on discussing god and religion

My own reaction here revolves around asking, “how pertinent is an observation of this sort in a philosophy venue?”

Philosophy is defined as, “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.”

How then would one as a philosopher examine any particular experience that he or she had relating to the existence of God in order to impart how this might further our understanding of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence?

Whether “academically” or “existentially”.

It seems of importance here that any personal experiences that one might have has be examined by others in order to extract that which might be construed as true for all of us.

Otherwise this experience might be explained in a way that has nothing to do with the existence of God.

But first and foremost we need to be told [in some detail] what this experience actually consisted of.

As some point out, He did bestow free will upon us.

On the other hand, our distance ancestors did manage to fuck that up in the Garden. In other words, by using it as God intended. But not as God intended.

And, now, because of a choice that they made, we continue to pay the price!

Or so we are told by those absolutely certain that they will never burn in Hell. Why? Because they do grasp the one and the only manner in which to worship and adore the one and the only true God.

They are just unable to demonstrate that to me here. Nor do many seem willing to actually explore the part where the behaviors they choose here and now are connected “in their head” to what they imagine the fate of their soul to be there and then.

49 pages now and almost nothing in that regard!

Once again you take my posts out of context in another thread in order to enhance, or repeat, your basic arguments. I had hoped we had simply agreed to disagree… There is nothing further I can give you because you seem able to accept nothing but your own repetitions. Do not quote me from other threads than your own. You do not refute ideas; you simply dismiss them because they do not fit your agenda.

Perhaps we do have free will that has been bestowed on us by God… Or perhaps we live in a totally deterministic universe, and free will is just an illusion. It feels to me right now that i am choosing to write this on ilp, but there is evidence from neuroscience that free will IS illusory.

Iamb,
Please do not take my posts out of context in other threads in order to enhance your own. You do not refute ideas; you simply dismiss them in favor of your own inflexible agenda. Do not quote me from threads other than your own.

There are those who seem to make very little distinction between having faith in God and believing in God’s existence. Faith does not appear to imply doubt at all to them. At least that has been my own experience in being around them over the years.

And, in a similar way, it might be argued that I myself have faith in No God. After all, how could I possibly assert that God does not exist when I have absolutely no capacity whatsoever in which to determine and then to demonstrate that.

And “choice” here is all the more nebulous. It would seem that in order to attain immortality, salvation and divine justice, there must be a God able to judge those who are worthy of them.

Where things becomes particularly problematic for me [on this thread] is in grappling with the choices we face on this side of the grave given that we seem unable to move beyond faith. More or less blind, perhaps, but still just an existential leap of faith.

I keep coming back to that yawning gap between all that is at stake, and how very little we have at our disposal in determining which God to take that leap to.

If we can even manage to “think”/“will” ourselves into having faith at all.

I created this thread in order to bring zinnat’s philosophical speculations about God and religion “down to earth”. In other words, given the manner in which religious folks imagine their fate “there and then”, how is this pertinent to the behaviors that they choose “here and now”.

Which is fundamentally related to that which interest me most about philosophy: the extent to which philosophers are able to connect the dots between the technical discipline and the quandary that I keep coming back to over and over again: How ought one to live?

In other words, given that, both philosophically and existentially, I have become entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And God is certainly one possible means in which to extract myself from it.

Right?

Look, you make the claim that “God is a force to be experienced”. And that you have in fact had the requisite experience. And now [in your own way] you have the comfort and the consolation of believing what you do.

Yet you come into a philosophy venue and insist that one’s own personal experience with God is all that matters.

Or so it seems to me.

And, sure, okay, if that works for you, fine.

But that doesn’t disqualify me and others from probing into it. What particular experiences did you have? How can others experience the same in order to bring themselves closer to a God, the God, my God?

You’ll either go there or you won’t.

But if you expect others in a philosophy venue to just accept that anyone’s experiences [about anything] need be as far as they go in demonstrating its “wisdom”, well, let’s just say we think about philosophy in very different ways.

But, okay, from now I will refrain from bringing you into this thread.

It does get problematic.

Inherently no doubt.

Well, whatever that means.

With God and religion, the arguments tend to revolve around reconciling human autonomy with an alleged omniscient Creator. If God knows everything, the argument goes, then He already knows what you will say, feel and do. And if He already knows this what actual choice do you have?

On the other hand, the arguments here can become considerably more sophisticated.
Just google “god and free will”: google.com/search?q=god+and … ll&ie=&oe=

I think it was Augustine (or maybe Aquinas) who argued that God can be all-knowing, and man still have free will, because God exists outside of time; and so God sees the past, present and future all at once, in a timeless sort of way.
(Your probably familiar with the argument)
But then it is very difficult to understand how anything could exist outside of time. How could God ever have a thought, for example? A thought must have a beginning, a middle and an end (surely even Gods thoughts must be structured like this, right?), but these concepts only make sense WITHIN time.
Or maybe this is just a limitation of our time-bound minds…

On the other hand, what “on earth” does this mean?

My own reaction to speculation of this sort [embedded in one or another intellectual contraption] is the same: to note that crucial distinction between believing it “in your head” and demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same.

Someone is either able to demonstrate [to me, to others] that this is a rational frame of mind or they are not.

First of course by demonstrating the actual existence of a God, the God, my God. An entity that is not in turn largely just an intellectual contraption defined or deduced into existence.

Or predicated on personal experiences able to be conveyed to me, to others, such that I/they might have similar experiences ourselves.

Really in a philosophy venue what else is there?

You can either note how your propositions are applicable to all by connecting the dots between words and worlds, or you can insist the definition and the meaning that you give to the words in your argument [anchored to a particular set of assumptions] is by default the starting point for any discussion. Or by insisting that your own personal experiences need be as far as you go in demonstrating the truthfulness of your claims.

In any event this thread was created in order to explore the relationship between whatever others construe God to be and the manner in which this is pertinent to the behaviors that they choose in a world that I construe to be bursting at the seams with conflicting goods.

In other words, why do so many religious folks here seem to bend over backwards to avoid exploring what appears to me the most fundamental reason for the existence of religion: the parts that swirl around immortality, salvation and divine justice.

And the fact that in order to attain them you must 1] die and then 2] be judged by one or another God as being worthy of them.

And surely this is profoundly related to the manner in which you choose particular behaviors on this side of the grave.

You brought up the argument (from the religious perspective) about free will, I just mentioned a possible counter argument…
But if I understand you correctly, this doesn’t mean much “on earth”.
Philosophy doesn’t have a single object of study. What concerns you might not concern the next philosopher so much… Don’t get me wrong you seem to be interested in the right problems (to me at least), and I can tell you are a smart guy, but my own experience has led me to where I am, yours has led you to where you are…

Im in a bit of a rush right now, but I hope to talk to you more after Xmas (and address the points you raise).

On earth is just where our own rendition of mindful matter happens to reside. Here and now. Though it seems absolutely mindboggling that a God, the God would create a universe as staggeringly immense as this one seems to be and then put those who worship and adore Him only on this particular rock.

But what does that mean? And how would I/could I possibly convey what it means to others? How can I even know with any certainty that the words I am typing here are not only as they ever could have been typed? Or that if there is a God and this God is said to be omniscient, that my own “will” here could possibly not be wholly in sync with His?

That seems to be the problem: That any arguments about God seem to be inherently problematic. We don’t even really know if this is something that we ever really can know.

Sure, it’s utterly fascinating to explore, but we all seem to be in the same boat here: specks of existence on the ocean of reality intertwined somehow in whatever or whoever brought into existence Existence itself.

So, what always dumbfounds me are those who actually imagine that this is something that they can know…do know.

Recognizing that in the past [over and again] I was one of them.

Meanwhile, here we here: interacting in one or another human community and ever and always confronted with the question, “how ought one to live?”

Then it all depends on the extent to which your own particular life [here and now] is either more or less tumultuous when confronting it.

Yes, if your life hardly changes at all from day to day to day, and you are able to sustain this stability for months or years, it is possible to anchor your answer to something that seems like a foundation. Maybe philosophical, maybe political, maybe religious.

Or maybe just circumstantial.

I’m just not one of them. From my frame of mind, my interaction with others is entangled precariously in my dilemma above; and predicated on the assumption that in a world without God, human interactions are essentially meaningless and absurd; and ending for all of eternity in death and oblivion.

Okay, with respect to your own interactions with others – interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments, conflicting goods – what have your own experiences conveyed to you?

And if you do acknowledge that your own frame of mind [here and now] is in fact embedded in that particular sequence of experience, to what extent can philosophy enable you to transcend this in providing a moral and political framework applicable to all reasonable men and women?

Either with or without God.

All of the above [a No God narrative basically] may well be entirely in sync with the optimal or the only rational manner in which to construe the meaning of God and religion.

Let’s just assume this.

To me, this would seem to suggest…

1] “I” is obliterated for all time to come when we die
2] there is no teleological font “behind” existence; so, for all practical purposes, we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world
3] morality [on this side of the grave] is basically just an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts
4] given oblivion, there is no possibility of Justice rooted in one or another teleological font

So the question might then be this: How is all of this not applicable in turn to non-theistic narratives?

How would they go about encompassing “fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within”? Crises that seem so handily, readily shunted aside by a belief in one or another “loving just and merciful God” — a denominational God that works in “mysterious ways, His wonders to behold”?

From my frame of mind, a leap of faith to a God, the God, my God is basically just the acknowledgment that there seem to be no viable alternatives around.

At least none that folks like me see.

And the psychological element here seems applicable to all frames of mind that argue for a way in which to construe, among other things, the “meaning of life” in terms of “one of us” or “one of them”.

Again, the more important point being not which of us is right, but that one of us must be.

The above has nothing to do with God.

  1. Yes, “I” is obliterated.

  2. No ‘teleological’ ends do not necessary imply our life is absurd and meaningless.
    Just as we can abstract the laws of nature from observations and experiment, we can abstract the meaning of life and strive to make it meaningful while being alive until the inevitable. Otherwise all humans might as well commit suicide now.

  3. Just as we can abstract the meaning of life from observations of nature, we can abstract absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally.

  4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.

What I am proposing is for the future.
I am optimistic [whilst you are pessimistic] based on current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, humanity will eventually be able to replace theism with fool proof methods to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis within.
As I have shown we already have such existing methods, e.g. Buddhism and others, so it is just a matter of refining this methods without the religious baggage.

I am not sure of your point and I don’t think it is relevant for me because my views are non-theistic, so no question of God coming my way.

I don’t think there can be specific right ways but what is critical is an adaptable model and system that is always guided to the general right path [determined meaning of life as above]. Note the generic Problem Solving Technique for Life that I introduced somewhere. That is a self-correcting system.

As I had stated elsewhere your expectation, i.e. 'ALL [100%] that is to be known…" for your model is an impossibility for any human being, thus it is moot and a wrong starter.

Theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”

I must be missing your point.

Based on the assumption that we exist in a No-God universe. Which neither you nor I [here and now] have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt.

Unless, perhaps, you actually are able to demonstrate this beyond what I construe to be largely a set of intellectual assumptions about the nature of Existence itself.

Now, I’m not saying that you can’t demonstrate this, only that [so far] you have failed to convince me. And I suspect further that were any mere mortals able to demonstrate definitively either the existence of God or a No God reality, that’s all anyone would be talking about around the globe.

I understand this. My point is only to suggest that in the absence of an alleged omniscient and omnipotent “transcending font” [which most call God] it would appear that mere mortals are able only to propose conflicting and contradictory social, political and economic narratives in which the “meaning of life” revolves [in my view] around the manner in which “I” construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Which, however, I acknowledge from the start is just another “existential contraption”.

Indeed, and any number of moral and political objectivists embrace this frame of mind. Completely. And, from their vantage point, as long as folks are willing to remain “one of us”, they are not “retards” or “morons”. Or always [necessarily] wrong.

Again, I merely suggest that this has more to do with the points I raise on this thread – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 – than the philosophical pursuit of truth and wisdom.

What then is the substantive difference between “absolute justice” and “abstract[ing] absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally”?

I must be missing your point here.

And the point I keep raising here is that [apparently] only way off in the future are we able to finally determine if humanity succeeds in making that leap from “justice” ensconced in sets of political prejudices, embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts, to Justice as you imagine human interactions in your head here and now.

Which from my frame of mind is basically just one more psychological defense mechanism able to provide at least some measure of “comfort and consolation” to an “I” that I construe as but more a fractured and fragmented existential fabrication/contraption embedded out in particular worlds and revolving around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

We have not discussed this issue in detail, thus insufficient to convince you of my point.

There are tons of philosophical discussion on the question of ‘Who am I?’
Since the idea/concept of “I” is so critical, you need to cover all philosophical [Eastern and Western" materials involving the “I”. Have you? If not, you’ll need to. The bibliography will be a very long one.
e.g. ummoss.org/self/

Note one common point is Hume’s Bundle Theory,

Hume Bundle Theory cover there is no independent “I” that survives physical death, it is just a bundle and all these disappear when a person dies.

The above is just one view. There are many other views [Eastern and Western] on why there is no permanent “I” that survives physical death as a soul or whatever.

Instead of me convincing you, I believe the onus is on you to cover all the relevant philosophy views, understand them [not necessary agree] then reflect on them thoroughly before settling for any favored views.

As I had stated, you need to forget about the idea of God and ALL(100%) that need to be known since are impossibilities.
If you keep sticking to these ideas all the time, you will not make any headway but rather as Kant stated, you will be mocked by such illusions.

Again you got the wrong view.
You are thinking from one perspective only, there ways to reconcile extremes into the Middle-Way that is win-win for all.

I believe if your major premise if based on the wrong views of “I” then the rest do not follow to be right.

As I had stated many times, to moral and ethics to be efficient we need a Framework and System.
In any system we need objective standards as a guide to compare with the actual thus enabling a feedback for continuous improvement.

Note a generic model of what is a system.

The difference is ‘absolute moral laws’ are merely guide and not enforceable, while ‘justice’ involving the legislature, judiciary entails enforcement. These elements must work complementarily within the Framework and System. How? Details required - too tedious - not going into the details at present.

I believe the starting point is to get the concept/idea of “What is I?” in perspective and the rest is likely to fit it.
Otherwise you are actually conflating too many intellectual ‘contraption’ literally in this case.

Okay, who among us here has “cover[ed] all philosophical [Eastern and Western] materials involving the 'I”'.

Have you?

If so, what then is the definitive understanding of “I” as it pertains to an understanding of human interactions – including motivation, intention and consequences – as this pertains to a definitive understanding of conflicting human behaviors out in a particular world revolving around a particular context most of us will be familiar with.

As this succeeds in closing the gap between what you think you know now about the “human condition” and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to subsume all the current “unknown unknowns” into the TOE.

In other words, take what you construe to be the optimal [or the only] rational understanding of “I” and situate it “out in the world” of actual human interactions.

Because [again] this is always the chief aim of the discussions that I seek out in venues such as this.

That and [on this thread] connecting the dots between the behaviors “I” choose on this side of the grave and what “I” construe my fate to be on the other side of the grave given the manner in which “I” have come to construe the existence God.

Describing “bundle theory” analytically is one thing, situating it out in the world of extant conflicting goods another thing altogether.

Or so it certainly seems to me.

How would I go about convincing you when I cannot even convince myself that my dilemma above is anything other than just another existential contraption?

I am still waiting for you to take what you deem to be [technically] a proficient philosophical understanding of these relationships out into the world of conflicted goods.

Instead, you come back to this:

Which can only prompt me to ask, “what on earth does this mean”? In my view, you steer clear of mockery by aiming the discussion in the general direction of “serious philosophy”. Technical, analytical philosophy that revolves largely around pinning down the precise definition/meaning of words that “out in the world” are often understood [existentially] only from particular, conflicted points of view rooted in dasein. At least in the is/ought world. And then rooted further in political prejudices. Your argument/analysis [so far] is construed by me to be just another rendition of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”. A world of words.

In other words:

But I repeat myself…

With respect to issues like abortion, animal rights, the role of government, homosexuality etc., note the sort of discussion that those on both sides of these issues “here and now” might commense in order to attain this Middle-Way frame of mind. What would a win-win solution look like if not one embedded in moderation, negotation and compromise? Which is an entirely political contraption.

In other words, embedded in democracy and the rule of law. And here only those who have the power to enforce a particular narrative prevail. As opposed to those human communities in which brute, naked power prevails. Or one in which philosopher-kings prescribe and proscribe the optimal human interactions.

But then [as I see it] you head straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

How is this not just an “intellectual contraption” that encompasses a “general description” of human interactions. An interaction of words that do not involve substantively an examination of actual existential interactions that come into conflict over value judgments in a No God world?

Try to imagine it…

You are among a congregation of Dreamers [in America] watching intently as the bickering between liberals and conservatives in Washington may well result in a policy that sends them packing.

Sell to them your notion that, first and foremost, the starting point is to get the concept/idea of “what is ‘I’” in its proper perspective.

Now, my problem, given my dilemma above, is that I recognize this political conflagration as just one more example of conflicted goods that propel my own particular “I” down into it. My values here and now are embedded politically in the “liberal” narrative. But I clearly recognize that they were once deeply embedded in the “conservative” narrative. The part that revolves around my current understanding of dasein. And I surmise in turn that philosophers/ethicists are unable to propose a resolution that reflects the optimal or the only rational manner in which mere mortals [in a No God world] are obligated to aim their behaviors.

Yes, I have.
I knew this issue is very critical, i.e. Know Thyself and thus I had set out into a venture to cover as much as possible re What is the Self?’ Who am I.

There are hundreds [many many] of views of “I” and one has to deliberate the “I” within contexts holistically. So to understand [not necessary agree] these wide range of views of “I” you will need to read and research them.

I am not too sure of your issue above?

The first thing to deal with the “I” is to ensure the psychological stability of your own “I-ness” i.e. the cultivation of equanimity so that it is stable no matter what the turbulences are going on and swirling around the self.

Once one has developed a sufficient state of equanimity one should be able to deal and face with all sort of conflicting issues, goods, etc. undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other phenomena that may cause others to lose the balance of their mind.

That persistent craving with “all that would need to be known …” is where you are digging into a deeper and deeper hole.
You accused me of digging into the future with intellectual contraptions but at least my concern of the future is based on the empirically possible.
OTOH, your “all that would need to be known …” is also a concern for a future and what is worse it is something that is empirically impossible in the future. You got to get rid of this craving for the impossible.

Before you propel your particular “I” down into anything, make sure your “I” is well anchored and stable. Note my points above.

Note I was once a pantheist then panentheist for many many years then I turned 180 degrees to non-theism [leveraged on Buddhism and philosophy]. I have no issues with that change.

In your case I believed what you have done was jumping from the frying pan into the fire, i.e. stuck in another hole with greater intensity but still within the same shaky paradigm.

I don’t doubt that you think you have. Just as I had no doubt as a Christian, Marxist, Democratic Socialist etc., that I thought I knew all that was needed to be known in order to pass judgment on those who did not share my own frame of mind.

But then this part:

You leave me no choice but to note yet again that I have no clear understanding at all of what you are trying to convey here. As it relates to a particular context that most are familiar with in which human behaviors come to clash over conflicting value judgments.

Okay, what constitutes a “sufficient state of equanimity” in the arguments over abortion such that philosophers would be able to construct an argument that would most likely lead to what you construe to be “progressive” interactions – the Middle-Way – in the future.

What would that argument at least sound like?

Here I can only come back to the distinction that I always make.

If you are an automobile mechanic, you need to know all there is to know about what keeps a car running. If you don’t, there will be repairs that you cannot do.

But suppose the conversation shifts from that to an argument about whether or not we should do away with cars altogether – shift instead to mass transit systems.

There have been thousands of arguments about this over the decades. Pro cars, pro public transit. And, as with all conflicting goods, both sides are able to make reasonable arguments that the other side are not able to just make go away. Arguments that revolve around any number of things.

For example: library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher … 1963042400

How on earth would any one human being be able to ingest all the points made by all the conflicting parties so as to arrive at the optimal frame of mind here?

What would that argument at least sound like?

Indeed, that is precisely what all of the folks who construct arguments like yours tell me. That is what you all share in common. You’re all positive that a way can be found [philosophically or otherwise] to arrive at the most rational human interactions. I merely have to “note the points above”. Then, like you, my “I” can be “well anchored and stable” in turn. By becoming “one of us”.

And even though I point out to them there have been literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks down through the ages all embracing one or another completely conflicting [or even contradictory] narrative/agenda like theirs, they still insist that theirs and only theirs is the real deal.

What else can this be called but the “psychology of objectivism”.

I once embodied it myself for years.

Note in this case I meant all materials [i.e. books, articles, etc.] not ALL that is to be known.

It is not what I “think” I have. This is very objective as supported by the books, articles I have read and discussions on the “I.” I am not claiming I have ALL knowledge of the “I” but have sufficient knowledge based on my research.

To confirm your own research on the subject of “I” just recall and prepare a list of philosophers, books and articles you have read and discuss, to assess whether the materials you have covered are reasonably sufficient or not. You can share if you want to.

What I meant was you need to read [in great depth and width] as many books and articles from philosophers and elsewhere on the subject of “what is I.” From what you have posted you do not seem to have covered much grounds on the subject of “I”.

Before you do the above, the psychological stability of your own “I-ness” i.e. equanimity, so to avoid being emotional over any issues you come across.

I thought the above point was simple.
Get it, if not, I’ll explain again.

Equanimity is not about any argument.
Note the definition above, it is about maintaining a state of psychological composure regardless of how bad or good the situation and conditions one if faced with.

To obtain a composure “sufficient state of equanimity” naturally one need to cultivate such a state over a long period of time. It is like developing a skill. Otherwise one can just psycho-analyse and imposed it upon oneself which is troublesome but necessary.

I had stated one has to venture into a sound philosophy of Morality and Ethics to get to the ‘Middle-Way’ on the issue of abortion or any other controversial issue. But it is not easy to get to a sound philosophy of Morality and Ethics unless one put in the effort and take care [suspend] of any habitual resistance that prevent one from gathering further knowledge on it.

As I had proposed the most effective way to get to the Middle-Way re abortion and other issues from the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is the Kantian platform [not the one you are stuck with re the lying casuistry].

Note what you demand is 'ALL [100%] to be known of existence" which is one of the most complex philosophical topic.

You cannot compare that to a car mechanics. I agree a qualified mechanics must be very knowledgeable of the necessary knowledge and skills to repair a car or a specific type of car. But note, even the best professionals would NOT dare to claim they know 100% of the knowledge of their profession. Note for example a doctor would not dare to claim 100% knowledge of his medical specialty.

Here you are demanding 100% of what is to known of “existence” philosophically and setting up yourself into running in a ‘mouse wheel’ in ruminating loops.

Note Russell on the Purpose of Philosophy;

It is not ‘all’ but at least one must cover as much materials and thinking as possible while maintaining a state of equanimity and composure within whatever the inevitable conflicting views.

I wonder where you get the idea that a suggestion to maintain a state of equanimity and calmness with composure is a ‘dogmatic view’.

It is very natural, almost everyone will claim theirs is the real deal, e.g. the theists, the Nazis, the fascists, communists, objectivism [not me], philosophical realism, etc. It is not up to them to convince you but the onus of on you to understand why they are bias and to gather what is available out there and do your homework, i.e. rationalize and philosophize on what is optimal for your own self.

Opposites and conflicting views are inevitable, e.g. dualism, Yin-Yang, Newton’s third law, antinomies, etc. The challenge is how to hold both opposites in mind and yet live to optimize one’s well being, that’s the Middle-Way.