A Stoic Response To The Climate Crisis

[Belinda]

I can't discuss imagination with you as we understand the word differently.

Imagination creates ideas and discovers knowledge. Fantasy is not imagination although imagination sometimes uses fantasy as a sort of thought experiment that can lead to ideas and insights. Emotions are biological and can be publicly viewed, smelled, and even tasted, besides being felt in one's own central nervous system.

As I understand it, our emotional contact with the external world reveals what we like and dislike while our consciousness reveals what we know - the comparison of facts. IYO is the function of emotion to recognize facts or to interpret them or define their value?

Yes, I think so, I agree ,except I'd not say emotions 'recognize" anything, Emotions are movements of chemicals around the body and produce automatic reactions in behaviour unless the more thoughtful part of the brain-mind intervenes a lot and controls the automatic reactions. I'd say recognition does not happen until the consciously aware part of the brain-mind has judged and controlled the emotions and transformed them into feelings, intentions, and ideas.

You will have heard of the sort of law breaking that is caused by uncontrolled anger, and the judge commands the angry person to go to anger management classes. I hope these are successful, and apart from their success or otherwise the aim is to teach the angry person to think and reflect before they lash out from uncontrolled emotion.A healthy person has strong emotions and a healthy socialised person controls their emotions while knowing and respecting their emotions for what they are . Emotions are necessary for life and as such may be considered to be God-given as much as are our thinking reflecting minds, or our bones and muscles.

I hope what I have written fits with what Simone says, although I have said nothing about mystic revelation form God.

[Nick_A]

You did a find job describing what i know of as animal emotional reactions. The personal god is rejected in the secular world and for good reason. Here is the expanded version if my earlier post. I believe you will agree with what Prof Needleman describes.

Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" says the following after a lecture he had been giving took an unexpected turn:

Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.

Because of this the word God is like rising red flag to a bull. So to avoid this I use the word consciousness. God to these peope are outside time and space so the personal god is just idolatry

G I Gurdjieff describes three modes of contact with the external world. Physical and emotionl reactions are mechanical and therefore animal. Conscious actions are different quality

Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity.

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness.

Take conscious love as an example. Do you see how they represent three different qualities of love? How is physical love dependent on type and polarity. Why does conscious love evoke the same in response yet emotional love evokes it opposite? What would it require for a person to become capable of conscious love and distinguish it as an objective quality different from their attraction to emotional love?

The great mistake of secularism is that it is closed to the idea of scale and relativity. These reactions differ in scale in relation to their source yet are considered the same and uses the same word for them all. When and if humanity becomes aware of what it means to open to the experience of scale and relativity it may usher in a new beginning.

[Belinda]

You did a find job describing what i know of as animal emotional reactions. The personal god is rejected in the secular world and for good reason. Here is the expanded version if my earlier post. I believe you will agree with what Prof Needleman describes.

Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" says the following after a lecture he had been giving took an unexpected turn:

Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.

Because of this the word God is like rising red flag to a bull. So to avoid this I use the word consciousness. God to these peope are outside time and space so the personal god is just idolatry

G I Gurdjieff describes three modes of contact with the external world. Physical and emotionl reactions are mechanical and therefore animal. Conscious actions are different quality

Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity.

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness.

Take conscious love as an example. Do you see how they represent three different qualities of love? How is physical love dependent on type and polarity. Why does conscious love evoke the same in response yet emotional love evokes it opposite? What would it require for a person to become capable of conscious love and distinguish it as an objective quality different from their attraction to emotional love?

The great mistake of secularism is that it is closed to the idea of scale and relativity. These reactions differ in scale in relation to their source yet are considered the same and uses the same word for them all. When and if humanity becomes aware of what it means to open to the experience of scale and relativity it may usher in a new beginning.

'Animal reactions' : please remember, if God is the creator of nature, fear is God-given. And human reason also is God-given and allows humans to reflect on the uses and misuses of the fear response .

The natural attraction of man to truth varies according to individuals and according to their circumstances; a person who is worked to death or constantly in fear typically has not the energy to seek truth.The search for truth never ends in this life and is not to be regarded as an easy option. This is why I resist some mystical claims.

G I Gurdjieff describes three modes of contact with the external world. Physical and emotionl reactions are mechanical and therefore animal. Conscious actions are different quality


Have not read Gurdjieff , and I agree with above extract ,except for the minor point physical includes emotional.I trust Gurdjieff does not disdain what he Gurdjieff calls "animal". After all God made animal nature and God never claimed animal nature was less than rational nature.

I recommend you read C S Lewis " The Four Loves". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

[Nick_A]

I agree that fear is normal for animal life. If nothing else it releases adrenalin to make escape easier. But I am curious if you distinguish between the reactions of animal love and the conscious actions of conscious love. It isn't so easy to distinguish between reaction and action. But for example, can we love another even though we've been hurt by them? A normal person will say why bother. But is there anything to be gained by striving to experience conscious love of life itself at the expense of good ol mechanical hatred?

Thanks for the C. S, lewis recommendation. It requires some serious study

[Belinda]

I don;t think it does, Nick. I think the idea the 'love' means more or less different things, generally four in all, is one idea. And that the form of love, agape, is the attitude towards the moment that presents to us which elevates reason and kindness over self indulgence.This is stoicism, elevation of reason over self.

The moment that presents to us is revealed by reason and loving kindness .The only possible solution to a large social problem like the climate crisis, or indeed the pandemic, is in reason and loving kindness.

[Nick_A]

I don;t think it does, Nick. I think the idea the 'love' means more or less different things, generally four in all, is one idea. And that the form of love, agape, is the attitude towards the moment that presents to us which elevates reason and kindness over self indulgence.This is stoicism, elevation of reason over self.

But in reality the attitude towards love doesn’t transcend the dominance of self indulgence over reason. Why? Suppose the belief that we can be guided by reason is impossible because we exist as a plurality, We are not one, we are many. Suppose our higher parts capable of conscious reason lacks force. Our force or the ability to do things come from our body and our emotions. In this way reason and emotion revolve around each other. Reason is dominant for a short while and then emotion becomes dominant. This opposition defines our being. It isn’t that Man is bad, The human condition has enabled the corruption of our emotions. We are not born with it Plato describes this in the chariot analogy. Can we cure our sick horse or do we even Want to because it can lead to the glorification of prestige?

The moment that presents to us is revealed by reason and loving kindness .The only possible solution to a large social problem like the climate crisis, or indeed the pandemic, is in reason and loving kindness.

St Paul describes our situation in Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25

Suppose St’ Paul’s description of the human condition which keeps Man in opposition with himself is accurate; Is there a way that offers freedom from the human condition leading to the horrors we both admit permeate our world?

[Belinda]

I don;t think it does, Nick. I think the idea the 'love' means more or less different things, generally four in all, is one idea. And that the form of love, agape, is the attitude towards the moment that presents to us which elevates reason and kindness over self indulgence.This is stoicism, elevation of reason over self.

But in reality the attitude towards love doesn’t transcend the dominance of self indulgence over reason. Why? Suppose the belief that we can be guided by reason is impossible because we exist as a plurality, We are not one, we are many. Suppose our higher parts capable of conscious reason lacks force. Our force or the ability to do things come from our body and our emotions. In this way reason and emotion revolve around each other. Reason is dominant for a short while and then emotion becomes dominant. This opposition defines our being. It isn’t that Man is bad, The human condition has enabled the corruption of our emotions. We are not born with it Plato describes this in the chariot analogy. Can we cure our sick horse or do we even Want to because it can lead to the glorification of prestige?

The moment that presents to us is revealed by reason and loving kindness .The only possible solution to a large social problem like the climate crisis, or indeed the pandemic, is in reason and loving kindness.

St Paul describes our situation in Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25

Suppose St’ Paul’s description of the human condition which keeps Man in opposition with himself is accurate; Is there a way that offers freedom from the human condition leading to the horrors we both admit permeate our world?

I loved the quote from Paul's letter. I do indeed think his description is accurate. There is no absolute freedom from natural or moral evil.This is a relative world and so there is only what is relatively good and what is relatively bad. We can however increase our choices to do good. Ideologies are suspect as they originate with individuals who are self -seeking.Tne great thing is to be able to identify the better choice. We are not entirely alone as we have important illustrations of good in this relative world i.e. the lives and works of certain persons, and as for evil we surely don't lack evil ideologies.

The best thing to do vis a vis God is seek out goodness and for this we can refer again to St Paul. as good and agape are the same.

[Nick_A]

I loved the quote from Paul's letter. I do indeed think his description is accurate. There is no absolute freedom from natural or moral evil.This is a relative world and so there is only what is relatively good and what is relatively bad. We can however increase our choices to do good. Ideologies are suspect as they originate with individuals who are self -seeking.Tne great thing is to be able to identify the better choice. We are not entirely alone as we have important illustrations of good in this relative world i.e. the lives and works of certain persons, and as for evil we surely don't lack evil ideologies.

The best thing to do vis a vis God is seek out goodness and for this we can refer again to St Paul. as good and agape are the same.

You are assuming that Man, as a part of society, has choice. What if Society is a living being reacting to cosmic and natural forces as does the rest of organic life. Change requires consciousness which we lack. Do you really believe that the masses will strive to reflect the “better choice”? Is there anything to indicate it will

Rudolph Steriner adds a perspective you will rarely read of. Instead of considering Christianity by secular dualism or good vs evil, he introduces three forces and divides the demonic influence into Lucifer and Ahriman. The Christ influence unites them from a higher perspective and enables a man to grow normally and in balance between the higher and lower. It is the Christ influence which leads to what Plato described as the good. It is what enables the Spirit to introduce the experience of human consciousness which reconciles above and below.

In Christian theology the forces of Christ are set against the forces of the devil who represents in one figure all that is evil, and one is exhorted to abjure all that is of the devil. This might lead one to wonder, "How is the knowledge of good and evil bad? Isn't that what the devil in the Garden of Eden wanted to share with Adam and Eve?"
Steiner divides the devil into two beings, Lucifer and Ahriman, and shows us how neither is bad per se, each provides gifts to human beings that further our evolution, and that it is us who must learn to balance these gifts in our individual lives. His recommendation for a solution to the problem of the devil is to transcend the tendency towards either Luciferic frenzy or Ahrimanic tedium by creating a spirit-filled synthesis of the two in our lives from now on.

Opening to the third force requires conscious attention which we have in potential. How many would practice it? Simone Weil wrote

We have to try to cure our faults by attention and not by will.

The will only controls a few movements of a few muscles, and these movements are associated with the idea of the change of position of nearby objects. I can will to put my hand flat on the table. If inner purity, inspiration or truth of thought were necessarily associated with attitudes of this kind, they might be the object of will. As this is not the case, we can only beg for them. To beg for them is to believe that we have a Father in heaven. Or should we cease to desire them? What could be worse? Inner supplication is the only reasonable way, for it avoids stiffening muscles which have nothing to do with the matter. What could be more stupid than to tighten up our muscles and set our jaws about virtue, or poetry, or the solution of a problem. Attention is something quite different.

Pride is a tightening up of this kind. There is a lack of grace (we can give the word its double meaning here) in the proud man. It is the result of a mistake.

Attention, taken to its highest degree, is the same thing as prayer. It presupposes faith and love.

Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.

Attention vs will. A profound topic. Just don't confuse "father" or what is beyond time and pace with a personal God. She is referring to the Son or the midpoint between the father and Man

[Belinda]

I think your interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge is not the same as mine.

Satan was good for Adam because Satan set Adam on the path of adulthood, taking responsibility for his own decisions whereas formerly Adam had all his decisions made on his behalf by God.

[Nick_A]

I think your interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge is not the same as mine.

Satan was good for Adam because Satan set Adam on the path of adulthood, taking responsibility for his own decisions whereas formerly Adam had all his decisions made on his behalf by God.

Very true. For me, I try to verify why science and religion are complimentary as opposed to mutually exclusive. So I begin by working my way down from the source into the demiurge or conscious influences within the universe. that for some reason created what we know of as the human condition

I don't see how your premise beginning with a personal God without appreciating that the universe is a vertical living machine. Why would personal God do this? How does it help universal purpose? Why deny what the Son had to help us to remember? Something isn't right here and I've always been attracted to those willing to sacrifice their illusions in order to experience the logic of our universe rather than lose it through the battle over opinions.

[Belinda]

I think your interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge is not the same as mine.

Satan was good for Adam because Satan set Adam on the path of adulthood, taking responsibility for his own decisions whereas formerly Adam had all his decisions made on his behalf by God.

Very true. For me, I try to verify why science and religion are complimentary as opposed to mutually exclusive. So I begin by working my way down from the source into the demiurge or conscious influences within the universe. that for some reason created what we know of as the human condition

I don't see how your premise beginning with a personal God without appreciating that the universe is a vertical living machine. Why would personal God do this? How does it help universal purpose? Why deny what the Son had to help us to remember? Something isn't right here and I've always been attracted to those willing to sacrifice their illusions in order to experience the logic of our universe rather than lose it through the battle over opinions.

Did you think I believe in a personal god? I don't, actually. I believe in the sort of God that is indescribable. We can describe that sort of God only by analogy with some good thing , event, or person that manifested in the world.

While I can 'see' the vertical universe you describe, which has God as the transcendent summit, the immanent God is more accessible as I can get fleeting glimpses in this world of the true and good. You seem to believe it's possible to 'see' God beyond culture . I think you are mistaken, and although I don't accuse you of being a fanatic, to put an ideology in place of the indescribable God is dangerous idolatry which has caused terrible grief and pain.

[Nick_A]

Did you think I believe in a personal god? I don't, actually. I believe in the sort of God that is indescribable. We can describe that sort of God only by analogy with some good thing , event, or person that manifested in the world.

We basically agree here since I believe in the ineffable god or what is not limited by time and space. God IS while Creation OCCURS as a process taking place within God. What manifests inside the world is called dunamis by plotinus

While I can 'see' the vertical universe you describe, which has God as the transcendent summit, the immanent God is more accessible as I can get fleeting glimpses in this world of the true and good. You seem to believe it's possible to 'see' God beyond culture . I think you are mistaken, and although I don't accuse you of being a fanatic, to put an ideology in place of the indescribable God is dangerous idolatry which has caused terrible grief and pain.

You’ve raised the essential question; the difference between ideology and science. Science through the scientific method is the means to either verify or deny its hypothesis established by our sesnses. An ideology is belief without verification. Is there a way they can be reconciled or at least ponder the question with greater conscious depth?

Is noesis in Christianity or satori in Buddhism possible. We don’t know but can we deepen the question?

Definition of noesis. 1 : purely intellectual apprehension: a Platonism : the highest kind of knowledge or knowledge of the eternal forms or ideas —contrasted with dianoia. b in Husserl : the subjective aspect of or the act in an intentional experience —distinguished from noema.

Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding". It is derived from the Japanese verb satoru. In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō, "seeing into one's true nature".

A person believes in what the senses reveal. But people are drawn to experience the origins behind the senses. It is easily perverted. As result those with legitimate experiences re ridiculed while all sorts of perversions spoken of by “masters” are pure money making fantasy are rewarded

Is it possible for a person to transcend what the senses and what science proves in order to experience noesis and satori which the heart of man is drawn to without corrupting it while revealing objective human meaning and purpose? If so how do I begin

[Belinda]

Did you think I believe in a personal god? I don't, actually. I believe in the sort of God that is indescribable. We can describe that sort of God only by analogy with some good thing , event, or person that manifested in the world.

We basically agree here since I believe in the ineffable god or what is not limited by time and space. God IS while Creation OCCURS as a process taking place within God. What manifests inside the world is called dunamis by plotinus

While I can 'see' the vertical universe you describe, which has God as the transcendent summit, the immanent God is more accessible as I can get fleeting glimpses in this world of the true and good. You seem to believe it's possible to 'see' God beyond culture . I think you are mistaken, and although I don't accuse you of being a fanatic, to put an ideology in place of the indescribable God is dangerous idolatry which has caused terrible grief and pain.

You’ve raised the essential question; the difference between ideology and science. Science through the scientific method is the means to either verify or deny its hypothesis established by our sesnses. An ideology is belief without verification. Is there a way they can be reconciled or at least ponder the question with greater conscious depth?

Is noesis in Christianity or satori in Buddhism possible. We don’t know but can we deepen the question?

Definition of noesis. 1 : purely intellectual apprehension: a Platonism : the highest kind of knowledge or knowledge of the eternal forms or ideas —contrasted with dianoia. b in Husserl : the subjective aspect of or the act in an intentional experience —distinguished from noema.

Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding". It is derived from the Japanese verb satoru. In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō, "seeing into one's true nature".

A person believes in what the senses reveal. But people are drawn to experience the origins behind the senses. It is easily perverted. As result those with legitimate experiences re ridiculed while all sorts of perversions spoken of by “masters” are pure money making fantasy are rewarded

Is it possible for a person to transcend what the senses and what science proves in order to experience noesis and satori which the heart of man is drawn to without corrupting it while revealing objective human meaning and purpose? If so how do I begin

Not me, I did not raise the question of " the difference between ideology and science" . Science through the scientific method is the means to either verify or deny its hypothesis established by our sesnses. ". I would not raise this question because modern science is bound to uncertainty; no reputable scientists claim absolute knowledge. Ideologists are bloody-sure they are right, and the worst ideologists will act upon their intransigent certainty which is not at all the stance of scientists.

The "origins behind the senses" are what we call 'instincts' by which I mean biologically inherited patterns of behaviour.

Nick ' I don't want to shake your faith, as I don't know your personal circumstances , and so I think we had better discontinue this conversation .Philosophy can be traumatic.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Not me, I did not raise the question of " the difference between ideology and science" . Science through the scientific method is the means to either verify or deny its hypothesis established by our sesnses. ". I would not raise this question because modern science is bound to uncertainty; no reputable scientists claim absolute knowledge. Ideologists are bloody-sure they are right, and the worst ideologists will act upon their intransigent certainty which is not at all the stance of scientists.

I meant that you raised the question of science or ideology in my mind. Science by definition deals with facts. For example it states that H2O is the essence of water. But science also deals with what pollutes water. Both are called science. I I agree that ideology does not rely on facts so at best is an opinion. People argue about the rightness of their opinions. At best and without verification it is meaningless

The "origins behind the senses" are what we call 'instincts' by which I mean biologically inherited patterns of behaviour.

I agree, animal reactions are inherited patterns of behavior. The question remains what they are inherited from which is a whole other topic

Nick ' I don't want to shake your faith, as I don't know your personal circumstances , and so I think we had better discontinue this conversation .Philosophy can be traumatic.

I appreciate your concern but that is not what I meant by faith. I agree that most look at the idea of faith in this way but as a universalist, I also accept man’s potential for conscious faith which doesn’t arise from the bottom up but its origin is from the top down. I’ll copy again the description of the impulses of faith, hope, and love from Gurdjieff I previously posted

Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity.

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness.

We discussed love a bit but now consider faith. Emotional faith has become corrupted as the great traditions including Plato all agree. Mechanical faith is foolish and attracts people conditioned to follow. They follow the crowd in blind faith.

Most people define faith as emotional faith but I’ve verified that it is slavery. People acquire emotional faith from fear and the need for consolation and this fear without verification is the result of slavery

Conscious faith, like conscious love and hope, are a potential for conscious Man. Conscious faith enables a person to sustain their connection with levels of being. Jesus gives us a clue when he said the faith of the centurion was the highest he has seen in Israel

Why? As I understand it the Centurion is the boss over 100 men. He is everything to those beneath him but nothing to the quality of being above him. It is our potential to receive from above to give to below but is only a potential some have experienced the beginning of.

So the bottom line is that the more you can disturb any emotional faith I have, it is appreciated.

[Belinda]

Belinda

Not me, I did not raise the question of " the difference between ideology and science" . Science through the scientific method is the means to either verify or deny its hypothesis established by our sesnses. ". I would not raise this question because modern science is bound to uncertainty; no reputable scientists claim absolute knowledge. Ideologists are bloody-sure they are right, and the worst ideologists will act upon their intransigent certainty which is not at all the stance of scientists.

I meant that you raised the question of science or ideology in my mind. Science by definition deals with facts. For example it states that H2O is the essence of water. But science also deals with what pollutes water. Both are called science. I I agree that ideology does not rely on facts so at best is an opinion. People argue about the rightness of their opinions. At best and without verification it is meaningless

The "origins behind the senses" are what we call 'instincts' by which I mean biologically inherited patterns of behaviour.

I agree, animal reactions are inherited patterns of behavior. The question remains what they are inherited from which is a whole other topic

Nick ' I don't want to shake your faith, as I don't know your personal circumstances , and so I think we had better discontinue this conversation .Philosophy can be traumatic.

I appreciate your concern but that is not what I meant by faith. I agree that most look at the idea of faith in this way but as a universalist, I also accept man’s potential for conscious faith which doesn’t arise from the bottom up but its origin is from the top down. I’ll copy again the description of the impulses of faith, hope, and love from Gurdjieff I previously posted

Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity.

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness.

We discussed love a bit but now consider faith. Emotional faith has become corrupted as the great traditions including Plato all agree. Mechanical faith is foolish and attracts people conditioned to follow. They follow the crowd in blind faith.

Most people define faith as emotional faith but I’ve verified that it is slavery. People acquire emotional faith from fear and the need for consolation and this fear without verification is the result of slavery

Conscious faith, like conscious love and hope, are a potential for conscious Man. Conscious faith enables a person to sustain their connection with levels of being. Jesus gives us a clue when he said the faith of the centurion was the highest he has seen in Israel

Why? As I understand it the Centurion is the boss over 100 men. He is everything to those beneath him but nothing to the quality of being above him. It is our potential to receive from above to give to below but is only a potential some have experienced the beginning of.

So the bottom line is that the more you can disturb any emotional faith I have, it is appreciated.

I too like to be challenged.You wrote:
" Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness."

But fear is biologically sound and is present for good and sufficient reason. Hope without doubt is not cowardice but is rash and impulsive.

Faith is good when it follows reflection on knowledge and good judgement.If there were a God would He want men to believe every con man or clever fool?

Nick wrote:

It is our potential to receive from above to give to below but is only a potential some have experienced the beginning of.

That is too elitist for me!