Dr. Mario Beauregard, Frontier Science Wake Up Call |538|

The question is, WHOSE soul it delights or repels? Yours? Or everyone's?

If you mean the former, then I can inform you that something that you - your soul - finds most delightful, the souls of many other people may find most repellent. And vice versa: what is felt as most repellent by you, may be felt as most delightful by many others.

If you mean the latter... I has to disappoint you - there is nothing that is universally delightful or universally repellent for everyone.

Of course, you may reply that you are a good person, so you are always delighted by the truly good things and repelled by truly bad things. And people whose delight-repellence patterns contradict yours, are just bad, evil people.

The problem is, the people with differing delight-repellence patterns may likely say the same things about you...

So, the ultimate question is: are you that certain that it is YOU who are a good person, while people, whose patterns of delight and repellence radically differs from yours, are evil? Why not the opposite?

And, if you are certain - why so? On what basis? Because you feel it in your heart? The differing types feel it, too - and what makes your feelings better?

Try to answer it for yourself...
I have a feeling I know what you have in mind, but let's avoid that.

Surely if A does something to B, and B's soul does not find this action delightful, then it is arguably unreasonable for A's soul to claim that it found the action delightful. Perhaps it would be better to combine A's soul reaction and B's soul reaction using the MIN function.

Your argument only holds true for actions that genuinely does not involve other people.

David
 
I have a feeling I know what you have in mind, but let's avoid that.

Don't worry, I won't mention this topic here.

Surely if A does something to B, and B's soul does not find this action delightful, then it is arguably unreasonable for A's soul to claim that it found the action delightful. Perhaps it would be better to combine A's soul reaction and B's soul reaction using the MIN function.

Your argument only holds true for actions that genuinely does not involve other people.

David

My argument was most relevant for social interaction: it is central for the question, whether we should enforce our moral insights on the unwilling others - or should we leave them be, even if we feel their values, and actions based on them, as utterly despicable?

I stand for the latter.
 
Don't worry, I won't mention this topic here.



My argument was most relevant for social interaction: it is central for the question, whether we should enforce our moral insights on the unwilling others - or should we leave them be, even if we feel their values, and actions based on them, as utterly despicable?

I stand for the latter.
You don't seem to have really addressed my argument.

David
 
One thing is, morality as I understand it is relative to cultural norms, and in some cases to individual norms. Morality isn't an absolute when rooted, not in the soul, but in egoism. Notice I didn't use the term "egotism". Egotism can be viewed as a special case of egoism, wherein most people can, if being honest, secretly admit to themselves, even if no one else, that they hold views, based on their own nefarious personal interests, upon which they act.

OTOH, egoism may not be purposeful. One can be sincere and egoistic; it just happens that what one believes in is an incorrect basis for action. Society is permeated by all sorts of beliefs that an individual may adopt because, unconsciously, they support how s/he would like to behave.

I am talking about something beyond the level of egoism. It involves an individual willing and able to question motivations for action, whatever their source, societal or self-originated. Any such person will likely hold to an important principle; namely, that, at bottom, they recognise they know precious little about what is right and wrong in absolute terms.

They base their actions on this recognition. They are truly sceptical, even of themselves, and from personal experience, I think this can sometimes lead to a direct sense of what is right and what is wrong, regardless of societal/egoistic pressure. This doesn't mean that they would become vocal proponents of what they know to be right, or vocal opponents of what they know to be wrong, particularly when confronted with situations where others disagee. So long as they can find ways to act independently without compromising their own integrity, they will be able to avoid confrontation.

Only when they have no choice may they visibly rebel. Until then, they may pragmatically surrender to Caesar what (Caesar at any rate thinks) is Caesar's. It's irksome, to be sure, but if in the end doing that still allows one to behave correctly, so be it.

An icon for this is the portrayal of Jesus. According to the narrative, he knew what was right and what was wrong. As far as he could, he rendered unto Caesar until he couldn't, at which point he met his earthly end.

I don't know to what extent Jesus existed as portrayed; but underlying the narrative is a framework which, if adopted it, would probably make the world a significantly better place. IMHO, the framework epitomises an absolute truth. I'm not saying I have reached the pinnacle of scepticism, that I'm an accomplished actor in imitatio Christi, so to speak.

At best I can say I'm trying, and that occasionally I get an insight into truth, or perhaps more accurately, the insight makes its way to me, as I have little control over it. Neither am I saying I'm totally immune to the imposition of arbitrary societal/personal/egoistic morality. But I can say that I'm aware it may happen, and am, as best I can be, pre-armed and vigilant against it. Whatever I don't yet know, I try to be aware I don't know and suspend judgement pending further evidence.

IMHO, this is what ideally would lie at the basis of science. A good scientist should be pre-armed and vigilant against the opinions of other "scientists" who essentially are paying lip-service to a few powerful activists they fear. Fear is a major cause of evil, and that's one truth I know because one day I saw it clear as day.
 
You don't seem to have really addressed my argument.

David
While I appreciate Vortex's obvious intellect, I have always struggled to understand what real world application he sees in his thoughts on this topic. Part of living in a community of other people seemingly requires some level of shared rules. A choice that one must make to give up some modicum of "freedom" in return for participating in a community. I don't see, nor has a real world model/example ever been provided, how a community (let alone a nation) could function otherwise.

I also echo Steve's compliment of Michael's post. Very well written and thoughtful. Much appreciated.
 
One thing is, morality as I understand it is relative to cultural norms, and in some cases to individual norms. Morality isn't an absolute when rooted, not in the soul, but in egoism. Notice I didn't use the term "egotism". Egotism can be viewed as a special case of egoism, wherein most people can, if being honest, secretly admit to themselves, even if no one else, that they hold views, based on their own nefarious personal interests, upon which they act.

OTOH, egoism may not be purposeful. One can be sincere and egoistic; it just happens that what one believes in is an incorrect basis for action. Society is permeated by all sorts of beliefs that an individual may adopt because, unconsciously, they support how s/he would like to behave.

I am talking about something beyond the level of egoism. It involves an individual willing and able to question motivations for action, whatever their source, societal or self-originated. Any such person will likely hold to an important principle; namely, that, at bottom, they recognise they know precious little about what is right and wrong in absolute terms.

They base their actions on this recognition. They are truly sceptical, even of themselves, and from personal experience, I think this can sometimes lead to a direct sense of what is right and what is wrong, regardless of societal/egoistic pressure. This doesn't mean that they would become vocal proponents of what they know to be right, or vocal opponents of what they know to be wrong, particularly when confronted with situations where others disagee. So long as they can find ways to act independently without compromising their own integrity, they will be able to avoid confrontation.

Only when they have no choice may they visibly rebel. Until then, they may pragmatically surrender to Caesar what (Caesar at any rate thinks) is Caesar's. It's irksome, to be sure, but if in the end doing that still allows one to behave correctly, so be it.

An icon for this is the portrayal of Jesus. According to the narrative, he knew what was right and what was wrong. As far as he could, he rendered unto Caesar until he couldn't, at which point he met his earthly end.

I don't know to what extent Jesus existed as portrayed; but underlying the narrative is a framework which, if adopted it, would probably make the world a significantly better place. IMHO, the framework epitomises an absolute truth. I'm not saying I have reached the pinnacle of scepticism, that I'm an accomplished actor in imitatio Christi, so to speak.

At best I can say I'm trying, and that occasionally I get an insight into truth, or perhaps more accurately, the insight makes its way to me, as I have little control over it. Neither am I saying I'm totally immune to the imposition of arbitrary societal/personal/egoistic morality. But I can say that I'm aware it may happen, and am, as best I can be, pre-armed and vigilant against it. Whatever I don't yet know, I try to be aware I don't know and suspend judgement pending further evidence.

IMHO, this is what ideally would lie at the basis of science. A good scientist should be pre-armed and vigilant against the opinions of other "scientists" who essentially are paying lip-service to a few powerful activists they fear. Fear is a major cause of evil, and that's one truth I know because one day I saw it clear as day.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply, Michael. I'll respond to it later.
 
More philosophising. IMHO, one's soul is one's real nature, which can know what is absolutely good and right. Sometimes an apparently good action is actually evil, and sometimes the reverse. But if one attends carefully, at least sometimes, one can know the absolute truth about one's own actions. Where not, like I said, best to suspend judgement.

Come on, Michael, isn't everything relative? How could we possibly know what evil is? In one country in Africa, they are chopping women's clits off. I was so mad at that! Then I found out that it is normal to chop baby's penises at birth in the United States, as well as many other countries in this world! Everything must be relative except those who are not related to you, but may be relatives, too! Nothing can be measured, thought about, or built. If you want to take a sharpened pencil to Walmart and gouge a few random eyeballs, though....damn, that is not relative!
 
While I appreciate Vortex's obvious intellect, I have always struggled to understand what real world application he sees in his thoughts on this topic. Part of living in a community of other people seemingly requires some level of shared rules. A choice that one must make to give up some modicum of "freedom" in return for participating in a community. I don't see, nor has a real world model/example ever been provided, how a community (let alone a nation) could function otherwise.

I also echo Steve's compliment of Michael's post. Very well written and thoughtful. Much appreciated.

A community doesn't operate, fundamentally, out of rules; - but rather out of fear or love.
 
If you're up for it.
Two mental giants.
I'm fascinated with the constructs and limitations of some of the arguments.
It amazes me that everyone stakes out their own grounds based on their construction of the nature of reality utilizing the tools and mechanics of that system.

For example, Sam's clever-by-half argument from one of his books where he picked a Hawaiian recipe at random and he concocted a spiritual meaning to the recipe parts neglects obvious conversation in the spiritual community.
a. Everything in this universe is sacred and therefore spiritual, so that the idea that you'd find the face of god(s) in a track mark through a desert, a pattern on the tree, or in a recipe would not be unusual then.
b. If there is such a thing as a universal soul having a human experience that is cut off or at least limited in its understanding while in this manifestation, then it would make perfect sense that you could FIND patterns that are either universally or individually speaking to you as you discover them. After all, so much of the art of Divination as expressed by the masters in that art is stepping out of your conscious understanding of what the tea leaves, chicken innards, or cards are saying, but how they strike you at the moment.
c. Just as the phrase goes- I read William Blake in my twenties, and when I came back to him in my forties, he was so much different than I remembered. Where we ARE in this point in time, in this universal expression of our humanness is at once different and fixed upon a central non-change portion of us in a changing world. Understanding things in different ways, and how they would strike you are definitively a part of understanding what it means to be human.
d. Definitely Sam responds to one set of criteria and that is fine, but it is a very narrow existence to spend your time focused only on that criteria. It's like going into a forest and focusing only on the trees. One could look at the elevation. One could look at the water distribution. One could look at the soil ph and constitution. One could look at the bio-mass of insects. One could understand the tracking of wild game. One could focus on the habits of the birds and the bats in the area. One could focus on the habits of that solitary bear or a family of chipmunks, or the infra-red penetrating the plant canopy. The list is nearly endless of possibilities. Focusing on a single perspective, or a single set of tools may very well make you clear with that single focus. But it doesn't really provide any clear understanding with the interactions with everything else. The relationships that transpire that are so vast and complex as to make that single focus if sadly expanded as to being THE experience of being in a woods, rendered absolutely useless.
 
If you're up for it.
Two mental giants.
I'm fascinated with the constructs and limitations of some of the arguments.
It amazes me that everyone stakes out their own grounds based on their construction of the nature of reality utilizing the tools and mechanics of that system.

For example, Sam's clever-by-half argument from one of his books where he picked a Hawaiian recipe at random and he concocted a spiritual meaning to the recipe parts neglects obvious conversation in the spiritual community.
a. Everything in this universe is sacred and therefore spiritual, so that the idea that you'd find the face of god(s) in a track mark through a desert, a pattern on the tree, or in a recipe would not be unusual then.
b. If there is such a thing as a universal soul having a human experience that is cut off or at least limited in its understanding while in this manifestation, then it would make perfect sense that you could FIND patterns that are either universally or individually speaking to you as you discover them. After all, so much of the art of Divination as expressed by the masters in that art is stepping out of your conscious understanding of what the tea leaves, chicken innards, or cards are saying, but how they strike you at the moment.
c. Just as the phrase goes- I read William Blake in my twenties, and when I came back to him in my forties, he was so much different than I remembered. Where we ARE in this point in time, in this universal expression of our humanness is at once different and fixed upon a central non-change portion of us in a changing world. Understanding things in different ways, and how they would strike you are definitively a part of understanding what it means to be human.
d. Definitely Sam responds to one set of criteria and that is fine, but it is a very narrow existence to spend your time focused only on that criteria. It's like going into a forest and focusing only on the trees. One could look at the elevation. One could look at the water distribution. One could look at the soil ph and constitution. One could look at the bio-mass of insects. One could understand the tracking of wild game. One could focus on the habits of the birds and the bats in the area. One could focus on the habits of that solitary bear or a family of chipmunks, or the infra-red penetrating the plant canopy. The list is nearly endless of possibilities. Focusing on a single perspective, or a single set of tools may very well make you clear with that single focus. But it doesn't really provide any clear understanding with the interactions with everything else. The relationships that transpire that are so vast and complex as to make that single focus if sadly expanded as to being THE experience of being in a woods, rendered absolutely useless.
I can't stand Jordan Peterson.
Intellectualism can only get you so far, as your post reflects anyway.
Exciting times!
 
Two mental giants.
I can't stand Jordan Peterson.
Intellectualism can only get you so far, as your post reflects anyway.
Exciting times!
I was in the middle of thoroughly enjoying the episode and I was about to Tweet "This is the first time in 3 years Harris has sounded reasonable". But then it hit me. Sam is one of the people Bret and Heather were talking about who we're expecting to see jump to the other side of the fence as soon as it's clear that Project-Kill-All-Antivaxxers-And-Steal-Their-Children is disbanded. Then my ears perked up, and I could hear the faint hint of acquiescence in Sam's voice for the rest of my listening to the episode.
So it was kind of interesting to listen to Sam begrudgingly stop pretending to be an anti-spiritual, and give Peterson his due. Which, all in all, just resulted as Peterson riffing with an expert assistant. But the real conversation was never engaged. Maybe next time.
 
If you're up for it.
Two mental giants.
I'm fascinated with the constructs and limitations of some of the arguments.
It amazes me that everyone stakes out their own grounds based on their construction of the nature of reality utilizing the tools and mechanics of that system.

For example, Sam's clever-by-half argument from one of his books where he picked a Hawaiian recipe at random and he concocted a spiritual meaning to the recipe parts neglects obvious conversation in the spiritual community.
a. Everything in this universe is sacred and therefore spiritual, so that the idea that you'd find the face of god(s) in a track mark through a desert, a pattern on the tree, or in a recipe would not be unusual then.
b. If there is such a thing as a universal soul having a human experience that is cut off or at least limited in its understanding while in this manifestation, then it would make perfect sense that you could FIND patterns that are either universally or individually speaking to you as you discover them. After all, so much of the art of Divination as expressed by the masters in that art is stepping out of your conscious understanding of what the tea leaves, chicken innards, or cards are saying, but how they strike you at the moment.
c. Just as the phrase goes- I read William Blake in my twenties, and when I came back to him in my forties, he was so much different than I remembered. Where we ARE in this point in time, in this universal expression of our humanness is at once different and fixed upon a central non-change portion of us in a changing world. Understanding things in different ways, and how they would strike you are definitively a part of understanding what it means to be human.
d. Definitely Sam responds to one set of criteria and that is fine, but it is a very narrow existence to spend your time focused only on that criteria. It's like going into a forest and focusing only on the trees. One could look at the elevation. One could look at the water distribution. One could look at the soil ph and constitution. One could look at the bio-mass of insects. One could understand the tracking of wild game. One could focus on the habits of the birds and the bats in the area. One could focus on the habits of that solitary bear or a family of chipmunks, or the infra-red penetrating the plant canopy. The list is nearly endless of possibilities. Focusing on a single perspective, or a single set of tools may very well make you clear with that single focus. But it doesn't really provide any clear understanding with the interactions with everything else. The relationships that transpire that are so vast and complex as to make that single focus if sadly expanded as to being THE experience of being in a woods, rendered absolutely useless.

Fucking brilliantly written, Jack Ward! Love all of it!
 
Generally, seconded... Again, more later.

It is a funny concept, isn't? I mean that a community should operate out of rules, but it really boils down to fear and love, regardless of any rules, whatsoever. Most people are like Cheerios, you put a lot on the milk, and things are just going to get chowed down. However, if there are enough left over to still see a sufficient amount of milk, then they all stick together.
 
If you're up for it.
Two mental giants.
I'm fascinated with the constructs and limitations of some of the arguments.
It amazes me that everyone stakes out their own grounds based on their construction of the nature of reality utilizing the tools and mechanics of that system.

For example, Sam's clever-by-half argument from one of his books where he picked a Hawaiian recipe at random and he concocted a spiritual meaning to the recipe parts neglects obvious conversation in the spiritual community.
a. Everything in this universe is sacred and therefore spiritual, so that the idea that you'd find the face of god(s) in a track mark through a desert, a pattern on the tree, or in a recipe would not be unusual then.
b. If there is such a thing as a universal soul having a human experience that is cut off or at least limited in its understanding while in this manifestation, then it would make perfect sense that you could FIND patterns that are either universally or individually speaking to you as you discover them. After all, so much of the art of Divination as expressed by the masters in that art is stepping out of your conscious understanding of what the tea leaves, chicken innards, or cards are saying, but how they strike you at the moment.
c. Just as the phrase goes- I read William Blake in my twenties, and when I came back to him in my forties, he was so much different than I remembered. Where we ARE in this point in time, in this universal expression of our humanness is at once different and fixed upon a central non-change portion of us in a changing world. Understanding things in different ways, and how they would strike you are definitively a part of understanding what it means to be human.
d. Definitely Sam responds to one set of criteria and that is fine, but it is a very narrow existence to spend your time focused only on that criteria. It's like going into a forest and focusing only on the trees. One could look at the elevation. One could look at the water distribution. One could look at the soil ph and constitution. One could look at the bio-mass of insects. One could understand the tracking of wild game. One could focus on the habits of the birds and the bats in the area. One could focus on the habits of that solitary bear or a family of chipmunks, or the infra-red penetrating the plant canopy. The list is nearly endless of possibilities. Focusing on a single perspective, or a single set of tools may very well make you clear with that single focus. But it doesn't really provide any clear understanding with the interactions with everything else. The relationships that transpire that are so vast and complex as to make that single focus if sadly expanded as to being THE experience of being in a woods, rendered absolutely useless.

Shit, I forgot to get you a mug! I will, brother!
 
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118
"Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re
to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP "
 
Listening to this episode, I can say that I have also had an experience that sounds very much like Beauregard's spiritual experience in the forest. It also had much the same effect on my perspective about religion and God. Somewhat paradoxically, it was that same experience that ultimately evolved my worldview away from that perspective to where I am now — which is a longer conversation.

Suffice it to say that I now believe that notions such as afterlives, spirits, spirituality, and consciousness are in most people's minds, very fuzzy. That's not to say that I have all the final answers, but I do feel that I've navigated my way through the fog. Now, the road ahead looks much more clear, but where it ends — or if it ever ends, is beyond the range of my current experience.

The discussion about the conflict between the forces of light and forces of darkness is something I'm very interested in as it relates to my current worldview. I don't know that it has anything to do with an "extended realm" or beliefs and theories based on myth and religion. All I know is that those who are sensitive to it can tell that it's a real phenomenon. In other words, it's not just something philosophical — it's perceptual.
 
Last edited:
The discussion about the conflict between the forces of light and forces of darkness is something I'm very interested in as it relates to my current worldview. I don't know that it has anything to do with an "extended realm" or beliefs and theories based on myth and religion. All I know is that those who are sensitive to it can tell that it's a real phenomenon. In other words, it's not just something philosophical — it's perceptual.

I'm interested in this too. and I agree with you about our very fuzzy understanding of it.

then again, I guess this shouldn't be surprising as we all kind of understand that at some point / level-of-understanding all these boundaries disappear.
 
Back
Top