Sure, when considered as discreet objects.
But the motivation for an act can be any combination of interest in self and interest in others - one other or many others.
I never took philosophy 101 so that probably explains it.
Doesn’t Alan also say that there is no self? Which technically would make all acts selfless.
It’s weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.
Good idea. I like digressions 
If not brains driving cars, then spirits driving cars.
Really? I have heard most of our serotonin is in the gut which makes me wonder why SSRIs are used for mental problems.
You’re more than just an organism because you need an environment too.
In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain. researchgate.net/publicatio … Psychology
I don’t have a problem with any of that.
Well, it’s possible that psychopaths could also have a high IQ, but my research indicates that psychopaths typically do not have a high IQ. psychologytoday.com/us/blog … he-rest-us
Well, we have a correlation so now we need to propose a mechanism and I posit that people with the cognitive capacity to realize that moral behavior is self-advantageous will be more moral than those who do not have the capacity.
Stefan Molyneux did a video of correlations with crime and found that crime had little to do with poverty, but was highly correlated with IQ and nearly perfectly correlated with divorce rates, implying that having a father in the home equated to less criminal behavior. So how does having a father around change the development of the child?
youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk
Oh you mean not running from the bear? Yeah that was me.
Oh I see what you’re saying! If people understand why they’re being mistreated, then by understanding they lose their anger, then they allow the abuse to continue because they have no drive to fight back. It’s mighty perceptive of you to pick up on that. This reminds me of a kid I know who is insanely intelligent and so perceptive that he can rarely be mad at anyone, except his annoying parents who he yells at and demeans constantly for acting “stupid”, but anyone else he bends over backwards to be eternally taken advantage of. I say “You need to get away from those people. They’re shitting on you!” He’ll say “No, they’re just acting that because _____, ________, and ________”. He rationalizes and justifies abuse from people and it’s only because he’s smart enough to see a way of rationalizing it, but for some reason he isn’t smart enough to get away from it. I suppose it’s a lack of wisdom and he’ll eventually learn from life.
Intelligent people actually have a rough time in life. Satoshi Kanazawa wrote a book about it. amazon.com/Intelligence-Par … 0470586958
I have a thread about it on neosophi, but the site must be down because I can’t access it. Suffice it to say, ignorance is bliss and “happiness among intelligent people is the rarest thing I know” (Hemmingway).
lol I suppose any bag of hot air is sufficient to blow your feathers out of place
It’s interesting that I see the parent as perceptive and you see the same parent as weak. Evidently we value different things as a function of our life history and I wonder what happened to you that made you become so hypersensitive to guilt. I mean, my mom is the queen of guilt trips and it’s how she communicates. If she can’t win an argument, then she diverts to how hard her life was and why everyone should feel sorry for her. I would think I should be the one who has a hypersensitivity to guilt, or at least some sensitivity to it, but perhaps I’ve been desensitized? My hangup is arrogance… I see it everywhere and associate it with ignorance and actually, I’m almost to the point that I believe there is no such thing as stupidity, but only arrogance, and so intelligence would be a function of humility which is what the parent is displaying by considering the point of view of the unruly child.
Jesus did get mad at least once.
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
You can imagine him running about overturning tables and yelling at people lol
So there must be some difference between those nailing him to the cross and those selling at the temple. The ones nailing him to the cross didn’t know what they were doing, but the ones selling in the temple must have known what they were doing was wrong.
Ok friend, point well-taken, I’ll give that some good thought. You may be onto something, but I haven’t focused on it specifically. Alan doesn’t disagree with you.
I can’t find the video where he said “how dare you have the disgusting effrontery to exist” from the christian perspective, but this one is pretty good too:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNeaZeFbhH0[/youtube]
I was in Mexico last August
40:40
studying this, because I wanted to go down there and find out
40:45
why their form of Catholicism is so agonizing.
40:51
And…
40:53
I meditated a long time on this,
40:55
in the cathedral of Wahaga.
40:59
And
41:01
Here was the main altar
41:03
– no, not the main altar. The chapel where the sacrament is reserved
41:07
The central figure behind the altar is a huge crucifix
41:12
of Christ covered in blood and wounds.
41:17
The sores are all modeled, you know?
41:20
And then on either side of the walls facing this,
41:22
there are great paintings.
41:24
One of Christ carrying the cross and being mocked and scourged,
41:29
and the other, of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane,
41:33
and all around in the stores,
41:35
where they sell bondieuserie in the neighborhood of the cathedral,
41:38
you can buy these agonized faces of Christ
41:41
with a crown of thorns.
41:43
And every thorn individually sticking in,
41:45
and little dribbles of blood,
41:47
the face is kind of green and ghastly.
41:51
And the people dig this!
41:53
They love it!
41:55
They’ll go walking into the Shrine of our Lady of Guadalupe,
41:58
go for a whole mile on their knees!
42:01
You see young girls doing this!
42:05
What is this about?
42:10
Well, you see, some people
42:12
don’t really feel they exist until they are sitting on the point of a thorn.
42:17
Let me put it that way.
42:20
Like reality is a measure of pain.
42:26
See, pain, in this way of looking at things,
42:28
is the most real thing that there is.
42:32
Pleasure, the pleasures of this world
42:34
escape and disappear and pass away,
42:37
there’s nothing to cling to, so don’t go after pleasure, my dear friends!
42:41
That’s awful, that’s a deceit, because the real thing in life is pain.
42:46
And so, what you do is you train yourself from childhood
42:49
to deal with pain.
42:53
We were brought up in a school system
42:54
where it was simply axiomatic that suffering builds character.
42:59
So therefore, anytime you inflicted pain on anybody,
43:02
you were perfectly justified in your own conscience
43:04
because you were doing him a favor.
43:07
You were building his character for him.
43:09
Do him good!
43:10
Hit him hard on the head! (laughs) You know, that sort of attitude. (laughter)
43:14
And, uh…
43:18
(chuckles)
43:24
And so this is based on this philosophy of
43:28
“pain is reality.”
43:31
Is the ultimate
43:34
penitential philosophy.
43:36
Going down, down, down into the most awful.
43:41
“I am wrong.”
43:43
See? “I am a mistake.”
43:46
“I am responsible for this mistake.”
43:49
“Therefore, I ought to suffer.
43:52
and I go right into that state of mind.”
43:58
“And if I’ve got guts and courage, I’ll go as far into it as possible.”
44:04
“And what will I find out at the end?”
44:16
Now, if you go far enough…
44:20
the trouble is, a lot of people don’t.
44:23
And they stay around, mimble-mambling about
44:26
their sins and all that, which is sort of disgusting.
44:31
And they never really get down to it.
44:34
They never find out
44:38
what I’ll call “the moment,” the hidden motivation behind all this.
44:43
Behind self-renunciation.
44:45
Behind wallowing in
44:49
the reality of pain.
44:52
They don’t see that it’s phony.
45:00
Because
45:03
nothing can be more egotistical
45:06
than true repentance.
45:10
As I pointed out, you’re safe
45:14
when you’re repentant enough.
45:16
Therefore, you…
45:20
conceal from yourself, temporarily, what an egotist you are.
45:25
But if you really get down to the bottom of this thing
45:28
as some of the Christian saints have done,
45:31
and find out what that repentance is all about,
45:33
and you suddenly see
45:36
why it’s your old sin all over again.
45:39
What I thought was good, was, as a matter of fact, evil.
45:42
It was the same self-seeking and self-righteousness
45:45
and ineradicable pride and irreducible rascality,
45:49
which the Hebrews call,
45:51
the yetzer hara.
45:54
Which means, ‘the evil inclination.’
45:56
But they say that the evil inclination was created by the Lord God.
46:01
And probably the Lord God has a yetzer hara himself.
46:07
That the Lord
46:08
has his own element of irreducible rascality.
46:12
And that is, of course, what you might call the dark side,
46:14
the left hand of God.
46:18
The left hand that doesn’t know what the right hand doeth.
46:23
'Cause that mustn’t be let out; that’s the secret.
46:27
You see?
46:27
If the game of the cosmos is of the fundamental pattern of hide and seek,
46:34
Then when ‘hide’ turns up, and it’s the time for ‘hide’ to happen
46:38
Then
46:40
darkness has its day.
46:43
Hide in the dark.
46:45
But when it’s time for ‘seek,’
46:47
then light has its day,
46:49
and we find out what was hidden in the dark,
46:51
and then the right hand suddenly discovers what the left hand was doing.
46:54
(chuckles)
46:56
At first, it’s shocked!
46:58
(chuckles)
46:59
What, that?!
47:00
(laughs)
47:01
What is that, by the way?
47:04
What is the fundamental taboo?
I took it as an elective lol
He says there is just one thing: the self. I suppose he means the Brahman.
Why do you feel that way?
But any combination of interest in others will ultimately also come back to an interest in yourself, so there is no combination.
But water is not a function of impurities. Water is H2O and the impurities are not water. Tea is water + impurities (the tea flavors).
In that case, there is no ‘other’. What do ‘selfless’ and ‘selfish’ mean? Nothing?
One often encounters posters who are “surprised” that everyone does not think as they do. They are “surprised” that there is more than one way to look at a subject. They are “surprised” that there is something to debate.
LOL
What do you expect? People who thank you for posting informative videos and who always agree with you?
People were able to identify water long before anybody thought of hydrogen, oxygen or molecules. They could distinguish tea from water as well.
I think that they can identify love in spite of whatever selfish/selfless labels philosophers insist on attaching.
What a Gnostic Christian is is best described by the name of my god.
Modern Gnostic Christians name our god “I am”, and yes, we do mean ourselves.
You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.
The name “I Am” you might see as meaning something like, — I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.
In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.
That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes … r_embedded
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.
Regards
DL
.
I don’t think the Bible clearly says this, though SOME quotes can be interpreted this way. And if it is clear then we certainly don’t need outside experts, ones strongly affected by the lens of other religions or psychologies, to show what the Bible really means - re: the videos you suggest.
And the section of the Bible specifically referring to childish things also says that women were made for men, but men were not made for women.
That writer seems not to have given up childish things, nor is it made clear exactly what is meant by childish things. As in many parts of the Bible, it is open to interpretatoins, especially given the many writers and modes in the full context of the Bible, and of course its two halves.
and of course Jesus said that only one who is like a child…etc.
And yes, I realize that is also open to interpretations, some which might work with the other quote, some that might not.
No argument on this. You are correct in that it is how you think of the supernatural that is important to you.
Do you think a supernatural invisible realm as a good realm to build an ideology on?
Would you let a childish mind guide humanity based on imaginary entities?
Regards
DL
Oh holy hell you gotta stop with the holier than thou innuendo.
You said “I guess it comes down to the fact that I don’t understand a lot of this.” And now you imply I have no justification to be surprised. Well how can you tell if you know nothing about it and had no class in philosophy? Go take a poll of philosophy students and if you discover that many of them believe there are selfless acts, then come tell me I’m wrong. Until then you’re just pedestalizing yourself by speaking from ignorance as if you knew enough to judge me.
Well good. If you already know everything, then stop asking questions.
1 Corinthians 3
3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Matthew 18
18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
There are two senses of child: one means inability to understand spiritual concepts and the other means humility.
I’ve been listening to Bart Ehrman who happened to remark that Gnostic Christians believed there is special knowledge and might have implied it was like magic chants or incantations. Alan also said that if one knew the name of God, he could exercise some special power with it. I don’t know much about this topic.
Does that imply anything about the name Will I am (William)?
I currently believe that any mind picture of God is a graven image and it’s more prudent to not try to conceptualize God. Faith is not-clinging.
How does one become brother to Jesus?
What do you make of the verse:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
That satanist on youtube (Mark Passio I think) says the verse alludes to duality and the nondual (eye be single). I’m not sure.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
It is not a direction to keep the commandments, but keeping the commandments is evidence of a saved condition.
Predestination supports the idea that there is nothing to be done.
Reminds me of this
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YwEArrXNnI[/youtube]
Yes I did because love of others and caring for others can be easily seen. I don’t understand why somebody would deny the reality of those observations.
As far as I’m concerned the better questions are : do you see people who love others? do you see people who care about others?
You’re the one talking down at me as if you and the philosophy 101 students have the ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.
My post was about the Bible. You have not responded to the points I made.
That is not relevant. I am not one of the writers of the Bible. We were talking about what a quote meant and the Bible’s position or positions on the supernatural. The Bible portrays all sorts of supernatural events and entities and you add to them elsewhere with God walking around in clothes.
Also not a response to the points I made which were about the Bible. As I said there are quotes in the Bible that can be, but need not be, interpreted as saying that something more metaphorical is meant. But there are many quotes and ways of describing events such that they come off as describing real supernatural events.
Here you go personal and mention the supernatural being important to me. But the issue is not my beliefs or lack of in the supernatural. The issue is what the Bible is saying.
Here you make no attempt to respond to my points about the Bible and shift to focusing on me.
You’re not much of a philosophical discussion partner. You are a proselytizer, who posts as if, at least, you either are afraid to deal with ideas that differ from yours or think that people should only listen to you or agree with you after repetition.
That is childish. I’ll check back in few months and see if you can actually read other people’s posts AND show this by responding to the points, at least some of them, that other people make.
If I see a mother doing something for her child …
Why wouldn’t I say that she cares about the child?
Why would I say that she cares only about herself?
It seems to me you’re describing an ideal prototype which is the best example of a category and the standard against which all category members are to be judged. Such is the absolute or essence or ideal of something which was the best example of that thing in experience or fantasy. This idealized experience becomes the standard against which all lesser real things are measured. Ideologues and absolutists believe uncritically in the reality of their absolutes or ideals. Sure we need ideal prototypes to communicate. But it doesn’t follow from that that they are real. Language is the imperfect product of human primates. Words referring to actual phenomena can’t be understood as naming fixed and discrete entities or properties. They’re naming points on a curve of probabilities.