What is it like to be a human being?

[The Voice of Time]

Anyone playing chess has to know the rules of the game. That is a given.

No. There are special rules, for instance that you can switch tower and king, which I did not know until long after I started playing chess.

[The Voice of Time]

Winning in life means to become oneself.

No, winning in life means you are perpetuating your life. And one does not become oneself, but find a character of oneself which one is comfortable with from time to time, until either they die or find the need for a different character.

[The Voice of Time]

The problem isn't a lack of knowledge but rather the gradual loss of the need to understand - "wisdom"

Are you saying that a lack of need to understand is wisdom? In that case, death and coma should be the ultimate forms of wisdom... preposterous. That said, the more efficient any unit of knowledge is, the less you need of it. So if you avoid making the preposterous claim, you'd be able to agree with me, as I don't think you intend for it to seem the way you've written it.

[The Voice of Time]

Perhaps some have become capable of impartiality.

Only disinterest. Impartiality is an illusion always, but is excepted usually when somebody is disinterested, because then other factors can play a role to judge.

[Nick_A]

Anyone playing chess has to know the rules of the game. That is a given.

No. There are special rules, for instance that you can switch tower and king, which I did not know until long after I started playing chess.

Castling is part of chess. If you don't know the rule and not castle when it is advisable to do so, it really isn't chess but just pushing pieces around.

[Nick_A]

Winning in life means to become oneself.

No, winning in life means you are perpetuating your life. And one does not become oneself, but find a character of oneself which one is comfortable with from time to time, until either they die or find the need for a different character.

You are referring to winning by secular societal standards. I'm referring to winning as a function of a life reaching its potential.

For example an acorn wins when it becomes itself - an oak. If it is eaten or just dies and returns to the earth, then it didn't reach its potential and didn't "Win."

What is the objective potential for the "being" of man? I would say it is the result of conscious evolution or awakening while you would associate it with success defined by societal standards

[Nick_A]

The problem isn't a lack of knowledge but rather the gradual loss of the need to understand - "wisdom"

Are you saying that a lack of need to understand is wisdom? In that case, death and coma should be the ultimate forms of wisdom... preposterous. That said, the more efficient any unit of knowledge is, the less you need of it. So if you avoid making the preposterous claim, you'd be able to agree with me, as I don't think you intend for it to seem the way you've written it.

I meant that the gradual loss of the need for wisdom and the realization that we don't have it makes us satisfied with self justification assuring the continual mechanical natural cycles as defined in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace.

[Nick_A]

Perhaps some have become capable of impartiality.

Only disinterest. Impartiality is an illusion always, but is excepted usually when somebody is disinterested, because then other factors can play a role to judge.

These two insights from Simone Weil indicate the value of detachment (impartiality) for those dedicated to the experience of reality at the expense of imagination.

• Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached.

• There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too.

Granted only developed human beings who have become masters of themselves to a certain extent would be capable of the detached experience of reality. But IMO the influence of these few are vital for the survival of humanity

[The Voice of Time]

Anyone playing chess has to know the rules of the game. That is a given.

No. There are special rules, for instance that you can switch tower and king, which I did not know until long after I started playing chess.

Castling is part of chess. If you don't know the rule and not castle when it is advisable to do so, it really isn't chess but just pushing pieces around.

If anybody asked me what I was doing I would be saying "I'm playing chess", and not "I'm just pushing pieces around".

[The Voice of Time]

I'm referring to winning as a function of a life reaching its potential.

Your life and my life and everybody's life has the potential to become all kinds of characters. Seems you've not actually said anything in that sentence other than that winning is becoming "something", for whose only condition is that it is possible (a potential).

[The Voice of Time]

What is the objective potential for the "being" of man?

To cease to be. When you "are", your only alternative is to not be, because that's the only thing you are not.

[The Voice of Time]

I meant that the gradual loss of the need for wisdom and the realization that we don't have it makes us satisfied with self justification assuring the continual mechanical natural cycles as defined in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace.

I have no answer for that. I don't know what it is, but seems you are just claiming somebody should have a specific form of knowledge, and if so, you are not actually talking about wisdom itself, but your version of wisdom, your perceived perspective on the value of an instance of knowledge.

Inflexible and partial. You're just here to preach religion.

[Nick_A]

If anybody asked me what I was doing I would be saying "I'm playing chess", and not "I'm just pushing pieces around".

You would think you are playing chess but a master would know you are just pushing pieces around

[Nick_A]

I'm referring to winning as a function of a life reaching its potential.

Your life and my life and everybody's life has the potential to become all kinds of characters. Seems you've not actually said anything in that sentence other than that winning is becoming "something", for whose only condition is that it is possible (a potential).

For me human potential is defined by what we ARE in comparison to the potential for human "being."

Human potential for you seems to be defined by secular societal standards. It is defined by what we DO in relation to societal norms.

[Nick_A]

I meant that the gradual loss of the need for wisdom and the realization that we don't have it makes us satisfied with self justification assuring the continual mechanical natural cycles as defined in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace.

I have no answer for that. I don't know what it is, but seems you are just claiming somebody should have a specific form of knowledge, and if so, you are not actually talking about wisdom itself, but your version of wisdom, your perceived perspective on the value of an instance of knowledge.

Inflexible and partial. You're just here to preach religion.

You are being honest. How can we know what the love of wisdom is if we no longer feel this love because of technological joys. This isn't preaching religion but rather the reality of the human condition Plato described in his cave analogy.

It isn't a matter of knowledge but of perspective. The knowledge that interests you is based on duality and remains on the same level. Yet the knowledge I am referring to is based on experiencing a triune universe - the vertical direction that reconciles duality. From this perspective the vertical relationship between objective knowledge and opinions becomes easier to at least understand intellectually.