Philosophy and the Art of Reason: Let us enter the high country of the mind

Knowledge isn't always Truth, but I agree with your prediction.

 

All things for our purposes arise with conception or the thought comes first.
The ascendant thought is where the heart finds congruence. The heart feels nothing that the mind has not instructed it to feel. That is the heart has no way of negotiating the symbolic nor does it apprehend abstraction. That is why people are so confident that they know through feeling, what may be right and what may be wrong and be utterly mistaken as we cannot escape the effects of our own thinking including the feelings that thoughts engender. A misapprehension can make you feel miserable about the world about yourself or someone else but those feelings are unjustified in truth. We have two fundamental expressions love and fear and all shades of emotional life are variants of these but only one expression is congruent with the apprehension of real things the other thrives on the shadows of ignorance.

The heart is not a good decision maker but perfect for adding pace to our creative endeavors.

 

Knowledge isn't always perceived and there is a confusion between perception of being and being shared, knowledge, as we can and do mistakenly perceive ourselves as discrete entities wholly separate from everything around us thinking perhaps that there is a real world out there but we for some reason can't know it, ("lets be honest", an example). This perspective inevitably leads to doubt about the parameters of your own existence, I mean to the extent that we doubt we are real. Reality fortunately does not depend on our belief in it but belief is an adjunct to perception of it in that we must allow evidence, that is believe there is something to find. Many use the natural perceptive function of belief to instead deny appearances, in the world, in ourselves, and in each other.

 

The Beatles had it right then;
:guitarist::guitarist::guitarist::drummer:

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.

Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLEtGRUrtJo"]All You Need Is Love - YouTube

 

Agreed. Discussing each others assumptions of what we think we mean by thinking too much about it, cos just... well.. yeah..

 

Well...,yeah, this statements has a couple of parts. There is discussing and there is assuming. Then we have each other and our agreements, and then phenomenally there are the fill in the dots with sentimental meaning marks,"...".

I don't think you can think too much about it, our thoughts are always trying to find proportion for it. I think making assumptions about the meaning of the statements of others makes for poor communication and discussing things is for that very purpose of communication. I think being willing to stay tuned and ask questions relieves suspicion. People too often assume they understand each other but the way we use our words, our personal vernacular, is locally and uniquely impressed even though our biological experience is in common.

For example I am proficient in english but many english speakers can't understand a damn thing I say. Then of course as I said before that many use belief to deny appearances, lie and a lie is a very confusing tongue.

 

Right so it's a new week yet again, which means..........It's time for a new question!
For this week lets try out this one.
Who defines good and evil?
Let's get thinking man

 

Well and good.

What is love to those who are convinced they are without it?

All you need is love is a great song but needy love?, a poor lesson! Love is beyond what can be taught as it is a chorus of being.

Love is what we are, loving. Love is where we are ever present but we build barriers, degrees of suspicion, to the perception of it. You cannot identify what you cannot or are unwilling to perceive.

 

This question is easily answered to everyone's satisfaction!

 

That's exactly where I fall down in these discussions.. linguistic communication has never been one of my strong points, way too abstract for me, but I think I can interpret what people say fairly well(obviously.. I'll never know for sure cos I can't discuss it any further ;P), although I must admit it can take me a while to digest some your posts, but that's why I like 'em.. miss your sparring sessions with dejavu too

But anyway, discussion isn't the only way of going about things.. observation, interaction and visual recreation tickle my philosophical G spot way more efficiently.

 

Does a brain have thought without stimulus? That seems like science. If anything, maybe just instinct to survive.

What would I change in the world? That seems like opinion. My first choice though would be selfishness.

Now for who defines good and evil? The power of empathy.

 

Empathy isn't constant

 

Why are you noting that? Does it has to be constant?

 

If you're defining good vs evil.. so upon further inspection, I guess not

But empathy is learned, and it comes into action after you've judged the situation. We project our own personal bias onto the universe, which is influenced by culture and personal experience..

 

but your art speaks volumes.

 

Strictly speaking, Mirriam-Webster probably has this one covered.

 

Yes philosophers are less than exciting in books, unfortunately our shared experience in this forum is the way we handle symbols. It might be superior if we could share a meal of course! You might be selling yourself short on your ability to contribute mightily to this discussion. You certainly
pique my interest as much as Dejavu.

 

I faxed you some chicken wings, dope.

 

Not so. Levels of identification vary and our protections, empathy for any cause, extends naturally to those things we value as ours or our own. Every expression of love is maximal.

 

I'll see your symbolic gesture with the promise to remember you the next time I slaughter a chicken.