Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Dana Youngblood]

This book was interesting and had a good message behind it. However, many sentences had a lot of words in them which made it hard to find the message within. For example, on page 75 "True conscious love is a two-way street. It comes from both (1) the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover and (2) the projection of that consciousness onto that which is therefore lovingly empathized."

[mrlefty0706]

I have read the book two times and plan to read it again because it is filled with incredible advice and information.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

When I read this novel the first time, I smoothly went along with and accepted all of the things I read. All except one that is, the idea that should and should not are terms that are wrong for those who believe in an all powerful being. It took some time and patience of mind to see reason beyond what I already knew to be true. In fact I still hold some belief that is contrary to said statement. However, I've come to think that accepting the notion that "should" and "should not" are terms that are somewhat invalid, is one way for a person to not have questions relating to "what ifs" and similar ideas that cause one go doubt and reject reality as it is.

Hi, Solaaa,

This topic is not for posting "examples" of things you didn't understand.

It's only for posting verbatim quotes of the the very first sentence you didn't understand (i.e. the sentence closest to the beginning of the book).


Thank you,
Nisha
Executive Assistant to Scott/Eckhart

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

This book was interesting and had a good message behind it. However, many sentences had a lot of words in them which made it hard to find the message within. For example, on page 75 "True conscious love is a two-way street. It comes from both (1) the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover and (2) the projection of that consciousness onto that which is therefore lovingly empathized."

Hi, Dana Youngblood,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

"Temporal selfishness or temporal psychopathy is when one lacks empathy for their so-called past or future selves, or treats them as such, meaning unkindly, especially in terms of how one treats their future self, simply due to the mechanics of Newtonian time." How someone can feel empathy for their future selves is a question that interests me.

Hi, Shiru Elizabeth,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Dana Youngblood]

Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

This book was interesting and had a good message behind it. However, many sentences had a lot of words in them which made it hard to find the message within. For example, on page 75 "True conscious love is a two-way street. It comes from both (1) the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover and (2) the projection of that consciousness onto that which is therefore lovingly empathized."

Hi, Dana Youngblood,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

On page 75: "True conscious love is a two-way street. It comes from both (1) the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover and (2) the projection of that consciousness onto that which is therefore lovingly empathized."

I understand what each of these words means alone and some of them put together. However, the first part that says "the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover" is confusing to me. I think it might mean that we are having a conscious experience with our lover but they also need to be conscious in this moment too. There are parts of the book that talk about a "zombie" and that connection here would make sense. If our lover is not conscious of love, like a zombie, then we cannot have true conscious love. The two-way street would then be that we are conscious and our lover is conscious also. The second part, I am just completely unsure about. I know it is something about projecting this conscious love, but cannot comprehend what the rest of it means.

Thank you for your time!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

On page 75: "True conscious love is a two-way street. It comes from both (1) the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover and (2) the projection of that consciousness onto that which is therefore lovingly empathized."

I understand what each of these words means alone and some of them put together. However, the first part that says "the existence of conscious experience of consciousness in the lover" is confusing to me. I think it might mean that we are having a conscious experience with our lover but they also need to be conscious in this moment too. There are parts of the book that talk about a "zombie" and that connection here would make sense. If our lover is not conscious of love, like a zombie, then we cannot have true conscious love. The two-way street would then be that we are conscious and our lover is conscious also. The second part, I am just completely unsure about. I know it is something about projecting this conscious love, but cannot comprehend what the rest of it means.

Thank you for your time!

Hi, Dana Youngblood,

Thank you for your reply!

The sentence you quoted is really just a rephrasing/reiteration of the previous paragraph:

That instinctive empathy, of which even a philosophical zombie is capable, is very different from the special extra empathy that results from true conscious love, from empathizing specifically with the consciousness of a creature or in other words the conscious experience of the creature, not just the physical creature itself. That special extra empathy and true conscious love results by definition from the perception or belief of true consciousness in the beloved.

Since you understand what the above paragraph means (and agree with it), you can just consider the sentence you posted as meaning the same exact thing.

I will look into rephrasing that second more clearly before releasing the newest edition (which will be the third edition).

Basically, it's just saying that "true conscious love" (i.e. the "extra empathy" of which a philosophical zombie is incapable) requires that the lover is conscious and that the lover believes the loved person is conscious.

To have "true conscious love" for a person is to love/sympathize/empathize with the consciousness (a.k.a. spirit) of that person.

In other words, that sentence it simply saying you can't love their spirit if you don't believe it exists. If you believe they do not have a spirit (i.e. you believe they are not truly conscious), then you can't love their spirit/consciousness.

In yet other words, you can't love their true self if you believe they don't have a true self.

I hope this helps clarify what is meant in that section!


With love,
Eckhart

[Dana Youngblood]

Hi Eckhart,

Thank you for clarifying. I think these two sentences explain it the best "Basically, it's just saying that "true conscious love" (i.e. the "extra empathy" of which a philosophical zombie is incapable) requires that the lover is conscious and that the lover believes the loved person is conscious. To have "true conscious love" for a person is to love/sympathize/empathize with the consciousness (a.k.a. spirit) of that person."

I find that saying conscious and consciousness in the sentence twice is what made it hard for me to follow. Saying that it is the person's spirit makes more sense to me.

Thank you,
Dana

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I find that saying conscious and consciousness in the sentence twice is what made it hard for me to follow.

I agree. I'm going to fix this in the next edition. Thank you very much for bringing to my attention!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Cynthia Pence]

I am glad to be here and engage with this post. The concepts and quotes that I seem not to understand have been addressed with other questions that have been raised. However, I develop broader explanations and meanings for some of the assertions.

[Mr Benji]

Page 158, paragraph 3, sentence 3


When it comes to your choices, there is no try.



Does this sentence mean , we should do whatever we decide?

The clause," there is no try", is not clear in this context.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Important Note: Before posting in this topic, please do make sure you have looked up any words or phrases with which you aren't familiar in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia. You can do this in seconds online using your preferred search engine (e.g. Google or DuckDuckGo).


Do you feel you understood every sentence in the book, In It Together? In other words, do you feel you understand what the author (me) meant by every single sentence in the book?

If not, please quote the very first sentence or very first paragraph you do not understand. Then I will do my best to explain and clarify what I meant by it.

[...]

When replying, please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means. Then, from there, I can let you know which of your guesses (if you have more than one) is correct or closest to correct and/or I can then, based on your guess(es), know what was missed or misunderstood to then know how to clarify it for you.

Page 158, paragraph 3, sentence 3


When it comes to your choices, there is no try.



Does this sentence mean , we should do whatever we decide?

The clause," there is no try", is not clear in this context.

Hi, Mr Benji,

Thank you for your reply. However, please follow all the instructions in the OP (Original Post). Namely, make sure you have first looked up any words or terms that are unfamiliar to you in the dictionary and/or encyclopedia, and then, if you still don't understand the sentence, include your best guess at the what the sentence means if you had to guess.

I can then confirm your best guess is actually right or clarify how it to make it right. In analogy, I cannot help someone play pin the tail on the donkey if my own eyes are closed too. I would have to see where you are to guide you on what changes you need to make and which direction you would need go to move from where you are to get to where you want to be. You telling me your best guess at what the sentence means if you had to guess is equivalent you telling me where you are now so I can then use that to tell you what direction to go and how far to get where you and I want you to be.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Catherine Sweet]

I've looked at other posts and seen that Scott has already explained the part of the book I didn't understand: "Dualism and monism are merely semantics. It's a conceptual duality, not a metaphysical duality."

[Sanju Lali]

Everytime I read a sentence in this book, it spawns different thoughts. I believe sometimes if I relate it to a real life example, I would know how much I understood. Real life example would be a acid test of my understanding.

[AmySmiles]

It's not that I didn't understand the words but I felt like this book held a lot of deep philosophy that felt like it was hard to understand. I enjoyed the book and will probably read it a couple more times to hopefully gain more understanding.