But WHY ought we love one another?

[Leela]

I think there’s a lot that needs to be corrected in your story, but I’ll get to that later.

First I want to ask you: Is it true that you care about the truth? What does it mean to say that someone cares about the truth, in your view? Is it enough to care about the truth sometimes (when it suits your polemical purposes)? When you continue to talk “knowingly” about nameless philosophers of the past that you seem not to know anything about, how is that consistent with caring about the truth?

I would think that it means the same thing when I say I care about the truth as it does when you say it.

 

[Leela]

Leela;6541445:

Leela, I’m afraid you are unrealistic in your analysis of scepticism and cynicism. They are not the result of dissatisfaction with, and a rejection of, timeless, universal truths but of contempt for **all **

human beliefs and values. And this contempt is based on the realisation that in a Godless universe there are no objective truths or values. All morality becomes nothing more than human convention. You can take it or leave it. If you choose to leave it there is no price to pay - according to the cynic, sceptic or criminal who regard your stories as fairy stories…

You underestimate the lack of love in the world because you restrict your attention to love between friends and members of families. The whole point is that most love is insular and does not extend to foreigners and members of other races and religions or ideologies. You exaggerate the amount of family love in modern, secular societies. In the UK one third of all marriages end in divorce, one million parents live alone with their children and over half a million old people live away from their children.

You also underestimate the importance of philosophical beliefs with regard to a person’s attitude to others. If you believe we are animals which exist by chance how can you possibly have as much respect and concern for others as a person who believes we are all children of the same Father?

A criminal does not need stories but a social environment in which the belief that we are all children of the same Father is taught and reflected in **opportunities **to respond creatively to education and love by making the most of her talents and abilities. She may not respond but we should never lose hope that she will eventually realise she will be much happier when she is appreciated by others rather than feared and despised.

You are not promoting the idea that human nature is essentially animal in nature but you are not leaving people with any other alternative. Do you think the ordinary person is going to be convinced by the notion that humanity is “an ongoing project that has shown a lot of progress”? The bloodstained history of mankind with the prospect of a nuclear holocaust and more people living in poverty and misery than ever before gives the opposite impression of progress, either past or future.

“an ongoing project” on the part of whom or what? Of purposeless particles? Of random mutations and natural selection? It is far too vague to have any impact because it savours of precisely what you are trying to avoid… a philosophical foundation! And that foundation presupposes a knowledge of what progress is… Where does that spring from? Intuition?
Certainly not from scientific theories…

I don’t share your pesimistic view of humanity, but I agree with you in recognizing that many others do and will need different stories to draw meaning and inspiration such as the one you mentioned about all being children of a single heavenly Father. I don’t think that there is any one size fits all metanarrative to end all metanarratives.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Stories are of ultimate importance. And the Gospels are even called “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” It is vastly misinterpreted, tragically so, but it is a great story nevertheless.

I agree–a great story indeed. It yields some wonderful interpretations. Unfortunately, some really lousy interpretations have taken root as well. (How would you define “interpretation?”)

But as the parable of the sower and the seeds tell us, the same potential can fall on different states of preparedness. I personally find Leela’s advocating for a more and more Universally acceptable and insightful story to be very appealing.

I don’t think universality need be a test for the value of a story since, as the parable of the sower and the seeds demonstrates, not every story will resonate in the same way with every person. Different people may need different stories or maybe just different interpretations of the same stories. Some stories are particularly fruitful and continue to open up to new interpretations as we return to them again and again.

Good, which is what “god” means in many languages, is not about religion, though religion purports to be about God. But that is not sufficient, as we can plainly see. What has always and in my opinion only bee effective is an innate or transformed state of awareness in which someone who appears as “other” is understood at the instinctive level to be equivalent to “self.” Some Love relationships achieve this, few others do.

This is a good description of what the mystics may describe as the purpose of relogion, but I don’t think we necessarily need to enforce a more narrow definition that is usually applied. There are better and worse ways of being religious and different ways of being religious that have differemt purposes.

But it is this innate understanding that is in fact at the root of both versions of the Golden Rule and of Jesus dictum to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is required because in Reality, in Essence, if you think about it, at the root of things the “other” IS fundamentally your Self.

This is what the mystics say, and I think the stories of Maslow’s hierachy of moral development, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive development, and a Fruedian story of ego development can be reconciled in a broad story that points to this same conclusion that the mystics have always insisted upon. Thou art that. Philosophy following James and Heideger has also come to reject the subject-object picture as ontologically foundational.

Anyway, I agree with Leela’s advocating the need for story, the more Universal the better.

Thanks for your support. Again, I don’t know about universality. I think we should point to lots of different stories and different initerpretations of the same stories for different purposes as well as seek new and better stories. “Is the story historically true?” is only one consideration in an interpretation. People’s objections to, say, Darwin’s story about biological evolutionary are often the result of applying the wrong stories to the wrong purposes. Those that do not object this story are generally those who don’t take it to be a story about Human Nature.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t share your pesimistic view of humanity, but I agree with you in recognizing that many others do and will need different stories to draw meaning and inspiration such as the one you mentioned about all being children of a single heavenly Father. I don’t think that there is any one size fits all metanarrative to end all metanarratives.

Best,
Leela

My view of humanity is optimistic because I believe there is a solution which does not exist for those who believe we exist for no ultimate reason or purpose. As I have pointed out in another post:

Nothing matters if nothing exists but matter!

 

[Leela]

My view of humanity is optimistic because I believe there is a solution which does not exist for those who believe we exist for no ultimate reason or purpose.

At least we both have reason to be optimistic.

As I have pointed out in another post:

Nothing matters if nothing exists but matter!

“What sorts of things exist?” is a different question from “what should we do?” As we’ve been through in the past, I have a lot of doubts about the ability to reason from “is” to “ought,” so your slogan above does not resonate with me in the least.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

I would think that it means the same thing when I say I care about the truth as it does when you say it.

I don’t, for reasons that I indicated in my questions to you. If it did mean the same thing to you, then I think this would imply that you were lying when you say “I care about the truth.” In any case, what do you think it means?

 

[Leela]

I don’t, for reasons that I indicated in my questions to you. If it did mean the same thing to you, then I think this would imply that you were lying when you say “I care about the truth.” In any case, what do you think it means?

I don’t know what you are getting at. What reasons did you indicate in your questions to me? Are there questions that you still would like me to answer?

As far as “I care about the truth,” I don’t know how to unpack this statement for you. To say I care just means it matters to me. To you need me to say that it is the highest possible good? That is it more important than morality, justice, love or having food to eat or a place to live? I don’t know how to give such things a static place on a continuum of goodness.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think universality need be a test for the value of a story since, as the parable of the sower and the seeds demonstrates, not every story will resonate in the same way with every person. Different people may need different stories or maybe just different interpretations of the same stories. Some stories are particularly fruitful and continue to open up to new interpretations as we return to them again and again.

Are you serious? That is clearly not what the parable is about. Please read it again.

This is a good description of what the mystics may describe as the purpose of relogion, but I don’t think we necessarily need to enforce a more narrow definition that is usually applied. There are better and worse ways of being religious and different ways of being religious that have differemt purposes.

This is what the mystics say, and I think the stories of Maslow’s hierachy of moral development, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive development, and a Fruedian story of ego development can be reconciled in a broad story that points to this same conclusion that the mystics have always insisted upon. Thou art that. Philosophy following James and Heideger has also come to reject the subject-object picture as ontologically foundational.

“The mystics”? Uh… which ones? Hugh of St. Victor? Jean Tauler? Henry Suso? John of the Cross? Teresa of Avila? Jewish mystics? Islamic mystics? (No, no, no, no, no, no, no.)

 

[Betterave]

I don’t know what you are getting at. What reasons did you indicate in your questions to me? Are there questions that you still would like me to answer?

As far as “I care about the truth,” I don’t know how to unpack this statement for you. To say I care just means it matters to me. To you need me to say that it is the highest possible good? That is it more important than morality, justice, love or having food to eat or a place to live? I don’t know how to give such things a static place on a continuum of goodness.

Best,
Leela

It’s pretty simple, Leela: I try to be careful not to say “X” when “X” is false. This means I would not make claims about the history of philosophy (in your case you seem to be just repeating slogans you’ve read) if I didn’t know anything about the history of philosophy. I think that you don’t care about that kind of thing and you’ve demonstrated your insouciance in this regard repeatedly.

I have no idea what you mean to suggest by opposing the goodness of truth to the goodness of morality, justice, love, or having food to eat and a place to live. Do you? (Again it seems very doubtful to me that you mean the same thing by “I care about the truth” as I do.)

 

[Leela]

“The mystics”? Uh… which ones? Hugh of St. Victor? Jean Tauler? Henry Suso? John of the Cross? Teresa of Avila? Jewish mystics? Islamic mystics? (No, no, no, no, no, no, no.)

So often it seems like “No, no, no, no, no, no, no” is all you have to add to discussions. Do you want to add a definition of mysticism or any explanation about why you think I am wrong or what I am wrong about?

If I had to guess, I would suppose that you are saying that all mysticism is not nondualistic. I usually think of mysticism in that way, and that is the sort of mysticism I felt like Detales was talking about and what I think Jesus meant by “I and the Father are One,” but I take you point, if it indeed was your point, that all mysticism is not nondualistic.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

At least we both have reason to be optimistic.

That is true but my optimism is stronger than yours because you believe there is much injustice and unnecessary suffering that will never be rectified.

“What sorts of things exist?” is a different question from “what should we do?” As we’ve been through in the past, I have a lot of doubts about the ability to reason from “is” to “ought,” so your slogan above does not resonate with me in the least.

What we should do depends on what we are. If we are animals that exist by chance not all our obligations are the same as if we exist by Design. To stake everything on this life means you must have different priorities. You attach more importance to physical survival, for example. This life is immensely valuable but it does not outweigh the love which entails dying for others. You probably would sacrifice yourself for others you don’t even know - if it were really necessary - but it means you accept the teaching of Jesus without recognising Him for what He is! It makes me wonder how such astonishing love can spring from animal instincts!

 

[Betterave]

So often it seems like “No, no, no, no, no, no, no” is all you have to add to discussions. Do you want to add a definition of mysticism or any explanation about why you think I am wrong or what I am wrong about?

If I had to guess, I would suppose that you are saying that all mysticism is not nondualistic. I usually think of mysticism in that way, and that is the sort of mysticism I felt like Detales was talking about and what I think Jesus meant by “I and the Father are One,” but I take you point, if it indeed was your point, that all mysticism is not nondualistic.

Best,
Leela

It may seem that way to you; but honestly, why is that? I’m quite certain it’s not because it’s true. Even in the case you cite, the “no’s” are not at all the only substance of my comment. So here I am, saying “no” (“not”) again; but that’s because I care about the truth and it needs to be said. Do you resent that? You seem to.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question about non-dualistic mysticism. I would have said that not all mysticism is monistic. In any case, it was meant to be a specific rejection of the specific claim that you made as being clearly misleading in light of the clear facts. Sorry if you have a problem with that. (I could have rejected Detales claims, rather than your comments on those claims, but I think that attempting rational discussion with the kind of enlightened being that Detales apparently takes himself to be is very likely to be ‘unproductive.’)

 

[Leela]

It may seem that way to you; but honestly, why is that? I’m quite certain it’s not because it’s true. Even in the case you cite, the “no’s” are not at all the only substance of my comment. So here I am, saying “no” (“not”) again; but that’s because I care about the truth and it needs to be said. Do you resent that? You seem to.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question about non-dualistic mysticism. I would have said that not all mysticism is monistic. In any case, it was meant to be a specific rejection of the specific claim that you made as being clearly misleading in light of the clear facts. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

I don’t have a problem with you pointing out that I have said something misleading “in light of the clear facts,” but what was misleading about what I said? (I already granted that there are dual and nondual forms of mysticism depending on the view of it as becoming completely conscious of the divine or completely merging with the divine.) And what are the clear facts? What do you take mysticism to be (or what are the clear facts that I missed about what mysticism actually is)? If you recall, my point to Detales is that he was saying something that equates to “all of TRUE religion is mysticism,” and I was arguing that religion is a much more broad term than that which includes mysticism but need not be limited to mysticism. I would have thought this would have been a point you would agree with, yet you jumped all over me for making what you thought was an obvious error in denial of some clear facts because you think I don’t care enough about the truth. Isn’t possible that what are clear facts to you are not at all clear to me, just as things that I recognize as true are not recognized by you to be true? Disagreement is not the same thing as not caring about what the truth actually is.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

I don’t have a problem with you pointing out that I have said something misleading “in light of the clear facts,” but what was misleading about what I said? (I already granted that there are dual and nondual forms of mysticism depending on the view of it as becoming completely conscious of the divine or completely merging with the divine.) And what are the clear facts? What do you take mysticism to be (or what are the clear facts that I missed about what mysticism actually is)? If you recall, my point to Detales is that he was saying something that equates to “all of TRUE religion is mysticism,” and I was arguing that religion is a much more broad term than that which includes mysticism but need not be limited to mysticism. I would have thought this would have been a point you would agree with, yet you jumped all over me for making what you thought was an obvious error in denial of some clear facts because you think I don’t care enough about the truth. Isn’t possible that what are clear facts to you are not at all clear to me, just as things that I recognize as true are not recognized by you to be true? Disagreement is not the same thing as not caring about what the truth actually is.

Best,
Leela

Obviously disagreement is not the same thing as not caring about what the truth actually is. Nonetheless, when your “disagreement” consists of an established pattern of ignorant and intransigent repetition of slogans summarizing the history of philosophy in an obviously naive, ignorant, inaccurate way - we have to say this is not disagreement, this is distaste for truth. Genuine, legitimate disagreement is supposed to lead to the fruit of reflection and learning and progress, not just the same lame repetition of stale uninformed slogans. If you want to speak of disagreement as something positive, you have to have a practice of disagreement that is not just a matter of stubbornly endorsing your own prejudices. I take the time to point this out to you because you of all people, with your pluralism rhetoric, are bound to recognize this, in practice; if you don’t, if your rhetorical practice belies your theoretical asseverations, your claim to care about the truth will be nothing but self-deception.

Now I really don’t have the patience to go through all of the things that you have said that are “clearly misleading.” I’ll just refer you to what I was originally referring to, your post where you make general claims about what “the mystics” say in support of Detales’ views. I gave a bunch of clear examples of mystics that clearly do not say what you say “the mystics” say. What is not clear about that? I also pointed out your clear misreading of the parable of the sower - what was not clear about that? I’m sorry if I get a bit impatient, but I do credit you with the intelligence to be able to notice this kind of thing, such that you shouldn’t really need to ask the kind of question you asked above. You do have the option, of course, of disagreeing with me in a way that showed a respect for the truth, that showed you were looking for the truth, not just for more stories to tell, even if those stories aren’t true…

 

[Slowlearner]

And hey, maybe I’m a dispicable person because of it. Maybe some people will think I’m weak and that’s why I need a reason to be “good.” But I’ll just say that if I’m like this, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume there are plenty of other people out there just like me.

+1 Nice post, Garyjohn. All of us are sinners, none deserving of his mercy, yet he gave his only son for us.

 

[Slowlearner]

I’m suggesting that these questions only get answered with the expansion of moral imagination as we come to love others as ourselves–not as we love ourselves but literally recognizing others as also ourselves. That is moral growth and the only kind of moral growth. “Thou art that,” as they say in the East. Your suffering is my suffering. Your joy is my joy. That is the sort of compassion that Jesus taught–not to follow rules which presuppose a separation between the self and the other, but to cultivate the love that unites the two where such rules become irrelevant.

There is a reason that Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments were firstly, to love God with whole heart, mind, and soul, and secondly, to love your neighbor as yourself.

Without love of God first, love is misdirected. Love becomes the carrot and stick that you frequently refer to. Everyone would like to receive love. Everyone is willing to give love as long as it makes him/her feel better. Trying to apply the golden rule we will engage in all sorts of balancing acts and rationalizations with regard to the love we give and what we expect back. We cannot selflessly love because our mind is anchored on ourself. That self-centered view of the world will poison everything we do to some degree and greatly diminish our capacity to love.

When a person puts God at the center of his/her life, you become free to love selflessly. When you can say, I don’t care about me I’m going to work for God and Love, you will see the world differently. You can give love even when it is not appreciated or returned.

Me without God each morning: “Ok what do I want to do today. What will make me happy? Maybe today I should do something for somebody else. That might make me feel good.”

Me with God: “Thank you for creating me. What can I do for you today?” Then later, many days, but not all days, “Wow, I got it done. I’ll take a little break and relax, maybe visit CAF or go for a run.”

As Bob Dylan said, “you gotta serve somebody. It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody.”

You don’t accept God, but are you willing to put Love first in your life and say, “I am going to put service of others and love of others above myself, I will reflect daily on my efforts to serve others and consider how much I am guided by my own desires compared to selfless love of others.” This is the way to Love. Maybe you already do this.

 

[Leela]

Now I really don’t have the patience to go through all of the things that you have said that are “clearly misleading.” I’ll just refer you to what I was originally referring to, your post where you make general claims about what “the mystics” say in support of Detales’ views. I gave a bunch of clear examples of mystics that clearly do not say what you say “the mystics” say. What is not clear about that?

You have me a list of names but declined to tell me what you think mysticism really in oppistion to what I said it is. When you raised ab objection, I admitted that I was taking the Eastern nondual perspectictive on mysticism while I suspect that those you listed maintain a separation between the self and the divine.

At any rate, as an objection to my thesis in this thread it is completely insunstantial. The OP has nothing to do with mysticism. You were just objecting to my agreement with Detales view of mysticism.

I also pointed out your clear misreading of the parable of the sower - what was not clear about that? I’m sorry if I get a bit impatient, but I do credit you with the intelligence to be able to notice this kind of thing, such that you shouldn’t really need to ask the kind of question you asked above. You do have the option, of course, of disagreeing with me in a way that showed a respect for the truth, that showed you were looking for the truth, not just for more stories to tell, even if those stories aren’t true…

This supposed “misreading” of he sower parable is also not at all substantive to this discussion, so I didn’t bother to defend it. I think you are trying to enforce your unpacking of a given metaphor as the only possible valid one. I think the metaphor of sowing seeds that either land on fertile soil or dry rock can be used to imagine what it is like for different people to hear the same story. If it is not helpful to you to think of it in that way, then why not just disregard the reference? It wasn’t aimed at you anyway. You are just begging the question to insist that my use of the metaphor is “in error” since my interpretation of the metaphor in this case is that different metaphors will resonate in different ways with different people.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

You have me a list of names but declined to tell me what you think mysticism really in oppistion to what I said it is. When you raised ab objection, I admitted that I was taking the Eastern nondual perspectictive on mysticism while I suspect that those you listed maintain a separation between the self and the divine.

At any rate, as an objection to my thesis in this thread it is completely insunstantial. The OP has nothing to do with mysticism. You were just objecting to my agreement with Detales view of mysticism.

I think you’re distorting things here and ignoring my point.

Why do you point out that I declined to tell you what I think mysticism is? …then object, “at any rate,” to the pertinence of mysticism to this thread??

This supposed “misreading” of he sower parable is also not at all substantive to this discussion, so I didn’t bother to defend it. I think you are trying to enforce your unpacking of a given metaphor as the only possible valid one. I** think the metaphor of sowing seeds that either land on fertile soil or dry rock can be used to imagine what it is like for different people to hear the same story.** If it is not helpful to you to think of it in that way, then why not just disregard the reference? It wasn’t aimed at you anyway. You are just begging the question to insist that my use of the metaphor is “in error” since my interpretation of the metaphor in this case is that different metaphors will resonate in different ways with different people.

Best,
Leela

The metaphor is about what it is like for different people to hear the same story! Now here’s what you originally wrote:

“I don’t think universality need be a test for the value of a story since, as the parable of the sower and the seeds demonstrates, not every story will resonate in the same way with every person. Different people may need different stories or maybe just different interpretations of the same stories. Some stories are particularly fruitful and continue to open up to new interpretations as we return to them again and again.”

Your interpretation here is about the creative use of stories to elicit progress in moral understanding - that is *not *what the parable is about. If you want to take the *metaphor *out of its original context, go ahead. Then you can do whatever you want with it. But pretending you can ‘baptise’ your view (for polemical purposes) by leaving it in the context of Jesus’ *parable *is dishonest (assuming you were quick enough/cared about the truth enough to notice what you were doing), or at the very least objectively misleading (just as your talk about “the mystics” was). Your getting peevish about my pointing this out further contributes to my original point about you and the truth.