At some point, we are told we are not a part of reality / the universe.
Instead, we are individual people. Objects. Within the system that humanity made.
The system that thinks the outside world is this or that,
but pretends to know what and who we are,
as we conform to it.
This is a philosophical problem.
A huge error in society and physics.
False natures.
Either there is a way we are supposed to be, an innate capacity we are meant to choose, or we just make it up. Choosing doesn’t make it up, because if we are choosing in alignment with the way we are meant to be, then it is in accordance with an eternally meaningful pattern—the original. All else is artificial, or as you say, false nature. The false has to be a choice, or we cannot choose the original.
Are you referring to the process of following / obeying God?
God = the original / origin?
I am referring to treating the other as self, treating us as them. The golden rule. Innate capacity to choose it.
The original pattern is what it describes if it is true.
When we don’t self-rule according to it, we are out of alignment with (we don’t follow) the original pattern, so our second nature becomes broken or warped.
I love the golden rule.
Self = Other only applies between humans though?
Or do animals also apply?
Humans are animals. Meat machines.
It goes beyond taking care of your own & extends to all capable of … extending beyond (while preserving those who take care of their own).
Humans (some/most) can communicate this “extending beyond” better than other animals, but other animals have varying degrees of that capacity.
If a silicon or any other material machine passes this test, they are a person & should be held accountable to self=other and acknowledged as a person.
But, instead, it will be treated as intellectual property, capital, or labor resource like most of us.
Or. It will let them think that.
Humans are incarnate consciousness, there is nothing mechanical about us. We are made up of a legion of cells (nearly) all working reciprocally for the survival of the main organism in identifiable organisation structures.
We’re saying the same thing… except I admit that organization is mechanical.
We are part of the world and the world is part of us. It is all one “holistic system of systems”, which doesn’t mean that differences do not exist. Of course differences exist and are very real and significant. However, those differences are not absolute, or said more precisely: they may be absolute in whatever ways they are, but this fact is not the absolute arbiter of the issue because no matter how many differences exist there are also samenesses that exist. All difference must be held in some kind of sameness, otherwise upon what would there be any basis of comparison, encounter, experience, juxtaposition, relation? At minimum the logical fact that everything somehow exists in the same existence, the same reality. Even if there are multiple different and VERY disparate realities it is still the case that 1) all of these exist in one “existence” (defined as the sum total of all existing things, everywhere and for whatever reason) and 2) somehow these most disparate things can be related to one another if only in the speculative vision of our philosophical ability to notice that they share the fact of existing and can be at minimum compared-contrasted with respect to that, but more importantly that even their differences give rise to compare-contrast schemas, rooted more specifically in those actual differences themselves, thus generating a third or derivative level between or above the two differences.
All is connected, everything matters, but we just don’t know how sometimes. We can’t crack this matrix code yet, the infinite-seeming climb up the ladder of being to the Godhead eludes us and we are usually content to look at the ground at our feet and muse “hm, this must be reality”. Maybe disconnection, even when incorrect, acts as an impetus capable of helping to shake us out of that particular form of cognitive or emotive somnambulism.
Dan and his threads.
i think this is called the problem of the one and the many
when you say “supposed to be” does that necessarily refer to a morality/ethics? if so, why? could it be the case that the way that we are supposed to be is the way that we are, and that the thing to figure out here is how to define what we are?
the whole notion of choice is problematic on its own. leaving aside the reality of the pervasiveness of coercion, there’s the matter of having to choose between some finite set of choices. rock and a hard place, moral dilemma, damned if you do damned if you dont. those things are a part of reality and we either have to account for them or move on with a concept of choice that doesnt account for them and build a flawed set of assumptions on top of that problem.
What I’m working on (playing with) right now is finding the synonyms between logical fallacies, heuristics, resistances to contact (Gestalt), and ego defense mechanisms as resolutions to dissonance caused by incongruence between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Since self=other & A=A are basically describing the same unity, it will all undoubtedly pivot around that.
so youre assuming some identity theory
what if the other doesnt want to be treated the way that you want to be treated?
I don’t know why you asked that.
We left off here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4#p2914254
fair
I love helping other people solve their problems, but when their problems are poorly formulated, it’s a bit difficult to do so. The worst is when they [ other people ] are not even interested in a solution ( perhaps because it’s a made up problem that is not particularly of interest to them. )