Posts by Amanda Jackson5

addx said:I see it somewhat as the individual versus the collective.

A utopia for society is essentially what God is for the individual.

The relationship between man and society is the tension between the individual and the collective.

Does it even make sense to have God in a utopia?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

I actually dig this idea—that a utopia for society is just what God represents for a single person. But it raises the question: does God even have a place in a utopia? Or, looking at it from the other side, can there even be a utopia within God? Is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth essentially just a utopia?
Regardless, if we approach this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics—or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit—only really functions, or becomes achievable, within a society; in other words, within the collective. This is precisely what provides actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, almost hollow concept of ethics found in Kantian thought. Not only that, but it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be lived out, effectively closing the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives once nature (which includes "primitive" societies or humans existing in a state of nature) is reorganized to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is exactly where Hegel pivots away from the typical moral leanings of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Because of these factors, trying to draw a hard line between the individual and the collective is pretty much a fool's errand; in reality, that separation rarely holds up under scrutiny.
People naturally tend to view their own personal morality as something far more foundational than social morality (that is, Sittlichkeit), mostly because a decent person is always at risk of having society demand they act against their own conscience (something Taylor notes is especially prevalent in an era defined by nationalism). Interestingly, he also mentions that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, or his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both of them, in their own ways, disrupted or completely severed ties with the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. Yet, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths can't be realized or embodied if that person remains entirely isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are left with two choices: retreat from society entirely or go to war with it, in which case they’ll likely follow the path of Jesus or Socrates.

James Lee77 said:I was hanging out at one of those schools like an interested citizen, checking out "Battle and Time"—it’s actually pretty great. It's kinda wild that they’re running fourth grade this week, but they'll be on fifth by the fall. I guess Hasanbegović must've opened up the checkbook for the Matrix.

You can bet on that.

Paul Bailey95 said:Just wanted to drop this here

So, they're hosting their fifth school out in Đakovo soon—focusing on the basics of phenomenology. You can find the full program right there on their site at the bottom.

Amanda Jackson5, any chance you'll be heading out to Đakovo next week? I'll shoot you a DM so we can chat about it.

As for me posting more about phenomenology on this forum... I think I mentioned earlier that I might lay off the topic for a bit.

That's all from me.

That sounds like it would be a blast, honestly, but I won't be able to make it happen because my work schedule is a mess—I've got vacation time lined up for June and July, so I'm pretty much booked.

Paul Bailey95 said:Just wanted to drop this here

So, they're hosting their fifth school out in Đakovo soon—focusing on the basics of phenomenology. You can find the full program right there on their site at the bottom.

Amanda Jackson5, any chance you'll be heading out to Đakovo next week? I'll shoot you a DM so we can chat about it.

As for me posting more about phenomenology on this forum... I think I mentioned earlier that I might lay off the topic for a bit.

That's all from me.

So, what's the deal? Are you actually calling it quits on phenomenology then?

Paul Bailey95 said:4.

Take this thing right here—this paper or maybe a tree—it’s basically "this thing" which isn't just "this thing," but rather an extension of "this thing" stretching up, down, left, right, in front, and behind. It’s all wrapped up in this "here," and it’s all pretty much multi-layered. Let’s look at what’s in front and to the right. For me, there’s a whole bunch of stuff sitting in front of me. We've got fibers, runners, trees, desks, cars, houses, you name it. A massive "in front." Same goes for the right side. From my perspective, the right is just as packed as the front. This "here" shows itself for a split second, then vanishes into another "here" (second moment), which itself eventually fades away (third moment). What shows up negatively through these moments is the "thing" itself, because the way we grasp "this" is by essentially canceling it out through a double negative. Say "this" is, for example, an essay. The essay isn't really the essay, but if you try to point to it as existing, you realize that pointing at an essay isn't direct knowledge. Instead, it's a movement from the thought of "this" (the essay), through a series of different "heres," until you hit the universal "here"—which is really just a collection of all these little "heres" acting as one single unit.

Dialectics is basically that movement within the experience of sensory certainty; in fact, sensory certainty *is* nothing else. Consciousness eventually hits this same result, stumbling into this dialectic while simultaneously forgetting it. Consciousness keeps insisting that the universal experience is something separate from reality, constantly claiming that the existence of "these" things is absolutely true for it, even though those very "things" it claims exist actually vanish. When I see a tree in front of me, I take that tree as an absolute fact, even though it isn't the truth of sensory certainty. An unknown consciousness making that claim doesn't realize it’s saying the exact opposite of what it intends. It wants to say the tree in front of it exists, but that specific "tree-in-front-of-me" doesn't. It's asserting that something non-existent actually is, and it completely misses the point.

To find the truth for consciousness, we have to look at the universal. Only the "this" viewed as a universal represents the truth of sensory certainty, which stands in total opposition to what an unknown consciousness thinks is universal. Like I said before, this "here" tree isn't a tree; now it's a building, then that building isn't a building, now it's a skyscraper, and so on. That's the mindset of the consciousness that thinks it understands the truth of sensory certainty—thinking it sees the actual essence of things through the "this" it perceives. And honestly? Hegel sends people who think they see the world this way to the lowest level of human wisdom. He practically puts them in the same category as animals, because animals don't hesitate when they see food; they dive in with total certainty, even though the food is ultimately fleeting. Then you have the folks who think they know exactly what "this" is, claiming that the existence of external objects is solid, absolute, and undeniable. They’ll say, for instance, "this" pen I'm using is "my" pen and there aren't any other pens besides "this" one. But they can't actually explain what they mean by "this." If these geniuses actually tried to articulate what they mean by "this" pen, they wouldn't be able to, because this sensory "this" is totally beyond the reach of language. You can't grab it, describe it, or put it into words because it's always in the process of disappearing. So, Hegel basically says they need to realize that everything they call "this"—any object or thing whatsoever—doesn't truly exist at all.

They think about "this" pen, "this" beam, "this" tree, "this" Starbucks, and so on, believing they are talking about real, tangible things. In reality, they're just expressing the universal. If they can't actually define "this" pen—if they claim "this" pen is completely different from the "previous" pen—then they're just talking nonsense, as mindless as a hollowed-out head. When we say a thing is a real object, that object is just a universal. Whether it's a pen or anything else, all pens are universal, and every individual pen is just part of that broader category. "This" pen, "this" tree, "this" skyscraper; every "this" pen is just "a" pen, every "this" tree is just "a" tree, and every "this" skyscraper is just "a" skyscraper. It's all just the universal.

The truth about sensory certainty boils down to this: we point at a pen and call it "this thing right here," but let's be real—that "thing" is just part of a much larger, universal "here." It’s a collection of all the "heres" wrapped up in one big, singular "here." Instead of actually experiencing the tree or the pen directly, we perceive this generalized "here" instead. Basically, we aren't seeing the actual objects—the trees, the houses, the skyscrapers—we're just seeing the "here" they inhabit. By doing this, we jump straight into a different level of consciousness—one based on perception and illusion. It's where most people live, stuck in a loop of guesswork and assumptions. And honestly, what follows is just a quick recap of what our buddy Sigmund already laid out for us.

A quick rundown of the sensory certainty chapter for those who aren't reading the whole thing (basically, everyone)

Sensory certainty: a summary of two ways of looking at it

The first way

This is just the subject sitting there in a passive state, essentially swallowing whatever is shoved in front of their face as if it were an absolute fact. They don't actually engage with what's there; they just accept it as "this" and nothing else. If there’s a cow in front of them, it’s a cow. If there’s a Starbucks, it’s a Starbucks. Things just *are*. They don't question what they see, they don't overthink it, and they don't dive into any deep analysis. Like an animal, they just passively crash into reality—kind of like a pig diving headfirst into the mud.

The second way

Let me put it this way: when we talk about "this thing here," we’re really talking about one single, universal "here" that all other individual "heres" are submerged in. There isn't actually a difference between one "here" and another. They are substantively the same—that one universal "here"—even if, at one moment, you’ve got a red book, then a coffee cup, then a stray sneaker appearing in front of you. Despite having a million different objects in front of you, you don't have a million different "heres"; you just have that one overarching "here" that holds all the others. So, when someone says "this here is a tree" and then immediately says "this here is a building," it’s not true that the tree or the building exists *inside* a separate "here," because they’ll vanish from that "here" just like everything else the "I" perceives. Hegel argues there’s no real distinction between the "here" of a tree and the "here" of a building; the "here" for both is exactly the same.
That "here" is the singular, universal space where all objects and things reside. If you walk outside and say, "this here is the road," then "this here to my right is a building," and "this here on my wrist is my watch," you aren't dealing with three different "heres." You're dealing with one single "here" where the road, the building, and the watch are all passing by like items on a conveyor belt at a grocery store. Think of it like a film reel where everything is captured on one strip. That "here" contains everything; once you step outside of it, there is no other "here" for any object or thing.
Objects come and go within this "here"—one appears, then vanishes, then another takes its place—but the "here" itself remains constant. I think people get this wrong; they assume that "this here" tree or "this here" Target store is actually *in* the "here," even though neither the tree nor the store stays; they disappear while the "here" persists. A lot of people get tripped up by this "here," thinking the tree they see is the definitive "here," only to turn around and find a house, thinking *that* is the "here," and then turn again and find a construction site, thinking *that's* the "here." There is only one universal "here" that holds all the "heres" the "I" perceives. The truth of sensory certainty is precisely that: it's one single whole, not the fragmented pieces that an (unknown) consciousness perceives as "this" or "now." This is why Hegel titles the chapter "This and Opinion." I might think "this," but once that thought happens, consciousness has basically entered the realm of opinion regarding "this." Once people accept that, you have "opinion." Most people live in that state. In the next chapter, when we get into how perception can deceive us, we'll see how consciousness tricks itself, leading to all sorts of half-truths and deceivers who mislead themselves before they move on to misleading others. It's a vicious, inescapable cycle—which is where most people end up, if we're being honest.

Side note: Hegel’s entire scientific framework is basically pure substance; "truth is the whole," as they say. Even some professors—like a certain academic I follow who lectures on this stuff—go as far as calling it "subject-substance." He’s argued in his talks that Hegel’s thought, his whole system and logic, is essentially divine. He basically claims that only the Absolute itself could have authored it—that the system isn't just *about* the Absolute, it *is* the Absolute, plain and simple, no jokes or fluff involved.
End of side note.

Substantially speaking, this "thisness"—this sensory certainty—is a singular thing, identical to itself, with nothing outside of it that feels foreign. Hegel’s "this" works the exact same way. It’s this one universal "this" that encompasses all those other little "thises" that my consciousness (unknown) thinks are a bunch of different things, even though there’s really just one massive, unified "THIS" containing everything. This "this" holds all those objects together within itself; they appear within it and then vanish from it, leaving my conscious mind to realize it's just staring at the "this" itself before moving on to perception.

So, that's the deal with the first stage of consciousness—the "sensory certainty: this and opinion" phase. Next, we move toward perception and illusion, which is the second mode of consciousness. It's worth noting that the first stage gets swallowed up by the second; the first mode transitions into the second, where it's simultaneously abolished and preserved.

Hegel was fully aware of this himself—that he was acting as a mouthpiece for the Absolute Spirit—which is exactly what he lays out in the preface to logic science:

"Objective thought constitutes the content of pure science. Consequently, far from being merely formal (take note of this, Parsifal, next time you feel the urge to accuse me or Hegel of being too 'formalistic'—thanks, Amanda Jackson5), and far from lacking the material necessary for genuine and true cognition, its content is the sole possessor of absolute truth. Or, if one still insists on using the word 'matter,' it is the only true matter—a matter where form is not something external, because that matter is pure thought and therefore is itself the absolute form. Therefore, logic should be understood as a system of pure reason, a realm of pure thought. This realm is revealed truth, truth as it is in itself and for itself. One might say that this content is an exposition of God as He exists in His eternal essence prior to the creation of nature and the finite spirit."

@Paul Bailey95
You really need to dial it back with the Chesterton talk. He was just a passing mention, yet you’ve managed to turn him into the center of the universe, acting as if we're somehow polluting the purity of our thought by even bringing him up. Nobody was actually trying to pit him against Aristotle or Hegel, and as I mentioned before, I don't even really view him as a philosopher. If anyone is looking for profound insight, they aren't going to find it in Chesterton; we read him for other reasons entirely. It's like watching a movie like *Inception* on cable—you watch it because it's an interesting ride, not because you're hunting for deep ontological truths. I hope we can put that particular detour to rest now.

But let's finally get back to the actual point:
"This" serves as the bedrock for empiricism and positivism. In those frameworks, "this"—meaning the immediate "now" and "here"—functions as an absolute. It treats immediacy itself as the ultimate truth. For those seeking sensory certainty, this sense of immediacy becomes the very substance of reality. However, in his chapter on sense certainty, Hegel demonstrates that trying to treat "this" as an absolute is nothing more than an absurd, contradictory, and logically bankrupt endeavor. When a person attempts to articulate a specific, unique experience, they inevitably resort to universals and concepts. They begin to selectively dissect the whole. In doing so, they employ language and terms whose meanings exist far beyond the boundaries of that "immediate" experience. After all, "this" is itself just one such universal, standing indifferent to the very immediacy it claims to represent. Consequently, what we call "immediacy" isn't actually immediate at all; it is always, and necessarily, mediated. Consciousness, tripped up by these contradictions, starts to assume that the essence of its current, "unrepeatable" experience isn't rational and therefore can't be captured by language. This leads to the idea that the essence of an experience lies not in what can be expressed, but in the subjective lived moment—an intuitive, unspeakable immediacy of existence. One might call this a sort of "irrational cognition." From this, it follows that a consciousness capable of thinking about the unspeakable cannot be the same consciousness that observes. Furthermore, if something truly "exists," it necessitates a meaningful connection to everything else. Existence requires determinism, which in turn requires linguistic articulation; that is the only way it can integrate into the rest of that consciousness's experiences. Mere "immediacy" isn't enough to guarantee "existence." "This" only gains meaning when it can be compared to other "this-es." The moment consciousness tries to cling to the "now," that moment has already slipped away. This implies that the past, present, and future must all be present within this "now" for it to possess any coherent meaning whatsoever. In other words, every experience is inherently temporal. The illusion of the "immediacy" of "this" or "now" is only possible if consciousness remains oblivious to negation. And negation is the very core of how anything is determined. As Hegel puts it, there is the "absolute power of the negative."

hiddenpuma75 said:A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST SIGMUND:

Reason might lead you to the doorstep, but it won't let you through the door.
- Rumi

Colleague Sigmund!;
Please take note:
Those who fail to see the hand doing the writing often assume the work simply emerges from the movement of the pen itself.

Colleague Sigmund! (And Daniel, with his two e's),

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT BY SETTING THESE DEFINITIONS AND LIMITS (definitions) FOR REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE,
YOU’VE REMAINED TRAPPED IN PLATO’S CAVE, CONFINED BY BOTH YOUR OWN REASON AND THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL LOGIC?

If we play strictly by your definitions—by those specific rules of engagement established by ratio—then you are absolutely right, and any further debate is a total waste of time. In your version of the world, reason acts as both the prosecutor and the judge.

It struck me during this discussion that you are essentially acting like Pythagoras, insisting that only rational numbers exist and that you can master them perfectly to calculate everything in existence.
I wonder if you realize how much of a shock that was to him and his school when they discovered the existence of irrational numbers. And that’s not even touching on transcendental, imaginary, complex, or... well, let's just say "unpredictable" numbers.

Using high-flown, rather pretentious philosophical jargon, you describe "your" version of universal logic as a self-referential, self-determining system. It is the prosecutor and the judge. It is the president, the legislature, the senate, and the executioner all rolled into one.
It’s easy for you, Sigmund, to dismiss every other form of perception when you’ve appointed yourself the boss and decided that you get to set the rules of the game.

Let me summarize briefly, then go into more detail below:
Against your ratio and its arbitrary self-referentiality stand
both Buddha and Heisenberg with his uncertainty principles, Gödel with his theorem regarding the incompleteness of any formal system, Hamvas, and various others—Voltaire, Owen, and finally, though no less importantly, the legendary hiddenpuma75.......

=================================
I ask the executioner to pass a sentence that is merciful.
We will liberate Sigmund from the illusion he has fallen into within his own Platonic cave of ratio, provided he simply admits that the circle of evidence against him and his precious universal ratio is CLOSED. In truth, ratio is merely a small, limited, yet incredibly pretentious magician from Oz, using a loud fanfare of old metaphysical tropes to create a massive smoke screen that people mistake for awe.

But here comes the brave knight, hiddenpuma75, who has healed Amfortas's wound and exposed this entire grand performance.
Let Sigmund admit that ratio is at fault—that it self-appointed itself without the consent of the people—and we will be lenient and grant him his freedom.

If Sigmund refuses to plead guilty, then I ask the executioner to allow me to step in as the lead prosecutor against Sigmund and his highly personal version of ratio.

I am bringing in an expert witness, my uncle Kurt Gödel, and he will speak through the voice of hiddenpuma75:

You are the accused, Sigmund, for appointing ratio as the ultimate authority. You're being as naive as a wide-eyed intern.
It is interesting because you pointed out the limitations of that rigid materialism and its perverse, Frankenstein-like byproduct—reductionism—quite clearly to Wanda. Yet, here, it seems you have become just like her, insisting on the absolute supremacy of ratio.

Your entire paradigm is built upon a central, naive premise: the dictatorship and supremacy of ratio, or rational knowledge.

For example, Wanda says:
"The universe is laid out before me... I have two comprehensive tools: mathematics and physics. Now, I will use the pincers of math and physics to grasp reality itself."

But your god, Sigmund, is ratio.🙂

I would ask both Wanda and Sigmund: are you truly aware that you cannot even rely on the "Queen of Sciences"—mathematics? Mathematics isn't actually a tool capable of
pinching and analyzing true, objective reality.

Here is a scholarly reflection from hiddenpuma75 on the limits of knowledge, based on what my uncle Gödel taught me while I was taking some advanced math courses.

GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM and Heisenberg's uncertainty principles.

Some people argue that there’s a fundamental limit—a literal, insurmountable abyss—to our capacity to actually grasp or predict the reality of the universe.

Mathematics is the undisputed queen of the sciences—it even holds its own against... Sigmund’s god, that ratio. They have their limits. There is this idea that a specific set of axioms could be considered "complete" by certain mathematical standards, but I just don't buy it. In my view, they can never truly be complete. Because the very foundations of mathematics aren't fundamental themselves, any such system is merely a tiny cross-section—just a faint reflection of a much deeper causality that allowed those "foundations" to exist in the first place.
Everyone seems to be completely overlooking that deep, implicit dimension sitting right behind those "foundations." People act like mathematical principles are the fundamental blueprint of the universe itself, when in reality, they’re just a distilled byproduct of much deeper relationships occurring at a far more consequential level of existence.

Here we go again!!
While mathematics might be the final veil standing between us and the ultimate truth, we have to admit that even math has its limits.
What we define as "completeness" from a mathematical and... Sigmund’s perspective on the world.It’s not even really about achieving absolute completeness, because the very foundations of mathematics itself are incomplete. In a way, Gödel’s theorem is essentially telling us that if we start out with an incomplete set of axioms—say, something like the combination of Sigmund and the RACIA—then we shouldn't be surprised when that set fails to produce a complete description or proof of all the true relations within it.
It’s incomplete. Since the mathematical foundations of such sets are inherently incomplete, then any mathematical—or rather, Sigmund's "rational"—claim to achieve completeness within such an fundamentally flawed framework is nothing more than pure pretension.
It feels like you just can't find what you're actually looking for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleague Sigmund, just remember—those who try to play games with the demon of infinity will only end up being torn apart by the hounds of reason.
________________________________________

I’d like to ask the forum jury to take notice.

Sigmund brought us a masked witness today, announcing that she’s actually a young woman—a paragon of flawless logic. She claims that through pure, unadulterable ratio, she sees and knows everything. Her mission? To prove once and for all that God doesn't exist, because, in her eyes, the only true divinity is RACIA.
But the brave knight hiddenpuma75 finally tossed that mask aside, and now the truth is out in the open—it turns out Sigmund has been keeping that old, crumbling metaphysics all to himself this whole time. 😒

JER

Let's be honest: infinity as we discuss it today isn't actually "real." It’s just a convenient mental construct cooked up by mathematicians who wanted to tidy up their equations.

b) There’s also no such thing as infinitely small numbers.

I think we should take a closer look at option C. It seems to offer a more balanced approach than the others, though I'll admit I'm still weighing the long-term implications. What do you all think?
The formalists, like Hilbert and Russell... Sigmund It feels a bit pretentious, even dishonest, to suggest that we can grasp and explain everything through mere RACIA—whether we’re talking about actual infinity in mathematics or the concept of the Absolute. They were firm believers in actual infinity, mainly because they felt it aligned perfectly with the third logical axiom, "tertium non datur."

David Hilbert, colleague Sigmund's brother, once remarked:

In a way, you could say mathematical Analysis is nothing less than a symphony composed around the theme of infinity.

...before Kurt Gödel ended up driving him right out of that "mathematical paradise" where Georg Cantor had originally led them.

Kurt Gödel, with his theorem, essentially pointed out the inherent limits of logic and mathematics, and... Sigmund’s ratio We really ought to consider this without overcomplicating the math or forcing the logic into shapes it wasn't meant to take. Cantor’s continuum hypothesis remains valid strictly within the framework the author himself established. When you look at the axioms of cardinal numbers, they don't actually represent any kind of "actual" infinity—not in the sense of the Absolute. They possess a starting point, a baseline that is rooted in finitude rather than true infinity.

So, here we go again with that dreadful debate over Sigmund—and let’s not forget Wanda—and Gödel.

In any formal system, you can construct a statement P such that neither P nor its negation can be derived from the system's own rules. Essentially, we're talking about undecidable problems.
--
A Verdict in the Name of the Forum Republic

Prosecutor hiddenpuma75 has successfully convinced the jury, so let the executioner carry out the sentence.

Gödel, Heisenberg, and hiddenpuma75 (with that award-winning reflection of theirs: THE TRUTH IS THAT THE LIST IS JUST CABBAGE) )
They’re essentially proving that there is an absolute abyss—a hard limit to what we can actually know. It's an ABYSS that logic, reason, neither Sigmund nor Daniel, nor Hegel, nor even mathematics can ever hope to leap over.

Bravo! Give them a hand! 👏

QED

Wishing you all the best, and please, stay patient while I prepare for the next escalation of this debate.

👋

Look, I’m not going to try and match the sheer theatricality of your last post, but I will aim to be a bit more comprehensive. You can't really talk about the "rules of the game" without acknowledging that those rules aren't just floating in a vacuum—they imply a set of underlying assumptions. The real question we need to tackle is what exactly those assumptions are built upon. For an opinion or a piece of reasoning to actually hold water, it has to start from scratch, building upward from zero. Without making any assumptions.It’s much like how Hegel approaches his *Science of Logic*; he just follows this thread of logical necessity that unfolds entirely on its own, almost spontaneously. If you want to critique a system like that, any attempt to do so from the outside is pretty much a wasted effort. To actually land a punch, your critique has to be immanent—meaning it has to grow directly out of the internal logic of the system itself. Otherwise, you're just building your argument on some shaky, unfounded assumption. When you look at it that way, it becomes clear there isn't really any such thing as a "starting premise," whether you call it naive or not. There aren't any premises to work with here.That’s exactly why the whole idea of "racial supremacy" or any kind of racial dictatorship falls apart under scrutiny. If you look at the logic of how things actually work, it follows that true knowledge can only ever be rational knowledge—whether we find that concept comfortable or not. There is no such thing as "irrational knowledge," just as there is no such thing as an "irrational reality." Nothing happening around us is inherently illogical; the universe doesn't just throw random, nonsensical glitches our way to mess with our heads.

hiddenpuma75 said:A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST SIGMUND:

Reason might lead you to the doorstep, but it won't let you through the door.
- Rumi

Colleague Sigmund!;
Please take note:
Those who fail to see the hand doing the writing often assume the work simply emerges from the movement of the pen itself.

Colleague Sigmund! (And Daniel, with his two e's),

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT BY SETTING THESE DEFINITIONS AND LIMITS (definitions) FOR REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE,
YOU’VE REMAINED TRAPPED IN PLATO’S CAVE, CONFINED BY BOTH YOUR OWN REASON AND THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL LOGIC?

If we play strictly by your definitions—by those specific rules of engagement established by ratio—then you are absolutely right, and any further debate is a total waste of time. In your version of the world, reason acts as both the prosecutor and the judge.

It struck me during this discussion that you are essentially acting like Pythagoras, insisting that only rational numbers exist and that you can master them perfectly to calculate everything in existence.
I wonder if you realize how much of a shock that was to him and his school when they discovered the existence of irrational numbers. And that’s not even touching on transcendental, imaginary, complex, or... well, let's just say "unpredictable" numbers.

Using high-flown, rather pretentious philosophical jargon, you describe "your" version of universal logic as a self-referential, self-determining system. It is the prosecutor and the judge. It is the president, the legislature, the senate, and the executioner all rolled into one.
It’s easy for you, Sigmund, to dismiss every other form of perception when you’ve appointed yourself the boss and decided that you get to set the rules of the game.

Let me summarize briefly, then go into more detail below:
Against your ratio and its arbitrary self-referentiality stand
both Buddha and Heisenberg with his uncertainty principles, Gödel with his theorem regarding the incompleteness of any formal system, Hamvas, and various others—Voltaire, Owen, and finally, though no less importantly, the legendary hiddenpuma75.......

=================================
I ask the executioner to pass a sentence that is merciful.
We will liberate Sigmund from the illusion he has fallen into within his own Platonic cave of ratio, provided he simply admits that the circle of evidence against him and his precious universal ratio is CLOSED. In truth, ratio is merely a small, limited, yet incredibly pretentious magician from Oz, using a loud fanfare of old metaphysical tropes to create a massive smoke screen that people mistake for awe.

But here comes the brave knight, hiddenpuma75, who has healed Amfortas's wound and exposed this entire grand performance.
Let Sigmund admit that ratio is at fault—that it self-appointed itself without the consent of the people—and we will be lenient and grant him his freedom.

If Sigmund refuses to plead guilty, then I ask the executioner to allow me to step in as the lead prosecutor against Sigmund and his highly personal version of ratio.

I am bringing in an expert witness, my uncle Kurt Gödel, and he will speak through the voice of hiddenpuma75:

You are the accused, Sigmund, for appointing ratio as the ultimate authority. You're being as naive as a wide-eyed intern.
It is interesting because you pointed out the limitations of that rigid materialism and its perverse, Frankenstein-like byproduct—reductionism—quite clearly to Wanda. Yet, here, it seems you have become just like her, insisting on the absolute supremacy of ratio.

Your entire paradigm is built upon a central, naive premise: the dictatorship and supremacy of ratio, or rational knowledge.

For example, Wanda says:
"The universe is laid out before me... I have two comprehensive tools: mathematics and physics. Now, I will use the pincers of math and physics to grasp reality itself."

But your god, Sigmund, is ratio.🙂

I would ask both Wanda and Sigmund: are you truly aware that you cannot even rely on the "Queen of Sciences"—mathematics? Mathematics isn't actually a tool capable of
pinching and analyzing true, objective reality.

Here is a scholarly reflection from hiddenpuma75 on the limits of knowledge, based on what my uncle Gödel taught me while I was taking some advanced math courses.

GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM and Heisenberg's uncertainty principles.

Some people argue that there’s a fundamental limit—a literal, insurmountable abyss—to our capacity to actually grasp or predict the reality of the universe.

Mathematics is the undisputed queen of the sciences—it even holds its own against... Sigmund’s god, that ratio. They have their limits. There is this idea that a specific set of axioms could be considered "complete" by certain mathematical standards, but I just don't buy it. In my view, they can never truly be complete. Because the very foundations of mathematics aren't fundamental themselves, any such system is merely a tiny cross-section—just a faint reflection of a much deeper causality that allowed those "foundations" to exist in the first place.
Everyone seems to be completely overlooking that deep, implicit dimension sitting right behind those "foundations." People act like mathematical principles are the fundamental blueprint of the universe itself, when in reality, they’re just a distilled byproduct of much deeper relationships occurring at a far more consequential level of existence.

Here we go again!!
While mathematics might be the final veil standing between us and the ultimate truth, we have to admit that even math has its limits.
What we define as "completeness" from a mathematical and... Sigmund’s perspective on the world.It’s not even really about achieving absolute completeness, because the very foundations of mathematics itself are incomplete. In a way, Gödel’s theorem is essentially telling us that if we start out with an incomplete set of axioms—say, something like the combination of Sigmund and the RACIA—then we shouldn't be surprised when that set fails to produce a complete description or proof of all the true relations within it.
It’s incomplete. Since the mathematical foundations of such sets are inherently incomplete, then any mathematical—or rather, Sigmund's "rational"—claim to achieve completeness within such an fundamentally flawed framework is nothing more than pure pretension.
It feels like you just can't find what you're actually looking for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleague Sigmund, just remember—those who try to play games with the demon of infinity will only end up being torn apart by the hounds of reason.
________________________________________

I’d like to ask the forum jury to take notice.

Sigmund brought us a masked witness today, announcing that she’s actually a young woman—a paragon of flawless logic. She claims that through pure, unadulterable ratio, she sees and knows everything. Her mission? To prove once and for all that God doesn't exist, because, in her eyes, the only true divinity is RACIA.
But the brave knight hiddenpuma75 finally tossed that mask aside, and now the truth is out in the open—it turns out Sigmund has been keeping that old, crumbling metaphysics all to himself this whole time. 😒

JER

Let's be honest: infinity as we discuss it today isn't actually "real." It’s just a convenient mental construct cooked up by mathematicians who wanted to tidy up their equations.

b) There’s also no such thing as infinitely small numbers.

I think we should take a closer look at option C. It seems to offer a more balanced approach than the others, though I'll admit I'm still weighing the long-term implications. What do you all think?
The formalists, like Hilbert and Russell... Sigmund It feels a bit pretentious, even dishonest, to suggest that we can grasp and explain everything through mere RACIA—whether we’re talking about actual infinity in mathematics or the concept of the Absolute. They were firm believers in actual infinity, mainly because they felt it aligned perfectly with the third logical axiom, "tertium non datur."

David Hilbert, colleague Sigmund's brother, once remarked:

In a way, you could say mathematical Analysis is nothing less than a symphony composed around the theme of infinity.

...before Kurt Gödel ended up driving him right out of that "mathematical paradise" where Georg Cantor had originally led them.

Kurt Gödel, with his theorem, essentially pointed out the inherent limits of logic and mathematics, and... Sigmund’s ratio We really ought to consider this without overcomplicating the math or forcing the logic into shapes it wasn't meant to take. Cantor’s continuum hypothesis remains valid strictly within the framework the author himself established. When you look at the axioms of cardinal numbers, they don't actually represent any kind of "actual" infinity—not in the sense of the Absolute. They possess a starting point, a baseline that is rooted in finitude rather than true infinity.

So, here we go again with that dreadful debate over Sigmund—and let’s not forget Wanda—and Gödel.

In any formal system, you can construct a statement P such that neither P nor its negation can be derived from the system's own rules. Essentially, we're talking about undecidable problems.
--
A Verdict in the Name of the Forum Republic

Prosecutor hiddenpuma75 has successfully convinced the jury, so let the executioner carry out the sentence.

Gödel, Heisenberg, and hiddenpuma75 (with that award-winning reflection of theirs: THE TRUTH IS THAT THE LIST IS JUST CABBAGE) )
They’re essentially proving that there is an absolute abyss—a hard limit to what we can actually know. It's an ABYSS that logic, reason, neither Sigmund nor Daniel, nor Hegel, nor even mathematics can ever hope to leap over.

Bravo! Give them a hand! 👏

QED

Wishing you all the best, and please, stay patient while I prepare for the next escalation of this debate.

👋

Hegel actually argues that mathematics isn't conscious—or maybe it just refuses to be—of its own speculative substance. His point is that math tends to overlook the qualitative role it plays in building up the quantitative. According to him, those grand claims mathematicians make about absolute necessity are a bit much; he suggests that a lot of what they’re actually doing is just trying to dodge heterogeneity, which is funny because the act of dodging it is itself soaked in heterogeneity. But this critique of mathematics goes deeper than just numbers; it’s really a critique of a specific way of thinking. It’s aimed at that exact style of reasoning you seem to think I possess—that isolated, self-absorbed mode of thought that’s so detached from reality it becomes purely one-sided and abstract. So, if we're being honest, I wouldn't ever call myself a formalist. To me, formalism is just the starting line, dialectics is the middle ground, and the speculative mind is where you finally arrive.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve gone back and forth on Gödel, so if you’re feeling curious, feel free to dig through my old posts on the forum. To keep it brief, though: Gödel’s theorem isn't some wrecking ball meant to dismantle the Hegelian system; if anything, it actually lines up with it perfectly. You see, categories shift and evolve precisely because they are inherently incomplete and riddled with contradictions. Everything we encounter in the physical world is finite and fleeting for that exact same reason—it’s all built on that fundamental incompleteness. In the Hegelian view, everything and every phenomenon essentially cancels itself out because they are merely approximations of the Absolute Idea; they strive to be something they simply cannot be, constantly reaching toward infinity. It’s like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Carlson argues that Hegel actually called ahead of the curve, anticipating Gödel’s critique regarding the inherent incompleteness of mathematics. As Michael Kosok puts it:
"Think of dialectical logic as a way to generalize Gödel’s theorem. Instead of viewing it merely as a ceiling on how much we can express within consistent systems using standard logical structures, we can treat those very limitations as the starting point for dialectical logic—where those constraints actually define its core structure."
You can practically find Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle baked into the philosophy of the ancient Greeks. Every instance of motion is essentially a contradiction, because an object in motion simultaneously exists and doesn't exist at any single, fixed coordinate in space. On a micro level, this just gets sharpened into the paradox we call Heisenberg’s principle, mostly because micro-systems are significantly simpler and more abstract to work with.

None of this is meant to support the baseless assumption that human reason is limited in its capacity to know things. It’s actually quite the opposite—there is nothing outside of reason, or more specifically, outside of the Idea. You have to understand this in a speculative sense rather than taking the subject/object relationship in some vulgar, literal way. Both sides are simply moments of the Absolute Idea—which is absolute precisely because it isn't defined by anything external to itself; it is self-referential and self-determining. That is, by definition, what the Absolute is. And since all of this is inherently contradictory, that's exactly why we have internal moments within the Absolute, which is why we have movement, life, development, and everything else.

As for infinity, I’m with you—there is no such thing as an "actual" or "bad" kind of infinity. Nothing in the natural world is truly infinite. What actually exists is only "true infinity."

Sandra Murphy33 said:🤣
Amanda Jackson5, I think they've finally found someone to "popularize" Hegel 😉
Just determine if this is actually a discussion about Hegel, given that other names seem to pop up more frequently (Mark, Mary, Blanka, Janica, and Ivica—not to mention their ambitious father, who acts like some kind of wicked witch 😁)

... everything is a mirror 😉 ....

... or rather, "Love your enemy" (because loving your friends is natural, easy, and nothing special—the whole world does that)
This is also the core principle behind the method known as Ho'oponopono; for Martinus, "loving the unlovable" is the prerequisite for the so-called "second birth," through which Man attains cosmic consciousness. Campbell, meanwhile, noted regarding this "second birth" that myths most often depict it as a "virgin birth"—a spiritual rebirth, an emergence of the spirit, the transition from animal to Man... In concrete terms, this would involve opening the fourth heart chakra, which is the first truly "human" chakra, whereas the lower three are considered "animalistic" since they serve as the seats for instincts shared with the animal kingdom (the survival instinct, the sexual instinct, and the instinct for power, or the assertion of will)
There you have it... it all aligns perfectly. 😉

Let's hear what Hegel—or rather, Paul Bailey95—has to say next...
(we left off with Mark, Mary, and the lingerie trade)

I’ve been following along with what our esteemed colleague Paul Bailey95 is writing, and honestly, I don't have much to add. I actually like it; you can tell by my lack of complaints. If I had one nitpick, I’d say it could be a bit more concise, but it's fine as it is.

Sandra Murphy33 said:🤣
Maybe you were being completely serious, Paul Bailey95, but to me, it sounds like you're just joking and laughing at yourself while you talk like this. 🙂
Perhaps that's already the influence of Chesterton—"Orthodoxy" isn't quite my turn yet. I've read "The Man Who Was Thursday" and before that "The Magic City"; now I'm reading "The Ball and the Cross." He has this gentle, diplomatic humor that I enjoy—is that typical English humor, given how much I love that detached irony in English authors? I don't know...
I don't know what he said about Nietzsche. By the way, why is everyone so obsessed with Nietzsche? That's literature for adolescents... just like Dostoevsky, Sartre, Camus, Faulkner—all those people who complain and wish things were different than they are. I am at an age where I need exactly what Chesterton (and other English authors) provides: a gentle, self-ironic acceptance of oneself and the world, without unnecessary internal conflicts, irreconcilable opposites, overwhelming emotions, or constant turmoil.
To quote Campbell again: "Older ages demand a stronger mythology." 😉
You seem to prefer reaching "knowledge, full understanding, and seriousness," but there are plenty of people who learn much more effectively through humor than through excessive solemnity. I also can't quite bring myself to agree that Chesterton was the man you described—cheerful, witty, lighthearted—because his characters skip the pleasantries. Instead of a simple "Good day, how are you, where are you from?", they dive straight into deep philosophical debates and exchanges, quoting their favorite authors. That’s actually how I imagine reality TV should work 😉 (If it were actually like that, my life would probably just consist of endless walks through the city engaging strangers in philosophical discourse, and I wouldn't even bother owning a laptop at home)
I am also curious how someone as brilliant as Chesterton could become a Catholic. To me, Catholicism is the worst religion in the world, and regarding religion in general, I tend to agree with Campbell: they are merely "defenses against true experience (God)."

Amanda Jackson5:

Well, you can't answer that with a single sentence. One has to penetrate their own nature personally. In principle, one could say the same principles apply as when we discussed substance and accidents, or essence and appearance. Or, more simply, the concept itself. One thing is understood through another (substance through its accidents, etc.). Nothing possesses a permanent, solid essence. Everything is transient. According to Buddha, Man has no permanent or self-subsistent self (meaning his substance is nothing more than the aggregate of his accidents). Look at the "three marks of existence."

I've come to understand it more as Buddha, when speaking of "one's own nature," was referring generally to human nature—that which is common to everyone... I agree that "one is understood through another" and that the whole exists because of the parts that compose it, and that there is nothing that can be isolated to say, "This is eternal while everything else decays"—though the concept of "emergence" comes to mind, which if I remember correctly, was "that which transcends both the whole and its parts"?
Regarding the idea that everything is transient, I think there is something that isn't: life itself 🙂 It constantly renews itself; it appears where you least expect it, flowers bloom through narrow cracks in the concrete, and in nature, the cycle of generations never stops. Since we humans are essentially life itself—its manifestation—could we say we are "eternal" because the life within us is eternal? (It's similar to physics, where energy cannot be lost, only transferred from one state to another). I've found that when I think of myself this way—as "life" rather than a "person" (a person is an illusion, something transient)—I feel much better. I find myself more in the moment and less stuck in the past or future, which, unlike before, I only "use" (when they occur) if I can find something beautiful in them, some kind of pleasure, or something good for the soul
In a Hegelian sense, could it be said that I don't identify with either the substance or its accidents, but rather with emergence? 😁
(Paul Bailey95 is going to lose his mind over this...)

If you like it that much, you're welcome to join the American Chesterton Society:
http://americanchestertonians.blogspot.com/

Thanks!!!!! 🎉

When discussing life, Hegel describes it as the "immediate idea" or the "presupposition of the concept." It’s important to remember that for Hegel, an idea represents the unity of the concept and reality:
"...since cognition is a concept insofar as it is for itself, but as subjectivity in relation to objectivity, the concept is in relation to the idea as a presupposed or immediate idea. But the immediate idea is life .
This refers to logical life (life viewed as a logical category), as opposed to "natural life." Natural life is defined as:
"...life as projected into the externality of existence, conditioned by an anorganic nature, where the moments of the idea are the multiplicity of actual formations."
...whereas:
"Life is in the idea without such presuppositions which take the form of actual shapes; its presupposition is the concept."

...and further:
"In nature, life appears as the highest stage, the stage at which the externality of nature withdraws into itself and overcomes itself within subjectivity. In logic, this is simple interiority (Insichsein), which, in the idea of life, has achieved the externality that originally corresponds to it; the concept that
previously appeared on the scene as a subjective concept is the soul of life itself; it is the impulse that mediates its own reality everywhere within objectivity."

The relationship between life and spirit:

"In spirit, however, life appears partly as its opposite, and partly as being postulated in unity with spirit, and this unity is reborn as the pure progeny of spirit. For here, life is taken generally in its true sense as natural life, because what is called the life of spirit as spirit is its particular nature which stands in opposition to mere life; just as we also speak of the nature of spirit, even though spirit is not a natural being but rather the opposite of nature. Life, therefore, as such, is for spirit partly a means, and as such, spirit opposes it; and partly, spirit is the living individual, and life is his body; and again, this unity of spirit with its own living corporeality is born from spirit itself as the ideal. None of these relations with spirit concern logical life, and life should not be considered here either as an instrument (Mittel) of spirit, nor as a moment of that ideal or beautiful. In both cases, as natural life and as life standing in relation to spirit, life possesses the determinacy of its externality—in the first case through its presuppositions which are other formations of nature, and in the second through the goals and activity of spirit."

...because:

"Life, now considered more closely in its idea, is in itself and for itself absolute universality."

Sandra Murphy33 said:🤣
Maybe you were being completely serious, Paul Bailey95, but to me, it sounds like you're just joking and laughing at yourself while you talk like this. 🙂
Perhaps that's already the influence of Chesterton—"Orthodoxy" isn't quite my turn yet. I've read "The Man Who Was Thursday" and before that "The Magic City"; now I'm reading "The Ball and the Cross." He has this gentle, diplomatic humor that I enjoy—is that typical English humor, given how much I love that detached irony in English authors? I don't know...
I don't know what he said about Nietzsche. By the way, why is everyone so obsessed with Nietzsche? That's literature for adolescents... just like Dostoevsky, Sartre, Camus, Faulkner—all those people who complain and wish things were different than they are. I am at an age where I need exactly what Chesterton (and other English authors) provides: a gentle, self-ironic acceptance of oneself and the world, without unnecessary internal conflicts, irreconcilable opposites, overwhelming emotions, or constant turmoil.
To quote Campbell again: "Older ages demand a stronger mythology." 😉
You seem to prefer reaching "knowledge, full understanding, and seriousness," but there are plenty of people who learn much more effectively through humor than through excessive solemnity. I also can't quite bring myself to agree that Chesterton was the man you described—cheerful, witty, lighthearted—because his characters skip the pleasantries. Instead of a simple "Good day, how are you, where are you from?", they dive straight into deep philosophical debates and exchanges, quoting their favorite authors. That’s actually how I imagine reality TV should work 😉 (If it were actually like that, my life would probably just consist of endless walks through the city engaging strangers in philosophical discourse, and I wouldn't even bother owning a laptop at home)
I am also curious how someone as brilliant as Chesterton could become a Catholic. To me, Catholicism is the worst religion in the world, and regarding religion in general, I tend to agree with Campbell: they are merely "defenses against true experience (God)."

Amanda Jackson5:

Well, you can't answer that with a single sentence. One has to penetrate their own nature personally. In principle, one could say the same principles apply as when we discussed substance and accidents, or essence and appearance. Or, more simply, the concept itself. One thing is understood through another (substance through its accidents, etc.). Nothing possesses a permanent, solid essence. Everything is transient. According to Buddha, Man has no permanent or self-subsistent self (meaning his substance is nothing more than the aggregate of his accidents). Look at the "three marks of existence."

I've come to understand it more as Buddha, when speaking of "one's own nature," was referring generally to human nature—that which is common to everyone... I agree that "one is understood through another" and that the whole exists because of the parts that compose it, and that there is nothing that can be isolated to say, "This is eternal while everything else decays"—though the concept of "emergence" comes to mind, which if I remember correctly, was "that which transcends both the whole and its parts"?
Regarding the idea that everything is transient, I think there is something that isn't: life itself 🙂 It constantly renews itself; it appears where you least expect it, flowers bloom through narrow cracks in the concrete, and in nature, the cycle of generations never stops. Since we humans are essentially life itself—its manifestation—could we say we are "eternal" because the life within us is eternal? (It's similar to physics, where energy cannot be lost, only transferred from one state to another). I've found that when I think of myself this way—as "life" rather than a "person" (a person is an illusion, something transient)—I feel much better. I find myself more in the moment and less stuck in the past or future, which, unlike before, I only "use" (when they occur) if I can find something beautiful in them, some kind of pleasure, or something good for the soul
In a Hegelian sense, could it be said that I don't identify with either the substance or its accidents, but rather with emergence? 😁
(Paul Bailey95 is going to lose his mind over this...)

If you like it that much, you're welcome to join the American Chesterton Society:
http://americanchestertonians.blogspot.com/

Thanks!!!!! 🎉

If you ask me, it’s all essentially the same thing. If you claim to identify with emergence, you’re really just identifying with substance or essence under a different name. Whether you call it substance, being, essence, or the whole—they all eventually get folded back into a single unity through *Aufhebung*. The distinction between them is purely contextual, existing only because we treat them as separate logical categories. Each one is basically just a lonely attempt to define the Absolute, and they fail to stay absolute because they run headfirst into their own internal contradictions. The only truly absolute idea—the perfect marriage of concept and reality—is the Absolute Idea itself. And when it finally shows up, it reveals that it is actually the same thing as that first, most basic category: pure Being. The only real difference is that Being is totally immediate, whereas the Absolute Idea represents the ultimate act of mediation.

Quote:, or the Ethics, or some massive system of science? I'm not out of my mind.

Paul Bailey95 says: Personally, I’m looking for depth, real knowledge, and a complete grasp of things—what do I actually get from authors like that? It’s all lovely to read, sure, but am I supposed to be reading Chesterton when I could be diving into the Organon

Well, you might not feel like it, but why shouldn't she read him if she enjoys it? Why be so incredibly rigid about it? Besides, you even admitted yourself that his writing is elegant and entertaining. It’s not as if there isn't something to learn from Chesterton. Personally, I lean toward Hegel when it comes to heavy philosophy, but I don't really view Chesterton as a philosopher anyway. It's the same with Eagleton; just because he was recently in Washington, D.C., doesn't mean he isn't writing stuff worth reading.

Sandra Murphy33 As if I haven't heard enough already:
What exactly do we mean when we talk about our "true nature" in relation to Buddha?
I haven't exactly spent my life deep-diving into the study of Buddhism...

Well, you can't exactly wrap that up in a single sentence. It’s one of those things where you really have to dive in and figure out your own nature for yourself. In principle, the same logic applies that we were discussing when we touched on substance versus accidents, or essence versus appearance—basically, the whole concept of being itself. You only ever grasp one thing through another; you perceive the substance through its accidents, and so on. Nothing actually possesses a permanent, rock-solid essence because everything is in a constant state of flux. If you look at what Buddha taught, Man doesn't possess a permanent or self-subsistent self—meaning his substance is nothing more than a collection of his various accidents. Just take a look at the "three marks of existence."

Sandra Murphy33 said:So, what exactly constitutes our "true nature" according to Buddha?
(I haven't studied Buddhism deeply...)

(On a side note, thanks for the Chesterton quote in that other thread. I just finished one of his books and he’s so brilliant I’m planning to read his entire catalog. 🙂 It reminds me of what Joseph Campbell rightly observed: " ... read real books by real people. When you find an author who truly grabs hold of you, read everything they have ever written. Simply consume what that author has to offer. From there, you can begin to explore what they themselves were reading. Only then does the world open up to you in a way that aligns with a specific perspective. )

Don't mention it. Chesterton is truly top-tier. If you’re really that obsessed, you might as well just go ahead and join the American Chesterton Society:
http://americanchestertonians.blogspot.com/

Sandra Murphy33 said:So, what exactly constitutes our "true nature" according to Buddha?
(I haven't studied Buddhism deeply...)

(On a side note, thanks for the Chesterton quote in that other thread. I just finished one of his books and he’s so brilliant I’m planning to read his entire catalog. 🙂 It reminds me of what Joseph Campbell rightly observed: " ... read real books by real people. When you find an author who truly grabs hold of you, read everything they have ever written. Simply consume what that author has to offer. From there, you can begin to explore what they themselves were reading. Only then does the world open up to you in a way that aligns with a specific perspective. )

It’s basically just a modern take on that classic bit of wisdom from Joseph Campbell: "Follow your bliss."

Sure, or we could just look at what Buddha used to say—that craving and ignorance, or avidya, are basically the root causes of all our suffering. In this context, avidya isn't just being clueless; it’s that deep, metaphysical lack of understanding regarding our own true nature.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What Hegel claims—that "things are exactly what we perceive them to be"—doesn't actually hold up in practice. In reality, things are often the exact opposite of how they appear. Have you ever had that experience where something turns out to be completely different from what you initially thought, or even what you believed for a long time?
It feels as though Hegel is ignoring the dimension of time, the element of constant change. He asserts that "there can be no essence of something that does not appear," but I struggle to understand where this non-existent thing is supposed to be hiding, and to whom it is failing to appear. Is it staying hidden forever? If something doesn't manifest today, tomorrow, or the day after, is that sufficient proof that it will never emerge within time? Furthermore, who is this observer deciding what appears and what stays hidden, and who is qualified to claim their perception is final and absolute?

Furthermore, if I interpret Hegel’s "curtain" as a boundary between what is perceptible and what remains hidden from our senses and reason, the logic still falls apart. In practical life, we are constantly discovering new things, forging new connections between phenomena, and forming new perceptions. It just doesn't ring true to suggest that there is nothing "beyond"—nothing currently obscured or permanently hidden from our intellect—nor does it feel right to claim that the "external" is identical to the "internal." 🤷
I suppose my mind is far too "practical" to wrap itself around Hegel's concepts of the internal, the external, and the beyond. His definitions clearly don't align with my own, and likely don't align with how most people in the US experience reality either.

That’s why we really need to nail down our terminology here. Saying we perceive things as they truly are just means that, in a theoretical sense, it's possible for us to do so; it doesn't mean that every single person walking around has an accurate grasp on reality. If someone's perception is skewed, that's a flaw in their own processing, not a flaw in reality itself. Hegel makes a clear distinction between Appearance and Illusion. An Appearance is essentially the full unveiling of essence without any extra layers. Illusion, on the other hand, is that "things are not what they seem" quality—it's more like a faint hint or a shadow of the true essence. However, an Appearance is contingent rather than necessary, so you have to distinguish it from actual reality and the Concept.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Nobels of Illusion 😁
The core of this passage is the idea that something which will vanish tomorrow doesn't truly exist today, because it lacks permanence ("a being that vanishes is not being, it is non-being"). In other words, only that which is eternal truly exists, while everything else is part of this "totality of illusion." Everything transient—everything finite—is relative. According to this logic, true being doesn't even exist, because anything ever created is destined to disappear eventually...
This perspective is typically labeled "philosophical" 😉 and the people who view the world this way are called "philosophers" (nothing rattles them, they remain unshakable because they "understand" that "everything is relative," and so on. Though, practically speaking, "if you accept that your physical world is merely an illusion, you won't experience the meaning of the physical world")

This totality of illusion is also what Hegel describes as the interiority—the play of forces, the reflection of the whole within itself. Within this totality, consciousness uses objects to establish what the perceptions of being are like, creating moments without stability or rest that constantly subvert themselves. For instance, consider the "being" of a fever in a person: the fever takes hold, then it passes; or take the "being" of an emotion, like a sudden outburst of rage in a crowded bar...
Through perception, we see the "being" of a tree, yet that "being" fades away; the sensory object is always in flux within the movement of appearance. Therefore, it always carries a negative connotation of vanishing, disappearing, and the like.

By what logic can a "totality of illusion"—the external appearance—be its own "interiority"?
All these "vanishing" appearances—the tree, the house, the fever, the person, etc.—can disappear as individual categories (a specific tree, a specific person), but they will never disappear from the world of ideas, from which they will inevitably "reincarnate." Today's individual will pass away, but tomorrow a new one will emerge; it is the same pattern with the tree, the fever, and so on.

Consciousness emerges from the appearance of a tree or a house, which is constantly vanishing. It reflects upon itself, yet this very act of self-reflection transforms that reflection into the internal essence of the object. This allows consciousness to distinguish the reflection of an object from its own self-reflection, even though they stem from a single reflective process. Consciousness possesses an internal dimension that stands in opposition to itself—something foreign, something distinct—yet within this private interiority, consciousness finds its own certainty. This internal state serves as the metric for truth and provides the moments where consciousness exists for itself. However, consciousness remains unaware of this; it does not realize it possesses such internal moments or certainties, precisely because the "being-for-itself" of that internal realm acts as a negative movement for consciousness.

Trees and houses are always disappearing—but they also constantly reappear...
What is being described here as "self-reflection" is essentially what psychology calls the "internalization" of an external image. We take an external perception and imprint it onto our psyche, allowing us to conjure it up at will later without needing to physically observe it again. The external object or concept now resides within our consciousness—or more accurately, within our "memory." Martinus argues that everything we perceive through our senses and encode into what we eventually call the "mind" isn't actually the creation of new images, but rather the recognition of those same images—concepts already etched into the vast memory we carry with us. I’m not entirely convinced by the claim that "consciousness has an internal something that is different from itself"—if this internal element is produced via consciousness, how can it be considered foreign to it? And what exactly is this "negative movement"?

Upon witnessing the disappearance of youth, consciousness performs something truly extraordinary. Because it is aware of the transience of all phenomena—aware that things are perpetually vanishing and that nothing permanent or lasting can ever be grasped, and indeed aware of the ultimate nothingness of everything, including itself—consciousness performs a sort of "leap of faith." To overcome the vanishing nature of reality, it leaps into a realm that is entirely unknown and alien to it, a realm in which it feels a sense of stability or unshakability, which consciousness labels as the "transcendental."

There is a slight logical inconsistency here, specifically the idea that one movement cannot experience another movement. If everything that is transient is created and exists in a state of continuous motion or change—from birth to disappearance—then a consciousness that perceives and experiences this constant flux cannot itself be purely transient, changing, or finite. The experience of anything requires a point of contrast. Isn't that the case? If we want to experience the passing or existence of something, we can only do so by using something else that is *not* passing or changing. If that "something else" is consciousness, or the ego, then that consciousness—that ego—must be imperishable and eternal, serving as the necessary opposite to the phenomenon it observes. Anyone who can grasp this logically wouldn't need any kind of "leap of faith" 😉

a) The interiority or the realm of the interior (the transcendental, intuition, etc.)
b) Reason
c) The middle ground, or phenomena (the subject of modern science)

I have to admit, I struggle to follow this division. Why is "interiority" defined by things like "intuition," while reason is somehow categorized separately? Is reason meant to be a sensory category? In my view, both reason and intelligence fall under the umbrella of human "interiority." They aren't the same as the raw images flashed onto the "screen of consciousness" when the eye receives light impulses from an external "object," or when the ear picks up sounds, colors, or shapes.

Otherworldliness is emptiness; it is a phenomenon of nothingness. Nothing actually manifests through this appearance, and Mark doesn't see an angel presenting him with a vision of paradise in his room—he sees nothing showing him nothing. What emerges is nothingness, and then it vanishes, whether it be Mark himself or his vision of paradise. Once the vision of paradise appears and subsequently disappears, it is no longer paradise, regardless of how briefly it was revealed.

To put it another way, the "paradise" Mark perceives vanishes just as easily as the chair in his room, the room itself, or Mark himself—as we established at the start of this analysis when noting that every phenomenon is relative because it will "vanish tomorrow." Consequently, it follows that there is essentially no fundamental difference between the tree, the house, Mark, and the angel 😉 (none of them possess an inherent "essence")

The inner essence of things that people defend isn't actually unknowable to the mind. Accordingly, they defend otherworldliness against the intellect by claiming the mind can never and will never be able to grasp it, implying a limitation of the mind or something similar, as if the intellect itself were restricted. The reality is quite simple: the interiority or the "otherworldliness" is entirely empty, and nothing can be known within emptiness. When they claim the divine essence or divine providence is unknowable, they are simply saying: "It is empty."

The truth is that the assertion that "the mind cannot know the otherworld (or the transcendent, the supposedly unknowable)" is incorrect, and I disagree with it. Hegel wrote his works during an era characterized by a harmonious and accepted division between "science" and "faith/religion"—a time when it was taken for granted that only the material could be scientifically understood and proven, while anything "hinted at" by faith was relegated to the realm of the forever unknowable and unprovable, the eternal subject of "faith." Well, we are moving past that today. Science is increasingly finding evidence, or at least logical explanations, for many things that would have fallen under the category of "faith" during the Hegelian era. Therefore, the LOGICAL MIND PROGRESSES—it discovers more and more, no longer confined to perceiving merely current material or external phenomena, but beginning to bring to light what was once considered mere faith and dismissed as "unknowable divine will," sealed away as "unreachable for all eternity."
There is nothing unknowable to the human mind. And there is no end to human knowledge....
Otherwise, everything would perpetually spin in circles and repeat itself endlessly; we would be living in hell. Granted, many people actually believe they are, but until they prove it through experimentation and observation, this theory remains strictly within the domain of pure faith. 😉

To make a point: many great thinkers and scientists born after Hegel have narrowed that gap between "science" and "faith" (a gap which, judging by this interpretation, Hegel's philosophy somehow seals off and declares final, using it as its very foundation). This spans from Einstein, who was the first to establish that "faith without science is blind, and science without faith is lame," down to many modern researchers who unanimously argue that many things previously labeled as "faith" are being proven as scientific truths. Quantum physics and astrophysics, through their discoveries, have confirmed many of the "eternal truths" found in Eastern texts, which during the Hegelian era were dismissed as mere "faith"...

I think you might have missed the point entirely. The reason the mind can't grasp some "beyond" is simply because there is no "beyond" to begin with. In one of his letters, Hegel points out that the whole trick is realizing there’s nothing outside or behind things; things are exactly what they appear to be. He even mentions in Phenomenology how the spirit treats objects like a curtain, pulling it back to see what’s hiding behind it, only to find absolutely nothing there. The curtain is the thing itself. Substance is really just a collection of its accidents, and essence isn't some "external" phenomenon.
When we talk about internal versus external, even before Hegel came along, people used "internal" to mean the "beyond"—the stuff beneath the surface that constitutes the essence or the self-subsisting core. "External" was just the trivial stuff. For Hegel, if two things are "external" to one another, they’re basically indifferent or independent—like the shape of an object being separate from its color. Nature is external to the spirit, which makes it external to itself, meaning it occupies space and time. But here’s the kicker: the internal and the external are actually the same thing, unified in a single substance. It’s a mediated unity. Since the internal is identical to the external, it has to express itself. That’s why Hegel argues that it is essential for essence to manifest. You can't have an essence that doesn't show up; if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Just like you can't have something without its Concept. Whatever is mental is real, and vice versa. Reality is essentially self-manifesting. This is precisely how Hegel defines reality (Wirklichkeit)—as the unity of essence and appearance. Or, to put it another way, "since the content and form of reality are entirely identical, ...reality is the fact of its own self-externalization."
Furthermore, because of those inherent contradictions and constant self-negations within nature, everything is perpetually undoing itself (which is what we call "time"). But that doesn't mean things lack "being." It just means our understanding distinguishes between the fleeting, transient stuff (appearance) and the enduring stuff that resists change (substance, essence, and ultimately the Concept—defined as that which remains what it is even while it changes).

Sandra Murphy33 said:This is quite compelling.
The pacing here is excellent; you’ve managed to weave the heavy lifting of Hegelian thought—which might feel daunting at this stage—seamlessly into the fabric of everyday life. It makes the material much more accessible, almost like masking bitter medicine with strawberry juice so a child doesn't notice they aren't drinking something sweet. 🙂

Immediately following the dialectic of force, Hegel discusses consciousness, which is essentially situated in the beyond; it lives off the beyond and defends its existence.

I am looking forward to the breakdown of this and the subsequent discussion on consciousness.

In Hegel's framework, there are no higher, lower, or intermediate levels of consciousness as various mystics and amateurs from all walks of life might claim. There are simply three modes, and none of them holds precedence over the others.

🤣
Perhaps some "amateur"—and I use that term affectionately, like finding an old, forgotten trinket in an antique shop that you once held dear—will try to map these "three modes of consciousness" onto their own arbitrary hierarchies of high, middle, and low culture. 😉

What Hegel is getting at here is that the substantiality of a subject—let's take Mark, for instance—is defined by what he is "in himself" and what he is "for himself." As a being in himself, Mark is small, and as a being for himself, he truly is small. To be small "for oneself" means to possess that smallness internally, whereas being small "in oneself" means possessing that quality only as a potentiality, not yet as a reality.

So, "for itself" represents actual possession, while "in itself" remains mere possibility—the conceptualized version of oneself that hasn't been realized yet, and perhaps never will be?

For Hegel, everything we encounter or observe in our surroundings—all those "actual" events—isn't truly real unless it is mental. Only that which is mental is considered real. Consequently, anything non-mental is synonymous with the unreal or the non-existent.

This is spot on. It reinforces my own conviction that only that which possesses true value—everything we see, hear, say, and do that actually matters—is what endures; it is what truly exists. Everything else, the superfluous, the trivial, the unthinking, is essentially a glitch that won't last, a sort of mirage. One could easily draw parallels between this Hegelian truth and various Eastern spiritual texts regarding "maya," or the illusion of the transient world versus the eternal, unchanging, and mental reality that constitutes true existence.
Maybe the serious Hegelian scholars will roll their eyes at these comparisons and decide I've missed the point entirely. But even if my associations have nothing to do with his intended meaning, I believe the very fact that such connections can be made serves as proof of the philosophy's inherent value and truth. After all, only truth can be valuable, and only value can be true.Inspiration. It’s a concept people love to romanticize, usually while sitting in some overpriced coffee shop in Seattle, waiting for a lightning bolt to strike. They talk about it as if it’s this divine, mystical force that descends upon the worthy, rather than what it actually is: a fleeting byproduct of specific circumstances, often fueled by nothing more than caffeine and a temporary lack of distractions. We like to pretend there's some profound, almost spiritual connection between our inner will and the creative spark. We act as though we can summon it through sheer force of personality. But if you look at it through a more grounded lens, inspiration isn't a guest you invite over for dinner; it's more like a stray cat. You can set out the right food and clear a space on the porch, but you can't demand it shows up, and you certainly can't control what it does once it arrives. The reality is much more mundane. Most "inspired" moments are just the result of being bored enough to let your mind wander or being disciplined enough to stay in the chair until the gears finally catch. There is no magic in it—just the intersection of preparation and circumstance. To believe otherwise is to indulge in a very comfortable kind of delusion. To truly stir the soul and push the imagination toward forging deep associations or sparking entirely new ideas, one needs more than just simple inspiration. It requires a certain level of mental friction—a willingness to let disparate concepts collide until they fuse into something coherent. It isn't about waiting for a lightning bolt to strike; it’s about cultivating a headspace where the mind feels permitted to wander through the abstract without the constant tether of practical utility.

The only thing Amanda Jackson5 says that actually confuses me is:

It means we have to approach an object not merely as a substance, but as a subject—as something possessing its own internal reality rather than just being an external phenomenon presented to us. If we fail to do that, we end up stuck with that unsolvable surplus, that unreachable "thing-in-itself" that haunts Kantian thought.

How does one actually approach an object as something possessing an internal essence? To put it more plainly: how do we reach that core and truly feel it? Without a direct experience, that interiority doesn't really exist for us; it remains nothing more than an abstract theory. From my reading of secular literature, I’ve gathered that achieving this requires a specific kind of faculty—one we haven't quite developed yet—which might be called a "body of intuition." Or perhaps it's simply an extraordinarily refined empathy: the capacity to immerse oneself in another's inner world without blurring the lines between their reality and our own. We need the ability to grasp the interiority of a subject that isn't "I," effectively turning the object into something akin to a subject—something as intimately known as ourselves. Without this capacity, I don't see any way to bypass Kant’s "insoluble surplus"—that "thing-in-itself" which remains perpetually out of reach. It is that private dimension we lack the ability to consciously access, at least not in the same way we experience the most intimate parts of our own being.
In other words, I fail to see how philosophy or pure reason could ever actually grasp the internal essence of an object that exists outside the self. How can we claim to reach its true core when what we perceive is likely nothing more than a rationalized "preconception"—a mental construct that bears little to no actual resemblance to the object's true state, its color, its tone, or its fundamental reality?

Please, Daniel, keep going. Don't let any distractions throw you off course or derail your progress—your only real objective here is to finish that sequel on consciousness. 😉Just my latest little outburst. 🙂

It’s clear you’ve pinpointed exactly where the friction lies, which is great, though I wouldn't say it's strictly a matter of intuition. In the realm of metaphysics, the heavy hitters are always the questions regarding substance and the subject-object relationship. For Aristotle, substance is that which possesses properties but isn't merely a property of something else. However, he didn't quite grasp—unlike Spinoza—that substances like "a human" or "a horse" are actually expressions of the absolute. Essentially, they are substances that cannot be divorced from their particular accidents. Neither a person nor a horse exists in a vacuum; they are determined by everything else in the system. Substance only manifests through its accidents. A substance exists only through the determinations (or "modes," if you prefer Spinoza’s terminology) that it triggers. Now, if any entity, concept, or whole exists outside our subjective perception, then it must possess an interiority; it must be what it is for itself, not just for us. At that point, substance becomes the subject. This is the pivot point between subjective and absolute idealism. That is the core logic behind the idea that "substance is subject." Or, to put it another way, substance is a concept. If reality lacks an inherent conceptual structure and only holds one within our subjective experience, then reality has no true interiority. It would be nothingness. We’d be forced back into dualism or pluralism, which causes everything to collapse—the possibility of knowledge, the absolute, and the very notion of truth itself. Ultimately, what Hegel argues is that the final purpose or meaning of reality is Spirit: "The goal of all true science is simply this: for Spirit to recognize itself in everything, both in heaven and on earth."
See why Kant's unknowable "thing-in-itself" feels like an empty concept? When Hegel writes, "From now on, our object is a syllogism whose extremes are the inner essence of the thing and Understanding, and whose middle term is Appearance," he is setting up Understanding against the thing itself. But the syllogism falls apart there because the thing-in-itself is presented as being distinct from appearance. However, he follows up by saying: "The inner world, or the supersensible beyond, has nonetheless entered into existence; it arises from the world of appearances that mediated it; in other words, appearance is its essence and, indeed, its fulfillment." So, while the syllogism sounds like Kant's position—where Understanding knows the appearance but remains blind to the thing-in-itself—it's different. Once you distinguish the thing-in-itself from appearance, you grant it a form of existence, just as Hegel suggests. The thing-in-itself becomes a negation of appearance, a void. But in Hegel's view, from start to finish, everything exists within the realm of appearance. Things either appear, or they simply aren't.
Edit: or, as one commentator put it pretty succinctly: "This kind of understanding actually alienates us from the true essence of things, essentially turning its back on logic, much like how Kantian philosophy operates."

There’s a certain merit to this kind of quietist withdrawal from the world, provided you're doing it in the pursuit of actual insight. If you can actually pull it off, that is. People claim Kojève spent three years doing nothing but obsessing over the Phenomenology. Still, I wouldn't exactly call "How to Read Hegel" the definitive survival guide for navigating that specific work. In any case, it’s worth clarifying what the Phenomenology actually does and how it relates to the Science of Logic. Its job is essentially to demonstrate how our common sense—that ordinary, everyday way we perceive life and the world—is fundamentally contradictory and deeply unsatisfying. You could think of the Phenomenology as a sort of "discourse on philosophy." It argues that if we want to reach absolute knowledge, we have to start digging much deeper. The Science of Logic, on the other hand, lays out the actual content of that knowledge. So, those people who insist—and there are plenty of them—that the Phenomenology is Hegel’s most important book (or even the most important philosophical book ever written, or even just the most important book period), have essentially stopped halfway up the mountain. Hegel himself points out that the Phenomenology is like a ladder; once you've reached absolute knowledge, you're free to kick it aside. Schopenhauer said something similar about his own philosophy, which he likely picked up from Hegel. And Wittgenstein said something quite similar regarding his work, a sentiment he almost certainly borrowed from Schopenhauer rather than Hegel, given that Wittgenstein grew up in the intellectual atmosphere of turn-of-the-century Vienna, where Schopenhauer was the height of fashion.
The starting point, however, has to be the idea that "the truth is the whole"—which is just a fancy way of saying we have to postulate the existence of the Absolute. That truth has to be circular; otherwise, it wouldn't be absolute, because it would be pointing to something outside of itself. From there, you get into the relationship between reflection and reason as the bedrock of the speculative mind, leading to the core pillar of the Phenomenology: Hegel’s claim that substance is subject. This means we shouldn't approach an object merely as a substance, but as a subject—something possessing an interiority rather than just being an external "phenomenon" existing "for us." If we don't, we end up stuck with that unsolvable "surplus" problem, much like Kant did, with the whole concept of the thing-in-itself.
Edit: Oh, look at that, my colleague has already touched on some of these points, and I didn't even see his second post until after I finished writing this one. Though, I suppose my interpretation of "what is mental is real..." is a bit different.

Brian Walker16 said:That whole "logic" thing? It was exposed a long time ago.
The pseudo-spiritual crowd has gone ahead and cooked up their own set of fake axioms:

Truth and morality? Honestly, I don't think those things even exist. They’re just convenient fictions we made up—purely relative, really. Reality itself is just one big contradiction, and I'm starting to think you can't actually wrap your head around it using logic alone. Maybe reason isn't all it's cracked up to be.

These are just the axioms of destruction—pure solipsism—and they’ll never actually lead anyone toward wisdom, freedom, or genuine goodness. Instead, they just spiral you down into ignorance, confusion, and total subjugation, which I guess is basically what our current era of global tyranny looks like. They act as the direct antithesis to our evolution as a species, to the Trivium, and to the original law. At the same time, though, these axioms are incredibly seductive to the ego—they offer this fake sense of freedom where you get to "create your own reality," mostly just so you can dodge any actual responsibility.
Truth exists regardless of how people choose to spin it. It’s just one thing—singular and unchanging—so it doesn't really bow down to anyone's subjective interpretation. I guess we're just circling the drain here because people either don't get it or they simply don't know.
The Trivium is basically just a framework for hunting down the truth through disciplined thinking. When we talk about "truth," we’re really talking about how reality actually lines up with reason. I guess you could break it down into three distinct angles—which, predictably, tie back to the three parts of the Trivium itself: first, by defining exactly what exists or what actually happened in the real world; second, by digging into why things turned out the way they did; and finally, by figuring out the mechanics of how things exist in their current state. It’s all about peeling back the layers, I suppose.

What exactly is the objective reality behind our sensory perception? It’s basically how we align what we see and feel with the concepts we hold in our minds. Then you have "why" and "how"—those were discovered for a reason, I suppose. They allow us to actually parse reality through some kind of proper mental analysis—you know, using logic, explanations, and deductions. If you do that right, it can lead you to truths and insights that go way beyond just what our eyes and ears can pick up. In short: Truth is found through the Trivium—1. What, 2. Why, and 3. How.

Some people just don't have the drive to actually uncover who they are—their true, original selves, I mean. They lack that fundamental desire to build a standard for themselves, something to help them tell what’s actually real from what’s just an illusion. So, I guess they just stay stuck—lost in their own ignorance, if you can even call it that.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say any sane person would claim truth and morality aren't real, because if we follow that logic to its natural conclusion—using that exact same perspective—then the claim itself can't be true either. As for whether they're relative? Honestly, who knows. Are they absolute? It’s probably more interesting to ask what we even mean by an "absolute" or "relative" truth in the first place, since without a clear definition, we're just spinning our wheels before we even get to the first question.

Brian Walker16 said:That whole "logic" thing? It was exposed a long time ago.
The pseudo-spiritual crowd has gone ahead and cooked up their own set of fake axioms:

Truth and morality? Honestly, I don't think those things even exist. They’re just convenient fictions we made up—purely relative, really. Reality itself is just one big contradiction, and I'm starting to think you can't actually wrap your head around it using logic alone. Maybe reason isn't all it's cracked up to be.

These are just the axioms of destruction—pure solipsism—and they’ll never actually lead anyone toward wisdom, freedom, or genuine goodness. Instead, they just spiral you down into ignorance, confusion, and total subjugation, which I guess is basically what our current era of global tyranny looks like. They act as the direct antithesis to our evolution as a species, to the Trivium, and to the original law. At the same time, though, these axioms are incredibly seductive to the ego—they offer this fake sense of freedom where you get to "create your own reality," mostly just so you can dodge any actual responsibility.
Truth exists regardless of how people choose to spin it. It’s just one thing—singular and unchanging—so it doesn't really bow down to anyone's subjective interpretation. I guess we're just circling the drain here because people either don't get it or they simply don't know.
The Trivium is basically just a framework for hunting down the truth through disciplined thinking. When we talk about "truth," we’re really talking about how reality actually lines up with reason. I guess you could break it down into three distinct angles—which, predictably, tie back to the three parts of the Trivium itself: first, by defining exactly what exists or what actually happened in the real world; second, by digging into why things turned out the way they did; and finally, by figuring out the mechanics of how things exist in their current state. It’s all about peeling back the layers, I suppose.

What exactly is the objective reality behind our sensory perception? It’s basically how we align what we see and feel with the concepts we hold in our minds. Then you have "why" and "how"—those were discovered for a reason, I suppose. They allow us to actually parse reality through some kind of proper mental analysis—you know, using logic, explanations, and deductions. If you do that right, it can lead you to truths and insights that go way beyond just what our eyes and ears can pick up. In short: Truth is found through the Trivium—1. What, 2. Why, and 3. How.

Some people just don't have the drive to actually uncover who they are—their true, original selves, I mean. They lack that fundamental desire to build a standard for themselves, something to help them tell what’s actually real from what’s just an illusion. So, I guess they just stay stuck—lost in their own ignorance, if you can even call it that.

What kind of "trivium" are you talking about here? That's not what the trivium is. "What" refers to content, "how" covers form, and "why" deals with reasoning; those are simply the pillars of philosophy. You aren't exactly reinventing the wheel here. What is the actual point of this muddled post of yours? Can you try distilling it into two or three coherent sentences? Or should we just assume that these "axioms of destruction" might not be as foreign to someone who spends so much energy denying them?

Brian Walker16 said:With all the data floating around online these days, I guess it’s actually possible to see how philosophical history basically choked the life out of truth and morality. But even if you see it—which isn't easy—we still have to be ready to put in the actual work, both internally and externally, if we ever want to uncover what's really going on behind the scenes. If you take the analytical side of things—that logical, left-brain research and pattern recognition—and try to balance it with some kind of intuitive, heart-centered intelligence, the picture becomes pretty grim. You start seeing this clear, coordinated global agenda aimed at dismantling humanity and forcing us into a state of total subjugation. We really need to face the fact that we’re in the middle of a massive crisis, and honestly, time is running out. Between the external pressures—you know, the money and the politics—and the internal control through fear, the architects of our current society have built this seamless, integrated machine of destruction. It’s baked into everything: the banks, the major corporations, the government, the school systems, the media, even those non-profits that claim to be helping. It's all one big, interconnected structure designed to keep us under thumb.

By doing what they do, they’re basically undermining Trivium and the original law—using their own expertise to exploit general human ignorance. They study "human animals" with this clinical, unsettling precision, leaning heavily on mind control, social conditioning, and straight-up indoctrination to twist how people perceive reality, think, and act. I guess most people have just become obedient slaves at this point. It’s pretty grim—they live in chains that aren't much different from the ones we put on other creatures right before we feed on them.

Today’s culture of corruption is really just the ultimate expression of a destructive ideology—something built on moral relativism, pure selfishness, and rampant materialism. Most people don't even realize they're participating in it, which I guess is part of the problem. It all works through this weird combination of mind control and a general tendency to lie to ourselves. You see these pseudo-spiritual movements popping up everywhere, claiming they want to help us transcend our broken culture and fading traditional values by connecting us to "other realities." But, like most of these groups, they’re just trying to manipulate people into another kind of trap—specifically targeting those who have already bought into regressive beliefs disguised as "spirituality." Lately, more people are starting to see how twisting spiritual truths fits perfectly into the agenda of these destructive forces. We live in a world filled with animalistic behavior and people living in a sort of primal servitude—there's suffering at every level, whether you look at it physically, mentally, or spiritually. Yet, these fake spiritual movements want us to believe that good and evil are just useless leftovers of dualistic thinking, or that "evil is an illusion." Honestly, nothing helps evil more than when we close our eyes and insist that "everything is fine." As Krishnamurti once said, losing awareness of evil is the worst kind of evil there is. It's a truth our ancestors understood well, too, back when they were warning us about the dangers of tyranny.

The whole pseudo-spiritual scene has basically just cooked up its own set of fake axioms—it’s all just a bunch of hollow logic designed to sound profound while actually saying absolutely nothing.

Truth and morality? They don't really exist—not in any real sense. It’s all just relative, mostly made up to keep things organized. Reality itself is just one big contradiction, and I guess you can't actually wrap your head around it using logic alone.

These axioms of destruction—this whole solipsism thing—never actually lead anyone toward wisdom, freedom, or goodness. It’s always the opposite, really: just a downward spiral into ignorance, confusion, and total subjugation, which, if you ask me, is exactly what our current state of global tyranny looks like. They act as a direct anti-thesis to our evolution as a species, to the Trivium, and to the original law. The thing is, these axioms are incredibly seductive to the ego. They offer this illusion of being able to just manifest your own reality, which is really just a convenient way to dodge any actual responsibility. But from a pseudo-spiritual standpoint, shifting toward what we call "truth" and "reality" will only end in bondage and disaster—mostly because, in that mindset, objective reality is treated as if it doesn't even exist. It's probably just a matter of time before it all catches up to us. The ego can play its games, sure, but it can't hide forever—so I guess it's no wonder that ego-driven deception and pseudo-spirituality always seem to go hand in hand.

A lot of philosophers have figured out that if you actually want to learn anything, you have to start from scratch—meaning you need to embrace doubt and strip away everything you thought you knew. Socrates had that whole "I know nothing" thing going on, and I guess we really do need to reach that level of honesty if we ever want to grow. We have to unlearn all the junk our culture shoved down our throats, those flawed axioms we just accept without thinking. With the occult, you can go way deeper than just clearing out old ideas or beliefs; you can actually step outside the entire ego-driven system. To build a real foundation, we have to start over from the point where that false sense of self was constructed—that version of us that’s totally detached from reality, which probably started back in childhood. It’s kind of like how, to truly learn how to think and grasp the truth, we need to reclaim that child-like innocence. We need to see things exactly as they are, without trying to hide anything or clinging to social taboos. To get there, we have to dismantle all that societal programming that basically turned our egos into these raging monsters. Only then can we work with actual, solid truths and finally rediscover ourselves, reality, and the laws that govern them—the stuff we used to understand intuitively before we were all essentially broken by the world.

Honestly, my best advice is just to take your own suggestion. If you were giving this advice to a friend, you'd probably tell them to follow it, so why not just apply it to yourself?😁

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Your premise seems to be that one must kill off emotion through sheer force of will, just so the intellect can be liberated to pursue the evolution toward a "new human."

I believe the necessity lies elsewhere—in rationally examining emotions and emotionality from every possible angle to truly understand their role in the human experience. One should acknowledge them rather than fighting them... much like we don't think it's necessary to wage war against our basic physiological needs.
In short, you are currently in a dynamic phase of attempting to rationally analyze emotion, but that phase still feels somewhat... juvenile.

It isn't about killing off your emotions; it's about learning how to channel and sublimate them. If we actually managed to wipe out our feelings entirely, civilization would fall apart overnight.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...ts_Discontents

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't at all unusual for a person stuck in a more primitive stage of development, lacking the necessary intellectual depth, to be unable to parse the true origins of their emotions, leading them to blindly follow whatever impulses take hold. However, once an individual begins to dissect those biological, once-adaptive urges—viewing them through the lens of raw survivalism as an ancient attempt to impose one's will upon nature and fellow man—then that sensation shifts its focus toward an entirely different objective.
In short, a human being acting purely as a biological organism (much like, say, a common rat) devoid of any cultural heritage, operates strictly according to those self-serving interests, and there is nothing peculiar about that behavior. What I am discussing here is a person—whether human or otherwise—who has gained the perspective to view those impulses within a much broader context.

On the contrary, I am working quite diligently to suppress them. Currently, they lie buried deep within the shadows of my soul. In fact, they have likely gone dormant, and I feel nothing at all. No hard feelings. 😁

Touché...🙏

The answer to those last three questions is pretty much a flat-out no.