . . .sorry about the ramble. Twas fun . . . I'm working like a dog these days, eyes (forget the nose) to the grindstone. The present is jamming itself through every sensory conduit I have as if it were desperate to keep me from noticing the beautiful unravelling that is taking place (has been taking place)- A societal Alzheimers. A dementia of democracy . . . .

If I tell you I know something, and know it definitely . . . and you had the lest doubt . . . . would that be coercion?
And what if I was a liar?
But what if it was true?

Last thought . . .
If there truly was an Absolute Truth, the In Itself, would it be coercive?
Or would it be more like Jesus?

Isn't logic often employed as a violent coercive tool? Ask the women of the world . . . .

That's it! Gotta stop!

It's addictive . . . . hope you're getting sleep Ivan.

Love you man
Brian

Dear Brian, RE your:

"If I tell you I know something, and know it definitely . . . and you had the lest doubt . . . . would that be coercion?
And what if I was a liar?
But what if it was true?

Last thought . . .
If there truly was an Absolute Truth, the In Itself, would it be coercive?
Or would it be more like Jesus?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer?

"More like Jesus." Trust in God.

I think the greater our consciousness evolution, the greater we learn to let go, to forgive, to see a much much bigger picture of who we are. So when Truth coerces us, it is only in that it comes from minds who need to coerce, which is a lesser truth. Truth from the universe does not coerce, for it is in truth already "us". Absolute Truth is the ultimate definition of All that is. It is also us, the who we are, but better than us, in that it is the guidance and love we each seek so desperately.

My answer: "Trust in Love." That's Jesus's biggest teaching of Truth for humankind (of his time).

Always so glad to hear your mental-jazz Man!

Take care good friend, Ivan

Hi Ivan! So good to hear from you! Warmest Baha'i love to you & Cinzia.

Here's my response regarding What COERCION is. Allah'u'Abha! Susan C Gilman

Submitting to the guile of another or yielding to his coercion or seduction is, from the most responsible viewpoint, a form of giving (some) agreement/power to him. Even if the seducer/coercer is acting not altogether consciously (ie. his action is more unconscious/subconscious than it is consciously conscious sor superconscious), the
natural camoflage or defense system of the one he intends to coerce makes all the difference.
If "the binder and the bound are ONE" (as SatGuru Sivaya Subramuniya Swami says), then coercer and coerced are one. Some kind of agreement or engaging response from the coercee would be necessary for engagement. That is why A Course in Miracles strongly suggests that we give up thoughts/thots of attack and defending from attack and, instead, fokus on the PEACE of God.

The I Ching says "To conflict is not to love". (I've heard) Love, defined simply as:
Life Omniscient Victoriously Expressed. Sometimes love is tender, sometimes tuf.

For sure, Love does not brag nor coerce nor harm. (see longer Biblical passage).

And yet, there is much to be learned about wise strategy and natural response from martial arts. Martial artists, however, all teach that the best won fight is the one avoided. Again, if one is truly connected with higher power, fokused on the Love and Peace of God, his/her best course of action or inaction (perhaps playing dead like a possum or becoming invisible like an aborigine) will reveal itself just in time.

There is a line I like in The I Ching Workbook, hexagram 63 AFTER THE END by Wing, which says: Perhaps there is solace in the thought that the less you can affect this particular situation the less it will affect you. There is a fine line between turning a cold shoulder or retreating in perfect timing and "sticking one's head in the sand". The Oracle (I Ching) says that Western man knows little or nothing about retreat, and that sometimes RETREAT is the greatest act of strength.

I wholeheartedly recommend THE I CHING WORKBOOK, even tho it says that it is helpful to recognize the evil that exists in the world, whereas A Course in Miracles states that there is no evil. Subramuniya, too, said that "Even what's bad is good." Back to the Oneness, the ATONEMENT.

And, as far as responding wisely to coercion, some strategy is required. Sometimes one would be wise to pretend to give some agreement, to yield, to one's opponent, while crafting an escape plan. Again, the study/practice of martial arts would be advised (I say to myself).

Clearly, the bold, coercive and criminally corrupt actions of the present regime bring up this entire issue. Do we prepare ourselves with handguns and blow darts now, before Shrub tries to declare martial law, or do we JUST rise above all such shennanigans by staying enchanted by the Love and Peace of God? We live in exciting times and face tremendous mental tests. May God have Mercy on our
souls.

Susan C. Gilman

Hi SueG,

Yes, I think tacit agreement, such as one gets from submission, is one form of response to coercion, and sometimes there is no choice. Prisoners of war, women forced into prostitution through false promises, children oppressed by their elders, are some examples of this. A conscious mind finds it intolerable, but not all minds are the same, and some even find solace in being another's ward, or slave. Strange, but we are complex human beings, and no one rule applies to all.

Same for the coercer and coerced being as one, for their level of consciousness may be equal on this. Like the man walking a dog on a leash, he is also on a leash, though he thinks he is controlling the situation, and often rightly so. But they are bound together by the leash nevertheless. I think that as humans rise in consciousness, which I suspect amy be a very slow process of evolution for some, faster for others, then we will awaken to when we are coercing others, and when we are being coerced. Then if we choose to accept this, it is agreement, for such coercion is no longer that but entered into a joint dance of pain together. And if this too leads to Love in the end, then there is no loss, and the I Ching says "it will further to cross the great waters".

About "Even what's bad is good", is always true when seen from the biggest perspective, though at the time it fails to make sense to us. In the end, I believe Love wins, but it's the getting there that is so hard. I don't think evil exists, except such as we do to each other and ourselves (See Challenge the Evil thread). As I am sure your Baha'i teachings say, and all great religious teachers, we must trust in God.

Peace, Ivan

In a message dated 7/22/02 4:49:27 PM, ianarm@fea.net writes:

<< If I feel hurt because of what someone says or does, or for what I've done, then I must take responsibility for that feeling. >>

Dear Ian, thanks for your thoughtful writeup, indeed in parallel universes, on coercion. I selected the quote above because there is one fine point there that I, not being a Stoic, puzzle over. Do we feel hurt when someone coerces us physically? Is that an internal feeling, caused by us from an outside source, or is it an external source that succeeds in damaging us, even perhaps kill us? Interesting question.

Yes, I think I see what you mean, Ian.

So we know it is a coercion, but it is our choice in how we respond to it. This is a Stoic idea, I believe. What intrigues me, and this is what is not clear to me about coercion, is if we somehow "invite" coercion into our lives? In other words, is this something we actually choose? Or is it something forced on us? I suspect that there are some universal mechanism where our minds extend out into the reality of others, and when this happens, coercion is one of the products that results. However, how does one explain a young infant being coerced, say brutally beaten, if we actually invite coercion into our being? So this is the problem, that yes, we may choose to respond to coercion as we will, and a Stoic would say that though you may hurt me, you cannot take my soul. However, that is not enough for modern society, not in a more enlightened sense. We need to identify clearly what are coercions, how to avoid them, and then make it clear to those who are coercing us that this is what they are doing. At least, that's my view of it, thus far.

Thanks again, Ivan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan


I see it this way.


Per Webster, a Stoic is a person who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain. I do not say that we should be indifferent to physical events and situations. I say that we choose our feelings in response to physical events and situations.


The word "coercion" is a label, a name, and a noun that we assign to a physical action. We assign the label to convey judgement, so we can talk passionately about the action, so we can categorize it, or so we can justify future action. There may be other reasons. Whatever we call it does not change the event or situation, or change our desired response to it. Labels instill passion in others and cause actions to be taken.


We may invite into our lives actions that we can subsequently call coercions. Why we send out invitations for these actions is a topic for another discussion. But life being power and control (another discussion), it would seem that the more "coercion" we bring into our lives the more powerful we become as we overcome it - if we choose to see it as something to "fight." I don't particularly see a need to identify coercions (label physical actions as coercions), or to avoid them, or to response to them.


If a woman is coercing me to have sex with her, I don't believe I'll fight her wishes. That's not right! She would only be coercing me if I were resisting. Perhaps coercion only occurs when we choose to resist. We thus cause the coercion. What were the words: Lay down and die Tom Dooley.


We probably do not invite crap into our lives, but we explore, become curious, take risks, search for knowledge, and search for our limits. In so doing we become vulnerable to it.


Thanks for the opportunity to comment.


Ian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Ian, I read their teachings, http://www.abraham-hicks.com/welcome.html , and they are very attractive. So much so, that one wonders why this world is such a mess! Indeed, if we are all the things Abraham-Hicks says we are: What went wrong?

"I say that we choose our feelings in response to physical events and situations.
The word "coercion" is a label, a name, and a noun that we assign to a physical action."

The above quote is from your earlier note, which intrigues me, because then it is followed by:

"If a woman is coercing me to have sex with her, I don't believe I'll fight her wishes. That's not right! She would only be coercing me if I were resisting. Perhaps coercion only occurs when we choose to resist."

I see this differently, because I don't think of an invitation as coercion, nor any approach of one human being to another, unless that approach is forced against our agreement. So that if a woman wants to have sex with me, it is not a "coercion" unless she persists, and rapes me. (Usually, this sort of thing happens the other way around, since men are better equipped to rape than women.) So a "coercion" is a specific thing, which I think of as being a forced thing. Fighting in response to coercion is then one thing, whereas fighting for play of sport is another. The point being that how we label something as "coercion" does not necessarily make it so, only if it is a force against our agreement, for then it is not validating us, and trespassing on our being instead. Does that make sense? It is something that I think is a lot harder to understand than most of us assume, and thus goes unnoticed, so that if a coercion takes place, we are all too often oblivious. The damage that results is then that we take action or choices in response to this coercion, which may be self detrimental, or detrimental to others, so that no one wins, and rather we end up suffering not knowing why.

"Perhaps coercion only occurs when we choose to resist."

This sentence I think catches where lies the problem for most of us, when we are confused about coercion. It is not a coercion because we choose to respond to it by resistance, but rather it is a coercion first, and then we choose to resist. This is an important distinction, I think, because then it makes a coercion a real thing, whereas the way you wrote it makes it something that we can deny exists, to exist only if we choose for it to be so. I think this is where our points of view diverge, since I think a coercion happens when we are forced against our agreement, which is not the same as choosing to resist. We may, in fact, be forced against our agreement and choose to accept, which then takes it away from being a coercion and makes it an agreement, even if we are unhappy with it. (I think of Afro slaves living in America, when it was the land of the free only for select whites, as coping with it this way.) So the distinction is subtle, because at first glance, both conditions as stated by you and by me appear to be the same. But are they? That is the question. Answered as yes, then it means that we are in truth never coerced. Answered as no, then coercion exists. And if it does exist, then there are times when our agreements are invalidated, and thus we are forced from being who we are. When this happens, we as human beings are then invalidated, which usually leads to suffering. Complex, but not beyond understanding.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. You might take a look sometime at the book on Humancafe's page titled "Habeas Mentem", http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm , which is a kind of habeas corpus for the mind. In it, especially in the first of the three books, I deal with some of these topics of coercion vs. agreement. In fact, I suspect these are much deeper subjects than most of us are aware. But then, maybe consciousness of ourselves and the world is still a fleeting thing for us Earthlings as well!

Take care, hope to hear from you again, and sorry for my "long winded" response.

Ivan