Thread: The Darkness That Comes Before

http://www.archive.org/download/Lang...Experience.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/The_...62308_2008.pdf

If you cannot formulate even your desires correctly, you can not make any progress. There is a reason.

There are two primitive categories of Logic, of reason. One commensurate with each of the two elements. Before one should be satisfied with their conclusions regarding anything, one ought to have a certain level of mastery of each. No fundamental presentation has yet been written, save my sketches. However, Plato preserved the ideas, after a fashion, in his dialogs.

Almost everything we do is based ultimately around seeking physiological responses and sensations. The only thing that varies is what sensation is being sought and how this is being achieved.

For instance, if I eat a chocolate bar, I'm doing that because I find the sensation pleasurable. I'll have a positive emotional response along with that, but it's the taste specifically I'm after, which really is just a bunch of neurochemicals interacting with my nervous system. It's easy to explain why it feels pleasurable from an evolutionary perspective (sugar used to be rare and the enjoyable taste gives a strong motivation to consume it, reducing the chances of starvation and so increasing survivability) but I'm doing it for the pleasure of eating it.

Even if I look at it abstractly and not at the instinctual taste=good level, I can't escape this persuit of pleasure. If I say to myself "Eating this chocolate bar is a good survival strategy" then that simply shifts the problem up a step. Why don't I want to starve? Because the sensation of starving is unpleasant (lack of pleasure) and because I enjoy living (pleasure)!

In other cases I might subject myself to certain unpleasant physical sensations with the aim of inducing an enjoyable emotional state, which again is just a neurochemical reaction, albeit a different kind. An example would be those who undertake painful feats of endurance for the challenge of it.

One thing I would disagree on is how much we're influenced by instinct. No-one is immune to it, but not everyone is driven by it. It does provide a good example of someone not being influenced by persuit of pleasure though: consider someone who takes a bullet for their child but dies in the attempt. That's not a calculated self-sacrifice which can have positive emotions ("I'll be a hero and go down in history for this"), it's just an instinctual genetically programmed response.

Needless to say, I responded to this thread because I found the topic interesting and enjoyed thinking about it.

There are reasons truth might help with human survival and progress, but that's only the evolutionary reason, not the basis for my mind's craving for truth.

It doesn't matter if evolution is responsible for your desire for the truth. Like my chocolate bar example above, clearly you're interested in the truth, and derive satisfaction from finding it out. Evolution could explain why you find it enjoyable. The pleasure aspect explains why you crave it.

Plato did the pleasure arguement, and defeated it. I think it was Gorgias.

And as far a pre-programmed responses go, that is equal to innate knowledge.


It is not possible to crave truth, it is only possible to crave being true. It is only possible to crave knowing for its results, the ability to do our job, perform our function, to maintain and promote the life of this body.

Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true, when by some means of comparison, there is no difference in the results. There is truth to be attained, when our thoughts correspond with reality. In the end, it means being able to give our word and keep it.
"In the beginning was the word." The mind performs its job through logic, reason, both branches.

Instinct is a word people often use to avoid any real explaination.

The most basic understanding that man does not have, which keeps him detached from reality, is that he has a real job, a real function to perform, and there are well defined means of doing that job.

Thus, the key concept in the awakening of man, who now sleeps, is to develop and promote that understanding. "to have life, and to have it more abundantly."

In the definition of man, men will eventually see the unifying characteristics of mankind itself. Only then will men lay down their swords. One can not avoid conflict when each man is at war with themselves.

I believe that most people who claim a love of truth to be lying. It is a form of self-flattery. They never take the time to learn what truth is, nor how to attain nor maintain it. In fact, most stubbornly refuse to give it a meaning at all.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

One thing I would disagree on is how much we're influenced by instinct.

I don't see that we're disagreeing at all. I used the words 'emotion', 'desire' and 'instinct' together, but could have replaced the three words with one that could mean any of them. I didn't mean every action is caused by all 3 of them, just that every action is caused by at least one of them. As for the rest of your post, I agree with it. Great examples.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The most basic understanding that man does not have, which keeps him detached from reality, is that he has a real job, a real function to perform, and there are well defined means of doing that job.

Thus, the key concept in the awakening of man, who now sleeps, is to develop and promote that understanding. "to have life, and to have it more abundantly."

Do you disagree, and are saying that "to have life, and to live it more abundantly" is an objective with a basis other than reasonless desire? It isn't clear to me that that's what you're saying, but if you are, I don't see how that would be the case. The only reason we have for living life abundantly is to cause happiness, or to fulfill other desires that have no further reason behind them.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I believe that most people who claim a love of truth to be lying. It is a form of self-flattery. They never take the time to learn what truth is, nor how to attain nor maintain it. In fact, most stubbornly refuse to give it a meaning at all.

That may be true, but I find it hard to believe. If so, I'm one of the few truth-seekers. When people tell me that they have information they know will make me unhappy, I'll always choose to hear it. But the desire to know what's true is so strong and feels so innate, I'd be surprised to find out that most people don't have it. It's a basic desire that aids our survival. I find it hard to imagine anyone that who lacked it would be able to survive. Also, failing to take the time to learn the truth doesn't necessarily mean one lacks a desire for the truth. The desire might exist but be less than another desire that gets in the way of seeking the truth.

Life is a first principle, a given. You cannot predicate of a first principle, you can only make something with it. Every environmental acquisition system is a crafting system--even the human mind. So the purpose is not to be happy or sad, pleasure or pain, but to maintain and promote our life. That is our job, as for life it self, as I said, you cannot predicate of it. You cannot say it does not have a purpose, it is not sapient.

Our life is a thing, a thing we make. Life itself is not a thing.

And once more, you cannot seek the truth, that is pure linguistic non-sense. You can only seek to be true. You can seek a truth about something, but I ask, if you do not even know the first principles of language, principles passed over in history, then do you really want to think in truth at all, or just fit in with a peer grouip?

I used the words 'emotion', 'desire' and 'instinct' together, but could have replaced the three words with one that could mean any of them. I didn't mean every action is caused by all 3 of them, just that every action is caused by at least one of them.

Then yes, we're not actually disagreeing with each other.

But the desire to know what's true is so strong and feels so innate, I'd be surprised to find out that most people don't have it.

I'd say it exists in everyone to varying degrees; even the most stupid, ignorant person is usually curious about something at least. However, I believe that for most people it's not so highly prioritised, especially when we're dealing with unpleasant personal truths, hence the usage of defence mechanisms instead of confronting reality.

In my experience, those that prioritise the truth extremely highly tend to be rare.

I'm trying to becoming more and more aware of the duality of my own mind, the nature of both the distinction between and sameness of the rational and the emotional. We see in other animals that there is only emotional, they function completely and perfectly with only this mechanism (or what you have described as the emotion/desire/instinct complex). The rational mind developed when mankind became what we did, the latest new trick of evolution, a wildly successful one. I have read some very interesting ideas about how the phenomenon of empathy could have developed out of the intense concentration of hunters. The point is that although the rational mind seems to have developed out of the older emotional mind, in many ways it is distinctly compartmentalized from it. The two work together, but it can be said that the rational mind exists to appease the emotional mind. Treated as two entities, the rational mind is by definition incapable of experiencing any of the fruits or thorns that make up the emotional reward/admoniton system.

Some of my latest thinking on the subject of truth-seeking is that it may be something that many of us pay some degree of lip service to. I may even be forced to admit that I've done it myself, if I'm honest. I am intimately familiar with the allure of curiosity. A smart man once said that the only thing he's dogmatic about is not being dogmatic. Well I went through a "what-would-happen-if" phase where I decided to try to be dogmatic about nothing except being open-minded. I think I've been pretty well served by open-mindedness in my life, but in the end it doesn't work as dogma. I find that just to connect with other people, I have to indulge in subjectivity from time to time. It's a consequence of being a social species.

I also notice that truth-seeking fits the old saying, "it's a journey not a destination".

The source for this is all my own deliberation, observation, and meditation. If I am completely wrong on something it will be no surprise to me, and I will gladly take some friendly correction.
(I should just put that in my signature, lol. But hopefully I'll occasionally have some outside material to cite.)

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Plato did the pleasure arguement, and defeated it. I think it was Gorgias.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Instinct is a word people often use to avoid any real explaination.

The most basic understanding that man does not have, which keeps him detached from reality, is that he has a real job, a real function to perform, and there are well defined means of doing that job.

Thus, the key concept in the awakening of man, who now sleeps, is to develop and promote that understanding. "to have life, and to have it more abundantly."

Yer being sloppy.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Life is a first principle, a given. . . So the purpose is not to be happy or sad, pleasure or pain, but to maintain and promote our life. That is our job, as for life it self, as I said, you cannot predicate of it. You cannot say it does not have a purpose, it is not sapient.

Sure, I agree we function to promote life. Not really fancying that "job" word, though. You can slap language around the point however you like, but regardless whether the reality of our primary function is comprehended, it remains our primary function; call it a job to suit your pallet, pop a blue pill every month for oblivion security--the cycle will perpetuate.

Directly correlating how we are and how we persevere to an objective existence of reasoning (for our thoughts and actions) thus seems to be logical. So again, I agree with you.

In the jolly grand scheme of things, we are doing and thinking and living completely naturally. She killed herself yesterday. He ran for president. That gal spent the day with her folks, while secretly wondering about the nihilistic quality of her reasoning. That feller found comfort in the idea of potential bosoms crowned by lips full with response and welcoming ears. That bird flew into a 27th story window. That yellow fog rubbed it's back upon the window-panes. Nbd. Actions R Us.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

We have no ultimate reason behind our thoughts and actions. We're driven by emotion and instinct and desire, but when we're asked why those things matter, there's no answer.

The reasoning is perfunctory. Wondering whether something matters or not is where things get a whole lotta ugly (I think (modesty, ftw)).

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Truth matters to me because it does. I've spent a long time over the last year or so trying to decide why truth matters to me, and have pretty much been forced to conclude that there is no reason.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I believe that most people who claim a love of truth to be lying. It is a form of self-flattery.

All is vanity.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

But the desire to know what's true is so strong and feels so innate, I'd be surprised to find out that most people don't have it. It's a basic desire that aids our survival. I find it hard to imagine anyone that who lacked it would be able to survive.

There's sad news for you to find.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

It is not possible to crave truth, it is only possible to crave being true. It is only possible to crave knowing for its results, the ability to do our job, perform our function, to maintain and promote the life of this body.

Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true, when by some means of comparison, there is no difference in the results. There is truth to be attained, when our thoughts correspond with reality. In the end, it means being able to give our word and keep it.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

And once more, you cannot seek the truth, that is pure linguistic non-sense. You can only seek to be true. You can seek a truth about something, but I ask, if you do not even know the first principles of language, principles passed over in history, then do you really want to think in truth at all, or just fit in with a peer grouip?

Sloppy, I think. Why are you associating truth with the integrity of people? The trouble is contacting what is without transfiguration. Even well furnished minds remain imprisoned within themselves.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

They never take the time to learn what truth is, nor how to attain nor maintain it. In fact, most stubbornly refuse to give it a meaning at all.

What are you going off about? Give truth meaning? If humanity has anything to learn...

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

..

If your attempting to propose, you most certainly have to be more explicit.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

We have no ultimate reason behind our thoughts and actions. We're driven by emotion and instinct and desire, but when we're asked why those things matter, there's no answer. They just matter to us.

It's quite a nuisance to be correcting things that the Greeks corrected thousands of years ago. That is why people should actually have some knowledge of the classics before they begin trying to philosophize in their amateurish ways. Even though Philosopher8659 has these long nonsensical tangents, he at least knows or seems to know something about classical philosophy. If there is no ultimate reason behind what you do (which on its face is complete nonsense because action is the purposeful application of means to ends, read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics) then you would just be doing something like this:
Action A --->Action B----> Action C ---> Action D without any underlying reason.

However, suppose this: There are two things that you greatly desire in life, Ice cream and fame. It seems rather trite but just suppose for the sake of argument that these are the two things. Now there are a whole bunch of options where you can combine two of these actions together thus bringing about a satisfactory result. You can enter an ice cream eating contest to win fame. However, suppose you are confronted with an option. On the one hand you can have ice cream (Option A) and on the other hand you can have fame (Option B) thus making so that you can't have A+B. Being things that you both desire you can't choose neither also. So you must deliberate on what to choose either A or B. But deliberation is itself an action. Being that all action aims at a certain end...what is the end that you are trying to bring about? It can't be just A because that wouldn't require deliberation, you would just choose A. They same goes for B.

So you have to deliberate which is an action because you can't have A+B.
Action is the application of means toward a given end.
Therefore you have an end through your deliberation and it's not just A or just B.
Therefore you have an end which is beyond the given situation which cause you to trade off one desire for another.
Therefore you have an ultimate end.

After you understand this we can move onto your psychological hedonism argument.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

If your attempting to propose, you most certainly have to be more explicit.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's quite a nuisance to be correcting things that the Greeks corrected thousands of years ago. . .

So you have to deliberate which is an action because you can't have A+B.
Action is the application of means toward a given end.
Therefore you have an end through your deliberation and it's not just A or just B.
Therefore you have an end which is beyond the given situation which cause you to trade off one desire for another.
Therefore you have an ultimate end.

Sure, when we deconstruct our daily doings, we'll find absolutely undeniable bits of deliberation, means and ends all over the place.

Dianeva, it's your nature this very moment to claim

We have no ultimate reason behind our thoughts and actions.

And in explaining yourself, you mentioned your reason for posting this thought to a public forum:

Why am I typing this? There are a few reasons, but one is because the issue is important to me and I want to see if it's generally agreed upon or if I've made some error in the thought process.

Have you contradicted your original statement in answering your own question?

Well, you certainly have an odd collection of clip art.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's quite a nuisance to be correcting things that the Greeks corrected thousands of years ago. That is why people should actually have some knowledge of the classics before they begin trying to philosophize in their amateurish ways.

I've taken 3 philosophy courses and have never heard the subject brought up before. The assertion I'm making is so obviously true, I doubt it's been disproven in any valid way. Maybe you're misunderstanding my assertion (see last paragraph of this post for my attempt to re-explain it). Lack of historical knowledge doesn't necessarily make attempts to philosophize 'amateurish'. Philosophy requires little more than an ability to reason. And I don't see where I've gone wrong with mine. The subject is simple and I doubt that if I had memorized the names of the philosophers who had written on it, I'd understand it any better. In fact, coming up with it myself might give me an advantage in my understanding.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you have to deliberate which is an action because you can't have A+B.
Action is the application of means toward a given end.
Therefore you have an end through your deliberation and it's not just A or just B.
Therefore you have an end which is beyond the given situation which cause you to trade off one desire for another.
Therefore you have an ultimate end.

After you understand this we can move onto your psychological hedonism argument.

I don't see how that's relevant. We might be able to pinpoint the motive behind the process of making the decision between A and B, whatever instinct/desire causes us to make the decision. Then that is just another instinct/desire, and what I'm arguing still stands.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Dianeva, it's your nature this very moment to claim And in explaining yourself, you mentioned your reason for posting this thought to a public forum: Have you contradicted your original statement in answering your own question?

What I'm saying is that we don't have reason apart from emotion, instinct, etc. behind any of our actions. You can call some base desire for happiness an ultimate reason, but I'm saying that there's no reason beyond that. Everything we do is to satisfy some selfish desire. This is pretty obvious, and for some people including me it isn't surprising, but I imagine for some people it would be counterintuitive, because they feel like they're doing everything for some ultimately logical reason. Maybe they believe in objective morality or some other objective purpose. But if they don't, it can be a startling realization (for some people) once it's actually thought about, that everything they do is done to satisfy some selfish desire.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

.
The trouble is contacting what is without transfiguration. ...

Perception Conception Will. The time of perception is past. Such a thing is out of the question.

line upon line, precept upon precept. For the moment, that is my only goal in regard to these matters.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

What I'm saying is that we don't have reason apart from emotion, instinct, etc. behind any of our actions. You can call some base desire for happiness an ultimate reason, but I'm saying that there's no reason beyond that. Everything we do is to satisfy some selfish desire. This is pretty obvious, and for some people including me it isn't surprising, but I imagine for some people it would be counterintuitive, because they feel like they're doing everything for some ultimately logical reason. Maybe they believe in objective morality or some other objective purpose. But if they don't, it can be a startling realization (for some people) once it's actually thought about, that everything they do is done to satisfy some selfish desire.

In responding to me, were you emotionally driven to convey how you have no reason for acting, or rather instinctively having another go at clarifying your argument?

Everything we do is to satisfy some selfish desire

Are you suggesting that with every breath in, I'm greedily bathing in selfish desire? With every moment, optically devouring my surroundings to satisfy a hungry, selfish appetite? Selfishness denotes a disregard for others. I have to be alive to regard others. . .

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Perception Conception Will. The time of perception is past. Such a thing is out of the question.

True, we continuously contact what is . . . via our lovely faculties. Perception is not past. It is our means to our confined perspectives.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

line upon line, precept upon precept. For the moment, that is my only goal in regard to these matters.

It's fun to play in the sand, despite the advancing tide.

You're a pessimist.

If you dig deep enough, under the sand or the sea is a bed of rock.

Hey, I said it's still fun!

Go the other direction and you do not have humanity.

I find the concept of fun in futility to be at odds with itself.

From Bab 5 I learned of a similar past time, stacking marbles in a corner. Now, as few of those as I have, I might be able to do it.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I find the concept of fun in futility to be at odds with itself.

I can't help it.

I'm glad to see someone speaks Philosopher's language. (Maybe I would understand what he says if I were willing to take the time to try to decrypt his messages, but I'm usually not.) You should marry him.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

In responding to me, were you emotionally driven to convey how you have no reason for acting, or rather instinctively having another go at clarifying your argument?

Probably a bit of both, but I don't know what difference it makes.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Are you suggesting that with every breath in, I'm greedily bathing in selfish desire? With every moment, optically devouring my surroundings to satisfy a hungry, selfish appetite? Selfishness denotes a disregard for others. I have to be alive to regard others. . .

Well often breathing is unconscious, so when it is, it doesn't count. But if you hold your breath for a few seconds, you want to stop doing that and let yourself breathe again, because you're feeling something a bit like pain by not breathing, and want to stop that pain. I didn't mean selfishness as a disregard for others. Even the feeling of goodness we get from helping others is done to satisfy a desire we have to see others better off. And that desire itself has no reason behind it, we just want to induce within ourselves whatever good feeling we get out of helping others. I'm not even saying it's a negative thing. Maybe that is altruism and shouldn't be considered selfish at all.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's quite a nuisance to be correcting things that the Greeks corrected thousands of years ago. That is why people should actually have some knowledge of the classics before they begin trying to philosophize in their amateurish ways.

Um.. welcome to the internet. I'm not sure what you thought this venue was...

So, what you're saying is, "school yourselves before you talk to me, I'm not here to educate you dolts". How is that not anti-intellectual? Actually, it's worse than that because nobody addressed you specifically, they just posted some thoughts for discussion in a forum. Socrates would not approve.

This isn't so much of a right/wrong statement but I find yours to be a very strange perspective. Maybe you can see mine, it might be worthwhile to try. If I were to be using a phrase such as 'amateurish philosophizing', it would be with a good deal of admiration, certainly not in any pejorative sense.

Hopefully one of the greatest upheavals of the internet will be to undermine ivory tower bs like this.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Um.. welcome to the internet. I'm not sure what you thought this venue was...

So, what you're saying is, "school yourselves before you talk to me, I'm not here to educate you dolts". How is that not anti-intellectual? Actually, it's worse than that because nobody addressed you specifically, they just posted some thoughts for discussion in a forum. Socrates would not approve.

This isn't so much of a right/wrong statement but I find yours to be a very strange perspective. Maybe you can see mine, it might be worthwhile to try. If I were to be using a phrase such as 'amateurish philosophizing', it would be with a good deal of admiration, certainly not in any pejorative sense.

Hopefully one of the greatest upheavals of the internet will be to undermine ivory tower bs like this.

I have this rather silly notion, that a forum on lucid dreaming is somehow presumptuous when one is not lucid to begin with. I often have these strange ideas, must be the coffee I drink or something.

Being aware is not the same as being lucid. Lucidity indicates a certain amount of functionality--some say facility. Because a person cannot follow another does not mean that person is speaking non-sense. A person speaks non-sense when their words violate the original naming convention. In order to do that, then predication is not the inverse function of abstraction. I.e. in Aristotle's terms, you say "is not" when it should have been "is", and "is", when it should have been "is not."

The reason Plato stated that philosophy was over all sciences, and that dialectic is the craft of a true philosopher, is because every imaginable langauge has a foundation in reality, a foundation in the same elements, so it is not possible to claim that science contradicts religion, or a Jew a Christian, or a Democrate a Republican, --no language contradicts another, no language contradicts itself. It is man who contradicts himself. Language is not limited, it is man.
And this is why Plato wrote the dialogs, to preserve the only right path to human psychology. The mind functions through language, and can only be healed when it comprehends and uses language in accordance with the truth of things--the same message of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, the same message you will find in science.

The division between religion and science is a division that only exists in the dysfunctional mind of man. When a wise man once said to remove the beam from one's own eye, are you claiming that you understood it--but not me when I simply put the same idea in different words? That he spoke sense, but me non-sense?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I'm glad to see someone speaks Philosopher's language. (Maybe I would understand what he says if I were willing to take the time to try to decrypt his messages, but I'm usually not.) You should marry him.

. . . Then again . . .

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Probably a bit of both, but I don't know what difference it makes.

C'mon, Dianeva.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Well often breathing is unconscious, so when it is, it doesn't count.

C'mon.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

But if you hold your breath for a few seconds, you want to stop doing that and let yourself breathe again, because you're feeling something a bit like pain by not breathing, and want to stop that pain. I didn't mean selfishness as a disregard for others.

I think we've gotta nix selfishness altogether in this context, then. No?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Even the feeling of goodness we get from helping others is done to satisfy a desire we have to see others better off. And that desire itself has no reason behind it, we just want to induce within ourselves whatever good feeling we get out of helping others. I'm not even saying it's a negative thing. Maybe that is altruism and shouldn't be considered selfish at all.

Must the well-being of others be a means to anything? Can it not be an end in itself? Good feeling is more of a by-product.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I have this rather silly notion

Phil, baby, work with the OP.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Phil, baby, work with the OP.

"'darkness' is the lack of reason that is the cause of all behavior" Maybe you should look the words up in a dictionary.

What I say, has been said before, by Plato, in Scripture, by Confucius,

'Light is reason that effects human WILL." There is a distinction between human behavior, that which is not a product of reason, and that which is. That which is is called WILL>

The author has only restated a metaphor that is very, very old.