Must say that I am full of myself. Busy reading and learning my narrow special interest by rote. 247. I know that my view is not the whole world view. It is one of many views. If I have beliefs the most realistic ones are the ones that correspond to facts that is observable by the average observer. When it comes to belief, in a religious sense, the average observer-critera goes out of the window. The observable facts are gone and what is left are references to observable beliefs. You can be full of yourself believing in beliefs that you share with millions of other believers. But they are still not observable facts you could show in a concrete way to someone outside the frame of beliefs. If you believe you can be a lying person but you can also be self-deluded person.

The question is, is it really wrong to be full of onself? I think there is a need to be that in certain circumstances.

I have never doubted that I am full of it...

But doesn't this at some point get back to "happy"; what is it and how do I trap it and keep it bound and gagged in the basement?

I like eating vanilla in the bed. Vanilla under the sun is nice to. Vanilla in the kitchen also fine.

How does Vanilla feel about this?

Milli good.

I dare say Omniscience is impossible. Being a know-it-all is unintentional self mockery. Disrespecting the self.

I realized this the last evening sky I was looking at from the top of my hill over the vast expanse of Los Angeles. I noticed I could not see the whole vista at once. I am not a camera. These eyes. They kept focusing on one specific part. The dark silhouette of a tree. The skyline with the tower holding the electric power lines, the salmon shaped cloud swallowing the saddened rose of a sky. My neighbor's ugly roof.

Then I thought, well too bad our head doesn't swivel 360 degrees. Then we could see the big picture. But what about straight up and then straight down. How do we see that. But still, even with that, I am only seeing what these eyes choose to focus on. One thing, then the next.

The fabled "big picture" is illusive. All we can do is take in as much as we can and hope the sum of the parts we collect become the legendary "whole that is so much bigger than the sum of its parts."

These eyes. They pick a target and focus. Important to turn your head as much as possible. Twist your body too. Take it all in. Be there for your eyes.

Omiscience is still a good goal. Right? Never stop taking it in. To dream the impossible dream . . . didn't somebody say that once?


Apologies for the above. I just finished a huge job that was weighing me down and stuff like this pops out in the relief.


I think you have lovely eyes, Cauda. They look a lot.

Just read a text about the Enlightenment and how it as a movement described peoples prejudice as something negative that was an obstacle to humans and their reach for understanding.

But some german critics, Gadamer especially, in the hermeneutic camp described that our prejudices can be seen as pre-judgements that do not close us out from reality but is a pathway to increase our understanding. It is fore-structures. That implies presupposition of completeness, coherens, meaningfulness and so on.

Some enlightened people and some cult people like the mormons wants you to identify your thinking as "subjective", "unenlightened", "sinfull", lacking capacity doing pre-judgements. Some say there are no pre-judgements. Some christians says the original sin is to strong. It was destroyed in the fall and so on. There are many doctrines that will test your self-concept and make you think a certain way.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/

" . . . our prejudices can be seen as pre-judgements that do not close us out from reality but is a pathway to increase our understanding. It is fore-structures."

Now that is interesting. Predjudice as a stepping stone to truth. Like you can't escape predjudice, judgement, but they are aids in finding the truth. Without having them to strip away we are never going to get to the "pure"?

You gave me some food for thought today, Cauda. I like concepts put askew.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Predjudice as a stepping
> stone to truth.

You have to realize when speaking of "truth" it is more so in the sense of "correctness."

"Such correctness is usually taken to consist in some form of correspondence between individual statements and the world, but so-called ‘coherence’ accounts of truth, according to which truth is a matter of the consistency of a statement with a larger body of statements, can also be viewed as based upon the same underlying notion of truth as ‘correctness’. While Heidegger does not abandon the notion of truth as ‘correctness’, he argues that it is derivative of a more basic sense of truth as what he terms ‘unconcealment’. Understood in this latter sense, truth is not a property of statements as they stand in relation to the world, but rather an event or process in and through which both the things of the world and what is said about them come to be revealed at one and the same time—the possibility of ‘correctness’ arises on the basis of just such ‘unconcealment’.

It is important to recognize, however, that the unconcealment at issue is not a matter of the bringing about of some form of complete and absolute transparency. The revealing of things is, in fact, always dependent upon other things being simultaneously concealed (in much the same way as seeing something in one way depends on not seeing it in another). Truth is thus understood as the unconcealment that allows things to appear, and that also makes possible the truth and falsity of individual statements, and yet which arises on the basis of the ongoing play between unconcealment and concealment—a play that, for the most part, remains itself hidden and is never capable of complete elucidation."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/#BioSke

Prejudice changing requires concealed "correctness" to be revealed and accepted as well as old "truths" to be concealed.

If we take in Gadamers view in account we have a lot of Omniscience in our lives. Revealed and concealed. The truth concept is something abstract but our for-structures imply that we have a capacity to join the correctness. The for-structure reveals and conceals at the same time.

Omniscience? Is that really just saying you prefer the prejudices of authority and tradition?

"One consequence of Gadamer’s rehabilitation of prejudice is a positive evaluation of the role of authority and tradition as legitimate sources of knowledge, and this has often been seen, most famously by Jürgen Habermas, as indicative of Gadamer’s ideological conservatism—Gadamer himself viewed it as merely providing a proper corrective to the over-reaction against these ideas that occurred with the Enlightenment."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/

If you do I understand you religious fixation but not your philosophy.

Cauda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just read a text about the Enlightenment and how
> it as a movement described peoples prejudice as
> something negative that was an obstacle to humans
> and their reach for understanding.
>
> But some german critics, Gadamer especially, in
> the hermeneutic camp described that our prejudices
> can be seen as pre-judgements that do not close us
> out from reality but is a pathway to increase our
> understanding. It is fore-structures. That implies
> presupposition of completeness, coherens,
> meaningfulness and so on.

This reminds me of the scientific "method" where in order to generate a theory as an explanation for some phenomenon, you have to start with certain assumptions (presuppositions or "prejudices")--even if they later turn out to be false. Moreover, there is a sense in which scientists retain "a presupposition of completeness," i.e. that the laws of nature are orderly in ways that will direct efforts from false presuppositions toward true ones.
___________________________________________

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dare say Omniscience is impossible. Being a
> know-it-all is unintentional self mockery.
> Disrespecting the self.

This is very profound! Perhaps in more ways than one. Having a "self" entails seeing the world from a particular spatial "center of view," a psychological center; regardless of the complexity of one's sensory system. Once you postulate a Being that is omniscient, you subscript to a Being that somehow encompasses all possible psychological centers of view, which are infinite in space and time. No such being can have a "self" because a self entails a psychological center. Thus, as you say, any omniscient Being is a mockery of the entire concept of self.

(For an interesting discussion of such matters, read Thomas Nagel's book, 'The View From Nowhere.')

__________________________________________________
>
> I realized this the last evening sky I was looking
> at from the top of my hill over the vast expanse
> of Los Angeles. I noticed I could not see the
> whole vista at once. I am not a camera. These
> eyes. They kept focusing on one specific part.
> The dark silhouette of a tree. The skyline with
> the tower holding the electric power lines, the
> salmon shaped cloud swallowing the saddened rose
> of a sky. My neighbor's ugly roof.
>
> Then I thought, well too bad our head doesn't
> swivel 360 degrees. Then we could see the big
> picture. But what about straight up and then
> straight down. How do we see that. But still,
> even with that, I am only seeing what these eyes
> choose to focus on. One thing, then the next.

What if your sensory system allowed you to "take in," all at once, a 360 degree spatial extension that was infinite in all directions. You would still be locked into a center of view, which would limit your knowledge to the relations entailed by that particular psychological center. It is that center which defines your "self," no matter how vast your sensory experience takes you.
_________________________________________

> The fabled "big picture" is illusive. All we
> can do is take in as much as we can and hope the
> sum of the parts we collect become the legendary
> "whole that is so much bigger than the sum of its
> parts."

Exactly! The "big picture" is illusive not only because of our human finite nature, but as a product of our psychological center, which defines our "self."

_____________________________________________

"What if your sensory system allowed you to "take in," all at once, a 360 degree spatial extension that was infinite in all directions."

I know. What if, indeed.

Decades ago--don't know if it's still there--I was at Disney land which I don't enjoy, but I stumbled onto a room that showed a film that showed a large expanse of China in 360 degrees. Obviously shot from a helicopter with probably 10 or 12 cameras joined together in a circle. I loved it. Stayed for a long time. Great wall, unusual mountains.

What your observation above makes me realize, that though the camera was 360 degrees, my "center of view", the self, wasn't. One panel at a time really was still the focus, though I sort of twirled in the center of the room to up the experience and become one with the panorama until I was dizzy.



So we see one bit at a time, but it can join with other bits already seen and catalogued as they raced once around the cerebellum, to make the bigger picture jumping from lobe to lobe in our brains. Perhaps our minds still do have something over technology?

And not knowing everything is actually a pleasure.

“Once you postulate a Being that is omniscient, you subscript to a Being that somehow encompasses all possible psychological centers of view, which are infinite in space and time. No such being can have a "self" because a self entails a psychological center. Thus, as you say, any omniscient Being is a mockery of the entire concept of self.”

Is the self real or is it an illusion? What if we are all one thing, that omniscient Being you describe? The self could be a cultural product of the Enlightenment. It was a nice trick then if you look at what it led to over the course of 400 years. The cosmic reality of the self could be right up there with Mormonism in the BS department. A pious lie for the “ignorant masses”.

That would make us playthings of the Gods, of which we are the Avatars. Or, we could all be the Christ. It depends where you put your focus.

Gadamer again.

Encyclopedia:

” Against the enlightenment’s “prejudice against prejudice” (272) Gadamer argues that prejudices are the very source of our knowledge. To dream with Descartes of razing to the ground all beliefs that are not clear and distinct is a move of deception that would entail ridding oneself of the very language that allows one to formulate doubt in the first place. To further understand the vital role of prejudices, we must examine the role Gadamer assigns to tradition.”


https://iep.utm.edu/gadamer/#SH3b

In the middle of a discussion with my mother this week we ended up talking about the garden of Eden. My mother is a secular humanist born and raised in a socialist home. In some way the bible perspective on the garden is a place that had no need for clear or distinct ideas. No need even for senses but I know Adam worked in the garden. So it is not quite sure the enlightenment created the self concept on s cultural level we can understand. Adam had a self in the garden but no need to get rid of anything like Descartes.

” His point is that in as much as tradition serves as the condition of one’s knowledge, the background that instigates all inquiry, one can never start from a tradition-free place. A tradition is what gives one a question or interest to begin with. Second, all successful efforts to enliven a tradition require changing it so as to make it relevant for the current context. To embrace a tradition is to make it one’s own by altering it. A passive acknowledgment of a tradition does not allow one to live within it. One must apply the tradition as one’s own. In other words, the importance of the terms, “prejudice” and “tradition,” for Gadamer’s hermeneutics lies in the way they indicate the active nature of understanding that produces something new. Tradition hands down certain interests, prejudices, questions, and problems, that incite knowledge. Tradition is less a conserving force than a provocative one. Even a revolution, Gadamer notes, is a response to the tradition that nonetheless makes use of that very same tradition.”

My experience is that religious cults have a tendency to build a language with a reference to a closed system, yes, a tradition. The level of freedom in a religion must be in the capacity to formulate responses to tradition. The self is possible in that spectrum.

Cauda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question is, is it really wrong to be full of
> onself?

Loving oneself as a living creature is requisite to understand how to love other living creatures.

Just loving self as a nebulous "soul" of some sort isn't as affective I believe in the appreciation of others and more so in loving them as an expression of humanity.

Religions often distill our creation into a concentration of self and requires a God to intervene to love one another.

Yes, some, or, many movements say you are in the wrong "stream", they know the way to the "right" stream. Your self is subjective, not looking the "right" way, Your self is looked up on as a navel-gazing mind, use your brain, we have the "brain", which is another navel-gazing mind that needs your money to make a living and prop up their self-esteem prosperity gospel-style.

There is a reason souls exist - to be sold.

I was holding out for the best price but no one seem's interested in a genuine antique these days. Faux finishes are all the rage.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was holding out for the best price but no one
> seem's interested in a genuine antique these days.
> Faux finishes are all the rage.

Rodney Dangerfield sure missed that one! Pure wit..

Oh, contraire! Souls are like unsold wine, the older they are the more they are worth.

Are you woke ?

No.

Religious orientation: Baptist
World outlook: Modernism vs. Postmodernism
Politics: Market-socialism

The market-socialism is compromise.

Vegas hookers probably make more money a week than a humanities professor.

Cauda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The market-socialism is compromise.
>
Market-Socialism is an oxymoron, like "free-market Marxist." Kindly re-think or re-phrase this.

Big businesses love socialism, in the form of handouts by government.

"Market-socialism" is not an oxymoron. There is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism. All economies are mixed systems.

Market socialism is a system in which a country owns the means of production (socialism) but lets market mechanisms control the allocation of productive resources. Sort of like when a capitalist state--private ownership of the means of production--decides that certain things, like a ban on human slavery or a social safety net, are important enough to enshrine constitutionally or legally.

Binary thinking won't get you far in the real world.

"Market" suggests a "market economy" which is defined as an economic system where in its pure form production and prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. "Socialism", by contrast, is defined (as you say) as a system where the means of production are owned by the state. Given these definitions, "market-socialism" *is* an oxymoron because the two characterizations are inconsistent with each other.

What I think you are suggesting here is the possibility that within a purely socialist system, a government might decide to allow a "market" (supply and demand) to control prices and distribution within the socialist state, with the state retaining ownership of the means of production, and any profits generated thereby. The problem with this suggestion is that in such a scenario there is no *competition* as the driving force for setting prices. As such, there is no "market", which is essential to any characterization of a market economy.

(Notice how civilized this response was? If you respond, try to use the same tone rather than taking any challenge to your thinking personally. :)

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (Notice how civilized this response was? If you
> respond, try to use the same tone rather than
> taking any challenge to your thinking personally.
> :)

Confucius says have a civil tongue.

Don't tell me how to behave, Henry. The difference between you and me is that I know I can be an asshole. You apparently don't share that degree of insight.

Your debate is not with me; it is with the English language and economic vocabulary. Look up "market socialism." You'll find that it is a well-defined term in a well-defined discipline. I'm not going to argue with you about something you think you read in the 1950s.

You know far, far less than you think you do.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't tell me how to behave, Henry. The
> difference between you and me is that I know I can
> be an asshole. You apparently don't share that
> degree of insight.

Actually, I *do* share that insight, and have noticed it many times on the Board.
________________________________________________

> Your debate is not with me; it is with the English
> language and economic vocabulary. Look up "market
> socialism." You'll find that it is a
> well-defined term in a well-defined discipline.
> I'm not going to argue with you about something
> you think you read in the 1950s.

I am well-aware of the term "market socialism." However, the fact that a term is christened as a term of art in some academic discipline does not alter the logic of its use. An oxymoron, by definition is "a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction." Clearly by definition market-socialism is an oxymoron. That does not mean it cannot be defined in such a way as to eliminate the "apparent" contradiction. The question becomes whether what is essential in the terminology--in this case "market" (economy) and "socialism"--can be preserved, such as to remove the apparent contradiction. That is an open question, and in this case one that is disputed.

> You know far, far less than you think you do.

Actually, I am extremely impressed with my own ignorance, which is why I only share opinions on the Board that I am very confident in.

Nice equivocation.

Why do americans buy goods from market-socialist China?

Economic mixes can be a success.

China isn't market-socialist. Sweden, whence you unconvincingly claim to hail, is market-socialist.

China exhibits authoritarian capitalism: a capitalist system in service of a dictatorship. That's very different from what you assert. China is NOT socialist anymore; the percentage of its economy controlled centrally is not far out of line with typical capitalist systems.

What China indicates is that capitalism is compatible with tyranny.

Prima fascistic truth.

You're not woke? You are asleep at the wheel.

The for-structures in my life is busy with other issues.

Which flavor of baptist ? I suspect SBC.

No. Where I live there is only one methodist church and the former state church (Lutheran) present.

SBC, that is the church your vice president belongs to?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you woke ?
It's the white blanc from whenever imbibing in the kraken.

You have to be dark to be valued when coming out of proper cellar storage.

Meaning what ?

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know."

There are some paths in our life time.

Study to understand the world
Study Gods word, knowledge of scriptures
Study to be on the market and make a living

Saying I do not know is not some kind of profound statement these days. Get to work! ;)

Some people say, "I don't know" after having done a great deal of work. I know I did. I took numerous high school and college courses on comparative religions, Jesus and the New Testament (a terrific course where I was introduced to bible scholarship,) philosophy of religion, Asian studies, etc.

What was most useful for me was learning that not everyone sees the world as I do. People have been asking about the nature of life and reality for as long as there have been people, and have come up with many unique solutions. Christianity is just one of those solutions. In particular, I came to have quite an admiration for Asian thought and philosophy, including Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto.

My own opinion about who "got it right" is that the Taoists did. But in reality, I don't know. I can have thoughts and opinions about the nature of life, and what happens to us after we die, but in the end, I don't know. And it's okay to not know. It took a very long time for me to be comfortable with ambiguity. People do not necessarily say, "I don't know" out of laziness. Many say, "I don't know" after a great deal of study and thoughtful consideration of ideas.

Asian philosophy?

Is there even an "I" that can know anything?

You linked lying and self delusion to "being full of oneself." Then you asked if it was ok to be such a person. The question isn't profound, nor is the answer.

Admitting ignorance, then pursuing knowledge will likely get you further than pretending to know that which you don't.

But I guess it depends on what you want with your life...

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I guess it depends on what you want with your
> life...

Who knows this? All is reaction and faction.

Elder Berry
>
> Who knows this? All is reaction and faction.
>

But we can hope, create certain pathways and such, live where reactions and factions are inactive, and, um, go with the flow. What do I know?

I wanting bread and circuses a virtue?

Yes, one can be a lying person and be self-deluded... but what does that have to do with being full of oneself? Only fools would allow that to happen. Be Full Of Life.

OPEN UP

Don't be foolish.