Thread: The Potential

Does it follow that because we can conceive of finite things, that there must be an infinite inconceivable thing? And next, does it follow, whether we approve or not of the first statement, that this conception of an infinite inconceivable thing should be granted the name of a popular archetype from some religious canons? And again, whether we approve or not of this second statement, does it follow to then glorify those specific religious canons on the basis that we somehow retroactively named a contrived philosophical entity with the name of one of its characters?

Death, loss, and extinction events are all very common concepts which we all must acknowledge in some way. Is it not merely an illusory rediscovery of those well known concepts to rename them based off of some of those same religious canons: the apocalypse.

I love reading the subtexts of literature and I do value it a lot. But here, I read "I am not religious, but I have found a way to to reconcile my worldview with some religious worldviews by redefining religious terms to fit my secular worldview.

This seems destructive (deconstructive) for both religious and secular communities. For the religious community, this process deconstructs their religion and redefines it. It sweeps at many religions, ignores many others, and cherry picks what fits in the modern secular values and worldview. For the secular community, this process denies the secularism any merits by claiming that its values are religious: "atheists and agnostics acting with virtue and good intentions, and good results, are true believers of God." even if you defined all those words by starting from a secular philosophical beginning and ascribing those concepts names from religious cannons which didn't necessarily have the same definitions and intents to start with.

Maybe religious people don't believe God is the philosophical opposite of finite imaginings or that God is the concept itself of "goodness." Maybe, they believe God is the entity from their specific religious tradition for the worst and for the best. And maybe atheists, agnostics and even theists in secular contexts have relationships with life, time, space, emptiness, death, morality that do not have to be called relationships with "God."

Anyway, I often do this too, use different gods as symbols to conceptualize the world and interact with those concepts, and I don't think it's bad that people inevitably and constantly redefine religions, but I thought it was important to stay self-aware of what we're doing here.

I think that from an individual’s point of view it is difficult to claim that we can, at any point, make complete assessments that do not ignore or that avoid compartmentalising, i.e. cherry picking, other aspects that are the result of many years of thought, tradition and philosophy, which originate not just from unique individuals but from collectives. In that sense, I do not think that a deconstructive attitude can be avoided when one is forming, or perhaps perpetuating, their own worldview.

Unfortunately I can’t quite be sure I’ve made sense of your first paragraph, Occipitalred, could you possibly rephrase the point in some way?

I agree that we should be self-aware of how we conduct ourselves as individuals in regards to these matters and I am not arguing that we can be guiltless. Ultimately, our individual cherry pickings may potentially be part of a collective of thought in the same way as what we are cherry picking from ourselves, now. And to some extent this seems to me to be part of how culture works, in general.

I do not agree with the notion that there is a best possible path that we can take in life to bring about the greatest good. I put to you, Summerlander, that as you I cannot be certain of anything, a lesson I learned not from Socrates initially, but from my experience in being wrong. For one thing I view the notion on “best path” as subjective, because we cannot truly prove what the greatest good will be for all, most especially because it makes it sound, to me, as though there is some finality to our collective existence that will include a final moral judgment, a judgment that at least the universe as a physical reality, cannot pass, as it is not sentient. Perhaps a God can, if it transcends our understanding of existence and of a physical reality. And I think that moral virtue is not a product of our beliefs alone but also a product of our circumstances… A product of our ability to carry out our actions with respect to our beliefs while also under the influence of our emotions under different circumstances, emotions which may not necessarily align with our formal beliefs, on anything.

I think I understand the sentiment on an atheist appearing as a “true believer”… I do not think reckless behaviour needs to be justified or excused, but on the other hand, while I have previously put forward thoughts about people following major beliefs potentially not thinking for themselves quite enough sometimes, there is also the notion that people can be manipulated by others through emotion, with great success, to behave in ways that superficially align with their own beliefs but not at a deeper level. That is to say, people do act under misguidance at times and my personal view on the discussion here is that it is easy to view segments of people or belief (be it non-belief too) under widely blanketing terms.

I apologise if I sound confrontational, partly because it’s late for me, maybe. I actually appreciated points from both of you but also wanted to try and challenge your thoughts. I have to ask, Summerlander, why did you pick The Potential as the title for the thread? I am thinking Potential as in of one’s own self regarding our best self, or perhaps potential for ultimate moral virtue?

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Unfortunately I can’t quite be sure I’ve made sense of your first paragraph, Occipitalred, could you possibly rephrase the point in some way?

Yes, I can reword it. I asked 3 questions.

1. Summerlander said "we can say the concept of God exists in imagination because if we can conceive of the finite we must have a vague idea of an opposite." My first sentence asked if we are ready to agree to that statement. Is it true that because we can conceive of finite things (ex. a chair), that we therefore must have an idea of an opposite (infinite thing). I'm not sure what the answer is for this question but honestly, I lean toward "No." For me, understanding the concepts of finite things such as specific chairs in the objective world or specific people I know doesn't really help me understand or imagine infinite things? I still have no clue what they might be. But, I asked the question because maybe someone would answer yes. Regardless, I had a second question:
2. Are we ready to agree to call this "infinite thing" (which is a conceptual opposite of finite things such as specific chairs and specific people) God (an entity from specific religious canons)? Again, it's a question, and maybe you would answer yes. For example, I do like to visualize encounters with specific gods to symbolize various things and induce certain experiences. I would definitely see myself use the Christian god in a visualization session to interact with the concept of formless/timelessness/spacelessness (the infinite thing which is the conceptual opposite of finite things we know). But generally, I want to say no, because the Christian God really isn't that. I could as easily use many other gods, many would be even more fitting, such as Brahman from Hinduism. And I can easily choose something else than Gods. It could be an animal, such as an elephant or a turtle that's holding the world. Or it could be nature. Maybe, the Ocean can represent the infinite. Or the Cosmos. Any of these things can symbolize that concept and it's very common for people to talk this way: "the Universe willed it." So, no, I don't think the Christian God is most fitting to be the name of the philosophical concept of "infinite" especially since there is, you know, the Bible which talks extensively about God, who really behaves like a finite entity, with very human emotions. I could rewrite the Bible and replace "God" with "a specific physical wizard that lives in parallel dimension" and nothing would fundamentally change. Brahman is fundamentally more of a philosophical concept of infinity than God, who is, at the end of the day, a character who only claims to be infinite. I mean, if you read any biblical story, God generally reads as a specific man in the clouds. A lot like the wizard of Oz.
3. If you answered yes to the previous questions: the concept of chairs help you conceptualize the infinite, and you have chosen to name this concept "God" (like the Christian god, but not), does it make sense to glorify Christianity on that basis? "The Christians are on the right track, and we should really value their values, because God (the non-religious concept) is so... true?

Summerland defined God in other ways than this philosophical concept. He also defined God as "something imagined which we can all aspire to—an ideal not realized through humans in physical reality" I would ask question 2 and 3 again here.

Really, what I mean is, it seems to me like this post is non-religious. Summerland says that we there is a conceptual ideal that we can't attain but that we can nonetheless strive for. In my own words, I think he's saying that this is where our potential resides because we always have a (vague) direction to strive for. But then, somehow, he calls this God because his mother and society believe in a God who he does not believe in, and maybe this reconciles the two. I don't think so. Talking about striving toward a conceptual ideal is not fundamentally Christian or religious, unless you really believe in the Christian god and that he is those things. I'm really making this comment because there is this movement trying to rebrand secular spirituality and Christianity together. Christianity is failing so, so now: "Christianity for those who don't believe in God! Don't worry, it's just secular ideas but with Christian names!" And, honestly, I don't like it. I like secular spirituality. And I love stories and art. And I hate the way Christianity treated paganism. And I personally don't want Christianity to come around again and destroy all that is unique and diverse to, as always, greedily try to monopolize the cultural consciousness. If that's what people want, then, that's what it will be, but I'm just voicing that I hope we can let Christian mythos be a specific mythos out of many as it is, and have fun with it, make it sacred to us, if we will it, but keep secularism as an important value. Anyway, that's the society I want to live in. All this just makes me feel like Morgana in "the Mists of Avalon" of the modern times.

Thank you for the explanation, that was quite clear.

For your first question, I also lean towards “no”, but not without musing on it… I read too much into semantics at times and I think this is one case of wondering what we mean in that sense. There is, I feel, a paradox at work here. True, it does not make sense that we can conceive of the inconceivable, otherwise it wouldn’t be inconceivable. And true, understanding one element of reality does not convey explicit knowledge of other distinct objects. But we can conceive of distinct elements of reality because we know of what does exist, this allows us to both eliminate certain assumptions and to make new assumptions, based on what we know. So I think the paradox is that we have a meaning for what inconceivable is. We can understand that we can’t understand some things. And we can understand that the non-understandable may exist in some way we can’t process at a cognitive level. We understand infinity as an abstract and mathematical concept, but we cannot conceive it as a specific element of our reality, as a concrete number or form. Under this understanding I could also answer “yes”.

On your second question. I would again say “no” personally. The definition of Christian God varies from person to person and culture to culture, even if they all share Christianity as a faith. But relating to the first question, even typically non-religious people will have their own conceptions of what a God may or may not be, because they need to have at least a vague concept of what to exclude, surely? Old Testament and New Testament God are both valid to religious people, but which one more so? It partly depends on these cultural factors, such as Christian denominations, for instance. I don’t assume however that we are discussing God in a Christian only context but for myself and Summerlander for instance, it may be the closest and more familiar conception of it as an entity that we can possibly use to relate to. But I agree, there is an element of man in the clouds, wizard of Oz, to some existing conceptions of a deity such as the Christian one.

I cannot personally answer the first part of the third question, because for one thing I try to avoid overtly expressing glorification, even though I’m sure I do it more often than I realise. And for another thing, glorification in this context relates to an idea of pride, I feel, and in blanket terms, pride is a concept I do not particularly enjoy, because of what it can breed, but like much else, there’s a balance somewhere between none and extreme. On the second part of the third question, we should not value certain values just because they already are or because of a truth to the existence of a deity. If such a deity were to exist, would our values be relevant? And I believe good values are ones that do benefit people in a communal way, in a way that benefits the moral and mental wellbeing of others, so to me good values are not what I’ve been told are good values, but values that I can personally extrapolate from my experience to be good, with the consideration that they may happen to be based or coincide with the existing values of others, which is also partly what allows me to attempt to compromise with others of (in principle) different values.

I relate to and understand your fears/concerns in your last paragraph. The trouble for me is that people seem driven to ritual, even if that doesn’t happen on a level of faith. In that sense, major religions are indoctrinating in much the same way as governments and even corporations are. But this is ultimately about organisational structures in a social sense, and politics. Topics that get entangled with faith, and therefore we have religion. So even if you have a secular movement with the Christian ideas and names, whether or not that movement is accepting and open to others not identifying personally with it, depends entirely on how that movement is being organised and what the agenda is.

I personally also truly dislike the way Christianity treated paganism because there was indeed a lot of diversity and interesting divergent thought that was suppressed or destroyed as a result. But I see this as coming from what I was saying, from religion as a social and political organisation, not from matters of metaphysical faith alone. Christianity in its modern form was cherrypicked itself from a number of diverse sources, circa 0AD and 300AD or something, and during that process, some individuals of power were more influential than others in how things developed.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion, fellas! Occipitalred, I will clarified for you exactly where I'm coming from with a long-winded reply, by the end of which DarkestDarkness should have a good idea why I called this thread 'The Potential'.

Does it follow that because we can conceive of finite things, that there must be an infinite inconceivable thing?

I will answer your question with the caveat that how you have framed it does not reflect what I'm claiming and I hope you are not straw manning me here but that, in fact, you were merely careless in your reformulation of my contemplation, which was purely within a psychological context—and thus made no claims about objective reality, otherwise I would have posted this in the science section as a very tall and unfounded hypothetical assertion—and originally went like this ...

'We can VAGUELY imagine it—so we can say the concept of God exists IN IMAGINATION because if we can conceive of the finite we must have a vague idea of an opposite—but it cannot be found fully embodied in physical entities.'

Can you see the difference? I'll walk you through it by saying that, psychologically, we cannot help but having a conception of the finite because the world is full of its examples and we inevitably perceive them as human beings. And the realisation that such things are finite because we fathom their limits inevitably begets their universal antonym, which is, the concept of the unlimited or the infinite. The passage is in no way, shape or form making the claim that impossible concepts must exist in objective reality if their appearance in the human mind is possible—however vague in pictorial or linguistic form or otherwise—but is, instead, making the claim that synonyms and antonyms interrelate in consciousness.

Of course there are things we can imagine, or dream up, which have no objective reality as far as we know! I've never seen a flying pig on Earth but I could certainly conjure up a winged swine in a lucid dream and describe it in detail like a real, animate object because it is what it would feel like in every sense. On a slightly different note, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the infinite is inconceivable, after all, we do have a vague idea in our minds that it would be something that would go on forever—even creating simulations using fractal geometry to tease the mind with infinities—and we talk about it with awe, and some of us have conceptualised it in great mathematical detail such as brilliant minds like David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel and Bertrand Russell. If it was inconceivable, we wouldn't even be able to talk about it let alone describe head scratchers associated with it such as Russell's paradox.

Finally, for all we know, space could be infinite—so, infinite could still have an objective reality. The only indication that this could be true is the cosmological fact that space appears to be flat (stretched) in all directions and expands exponentially. And within cosmogony, it isn't hard to imagine that quantum fluctuations might have given rise to a plethora of Big Bangs (instead of just one) because a state of nothingness at the subatomic level is so unstable and improbable that for all anthropic intents and purposes we might as well say that, manifestly, it is a physical impossibility.

And next, does it follow, whether we approve or not of the first statement, that this conception of an infinite inconceivable thing should be granted the name of a popular archetype from some religious canons?

Again, I'm not sure whatever impossibility the mind can conceive should be deemed 'inconceivable' other than the fact that an infinite one cannot be conceived as a finite thing by definition and therefore no physical object can ever represent it, or fully convey it, in objective reality. And there is no point in arguing about semantics here if we really converge on an accurate representation of reality as we perceive it through the senses.

But in any case, to describe an archetype as 'popular' is to miss its significance and to almost take away from it what it means to be archetypal. If you think our ancestors were all stupid and only interpreted religious canons literally and only wrote in prose—and never poetically or metaphorically—you are wrong. In antiquity, preceding the Abrahamic monotheisms by hundreds of years, we have wisdom literature addressing aspects of moral virtue in the form of stories about the relationship between gods and humans. In alchemical documents, the very concept of the philosopher's stone, which is gold, is equated with enlightenment! It is not a coincidence that the summits of pyramids were plated in gold, with the structure representing a hierarchy.

People used to write poetically and with much emotion even about materials and their chemical reactions, clearly aware of analogies that could be drawn from base metals, explosions, and smoke to conceptualise the inner workings of the mind and the conflict between consciousness and the unconscious. The Aurora Consurgens clearly depicts psychological transformations that our ancestors underwent. The Ecclus, which precedes Christianity, is a piece of wisdom literature with ethical teachings and the Book of Proverbs, which clearly highlights recurring life patterns over a millennium, is redolent of Carl Jung's archetypes and the collective unconscious. It philosophically delves into values, moral behaviour, the meaning of human life and right conduct and argues that submission to the will of God is the beginning of wisdom which is symbolically represented as female (Sapientia or Sophia, the Wisdom of God) and through her God gave order to chaos. Romans who were borrowing from this literature to formulate an infant Christianity had trouble with this finding where God all of a sudden appears to have a 'wisdom bride'. Of course the whole thing makes no sense if taken literally—in fact, the old Testament sounds obnoxious—and only ruthless dictators would enforce a literal interpretation of such texts upon the masses to whip up fear and establish control. But to say that the texts were initially intended in a literal sense by their authors is unfair and incorrect. It is also presumptuous to say with certainty that God was originally intended by the authors to mean a distinct supernatural entity, and not, say, what the ancient Greeks termed as the 'telos', the full potential. Once people get their heads out of the clouds and start looking at these ancient texts through the lens of realism and pragmatism, it all starts to make sense—or a lot more sense.

This is why I regard Jung as so much richer than Freud as he identified the struggles between consciousness and the unconscious, symbolised by the Ouroboros (dragon eats its own tail), the Yin and Yang, the coniunctio (anima/animus/conscious/unconscious) and other archetypal images. We are like Pinocchio in turmoil when life hits us hard and we search for the father deep at sea in the belly of the whale. I'm not religious, not as most people erroneously understand it today, but the archetypes depicting inner turmoil are even depicted in the Bible, not just in some Disney animation: Jonah is swallowed by the whale and spends three days and nights in the belly of the whale!

The great rabbi scholar Ezra once said such tales cannot be taken literally for they are visions, not actual events. Jonah was swallowed by the whale as he tried to avoid God's commands which means he was trying to hide from responsibility and the call to face life with courage and acceptance whilst aspiring to be his best self. Jonah, like Pinocchio, was made to face his unconscious, and the whale spoke to him and told him that they were both in danger, for Leviathan, the world serpent (sometimes dragon) was about and could swallow them both. So Jonah prayed to God inside the whale, aspiring to the Telos (highest good) and suddenly he became a problem-solving hero! He spoke to the whale and said he would help and urged it to swim next to Leviathan. Jonah then spoke to Leviathan from inside the whale and told the giant serpent he would cut its tongue and let the whale eat it. Leviathan felt threatened and saw that Jonah was circumcised and protected by God; so the serpent fled in terror and left both man and whale alive.

It's not hard to work out that both conscious and unconscious team up to face the serpent—which represents life's problems and challenges. What does it mean that Jonah is circumcised and protected by the Lord? It seems to me that Jonah cut away those aspects of himself which are no longer necessary—bearing the scar of life's tribulations but emerging from hell stronger than ever ...

You might also wonder about the accuracy of the old golden rule of treating others as you would yourself which, in the Bible, appears as, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' It is often taken to mean, be nice to others! But how does one reconcile this with the fact that people are harshly self-critical with a level of judgement that is rarely employed against others? We brutally judge ourselves on a personal level and often without mercy because we, as individuals, know ourselves intimately; one despises oneself for one's flaws! The real wisdom then, has to be, treat others like they have potential as you would yourself. It's about improvement or understanding, in the least, that we all have goals and purpose. The practical application of such wisdom is to encourage others, as well as yourself, to develop—and criticism should be constructive both ways!

I love reading the subtexts of literature and I do value it a lot. But here, I read "I am not religious, but I have found a way to to reconcile my worldview with some religious worldviews by redefining religious terms to fit my secular worldview.

You read wrong because that is not what I said. It is not a redefinition in anyway if you find ample indications in ancient literature that the intended meaning was originally contrary to what is commonly claimed. The expropriation of such sacred texts by the state for its gain, and the subsequent monopoly of meaning to control the masses by usurping authorities isn't anything new. It didn't just happen with Christianity over millennia, it happens with other religions, too. Dogma had to be accepted or else you suffered like a heretic. This is why alchemists worked alone and in secrecy, so that they could protect themselves and derive their own conclusions from observed phenomena and reading sacred texts independently, often interpreting things from intuition but, understandably, not always infallible. In Islam and the Future of Tolerance, Maajid Nawaz provides a good historical example of warring factions where the one with the most obnoxious and literally oriented interpretation won and dominated—hence his efforts to revive and refine the more humanistic take as something inevitably got lost in translation over the ages. It is highly conceited of us to suppose that our ancestors were all devoid of morality, had no artistic sense, and did not experience the numinous to the point of being religiously inspired. And nothing wrong with reforming religions if it dissuades people from insidious, religious ideologies which might threaten civilisation, by the way; if you think humankind will put an end to religion, you've got another thing coming—every day a new sect or cult is born! It is in us. And there is such a thing as a godless religion, too. People can be pious and reverent about any ideology.

This seems destructive (deconstructive) for both religious and secular communities.

Good. It destroys dogmatism, which perniciously denies new ways of thinking and potential for progress. People need to understand that nothing lasts forever and they should be prepared for paradigm shifts because reality doesn't exist to confirm their long-held views. We are still seeing civil wars within the world's major monotheisms, anyway. Such is human nature! In Ireland, Protestants against Catholics; in the Middle East, Sunnis against Shi'ites ... But clearly there are archetypal images—tied to our nature as human beings—that convey long-standing truths. Truth itself, as a concept, is eternal. This is the only 'dogma' we should have because it is, by virtue of its very nature, undeniable, inviolable, central to moral philosophy and ... Sacred! You can't go wrong with what is true. It is also wise to make a distinction between archetypes and archetypal images. The images can change as they are only depictions of the real thing. I have come across so many interesting images for the coniunctio, the Yin and Yang, the Ouroboros and all manner of opposites which keep turning up time and time again. If the order is wrong, bring a little chaos, so that a new—and hopefully better—order can take place. But never kid yourself about a permanent utopia for there is no such thing; as Heraclitus emphasised, the world is in perpetual flux and we have no choice but to adapt.

It sweeps at many religions, ignores many others, and cherry picks what fits in the modern secular values and worldview.

We are dealing with hermeneutics with the potential for revival of ancient and far more humane exegeses or outright religious reform that could possibly end current religious conflicts. Reinterpretation and reform doesn't necessarily involve the omission of Biblical verses or Islamic suras, let alone cherry-picking. In case you are unaware of this, the majority of people (by the billions) who say they follow a particular religion, are ignorant about much of what the 'good book' says. In fact, most adherents cherry-pick and remember the good parts (what sounds good to them), but become horrified to learn of the ostensible unpleasantness of certain chapters like Deuteronomy. A good Christian might be a member of the LGBTQ community only to discover those homophobic Biblical verses. Cherry-picking isn't anything new—it has been going on forever and is pretty much a moot point.

Maybe religious people don't believe God is the philosophical opposite of finite imaginings or that God is the concept itself of "goodness." Maybe, they believe God is the entity from their specific religious tradition for the worst and for the best. And maybe atheists, agnostics and even theists in secular contexts have relationships with life, time, space, emptiness, death, morality that do not have to be called relationships with "God."

Regardless of how you want to interpret ancient texts today, or whether you want to call an apple 'orange' in the semiotic spirit of Derrida—regardless of what you choose to believe about these stories and each individual passage and what the authors meant—what did you expect the word 'believe' and the word 'God' to mean in any practical and teleological sense? If you don't like the Bible, you can read Homer's Iliad rich in archetypal imagery and allusive to morals. You can heed Cicero where members of an empire attempt to do their best at what they do (attempting to achieve their Telos) within a functional and societal hierarchy and do themselves and their emperor proud. And the emperor in turn should aspire to be a good emperor in order to maintain stability and bring prosperity to his domain, striving to set the best example of a ruler. What is above the emperor that can inspire him and give him motivation for self-improvement if not God?

The picture I paint here isn't original! I'm just highlighting the fact that people need to hold ideals in their heads in order to have the impetus to become better versions of themselves—to do their best with what they've got and not exactly emulate an omnipotent being because that is impossible for us mere mortals. They say the 'Father' judges you, but only because He is so much better than you and thus urges you to better yourself. If you prefer, you can call it 'higher Self' (as some lucid dreamers prefer and even summon during their oneiric explorations). You can even call it 'future self', a version of you that you might imagine to be better off and gives you purpose to make an effort towards something. As I was saying, if you see no value in the Bible because it uses words that you wouldn't, you can always go with Immanuel Kant's deontological literature, where expressions such as summum bonum are found.

DarkestDarkness, your turn ...

I agree that we should be self-aware of how we conduct ourselves as individuals in regards to these matters and I am not arguing that we can be guiltless. Ultimately, our individual cherry pickings may potentially be part of a collective of thought in the same way as what we are cherry picking from ourselves, now. And to some extent this seems to me to be part of how culture works, in general.

This dovetails beautifully with Jungian psychoanalysis. The cherry-pickers will deny attention to those passages they find abhorrent as the typical unindividuated person denies Shadow aspects. This is where cherry-picking may have a positive undertone if it's employed to discard unwanted facets. There are also aspects of the Self which may require shedding as part of the process of individuation—like a snake sloughing off old skin—because some characteristics may no longer be useful. For me this is reminiscent of the Book of Jonah, where he emerges from the belly of the big fish (deep unconscious) and faces Leviathan (life's challenges, say) circumcised (unnecessary aspects are gone) meaning the prophet emerged a new man with a newfound attitude and purpose. Popularly, he was inside a whale, but originally, Jonah was swallowed by a giant fish, which is also redolent of the Ichthys, the Jesus fish symbol. If one really wants to sound religious in this psychological analysis, one might say that Jonah was saved by Jesus (the Son and saviour) and found the Father (the ideal that 'judged' his former unmotivated self but now inspires him to face the world); all the while, it was all him embroiled in profound introspection—in essence, soul-searching ...

I do not agree with the notion that there is a best possible path that we can take in life to bring about the greatest good. I put to you, Summerlander, that as you I cannot be certain of anything, a lesson I learned not from Socrates initially, but from my experience in being wrong. For one thing I view the notion on “best path” as subjective, because we cannot truly prove what the greatest good will be for all, most especially because it makes it sound, to me, as though there is some finality to our collective existence that will include a final moral judgment, a judgment that at least the universe as a physical reality, cannot pass, as it is not sentient. Perhaps a God can, if it transcends our understanding of existence and of a physical reality. And I think that moral virtue is not a product of our beliefs alone but also a product of our circumstances… A product of our ability to carry out our actions with respect to our beliefs while also under the influence of our emotions under different circumstances, emotions which may not necessarily align with our formal beliefs, on anything.

I put it to you that, as a human being, you inevitably have limitations to what you can do and accomplish in life. What I mean is that, on a personal level (forget the collective) there really is so much you can do and will never be godlike. But you can certainly be divinely inspired and be a virtuous human being. I put it to you that there is such a thing as being the best version of yourself which I am willing to bet, deep down, you believe in. I am as sure of this as I am of the psychological fact that each and every one of us holds a hierarchy of values in our minds—if we didn't, as individuals, we'd be painfully confused about the world in relation to ourselves. What is at the top of that hierarchy, what we value the most, is what we should strive for if we are serious about being virtuous regardless of what we believe in. You will never please everybody, but if you ever reach a feeling of maximum accomplishment and fulfilment, that is all that matters.

You can only ever observe the world through your subjective lens and that is all you'll ever know. The greatest good is simply an inspiration and by definition implies a godlike quality which is impossible to know for sure that one has achieved across vast expanses of space and time. But, at the same time, there is such as thing as an individual upon which a collective remarks, 'He/she couldn't have done it any better,' or, as it is sometimes said, 'I couldn't have done it better myself (in his/her shoes).' On posthumously examining an individual's life, a collective can also determine where mistakes were made or identify missteps taken which, if avoided, would have made for a better life for said individual. From such examination, it is possible to scientifically generate an improved version of what could have been in possibility until we reach the ideal life that the dead subject could have had but which could have never have envisaged whilst living. But then again, in such examination, how far back in the subject's life are we willing to say that mistakes could have been precluded? If we go back too early in life because the younger and more naive people are, the more they need to make mistakes in order to learn from them. Children often learn by trial and error, and hence why the Trickster archetype—often depicted as a clown or jester—plays a psychological role in such heuristic process. The clown brings laughter and is not afraid to make a fool of himself when trying new things. He's not afraid to make mistakes and that is a great boon for progress.

I apologise if I sound confrontational, partly because it’s late for me, maybe. I actually appreciated points from both of you but also wanted to try and challenge your thoughts. I have to ask, Summerlander, why did you pick The Potential as the title for the thread? I am thinking*Potential*as in of one’s own self regarding our best self, or perhaps potential for ultimate moral virtue?

That's absolutely fine because it enables me to refine my thinking. I named it so for all the reasons you stated. But since the concept of a 'best self' can be self-limiting on the basis that we might mistakenly assume we have already reached our potentials when we haven't, I'm going to circumcise that and say that we should always look to outdo our former selves with each passing moment and imagine that we can be even better in the immediate future ... And have faith that we can do it. By this I don't mean hope. I mean faith in the sense that we really have to believe in something that we haven't seen materialise or hasn't yet come to pass. This is as religious as I get!

Phew, that was a read... A good one, mind you.

Because I've only just read it, I'll just go into a couple of things and let the rest process for itself until later. Writing this will probably be part processing too.

---

Originally Posted by Summerlander

The real wisdom then, has to be, treat others like they have potential as you would yourself. It's about improvement or understanding, in the least, that we all have goals and purpose. The practical application of such wisdom is to encourage others, as well as yourself, to develop—and criticism should be constructive both ways!

This is an interesting one for me, it really made me go "aha" and pretty much snap my fingers. I have lived by the "do unto others as..." motto for quite some time but I hadn't really realised that I had been going beyond it in the most recent years. For a while now I have both felt a want and need to teach others and a need to uplift others, especially in matters where common ground or similar "forks in the road" are concerned; even though in some respects I feel I have very little to teach others. I think your interpretation here really makes a lot more sense than just the general "be good to others", but I do feel that it requires more experience (in failure?) than one might expect.

I suppose part of it is that I am an artist that has been failing, especially at a personal/internal level, for many years, so I feel the judgment truly has been harsh for me in that sense. And compared to other more skilful artists, often younger, I see that they took their own drive around failure and often what they have done is turned it solely into technical prowess. Meanwhile I have probably neglected that aspect a bit much and turned it into parts of my worldview and thinking. I am not suggesting this is better (I can't eat philosophy literally) but I am suggesting that there is something of great value not yet gained even by others who are very experienced in the art of failure, which artistic drive does beget. From my perspective, I think that historically meaningful artists and so on are those who have fostered both of these fruits of failure very strongly, rather than just one or the other.

And so, this and other points you made have indeed gotten me to better understand why the title here is "The Potential".

The other aspect I appreciate about your reply is that you went precisely into what I was thinking when I mentioned the following:

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

Christianity in its modern form was cherrypicked itself from a number of diverse sources, circa 0AD and 300AD or something, and during that process, some individuals of power were more influential than others in how things developed.

Also, please note I meant to say between, rather than and concerning the dates.

Your own points on this are much more well formed than I could put them, because although I know some of what you're talking about, I don't have all of the reference solidified enough in my mind to really talk about it with any degree of confidence. This really highlights the point you make about cherry-picking, which I do agree with. There are many parts of behaviour that seem to be so intrinsic to being a person that are often highlighted even through older texts.

I can't recall now if it was Plato or Aristotles, who highlighted many centuries ago now that some behaviours are well engrained, as we know from many an older person regarding newer generations when they say things such as: "those damn kids and their punk rock". When I first read this from an ancient text, I was half-surprised and half-not. I think my surprise came from the idea that on some level we conceive our ancient ancestors as being so very distant, not only chronologically but also in psychic terms. And my not surprise came from the fact that I was starting to do the same myself anyway, prior to having read that.

Finally for now, I don't have much to say on what you expanded regarding "best path", but I do see your points and think they make sense. Perhaps my issue was that I was trying to look at it from a point of view of absolute meaning to one's own life as they live it. I had not thought about it but considerations of "could have" like you put them, are important too. I think I also understand how what you say on this relates to what you title as the Potential.

Thank you for your input, DarkestDarkness! You've raised some interesting points and concerns ...

This is an interesting one for me, it really made me go "aha" and pretty much snap my fingers. I have lived by the "do unto others as..." motto for quite some time but I hadn't really realised that I had been going beyond it in the most recent years. For a while now I have both felt a want and need to teach others and a need to uplift others, especially in matters where common ground or similar "forks in the road" are concerned; even though in some respects I feel I have very little to teach others. I think your interpretation here really makes a lot more sense than just the general "be good to others", but I do feel that it requires more experience (in failure?) than one might expect.

I suppose part of it is that I am an artist that has been failing, especially at a personal/internal level, for many years, so I feel the judgment truly has been harsh for me in that sense. And compared to other more skilful artists, often younger, I see that they took their own drive around failure and often what they have done is turned it solely into technical prowess. Meanwhile I have probably neglected that aspect a bit much and turned it into parts of my worldview and thinking. I am not suggesting this is better (I can't eat philosophy literally) but I am suggesting that there is something of great value not yet gained even by others who are very experienced in the art of failure, which artistic drive does beget. From my perspective, I think that historically meaningful artists and so on are those who have fostered both of these fruits of failure very strongly, rather than just one or the other.

And so, this and other points you made have indeed gotten me to better understand why the title here is "The Potential".

From a solely conscious perspective, on which John Locke's tabula rasa is entirely predicated, it certainly makes sense that certain realisations come with a lot of experience in failure. Trial and error is inevitable as well as vital for learning in the course of one's life. But once the unconscious is considered, one starts to realise that something akin to Jungian innatism must be true about human nature. Many actions do not require consciousness to be present. For instance: infants instinctively know how to suckle; young children seek approval from their parents and think the world of them (implying an underlying awareness that adults are superior); and kids tend to copy their parents and 'heros'—a sign that they admire qualities in others that they don't yet possess but nevertheless have an early desire to aim for. It is as though something in them is already aware of the potential to be more!

I am also an artist and I see your point. In comedy, too, it seems that if you make a name for yourself first by increasing your exposure and monetising your talent, the more you can get away with in terms of smutty jokes and risqué humour if you're getting views and raising revenue in the interests of broadcasters who are prepared to censor upcoming small fry for identically bawdy material. Your promising career could be cancelled before it even takes off if you decide to do a pastiche of Dennis Pennis or Borat in front of a small audience that contains a couple of reporters!

In the context of religion (such as Christianity) as well as history, the victor writes the popular narrative. What tends to sell to the majority isn't dry prose, but rather, poetry and storytelling. The Bible wouldn't have been as popular as a set of dry instructions in morality; it needed to have more dramatic appeal and subliminal substance with hero archetype stories such as Jonah, Moses and Christ the saviour as someone to aspire to—a character willing to sacrifice himself to save others, to painfully carry the cross (bear the burden of life) with minimal complaint and uphold moral virtue. As children look up to their parents and copy their heros, Christians are better off taking Jesus Christ as an example.

I can't recall now if it was Plato or Aristotles, who highlighted many centuries ago now that some behaviours are well engrained, as we know from many an older person regarding newer generations when they say things such as: "those damn kids and their punk rock". When I first read this from an ancient text, I was half-surprised and half-not. I think my surprise came from the idea that on some level we conceive our ancient ancestors as being so very distant, not only chronologically but also in psychic terms. And my not surprise came from the fact that I was starting to do the same myself anyway, prior to having read that.

I think both philosophers had something to say about this in their respective ways, and both highly influential to subsequent wisdom literature. I went through an extremely nihilistic and anti-religious phase myself where I despised such sacred texts and anything that alluded to the numinous by the ancients; but I've come to appreciate their writings and religiosity through a psychological and pragmatic lens. Given my secularism, it is reasonable to assume that my newfound respect for religious canons creates an obvious antinomy—as Occipitalred alluded to by pointing out in so many words, and rightly so, that the 'God' I speak of isn't exactly the same one that creationists and intelligent design advocates speak of—but there is value in what they passed down through the ages as a reminder of what we have come to hold dear and sacred as a species which set the foundations upon which we built our civilisation.

I'm not necessarily urging anybody to subscribe to a religion and start attending churches, mosques, synagogues and temples. You don't have to do any of that. I'm simply saying that, whatever you do and whatever you believe in, try your best and don't be afraid to make mistakes. Enjoy the experience and constantly outdo your former self as far as possible. You don't know what you are fully capable of in the same manner that the contents of your unconscious remain unknown and, similarly, you cannot conceive of God being limited. Mind you, I am as atheistic and as nihilistic as ever—meaning I disbelieve the proposition that a god or gods created the cosmos and, as far as I can tell, objective reality is intrinsically meaningless—but I do support the idea of aiming for what's at the top of that proverbial pyramid. I believe in reaching for the figurative gold, the philosopher's stone that came to symbolise wisdom, truth, goodness, and moral virtue; such intangible things, like universals, mathematics and love, are real and eternal—just not physically real albeit occasionally conveyed by material reality in relation to its observers. I'm a believer, by the way, that human beings merely invented numbers to symbolically describe something which is fundamental; I really think that without mathematics, which is by necessity eternally true irrespective of mental and physical realities, there would be no universe and nothing could ever exist.