Philosophy Now Forum

there is an old story from India...

the tiger's mother had died giving birth and the infant was left all
alone in the world... fortunately for the infant tiger, there was
a group of wild goats that adapted the little tiger.. and the wild goats
taught the tiger how to eat grass and bleat like they did.. for that is
what wild goats do.. time had passed and the tiger assumed he was
part of the goat herd.. one day an old male tiger came upon the
herd of goats.. everyone fled except the young tiger, who for some
reason, wasn't afraid... as the savage old tiger approached, the cub
began to feel self conscious and uncomfortable... to cover his
self consciousness, he began to eat grass and bleat like the goats...
the old tiger roared at the little one in amazement and anger,
asking him what he thought he was doing eating grass and bleating like a goat...
but the little one was too embarrassed by all this to answer and continued
to nibble grass.. thoroughly outraged by this behavior, the Jungle tiger
grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and carried him to a nearby pool.
Holding him over the water he told him to look at himself. "Is that
the face of a tiger or the long face of a goat?" he roared...
The tiger cub was still to frightened to answer, so the old tiger
carried him to his cave, and thrust a huge chunk of juicy, red,
raw meat between his jaws. As the juiced tickled into his stomach,
the cub began to feel a new strength and a new power.
No longer mistaking himself for a goat, the little tiger lashed his tail
from side to side and roared like the tiger he was.. He had
achieved Tiger-realization! He no longer took himself to be
what he appeared to be in his ignorance, but realized
his true nature, which had nothing to do with goats...

In thinking that we have a "true" nature and by living within
the society and state, we have lost that "true" nature,
what is our ''true'' nature? and how would we find that ''true" nature?

but I am going to flip that script by saying that we don't actually
achieve our ''true'' nature until we fully live within the state/society...
it is within living within the state/society, that we achieve our ''true''
nature.... we are social creatures by the design of evolution...
that it is only within the group, that we can find out who we really are...
for we can only meet our goals/needs within a group... I cannot find
food or water or shelter, my bodily needs without the group
and I certainly cannot find my psychologically needs without the group..
needs like love, esteem, safety/security can only be achieved within
a society/state.....

but one of the problems of living within a group is the tribalism
that occurs within a group of people.....today, in defiance of
history, we are returning to the tribalism that we have left long ago....

for within history, we have gone from a small tribe to a larger tribe,
to a small city to a larger city.. with each step, we move further
away from the original tribalism that we existed within for over
a million years... the rise of human beings came directly from
our rise from tribalism to being part of the large scale tribe
called a nation... at every step of human history, came a larger
and larger understanding, moving from a small tribe to a much larger tribe...
to revert back to tribalism, is to take a major step backwards as human beings...

or to think of it this way, we have moved from the one, to a few, to many to all...
and that history of movement, of growing from one to few to all, is the history of
government, of philosophy, of economics, of history itself....

or to think of it another way, the movement of rights, has gone from the one,
to a few, to many and we are working toward rights being for all.. voting rights,
social rights, political rights, have taken that journey from one to a few to many
to hopefully all....(and this is one reason why the act of limiting abortion
is wrong.. we must travel from a few, too many, to all)

our face, our true face is about us being engaged with not some, within
tribalism, but with all...

tribalism was a step and a very important step for us human beings,
but the time is for us to, once again, expand what it means to be human
and expand the nature of our tribe to include all...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm there is an old story from India...

the tiger's mother had died giving birth and the infant was left all
alone in the world... fortunately for the infant tiger, there was
a group of wild goats that adapted the little tiger.. and the wild goats
taught the tiger how to eat grass and bleat like they did.. for that is
what wild goats do.. time had passed and the tiger assumed he was
part of the goat herd.. one day an old male tiger came upon the
herd of goats.. everyone fled except the young tiger, who for some
reason, wasn't afraid... as the savage old tiger approached, the cub
began to feel self conscious and uncomfortable... to cover his
self consciousness, he began to eat grass and bleat like the goats...
the old tiger roared at the little one in amazement and anger,
asking him what he thought he was doing eating grass and bleating like a goat...
but the little one was too embarrassed by all this to answer and continued
to nibble grass.. thoroughly outraged by this behavior, the Jungle tiger
grabbed him by the scruff of his neck and carried him to a nearby pool.
Holding him over the water he told him to look at himself. "Is that
the face of a tiger or the long face of a goat?" he roared...
The tiger cub was still to frightened to answer, so the old tiger
carried him to his cave, and thrust a huge chunk of juicy, red,
raw meat between his jaws. As the juiced tickled into his stomach,
the cub began to feel a new strength and a new power.
No longer mistaking himself for a goat, the little tiger lashed his tail
from side to side and roared like the tiger he was.. He had
achieved Tiger-realization! He no longer took himself to be
what he appeared to be in his ignorance, but realized
his true nature, which had nothing to do with goats...

In thinking that we have a "true" nature and by living within
the society and state, we have lost that "true" nature,
what is our ''true'' nature? and how would we find that ''true" nature?

NOT 'human being'. 'you' ALL just THINK 'you' ARE 'human beings.

HOW to find the so-called 'True Nature of thy Self', or thee 'True Self', is done just through Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want, to CHANGE, for the BETTER. That IS HOW 'you' WILL FIND and COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm but I am going to flip that script by saying that we don't actually
achieve our ''true'' nature until we fully live within the state/society...

And 'the world' in which 'you' are living IN when this is being written is CERTAINLY NOT living WITHIN the True and REAL state, society, nor world.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm it is within living within the state/society, that we achieve our ''true''
nature....

AND, it IS by living thee True Nature, or thee True and Right WAY, that then thee True and Right state, society, and world is THEN Created.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm we are social creatures by the design of evolution...
that it is only within the group, that we can find out who we really are...
for we can only meet our goals/needs within a group... I cannot find
food or water or shelter, my bodily needs without the group
and I certainly cannot find my psychologically needs without the group..
needs like love, esteem, safety/security can only be achieved within
a society/state.....

How old are 'you', and WHY could 'you' NOT find food, water, shelter NOR even bodily needs WITHOUT "another"?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm but one of the problems of living within a group is the tribalism
that occurs within a group of people.....today, in defiance of
history, we are returning to the tribalism that we have left long ago....

for within history, we have gone from a small tribe to a larger tribe,
to a small city to a larger city.. with each step, we move further
away from the original tribalism that we existed within for over
a million years... the rise of human beings came directly from
our rise from tribalism to being part of the large scale tribe
called a nation... at every step of human history, came a larger
and larger understanding, moving from a small tribe to a much larger tribe...
to revert back to tribalism, is to take a major step backwards as human beings...

or to think of it this way, we have moved from the one, to a few, to many to all...
and that history of movement, of growing from one to few to all, is the history of
government, of philosophy, of economics, of history itself....

or to think of it another way, the movement of rights, has gone from the one,
to a few, to many and we are working toward rights being for all.. voting rights,
social rights, political rights, have taken that journey from one to a few to many
to hopefully all....(and this is one reason why the act of limiting abortion
is wrong.. we must travel from a few, too many, to all)

Are you SURE that 'the act of limiting abortion is wrong' for one of the reason you just gave here?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:15 pm our face, our true face is about us being engaged with not some, within
tribalism, but with all...

tribalism was a step and a very important step for us human beings,
but the time is for us to, once again, expand what it means to be human
and expand the nature of our tribe to include all...

Kropotkin

Find out the VERY REASON WHY 'you' ARE NOT INCLUDING ALL now "peter kropotkin", EXPLAIN THAT REASON TO "others", and then 'they' and 'you' COULD BEGIN TO INCLUDE ALL, right?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:10 am Find out the VERY REASON WHY 'you' ARE NOT INCLUDING ALL now "peter kropotkin", EXPLAIN THAT REASON TO "others", and then 'they' and 'you' COULD BEGIN TO INCLUDE ALL, right?

What does "person" mean, Age? Or what do you think "person" means from your perspective?

so my tiger cub example was meant to show us that
quite often people, philosophers for example, seek out
that which is behind the facade... the tiger cub for example,
thought, just thought he was a goat when in fact, he was a tiger...
he just didn't know it... this searching for the reality of who we
really are, is a major part of philosophy... from Plato's parable
of the cave, to Heidegger's search for being, philosophy is trying to
get to what is real, not what seems to be in front of us... we have
two natures... and reality seems to have two natures... there
is the obvious nature in front of us, and according to these philosophers,
there is a second, deeper, more "real" nature.. and some have called this
second, deeper nature, spirit.. or god or eternal forms...
we are but copies of the one true nature...

we are the copies because we and other objects, age, change, die,
we are temporary, brief, transitory, ad hoc, fleeting... ephemeral.....
and the real, the thing that matters is permanent, true, enduring,
stable, everlasting.... thus people say the soul is permanent, everlasting
and the body is not, the body is temporary and fleeting...and thus expendable...

this is the reason that the Catholic Church places its ''faith'' in this
reality of the soul, the spirit... as it is true and real whereas the
body is false and temporary... and this is the argument of both Plato
and Yoda... that the body is temporary and the soul/spirit is forever...

but from where I stand, this belief in the soul as being the only real
thing is but an assumption.. with no basis in facts.....

and another example of this dichotomy, between the real and
the false exist within the beliefs of the Buddha.... and in fact,
within all religions....that there is a real permanent thing behind
our bodies.. is a given in religions... but as usual, I ask for evidence...
where is the evidence for this reality? that reality has two sides..
one is the temporary, random thing we call life and the other reality
is this permanent thing call the soul or nothingness or god....
the language changes but the concept remains the same....
there are two realities... the permanent and the transitory...

try as I might, I cannot reach this idea of there being two realities...
the universe makes more sense if there is but one reality, one mode
of existence... and the comings and goings of existence, that is
change and the transitory and the temporary is the one reality we have....
that there is only this one and one only reality... and as everything in
the universe has been created in time, that means that it is finite
and transitory...everything.... and to assume anything different is
to assume facts that aren't present... to think about the universe
as being transitory is to think about what is actually permanent
and forever... what in our human existence is permanent and forever?
nothing.... and to say, no Kropotkin, we exist within a permanent
and forever universe is to admit evidence that doesn't exist...
where is the evidence that the universe is permanent and forever?

No, it makes more sense, and we are better able to work within
a universe that is finite and temporary... it removes some
metaphysical problems that have no answers....

Kropotkin

to continue to work on the reality behind reality theory....

we have Buddhism... that says that the major problem of existence is
suffering (a concept that I disagree with) but that the path of
existence is to remove our suffering... however if one looks
closely, you see that the Buddha actually has two aspects of
suffering... one is the physical side, we age, we get disease,
we die... that is the physical aspect, but there is another aspect
of suffering...and that is the mental part... whereas we suffer
because we desire and have an appetite/craving for things...
we desire what we can't have and that causes suffering...
that craving is the second part of suffering...
we by our mental actions, cause suffering...

and the Buddha's focus is really on this second part... for we cannot
end the physical suffering... for we do grow old and we get diseases
and we die... the best we can do here is to just accept it and move on....
but the Buddha says that we can end suffering.. but he refers to
the cravings and desire part of existence, not the physical part...

now in my case, I can say that when I was younger, I did crave/desire
things, people, goods and money.. None of which I really got...
and that desire/craving of things, people, goods and money lead
me to suffer...

now that I am old, I crave very little or desire very little in life...
winning the lottery, it be nice, but I don't need it... I don't desire
it and winning another woman, nah, I have a women who already
loves me... and the goods of existence, nah.. I don't another car
nor do I need a big house or the fame or glory of being well known..
I don't really crave/desire anything... and I am no longer in "suffering"
as the Buddha would have noticed...and for my own part..
I am about as happy as I have ever been.. because I no longer
suffer from cravings or desires... that is the interesting thing
about being old... we notice that we already have way too much crap
in our lives and we begin to remove stuff.. as we age, we start
to get rid of the things we have collected our whole lives...
it is pointless to own stuff... I am happy with the old sofa we
have and the kitchen table and the bed... I am not seeking to
get more stuff... and I don't suffer from craving or desire....
frankly, life is pretty good...and as for the other aspect of
suffering, the getting old and soon to die, as I have
zero control over that, so, I don't worry about it...
at this moment, I am going through some minor health issues,
but what else is new? and it will increase as I grow older...
that is life...or as has been noted before, physical suffering
is really the cost of being alive... and the only way to avoid
that physical suffering is to die... and I will do that soon enough..
so, I have no great rush to "travel to that undiscovered country"

Kropotkin

another thought in terms of the concept of suffering...

we suffer, that much is known...and we suffer both from
physical reasons, age, disease, death.... and we suffer
from cravings, desires that are unmet, unfulfilled..
no desires, no cravings, and we don't suffer...

(now is suffering the "major" theme of existence, not to me, but let
us take this seriously and see where it takes us)

we know that suffering is a major problem in existence, but
we also promote suffering... for example, capitalism is the economic
system that has no problem if people suffer from having no money..
indeed, it is clearly the fault of anyone who has no money to survive on,
society/the state has no obligation to people to relieve their suffering...
we see suffering on the streets every single day when we pass the homeless..
and within the economic system of capitalism we don't need to feel
any compassion for those who suffer, do without money/goods/ or home...
these people have brought it upon themselves.... at least that
is the system of capitalism beliefs about people who lack money,
homes, goods or food...

but, if, if suffering is the major theme of existence, then how can we
allow others to suffer? if the key to existence is to avoid suffering,
then how can I turn around and cause others/or allow them to suffer?
If I see suffering and I do nothing, what does that say about me as
a human being? If by my actions or inaction, as the case may be,
I cause suffering, do I have an obligation to stop or at least minimize
suffering? but Kropotkin, I can't be held accountable for all the
millions that are suffering, by being homeless or without
food or health care or adequate water.. they are suffering and they
are on their own... is allowing suffering like this, really what the
Buddha ask for when he said that life is about avoiding or ending
suffering altogether?

or worse yet, if I were one to cause others to suffer... and this is quite
common... we see this all the time... parents throw their kids
out of the house for infractions committed... and the kids are homeless,
without money, or in short, suffering...why is it right to cause children
to suffer if, if suffering were the thing we are trying to avoid or end?

it is not enough to think about our own suffering but to think about
the suffering we force onto others....isn't the world hard enough
without passing out suffering to others?

or to say another way, perhaps we should think about our actions
in terms of how much suffering are we causing with this or that action?
If I am mean or rude, doesn't this cause suffering? then why do it?
the key to existence is to limit or end suffering, then one possible
path is by being kind or practicing acts of kindness...to treat others
as we ourselves want to be treated....our goal in actions is to limit
or to even end suffering, and one path is by us thinking about
whither our words/actions cause anyone to suffer....
to be cruel to others, that is causing suffering to others..
how can we justify this causing suffering to others, if, if
the goal of existence is to limit or end suffering, as the Buddha says....

but Kropotkin, I am not Buddhist... nor am I.. but even is we
were to understand Christianity.....how does the act of being
cruel enough to cause suffering, how is that bringing about
the passage to heaven that we so desire? if attacking as immoral,
the actions of gays or trans people, then we are also engaged
in promoting suffering...to deny people the right to be who they
are, is to deny them their basic humanity... how is that going
to get us to heaven by causing others to suffer?

ok, let us try this... let us remove any metaphysical intent
and stick to our basic actions, as they are....

why incentive do I have to cause others to suffer by my actions or inactions?
to cause others to suffer to prove a point is not moral or even right...
I say others are immoral and must somehow suffer... and yet even by
that reasoning, on what grounds can I cause others to suffer and still
call myself a ''moral'' ''upright'' human being.... if I am causing others to suffer....

if I were to explain to others how I caused others to suffer by denying them
basic human rights, how do I then show that I am a moral human being?
by causing others to suffer, by whatever means, only shows that I am
capable of causing others to suffer... and that is never a good look on
a human being....and it doesn't bring us any credit of any kind...
for how can causing others to suffer be a plus on our side, of
being a moral, honorable human being?

if I insult someone, to cause them to suffer, how can I even begin
to pretend to be a good person? and we can cause suffering from
our actions, to our inactions, to our words..... and we must
become aware of, and think through what we do and what we say,
if we are to prevent us from causing suffering...

and the Buddha talks about the right words, the right actions, the
right views, the right resolutions, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness, and right concentration...and within these words,
lies one path of ours to limit or even stop us from causing others
to suffer....by thinking about what we say and do... mindfulness....
awareness... consideration of others..... we might not
be able to end suffering in the world, but we can, by our
thoughts and actions, at least limit the suffering of others...
and that is what the Buddha calls for... assuming that the problem
of suffering is a major problem in human existence....

Kropotkin

if we accept the idea that one of the major problems of
existence is suffering, we need to look at other factors that
allow suffering...

I can think of a few... we can cause ourselves or others to suffer
by our being stupid, ignorant, selfish, greedy, hateful, bigoted,
intolerant, mean.. to name a few things that can cause us or others
to suffer.... the list of causing suffering is a long, long one....
and any number of means can cause ourselves or others to suffer....

I suspect that the list causing suffering is much longer than
the list that prevents or ends suffering...
which is just one more reason to think about being aware or mindful
of our words and our actions...for we have many different and diverse
ways to cause suffering to ourselves and our fellow human beings...

but let us think about Socrates... what did Socrates say?
that the two maxims to obey are this, one: to know thyself,
and two: the unexamined life isn't worth living...
and in thinking about the Buddha and his attempts to limit or even
to end suffering, isn't his path about the two Socratic maxims...

to know thyself.... to remove such things as ignorance and stupidity
and hate, to name a few character traits, isn't that also about
ending suffering? thus the path of Socrates and the Buddha isn't that
far apart... they both stand on the same grounds of self knowledge
and mindfulness... the unexamined life isn't worth living... that is
about being aware and mindful of our existence....

the philosophy/religions of the east and west aren't as far apart
as supposed....

Kropotkin

one of the questions that haunts philosophy, is this question of self...

the Buddhist say that there is no such thing as "self"
and that those who hold to ''self" as such, are engaged in
ego, not anything else...but in the west, especially over
the last 100 years, this idea of self has become quite important...
much of the talk over these last 100 years is about finding the self...
I can be complete and whole, if I find myself...

If I am not lost in the group speak of today and lost in
the ism's and ideologies of the day... for example,
the GOP/MAGA crowd holds to self as being completely committed
to IQ45... to be a "real" American requires one to hold to certain
values and beliefs, that conveniently also held by the GOP/MAGA crowd...
the self finds itself in the midst of GOP/MAGA values and beliefs...
or so goes the belief...

whereas in Buddhism, there is no self to find... and it is ego to think
so...one way to think of self, is to think of our ego...we are
driven by ego, to want, to desire, to crave things...and a good
deal of suffering is created by that craving, that desiring of things...
remove craving, remove desire and much of what we think of as suffering,
goes away...

I have suffered from the "pangs of unrequited love" as many people have...
to want/to desire and not have it reciprocated, that is true suffering...
but to remove that suffering requires me not to want/not to desire,
that which I cannot have in any case... I can remove my own
suffering by not craving or not wanting that person...
I am quite happy with the one I am with today, the one I love...
I no longer suffer because I no longer want or desire another....
at least in that fashion... I may suffer from other ego driven reasons,
but not from want, desire, craving....

in this case, the end of suffering comes from my loss of craving,
the loss of desire.... thank god, thank god, I am free at last....

until other desires and/or craving struck me.. and then back to
the grindstone of suffering...

so the removal of self, of ego is one means of removing suffering...
but it is not the only path..

Kropotkin

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:10 am Find out the VERY REASON WHY 'you' ARE NOT INCLUDING ALL now "peter kropotkin", EXPLAIN THAT REASON TO "others", and then 'they' and 'you' COULD BEGIN TO INCLUDE ALL, right?

What does "person" mean, Age? Or what do you think "person" means from your perspective?

The word 'person', to me, means or refers to, the invisible thoughts (and emotions) within a human body.

The word 'person', when broken down, encompasses the two words 'per' and 'son'. To me, the 'per' word meaning or referring to 'through', and, the 'son' word meaning or referring to 'a child'.

Now, if and when 'the thoughts', within a human body, are of good and/or right nature ONLY, then 'these' have come through from thee God-like 'Being'. Which can be VERIFIED as being ABSOLUTELY Right, or GOOD, when ABSOLUTELY EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'those thoughts'. This 'person' has been known as 'son of God'.

But, if and when 'the thoughts', within a human body, are of a nature that would only be 'good' or 'right' for one or a select few ONLY, then 'these' have come through, past on, or copied from other 'human beings'. Which can be VERIFIED as being only 'right', or 'good', when only some could agree with and accept 'those thoughts/that thinking'. This 'person' has been known before as a 'son of man', (or more correctly 'son of human beings').

Some may know of some stories about a 'human being' being either a 'son of, thee, God' or a 'son of, the, human being', which is just referring to the way a 'person' IS, EXACTLY. See, if the 'thoughts', and 'thinking', within a 'human body', that is; a 'person', are of ONLY 'GOOD' and 'Right', then how that 'human body' THEN behaves WILL BE OF ONLY 'Good' AND 'Right' for absolutely EVERY one. Conversely, if the 'thoughts', and 'thinking', WITHIN a 'human body', are of SOME 'bad' and SOME 'right', then how that 'human body' THEN behaves WILL BE OF 'misbehavior' AS WELL, as 'that human body' will ONLY be doing 'GOOD' and 'Right' SOME of the times, and ONLY FOR SOME and NOT EVERY one.

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm so my tiger cub example was meant to show us that
quite often people, philosophers for example, seek out
that which is behind the facade... the tiger cub for example,
thought, just thought he was a goat when in fact, he was a tiger...
he just didn't know it...

JUST LIKE 'you', people, just think that 'you' are 'human beings', when in fact 'you', human beings, are just A PART OF an evolutionary process in where 'I' COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.

'you', human beings, are, STILL, just 'the goat', and even are STILL 'acting the goat', in the days when this is being written, STILL just 'thinking' that 'I' am a 'human being', in 'your' example above here "peter kropotkin", when in fact what the 'I' IS, EXACTLY, is 'God', Itself. 'you', people, just do NOT KNOW 'this' YET.

As 'I' have KEPT ALLUDING TO here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm this searching for the reality of who we
really are, is a major part of philosophy... from Plato's parable
of the cave, to Heidegger's search for being, philosophy is trying to
get to what is real, not what seems to be in front of us... we have
two natures... and reality seems to have two natures... there
is the obvious nature in front of us, and according to these philosophers,
there is a second, deeper, more "real" nature.. and some have called this
second, deeper nature, spirit.. or god or eternal forms...
we are but copies of the one true nature...

'I' even CONVEYED THIS 'MESSAGE', in that book labeled 'bible', with 'the words', 'you' are created in My IMAGE.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm we are the copies because we and other objects, age, change, die,
we are temporary, brief, transitory, ad hoc, fleeting... ephemeral.....
and the real, the thing that matters is permanent, true, enduring,
stable, everlasting....

AND, the One and ONLY 'Thing' that IS ETERNAL IS the physical VISIBLE 'Universe', Itself. While there IS ALSO EXISTING an INVISIBLE 'Mind', which 'you' ones who ARE STILL in the 'human being' stage of evolution are STILL some way of FULLY LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, FULLY.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm thus people say the soul is permanent, everlasting
and the body is not, the body is temporary and fleeting...and thus expendable...

The 'soul' word conjures up or brings with a connotation of 'invisibility', EXACTLY like what 'thoughts', and 'emotions', ARE. The 'soul', although EVERLASTING, only occurs AFTER 'the birth' of the invisible 'person'. The 'Spirit', Itself, however, refers to 'God', Itself, in the INVISIBLE form, which is just the Mind, Itself. Which NEVER began, NOR ends.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm this is the reason that the Catholic Church places its ''faith'' in this
reality of the soul, the spirit... as it is true and real whereas the
body is false and temporary...

Because some 'thing' is so-called 'temporary' this does NOT mean that 'it' is false.

That there ARE 'human bodies' typing words on screens is NOT false, OBVIOUSLY, and PROVED True BY the VERY WORDS in FRONT OF, and which are being READ, HEARD, or FELT BY, human bodies, RIGHT NOW.

What IS False, however, is that 'human bodies' actually DIE. OF COURSE at some stage, in the past, human bodies have STOPPED breathing, and the pumping of blood through the human body has STOPPED, BUT the 'matter' that makes up A 'human body' in the shape, form, and what that they ALL are, does NOT end, or DIE OFF. The 'matter' just CHANGES, as 'matter' DOES, ETERNALLY.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm and this is the argument of both Plato
and Yoda... that the body is temporary and the soul/spirit is forever...

The (visible) 'body', like ALL physical visible 'bodies' in the Universe, NEVER stay THE SAME, as 'the smallest particles of matter', (or just 'matter', itself), IS ALWAYS IN 'CONSTANT-CHANGE'. 'Matter', like 'energy', however, is NEVER created NOR destroyed, 'it' is just ALWAYS CHANGING INTO DIFFERENT shapes and forms, or in other words 'just EVOLVING', and being CREATED into 'new forms', ETERNALLY-NOW.

The (invisible) 'soul', the 'thoughts', (and 'emotions), WITHIN physically visible 'human bodies', are NOT 'forever' in the sense 'they' BEGAN, but once beginning ARE 'forever more' in one way or in one sense.

The (invisible) 'Spirit', that is; Allah, God, Enlightenment, (or any of the other given words or labels), however, IS FOREVER NOW, and HERE.

After all it IS and WAS the Truly OPEN Mind which has ALLOWED the 'human being' to be WHERE 'it' IS 'now', in regards to what 'it' has been ABLE TO CREATE and ACHIEVE. See, it is ONLY 'through' thee Truly OPEN Mind one is ABLE TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing', like 'you', human beings, ARE PROVING True. It IS thee Mind WHY 'you', human beings, ARE 'infinitely' BEYOND absolutely EVERY other known animal in regards to DREAMING, INVENTING, PLANNING, DESIGNING, and ACTUALLY Creating.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm but from where I stand, this belief in the soul as being the only real
thing is but an assumption.. with no basis in facts.....

If absolutely ANY one would like to 'try to' CLAIM that there is NO physical 'matter', then please come forward.

Also, had it ever occurred to 'you' previously "peter kropotkin" that 'you' have arrived at a False INTERPRETATION of what "others" were saying, and/or meaning?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm and another example of this dichotomy, between the real and
the false exist within the beliefs of the Buddha.... and in fact,
within all religions....that there is a real permanent thing behind
our bodies.. is a given in religions... but as usual, I ask for evidence...
where is the evidence for this reality?

Are there 'thoughts' WITHIN 'human bodies'?

If yes, are 'they' REAL?

If yes, then is there A 'Mind'?

If yes, is 'It' REAL?

Now, just like a LOT of 'things', in the days when this is being written, 'you', human beings, ARE STILL in the PROCESS OF LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, what some 'things' REALLY ARE, right?

If yes, then JUST MAYBE it is thee 'Mind', Itself, which IS 'permanent', just like the physical attribute of the Universe, Itself, IS 'permanent', and 'you', human beings, are JUST IN an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS of COMING-TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW 'this stuff' AS WELL.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm that reality has two sides..

In the days when this is being written 'you', adult human beings, had a REAL FASCINATION WITH there being "two sides", of just about every 'thing'.

There WAS "us" AND "them". There WAS 'creation' OR 'evolution'. There WAS 'nature' OR 'nurture'. There WAS the 'chicken' OR the 'egg'. There WAS 'every thing' OR 'no thing', among other examples. BUT, there WAS and IS NO "sides" NOR different 'realities', 'truths', and even 'needs'

There WAS, ALWAYS HAS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, or ALWAYS IS JUST One Reality, One Truth, AND even One Need. There WAS and IS even just One 'human being' species. There CAN BE, OF COURSE, and however, VERY MANY DIFFERENT 'versions', or 'perspectives' OF 'things', but 'this' is just SOLELY because of EVERY 'human body' has DIFFERENT 'experiences', and it IS 'past, individual and different bodily experiences' which FORMS the individual and different 'thoughts, (and 'emotions') WITHIN each UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, INDIVIDUAL, 'human body'

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm one is the temporary, random thing we call life and the other reality
is this permanent thing call the soul or nothingness or god....
the language changes but the concept remains the same....
there are two realities... the permanent and the transitory...

ONCE AGAIN, there is ONLY One Reality. And, IF absolutely ANY one would like to DELVE INTO 'this' FURTHER, and DISCUSS, then by all means LET 'us' PROCEED.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm try as I might, I cannot reach this idea of there being two realities...

Well to even BEGIN to PRESUME there WAS, or IS, is just ABSURDITY, from the outset.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm the universe makes more sense if there is but one reality, one mode
of existence... and the comings and goings of existence, that is
change and the transitory and the temporary is the one reality we have....

Concluding with the last two words that 'you' have here, has helped in 'your' MISLED CONFUSION here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm that there is only this one and one only reality... and as everything in
the universe has been created in time, that means that it is finite
and transitory...everything....

Here we have ANOTHER GREAT example of how 'these people', back then, would LET 'their' OWN current BELIEFS, 'form' 'the CONCLUSION', which 'they' then through 'confirmation bias' BELIEVE IS THE TRUTH.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm and to assume anything different is
to assume facts that aren't present... to think about the universe
as being transitory is to think about what is actually permanent
and forever... what in our human existence is permanent and forever?

Well WITHIN the VERY TINY and SHORT period of 'human existence', collectively and individually, NO 'thing' could APPEAR 'permanent', for the VERY OBVIOUS REASON that 'one' is NOT 'around' for LONG ENOUGH.

BUT, what IS ACTUALLY 'permanent and forever', whether IN 'human existence' or NOT, IS the Universe, Itself.

The 'It' began and/or ends is ONLY a PRESUMPTION, MADE UP MOSTLY BECAUSE 'you', human beings, come INTO Existence, exist, and exit, and thus, through anthropomorphism, 'you' 'see' 'human characteristics' in OTHER 'things', even including IN the ETERNAL and INFINITE Universe, Itself.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm nothing.... and to say, no Kropotkin, we exist within a permanent
and forever universe is to admit evidence that doesn't exist...

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about BELIEVING and HOLDING 'a conclusion' TRUE, BEFORE even ASKING an APPARENT CLARIFYING QUESTION.

Now, "peter kropotkin" IF I was to ASK 'you', 'What ACTUAL 'evidence' do 'you HAVE, EXACTLY, that the Universe BEGAN and/or WILL END?' 'you' would, OBVIOUSLY, NOT be ABLE TO PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY. And, even if you did 'TRY TO' and 'ATTEMPT TO', 'you' KNOW that 'it' would NEVER HOLD.

I will REMIND 'you' AGAIN here. I do NOT even USE 'evidence' as 'evidence' CARRIES NO ACTUAL WEIGHT, as some might say, and NEVER ACTUALLY HOLDS. This IS WHY I GATHER and USE ACTUAL PROOF, ONLY. SEE, WITH ACTUAL PROOF of and for A CLAIM, then there is NO WAY TO REFUTE THE CLAIM.

I WILL SAY 'this' AGAIN, The Universe IS INFINITE and ETERNAL, and THE ACTUAL PROOF, WHICH EXISTS FOR 'this', IS IRREFUTABLE.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm where is the evidence that the universe is permanent and forever?

IN the PROOF that WHEN the word 'Universe' is being defined as or being USED to REFER TO, 'Everything', ALL-THERE-IS, ALL-ENCOMPASSING, TOTALITY, then, and ONLY THEN, the Universe IS, or COULD BE, 'permanent', 'forever', 'eternal', AND 'infinite'.

Now, IF 'you' AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'this definition', then 'we' CAN PROCEED. But if you do NOT, then in WHAT WAY do 'you' define the 'Universe', word?

I AWAIT 'your' reply here, if 'you' do, BEFORE I PROVIDE the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLY PROOF. Again, I would NOT even bother with just 'evidence'. AGAIN, for the absolute USELESSNESS of 'evidence'.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm No, it makes more sense, and we are better able to work within
a universe that is finite and temporary...

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER example of just HOW MUCH a current BELIEF WILL AFFECT 'the way' the one having or holding THE BELIEF will be ABLE TO SEE 'things', or NOT, FROM THEN ON.

This one BELIEVES IN 'the idea' that the Universe BEGAN, and/or ENDS, SO MUCH, that 'it' even thinks or BELIEVES that 'it', and "others", are ONLY BETTER ABLE TO WORK within a universe that is finite and temporary'

WHY 'this' would even 'make sense' or could even 'be true' ONLY 'it' would FULLY KNOW. BUT what I DO KNOW is IF I was to ASK 'it', HOW and WHY 'this' would be so? 'it' would NOT be ABLE TO GIVE 'me' ANY CLARITY AT ALL.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:41 pm it removes some
metaphysical problems that have no answers....

Kropotkin

LOL AGAIN, ALLUDING TO SOME IMAGINED 'thing' is NEVER ACTUAL PROOF of ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

There is NOT one 'problem' in the WHOLE of Life that has NO 'answer', let alone some so-called 'metaphysical problem', which has NO 'answer'.

For EACH and EVERY 'problem' THERE IS an ANSWER, and SOLUTION. And,
For EACH and EVERY 'solution' THERE IS a FORMULA. And,
The FORMULA for HOW to SOLVE EACH and EVERY 'problem', in Life, IS ALREADY KNOWN.

In the days when this is being written, however, most of 'you', human beings, have just NOT YET CAUGHT UP.

Now, would 'you', "peter kropotkin", like to REVEAL some of these so-called 'metaphysical problems', which 'you' CLAIM have absolutely NO ANSWERS to?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What are 'you' REALLY AFRAID OF, REVEALING, here?

Also, and by the way, would you like to SHARE the reasons WHY 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' are only BETTER ABLE TO WORK within a temporary universe compared to an eternal Universe?

And, if no, then WHY NOT?

"peter kropotkin" have even noticed that 'you' like to 'speak and speak', as some might call 'it' what 'you' do here, but 'you' will NOT back up and support what 'you' 'speak and speak ABOUT'.

'you' appear to KEEP 'talking and talking' so that 'you' will NOT HAVE TO REVEAL that 'you' ACTUALLY DO NOT HAVE ANY 'evidence' for A GREAT DEAL of what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here.

to begin:

Plants and animals and human beings are temporary, short lived..
not eternal.. and planets, stars and galaxies are temporary..
(even if that temporary, means billions of years, they are born,
live and they die) rocks will break down, there is nothing of the
physical world that is permanent, forever... but given that,
you suddenly carve out two exceptions... the universe,
and god... why those two exceptions? why not other exceptions?
basically, because it's convenient for you to hold these exceptions..
and for no other reason... it matches your ideologies, your belief system...

You can't even imagine a world without god and I can't imagine a world
with god... and given how messed up the world/universe is,
the fact is that god is a terrible creator of the universe.. he fucked
things up in ways you can't even imagine... or as Ivan says:

"and so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man,
I must give it back as soon as possible"

god as a creator of the universe leaves much to be desired.. he is inept,
and mean.. allowing children to die of horrible and painful diseases..
to have children automatically born of sin from the sin of the fathers...
what a terrible message to send... to allow the innocent to die.. say
in vast German concentrations camps.. the Holocaust itself is proof
of the sheer viciousness of god...or is the bible wrong when it says this:

"GOD created man in his own image"

and man has followed god in concentrations camps and death marches
and violence to the innocent.. or have you never read the Old Testament?
Violence abounds in the Old Testament.. and god brings his violence to
all, without regards to who they are or how "innocent" they seem to be....
there is an astonishing amount of death and violence in the bible...
in the Old Testament... god spares no one in the Old Testament....

I would be ashamed to call god my own... there is nothing and I mean
nothing admirable or likable in god.. he is just a vicious being with an
appetite for violence... it says a great deal about you that you
believe in a being that is into violence and death...

and so, I would rather not believe in him and go to hell, then hold belief
in him and go to heaven..

Kropotkin

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:45 am So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

Are you a person, Age? Are you special but "only as special as everyone else is"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:45 am So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

Are you a person, Age?

Well that would all DEPEND on what that 'you', or person, there MEANS by 'person', EXACTLY.

Oh, and by the way, is there ANY 'you', which is NOT a 'person'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:59 pm Are you special but "only as special as everyone else is"?

OF COURSE.

Do 'you' think or BELIEVE that there are some who are MORE 'special' than "others" are?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:59 pm Are you a person, Age?

Oh, and by the way, is there ANY 'you', which is NOT a 'person'?

I don't know. Are computers known as "chatbots" also "people"?