v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[The Tanager]

Why are you asking me to judge actions?

Because you have been asking me about morality which, by definition, is judging actions whether you are an objectivist or a subjectivist.

Call it "abuse" when the action is claimed/perceived by the one receiving the action, as being "abusive". (agree with them but also observe their actions for signs that this is a factual claim)

The same act, then, is both abuse and not-abuse. That’s a logical contradiction by the terms used, but that isn’t what the subjectivist means. So, use different terms. Don’t call it “abuse” just like you don’t call someone liking an ice cream flavor you don’t like “abuse”. On subjectivism, there is no fact of the matter to be looking for; that’s an objective concept.

In any case (and all cases) it is the subjective reaction to the objective action and the objective action is done through a subjective fundamental. There is no objective reason (that I know of) to believe there is any action which isn't fundamentally sourced in the activators subjective reality (mindfulness).

This isn’t the subjective/objective disagreement of morality. Both moral objectivists and moral subjectivists agree subjects have reactions to the objective action. The disagreement is about a different issue.

So what is "it"?

It is a judgment that action X is good and not-X is evil versus the subjectivists’ judgment that action X and not-X are only different from each other.

It tells us that in order for us to come to that perspective, we have to drop all baggage of a prior perspective which influenced a resistance to the idea.
Once a human is "in the service of" The Creator Mind, the personality eventually understands the predetermination involved re their experience.
I am saying that trusting that The Creator Mind knows all things, is the same thing as understanding the idea of predetermination.
Why baulk? Why split hairs? Why does it matter to you that The Creator Mind did not predetermine how things would play out?

Ah, okay. It’s a bit confusing when “predetermination” means something else in the normal discussions held in these areas (philosophically and theologically). But, with your clarifications, I agree that Matthew 6 is about God telling us to trust God instead of worrying and trying to get enough for ourselves in our own "wisdom".

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #51]

Why are you asking me to judge actions?

Because you have been asking me about morality which, by definition, is judging actions whether you are an objectivist or a subjectivist.

Therein your statement, the process is obviously subjective. Morality is the subjective judging of actions regardless of any other claim to the contrary.

The same act, then, is both abuse and not-abuse. That’s a logical contradiction by the terms used,

Yet it is not in practice a logical contradiction because of the subjective nature of both. Each are reacting through the lens of their interpretation of their subjective experiences.

but that isn’t what the subjectivist means.

But that is what subjectivity is.

It tells us that in order for us to come to that perspective, we have to drop all baggage of a prior perspective which influenced a resistance to the idea.
Once a human is "in the service of" The Creator Mind, the personality eventually understands the predetermination involved re their experience.
I am saying that trusting that The Creator Mind knows all things, is the same thing as understanding the idea of predetermination.
Why baulk? Why split hairs? Why does it matter to you that The Creator Mind did not predetermine how things would play out?

Ah, okay. It’s a bit confusing when “predetermination” means something else in the normal discussions held in these areas (philosophically and theologically). But, with your clarifications, I agree that Matthew 6 is about God telling us to trust God instead of worrying and trying to get enough for ourselves in our own "wisdom".

Yet these have been shown now, to dovetail without contradiction.
How does the revelation change how one sees their subjective experience? Based on a false understanding of self in relation to subjectivity, providing a false "reading" which is then used to define said self, or based in truth and thus defining accurately?

Is it somewhat like Q: Should we see any redness in the following image...

or see it as it really is?

[The Tanager]

Therein your statement, the process is obviously subjective. Morality is the subjective judging of actions regardless of any other claim to the contrary.

This is not the objective/subjective issue of objective/subjective morality. Everyone agrees that people are making subjective judgments, but the disagreement is over whether those judgments are objectively true or not. Just like saying “the Earth is flat” is a subjective opinion someone has that is objectively true or not.

Yet these have been shown now, to dovetail without contradiction.
How does the revelation change how one sees their subjective experience? Based on a false understanding of self in relation to subjectivity, providing a false "reading" which is then used to define said self, or based in truth and thus defining accurately?

Is it somewhat like Q: Should we see any redness in the following image...

or see it as it really is?

What has been shown to dovetail without contradiction? I have no idea what false understanding of self, false reading, seeing redness or not you are talking about here. Could you clarify these and how it connects to Matthew 6?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #53]

What has been shown to dovetail without contradiction?

The idea of predetermination and trust in The Creator Mind.

I have no idea what false understanding of self, false reading, seeing redness or not you are talking about here. Could you clarify these and how it connects to Matthew 6?

There is no redness to see in the image, yet some think that there is. So it is about how we choose to see things (such as Matthew 6). As they really are (The Creator Mind perspective) or as we think they are. (other than The Creator Mind perspective.)
The reason why Mystic Jesus gave the data has to do with unlearning perspectives we are taught as being truth and replacing these with the true perspective.

In the case of being a mind, we are truly subjective. Even that we can experience an objective reality and bring into it moral laws, does not make those laws objective truth.

[The Tanager]

What has been shown to dovetail without contradiction?

The idea of predetermination and trust in The Creator Mind.

Predetermination meaning “God knows how it all unfolds”, right? Yes, these dovetail without a contradiction.

There is no redness to see in the image, yet some think that there is. So it is about how we choose to see things (such as Matthew 6). As they really are (The Creator Mind perspective) or as we think they are. (other than The Creator Mind perspective.)

Okay, I agree with that.

The reason why Mystic Jesus gave the data has to do with unlearning perspectives we are taught as being truth and replacing these with the true perspective.

Agreed (except the “Mystic” label perhaps).

In the case of being a mind, we are truly subjective. Even that we can experience an objective reality and bring into it moral laws, does not make those laws objective truth.

I agree, but it doesn’t make them non-objective either. Even that we can experience an objective reality and bring it into scientific laws (like the shape of the Earth), doesn’t make those laws objective truth. It’s the nature of reality that makes those laws objective truth or not. It’s the same with morality. Moral objectivists say moral goodness is like the shape of the Earth; moral subjectivists say our moral judgments are akin to ice cream flavors.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #55]

The reason why Mystic Jesus gave the data has to do with unlearning perspectives we are taught as being truth and replacing these with the true perspective.

Agreed (except the “Mystic” label perhaps).

Popular belief (to the contrary) aside...do some research on mysticism (the practices and concepts to do with) and see the idea that biblical Jesus is presented as a mystic is not even far fetched, but bang on.

In the case of being a mind, we are truly subjective. Even that we can experience an objective reality and bring into it moral laws, does not make those laws objective truth.

I agree, but it doesn’t make them non-objective either.

I agree. What it does do is bring them into the objective reality and even have them justify actions which ought not be brought into objective reality and in some of those cases, a rethink is employed and what was once accepted is then rejected on account of that. And all of this is done through mindfulness and mindfulness is fundamentally subjective.

Even that we can experience an objective reality and bring it into scientific laws (like the shape of the Earth), doesn’t make those laws objective truth.

And in some cases where this has been proven, those laws are removed.

It’s the nature of reality that makes those laws objective truth or not.

It is the nature of the mind involved with the nature of (this particular) reality which make those laws subjectively understood to being true about the nature of the objective. This harkens back to my observation that the shape of the Earth is of no significance if there is no subjective mindfulness to observe its objective existence.
(Indeed re our other conversation by the fireside, there is no Earth (or universe) without mindfulness to create it - Without The Creator Mind. The Creator Mind too, is subjective/views subjectively).

It’s the same with morality. Moral objectivists say moral goodness is like the shape of the Earth; moral subjectivists say our moral judgments are akin to ice cream flavors.

Please expand on this idea as in its present wording, is still unclear to me what you are attempting to convey.

[The Tanager]

Agreed (except the “Mystic” label perhaps).

Popular belief (to the contrary) aside...do some research on mysticism (the practices and concepts to do with) and see the idea that biblical Jesus is presented as a mystic is not even far fetched, but bang on.

I have done research on mysticism and there is a wide variety within mysticism, some which disagree with each other in fundamental ways. I believe Jesus was mystical, but we could disagree on exactly how, which is why I said “perhaps”.

I agree. What it does do is bring them into the objective reality and even have them justify actions which ought not be brought into objective reality and in some of those cases, a rethink is employed and what was once accepted is then rejected on account of that. And all of this is done through mindfulness and mindfulness is fundamentally subjective.

I agree. But your statement (that I bolded above) is a statement of moral objectivism and not one that a moral subjectivist can mean (unless the language has failed us here).

It is the nature of the mind involved with the nature of (this particular) reality which make those laws subjectively understood to being true about the nature of the objective. This harkens back to my observation that the shape of the Earth is of no significance if there is no subjective mindfulness to observe its objective existence.

I agree. This isn’t the moral objectivism/subjectivism disagreement, though. It’s just not.

It’s the same with morality. Moral objectivists say moral goodness is like the shape of the Earth; moral subjectivists say our moral judgments are akin to ice cream flavors.

Please expand on this idea as in its present wording, is still unclear to me what you are attempting to convey.

Your bolded statement a couple of quote/responses up in this post which I said was the statement only a moral objectivist makes (if we understand the same thing with the language), maybe that can help us.
Moral objectivists say you ought not to bring in and justify those actions because they are unnecessarily evil. In the same way as “don’t believe the earth is flat because that’s just wrong.”

Moral subjectivists say I don’t like it when you do it, but there isn’t anything evil about it. Physical subjectivists would say I don’t believe the Earth is flat or I don’t like it when you say the Earth is flat, but there isn’t anything wrong about it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #57]

I have done research on mysticism and there is a wide variety within mysticism, some which disagree with each other in fundamental ways.

This is true also of the Christianities.

I believe Jesus was mystical, but we could disagree on exactly how, which is why I said “perhaps”.

So are you saying now that "yes he was/is" and "perhaps we will disagree on what "being a mystic" is"?

I agree. What it does do is bring them into the objective reality and even have them justify actions which ought not be brought into objective reality and in some of those cases, a rethink is employed and what was once accepted is then rejected on account of that. And all of this is done through mindfulness and mindfulness is fundamentally subjective.

I agree. What it does do is bring them into the objective reality and even have them justify actions which ought not be brought into objective reality and in some of those cases, a rethink is employed and what was once accepted is then rejected on account of that. And all of this is done through mindfulness and mindfulness is fundamentally subjective.
I agree. But your statement (that I bolded above) is a statement of moral objectivism and not one that a moral subjectivist can mean (unless the language has failed us here).

This is where we are not communicating effectively enough.

My statement (overall) is not something an atheist could not say.

In that, it is my understanding that you think atheists are moral subjectivists.

Therefore, I present the following.
Atheists do not see the connect between their sense of morality and an overall mindfulness which installed this ability into their awareness.

From your and my perspectives, whether the overall mindfulness being spoken of exists outside of something it created and placed minds into (to produce human personalities), or the connect is there because we exist within The Creator Mind, is of no concern to atheists but should be of concern to moral subjectivists.

Do you agree with this assessment or is there adjustments to be made?

Your bolded statement a couple of quote/responses up in this post which I said was the statement only a moral objectivist makes (if we understand the same thing with the language), maybe that can help us.
Moral objectivists say you ought not to bring in and justify those actions because they are unnecessarily evil. In the same way as “don’t believe the earth is flat because that’s just wrong.”

Moral subjectivists say I don’t like it when you do it, but there isn’t anything evil about it. Physical subjectivists would say I don’t believe the Earth is flat or I don’t like it when you say the Earth is flat, but there isn’t anything wrong about it.

Re morality, the shape of the earth is of what consequence to the shaping of morals into the earth (objective environment)? What is "right" or "wrong" about either a round earth or a flat earth that make any difference to the morals we bring into it?

Both "unnecessarily evil" and "unnecessarily good" are subjective, so the examination has to focus on those things which have been brought into the objective which have shaped how the world has been unfolding and therein ascertain what is necessary and what is not....but based upon what? Popular belief (democracy)? Something else? Nothing else?

[The Tanager]

This is true also of the Christianities.

Absolutely. And naturalists, Muslims, Simulationists, etc.

So are you saying now that "yes he was/is" and "perhaps we will disagree on what "being a mystic" is"?

I am saying that, yes, not saying that now as though I said the opposite earlier.

My statement (overall) is not something an atheist could not say.

In that, it is my understanding that you think atheists are moral subjectivists.

Yes, atheists (if consistent as far as I can tell) are moral subjectivists; that doesn’t mean there can’t be theistic subjectivists.

Therefore, I present the following.
Atheists do not see the connect between their sense of morality and an overall mindfulness which installed this ability into their awareness.

From your and my perspectives, whether the overall mindfulness being spoken of exists outside of something it created and placed minds into (to produce human personalities), or the connect is there because we exist within The Creator Mind, is of no concern to atheists but should be of concern to moral subjectivists.

Do you agree with this assessment or is there adjustments to be made?

What do you mean? If there is this Mind, then atheists should not be atheists. And if there is this Mind that created humans with inherent value and moral agency, then moral subjectivists should not be subjectivists. Is that what you mean or are you asking something else?

Re morality, the shape of the earth is of what consequence to the shaping of morals into the earth (objective environment)? What is "right" or "wrong" about either a round earth or a flat earth that make any difference to the morals we bring into it?

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying the shape should affect our moral decisions. I’m saying that moral objectivists view moral truths like physical truths, in that there is a truth of the matter regardless of any opinions, including one’s own. Moral subjectivists view moral truths like food taste truths, in that there is no truth/falsity of the matter; it’s only a collection of opinions and they are rationally okay (although maybe not emotionally okay) with people following their opinions.

Both "unnecessarily evil" and "unnecessarily good" are subjective, so the examination has to focus on those things which have been brought into the objective which have shaped how the world has been unfolding and therein ascertain what is necessary and what is not....but based upon what? Popular belief (democracy)? Something else? Nothing else?

No, they are not necessarily subjective in the objectivist/subjectivist sense. Yes, the opinions as opinions are subjective; but the views as views about the shape of the Earth are subjective in that same way. Moral objectivism/subjectivism talks about a different sense of ‘subjective’.

In our judgments, if what is good/evil is based on popular belief, then the thing is subjective. If nothing, then there is no good/evil. The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where we are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly. God is the mechanism that does that in theism; I have never seen a coherent one provided by atheists. The closest is moral platonism, for the Good and the Evil just exist as Forms, but it provides no rational reason why humans should imitate the Good and not imitate the Evil.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #59]

So are you saying now that "yes he was/is" and "perhaps we will disagree on what "being a mystic" is"?

I am saying that, yes, not saying that now as though I said the opposite earlier.

Not sure what you mean with that.
Are you agreeing with me (on the face of it) that biblical Jesus is a mystic without going into details as to how we each think about what being a mystic means/involves?

Yes, atheists (if consistent as far as I can tell) are moral subjectivists; that doesn’t mean there can’t be theistic subjectivists.

Yet, there is an additive in your opinion which differentiates theistic subjectivists from theist objectivists?

Do you agree with this assessment or is there adjustments to be made?

What do you mean? If there is this Mind, then atheists should not be atheists. And if there is this Mind that created humans with inherent value and moral agency, then moral subjectivists should not be subjectivists. Is that what you mean or are you asking something else?

I will place my question into GPT prompt to see if the program generates a meaning consistent with logic, coherency and non-contradiction.

Me. I (William) present the following (to Christian).
Atheists do not see the connect between their sense of morality and an overall mindfulness which installed this ability into their awareness.

From your and my perspectives, whether the overall mindfulness being spoken of exists outside of something it created and placed minds into (to produce human personalities), or the connect is there because we exist within The Creator Mind, is of no concern to atheists but should be of concern to moral subjectivists.

GPT. It seems like you're presenting an argument to Christian about the relationship between atheism, morality, and the concept of an overarching mindfulness or creator. You're suggesting that atheists may not recognize the connection between their sense of morality and a broader mindfulness or creator, while this connection might be significant for those who believe in a creator.

You're also pointing out that from your and Christian's perspective, the existence of this overarching mindfulness or creator is not a matter of concern for atheists, but it should be for those who hold moral subjectivist views. This suggests that the existence of a creator or overarching mindfulness might influence moral subjectivism in a way that atheists might overlook.

How does Christian respond to this presentation?

Me. Christian responds with;
"What do you mean? If there is this Mind, then atheists should not be atheists. And if there is this Mind that created humans with inherent value and moral agency, then moral subjectivists should not be subjectivists. Is that what you mean or are you asking something else?"

To which I responded with:
"I will place my question into GPT prompt to see if the program generates a meaning consistent with logic, coherency and non-contradiction."

GPT. It sounds like you're seeking clarification on whether your presentation suggests that if there is indeed an overarching Mind or Creator, then atheists would have reason not to be atheists, and moral subjectivists would have reason not to hold subjective views on morality. You're looking to see if the GPT prompt can generate a response that aligns with logic, coherence, and non-contradiction. That seems like a reasonable approach to further explore and clarify the implications of your argument. Let me know if you'd like me to assist further or if you'd like to proceed with the GPT prompt.

From the answer generated by GPT, it appears that the mindless machinery is able to respond in a manner which reflects understanding re what I meant by what I wrote and perhaps it will help you to understand what I meant/am meaning.
Re the part that reads "moral subjectivists would have reason not to hold subjective views on morality" I would say that this would depend on whether anything can be objectively identified as
an example of objective morality which could then move the personality from the position of moral subjectivist to the position of moral objectivist

No, you’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying the shape should affect our moral decisions. I’m saying that moral objectivists view moral truths like physical truths, in that there is a truth of the matter regardless of any opinions, including one’s own. Moral subjectivists view moral truths like food taste truths, in that there is no truth/falsity of the matter; it’s only a collection of opinions and they are rationally okay (although maybe not emotionally okay) with people following their opinions.

The "okays" and "not okays" are subjective (like taste) whereas you propose that there is objective evidence that subjective notions have nothing to do with objective morality?

In our judgments, if what is good/evil is based on popular belief, then the thing is subjective. If nothing, then there is no good/evil. The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where we are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly. God is the mechanism that does that in theism; I have never seen a coherent one provided by atheists. The closest is moral platonism, for the Good and the Evil just exist as Forms, but it provides no rational reason why humans should imitate the Good and not imitate the Evil.

This still depends upon subjective belief that The Creator Mind is as theists claim, and as we have agreed, theism has many ideas on that and not all of them align.
What (in objective reality) is there to show us the nature of said Creator Mind and how does this objective evidence then show us that we can align our morality with said objective evidence?