a new understanding of today, time and space.

I am not ignoring you Iam, but I have other fish to fry today…I will
get back to you…

as noted, we act and interact with other human beings… this interaction
is called “morality”…upon what basis should we interact with people?
or said differently, what are the rules we should engage with in dealing with
other people?

let us say, I run into someone named Bob and because Bob pissed me
off, I beat the shit out of him…… but this scenario doesn’t give us enough
information to actually be able to judge or understand it……

from a legal standpoint, it doesn’t matter if Bob and I had other dealings
with each other which has lead to the bad blood between us……

or it shouldn’t matter that Bob is 6’5 and I am 5’8 or that Bob is
4’5 and I’m 5’8……… from a legal standpoint, the particulars are
irrelevant… a fight broke out and someone must be punished
for that transgression… so we have crimes against the law…

but we have our daily interactions between each other…
and though those daily interactions rarely ever reach a legal
standpoint, a fight or some violence between each other,
we have these interactions between each other which is
really the basis of our rules of engagement with each other…

I deal with rude, mean customers all the time… but their being
assholes doesn’t reach the level of a crime, a legal matter…
but it does matter in our day to day engagement with each other…

the reason they are so rude and mean is because they don’t consider me
to be an equal… why be nice to someone who is below you in social status…
this is the basis of much of our interactions with each other…
the same rude asshole who is mean to me will suddenly
become nice when face with someone who is a doctor or
a policeman… why, because those are considered “higher” social status…

we place ourselves into imaginary social status… if we make X amount
of money or have a higher status job, we are of X social status…
but the rules for this social status is not written down anywhere, it is
not discussed or even acknowledge by people…….

let us look at one part of this equation… women…
women don’t dress for men, women dress for other women…
but why Kropotkin? it doesn’t make sense for women to dress for other
women…women use clothes and jewelry to establish social status…

when I look at a woman, I don’t notice what the maker of the dress is or
who makes the purse or what kind of jewelry she has, but other women,
will know this and that is how women mark social status…

my wife grew up in a very wealthy town and she can instantly spot
women with money…and she can even tell if the money is new money
or old money or if the women is pretending to have money…

so much of our interactions with each other is based on perceived
social status…with wealth being the primary indications of the
social status…

now the interesting thing here is because we own a condo and
some rental property, we have a net worth over a million dollars,
but the wealth is in property, not in cash… and I would bet that
a good deal of the time, given the average customer in my store,
we have a greater net worth then a lot of my customers, but because
of my job, checker, I am fairly low on the social status level, so
that the next brick in the wall… the job or career of people also
decides the social status of people…and people react to me based
on job or career… social status…instead of who I am…

the way we react to people is part of the biases and myths and
prejudices and superstitions we grew up with, the indoctrinations
we were raised with…in other words, we judge people based on
our childhood indoctrinations…and for most people, it is an
unconscious reaction to the people we deal with on a daily basis
and based upon how we were taught as children…….

so not only does our childhood indoctrinations teach us our ism’s
and ideologies but our childhood indoctrinations determine
our daily interactions we have with other people…our morality
as it were…….

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong
or good and bad behavior… a particular system of values and principles
of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society…

we can now see that the distinction between right and wrong is
not based on any given principles but were taught to us as children
within our childhood indoctrinations…

we don’t have a set of principles upon which we use to decide our
“moral” values or how we choose to act in our daily interactions with others…
we use a ad hoc basis for our interactions with others… in other words,
we act and interact with others, not based upon any given or set principles
but we usually react to others based upon our childhood indoctrinations…
and not on any set principles we might have created over the years…

and we react to others based in our perceived social status we have in
relations to each other…

so we have legal restrictions which help determine our relationship
with each other and we have self guided, usually childhood indoctrinations
which also guide us in our relationships, our interactions with each other…

so my reactions and interactions to other people, what some people
might call “morality” is really just a complex series of inner
reactions to others based on a perceived social status and
childhood indoctrinations………

However, it is not based upon some set of values
or principles that I have worked out myself………
and for morality to be morality, we must have set
of values or principles that have been worked out
to actually be “morality”…….

we don’t have values or any set of principles to guide our actions
or our interactions with each other… we have some sort of
ad hoc interpretations of how we interact with each other
but those interpretations are wildly different based on how
we are doing that day and not on any set values or principles…

I don’t know if this makes any sense at all to you, but it makes sense
to me……… we react to each other, our moral interactions to each other
are not based on some set of rules or principles but change every day
because they are not based on any set of rules or principles…

and until we firm up morality based on a set of rules/values and/or
principles, our moral judgements are simply made up every single
day, ad hoc as it were…….

Kropotkin

We see that “morality” is a set of values or principles
that we use to decide upon how we act and interact with
others… but we do not act or interact with others
in a vacuum, in other words, we exist within a society,
a state, a culture……… we do not operate
independently of the society we live in… we act and interact
within a society, a group of people……

the social rules we all live by are, as noted are not listed
or written down anywhere, but most people understand the
rules we live by… adults don’t beat up children or old people,
that is against the rules because children and old people are
unable to defend themselves… and that rule is codified in
laws which help protect children and old people…

but we also have unwritten rules like you don’t yell at children that
aren’t your own…that is the parents job to correct a child, not a stranger…
and most people respect and understand that rule… but I have seen the rule
broken and the person who yells at children for being children isn’t legally
punished but is socially punished… we have collective rules we follow,
rules that are enforced collectively……… for we operate within
a society and for that society to function, we must have rules for
our own actions and interactions within society, with other people…

but let us take one case and explore what exactly does this mean…

IQ45 has publicly stated “I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and
shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”…….

the rules are quite simple in a society, we cannot commit violence
against people for that damages society, private violence against
people, a private individual committing violence against another
private individual, harms society… that is quite clear in our
dealings with people…individually and collectively……

but that leaves us another question… the question of justice…
and what is justice… equality… to be just, we must be equal
in our interactions with others… we cannot treat one individual differently
then another individual and still be just… but in my previous post, I noted
that we treat each other differently based on perceived social status…
and that is not being just… to engage in justice, we must treat
every single individual equally and without bias regardless of any
social status we or they have……………

so we have morality which is “a particular system of values and principles
of conduct especially one held by a specified person or society” but is morality
where we have a set system of values/principles, and justice “which
is the equal treatment of people” ……….

what is the relationship between morality and justice?

I don’t see a particular conflict between justice and morality…
for we can treat people equally and still have a set system of
values and principles…….for as long as we act upon our set system
of values and principles equally, we are being both just and moral…

if we treat people as we want to be treated, then we are acting
morally… and just…

so I wonder, what set of values and/or principles do you have,
so you can be “Moral”?

and are you just? do you treat people equally?
regardless of social status or regardless of the situation?

Kropotkin

let us approach this from a completely different angle…

ART………ART: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating
visual, auditory or performing artifacts, expressing the author’s imaginative,
conceptual idea’s, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their
beauty or emotional power……

Art can be considered a skill or craft and/or art can be considered
to be an exploration of the artist imagination………

but does ART have any connection to such concepts such as
justice or equality or morality?

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong
or good and bad behavior…….

a particular system of values and principles of conduct especially
one held by a specified person or society

justice: the idea that we treat everyone equal before the law and, and
the way we treat other people, equally regardless of their social status…

with ART, we can see the use or the value of having a system of values
and principles of conduct……… ART can give us an examination of how values
and principles can operate in our life…ART can show us how a system
of values/principles functions in life………

we often see the “hero” who has a “moral” compass, a set of rules which they
follow and we see the “Villain” who has no moral compass, no rules by which
they follow………we often see in ART the actions of the “Hero” as they engage
with the “Villain” who has no set values or principles to follow…….

Look at the Hero’s of modern times, Superman for example acts with a
moral code, a set of rules and principles which he follows… and the
“Villains” usually are only interested in money and/or power and has
no set of rules or principles that they follow………

But we have more ambiguous hero’s like Batman who seems to
seem to have a less rigid moral stance then Superman… Batman seems
to bend the rules and principles of the moral code to suit his actions……

So are you more like Superman or are you more like Batman in regards
to your set of rules and principles which you follow?

as most people have no real set of rules or principles that they follow,
most people act in an ad hoc manner in which they simply act without
any given rules or principles……… each action is taken in the moment
and not taken by any set of rules or principles…so we act and interact
with our fellow human beings moment to moment instead of
acting upon any given rules or a set of principles………

ART gives us examples of how we can behave or act morally in a given
situation or how we can not act or behave morally in any given
situation…….

so morally, who is a better example of action, superman or batman?

so given our understanding of justice, which is equality, who practices
justice better, superman or batman?

and then relate that to the actions and behavior we engage with every day…

do you act morally or do you engage with people with justice, equality?

compare and/or contrast your behavior with superman or batman………

Kropotkin

after several ugly days of work, I finally am on vacation…
9 days off… about fucking time…

so, I am listening to music this morning… I tunes and I go onto the
store part and I come across a new album by Ludovico Einaudi…
“in a time lapse”… as per my usual habit, I go into the comments
parts as I listen to the music… most like the album… but a few,
said the same thing… the music was repetive and minimalistic…boring…
and the album is a waste of time… as I am listening to it…I find
the album is minimalistic but I like that…as for repetive and boring…
I disagree… I found the album interesting and very much worth listening to…
but here is the interesting thing… the very thing that the commentators were
objecting to, were the things I liked about the album…
I didn’t find the album repetive…it had some very interesting idea’s…
but as I listened to it, I realized I understood the album because I listen
to a lot of solo piano and a lot of new age music… My ears/ear… is attuned
to this type of music…whereas other people might thing it is boring and repetive,
I can hear the vast differences between the pieces… I have the ear to listen to it…
whereas others might not be ready to hear this type of music…
and so it goes for other aspects of our lives… sometimes we are ready to
hear or to listen to music or advice or movies… and sometimes we are not ready
to hear or to listen to music or people… I hear Einaudi music because
I have been listening to that type of music for years and it is very familar
to me… I have the ears for it and I am ready to listen…

whereas some people aren’t ready for it or can’t hear it… it is not
a right or wrong type of thing but more of a I am ready to listen to it thing…

When I was younger, people would give me advice and I thought the advice was
not much or even stupid… but the truth was, I wasn’t ready to hear that advice…
I wasn’t able to hear it until I grew older and had the ears and wisdom to hear
and understand the advice……… so when people write stuff or you hear stuff
and you might think it is useless or bullshit… perhaps the truth is you aren’t
ready to hear or read that stuff and the truth is you might never be ready to
hear or understand that person’s truth………it happens…

so perhaps when we read stuff by someone like iambiguous… it isn’t
lame or stupid… perhaps we just don’t have the ears to hear it or
the wisdom to understand it…….never be too quick to judge other people
words… they might actually know what they are talking about…

Kropotkin

“so perhaps when we read stuff by someone like iambiguous… it isn’t
lame or stupid… perhaps we just don’t have the ears to hear it or
the wisdom to understand it…….never be too quick to judge other people
words… they might actually know what they are talking about…”

My theory has it that Iam picked up his hoist tendencies whilst serving in Vietnam. He often makes reference to the Here and Now. You know what I mean! :laughing:

Rules of behavior that revolve first and foremost around subsistence. We tackle conflicts relating to wants only after we have first come up with the least dyfunctional set of behaviors that revolve around needs. Sustaining our survival itself.

Historically however there has always been a general tug of war here between those who focus the beam more on obtaining the power to enforce particular sets of behaviors and those who are more intent on establishing which behaviors ought to be enforced.

The murky intertwining of moral narratives and political [economic] might. And here [it seems] you have those who basically embrace one or another rendition of materialism, and those who embrace one or another rendition of idealim. With or without God.

From my frame of mind all you are providing us here is an existential snapshot of how your own particular “I” has come to construe interactions of this sort. Bob may or may not have an inkling regarding what you are trying to convey. He may or may not see these social and legal distinctions as you do. This [in my view] is embedded subjectively in dasein embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

The point is this: can those who think of themselves as philosophers hear your description of events, Bob’s description of events and the descriptions given by others intertwined in your day to day encounters with customers and come up with with an optimal set of reactions to an optimal set of behaviors in the “best of all possible worlds”?

Same with this…

How are these individual reactions not profoundly intertwined in the manner in which I construe an assessment of the “self” here as an existential contraption accumulating a particular set of value judgments in a particular is/ought world?

There are facts that we can all agree on regarding a specific woman wearing specific clothing having a specific sense of her own social status coming from a specific class.

So, what can philosophers tell them about the obligation of all rational women regarding these things? Of how all rational men are obligated to react to them in turn? Yes, it is our perceptions of these things that precipitate behaviors that precipitate consequences that [can] precipitate conflicts. But how are these perceptions not in sync with the manner in which I construe the construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of my “self” from the cradle to the grave? In a world deluged with contingency, chance and change.

Yes, but the actual lives that we live can be [are] embedded in sets of circumstanmces so vast and varied that most of us can’t even imagine what it might be like looking at the world as so many others do.

We talk about all the different combinations of moves that are possible in a chess match. But what is that next to all of the many, many, many different social, political and economnic permutations possible in regard to human interactions on the board of life.

Our individual perceptions of what it all means may in some respects be all but inexpressible.

That’s why so many of us here are more inclined to encompass it all in “general descriptions” like this:

What is missing here is an actual context. Actual individuals coming into conflict given very different perceptions of the same set of circumstance. How ought the context to be grasped? How ought the conflict be resolved?

And, here, at ILP in particular, what is the role that philosophy can play in pinning that down? And, just as crucially in my view, what may well be beyond the reach of philosophers? From whatever “school of thought” they are inclined toward.

Instead [in my view] the discussions tend to revolve more around what I construe to be generial descriptions encompassed in a world of words.

From my own frame of mind, morality is situated out in a particular world at a particular time given conflicting perceptions of particular sets of circumstances.

What you have come to see as “firming up” your reaction to Trump and his policies is pretty much what the conservatives have done in turn. You just start with different assumptions regarding the human condition. Political prejudices born from the values that you have accumulated given the trajectory of your actual lived life.

On the contrary, over and again I have pointed out on various threads that my own assessments here are no less existential contraptions. And I am no more able to demonstrate that they reflect actual wisdom than others seem able to demonstrate that their own moral and political narratives reflect it.

There is a very, very important distinction to be made here between those things that we think that we know what we are talking about and accumulating enough actual evidence to in fact demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it in turn.

I just make a further distinction here between the objective relationships in the either/or world and our subjective/subjunctive reactions to those relationships when they precipitate conflicting goods that precipitate conflicting behaviors.

Hoist tendencies?

The “here and now” is crucial to me because given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information/knowledge/ideas, “there and then” might find us arguing from a very different perspective.

As for Vietnam, you bet it was a crucial turning point in my life. Which I try to convey here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

How about your own existential trajectory? Anything we can learn from that?

With respect to PK, I shall respond in a separate thread.

Sounds good. I too have nothing but the greatest of respect for Peter.

It’s nice to come back from vacation to a
mutual admiration society!

I wrote this while on vacation and I’m going to
write this up as I wrote it that night.

As I write this on day 5 of a much needed vacation,
I’m in Reno Nevada in one of the nicer hotels/casinos
there… And while on vacation I’ve just turned my
mind off and have just experienced…
Making no judgements on what I’ve seen these
last few days. My wife is in her happy place, a spa!
And I’m by myself. I head toward this created
little spot on the casino floor away from the ruckus
and noise on the casino floor. I have a book
with me, “An introduction to Buddhism” by
Peter Harvey.

As I read I see some connections with problems
and issues I have been grappling with over these
last years.

The Kantian/Kropotkin questions “What am I to do?” “What can I hope for?” “What values should I
hold?” and similar questions…
And I see the Budda struggle with the same exact
questions and one can see his response, although
his answers are different then my answers. And here
I’m not going to wrestle with the Buddha or with
Buddhism, that may be a post for another day.

For the Buddha, the existential questions that
haunted him, still haunt us. For the Buddha,
life is suffering and the question becomes,
how does one escape this ongoing suffering?

Now we can agree that the question of suffering
certainly haunts us, see the book of Job, if you
have any doubts, and we can see in religions the
myriad ways we have attempted to solve this
question of suffering. This spiritual side of us
includes the Christians answer to this question
of suffering whereas if we hold to a belief in God
we can be saved which is an means of
escape from suffering. The Christian “answer”
is certainly one possible escape from suffering
but it’s not the only one and we have countless
ism’s and ideologies that connect to each
other by a approach to the existential questions
that we face simply by being born… What am I
to do? This Buddhist and Christian approach is considered to be spiritual. Personally, I stay away
from “spiritual” questions or answers for that
matter. For the simple reason, that life for me anyway, isn’t about spiritual answers but about the
questions we ask. From a dictionary,

“Spiritual” 1. Relating to or affecting the human
spirit or soul as opposed to the material or physical
things" and I learned that, that as I have addressed
the soul or spirit and not the material/ physical, I
have always engaged in spiritual matters. The
question “What values should I/we have” is a spiritual
question, not a material or a physical question.

I am being summoned. Back shortly.

Kropotkin

I apologize for the formatting issues, my daughter
is house sitting and took my computer…so
I’m forced to use the IPad and it’s not going well.

Anyway one of the questions the Buddha faces is
this question of , what are the permanent aspects
of life? As I have stated before, everything is
transitory, impermanent, temporary. This transitory
nature of everything is front and center in Buddhism.
As it was for the Greeks, trying to find or
discover what is the permanent in the universe.
As everything we see is transitory, the rocks, trees,
the very earth and even the universe itself is temporary, transitory.

The next issue the Buddha faces is rebirth or
reincarnation. The question for the Buddha is
how does one escape the constant reincarnation
which is simply suffering over and over again.
This is an assumption, that we are ever being
reborn. But his entire argument is based upon this
notion of reincarnation, rebirth. But his starting
point of escaping suffering is valid, I just can’t accept
this idea of reincarnation because there is nothing
to prove it. But his starting point of suffering is one
of the basic questions of both western religions and
philosophy. For example, both the stoics and cynics
made suffering a key point in their philosophies. The
Stoics taught themselves to endure their pain, suffering without showing their feelings or complaining. Much of ancient philosophy tries to
address the problem of suffering. The cynics tried to
avoid suffering by living virtuous, in agreement
with nature. For the cynics, they rejected all
conventional desires for wealth, power, sex and
fame…and that is something the Buddha preached.
For both the Buddha and the cynics, they argued for
people to live simple, virtuous lives, free from all
possessions. For the Buddha preached that people
should refrained from having any desires at all. And
this is done to avoid suffering as desire creates
suffering. There is a similar refrain in the west,
both in the religious and philosophical writings of
various people.

We can connect this ancient problem of avoiding
suffering to various regions and philosophies, but
is part of the problem. The only answers we have are
ancient religions and philosophies that are thousands
of years old. Can the Buddha speak to us today?

Only if we believe the questions he asked, are
relevant today? One question that has been asked is,
How do we find meaning in a valueless world?
Which is exactly the question Nietzsche asked.
How are spiritual questions possible in a modern
world that prays to Mammon with the heart of Moloch. So how do we escape our own self created
suffering?

And that is what I wrote a couple of days ago.
The question still remains.

Kropotkin

yeah all these guys were trying to understand why they could intuit that there can’t be ‘nothing’, while at the same time being unable to put a finger on the ‘thing’ that was fundamental to the ‘something’ that has to logically exist. this is what the dudes in the eleatic school spent all day trying to figure out. something has to exist. yeah but everything changes, so it isn’t what it is, or was, rather. well whatever it is, or becomes, it has to remain something nonetheless. stuff like that.

today we understand the same problem, but with our much more advanced knowledge of physics, we’ve been able to narrow it down to a very special kind of mystery that we may never figure out; the contradiction between the second and third law of thermodynamics (or maybe it’s the third and fourth law. can’t remember. two of em, anyway; conservation of energy and entropy). how can we reconcile the fact that something must always exist, with the fact that systems are always approaching a total state of entropy? how can something keep existing if it uses up all its energy… but then if something stops existing, where does it go and what happens next. it can’t be ‘nothing’, shirley.

google ‘eternal recurrence’ and check out all the arguments for and against the basic idea. there isn’t any proof for it, no, but there are some pretty damn believable lines of reasoning for it in one variation or another.

i like to approach the matter by inverting pascal’s wager into something purely bohemian and evil. it’s like this; if there is no eternal recurrence, and i’m an evil bohemian, then it doesn’t matter. but if there is the eternal recurrence, and i’m an evil bohemian, i’m able to experience the pleasures of my bonhomie every time.

but if the eternal recurrence is true, and i’m not an evil bohemian, i end up being a sucka every time.

fuck that.

Let us start with this idea of the transitory nature
of the universe. Nothing is permanent, nothing
exist or last forever…then what is left?
Does mean that all life is an illusion? No, I
would say not. We exists and we are real.
“Cogito ergo sum” simply means I exist.
There are a lot of possibilities for what is next.
One possibility is we understand and accept the
transitory nature of the universe. Our motto becomes “this too shall pass” but where does
leave us as human beings? The Buddha might
say" work on your own salvation" but what does this
mean in practical terms? Therein lies what free will
we have as human beings. My individual salvation
has nothing to do with your individual salvation.
Perhaps it is enough to lower my mile time
from 4:58 to 4:50 to gain individual salvation.
Every single act we take can be a path to
our own salvation. Once again to our dictionary…

Salvation: preservation or deliverance from harm,
ruin, or loss.

Which means salvation can be medical or spiritual or
physical. It doesn’t have to be saved from eternal
damnation. It just means preservation or
deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss. Salvation can
also be in the form of, running was my salvation.
I find/found peace in trying to go from 4:58 to
4:50 or in climbing a mountain or achieving a goal such as learning a language. Can negative actions
also bring about salvation? Does negative instincts
such as anger or hate or greed, bring about salvation? No, for negative actions and instincts
can only harm or ruin or create loss for oneself or
others. Negative actions or instincts are not
able to save one, from anything. But Kropotkin,
you are talking about self help or religion, not
philosophy. The point is that there is no difference
between self help, religion or even philosophy. They
are simply different aspects of being human and
each one, self help, religion or philosophy and other
aspects of being human, are simply questions about
“What should I hope for” or “what should I do?”.
The Kantian/Kropotkin questions exist within
such disciplines as history or economics or sociology.
To ask such questions is to ask, “what can I know?”
Or “what values should I/we hold?”…

In the end there is no such thing as philosophy or
history or economics or religion or self help…
There are simply questions asking “what am I to do?”
Or asking “what should I/we hope for?”

The separation between such things as religion
and philosophy and self help and history doesn’t
really exist. The questions of existence
exist outside of such arbitrary disciplines of
history or physics or politics or geology. For when
all is said and done, all we have left is the Kantian/
Kropotkin questions. “what am I to do?” And other
such questions. That is how we end the tyranny
of ism’s and ideologies. The question of “what am
I to do?” doesn’t require an ism or ideology.
The question of “what am I to do?” Doesn’t need an
Ism or ideology or any prior childhood indoctrination
to answer. We can exist outside of Ism’s and
Ideologies. “What should I hope for?” is enough
of an question, so not to need any other
Ism or ideology for an answer.

Going from 4:58 to 4:50 is a possible
answer to the question, “what am I to do?”

Kropotkin

“What am I to do” or “what should I believe in” are
both existential questions because we face these
questions right from birth. “What should I believe in”
is the very heart of philosophy. Religion says this
is the answer to the question of belief, God exists.
Whereas philosophy ask, does God exist? And
science says, it doesn’t matter if God exists.
Three responses to one question. So you have
one answer, religion, one question,philosophy and one, it doesn’t matter, science. Who you got?
Science, religion or philosophy?

What you got is three sides of the same coin. 

Each covers different aspects of the same questions,
“what am I to do?” “What am I to believe?” “What
should we/I hope for?” “What values should I hold?”
Each question is a question created by our very
birth and questions that haunt us our entire
existence, both individually and collectively.
As a true philosopher, I can only offer up
questions, not answers.

Kropotkin

As I have said before and I will continue to
say, I have no answers only questions. If you
want answers, listen to those who claim to
have the answers, preachers who speak the
answers of God, or listen to politicians who
claim to know the answers, or perhaps listen to
the media or perhaps listen to spin doctors who
walk back people’s answers when those
answers are not on point to the message being sent.

According to these people, the answer lies
out there, you just to find it. I would suggest that
whatever answers you are looking for begin in
the questions you ask. Wisdom starts with doubt.
For all those people who have the “answer”,
they speak with certainty, not doubt. Certainly hides
the truth, certainty prevents the search, certainty
is the enemy of the philosopher and must be
avoided at all cost. Seek not certainty, but seek
doubt if you wish to to understand. “Understand what, Kropotkin?”

Seeking, understand that. but you make no
sense Kropotkin, what am I seeking?

Doubt

Kropotkin

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes)…

Do you contradict yourself? Good, wisdom
is found there.

Kropotkin

Inspired…I write the nonsense of doubt.

Our country tis of thee, sweet land of Liberty…

And of praise to our fallen heroes…it is said
they died in the defense of liberty…

But did they?

The longest war in history with thousands dead
hasn’t been about Liberty…

But about the true God
of the land of Liberty
the sweet embrace of mammon,
And the face of Jackson drives the
dreams of the dead…

To be blunt…do we fight for Main Street
or for Wall Street?

And all those deaths…
Moloch should be pleased…
People die and Wall Street thrives

Hurray Americans…
Sweet land of Liberty

Tell me…how many died today?

Defending our one true God

Mammon

Kropotkin

Kropotkin…
You are a villain…
A traitor to the cause…
For you cast aspersions on the honor dead

And you with your certainties of ideologies
Are you sure it’s the dead that has been insulted?

I am a villain because I denounce Wall Street…
Not Main Street…

But modern America can’t tell the difference
between Wall Street and patriotism…

For they are one and the same…
It is the almighty dollar we pray to…

And the dead?

They are simply the cost of doing business
and most importantly, tax deductible…

For the flag they are buried with, is
the flag of Exon and Microsoft and Ford…

And the honored dead did their great service
by increasing the GDP…

That by far, is the great deed
for which we honor them and bury them…

Not for Liberty…
Such a passé thought

Are you offended!

I truly hope so…

That means you can still feel…

Kropotkin

thinking about Buddhism and the Buddha…

He is trying to limit or eliminate suffering by
insistening that it is because we are impermanent,
transitory, this is the cause of our suffering…
if we could hold to or become permanent,
we would not suffer…by removing the transitory
in our lives, which is the reincarnation/rebirth we go through
that we find something permanent, we join the permanent
and this elimenates our suffering…

there is certainly a human feeling that if we discover the permanent,
we can remove suffering and despair… but the temporary, impermanent
is our lives, we are humans… temporary, impermanent, transitory…

how do we come to terms with that is our, or one of our existential questions…

how do we come to grips with being transitory?

Nietzsche said it another way…

How do we find meaning in a meaningless world?

Kropotkin

I have been thinking about ignorance…yep I have plenty of that…
my day to day life hums along even though I am ignorant of plenty…
I can pass my days without knowing differential equations or rocket science
or how a carburetor works or even without a basic understanding of a computer…
as long as someone out there knows this stuff… I’m good…

and what of the basic equations of Kant… “What am I to do?” or
“What should I believe in?”… I own many books that tell me
“What we should believe in?” or “What am I to do?” I have over 5000 books
and every one of those 5000 books is telling me what to believe in or what to do?

But how am I to differentiate between all those books telling “what am I to believe in”
or “what am I to do?” How do I decide who is truthful or honest or sincere or even
how can I tell who the hell knows what they are talking about?

Right now I am reading about 5 book (and none of them successfully) and I just
started with the Bhagavad Gita… and the translator says we must accept
every word of the primary voice, who is the “LORD”… Without any doubts or
hesitation or disbelieve…We who read this must accept the word of Sri Krsna…
the supreme Lord…

Now I am a philosopher for a reason. To find my own path, I must challenge
every thinker as to the validity of their claims… I just cannot accept the word
of the authorities just because they are the AUTHORITIES… nah… but given
my admitted ignorance about the world, should I temper my challenge about
the nature of things? As I would temper my challenge to something like
particle physics as given by an authority, as I know very little about
particle physics, ok, I know shit about particle physics and I can’t even pretend
to know something about particle physics…… so it seems to me that we can challenge
some “authorities” “experts” on some things but not on other things…
As I would never challenge someone like Edward Witten on this expertise
on theoretical physics or superstring theory because, well, he is the AUTHORITY…

and yet, I would challenge and let me get this right…

A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA Swami Prabhupada……

on whether it is necessary to totally accept the word of Sri Krsna, the LORD…

in my ignorance, should I just accept the word Sri Krsna?

at what point should I say, I shall accept every word as gospel and
then at what point can I or should I say, no more, no more accepting the
word of this authority…

I cannot doubt my ignorance……it is quite obvious…
but at what point do I draw the line and say, I shall listen no more?

my own ignorance doesn’t allow me an answer…

Kropotkin