Can only choose one path?

[Nick_A]

Nick_A:

You insist anamnesis is a myth because it seems illogical to you.

If the issue was simply that it seems illogical that would not be sufficient to call it a myth. It would simply be something in Plato that seems illogical. I call it a myth because that is what is most consistent with the texts in which it is told, the corpus, and the work of the best contemporary scholars. Plato’s myths have meaning, and as with everything in Plato that meaning functions on different levels.

It wouldn’t make any sense for the conscious truths of Christianity should be invented at a particular time and place.

This perfectly illustrates a point I have made to you several times. You bring something to the text and thus can only see in the text what you bring to it. You look to Plato not in order to understand the dialogues but for confirmation of what you believe.

You offer the comparison of facts through the external process of reason as the ultimate path to truth.

I do not think that reading Plato offers a path to truth. The dialogues are not revealed religion. Rather than an external process of reason I attempt to follow the paths of reason that Plato opens to the careful reader.

That is fine but the knowledge Plato refers to appears through remembrance.

So why is there no talk of remembrance in the Theaetetus, the dialogue about knowledge?

You prefer to deny and I prefer opening to conscious experience.

I prefer not to bring assumptions to the reading of a text, you prefer to impose your assumptions on it. You also prefer to ignore both the texts and questions about the text that challenge your assumptions.

You wanted Socrates to speak as though reciting a text on chemistry and Plato writes in such a way forcing a person to bypass dualistic reason and open to the conscious experience of anamnesis.

If you paid attention to what I have actually said it would be clear that the Platonic texts must be read in a certain way, a way that Plato shows us in the Phaedrus.

Plato does not "bypass" reason, he makes us aware of the limits of reason. So, where do we go from there? One option is, as Socrates says in the Phaedo, to calm childish fears with stories. But while some of his followers gladly take refuge, those who seek truth rather than comfort or assurances are not lulled to sleep. The myth of remembering does not cause them to forget Socrates human wisdom. These stories are not of things known. Sleep well.

Fooloso4 wrote:

I do not think that reading Plato offers a path to truth. The dialogues are not revealed religion. Rather than an external process of reason I attempt to follow the paths of reason that Plato opens to the careful reader.

Yes, you limit yourself to dualistic reason. But suppose Plato was right when he wrote:

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

You accept only dualistic associative thought and deny anamnesis which is a higher quality of intellect becyond the scope of dualism.

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil

I agree completely People deny the quality of reason that produces science because they think it opposes religious thought. This is a harmful mistake.

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil

This appears as a contradiction for you since there is nothing higher for you than dualistic thought. Yet Simone is just expressing the same idea Plato did. Experiencing objective values requires remembrance of what is already known.

How is it that one slender young woman with a complete dedication to impartial truth becomes open to what so many inhabiting modern public education deny? I don't know, but during these times the deniers are winning and the students are losing through celebrated secular ignorance.

-- Updated Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:54 pm to add the following --

Nick_A:

... if you and some others are willing to discuss the purpose of education it would be a first on this site.

This is too funny. You claim to be capable of remembering what you learned when you were dead, but can’t remember that we have had this discussion on this site, and you posted the same link. It went like this: you showed disdain for secular education, secular society, and experts with frequent to Weil, the cave, and your other favorite themes. In other words, the discussion was no different than any other discussion you participate in, including this one.

If you prefer we could discuss what makes for the ideal female behind from an aesthetic perspective.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

But suppose Plato was right when he wrote:

We have discussed this passage before. It is part of a larger discussion of the problems of writing. What he means is that people who are filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom will take what is written, repeat it, and will be a burden to others. If he were writing today he would say they take passages out of content, cut and paste.

Need I connect the dots for you? Is it not clear who he is referring to?

You accept only dualistic associative thought and deny anamnesis which is a higher quality of intellect becyond the scope of dualism.

Yes, you have said this several times before. You accept it, I don’t. My point is that you use Plato as an authority on this matter, but although Plato tells the tale, a careful reading reveals that it is only a tale.

Experiencing objective values requires remembrance of what is already known.

So, I will ask again. Where in the dialogues does Plato put this to use? Where does he settle whatever the matter at hand is by recourse to what is known from being dead? Where does he settle the matter by recourse to the Forms?

How is it that one slender young woman with a complete dedication to impartial truth becomes open to what so many inhabiting modern public education deny?

You call it impartial truth others call it unwarranted absolutism, the elevation of her convictions to the status of truth.

I don't know, but during these times the deniers are winning and the students are losing through celebrated secular ignorance.

You really have no idea. There are many remarkable young people you know nothing of. If you did then perhaps it would humble you, but then again Weil is not the only one who has elevated her convictions to the status of truth.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A:

But suppose Plato was right when he wrote:

We have discussed this passage before. It is part of a larger discussion of the problems of writing. What he means is that people who are filled not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom will take what is written, repeat it, and will be a burden to others. If he were writing today he would say they take passages out of content, cut and paste.

Need I connect the dots for you? Is it not clear who he is referring to?

You accept only dualistic associative thought and deny anamnesis which is a higher quality of intellect becyond the scope of dualism.

Yes, you have said this several times before. You accept it, I don’t. My point is that you use Plato as an authority on this matter, but although Plato tells the tale, a careful reading reveals that it is only a tale.

Experiencing objective values requires remembrance of what is already known.

So, I will ask again. Where in the dialogues does Plato put this to use? Where does he settle whatever the matter at hand is by recourse to what is known from being dead? Where does he settle the matter by recourse to the Forms?

How is it that one slender young woman with a complete dedication to impartial truth becomes open to what so many inhabiting modern public education deny?

You call it impartial truth others call it unwarranted absolutism, the elevation of her convictions to the status of truth.

I don't know, but during these times the deniers are winning and the students are losing through celebrated secular ignorance.

You really have no idea. There are many remarkable young people you know nothing of. If you did then perhaps it would humble you, but then again Weil is not the only one who has elevated her convictions to the status of truth.

Let's make this simple. Do you agree with the following statement or is it just fantasy?

"in the Divided Line, Plato makes an important distinction between lower reason (dianoia; discursive reasoning; ratiocination) and higher reason (noesis; intellection). Plato’s belief in a higher form of reason — which is central to his entire philosophical program.............."

You seem to deny noesis and I've experienced enough in my life to know it is true that a person can experience a quality of truth beyond what dianoia can reveal. We have an essential disagreement. But if I am right secular egoism expressing its imagined superiority through dualistic reason and its denial of higher reason has a horrible effect on the young not yet spiritually dead. It is a crime secularists are proud of. What kind of meaningful path could ever arise from such an attitude?

[Sy Borg]

Greta wrote:

The education system today is geared to do one thing - to prepare students for future study or employment. In the past most parents felt it was not appropriate that life lessons should be given by schoolteachers, especially given the growing plurality of beliefs in societies. It's easy to imagine one's child being given life lessons at school that we might find abhorrent as regards gender, sexuality, and life and death.

If I read you correctly, modern public education has nothing to do with the “good life”. Instead modern public education is about getting a job rather than the education of human being. If so, freedom as a potential societal value must vanish because of pragmatic disputes over subjective values. This isn’t the place to discuss it but if you and some others are willing to discuss the purpose of education it would be a first on this site.

Having the skills and knowledge needed to get by is at least gives one a fighting chance of leading a good life. That is the purpose of formal education today. Personal education and guidance is ideally received from parents and other elders rather than schools, as it has always been.

It's true that there appears to be a gap where parents are not providing the guidance once provided by institutions. Nick, I know that you will advocate filling that gap with more religious control and input into education. It's a path you have pursued before. I would much rather there be a gap in education than to fill it with the divisiveness of theism.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote:

It's true that there appears to be a gap where parents are not providing the guidance once provided by institutions. Nick, I know that you will advocate filling that gap with more religious control and input into education. It's a path you have pursued before. I would much rather there be a gap in education than to fill it with the divisiveness of theism.

This is precisely why I left Philosophy Now. It was obviously dominated by a clique incapable of religious discrimination. Anything smelling of the dreaded G word was attacked and threads killed. I asked the mod to remove a thread obviously destroyed by the clique so as to show respect for members. The clique was supported so I left. There is no value in discussing higher ideas as they are written of in philosophy and/or religion if the secular mind revolts against them and persecutes them while supported by the site.

I just posted a link on the importance of becoming capable of sustaining conscious attention necessary to live the “good life.” You associate it with secularized religion and religious control. I thought it may be possible to discuss the value of conscious attention as an aspect of public education but I see that arguing opinions is more satisfying. It is the way it is. It doesn’t bother me and as I’ve said my concern is for the young who are psychologically injured by secular bigotry and its imagined superiority. Jacob Needleman describes his experience with metaphysical repression. Secularists will rejoice because it allows them to provide the “correct answers” to student’s questions and get them serious about getting a job. It is the way of the Great Beast but I don’t have to support this nasty form of child abuse and work against it whenever possible..


From a discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker

http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1

………………….. I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you're speaking of. That is what Plato called eros—a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.

I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.

My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art………………………….

[Sy Borg]

Whatever, Nick. So yes, I oppose bringing religion back into education on principle, just as you oppose purely secular education on principle. This always was a game of opinions because it started with yours.

Things is, schools aren't repressing anything. They do not stop students from learning what they want outside of school, just that students must regurgitate the syllabus in tests to gain marks. I note that in religious education the demand to regurgitate dogma is even more pronounced.

Whatever, I would have thought that personal development would be a role for family rather than the state, or worse, religions. Why should secular parents pay their taxes for state sponsored religious instruction. Isn't it enough that our taxes cover for religions' tax free status?

There is room for students to learn critical thinking techniques and how to check credibility of information sources, and how to spot manipulation, but - God forbid [sic] - that we regress to taxpayer funded religious indoctrination in public schools.

I also think your pet hobby horse of the need to indoctrinate children to religion is a hijack of the thread.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

What kind of meaningful path could ever arise from such an attitude?

Some desire answers to things unknown and grasp hold of some myth and mysticism as if to a life raft.

There is a story of a venerable ancient philosopher famous for his wisdom. Some men go on a long and arduous journey in search of him. After many years they find him. They are taken aback when they see him in the kitchen making soup. How could he be doing such a mundane thing? Seeing their confusion he explained: “I was hungry”.

A Zen Koan:

A monk asked Zhaozhou to teach him.
Zhaozhou asked, "Have you eaten your meal?"
The monk replied, "Yes, I have."
"Then go wash your bowl", said Zhaozhou.
At that moment, the monk was enlightened.

[Nick_A]

Greta, this thread is about choosing one path. However there are several paths initiated by its conscious source that lead to the ONE Way. Paths become secularized and lose their potency and meaning but the Way remains the same beyond the scope of secular arguments

You remind me of the racist who groups people because of race and the sexist who groups people because of gender. Those freakin blacks, they are all alike. Those feakin women, they are all alike. Greta says: that freakin religion, it’s is all the same. That is how you are. You lack appreciation for scale and relativity in the concept of religion. It is a typical secular failing.

Since I was reminded of Philosophy Now, I looked in to see if it was still the same. Rick Lewis came out with an editorial on human rights. This is a perfect example of secular failings. Neither he nor anyone else there has any idea that rights don’t exist. What we have are obligations. It is only through the voluntary adoption of obligations that rights become possible. Simone Weil wrote:

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.

The domination of the secular mindset and its support by the clique assures that the rational idea that rights are only possible to the extent that the value of voluntary obligations are felt would be an absurdity on Philosophy Now. It wouldn’t be wanted and the clique would defend against its intrusion so who would bother? So people will just continue a meaningless argument about rights. It is a lose lose proposition

There is no way this mindset could ever say anything sensible about one path. First of all they couldn’t distinguish between a path and the Way and a non-illusory path is essential in order to experience the Way. Second they would never come up for air long enough to contemplate why the human condition makes us incapable of it as we are. Naturally then they would never open to the idea that critical thinking alone is powerless to allow us to “feel” the necessity for voluntary obligations. Who in their right mind could possibly suggest a path would appear out of all this which would help people to awaken to their humanity? That never stops a good argument

So continue to argue about an impossible path arising from secularism. It cannot happen and the refusal to acknowledge the human condition in schools is a sure fire spirit killer. Your way, not mine. Enjoy

-- Updated Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:17 am to add the following --

Nick_A:

What kind of meaningful path could ever arise from such an attitude?

Some desire answers to things unknown and grasp hold of some myth and mysticism as if to a life raft.

There is a story of a venerable ancient philosopher famous for his wisdom. Some men go on a long and arduous journey in search of him. After many years they find him. They are taken aback when they see him in the kitchen making soup. How could he be doing such a mundane thing? Seeing their confusion he explained: “I was hungry”.

A Zen Koan:

A monk asked Zhaozhou to teach him.
Zhaozhou asked, "Have you eaten your meal?"
The monk replied, "Yes, I have."
"Then go wash your bowl", said Zhaozhou.
At that moment, the monk was enlightened.

Yes, this koan is the first part of a popular TV commercial. If you want to be enlightened make sure your bowl is thoroughly washed out. For that you need Ajax dish liquid. Enlightenment begins with knowledge of the best dish liquid. For that you need Ajax; the finest name in dish liquid and sure to make your bowl worthy.

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

If you want to be enlightened make sure your bowl is thoroughly washed out.

But he is enlightened before he washes the bowl. You seem to have missed the point.

Enlightenment begins with knowledge of the best dish liquid.

This comment just illustrates your desire for answers, thinking it is about having the right answers. What you assume it that there must be some knowledge with which enlightenment begins, but of course, not knowledge of dish liquid. You believe that knowledge is found in Christian neo-Platonism. And so, yes, make sure your bowl is thoroughly washed out.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A:

If you want to be enlightened make sure your bowl is thoroughly washed out.

But he is enlightened before he washes the bowl. You seem to have missed the point.

Enlightenment begins with knowledge of the best dish liquid.

This comment just illustrates your desire for answers, thinking it is about having the right answers. What you assume it that there must be some knowledge with which enlightenment begins, but of course, not knowledge of dish liquid. You believe that knowledge is found in Christian neo-Platonism. And so, yes, make sure your bowl is thoroughly washed out.

Now you’ve done it. Not only have you insulted the Great Beast and all its experts who define it but also its chief advocate the Devil himself. A person may receive the temporary jolt of enlightenment but needs an expert to explain it. What good is the desire to wash your bowl if you don’t know the best method. This is where the expert comes in. He will teach you what is important.

Do you know how much money and effort it takes to create genuine experts who are peer reviewed by other experts to deserve their recognition as an expert? This isn’t easy. If they condescend to explain the importance of Ajax they are teaching you what you should know about enlightenment. Krishnamurti explains:

“You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to help him organize it."

What good is a momentary revelation without an expert to organize it for you? You have just insulted the chief advocate and expert in matters of secularism. Where else will you learn of the importance of Ajax and all other concerns of equal importance that give life meaning?

One wonders why some young slender woman would be taken seriously when she writes of the value of verification through conscious attention. She should be more concerned with who is watching her azz. How could she not know she was surrounded by educated experts capable of explaining it all to her. Truth through conscious attention indeed! Well she is a woman so easily fooled. What else should we expect

[Fooloso4]

Nick_A:

This is where the expert comes in. He will teach you what is important.

And that is exactly what you attempt to do and think yourself capable of doing:

… as I’ve said my concern is for the young ...

Ironically, in response to my pointing out the desire of some to be given answers, you bring your well rehearsed rant about “experts” in. It is for you all about answers. They do not give you the answers you desire, or the answers you wish to provide to “the young” or anyone else you hope might buy into what you are selling.

Do you know how much money and effort it takes to create genuine experts who are peer reviewed by other experts to deserve their recognition as an expert?

Right, much better to go online and buy snake oil than go to a licensed medical doctor. Anyone with a knife, after all, can do what a surgeon does. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put a rocket into space. Architects and engineers are expensive, save your money and have someone who owns a hammer design and build a house or bridge for you. Or better yet, I have a bridge already built for you to buy.

He picked up a piece of Truth …

Do you not see that you have whole files of “truths” that you have picked up that you select from and repeatedly paste into your responses on this forum? They are your pocket full of answers.

One wonders why some young slender woman would be taken seriously when she writes of the value of verification through conscious attention.

“Young slender woman”? The last time I ignored it but now I’ll ask: Why the condescension?

Let’s be honest Nick. It is for Weil not a matter of conscious attention but of being attentive to the longed for appearance of an absent God.

How could she not know she was surrounded by educated experts capable of explaining it all to her.

From what I have gathered she saw herself as the educated expert explaining it all to those she thought of as her intellectual and moral inferiors. Without doubt she is the expert you most frequently parrot, and the model on which you desire to establish yourself as an expert. Only you have no expertise and so you attack those who do as if you can tear them down in order to make yourself their equal.

I agree with Greta:

I also think your pet hobby horse of the need to indoctrinate children to religion is a hijack of the thread.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A:

This is where the expert comes in. He will teach you what is important.

And that is exactly what you attempt to do and think yourself capable of doing:

… as I’ve said my concern is for the young ...

Ironically, in response to my pointing out the desire of some to be given answers, you bring your well rehearsed rant about “experts” in. It is for you all about answers. They do not give you the answers you desire, or the answers you wish to provide to “the young” or anyone else you hope might buy into what you are selling.

Do you know how much money and effort it takes to create genuine experts who are peer reviewed by other experts to deserve their recognition as an expert?

Right, much better to go online and buy snake oil than go to a licensed medical doctor. Anyone with a knife, after all, can do what a surgeon does. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put a rocket into space. Architects and engineers are expensive, save your money and have someone who owns a hammer design and build a house or bridge for you. Or better yet, I have a bridge already built for you to buy.

He picked up a piece of Truth …

Do you not see that you have whole files of “truths” that you have picked up that you select from and repeatedly paste into your responses on this forum? They are your pocket full of answers.

One wonders why some young slender woman would be taken seriously when she writes of the value of verification through conscious attention.

“Young slender woman”? The last time I ignored it but now I’ll ask: Why the condescension?

Let’s be honest Nick. It is for Weil not a matter of conscious attention but of being attentive to the longed for appearance of an absent God.

How could she not know she was surrounded by educated experts capable of explaining it all to her.

From what I have gathered she saw herself as the educated expert explaining it all to those she thought of as her intellectual and moral inferiors. Without doubt she is the expert you most frequently parrot, and the model on which you desire to establish yourself as an expert. Only you have no expertise and so you attack those who do as if you can tear them down in order to make yourself their equal.

I agree with Greta:

I also think your pet hobby horse of the need to indoctrinate children to religion is a hijack of the thread.

No mind, no heart, only a blind obedience to the whims of experts representing the Great Beast who declare their superiority in matters of establishing human meaning and purpose. How could it possibly be surprising that there cannot be one path. The experts deny even the obvious necessity of conscious attention since it threatens their self importance. Who suffers from this egoistic ignorance? You guessed it; the kids who make the innocent mistake of believing these experts understand anything concerning their questions of the heart. I've read that Man is the only higher mammal that eats its young. Sad but true.

[Sy Borg]

No mind, no heart, only a blind obedience to the whims of experts representing the Great Beast who declare their superiority in matters of establishing human meaning and purpose.

I can't get excited about great beasts.

What I see instead are many vulnerable individuals struggling because institutions - including religions - are taking ever more resources for themselves, and at a time when the environment is under pressure. We can, of course, refer to institutions as beasts, but they are just doing what religions and other larger institutions have always done - ab/used their power.

Suddenly there's outrage because religion is no longer the driver? Don't worry. It appears that Republicans are working on turning the US into an isolationist theocratic rogue state. I guess they have been so focused on rogue theocrats for so long that it rubbed off.

[Nick_A]

No mind, no heart, only a blind obedience to the whims of experts representing the Great Beast who declare their superiority in matters of establishing human meaning and purpose.

I can't get excited about great beasts.

What I see instead are many vulnerable individuals struggling because institutions - including religions - are taking ever more resources for themselves, and at a time when the environment is under pressure. We can, of course, refer to institutions as beasts, but they are just doing what religions and other larger institutions have always done - ab/used their power.

Suddenly there's outrage because religion is no longer the driver? Don't worry. It appears that Republicans are working on turning the US into an isolationist theocratic rogue state. I guess they have been so focused on rogue theocrats for so long that it rubbed off.

OK, what is the one path which will arise out of all that you have written and enable people to live in peace and harmony within a free society?

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)

I can't get excited about great beasts.

What I see instead are many vulnerable individuals struggling because institutions - including religions - are taking ever more resources for themselves, and at a time when the environment is under pressure. We can, of course, refer to institutions as beasts, but they are just doing what religions and other larger institutions have always done - ab/used their power.

Suddenly there's outrage because religion is no longer the driver? Don't worry. It appears that Republicans are working on turning the US into an isolationist theocratic rogue state. I guess they have been so focused on rogue theocrats for so long that it rubbed off.

OK, what is the one path which will arise out of all that you have written and enable people to live in peace and harmony within a free society?

Is there a path? Also, if there is a path, why one? Who said so. Simone?

Religion had a few thousand years to achieve this and most of it was horrid, although slow moral progress was achieved through experience, although in some areas that was despite rather than because of religion. Now it's secularism's turn, perhaps. The theistic fightback is fierce, and dangerous and they might regain control. We may find out what it's like to live in an autocratic theocracy, which would surely provide the kind of school religious instruction (on the secular taxpayers' tab) you'd prefer.

I don't claim to have a path to solve the world's problems. I don't think the world has a problem, mostly just large organisms, including humans, especially the poor. The biosphere is just doing what it's always done - re-forming every now and then via extinction events, like the Holocene, driven by humans.

So where exactly do you think the deck chairs on the Titanic should be located?

Re: subjective affects when under duress, I think we need something more reliable than religion.

I would like to see more widespread techniques available, means of better understanding the mind's and body's functions so as to gain more control over them. That would allow us to be more deliberate, to be more who we want to be rather than who we are compelled to be. To function more via reason and less by compulsion. With self mastery can come peace, but that particular science, be it Buddhist or secular, is either undeveloped or not readily available.