Sunday School

[Davis]

_Robert_ wrote:

That’s because we finally know everything?

Hahaha. Yes. Indeed. We have so much to teach the world and so little time before we are all dust. Sigh.

[Simon Paynton]

“The fact that Neanderthals had the language gene shows that language goes back a lot further than them.”

Here’s an interesting new project, on similarities between language gestures in chimpanzees and bonobos, and how good humans are at recognising them.

How “great” an ape are you? – University of St Andrews, Scotland

greatapedictionary.com

[Simon Paynton]

I don’t know if this has been posted in Sunday School already.

“Religious belief is most likely rooted in culture rather than in some primitive gut intuition.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171108092429.htm

[Simon Paynton]

@davis – all that stuff might or might not look difficult – but it really isn’t.  It takes a mind-blowing six months (say) to get the hang of the whole general picture, but truthfully, it writes itself.  It’s completely logical and the best thing for me to do is to streamline the principles involved in a mathematical kind of way.

In 10 years’ time it will be normal for people to be fluent in it – and the great thing is – it goes on writing itself, purely because it’s so logical and natural, and it’s the science of everyday life, and the knowledge just proliferates all the time.

It’s also, unexpectedly, a deeply joyful, religious and transformative experience just to study the knowledge itself – it’s like a purified and distilled and very powerful form of religion, in philosophical form, which is unusual.

I’ve been getting a lot of support lately from here and there, and scoring a lot of successes here and there, so that’s encouraging.  But right from the start I knew it was correct and powerful.

[Davis]

@Simon

I’m happy for you that you’ve found some kind of zen with the universe and you’ve worked out a “how to live” and “sense of morality” that works for you. That being said, I didn’t really understand anything in this post of yours. What is completely logical? What writes itself? What will people be fluent in? What is a deepful joy?

and most puzzling: what is religion in a philosophical form. That’s quite the oxymoron these days now that theology is slowly being banished to the dusty useless corner it once came from.

[Simon Paynton]

@davis – the moral philosophy I’m putting together.  It turns out to be exceedingly powerful.

It’s kind of on a level of building a house – takes a while, but not forever.

http://yellowgrain.co.uk/

That’s it, the writing up is still in progress, but the basics are all in my head.

This is a religion in the form of a logical scientific philosophy.  It’s the kind of philosophy that everyone can enjoy, understand (certainly in its basics) and also, add to.

[Simon Paynton]

A lot of the latest ideas I’ve got tend to be put down in Atheist Zone.

[_Robert_]

Simon Paynton wrote:

A lot of the latest ideas I’ve got tend to be put down in Atheist Zone.

I think it’s the language you use more than the actual ideas.

[Simon Paynton]

@Robert – it’s completely standard normal academic language, and I barely use jargon.  The “paradigm” is completely new and unfamiliar, except to Christians, who understand it plain as day.  To moral philosophers, you know, those people who are supposed to understand moral philosophy, I might as well be talking Martian.  So, it was very satisfying to frazzle them to a crisp  https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10155752920270155?comment_id=10155753537585155&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D

[Simon Paynton]

You can see that still, no-one gets it.

[Simon Paynton]

[me, at night] – you see that bright round thing up there?  That’s the moon.

[them] – *snort* don’t you know anything?  That childish myth was debunked once and for all by Professor Random Philosopher, 20 years ago in his seminal 500 page masterpiece.  Read that if you want to find out anything [shakes head smiling at friend]

[me] – whatever.

[David Boots]

http://yellowgrain.co.uk/

Interesting project. Ambitious!

But i do have some problems with certain aspects. The golden rule is problematic. You can see how it might fail in at least two situations. The first being that it relies on a benchmarked normality. A person might be quite happy inflicting pain on someone else and might not care that pain was inflicted on them. Similarly some people want to start wars and are quite happy to get into a conflict.

The second is that it relies on contextual equality. In theory it is great that people treat each other like they wish to be treated. But we are not all equal and some people may be able to abuse others without the abused person being in a position to reciprocate. For instance where there is a power differential between people I can see that the person with greater power could take advantage of that power without contravening the golden rule.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

To understand the thoughts and musings of philosophers and to be able to explain their ideas to others, I like to bear in mind the words of Hegel – the study of the history of Philosophy is an introduction to Philosophy itself.

[Simon Paynton]

@davidboots – it doesn’t depend on the Golden Rule, although the Golden Rule is a real thing that comes into it.  The Golden Rule is a successful part of the psychopath’s morality whom I have interviewed – which shows that it can be a cognitive process and doesn’t need emotional empathy – just a good will.

This is the theoretical core of it:

1.  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/healing_principle.html

2.  http://yellowgrain.co.uk/personal_ethics.html#definition_of_goodness

– part 1, plus the short paragraph in part 2.

[Davis]

No it is actually more like this Simon:

[You]: X is the best thing ever and is perfect

[Skeptic] Yeah but these are verifiable things that show that X is flawed and has many problems. For  example this book, the foundation of knowledge of X says this and that, things that aren’t good.

[You]: Nah. X is the best thing ever and it is perfect.

[Skeptic]: But this damning evidence, directly connected with X…

[You]: Metaphor for something ese

[Skeptic]: And what about all the other not at all perfect stuff?

[You]: Doesn’t matter. X is perfect and the best.

[Skeptic]: Also, there is more to consider than just X. There is also Y and Z and a lot more letters. They are worth checking out before using a superlative…claiming X is the king of all.

[You]: Pff. Waste of my time. X is the best thing ever and it is perfect.

[Skeptic]: Yes you are a genius at picking the best of the best and you have successfully converted me into a believer of X. X is the best and is totally perfect.

[Author]

Posts